this post was submitted on 22 Jan 2025
748 points (99.2% liked)
Fediverse
29124 readers
2581 users here now
A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).
If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to [email protected]!
Rules
- Posts must be on topic.
- Be respectful of others.
- Cite the sources used for graphs and other statistics.
- Follow the general Lemmy.world rules.
Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration), Search Lemmy
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yeah as expected I went and checked the comment in question and you are definitely misrepresenting it. You are omitting the context of the post, which is like…the entire fucking problem.
The amount of times I see people go “I was banned for literally no reason!” and the like only to discover they’re not being exactly truthful is staggering.
TbF I've seen plenty of wildly inappropriate bans on Lemmy too.
No one said they never happen 🤷♂️
The context of the post: 196 which is essentially a shit posting and take nothing serious community. Yeah that context. And that it was a straight question about what she was wearing, fashion wise since you really need to hear it. So thank you for demonstrating the exact problem!
You know I just read an interesting piece about how Musk deploys plausible deniability - or rather attempts to. He thinks he’s clever and he isn’t.
I know what 196 is. The context is the image. You really can’t see any reason why you got that reaction? Really and truly?
Reaction? If you see a simple question in a shitposting community, with the image of a fashion choice that is unconventional, and think "Hmm should I interpret this as a question about fashion as he asked, or should I interpret this as he's a rapist and trying to be clever about it", if you default to thinking that the other person is obviously a rapist (as you seem to have, saying that I'm seeking plausible deniability and try to associate me with Musk and trying to be clever with rape lol), then holy fuck, and frankly that's on you. That was your reaction. Like you have to really out there to default to "he's obviously a rapist". You need to be better.
Honestly this is the perfect example of how Lemmy has a ravenous need to misinterpret. You just did it yourself.
This is such a reach dude. Also her outfit is far from “unconventional.“ But I’m not gonna get bogged down in the weeds of that one.
I remember somebody tried to talk to me recently about the economics of the third Reich without talking about the war. At some point you’re just ignoring what’s in front of you to the point where it’s dishonest.
You’re having a very real principal Skinner moment here. A lot of people are telling you the issue, yet you are hell bent on hiding behind intention. Unfortunately intention is not enough. Especially when you double down in the face of valid critiques.
I know you don’t want advice from me but I’m going to give it anyway: take a beat, step away from this conversation, then come back and think about why people may have had a negative reaction to what you said. There is an important lesson here you can pick up if you want to.
It's a reach that something can be interpreted as it was stated?
I can retrospect. Hopefully you can too because I'm going to hold up the mirror. All of the following is your thinly veiled actions (plausible deniability anyone?).
First, thinly veiled, you likened me stating people misinterpreted my question to how people are banned typically after really going off on mods. Whether you agree or not on people misinterpreting a question, those things are miles apart. Second, you, thinly veiled again, likened me to Musk. Do I need to explain the negativity of that association? Third, you, again thinly veiled, essentially said I was covering making rapist comments by trying to have plausible deniability. Fourth, you, again thinly veiled, essentially said I was covering making rapist comments by saying I was trying to be clever about it. And the doozy, fifth. Again thinly veiled, you liken me to people talking about the third Reich. Like wow. If that Nazi connotation from Elon wasn't enough, you really pulled out a doozy there. That is a crystal clear pattern of you attacking people by likening them to other people. All thinly veiled connotations so that you can later say you didn't actually make the connection (you know, plausible deniability). Or maybe you were doing it so that if I said anything, you could say "are you interpreting differently??" like a gotcha. I could explain that one too, maybe next time.
You took every chance you could to provoke, slap, and escalate. You are no longer trying to have a conversation when try to liken someone to Nazis, you just want to slap. Don't worry I'm not provoked. I just urge you to think about that.
And inb4 misreading I'm saying this not because I'm provoked or mad, I'm saying this because your pattern is clear. You want me to reflect, and I want you to reflect.