Funny, I only ever see bad faith trolls, who call anyone who disagrees with them bots, get removed. That and crazy racists or obvious misinformation. As opposed to .world where I see well-sourced posts get removed for “incivility”.
Now I am a moderate and I know there’s two sides to every coin and not everything is black and white, so I guess the truth lies somewhere in the middle, so only some racists get caught on .ml and only some well-researched comments get removed from .world.
Nah I catch waaaaay more bans from .world communities lol. They hate when you tell them cold hard facts, like Biden killed more Palestinians than trump.
It seems most of your removals/bans from lemmy.world come from calling people “shit for brains terrorists,” drugged, and saying they should be skinned alive, actually:
It’s not your average user’s fault for not knowing, but some moderators definitely over-reach with removing and banning.
Last week I caught a ban for being a “troll” from the Memes community here for saying that liberals generally like Khrushchevkas (AKA Soviet Bloc apartments) and cite them as one of the things the USSR did right.
You don’t see the bans and removals because the people and their posts are gone.
I’m willing to believe that there’s a grain of truth in this at face value, but from what I’ve seen, most communities will ban people for inflammatory disagreement. A lot of people here approach such discussions from other instances in bad faith (even I did above), but those outside of the instance are generally the ones more likely to be banned for it. These discussions will start somewhat heated, eventually degrade when one or both parties get frustrated, bans are issued, and then people will recall this discussion later as being ‘banned for having a different opinion’. I’m sure it happens but it’s not as common as people claim imo.
“I have a totally compelling and reality-based argument that you definitely haven’t heard two thousand times before, but it goes to a different school.”
Nothing you could be hinting at would actually be meaningful anyways or something not debunked a million times. Go ahead. holodomor, purges, North Korea, CCP / Uyghur / Social Credit / Tiananmen Square, Pol Pot, … Which is it? Cmon it’s okay!
Pol Pot? the guy who was widely condemed by both China and the Soviet Union as a fascist masquerading as a comunist and completely ruined his country? That’s a new level for yall
widely condemed by both China and the Soviet Union as a fascist masquerading as a comunist
I don’t think China did that, the MFA usually has a strict “non-interference in internal affairs” as per the five principles of peaceful coexistence. Deng met with Pol Pot multiple times in the 80s. When Vietnam invaded Cambodia in Dec 1978, China did a retaliatory 28 day invasion of Vietnam in Feb 1979. Kim Il Sung even had the Changsuwon palace ready for Prince Sihanouk to stay in during the coalition government insurgency against Vietnam.
To my knowledge: China, Korea, and most of ASEAN at the time supported Pol Pot and the coalition government, while the the Warsaw pact countries (except Romania), Albania, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, and the current Hun Sen government condemed Pol Pot. Romania and Yugoslavia stayed neutral. It was a fairly even split on the issue for communist countries.
I could not have predicted that is what you took from my comment. But yes. That Pol Pot. Congratulations on the reading comprehension part of the test, you still fail.
Always love knowing I can drop a comment with minimal context and I got shooters out here that will pick up on the context for others. I couldn’t have explained this better myself, though I didn’t expect the pol pot one to be the bait. I should have put Che / Cuba or Sankara / Burkina Faso but the intention of my comment remains the same. You are absolutely correct.
do you understand what the word ‘or’ means? The commentor was clearly just listing common talking points anti-communists use. You are purposefully misconstruing their words because you can’t engage in substantive conversation about an issue that your total amassed education on probably amounts to the literal meme above.
I would respond here, but anything meaningful would be removed.
It’s almost as though you don’t have anything worthwhile to say.
Maybe you could link to your argument. If it’s so interesting I would like to read it.
Funny, I only ever see bad faith trolls, who call anyone who disagrees with them bots, get removed. That and crazy racists or obvious misinformation. As opposed to .world where I see well-sourced posts get removed for “incivility”.
Now I am a moderate and I know there’s two sides to every coin and not everything is black and white, so I guess the truth lies somewhere in the middle, so only some racists get caught on .ml and only some well-researched comments get removed from .world.
Why comment at all, then?
What is this .world?
Worse
Nah I catch waaaaay more bans from .world communities lol. They hate when you tell them cold hard facts, like Biden killed more Palestinians than trump.
It seems most of your removals/bans from lemmy.world come from calling people “shit for brains terrorists,” drugged, and saying they should be skinned alive, actually:
https://lemmy.ml/modlog?page=1&actionType=All&userId=28703556
Waow
Thank you for context I was too lazy to give lol.
I calls em like I sees em. Plus that’s a different account.
You can’t simultaneously pretend honesty is a core value of yours but also lie about why you get banned.
Well - you can - but it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
I’m not? One of my ban reasons was literally “banned until after the election” on a large politics community on .world.
One of them was posting stats and graphs and I was banned for “garbage troll comments”.
Y’all are a very delicate bunch.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
My argument would totally destroy yours but you’d just refuse to engage so I won’t bother
It’s not your average user’s fault for not knowing, but some moderators definitely over-reach with removing and banning.
Last week I caught a ban for being a “troll” from the Memes community here for saying that liberals generally like Khrushchevkas (AKA Soviet Bloc apartments) and cite them as one of the things the USSR did right.
You don’t see the bans and removals because the people and their posts are gone.
I’m willing to believe that there’s a grain of truth in this at face value, but from what I’ve seen, most communities will ban people for inflammatory disagreement. A lot of people here approach such discussions from other instances in bad faith (even I did above), but those outside of the instance are generally the ones more likely to be banned for it. These discussions will start somewhat heated, eventually degrade when one or both parties get frustrated, bans are issued, and then people will recall this discussion later as being ‘banned for having a different opinion’. I’m sure it happens but it’s not as common as people claim imo.
“I have a totally compelling and reality-based argument that you definitely haven’t heard two thousand times before, but it goes to a different school.”
It’s okay to be honest and admit you have nothing meaningful to contribute. No need to be condescending.
Nothing you could be hinting at would actually be meaningful anyways or something not debunked a million times. Go ahead. holodomor, purges, North Korea, CCP / Uyghur / Social Credit / Tiananmen Square, Pol Pot, … Which is it? Cmon it’s okay!
Pol Pot? the guy who was widely condemed by both China and the Soviet Union as a fascist masquerading as a comunist and completely ruined his country? That’s a new level for yall
I don’t think China did that, the MFA usually has a strict “non-interference in internal affairs” as per the five principles of peaceful coexistence. Deng met with Pol Pot multiple times in the 80s. When Vietnam invaded Cambodia in Dec 1978, China did a retaliatory 28 day invasion of Vietnam in Feb 1979. Kim Il Sung even had the Changsuwon palace ready for Prince Sihanouk to stay in during the coalition government insurgency against Vietnam.
To my knowledge: China, Korea, and most of ASEAN at the time supported Pol Pot and the coalition government, while the the Warsaw pact countries (except Romania), Albania, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, and the current Hun Sen government condemed Pol Pot. Romania and Yugoslavia stayed neutral. It was a fairly even split on the issue for communist countries.
Mentioning his name means we support him? Wtf? OK, everyone make sure we never mention Adolf Hitler.
Wait, shit, I said his name right there! Fuck!
I guess you support He-who-shall-not-be-named, since you said his name after all. What a goofy comment lmao.
Wow can’t believe you would mention him. Guess that means you love him. Go marry him.
I could not have predicted that is what you took from my comment. But yes. That Pol Pot. Congratulations on the reading comprehension part of the test, you still fail.
Nobody is supporting Pol Pot here, the point is that anti-communists love using him against communists.
Always love knowing I can drop a comment with minimal context and I got shooters out here that will pick up on the context for others. I couldn’t have explained this better myself, though I didn’t expect the pol pot one to be the bait. I should have put Che / Cuba or Sankara / Burkina Faso but the intention of my comment remains the same. You are absolutely correct.
Thanks, and happy to help!
So you admit he wasn’t a communist!!! Checkmate!!!
Removed by mod
do you understand what the word ‘or’ means? The commentor was clearly just listing common talking points anti-communists use. You are purposefully misconstruing their words because you can’t engage in substantive conversation about an issue that your total amassed education on probably amounts to the literal meme above.
Removed by mod