Literally explained how the two things I said make sense together and he banned me for “not manning up to lying”
…Ironically in doing so, he did not man up about his falsehood, which is that I said contradictory things.
Clear PTB.
I didn’t read the whole comment chain because it’s rather long, but goat is consistently building straw men over what you and LibertyLizard said. For example, going out of his way to mix both meanings of the word “communist”, then as LL explained both things he idiotically answers it with “if u now you’re arguement is semantics, y r u even arguing?”.
And… speaking on general grounds, this sort of moron who’s eager to oversimplify complex matters is always a dead weight in any sort of discussion, and is best ignored as you address other users. If you must answer them, clipped/short replies like “I already addressed this” are often good.
I did read the whole thing, and this is PTB.
Only because, as a mod, you don’t just ban someone because they keep arguing with you. On dbzer0, we have the disengage rule- if mods want to ban someone for arguing, they should implement that.
From some of what I could tell the mod, goat likely thinks of communism as dictatorship due to various countries in history. I think an ideology should be based plainly on the ideology itself and people should’t judge an idealogy just based off of how it was abused.
If an ideology itself at its core is encouraging dictatorship then people won’t want to associate or talk in good faith. Even if it isn’t, if an ideology has a bad reputation, no one will want to risk it even if someone tells them that a variation is better.
I do believe the mod ‘goat’ might had had a negative bias against communism. Many do, and it’s just due to the association. Perhaps communists, and idk if you agree with this or not, but perhaps communist should start fresh, and create a newer, modern, and improved ideology for todays times. I believe for that as long that communist keep using the communist name with a bad rep, the chances of it going anywhere are minimal.
That would make sense if he hadn’t explicitly stated being a communist is not against the rules.
he clearly is open to the possibility of non authoritarian communism and just believes the definition can’t exclude it for some reason.
He banned you for a what seemed like a lot of different issue, but most notably, from you just saying your viewpoint (or the way you phrased your responses) and I don’t see a ban justified for this, however if there is even one rule you are actually violating they can ban you. I didn’t see anything personally wrong with the conversation on your side, you were mostly calm seeming and decent.
I think that the definition could exclude authoritarianism. However, the way it ended up implemented in popular examples people may point to, is what people see communism as being like. Possibly that’s what he might had felt about it as well base don some of his responses .
I don’t think correcting this perception of communism would require a specific type or form of communism, but rather just simply do vanilla communism upfront. What I mean by that is, without centralized authoritarianism. Communism by definition, is suppose to be stateless, and classless and a lack of currency. (lack of currency can be hard to achieve for imported goods, so I wouldn’t be as upset over that one not being perfect day one.) however, classless and stateless as a foundation shouldn’t be difficult. Achieving it in peace with everyone around might be another story, but actually applying it seems simple.
If some countries had actually applied it, then the issue was, there wasn’t a large number of them applying it this way and because of that, communism is known for being authoritarian to many, when it is not suppose to be like that.
PTB, and a frequent one at that.
PTB, he will ban you if he’s taking an L in a discussion.
The last comment is such an eye roller. If they don’t want to see comments from you then they should block you.
What a PTB. Clearly has an anticommunist axe to grind.
The craziest part for me is that i was just explaining what communists believe, i didn’t even endorse them, and he decided it was an argument that needed to be crushed, and I don’t think anybody who knows anything about communist philosophy would disagree with any of the things I said. He doesn’t have an axe to grind against communism, just his imaginary, completely undefined and arbitrary version of it that is comprised of whatever he doesn’t like.
Ehhh, technically you broke the rules, and a temp ban is an acceptable and appropriate action to take. Edit: to be clear, your comments could be interpreted as apologia under existing rules. It looks like it could go either way the further up the thread it goes, but by the end, it veers closer and closer to the standards of apologia set in the community sidebar.
But…
The mod’s responses in the thread were way out of acceptable lines when acting as a mod. Also against the rules in the way it was done.
So, PTB for sure, but only because the mod made it personal. If they had simply reminded you of the community rules, and applied the temp ban as a cooling tool, it would be YDI.
If you’re gonna be a mod and interact in the community, you have to hold yourself to a higher standard. It’s not easy to do, but it’s necessary.
I have not committed any apologia, I just explained what communists believe, I at no point endorsed tankiesm
That’s why I edited the comment.
The way you argued it could be taken as apologia. I have no way of knowing your intent, only what you wrote. All I (we) have access to is the thread.
It sucks, but sometimes, no matter how hard you try, shit may not read the same to everyone. People may use inaccurate words, or inaccurate usages, they may just be stupid, or have an axe to grind.
There was a point where that came up, a disagreement over what you meant vs what the mod in question thought you meant. I can’t view both this and the original thread to copy/paste a direct quote, so the basic exchange was about whether or not there was a semantic disagreement. So both of you were aware that there was a fundamental barrier in communication.
One of the mistakes made by goat was that they never, that I saw, told you “I am a mod, what you are saying is breaking a community rule”. They made their arguments as a user. Hence it being a power trip no matter what else went on.
I agree you weren’t endorsing authoritarianism. At most your were pointing to it as a flaw in the specific nations discussed. But, unfortunately, there were other sections that could go either way. Again, I reference my edit that it could be interpreted that way.
This is where it gets sticky for this community, c/ptb. There’s a point where discussing the original subject goes off topic here. So there’s a limit to how much I’ll go into it. That being said, I agreed with the point I think you were making. I just can’t ignore for this purpose that the early part of the exchange was open to interpretation, and as both of you got more (for lack of a better term) annoyed with each other that goat crossed the line of acceptable mod behavior, and you got a bit more adamant in defending your position.
Again, this is me crossing past what’s on topic for this community, but the way they have the rule written regarding apologia is not good. It could be worse, but it’s phrased in a way that’s a little too vague. That’s why the later parts veer closer and closer to their definition. Their definition is like an ant lion hole. If you’re already debating a point around authoritarian nations, as soon as there’s a disagreement, one person or another is going to have to defend their stance. Any defense could be deemed apologia after a point in that process, even when it may not be anything other than a passing point in an overall discussion.
It’s a badly constructed rule, imo. But, within that, you did cross the big, blurry line it represents. Were you wrong? No. But that’s not the point here.
If goat had straight up said, “yo, I’m a mod, you’re breaking a rule, stop it”, it would be on you entirely after that point, no matter how bad that rule is. But they didn’t. And then they kept arguing the points with you, over a decent number of comments where they could have acted as a mod and given you the warning as a mod.
Does that phrase it better? I don’t want you or anyone to get the impression that I think the mod action taken wasn’t over the line; it was. I’m trying to explain why that is, which includes that some mod intervention would have been appropriate, just not what was done.
Which, one last step into off topic, in the hopes that it might help any further discussion of this particular subject. Sometimes, when a conversation isn’t going well, insisting on defining something the way “you” (as in any individual making an argument) see it can be counterproductive, even when that definition is the most accurate one. Sometimes, shrugging off someone else’s inaccurate usage of a term or idea isn the only way to progress in a discussion that isn’t being mediated by a neutral party. Being right is only useful if being right is the goal you start with (and it’s fine to do so!). If the goal is to talk about a subject, being right is less useful than being on the same page.
He explicitly stated that being a communist is not against the rules, and I at no point endorsed or recommended even one authoritarian thing, even going so far as to clarify that I am not a marxist communist and disavowing tankiesm in clear words.
i do not think there is any argument to be made that there was any apologia at all. If I was to explain the beliefs of nazis that would not be apologia.
furthermore he didn’t ban me for apologia, he banned me for “lying”
Well, I see that the way I rephrased doesn’t match with how I intended it to read.
I’m not sure how to say it in a way that both points out that during the discussion goat was saying that you were using apologia, even though goat didn’t use that word directly that I recall; and still explains why goat was still out of line.
My goal was to point out the details of the situation that were probably the basis of the mod decision. This was to establish a framework where the mod decision could be evaluated as objectively as possible. That’s why I edited in the extra section.
I’m not sure what else you want from me. There is an upper limit to how many attempts I’ll make to rephrase things to match your preferred wording on the matter. Tbh, this is that limit.
I explained why I felt the mod action was PTB. Part of that was the possibility that they took your words as apologia. Some of those comments are written in a way that could be interpreted as such, if a mod is using very vague standards.
If that doesn’t make my intent clear, I’m sorry, but you’ll have to just accept that we don’t have the same goal, and that I already agreed that the mod action was out of line, PTB.
I don’t think there’s any chance apologia was the basis of the decision, he explicitly stated it was because of the lie he pointed out meaning I was arguing in bad faith, when I pointed out that he misinterpreted it and explained what I meant he banned me again for replying to his false allegations.
I don’t think there’s room for interpretation, he just didn’t like losing an argument and wanted to silence me. He did check me for apologia sentiment and I did as he wanted, when he couldn’t ban me for apologia he decided my arguments were in bad faith and gave me a terrible reason, I think in creating this framework to make an “objective” statement you have given him far far too much credit.
the only thing I want is the acknowledgement that I did not in fact technically break the rules. I don’t think there’s even a way to interpret what I said as apologia honestly. Even if there was, that would at best account for one of the two bans.
Damn I glanced over at the comments there and none of them interact with any of the arguments, they live in perpetual cognitive dissonance reinforcement.
Just the same 4 frases over and over again, none of them have done the slightest research, specially not out of CIA aproved propaganda.
they’re not even arguments they’re just simple statements of fact, i’m not even saying the beliefs are good, these are communist beliefs, factually. There’s nothing to argue.
PTB always has been lol
Could you perhaps include your original comment? The link isn’t loading for me for some reason.
deleted by creator
Thanks
sorry that was actually a bad link it only shows one chain
It is loading for me. He was arguing with a mod over Marx and communism, pissed him off and get 48h ban. Unnecessary in my view (and a power trip, mod shouldn’t use his powers as a mean of discussion) but the OP was somehow annoying.
