Thanks for confirming. I will take this opportunity to ban you from /c/worldnews, because of your hostile behaviour there. This is something I should have done long ago. The main reason I didnt is that I didnt want to give the impression that you were targeted because of our political disagreements. But the fact is that you are causing too much trouble. Take this as a warning, if you keep being hostile to other users, you will get a site ban.
I think you shouldn’t ban people just because they’re not nice to you. Which problems did they cause in !worldnews@lemmy.ml? (EDIT: clarifying that I read some of their comments, but nothing banworthy yet – so I’m not saying they don’t cause trouble, just that I’d like to see at least a few instances of hard evidence against them).
We don’t all agree on Lemmy. You’re doing right now what you accuse @soferman@lemmy.ml of:
I think the idea that everyone should think exactly like you is in fact much more authoritarian.
people in my surroundings also agree with me, but for me that isnt a reason to claim superiority. Would you really prefer if Lemmy was an echo chamber where everyone thinks just like you?
I will take this opportunity to ban you from /c/worldnews, because of your hostile behaviour there. […] you are causing too much trouble.
Bruh. “Spamming” links to Reuters and Telegraph hardly counts as “hostile behaviour” in my book. If you ban them because you don’t like the content they’re sharing and you’re the mod of !worldnews@lemmy.ml, just say so. It’d at least be honest. Maybe even honest to yourself.
Censoring wrong opinions instead of answering them with proper sources is a pretty “interesting” move. Sure, you can’t talk to fascists, but I don’t see one here. They’re entitled to their opinion, just as you are entitled to ban them from your community – don’t say you’re doing this because you’re superior, when you claim to not claim superiority. This is an oxymoron.
Do you not think that everyone is entitled to their own opinion?
You made a longer comment without concrete examples linking back to this thread here? What kind of circular doublethink is that?
At least ban people because they spread verifiable misinformation. You didn’t provide any of them, just your own biased sources, as far as I can tell. I’ll be happy to revise this comment when you can link a few good examples where you’re not just doing the spiderman pointy-game.
Apparently I not. And apparently you can’t make value judgments on other people’s opinions either.
Thanks for confirming. I will take this opportunity to ban you from /c/worldnews, because of your hostile behaviour there. This is something I should have done long ago. The main reason I didnt is that I didnt want to give the impression that you were targeted because of our political disagreements. But the fact is that you are causing too much trouble. Take this as a warning, if you keep being hostile to other users, you will get a site ban.
I think you shouldn’t ban people just because they’re not nice to you. Which problems did they cause in !worldnews@lemmy.ml? (EDIT: clarifying that I read some of their comments, but nothing banworthy yet – so I’m not saying they don’t cause trouble, just that I’d like to see at least a few instances of hard evidence against them).
We don’t all agree on Lemmy. You’re doing right now what you accuse @soferman@lemmy.ml of:
Bruh. “Spamming” links to Reuters and Telegraph hardly counts as “hostile behaviour” in my book. If you ban them because you don’t like the content they’re sharing and you’re the mod of !worldnews@lemmy.ml, just say so. It’d at least be honest. Maybe even honest to yourself.
Censoring wrong opinions instead of answering them with proper sources is a pretty “interesting” move. Sure, you can’t talk to fascists, but I don’t see one here. They’re entitled to their opinion, just as you are entitled to ban them from your community – don’t say you’re doing this because you’re superior, when you claim to not claim superiority. This is an oxymoron.
Do you have a specific instance that transgress the rules though? Or is it a personal thing? Doesn’t really seem fair.
I made a longer comment here. If you still dont know what the problem is after reading that, then I really dont know how to explain it to you.
You made a longer comment without concrete examples linking back to this thread here? What kind of circular doublethink is that? At least ban people because they spread verifiable misinformation. You didn’t provide any of them, just your own biased sources, as far as I can tell. I’ll be happy to revise this comment when you can link a few good examples where you’re not just doing the spiderman pointy-game.
what