Context https://lemmy.world/comment/14641595
Anyone, who doesn’t tread the „destroy Israel“ party line gets banned from !politics@lemmy.world
Edit: although people here hate Israel and different opinions with a passion, nobody could cite the actual rule I broke.
YDI, try not denying genocide
It’s still an ongoing debate among experts if the war in Gaza can be considered a genocide or not. The ICJ hasn’t ruled on the case either.
If one considers the war a genocide or not is still a political and legal argument at the moment. I am making such an argument in my OP. Suppressing political debate that doesn’t violate the rules is blatant powertripping to enforce a political agenda.
Especially in the Israel/Palestine conflict, accusations of (slow motion) genocide have been leveled against Israel decades before the current Gaza war. I think in this case, it’s only used as a phrase to demonize Israel, not actually understand and describe the situation. The whole debate is part of the conflict in the information space.
Don't start making your case here or you'll cop a ban here as well for going off-topic
What rule am I violating? Why should arguing a case be off topic? Isn’t this what this community is supposedly about?
From the sidebar
Sometimes one just wants to be able to challenge the arguments some mod made and this could be the place for that.
The mod didn’t even make an argument that refers to a rule, that was supposedly broken.
I don't want to see you denyinggenocide here. You can argue whether you should gave been banned or not
YDI
Why? I didn’t break any rule.
Going all "aaaaachsually..." about an ongoing genocide of which dozens of genocide experts have labeled as genocide, deserves what's coming to you.
Dozens of genocide experts have also denied it being a genocide.
Dozens of experts also denied smoking causes cancer or that climate change is happening. Last waning Btw. Take the genocide denial elsewhere
YDI.
It's genocide by any other definition. You can split hairs all you want and call it "crimes against humanity" or whatever, but it's a distinction without much difference when we're talking about targeted missile strikes upon schools, hospitals, and apartment buildings. Pedantry isn't going to convey some nuance that people are missing, and the mods were right to put a stop to it.
If making targeted strikes against specific structures is grounds for calling it a genocide then what does launching 10,000 unguided rockets randomly into who-knows-what in a single day count as?
I hold the incredibly unpopular opinion that both sides have been absolutely terrible for a long time so don't come at me for picking a side. I am genuinely curious if you consider both of those acts of aggression as a genocide or not based on your own listed definition.
There were no targeted strikes. Biden told Israel to stop carpet bombing Gaza and Netanyahu's defense was that he was doing a Dresden.
What does launching 10,000 unguided rockets randomly into who-knows-what in a single day count as?
There were no 10.000 rockets in a single day. It was like 2200 and most of them were simple distraction rockets.
My apologies. It was ~10,000 rockets including October 7th and up until now.
However on October 7th specifically there are several reports putting the number around ~5,000 in a single day. All fired indiscriminately into primarily civilian areas.
Yes they were "distraction" rockets to overwhelm the iron dome, but most of those continued into strike again civilians primarily.
So if it's a genocide when Israel is firing rockets into Gaza then why is it not a genocide when you reverse the roles?
Logically they would either both considered attempted genocide or neither of them would be considered genocide.
This is how resistance from a concentration camp works. Hamas took great care to avoid child casualties. Israel takes great care to create child casualties.
"Hamas took great care to avoid child casualties"
https://www.barrons.com/news/how-many-children-were-killed-in-hamas-s-october-7-attack-9c1d8239
They shot one baby in the head along with their father inside of a bomb shelter.
They burned another baby and two other kids along with their parents.
They killed another 35 minors on October 7th alone.
And before you even try to claim that news source is biased they are independently reviewed to be a "center" news source.
I can openly admit that Israel has killed who even knows how many kids in Gaza since October 7th.
The only difference is I find both sides here to be sick and evil. You seem to think only one side of this conflict has done anything wrong.
Israel is confirmed to have killed at least 6 of the children you are mentioning so half your comment is discarded. The burnt children you are mentioning were confirmed killed by IDF tank fire.
Your dramatization of a baby being shot while held by an IDF militant is not relevant either.
Nonetheless even counting all the minors as killed by Hamas, it would constitute as 3% of the total Israeli deaths on 7 october.
The children killed by Israel in Gaza constitute more than 40% of the total deaths.
These numbers alone very clearly show who is targeting children and who is not.
This is not taking into account Israel on average killed more children in Gaza every single day than the total amount killed on 7 october.
a distinction without much difference
To you his might not matter. Words, especially legal terms under international law have actual definitions.
If it doesn’t make a difference why ban people?
Because you're playing pedant with people's lives to stroke your own ego and/or prove that you're the smartest one in the room. Meanwhile, people make those same arguments to try to discredit anyone who says the IDF and Netanyahu are killing civilians on purpose, that they're killing women and children with abandon, that they're committing war crimes like they're going for the high score.
Perhaps you don't have malicious intent, but you should at least recognize that you sound like someone with an agenda and haven't conveyed a take that they haven't all made themselves before.
In short, you sound like a shill for war crimes, whether you mean to or not, and you should reflect on why you feel it's important to quibble about the difference between "crimes against humanity" and "genocide." This is not an international courtroom.
YDI.
Why? What rule did I break?
Human decency.
What you said was disgusting and abhorrent. It should have been removed.
7 days is very lenient. Take it on the chin and reflect.
I understand you don’t like it, but what rule did I break?
YDI and I’m blocking you for being a genocide denier and an overall fucking moron based on numerous comments.
Also I bet you’re a shit ass boyfriend why would anyone want to date a genocide denier.
My love life is great, thank you for your concern. I hope you find someone who loves you one day.
This is disgusting hasbara. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Good.
The ICJ has a reputation for its failures to stop past genocides and waiting until it does not matter anymore before they finally submit the judgement. Besides genocide denial you are factually incorrect.
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
Thank you for being the first person to admit, I didn’t break a rule.
But you still broke multiple rules
Which ones? Please be specific.
none of the “it isn’t” arguments hold water
Nobody, including you, engages with any of the arguments.
I hope you will remember this when the ICJ rules Israel as not guilty of genocide.
Up until now it’s alleged genocide, if one is charitable. Dolus specialis hasn’t been shown, which is essential.
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.
Rule 3
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
I don’t see how I broke any of that.
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.
You got banned for genocide denial because you were literally denying genocide. Did you think you weren't denying genocide, or did you think that denying genocide should be allowed on a politics community?
YDI.
You're a genocide denier. No ifs, ands or buts.
YDI for the reasons others have already listed, and also Y'dDI here for your efforts to rule lawyer after the fact.
Yes, victims of abuse of power should just kiss the boot and shut up. /s
There's no "rule" against promoting genocide because it's just common human decency that shouldn't need a rule.
It's like making a rule against posting videos of yourself eating poop. Just don't do it.
Yet another person to tag as a Zionist in Voyager, so I can downvote any comments of theirs I run across.
This behavior is against most instances‘ rules.
Its not technically against most instances' rules. If it was against most instances' rules then why havent the mods removed _cryptagion's commen. Surely, if it was against the instances' rules, then other people would downvote _cryptagion.
This is what you sound like.
You don’t understand that ICJ genocide cases take years to legally prove therefore you think it isn’t genocide. They’ve killed 40,000+ civilians. That’s literally genocide. What did you expect? You should get off lemmy with such a horribly wrong opinion. No where should welcome such ideology.
Edit: bro thought they really got us with the edit
PTB. Substantive discussions around the definition of genocide are not the same as Nazis saying the Holocaust never happened or whatever and I think it’s ridiculous to conflate those things. There is no rule that would cover this other than one against misinformation—but OP has not challenged the facts on the ground, just the way language is being used. Language is always going to be a subjective and arbitrary thing.
That said, other things OP has said here might constitute misinformation so that makes me wonder if there is any missing context beyond this single comment.
This is a community in the spirit of "Am I The Asshole" where people can post their own bans from lemmy or reddit or whatever and get some feedback from others whether the ban was justified or not.
Sometimes one just wants to be able to challenge the arguments some mod made and this could be the place for that.
All posts should follow this basic structure:
Expect to receive feedback about your posts, they might even be negative.
Make sure you follow this instance's code of conduct. In other words we won't allow bellyaching about being sanctioned for hate speech or bigotry.
YTPB matrix channel: For real-time discussions about bastards or to appeal mod actions in YPTB itself.
Some acronyms you might see.
Relevant comms