edit Shame on the entire Lemmy World mod team for locking this thread, you are participating in an evil you don’t want to mess with that will consume you. Children are dying as we speak and you have all atrociously failed your duty to ethically moderate and steward a community. You hurt this place.

This is a serious problem for y’all, I know you removed him as a site wide moderator, but it is simply not enough. You are endorsing someone who has a CLEAR pattern of silencing discussion about a particular group of people and if that doesn’t alarm you, you need to wake up and pay attention.

Looking back there is a repeated pattern of removing, silencing and acting derisively towards discussion about Palestine and the Palestinian Genocide from Jordan Lund both from my interactions with him and also from others I have found easily from searching.

Deal with this problem.

See this post

https://sopuli.xyz/post/42491951

…and this post.

https://sopuli.xyz/post/42630105

Edit shame on the Lemmy World team for ignoring this post or trying to find lazy ways to dismiss it.

This should serve as a warning to all, do not depend on Lemmy World communities, diversify to different servers as there is a serious distortion of reality going on here about what is allowed to be talked about and what is not. The consequences are real and we could not be discussing a more serious subject of censorship than the Palestinian Genocide and the politics around it.

  • supersquirrelOP
    93·
    9 days ago

    Rules are not neutral, you cannot dismiss my criticism of them because in your perception of things I did not follow the rules if my contention is correct since there is no way for you to be sure the fractured understanding you have of a moderation policy built on a logical fallacy is the same as mine.

    The only way to be sure we are operating under consistent logic is to adhere to a moderation policy not built upon a logical fallacy so we know if we both agree on the same starting axioms that we can suss out a logical connection between our two points of view.

    This really isn’t even about me being right in my particular political arguments, there is a fundamental philosophical faceplant Jordan Lund is doing here about the basic mechanisms of geopolitics that transcends the specifics of any of my particular arguments.

    Unfortunately the consequences are not abstract, we are talking about discussion around a Genocide.

    Sometimes called the “either-or” fallacy, a false dilemma is a logical fallacy that presents only two options or sides to an issue when there are actually more complexities. Essentially, a false dilemma presents a “black and white” kind of thinking when there are many shades of gray.

    The simplest form of a false dilemma would be a question like: “do you want ketchup or mustard on your hot dog?” Why not both? Or neither? Or maybe a salad? We probably encounter these harmless false dilemmas often in everyday life. Sometimes, simplifying the number of choices available can even be a useful way to reach a consensus.

    However, false dilemmas can become harmful when they’re used to purposely exclude options in order to distort an argument. False dilemmas can also be used to imply that two contrasting positions are actually contradictory. We’ll see an example of that in our comic below:

    ^insert “US Politics” and “US Vassal State Politics” in for “ketchup and mustard”

    https://owl.excelsior.edu/argument-and-critical-thinking/logical-fallacies/logical-fallacies-false-dilemma/

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vassal_state

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzerainty

    • Rhoeri@lemmy.worldEnglish
      28·
      9 days ago

      JFC dude… read the rules of the page in the sidebar. You’re trying to sound intellectual, but all you’re doing is just trying to justify trolling.

      I’m not arguing this with you. You are in the wrong despite your inability to accept it.

      • supersquirrelOP
        91·
        9 days ago

        I’m not arguing this with you. You are in the wrong despite your inability to accept it.

        Thank you for publicly stating your conscious dereliction of responsibility to engage in good faith here.

        • Rhoeri@lemmy.worldEnglish
          27·
          9 days ago

          You got “dereliction of responsibility to engage in good faith” from my stating that I’m not going to argue with you if you’re going to refuse to even try to see that you are in the wrong?

          LMAO!

          Your $5 words are worthless when they have no merit behind their meaning. I look forward to seeing nothing being done about this.