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.

  • Lvxferre [he/him]@mander.xyz
    1011·
    19 hours ago

    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.

      • Lvxferre [he/him]@mander.xyz
        76·
        18 hours ago

        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:

        1. 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
        2. 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”.

        • FelixCress@lemmy.worldOP
          112·
          52 minutes ago

          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.