Skip Navigation
Ye Power Trippin' Bastards @lemmy.dbzer0.com
FelixCress @lemmy.world

Banned from unpopularopinion for exposing person defending genocide and IDF use of human shields

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.

114 comments

  • 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.

    • OpinionHaver was making claims that did not pass basic scanning of his comment history.

      I linked up his comment for context. I don't think that's derailing. That's how good discourse happens. In fact, it is my opinion, that these "rules" are generally used to censor content, which is what happened here at least in my opinion.

      But sure, if entire comment thread got nuke, it would be harder for me to make these claims.

      But week in, week out around here we see these patterns of censorship around topics that are sensitive to the regime but we still pretend as if these "mods" are "modding" and not censoring.

      • By far your comment is the least problematic of the bunch, and it's only a problem because it's in the middle of that ruckus - it is further derailing the discussion, even if not the one starting it.

        But sure, if entire comment thread got nuke, it would be harder for me to make these claims.

        Personally I'd keep it on, because I agree with you. For me it's a matter of transparency - if you remove stuff here and there suddenly nobody knows who said what. But I still see grounds for nuking the whole comment chain (including the top comment), to avoid a flamewar and make sure the rules are enforced.

        But week in, week out around here we see these patterns of censorship around topics that are sensitive to the regime but we still pretend as if these “mods” are “modding” and not censoring.

        Sadly you're right.

    • If an admin don't want to be called a genocide apologist he should ban genocide apologies

    • 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.

    • I don’t see the hypocrisy you’re accusing me of here, but I’m more than happy to clear up any potential confusion. I’ve interacted with you here before, and I know that - unlike OP - you’re capable of debating in good faith. So if you genuinely see any logical errors in my reasoning or behavior that you think are worth criticizing, I’m open to hearing it.

      • I never heard an hypocrite admiting that is a hypocrite

      • Refer to this discussion FelixCress linked.

        Up to your top comment ("I’m not sure “human shield” is the correct term here." [...]), you could say that you were just arguing semantics. However, your replies to leftytighty and Keeponstalin show otherwise:

        • even after being shown (by Keeponstalin) that the definition of human shield fits the content of the article to a T, you kept arguing that it does not apply
        • insistent shift of the focus on Hamas' actions
        • leftytighty's point in "try reading news about the IDF" is clear (implying usage of human shields is the common modus operandi of the IDF, so the article exemplifying it is not surprising). Your answer to that was basically a Reddit style sealion.

        What you said is, effectively, a defence of the IDF, by denying that that specific event counts as a specific war crime, and insistent (~twice) shift of the focus to Hamas' actions. Even if you say "I'm not defending IDF". It does give people good grounds to call you a fascist, so your comment in the other thread is hypocrisy.

        • It’s still unclear to me where I was being hypocritical. Disagreeing on the definition of a term isn’t hypocrisy, and I would still argue that the example used in the article - of sending Palestinian non-combatants to clear out buildings - doesn’t fit the definition of a human shield under the Geneva Conventions, which is: “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations.” Rather, it more accurately fits the definition found in Part 4, Article 147: “compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power.”

          As for the optics of criticizing Hamas but not the IDF - I understand how someone might draw false conclusions about my underlying motives. But to suggest that I’d be fine with the IDF doing something I would criticize Hamas for - let alone the accusations of fascism - is simply untrue. Of course I condemn all mistreatment of civilians, regardless of who’s responsible. That should go without saying. When I said that I'm not defending the IDF I meant that I'm not defending their use of human shields or otherwise mistreating civilians. Not that I'm not defending their broader goal in the conflict. What I got (implicitly) called fascist for that Felix is refering to had nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestine conflict. That happened in this thread.

          If someone holds mistaken beliefs about me, that’s one thing - but once they start publicly spreading falsehoods, that’s where I draw the line.

          What Felix says in the opening post here is either a blatant lie or a total misunderstanding.

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

          At no point have I defended or advocated for genocide, or for the use of human shields - nor is that the reason they got banned for.

          • You do realise you're using here the exact same sealion as you did in that thread, right? As in: "I don't understand" followed by a gross distortion of what someone else said.

            where I was being hypocritical. Disagreeing on the definition of a term isn’t hypocrisy

            As already explained, the issue is not just disagreeing on the definition.

            • You do realise..

              I don’t. I’m genuinely trying but I don’t.

              What gross distortion? What exactly is the issue, then? It’s not hypocrisy or sealioning Felix was accusing me of. I honestly struggle to make sense of what I’m even being accused of here. Everyone just seems to be assuming bad faith, while I’m simply trying to figure out what I did wrong this time.

              If it’s about me being annoying, pedantic, or whatever - fine, I don’t disagree. But my issue is with claims about me or my beliefs that just aren’t true. And if they are true, I’m sincerely hoping someone would point them out to me.

              • You do realise you’re using here the exact same sealion as you did in that thread, right?

                I don’t. I’m genuinely trying but I don’t.

                Given that you claim to not defend the IDF, and I don't know your "motivations" or "intentions" or whatever¹, I'll treat you as genuinely confused. ::: spoiler What's "sealioning", in a nutshell. Sealioning is a debate tactic where someone keeps engaging in a debate through things like this:

                • Questions / allegations on matters that are contextually obvious, while showing to expect others to rebuke them. Often through claims of ignorance.
                • Questions / allegations that are completely irrelevant to the topic, but being treated as if they were. Whataboutisms, argumenta ad nauseam, etc.
                • Clearly distorting what others say.
                • Misleading / loaded questions, implicit assumptions, straw men... basically distorting what others say.
                • Insistently claiming that they're just trying to engage in a meaningful debate, or "just questioning" (JAQing off), etc.
                • etc.

                Ultimately, a sea lion makes the other side shut up or snap out - not through valid argumentation, but by shredding their patience. In both cases the sea lion can claim a victory. ::: Now, look at your comments in the linked discussion - because they provide context to this one. And let us pretend that the IDF was indeed committing another war crime than using human shields, i.e. that your "ackshyually" was indeed correct². Here's what you see:

                • The topic is about the IDF using human shields. The point of such a topic is to spread awareness of the atrocities committed by the IDF.
                • Your top comment is an "ackshyually" about the exact definition of human shield (weak relevance, given the point of the topic).
                • In the same comment you say "which has been Hamas’ strategy from the beginning" - shifting the focus from what the IDF is doing to what Hamas does. (whataboutism).
                • Keeponstalin provides you a definition of the usage of human shields, plus multiple links that show that the usage of human shields is a common IDF strategy.
                • Instead of addressing that definition, you highlight your alleged intentions ("I’m simply questioning..."), and claim that saying the IDF uses human shields "paints a somewhat dishonest picture of the actual reality". Like, there's no other way to interpret this excerpt except as you defending the IDF.

                The only reasonable way to explain your behaviour there is sealioning: you shift the focus into semantics and Hamas, while claiming that you're just asking questions, and not addressing what others said...

                And before you say "but my intentions" - remember, the only person who knows what's inside your head is yourself¹.

                Now look at this thread. I said that you're still sealioning because:

                • claim of ignorance: "It’s still unclear to me"
                • distortion of what I said: "Disagreeing on the definition of a term isn’t hypocrisy". My exact words were "It [your defence of the IDF] does give people good grounds to call you a fascist, so your comment in the other thread is hypocrisy." So it's clearly not about the disagreement of the definition, I called it hypocrisy because you claim surprise of being called a fascist³.

                You were sealioning back then, claim ignorance, distort what someone else says...

                It’s not hypocrisy or sealioning Felix was accusing me of.

                I said those things. FelixCress is claiming that you're a fascist.

                If it’s about me being annoying, pedantic, or whatever - fine, I don’t disagree. But my issue is with claims about me or my beliefs that just aren’t true. And if they are true, I’m sincerely hoping someone would point them out to me.

                It is not about being pedantic or annoying. It's about how your words are interpreted.

                And, if you're genuinely not sealioning, a few tips on how to avoid being labelled as one here:

                • Mind the context. Always mind the context. It dictates how your words are interpreted. Specially for more politicised topics, like the ongoing conflicts. A neutral statement (like "it doesn't fit the definition") will convey different things based on the post, and those things will not be neutral.
                • I hate doing this but don't simply say epistemic statements (X is true / X is false) in a heavily politicised topic without a moral statement. Otherwise people will see a moral statement on it. Not just witch hunters but every bloody body.
                • If you're unsure on what someone else said, don't say stuff like "I don't understand", "I'm confused", "I'm not sure". Instead, ask specific questions on what they mean. (Reason: most Lemmy users are former Reddit users, and in Reddit this crap is a red flag for sealioning. And ooooh boy sealioning in Reddit is bread and butter.)
                • If there are multiple possible interpretations to what someone else said, and you can't handle all of them, always pick the most reasonable one.

                NOTES:

                1. Nobody knows what's inside someone else's head, nor we [people in general] should pretend we do.
                2. It is not correct, but for the sake of this discussion, the distinction between the IDF committing one or another specific war crime doesn't matter.
                3. Even if you are not a fascist you most likely know where that claim comes from. That's hypocrisy.
114 comments