I saw this post titled “Scratch a anti-harm reductionist and a fascist bleeds” (https://lemmy.world/post/33320759)
I commented that “harm reduction” apparently means sending billions in weapons to israel while they commit genocide and shutting down campus protests speaking out against that genocide. I said that seemed pretty fascist to me.
Within an instant, they downvoted my post and banned me. Guess it’s my fault for posting in a circlejerk community, but I’m still scratching my head on how that makes me a tankie. Something tells me this mod would be calling in the tanks to suppress any dissent if they could.
This would be more fit as a reply to the original comment, no?
It’s more relevant to the conversation here of “are they worth banning because of bad faith behavior” than it is to the conversation about credit scores.
I don’t think the moderator’s dismissive language “known tankie” is really accurate or productive, even if the mod has some kind of awareness of a history of bad-faith behavior. But, it’s relevant to the ban if they have a history of bad-faith behavior, and whether they’re lying about stuff has relevance to that.
I realize I’m stepping into and increasing a whole tribal “tankie vs liberal” civil war here by weighing in, which maybe isn’t a good idea. Banning someone simply because they’re a tankie, I don’t agree with, if that’s the real reason, it’s PTB. If that is some kind of careless insulting code for some other behavior which is the actual issue, I think they should say that. But the issue from my comment is just the first thing that jumped out at me looking at the YPTB question, and I thought it definitely might be relevant and so I decided to speak on it.