You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
16 points
*

It is clear they should be banned already.

I think it does bring up some larger issues though. Like should limits be placed on accounts. Do we really want users like this? Are they adding to the experience?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-17 points
*

Banned for what? Because I have different views than you do?! Do you realise that the vast majority of articles I post aren’t even to this community?! The person you responded to neglected to tell you that.

Here is my post history: https://lemmy.world/u/UniversalMonk?page=1&sort=New&view=Posts

This community isn’t a “Only pro-Harris posters allowed” community. It celebrates diversity of opinion and thought. It’s not an echo chamber.

If you think the article that was posted for this thread doesn’t align with the community guidelines, feel free to contact the moderators. Thank you!

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

This was a discussion about you behavior. You did not address this behavior in your post.

The links are okay, but your responses are ridiculous just like the one here. The passive aggressiveness is palpable.

The constant need to disproportionally defend yourself definitely is trollish.

If you wish to address this fine. Otherwise there is not much else to say. I wish you good luck in the future and do hope you will change.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-13 points
*

Also, let’s here’s a fun example. I just posted this: https://lemmy.world/post/20405177

It’s actually an anti-Stein/Pro-democrat article. Look at the downvotes of the article. And go read the comments. lol

It got downvoted because I posted it. People downvote me because they think I am a russian troll who wants Trump to win. But I have posted several pro-democrat articles. So how does that fit in with your narrative of me and my behavior? Serious question; not “trolling.”

Because my point is that I think people are actually mad because they are emotional that I’m not voting for Harris. And to explain it, they are quick to say that I have an “agenda” or that “I’m trollish.”

But if I post articles that are pro-democrat/pro-Harris/anti-Trump/anti-Stein, and people are still mad, then how does that fit the idea that I am the one with some agenda?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-14 points
*

So you’re saying I should just sit back and say nothing when people spread falsehoods about my motivations? What about when I’m accused of being Russian or not even living in the US—just let that slide too? What about that I am “multiple people” on this account because “no human could do that!” (which is hilarious by the way)

You’re literally advocating for me to be banned, and I shouldn’t respond to that? Really?

How about this: If people don’t want a response from me, or think that my responses are “trollish”, then maybe they should stop making accusations about me and just discuss the article.

A guy in this very thread, posts how many articles I post. And he does it every day. Sometimes multiple times a day. And he comes right out and says I shitpost. Now he is free to do that. My post history is public. But isn’t doing that sort of trying to get some response?

Him posting that and baiting me doesn’t get a rise out of me at all. But it’s obvious he’s targeting me and has been for some time. Feel free to check his post history and what he says to me. Again, he’s free to do that as much as he wants. But don’t I have a right to reply?

I had someone the other day, mention that they were responding to me ad nauseum to just increase the comment count for the post.

Is that in good faith?

If people just stopped responding to me, wouldn’t that pretty much eliminate all the drama?

Now, people TOTALLY have a right to respond to me and try to “call me out.” As often as they want, because it won’t stop me from posting. But if they have that right, don’t I have to right to respond?

Example:

permalink
report
parent
reply
-20 points

Ban because you disagree with them? And you people say that Republicans are authoritarian.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

Try harder please. I have read several articles posted by OP. They clearly have an agenda and have engaged in a lot of trolling behavior.

So the question is having an active troll/propagandist really good for the community. Maybe you could argue that they generate engagement or that we need to protect people’s right to disagree.

The community should carefully weigh this moving forward. If accounts that act like bots are allowed then this place will follow in the footsteps of Digg or Reddit.

Personally, I would have already set them straight as a moderator. I have never been impressed by edgy people who add very little to the conversation.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

The mods and admins have actually discussed their account multiple times.

The consensus is, yes, they have shitty opinions, but having shitty opinions is not against the TOS.

The links they post are legitimate links from respected sources.

So, no, nothing bannable or removable here. The comments and downvotes do their job exposing just how shitty their opinions are.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

I think actively trolling people by arguing in bad faith or through astroturfing like this is definitely poisoning the community. It shouldn’t be tolerated for tolerances’ sake. And I’m not saying to just ban people you don’t agree with. I’m saying people who obviously just post to poke the bear, so to speak, should face discipline for trying to turn Lemmy toxic.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points

Liberals don’t like leftists in general because we make them feel like bad people. That’s why they try so hard to morally lash out at us whenever they can. They understand that many of the policies they advocate are unethical, but can’t oppose a system they benefit from, so they tear us down and lash out at us.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-11 points
*

https://lemmy.world/post/20349566

Anti-Stein/Pro-Democrat article I posted. Check the downvotes and the comments.

https://lemmy.world/post/20281854?scrollToComments=true

Anti-Trump article. Check out the comments. So you don’t think I had the right to reply?

https://lemmy.world/post/20405177

Yet another anti-Stein article I’ve posted. Heavily downvoted.

So what is my agenda again? Please explain.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-13 points

But I’ve posted articles that are critical of Trump, Stein, and Harris, as well as articles praising each of them. How come you don’t mention those articles?

So, if you’re assuming I agree with every viewpoint in the articles I post, how does that even work when I share so many conflicting perspectives?!

I also created and mod a political news community where people have posted articles praising Harris, criticizing Stein, and trashing me—yet I still leave those up.

https://lemmy.world/c/politicsunfiltered

I could have removed them. Seems like a lot of conflicting viewpoints for you to imply I have some agenda.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-12 points
*

Right?! And the vast majority of articles I post aren’t even to this community. And I’ve posted pro-Harris, anti-Stein, and anti-Trump articles too. Funny how the poster who posted my stats neglected to mention that. lol

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to “Mom! He’s bugging me!” and “I’m not touching you!” Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 15K

    Monthly active users

  • 11K

    Posts

  • 188K

    Comments