I think there are a lot of accounts on Lemmy that make a little cottage industry out of making accusations of genocide apologia any time they want to vilify someone. I think they also have multiple accounts (or coordinate between themselves), so that it's a tide of people making the same bizarro-logic attack, which of course other people then join in on because groupthink. As you've experienced it is pretty effective. Chin up lad, you're fine, they're just being dishonest and vicious for whatever reasons of their own.
In particular, if you're criticizing Bernie Sanders because he's not awesome enough, then that means you must be so awesome you're on a whole nother level. And if anyone disagrees, it just means they're not awesome, it actually proves your whole point. Job done.
it’s just people probably sharing that post in a group chat, and downvoting it
Yeah, probably. I didn't look too closely but they did look like real accounts from what I saw, and the timing to me seemed absolutely impossible to have happened that way without some kind of coordination. Isn't that the exact type of thing that they described as "abusive" and deserving of a ban when it happened to them, though? That's why I thought it was ironic and hilarious, and why I brought it up when someone else mentioned the exact same behavior from someone else who was banning for downvotes. I do think it's sort of a notable (and obvious in retrospect) confluence of behaviors, for the reasons I explained.
IIRC, at the time you were on a full “dbzer0 has turned power tripping” campaign
I guess that has changed since the post today about goat and !meanwhileongrad@sh.itjust.works just banning everyone from dbzer0
Not really. I don't operate along the lines of "everything my friends do is always fine, everything my enemies do is always bad." I do understand that a lot of people on Lemmy do seem to operate that way, but I just kind of call balls and strikes as I see them.
I'm pretty sure I actually prefaced that whole initial dbzer0 drama by saying that generally I had liked the dbzer0 team in the past, and I spent quite a long time going back and forth with db0 specifically, because if someone I usually think is a decent sort is doing something weird, I feel like they deserve hearing it directly to their face.
Overall, I walked away from that interaction thinking that the dbzer0 authority team is kind of children. I still think that, I think I was giving them minor grief more recently about doing something else that I think was dumb. But it doesn't mean that all of a sudden if goat bans anyone from dbzer0 I'm going to start to go "YEAH THEY'RE THE ENEMY GET EM GET EM." Like I say, I know a lot of people on Lemmy seem to operate that way. I do not. I think goat has been weird about a bunch of stuff (and seems actually malicious, as opposed to the /0 team which seems more just kind of childish but nothing really ill intentioned.)
Hopefully that is allowed. I feel like there's somewhat of a possibility that needling the dbzer0 admins and being publicly critical of them is going to result in them turning into Brendan Carr to my Kimmel and deciding that they're allowed to silence or punish or fight me because of that criticism.... meaning interpreting that in the mold of "dead set against dbzer0" -> "enemy" and reacting accordingly, mirror imaged to the way they react to "positive about dbzer0" -> "friend." Maybe not, the admins themselves haven't really done anything like that so far, but others like the slrpnk admins definitely have. Let's see. My general attitude to speaking my mind is more along the lines of "I can say what I want to say, even if it involves some kind of criticism of somebody, and in particular if I think you're being a blockhead I'm going to tell you about it." IDK what most of Lemmy is doing with their tribalistic alternative to that, but that's how I do it.
Hey wait, don't go. So there's a prize hidden in one of those YouTube videos: Bernie Sanders says something about AIPAC. What does he have to say about it? I'll give you an upvote if you can find it and tell me.
Yes yes please continue, I'm totally listening
Surprisingly enough, a one-sentence Twitter link has led you astray!
https://www.commondreams.org/news/sanders-force-vote-israel-weapons-sales
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/34/text
The bill blocks a particular sale by Trump of weapons to Israel. It's not just offensive weapons, it's a specific list of weapons (everything in Trump's attempt) plus some US military support services "and other related elements of logistics and program support." What's carved out of it? It looks to me like it's blocking literally the entire sale.
I am done with this exchange, it is abundantly clear that you're happy to continue talking bollocks for as long as I'm willing to respond to you. It's been educational though! Like I say, I'm a little bit surprised that people popped up to do exactly what I described in the original comment, and also in a particularly ham-handed manner that makes it pretty obvious that they're just casting around for reasons to shit on Sanders.
"I care SO MUCH about what's happening in Palestine that I CANNOT vote for Kamala Harris"
Thanks guys
Ah yes, who could forget that time he fought to continue the flow of any arms, trade, and people to the settler state. Which bill was that that he supported? What was the exception carved out, how was it carved out? Clearly I'm super clueless on this topic, what year did he introduce the bill? I want to know, maybe you can help me understand. I know there must have been hundreds if not thousands that he introduced, so just focus on one. Tell me.
Whee look at the goalposts go
Everyone knows if you're going to get a bill passed in the US Senate, the best thing you can do is include something in them where individuals can't trade with Israel anymore. Like Cuba. Just cutting off the flow of military aid would be useless and not accomplish anything, unless we included that totally possible and sensible step in addition, and then asked all the senators to vote on it.
I am honestly a little bit surprised to see so many people eager to jump up and provide examples of the type of bad faith argument I was talking about in my original comment.
If free speech applies to private businesses and they are forced by the government to host all opinions then it becomes compelled speech.
Completely agree, that would be terrible. That's not what I am talking about.
That is the antithesis of free speech, yet you somehow see it as, “look, Sinclair banning Kimmel is the same as Nazis being banned from Substack,” and they are actually not the same at all
I actually went further than saying they're "not the same," I said they're not even equivalent.
Glad to hear we agree on so many things. Including among other things the horror of the FCC going around and ordering people to remove speech on this topic. If only I'd mentioned that in some way.
Most of the people in Gaza are not attempting to fight back, they're just getting killed. It's little kids and families, mostly. I think Hamas at the start of the "war" was about 45k people... they've killed several times that number of Palestinians at this point. They're just blowing up apartment buildings, hospitals, and universities. Gaza City was the last place that had any kind of real civilian life, and they're rolling into it now (and still not allowing food, people are starving in the streets).
This is a "war" like Ted Bundy was fighting in a "war."