In short
I got a reply from a prolific anti-vegan troll and referred them back to an earlier conversation we had. Got banned for "harassment" and "following someone around" when in fact they replied to me and keep following vegans around when they post against anti-vegan propaganda.
The 14-day ban and comment removals by @aeronmelon@lemmy.world: https://lem.lemmy.blahaj.zone/modlog/45638?page=1&actionType=All&modId=6106918&userId=18352111
And the posts in question:
The comments when I posted them rendered as
Oh hey its you
The link is to a discussion which expanded is this here (The link goes to the comment with the highlighted star):
With background
The person in question is a very dedicated anti-vegan troll who is known to make non-sequitur claims as replies to vegans, in the hopes of roping then into a defensive position under the guise of "debate".
To exemplify this I engaged with them a couple months ago and got a perfect showcase of their behaviour. I had never used this and have never replied to them since then (at least I don't remember that I have and searching didn't turn anything up). But then when they replied to me yesterday I did. And got promptly banned for "harassment" and "following someone around". I messaged the mod who banned me to no reply.
Their behaviour is being enabled by lemmy.world mods like @aeronmelon@lemmy.world who will readily delete comments made by vegans should they dare step a foot outside of the norms of "civilized debate", like e.g. in the same thread (1) and (2). The petulant and incessant trolling by them is of course never subject to such moderation actions.
To any vegan comrades, do not engage this troll, you risk getting banned and your comments deleted.
Apparently I used wrong account to post this. Will have to switch accounts to my blahaj account on occasion to reply to comments, apologies.
This gives the same energy as "I'm not being racist, I have black friends" that a lot of neolibs argue.
I agree, it's pointless to have this discussion with someone who evades the core point of the criticism with strawmans and false dilemmas What I told @mathemachristian@lemmy.ml still stands, and nothing you say here will change it.
Disengaged.
Fyi, the disengage usage is commonly meant for when someone feels berated or is otherwise emotional upset by the discussion. It's meant for when discussions get to emotional and heated as a way for one party to be able to walk away. It's not meant as a "please stop talking to me", but rather a "i can't bear to listen to this anymore". Particularly for comrades who have trouble communicating or get upset easily to not have to keep repeating "that's not what I meant" only to fail to explain themselves once more.
It's definitely not meant as a way to get a last word in. I'd change the last sentence to "I agree to disengage", or "I will not engage further" to make what you mean clear. Your current usage is very frowned upon and might get you banned on hexbear for instance.
Thanks for the explanation, but if you look at the context, neither of them were employing the disengage rule, the word was just being used in the normal way.
I'm not trying to have the last word, I'm adding clarifying points and then ceasing communication with them because it's pointless. I changed to to make it more clear though without giving the idea that I am capitulating to them.
I have very little concern for what Hexbear thinks considering they ban people for a lot of unreasonable bullshit. Not unlike Feddit does, they just ban people for being against authoritarianism and criticizing authoritarian regimes like North Korea, or China, or Russia.
Fair I was tired and didn't consider the context properly. I also want to note I didn't report you or Emopunker for disengage abuse.
Good to know. I guess that means they got banned purely because ml admins saw them being a Zionist apologist.