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.)
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.
That thread is wild. I had no clue slrpunk was like that (I only go to some non-political communities on slrpunk).
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.