Lvxferre [he/him]

The catarrhine who invented a perpetual motion machine, by dreaming at night and devouring its own dreams through the day.

  • 1 Post
  • 6 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: January 12th, 2024
  • Lvxferre [he/him]@mander.xyztoYe Power Trippin' Bastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com•Apparently correcting someone who thinks you're from a different country than you actually are is being "offensive"?
    1·
    2 days ago

    The thread itself is a shitfest that boils down to idiocy on the same level as “is tomato a fruit or a vegetable?” and “ackshyually water is not wet it wets things”. And that includes both your comment and the comment that you’re replying to. Specially the later, as the guy found some weird hill to die on.

    Even then, PTB. As typical for lemmy dot ml.

    I’ll also address what estefano is saying in another comment in the same thread, as it’s outright misinformation:

    In Brazil, we use USians or Statesians

    Most people in the territory controlled by Brazil refer to people in the territory controlled by USA as “americanos” (lit. “Americans”). People who call them “estado-unidenses” (lit. “United-Statians”), like I do, are a minority. And people certainly do not call them by anything remotely translatable as “USians” (EUAnos? That sounds awful*) or “Statesians” (estadenses?).

    I used the second one on an academic paper and it went through.

    You can submit a lot of crap on academic papers and it’ll still go through. Welcome to Latin America. No, even better - welcome to the world in 2025, the institutions supposed to defend science against the Sturgeon’s Law are busier counting money than doing their job.

    As such, “they accepted it” is NOT grounds to claim shite.

    Ma que djanho.

    *EUAnos sounds like “eu ânus” [I anus] for most Portuguese speakers. (It doesn’t for me but it gets really close.)

  • Lvxferre [he/him]@mander.xyztoYe Power Trippin' Bastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com•Banned for criticizing the protectors of child rapists in LW World News
    1·
    2 days ago

    PTB for sure.

    Anti-religious sentiment is something that a lot of people get really, really wrong here. Because they don’t understand the difference between three things:

    1. The religion itself - a set of moral and epistemic beliefs, rituals, behaviours. e.g. “Christianity”
    2. The religious community - people who claim to follow #1. e.g. “Christians”
    3. Religious institutions - a power structure using #1 to rule over #2. e.g. “the Catholic Church”.

    OP is clearly criticising #3 and only #3. That’s completely fine. Discrimination would target #2 instead. And it’s clear that rule 4 is about discrimination, otherwise “anti-religious sentiment” wouldn’t be lumped alongside homophobia, racism, etc.

    Amend community rule 4 to remove the reference to religion. WTF is it doing there as a rule in a news community in the first place? Is LW being run as a theocracy now?

    Ideally this should be amended in a way that people can still criticise #1 and #3 just fine, but doesn’t let you to target people based on their religion or lack of. Things like [for example] “Christians are all disgusting and rotten” should still not be allowed; but things like the mod’s comment towards Atheists should not either.

    …in any other instance I’d propose people to escalate the issue to the admins, but given LW’s tendency to screech at people not willing to put up with crap, that is likely useless.

  • Lvxferre [he/him]@mander.xyztoYe Power Trippin' Bastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com•Careful if you have a ponder.cat account: admin has expressed willingness to ban you simply for being too active in communities they don’t even mod
    1·
    2 days ago

    I was steadily getting reports about it.

    I just saw it. Yup, it changes the picture quite a bit since consistent behaviour justifies your intervention.

    The leftover matter is then just “telegraphing” to users that you don’t consider this acceptable, and you don’t want to see it from your instance. OP suggested a rule against posting volume, but perhaps this is too specific? This could be even handled through small tweaks of the description text of your instance:

    All are welcome to this instance. Please no illegal content, no personal attacks, no spam, no misinformation, no bigotry. Other than that, go nuts. Be productive, polite, and reasonable.

    or something like this.

    Half-related, from the other thread:

    I wasn’t expecting “making sure we make a safe space for the spammers by banning people who complain about spam” to be an important moderation duty, but I guess in the bizarro world that is !news@lemmy.world moderation philosophy, it makes perfect sense.

    LW in a nutshell: “if you complain about harmful behaviour, you’re the one getting screeched at”. It feels like they’re trying their hardest to transform Lemmy into Reddit 2: Electric Boogaloo.

  • Lvxferre [he/him]@mander.xyztoYe Power Trippin' Bastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com•Careful if you have a ponder.cat account: admin has expressed willingness to ban you simply for being too active in communities they don’t even mod
    1·
    2 days ago

    BPR. This could have been handled better but I don’t think that the admin was powertripping.

    EDIT: I’m changing my take to YDI / UDI (user deserved it). See discussion with the admin, his usage of power was 100% justified.

    IMO what Philip did wrong:

    • the issue was in a single community, so he should’ve let that community’s mods handle it. If the user was doing this shit across multiple communities it would be different.
    • lack of transparency on what’s considered [un]acceptable behaviour for ponder.cat users. A single “be nice” would be enough to justifiably get rid of Cat.
    • direct escalation, like OP said. Philip’s initial comment lecturing Cat doesn’t sound like an admin speaking officially; but when he does, it pops out of nowhere.

    In the meantime, look at all Cat’s replies in the linked thread: the user is not just being spammy, they are being uncooperative, belittling other users, and passive aggressive. This sort of behaviour should not be given a free pass, and I do think that, if Philip dug across Cat’s post/comment history, he would find more reasons to ban the user from his instance… at least if his instance had some rule against poor behaviour.

    Internet etiquette has dictates for dealing with undesirable yet not rule-breaking behavior that was just ignored here.

    A lot of those dictates boil down to “report, ignore, move on”. Reporting would do nothing, and ignoring would be bad advice - because bad behaviour tends to spread. Eventually you aren’t just blocking a single person, but a whole lot… or leaving the space because why bother. As such, users in communities with lax moderation tend to monitor each other’s behaviour a bit, and this is not a bad thing.