Argument about why an instance doesn’t want to federate with another instance that’s devoted to political trolling. Apparently that kind of behavior is simply a core tenet of the belief system, and to criticize it is to reject the whole ideology.
It was you who was behaving like an entitled asshole. YDI. People can hate on Cowbee’s politics all they like (and they relentlessly do, poor guy), but he’s probably one of our calmest and most patient lemmy users. Especially considering all the abuse he gets simply for commenting.
I don’t agree with Cowbee’s politics, different ends to the means and I don’t think the USSR’s pros can outweigh the 95% of the cons.
But he’s at least patient and respectful until he has a reason to be a bit more direct. I’ve never seen him throw insults at people who insult him constantly.
Out of all the major players on .ml, they’re the one I tolerate the most.
Can’t wait until MoG uses this as proof we’re tankies for wanting a civil conversation between people.I enjoy reading their comments too. I don’t often agree and they’re not always perfect in an argument, but they are often informative.
Entitled to what…?
Hello, this is Carcosa and my hexbear account made both the post and comment that was referenced by the .world admins.
The comment referenced by .world admins was a throw away comment and not a “instance representing statement” I have come to realize that is impossible on an admin account and should not have made the comment.
The post itself was an instance statement, but as cowbee has pointed out in the original post the sentence that the .world admins bolded was not. In addition the .world admin post left out context such as the fact that a portion of the statement was a collaboration of the “news mega crew” which is a large group of moderators and users who primarily interact through the instance through the site pinned news mega post.
As also mentioned hexbear existed for years before federation and was a frequent target for raids organized by other places. Combined with no downvotes this created a unique site posting culture that I knew would clash with the wider fediverse. I was hoping to try and bridge the gap in any way i could.
Including working with other instance admins however the initial poisoning of the well done by the .world admins in matrix has made that difficult.
There was heated discussion in the admin matrix between myself and antik over the fact he was convinced that hexbear brigades but as I said then and will now.
Show me where there is a credible call to action from an admin/mod targeting a specific instance, community, user, post or comment.
There isn’t and the descendant of the instance that abused the rammy instance is still federated (hilarious-chaos) Those admins made credible calls to action asking their users to brigade a linked post. Hexbear has never done that.
One of hilarious chaos’ admins alice intentionally leaked out of context screenshots from those admin matrix channels to maliciously attack other instance admins is no problem for .world admins who remain federated with hilarious-chaos.
Based on these facts (.world remains federated with hilarious chaos despite their admins engaging in two forms of toxic behaviors while pre-emtively defederating from hexbear) one can conclude that political differences is the motivation. I would respect that being the stated reasoning more than the bad-faith accusations made.
Regardless Hexbear users will never vote to federate with .world so the ultimately any discussion of federation between .world and hexbear is pointless.
I just need to commend you on the full effort post on the 0 upvote PTB thread.
People gotta start upvoting for entertaining posts. This one is getting lots of engagement.
I simply sort by new comments
Legit! The best Lemmy threads would be labeled “controversial” on reddit. You gotta look for low upvote, high engagement posts.
goodness gracious I read the entire argument. YDI. I’m actually kind of surprised at how long they allowed that to go on and give you the benefit of the doubt before finally putting a stop to it.
and you aren’t even banned for that long. just 5 days.
5 days is like a lifetime to those glued to social media.
To some, being banned for 2 weeks means you might as well have told them to cut off their hands and sow their mouth shut.
Yeah, no one should care about abuses of power if its only for 5 days!
I literaly never said that.
I literaly never said you did
How else would I take you replying to my comment with that statement then?
Looks like a few posts with some decent points and like thirty messages of arguing about the argument where it gets so meta I can’t even tell who’s arguing what.
I donno if it deserved a ban but I could see a mod wanting to shut it down.
And jesus christ, you’re still fighting about the bolding here? Everyone involved sucks.
212·2 days agoThis post is really sparse, you should see the “Posting Guidelines” in the sidebar for what you ought to include.
You’re right, will update now. Thanks, PTB
5 day ban, YDM
YDI. You were sealioning and deliberately playing in bad-faith, such as (but not limited to) when you claimed nothing in the screenshotted text was bolded when it was. Your ban had nothing to do with the argument, but with the sealioning.
In summary, for the court:
Cowbee told a bold-faced lie about me:
you claimed nothing in the screenshotted text was bolded when it was.
This sealioning, gaslighting, and HYPOCRISY is surely ban worthy.
Just kidding, that would make you a PTB. :)
you claimed nothing in the screenshotted text was bolded when it was.
Quote me claiming “nothing in the screenshotted text was bolded” for the court please.
You could have said that @[email protected] worded it incorrectly, and that you never said that, you only said that a specific line wasn’t bolded (at least I assume that is what you are trying to get at here)
It would be a better use of everyones time.
You could have said that @[email protected] worded it incorrectly, and that you never said that, you only said that a specific line wasn’t bolded (at least I assume that is what you are trying to get at here)
I literally conceded that he could have that point, because it was literally completely irrelevant to the discussion. I then invited him to rejoin the discussion multiple times after that, but he continued to accuse me of lying, instead of just agreeing to disagree and move on. Yet you deem my behavior as more harmful to the community.
Why are you both so fixated on that hyper-specific, non-sequitor?
Yet you deem my behavior as more harmful to the community.
The fuck are you talking about?
Why are you both so fixated on that hyper-specific, non-sequitor?
I’m not.
Oh sorry, I assumed you used bans appropriately. My bad. Guess that sorta resolves this post though!
What… you think I’m a mod or admin?
Oh, yes – I did think you were a mod and the one that banned me, based on how things came to my inbox.
Nevermind, you’re just a Cowbee orbiter. Yawn.
Already linked to it.
You sure did. Quote the line I said.
You won’t. Because we were quibbling about which particular bullet point you meant, based on me making a non-sequitor jab.
You just can’t help but misrepresent, can you?
No, you intentionally misinterpreted what I said by placing too much of a focus on the words “NATO” and “IMF” when the point was clearly about the line “It is in the Left’s interest for these organizations to be demolished.” I pointed out NATO and the IMF as they were the subjects of this line, ie the organizations the line refers to, as shown in Lemmy.world’s quotations:
and Hexbear’s original text:
Rather than engage with the points I raised, you tried to pretend that since IMF and NATO weren’t bolded that my point about Lemmy.world wanting to emphasize those lines no longer mattered and wasn’t worthy of discussion. That’s why you were temp-banned for a measly 5 days from one community. Not about your argument being “hard to counter,” I refused to engage with that kind of trolling behavior.
Why should I engage with anything you said if you’re going to bend-over backwards to avoid answering a question I asked first? A conversation is a two-way exchange, and you clearly weren’t interested in that, only in debatelording.
No, you intentionally misinterpreted what I said by placing too much of a focus on the words “NATO” and “IMF” when the point was clearly about the line “It is in the Left’s interest for these organizations to be demolished.”
I didn’t “intentionally misinterpret” anything. I thought you were talking about that one line, and thought it was funny that you called out the only line without any actual bold in the formatting. I then said proceeded to move on and answer your question regardless of the perceived gaff.
When you decided that was your hill to die on, I gave you the concession because it was completely irrelevant to the discussion and invited you several times to engage with my answer. You refused.
I answered your question. 3 times. I linked you to it. What more do you want?
Now you’re here claiming that I said there was no bolded text at all. I see why other comments here are talking about your reputation.
You never conceded, you insulted me the entire way through, and played coy. Your response, which you linked:
Why did hexbear include it in their announcement? Why highlight an ideology they want to target while specifically telling their userbase, who they acknowledge are trolls, to try and play nice during the propaganda war on this new (to them) instance? Could it be that they are manufacturing an archetype of the average Lemmy World user?
Was not an answer. I asked why Lemmy.world admins highlighted specifically that the Hexbear news mega stated that it was in the left’s interest to demolish NATO and the IMF. You responed by asking why Hexbear included it at all, which is found simply by reading the Hexbear thread. Hex included it for anyone unfamiliar with Hexbear to learn more about Hexbear’s stances. Lemmy.world saw it, saw Hexbear’s stances, and decided to defederate before federating.
Additionally, a single user saying I have a “reputation” after you displayed such bad-faith argumentation means very little.
Removed by mod
You never conceded, you insulted me the entire way through
Not mutually exclusive. Stop whining about insults, you’ve insulted me this whole time as well. No one cares.
Was not an answer.
Yes it was. The answer is that Lemmy World wanted nothing to do with an instance obsessed with political rhetoric, that has identified them as housing enemy ideologies.
You can sub in any political ideology and that answer holds true.
Additionally, a single user saying I have a “reputation” after you displayed such bad-faith argumentation means very little.
Good thing there’s a whole community of users here. Man, you love fishing for little gotchas :)
Welcome to the circus lol
You can’t exactly go into the stables voluntarily, and then complain that you have horse poop on you now. It is known as a common feature, and if you didn’t know, now you do.
Bruh how does Cowbee get null a second time, that’s amazing!
I’ve said this about another person, but Cowbee is a camouflaged pit of sharpened spikes. It’s just argument bait, a person who has more time than god to get in bad-faith arguments.
Holy God… you are talking to Cowbee. Rookie mistake.
I have no idea about the substance of your ban, because I got bored before coming anywhere close to reading the whole thread, but more or less, the type of behavior you encountered is why these guys are banned in a lot of places. It’s weird transparently dishonest boosterism combined with claiming the right to “destroy” and troll anyone who is an enemy, also lying about what your opponents believe and why they believe it, and then getting aggressive with anyone who dares to disagree, and then inevitably whining about the colossal ideological unfairness when they inevitably get banned.
lemmy.ml and Cowbee are best left alone I think, except periodically to point the way out to freedom for anyone who’s wandered into their orbit accidentally.
For anyone reading: The context is here, including Cowbee being published on lemmy.world while aggressively whining that his team is forbidden from speaking on lemmy.world for ideological reasons, and then this comment (from this thread) as I guess the final instigation for the ban:
No, you directly lied in the face of evidence and claimed no bolding happened
Wrong.
You’re fully aware of the absurdity of your replies, any treatment of your “points” as anything other than the trolling they’ve been would be fruitless.
Projection. Open invitation to stop playing this little game and engage with my response.
This one made me laugh though. You’re not wrong. I get the impulse to want to spend extensive time trying to prove Cowbee wrong and hope he or someone involved will see the error of him, but that’s the playing-chess-with-the-pigeon game, probably a tactical mistake to spend too much time on.
Not feeding trolls is a forgotten art. I think it’s because everyone is taught to feed the algo nowadays, but it’s disappointing it’s not better in the fediverse.
Edit: Oh dear. The guy wrote an essay on why he’s the hero for getting in shouting matches with idiots =/
- Old and busted: Not feeding trolls
- The new hotness: Being rude and out-of-pocket back at the trolls so they get discouraged and don’t want to interact with you
A while back I weighed in on the “Hasan Piker shocked his dog with a dog collar” controversy. To no one’s surprise, a whole bunch of shouty people emerged to write all sorts of excitingly unproductive comments to me. After a while of fumbling with how to cope with it, I made the policy that every time one of them posted something hostile and content-free at me, I would make a whole new post of some horrible video about Hasan and link them to it. It took them a few repetitions, but eventually I think they realized that they were producing the opposite impact as they were aiming for, and every comment of theirs was spreading the criticism instead of bullying the criticism into silence as they had intended. They stopped interacting with me lmao.
Similarly I tend to get banned from Hexbear and lemmy.ml. I don’t think you should troll the trolls, and definitely you shouldn’t just play the straight man to their little game, but modern trolls in the Lemmy sense aren’t usually just trying to amp up pointless controversy for no reason. They usually have a goal. If you stop playing the game they are trying to dictate to you, and instead just work to undermine the goal, it’s all of a sudden not fun for them anymore and they leave you alone. This has been my experience.
You gotta imaging anyone spending as much time as them anywhere on the internet, doing that much typing, being so obtuse and weird.
They will always respond. They have infinite time and energy, they will never engage your argument in any form of good faith unless it exactly meets their political requirements, and their job is to find a way to find classify you as an out group the minute you wrong- think.
Engage if you want with that in mind, they also won’t block you, which is fun in a different way.
So what would an acceptable “good faith” way of disagreeing with you look like? Because at a certain point it just seems like anything other than just immediately conceding to you is considered “bad faith”
I mean, if you can honestly look at these back an forths and think they resemble anything approaching a rational conversation and not just circular meta discussion with the intention of targeting the person making the argument, then you aren’t looking to talk to me about. You are looking for padding to put around the sharp parts of my opinions.
Starting the convo by Sea lioning in a post about a dude who was banned for sea lioning is also hilarious, i want to commend you for that.
You gotta imaging anyone spending as much time as them anywhere on the internet, doing that much typing, being so obtuse and weird.
looks around nervously Haha yeah… yeah…
Lmao, you’re one of the good ones Phil!
Ha, I appreciate it
deleted by creator
