this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2025
171 points (93.8% liked)

Ye Power Trippin' Bastards

1320 readers
25 users here now

This is a community in the spirit of "Am I The Asshole" where people can post their own bans from lemmy or reddit or whatever and get some feedback from others whether the ban was justified or not.

Sometimes one just wants to be able to challenge the arguments some mod made and this could be the place for that.


Posting Guidelines

All posts should follow this basic structure:

  1. Which mods/admins were being Power Tripping Bastards?
  2. What sanction did they impose (e.g. community ban, instance ban, removed comment)?
  3. Provide a screenshot of the relevant modlog entry (don’t de-obfuscate mod names).
  4. Provide a screenshot and explanation of the cause of the sanction (e.g. the post/comment that was removed, or got you banned).
  5. Explain why you think its unfair and how you would like the situation to be remedied.

Rules


Expect to receive feedback about your posts, they might even be negative.

Make sure you follow this instance's code of conduct. In other words we won't allow bellyaching about being sanctioned for hate speech or bigotry.

YTPB matrix channel: For real-time discussions about bastards or to appeal mod actions in YPTB itself.


Some acronyms you might see.


Relevant comms

founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS
 

How deep are they willing to guzzle that Nazi boot?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 28 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Who do we need to be fair to? Nazi sympathizers?

That aside, does that mean libraries in NL aren’t allowed to carry books that quote Thomas Jefferson? I doubt they have any risk of law enforcement beating their doors down over that…

[–] outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 2 days ago (1 children)

who shoukd we be fair to? nazis?

Yep. And nobody else. To do otherwise would be illiberal and amtisemitic and communist.

[–] GuyFawkes@midwest.social 4 points 2 days ago

Look out, pointing out that abiding by their rules will lead to no change will get you downvoted to hell because people want to feel like their ineffective actions mean something.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 11 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I'm not agreeing with the mods, I haven't even looked into the details. I'm pretty sure it is legal to advocate violence in books (or, for that matter, on the internet), it's just that in the weird quasi-legal regulatory space that is moderated forums it is a universal no no.

I'm just saying that if the mods are accusing Thomas Jefferson quotes of advocating violence, they are probably right, because he was a big and unapologetic advocate of violence in some circumstances.

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 19 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

It is illegal only if it is reasonably going to trigger or calls for any immediate lawlessness. Like straight up trying to get a bunch of people together to knock-over a convenience store or actually organizing a murder.

Saying "man, I wish this evil son of a removed took a round in the face" is not such a time. Niether is quoting someone else suggesting violence as a path towards liberty.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 11 points 2 days ago

Correctamundo. It's called the Brandenburg test.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

it’s just that in the weird quasi-legal regulatory space that is moderated forums it is a universal no no.

Where the fuck did you get a nonsense idea like that?

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Which side of it?

The side that it's not actually illegal to advocate violence? "To cross the legal threshold from protected to unprotected speech, the Supreme Court held the speaker must intend to incite or produce imminent lawless action, and the speaker's words or conduct must be likely to produce such action. These requirements are known as the Brandenburg test." Unless there's a decent likelihood that me talking on the internet will actually lead to whatever I'm talking about happening, it's okay to talk about, which leaves a massive grey area.

Or the side that threats of violence are not allowed on most moderated spaces on the internet? I'm not sure how I could give you a citation for that one, would you settle for citations from like 5 of the biggest social media platforms as a stand-in?

[–] grue@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago (2 children)

The way you phrased it made it sound like social media was somehow being forced to do it rather than choosing to do it themselves.

Opposite. Was clear to me; excessive cya, or just wanting to.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

To you, it sounded that way, maybe.

Or, it's possible that you didn't really care whether it "sounded" like I was saying that weird and not true thing (who would even be forcing those social media platforms to do this? "The" government? The devs? The server owners? The corporate owners, of the ones that are corporate which wasn't what we were talking about?), and just wanted to play the favorite Lemmy game of pretending someone said something everyone knows is false, so you can waste time and typing of all people involved by pretending that absurd thing is what they said and then starting to curse and be hostile at them about how stupid they are for saying that absurd thing they never said. It is fun to do that. Popular too! Have fun with it. Any time you want to join us in the conversation we're actually having you are welcome to do that too, though.

[–] grue@lemmy.world -1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

How the fuck else was I supposed to interpret "weird quasi-legal regulatory space," asshole? Jeez, bite my head off for an honest mistake due to your unclear phrasing, why don't you!

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 4 points 2 days ago

I'm biting your head off because you said, "Where the fuck did you get a nonsense idea like that?"

You can't come in hot after totally misunderstanding what everyone else seemed to have no trouble understanding, and then getting super-hostile and cursing about it, and then all of a sudden now be concerned about the importance and value of not "biting heads off" based on a misunderstanding.

I'm just going to pretend you said, "Hey, that is a really good point, I shouldn't have tried to bite your head off, sorry about that. I can understand that most people on most social media are going to have a negative reaction to being talked to that way, and when I'm on the receiving end, it is all of a sudden different than the guns blazing fun time I was having with it initially."