Meh read the room. This is basically someone sharing a picture of their domesticated pet and you chose to inject an unsolicited position you knew would be controversial. That’s what we call being edgy, and it’s widely regarded as annoying.
Talk about an ironic username. YDI for going into a thread and immediately being accusatory and hostile towards others. This sort of behaviour would be unwelcome in most communities regardless of being on .world or not. If you had phrased things in a different, less hostile way (perhaps “I do not feel comfortable seeing horses in captivity”) then you likely wouldn’t have faced serious backlash or moderator action.
Regardless of what your beliefs are and how strongly you feel about them, being a hostile jerk will get you booted pretty fast from almost any community and it’s best to refrain from doing so if you actually want anyone to listen.
So, let’s get this straight, you went into a thread, harassed and insulted someone , and you think that’s okay?
Nah, not only did YDI, YTA. A giant, gaping, post gangbang A.
YDI for muddling a good animal liberation argument with absolute nonsense about China.
You linked a source for the animal abuse, can you link a source showing with images/video the CPC detaining Uyghurs from the past two years?
Clearly there is a reason you are on .ca and not with the based vegans on .vg or vegantheoryclub
Don’t bring the argument in here. This community is for discussing moderation.
If you bothered to look into it at all, you’d know that poster takes care of horses who would otherwise be neglected by their owners. I’ve had a few conversations and they definitely care a lot about the horses’ well-being.
YDI GFY GG NO RE
Yeah no you clearly started the flaming.
Is all pet ownership torture? Aren’t dogs technically just Stockholm syndromed into loving their owners?
Get off the internet for a while and go enjoy the weather.
You’re welcome back when you feel better.
Nah fuck that dude. Don’t come back with that negative bullshit, @Sunshine. Go to hexbear where they tolerate dipshits and trolls
Hexbear wouldn’t want her she is a CIA mouthpiece
Ban evasion so you can continue your triad against another user for their completely innocuous post definitely justifies a permanent ban from that single community.
I agree with that other user, go touch grass. You can use that time to do a lot more for animal rights than arguing with random Lemmy users ever will.
I believe you’ve misunderstood the exchange, which is understandable as it’s not that clear. Op clarified in another comment that they were informing the mod that another user was ban evading.
Oh ok, thanks for pointing that out. I was confused too!
Tirade?
I won’t talk about the [de]merits of what you’re defending.
YDI:
99.99% of Lemmy boils down to “communities where you can discuss deep issues, and soapbox to your heart’s content”. Then there are a few islands of fluff, where people share pics and make some casual, non-divisive conversation. LW/c/pics is clearly one of those islands; yet you’re trying to trigger a discussion there? “My right to soapbox precedes the right of everyone else to see fluff”.
Crazyblu is spot on: you were being passive aggressive. You could have voiced the exact same discourse (“I’m against animals being chained” or similar) in a more polite way; or, if you can’t be polite due to the topic, at least be upfront with the aggressiveness, or use a dry tone. Pass-aggro is the worse of both worlds.
The user is clearly disengaging without arguing (“I’m not having this conversation”), but you’re still insisting.
BPR:
Unless context dictates otherwise, an omitted subject gets interpreted as the first person, so your comment reads like “[I] made a new account [to] circumnavigate the block…”. As such, the mod interpreting this as you admitting ban evasion is totally justified.
When you find a user evading a ban, instead of interacting with them, you report the user to the admins.
Even then, IMO the mod should have checked if you were evading a ban, based on usernames or asking the admins for help. That’s why I’m calling this BPR instead of YDI.
“Ban evading fuck off back into your hole cretin” is not an acceptable reason. You don’t insult users in mod logs.
deleted by creator
The user refusing to engage is the same as a slaveowner refusing to talk about the harms slavery causes.
I agree with last point at least.
The user refusing to engage is the same as a slaveowner refusing to talk about the harms slavery causes.
“My soapboxing is justified!”
If you see moral issues on what users post, report to the mods. And if the mods don’t deal satisfactorily with your complain, drop the comm, block it etc. Stop trying to convert a fluff community into yet another debate community.
That would apply even if we were talking about genuine slavery of human beings.
The world does not revolve around your belly, nor around the causes that you defend, no matter how important you believe that those causes are.
[EDIT, from your edit] I agree with last point at least.
Of course you do, right? It’s the only part that I acknowledge that the mod might have done something wrong.
They’re still 90% right. The ban itself was completely deserved.
I feel like there was a bit of escalation on your end here
I did not name call or curse but the 2 commenters have.
But you did jump right into China comparisons. It’s not too far off from Godwin’s law.
Because it is a fair comparison to the situation.
It seems to me like it’s about as fair of a comparison as saying “having a dog when you only have an apartment is like slavery”.
If you would have commented on the unfortunate nature of our society pigeon holing people and their pets into these predicaments instead of being accusatory I don’t think it would have spiraled as much.
Everyone embarrasses themselves as best they can!
I don’t think this is a Lemmy world issue. I think on many instances you would also see the same behavior. Somebody sharing something genuinely, innocently, and it’s being leveraged and twisted into a political moment. That discourages people from sharing.
innocently, and it’s being leveraged and twisted into a political moment.
How can you call this innocent when horseback riding harms the horse.
Innocent from the perspective of the person who is sharing. They intended no harm, they did not want to get involved in somebody else’s agenda.
You clearly view the photograph in a different context, and you see harm. That’s fine, but if you’re going to bring that context into other people’s communities, you have to realize moderators may not want every person to be held to your standards. Hence the banning
You’re spitting venom about a horse who seems to be really well taken care of. That is a huge barn, a sizeable paddock and he even has a nicer shirt than I do.
It’s a community for posting pictures. No one wants to deal with your blatant negativity, scathing sarcasm and extremist views.
Ban justified.
Extremist views for wanting horses to live in peace without being caged in and being uncomfortably ridden on against their will.
“The slavemaster is in the right while the abolitionist is the extremist” got it.
The extremism comes from how you interact with those around you when that view comes into play and the comparaisons you make. The view that pet ownership is immoral is clearly a fringe belief in any case. So yes, extremist views.
Did you expect the screenshots you posted to make people want to side with you?
OP I think you should relax. I get what you’re trying to do but you have to understand “Okay we’re going to ban you” as a very predictable result of the personal nature of how you’ve chosen to approach it, and repeatedly trying to send the same message to people who have indicated they want you to stop. YDI
Okay we’re going to ban you
This did not say that, read the modlogs again. The horse has also indicated they dont want to be chained up, ridden on and imprisoned.
The lemmyworld instance is allowing disagreement on posts, So folks are allowed to make such comments.
“Disagreement” is fine, as was your initial comment mostly. Once someone’s heard your message, and explained to you that they don’t want to hear more, that is their right to do, and you need to stop repeatedly trying to communicate further specifically to that person that same specific message. The fact that you feel they are violating some other type of right in some other context doesn’t change that.
It’s a very different thing, saying that your general opinion is that horses shouldn’t be kept as domestic animals. That I don’t think anyone would have an issue with. It’s totally different when you are telling one specific person that they are bad, and not stopping repeating the message when asked to, or even when banned. I don’t think there is really any well-moderated forum where that’s allowed.
…Have they indicated that? We’ve only been shown a picture of a horse. That’s not enough to make that very aggressive claim.
Did you miss the chain or the cells?
No, I saw them. My point stands. Is there any thing to indicate the horse is unhappy about the chains, cells or rider? From the post itself, we have to assume the horse is pretty chill about their circumstances. Why do you assume otherwise?
Conclusions and potential relevance: Weight and a saddle induce an overall extension of the back. This may contribute to soft tissue injuries and the KSS. The data from this study may help in understanding the reaction of the equine back to the challenges imposed by man when using the animal for riding. Source
The policy is not currently in place. But if it were, it does specifically say a small amount and respectfully.
If you went with
You can’t morally justify chaining up a sentient, breathing creature for your own amusement.
And left it at that, it would have fallen under that policy, if it were in effect. As it is, with heavy passive aggressiveness and sarcasm, well, you’re on your own.
Everyone knows the Lemmy.World admin is very anti-vegan. Have a goodnight.
Civil: adequate in courtesy and politeness.
Your comments are discourteous and impolite. YDI.
