DISCLAIMER: this is not my content that was removed, I just came across it in the modlog and found it to be absurd. If it’s not allowed, I totally understand.
Reason removed was because it’s unrelated.
Unrelated…..
The guy was illegally deported without due process. And yet for some reason, suggesting so is somehow “unrelated” to a meme that is trying to say that because he is affiliated (no charges were ever filed against him for gang-related activity) with a gang, he is by default, guilty.
What’s ironic, is that the entire point of the meme is that the bullshit about him being in MS-13 is unrelated to the fact that people want accountability for this administration illegally deporting a man without due process.
This mod has definitely chosen the correct name.
And even taken into consideration that the instance is essentially a troll haven for wayward 4Chan refugees, they should still have to adhere to the rules of common sense.
That's with a simple text search; I found 503 results and picked those comments out of the first 21 of them. There were quite a lot. Some from pretty high-profile people, it wasn't all just random idiots. But yes it was an extremely common point of view.
As for the rest of your comments NSRXNs reply seems to have covered it.
Oh, yeah, like I say I very much agree with you about making an argument and then not backing it up being bullshit. I actually would really like if that was an across-the-board rule that drew mod action when people violated it. It's way too accepted on Lemmy to just spout off whatever's in your head and then wander away or get offended if someone asks you to back it up. I'm just saying that deciding that rule as a one-off and applying it to a person on the opposite side of an active argument you and NSXRN are in (whether or not your comments were close enough to this person's comments to be "in that thread" is, to me, not relevant) is pretty authoritarian of you.
Ok I suppose maybe you are right in this case.
Sweet! Yes very occasionally and completely by accident it does happen.
😂
The comment that started this accusation said:
Wasn’t there also the slight issue of many not bothering to vote at all or not willing to vote for the more democratic candidate over Israel or something? So much drama in the states…
which prompted the response:
Yeah all those “gEnOciDe” trolls have mystically vanished since then …
and a furth explanation:
There was a specific crowd pretending only democrats could have responsibility for it and that Trump could not be worse
to which i said:
you’re making that up.
and the rest of the thread has been bickering about whether, in fact, they made that up. the accusation is that, since the election, the people opposed to genocide who wanted to exert electoral pressure, who were also people who were pretending only democrats could have responsibility AND that trump could not be worse, have since disappeared. i know that's a lot of commas. lets make this a bit clearer:
the accusation is that
there are people who
and that those people
what you provided was evidence that, in fact, those people don't exist, and to the extent that people who met criteria a-c may have existed (it's still not clear they held this belief prior to the election), they did not, also fulfill criteria (e).
so despite your aptitude for verbosity and markdown syntax, your comment is, also, not evidence.
edit: i made a few syntactic edits to this, but as i'm now reading it for the 12th time or so, i don't actually think we have evidence of anyone fulfilling criteria c in addition to a and b.
That's nice. I was responding to a very particular exchange, different from the one you picked out to look at, which said:
Nobody is making up the crowd that pretended only Democrats could have responsibility for it and that Trump could not be worse. Some of them are still around, (and still! saying the same thing for some fucked-up reason, as per my examples) some are gone. I gave some examples of that crowd.
I don't really feel like a protracted exchange where you move goalposts around and introduce totally random qualifications like "in order to exert electoral pressure on the Democrats" when in fact the lack of that is a big part of why I object strongly to the whole operation. Where, something like the "uncommitted" movement is at least organized in a fashion where it seems like it could produce an improvement, by putting pressure on the Democrats, so that sounds fine. Just not voting for Democrats and hoping they'll figure it out and move to the left seems pretty much guaranteed to give us something along the lines of the catastrophe that happened. Which is why I am opposed to it.
Anyway feel free to tell the people in Gaza or immigrants in the US or any international student or Ukrainian or and so on about your theory and how pleased you are, now that it's succeeded, and aren't they proud of you.
this accusation of bad faith is itself bad faith
you're putting word in my mouth.
yes they are, and if that weren't the case you would have been able to show it