this post was submitted on 24 May 2025
131 points (87.9% liked)
Ye Power Trippin' Bastards
1192 readers
13 users here now
This is a community in the spirit of "Am I The Asshole" where people can post their own bans from lemmy or reddit or whatever and get some feedback from others whether the ban was justified or not.
Sometimes one just wants to be able to challenge the arguments some mod made and this could be the place for that.
Posting Guidelines
All posts should follow this basic structure:
- Which mods/admins were being Power Tripping Bastards?
- What sanction did they impose (e.g. community ban, instance ban, removed comment)?
- Provide a screenshot of the relevant modlog entry (don’t de-obfuscate mod names).
- Provide a screenshot and explanation of the cause of the sanction (e.g. the post/comment that was removed, or got you banned).
- Explain why you think its unfair and how you would like the situation to be remedied.
Rules
- Post only about bans or other sanctions that you have received from a mod or admin.
- Don’t use private communications to prove your point. We can’t verify them and they can be faked easily.
- Don’t deobfuscate mod names from the modlog with admin powers.
- Don’t harass mods or brigade comms. Don’t word your posts in a way that would trigger such harassment and brigades.
- Do not downvote posts if you think they deserved it. Use the comment votes (see below) for that.
- You can post about power trippin’ in any social media, not just lemmy. Feel free to post about reddit or a forum etc.
- If you are the accused PTB, while you are welcome to respond, please do so within the relevant post.
Expect to receive feedback about your posts, they might even be negative.
Make sure you follow this instance's code of conduct. In other words we won't allow bellyaching about being sanctioned for hate speech or bigotry.
YTPB matrix channel: For real-time discussions about bastards or to appeal mod actions in YPTB itself.
Some acronyms you might see.
- PTB - Power-Tripping Bastard: The commenter agrees with you this was a PTB mod.
- YDI - You Deserved It: The commenter thinks you deserved that mod action.
- YDM new - You Deserved More: The commenter thinks you got off too lightly.
- BPR - Bait-Provoked Reaction: That mod probably overreacted in charged situation, or due to being baited.
- CLM - Clueless Mod: The mod probably just doesn't understand how their software works.
Relevant comms
founded 9 months ago
MODERATORS
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.
If an admin don't want to be called a genocide apologist he should ban genocide apologies
People enabling fuckheads are obviously bad, but should not be assumed to be themselves fuckheads. "A is shit" and "B is shit" does not mean "A is B".
This is important, because otherwise we end not blaming the enablers properly - they aren't like the thief who steals your junk, they're more like the braindead muppet who keeps the door open.
EDIT: ...nevermind, I retract my point. We're talking about LW; Zionist apologia goes rampant there. Even if OP themself didn't bring this up, it's common knowledge already.
What is this gibberish?
Did you see the edit? Now, here's your answer: no, it is not gibberish. I'll explain the reasoning.
If we stick to that thread alone, there are at least two possible explanations for why the mod acted that way:
There are more, but let's stick to those two. Both enable someone who's doing genocide apology. In both, the mod is being an enabler. But only #2 counts as condoning that genocide apology. #1 is simply being damn sloppy.
However, based on the mod actions in a single thread, we have no grounds to know if it's #1 or #2. And we shouldn't assume. You don't accuse people based on assumptions.
Here's where the edit comes in. What I said above doesn't apply because it's common knowledge that the LW admins+mods do jack shit against Zionist apologia. That's why I retracted my point - because it isn't how the mod acted in that thread, it's a consistent behaviour across multiple threads.
Is this clear now? TL;DR: I was saying "OP, bring up more evidence before you accuse someone", then "nevermind, the evidence is public knowledge".
I did paste verbatim screenshot and mod was well aware about the content - defending IDF using human shields cannot be mistaken with anything else.
So yes, we have grounds - he was well aware.
Fair.
See edit.
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.
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.
Sadly you're right.
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.
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.
I am who I am. I say what I think.
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.
You're omitting the part where you call a third party "an idiot", and that your answers to the genocide denier were both passive aggressive as fuck. (Source, modlog.. For the pass-aggro Ctrl+F "sweetie")
It's arguable if your aggressiveness in this specific case was justified. But by claiming that you weren't being aggressive you are simply lying. And calling people stupid by proxy - do you expect them to buy your lie?
No, it is not. It shows that you'll likely to behave like an arse in any community that allows it. Mods can and should use a user's history to know how to handle them, once they violate the rules of a community.
Modlog, again:
None of those involves either the feddit.org mods or the Zionist Reich, but in all of those you're being aggressive towards other users. I could post another thousand examples, that modlog is full of that.
You are lying yet again.
You are a fucking arsehole, and someone without the dignity to admit they're a fucking arsehole.
The problem is how you say it. You're a fucking arsehole, clearly unable to voice your views without sounding like a pissy manchild. And also a liar based on the comment I'm replying to.
Please do a favour for everyone and go back to Reddit, you'll be in more suitable company there.
Well documented comment
Wonderful retort!
Again, this is irrelevant. Not part of the exchange I have been banned for and it was a reply to him calling me an" embarrassment". For the context, it was a guy defending genocide denier. He also posted in this thread - I suggest you have a look.
Firstly I disagree with that. Secondly this is again irrelevant - being "passive aggressive" is not a bannable offence.
I completely disagree with that. None of my comments were aggressive.
It is completely and utterly irrelevant. You may be an angel in one community and the devil in another. If there was a Israel/IDF supporting community the guy I was responding to would be an angel.
Nope. Now click each of them for a context. I stand behind every single one of them.
Stop accusing me of lying.
Now, my answer to this should be "go and fuck yourself". But since you put your comments so nicely I am going to pat you on your head and just say "yes, sweetie" 😂
If anyone is aggressive here, including name calling it is you. Now, disengage.
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.
Geneva:
The source you are discussing:
It is a human shield walking into a house in case there are bombs or gunmen in the house, in order to render the military forces outside immune from military operations.
They either force the bombs to explode or gunmen in the house to open fire on the civilian, thereby exposing the gunmen to counter-fire with minimized risk to the military personnel, or they force gunmen to avoid opening fire at all.
Just because you dress the civilian in military fatigues does not change this. They are human shields.
My understanding is that the correct interpretation of that is you're not allowed to, for example, strike military targets with missiles if there are civilians around. If one then doesn't fight fair, they can abuse this by intentionally placing military infrastructure near civilian buildings - even schools and hospitals - knowing that this will, at least to some extent, deter the enemy from striking. In other words, using civilians as human shields.
In my view, what's being described here is a violation of Part 4, Article 147: “compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power” - which, let’s not forget, is equally evil and indefensible.
Rendering immune from military operations also involves posing civilians as military personnel for the purpose of distracting enemy combatants and drawing their fire. Think the Joker's plan from the Dark Knight - if you put fake guns and fake uniforms on civilians for the purpose of having the enemy attack them instead of the real target that is a human shield.
They are not serving. That is conscription, and would involve arming the personnel or otherwise having them perform the expected duties of military personnel. They are being placed unarmed intentionally in the line of fire in a way that military personnel would never be used, so they are not being forced to serve.
Fair point - can't really argue with that. I guess it counts then. I was wrong.
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:
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.
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.
As already explained, the issue is not just disagreeing on the definition.
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.
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.
What's "sealioning", in a nutshell.
Sealioning is a debate tactic where someone keeps engaging in a debate through things like this: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 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:
You were sealioning back then, claim ignorance, distort what someone else says...
I said those things. FelixCress is claiming that you're a fascist.
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:
NOTES:
Fair enough. I’ve been a smart-ass my whole life, so I’m not going to argue against that.
No issues with that either. That doesn’t exactly refute my point, however.
This I don’t agree with, and your definition of it seems somewhat strange - especially the part about distorting what others say, which I don’t admit to either.
Sealioning is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity ("I'm just trying to have a debate"), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter. - Wikipedia
Saying “I don’t understand” isn’t sealioning if I genuinely don’t understand. If someone doesn’t like what I’m saying, I don’t engage with vague accusations - I ask them to be more specific so I can respond to what they’re actually saying, not what I imagine they’re saying.
I’ve only claimed that “human shield” doesn’t fit the definition in this specific example, but when people provided examples of other cases, I didn’t claim they weren’t true. I condemn the IDF’s use of human shields just as harshly as I do when Hamas uses them.
To me, it seems hypocritical when people criticize one side for something the other side is demonstrably worse at - but I’ll grant you that, in this specific case, I’m assuming bad faith when I really can’t know anyone’s intentions or underlying motives any more than they can know mine.
Also, saying that I “defend the IDF” is a pretty vague claim. Yes, there are more things I might defend the IDF for than Hamas - but that doesn’t mean I blanket-approve everything they do. I don’t defend the use of human shields, and I don’t defend genocide. You may argue that I’m "effectively" doing so, but since that’s not my intention, I don’t accept that accusation. I could just as easily flip that around and say people here are defending Hamas - which would equally misrepresent their views in most cases.
Now, as you’ve probably noticed, I tend to be a bit provocative in the way I comment - that’s intentional. Like trolls, I am baiting for a reaction. The difference is that: 1. I actually believe what I’m saying. 2. I don’t act in bad faith (or at least not with bad intentions). 3. Getting a reaction isn’t my end goal - I use it as a tactic to get people to engage with me. I also intentionally don't tend to caveat my points because othewise my every response would just be a list of what I'm not meaning/saying.
I still stand firm that Felix has made multiple false accusations against me and has consistently behaved in extremely bad faith from the very beginning. It’s pretty clear to me that this all started when he asked for examples of extremism on Lemmy, and one of the multiple examples I provided was of someone advocating for the abolition of Israel - something he clearly had a strong emotional reaction to. That reaction seemed to prompt him to dig through my post history, looking for anything to support the assumptions he had already made about me.
At no point did it feel like it was about the actual content of my claims - it was a personal smear campaign, not an argument. I think that compairing the lenght of our moderation histories is quite revealing.
Finally, as a side note - I hate responding to multiple points like this in one post, but I don’t see any other way to address everything you brought up. If you still want to continue the conversation, I’d much rather focus on one or two specific claims you feel most strongly about. But if not, I just want to thank you for taking the time to write a thoughtful response - and above all, for your civility. Social media needs more people like you.
Then I'll focus specifically on sealioning. This instance is heavily politicised (and that's good), so plenty people here can discuss IDF, Hamas, the ongoing Nakba etc. better than I do.
Those bullet points are just examples of sea lion behaviour. The common elements between all of them is that 1) they aren't valid argumentation, and 2) they force the "sealioned" to provide pointless explanations, until they lose their patience; and distorting what others say is a way to do it.
You might have done it either "accidentally" or "on purpose", but your claim does distort what I said. Because, again, it is not about disagreeing on definitions; it's that it was obvious why people were calling you fascist, even if your comment shows bewilderment about it.
Wikipedia itself lists multiple definitions. The core is the same, and shared with the definition I've provided.
It's a red flag, you know? On itself it might not be enough to say "this is a sealion with 100% chance" but, together with other red flags, you can pretty much spot a sealion with damn good accuracy.
Are you referring to your accusation of hypocrisy and me then talking about the definition of the term “human shield” - even though that’s not what you meant? Because if so, that wasn’t me intentionally misrepresenting what you said, but rather me genuinely not understanding what I was being accused of and trying to respond anyway, hoping that somewhere in my word salad you might find an answer to it.
What I could’ve done instead was keep asking you to be more specific - but then that could’ve just been interpreted as more sealioning (i.e., demanding pointless explanations). Was that the only example of me doing this, or were there others? I honestly struggle to give you a broad explanation here, but I can definitely explain my reasoning behind individual replies I’ve made to people in these threads.
As for people calling me a fascist - like I said earlier, that had nothing to do with what I’ve said about the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. I’m not sure anyone called me a fascist for that - not even Felix, at least not explicitly. He was just pointing out what he saw as the absurdity of me wondering why people call me that, while (in his view) I was expressing clearly fascist views.
The implicit accusations of fascism came in a thread I made a while back where I was asking about a heavily moderated discussion community - one where mean-spirited, hostile replies wouldn’t be tolerated. People interpreted that as me advocating for “free speech absolutism,” as if I wanted a space like Twitter where anything goes and people get banned for pushing back. But that clearly wasn’t what I was asking for.
That thread got a lot of people suspicious about my motives, asking what kind of topics I’d want to discuss there, and claiming that a space like that would inevitably become a breeding ground for fascism and pedofilia. So it’s not that people directly called me a fascist - but in my view, it was heavily implied in how I was treated.