A quick note on the return2ozma ban:
A quick note on the return2ozma ban:
You may have noticed a distinct lack of return2ozma. This is due to their admitting, in a public comment, that their engagement here is in bad faith:
I'm sure there will be questions, let me see if I can address the most obvious ones:
- Can I still post negative stuff about Biden?
Absolutely! We have zero interest in running an echo chamber. However, if ALL you're posting is negative, you may want to re-think your priorities. You get out of the world what you put into it and all that.
- Why now?
Presumption of innocence. It may be my own fault, but I do try to think the best of people, and even though they were posting negative articles, they weren't necessarily WRONG. Biden's poll numbers, particularly in minority demographics ARE in the shitter. They are starting to get better, but he still has a hell of a hill to climb.
- Why a 30 day temp ban and not a permanent ban?
The articles return2ozma shared weren't bad, faked, or from some wing-nut bias site like "beforeitsnews.com", they were legitimate articles from established and respected news agencies, pointing out the valid problems Biden faces.
The problem was ONLY posting the negatives, over and over and then openly admitting that dishonest enagement is their purpose.
Had they all been bullshit articles? It would not have taken anywhere near this much time to lay the ban and it would have been permanent.
30 days seems enough time for them to re-think their strategery and come back to engage honestly.
You're viewing a single thread.
How is that in bad faith?
Theres lots of blind support and promotion for team blue on here that I think Ozma was providing a needed counter balance. You say you dont want an echo chamber but I think this acomplishes the opposite.
So whats the ratio of good to bad news that we must share in order to not be banned?
Theres lots of blind support and promotion for team blue on here
Every time we have this conversation, this same point comes up, and it's always totally imaginary.
The whole board is full of people giving Biden shit (chiefly for Israel at this point; honestly it might be a different story if he wasn't giving them weapons, but as it is, I think you'd be hard pressed to find any story about US aid for Israel that doesn't have its top rated comment as giving his war criminal ass a hard time for it. As well they should.)
But the trolls like to create a reality where they are the only ones that are willing to criticize Biden, and anyone who's taking any note of their particular brand of wildly dishonest and repetitive-almost-like-someone's-doing-it-as-a-job anti Biden postings, just is part of some kind of imaginary monolith that doesn't want any criticism.
The fact that it's never true and looking at the comments for like 2 seconds will illustrate that it's not true, somehow never deters people from saying it.
There lots of comments on ozuma articles saying they are bullshit as well. If people that only post positive stuff don't get banned it's just an echo chamber, it's just as bad faith as only negative at that point.
I am interested in the fact that as of this moment, the pro-ozma speakers in this thread come from:
- kbin.run
- fedia.io
- kbin.earth
- sh.itjust.works
- slrpnk.net
- lemmy.sdf.org
And the anti-ozma speakers come from:
- lemmy.world
- lemm.ee
- lemmy.world
- mbin.grits.dev
- programming.dev
- lemmy.world
- discuss.tchncs.de
- lemmy.world
It is very interesting to me that each individual one of the pro-ozma speakers comes from a different instance, with no repetition. Could be a coincidence of course, but looking over the two lists it's hard not to notice a clear disparity. And, as a pure hypothetical, it would make it very difficult for any individual admin to detect a duplication of IP address between any two of the accounts. And there's no lemmy.world. Purely hypothetically speaking of course.
It's likely a coincidence.
I blocked Ozma months ago, because seeing his posts did not spark joy and blocking him has improved my experience on Lemmy, and generally I think this is a good moderator decision. But I hadn't commented because I mostly agree with the temporary ban and I wasn't seeing his posts anyway.
Nice argument; So im some sort of shill/bot/alt now? I guess this conversation is over then.
Didn't say that; I said the lists looked real weird. Which they do. Then I offered one explanation, which maybe I shouldn't have done since it's a super-strong conclusion from very weak data.
Whether or not you're an alt, I have no idea. But the lists still look weird to me.
I would find this constant paranoid suspicion of yours more amusing if it weren't so condescending toward people who do not share your worldview.
Mm yes we must be pro that account and not anti how dumb/silly the reasoning is.
I was kbin.social before this until they got unstable.
Might want to add that one.
But please, go through my history and continue to call me an alt
I didn't say you were an alt; I said the first list looks way way different than the second list.
In the interval while I was typing, a couple of other pro-ozma people from lemmy.world chimed in. But I'm gonna leave it. That's how it looked when I checked, and the way it looked when I checked is pretty weird.
That’s how it looked when I checked, and the way it looked when I checked is pretty weird.
Must be a conspiracy.
The whole board is full of people giving Biden shit
And more often than not is followed by a variation of "vote blue no matter who" or its heavilly downvoted or gets several replies all telling them how dumb and wrong they are. Thats what I meant, but I admit that it isnt as one sided as my comment might imply.
Anyways, I dont think their descicion of only sharing negative news about biden is not inherently in bad faith. In fact, I believe them admitting to doing so proves the oposite, they were telling people directly what types of news they are sharing and what their view of the situation is, instead of pretending to be objective when theres clearly a bias.
And more often than not is followed by a variation of "vote blue no matter who" or its heavilly downvoted or gets several replies all telling them how dumb and wrong they are.
Brb, I'm gonna look for the most recent "US does something pro-Israel for some fuckin reason" and total up how many of the first few top voted comments got followed up by a variation of "vote blue no matter who" or is heavily downvoted or gets several replies etc etc.
Edit: It's actually kind of tough, because most of the stuff in !politics@lemmy.world is about domestic things. The first thing I found that was big enough to have lots of replies, and dealt with Israel as pertains to the US's policy, was this. Top comment is critical of Biden, i.e. not too heavily downvoted. Then, the top reply is me, defending Biden saying he has nothing to do with this and explaining why. Lots of discussion about who actually is to blame including people saying it includes Schumer, other people saying no it doesn't that's misinformation, and an official mod opinion that yes it absolutely does, the Democrats at least some of them are definitely to blame here.
So... are you saying that that's an okay conversation? Or would it only be reasonable if my reply didn't exist or was different? Is that all something you would characterize as "vote blue no matter who"?
Thats an ok conversation I guess. But, in order to make your defense, you had to willfully ignore the fact that biden (and both party leaders) have a very pro israel/netanyahu stance and all of them are sponsored by pro israel money which, I believe, is what the comment you replied to was saying, even if this specific issue wasnt directly related to biden Thats what I would call blind/dishonest support for team blue.
Thats an ok conversation I guess
Okay cool. That is my point though! People are painting /c/politics as this weird echo chamber of pro-Israel pro-genocide lovefest for Biden's policies when it is the total opposite, and then using that as an excuse to be just as partisan and dishonest in the anti- direction as they are claiming (wrongly) that people are being in the pro- direction.
you had to willfully ignore the fact that biden (and both party leaders) have a very pro israel/netanyahu stance
I absolutely do not do that. I actually probably would have been in the comments as one of the people talking about what a bunch of shit it was that Schumer was pushing this stupid idea, except that I got distracted by the totally weird and bad-faith attempt to link it to Biden.
I do think that it's notable that Biden has nothing to do with this effort. Biden's actually been deliberately snubbing Bibi from this kind of thing for quite some time, refusing to meet with him in the White House and meeting him in some hotel instead when he finally did sit down with him, and courting his political rivals, all of which I'm sure pisses him off.
That doesn't honestly mean all that much to me one way or another for as long as he's providing weapons for the genocide. But if you're gonna get all up in arms about the US government inviting Netanyahu and giving him honors, I think it might potentially be relevant that Biden actually goes out of his way to do the opposite, and definitely is relevant to call out if someone is trying to link Biden to this thing when he has nothing to do with it.
And again, like you said, the conversation seems fine. It's an exchange of views. Some I agree with and some I don't. I don't see where this "oh no without ozma where we will go for the voice in the wilderness that will say anything against Israel or the US government... on LEMMY..." attitude even comes from, which makes me likely to see it as a disingenuous effort to promote a very, very, very slanted viewpoint as a "counter" to the imaginary attitude.
That is my point though! People are painting /c/politics as this weird echo chamber of pro-Israel pro-genocide lovefest for Biden’s policies when it is the total opposite.
There are certainly users who would prefer that c/politics be what you just described, and enforced as such.
Preach!
And more often than not is followed by a variation of "vote blue no matter who" or its heavilly downvoted or gets several replies all telling them how dumb and wrong they are.
Or baseless accusations of being a Trump supporter or a Russian shill.
Or just straight up abuse.
Sometimes the accusation is just cowardly implied, as mozz is doing here.
PS: But for some reason is Ozma the one arguing in bad faith.
Pretty sure I was engaging with you purely on the merits of your arguments, in a decent amount of detail, and I actually thought we reached a point of okay not seeing eye to eye but hey I said my bit, I read up what you said, I went and looked and we talked about how the discourse was, and it was all cool to move on. I mean I called you out for the pure strawman of "lots of blind support and promotion for team blue", but again, purely on the merits, and I thought we had moved on from it and actually had a pretty factual conversation about it.
But sure, if you took me including you in my hey-look-the-instance-distribution-is-hinky list to be a specific accusation against you that I was too cowardly to make directly, I'm happy to talk more about it. I looked over your user; you've left 5 messages in this thread, which is more than you've ever left before in any thread. You've never left even 4 messages in a thread before. Mostly, it's one-sentence-in-one-message quick takes. Somehow, out of all the possible things to care about in the whole universe of political or technical or societal topics, you suddenly decided that saying that there's lot of blind support and promotion for team blue and ozma was providing a needed counter balance, was the thing you cared about most out of any conversation you've ever had on Lemmy, and started getting super passionate and talkative about.
Also, the longest conversation you've ever had other than this was posting another grouping of shill talking points -- here, in this thread full of blind support and promotion for team blue. Not voting, and ozma's user, are apparently the only two things you've ever cared about enough to write more than a handful of sentences about in all the time you've been on Lemmy.
Having looked over your user, I think it's pretty likely that you're a shill, and most of your not-shill contributions to Lemmy are just a smokescreen of a small number of quick messages and one conversation about eclipse glasses. I think the timing of you coming into this particular topic is probably just to deploy here to defend ozma. Again, the truth is that I have no idea, but that's what seems most likely to me. Does that seem less cowardly?
your profile-stalking is half-assed and won't ever tell you what you think it does about people, only their user accounts. it's toxic as fuck.
Why wouldn’t a person’s comment history tell you anything about who they are as a person? What else do you have to go on? It’s literally their persona in the context of a pseudonymous forum.
Calling it “stalking” and “toxic” is a lame dodge, usually by people who got found out. They hate that their behavior fits a recognizable pattern - they don’t want to be accountable for their own public actions.
Why wouldn’t a person’s comment history tell you anything about who they are as a person?
i didnt say it won't tell you anything. i said it doesn't tell mozz what they think it tells them
Calling it “stalking” and “toxic” is a lame dodge, usually by people who got found out
no, it is toxic. it's teh very definition of an ad hominem: instead of dealing with what they said here and now, you are maligning their character.
The person specifically called me out by name and said that I’d accused them of something but been too cowardly to engage with them directly on it. I hadn’t, but since they brought it up, I looked into it a little and confirmed that yes, I feel comfortable accusing them directly, and did so, and explained why. Thus they have a chance to defend themselves directly if they feel like what I said was unfair. But I didn’t bring the ad hominem into it and never intended to until I was specifically invited to. Until then, I was, as I pointed out, engaging with them purely on the merits of what they were saying.
I wouldn't bother with replying to that account. It's a certified troll account. Go on @VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world now report my comment for calling you a troll since that's all you do.
Mmm keep going I'm getting close
Call me a shitlib
Right on, brother
I see it like this, and naturally, I'm biased...
Today I made three threads about court case updates. 1 about the Georgia case, 2 about Florida, because it was new and newsworthy.
If I did a deep dive on Cannon and posted every single misdeed she's done since becoming a judge, people in the group would be right to go "Hey... um... you OK? Working through some issues?"
If I did it day, after, day, after day and then posted "Yeah, I'm only interested in bad things." Someone would be right to tell me to go touch grass.
I still cant see how Ozmas posting was in bad faith. Obsesive? Sure, it could be seen that way but it says nothing about their intentions other than they were prioritizing negative/critical news of biden and the dem. party, and I can see why, since theres a strong push back on the fediverse against those types of news.
Coming out and saying "sure there's some good things, but I'm only interested in bad things" means he's disingenous in his posting. As I mentioned in another comment, we don't allow Fox or Newsmax or OANN because it's clear they have an agenda.
Openly admitting that agenda becomes actionable.
Agree to disagree.
They explicitly said "I prefer to share the bad news" not that it was their only interest and, as I already pointed out, theres a legitimate reason as to why that could be.
Nothing of what ozma posts and comments makes me think they have a pro-trump agenda. I believe your personal opinion of Ozma is influencing how you interpret their words and their banning is based solely on the your assumption of what they meant.
All this said, I could be wrong to since im not inmune to my opinions shaping how I see things but even if I thought they were pro trump, i think the comment in cuestion is not evidence enough of their agenda (or lack there of)