this post was submitted on 15 Feb 2025
272 points (80.6% liked)

Ye Power Trippin' Bastards

846 readers
177 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 6 months ago
MODERATORS
 

Not really "powertripping". Just pathetic. Consider this a notice to avoid feddit.org... I've unsubbed and blocked the instance.

We can't dehumanize fascists for their choice to dehumanize everyone for things outside their control though, because that would be mean, and hurt their sociopath feefees!

Europe stool idly by throughout the 1930's "tolerating" fascism, and the Nazi's killed over 100 million people. Don't make the same mistake as the radical centrists of history. Fascists will not afford you the same tolerance or courtesy.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 6 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Vasily Zietsev didn't stop the Nazis with moral standing.

[–] bestboyfriendintheworld@sh.itjust.works -3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

That was a war. He also didn’t check if German soldiers were party members or not.

[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 6 points 6 days ago (1 children)

What do you think the new Nazis are planning? A tea party?

[–] bestboyfriendintheworld@sh.itjust.works -2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Once a war has started, killing is morally acceptable, not before. Even then, only if it’s necessary to achieve military objectives. You don’t kill people for their ideological beliefs, but to stop their ability to act and remove them from power. Mass murder can never be the goal for anyone who believes in human rights.

Wars aren’t won by killing soldiers. They are won by stopping the enemy‘s ability to act. An army can’t fight without fuel, food, and ammunition.

[–] Senal@slrpnk.net 4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

That is a very strange and self-contradicting hill to die on.

[–] bestboyfriendintheworld@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

That follows very clearly from the declaration of human rights and international humanitarian law. It’s not contradictory at all.

[–] Senal@slrpnk.net 0 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Firstly, citation? because as i understand it "killing is morally acceptable in war" isn't in the universal declaration of human rights.

Secondly, even if it was, there is no magic attribute of those declarations that makes them immune to contradiction.

[–] bestboyfriendintheworld@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

there is no magic attribute of those declarations that makes them immune to contradiction.

Rights need to balanced against each other in practice of course.

killing is morally acceptable in war” isn’t in the universal declaration of human rights

You can find that in international humanitarian law.

[–] Senal@slrpnk.net 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Rights need to balanced against each other in practice of course.

So contradiction is possible as i have said and balance would require contextual interpretation, in practice.

Absolute statements such as :

Once a war has started, killing is morally acceptable, not before.

and

You don’t kill people for their ideological beliefs, but to stop their ability to act and remove them from power.

Can be contradictory, depending on context.

I wasn't challenging your interpretation, though i do think it's naive and idealistic to the point of impracticality, i was pointing out that your statements could be considered contradictory.

While I'm at it, i missed a false dichotomy as well :

Wars aren’t won by killing soldiers. They are won by stopping the enemy‘s ability to act.

Those things are not mutually exclusive.

You can find that in international humanitarian law.

That's a large amount of text to sift through, if you could give me a hint to where it specifies moral authority before and after an official declaration of war i'd appreciate it.

[–] bestboyfriendintheworld@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Seems we agree mostly.

A formal declaration of war isn’t necessary for international humanitarian law (IHL) to apply. Geneva Convention article 2

the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

Declaring wars has fallen out of practice since the foundation of the UN, whose Charta makes wars of Agression illegal. IHL, e.g. Geneva Conventions, also applies to non international armed conflicts.

The best resource to learn about IHL is the database of the International Committee of the Red Cross.

[–] Senal@slrpnk.net 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I saw the parts about the declaration of war, i was specifically looking for the part from which you pulled :

Once a war has started, killing is morally acceptable, not before.

[–] bestboyfriendintheworld@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

You are right, that this is overly condensed and can be misunderstood.

Killing isn’t universally allowed in warfare either. As in you can‘t kill prisoners of war or civilians for example.

Let’s put it in another way. Killing is the last resort, when milder actions fail.

Let’s say your goal is to keep Nazis from gaining power. There are lots of things you can and should do besides mass murder. It’s an ideology after all and people’s minds can be changed.

[–] Senal@slrpnk.net 1 points 6 days ago

Sure, when you reach a point that you don't have better options to achieve the desired goal (for whatever metric you define as 'better') then killing is on the table by the sounds of it.

All we need now is an agreement on the threshold.

I'm assuming you'll concede that individual killing comes before mass killing, in the hierarchy of options.

So, once this threshold is reached then, according to your logic, you are morally allowed to kill in defence ( and i assume pre-emptive defence, given the "They are won by stopping the enemy‘s ability to act." statement ).

So going back to your original statement, it's entirely possible to kill an individual and still believe in your definition of 'believe in universal human rights.' ?

Provided the correct conditions are met, ofc.

[–] friendlymessage@feddit.org 6 points 1 week ago

There's a difference of fighting back including killing to defeat an enemy or denying someone the basic right to life.

The first means you fight back until you defeat the enemy, the second one means after you defeat them you round them up and put them in camps to exterminate them.

It also means it limits your actions to those targets who actually hold power and not just anyone who has a Trump / Vance flag in their garden.