It's not fun interacting with them when they often want to engage in ad hominems. This is why I have no interest in the tankie triad.
"Oh, this is calamity! Calamity! Oh no, he's on the floor!"
Welcome to MoG!
Meanwhile On Grad
Documenting hate speech, conspiracy theories, apologia/revisionism, and general tankie behaviour across the fediverse. Memes are welcome!
What is a Tankie?
(caution of biased source)
Basic Rules:
Sh.itjust.works Instance rules apply! If you are from other instances, please be mindful of the rules. — Basically, don't be a dick.
Hate-Speech — You should be familiar with this one already; practically all instances have the same rules on hate speech.
Apologia — (Using the Modern terminology for Apologia) No Defending, Denying, Justifying, Bolstering, or Differentiating authoritarian acts or endeavours, whether be a Pro-CCP viewpoint, Stalinism, Islamic Terrorism or any variation of Tankie Ideology.
Revisionism — No downplaying or denying atrocities past and present. Calling Tankies shills, foreign/federal agents, or bots also falls under this rule. Extremists exist. They are real. Do not call them shills or fake users as it handwaves their extremism.
Tankies can explain their views but may be criticised or attacked for them. Any slight infraction on the rules above will immediately earn a warning and possibly a ban.
Off-topic Discussion — Do not discuss unrelated topics to the point of derailing the thread. Stay focused on the direct content of the post as opposed to arguing.
You'll be warned if you're violating the instance and community rules. Continuing poor behaviour after being warned will result in a ban or removal of your comments. Bans typically only last 24 hours, but each subsequent infraction will double the amount. Depending on the content, the ban time may be increased. You may request an unban at any time.
You just asked for examples of bullying, so I provided. What did you expect me to bring up, was someone sneaking through his window and punching him in the face? I'm not sure what other than personal insults could be meant by that. If it was bringing up examples of wrong things he did, then sure. Some people did that, some people lied about it (claiming he'd said one thing when he'd said the exact opposite), some people actively refused to provide any evidence but just threw insults at him and then peaced out. The first thing, I'd have no problem with, the others I feel like are worth worrying about at least a little bit.
I want you to stop protecting the people you like from public opinion. I'm completely fine with everyone just being able to have their say, although maybe certain levels of personal abuse shouldn't be tolerated. But it's very clearly one-sided. The dbzer0 people have been describing downvoting as "abuse," so yes, I would say aiming extensive cursing and personal insults at someone and accusing them of things they didn't do can be "bullying," or at least something that's worthy of mods weighing in on it, like they would pounce instantly if someone said something about Sam Altman or something.
Edit: Actually, maybe a better way to explain it: Go back to every one of the quotes I listed about PugJesus. If people came into a dbzer0 thread and said the exact same types of things about Ada, would that be okay? Or would it be a problem that required mod / admin attention?
That's what bugs me about it, it's the blatant tribalism of it. You permabanned a trans person just recently because they tried (again, for the thousandth time) to explain what the issue was with Dragonrider, and you didn't like that, so ban for "pissy." They're not in the club, so fuck them. Everyone got all up in arms about ban reason "tankie," but you're fine with a comment being removed for the reason "shut the fuck up, liberal" (I actually 100% agree with removing the actual underlying comment -- my point is that the slurs are starting to be celebrated, and only go one way, and that's not a good thing.)
One of your people has just recently invented a new slur ("slopper") to use to attack people they disagree with as they are being banned. I have no idea the context or what it means, although I can guess.
You get the idea. I don't want to go back and forth about extensively. I have no idea how much of this is you, or the admin team, or whoever. I actually think probably most of what I see as most worrying is not coming from the admin team. But the culture shift is alarming to me. It's all about attack, slurs, new fun insults. We need to protect "our users" against downvotes. Other users, on other instances, who got rando-banned, well, fuck them, they're not "ours," so who cares.
You get the idea. Maybe not. Anyway, that's what I think about it.
Why yes, we do tolerate people badmouthing Ada, dessalines, nutomic, and even our own admins. Hell I've personally tolerated dozens of angry hexbears trying to bully myself in my own thread in my own comm. We do indeed walk the walk.
There's no "tribalism" here, no matter how much you keep repeating it. In all honestly it reads to me you're more upset people are not sufficiently polite in disagreement. Anarchists can and will be rude, especially towards people like PJ routinely but politely calling them "nazis" for not engaging in the electoralism farce. Nobody is under any onus to remain polite to spare your feelings, nor does this make is a "tribe" because we tend to attract anarchists who feel the same way about liberals.
Fuck I don't even know at this point what your problem even is, that we attract like-minded people in our instance? We don't want to be lemmy.world for a reason and if you want that, well lemmy.world already exists.
Seriously, We're not going to go around policing people for rudeness. This is absurd and will not work whatsoever.
Absolutely, you should not. People should be able to say what they want, if that somehow wasn't clear. What I was saying was that it's very silly to ban people for criticizing your decisions in clear and rational language[1], or for their politics, or for very tenuous claims of "ableism" if you just kind of don't like the content of what they have to say[2], or to call downvotes "abuse" and try to protect certain ones of your communities against getting downvotes by literally banning anyone who tries to give one to the content... but then, when the target is outside the kid-gloves safe space, turn loose this massive drama-cannon with wild insults and accusations and say "Yes! All good, our admins will join in in fact!" and then now hide behind this thing of "Oh ho that's just the wild west of the ol' internet for ya, free speech ya know" that you would never put up with if someone tried to, for example, give YOU a downvote or a dissenting comment[3], because that's abusive and they're a troll now.
This whole thing originated because you've been slinging around bans for people who don't get with the program you want them to get with or say things to you that you don't like. I didn't come to you whining to ask you to stop anyone being mean to me, I actually got involved because you wanted PugJesus to stop being mean to your comments and posts because he's not allowed. I'm much more in favor of people being able to have their say, I mostly object to the banhammering side, I'm just now poking at the hypocrisy of it.
Up to you though. You've clearly decided, I'm just repeating at this point, so cheers I guess.
Ok basically your argument devolves to misrepresenting and trivializing why we took any admin actions. I think you're being massively disingenuous and not worth it discussing with at this point, but I'll repeat, if our instance members think we're as hypocritical as you do, they're welcome to open the relevant governance posts and reign us in. It won't happen, cause we aren't of course.
Anyway I won't bother with this thread anymore. I have no patience for people who misrepresent the facts quite that much just to win internet arguments.
Up to you