Skip Navigation
Ye Power Trippin' Bastards @lemmy.dbzer0.com
irelephant [he/him] @lemmy.dbzer0.com

Banned from meanwhileongrad for "No db0 allowed".

Modlog: https://sh.itjust.works/modlog/25693?page=1&actionType=All&userId=21053985 , banned by @goat@sh.itjust.works

For context, goat started calling dbzer0 users tankies, and got into a few arguments.

More context:

It started (to my knowledge) with this comment, goat pinged db0 after he downvoted a comment

Goat banned IndustryStandard, leading to this thread: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/52160152/ leading to goat commenting this:
https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/52160152/21070262

He mentions this:

We constantly encounter bots, spammers, alt accounts, trolls, and doxxers, so I need to be vigilant by regularly checking who’s interfering and from where.

Which I find ironic, since there was some vote manipulation happening, which goat did nothing about (and could be behind), but I'll get to that later.

After some more arguments, goat started calling dbzer0 users tankies, saying that letting tankie users engage on dbzer0 comms means other users are tankies:


source

He said that it's different for LW (lemmy.world) and SJW (sh.itjust.works, not the other word). He then poster the "Tank Man" picture to !flippanarchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com, as he expected us to retaliate (being tankies, according to him). We did not, in fact, retaliate: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/comment/21089819

He also posted this in tankiejerk: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/52268655, https://sh.itjust.works/comment/20733015.

He also may have done vote manipulation, and at the very least allowed it.
Take, for example, this comment: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/comment/21091723
Per lemvotes, it was downvoted by the following users:

The relevant ones here are:

They have all downvoted exclusively arguments against goat and others, and were made almost at the same time.

After a bit more arguing (I'm not posting the specific comments because it's tedious, and they're easy to see by scrolling through goat's profile.) goat decided to ban all dbzer0 users from meanwhileongrad, I think this comment marks when he decided to do this, but I may be wrong.

Since this goat had been banned from dbzer0 for being hostile:

https://sh.itjust.works/modlog?page=1&actionType=All&userId=63615

You're viewing a single thread.

359 comments

  • and are experiencing cultural erasure and Human Rights abuses

    If you believe that, then you believe there is a genocide. Because cultural erasure is genocide.

    • A genocide committed by CHINA.

      AUSTRALIA have concentration camps in East Timor. Maybe do something about what your own country's doing.

      • AUSTRALIA have concentration camps in East Timor. Maybe do something about what your own country's doing.

        Source on that? If you're talking about Australia's immigration detention centres, which are indeed heinous human rights violations, I don't think we ever had one in East Timor. If you're talking about the secret interrogation centre that was exposed a few years back, well that was during the peace-keeping mission back in 99/00 and hasn't existed for a quarter of a century...

    • Every genocide in history has been accompanied by mass murder... except this one apparently. 🤔

      • The definition of genocide by the UN convention:

        In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

        (a) Killing members of the group;

        (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

        (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

        (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

        (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

        If the target is to destroy a group as a group and any of these acts are committed, it is genocide. Mass murder is the "prevalent" act, but it is not a requirement for genocide.

      • Hardly

        • The fact that so many of these are empty and stupid anti-communist smears is fascinating. Vietnam did genocide against South Vietnam, collectivization of farmland in the USSR was genocide against land owning peasants? Really?

          Deeply unserious, to the point of actually being genocide denial. Genocide is the crime of crimes. This "cultural genocide" invention actually equivocates the crimes of the worst regimes in history with what are, ultimately, not even crimes. Look at Xinjiang province and compare it to Gaza. It's fucking night and day.

          • This “cultural genocide” invention

            It was "invented" in the very same book that coined the term genocide. Cultural genocide has been a part of genocide since the very inception of the concept of genocide. I shouldn't have to explain that multiple things can fit in the same category without being equal. Playing whataboutism games as an excuse to deny ongoing genocides is a supremely bad look.

            We're more than happy (at least those of us on the left) to admit Australia's "stolen generation" was an act of genocide. I'm not as well-informed about it, but my understanding is that Canada's "residential school system" has been even more widely recognised as such. The concept of cultural genocide is pretty well established and widely accepted in leftist circles. The only exception to this seems to be tankies trying to deny China's own examples of it in Tibet and Xinjiang.

            • The stolen generation, the residential schools, these don't exist in a vacuum. Canada and Australia ran extermination campaigns to reduce populations before they started taking children. They're genocidal because they're part of a broader campaign of genocide, you can't just divorce them from the broader genocide as a separate crime.

              That's what I mean when I say cultural genocide has always worked alongside ethnic cleansing and mass murder campaigns and extermination. They're not separate things. Divorcing it from them as it's own unique crime of "cultural genocide" makes no sense and essentially devalues the power of genocide accusations.

              • Let's try a hypothetical then. Without any mass murder or extermination campaigns, if a group forcibly enacted birth control on another group, would that be genocide? How about taking all children of that group and raising them outside of their ethnic background, therefore forcibly erasing their cultural and ethnic identity? How would those differ from other acts that don't involve direct violence, like starvation campaigns? I agree with you on the point that using the term "cultural genocide"does devalue it though, but I just also personally believe that anything that seeks to erase a cultural, ethnic or other identity is genocide.

              • "Actually nuh uh, because, you see, I said so"

                How profound. Do you have anything of value to say, or are you too belligerent to unconditionally repudiate your wrongness and humble yourself?

                • The genocide convention doesn't actually cover this. The threshold for the crime of genocide is high, it is the crime of crimes. "Cultural genocide" in the absence of extermination/mass murder/ethnic cleansing does not meet that threshold.

                  It's not just me that says so, the UN says so. The ICJ says so. They don't call it genocide because it isn't genocide.

                  • It literally does. There's a line item specifically about forcibly transferring children, and that was a key element of both the genocides they mentioned.

                    • Can you imagine non-genocidal intent for removing children from their parents? I can.

                      That's why one line item isn't actually enough to call it genocide, without the extermination element and without the intent it doesn't meet the threshold. Again, there is a reason the UN or ICJ have not called it genocide.

                      • Either you've not read the definition and are guessing, or you're intentionally misrepresenting it. The definition requires any (not all, and not multiple) of several acts, and forcible removal of children is one of them. It also requires an intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Both the Canadian and Australian governments have admitted this past intent. They recognise their own past genocides. The UN and ICJ don't need to issue a report into a genocide that's already been stopped domestically and is already being punished domestically as they're international organisations that enforce international law only after the nations concerned have failed to do so themselves.

                        You're using the word it as if you're forgetting we're in a thread talking about two different genocides, neither of which is against Uyghurs. As China isn't part of the ICJ, it's not within their jurisdiction to say whether or not there's a genocide, and would be just as silly to bring up as if someone said that the British Crown Prosecution Service never charged OJ Simpson with murder and tried to suggest that meant he was definitely innocent. I'm not sure whether it's as silly as thinking that Canada and Australia are one country, though, which is the other reason you might have said it.

                  • In other words, no, you don't. I'd ridicule you more but the fact that you're trying to rules-lawyer a technicality around the definition of genocide has already done it for me.

                    • Take it up with the UN and ICJ, not me. They're the ones who don't think it meets the definition.

                      I guess you're smarter and more qualified than them though so they should probably listen to you.

                      • The UN is notoriously susceptible to political pressure so it's really not surprising. Are you going to try to make the case that the CCP regime currently occupying the ROC's mainland territory has not exerted such pressure because the UN can't be corrupted, or will you be swift enough to realize that directly contradicts your other factory-preset talking points about America's history of shady influence on the UN?

        • Bringing Wikipedia to a gun fight 🤣 Yes, I’m aware of and accept the UNCPPCG and other such definitions that include cultural genocide.

          This is neither the time or place to get into it, so I won’t, but I’ve gotten into it elsewhere dozens of times, including with world’s top rules pervert.

    • Genocide is defined as:

      the deliberate and systematic killing or persecution of a large number of people from a particular national or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group

      I don't think China intends to destroy the Uyghurs, but want's to suppress them instead.
      At most, we're arguing about using a specific word to describe what's happening.

      • Suppressing a culture destroys that culture. If people cannot express their culture, it will eventually die out as the people become assimilated into the culture of the empire that is supressing it. That's what makes it genocide. You kill off a culture even without needing to kill actual humans. (Which is to say nothing of the forced sterilisation, which is a far more direct form of genocide.)

      • That's a much narrower definition than the UN uses, which is what matters in terms of international law. In particular, the intent doesn't have to be to totally destroy the group, so suppressing its numbers still counts. It's a semantic argument, but for a word so loaded as genocide, letting people dodge accusations by picking a different word isn't helpful. Obviously, this one isn't the most serious genocide going on right now, as there are Israeli cabinate ministers explicitly saying it's their goal to kill all Palestinians, but that's not a great defence for crimes against humanity.

        • Obviously, it's crimes against humanity that's happening to the Uyghurs, but even the UN doesn't call it a genocide.

          https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2022/08/un-human-rights-office-issues-assessment-human-rights-concerns-xinjiang

          https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/countries/2022-08-31/22-08-31-final-assesment.pdf

          • Because of how the UN works, a statement from the UN that something isn't a genocide isn't necessarily evidence that it's not a genocide under the definition the UN gives. Obviously, there's the massive elephant in the room of not upsetting member states in a way that might make them less likely to engage (especially when they're as capable of ignoring the UN as China due to their power and having a permanent veto on the Security Council), but there's also the fact that the UN's got lots of subcommittees and working groups that regularly put out statements that contradict each other. A few weeks ago, news was going around that the UN had released a report saying there was no evidence of a genocide against Palestinians, and it was true that they had, but it was from a body whose job was to represent Israel, and it contradicted hundreds of other reports saying there was overwhelming evidence of a genocide.

            The Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights is a pretty big deal, though, so if they say whether or not something's a genocide, it's worth paying attention. However, the report you linked doesn't make a statement one way or the other - in fact it doesn't contain the word genocide even once. It does list an awful lot of things that the Genocide Convention includes in its definition, though. A report that presents a lot of evidence of genocide but little against, and says crimes against humanity are happening while stopping short of making a definitive claim of genocide isn't something that says a there's no genocide. The people who've shown you that report and said it says there's no genocide are misrepresenting it to push an agenda. Several countries recognised a genocide based on the evidence the report gave (although obviously they weren't all without an agenda of their own).

      • You're whining about being called a tankie and banned, while repeating tankies talking points.

        • There is a plausible case that there's genocide happening, but I don't think that's the correct word to describe it.

          The UN and Amnesty International both defined it as Human Rights abuse, not genocide.

          The tankie talking point is that nothing bad is happening to the Uyghurs, which is blatantly false.

          • The tankie talking point is that nothing bad is happening to the Uyghurs, which is blatantly false.

            Bad things have absolutely happened to them. They suffered violence from Salafi-Jihad terrorists[1][2] and suffered mass unemployment from the West’s (led by the US, ofc) embargoes on Xinjiang cotton, the region’s main export, which only adds tinder to terrorism potentially re-igniting. Given the last 25 years of the US showing the world that it doesn’t give a rat’s about Muslims, and given that it considers China to be its greatest adversary/enemy, one shouldn’t uncritically accept its professed motive: to protect poor, oppressed Uyghurs.

359 comments