My favorite retort to those advocating for running over protesters:
If it’s OK for you to run over protesters blocking your path on the highway, it’s also OK for me to set fire to your car if you park it in the bike lane.
My ex father in law was badly injured running into a car broken down, parked in a bike lane (there wasn’t anywhere else they could have stopped). He was training for a triathlon which he didn’t get to participate in, nursing two broken arms
Sometimes even without the help of arseholes your bike lane may be blocked. Look up regularly, people.
Yeah, but to know which car to burn down you’d have to see them run over you and by that time ur dead.
Well we don’t have bike lanes so I’d say go for it
I’d downvote you for being smug but man, if whatever shithole you live in doesn’t even have bike lanes your day-to-day has got to be miserable enough already.
It just means you have to have a car, or have Uber money or be good friends with someone with a car. There are zero other options.
Rural America?
No I’m in a metro area with over 2 million people, just not in the very center of it. But still solidly in what you would call the city. There are no sidewalks, bike lanes, buses, trains… not even shoulders on the road. Just occasional memorials to dead pedestrians and cyclists.
Houston? I lived in Texas for a year and I couldn’t believe how few sidewalks there were. I was forced to walk on the edge of people’s lawn a few times and one guy actually ran out of his house and started screaming at me. He truly rather see me walk in the middle of the road and get ran over than see a young service member safely walk on his grass. The kicker was that he had a big American flag out in front which is peak irony because one cannot love their country if they do not love their fellow countrymen
I wouldn’t park in a bike lane because I’m not an idiot.
I also wouldn’t block a live roadway for a protest as it is just inconveniencing others and would only alienate them from the cause I’m trying to advocate for, also because I’m not an idiot.
No movement ever accomplished anything by being convenient and quiet
Oh lordy, preach it. The louder we can all get, the more annoying we get. Which is the goal.
And these movements are doing worse than nothing by not aiming their protest at what they are protesting. The anti oil ones especially are actually funded by the oil companies to make environmental protesters look bad.
And then those allegations are negated by being published by opponents of the protest. It’s a shitshow all the way to the top.
This is a style of protest where I really have a problem. My stance on it is “protest however you like, do not block roads”. I understand that the point of a protest is to be disruptive but I feel like that is a line too easily crossed.
An example I expirenced was a long time ago when I lived in Boston and there was some climate protestors that did their stunt on mass pike (the big highway into the city). They put a pipe through a bunch 55-gallon drums, dragged them out of their trucks onto the highway, handcuffed themselves to another protester in the pipe, and then filled the drum with instant concrete. Blocked traffic for hours while the cops had to cut them out of their contraptions. The problem was that there were several emergency vehicles stuck in the jam that they made, while protesting is an admirable persuit, these people caused the
deaths of atleast 2 others(the redirection of emergency services, and endangered the lives of random individuals) because the ambulance they were in got stuck in the gridlock.IIRC, most of the protestors got manslaughter or worse charges and spent a few years in prision. (Edit: It was pointed out I am misremembering the concequences for its organizers and what they were protesting, the point still stands)This may just be a random internet tale to most, but it really should highlight that protesting must be more than random disruption and it has to be coordinated (within itself and with local municipalities), otherwise people get hurt.
Fun fact, that event is easily searchable.
Either your memory of the event is falling, or you’re lying.
It was a racial justice protest.
Nobody died. One man with life threatening injuries went to a different hospital and no further news was reported on that.
Nobody was charged with manslaughter, the most serious charge was disorderly conduct.
That’s what a disruptive protest looks like though. If workers go on a general strike, do you honestly think that won’t cause some people to die from losing access to vital services? Every protest or action that secured the rights you have today resulted in some innocent bystanders dying. Hell, think about how many innocent people had their lives disrupted due to the Civil War. When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on the bus, do you think that didn’t cause disruption to normal bus operations that day?
In truth, I think you just want protests that are easy to ignore. You seem the kind of moderate MLK said was the greatest threat to progress. You’re not openly opposed to progress, but you don’t want change to cause any kind of disruption that might conceivably hurt or inconvenience someone. And unfortunately, we live in a society where everything is connected to everything. You can’t disrupt it without putting life and limb on the line somewhere.
So, I challenge you this. You said you don’t mind disruptive protest, but just not like blocking the roads like that. Can you give a few examples of disruptive protests you would approve of?
Personally. Im all in favor of any financal disruption to businesses, do walk outs, sit-ins, strike, most any other form of protest. I feel like the line is crossed when public infrastructure or essential services are unnessesarly impacted. It shows that the participants lack the planning capacity to select their venue appropratly.
Going to go out on a limb and hope the mods dont whack this post (Hi .LW mods), but Luigi has the right idea (minus the murder part… Bit too late to workshop that though). His protest was targeted at the individauls responsible for supporting the problem in the first place. A vast majority of the decision makers in the world are not elected, they can not be voted out of their money and influence.
This is why I aplaud most protesters, but climate groups almost always seem to miss the mark. Bringing attention to a topic does not change policy, throwing tomato sauce at a painting or being an intentional cockwomble in traffic only inconviences those who have no power to effect change.
Traffic disruptions do not work on people who can afford private jets. Be better protester, and have standards.
This is why I aplaud most protesters, but climate groups almost always seem to miss the mark. Bringing attention to a topic does not change policy, throwing tomato sauce at a painting or being an intentional cockwomble in traffic only inconviences those who have no power to effect change.
But climate change groups are “target[ing] the individuals responsible for supporting the problem in the first place” when they block drivers.
People are largely too poor to live close to work and anyone who works the kind of inconsistent shifts lots of peoplework can’t carpool. They also aren’t the ones fighting work from home
First of all, I have doubts about the degree of overlap between the two groups of people you mentioned. Jobs with inconsistent shifts tend to be things like food service and retail, which are distributed and local enough that anybody working such a job should be picking one they live near. Conversely, jobs specialized enough to be worth commuting a longer distance to are more likely to have consistent shifts, making carpooling more likely to be viable.
Second and more importantly, “work from home” is only one aspect of the problem and being among the executives fighting it is hardly the only thing that would make a person part of the problem. That gets us back to your first claim: “people are largely too poor to live close to work.” No, they largely are not. They’re too poor to live close to work and have a single-family house with a yard at the same time, and they choose to prioritize the latter. That not only makes them directly responsible by participating in the traffic that they’re in, it also makes them indirectly responsible by demanding policies like low-density zoning that inflates supply of single-family houses while restricting supply of dense multifamily housing. This subsidizes the price of the former, drives up the price of the latter, and physically displaces even some of the people who would like to live in dense multifamily out into the suburbs.
things like food service and retail, which are distributed and local enough that anybody working such a job should be picking one they live near
This is a pretty huge fantasy. Jobs like that have a strong tendency to be clustered around expensive business districts where those who work can’t afford to live. The average commute is half an hour by car or an hour by bus.
people are largely too poor to live close to work.” No, they largely are not.
Outside of your fantasies they actually are. The average single family home is now 589k and many old folks are burning down the equity in their home rather than passing them down. Also its not much of a solution to tell everyone to move in from suburbia to the city to rent from a slumlord when there isn’t enough housing there NOW. A fraction could move in but it doesn’t scale to the rest of them until we actually build more housing in the places people want to live.
I don’t see how carpooling is relevant here at all. Even if you carpool or take a bus, you still need the road and wouldn’t be able to commute if that road gets blocked off.
The person said the people on the road were responsible for the climate issue when individual decisions other than whom to vote for often has limited impact. If we want to effect meaningful change we need collective action on the part of our nation and government not just individuals.
Putting the blame on individuals knowing that the sum total effect of best case individual action means jack shit is a way to defect attention away from the decision makers whose actions actually have some hope of changing our trajectory.
And if those walk out or sit ins were successful, would people not also die? Imagine a vast coordinated effort. Thousands of climate protesters break into various oil processing and refining plants and do everything they can to disrupt operations without killing anyone directly. They throw emergency stop switches. The close valves and epoxy them shut. They drain critical pipe segments and then cut them open with torches. And they chain themselves to equipment. Or maybe they just force everyone out of the facility at gunpoint and set the whole place on fire. Through their efforts, they substantially reduce US oil production for a period of time. That’s what a disruptive protest of the kind you’re suggesting looks like. Direct action against the most offending industries, done in a way that takes no human life.
And yet, people would still die. What good is an unblocked road if you don’t have fuel? People would lose their jobs because they couldn’t afford the fuel. People in critical condition would die, unable to get to the hospital.
The point is that any event that actually seriously disrupts the operation of any major company or industry is going to inevitably hurt regular uninvolved people as well. We live in a system and all that.
And the point of blocking roads is not to “draw attention.” The point of direct actions like that is to cause economic disruption. The key thing to keep in mind is that the truly wealthy are highly diversified in their investments. Those with the real power to change things aren’t moved by a single factory somewhere being inconvenienced. Change in societies like ours really only happen when the reform movement, whether peaceful or violent, grows to such an extent that it risks taking a serious chunk out of nationwide GDP. All the people at the top really care about is money. And there really isn’t any way to hurt them financially without throwing a wrench into the gears of the entire economy.
That is ultimately what it took for the Civil Rights movement to secure its victories. Black people then were around 12-15% of the population. That number of people is never going to be able to secure their rights on their own through the ballot box. But even 1% of the population working together through direct and indirect action can be enough to grind an entire national economy to a screeching halt. Historically, that is what it has taken for any group to ever secure rights from their oppressors. Asking nicely never works. It always comes down to, “compromise with us, or we will (metaphorically or literally) burn this whole place down.”
Change and reform are disruptive by nature. There is no such thing as a successful reform movement that only hurts a few narrowly defined perpetrators.
There is a tangible difference between cutting off utility infrastructure and the fallout from shutting down oil refineries. Sabotaging a substation or power plant, blocking vital thorofares, shutting down water plants, etc will cause direct deaths and fall more in line with an attack on the population than a protest. That is what certain countries are doing to their neighbors and we rightly condemn that even in war.
Causing a drop in available fuel through refinery or pipeline embargo or sabotage would at worst cause rationing and prioritization to emergency services. This will of course cause damage to those that rely on transportation, but allows the ability to plan for/around that infrastructure disruption does not.
Blocking roads is the least impactful infrastructure disruption obviously, but disruption of fire, police, and other emergency services is still a more direct impact than what would amount to the 70s oil embargo.
When we get into acceptable losses, it can sound like the “left’s” equivalent to gun rights. I am not saying these are the same, or of the same magnitudes, just that the argument is made for how many gun deaths are acceptable to retain fundamental liberties. Both are probably important discussions to have, but there will be people who is answered to both will be zero or who don’t even want to engage with such a topic.
Firstly, your hyoptheical protest is no such thing and a strawman, that is an act of war, expected of despots and revolutionaries, not groups of rational individuals demanding change. It also highlights my point, you stated that reform movements begin to gain steam when a critical mass of the population backs them, how can a group expect to gain such a following when their protests cost proportionaly more to the people you need to support your cause than it does to the people actually making the decisions?
How do you expect to find supporters if you cost average people a measurable portion of their living. I did some napkin math, assume a days worth of hourly work at 15$, before income tax, thats ~120$, versus an oil C-suite who according to my search take home ~24m a year (does not include the other parts of their pay and benifits) meaning you have to cost them ~100k of their personal take-home income to proportionaly effect them the same way. This is not worth noticing for the suit (notice how all those Return-to-office articles only mention normal workers and not executives) and personally damaging loss of income for the average person who statistically has little savings.
This was my point about being better protestors, damaging or disrupting public infrastructure (roads, rails, things essential to emergency services) should be reconsidered as venues for the protest because its disruption alienates the people who you would like to support your cause, is ignored by the people with the power to affect the change being demanded and makes the protestors themselves look like fools.
Apologies for the late reply, people got to sleep ya know.
Personally. Im all in favor of any financal disruption to businesses, do walk outs, sit-ins, strike, most any other form of protest.
Provided they are ineffective and easily ignored.
Traffic disruptions do not work on people who can afford private jets.
they’re not trying to sway the jet riders. what a fantastically incorrect takeaway. goddamn.
Be better protester, and have standards.
you don’t understand how any of this works, obviously. just an angry moron who’s upset a road got closed that one time.
Then argue against my point, (did a quick search) the Stanford University debate rubric has “respect for the other team” as the first field. Insults will reduce score and also indicates you do not have a rebuttle (also a points reduction). Im simply trying to get my replies to work through the logic of the discussion.
yet another concern troll. blocked
I see you didn’t reply to @WoodScientist@lemmy.world. It’s a long comment but I think it tweaks at your preference in an interesting way
People got to sleep yall, also thanks for the discussion, trying to treat this like a formal debate, but its a tough crowd…
deleted by creator
“I see your point, but… downvotes” -Lemmy
The person proposed that people protesting climate change shouldn’t block roads because cars are more important (or something - they didn’t argue all that thoroughly and their one example wasn’t as they described it)
I think they deserve the down votes
I think the point is that making people hate you isn’t going to bring them to your side. If you look at the successful protests throughout history, you’ll find that none of them tried to make the general public hate them.
The goal isn’t to get random people hearing about it to support you. The goal is to sabotage and disrupt fossil fuel production or consumption. Being inconvenient is the entire point.
If that was the goal, they are even less successful than I thought. No wonder the big oil companies are willing to fund them.
This is indeed what the masses do on every social platform. Too lazy to have a discussion or formulating a response. Down vote, and on with my day, let’s go. 👉
I see at least a dozen of answers, and they all add something to the discussion instead of just repeating “don’t block traffic”.
I said “the masses”.
The “logic” goes like this: (sarcasm)
It’s ok to burn down the planet for profit. It’s ok to destroy the ecosystem on which we all depend for food, clean water. It’s ok to make bombs and sell them to those dropping them on hospitals and children. It’s ok to pollute the air with deadly particles no one can avoid.
But you just CANNOT… you just CANNOT be in a way of someone carrying a few tons of steel of a metal cage through a city. That’s not something that we as a society will accept
Can any lawyers answer this:
If the person driving that vehicle did end up running someone over, and had that sign in the window, would they get an elevated charge?
To me, that sort of thing is like premeditation, and it would be extremely hard for me to believe that an “accident” led to them killing someone with their vehicle.
Not a lawyer, but I think stuff like this is a minefield. The defense would try to get it thrown out as prejudicial and without the suspect testifying all they could do is show a picture to an officer of it who affirms that he saw it on the car and enter it into evidence, but they could only indirectly talk about it in opening and closing because nobody can personally testify about the motivations behind the sticker.
But if the defense was “I panicked and hit the gas when people surrounded me” this is something that would poke quite a few holes in that argument.
It could, its just hard for the prosecution to handle. Because it’s not direct evidence of the mindset for that incident and it’s inflammatory to the jury the chances of it being ruled as prejudicial and not probative is high. That’s why past criminal convictions are also often excluded from trials.
It shouldn’t. I think people put far too much value on motive. Dead is dead. If I am killed by a gun or car it doesn’t make any difference to me or my loved ones who will never see me again. Likewise, if I had a kid who was killed by a school shooter or someone who was gooning to his phone while driving, I would hate them both equally. Motive can’t bring back the dead.
Obviously motive has some value, but it shouldn’t be the difference between a few weeks of community service vs a lifetime in jail. Motive shouldn’t have more weight than the actual consequences of our actions because that is insane and gives people this fucked up idea that they don’t need to worry about preventing the deaths of others as long as they don’t intentionally kill anyone they can drive like the most selfish asshole in the world and they will never go to jail
Not a lawyer but, premeditation isn’t what you think it is; one can premeditate an action in seconds, the concept really just conveys that the individual had time to think of the consequences.
But yeah, a sticker like this would certainly hurt the case of any defendant. It wouldn’t likely get them any modifiers (though it would help), but it could definitely affect a judge’s decision on how much time they should serve.
I think it would be easy to defend against, with so many of those stickers around it could easily demonstrate just a particular sense of humour
Should we tell them their family joined the protest?
I care.
Wow can’t believe you support the nazi rallies /s
Sounds like one of those “no lives matter” militant extremist white supremacists.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Ok weirdo
Ok moron
deleted by creator
IDK which mod removed this for “Promoting Violence” but whichever of you it was, I love you.
The hell do you think is the point of a protest that isnt distuptive?
Disruptive?
I know the point of the protest, but protesting doesn’t entail endangering other people’s lives and/or property.
People still have a right to defend themselves and/or property.
Standing in the road when you have a permit to do so? Sure. Standing on the highway where it’s illegal? That’s stupid. I’ve seen clips of “protestors” pulling people out of their cars and beating them down.
There’s a point to where these so-called protests have lost their effectiveness. People will look past the point after you burn so many cop cars or buildings, vandalizing cars or monuments, etc.
Say what you want. But there’s a line that shouldn’t be crossed, and it’s crossed often.
If you’re doing something illegal while protesting, your point fades away when you get arrested.
I’d like to protest my union’s (NALC) shitty contract, but we have a no strike clause. So we can’t “protest” by standing in the middle of the road to “disrupt” traffic.
We simply vote “no” and make them try again.
There’s a difference between “disruptive” and “effective”.
Hot take: DON’T FUCKING BLOCK ROADS WHILE PROTESTING!!
There’s a difference if you announce prior the specific highways or roads that’ll be blocked, but sitting in front of cars that are going about their business is shitty behaviour. Looking at you “Just Stop Oil”.
“Don’t disrupt anything with your protest. Be small, and unseen.”
“Also, don’t interfere with the operation of your boss’s business when striking. It’s really shitty when they lose revenue, and when I don’t get my doodads in a timely manner!”
Way to miss the point there buddy. Don’t interfere with regular civilians is the point. Absolutely, disrupt businesses if that’s the point of your protest. Look at the BLM protests as an example. They blocked out large swathes of roads so that no one would be able to enter. They didn’t disturb those who were already driving.
Also, no one says the protest has to be small. Press exists for a reason.
The entire point of a protest is to disrupt and inconvenience people, including civilians. Protests have no teeth otherwise.
No, but go off
You’re the one arguing that direct action should neither be direct or action.
Way to misrepresent my argument there buddy. I’m saying that it can still be direct without inconveniencing civilians going about their day, but most of you Lemmy liberals are too chaotic. Enjoy alienating potential supporters of your cause then.
I’m not a liberal. Liberal’s prime justification for sticking with the status quo certainly is that they’re “alienated”, though. That’s not the actual reason of course. The actual reason is they’re fat and happy on the current system and don’t want radical change. That’s the benefit of creating pain points, so it’s not so easy to ignore.
Splattering lives is okay,but shattering such windows is the promotion of violence? Honestly? 🔨
In capitalist US, property is more valuable than human life.
Ah, so that’s why they try to reestablish slavery. Make people property again to protect them. Got it!
Remember: You can take lives to protect property, you cannot damage property to protect lives.
Who told you that?
Rittenhouse
He was damaging property to protect lives?
His stated purpose of being there and taking his gun was to protect property (by taking lives if necessary) from people who were damaging property in order to protect lives (the BLM protests).
by taking lives if necessary
That’s an aside you’re imbuing, he never said the above.
Huh. I don’t really consider Kyle Rittenhouse a valid source of my moral philosophy, so I’ve never heard his manifesto before.
Property is more valuable than human life everywhere in the world. For example, two million children die from hunger each year. 7$ will protect a child from malaria for a season. I could save so many lives by selling everything I own and donating it to charity, and yet I don’t. And neither do you, or most of the rest of the world.
Life has value. Each of us estimates our own life to be invaluable, but the life of those farther and farther away has less and less value for us. Not because it’s not actually worth less, but because we’re tribal beings. We care about ourselves first, then our tribe, then if we have any extra resources we might care about other tribes too.
But yeah, what I’m saying is I’d let the entirety of lemmy die for a crisp 1$ note and I’d lose no sleep about it, y’all were born in the wrong tribe.
Property is more valuable than human life everywhere in the world.
No not really. There are lots of places where it wont fly in court when you kill someone to protect your property. In the US it does, all the time. They frame it differently and cry self defense or something, but we all know what actually happens.
You’re a bad person and you should stop pretending your selfish disposition is natural and immutable simply because you’ve noticed others are too. There are reasons people behave the way they do and those reasons can change.
It’s some weird sort of sarcasm/projection. He does not really mean it, I have been there, been edgy before…
Wow, you’d really let me die for $1?
I’d let myself die for $1 if it was painless and quick.
Sounds cheap enough.I’m sorry man. That’s unfortunate, and I have to hope my life is never in your hands. I hope you understand why.
Uncritical acceptance of power structures as natural extensions of humanity. Sometimes this place really is Reddit.
The mod might be referring to the sticker itself. “Don’t post bumper stickers that promote violence.”
Double standards
Edit: my mistake, it’s not visible on the screenshot, but the “i hope you get shot” didn’t get removed for promoting violence, there is no mod reply to it.
Lots of reddit communities are fascist communities
They’re a more marketable demographic.
Condoning violence against things while condemning violence against people is really not such a big contradiction, especially when said thing is used to hurt people.
Edit: Then again, a guy wanting other people to get shot probably doesn’t argue in good faith anyway.
that’s the entire conservative thought process. always protect things over people. kill a homeless person? you’re a hero. use counterfeit 20 dollar bill? get strangled to death. rape? be our president. trespassing? get shot to death.
trespassing?
This is why the last time I made a sign for a pro-choice event, I made it in the shape of a uterus with a warning sign inside it, saying, “NO TRESPASSING: Violators may be aborted.”
They value property rights, so it seems only fitting to frame access to our bodies by using their own arguments.
Condoning violence against things while condemning violence against people is really not such a big contradiction, especially when said thing is used to hurt people.
That’s opposite to what happened. They condemned violence against property, and condoned violence against a person
How can anyone be so lacking in self awareness?
It gets easier to understand once you accept that some people just operate on bad faith.
It’s a requirement for maga.
Compartmentalization.
It’s a car brain sub.
This is reddit mods in a nutshell
Similar story to how I ended up IP banned.
Story about a politician advocating for killings and kangaroo court imprisonments> i make a comment saying “yeah this guy is gonna end up dead if he tries this” > banned for threats of violence. … appeal, arguing that it wasn’t a threat. Just an acknowledgment of political volatility… suggested mods were politically biased for seeing it that way. > appeal rejected and permabanned
edit - I understand reddit mods dont issue IP bans, but I was hit for ban evasion after abandoning a cooked account that they refused to let me appeal. the ban evasion rule is a “gotcha” to make people , any and all . to go away. I only say that this time it was an IP ban because I had been perma’d before, only to immediately move to a new account I already had made (and on the same device no less).
my guess was algorithms improved /s
Yeah, Reddit moderation is… Fucky wucky. But this is also a general problem in American society. It’s perfectly okay to kill people for profit, but if you break a window you’re the bad guy doing a violence. (It may be present in others as well, I just don’t know)
Police violence is a okay. Rioting and causing property damage that’s bad.
Are you saying that because you believe it or because that’s what the system says?
I was parroting the bizarre talking point people use in response to political/social issue riots.
People will hand waive or justify violence by the police. When the public responds in anger, the response is “Can’t we think of the property!?” What these people are saying that property has more value than a human life.
This is Lemmy, probably the latter.
I certainly hope so… But I’ve seen people who unironically espouse this stuff.
May the odds ever be in our favor.
Banned for similar reason. Mod misinterpreted my wording and IP banned for inciting violence. 100 characters max in your appeal so impossible to explain yourself.
Does anyone actually have a foolproof way of dodging an IP ban? I miss participating in my city’s local sub.
I actually have a bit of a conspiracy that reddit flags accounts who don’t make them money (don’t buy coins, doesn’t use app, uses Firefox, etc) and specifically watches them for TOS violations.
deleted by creator
I was banned by a reddit admin, site wide.
sdfhjlaks;fjlk;asfjkl;sfjakl;
Both moderate content no? Anyway it’s not important, I was banned by some dumbass for no reason
sdfhjlaks;fjlk;asfjkl;sfjakl;
Both are mods
The mods don’t IP ban you. What happens is you get your account permabanned from a big subreddit like r/politics. Later in another account, you use r/politics again, either because you think the ban was clearly bullshit or you just forgot about the ban on an old account. Then reddit’s site tools kick in, see your connected accounts, and IP ban you for “ban evasion.” Individual mods won’t IP ban you, but the site will IP ban you for daring to evade the bullshit decisions of clearly biased tinpot dictator subreddit mods.
It was an account level ban issued by Reddit. The account was perma’d by an angy Reddit admit in response to my appeal reply. so once the account was cooked, I deleted it and moved onto another, and the IP ban came after, automatically, for ban evasion. Caught in a situation where I was in violation of the site wide rules just by existing, over a ban they issued out of biased rage.
so in technicality, yes, its as you said.
sadfasfsadfd
No, my account was issued an account level ban for a comment on a sub. It had nothing to do from the sub moderators. There was no interaction from them as the comment was pretty standard for the topic at hand.
Im not going to argue with you, theres what happened, and what you think happened based on a story you were told. Arguing over it is a waste of time.
sdfhjlaks;fjlk;asfjkl;sfjakl;
sadfasfsadfd
The problem is we’re talking about the main discussion forums on one of, if not the biggest, discussion sites on the internet. They allow way too much power to be in the hands of unaccountable moderators.
Want to know how my main long running account got banned from r/politics? I wondered aloud where the military was as an armed insurrection was literally storming the capital building of my country. Objectively, something like January 6th shouldn’t even be possible. I wondered why the crowd wasn’t being driven back by soldiers using automatic weapons fire. That is what a nation is SUPPOSED to do when its democracy is under siege. If you want your democracy to continue to exist, the sad truth is that yes, you have to be willing to kill people who take up arms against it. Otherwise some small well armed group will take over the whole place as you blindly cling to non-violence. My account was banned, on January 6th, as it happened, for wondering why our nation’s military was failing to defend our democracy. Later it was revealed that the military wasn’t deployed there, as Trump had specifically avoided deploying troops there as part of his plot to overthrow the election.
Or I had another account banned from a few subreddits for saying that if SCOTUS rules the president has complete criminal immunity, that he should respond by taking out a few Supreme Court justices. If the president is above the law, then he is now a dictator. And the only moral use of dictatorial power is to strip yourself of that power. In another account, I suggested on r/politics that Biden should just drone strike SCOTUS justices until they put out a ruling stripping him of that power. That got me banned for promoting violence. But the most ridiculous thing? r/politics openly allowed stories on the front page stating that the exact same thing should be done. They hold their comments section to a far higher standards than the stories they allow at the top of the r/politics feed.
Or how about getting instant banned from r/worldnews for saying anything remotely pro-Palestinian? That subreddit has been completely taken over by militant Zionists. If you have the temerity to dare to point out that, for example, the fact that the IDF has a worse civilian:combatant kill ratio than Hamas, you’ll get banned. Or, they love to make a fuss about how that UN aid agency, with thousands of employees, was found to have some Hamas members in it. Nevermind that Hamas by their nature are mostly ordinary people who work ordinary jobs. The aid agency had a much, much lower share of Hamas members than the general Gaza strip population. But if you dare to point this out, you’ll get instantly banned.
Yeah, you can cower behind the policies of reddit, “Just because you think it’s bullshit doesn’t mean you get to ban evade.” But that’s ridiculous. Unjust rules are meant to be broken. I have no respect for a reddit ban because they aren’t worthy of respect. Reddit allows their biggest, most influential subreddits to be dominate by mods who have comically biased enforcement records or who implement zero-thought, zero-context rules like their misapplication of violence in r/politics.
Yes, you can always say, “but…but…those are the rules of the site!” But this is a cop-out. It doesn’t make it any more just than any other comically unjust law or rule through history.
I don’t think I’d dare comment on anything politics, religion, environment, current events on Reddit post API change
I go there for about five special interest subs and I try to not be logged in when I want to look up something else there, to curb my tendency to reply
So that’s the position current implementation of rules of Reddit and subs have scared me into. It’s a bit of a police state, with big sub mods as secret police
sadfasfsadfd
Mods can ban you from communities, cancel any of your posts, delete any of your comments. That’s about it.
The trouble is that people are unfairly banned from subs they have followed and contributed to for years and there is no appeal other than begging the guy who just maliciously kicked you out
That’s not counting mods who are also admins and mods who are good friends with an admin. You can get a site wide ban for saying the wrong thing in front of one of them
You’re arguing in bad faith. No one is arguing that the mods aren’t violating the rules of the site. You’re clinging to that fig leaf that no one is arguing about. The real discussion is whether unelected mods should ever have that much power over such influential public forums in the first place.
In other words, you’re acting exactly like a reddit mod. Good job.
The majority of reddit subs I’ve been banned from were for posting in other unrelated subs in violation of sadly unenforced moderation rules.
Then there’s being banned from r/atheism for “egregious immorality” - I look at it as a badge of pride to be banned from an atheism sub on grounds that sound like ones only a religious sub would use.
sadfasfsadfd
I’m only proud of the one, and only because of how weirdly out of sync with what you’d expect the given reason was.
Basically every other sub I’ve ever been banned from was a “you commented on a post on a sub we’ve since decided we don’t like, so we’ve summarily banned you with a bot just in case”.
Go back to reddit if you agree with their moderation so much. You will prefer it there.
VPN, new account.
Didn’t work longer than a day.
I still miss some of it’s smaller subs being actually active enough to have a daily chat abiut the certain interest.
But i was banned from inciting violence after pointing out my life was in a weird place for being able to purchase unregistered firearms in a firearm free country, while not making enough to find a place to live (we ended up renting a 14m2 room on 2 fulltime + overtime, incomes)
I appealed, but they didn’t have it so i figured i could just make a new account which screwed me over.
sadfasfsadfd
Admins can and they are just as stupid as mods.
deleted by creator
There should be a community of “just reddit things” like this
There is a reddit community, usually used in that way.
there is but I have it blocked.
If I saw this, I would shatter it… in Minecraft only, of course.
Ah yes, the ol Minecraft defense. We almost had you.
God, I feel the same. Then I started to wonder if I could find some of mark rober’s fart liquid and find some way to put it in a dissolvable capsule that I could place at the gap between the hood and the windshield.
