this post was submitted on 24 May 2025
0 points (NaN% liked)

Ye Power Trippin' Bastards

1334 readers
119 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
[email protected]
[email protected]
0
Banned from unpopularopinion for exposing person defending genocide and IDF use of human shields (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
17 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I have been banned from unpopularopinion for exposing person defending genocide and use of human shields by IDF.

One of the users in unpopularopinion thread was complaining about someone calling him a "fascist"

https://feddit.uk/comment/17531487

In response I did paste a screenshot of his comment claiming IDF are not using human shields, it is Hamas who do that:

https://feddit.uk/comment/17529782

... And the mod of unpopularopinion banned me. I can only guess he is a another genocide apologist.

top 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I’m more than happy to explain my actual views to anyone genuinely interested in hearing what I actually think about the subject - rather than what OP wants you to think I believe. I know my reply was intentionally provocative, but I stand by everything I said. You only need to compare the length of OP’s moderation history to mine to see who’s really acting in bad faith here.

Here's my responses to that thread for further context.

I’m not sure “human shield” is the correct term here. That implies using the civilian population to deter your enemy from shooting at you - which has been Hamas’ strategy from the beginning. It would make zero sense for the IDF to do that, since it wouldn’t deter anyone.

EDIT: It may be more accurate to categorize this as using a protected person to perform military duties, which is also prohibited under international humanitarian law - but it’s a different category of war crime.

Human shield is defined under Geneva Conventions as “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations”

I’m not here to deny the atrocities committed by the IDF - I’m simply questioning the legitimacy of the term in this specific context, while somewhat provocatively trying to highlight the fact that accusing Israel of using human shields is a bit like accusing Ukraine of killing civilians. While both may be technically true, it still paints a somewhat dishonest picture of the actual reality - which, in this case, is that using human shields is Hamas’ number one tactic, and no intellectually honest person can seriously claim otherwise.

when they tie Palestinians to the front of their vehicles, I think we can say they’re using literal human shields.

That would absolutely count as using them as human shields. However, the example used in the article, in my opinion, doesn’t. What they’re doing is still just as immoral and still a war crime, but I don’t think it qualifies as an example of using someone as a human shield.

This has nothing to do with defending the IDF - don’t be ridiculous.

Am I being pedantic? Yeah. But that still doesn’t change the fact that what I’m saying has nothing to do with defending the IDF. I have no dog in that fight. I’m not rooting for either side in this conflict - I’m only rooting for the civilian population suffering on both sides.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

I’m not rooting for either side in this conflict

One side is committing genocide. If you’re not rooting for the other side, then you’re rooting for genocide.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The point is that the correct response to an accusation of the usage of human shields is not pedantry. When there's multiple documented cases of this happening, the correct response is not singling out specific examples that in spirit is still the usage of human shields but following some specific definition technically might not count. This serves no purpose other than to derail the conversation into pendantry.

You also made a logic error: according to you, the IDF wouldn't use human shields because Hamas already does. And you reason that this must mean Hamas does not care if civilians die. But the entire point of human shields is that it makes it impossible to do certain military operations because it would kill civilians. The end result with this strategy isn't dead civilians, it hinges on the civilians staying alive (and thus your military is too). Hamas doesn't employ this strategy to get civilians killed, they do it to protect their operations. That exact same motivation could work for the IDF too.

The crimes that the IDF are accused of also in no way compare to what's been happening in Ukraine. By making these comparisons you seem to be trying to minimize what the IDF is doing, which in effect defends the IDF.

If that's not your intention, then stop and reflect carefully on what your comments actually contribute to the conversation. What you name the crime isn't what's important here, it's the crime itself.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I'm doubting that the IDF would use human shields because I don’t think Hamas would refrain from engaging them just to protect their own civilians. However, people have provided examples of the IDF actually doing this, and I haven’t argued against that. I don’t fully understand the logic behind it, but I accept that it’s happening and I obviously condemn it.

My doubt stems from the fact that it’s well documented that Hamas has, on multiple occasions, launched rockets from areas near hospitals, schools, mosques, and refugee camps - knowing that this can deter the IDF from striking those locations, at least to some extent. But the willingness to put their own civilian population at risk like that makes me seriously question how much they actually care. They’re also on record saying things like “we love death more than the infidels love life,” and in their worldview, being martyred isn’t a bad outcome - quite the opposite.

So my issue is essentially this: the same people who seem completely unwilling to criticize Hamas for their use of human shields have no problem going after the IDF for it. In this case, even if the criticism is valid, I still see that as quite hypocritical.

Also, I fully acknowledge being a provocateur - and the fierce pushback against what I sounded like I was saying was fully expected on my part.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'm doubting that the IDF would use human shields because I don’t think Hamas would refrain from engaging them just to protect their own civilians.

I don't understand why you'd doubt this in the comment section of a post that quite literally has proof they're doing it.

So my issue is essentially this: the same people who seem completely unwilling to criticize Hamas for their use of human shields have no problem going after the IDF for it. In this case, even if the criticism is valid, I still see that as quite hypocritical.

Can you show anyone who is unwilling to criticize Hamas for the usage of human shields? Everybody knows what Hamas does, they're a terrorist organisation after all. The question is why the IDF, which is supposedly "the most moral army in the world" is doing it too. Even so, it's deflection through whataboutism.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

To be accurate hamas is designed as a terrorist from by only 40 of i believe 197 countries. Hamas definitely did many terrorist acts but israel did a lot more since it's creation

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

BPR.

You did the right thing by calling out OpinionHaver's hypocrisy. And you did it the right way - exposing why they were called a fascist, in a thread they do Reddit style "I dun unrrurstand" sealioning and "ackshyually" red herrings over and over to defend ethnic cleansing. If you only posted that and walked away, I'd be saying "PTB".

However that is not just what you did. You were consistently aggressive in that thread, and your mod history shows entries like "uncivil", "Derailing", "civility", "Rude/toxic", "history of netiquette violations", "consistent history of toxic behavior" across multiple instances. So even if the target was justified, you're still a problem user, and if a mod lets this sort of hostile user (like you) go rogue in a comm, the comm becomes a shitfest.

Plus you're a single "I can only guess" away from witch hunting = calling the mod "genocide apologist" on weak grounds (removals from a single thread). If you want to accuse someone, do it like you did towards OpinionHaver.

You, sunzu2 and OpinionHaver were derailing the thread. The mod should've either nuked the whole comment chain or left it alone; by selectively deleting you+sunzu2's comments but not OpinionHaver's, the mod is arbitrarily giving them a political voice in an allegedly "no politics" comm, but not you or sunzu2.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I don’t see the hypocrisy you’re accusing me of here, but I’m more than happy to clear up any potential confusion. I’ve interacted with you here before, and I know that - unlike OP - you’re capable of debating in good faith. So if you genuinely see any logical errors in my reasoning or behavior that you think are worth criticizing, I’m open to hearing it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Refer to this discussion FelixCress linked.

Up to your top comment ("I’m not sure “human shield” is the correct term here." [...]), you could say that you were just arguing semantics. However, your replies to leftytighty and Keeponstalin show otherwise:

  • even after being shown (by Keeponstalin) that the definition of human shield fits the content of the article to a T, you kept arguing that it does not apply
  • insistent shift of the focus on Hamas' actions
  • leftytighty's point in "try reading news about the IDF" is clear (implying usage of human shields is the common modus operandi of the IDF, so the article exemplifying it is not surprising). Your answer to that was basically a Reddit style sealion.

What you said is, effectively, a defence of the IDF, by denying that that specific event counts as a specific war crime, and insistent (~twice) shift of the focus to Hamas' actions. Even if you say "I'm not defending IDF". It does give people good grounds to call you a fascist, so your comment in the other thread is hypocrisy.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

It’s still unclear to me where I was being hypocritical. Disagreeing on the definition of a term isn’t hypocrisy, and I would still argue that the example used in the article - of sending Palestinian non-combatants to clear out buildings - doesn’t fit the definition of a human shield under the Geneva Conventions, which is: “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations.” Rather, it more accurately fits the definition found in Part 4, Article 147: “compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power.”

As for the optics of criticizing Hamas but not the IDF - I understand how someone might draw false conclusions about my underlying motives. But to suggest that I’d be fine with the IDF doing something I would criticize Hamas for - let alone the accusations of fascism - is simply untrue. Of course I condemn all mistreatment of civilians, regardless of who’s responsible. That should go without saying. When I said that I'm not defending the IDF I meant that I'm not defending their use of human shields or otherwise mistreating civilians. Not that I'm not defending their broader goal in the conflict. What I got (implicitly) called fascist for that Felix is refering to had nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestine conflict. That happened in this thread.

If someone holds mistaken beliefs about me, that’s one thing - but once they start publicly spreading falsehoods, that’s where I draw the line.

What Felix says in the opening post here is either a blatant lie or a total misunderstanding.

I have been banned from unpopularopinion for exposing person defending genocide and use of human shields by IDF.

At no point have I defended or advocated for genocide, or for the use of human shields - nor is that the reason they got banned for.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You do realise you're using here the exact same sealion as you did in that thread, right? As in: "I don't understand" followed by a gross distortion of what someone else said.

where I was being hypocritical. Disagreeing on the definition of a term isn’t hypocrisy

As already explained, the issue is not just disagreeing on the definition.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

You do realise..

I don’t. I’m genuinely trying but I don’t.

What gross distortion? What exactly is the issue, then? It’s not hypocrisy or sealioning Felix was accusing me of. I honestly struggle to make sense of what I’m even being accused of here. Everyone just seems to be assuming bad faith, while I’m simply trying to figure out what I did wrong this time.

If it’s about me being annoying, pedantic, or whatever - fine, I don’t disagree. But my issue is with claims about me or my beliefs that just aren’t true. And if they are true, I’m sincerely hoping someone would point them out to me.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

You do realise you’re using here the exact same sealion as you did in that thread, right?

I don’t. I’m genuinely trying but I don’t.

Given that you claim to not defend the IDF, and I don't know your "motivations" or "intentions" or whatever¹, I'll treat you as genuinely confused.

What's "sealioning", in a nutshell.Sealioning is a debate tactic where someone keeps engaging in a debate through things like this:

  • Questions / allegations on matters that are contextually obvious, while showing to expect others to rebuke them. Often through claims of ignorance.
  • Questions / allegations that are completely irrelevant to the topic, but being treated as if they were. Whataboutisms, argumenta ad nauseam, etc.
  • Clearly distorting what others say.
  • Misleading / loaded questions, implicit assumptions, straw men... basically distorting what others say.
  • Insistently claiming that they're just trying to engage in a meaningful debate, or "just questioning" (JAQing off), etc.
  • etc.

Ultimately, a sea lion makes the other side shut up or snap out - not through valid argumentation, but by shredding their patience. In both cases the sea lion can claim a victory.

Now, look at your comments in the linked discussion - because they provide context to this one. And let us pretend that the IDF was indeed committing another war crime than using human shields, i.e. that your "ackshyually" was indeed correct². Here's what you see:

  • The topic is about the IDF using human shields. The point of such a topic is to spread awareness of the atrocities committed by the IDF.
  • Your top comment is an "ackshyually" about the exact definition of human shield (weak relevance, given the point of the topic).
  • In the same comment you say "which has been Hamas’ strategy from the beginning" - shifting the focus from what the IDF is doing to what Hamas does. (whataboutism).
  • Keeponstalin provides you a definition of the usage of human shields, plus multiple links that show that the usage of human shields is a common IDF strategy.
  • Instead of addressing that definition, you highlight your alleged intentions ("I’m simply questioning..."), and claim that saying the IDF uses human shields "paints a somewhat dishonest picture of the actual reality". Like, there's no other way to interpret this excerpt except as you defending the IDF.

The only reasonable way to explain your behaviour there is sealioning: you shift the focus into semantics and Hamas, while claiming that you're just asking questions, and not addressing what others said...

And before you say "but my intentions" - remember, the only person who knows what's inside your head is yourself¹.

Now look at this thread. I said that you're still sealioning because:

  • claim of ignorance: "It’s still unclear to me"
  • distortion of what I said: "Disagreeing on the definition of a term isn’t hypocrisy". My exact words were "It [your defence of the IDF] does give people good grounds to call you a fascist, so your comment in the other thread is hypocrisy." So it's clearly not about the disagreement of the definition, I called it hypocrisy because you claim surprise of being called a fascist³.

You were sealioning back then, claim ignorance, distort what someone else says...

It’s not hypocrisy or sealioning Felix was accusing me of.

I said those things. FelixCress is claiming that you're a fascist.

If it’s about me being annoying, pedantic, or whatever - fine, I don’t disagree. But my issue is with claims about me or my beliefs that just aren’t true. And if they are true, I’m sincerely hoping someone would point them out to me.

It is not about being pedantic or annoying. It's about how your words are interpreted.

And, if you're genuinely not sealioning, a few tips on how to avoid being labelled as one here:

  • Mind the context. Always mind the context. It dictates how your words are interpreted. Specially for more politicised topics, like the ongoing conflicts. A neutral statement (like "it doesn't fit the definition") will convey different things based on the post, and those things will not be neutral.
  • I hate doing this but don't simply say epistemic statements (X is true / X is false) in a heavily politicised topic without a moral statement. Otherwise people will see a moral statement on it. Not just witch hunters but every bloody body.
  • If you're unsure on what someone else said, don't say stuff like "I don't understand", "I'm confused", "I'm not sure". Instead, ask specific questions on what they mean. (Reason: most Lemmy users are former Reddit users, and in Reddit this crap is a red flag for sealioning. And ooooh boy sealioning in Reddit is bread and butter.)
  • If there are multiple possible interpretations to what someone else said, and you can't handle all of them, always pick the most reasonable one.

NOTES:

  1. Nobody knows what's inside someone else's head, nor we [people in general] should pretend we do.
  2. It is not correct, but for the sake of this discussion, the distinction between the IDF committing one or another specific war crime doesn't matter.
  3. Even if you are not a fascist you most likely know where that claim comes from. That's hypocrisy.
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

You were consistently aggressive in that thread

No. I mostly only posted this genocide denier his own words. Calling someone defending use of human shields a "genocide apologist" is factual, not aggressive.

your mod history shows entries like "uncivil", "Derailing", "civility", "Rude/toxic", "history of netiquette violations", "consistent history of toxic behavior" across multiple instances.

Firstly, this is irrelevant. Secondly when you get to the details, most of these comments are made by infamous feddit.org mods - who very recently came out of the closet and started banning reasonable criticism of Israel. Fill your gaps.

So even if the target was justified, you're still a problem user,

I am who I am. I say what I think.

Plus you're a single "I can only guess" away from witch hunting = calling the mod "genocide apologist" on weak grounds

See my other comment. I did paste screenshot of his disgusting defence of IDF, verbatim. This triggered the mod who called it "smear" and he doubled down on calling it "smear" again in this very thread. If calling a guy like this a "genocide apologist" is a smear for the mod, that's very telling about mod own views.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

No. I mostly only posted this genocide denier his own words. Calling someone defending use of human shields a “genocide apologist” is factual, not aggressive.

You're omitting the part where you call a third party "an idiot", and that your answers to the genocide denier were both passive aggressive as fuck. (Source, modlog.. For the pass-aggro Ctrl+F "sweetie")

It's arguable if your aggressiveness in this specific case was justified. But by claiming that you weren't being aggressive you are simply lying. And calling people stupid by proxy - do you expect them to buy your lie?

Firstly, this [your mod history entries] is irrelevant.

No, it is not. It shows that you'll likely to behave like an arse in any community that allows it. Mods can and should use a user's history to know how to handle them, once they violate the rules of a community.

Secondly when you get to the details, most of these comments are made by infamous feddit.org mods - who very recently came out of the closet and started banning reasonable criticism of Israel. Fill your gaps.

Modlog, again:

  1. Yes, because people driving to work deserve to have their eyes stabbed 🙄 What kind of fucking moron creates stuff like this one?
  2. > Yeah, I'm all for that. And it's easy. Just revoke all licences. https://lemmy.world/c/opisafuckingidiot
  3. I hope you're a fucking miner (sic - minor)
  4. Your parents had "semen cause autism" energy
  5. Or perhaps you are simply not using your brain?
  6. Just 20%? I didn't know 80% of USians were retarded, I always thought it was around 60% max.
  7. Go and fuck yourself.
  8. In this case enjoy your piss with fart bubbles. I am pretty sure you will be fine as long as it says "champagne" on the bottle.

None of those involves either the feddit.org mods or the Zionist Reich, but in all of those you're being aggressive towards other users. I could post another thousand examples, that modlog is full of that.

You are lying yet again.

I am who I am.

You are a fucking arsehole, and someone without the dignity to admit they're a fucking arsehole.

I say what I think.

The problem is how you say it. You're a fucking arsehole, clearly unable to voice your views without sounding like a pissy manchild. And also a liar based on the comment I'm replying to.

Please do a favour for everyone and go back to Reddit, you'll be in more suitable company there.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Well documented comment

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

You're omitting the part where you call a third party "an idiot

Again, this is irrelevant. Not part of the exchange I have been banned for and it was a reply to him calling me an" embarrassment". For the context, it was a guy defending genocide denier. He also posted in this thread - I suggest you have a look.

your answers to the genocide denier were both passive aggressive as fuck.

Firstly I disagree with that. Secondly this is again irrelevant - being "passive aggressive" is not a bannable offence.

But by claiming that you weren't being aggressive you are simply lying.

I completely disagree with that. None of my comments were aggressive.

No, it is not. It shows that you'll likely to behave like an arse in any community that allows it.

It is completely and utterly irrelevant. You may be an angel in one community and the devil in another. If there was a Israel/IDF supporting community the guy I was responding to would be an angel.

None of those involves either the feddit.org mods or the Zionist Reich, but in all of those you're being aggressive towards other users

Nope. Now click each of them for a context. I stand behind every single one of them.

You are lying yet again.

Stop accusing me of lying.

You are a fucking arsehole, and someone without the dignity to admit they're a fucking arsehole. Please do a favour for everyone and go back to Reddit

Now, my answer to this should be "go and fuck yourself". But since you put your comments so nicely I am going to pat you on your head and just say "yes, sweetie" 😂

If anyone is aggressive here, including name calling it is you. Now, disengage.