- cross-posted to:
- news
- cross-posted to:
- news
The Israel Defense Forces releases surveillance camera footage from Shifa Hospital showing Hamas terrorists bringing a Nepali and Thai citizen who were abducted from Israel on October 7 to the medical center.
Super cool how lying about hospitals not being bombed is “civil” but calling it out for the lie that it is somehow isn’t.
Attacking the contents of an article is absolutely allowed, attacking other users is absolutely NOT allowed.
So in your comment:
“Liar. https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/11/14/gaza-unlawful-israeli-hospital-strikes-worsen-health-crisis”
That’s fine. “Liar” is maybe a little strong, I personally would have allowed it, other mods may not have. Your mileage may vary.
It was the personal attack against the other user AFTER that where you crossed the line and caused the comment to be removed.
I disagree that saying someone is ignorant or that I would STFU if I was that ignorant is a personal attack. I also do not see how that is somehow more objectionable than lying about bombed civilians.
It’s literally an ad hominem attack and is not allowed.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
You’ve also been warned about this before according to the modlog (which is public information):
https://lemmy.world/modlog?page=1&userId=82695
If you keep it up, you’re cruising for a temporary ban.
I haven’t received notifications for any of those other warnings as far as I can tell, the links in the log won’t actually load for me. I also stand by them and encourage everyone to check out my forbidden opinions. It’s hilarious that one of them is literally a single sentence of me asking a mod for clarification.
Btw, why is lying about murdered civilians fine but calling someone ignorant is beyond the pale?
Not all mods bother replying to comments they remove, I choose to because I believe transparency is an important part of moderation.
As to the question, engaging in personal attacks violates rule 5 in the sidebar (which I wrote BTW):
“Rule 5: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (perjorative, perjorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (perjorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!”
Ok, I understand that your stance is that ignorance is not a neutral statement of fact but a personal attack, and I do appreciate you replying unlike the last mod I asked that just deleted my comment without answering. Which I also had no idea about because I don’t monitor the mod log of every place I comment.
It’s just a really awful policy for the exact reason I’ve been underlining over and over: if polite lies about mass murder are fine and calling someone ignorant for saying heinous shit isn’t fine, you’re just creating an environment where impoliteness is worse than bigotry. And yeah I see the rules against that, doesn’t seem to be doing anything about the overt lie that hospitals haven’t been bombed.
“It’s the rules” is a terrible justification for leaving up lies about mass murdered civilians as long as they’re polite.
If the facts are on your side, I absolutely encourage you to refute incorrect information, just don’t attack the other user in the process.
“I’m sorry, you’re wrong. - Link.”
“Reality disagrees. - Link.”
That’s all cool.
Ad hominem attacks cross the line. When you start going after the other user, that’s a problem and we don’t want flamewar threads top to bottom. That’s why the rule exists.
If you don’t want flame wars then removing obvious flame bait–like lies about mass murdered civilians and hospitals not being bombed–would go a lot farther than deleting everyone that calls that shit what it is.