southsamurai

Dude, if you’re running around breaking rules on purpose, to bait mods into removing comments, and temporarily banning you, you’re the power tripping bastard, not them.

Also, you showed the conversation. Cowbee didn’t do anything ban worthy, by either mods of that C/, or the instance.

You’re trying to stir shit, and you should have been permanently banned from the instance because of that.

If anything, the actions taken were extremely lenient with your intent in mind

I mean, if you intentionally broke the rule, what the fuck are you doing posting it here?

Ahhhh, if they’d picked a different rule to cite, it would be a YDI because the comment was borderline against rule 1. But if the mod can’t be bothered to cite the right rule out of two rules total, then they’re half-assing the job.

I dunno if it’s a power tripping bastard. Maybe a LFB? Lazy fucking bastard? Definitely bad moderation though.

Edit: also, you double posted by accident

I think where the disconnect is, is that you’re continuously, in those quotes, making declarations about what it and isn’t gender, what is and isn’t trans.

That’s what the comments were removed for.

In those quotes, you aren’t seeking understanding, you aren’t discussing the subject, you aren’t expressing an interest, you’re saying, directly “this is my opinion on the matter, and I refuse to consider any alternatives”

You literally say you’re drawing a line in the sand.

That’s gatekeeping, 100%

Does it make you a transphobe? Hell no. Does it make you a bad person? Not in any way whatsoever.

But it is you doing exactly what the rule is about: telling other people that they and their gender/pronouns are yours to decide the validity of

And that’s okay, you have a right to have that opinion and draw that line. We all do.

You do see that though, right? That every quote you chose, it’s you declaring other people’s genders and pronouns invalid. It doesn’t matter whether or not it was drag. It doesn’t matter who you were talking about, you don’t very to make that decision for others

You don’t, I don’t, nobody does.

We can all have great discussions about the semantics of gender, of how pronouns function, what their role in language, philosophy, and society are. We can even make declarative statements like that if we want to. But it doesn’t change that if we expect our opinions on the matter to hold sway, we’d be assholes.

I mean, c’mon you directly brought in the whole biological argument. Like, the worst possible way to address the subject matter, the claim to have a inherently superior ownership of transness because it has to be biological, and only biology matters? You have to see that that’s the exact bullshit being weaponized against trans people. Even if you didn’t mean it the same way (and I know you didn’t, I know you’re not a bigot), it’s the exact worst possible argument to use.

It’s so arrogant, claiming to have not only the ability to know what is and isn’t biological, but whether or not it has validity. You directly say that you’re deciding what is and isn’t valid, for other people. I mean, are you even a doctor? Of any stripe at all. Can you back up the claim that there’s no biological mechanism at play that leads a person to have a connection to an animal that can serve the same role as gender identity?

Because there’s a ton of information about neurodivergence out there, and some of it points to there being a high correlation between trans identities and neurological differences from cis brains. The overlap between a huge range of neuroatypicality and not just trans identity, but the very otherkin related identities being objected to is there, and neurology is biology. It just is. You can’t have a brain that operates independently of its underlying biological imperatives. It’s built by DNA, RNA, and epigenetics into this network of complicated nerves that run through a meat suit, interacting with it chemically and electrically.

That’s biology. Now, I’m with you, there’s no actual dragons that aren’t komodo. And a cat isn’t a human, nor is a human a cat. But I am not confident in saying that someone’s inner self finding expression by identifying with or as a cat isn’t biological. To the contrary, unless it only appears after disease or injury, I would say that it has to be biological in origin, even though the specific expression may be a psychological development as opposed to purely anatomical or physiological one.

While you are definitely not an enemy, not a transphobe, not a bigot, you definitely broke the rule, multiple times, and you picked your own quotes about it. If this was still about whether or not a mod action was justified, it would be totally YDI with that list of quotes.

At every step, you laid claim to the authority to decide for others whether their identity is valid.

I’m kinda beating a dead horse here because I’m a little flummoxed that you can’t see all those comments and notice that you’re doing exactly what they were removed for.

After all that, it really doesn’t matter what the specific target was, it doesn’t even matter that they are, defacto, making it clear that they accept xenogenders as valid genders within blahaj and that the rule applies to them. What matters at that point is that you had multiple comment removals and kept doing the same thing. I’d have banned you too, even preemptively because it looks like you’re making it a fight.

Ehhh, what that screenshot shows is admins deciding that you didn’t treat pronouns with respect.

Obviously, you disagree with their assessment. I do too, really, though I have seen their argument about it somewhere to and down the various threads.

That is a different thing.

I definitely get why you don’t think it’s different, but, looking at it from this side of the screen, that’s not a statement of policy, it’s a reaction to their interpretation of what you said.

I’m speaking in the general, with dragon as the example used because drag is largely the focus of contention.

The next paragraph, “The rule, and the argument behind it, is about pronouns. And it isn’t really about the pronouns themselves, as much as it is about who gets to decide when someone is deserving of being respected as an individual.” covers that. I was addressing the rule, and blahaj, not drag.

It hasn’t been blahaj policy that I’ve seen that dragon is a gender, only that you have to treat people’s pronouns and genders with respect.

It’s one of those where we don’t have to agree, we just have to be nice.

Or have the admins specifically addressed the issue as a declarative, and I missed it? I do miss things ;)

You might think dragon is a gender, or you might not, it is fine, but refusing to agree that dragon is a gender …

Well, I’m gonna chime in again, because it’s a nice jumping off point.

That argument, that anyone is actually saying dragon is a gender, is simply misrepresenting all of the subject.

Regardless of one’s view on xenopronouns in specific, or neopronouns one general, the claim hasn’t been that dragon is a gender.

The rule, and the argument behind it, is about pronouns. And it isn’t really about the pronouns themselves, as much as it is about who gets to decide when someone is deserving of being respected as an individual.

We’re not biking being asked to share a belief that a person is a dragon, or fucks dragons, or that humans can be part dragon.

What we’re being asked to do is to respect pronouns or just not talk to someone. That’s it. That’s what it’s about.

The rule simply lays out what will happen if people don’t do one of those two things.

You don’t have to agree with the word being used as a pronoun meaning anything other than that it replaces traditional pronouns and makes them happy. Does it matter if they think they’re a dragon, or a tiger? No. It doesn’t matter. If the cognitive dissonance of using a word in an unconventional way is so high that you simply can’t do it, that’s okay. You have multiple options at that point.

One, you can ignore the request, and accept the consequences as they come. Fair or not, those consequences are known.

Two, you can use them anyway, and roll your eyes while you do it. Nobody will know you’re rolling your eyes.

Three, you can use them anyway, and complain about it, which may also have consequences, depending on how you complain.

Four, you can block the individual and never interact with them again, thus preventing cognitive dissonance entirely.

Five, you can choose to just not interact with them at all.

Six, you choose to not interact, but complain about it elsewhere, with possible consequences (as these posts have shown).

There’s even other options, but they’re absurdist stuff like juggling oranges while singing “I’m a little teapot”. So, you know, only entertaining to me.

Now, that’s separate from anything else, I’m only talking about the idea that one has to share a belief to be able to use someone’s pronouns. Like, my pronouns are he/him, they/them, and I’ll accept any gender neutral neopronouns as well. But I’ll accept she/her in a pinch, though I may correct those if it’s relevant. It’s why I never list my pronouns, I’m cool with almost anything, up to and including “that asshole”. That’s not even a joke, I’m fine being referred to that way as a replacement for a pronoun, or in general.

You don’t have to agree with my belief that I’m not obligated to behave in the way a pronoun implies to use any of those. You don’t have to agree with my belief that by accepting almost any pronoun that I improve myself by challenging my own concepts of gender in order to use he/him, or any of the rest.

So, why would you have to believe in anything at all to use any pronoun? You aren’t expected to log off and tell your roommate or whatever, “jeez, this cat I was talking to was a real weirdo, he’s just nuts” and you aren’t expected to log off and tell the same person “I was talking to this cat from blahaj and drag sure did annoy me” you can use any pronoun you want when you aren’t in the presence of the person requesting an individual pronoun, or any neopronouns, or a xenopronoun.

You don’t need to believe anything except that the person, the human being with their own life and needs and pains, is made a little happier by the use of it. That’s it. That’s all you have to believe.

Malarkey.

Nobody is chasing people around trying to make them say things.

The only time they’re demanding you use their pronouns is when you’re talking to them. And if you aren’t, then maybe the problem isn’t their pronouns, since there’s a lovely block function if you don’t want to just walk away.

You know that’s an option, right? To just walk away. It’s even easy to do. Easier than trying to argue about how language works when you don’t really understand it yourself. Easier than making a false claim.

Also, you are aware that blahaj is an instance, right? It doesn’t have some monolithic spiritual entity that makes demands. It’s not an individual person. So, trying to claim “blahaj” demanded anything is just silly.

Wait, you’re arbitrarily deciding how language works.

The fact that neopronouns are new don’t make them any *morez arbitrary than existing words.

Language evolves and shifts, even when there’s a governing body of formal language like French has.

Ever heard the phrase “to coin a phrase”? It’s literally a phrase that was coined about making up a new phrase being similar to making a new coin in a mint.

Brobdingnagian may be an obscure word, but it’s in dictionaries. It was totally made up by people in response to the writings of Gulliver’s Travels.

Ever get ghosted? Or butt dial someone? Or call someone on a telephone at all? Because the telephone was an invention, named arbitrarily. Someone decided to name the invention that, and it was arbitrary, based in root words from old languages, not even english. Then people just shrugged and went with it.

Mind you, I tend to not have the capacity for neopronouns that aren’t fairly standardized. Once it’s something uncommon, I’m too old to remember it without a lot of effort that I’m rarely going to make for a stranger. I’ll just not talk to them rather than deal with it, but it’s still my problem, not theirs.

But arguing that it isn’t valid because it’s arbitrary is just silly.

YDI

Like it or not, it is a widely known fact that the exact things you said are instance bannable.

The instance rules as they exist are explained in multiple places, and it is our choice as users to either follow them or stay away. If we choose to do neither of those, banning is the only real tool an admin has with current lemmy development. If there were other options available, and the instance ban was applied as a first step, I’d say PTB (though it would be PTA in this case).

Seriously, I get that the world as a whole, and each given language has to figure out what is and isn’t a gender, what is and isn’t going to become part of the consensus of a language. I have my own opinion about that line, but this isn’t the venue for that.

But that instance, they have drawn their line, and did so last year, before the events in these screen shots. It’s like travelling to another US state, there are going to be some laws that differ, and it’s the travelers responsibility to follow them even if they disagree with them, or there are consequences.

I get it, I do. But, I’m sorry, this is absolutely on you.

YDI

The comments that got removed are very well known points used by Russian propaganda farms

You may or may not know that. You may or may not be doing that intentionally. But you know the whole “if it quacks like a duck…” bit? You’re quacking like a propaganda farm.

Now, I’m not saying that holding those opinions, if they are actually your opinions, isn’t your right. It is, fully, your right to believe however you want. Doesn’t matter if I like it, if agree with it, or even if I would punch you in the snout for a given opinion (and I wouldn’t for these), it is your right to hold those opinions.

But it is a mod’s responsibility to filter out bad actors like propaganda farms. The only effective way to do that is to observe what those farms are saying, and remove anything that spreads the messaging. Sometimes, actual people will get caught up in that. It’s unavoidable, and regrettable even (since there’s no chance to possibly talk the person into a less unrealistic stance, which is possible for the folks that swallow propaganda like this). But it is necessary.

Remember, that applies to anything that’s being pushed by propaganda farms. IDGAF of it was Ukrainian farm talking points, EU talking points, or wherever, it would still need to be filtered out because this isn’t their fucking platform. Lemmy, even more than Reddit, is a platform of individual people, not government actors. It has to be rigidly protected or it will go the way reddit is going.

Eh, it is what it is.

ML is pretty well known for mods either power tripping, or at least pushing the boundaries to the edge.

This one could go either way.

Technically the comment was a rule violation, so removing the comment isn’t totally power tripping.

The problem is that your comment was the least political in the whole damn thread. Like, even my comment was a tad more political than yours, depending on how you look at it. And even that was way less than dessalines’ tangent.

The entire post was about language and word usage, and your comment definitely was not political, nor was it in any way rude or insulting.

I’m still really surprised your comment got reported/removed, but mine didn’t. It was confusing as hell when I came back after a response and saw yours gone.

So, yeah, definitely PTB. If they’d nuked everyone, I could see it being clueless mods, but targeting yours just means they got a report and wiped it, so that’s dumber than dammit, even if it wasn’t a literal power trip

Wtf is this shit?

Dude, are you kidding?

I have zero interest in whatever pulpit you’re pounding. You came here, you c/powertrippingbastards, made a post and got opinions about whether or not the mod action taken was or was not power tripping.

Every fucking comment you’ve made has been argumentative, and in multiple cases, off topic for this community

I do not give a flying fuck about your opinion. My opinion of the general fucking matter of Israel is fucking irrelevant as well.

I’m fucking telling you that that’s what the fucking rule used to remove your fucking comment was about, and you’re still trying to be a fucking prick and play some kind of shit stirring bullshit.

Well, fuck you. You can take that kind of thinking and behaviour and shove it square up your ass because up until this I have been nothing but respectful and on topic.

Let me say this one more fucking time, you jackass. I DON’T CARE WHAT YOUR OPINION WAS. That’s not the fucking point of this community. I don’t even remember at this point what your comment said in detail, so I can’t even tell you if I disagree with it or not.

But I’ll tell you this much, you fucking pimple, you need banned from the fucking internet for pure, mule headed stupidity

That’s rule 2

Rule 3 covers your comment.

You may or may not agree that your claims are misinformation, but genocide denial is generally moderated under those grounds. That applies to more than just the Israeli issue, there are other genocides that people will insist aren’t “real” genocides.

That is a matter of semantics and pedantry that is very, very often used by bigots, like when antisemites claim the holocaust wasn’t real, that it was exaggerated, or that it wasn’t a genocide because it wasn’t successful in eradicating a population

Again, this is for the sole purpose of discussing the moderation action as it relates to power tripping. While I have opinions about what’s going on over there, they’re irrelevant to this. The one and only goal I have in this is pointing you to the rules and giving an opinion about why they might have been applied to your comment, based on general practices by that community. I absolutely will not debate the matter in this community.

We aren’t going to engage with the arguments here at all. This isn’t a politics community. Only reason I even mentioned it at was to avoid knee jerk responses.

Seriously, you can’t roll up into a community that’s about gathering opinions in moderator actions and expect regulars to go very far debating other things. It isn’t the place for it, and it isn’t a useful aspect of determining power tripping beyond the bare minimum needed for accuracy.

If anyone wants to discuss the details of the merits or flaws of your opinion, that’s on them, but it’s outside the scope of the community, so I’m not.

I specified rule 3 of c/politics already, and referred to their elastic clause of reserving the ability to moderate outside of enumerated rules. I’m not sure what else you want in that regard, but I’m not in the mood to break down every single rule when just those two cover the question of power tripping.

Well, I’m going to start off with the obvious thing. You absolutely do not have a leg to stand on as far as what you said being genocide denial. You can quibble about semantics all you want, but that’s literally what you did.

That being said, you’re right about one thing. Genocide denial isn’t an explicitly listed rule.

But you still broke multiple rules. The fact that you can’t see that genocide denial falls under them, even though it is most definitely not listed as a specific rule of its own, that may be a thing where c/politics needs to refine its rules for better understanding, or it may be that you need to understand that you don’t have to list every possible iteration of a broad rule for it to be part of a rule.

Then, if you go to the very bottom of their rules it does explicitly state that posts and comments may be removed even if they don’t break any enumerated rules. My app doesn’t let me flip back and forth to copy/paste what’s written there word for word, but he mod action taken is within their stated standards.

Do I think that them using a ban reason that doesn’t match their rules in wording was a good idea? Hell no. They should have just listed it as an extension of their misinformation rule, and there wouldn’t be any question about it being appropriate. Seriously, you have made comments about the debate over whether or not the actions of Israel meet the definition of genocide, but the debate is essentially being framed on shaky ground to begin with, and none of the “it isn’t” arguments hold water. So they definitely fall under misinformation.

Now, was your comment ban worthy? Maybe, maybe not. If it was your first offense, I’d say anything beyond a one day ban was over the top. I don’t have the patience to sift through your user history to know how prone you are to that kind of thing. But it is a temporary ban. That’s not going to be PTB territory under these circumstances. Temp bans are a tool to give a user time to cool down, think, and hopefully reach out for clarification. That’s not power tripping at all. A permanent ban over a single offense, that might be power tripping, depending on the circumstances. It probably would be unless it was for an explicitly listed rule, and/or permabans are listed as a consequence for violating core rules.

So, summing up. This is not power tripping because your comment did break rules, and the ban is temporary. That you didn’t understand the rules is irrelevant to that. Take this as a chance to clarify things with that community, and possibly suggest (in a calm and polite manner) that the rules be reworded so that better understanding is possible in the future

Edit: rule 3 is where they list misinformation. It isn’t very well written, imo, but it’s there