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.

Comic

Create one lemm.ee !stardewvalley@lemm.ee

  • AntiOutsideAktion [he/him]English
    2•2 days ago

    1. They posted a crosspost link on .ml to the stardew valley comm they created, contradicting their complaint about getting banned

    2. The mod log says they were banned for breaking the rule against bigotry

    3. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, you fucking moron, not the person casting doubt on it

    Just on a personal note, you’re a fucking idiot for taking a story like this on face value when even in the OP’s text the actual reason for the ban isn’t touched on. It’s amazing how poor your critical thinking skills are.

    • Unruffled [he/him]
      0•2 days ago

      Whenever a hexbear user is involved in the debate you know they are gonna be on the wrong side of it.

    • Lvxferre
      0•2 days ago

      They posted a crosspost link on .ml to the stardew valley comm they created, contradicting their complaint about getting banned

      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.

      The mod log says they were banned for breaking the rule against bigotry [rule 1]

      And I’m calling bullshit on the stated reason why .ml banned OP. More on that later.

      The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, you fucking moron, not the person casting doubt on it

      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.

      Just on a personal note, you’re a fucking idiot for taking a story like this on face value when even in the OP’s text the actual reason for the ban isn’t touched on. It’s amazing how poor your critical thinking skills are.

      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.

      • AntiOutsideAktion [he/him]English
        1•2 days ago

        While I can appreciate how much effort you put into the affectation of the appearance of intelligence, and how well you’ve internalized “more words = more good” as a writing style, I observe that you are still a dumb motherfucker who should just keep their idiot mouth shut. In addition to being a terminally online ‘internet tough guy’ without any experience talking to real people.

        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.)

        Basic reading comprehension: I was calling you and the rabble of .world accounts toxic.

        Have you ever heard about presumption of innocence?

        Yeah, I’ve heard of it. Where did you hear of it? In a court system? Not on a private forum the owners of which can decide who they want to join or not?

        Again, I’m not calling you a fucking moron frivolously. You’re a fucking moron.

        gullibleness

        The word is “gullibility”

        lol

        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.

        Ordinarily I wouldn’t expect someone to brag about moderating a pedophile instance.

        This concludes my response titled “Why you’re too much of a stupid piece of shit to engage with seriously”

      • ShimmeringKoi [comrade/them]English
        1•2 days ago

        Or I can come up with the modlog of one of the comms I used to moderate there. Your choice.

        I can tell you get off on imagining that your words carry some kind of intimidating weight over the internet

        • Lvxferre
          -1•1 day ago

          I can tell you get off on imagining that your words carry some kind of intimidating weight over the internet

          I can tell that you’re assumptive (i.e. stupid) as a brick and prone to make shit up about things that you cannot reliably know, such as what others imagine. (Unless you have a functional crystal ball. Yeah… nah.)

          Think for a moment on the purpose of that utterance in the context of the comment, and then hopefully even you will realise why it’s there. Spoilers: burden of proof.

          EDIT: hello to the people in The Dunk Tank! I’ll chew it for you all:

          • purpose - what that piece of text is doing in the whooole text. It’s just linguistics vocab leaking.
          • utterance - something said. Discourse analysis, same shit as above. If you want further info on that I recommend Bakhtin, as his approach towards DA borrows heavily from Marxism.
          • burden of proof - basically, “you prove it!”. The one bringing this up was not me, but the muppet who was then sharing this excerpt outside its context, in all their butthurtness*.

          I’ll also give myself the freedom to tag one of you, @MemesAreTheory@hexbear.net:

          Most well adjusted lost lib

          Nope. Trotskyist with some influences from Bakunin. And in case anyone wants to whine against Trotsky, check rule #3 (No sectarianism) .

          *they get really mad at the -ness suffix!