I have two chimps within, Laziness and Hyperactivity. They smoke cigs, drink yerba, fling shit at each other, and devour the face of anyone who gets close to either.
They also devour my dreams.
You won’t be getting less arthropods. Only a lower diversity of them.
For example. Most people in my city do it like the above. And 93% of the houses still have highly venomous Gaucho spiders. On the other hand since I’m trying to have a garden like the below, my garden has less of them but more of completely harmless stuff - garden spiders, native bees, crickets, butterflies, and the likes.
I’m going to reply to myself because there’s a huge discussion in the comment chain, and I’d rather speak freely than specifically address what they’re saying. And because this is 90% rant.
A country is not the people it rules over. A country is not a human being. A country is an abstract structure of power. A country is an “it”.
No country should be seen as having a “right of self defence” or crap like that; it’s the same as saying “I hate people so much I’d put them on the same level as an abstract structure.” It’s genuinely disgusting.
And someone might say “well ackshyually the Israelis have a right of self defence”. Sure; unlike the state of Israel, the Israelis are human beings, they do have the right. However (and this is important), the ones joining the war against Hamas and the Palestinians are not just “defending themselves”; they’re putting themselves at risk to defend that abstract structure.
And people keep oversimplifying this shit as if it was “Israel was attacked, so it’s self-defending”. More accurately, what’s happening is that the state of Israel was attacked by Hamas, and using the attack as excuse to kill the Palestinians.
It gets worse. The continued existence of that “it” is causing people to be killed, since it’s an ethnostate on the same level as Apartheid South Africa. By assigning “it” a human right of self-defence, you’re giving the “it” an implicit thumbs up to kill actual human beings. Now you aren’t even putting human beings on the same level as an “it”, you’re putting them below the “it”.
inb4 something that sounds pretty much like “B-but right of self defence! Apartheid South Africa is defending itself, from terrorists like Rolihlahla! Are you siding with the terrorists?”.
(I do plan to read replies but I’m not arsing myself to reply to them.)
if [[ instance == "lemmy.world" ]] && [[ topic == "Palestine" ]]; then echo "PTB"; fi
Serious now, PTB.
Since the existence of the state of Israel causes violence in the Levant, anyone defending the “survival” of that ethnostate is promoting violence. And yet you don’t see LW mods removing comments defending it - why?
Assuming some lemmy.world user is from lemmy.ml.
Assuming OsrsNeedsF2P is not in Korea, even after being shown clear evidence they are.
Assuming the user above is a “shill for fascists”, based on them saying North Korea doesn’t want to use nukes.
They (you?; IDK/DC) don’t know it. They’re assuming all this shite.
And something needs to be said about their (your?) attitude towards people based on instance: it’s both factually incorrect and morally disgusting. What they’re (you’re?) doing there is acting based on a stereotype.
Based on the modlog, I’m going to take an guess and say that the person in question posted an AI-generated image representing a fictitious but realistic child doing something sexual with an adult, and the removal entry doesn’t show in the modlog because it was purged.
“Technically” this is not CSAM, but the difference does not matter here. No sane instance allows images depicting sex with children; doubly so if it can be reasonably confused with CSAM, like AI generated images can. So, if my guess is correct, the user deserved it.
And, if my guess is wrong (it could be - I don’t know), the user still deserves a permaban, but under another reason: just look at the modlog. It boils down to the user assuming (i.e. making shit up, lying to know what they don’t) things about other users, so they can screech at them. Being an assumer on its own is already bad, but a combative assumer is even worse.
It’s absolutely civil behavior
Nah. You’re being clearly belittling through the whole thread. Too eager to voice your own opinion, but un-eager to dialogue.
[Before someone distorts the above, be aware plenty communists also do this sometimes. Including myself.]
I was asked for MY definition of it. And I gave it.
What you did is perhaps easier to see from the other side. Pretend you asked a communist their definition of communism, and they answered one of those two things:
#1 is giving you a definition. #2 isn’t. What you did there was way closer to #2 than to #1.
And by the context it’s clear Nay asked for your equivalent of #1 - because it’s known communists and non-communists use the word “communism” to refer to different things.
I speak on authority of my opinions of things because I get to do that.
Someone’s opinions can lead them to adopt one or another definition, but the definition itself is not an opinion; they’re two different cans of worms. One should not be misrepresented as the other.
I mentioned it in another comment chain, but IMO both Nay and Wren (as a user) were at fault; so while the way Wren as a mod handled Nay was correct, his behaviour as a user was really bad, and part of the reason Nay was rude - this sort of escalation takes two users*. So yes, I’m aware Wren is no voice of justice here.
About your ban, the modlog claims it to be due to “report harassment”. It might be bullshit, it might be accurate, dunno; I’d need to see the reports to take any meaningful conclusion. At least your messages (here and here) look fine for me; they’re a bit on the rougher side, but both were still within the acceptable IMO.
*before someone calls me out on my own behaviour: yes, I’m aware I do the same sometimes. It’s also bad - I’m not pretending to be a saint either.
I don’t feel I behaved as properly as I maybe should have, but I was within the rules.
Nah. t’s clear that you were not being civil in that conversation: for example
Those things might not be overtly aggressive, but they rub people off the wrong way; that is not civil behaviour IMO.
YDI: you deserved it. YDM: you deserved more.
Given the whole content of the thread I feel like 5d for each would be fair - it’s long enough to not make it look like a slap on the wrist, but short enough to acknowledge “once the ban is over you’re welcome here, but please behave better”.
Perhaps leading by example would have prevented some of the escalation though. He might want to give himself a ban for being uncivil.
100% agree on that. It’s the mod’s responsibility to set up the civility standards in a community, and Wren themself set the bar really low. You need to be way more cool-headed in a comm you mod than one you don’t.
Ignorant does not mean stupid or asshole.
What matters here is that people will interpret “ignorant” as an insult, and you have other ways to convey the same (e.g. “uninformed”, “clueless”, etc.)
Note: I actually agree with your argumentation in the thread. The issue is tone. It’s because of that tone I think you deserved it.
As a user you were also behaving poorly there; in fact your interaction with the OP sounds like two children “waaaaah, I asked you first!!11one” at each other. I’m not also blind to the blatant straw man you set up right off the bat, and that Nay was actually spot on when they asked “What -is- communism to you?”. I might agree with the way you handled Nay as a mod, but frankly? If I saw both in one of my comms I’d be giving both the same short end of the stick.
Based on the information provided ITT and the OP, YDI; potentially YDM.
You went overboard with “that doesn’t make you look ignorant” because most people will interpret it as insulting, regardless of being true or false. On itself, that wouldn’t warrant a ban, only a mod warning; and that’s exactly what the mod did.
Then you kept going. Even after the mod warning. You deserved that 1d ban, and probably more. (To be frank I don’t even see a 1d ban as a punishment, it’s more like giving time for everyone to chill their heads.)
Don’t get me wrong; I’m no saint, and I’ve probably said the same shit you said a thousand times. But in those situations you need to learn when to back off.
EDIT: based on this message, YDM for sure. Yes, the mod is also behaving a bit like an arsehole, but you’re going full pass-aggro there.
Unless demanded by local legislation, that’s a clear PTB in my book.
So. You have a link about the usage of force by the dogs of some broligarchic junta. Clearly unnecessary, unless someone thinks people in wheelchair are such a violent threat that it demands such measures. The group was arrested mostly for “Crowding, Obstructing, and Incommoding” - i.e. some “quick, find some law that fits this situation, so we can get rid of those things! Heil Chrump!”.
Then you have a commenter (the_q) correctly pointing out shit won’t progress unless people actually fight back. And another (PancakesCantKillMe) clearly quoting something; I don’t even know (or care) who this Thomas Turbano guy is, but the second comment is clearly a quote.
So, let ask me the following: accordingly to the LW mods, is self-defence violence?
Don’t get me wrong - I don’t even think they’re doing this “intentionally”. I get LW mods are full of Good Intentions®, and for the sake of some idyllic vision of pacifism, where tyrants will magically stop being tyrants if you say them “tyranny bad! EDIT WOW THANKS FOR THE GOLD, KIND STRANGER!”. However Hell is full of good intentions.
I agree with 90% of what you said, so I’ll focus only on the disagreement.
What you are proposing (to message OP to clarify what they meant) is the rational thing to do. Not what the mod did - they basically assumed why OP said it, assumptions are not rational.
PTB.
Sometimes, people express themselves poorly. And sometimes they hit some association they weren’t aware of. That’s clearly your case here; you were calling ChatGPT “she” instead of “it”, this screams “L2+” from a distance, and a quick glance at your profile shows you’re from Sweden.
So why the bloody hell is the mod in question assuming racism, due to some association native English speakers in USA do???
In that situation, they should’ve clarified that the association is seen as racist by some people. And then watch closely how you answered it; if you said something “ops, I wasn’t aware of that, my bad”, you’re probably not a racist.
(The association between minority groups in USA and “their women is masculine” was new for me too - I’m not from USA either. Thanks ratboy@hexbear for explaining it.)
OP, could you provide a Ctrl+C Ctrl+V of the conversation? It’s practically impossible to read it from the picture.
Anyway. I don’t think the voting system is the right way to handle this shit; if the mod is a troll (as other comments here say), it’s probably better to gather people affected by the troll, then contact the admins of the instance of the community in question. A few things might happen:
Either way don’t interact with the comm. Not even downvoting. You’re basically giving it activity.
I’m waiting for my yellow bell pepper to get ripe.
balsamic vinegar
That’s cheating - it goes well even with ice cream!
Serious now, I never thought about mustard. I’ll try it next time, it sounds amazing.
They make an amazing salad with the right dressing, something balancing out their bitterness.
(I use yoghurt, salt, pepper, MSG, honey, olive oil, vinegar, a bit of garlic, mixed together until emulsion. Amounts by taste. And if your cat is crazy for yoghurt, like mine, remember to reserve a tablespoon of the yoghurt for them before adding the other stuff.)
I wouldn’t say it’s less work, but it’s well worth it.