Oh god, yeah as a person that has done peaceful protests this is horrible. As someone who goes on the back of a motorbike, I’m scared to what they think about me on the road.
deleted by creator
The “logic” goes like this: (sarcasm)
It’s ok to burn down the planet for profit. It’s ok to destroy the ecosystem on which we all depend for food, clean water. It’s ok to make bombs and sell them to those dropping them on hospitals and children. It’s ok to pollute the air with deadly particles no one can avoid.
But you just CANNOT… you just CANNOT be in a way of someone carrying a few tons of steel of a metal cage through a city. That’s not something that we as a society will accept
Should we tell them their family joined the protest?
Can any lawyers answer this:
If the person driving that vehicle did end up running someone over, and had that sign in the window, would they get an elevated charge?
To me, that sort of thing is like premeditation, and it would be extremely hard for me to believe that an “accident” led to them killing someone with their vehicle.
Not a lawyer but, premeditation isn’t what you think it is; one can premeditate an action in seconds, the concept really just conveys that the individual had time to think of the consequences.
But yeah, a sticker like this would certainly hurt the case of any defendant. It wouldn’t likely get them any modifiers (though it would help), but it could definitely affect a judge’s decision on how much time they should serve.
Not a lawyer, but I think stuff like this is a minefield. The defense would try to get it thrown out as prejudicial and without the suspect testifying all they could do is show a picture to an officer of it who affirms that he saw it on the car and enter it into evidence, but they could only indirectly talk about it in opening and closing because nobody can personally testify about the motivations behind the sticker.
But if the defense was “I panicked and hit the gas when people surrounded me” this is something that would poke quite a few holes in that argument.
It shouldn’t. I think people put far too much value on motive. Dead is dead. If I am killed by a gun or car it doesn’t make any difference to me or my loved ones who will never see me again. Likewise, if I had a kid who was killed by a school shooter or someone who was gooning to his phone while driving, I would hate them both equally. Motive can’t bring back the dead.
Obviously motive has some value, but it shouldn’t be the difference between a few weeks of community service vs a lifetime in jail. Motive shouldn’t have more weight than the actual consequences of our actions because that is insane and gives people this fucked up idea that they don’t need to worry about preventing the deaths of others as long as they don’t intentionally kill anyone they can drive like the most selfish asshole in the world and they will never go to jail
It could, its just hard for the prosecution to handle. Because it’s not direct evidence of the mindset for that incident and it’s inflammatory to the jury the chances of it being ruled as prejudicial and not probative is high. That’s why past criminal convictions are also often excluded from trials.
I think it would be easy to defend against, with so many of those stickers around it could easily demonstrate just a particular sense of humour
My favorite retort to those advocating for running over protesters:
If it’s OK for you to run over protesters blocking your path on the highway, it’s also OK for me to set fire to your car if you park it in the bike lane.
Yeah, but to know which car to burn down you’d have to see them run over you and by that time ur dead.
Well we don’t have bike lanes so I’d say go for it
I’d downvote you for being smug but man, if whatever shithole you live in doesn’t even have bike lanes your day-to-day has got to be miserable enough already.
It just means you have to have a car, or have Uber money or be good friends with someone with a car. There are zero other options.
Rural America?
No I’m in a metro area with over 2 million people, just not in the very center of it. But still solidly in what you would call the city. There are no sidewalks, bike lanes, buses, trains… not even shoulders on the road. Just occasional memorials to dead pedestrians and cyclists.
Houston? I lived in Texas for a year and I couldn’t believe how few sidewalks there were. I was forced to walk on the edge of people’s lawn a few times and one guy actually ran out of his house and started screaming at me. He truly rather see me walk in the middle of the road and get ran over than see a young service member safely walk on his grass. The kicker was that he had a big American flag out in front which is peak irony because one cannot love their country if they do not love their fellow countrymen
My ex father in law was badly injured running into a car broken down, parked in a bike lane (there wasn’t anywhere else they could have stopped). He was training for a triathlon which he didn’t get to participate in, nursing two broken arms
Sometimes even without the help of arseholes your bike lane may be blocked. Look up regularly, people.
there wasn’t anywhere else they could have stopped
so there wasn’t a road?
The dude wasn’t looking up. this was 1000% his fault, jesus christ.
I don’t drive. I ride everywhere. And someone going head down teararse completely ignoring everything around them is a fcking idiot. This time it was a car. Coulda been a pedestrian, an animal, even trash, same result. The dude failed basic 101: be aware of your surroundings
Cool story. Car shouln’t have been on the cycle path regardless.
Ideally, yeah and I hate cars as much as anyone, but if my car broke down I would probably do the same. If the car broke down then that is the one situation that I cannot blame a driver for parking in the bike lane
Again, why not on the road??
It’s pretty much a highway. Dangerous to stop on, and the shoulder was turned into a bike lane. Beyond the bike lane on that stretch was a ditch the car couldn’t cross without damage.
I’m presuming they were broken down, it’s the usual reason for someone to abandon a car kilometres from the city or suburbia. They may have been pulled over by police and not allowed to continue due to drunk driving.
It really was a crap situation where the car had no other safe option and the cyclist would have been okay had he looked forward instead of down.
safe option
severely injured cyclist
Pick one. Just saying, whatever the situation, it obviously wasn’t a safe option.
the cyclist would have been okay had he looked forward instead of down.
Just like any approaching car. This is just valuing the life and well being of car users more than cyclists.
Yeah, I am a huge bicycle advocate. My dream is to live in a car free place, but riding your bike without looking where you are going is both illegal and insane to me. Keep your eyes on the road (in front of you) while driving or riding.
I agree with you on the caring more about car users part, except that the shitty infrastructure caused that scenario. If there’s no where to safely emergency park a car except for the bike lane that’s on the town or city and where the anger should be directed.
I’m a timid person and won’t ride a bike in my town because of how narrow the shoulders are and there’s always gravel, sand and debris on it. It freaks me out too much, which sucks since I’d prefer to do that since it’s more affordable.
If there’s no where to safely emergency park a car except for the bike lane that’s on the town or city and where the anger should be directed.
Ok, but that’s my point, it wasn’t safe to park on the bike lane and it never is. Where do the bikes go even if the cyclist sees it beforehand? On the road.
If I have to choose between endangering someone in a metal cage or someone who has only air separating their meat from the road, I will choose the former, always.
Even better is to push for better infrastructure so no one is in danger?
This is just acknowledging that sometimes things suck. I’m not saying the cyclist was at fault, just that he would have been better off if he had looked ahead at least once in the half a kilometre the car was visible for.
I wouldn’t park in a bike lane because I’m not an idiot.
I also wouldn’t block a live roadway for a protest as it is just inconveniencing others and would only alienate them from the cause I’m trying to advocate for, also because I’m not an idiot.
No movement ever accomplished anything by being convenient and quiet
And these movements are doing worse than nothing by not aiming their protest at what they are protesting. The anti oil ones especially are actually funded by the oil companies to make environmental protesters look bad.
And then those allegations are negated by being published by opponents of the protest. It’s a shitshow all the way to the top.
This is a style of protest where I really have a problem. My stance on it is “protest however you like, do not block roads”. I understand that the point of a protest is to be disruptive but I feel like that is a line too easily crossed.
An example I expirenced was a long time ago when I lived in Boston and there was some climate protestors that did their stunt on mass pike (the big highway into the city). They put a pipe through a bunch 55-gallon drums, dragged them out of their trucks onto the highway, handcuffed themselves to another protester in the pipe, and then filled the drum with instant concrete. Blocked traffic for hours while the cops had to cut them out of their contraptions. The problem was that there were several emergency vehicles stuck in the jam that they made, while protesting is an admirable persuit, these people caused the
deaths of atleast 2 others(the redirection of emergency services, and endangered the lives of random individuals) because the ambulance they were in got stuck in the gridlock.IIRC, most of the protestors got manslaughter or worse charges and spent a few years in prision. (Edit: It was pointed out I am misremembering the concequences for its organizers and what they were protesting, the point still stands)This may just be a random internet tale to most, but it really should highlight that protesting must be more than random disruption and it has to be coordinated (within itself and with local municipalities), otherwise people get hurt.
Fun fact, that event is easily searchable.
Either your memory of the event is falling, or you’re lying.
It was a racial justice protest.
Nobody died. One man with life threatening injuries went to a different hospital and no further news was reported on that.
Nobody was charged with manslaughter, the most serious charge was disorderly conduct.
Everything you said about the protesters can almost certainly be said about the important things to protest over. People die from our shitty system every day. Denied healthcare claims take hundreds of lives a year. Genocides speak for themselves. You just don’t care because those things don’t personally effect you at the moment.
Your anger is directed at the wrong target.
That’s what a disruptive protest looks like though. If workers go on a general strike, do you honestly think that won’t cause some people to die from losing access to vital services? Every protest or action that secured the rights you have today resulted in some innocent bystanders dying. Hell, think about how many innocent people had their lives disrupted due to the Civil War. When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on the bus, do you think that didn’t cause disruption to normal bus operations that day?
In truth, I think you just want protests that are easy to ignore. You seem the kind of moderate MLK said was the greatest threat to progress. You’re not openly opposed to progress, but you don’t want change to cause any kind of disruption that might conceivably hurt or inconvenience someone. And unfortunately, we live in a society where everything is connected to everything. You can’t disrupt it without putting life and limb on the line somewhere.
So, I challenge you this. You said you don’t mind disruptive protest, but just not like blocking the roads like that. Can you give a few examples of disruptive protests you would approve of?
Personally. Im all in favor of any financal disruption to businesses, do walk outs, sit-ins, strike, most any other form of protest. I feel like the line is crossed when public infrastructure or essential services are unnessesarly impacted. It shows that the participants lack the planning capacity to select their venue appropratly.
Going to go out on a limb and hope the mods dont whack this post (Hi .LW mods), but Luigi has the right idea (minus the murder part… Bit too late to workshop that though). His protest was targeted at the individauls responsible for supporting the problem in the first place. A vast majority of the decision makers in the world are not elected, they can not be voted out of their money and influence.
This is why I aplaud most protesters, but climate groups almost always seem to miss the mark. Bringing attention to a topic does not change policy, throwing tomato sauce at a painting or being an intentional cockwomble in traffic only inconviences those who have no power to effect change.
Traffic disruptions do not work on people who can afford private jets. Be better protester, and have standards.
Personally. Im all in favor of any financal disruption to businesses, do walk outs, sit-ins, strike, most any other form of protest.
Provided they are ineffective and easily ignored.
His protest was targeted at the individauls responsible for supporting the problem in the first place.
You… honestly think this is the first time anyone has ever protested directly to the CEO of UHC? You don’t think the guy got thousands if not tens of thousands of direct one on one calls/emails/texts/personal pleas over his tenure?
This is why I aplaud most protesters, but climate groups almost always seem to miss the mark. Bringing attention to a topic does not change policy, throwing tomato sauce at a painting or being an intentional cockwomble in traffic only inconviences those who have no power to effect change.
But climate change groups are “target[ing] the individuals responsible for supporting the problem in the first place” when they block drivers.
People are largely too poor to live close to work and anyone who works the kind of inconsistent shifts lots of peoplework can’t carpool. They also aren’t the ones fighting work from home
First of all, I have doubts about the degree of overlap between the two groups of people you mentioned. Jobs with inconsistent shifts tend to be things like food service and retail, which are distributed and local enough that anybody working such a job should be picking one they live near. Conversely, jobs specialized enough to be worth commuting a longer distance to are more likely to have consistent shifts, making carpooling more likely to be viable.
Second and more importantly, “work from home” is only one aspect of the problem and being among the executives fighting it is hardly the only thing that would make a person part of the problem. That gets us back to your first claim: “people are largely too poor to live close to work.” No, they largely are not. They’re too poor to live close to work and have a single-family house with a yard at the same time, and they choose to prioritize the latter. That not only makes them directly responsible by participating in the traffic that they’re in, it also makes them indirectly responsible by demanding policies like low-density zoning that inflates supply of single-family houses while restricting supply of dense multifamily housing. This subsidizes the price of the former, drives up the price of the latter, and physically displaces even some of the people who would like to live in dense multifamily out into the suburbs.
things like food service and retail, which are distributed and local enough that anybody working such a job should be picking one they live near
This is a pretty huge fantasy. Jobs like that have a strong tendency to be clustered around expensive business districts where those who work can’t afford to live. The average commute is half an hour by car or an hour by bus.
people are largely too poor to live close to work.” No, they largely are not.
Outside of your fantasies they actually are. The average single family home is now 589k and many old folks are burning down the equity in their home rather than passing them down. Also its not much of a solution to tell everyone to move in from suburbia to the city to rent from a slumlord when there isn’t enough housing there NOW. A fraction could move in but it doesn’t scale to the rest of them until we actually build more housing in the places people want to live.
I don’t see how carpooling is relevant here at all. Even if you carpool or take a bus, you still need the road and wouldn’t be able to commute if that road gets blocked off.
The person said the people on the road were responsible for the climate issue when individual decisions other than whom to vote for often has limited impact. If we want to effect meaningful change we need collective action on the part of our nation and government not just individuals.
Putting the blame on individuals knowing that the sum total effect of best case individual action means jack shit is a way to defect attention away from the decision makers whose actions actually have some hope of changing our trajectory.
And if those walk out or sit ins were successful, would people not also die? Imagine a vast coordinated effort. Thousands of climate protesters break into various oil processing and refining plants and do everything they can to disrupt operations without killing anyone directly. They throw emergency stop switches. The close valves and epoxy them shut. They drain critical pipe segments and then cut them open with torches. And they chain themselves to equipment. Or maybe they just force everyone out of the facility at gunpoint and set the whole place on fire. Through their efforts, they substantially reduce US oil production for a period of time. That’s what a disruptive protest of the kind you’re suggesting looks like. Direct action against the most offending industries, done in a way that takes no human life.
And yet, people would still die. What good is an unblocked road if you don’t have fuel? People would lose their jobs because they couldn’t afford the fuel. People in critical condition would die, unable to get to the hospital.
The point is that any event that actually seriously disrupts the operation of any major company or industry is going to inevitably hurt regular uninvolved people as well. We live in a system and all that.
And the point of blocking roads is not to “draw attention.” The point of direct actions like that is to cause economic disruption. The key thing to keep in mind is that the truly wealthy are highly diversified in their investments. Those with the real power to change things aren’t moved by a single factory somewhere being inconvenienced. Change in societies like ours really only happen when the reform movement, whether peaceful or violent, grows to such an extent that it risks taking a serious chunk out of nationwide GDP. All the people at the top really care about is money. And there really isn’t any way to hurt them financially without throwing a wrench into the gears of the entire economy.
That is ultimately what it took for the Civil Rights movement to secure its victories. Black people then were around 12-15% of the population. That number of people is never going to be able to secure their rights on their own through the ballot box. But even 1% of the population working together through direct and indirect action can be enough to grind an entire national economy to a screeching halt. Historically, that is what it has taken for any group to ever secure rights from their oppressors. Asking nicely never works. It always comes down to, “compromise with us, or we will (metaphorically or literally) burn this whole place down.”
Change and reform are disruptive by nature. There is no such thing as a successful reform movement that only hurts a few narrowly defined perpetrators.
There is a tangible difference between cutting off utility infrastructure and the fallout from shutting down oil refineries. Sabotaging a substation or power plant, blocking vital thorofares, shutting down water plants, etc will cause direct deaths and fall more in line with an attack on the population than a protest. That is what certain countries are doing to their neighbors and we rightly condemn that even in war.
Causing a drop in available fuel through refinery or pipeline embargo or sabotage would at worst cause rationing and prioritization to emergency services. This will of course cause damage to those that rely on transportation, but allows the ability to plan for/around that infrastructure disruption does not.
Blocking roads is the least impactful infrastructure disruption obviously, but disruption of fire, police, and other emergency services is still a more direct impact than what would amount to the 70s oil embargo.
When we get into acceptable losses, it can sound like the “left’s” equivalent to gun rights. I am not saying these are the same, or of the same magnitudes, just that the argument is made for how many gun deaths are acceptable to retain fundamental liberties. Both are probably important discussions to have, but there will be people who is answered to both will be zero or who don’t even want to engage with such a topic.
Firstly, your hyoptheical protest is no such thing and a strawman, that is an act of war, expected of despots and revolutionaries, not groups of rational individuals demanding change. It also highlights my point, you stated that reform movements begin to gain steam when a critical mass of the population backs them, how can a group expect to gain such a following when their protests cost proportionaly more to the people you need to support your cause than it does to the people actually making the decisions?
How do you expect to find supporters if you cost average people a measurable portion of their living. I did some napkin math, assume a days worth of hourly work at 15$, before income tax, thats ~120$, versus an oil C-suite who according to my search take home ~24m a year (does not include the other parts of their pay and benifits) meaning you have to cost them ~100k of their personal take-home income to proportionaly effect them the same way. This is not worth noticing for the suit (notice how all those Return-to-office articles only mention normal workers and not executives) and personally damaging loss of income for the average person who statistically has little savings.
This was my point about being better protestors, damaging or disrupting public infrastructure (roads, rails, things essential to emergency services) should be reconsidered as venues for the protest because its disruption alienates the people who you would like to support your cause, is ignored by the people with the power to affect the change being demanded and makes the protestors themselves look like fools.
Apologies for the late reply, people got to sleep ya know.
Traffic disruptions do not work on people who can afford private jets.
they’re not trying to sway the jet riders. what a fantastically incorrect takeaway. goddamn.
Be better protester, and have standards.
you don’t understand how any of this works, obviously. just an angry moron who’s upset a road got closed that one time.
Then argue against my point, (did a quick search) the Stanford University debate rubric has “respect for the other team” as the first field. Insults will reduce score and also indicates you do not have a rebuttle (also a points reduction). Im simply trying to get my replies to work through the logic of the discussion.
I see you didn’t reply to @WoodScientist@lemmy.world. It’s a long comment but I think it tweaks at your preference in an interesting way
People got to sleep yall, also thanks for the discussion, trying to treat this like a formal debate, but its a tough crowd…
yet another concern troll. blocked
deleted by creator
“I see your point, but… downvotes” -Lemmy
The person proposed that people protesting climate change shouldn’t block roads because cars are more important (or something - they didn’t argue all that thoroughly and their one example wasn’t as they described it)
I think they deserve the down votes
I think the point is that making people hate you isn’t going to bring them to your side. If you look at the successful protests throughout history, you’ll find that none of them tried to make the general public hate them.
The goal isn’t to get random people hearing about it to support you. The goal is to sabotage and disrupt fossil fuel production or consumption. Being inconvenient is the entire point.
This is indeed what the masses do on every social platform. Too lazy to have a discussion or formulating a response. Down vote, and on with my day, let’s go. 👉
I see at least a dozen of answers, and they all add something to the discussion instead of just repeating “don’t block traffic”.
I said “the masses”.
I care.
Wow can’t believe you support the nazi rallies /s
Splattering lives is okay,but shattering such windows is the promotion of violence? Honestly? 🔨
In capitalist US, property is more valuable than human life.
Remember: You can take lives to protect property, you cannot damage property to protect lives.
Ah, so that’s why they try to reestablish slavery. Make people property again to protect them. Got it!
In fairness, my dogs are considered “property” and I value both of them far more than the human who put this on their vehicle.
Thats just called familial priorities tho. Doggo is fam.
Property is more valuable than human life everywhere in the world. For example, two million children die from hunger each year. 7$ will protect a child from malaria for a season. I could save so many lives by selling everything I own and donating it to charity, and yet I don’t. And neither do you, or most of the rest of the world.
Life has value. Each of us estimates our own life to be invaluable, but the life of those farther and farther away has less and less value for us. Not because it’s not actually worth less, but because we’re tribal beings. We care about ourselves first, then our tribe, then if we have any extra resources we might care about other tribes too.
But yeah, what I’m saying is I’d let the entirety of lemmy die for a crisp 1$ note and I’d lose no sleep about it, y’all were born in the wrong tribe.
You’re a bad person and you should stop pretending your selfish disposition is natural and immutable simply because you’ve noticed others are too. There are reasons people behave the way they do and those reasons can change.
It’s some weird sort of sarcasm/projection. He does not really mean it, I have been there, been edgy before…
Property is more valuable than human life everywhere in the world.
No not really. There are lots of places where it wont fly in court when you kill someone to protect your property. In the US it does, all the time. They frame it differently and cry self defense or something, but we all know what actually happens.
Wow, you’d really let me die for $1?
I’d let myself die for $1 if it was painless and quick.
Sounds cheap enough.I’m sorry man. That’s unfortunate, and I have to hope my life is never in your hands. I hope you understand why.
Uncritical acceptance of power structures as natural extensions of humanity. Sometimes this place really is Reddit.
The mod might be referring to the sticker itself. “Don’t post bumper stickers that promote violence.”
Then the mod should have posted the comment as it’s own comment and pinned it to the top.
Double standards
Edit: my mistake, it’s not visible on the screenshot, but the “i hope you get shot” didn’t get removed for promoting violence, there is no mod reply to it.
Lots of reddit communities are fascist communities
They’re a more marketable demographic.
Condoning violence against things while condemning violence against people is really not such a big contradiction, especially when said thing is used to hurt people.
Edit: Then again, a guy wanting other people to get shot probably doesn’t argue in good faith anyway.
that’s the entire conservative thought process. always protect things over people. kill a homeless person? you’re a hero. use counterfeit 20 dollar bill? get strangled to death. rape? be our president. trespassing? get shot to death.
trespassing?
This is why the last time I made a sign for a pro-choice event, I made it in the shape of a uterus with a warning sign inside it, saying, “NO TRESPASSING: Violators may be aborted.”
They value property rights, so it seems only fitting to frame access to our bodies by using their own arguments.
Condoning violence against things while condemning violence against people is really not such a big contradiction, especially when said thing is used to hurt people.
That’s opposite to what happened. They condemned violence against property, and condoned violence against a person
This is reddit mods in a nutshell
Similar story to how I ended up IP banned.
Story about a politician advocating for killings and kangaroo court imprisonments> i make a comment saying “yeah this guy is gonna end up dead if he tries this” > banned for threats of violence. … appeal, arguing that it wasn’t a threat. Just an acknowledgment of political volatility… suggested mods were politically biased for seeing it that way. > appeal rejected and permabanned
edit - I understand reddit mods dont issue IP bans, but I was hit for ban evasion after abandoning a cooked account that they refused to let me appeal. the ban evasion rule is a “gotcha” to make people , any and all . to go away. I only say that this time it was an IP ban because I had been perma’d before, only to immediately move to a new account I already had made (and on the same device no less).
my guess was algorithms improved /s
Yeah, Reddit moderation is… Fucky wucky. But this is also a general problem in American society. It’s perfectly okay to kill people for profit, but if you break a window you’re the bad guy doing a violence. (It may be present in others as well, I just don’t know)
Police violence is a okay. Rioting and causing property damage that’s bad.
Are you saying that because you believe it or because that’s what the system says?
I was parroting the bizarre talking point people use in response to political/social issue riots.
People will hand waive or justify violence by the police. When the public responds in anger, the response is “Can’t we think of the property!?” What these people are saying that property has more value than a human life.
This is Lemmy, probably the latter.
I certainly hope so… But I’ve seen people who unironically espouse this stuff.
May the odds ever be in our favor.
Banned for similar reason. Mod misinterpreted my wording and IP banned for inciting violence. 100 characters max in your appeal so impossible to explain yourself.
Does anyone actually have a foolproof way of dodging an IP ban? I miss participating in my city’s local sub.
I actually have a bit of a conspiracy that reddit flags accounts who don’t make them money (don’t buy coins, doesn’t use app, uses Firefox, etc) and specifically watches them for TOS violations.
I don’t know where y’all get this wild idea that moderators can IP ban you. I was a moderator for a pretty major sub until the API fiasco, we barely had the tools we needed, let alone the ability to consistently keep folks off who made new accounts.
I also find these stories are rarely as one-sided as they are portrayed.
The mods don’t IP ban you. What happens is you get your account permabanned from a big subreddit like r/politics. Later in another account, you use r/politics again, either because you think the ban was clearly bullshit or you just forgot about the ban on an old account. Then reddit’s site tools kick in, see your connected accounts, and IP ban you for “ban evasion.” Individual mods won’t IP ban you, but the site will IP ban you for daring to evade the bullshit decisions of clearly biased tinpot dictator subreddit mods.
Well…yeah. That is exactly how it should work. Just because you think it’s bullshit doesn’t mean you get to ban evade. Most people banned from subs think the reason was BS.
Point is mods can’t IP ban, other person thinks they can.
The majority of reddit subs I’ve been banned from were for posting in other unrelated subs in violation of sadly unenforced moderation rules.
Then there’s being banned from r/atheism for “egregious immorality” - I look at it as a badge of pride to be banned from an atheism sub on grounds that sound like ones only a religious sub would use.
If you are regularly getting banned from multiple subs and are loudly proclaiming how proud of it you are, then the problem is you
Go back to reddit if you agree with their moderation so much. You will prefer it there.
I’m only proud of the one, and only because of how weirdly out of sync with what you’d expect the given reason was.
Basically every other sub I’ve ever been banned from was a “you commented on a post on a sub we’ve since decided we don’t like, so we’ve summarily banned you with a bot just in case”.
The problem is we’re talking about the main discussion forums on one of, if not the biggest, discussion sites on the internet. They allow way too much power to be in the hands of unaccountable moderators.
Want to know how my main long running account got banned from r/politics? I wondered aloud where the military was as an armed insurrection was literally storming the capital building of my country. Objectively, something like January 6th shouldn’t even be possible. I wondered why the crowd wasn’t being driven back by soldiers using automatic weapons fire. That is what a nation is SUPPOSED to do when its democracy is under siege. If you want your democracy to continue to exist, the sad truth is that yes, you have to be willing to kill people who take up arms against it. Otherwise some small well armed group will take over the whole place as you blindly cling to non-violence. My account was banned, on January 6th, as it happened, for wondering why our nation’s military was failing to defend our democracy. Later it was revealed that the military wasn’t deployed there, as Trump had specifically avoided deploying troops there as part of his plot to overthrow the election.
Or I had another account banned from a few subreddits for saying that if SCOTUS rules the president has complete criminal immunity, that he should respond by taking out a few Supreme Court justices. If the president is above the law, then he is now a dictator. And the only moral use of dictatorial power is to strip yourself of that power. In another account, I suggested on r/politics that Biden should just drone strike SCOTUS justices until they put out a ruling stripping him of that power. That got me banned for promoting violence. But the most ridiculous thing? r/politics openly allowed stories on the front page stating that the exact same thing should be done. They hold their comments section to a far higher standards than the stories they allow at the top of the r/politics feed.
Or how about getting instant banned from r/worldnews for saying anything remotely pro-Palestinian? That subreddit has been completely taken over by militant Zionists. If you have the temerity to dare to point out that, for example, the fact that the IDF has a worse civilian:combatant kill ratio than Hamas, you’ll get banned. Or, they love to make a fuss about how that UN aid agency, with thousands of employees, was found to have some Hamas members in it. Nevermind that Hamas by their nature are mostly ordinary people who work ordinary jobs. The aid agency had a much, much lower share of Hamas members than the general Gaza strip population. But if you dare to point this out, you’ll get instantly banned.
Yeah, you can cower behind the policies of reddit, “Just because you think it’s bullshit doesn’t mean you get to ban evade.” But that’s ridiculous. Unjust rules are meant to be broken. I have no respect for a reddit ban because they aren’t worthy of respect. Reddit allows their biggest, most influential subreddits to be dominate by mods who have comically biased enforcement records or who implement zero-thought, zero-context rules like their misapplication of violence in r/politics.
Yes, you can always say, “but…but…those are the rules of the site!” But this is a cop-out. It doesn’t make it any more just than any other comically unjust law or rule through history.
I don’t think I’d dare comment on anything politics, religion, environment, current events on Reddit post API change
I go there for about five special interest subs and I try to not be logged in when I want to look up something else there, to curb my tendency to reply
So that’s the position current implementation of rules of Reddit and subs have scared me into. It’s a bit of a police state, with big sub mods as secret police
I’m confused here. We have established that they can’t IP ban you, right? What power do they have that is so disproportionate? They can remove comments and they can ban people. That’s literally the only two tools in the toolbox. Are you saying they shouldn’t be able to do these things?
If you created a sub, do you think you shouldn’t be able to do these things?
If a sub is being poorly moderated, go make your own alternative. The major sub I used to moderate for began just like that.
Edit: I would also like to say that your patronizing depiction of how I talk is unnecessary and inaccurate. I never hid behind the rules of the site. I think you should not be ban evading. Me. I believe that should not be allowed. Do you?
Mods can ban you from communities, cancel any of your posts, delete any of your comments. That’s about it.
The trouble is that people are unfairly banned from subs they have followed and contributed to for years and there is no appeal other than begging the guy who just maliciously kicked you out
That’s not counting mods who are also admins and mods who are good friends with an admin. You can get a site wide ban for saying the wrong thing in front of one of them
You’re arguing in bad faith. No one is arguing that the mods aren’t violating the rules of the site. You’re clinging to that fig leaf that no one is arguing about. The real discussion is whether unelected mods should ever have that much power over such influential public forums in the first place.
In other words, you’re acting exactly like a reddit mod. Good job.
Then reddit’s site tools kick in, see your connected accounts
Maybe a better question then would be, how do these tools likely work, and how can they be circumvented?
I’m sure VPNs can be used. You would have to use a VPN, a new email address, and perhaps a different computer even. But honestly, I just don’t care anymore. I’m content leaving reddit to their demons. I have had a few big accounts on there with hundreds of thousands of comment karma, a decade in age or more. I contributed insightful commentary on the site and ended up on r/bestof a dozen or more times. It’s clear that they don’t want people like me, or anyone with a nuanced opinion, to be on the site. They want to focus on tiktok style brain rot, because the MBAs that have taken over Silicon Valley have no original ideas beyond copying each other.
If you want to have nuanced and deep discussion on a site, you can’t let your most prominent forums be taken over by unaccountable mods with an agenda (like r/worldnews) or operate with zero-thought zero-tolerance policies like r/politics. Your biggest political forum cannot operate on a philosophy of “any mention of violence is a permaban,” when the presence of violence and discussion of it is a key part of our current political landscape.
They don’t want real discussion anymore, if they ever did. They just want zero-tolerance, zero-thought moderation policies that are easy to enforce algorithmically but stifle real and nuanced discussion. And their site-wide admin an appeal process is completely worthless. They want their site to be a cesspool of teenagers post memes and nothing else. And if that is what they want, so be it. I’m done contributing to their bullshit. Reddit is far from the only discussion forum I’ve used. I was reddit, but before that digg. And before that, slashdot. And there comes a time when sites sometimes just get so up their own assholes chasing quick and easy money that the only correct choice is to just walk away in disgust.
One of the main reasons quality of content on the site has plummeted so much in recent years is they’ve likely banned or driven away many of their best commenters and posters. They want their site to be clickbait trash, and they simply aren’t willing to put in the effort to make it a place to hold good discussions.
We’re glad to have you
Yep, that’s the way it is now
It was an account level ban issued by Reddit. The account was perma’d by an angy Reddit admit in response to my appeal reply. so once the account was cooked, I deleted it and moved onto another, and the IP ban came after, automatically, for ban evasion. Caught in a situation where I was in violation of the site wide rules just by existing, over a ban they issued out of biased rage.
so in technicality, yes, its as you said.
You were banned from one sub. You had the entire rest of the site to visit. I don’t understand why that was so difficult. If you absolutely had to browse it then just do it without logging in and commenting. You’re being a child.
No, my account was issued an account level ban for a comment on a sub. It had nothing to do from the sub moderators. There was no interaction from them as the comment was pretty standard for the topic at hand.
Im not going to argue with you, theres what happened, and what you think happened based on a story you were told. Arguing over it is a waste of time.
So an admin came and banned you from the site for one single comment with no warning and without any attempt by you at ban invasion?
I would be very curious to see what this comment was and where. Because you’re right - there’s what happened and there’s what sounds like what happened based on the story I’ve been told.
I was banned by a reddit admin, site wide.
Admin =/= Mod. Admins work at Reddit and can basically do whatever they want on the site because they control the backend. Mods have a sliver of the tools available to admins. This does not include IP banning.
Both moderate content no? Anyway it’s not important, I was banned by some dumbass for no reason
No they are completely different and it’s definitely important. You’re talking the feds vs. a person attempting a citizen’s arrest.
Both are mods
VPN, new account.
Didn’t work longer than a day.
I still miss some of it’s smaller subs being actually active enough to have a daily chat abiut the certain interest.
But i was banned from inciting violence after pointing out my life was in a weird place for being able to purchase unregistered firearms in a firearm free country, while not making enough to find a place to live (we ended up renting a 14m2 room on 2 fulltime + overtime, incomes)
I appealed, but they didn’t have it so i figured i could just make a new account which screwed me over.
Similar for me. In so many words, a JFK quote paraphrased. Make peaceful reform impossible and violent revolution becomes inevitable. Banned at the IP address level.
Reddit mods can’t IP ban you.
Admins can and they are just as stupid as mods.
Thanks for the contribution
Another reason to stay out of the usa. Not just anecdotal, we’re talking about a country where walking on a public street can be illegal, and people who do are sometimes called a slur.
Because cities aren’t for people to live in, they’re for cars to drive trough
In general, the US seems to be weirdly pro-violence.
Being beaten up is portrayed as perfectly normal in media and advocating for violence (like here) seems to be totally okay for many.
That’s fucked up.
It’s because we have a lot of repressed rage because we know deep down we really are one of the shittiest countries, despite what all the cousin-humping country singers keep caterwauling about.
Cognitive dissonance is a hell of a drug.
I remember visiting another country as an American high-school student. We were shocked and overjoyed that BOOBIES could be shown on network television. It’s insane some of the violence that’s totally fine to show, but definitely not a woman’s nipple!
In Australia as kids we always decoded the international tv station’s abbreviation (SBS, special broadcast service) as Saggy Boobs Shows
There’s little restriction to what is shown in Australia, especially after 9pm
Walking on a street can be illegal? How? Can you expand a bit on that, please?
“Jay” is an old English slur. “Jaywalking” refers to walking on a public street illegally. For highways, it makes sense that you’re not supposed to walk there. But in America this “jaywalking” can even apply to city streets.
If you’re not in America, then it might just sound ridiculous. That’s because it is
For highways, it makes sense that you’re not supposed to walk there.
Americans have created such a large and dense web of highways that it is difficult to cross the street in some areas without walking miles in a given direction to reach a crosswalk.
Houston, in particular, has this bad. You can easily find yourself near a freeway or overpass that sends you on a 20-30 minute hike to cross the street.
I once got yelled at by a cop for walking across a nearly empty road in columbus Ohio.
The closest crosswalk was basically 1/4mile in either direction, because the building I was trying to enter is so large.
I was walking with a cane at the time. And no cars were anywhere close so a snail could have made it across with time to spare. It took some people close by stepping in and arguing for me before the Douchebag dropped it.
Im sure if I had looked my usual level of disheveled or had any other shade of skin I wouldn’t be so “lucky”
Contrast that with my country which has law state that if there is no crosswalk closer than 100 meters, you are allowed to cross the road, provided you do so carefully - not disturbing traffic etc. You do however
looselose all protections of the law during this, and you cannot pass if there is a suggestion you shouldn’t, for example a rail or some other barrier between sidewalk and road.
Why would anyone want to live in such a place?
The land is (re: was) cheap
Fair fair
It’s where my family and friends are.
I’m sorry to hear that
I’m european.
Walking on a highway is just plain dangerous, to not say stupid. On that context, it is justified. Crossing the road outside the zebra crossing can get you fined, as you are endangering yourself and others. We have those laws as well. But walking on city streets? I can’t remember one in the entire country which I can’t walk up and down.
A lot of America is made up of roads that most people would agree in isolation should only be crossed at designated/signaled areas. However, if your entire municipality is just made up of those roads and you don’t prioritize crossing areas, pedestrians will naturally cross illegally.
I lived in an apartment building that had a parking lot across the street. The nearest crosswalk was a few minutes walk in either direction. The owner tried to petition the city to add a crosswalk, but the laws prohibited too many crosswalks regardless of the practical needs. He even offered to pay for it himself. So, you had tons of people who lived there crossing illegally.
How many runovers?
None while I lived there, which was a few years. I had a close call once because people sped a lot, so the perceived distance wasn’t always reliable. Cops camped out not far from the area sometimes because it was instant tickets as a result.
Did they fine the speeders or the jaywalkers?
Yeah European roads are either stuck where they are for historical reasons or built to be safe.
Exactly, weird is it not?
Very.
deleted by creator
Has anyone actually been charged with jaywalking in the past 50 years tho? I’ve never heard of anyone giving a shit in any town or city I’ve been to in the US
“New York City’s jaywalking laws may seem obsolete, but the NYPD still tickets hundreds of people a year for the violation.” This JUST ended and jaywalking was made legal in NYC in October 2024. However this is a single city example. Jaywalking is still illegal and ticketed throughout the US. Especially if vagrancy laws were already removed, it’s a nice loop hole for cops to be able to harass homeless.
Ah, I must be too not-homeless, cuz that’s not my experience in NYC. Just another tool for oppression of undesirables then.
Nice bullshit headline that implies the cops are just so racist (gotta be sure they mention the jaywalker’s race, right?) that they saw a black guy jaywalking and just decided to gun him down for it. Meanwhile, from a better article:
At some point during the struggle, Reinhold grabbed hold of Israel’s gun in its holster. Duran shot Reinhold twice after he continued to resist arrest and kept his grip on the gun, prosecutors said.
The deputies gave voluntary statements to investigators that were corroborated by surveillance video, witnesses and forensic evidence, the letter said.
Gee, not so cut and dry after all, huh?
“Watch this, he’s going to jaywalk,” one of the cops says as they pull up to Reinhold.
The other responds, “Don’t make case law.”
Yes, it is cut and dry that they were planning on doing something horrible and using the jaywalking as an excuse to start the encounter.
I see you deleted your other bootlicking comment and replaced it with this one. Feel free to keep trying, bootlicker.
deleted by creator
“Watch this, he’s going to jaywalk,” one of the cops says as they pull up to Reinhold.
The other responds, “Don’t make case law.”
The cops knew that they were going to escalate the situation from before the encounter ever started.
That’s someone being shot for being black. Were there no jaywalking law, the cops would have found another excuse
I’m in the Netherlands, I’m not bothered
There are jaywalking laws where you can be stopped for crossing against the light, against the right of way in general, etc. Not sure what the slur is. I think Jay used to be a mild insult?
I saw a cartoon on here once with an out-of-towner complaining about all the horse-carriages in this “Jay town” but I can’t find it.
Jay used to mean country folk. Jaywalking was walking on city roads like it was the country, because city roads are for cars where country roads had little, horse powered, transport
I saw a cartoon on here once with an out-of-towner complaining about all the horse-carriages in this “Jay town” but I can’t find it.
Good ol’ Everett True https://lemmy.today/post/18753176
do you think redneck is a slur too?
how about dork?
What would your mom think?
How can anyone be so lacking in self awareness?
It gets easier to understand once you accept that some people just operate on bad faith.
It’s a requirement for maga.
It’s a car brain sub.
Compartmentalization.
Fucking Reddit mods. I got perma banned for saying I wished that MTG would trip and swallow her own head.
Ah yes, the classic actionable threat of impossible self-inflicted cartoon injury.
She’d have to pull it out of her ass first.
It’s a vortex of constantly eating itself
You have been permabanned on /r/MagicTheGathering
Thanks for making me chuckle. I’ll also be stealing this.
I just got banned from some shitty lemmy instance for calling a tankie ‘ruski’.
They are a precious breed.
that term is generally used and perceived as a pejorative, not quite a slur, but close. you have a lot of other slurs on your profile so i don’t have much sympathy.
Hang on… which other slurs?
hahahha
There’s barely any after scrolling back lmao I challenge you to find one slur I’ve posted.
Alright dumpling!
There should be a community of “just reddit things” like this
There is a reddit community, usually used in that way.
there is but I have it blocked.
If I saw this, I would shatter it… in Minecraft only, of course.
Ah yes, the ol Minecraft defense. We almost had you.
God, I feel the same. Then I started to wonder if I could find some of mark rober’s fart liquid and find some way to put it in a dissolvable capsule that I could place at the gap between the hood and the windshield.
