I think Sunshine has never been around Horses. You have a pretty good life if you have to make an issue with others having horses.
Ban evasion so you can continue your triad against another user for their completely innocuous post definitely justifies a permanent ban from that single community.
I agree with that other user, go touch grass. You can use that time to do a lot more for animal rights than arguing with random Lemmy users ever will.
I believe you've misunderstood the exchange, which is understandable as it's not that clear. Op clarified in another comment that they were informing the mod that another user was ban evading.
Oh ok, thanks for pointing that out. I was confused too!
Tirade?
You're spitting venom about a horse who seems to be really well taken care of. That is a huge barn, a sizeable paddock and he even has a nicer shirt than I do.
It's a community for posting pictures. No one wants to deal with your blatant negativity, scathing sarcasm and extremist views.
Ban justified.
Extremist views for wanting horses to live in peace without being caged in and being uncomfortably ridden on against their will.
“The slavemaster is in the right while the abolitionist is the extremist” got it.
The extremism comes from how you interact with those around you when that view comes into play and the comparaisons you make. The view that pet ownership is immoral is clearly a fringe belief in any case. So yes, extremist views.
I feel like there was a bit of escalation on your end here
I did not name call or curse but the 2 commenters have.
But you did jump right into China comparisons. It's not too far off from Godwin's law.
OP I think you should relax. I get what you're trying to do but you have to understand "Okay we're going to ban you" as a very predictable result of the personal nature of how you've chosen to approach it, and repeatedly trying to send the same message to people who have indicated they want you to stop. YDI
Okay we’re going to ban you
This did not say that, read the modlogs again. The horse has also indicated they dont want to be chained up, ridden on and imprisoned.
The lemmyworld instance is allowing disagreement on posts, So folks are allowed to make such comments.
"Disagreement" is fine, as was your initial comment mostly. Once someone's heard your message, and explained to you that they don't want to hear more, that is their right to do, and you need to stop repeatedly trying to communicate further specifically to that person that same specific message. The fact that you feel they are violating some other type of right in some other context doesn't change that.
It's a very different thing, saying that your general opinion is that horses shouldn't be kept as domestic animals. That I don't think anyone would have an issue with. It's totally different when you are telling one specific person that they are bad, and not stopping repeating the message when asked to, or even when banned. I don't think there is really any well-moderated forum where that's allowed.
The policy is not currently in place. But if it were, it does specifically say a small amount and respectfully.
If you went with
You can't morally justify chaining up a sentient, breathing creature for your own amusement.
And left it at that, it would have fallen under that policy, if it were in effect. As it is, with heavy passive aggressiveness and sarcasm, well, you're on your own.
I don't think this is a Lemmy world issue. I think on many instances you would also see the same behavior. Somebody sharing something genuinely, innocently, and it's being leveraged and twisted into a political moment. That discourages people from sharing.
innocently, and it’s being leveraged and twisted into a political moment.
How can you call this innocent when horseback riding harms the horse.
Innocent from the perspective of the person who is sharing. They intended no harm, they did not want to get involved in somebody else's agenda.
You clearly view the photograph in a different context, and you see harm. That's fine, but if you're going to bring that context into other people's communities, you have to realize moderators may not want every person to be held to your standards. Hence the banning
So, let's get this straight, you went into a thread, harassed and insulted someone , and you think that's okay?
Nah, not only did YDI, YTA. A giant, gaping, post gangbang A.
Talk about an ironic username. YDI for going into a thread and immediately being accusatory and hostile towards others. This sort of behaviour would be unwelcome in most communities regardless of being on .world or not. If you had phrased things in a different, less hostile way (perhaps "I do not feel comfortable seeing horses in captivity") then you likely wouldn't have faced serious backlash or moderator action.
Regardless of what your beliefs are and how strongly you feel about them, being a hostile jerk will get you booted pretty fast from almost any community and it's best to refrain from doing so if you actually want anyone to listen.
Meh read the room. This is basically someone sharing a picture of their domesticated pet and you chose to inject an unsolicited position you knew would be controversial. That's what we call being edgy, and it's widely regarded as annoying.
I won't talk about the [de]merits of what you're defending.
YDI:
99.99% of Lemmy boils down to "communities where you can discuss deep issues, and soapbox to your heart's content". Then there are a few islands of fluff, where people share pics and make some casual, non-divisive conversation. LW/c/pics is clearly one of those islands; yet you're trying to trigger a discussion there? "My right to soapbox precedes the right of everyone else to see fluff".
Crazyblu is spot on: you were being passive aggressive. You could have voiced the exact same discourse ("I'm against animals being chained" or similar) in a more polite way; or, if you can't be polite due to the topic, at least be upfront with the aggressiveness, or use a dry tone. Pass-aggro is the worse of both worlds.
The user is clearly disengaging without arguing ("I'm not having this conversation"), but you're still insisting.
BPR:
Unless context dictates otherwise, an omitted subject gets interpreted as the first person, so your comment reads like "[I] made a new account [to] circumnavigate the block…". As such, the mod interpreting this as you admitting ban evasion is totally justified.
When you find a user evading a ban, instead of interacting with them, you report the user to the admins.
Even then, IMO the mod should have checked if you were evading a ban, based on usernames or asking the admins for help. That's why I'm calling this BPR instead of YDI.
"Ban evading fuck off back into your hole cretin" is not an acceptable reason. You don't insult users in mod logs.
The user refusing to engage is the same as a slaveowner refusing to talk about the harms slavery causes.
I agree with last point at least.
The user refusing to engage is the same as a slaveowner refusing to talk about the harms slavery causes.
"My soapboxing is justified!"
If you see moral issues on what users post, report to the mods. And if the mods don't deal satisfactorily with your complain, drop the comm, block it etc. Stop trying to convert a fluff community into yet another debate community.
That would apply even if we were talking about genuine slavery of human beings.
The world does not revolve around your belly, nor around the causes that you defend, no matter how important you believe that those causes are.
[EDIT, from your edit] I agree with last point at least.
Of course you do, right? It's the only part that I acknowledge that the mod might have done something wrong.
They're still 90% right. The ban itself was completely deserved.
Yet you remain silent on the enslavement of plants? Lemons aren't even natural. They're an unholy crossbreed created by humans. We've been enslaving and bending nature to our will for generations to suit us. We artificially cultivate them in cramped farm rows. We even modify the very genetics of plants! How is that not slavery as well?
Did you expect the screenshots you posted to make people want to side with you?
You do seem antagonistic in an unsolicited way dear. I understand the sentiment.
Once upon a time I worked security for some horse jumping shows and a rodeo. I'm certainly no expert. The events happened on the property of some very rich people and I spent a lot of time around the groomers and horses. I was rather surprised by them overall. It didn't seem like many wanted to get out or were mistreated by captivity. Many were mischievous and looking for any excuse to be obnoxious. I had my two way radio pilfered on multiple occasions. There was an occasional escapee, but they never seemed to be actually trying to escape. There were times that it was obvious they knew where to go if they wanted to escape and they would threaten it like a cat that is not getting enough attention and decides to become a gravity fizicist, but it was always like someone looking for drama and proud to show off how they figured out the latch of their stall. They weren't stressed but were very playful in all the circumstances I saw.
Perhaps it is my own imprisonment from physical disability here, but I never got the impression that the horses really didn't like their lives. Perhaps it is due to so many generations of domestication, but they all seemed alright for the most part. The jumpers were fed lean before events and so they were about as moody as I was before I did a bicycle crit race back in the day. It is just something to think about that perhaps things are more complicated and your ideal picture of a horse in the wild is not as related to the reality of a domesticated horse. Many likely wouldn't survive in the wild. This is a subject I very much struggle with on the human side. I struggle to be content within my limitations and dependence on others now. Without my familial support I cannot survive, and that support has a very real and upcoming limit that is likely to cause my very real premature demise.
It is not about right or wrong or sides for me here. I'm just sharing my one perspective that things can be more complicated dear.
Also, the women that come to jumpy events were beyond hot. Many showed up in the middle of the night, by themselves, and worked far harder than most men after driving hundreds to thousands of miles. Their relationships with the horses were remarkable too. From what I saw, it was very much a collaborative type of relationship. I'm not saying all are like that, but all that I was around were like that. One of those horse ladies can adopt me any time, and I pretty much live in a stall already. I would greatly appreciate someone feeding me and keeping me on my physical therapy routine. We all adapt to our own levels of normal, but so far I would still rather live than die even in my circumstances.
If only I had a penny for every time a vegan wades into a random conversation to tell everyone how they’re oppressing some animal.
Civil: adequate in courtesy and politeness.
Your comments are discourteous and impolite. YDI.
Lemmy.world is a trash instance and i would not mind seeing all their servers burned to ashes, but OP is also a pearl clutching turd for shitting on cute horse pics. Fuck you Sunshine
YDI GFY GG NO RE
Wow, what a shitshow. First comment was funny. Then they said they don't want this ("I'm not having that conversation") and you took that as an invitation to force yourself upon them. Shooting all guns, carnivore, China, block evasion. That's why you're in the wrong here. And what are you even trying to achieve?
Typical LW carnist apologia. "Theprogressivist"? What a clown.
many leftists turn their brains right off as soon as animals are concerned. never fails.
I reported the rude comment that included the cursing and name calling but then shockingly I get hit with the ban while that stays up… followed by more uncivil modlog comments with one making a baseless accusation that I’m ban evading despite the fact I have never been banned from this community before.
@Serinus@lemmy.world @jordanlund@lemmy.world
I thought Lemmy.World allowed discourse on communities, so that they can avoid one narrative dominating the conversation.
So its okay for carnists to attack the vegan philosophy on their communities but not okay for vegans to do the same on carnist communities. The hypocrisy on Lemmy.World is astounding. The 3 big tankie instances are very problematic in their own ways but at-least they're are not blatantly biased towards this topic.
Libs are right wing. They have zero interest in total liberation, etc.
YDI for muddling a good animal liberation argument with absolute nonsense about China.
You linked a source for the animal abuse, can you link a source showing with images/video the CPC detaining Uyghurs from the past two years?
Clearly there is a reason you are on .ca and not with the based vegans on .vg or vegantheoryclub
Don't bring the argument in here. This community is for discussing moderation.
Just skimming your pictures I’ll tell you to just block anyone the first chance they’re rude. Makes life here better.
However communities have the obligation to stay civil and to prevent namecalling.
I agree :) staying on topic and civil should be a mods only job here.
