-89
Jill Stein sees 'no lesser evil' between Harris, Trump
(www.reuters.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2024
-89 points (14.4% liked)
politics
19145 readers
1775 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Reuters publishes an article across its newswire. Lemmy user reposts it. Somehow, the Lemmy user is a bad actor, not Reuters .
Why not both? Reuters is publishing this for the clicks. Based on the OP’s history of posts and most especially of comments, we’re all well aware of their agenda and lack of good faith engagement (he’s just coming off a three day ban for trolling).
I’ve been banned multiple times for ( misinformation, trolling, spam, etc.) when I was doing none of those. Once. Once, I was banned for concern trolling, because I didn’t know what I was doing. That one was fair. The others were arbitrary and hypocritical, depending on the moderators mood. I’ve been called a bot, a shill, a Russian actor, a Chinese actor, a Trump supporter, pretty much everything. If you don’t think like the hive mind, you’re a target. Which is fine. But remember, if everyone thinks alike this becomes an awfully boring experience.
Oh, I’m well aware. The difference is that account had basically just as many posts and almost half the comments you made - and he’s been here for two months and you’ve been around for at least a year. If he just posted his articles and made a sane amount of comments that weren’t constantly trolling, he’d have a lot easier time, but he literally goes out of his way to be disruptive in the comments
My 3 day ban was for sealioning. And I didn't even know what that was before I heard about it from you, here on Lemmy.
Dude - again with the reading comprehension.
Source
This community sees a difference between trolling and sealioning. Mod log says I was banned for sealioning. They are the ones who break it down to whatever they want. Their community, their rules. Check the mod log for yourself: https://lemmy.world/modlog/1252
Thank you!
Depends on the mod, sometimes it is very specific (“sealioning”, “civility”, “trolling”) and sometimes it’s more general (i.e. “rule 4”, “rule 3”). As you well know as all those examples above are from the explanations of your removed comments.
And it’s fairly rich for you to speak on behalf of the community. But your semantic games aside, your ban was for a form of trolling. That’s a factual and true statement not up for debate. You can either move forward from it or not, but you can’t pretend it didn’t happen.
My ban reason says "sealioning" and not "trolling." If they wanted to ban me for "trolling" they could have said "trolling."
If you wanna think both are exactly the same, then have at it. But they have different names. I stated the facts. I didn't write the rules of this community, so feel free to take that up with the mods.
I haven't pretended anything. The modlog is public. Feel free to look at it and see for yourself. Thank you!
All sealioning is trolling but not all trolling is sealioning. ;)
@jordanlund@lemmy.world Very sorry to @ you, but it seems that UniversalMonk isn’t aware that he was banned for a form of trolling. Could you clarify for him, as he’s claiming that because his ban was for “sealioning” and not “trolling”, that’s somehow different. TIA
Now that you have a response from a mod on the fact you were indeed banned for trolling, we’re good, right?
Well you are certainly free to say that now if you want to.
But I will keep saying that I was banned for "sealioning" because that's what the modlog says. I fully expect you to jump in every time I say it, to update with your thoughts.
Because I can see that it's very very important to you. So I totally support you believing and saying whatever you wish.
And I respect the mods, but I disagree with them. And that's fine. It's their community, their rules. I have no hard feelings about it.
And it won't stop me from posting. Thank you!
Thank you I guess? Such a boon.
I mean, you were banned for sealioning, which is a type of trolling - as one of the community mods explained. To deny you were trolling now would probably give the mods something to think about next time you become an issue. Denying you were trolling just shows you’re not here to engage in good faith and makes every post and comment you make suspect.
I was banned for sealioning. As the public modlog says. I have never denied that. Ever. Thank you!
So trolling then, got it.
You stated:
We got clarification from the mods that “all sealioning is trolling"
Are you still going to be claiming otherwise?
I had a 3 day ban for sealioning. You can say and believe whatever you would like. Thank you, friend!
"it wasn't for trolling. It was for trolling". Comprehension isn't your strong suit, I see.
This community sees a difference between trolling and sealioning. Mod log says I was banned for sealioning. They are the ones that break it down to whatever they want. Their community, their rules. Check the mod log for yourself: https://lemmy.world/modlog/1252
Thank you!
Sealioning is a type of trolling, as you have already been told. I see another sealioning ban in your future, you're literally doing it right now.
My ban reason said "sealioning." Other people have been banned for "trolling." I didn't make up the mod rules. Thank you!
sealioning intensifies
Please bring it up to the mods attention if you feel that is what is happening in our conversation. They are very responsive.
Oh, I already know that they're well aware of you, so no need.
This is the second time you've copy and pasted this exact statement.
Did you spend your three day holiday writing up new spam comments to continue to try to rile up this community?
I invite you to look at this user’s history.
Me too! I invite him to look at my history.
Yeah, people get pretty mad about it. I don't take any of it personally. :)
If this poster didn't take our feedback personally, it'd go to its special little corner of Lemmy and post all it wants there, because obviously the community here doesn't like this poster, and finally, the moderation team is saying they've had enough of its shit.
It's here because it really wants to 'show us up', posting incendiary topics, needling posters, pushing this meme that Trump would be better than Harris, and constantly egging on commentor after commentor.
I have several communities I created and mod. So I do post all I want there. Thank you!
I don't know what meme you are referring to, as this is a Reuters article. And I posted it because I found it interesting. That's it.
If you're that concerned with what they report on and write, then reach out to Reuters and make your thoughts known. You are in charge of your own voice, friend! Thank you!
What did you find interesting about the article? I found it very interesting how Jill Stein only had 100 supporters at her last rally. She's really making moves!
Well since she only had 100 supporters then you have nothing to be worried or angry about! So all good!
Oh, so you didn't find anything in the article interesting?
I don't have to explain anything to you. Thank you!
And yet you keep replying to me to explain more about yourself and your intentions. It seems like some part of you just has to explain, but not the parts that actually matter.
Well I can stop replying to you, then. No worries.
So you'll let me post my opinion on all of your future posts without replying to me? How lucky am I?!