https://lemmy.world/comment/1140552
A WorldNews mod removed this comment and banned me from WorldNews, claimed in the modlog for ‘trolling, islamophobia’. An admin then restored the comment, but the ban is apparently still in place.
Does this mod’s summary judgement of this comment mean I’m forever banned from WorldNews?
EDIT: I realized you can filter by mods to find out who banned me. It was @Newsman, but I looked about a couple hours later and they’re no longer mods in World News, but looks like I’m still banned. Oh well, at least they’ve been shown the door. That’s progress.
Looks like there is one user who is the mod for a huge number of reddit knock-off communities on lemmy.world, and bans people for anything they deem to be islamophobic (in any way negative to Islam, Iran, etc). It will be interesting to see if the admins will take action.
can confirm, i was already banned on there, and in return blocked the community, i have no interst in biased censorship filled communities
That’s the beauty of Lemmy - there’s 20 other world news communities, and most of them have different mods!
power mods gonna power mod.
as in be unhinged weirdos who can’t tolerate anything they disagree with
“Islamophobia” is a dangerous notion that should never be legitimized. It’s literally blasphemy trying to come back to the 21st century. If I say that the “prophet” Muhammad is a pedophile for raping a 9 year old girl or that the Quran is comparable to Mein Kampf, those offended should not have the ability to silence me with the bogus “islamophobia” excuse. Blasphemy is my right and I’ll never give it up.
Being a bigot against Muslims is one thing, but to try to infer that not respecting their beliefs is necessary being a bigot to them is laughable. That moderator is censoring blasphemy by comparing it to hate-speech, he needs to be removed from all communities that he moderates.
I’m a bit torn on your comment. I agree that many misuse the term ‘Islamophobia’ to describe legitimate criticism of Islam. But I’ve also seen truly ‘Islamophobic bigotry’ firsthand so I’m not sure I can agree it’s not or shouldn’t be a ‘legitimate’ term for those cases just because it’s misused in others.
Its more objective criticism of governments and cultural practices that happen to be islamic is not islamophobia. There is absolutely real prejudice by people against others who practice specific faiths and cultural practices.
That was the original definition of islamophbia, we shouldn’t give up the definition because abusers and tyrants are using it as a shield or else they’ll just hide behind the next word we choose to describe prejudice against a community.
I don’t think that some misuse of a term means the term itself is terrible and invalid and should be opposed at all costs.
Because despite the misuses, islamaphobia doesn’t mean “blasphemy” or even that no one can ever say anything negative about Islam. What it does mean, and what it is used for, is as a general descriptor for the propagation of bigotry or hatred, when the propagation of hatred is often actively trying to masquerade as “legitimate criticism” or mere blasphemy.
If I say that the “prophet” Muhammad is a pedophile for raping a 9 year old girl or that the Quran is comparable to Mein Kampf, those offended should not have the ability to silence me with the bogus “islamophobia” excuse.
Depending on a lot more context than is provided here, that “islamophobia excuse” may or may not be particularly bogus.
If someone is going to insist that it is their absolute right to inject “Muhammud is a pedophile” into any and all discussions even vaguely touching on Islam, I’m going to question the motives of that behaviour pattern. I don’t think someone would be unreasonable to note that it sure seems like the goal is a lot more to either antagonize muslims or to slant perceptions of the faith, given how out of pocket the remarks are to the room, or how persistent the focus on spreading that exact take might be.
I think that comparing Quaran to Mein Kampf is … a little above and beyond. I personally wouldn’t have cited that as if it were a clearly innocuous remark I wanted community support towards legitimizing. I don’t think the fact that you chose Quaran instead of Bible or Torah makes it worse - I think it’s just being shitty and insensitive towards multiple groups of people all at once no matter what ‘sacred’ text you’re choosing. In that light, though, I don’t think another person would necessarily be wildly out of line to question the choice to target the Quaran specifically, and doubly so if - perhaps - the account making those remarks has a pattern of targeting Islam with provocative or negative behaviour.
Being a bigot against Muslims is one thing, but to try to infer that not respecting their beliefs is necessary being a bigot to them is laughable.
Worth pointing out - that’s not what “they” are saying. It’s not that anyone who doesn’t always respect their beliefs on their terms is a bigot.
What they are saying is actually the reverse: That many bigoted people act on their bigotry by disrespecting their beliefs - and most bigots won’t admit to their bigotry. A pattern of behavior that leans in one specific direction that happens to look a lot like the bigots and isn’t very worried about not looking like a bigot is generally just … actually a bigot.
Should “Jesus is gay” or “The Old Testament is the most horrific book ever” be illegal? Should we create a new word “christianophobia” for that? Pretty sure no one bats an eye when those things are said, as it should be of course. However, you wouldn’t have written your long prose if we replaced “islamophobia” with “christianophobia” and that’s what I find sad. I am a firm believer that all Abrahamic religions are harmful and among the most shameful ideologies humanity has come up with, and I believe in the sacred right to disrespect and ridicule those beliefs.
So in similar fashion to what I had commented on related to Islam, this reads somewhat like you might be trying to present the broad issue under discussion as more complicated and more ambiguous than it genuinely is. I don’t think swapping “Christian” for “Muslim” makes the exact same questions any more complicated, but I do think doing so in order to sidestep what I had said and instead pose ‘new’ questions does give an impression that your goals here may not actually be discussing the specific things you bring up.
I also notice that you’ve gone ahead and filled in answers for me, and even responded to those answers - which does reinforce the impression that there’s motive in your rhetoricals, and does suggest some specific biases via what you assumed the answers would be.
Should “Jesus is gay” or “The Old Testament is the most horrific book ever” be illegal? Should we create a new word “christianophobia” for that?
So this gets effectively the exact same answer I already gave above, while discussing your example statements related to Islam. Neither “yes” or “no” in absolute sense - but depending on context and on patterns of behavior. I’m not sure why you expected anything different.
Pretty sure no one bats an eye when those things are said, as it should be of course.
I take it you’re unfamiliar with the American Bible Belt, who - among many heroic feats of absurd oversensitivity - at one point thought a red paper cup was “Satanic” and have felt profoundly oppressed and like their beliefs were under direct assult due to teenagers working in grocery stores not wishing them “merry christmas”. This is the same group of people who very genuinely believe that “gay people existing” is exactly identical to “genocide against Christians” and have seen cross-like shapes - “an X” for instance - interspersed with with effectively anything shaped like stars, sixes, the colour red, rainbows … fuck it, anything that isn’t “Jesus” to be subtle or overt disrespect of their faith and them personally.
So no. People of Christian persuasions will absolutely “bat eyes” at some of the most ridiculous shit imaginable, and those Christians are representative of all of Christianity as a whole in scale exactly parallel to the Muslims you were talking about prior representing all of Islam.
However, you wouldn’t have written your long prose if we replaced “islamophobia” with “christianophobia” and that’s what I find sad.
I think you’ve been reading evidence to the contrary in order to get to this sentence. That said, I’ll grant you - “christianophobia” is not nearly as loaded a term and bigotry against Christians is not a genuine societal problem that Christians face in the English-speaking world in the same way that Islamophobia is, so I would have been more likely to assume it was a bad-faith word-replacement than a genuine and sincere statement about Christians and their sensitivities.
I am a firm believer that all Abrahamic religions are harmful and among the most shameful ideologies humanity has come up with, and I believe in the sacred right to disrespect and ridicule those beliefs.
That’s nice. It doesn’t read that way. The biases you showed here, the answers you filled in for me, do seem to treat Christians like they’re obviously the well-adjusted normal people, even as if they’re not “sensitive” and totally don’t ever get offended by utterly trivial nonsense - while your prior comment sure did make some pretty sweeping generalizations about what Muslems in general think or are saying as far as their responses to similarly trivial nonsense. I think the decision to represent Christians according to moderate and well-adjusted members of the faith, and Muslims according to the extremists is a bit of an interesting pattern across these two remarks, and adding the context that all of those remarks are made in defense of an apparent desire to say some specific shit about Islam and represent it as completely normal and good-faith …
Don’t get me wrong. You can say what you want. Other people can say what they think about that. Some spaces may decide they don’t want you in them. I don’t think you’re holding the moral highground you’d posture towards if you say some shit that sounds “islamophobic” and then act like they’re overreacting and oversensitive for calling it that - when it seems pretty clear you’re as sensitive, if not more so, to your own statements being labelled according to the broad category of speech that it most clearly resembles.
And in general - Christians ain’t immune either; but “I’ll be shitty to everyone” doesn’t mean that you’re not being shitty at all - or even that you’re not necessarily targeting one group and just taking potshots towards the others to obscure which was the intended target.
Islamophobia just means bigotry against Muslims and it’s perfectly legitimate and often apt.
This whole routine about calling Muhammad a pedo or the Koran “the mother-load of bad ideas” was cute back in 2012, but it tunes out that the bad ideology in danger of being legitimized was reactionary politics in the skeptic community.
Meh, not commenting on the ban etc, but Lemmy is not a free speech zone and I think we are all expected to maintain some civility here. We can be secular without being edgelords (if I’m using the jargon correctly). Context matters, as does empathy.
I don’t see anything Islamophobic about your comment. I’m actually a specialist in studying the literature of Muslims living in the diaspora, which means I have a PhD about Islamophobia. You were making a comment on religion in general. I found it quite funny, actually. This moderator should be banned, not you. The problem here is that the moderator is not intelligent enough to read and comprehend the comment stream and is just taking wild guesses at stuff. This is the type of crap a select few moderators pulled on Reddit with their personal preferences and lack of reading ability. I believe that it is an embarrassment to lemmy.world to have a moderator like this one on here in charge of world news. It really sends the wrong impression out into the world, as it were. The world news moderator on lemmy.world is incompetent. Very bad publicity.
Name and shame the mod?
I don’t know how to tell which it was. I just found it in the mod log but can’t see who.
EDIT: I filtered by mods of World News and I’m pretty sure @Newsman is the mod who banned me. Their mod activity history paints a pretty clear picture of their bias.
Man, fuck that noise. You called for equality, if in a rather aggravated fashion…
Yeah the ban said ‘trolling, islamophobia’ but the comment removal said ‘rule 3’ which is ‘Respectful Engagement: Keep it civil!’.
I guess if that comment wasn’t civil enough I don’t belong in that community. In my book civility is about how you address individuals. I was just expressing frustration at the entire idea of ‘holy books’.
But the trolling accusation seems pretty silly and islamophobic is just absurd.
So is Lemmy no better than Reddit when it comes to stupid bans?
I will repeat what I have said a million times already - there should be no permanent bans for all but the most egregious of situations. Temp ban someone for 12 hours if they are being rowdy. By the time the ban is over, most people will have moved onto something else and if the person was being a troll, the situation will have already deescalated by then. If they do it again in a rather quick timeframe, ban them for 24 hours.
If you just ban someone permanently - especially for things that should be allowed but maybe the mod got a little butt hurt and overreached their authority - then that user will just get very angry and will probably create a new account and be even more belligerent when they come back. You just created an enemy. Permanent bans only make things worse.I really hope Lemmy sees how idiotic Reddit-like policies are and thinks to improve them.
Still better I think, but it’ll never be perfect and developing policies\code to make it better still will take time.
I agree about permabans, maybe it should take a mod+admin in agreement to permaban.
Maybe, but if Lemmy is anything like Reddit, there are mods who have a chip on their shoulder and want to push an agenda, so it really should be very difficult to ban someone. Maybe they should need an admin too. Or some other level above them to permaban someone.
I think bans are permanent, at least for now. I saw a post a few weeks ago from a mod complaining they couldn’t unban someone. There’s a lot of work being done on Lemmy mod tools, hopefully unbanning will be possible soon.
I don’t see why its not like blocking. List of users that have engaged on the site with little circles with a slash that can be white or red.
bans can be reverted on Lemmy, I’ve seen that happen in modlogs
Fuck all religions.
deleted by creator
That mod wants to perform digital jihad on you \s
Some of the moderators seem questionable and they moderate multiple unrelated communities - I would hope something will be done about it.
your being kindof a dick but you dont have to get banned over it just blocked by people that dont like your attitude. you can be atheist just dont be a knob about random bits in the news related to religion like no one is forcing you to read and interact with these articles.
*you’re
Actually I’ve been forced to do what a ‘holy book’ said because a holy book said it, so I reserve, and actually relish the right to say ‘fuck holy books’ whenever the subject comes up in a public forum.
Also not an athiest, or agnostic since that’ll be your second guess. But to reiterate- super mega fuck all holy books.
K
