this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2025
177 points (94.0% liked)

Ye Power Trippin' Bastards

1343 readers
26 users here now

This is a community in the spirit of "Am I The Asshole" where people can post their own bans from lemmy or reddit or whatever and get some feedback from others whether the ban was justified or not.

Sometimes one just wants to be able to challenge the arguments some mod made and this could be the place for that.


Posting Guidelines

All posts should follow this basic structure:

  1. Which mods/admins were being Power Tripping Bastards?
  2. What sanction did they impose (e.g. community ban, instance ban, removed comment)?
  3. Provide a screenshot of the relevant modlog entry (don’t de-obfuscate mod names).
  4. Provide a screenshot and explanation of the cause of the sanction (e.g. the post/comment that was removed, or got you banned).
  5. Explain why you think its unfair and how you would like the situation to be remedied.

Rules


Expect to receive feedback about your posts, they might even be negative.

Make sure you follow this instance's code of conduct. In other words we won't allow bellyaching about being sanctioned for hate speech or bigotry.

YTPB matrix channel: For real-time discussions about bastards or to appeal mod actions in YPTB itself.


Some acronyms you might see.


Relevant comms

founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
 

How deep are they willing to guzzle that Nazi boot?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] VirgilMastercard@reddthat.com 46 points 1 week ago (3 children)

.world sucks ass, it's a reddit clone

[–] lazynooblet@lazysoci.al 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Lol says the "reddthat" user. Actually it's a good instance name, but the irony ...

[–] Blaze@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Reddthat disables downvotes, so quite different from Reddit

[–] Stamets@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

Is it? There are plenty of subreddits who have taken downvotes out of their community. Badly, but they have. /r/CanadaPolitics will outright ban you if you ever admit to downvoting something in the community.

The removal of downvotes alone is not remotely sufficient evidence of being "quite different" from Reddit in that regard. Honestly it just reminds me of /r/Conservative and their flair system too. I don't understand why downvotes are being banished.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

There are a few news related subs on .world with shitty moderators, the rest of the instance is as chill as anywhere else. If you see .world mentioned here, it is probably the News community.

[–] SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (9 children)

I wish i could find a better instance. :c

You can. This community is on a good instance.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz 46 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Unless demanded by local legislation, that's a clear PTB in my book.

So. You have a link about the usage of force by the dogs of some broligarchic junta. Clearly unnecessary, unless someone thinks people in wheelchair are such a violent threat that it demands such measures. The group was arrested mostly for "Crowding, Obstructing, and Incommoding" - i.e. some "quick, find some law that fits this situation, so we can get rid of those things! Heil Chrump!".

Then you have a commenter (the_q) correctly pointing out shit won't progress unless people actually fight back. And another (PancakesCantKillMe) clearly quoting something; I don't even know (or care) who this Thomas Turbano guy is, but the second comment is clearly a quote.

So, let ask me the following: accordingly to the LW mods, is self-defence violence?

  • If it is not, then those comments should not be removed as "advocating violence".
  • If it is, then they're effectively promoting that people should lower themselves from human beings to punching bags of their local junta.

Don't get me wrong - I don't even think they're doing this "intentionally". I get LW mods are full of Good Intentions®, and for the sake of some idyllic vision of pacifism, where tyrants will magically stop being tyrants if you say them "tyranny bad! EDIT WOW THANKS FOR THE GOLD, KIND STRANGER!". However Hell is full of good intentions.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 43 points 1 week ago (4 children)

I mean, in fairness, Thomas Jefferson was a big advocate for violence. As far as he was concerned, if someone was infringing on your rights, the answer was to get some friends with some rifles and go to work.

[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 28 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Who do we need to be fair to? Nazi sympathizers?

That aside, does that mean libraries in NL aren’t allowed to carry books that quote Thomas Jefferson? I doubt they have any risk of law enforcement beating their doors down over that…

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 12 points 1 week ago (8 children)

I'm not agreeing with the mods, I haven't even looked into the details. I'm pretty sure it is legal to advocate violence in books (or, for that matter, on the internet), it's just that in the weird quasi-legal regulatory space that is moderated forums it is a universal no no.

I'm just saying that if the mods are accusing Thomas Jefferson quotes of advocating violence, they are probably right, because he was a big and unapologetic advocate of violence in some circumstances.

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 20 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

It is illegal only if it is reasonably going to trigger or calls for any immediate lawlessness. Like straight up trying to get a bunch of people together to knock-over a convenience store or actually organizing a murder.

Saying "man, I wish this evil son of a bitch took a round in the face" is not such a time. Niether is quoting someone else suggesting violence as a path towards liberty.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 11 points 1 week ago

Correctamundo. It's called the Brandenburg test.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

who shoukd we be fair to? nazis?

Yep. And nobody else. To do otherwise would be illiberal and amtisemitic and communist.

[–] GuyFawkes@midwest.social 5 points 1 week ago

Look out, pointing out that abiding by their rules will lead to no change will get you downvoted to hell because people want to feel like their ineffective actions mean something.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 36 points 1 week ago

PTB

Time to post some quotes

Others I like:

Those who make peaceful protest impossible make violent revolution inevitable.

JFK

Riots are the voice of the unheard

MLK

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 35 points 1 week ago

Reading JL's comments in this thread reminds me of this excellent quote

"A liberal is someone who opposes every war except the current war and supports all civil rights movements except the one that’s going on right now."

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 points 1 week ago

Well ayy, you beat me to making a PTB post on this, but uh yeah...

.world?

collaborating with and covering for fascists?

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 16 points 1 week ago (1 children)

People should move to other instances and mods of popular communities should migrate the communities as well.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] besselj@lemmy.ca 15 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

I get that they're ~~US-based and have to follow US laws~~, but man, thats ironic.

Edit: NL/Germany based https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/

[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 27 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I thought they were in NL? Also, quoting Thomas Jefferson is not against the law in the USA.

[–] besselj@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Shoot, you're right about the jurisdiction. That makes it even dumber. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/

It can be construed as advocating for violence in this context. Since, ya know, it's obvious who the tyrants are

[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 week ago

I never knew where this quote came from, I have heard variants of it several times but never figured out the source until now.

And if you don't know that, it is just a random sentence calling for violence.

Which I can understand the mod not being aware of.

[–] _cryptagion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 1 week ago

Well, that wouldn't violate any US laws even if they were.

[–] ThorrJo@lemmy.sdf.org 12 points 1 week ago

I continue to maintain that the best individual policy is to instance-block .world and let the redditor hoi polloi who end up there self-select onto smaller and better instances as they wake up to what a crappy place the default is. If they aren't capable of eventually waking up to that, then I don't really want them in my feed, so .world is a good place for them to be contained.

[–] Etterra@discuss.online 11 points 1 week ago

So they've gone from "we don't have a first amendment so shut up" to "we don't have any ethics so shut up." Cool.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

What’s the legal standard in the Netherlands? Anyone know? Seems relevant here.

[–] UniversalMonk@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

PTB. Like always for .world lol

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

Even money says Jordan is involved.

we're talking about quoting the guy who put slaves in secret cupboards and trapdoors under tables and shit right

what's the name of this shitty movement that guy ended up founding anyway? why quote him?

load more comments
view more: next ›