this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2024
1 points (51.5% liked)
Casual Conversation
1477 readers
1 users here now
Share a story, ask a question, or start a conversation about (almost) anything you desire. Maybe you'll make some friends in the process.
RULES
- Be respectful: no harassment, hate speech, bigotry, and/or trolling
- Keep the conversation nice and light hearted
- Encourage conversation in your post
- Avoid controversial topics such as politics or societal debates
- Keep it clean and SFW: No illegal content or anything gross and inappropriate
- No solicitation such as ads, promotional content, spam, surveys etc.
- Respect privacy: Don’t ask for or share any personal information
Casual conversation communities:
Related discussion-focused communities
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Looking at the modlog, you weren't banned for your views but your combative and rude attitude expressed in numerous comments, breaking the rules about civility.
Rude attitude is worthy of a ban? Why are none of the rude shit talking vegans in that thread banned? And the other dude has a screenshot of my statements. What are you saying was rulebreaking civility rules?
None of my statements were attacking anything except for racist ideology.
I have no problem admitting I was being rude, the initial topic was about people enraged by the slaughter of a dolphin, and some vegans decided that was the time to shit talk people's diets in response. I was rude to people being rude.
But I never broke civility rules and was never more egregious than the vegans I was responding to.
Seems kinda like exactly my point that being rude to rude vegans being enough reason to perma ban somebody from a news sub on this site, and how that will choke this site to death.
It seems to me that amzd compared speciesism to racism, specifically to condemn speciesism, and by extention factory farms. Not to condone racism.
This is a direct quote from them that this is based on.
I'm not here to debate the validity of cherry-picked portions of their statement. Feel free to respond to me in that thread on that topic. Then you might understand my rant about pointless bans here. I was fully willing to engage in a good faith debate on this topic in the place where it was happening.
I'm here venting and now justifying my vent to you. You were claiming I was uncivil, and I'm asking you to point at my uncivil statements.
As a sign of good faith, I'll point out that the debate on veganism wasn't being fairly input to the thread. The reason I gave half assed responses was that they were attacking people unjustly to begin with.
Veganism is a complex topic ranging from food scarcity to eating habits. I'm an advocate for veganism and participate in 3 vegan days a week. Both me and my wife come from heavy meat cultures and do not find it so simple a habit to beat.
But even when I pointed out they didn't know my stance on veganism, they were still assholes at a personal level.
So please go continue the conversation on veganism with the rest of the circlejerk where I am banned.
I would prefer the focus of this post be about how unrelated moderation is stifling this site to death.
Sounds reasonable. The discussion already happened once, there is probably no need to have the same argument here.
I think you are confusing me with someone else.
Maybe in hindsight I should've shared a link instead of a screenshot, but I checked the conversation again and I haven't seen a reply that changes the matter imo.
All I did was posting screenshots asking if this was the conversation you were talking about and pointing out how I think one of the things you said was inaccurate. Since you were bringing this claim here, I figured that that was okay to adress it here.
It seems to me that amzd compared speciesism to racism, specifically to condemn speciesism, and by extention factory farms. Not to condone racism.
This is a direct quote from them that this is based on.
++++++++++
Here is your comment I responded to. The claim you were challenging was me saying I was not uncivil because I attacked racist ideology, not individuals.
++++++++++
++++++++++
Here is the start of this specific comment chain that you are debating my response to.
But now that I've hammered down to the point of the matter, you want to posture that I've lost the comment chain.
The claim I was challenging was that it was racist in the first place. That's all I was doing in this thread.
And that kind of discussion would go in the relevant thread, in the sub I'm banned in.
I'm not here to debate the validity of cherry-picked statements from the dude who says human races are like different species.
I had a quick look at the initial thread, but that's not my community, so I didn't care too much.
I had a look here and removed agressive comments. So I guess here we are okay for now.