PhilipTheBucket
- 1 Post
- 65 Comments
In my opinion, someone who’s involved in the conversation is “involved.” Cryptagion’s point isn’t totally weird or crazy, but I don’t really agree with it. Especially given the nature of UM’s previous involvement on Lemmy, I think it’s relevant if he was heavily involved in the comments for this thing, so in passing, I noted it.
I’ve had my share of slapfights for the day at this point. Probably for the week. What could possibly be gained by me creating a reply saying, “No, it’s not bullshit! I didn’t make it sound that way!” and similar things?
It feels like you really want the hostility to continue beyond the point where everyone’s had their say. I have no idea why. Excitement? A desire to see as much disagreement and arguing as possible? He asked for proof, I provided, he disagreed with the interpretation, and at that point anyone who wants to read can make up their mind whose argument made sense. I have absolutely no interest in continuing beyond that point. You’re free to conclude for some reason that it’s a sin for me to do that, I view it as a pretty constructive approach to take.
Edit: Also, I completely forgot this even, but when UM raised the exact same objection up at the top of the thread, I actually had a pretty long conversation with him including explaining myself in detail and also apologizing about sort of bringing his name up in the nature of a punchline. We talked over DM a little bit, it didn’t go anywhere because UM, and I exited the conversation, but because I’m not just a shouty little conflict creator, I actually took it seriously and had a conversation about it.
This is, again, why I think it’s incredibly weird that a certain contingent of Lemmy is all up in arms about “PugJesus starts arguments!” as this big sin he’s committed. Y’all love this kind of slapfight, you love finding shit you can complain about or having endless hostility with people you don’t like. It’s fine, I do that sometimes too although I try to cut it off when it seems like it’s beyond the point of anything useful, but for you to accuse someone of arguing, stalking, following people around to give them votes or argumentative comments, etc etc, as a bad thing is hilarious given these last few messages (to pick one of any number of examples I could.)
My guy lol
If you want me to answer something you think I skipped over answering, ask it. If you’re just here to reiterate your perception of reality to me, I think I’ve had my fill of the duck season / rabbit season game for today.
Edit: Wait, are you talking about unruffled’s message to me? I ignored it because it was shouty and there wasn’t much to actually respond to, and PJ already had stepped in and answered it and I was happy to let the two of them duke it out if they really wanted to. Was there some kind of question in it that you wanted me to respond to? Like I say, I think the “it’s this way!” “no, it’s this other way!” back and forth would be of limited usefulness even if both sides of it hadn’t had an extensive airing in this comments thread at this point.
I saw that comment of yours about me not replying before, I just stopped caring before I was able to track it down since Piefed doesn’t have very good thread-navigation ability in big threads yet.
I was wrong about PugJesus being drama-free. It seems like some aggressively wrong people have baited him into extensive slap-fights about politics, and he may even have moderated some people from time to time about it. I said as much, the instant someone pointed it out to me, and then I moved on.
I don’t think him caring about politics is a sin, whichever side he’s on.
Was there anything else I was proven wrong about? If you want to bring it up, I’d be happy to address it.
Yes, I was pointing out your hypocrisy, the one that you’re still very clearly showing, where you use the same things that you’re poking at me with, that you just protected PJ for doing.
What?
This whole conversation is turning very stupid. Talking about politics is great. Insulting other people directly or making up things they didn’t do is not. That’s true on all sides, in my opinion.
Me pointing out your hypocrisy in suddenly freaking out about PJ talking about politics and that meaning he’s an always-online weirdo doesn’t mean all of a sudden I am being hypocritical about it.
Honestly, I just don’t feel like being in this conversation any more, it feels like you have more energy to try to “win” it and care more about it than I do. I said what I had to say.
He claims there’s a Russian genocide. I point out that the ICJ did not find convincing evidence that Russia was committing a genocide in Ukraine where they did find some semblance of that in Palestine. He immediately just tells me I’m parroting Russian propaganda and that I’m a Nazi. I asked for a source and he says that I’m sealioing.
I can literally look down the thread and see the sources he’s citing to you. They are pretty comprehensive. I tried to get involved in the same conversation with you, I think I got bored of the conversation before my comment posted, all I can say is that it’s completely stupid (and absolutely on-brand for lemmy.ml) to claim that someone who says there IS genocide in Ukraine somehow means they’re Zionist or pro-Western, or saying there is NOT genocide in Gaza. Putin’s ICC warrant literally listed child deportation as the primary crime. There is also genocide in Gaza, it’s a lot more unambiguous there than in Ukraine, but they are both happening.
Also:
https://lemmy.world/search?q=sealion&type=All&listingType=All&creatorId=1252800&page=1&sort=TopAll
https://lemmy.world/post/33270073/18378824
HOLY God
All I can picture is two people in a Will Farrel movie or something just aggressively slap-fighting overhand at each other while leaning their faces away and grimacing. I think I wasted time taking you seriously and trying to respond to what you were saying lol.
If PJ wants to talk with you, he’s welcome to it, I think I’ve said as much as I plan to at this point.
https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/u/UniversalMonk?page=1&sort=New&view=Comments
Pretty much all of the bottom section of that page is UM getting involved in the drama of this particular “anti-AI troll.” He’s getting involved on the correct side, but the point is he is certainly involved.
Technically the UN report only said that people who invaded on October 7th committed widespread sexual violence. They stopped short of saying whether or not it was Hamas (since a lot of people who were not Hamas also took part in the invasion and there was no real way to know who it was that did any particular thing.)
Ooh, you’re gonna bust out a genetic fallacy. We’re gonna start with the fallacious arguments already?
Okay, fair enough. Let me click on your profile and see how anti-political you are in general, so I can be sure not to judge you because of your instance.
Oh. That was quick lol. I didn’t even have to read.
Oh, so I’m a loser for spending any time looking at this
Correct. Spending extensive time criticizing some other user for some kind of imagined sin, through a lens of purely “how can I insult this person and come up with mischaracterizations or framings of real things they did that make them look as bad as possible, or else just making up total bullshit that would have been bad if they’d done it,” is loser behavior. Yes.
but he’s not a loser for talking a bunch of shit about politics that he does not understand and cannot take any criticism for
Uhhhhh
Really trying not to reach for the genetic fallacy here lol
Okay. My main point was that, caring about politics and being impassioned about wanting to say your thing and stick up for your viewpoint, also wanting to attack the perceived opposite viewpoint, is more than anything the single defining characteristic of a lot of communities on Lemmy. I’ll say it that way. To me, that’s a good thing. I was actually really happy when I came here originally and found tankies and anarchists. It speaks to (a) people who care about politics, which speaking as a terminally online weirdo I really like (b) a diversity of viewpoints. It’s a good thing. Now you’re trying to turn it around into because his viewpoint is one you don’t agree with, he’s all of a sudden a big doo doo head because he cares about it enough to argue about it… while, presumably, caring so much about it yourself that you get impassioned and start typing all heated-up about it if someone disagrees with you.
To me, arguing about politics and having strong opinions about it is fine. It is one of the defining features of Lemmy. It sounds like you’re all of a sudden only deciding that it’s this stupid loser weirdo behavior because he has a different viewpoint than you, and because you can’t handle that, you have to try to spin around in any direction you can to find something to use to attack him with. Instead of just debating with him on the merits of whatever it is (or, alternatively, just leaving it alone like a more normal person).
How’d I do at avoiding the fallacy?
Man, I gotta go make my own little whiny community on pifed, so then maybe the great Philip the Bucket won’t see me as such a loser.
No need! Your instance will happily ban anyone who disagrees with you too loudly, so you don’t need to, the whiny little community is already created for you.
Oh shit I blew it at the end lol
They’re the real victims here. After all, someone ambushed them and started talking about politics, which they have clearly specified in their profiles as something they don’t consent to speaking or hearing about.
Don’t even get me started on the idea of someone doing moderation about a political topic. On Lemmy.
Cool! Now accuse him of caring way too much about politics, and getting in heated debates about it like a LOSER, speaking as you are from your lemmy.ml address. That’ll make perfect sense too.
It’s hilarious to me that this whole community of people is having a days-long freakout about what a big deal it is that PugJesus commits this multitude of sins (which have gradually reduced in scope from “abusive” “transphobic” “zionist” whatever else into “he’s a liberal” (allegedly) “he argues about politics and I think that shouldn’t be allowed apparently”)… while also accusing him of caring way too much and being a loser therefore.
Y’all should follow your own advice, and get a life and stop freaking out about what some other person on Lemmy did.
Even beyond the transparent transphobic trolling they were displaying in the first place, even after Ada got reports that they were actively encouraging other users to harm themselves and other objectively rule-breaking behavior, she was still going to bat for them and refusing to take any action (and still taking action against anyone who criticized them), and basically explained that it was because she felt bad that they were getting so much abuse so she was willing to overlook their misbehavior. Eventually, they did something to Ada, and at that point, she suddenly realized they were bad, and evicted them.
Everybody makes mistakes and misjudgements. It’s fine. But I feel like Ada has probably experienced things in her life that make it feel like pronouns are the most important thing, for example more important even than kicking out an obvious troll or making a safe space for queer people who are looking for a place to be but don’t 100% agree with or obey her stance on certain things. I think it makes her susceptible to viewing every situation through that singular lens, and thinking anyone viewing it through any other lens at all must be being evil on purpose (and then going on the attack against them). Q.v., comments elsewhere in this thread.
I have no idea. I tried to talk sense into her elsewhere in these comments, got nowhere, and oh well.
So many people are thin skinned and have nothing better to do than to spend their OWN FREE TIME making other people less happy. Imagine instead of having fun or relaxing or playing a game or going outside or hanging with friends … you stomp on other people because they have a differing opinion or said something you didn’t like.
Thank you! Yeah, I 100% agree with all of this.
This person should not be a mod. This person has a miserable life.
Wait… do you mean PugJesus, or the person that banned him? I was 100% on board when I interpreted it as “the person that banned him,” yes.
This thread seems 100% full of people steaming up fake drama as enthusiastically as they possibly can, while also, accusing PJ of stirring up drama and apparently saying he should be banned for it.
of course, it didn’t actually say what you claim it did
I’m shocked
I’m really not trying to get drawn into giving this whole nonsense more energy than it deserves, but it is absolutely wild to me that it’s so common within this thread to think:
- PugJesus downvotes, gets mad about politics: WAR CRIMES
- People call PugJesus direct personal insults or make up literal nonsense to accuse him of to stir drama, also get mad about politics: Fine, all is well
Like if you’re starting from first principles and picking the one that should be complained about I know which one I would pick.
Yeah. The whole thing is stupid. I’m moderately confident that this is either:
- People ganging up as a very organized effort to try to bully you out of the space as they did FlyingSquid, when you (I think with every righteous reason) decide this bullshit is unpleasant and unfair and you don’t feel like putting up with it anymore. I’ve already semi-abandoned the political spaces on lemmy.world, not even because I was getting bullied with any level of success, but just because the overall flavor of the interaction is so toxic and fact-free.
- People who are just operating on pure tribalism. It’s fine for them to accuse you of all kinds of stuff you objectively didn’t do, call you a twat and a loser, all kinds of stuff. It’s not fair for you to argue about politics or downvote people, those are evidence of toxicity and sins. Because they’re on the “right” team and you’re on the “neoliberal enemy” team, so they can do what they want, you can’t. Reminiscent of a popular political viewpoint in the US…
Honestly, I wouldn’t even stress about it. I get the impulse to try to defend yourself vigorously from this stuff but they’re not going to listen to anything sensible anyway, and they’ll be able to cherry pick instances of you getting upset to use later as proof that you’re some kind of monster. If you want my advice about how to look at it.
When did he say that? Are you sure he didn’t say some totally different and more sensible thing that you’re choosing to wildly exaggerate into that?
I can actually pretty much guarantee that that’s not what he said. I guess I missed some LW politics community drama that he was involved with, so sure maybe my side was wrong initially, but I’m pretty confident that particularly the second part of that is just some kind of trumped-up misinterpretation of what he actually said.
That’s very clearly a troll trying to make anyone who’s against .ml and friends look bad. I can’t tell if the cartoonish over-the-top way they’re doing it is a mistake, because a more subtle believable approach would have stirred the pot more effectively, or a wise decision because people are so simple-minded that they’ll take even that at face value.
Do you think this creates a good image for piefed and detractors of the ‘tankie troika’
I think it creates a bad image, I think that’s why they are doing it.
Let’s try this approach:
I certainly do not see enforcing a safe space as policing identity.
What’s an example I brought up about how Ada could have made the space safer, if only she wasn’t apparently hung up on pronouns as the one and only most critical thing that defines whether or not the space is safe?
Banning them for repeated invalidation of others’ identities is not policing their identity.
My example of gatekeeping actually had nothing to do with PJ (or, for that matter, with policing anyone’s identity specifically). What was the example?
I strongly dislike the “just asking questions” polite veneer of your comments while very intentionally dodging the elephant in the room, which is that the user did wrong for the space they were in, regardless if you agree or not.
Way up at the beginning of the conversation when I brought up a couple of examples (my opinion, for whatever it’s worth, for what the “right way” or an alternative way would have been to approach this whole situation and enforce the rules of the community), did it include PJ getting banned and anyone else who didn’t do the pronouns in the approved way getting banned? What was the critical difference in the two ways of approaching it I modeled (was it banned vs. not banned, or was it something different)?
If you genuinely believe they’re the same thing, you’ve got a lot of work to do.
Okey dokey.
This is what I was talking about: You’re taking the role of a teacher talking to a thick or disobedient student, instead of just us having a conversation. I do take that tone too sometimes, but usually it’s when I’m being sarcastic or jerky about something on purpose. It’s not actually how I look at my role vs. the other person in the conversation. This is like I said why I think the “privileged user who tells other users what to do” role is a toxic thing that Lemmy creates for certain people in the interactions.
I feel like I explained pretty clearly what in my opinion the issue is, and you’re just reiterating your favored definitions for all of these words (ignoring anything I had to say about the validity) and again how things really operate… which, okay. I feel like there’s not a lot of point in going back and forth about it, you can just read again the message you just replied to, if you want my answer about this stuff.
The absolutely constant use of the terminology of “misgendering,” “gatekeeping other people’s identities,” “causing deliberate harm,” and things like that, as opposed to “yes you have a point and you don’t seem to be intending harm BUT…” is what makes it different. You can look around the thread and see some examples.
Like I say, I think we’re just not going to see eye to eye on it, which is okay.
I did it again, typed a bunch of tit-for-tat stuff and then deleted it. Here’s my attempt to get to the heart of the matter (partially from elsewhere in this thread):
If blahaj admins would just be straight-up about it, and say “Listen. This dragon person is clearly a troll, and we’re banning them for that reason, but we don’t want to allow people to decide pronouns on a case-by-case basis. In this case, the rule produces a stupid result, but that’s the rule we settled on and we have good reasons not to bend it in any circumstance or have to have long debates about this stuff every week, so please respect it or we will ban you,” I don’t think there would be any kind of issue. That’s a decent and human-to-human interaction that gets across the point and still respects the good reasons for the rule. To me (and maybe you may disagree with this), it seemed like instead of that they said “HOW DARE YOU MISGENDER THIS PERSON YOU TRANSPHOBIA ADJACENT BIGOT” and then went on to (as in the current post) continue to whine about how horrible it was that anyone was trying to point out that (a) the user in question was clearly a transphobic troll (b) blahaj going to bat for them was ridiculous. And, you still constantly talk about how those people were wrong, and bigoted, and shouldn’t be talking that way even off the blahaj instance.
Same for banning PJ. It would be fine if you said “He was kind of pushy about trying to make his point and although he clearly wasn’t coming from any hostile place, we tried explaining the rules and he kept doing it, so we banned him.” But no. It’s “repeatedly and deliberately doing harm,” complaining about him trying to justify himself off-instance after the ban like he is required to just shut up and take it instead of voicing his side of the story, “positioning themselves as the arbiter of other folks validity and identity,” all this apocalyptic stuff.
I mean… aren’t you positioning yourself as the arbiter of other folks’ validity and identity? You positioned yourself as the protector of LGBTQ+ people but you have no problem booting them from your space if they don’t adhere to your precise details of what that means. (Like, for example, protecting the space from obviously-transphobic trolls, I feel like some of them would think you should be proactive about.) When you boot them for not adhering to that, isn’t that… gatekeeping? Or no?
I think we’re probably just not going to see eye to eye on this. I specifically didn’t want to get dragged into this whole tarpit of tribal bitterness, but then I waded into it deliberately on purpose, so that’s on me I guess.
I actually wrote and then just deleted some stuff, because what’s the point. I feel like I’ve said what I had to say on it and you have a differing point of view. All good. I’ll leave only the thing I think gets to the heart of it:
If blahaj admins would just be straight-up about it, and say “Listen. This dragon person is clearly a troll, and we’re banning them for that reason, but we don’t want to allow people to decide pronouns on a case-by-case basis. In this case, the rule produces a stupid result, but that’s the rule we settled on and we have good reasons not to bend it in any circumstance or have to have long debates about this stuff every week, so please respect it or we will ban you,” I don’t think there would be any kind of issue. That’s a decent and human-to-human way of defining the interaction that gets across the point and still respects their good reasons for the rule. To me (and maybe you may disagree with this), it seemed like instead of that they said “HOW DARE YOU MISGENDER THIS PERSON YOU TRANSPHOBIA ADJACENT BIGOT” and then went on to (as in the current post) continue to whine about how horrible it was that anyone was trying to point out that (a) the user in question was clearly a transphobic troll (b) going to bat for them was ridiculous. And, they constantly talk about how those people were wrong, and bigoted, and shouldn’t be talking that way even off the blahaj instance.
That’s my take on it, I don’t think I want to go back and forth about it much much more, you’re welcome to the final word if you like.
Fair enough, but it’s just not impacting blahaj users. It’s not like a private forum on a server somewhere. You’re participating in a big intertwined network, but then reserving the right to run some sections of it according to these super-strict (and to me pretty arbitrary) rules, and so you’re winding up with a situation where blahaj people can talk to off-blahaj people, on some blahaj community, and some off-blahaj person can see it and respond reasonably and then get attacked, falsely accused of being transphobic, and then have it escalate into this thing where (for example, in this exact post) they’re getting kicked off being allowed to run their own forums on some whole different instance, because now they’re officially “bad” with the way they violated the dictates of the blahaj lords as part of the evidence.
If blahaj was its own private area, then sure. “Only come here if you’re okay with the rules.” That makes sense. But they’re participating in a shared network, storing their messages on other people’s servers, having posts replicated into random other sections for random people to see them, but then retreating to the “but this part of the space is MINE!” standpoint when anyone tries to raise any kind of objection to how they set up the rules for it. And also leveling this bigotry accusation if anyone doesn’t obey how they want the interaction to go.
Lol
Because I explain the reasons for what I think, and then people can decide for themselves whether it makes sense. I don’t really have to be anybody (and, indeed, I am not) for it to sway people.
There’s a whole other contingent that likes to fall back on “but I am (this identity)!” or “well I’m the moderator of (wherever)” to justify their stuff. Or, like this person, just AHAHAHAHAHA instead of reasons. I like my way better.
Yes. That’s one of the problems with the “I am lord and master of this domain, and all will obey me and my nutty definitions of words like ‘transphobia’ into some wild alternate reality” model. Human interaction doesn’t need to work that way, even if it gets more comfortable when you’re aligned with the lord and master to do it that way.
Personally I think that two things are going on here: One, the whole Lemmy model where people are divided into the lords who must be obeyed no matter how arbitrary their rules, and the people who must obey, breeds and normalizes some toxic models of interaction. And, two, basically 100% of Lemmy is already queer-friendly and trans-friendly, and so an instance that wants to “stand out” as a particularly queer-friendly instance has to keep ratcheting up the level of overt queer-friendliness of the rules of their instance until they’re again in a position of giving other people a hard time for not being queer-friendly enough. And so the inevitable conclusion is that the rules have to include things like “dragon is a gender!” and “questioning certain things I say is transphobia even when it’s not!”
Like I say, in my opinion, the whole thing is fuckin’ ridiculous. I have heard the same from queer people who have been drummed out of blahaj for exactly the same reasons (basically, having and stating opinions that aren’t the official lord-and-master opinion.) In my opinion that makes for a bad model for an instance. It’s got nothing to do with the identity of the people who are making the rules that way for the instance, it has to do with the nature of the interactions that it causes.
Is blahaj drama free?
People have pointed out some times when he intersected with some drama that I wasn’t aware of, so sure, fair enough. I guess my point is even when I look at those he definitely was not the source of the drama in the situation. He was banned from blahaj for literally just showing up and saying reasonable things. If that’s against the rules of your instance, then sure, you can do that, but don’t try to flip it around where the person showing up saying reasonable things is all of a sudden an asshole somehow.
Nothing in the comment I quoted is “adding flames to the fire.” It’s not “repeated and deliberate arguments.” Nothing is transphobic, nothing is denying anyone else’s identity. That’s why I quoted some of the actual words, to make it clear how ultimately reasonable he was being however you want to spin it into some kind of hate crime. A lot of people feel like, if they think something reasonable, they’re allowed to say it, and it’s weird and controlling for some other person to say that opinion is the incorrect opinion and demand that they not say it within certain spaces.
I get that you’re interpreting it as some kind of deliberate naughty disobedience, but you’re not his boss, you’re not his parent. The whole “moderator” / “ban” paradigm has brought in this nutty thinking where people who run an instance can be the boss of what opinions are allowed or not allowed on that instance. It’s weird. In my opinion.
- •
- 2M
- •
Oh. Makes sense then, carry on