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.

  • goat@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    58·
    8 days ago

    You were banned for using semantic arguments that rapes occurred.

    The UN is not a judicial body and cannot unilaterally define criminal offences within sovereign states. The UN can, however, assist and fund independent bodies to investigate, which found reasonable grounds that Hamas raped women during the 7th of October massacres.

    You can even watch some footage, testimonies of victims and witnesses, first-responder testimonies, and captured terrorist testimonies about these rapes.

    So arguing that the UN wasn’t verbatim with what the user, @PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au, said is a bad-faith position to take, it’s handwaving away that the rapes occurred and implying that the UN is a judicial body.

    Basing the entirety of your argument on ‘Well, not ALL of them were raped’ is a pretty disgusting stance that handwaves atrocities, which is in violation of the Apologia and Revisionism rule. Your ban was made permanent, and you weren’t warned beforehand, which I’m not happy with, so I can unban you within 24 hours if you so desire and if you follow the rules in the future.

    I’m also not interested in arguing about the validity of the rapes either because it’s not relevant to the thread at hand.

    • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.socialEnglish
      9·
      8 days ago

      I was addressing someone saying that ‘rapes of jewish women were widespread’, which to my ears is an unfounded characterization of a report which went to great lengths not to say anything half as definitive. If anyone in that thread was guilty of apologia or revisionism, it sure as fuck wasn’t me.

      But you’re right, this isn’t the place to argue about it. Do what you want.