this post was submitted on 15 Feb 2025
272 points (80.6% liked)
Ye Power Trippin' Bastards
842 readers
194 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:
- Which mods/admins were being Power Tripping Bastards?
- What sanction did they impose (e.g. community ban, instance ban, removed comment)?
- Provide a screenshot of the relevant modlog entry (don’t de-obfuscate mod names).
- Provide a screenshot and explanation of the cause of the sanction (e.g. the post/comment that was removed, or got you banned).
- Explain why you think its unfair and how you would like the situation to be remedied.
Rules
- Post only about bans or other sanctions that you have received from a mod or admin.
- Don’t use private communications to prove your point. We can’t verify them and they can be faked easily.
- Don’t deobfuscate mod names from the modlog with admin powers.
- Don’t harass mods or brigade comms. Don’t word your posts in a way that would trigger such harassment and brigades.
- Do not downvote posts if you think they deserved it. Use the comment votes (see below) for that.
- You can post about power trippin’ in any social media, not just lemmy. Feel free to post about reddit or a forum etc.
- If you are the accused PTB, while you are welcome to respond, please do so within the relevant post.
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.
- PTB - Power-Tripping Bastard: The commenter agrees with you this was a PTB mod.
- YDI - You Deserved It: The commenter thinks you deserved that mod action.
- BPR - Bait-Provoked Reaction: That mod probably overreacted in charged situation, or due to being baited.
- CLM - Clueless mod: The mod probably just doesn't understand how their software works.
Relevant comms
founded 6 months ago
MODERATORS
That is a very strange and self-contradicting hill to die on.
That follows very clearly from the declaration of human rights and international humanitarian law. It’s not contradictory at all.
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.
Rights need to balanced against each other in practice of course.
You can find that in international humanitarian law.
So contradiction is possible as i have said and balance would require contextual interpretation, in practice.
Absolute statements such as :
and
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 :
Those things are not mutually exclusive.
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.
Seems we agree mostly.
A formal declaration of war isn’t necessary for international humanitarian law (IHL) to apply. Geneva Convention article 2
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.
I saw the parts about the declaration of war, i was specifically looking for the part from which you pulled :
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.
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.