I have been banned from unpopularopinion for exposing person defending genocide and use of human shields by IDF.
One of the users in unpopularopinion thread was complaining about someone calling him a “fascist”
https://feddit.uk/comment/17531487
In response I did paste a screenshot of his comment claiming IDF are not using human shields, it is Hamas who do that:
https://feddit.uk/comment/17529782
… And the mod of unpopularopinion banned me. I can only guess he is a another genocide apologist.
Hell if being condescending got you banned most of Lemmy would be banned.
pfft, that’s funny, coming from YOU
/jk, because for some reason people still take me seriously when i use /s
I have low key been expecting a ban for months now. My sass game isn’t good enough I guess.
If I were you I’d start working on the basics and once you get those down maybe try some more of the technical sass.
I’m thinking of starting a class
Tone censorship is wide spread on all the “major” subs esp on lemmy.world.
Being condescending is not enough, you have to say things that hurt regime right think…
things like dead CEO deserving it, Israel being a genocide ethno state, voting for 3rd party, calling our german regime for being heavy with nazi nepo babies.
voting for 3rd party,
Yep! Brah, before the 2024 election, saying/doing that shit was fucking ban-worthy on most of Lemmy. I have personal experience with that! haha
Fuck the tone police!
It was her turn 2.0: the kamala boogaloo
And then she lost anyway. So all of that censorship is for nothing 🤡
And next election these same parasites again going to a T like they are your friend… Just vote for their guy! Trust me bro
Exactly! lmao
I thought that was the idea?! Can you read?! /jk
Do you call this criticism? I suppose it will do if you don’t have anything more original to say. (😉)
Lemmy unfortunatly is slowly transforming to reddit again regarding israel. I just interacted with someone blaming all israeli actions on palestinians
No reason to think the Mossad doesn’t devote some time here. They’re incredibly active on Reddit, and I’m sure they have some people arguing in bad faith on Lemmy as well.
You are right but there was a lot less few weeks ago
Lemmy unfortunatly is slowly transforming to reddit again regarding israel.
I think Lemmy is just doing it in general. Powertripping mods that don’t get questioned by admins, stupid rules that punish good faith users but enable bad faith people, mass sockpuppeting…
I’m glad federation enables people to block some obviously bad accounts and instances, but god damn it feels like 50% of all instances are going insane because of a nation they aren’t in, that doesn’t care about them, is being called out for being a ethnostate.
Lemmy is on of the few places where this discussion is even possible so I guess Israelis and their acolytes figure it out and came here to derail it.
It wild how quickly public sentiment gets sanitized on redidt. Sure they let it run but then it is gone the next day like it didn’t happen.
At least here we can document it as it happens.
That’s kinda wild. In my experiance, everyone here shares the same opinion: Isreal deserves to be glassed.
At the very least, the Nazi Germany treatment but that’s still minority view. Normies got 3 generations of zionist propaganda to unpack
What the actual fuck
Fafo?
Unfortunately yes. First there was a feddit.org. Now I can see it spreading.
Are we sure these aren’t bots? I have a hard time believing someone can see what’s going on in the news and doesn’t see this as the genocide it is. Unless they’re extremely conservative, and only get their news from fox and oann. But then they wouldn’t be on lemmy anyway.
You must have not seen some of these comments. I was accused of antisemitism very recently.
I was accused of antisemitism very recently.
Gotta love witch hunting… you sound like an arse* but, no, what you did is definitively not antisemitism. And you definitively did a good call in that thread.
*to be fair with you, so do I.
Yes because they talk about multiple topics.
(I’m the guy this thread is about)
Six months ago, I would’ve argued against the claim that what Israel is doing here amounts to genocide. But at this point, the stack of evidence is piling up so high that it’s becoming increasingly hard to deny.
Even 6 months ago they were committing genocide. They’ve been committing genocide for well over a year. You must have sand in your eyes if it took you this long to see it.
Yikes.
So this person blatantly apologizes warcrimes, then edits to make clear they were just being “specific”, which is technically possible but really fucking convenient and shows VERY poor awareness at best.
Then another person complains about lemmy fostering extremist views which exposes themselves as lobotomized because they are falling prey to the “centrism” fallacy.
Then they ban you for trying to expose their bigotted views on that thread? Did i catch that correctly?
Idf soldiers literally admit using Palestinians are used as human shield and this guy claim that the term human shield is misleading and compare it to accusing Ukraine is killing civiliansI dont know what to say to that. This is turning darker at every corner and in germany it is “controversial” to say a genocide is happening in gaza and israel should be stopped by any means necessary. It is like watching a very bad, very gruesome horror movie.
More sources:
-
IDF uses Human Shields - BT’Selem
-
Including Children (2013 Report) - UN Report
-
Palestinian children face unrelenting genocide, displacement, and systematic abuse throughout 2024 - Defense for Children International
-
Israel “Systematically” Uses Gaza Children as Human Shields, Rights Group Finds 2024
-
Breaking The Silence - Testimonies from IDF Veterans
We can even go back to the second intifada, israel said they will spot but never did
-
Yes - and the mod just doubled down on his ridiculous behaviour.
Yeah okay. Ptb indeed.
They are not known for good takes. Only surprised they mod a community on world not their own dubvee instance
Feddit and lemmy.world can’t be trusted.
Removed by mod
Iran is a genuine threat to the US, trust me bro 🤡
BPR.
You did the right thing by calling out OpinionHaver’s hypocrisy. And you did it the right way - exposing why they were called a fascist, in a thread they do Reddit style “I dun unrrurstand” sealioning and “ackshyually” red herrings over and over to defend ethnic cleansing. If you only posted that and walked away, I’d be saying “PTB”.
However that is not just what you did. You were consistently aggressive in that thread, and your mod history shows entries like “uncivil”, “Derailing”, “civility”, “Rude/toxic”, “history of netiquette violations”, “consistent history of toxic behavior” across multiple instances. So even if the target was justified, you’re still a problem user, and if a mod lets this sort of hostile user (like you) go rogue in a comm, the comm becomes a shitfest.
Plus you’re a single “I can only guess” away from witch hunting = calling the mod “genocide apologist” on weak grounds (removals from a single thread). If you want to accuse someone, do it like you did towards OpinionHaver.
You, sunzu2 and OpinionHaver were derailing the thread. The mod should’ve either nuked the whole comment chain or left it alone; by selectively deleting you+sunzu2’s comments but not OpinionHaver’s, the mod is arbitrarily giving them a political voice in an allegedly “no politics” comm, but not you or sunzu2.
If an admin don’t want to be called a genocide apologist he should ban genocide apologies
People enabling fuckheads are obviously bad, but should not be assumed to be themselves fuckheads. “A is shit” and “B is shit” does not mean “A is B”.
This is important, because otherwise we end not blaming the enablers properly - they aren’t like the thief who steals your junk, they’re more like the braindead muppet who keeps the door open.
EDIT: …nevermind, I retract my point. We’re talking about LW; Zionist apologia goes rampant there. Even if OP themself didn’t bring this up, it’s common knowledge already.
What is this gibberish?
Did you see the edit? Now, here’s your answer: no, it is not gibberish. I’ll explain the reasoning.
If we stick to that thread alone, there are at least two possible explanations for why the mod acted that way:
- the mod simply didn’t see the page OP linked. They saw one user behaving poorly, another being superficially polite, and banned the one behaving poorly (the OP), without noticing the other was defending the IDF. or
- the mod saw the linked page, deemed it OK, banned OP because he’s defending the Palestinians, and used their behaviour as excuse.
There are more, but let’s stick to those two. Both enable someone who’s doing genocide apology. In both, the mod is being an enabler. But only #2 counts as condoning that genocide apology. #1 is simply being damn sloppy.
However, based on the mod actions in a single thread, we have no grounds to know if it’s #1 or #2. And we shouldn’t assume. You don’t accuse people based on assumptions.
Here’s where the edit comes in. What I said above doesn’t apply because it’s common knowledge that the LW admins+mods do jack shit against Zionist apologia. That’s why I retracted my point - because it isn’t how the mod acted in that thread, it’s a consistent behaviour across multiple threads.
Is this clear now? TL;DR: I was saying “OP, bring up more evidence before you accuse someone”, then “nevermind, the evidence is public knowledge”.
the mod simply didn’t see the page OP linked
I did paste verbatim screenshot and mod was well aware about the content - defending IDF using human shields cannot be mistaken with anything else.
So yes, we have grounds - he was well aware.
Fair.
See edit.
OpinionHaver was making claims that did not pass basic scanning of his comment history.
I linked up his comment for context. I don’t think that’s derailing. That’s how good discourse happens. In fact, it is my opinion, that these “rules” are generally used to censor content, which is what happened here at least in my opinion.
But sure, if entire comment thread got nuke, it would be harder for me to make these claims.
But week in, week out around here we see these patterns of censorship around topics that are sensitive to the regime but we still pretend as if these “mods” are “modding” and not censoring.
By far your comment is the least problematic of the bunch, and it’s only a problem because it’s in the middle of that ruckus - it is further derailing the discussion, even if not the one starting it.
But sure, if entire comment thread got nuke, it would be harder for me to make these claims.
Personally I’d keep it on, because I agree with you. For me it’s a matter of transparency - if you remove stuff here and there suddenly nobody knows who said what. But I still see grounds for nuking the whole comment chain (including the top comment), to avoid a flamewar and make sure the rules are enforced.
But week in, week out around here we see these patterns of censorship around topics that are sensitive to the regime but we still pretend as if these “mods” are “modding” and not censoring.
Sadly you’re right.
You were consistently aggressive in that thread
No. I mostly only posted this genocide denier his own words. Calling someone defending use of human shields a “genocide apologist” is factual, not aggressive.
your mod history shows entries like “uncivil”, “Derailing”, “civility”, “Rude/toxic”, “history of netiquette violations”, “consistent history of toxic behavior” across multiple instances.
Firstly, this is irrelevant. Secondly when you get to the details, most of these comments are made by infamous feddit.org mods - who very recently came out of the closet and started banning reasonable criticism of Israel. Fill your gaps.
So even if the target was justified, you’re still a problem user,
I am who I am. I say what I think.
Plus you’re a single “I can only guess” away from witch hunting = calling the mod “genocide apologist” on weak grounds
See my other comment. I did paste screenshot of his disgusting defence of IDF, verbatim. This triggered the mod who called it “smear” and he doubled down on calling it “smear” again in this very thread. If calling a guy like this a “genocide apologist” is a smear for the mod, that’s very telling about mod own views.
No. I mostly only posted this genocide denier his own words. Calling someone defending use of human shields a “genocide apologist” is factual, not aggressive.
You’re omitting the part where you call a third party “an idiot”, and that your answers to the genocide denier were both passive aggressive as fuck. (Source, modlog.. For the pass-aggro Ctrl+F “sweetie”)
It’s arguable if your aggressiveness in this specific case was justified. But by claiming that you weren’t being aggressive you are simply lying. And calling people stupid by proxy - do you expect them to buy your lie?
Firstly, this [your mod history entries] is irrelevant.
No, it is not. It shows that you’ll likely to behave like an arse in any community that allows it. Mods can and should use a user’s history to know how to handle them, once they violate the rules of a community.
Secondly when you get to the details, most of these comments are made by infamous feddit.org mods - who very recently came out of the closet and started banning reasonable criticism of Israel. Fill your gaps.
- Yes, because people driving to work deserve to have their eyes stabbed 🙄 What kind of fucking moron creates stuff like this one?
- > Yeah, I’m all for that. And it’s easy. Just revoke all licences. https://lemmy.world/c/opisafuckingidiot
- I hope you’re a fucking miner (sic - minor)
- Your parents had “semen cause autism” energy
- Or perhaps you are simply not using your brain?
- Just 20%? I didn’t know 80% of USians were retarded, I always thought it was around 60% max.
- Go and fuck yourself.
- In this case enjoy your piss with fart bubbles. I am pretty sure you will be fine as long as it says “champagne” on the bottle.
None of those involves either the feddit.org mods or the Zionist Reich, but in all of those you’re being aggressive towards other users. I could post another thousand examples, that modlog is full of that.
You are lying yet again.
I am who I am.
You are a fucking arsehole, and someone without the dignity to admit they’re a fucking arsehole.
I say what I think.
The problem is how you say it. You’re a fucking arsehole, clearly unable to voice your views without sounding like a pissy manchild. And also a liar based on the comment I’m replying to.
Please do a favour for everyone and go back to Reddit, you’ll be in more suitable company there.
Well documented comment
Wonderful retort!
You’re omitting the part where you call a third party "an idiot
Again, this is irrelevant. Not part of the exchange I have been banned for and it was a reply to him calling me an" embarrassment". For the context, it was a guy defending genocide denier. He also posted in this thread - I suggest you have a look.
your answers to the genocide denier were both passive aggressive as fuck.
Firstly I disagree with that. Secondly this is again irrelevant - being “passive aggressive” is not a bannable offence.
But by claiming that you weren’t being aggressive you are simply lying.
I completely disagree with that. None of my comments were aggressive.
No, it is not. It shows that you’ll likely to behave like an arse in any community that allows it.
It is completely and utterly irrelevant. You may be an angel in one community and the devil in another. If there was a Israel/IDF supporting community the guy I was responding to would be an angel.
None of those involves either the feddit.org mods or the Zionist Reich, but in all of those you’re being aggressive towards other users
Nope. Now click each of them for a context. I stand behind every single one of them.
You are lying yet again.
Stop accusing me of lying.
You are a fucking arsehole, and someone without the dignity to admit they’re a fucking arsehole. Please do a favour for everyone and go back to Reddit
Now, my answer to this should be “go and fuck yourself”. But since you put your comments so nicely I am going to pat you on your head and just say “yes, sweetie” 😂
If anyone is aggressive here, including name calling it is you. Now, disengage.
deleted by creator
I don’t see the hypocrisy you’re accusing me of here, but I’m more than happy to clear up any potential confusion. I’ve interacted with you here before, and I know that - unlike OP - you’re capable of debating in good faith. So if you genuinely see any logical errors in my reasoning or behavior that you think are worth criticizing, I’m open to hearing it.
Geneva:
to render […] military forces immune from military operations
With respect to non-international armed conflicts, Additional Protocol II does not explicitly mention the use of human shields, but such practice would be prohibited by the requirement that "the civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against the dangers arising from military operations”.
The source you are discussing:
[…] to make sure they were clear of bombs and gunmen
It is a human shield walking into a house in case there are bombs or gunmen in the house, in order to render the military forces outside immune from military operations.
They either force the bombs to explode or gunmen in the house to open fire on the civilian, thereby exposing the gunmen to counter-fire with minimized risk to the military personnel, or they force gunmen to avoid opening fire at all.
Just because you dress the civilian in military fatigues does not change this. They are human shields.
My understanding is that the correct interpretation of that is you’re not allowed to, for example, strike military targets with missiles if there are civilians around. If one then doesn’t fight fair, they can abuse this by intentionally placing military infrastructure near civilian buildings - even schools and hospitals - knowing that this will, at least to some extent, deter the enemy from striking. In other words, using civilians as human shields.
In my view, what’s being described here is a violation of Part 4, Article 147: “compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power” - which, let’s not forget, is equally evil and indefensible.
Rendering immune from military operations also involves posing civilians as military personnel for the purpose of distracting enemy combatants and drawing their fire. Think the Joker’s plan from the Dark Knight - if you put fake guns and fake uniforms on civilians for the purpose of having the enemy attack them instead of the real target that is a human shield.
They are not serving. That is conscription, and would involve arming the personnel or otherwise having them perform the expected duties of military personnel. They are being placed unarmed intentionally in the line of fire in a way that military personnel would never be used, so they are not being forced to serve.
They are not serving.
Fair point - can’t really argue with that. I guess it counts then. I was wrong.
I never heard an hypocrite admiting that is a hypocrite
Refer to this discussion FelixCress linked.
Up to your top comment (“I’m not sure “human shield” is the correct term here.” […]), you could say that you were just arguing semantics. However, your replies to leftytighty and Keeponstalin show otherwise:
- even after being shown (by Keeponstalin) that the definition of human shield fits the content of the article to a T, you kept arguing that it does not apply
- insistent shift of the focus on Hamas’ actions
- leftytighty’s point in “try reading news about the IDF” is clear (implying usage of human shields is the common modus operandi of the IDF, so the article exemplifying it is not surprising). Your answer to that was basically a Reddit style sealion.
What you said is, effectively, a defence of the IDF, by denying that that specific event counts as a specific war crime, and insistent (~twice) shift of the focus to Hamas’ actions. Even if you say “I’m not defending IDF”. It does give people good grounds to call you a fascist, so your comment in the other thread is hypocrisy.
It’s still unclear to me where I was being hypocritical. Disagreeing on the definition of a term isn’t hypocrisy, and I would still argue that the example used in the article - of sending Palestinian non-combatants to clear out buildings - doesn’t fit the definition of a human shield under the Geneva Conventions, which is: “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations.” Rather, it more accurately fits the definition found in Part 4, Article 147: “compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power.”
As for the optics of criticizing Hamas but not the IDF - I understand how someone might draw false conclusions about my underlying motives. But to suggest that I’d be fine with the IDF doing something I would criticize Hamas for - let alone the accusations of fascism - is simply untrue. Of course I condemn all mistreatment of civilians, regardless of who’s responsible. That should go without saying. When I said that I’m not defending the IDF I meant that I’m not defending their use of human shields or otherwise mistreating civilians. Not that I’m not defending their broader goal in the conflict. What I got (implicitly) called fascist for that Felix is refering to had nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestine conflict. That happened in this thread.
If someone holds mistaken beliefs about me, that’s one thing - but once they start publicly spreading falsehoods, that’s where I draw the line.
What Felix says in the opening post here is either a blatant lie or a total misunderstanding.
I have been banned from unpopularopinion for exposing person defending genocide and use of human shields by IDF.
At no point have I defended or advocated for genocide, or for the use of human shields - nor is that the reason they got banned for.
You do realise you’re using here the exact same sealion as you did in that thread, right? As in: “I don’t understand” followed by a gross distortion of what someone else said.
where I was being hypocritical. Disagreeing on the definition of a term isn’t hypocrisy
As already explained, the issue is not just disagreeing on the definition.
You do realise…
I don’t. I’m genuinely trying but I don’t.
What gross distortion? What exactly is the issue, then? It’s not hypocrisy or sealioning Felix was accusing me of. I honestly struggle to make sense of what I’m even being accused of here. Everyone just seems to be assuming bad faith, while I’m simply trying to figure out what I did wrong this time.
If it’s about me being annoying, pedantic, or whatever - fine, I don’t disagree. But my issue is with claims about me or my beliefs that just aren’t true. And if they are true, I’m sincerely hoping someone would point them out to me.
You do realise you’re using here the exact same sealion as you did in that thread, right?
I don’t. I’m genuinely trying but I don’t.
Given that you claim to not defend the IDF, and I don’t know your “motivations” or “intentions” or whatever¹, I’ll treat you as genuinely confused.
What's "sealioning", in a nutshell.
Sealioning is a debate tactic where someone keeps engaging in a debate through things like this:
- Questions / allegations on matters that are contextually obvious, while showing to expect others to rebuke them. Often through claims of ignorance.
- Questions / allegations that are completely irrelevant to the topic, but being treated as if they were. Whataboutisms, argumenta ad nauseam, etc.
- Clearly distorting what others say.
- Misleading / loaded questions, implicit assumptions, straw men… basically distorting what others say.
- Insistently claiming that they’re just trying to engage in a meaningful debate, or “just questioning” (JAQing off), etc.
- etc.
Ultimately, a sea lion makes the other side shut up or snap out - not through valid argumentation, but by shredding their patience. In both cases the sea lion can claim a victory.
Now, look at your comments in the linked discussion - because they provide context to this one. And let us pretend that the IDF was indeed committing another war crime than using human shields, i.e. that your “ackshyually” was indeed correct². Here’s what you see:
- The topic is about the IDF using human shields. The point of such a topic is to spread awareness of the atrocities committed by the IDF.
- Your top comment is an “ackshyually” about the exact definition of human shield (weak relevance, given the point of the topic).
- In the same comment you say “which has been Hamas’ strategy from the beginning” - shifting the focus from what the IDF is doing to what Hamas does. (whataboutism).
- Keeponstalin provides you a definition of the usage of human shields, plus multiple links that show that the usage of human shields is a common IDF strategy.
- Instead of addressing that definition, you highlight your alleged intentions (“I’m simply questioning…”), and claim that saying the IDF uses human shields “paints a somewhat dishonest picture of the actual reality”. Like, there’s no other way to interpret this excerpt except as you defending the IDF.
The only reasonable way to explain your behaviour there is sealioning: you shift the focus into semantics and Hamas, while claiming that you’re just asking questions, and not addressing what others said…
And before you say “but my intentions” - remember, the only person who knows what’s inside your head is yourself¹.
Now look at this thread. I said that you’re still sealioning because:
- claim of ignorance: “It’s still unclear to me”
- distortion of what I said: “Disagreeing on the definition of a term isn’t hypocrisy”. My exact words were “It [your defence of the IDF] does give people good grounds to call you a fascist, so your comment in the other thread is hypocrisy.” So it’s clearly not about the disagreement of the definition, I called it hypocrisy because you claim surprise of being called a fascist³.
You were sealioning back then, claim ignorance, distort what someone else says…
It’s not hypocrisy or sealioning Felix was accusing me of.
I said those things. FelixCress is claiming that you’re a fascist.
If it’s about me being annoying, pedantic, or whatever - fine, I don’t disagree. But my issue is with claims about me or my beliefs that just aren’t true. And if they are true, I’m sincerely hoping someone would point them out to me.
It is not about being pedantic or annoying. It’s about how your words are interpreted.
And, if you’re genuinely not sealioning, a few tips on how to avoid being labelled as one here:
- Mind the context. Always mind the context. It dictates how your words are interpreted. Specially for more politicised topics, like the ongoing conflicts. A neutral statement (like “it doesn’t fit the definition”) will convey different things based on the post, and those things will not be neutral.
- I hate doing this but don’t simply say epistemic statements (X is true / X is false) in a heavily politicised topic without a moral statement. Otherwise people will see a moral statement on it. Not just witch hunters but every bloody body.
- If you’re unsure on what someone else said, don’t say stuff like “I don’t understand”, “I’m confused”, “I’m not sure”. Instead, ask specific questions on what they mean. (Reason: most Lemmy users are former Reddit users, and in Reddit this crap is a red flag for sealioning. And ooooh boy sealioning in Reddit is bread and butter.)
- If there are multiple possible interpretations to what someone else said, and you can’t handle all of them, always pick the most reasonable one.
NOTES:
- Nobody knows what’s inside someone else’s head, nor we [people in general] should pretend we do.
- It is not correct, but for the sake of this discussion, the distinction between the IDF committing one or another specific war crime doesn’t matter.
- Even if you are not a fascist you most likely know where that claim comes from. That’s hypocrisy.
Ackshyually
Fair enough. I’ve been a smart-ass my whole life, so I’m not going to argue against that.
Whataboutism
No issues with that either. That doesn’t exactly refute my point, however.
Sealioning
This I don’t agree with, and your definition of it seems somewhat strange - especially the part about distorting what others say, which I don’t admit to either.
Sealioning is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity (“I’m just trying to have a debate”), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter. - Wikipedia
Saying “I don’t understand” isn’t sealioning if I genuinely don’t understand. If someone doesn’t like what I’m saying, I don’t engage with vague accusations - I ask them to be more specific so I can respond to what they’re actually saying, not what I imagine they’re saying.
Instead of addressing that definition, you highlight your alleged intentions (“I’m simply questioning…”), and claim that saying the IDF uses human shields “paints a somewhat dishonest picture of the actual reality”. Like, there’s no other way to interpret this excerpt except as you defending the IDF.
I’ve only claimed that “human shield” doesn’t fit the definition in this specific example, but when people provided examples of other cases, I didn’t claim they weren’t true. I condemn the IDF’s use of human shields just as harshly as I do when Hamas uses them.
To me, it seems hypocritical when people criticize one side for something the other side is demonstrably worse at - but I’ll grant you that, in this specific case, I’m assuming bad faith when I really can’t know anyone’s intentions or underlying motives any more than they can know mine.
Also, saying that I “defend the IDF” is a pretty vague claim. Yes, there are more things I might defend the IDF for than Hamas - but that doesn’t mean I blanket-approve everything they do. I don’t defend the use of human shields, and I don’t defend genocide. You may argue that I’m “effectively” doing so, but since that’s not my intention, I don’t accept that accusation. I could just as easily flip that around and say people here are defending Hamas - which would equally misrepresent their views in most cases.
Now, as you’ve probably noticed, I tend to be a bit provocative in the way I comment - that’s intentional. Like trolls, I am baiting for a reaction. The difference is that: 1. I actually believe what I’m saying. 2. I don’t act in bad faith (or at least not with bad intentions). 3. Getting a reaction isn’t my end goal - I use it as a tactic to get people to engage with me. I also intentionally don’t tend to caveat my points because othewise my every response would just be a list of what I’m not meaning/saying.
I still stand firm that Felix has made multiple false accusations against me and has consistently behaved in extremely bad faith from the very beginning. It’s pretty clear to me that this all started when he asked for examples of extremism on Lemmy, and one of the multiple examples I provided was of someone advocating for the abolition of Israel - something he clearly had a strong emotional reaction to. That reaction seemed to prompt him to dig through my post history, looking for anything to support the assumptions he had already made about me.
At no point did it feel like it was about the actual content of my claims - it was a personal smear campaign, not an argument. I think that compairing the lenght of our moderation histories is quite revealing.
Finally, as a side note - I hate responding to multiple points like this in one post, but I don’t see any other way to address everything you brought up. If you still want to continue the conversation, I’d much rather focus on one or two specific claims you feel most strongly about. But if not, I just want to thank you for taking the time to write a thoughtful response - and above all, for your civility. Social media needs more people like you.
PTB
Janitors gonna trip
Removed by mod
I’m more than happy to explain my actual views to anyone genuinely interested in hearing what I actually think about the subject - rather than what OP wants you to think I believe. I know my reply was intentionally provocative, but I stand by everything I said. You only need to compare the length of OP’s moderation history to mine to see who’s really acting in bad faith here.
Here’s my responses to that thread for further context.
I’m not sure “human shield” is the correct term here. That implies using the civilian population to deter your enemy from shooting at you - which has been Hamas’ strategy from the beginning. It would make zero sense for the IDF to do that, since it wouldn’t deter anyone.
EDIT: It may be more accurate to categorize this as using a protected person to perform military duties, which is also prohibited under international humanitarian law - but it’s a different category of war crime.
Human shield is defined under Geneva Conventions as “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations”
I’m not here to deny the atrocities committed by the IDF - I’m simply questioning the legitimacy of the term in this specific context, while somewhat provocatively trying to highlight the fact that accusing Israel of using human shields is a bit like accusing Ukraine of killing civilians. While both may be technically true, it still paints a somewhat dishonest picture of the actual reality - which, in this case, is that using human shields is Hamas’ number one tactic, and no intellectually honest person can seriously claim otherwise.
when they tie Palestinians to the front of their vehicles, I think we can say they’re using literal human shields.
That would absolutely count as using them as human shields. However, the example used in the article, in my opinion, doesn’t. What they’re doing is still just as immoral and still a war crime, but I don’t think it qualifies as an example of using someone as a human shield.
This has nothing to do with defending the IDF - don’t be ridiculous.
Am I being pedantic? Yeah. But that still doesn’t change the fact that what I’m saying has nothing to do with defending the IDF. I have no dog in that fight. I’m not rooting for either side in this conflict - I’m only rooting for the civilian population suffering on both sides.
The point is that the correct response to an accusation of the usage of human shields is not pedantry. When there’s multiple documented cases of this happening, the correct response is not singling out specific examples that in spirit is still the usage of human shields but following some specific definition technically might not count. This serves no purpose other than to derail the conversation into pendantry.
You also made a logic error: according to you, the IDF wouldn’t use human shields because Hamas already does. And you reason that this must mean Hamas does not care if civilians die. But the entire point of human shields is that it makes it impossible to do certain military operations because it would kill civilians. The end result with this strategy isn’t dead civilians, it hinges on the civilians staying alive (and thus your military is too). Hamas doesn’t employ this strategy to get civilians killed, they do it to protect their operations. That exact same motivation could work for the IDF too.
The crimes that the IDF are accused of also in no way compare to what’s been happening in Ukraine. By making these comparisons you seem to be trying to minimize what the IDF is doing, which in effect defends the IDF.
If that’s not your intention, then stop and reflect carefully on what your comments actually contribute to the conversation. What you name the crime isn’t what’s important here, it’s the crime itself.
I’m doubting that the IDF would use human shields because I don’t think Hamas would refrain from engaging them just to protect their own civilians. However, people have provided examples of the IDF actually doing this, and I haven’t argued against that. I don’t fully understand the logic behind it, but I accept that it’s happening and I obviously condemn it.
My doubt stems from the fact that it’s well documented that Hamas has, on multiple occasions, launched rockets from areas near hospitals, schools, mosques, and refugee camps - knowing that this can deter the IDF from striking those locations, at least to some extent. But the willingness to put their own civilian population at risk like that makes me seriously question how much they actually care. They’re also on record saying things like “we love death more than the infidels love life,” and in their worldview, being martyred isn’t a bad outcome - quite the opposite.
So my issue is essentially this: the same people who seem completely unwilling to criticize Hamas for their use of human shields have no problem going after the IDF for it. In this case, even if the criticism is valid, I still see that as quite hypocritical.
Also, I fully acknowledge being a provocateur - and the fierce pushback against what I sounded like I was saying was fully expected on my part.
I’m doubting that the IDF would use human shields because I don’t think Hamas would refrain from engaging them just to protect their own civilians.
I don’t understand why you’d doubt this in the comment section of a post that quite literally has proof they’re doing it.
So my issue is essentially this: the same people who seem completely unwilling to criticize Hamas for their use of human shields have no problem going after the IDF for it. In this case, even if the criticism is valid, I still see that as quite hypocritical.
Can you show anyone who is unwilling to criticize Hamas for the usage of human shields? Everybody knows what Hamas does, they’re a terrorist organisation after all. The question is why the IDF, which is supposedly “the most moral army in the world” is doing it too. Even so, it’s deflection through whataboutism.
Have to say it’s always amazing how quickly those saying they aren’t defending atrocities will pivot to defending them.
Especially considering they don’t even care about IDF killing civilians
Because they are engaging in a shill op.
So they have to pretend to care about Gaza residents now, public opinion too strong in victims favour.
So they pretend to be allies and then engage in dilatory tactics to under mine consensus formation on the issue.
You see this on reddit flashed out better if you can catch an active thread before it gets sanitized or removed.
The idea is to sow some doubt around the topic… It is not that bad, some of it deserved etc
This means that’s progress is being made on public opinion front but people are dying today and public opinion is moving too slow
To be accurate hamas is designed as a terrorist from by only 40 of i believe 197 countries. Hamas definitely did many terrorist acts but israel did a lot more since it’s creation
That thread was literally the first time I’d ever heard of them doing it. My comment there however was intended to question the legitimacy of using that term in that specific context - where they were reportedly sending civilians to clear buildings before entering themselves - not as some broad denial that it’s ever happened. I didn’t argue against anyone who gave me actual examples of them doing it.
And even if I were skeptical about the IDF using human shields, it would still be a logical error to jump to the conclusion that I’m denying a genocide. I’ve seen the photos of Gaza nearly flattened by Israel’s bombing - those are pretty hard to argue against.
I can’t point to anyone specific who outright refuses to acknowledge Hamas doing the same, but I’ve interacted with plenty of people who straight-up refuse to admit it and instead derail the entire conversation by accusing me of holding views I don’t actually hold.
EDIT: well here’s one example of a person seeming to imply Hamas doesn’t do it. I don’t want to out them, but can be found in this thread.
The only documentation of human shields is israel using it. Only israel and it supporters say that hamas use them. Hell there are two videos of the idf using human shields on youtube
The fact that you spent so much time and energy to defend your specific version of reality without thinking to at the very least use the search function of your favorite browser to confirm for yourself whether what you believe is true or not goes to show that you aren’t interested in the cause.
You’d rather maintain the information insulation around your head cannon and worthlessly debate than spread truth.
All the negativity you’ve received in these threads is deserved, and I hope you someday realize what habits you’ve devolved to exhibiting.
This goes for anyone shielding their ego over what’s actually happening in the world today.
The only documentation of human shields is israel using it. Only israel and it supporters say that hamas use them. Hell there are two videos of the idf using human shields on youtube
the same people who seem completely unwilling to criticize Hamas for their use of human shields have no problem going after the IDF for it.
Israel is doing a genocide but have you thought about Hamas? 🤡
Also, you are literally admitting in acting in bad faith here, which is dilatory to the discussion of the Israeli’s genocide and war crimes.
“Hamas uses Palestinians as human shields” is one of the weirdest arguments in existence.
-
Gaza City is home to nearly 2 million people living in an 88-square-mile expanse, which is about 21,000 people per square mile. Is it “using people as human shields” if your fighters have no unpopulated place to strike from?
-
Even if we grant that the accusation is true, that doesn’t make it okay to retaliate against innocent civilians. If we all agree that October 7th was bad, I’ve got terrible news for you about the last 70 years of Israeli occupation.
-
Israel has killed 40,000 innocent civilians. I haven’t checked in a while, this number is surely low. It’s obvious to everyone that “human shields” aren’t effective, so why would Hamas think it was? Almost like this is just a talking point to use as Israel blows up another hospital.
-
Israel has fired at UN delegations, clearly marked Red Cross/Red Crescent vehicles, Aid NGOs, and Israeli hostages trying to escape under a white flag. Are we really supposed to trust them about “Hamas using human shields” when they shoot everything that moves and claim they were Hamas afterwards?
-
I’m not rooting for either side in this conflict
One side is committing genocide. If you’re not rooting for the other side, then you’re rooting for genocide.
The hamas vector of discussion is to conflate the civilian population with “enemy” combatants. At least gen pop finally seeing it for what it is. Shill op to down play genocide.
Soldiers literally admit it. Human right organizations mentioned the use of human shield since the second intifadha but you have the audacity to claim it’s false. No unbiased person believe your words, you are just an hypocrite.
Removed by mod
You got banned because you’re a petulant, argumentative, obnoxious, pugnacious jerk. That’s why you got banned. I see you all over the place making obnoxious comments and getting into fights with people for no reason.
That you telling this defender of IDF how you are with him?:
and the community was unpopular opinion
I mean, that doesn’t make them a fascist.
It makes them misinformed and a hypocrite.
In the second thread OP linked, the user in question is sealioning and “ackshyually” all the way. The whole thing boils down to:
- [Someone] Israel Defence Forces are using people as human shields
- [Opinionhaver] Ackshyually, it doesn’t count as human shield
- [Someone else] It does, see: [explains it]
- [Opinionhaver] I dun unrurrstand you are point, explain again.
They’re quacking like a duck and OP called them a duck. In this regard OP is right.
I’ll be honest, I was going off the evidence presented in this thread and didn’t follow the links. Dude is definitely a genocide denier and in the wrong but I don’t see the connection between being a hypocrite sealioning about Israel using human shields and being a fascist.
Denying that specific genocide is already grounds to call someone a fascist, because of why that genocide is happening: to expand an ethnostate in the Levant. So, when he showed surprise that he was being called a fascist, that was hypocrisy, because it was clear why.
Sealioning refers to how he was debating in that thread, not the specific claims he defends.
I would’ve accepted the label “genocide denier” six months ago, but at this point, I no longer do. The longer this conflict goes on, the harder it becomes to defend the IDF. What they’re doing right now counts as genocide by my standards - and nowhere have I claimed otherwise.
good thing that’s not a label that hinges on your acceptance of it.
What they’re doing right now counts as genocide by my standards
Well, glad that’s all settled then. Welcome to the understanding of the rest of the sane world. Better late than never, huh?
Them: “there is a problem”
You: demonstrates problem
Mod: bans
YDI. You’re not wrong, you’re just an asshole. Pick your battles better.
That’s tone censorship and by accepting it, you are enabling it btw
… And the mod of unpopularopinion banned me. I can only guess he is a another genocide apologist.
Yes, that’s the only reason you got banned. You got me.
It’s not the purity tests, taking things out of context, hostility, or trollish behavior.
It’s not the condescending comments.
It’s not the smear campaign you’re STILL going on about while taking things out of context to “prove” your point.
It’s not the fact that you intentionally re-posted a removed comment that violated the rules.
It’s not the fact that I explicitly said that this is a no-politics community and was only allowing the post to remain up because it was about political discussions in general. And you decided to bring explicit politics into it.
It’s not the fact that your have a LONG history of bad-faith behavior and derailing conversations with your shtick.
No. It can’t possibly be any of that. It must be because I’m a genocide apologist, bootlicking Nazi. That’s clearly the only rational conclusion to be drawn here.
You fucking caught me.
/s
YDI
If some basic insults is worse than people justifying a 57 years occupation you should revaluate your moral compass
No wonder why you’re a mod of !@news@lemmy.world, you find words more important than actions. Israel’s mass murder is bad, but calling it out is worse!
Way to keep the stereotypes of lemmy.world’s mods true.
It’s not the purity tests, taking things out of context, hostility, or trollish behavior.
Stop lying. I did paste screenshot of his disgusting defence of IDF using human shields and told them they were “genocide apologist”.
You removed this comment and banned me.
It’s not the smear campaign you’re STILL going on about while taking things out of context to “prove” your point.
Calling someone defending use of human shields a “genocide apologist” is a smear now?!
It’s not the fact that I explicitly said that this is a no-politics community and was only allowing the post to remain up because it was about political discussions in general. And you decided to bring explicit politics into it
What political discussion did I bring?
It’s not the fact that your have a [LONG historyof bad-faith behavior and derailing conversations with your shtick.
Your point is?
No. It can’t possibly be any of that. It must be because I’m a genocide apologist
Since you are STILL claiming that I somehow smeared the guy defending use of human shields than yes - you must be one of them. It is either this or you are as bright as a broken bulb. Which one is it?
Your point is?
You’ve pretty much just made it for me. Thanks. I’m not going to engage in your gish-gallop.
‘Here’s a long list of accusations.’
‘Here’s a response to each.’
‘Gish gallop.’
Prick.
So you’re allowed to make a bunch of accusations but no one can respond to them? Good god.
Liberals can’t stand being told their wrong from both MAGAts and lefties. Ffs
You doubling down now?
Do a decent thing, recognise you made a mistake, apologise and reverse your decision. And remove comments of the genocide apologist playing victim while you are on it, since you removed mine exposing him.
You not banning or at least removing the comments of the genocide apologist shows your bias.
If you were really concerned with leaving that post to only a general context of politics and nothing specific, then you’d ban or removal anyone or any comments the refer to any specific political events, contemporary or otherwise. That includes those for and against said event.
You only banned/removed users/comments against one specific contemporary political event/state of affairs - not the ones for it or at least appearing as defending it - and so OP is calling you out for that.
Thanks for letting us know which forum to to visit.
Are you going to admit a mistake and do the right thing?
He’s a moderator of .world they never admit fault or issue.
They sometimes do, to be honest.
Never enough. Won’t unban any of the so-called “trolls” who were right about Biden needing to bow out or that Harris backing Israel and not pushing for domestic social changes would be a loss.
Won’t unban people who proved mods wrong because they power trip. Won’t deal with their trolls but ban you for fighting against them.
They can do it, they choose not to most of the time.
most of the time
That I can agree with
Why did you remove my comment hen?
As somebody else pointed in this thread, you nuked my comment that put Opinionhaver@feddit.uk comment in context
If somebody makes a claim, why I am getting censored for responding within the context of that claim?
