Skip Navigation

I apparently got shadow banned almost a year ago from blahaj, for a comment I made on lemmy.world

For the record I was posting in support of inclusive language, but pointing out that context and convention matter.

They seem to have even scrubbed my comment from their instance, lol.

307

You're viewing a single thread.

307 comments
  • Lmao they banned me for saying we shouldn't let trump get elected, the blahaj mods are awful

    • I randomly fact check "I got banned for something stupid" claims for giggles. Sometimes it's true, often they're lying.

      You're lying. Gotta love public modlog.

      https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/modlog?page=1&actionType=All&userId=2075497

      Thanks for the giggles.

      • Because I know you people can't read, I'm adding this bit of clarification to the top: saying we should choose A over B doesn't necessarily mean one supports A. I don't want an appendectomy, but if the alternative is dying from appendicitis, it's the better of the two possible options. If I choose not to get an appendectomy, that is the same as choosing to die, even if I delude myself into thinking that if I choose not to decide, I haven't made a choice.

        I love public modlogs because people can read them and link to them while also straight up lying about them. Let's take a closer look at what the blahaj mod said.

        reason: Weirdo who defends genocide, because only young people are aginast it

        Well that's weird. I don't think I ever defended genocide. What comments were removed?

        Removed Comment To quote Wikipedia: >The most common form of this fallacy is "A" makes a claim of "fact," to which "B" asserts that "A" has a personal trait, quality or physical attribute that is repugnant thereby going entirely off-topic, and hence "B" concludes that "A" has their "fact" wrong - without ever addressing the point of the debate. I fulfilled one part of an ad hominem—I asserted (implied, but whatever) that you have a personal trait, quality, or physical attribute. This is not enough to accuse me of committing ad hominem, because I fulfilled no other portions of it. I never implied that the fact that you are relatively young is a negative trait, I never concluded that you were wrong because of it, and I did address the main point of the debate. Calling someone young or stupid or naive isn't ad hominem if I then go on to explain why what they're saying is incorrect.

        I don't see any genocide defense here. Sybil didn't know what an ad hominem attack was, and I was clarifying it. Weird comment to remove, but ok.

        Removed Comment No, I'm attacking what you said by calling it naive. I never once intimated that your belief was wrong because you were young. I also think that anyone above the age of 22 who doesn't vote Biden is also wrong. It has nothing to do with age. I was simply giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you'd never been burned by voting third party before. Am I wrong to do that? Are you actually stupid, and not naive?

        I was a bit rude towards the end, but still not seeing the genocide defense.

        Removed Comment I was young once too. Eventually you'll figure out that the party that got 1% of the vote last time isn't suddenly gonna sweep it with 51% this time. Every single person who has a nonzero chance of being president next year supports Israel, so you should vote based on what the best possible outcome is.

        And that's it. I didn't defend genocide at all, all I said was that we should vote for Biden (it was a different time) because the only possible alternative was Trump, and Trump will make the ongoing genocide worse than Biden would. I would like to congratulate the moderators of blahaj again for successfully preventing a Biden/Harris presidency, ensuring the total annihilation of the Palestinian people. Good job, people of Palestine salute you. Morons.

You've viewed 307 comments.