before i made an account, i reached out to the chief admin of lemmy.dbzer0.com
i was recently banned during a discussion on the validity of a claim regarding the consensus about the safety of a vegan diet:
and, if you bother to go find that discussion, you'll find that, in fact, my interlocutor did become incivil. i did report that. and somehow, my discussion and the subsequent report were the basis of a ban.
it was less than 2 hours. it's almost not worth discussing.
but given my pre-application discussion, i felt strongly that my conduct is within the bounds of the acceptable use of the instance. so if my conduct is not within the acceptable use, that means i basically cant use my account(s) as i planned and under the terms which i agreed.
db0 has said he doesn't want to be the benevolent dictator for life, and has specifically both recused himself from ruling on my conduct and encouraged me to post here and in !div0_governance@lemmy.dbzer0.com (though i'm still holding off on that for now).
so, did i deserve it? power tripping bastard? what do you think?
Yes, but the difference is that they were right. This is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. Saying "Go fuck yourself" can be perfectly called for and justified in certain contexts, but extremely uncalled for in others. They had basis to say that, because you were fucking wrong. You did not, because you were fucking wrong.
From what I'm seeing, there's a consistent pattern of behavior of trying to hide behind language, civility, and tone while being disingenuous as fuck and acting in bad faith.
Imagine an argument over a vaccines where the pro-vaccine person has a bunch of evidence in their favor and the antivaxxer keeps bringing up a flaw in one specific paper that the other person isn't even relying on. The pro-vaccine person would be perfectly justified in getting frustrated, accusing the other person of lying or operating in bad faith, etc. But if the antivaxxer did the same - even if they parroted the exact same language - they would be completely unjustified and out of line, even moreso than they already were. So no, you don't get to hide behind this "it was a direct quote" excuse, because you're the one who was out of line. You don't have the right to hurl accusations back at people when they're right and you don't have a leg to stand on.
that's not the situation we were in.
they were relying on that for their initial claim, and never backed off the very strong, but unsupported, claim. the evidence they brought later does not support that claim.
we both had some things we were right about, but the comment to which i initially responded was peddling outdated information, and, yea, i didn't click on one link, and i admitted it when it was pointed out.
"Yes I went full offense despite no reading the other person's evidence and the shit I was saying was wrong and completely uncalled for, but I eventually realized my mistake, and then continued my offense."
Yeah, no. You were talking out of your ass, realized you were talking out of your ass, but then didn't let up when you did. You're even still pushing the offense now, by making this thread to complain about it. You don't escalate an issue like this when you've got that much egg on your face. The other person was 100% correct, the fact that there was a minor flaw in the evidence presented by the person you initially responded to does not give you license to ignore other evidence, and it certainly doesn't give you license to ignore other evidence and then go on the offensive. You are extremely out of line and acting like a narcissist.
this is a straw man. and i wasn't wrong: what i said is it is no longer the acamedy's position that a vegan diet can be healthy at all stages of development, and i've been right this whole time.