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 āfascistā
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
ā¦ And the mod of unpopularopinion banned me. I can only guess he is a another genocide apologist.
I donāt see the hypocrisy youāre accusing me of here, but Iām more than happy to clear up any potential confusion. Iāve interacted with you here before, and I know that - unlike OP - youāre 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, Iām open to hearing it.
I never heard an hypocrite admiting that is a hypocrite
Refer to this discussion FelixCress linked.
Up to your top comment (āIām not sure āhuman shieldā is the correct term here.ā [ā¦]), you could say that you were just arguing semantics. However, your replies to leftytighty and Keeponstalin show otherwise:
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 Hamasā actions. Even if you say āIām not defending IDFā. It does give people good grounds to call you a fascist, so your comment in the other thread is hypocrisy.
Itās still unclear to me where I was being hypocritical. Disagreeing on the definition of a term isnāt hypocrisy, and I would still argue that the example used in the article - of sending Palestinian non-combatants to clear out buildings - doesnāt fit the definition of a human shield under the Geneva Conventions, which is: āutilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations.ā Rather, it more accurately fits the definition found in Part 4, Article 147: ācompelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power.ā
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 Iād 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 whoās responsible. That should go without saying. When I said that Iām not defending the IDF I meant that Iām not defending their use of human shields or otherwise mistreating civilians. Not that Iām 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, thatās one thing - but once they start publicly spreading falsehoods, thatās where I draw the line.
What Felix says in the opening post here is either a blatant lie or a total misunderstanding.
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 youāre using here the exact same sealion as you did in that thread, right? As in: āI donāt understandā followed by a gross distortion of what someone else said.
As already explained, the issue is not just disagreeing on the definition.
I donāt. Iām genuinely trying but I donāt.
What gross distortion? What exactly is the issue, then? Itās not hypocrisy or sealioning Felix was accusing me of. I honestly struggle to make sense of what Iām even being accused of here. Everyone just seems to be assuming bad faith, while Iām simply trying to figure out what I did wrong this time.
If itās about me being annoying, pedantic, or whatever - fine, I donāt disagree. But my issue is with claims about me or my beliefs that just arenāt true. And if they are true, Iām sincerely hoping someone would point them out to me.
Given that you claim to not defend the IDF, and I donāt know your āmotivationsā or āintentionsā or whateverĀ¹, Iāll 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:
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 āackshyuallyā was indeed correctĀ². Hereās what you see:
The only reasonable way to explain your behaviour there is sealioning: you shift the focus into semantics and Hamas, while claiming that youāre just asking questions, and not addressing what others saidā¦
And before you say ābut my intentionsā - remember, the only person who knows whatās inside your head is yourselfĀ¹.
Now look at this thread. I said that youāre still sealioning because:
You were sealioning back then, claim ignorance, distort what someone else saysā¦
I said those things. FelixCress is claiming that youāre a fascist.
It is not about being pedantic or annoying. Itās about how your words are interpreted.
And, if youāre genuinely not sealioning, a few tips on how to avoid being labelled as one here:
NOTES:
Fair enough. Iāve been a smart-ass my whole life, so Iām not going to argue against that.
No issues with that either. That doesnāt exactly refute my point, however.
This I donāt agree with, and your definition of it seems somewhat strange - especially the part about distorting what others say, which I donāt 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 (āIām just trying to have a debateā), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter. - Wikipedia
Saying āI donāt understandā isnāt sealioning if I genuinely donāt understand. If someone doesnāt like what Iām saying, I donāt engage with vague accusations - I ask them to be more specific so I can respond to what theyāre actually saying, not what I imagine theyāre saying.
Iāve only claimed that āhuman shieldā doesnāt fit the definition in this specific example, but when people provided examples of other cases, I didnāt claim they werenāt true. I condemn the IDFās 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 Iāll grant you that, in this specific case, Iām assuming bad faith when I really canāt know anyoneās intentions or underlying motives any more than they can know mine.
Also, saying that I ādefend the IDFā is a pretty vague claim. Yes, there are more things I might defend the IDF for than Hamas - but that doesnāt mean I blanket-approve everything they do. I donāt defend the use of human shields, and I donāt defend genocide. You may argue that Iām āeffectivelyā doing so, but since thatās not my intention, I donāt 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 youāve probably noticed, I tend to be a bit provocative in the way I comment - thatās intentional. Like trolls, I am baiting for a reaction. The difference is that: 1. I actually believe what Iām saying. 2. I donāt act in bad faith (or at least not with bad intentions). 3. Getting a reaction isnāt my end goal - I use it as a tactic to get people to engage with me. I also intentionally donāt tend to caveat my points because othewise my every response would just be a list of what Iām 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. Itās 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 donāt see any other way to address everything you brought up. If you still want to continue the conversation, Iād 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.
Then Iāll focus specifically on sealioning. This instance is heavily politicised (and thatās good), so plenty people here can discuss IDF, Hamas, the ongoing Nakba etc. better than I do.
Those bullet points are just examples of sea lion behaviour. The common elements between all of them is that 1) they arenāt valid argumentation, and 2) they force the āsealionedā to provide pointless explanations, until they lose their patience; and distorting what others say is a way to do it.
You might have done it either āaccidentallyā or āon purposeā, but your claim does distort what I said. Because, again, it is not about disagreeing on definitions; itās that it was obvious why people were calling you fascist, even if your comment shows bewilderment about it.
Wikipedia itself lists multiple definitions. The core is the same, and shared with the definition Iāve provided.
Itās a red flag, you know? On itself it might not be enough to say āthis is a sealion with 100% chanceā but, together with other red flags, you can pretty much spot a sealion with damn good accuracy.
Are you referring to your accusation of hypocrisy and me then talking about the definition of the term āhuman shieldā - even though thatās not what you meant? Because if so, that wasnāt me intentionally misrepresenting what you said, but rather me genuinely not understanding what I was being accused of and trying to respond anyway, hoping that somewhere in my word salad you might find an answer to it.
What I couldāve done instead was keep asking you to be more specific - but then that couldāve just been interpreted as more sealioning (i.e., demanding pointless explanations). Was that the only example of me doing this, or were there others? I honestly struggle to give you a broad explanation here, but I can definitely explain my reasoning behind individual replies Iāve made to people in these threads.
As for people calling me a fascist - like I said earlier, that had nothing to do with what Iāve said about the IsraeliāPalestinian conflict. Iām not sure anyone called me a fascist for that - not even Felix, at least not explicitly. He was just pointing out what he saw as the absurdity of me wondering why people call me that, while (in his view) I was expressing clearly fascist views.
The implicit accusations of fascism came in a thread I made a while back where I was asking about a heavily moderated discussion community - one where mean-spirited, hostile replies wouldnāt be tolerated. People interpreted that as me advocating for āfree speech absolutism,ā as if I wanted a space like Twitter where anything goes and people get banned for pushing back. But that clearly wasnāt what I was asking for.
That thread got a lot of people suspicious about my motives, asking what kind of topics Iād want to discuss there, and claiming that a space like that would inevitably become a breeding ground for fascism and pedofilia. So itās not that people directly called me a fascist - but in my view, it was heavily implied in how I was treated.