cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/45204357
Yesterday, I created my account on Lemmy.ml because I want to become mod on !stardewvalley@lemmy.ml. And I posted this comic on !stardewvalley@lemmy.ml It's SDV game cutscene where Shane a NPC go watch Sports game with you kiss you accidentily but It was part of that event also player kiss Shane(NPC) back. Here's video for more context. And someone claimed it have SA(Sexual Assualt) From Hexbear Ofcourse. So, I should delete it. I said it was a part of game cutscene. And If main player doesn't love the Shane(NPC) then they don't need to complete this event. And Just as a sarcasm I added Yeah we shoule delete this entire community because this game is Woke like Woke Detector Steam Group said. That user think I am some anti-woke dickhead something like that IDK. And tell me to Kill My Self. What I do now? I wanted on become mod on .ml because community was already well established. I message dessaline but I am sure he will not unbanned me. :(
Did I really did something wrong? I don't know If I really did something wrong.
Link for that comic if embed doesn't work.
Create one lemm.ee !stardewvalley@lemm.ee
There's no contradiction between complaining about having one account banned and cross-posting with another.
So cut off the crap. You aren't fooling anyone here.
And I'm calling bullshit on the stated reason why
.mlbanned OP. More on that later.Epistemically speaking the burden of the proof falls on both, since you're "conveniently" omitting that you didn't just "cast doubt" towards OP's claims - you also did your own claims there, by implying that the ban was to exclude [ipsis ungulis] "their toxic asses" from the community. (Whatever "toxic" means.)
On a moral level though? OP is defending themself. Have you ever heard about presumption of innocence?
In both cases, you still need to back up your claim. Now at least try to pretend to be a decent person, and do it, instead of running again with tail between legs.
My sides went into orbit. That's specially hilarious coming from someone who shows blatant gullibleness towards the reasons stated in the .ml modlog.
But let's roll with it. Contrariwise to your assumption = bullshit, I don't trust OP's narrative due to lack of critical thinking skills. I trust what OP is saying here because it's extremely consistent with what I've personally observed as a former .ml user who used to mod two comms there:
The .ml admin team, as a team*, has the same reading skills of a potato, is often prone to witch hunting and assumptive behaviour (consistent with this case), and uses "rule 1" (bigotry) and "rule 2" (unwelcoming behaviour) as catch-all for "we want a bullshit reason to get rid of this poster". And it never admits when it fucked up.
If you want evidences of that, just go dig on the defederation of ani.social, where the admin team distorted the concept of child sexual abuse material to [unnecessarily] justify it. Or I can come up with the modlog of one of the comms I used to moderate there. Your choice.
*I'd gladly give you names. But I don't know if it's allowed here.
[Note for other users: since the other user is simply grasping at straws with argumenta ad hominem, and there's zero valid argumentation, I'll have my fun at his expense.]
"Oh noes! How does someone DARE to disagree with Our Holy King AntiOutsideAktion? They must be stupid!"
...or perhaps I'm intelligent enough to not fall for your obvious bullshit. Not that this is some achievement, because I bet that even a dog could do it.
If my verbosity deeply offends your precious, oh-so-precious sensibilities and your entitlement to abridged content, well... I don't care.
Now let's see if you have some actual argumentation or if you'll keep whining [yes] this shitty ad hominem. (Onwards "AAH")
Nope, it's still AAH.
And bossing me around to "waaah! shut up! shut up!!! ~~I'm going to cry if you don't shut up!~~" is ineffective, by the way.
I.e. you were using a non-descriptive weasel label that can be used to justify everything and nothing at the same time, to whine at LW users and me, because you have the same intellectual honesty of a hypothetical child of Elon Musk and a genderbent Spez, and can't back up your claim.
But no, something must be wrong. People aren't laughing at your shitty arguments because they're bloody stupid. No - it must be because they're stupid!
Oh look, the Musk x Spez child never heard about moral values. ...and suddenly your babble makes a lot of sense.
"Again, I'm not calling you a fucking moron frivolously. You dare to disagree with me, even if reality magically bends around my belly button and makes even my inane and immoral shit become true, As if By Magic®"
AAH still ongoing... *yawns*
Yeah, nah. The word "gullibleness" is registered at least in Wiktionary, WordHippo, bab.la, and the spelling corrector that I'm using.
Next time that you want to prescribe against the usage of some specific word, at least make sure that the word isn't actually valid. Otherwise you'll keep making a fool of yourself. Although... by this comment, it's clear that you're willing to be the laughing stock of everyone here, right?
But hey. Let's pretend, for a tiny moment, that your prescription held some merit here. Ah, my bad if my L3 English offends your sensibilities! I forgot that Lemmy is supposed to be the WASP e-Lebensraum, and that you're expected to have native tier proficiency! Mayocide is threatening me and I must fight against it!
Yeah, I've already noticed that you're braindead. You don't need to reinforce it.
Finally, you found something else than argumenta ad hominem! I'm so proud of you!
And it's still a fallacy. Changing goalposts - since the bullshit claim that ani.social contains CSAM is too stupid even for you, you're now claiming that it's a "paedophile instance".
Stop making shit up. Not even the individual .ml admins agree with each other about it. It's just that one is too stubborn to admit that he was wrong (he does the same all the time in LG), and there's another [not in the linked conversation] clapping to what the stubborn one does.
(Blame still goes to the admin team as an entity.)
You do realise that, if you did this in your own home instance, you'd be correctly banned, right? You're supposed to disengage without arguing. (Or trying to, in your case.)
That without even considering the blatant linguistic prejudice that you showed in this comment.
"You could've gone to sleep without that." - local saying.
Hey, It's not worth it in the end. We don't need to defend anymore. But Thanks for your support.
No, I'm not conflating both things.
Depending on the way that the insults are being used, they do count as argumentum ad hominem. Basically when you dress them as counter-argumentation, in order to defend a point - like that user is doing, there's exactly fuck zero argumentation, the whole thing boils down to "u're coment is wrong because ur a ass hat lol lmao", to the point that my answer is... well, simply shitposting in return.
What doesn't classify as ad hominem is shit, for example, like you're doing now. You're being like a 12yo who discovered their ability to call others "u poopy head lol lmao", but not really using ad hominem since you aren't trying to dress it as the argument.
In other words: contrariwise to your assumption, yes, I understand the difference. And it is still argumentum ad hominem.