Sure, there are always outliers and you can correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s just the overall impression I have.
(I wasn’t sure if [email protected] or this community would fit better for this kind of question, but I assume it fits here.)
Sure, there are always outliers and you can correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s just the overall impression I have.
(I wasn’t sure if [email protected] or this community would fit better for this kind of question, but I assume it fits here.)
I think you will see that these accusations have little substance, are taken out of context and argued in bad faith 🤷♂️
All I’ve done is link to the comments section illustrating what I was saying had happened, had happened.
Here he is, arguing with people while removing their comments and leaving his comments in place: https://slrpnk.net/post/14823401/11894346
I have no idea why you’re defending this guy. Like I said, the communities that try to “protect” their points of view, saying that one viewpoint is permitted in their space but other ones are will get you banned, generally become laughingstocks over time. It’s very different from protecting against abuse or racism, when you “protect” your space against people who don’t agree with some particular detail the way some particular person has interpreted it, and appoint an arbiter of what are the allowed interpretations, to ban anyone they disagree with. I think you should abandon that practice, and the censorship of ideas you disagree with, if you want to say that you’re supporting an instance that respects individual human freedom.
I don’t really have a problem with you in general, I was a little bit surprised that you came out swinging to defend this moderator. Maybe this all sounds like sour grapes on my part, but that is usually the result of banning people for disagreeing with you. It sparks a surprising amount of resentment.
We already explained in detail why we supported their moderation decision and you bringing it up again without providing the necessary context in which this happened is just bad faith shit slinging hoping some of it sticks.
That “explained in detail” is your interpretation. In most non-authoritarian communities, nobody has a monopoly on providing the blessed correct interpretation of what happened. I wasn’t even speaking to why I was moderated or the interpretations on the part of the slrpnk people that led to it, just what happened. You can provide your interpretation of the events and the reasons why I was temp banned, sure.
https://slrpnk.net/post/14823401
In my opinion, the broader context is that if someone wants to say their opinion, it’s okay if they disagree with someone. It’s not an “attack” and people don’t need to be “defended” against seeing enemy points of view, as long as they’re reasonable. You seem to have a different context you like to frame things in, where a post with 10 comments needs to be locked and half the comments removed if they are expressing an incorrect point of view. Like I keep saying, I think you are expressing anarchist trappings while violating anarchist principles in how you run your instance, and also creating a bad reputation for your instance, when you do that. You do you, though.
That thread is wild. I had no clue slrpunk was like that (I only go to some non-political communities on slrpunk).
I don’t think slrpnk is “bad” necessarily. The vibe I get is that there’s one terrible moderator who the admins are standing up for, because they think he’s an anarchist, and they’ve absorbed the general Lemmy dark pattern that it’s okay for a moderator to prune the comments to reflect only the “correct” ideology. But basically aside from that one bad interaction, I really have no problem with slrpnk in general.
Don’t get me wrong, I recognize it’s a solid instance and I am going to continue engaging in their communities.
Just the admin reaction was a bit strange. I think mods/admins need to try and take a neutral position as much as possible (exceptions notwithstanding).
Yeah. Sounds right. Me giving them a hard time is intended in the spirit of tough love. One part “hey, you guys are messing up, if you want people to take you seriously I think you should stop doing this” and one part unapologetic “if you didn’t want me telling stories about you censoring me, you shouldn’t have deleted my comments and banned me when I disagreed with your moderator. In any sane community, you’re allowed to disagree with the moderator, and I would like to be vocal to protect my right to do so.”
I know you’re not the same moderator they were talking about, but I just want to make you aware of this: https://ponder.cat/comment/1193264
This is not the first time this is discussed and bringing it up out of context is just bad-faith arguing.
I started out aiming to talk about the issue without reference to any past drama, but then someone specifically asked, “censorship from the mods, are you directly experiencing it? If yes, on which instance?” and specifically as related to anarchist points of view. Before today, I’d pretty much forgotten about the whole thing, but it’s a pretty valid and interesting question and so I sent some of the citations about when it happened to me.
I can feel through the screen how much you would like to be able to just order me not to be able to discuss this anymore, since my view is officially “incorrect” according to you. Fortunately, that’s not how it works.
Sorry but these age old troll tactics of baiting me into a response to these completely unfounded accusations will not work 😜
You keep dismissing said person as a troll, yet I feel like they have a point
They are misrepresenting the facts and arguing in bad faith. Very typical concern trolling.
Engage with the points or move on. This whole “i won’t be baited” reeks of so much hubris and but hurt
What are you talking about… This is the experience of most of us that dare slightly disagree on anything. It shouldn’t be this way