I have been banned from unpopularopinion for exposing person defending genocide and use of human shields by IDF.

One of the users in unpopularopinion thread was complaining about someone calling him a “fascist”

https://feddit.uk/comment/17531487

In response I did paste a screenshot of his comment claiming IDF are not using human shields, it is Hamas who do that:

https://feddit.uk/comment/17529782

… And the mod of unpopularopinion banned me. I can only guess he is a another genocide apologist.

  • Lvxferre [he/him]@mander.xyz
    239·
    11 hours ago

    BPR.

    You did the right thing by calling out OpinionHaver’s hypocrisy. And you did it the right way - exposing why they were called a fascist, in a thread they do Reddit style “I dun unrrurstand” sealioning and “ackshyually” red herrings over and over to defend ethnic cleansing. If you only posted that and walked away, I’d be saying “PTB”.

    However that is not just what you did. You were consistently aggressive in that thread, and your mod history shows entries like “uncivil”, “Derailing”, “civility”, “Rude/toxic”, “history of netiquette violations”, “consistent history of toxic behavior” across multiple instances. So even if the target was justified, you’re still a problem user, and if a mod lets this sort of hostile user (like you) go rogue in a comm, the comm becomes a shitfest.

    Plus you’re a single “I can only guess” away from witch hunting = calling the mod “genocide apologist” on weak grounds (removals from a single thread). If you want to accuse someone, do it like you did towards OpinionHaver.

    You, sunzu2 and OpinionHaver were derailing the thread. The mod should’ve either nuked the whole comment chain or left it alone; by selectively deleting you+sunzu2’s comments but not OpinionHaver’s, the mod is arbitrarily giving them a political voice in an allegedly “no politics” comm, but not you or sunzu2.

      • Lvxferre [he/him]@mander.xyz
        88·
        11 hours ago

        People enabling fuckheads are obviously bad, but should not be assumed to be themselves fuckheads. “A is shit” and “B is shit” does not mean “A is B”.

        This is important, because otherwise we end not blaming the enablers properly - they aren’t like the thief who steals your junk, they’re more like the braindead muppet who keeps the door open.

        EDIT: …nevermind, I retract my point. We’re talking about LW; Zionist apologia goes rampant there. Even if OP themself didn’t bring this up, it’s common knowledge already.

          • Lvxferre [he/him]@mander.xyz
            63·
            9 hours ago

            Did you see the edit? Now, here’s your answer: no, it is not gibberish. I’ll explain the reasoning.

            If we stick to that thread alone, there are at least two possible explanations for why the mod acted that way:

            1. the mod simply didn’t see the page OP linked. They saw one user behaving poorly, another being superficially polite, and banned the one behaving poorly (the OP), without noticing the other was defending the IDF. or
            2. the mod saw the linked page, deemed it OK, banned OP because he’s defending the Palestinians, and used their behaviour as excuse.

            There are more, but let’s stick to those two. Both enable someone who’s doing genocide apology. In both, the mod is being an enabler. But only #2 counts as condoning that genocide apology. #1 is simply being damn sloppy.

            However, based on the mod actions in a single thread, we have no grounds to know if it’s #1 or #2. And we shouldn’t assume. You don’t accuse people based on assumptions.

            Here’s where the edit comes in. What I said above doesn’t apply because it’s common knowledge that the LW admins+mods do jack shit against Zionist apologia. That’s why I retracted my point - because it isn’t how the mod acted in that thread, it’s a consistent behaviour across multiple threads.

            Is this clear now? TL;DR: I was saying “OP, bring up more evidence before you accuse someone”, then “nevermind, the evidence is public knowledge”.

            • FelixCress@lemmy.worldOP
              52·
              5 hours ago

              the mod simply didn’t see the page OP linked

              I did paste verbatim screenshot and mod was well aware about the contest - defending IDF using human shields cannot be mistaken with anything else.

              So yes, we have grounds - he was well aware.

    • FelixCress@lemmy.worldOP
      35·
      5 hours ago

      You were consistently aggressive in that thread

      No. I mostly only posted this genocide denier his own words. Calling someone defending use of human shields a “genocide apologist” is factual, not aggressive.

      your mod history shows entries like “uncivil”, “Derailing”, “civility”, “Rude/toxic”, “history of netiquette violations”, “consistent history of toxic behavior” across multiple instances.

      Firstly, this is irrelevant. Secondly when you get to the details, most of these comments are made by infamous feddit.org mods - who very recently came out of the closet and started banning reasonable criticism of Israel. Fill your gaps.

      So even if the target was justified, you’re still a problem user,

      I am who I am. I say what I think.

      Plus you’re a single “I can only guess” away from witch hunting = calling the mod “genocide apologist” on weak grounds

      See my other comment. I did paste screenshot of his disgusting defence of IDF, verbatim. This triggered the mod who called it “smear” and he doubled down on calling it “smear” again in this very thread. If calling a guy like this a “genocide apologist” is a smear for the mod, that’s very telling about mod own views.

      • Lvxferre [he/him]@mander.xyz
        83·
        4 hours ago

        No. I mostly only posted this genocide denier his own words. Calling someone defending use of human shields a “genocide apologist” is factual, not aggressive.

        You’re omitting the part where you call a third party “an idiot”, and that your answers to the genocide denier were both passive aggressive as fuck. (Source, modlog.. For the pass-aggro Ctrl+F “sweetie”)

        It’s arguable if your aggressiveness in this specific case was justified. But by claiming that you weren’t being aggressive you are simply lying. And calling people stupid by proxy - do you expect them to buy your lie?

        Firstly, this [your mod history entries] is irrelevant.

        No, it is not. It shows that you’ll likely to behave like an arse in any community that allows it. Mods can and should use a user’s history to know how to handle them, once they violate the rules of a community.

        Secondly when you get to the details, most of these comments are made by infamous feddit.org mods - who very recently came out of the closet and started banning reasonable criticism of Israel. Fill your gaps.

        Modlog, again:

        1. Yes, because people driving to work deserve to have their eyes stabbed 🙄 What kind of fucking moron creates stuff like this one?
        2. > Yeah, I’m all for that. And it’s easy. Just revoke all licences. https://lemmy.world/c/opisafuckingidiot
        3. I hope you’re a fucking miner (sic - minor)
        4. Your parents had “semen cause autism” energy
        5. Or perhaps you are simply not using your brain?
        6. Just 20%? I didn’t know 80% of USians were retarded, I always thought it was around 60% max.
        7. Go and fuck yourself.
        8. In this case enjoy your piss with fart bubbles. I am pretty sure you will be fine as long as it says “champagne” on the bottle.

        None of those involves either the feddit.org mods or the Zionist Reich, but in all of those you’re being aggressive towards other users. I could post another thousand examples, that modlog is full of that.

        You are lying yet again.

        I am who I am.

        You are a fucking arsehole, and someone without the dignity to admit they’re a fucking arsehole.

        I say what I think.

        The problem is how you say it. You’re a fucking arsehole, clearly unable to voice your views without sounding like a pissy manchild. And also a liar based on the comment I’m replying to.

        Please do a favour for everyone and go back to Reddit, you’ll be in more suitable company there.

        • FelixCress@lemmy.worldOP
          23·
          3 hours ago

          You’re omitting the part where you call a third party "an idiot

          Again, this is irrelevant. Not part of the exchange I have been banned for and it was a reply to him calling me an" embarrassment". For the context, it was a guy defending genocide denier. He also posted in this thread - I suggest you have a look.

          your answers to the genocide denier were both passive aggressive as fuck.

          Firstly I disagree with that. Secondly this is again irrelevant - being “passive aggressive” is not a bannable offence.

          But by claiming that you weren’t being aggressive you are simply lying.

          I completely disagree with that. None of my comments were aggressive.

          No, it is not. It shows that you’ll likely to behave like an arse in any community that allows it.

          It is completely and utterly irrelevant. You may be an angel in one community and the devil in another. If there was a Israel/IDF supporting community the guy I was responding to would be an angel.

          None of those involves either the feddit.org mods or the Zionist Reich, but in all of those you’re being aggressive towards other users

          Nope. Now click each of them for a context. I stand behind every single one of them.

          You are lying yet again.

          Stop accusing me of lying.

          You are a fucking arsehole, and someone without the dignity to admit they’re a fucking arsehole. Please do a favour for everyone and go back to Reddit

          Now, my answer to this should be “go and fuck yourself”. But since you put your comments so nicely I am going to pat you on your head and just say “yes, sweetie” 😂

          If anyone is aggressive here, including name calling it is you. Now, disengage.