Skip Navigation

It's not fun interacting with them when they often want to engage in ad hominems. This is why I have no interest in the tankie triad.

You're viewing a single thread.

288 comments

  • It's not fun interacting with them

    Semi related: Something weird has been going on at dbzer0 yesterday and today. They are not normally tankies, they always seemed like they were just kind of sensible and doing their own thing, but since the time of the "pro AI" vs "anti AI" thing they now seem to have declared absolute scorched earth war on "the liberals" in the same way that the triad always has.

    It's like all the issues all of a sudden came out at once. The Dragonfucker argument is back, someone has been following me around all day and hectoring me on random topics and just told me UniversalMonk did nothing wrong, they all of a sudden hate PugJesus with a hundreds-of-comments-wild-personal-attacks passion, the "anti-AI troll" banning random people mod is now posting tankie stuff... it's fuckin' nuts. It came out of nowhere.

    • They are not normally tankies

      What, in your opinion, makes us "tankies" from what you just said? Respect for the neopronouns, intolerance towards Genai-hater trolls, or mod actions towards someone who went on a harassment campaign towards one of our users?

      Anarchists always had very similar critiques towards capitalism as Marxists. Where we differ is what we do about it, and these actions is what can label someone a "tankie"

      • I didn't say you were tankies, I actually said you were not. I just said something weird was going on with dbzer0. Your comment here, I say without really meaning any hostility by it, is more weird stuff.

        Every single one of the issues you've listed, you've reframed it into something different than it was. Neopronouns were never the issue, it was blahaj shielding a transphobic troll from criticism and banning people who complained about them (complained about them while using accepted pronouns, usually while explicitly saying 'yes I'm fine using people's pronouns'), purely because the troll cleverly decided to involve neopronouns into the issue. And then pretending that anyone who was on the "enemy" side was obviously a pronoun-hater and that was the entirety of the issue.

        Intolerance towards genAI-hater trolls was never the issue, it was random mod actions against people who were not genAI-hater trolls. And then pretending that anyone who got the random unwarranted mod action was probably a genAI-hater troll.

        Both of those are the dishonest framings that the people defending whatever weird decision love to use. And, no matter how often it's pointed out to them that some other people disagree with their framing, they simply ignore it, as if the person hadn't said anything at all, and repeat the framing that conveniently makes their answer the only possible answer. That is textbook tankie-instance behavior. It's part of what makes them insufferable to try to talk with. Even if your politics are clearly not tankie.

        And, of course:

        someone who went on a harassment campaign towards one of our users

        Aha!

        "One of our users."

        That's the root of the issue, to me. You're starting to treat "your users" differently than other users.

        One of your users spent part of yesterday following me around and replying to me in a few different threads demanding that I take part in an argument I'd already addressed and then told them I wasn't interested in continuing. Is that harassment? No, because it's your users.

        There's this massive thread accusing PugJesus of all kinds of stuff: That he's pro-Israel, that he's a terminally online weirdo loser, that he never backs up anything he says, that he bans anyone who criticizes Israel, that he's transphobic and doesn't respect people's pronouns, that he's a twat, and so on. That's completely fine, because he's a "lib." He's the enemy. We can all yell at him, insult him, nothing needs to be justified, it's a big hateful groupthink that defines things in terms of enemies (and a crucial part is twisting things around so that someone can be defined as a horrifying enemy in some way, which is why they're pretending he is pro-Israel) and in-groups. Why is that all okay? Because he's not one of your users. He's the out-group, he is a liberal apparently.

        In some forums, that kind of thing is disallowed. If you make personal attacks or insults, you get mod action. If you pretend someone said something they didn't say to stir up shit, you get mod action. Ada's description from a different domain was actually pretty good: There are certain types of respect that are not "a reward for good behaviour." They're just what we need to do for each other to keep the community on the rails. On most of Lemmy, the mod action for violating that kind of respect is overtly one-sided; if you're in the in-group, it's allowed, if you're aiming it towards the in-group, then you get mod action because it's a crisis.

        Does that one-sided moderation, and officially badjacketing people as "Zionists" and genocide supporters and then going full-bore against them as a result, mean you're tankies? Not in the literal sense, no. But you're starting to act like the tankie instances, all of a sudden, when it seems to me like you used to be chill and sensible. You had your politics but you weren't dishonestly attacking and moderating against anyone who had some different kind of politics, and mobbing up against them like Lord of the Flies. Now it seems like you are, and it happened (from my POV at least) all of a sudden out of nowhere, and it's weird to me.

        (Yes, I know what badjacketing means. I placed it in the sentence the way I did to make a point.)

        • that he’s a terminally online weirdo

          that he’s a twat,

          I mean tbf both of those are at least true

          • Heh I would think the bigger insult here on the feddi is that any of us are normal or well adjusted.

        • Aha! "One of our users."

          You said this like it’s some kind of gotcha. It isn’t. Of course we’re going to protect our communities and users above and before other communities and users. At the end of the day, the health and wellbeing of dbzer0 should always be prioritized over the wellbeing of other instances by the mods and admins of our instance. That’s their duty to our users. You’re welcome to complain about that as much as you want, but that’s always going to be how I operate, at least, and I doubt any of the other mods or admins feel all that differently.

          • Protecting users from being harassed is the same as admins being weird people like .ml, apparently.

            • My favorite part is where you yourself admitted that I only downvoted comments I disagreed with, and yet both you and the Dbzer0 admins counted that as 'harassment'.

              Seven months of blatant slander, on the other hand, is just being a good comrade, according to dbzer0.

        • Every single one of the issues you’ve listed, you’ve reframed it into something different than it was. Neopronouns were never the issue, it was blahaj shielding a transphobic troll from criticism and banning people who complained about them (complained about them while using accepted pronouns, usually while explicitly saying ‘yes I’m fine using people’s pronouns’), purely because the troll cleverly decided to involve neopronouns into the issue. And then pretending that anyone who was on the “enemy” side was obviously a pronoun-hater and that was the entirety of the issue.

          That's your framing of the situation.

          An alternative perspective is that the "pronouns cannot relate to imaginary creatures" is gender gatekeeping.
          Drag was potentially trolling, but if nobody ever took the bait, nothing would have happened.

          https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/39039162

          We can all yell at him, insult him, nothing needs to be justified

          People brought justifications

          In some forums, that kind of thing is disallowed. If you make personal attacks or insults, you get mod action

          Direct attacks are usually removed

          You had your politics but you weren’t dishonestly attacking

          I'm am going to be honest with you, I didn't expect you to make this kind of comments

          Cool! Now accuse him of caring way too much about politics, and getting in heated debates about it like a LOSER, speaking as you are from your lemmy.ml address. That’ll make perfect sense too.

          https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/49571446/20291493

          Also, not sure why it's not okay for dbzer0 to have a "our users" stance while you broadly categorize all .ml users as "losers"

          • Good God. Okay, you asked for a response, here is it.

            An alternative perspective is that the "pronouns cannot relate to imaginary creatures" is gender gatekeeping. Drag was potentially trolling, but if nobody ever took the bait, nothing would have happened.

            Using unusual pronouns was never the issue. It's insanely common on blahaj for people to use neopronouns, and nobody bats an eye, because it's normal. Pretending that being trans is equivalent to being a dragon (along with things like encouraging other users to self-harm, because of course this person did, because they are a troll and trying to be cruel to trans people) was the issue.

            I cannot fathom how me repeating this for the nth time here is somehow going to make a difference, but whatever. You said something, I've replied. Can I go now?

            People brought justifications

            Fair enough, there were some things that people justified, I shouldn't have said "nothing" I guess. My argument is that there was a ton of stuff that was not justified, and some of the criticism once we got down to actual events motte-and-baileyed its way back from "he is a Zionist who deletes any criticism of Israel and a transphobe" and into "he gets mad arguing about politics and I don't like that", and some of it was literal just random abuse and cursing at him, not connected to any type of event or behavior at all.

            Direct attacks are usually removed

            Direct attacks in some contexts are removed. In other contexts, they're allowed. That was my point. I'm actually fine with either policy, broadly speaking, but starting to forbid mild attacks towards friends and allow wild, profane, fact-free attacks towards enemies is a bad road to start to go down. That was much more the core of my point.

            You had your politics but you weren’t dishonestly attacking

            I'm am going to be honest with you, I didn't expect you to make this kind of comments

            Pretending that PJ is pro-Israel is flagrantly dishonest. It's also working very well. That's a good example. Not sure what your complaint here is, I don't really want to dig through the thread picking out stuff that's objectively untrue, but that's one example if you're saying you don't believe me about it.

            Also, not sure why it's not okay for dbzer0 to have a "our users" stance while you broadly categorize all .ml users as "losers"

            I addressed this already, I never said people who care about politics are losers. I am a person that argues way too much on and off the internet about politics. My point was that for lemmy.ml to suddenly feel like caring about and arguing about politics on the internet makes someone a weirdo is just another example of the sort of tribal "it's fine with I do it, but when you do it it is evidence you're some kind of terrible thing" thinking that I am trying to call out.

            Satisfied? I've already talked about literally all of this, I'm not interested in going back and forth about it just without end. But sure, there's your response if you want one.

            • https://sopuli.xyz/post/30935971/18041817

              As said in the other comment, it's good that you clarified the "loser comment"

              Beyond that, we discussed most of the stuff in the other comment

              Just to reiterate,

              It’s up to you. I think it would be good to have another !yptb community that’s not satire or a one person creation.

              You could potentially enforce more respectful discussions there.

          • "He was (potentially) trolling, but if noone took the bait..."

            Ah yes, let's just excuse the inciting actions and blame the targets of harassment!

            You are a victim blaming moron, and you've made it perfectly clear right there.

            • https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/39039162/17029381

              • People can use whatever pronouns they want and anyone pitching a fit about it are the ones who deserve scrutiny as far as I'm concerned.

                Drag always rubbed me the wrong way, always ready to jump right to calling people tankies without much interesting conversation to be had.

                If someone is trolling I'm going to ban them when they violate an actual rule, like telling people to kys, because anything else opens up the field for people like Pug to declare who is and isn't trans based on if they like their pronoun choice.

                • Indeed.

                • I never said Drag wasn't trans. I never said that Drag's neopronoun choice was invalid. I always made an effort to use Drag's pronoun. But lying is the only tool you have, isn't it?

        • Multithread crashout with enough paragraphs typed to fill a novella. This level of drama might be peak Lemmy thought crime policing. Peak liberal vs tankie on a topic unrelated to it. This thread (an argument loadstone which was irresistible) and the time ya'll have spent in is incredible. That's just imo, of course.

          But keep going, I'm loving reading all this!

        • I disagree with your framing. I think you're being dishonest in your framing on what caused the mod actions. At the end of the day we and Ada are beholden to our respective users, and as it turns out, they think those were the right choices.

          And yes, we're going to take action about harassment of our own users, that's the duty of an instance admin. I want to point out however that all this brouhaha is over a 7days ban. Literally the mildest of punishments ever, and you're at the point of pondering what's rotten in the whole instance and writing walls of text, over a short term "chill out" ban.

          • I disagree with your framing. I think you're being dishonest in your framing on what caused the mod actions.

            I can't count how many times someone on or off blahaj tried to explain that Dragonrider's trolling, encouraging other users to suicide, things like that, were the core of the issue. If you really want to join Ada in pretending that there's a whole Lemmy population that's just frothing at the mouth to dictate to other people what pronouns they can and can't use, and that was what got them heated up about Dragonrider and nothing about any of the other stuff, I won't stop you. I started to dig up old messages to put together a timeline, but then I realized I don't care and I think the issue is pretty clear enough already.

            At the end of the day we and Ada are beholden to our respective users, and as it turns out, they think those were the right choices.

            This was pretty much my point. lemmy.ml and Hexbear love how their admins behave, and that's all the admins feel like they need to know. My point was that (a) you're starting to operate along the same lines, it looks like, and (b) that's not always a good thing.

            I want to point out however that all this brouhaha is over a 7days ban.

            Personally, I don't care about the ban itself. I actually agree with you that PugJesus making a whole community to whine about how unfair it is is kind of childish. I care more about the bullying and fact-free mentality, that big thread with people making up nonsense about the target of the day.

            • This was pretty much my point. lemmy.ml and Hexbear love how their admins behave, and that’s all the admins feel like they need to know. My point was that (a) you’re starting to operate along the same lines, it looks like, and (b) that’s not always a good thing.

              Any admins should act upon harassment of one of their users, especially if the admins of the harassers don't.

              I care more about the bullying and fact-free mentality, that big thread with people making up nonsense about the target of the day.

              Isn't that the concept of !yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com since its inception?

            • Honestly, I think calling what's ongoing "bullying" is kinda strange. If anything we wanted to cool the situation down.

              This was pretty much my point. lemmy.ml and Hexbear love how their admins behave, and that's all the admins feel like they need to know. My point was that (a) you're starting to operate along the same lines, it looks like, and (b) that's not always a good thing.

              I would rather show me which admins are more centered on what every rando on the internet thinks. Then I can point you to someone about to have a burnout.

              • Honestly, I think calling what's ongoing "bullying" is kinda strange. If anything we wanted to cool the situation down.

                Quotes from the thread:

                The person in question is extremely rude and toxic. I have reached out to the LW admins regarding that he seems unfit to be moderating a dozen medium to larger communities. Unfortunately i didnt get any reply.

                I think he’s an obnoxious dickhead

                I remember his username and him being a twat

                He’s a genocide-supporting Zionist radlib

                a goddam stalker

                an angry turbolib who blames the left (and Eugene in particular, for some reason) for the pathetic failure of the corporate-c**k-sucking Democrats

                And so on. There's plenty more, that's just what I had patience to dig up.

                I would rather show me which admins are more centered on what every rando on the internet thinks.

                Those aren't the only two options lol. I'm just saying that "Our users/tribe love that we always take the side of our users/tribe no matter the facts of the situation!" isn't the good justification that it sounds like, when you phrase it differently than I just did.

                • Quotes from the thread:

                  Not sure which thread you mean, but If you think people expressing their low opinions about someone is "bullying", then, well you haven't experienced bullying. And also, what the hell do you expect of dbzer0 admins to do about people expressing such opinions? You want us to go around protecting the people you like from public opinion? Like, this is a legit absurd argument path.

                  Those aren't the only two options lol. I'm just saying that "Our users/tribe love that we always take the side of our users/tribe no matter the facts of the situation!"

                  It's easy to look right when fighting against strawmen.

                  • You just asked for examples of bullying, so I provided. What did you expect me to bring up, was someone sneaking through his window and punching him in the face? I'm not sure what other than personal insults could be meant by that. If it was bringing up examples of wrong things he did, then sure. Some people did that, some people lied about it (claiming he'd said one thing when he'd said the exact opposite), some people actively refused to provide any evidence but just threw insults at him and then peaced out. The first thing, I'd have no problem with, the others I feel like are worth worrying about at least a little bit.

                    And also, what the hell do you expect of dbzer0 admins to do about people expressing such opinions? You want us to go around protecting the people you like from public opinion?

                    I want you to stop protecting the people you like from public opinion. I'm completely fine with everyone just being able to have their say, although maybe certain levels of personal abuse shouldn't be tolerated. But it's very clearly one-sided. The dbzer0 people have been describing downvoting as "abuse," so yes, I would say aiming extensive cursing and personal insults at someone and accusing them of things they didn't do can be "bullying," or at least something that's worthy of mods weighing in on it, like they would pounce instantly if someone said something about Sam Altman or something.

                    Edit: Actually, maybe a better way to explain it: Go back to every one of the quotes I listed about PugJesus. If people came into a dbzer0 thread and said the exact same types of things about Ada, would that be okay? Or would it be a problem that required mod / admin attention?

                    That's what bugs me about it, it's the blatant tribalism of it. You permabanned a trans person just recently because they tried (again, for the thousandth time) to explain what the issue was with Dragonrider, and you didn't like that, so ban for "pissy." They're not in the club, so fuck them. Everyone got all up in arms about ban reason "tankie," but you're fine with a comment being removed for the reason "shut the fuck up, liberal" (I actually 100% agree with removing the actual underlying comment -- my point is that the slurs are starting to be celebrated, and only go one way, and that's not a good thing.)

                    One of your people has just recently invented a new slur ("slopper") to use to attack people they disagree with as they are being banned. I have no idea the context or what it means, although I can guess.

                    You get the idea. I don't want to go back and forth about extensively. I have no idea how much of this is you, or the admin team, or whoever. I actually think probably most of what I see as most worrying is not coming from the admin team. But the culture shift is alarming to me. It's all about attack, slurs, new fun insults. We need to protect "our users" against downvotes. Other users, on other instances, who got rando-banned, well, fuck them, they're not "ours," so who cares.

                    You get the idea. Maybe not. Anyway, that's what I think about it.

                    • Why yes, we do tolerate people badmouthing Ada, dessalines, nutomic, and even our own admins. Hell I've personally tolerated dozens of angry hexbears trying to bully myself in my own thread in my own comm. We do indeed walk the walk.

                      There's no "tribalism" here, no matter how much you keep repeating it. In all honestly it reads to me you're more upset people are not sufficiently polite in disagreement. Anarchists can and will be rude, especially towards people like PJ routinely but politely calling them "nazis" for not engaging in the electoralism farce. Nobody is under any onus to remain polite to spare your feelings, nor does this make is a "tribe" because we tend to attract anarchists who feel the same way about liberals.

                      Fuck I don't even know at this point what your problem even is, that we attract like-minded people in our instance? We don't want to be lemmy.world for a reason and if you want that, well lemmy.world already exists.

                      Seriously, We're not going to go around policing people for rudeness. This is absurd and will not work whatsoever.

                      • Seriously, We're not going to go around policing people for rudeness. This is absurd and will not work whatsoever.

                        Absolutely, you should not. People should be able to say what they want, if that somehow wasn't clear. What I was saying was that it's very silly to ban people for criticizing your decisions in clear and rational language[1], or for their politics, or for very tenuous claims of "ableism" if you just kind of don't like the content of what they have to say[2], or to call downvotes "abuse" and try to protect certain ones of your communities against getting downvotes by literally banning anyone who tries to give one to the content... but then, when the target is outside the kid-gloves safe space, turn loose this massive drama-cannon with wild insults and accusations and say "Yes! All good, our admins will join in in fact!" and then now hide behind this thing of "Oh ho that's just the wild west of the ol' internet for ya, free speech ya know" that you would never put up with if someone tried to, for example, give YOU a downvote or a dissenting comment[3], because that's abusive and they're a troll now.

                        This whole thing originated because you've been slinging around bans for people who don't get with the program you want them to get with or say things to you that you don't like. I didn't come to you whining to ask you to stop anyone being mean to me, I actually got involved because you wanted PugJesus to stop being mean to your comments and posts because he's not allowed. I'm much more in favor of people being able to have their say, I mostly object to the banhammering side, I'm just now poking at the hypocrisy of it.

                        Up to you though. You've clearly decided, I'm just repeating at this point, so cheers I guess.

                        1. SoftestSapphic from https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/modlog/961853 (also snoogums)
                        2. https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/comment/20015605, they said "shizo" FWIW, telling enemies they have psychological disorders is fine though
                        3. Same modlog link, search for "not up for debate"

                    • One of your people has just recently invented a new slur (“slopper”) to use to attack people they disagree with as they are being banned. I have no idea the context or what it means, although I can guess.

                      Context:

                      From a more recent thread

                    • Slopper is a slur? Lmao

                  • Apparently the only real form of bullying is downvoting

          • Downvoting a divide by zero user is apparently harassment.

            • People say this stuff and then claim that we're doing bad faith takes. Go figure.

              • As we know, bad faith is when you defend yourself with evidence and good faith is when you make shit up to slander people and groups.

                They are very smart.

                • That’s literally the reason you cited, and the admin ban, for all of this

              • If you feel that statement is in bad faith, maybe you should have a talk with Unruffled about their wanton banning of users for "mod abuse" over users downvoting them.

                • Why, yes s it is bad faith to misrepresent the cause of the mod action and then double down on it.

                  In any case, feel free to open a yptb post if you're do certain our cause was trivial.

                  • If you think that's misrepresenting the situation, you either don't know the situation or are complacent in it. Either way makes you a poor admin. Hence why I have blocked your instance.

                    • So you keep saying. I don't just think that, I know that. And given that it's very easy for people to call us out on it officially and yet nobody seems to want to, I'm fairly confident we've taken the right decision. Unlike other instances, we welcome criticism of admin actions as we don't think we're infallible.

                      • Can't complain about the mod and admin abuse on your instance when the mods and admins doing the abuse banned people from the community used to report mod/admin abuse.

                        Do you even check your own mod logs?

                        It's a bit of a conflict of interest if the place used to publicly report mod/admin abuse keeps shutting down any and all reports of your own mods and admins.

      • I think Philip was referring to the venom and hostility on display from some lately. I said something similar to pug last night. To be clear it isn't you or anything you've done.

        And I fully understand the recoiling at some of the hyper reflexive venom on display from a few when anything regarding AI is brought up. It's a tool, and neither good or bad on its own. But some squeal like drama queens if you even bring it up.

        Conversely the other day I had someone from your instance call me, someone who would at least be a syndicist a shit-lib. Because I made a point of calling for solidarity and mutual aid, pointing out that our failures to do so are part of what has led us to the current points of crisis we find ourselves in. I had a bit of a chuckle at the tanky talk. But it wasn't something completely isolated. Though again I'm gonna reiterate. None of this involves you. And you aren't their keeper. They are adults who can make their own decisions and mistakes.

      • How about denial of UN-verified sexual assault because it happened against Bad Camp?

        • It's like nuance doesn't exist.

          Yes, there were a lot of false accounts of rape on October 7th that were obviously framed based on hateful stereotypes intended to dehumanize. There were also actual rapes that did happen. But to some people everything is black and white and all they care about is whoever is on their 'side'.

          • You'll need to supply evidence for those claims. Creating false accounts of rape is very serious.

            • https://press.un.org/en/2024/sc15621.doc.htm

              I've read the whole report, that's a short summary created by the UN investigators. Basic TL;DR of the whole situation:

              • Rape of Israeli women by people invading on October 7th was widespread
              • The report stops short of claiming it was done by "Hamas" or in any systematized or sanctioned fashion. A lot of people who took part in the attack were not Hamas, and it was totally impossible to sort out which specific person had done any specific attack, so they didn't make that claim. It happened a lot though.
              • The Israeli government and the New York Times both lied about some specific instances of rape, just because it's in both of their DNA to make up pro-Israel bullshit. The investigators who made the report debunked some of the Israeli government's claims, which was easy, and based their findings mostly on objective evidence instead of what anyone from Israel told them.

              That's the short version. Various people have seized on point #2 or point #3 to claim that point #1 didn't happen, but it did.

              Also, I think that some people on Lemmy love bringing this up, because it winds up painting anyone who cares about the truth into the "pro-Israel" side of the debate, and then they can call them a Zionist.

              Anyway, yes, the people who did October 7th definitely raped a lot of people. It doesn't mean Israel should be committing a genocide. If it helps clarify things, the Israeli government has been facilitating aid for Hamas for years because they love having things like October 7th happen and give them excuses, and they love when Hamas rapes people or takes hostages, for the same reason. They wish it would happen every day, and so then they could talk about it and pretend even harder that shooting little kids in the groin or starving entire families to death is totally justified.

              • Rape of Israeli women by people invading on October 7th was widespread

                Can you specifically cite this? Specifically, I don't see anything in the report that is as definitive as "was widespread". The actual words I see in their report is:

                there are reasonable grounds to believe that conflict-related sexual violence occurred

                edit: here's a link to the actual report

                From the official report, this is based on patterns that are described as 'partially or fully naked victims', but they specifically say that they cannot verify specific instances beyond this type of "circumstantial" evidence or eyewitness testimony. They even say:

                It must be noted that witnesses and sources with whom the mission team engaged adopted over time an increasingly cautious and circumspect approach regarding past accounts, including in some cases retracting statements made previously. Some also stated to the mission team that they no longer felt confident in their recollections of other assertions that had appeared in the media.

                Considering that these reports are often cited as justification for various war crimes and acts of genocide, it's extremely important to be precise with language and delineate what is definitively known vs what is assumed.

                • This is the report:

                  https://news.un.org/en/sites/news.un.org.en/files/atoms/files/Mission_report_of_SRSG_SVC_to_Israel-oWB_29Jan_14_feb_2024.pdf

                  I have absolutely no interest in letting you bait me into an argument where, by correcting you factually, I'm taking Israel's side so that people can make one of those 200-comment threads about me and what a big pro-Israel piece of shit I am. That's the report.

                  • That is the exact same report I just linked to you.

                    I'm not baiting you, but I would like you to substantiate your claim that I'm increasingly suspecting is willfully incorrect.

                    edit: it's fine if you simply misspoke. If there's something more definitive than I'm seeing that's fine too, I just want the record to be set straight

                    • You know what? Sure.

                      58 Based on the examination of available information, including credible statements by
                      eyewitnesses, there are reasonable grounds to believe that multiple incidents of rape, including
                      gang rape, occurred in and around the Nova festival site during the 7 October attacks. Credible
                      information was obtained regarding multiple incidents whereby victims were subjected to rape
                      and then killed. There are further accounts of individuals who witnessed at least two incidents of
                      rape of corpses of women. Other credible sources at the Nova music festival site described
                      seeing multiple murdered individuals, mostly women, whose bodies were found naked from the
                      waist down, some totally naked, with some gunshots in the head and/or tied including with their
                      hands bound behind their backs and tied to structures such as trees or poles.

                      60 There are reasonable grounds to believe that sexual violence occurred on and around
                      Road 232. Credible information based on corroborating witness accounts describes an incident
                      involving the rape of two women. The mission team received other accounts of rape, including
                      gang rape, which could not be verified during the time provided and would require further
                      investigation. Along this road, several bodies were found with genital injuries, along with
                      injuries to other body parts. Discernible patterns of genital mutilation could not be verified at this
                      time but warrant future investigation. Many bodies along Road 232 also suffered destructive
                      burn damage and conclusions as to conflict-related sexual violence (including genital mutilation)
                      related to these incidents could not be drawn. The mission team was also able to ascertain that
                      multiple bodies of women and a few men were found totally or partially naked or with their
                      clothes torn, including some bound and/or attached to structures, which – though circumstantial
                      – may be indicative of some forms of sexual violence.

                      It then goes kibbutz by kibbutz, detailing what was or wasn't found in each location and the limits of what they were able to conclude, including debunking what seems to me like a pretty clear pattern of certain fabricated accounts, in sections 62 through 67.

                      71 The mission team reviewed incidents of alleged sexual violence related to hostages in
                      Gaza. Based on the first-hand accounts of released hostages, the mission team received clear and
                      convincing information that sexual violence, including rape, sexualized torture, and cruel,
                      inhuman and degrading treatment occurred against some women and children during their time
                      in captivity and has reasonable grounds to believe that this violence may be ongoing.

                      They also visited the West Bank, and made sure to make it clear that Israel is also committing inhuman treatment of Palestinians including sexual violence. I think there was a whole separate report or something that expanded on that to put it in context, this one just briefly touches on it.

                      Overall:

                      84 Overall, based on the totality of information gathered from multiple and independent
                      sources at the different locations, there are reasonable grounds to believe that conflict-related
                      sexual violence occurred at several locations across the Gaza periphery, including in the form of
                      rape and gang rape, during the 7 October 2023 attacks. Credible circumstantial information,
                      which may be indicative of some forms of sexual violence, including genital mutilation,
                      sexualized torture, or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, was also gathered.

                      85 With regards to the hostages, the mission team found clear and convincing information
                      that some hostages taken to Gaza have been subjected to various forms of conflict-related sexual
                      violence and has reasonable grounds to believe that such violence may be ongoing.

                      86 The mission team was unable to establish the prevalence of sexual violence and
                      concludes that the overall magnitude, scope, and specific attribution of these violations would
                      require a fully-fledged investigation. A comprehensive investigation would enable the
                      information base to be expanded in locations which the mission team was not able to visit and to
                      build the required trust with survivors/victims of conflict-related sexual violence who may be
                      reluctant to come forward at this point.

            • https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-un-rape-oct7-hamas-gaza-fe1a35767a63666fe4dc1c97e397177e

              The U.N. envoy focusing on sexual violence in conflict said in a new report Monday that there are “reasonable grounds” to believe Hamas committed rape, “sexualized torture,” and other cruel and inhumane treatment of women during its surprise attack in southern Israel on Oct. 7.

              The exaggerated and fictional accusations of rape are serious, like the parading through the streets nonsense.

              • There is footage of them parading through the streets with the hostages and dead.

                Stop denying that Hamas raped innocent civilians. They did, they confessed to it, multiple organisations have verified it, victims have come forth with evidence, and they even filmed themselves.

                • You are replying to a comment that supports the fact that rape did occur as part of the Oct 7th attack.

                  Are you not able to understand that they both did rape and ALSO that Israel greatly exaggerated it with false claims to dehumanize?

                  • Can you provide evidence for that?

                    • Your mind is clearly made up already, but here's an easy to find article that covers exactly what I'm talking about.

                      • Can you go into detail about what 'Israel greatly exaggerates' means exactly?

                        Since according to that article, it seems to imply that it was an individual's mistake as opposed to Israel.

                        Otmazgin said it has been difficult to rein Landau in, both because he vehemently believes in his version and because there is no way to stop journalists from engaging with him directly. Both Otmazgin and Bukjin attributed Landau’s continued belief in the false account to him having been deeply traumatized by what he saw in the aftermath of Oct. 7.

                        Furthermore, it was Israeli government agencies that disputed the claims made by these two individuals. So, I don't see how Israel can greatly exaggerate the claims while also disputing them -- it just doesn't make sense.

        • As far as I'm aware, the most the UN has been able to say definitively is that there are 'reasonable grounds to believe that conflict-related sexual violence occurred', but that they were unable to establish the prevalence, overall magnitude, scope, or specific attribution. That's a pretty far cry from 'UN-verified sexual assault'

          They've been harping on Israel to let them do a full investigation but they've repeatedly stonewalled them.

    • Tbh, dbzer0 was always kind of sus to me

    • just told me UniversalMonk did nothing wrong

      Bro, I love you, but you never miss an opportunity to bring my name up in your posts. I ain't got nothing to do with whatever it is you're going on about, friend. And by the way, I didn't do anything wrong, so whoever told you that is right!

      • That whole thing got debunked quite quickly https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/49344640/20291854

        • Thanks for being a neutral and logical in this thing.

          I think with Philpthebucket, he's just letting his annoyance with me overtake the logic he usually has. I've seen past posts of his where he's showing timestamps, logins, receipts etc to backup his point. But in this particular issue w me, he seems to be letting his feelings take over rather than his usual logic.

          Most of his talk about me lately is just "Because of course Universal Monk is..." sorta statements. Which isn't really a good standard. If we're going to use his logic that I'm involved in something just because I'm commenting about a subject in a thread talking about the subject, then he's involved in it too. And you. And everyone who replies to a thread.

          I kinda tried to follow the issues that he's reporting, but it's all over the place and he's naming so many people. I just couldn't follow it all. I have no clue what the actual frustration is. Is he for the anti-ai people or against them? Like what is he mad about?

          I know I sometimes I give you shit about your takes, but you're a pretty stand-up guy. I still disagree with a lot of your opinions about me, but fuck all, you stay neutral more often than not, so I can respect that and I respect you. (most of the time, haha)

    • It’s like all the issues all of a sudden came out at once. The Dragonfucker argument is back, someone has been following me around all day and hectoring me on random topics and just told me UniversalMonk did nothing wrong, they all of a sudden hate PugJesus with a hundreds-of-comments-wild-personal-attacks passion, the “anti-AI troll” banning random people mod is now posting tankie stuff… it’s fuckin’ nuts. It came out of nowhere.

      At least the drag and PugJesus issues are related, as that's why PJ got banned on Blahaj: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/39039162

      I pointed this out to you in the !fediverselore@lemmy.ca thread and you acknowledged it: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/49571446/20253309

      Not sure why you're saying it's coming out of nowhere when you are aware of that link.

      People aren't following you around, they reply to comments you make about the whole situation

      The "anti-AI troll" come up due to this comment: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/49571446/20270123

      • I pointed this out to you in the !fediverselore@lemmy.ca thread and you acknowledged it: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/49571446/20253309

        Here's PJ's response as they're banned from dbzero atm: https://feddit.uk/post/33315963/18929221

        • I had a quick look

          Man, you definitely were running some major hostility towards world at one point. I’ll concede that the comment was probably overstating the point, and definitely unnecessarily hostile, but it also wasn’t unprovoked.

          I'm not going to go that route again

      • At least the drag and PugJesus issues are related, as PugJesus tried to move the !196 community after getting banned: https://feddit.org/post/7025680/4263481

        You have repeatedly said this despite the fact that I had nothing to do with moving the 196 comm. I don't know why the fuck you keep spreading this lie despite the fact that I've corrected you on it several times already.

      • Not sure why you're saying it's coming out of nowhere when you are aware of that link.

        I didn't say the issues were unrelated, I just said the stupidest Lemmy argument (among some stiff competition) was back and getting debated to death again for some fuckin' reason, along with some other stupid arguments. What the fuckin' reason was wasn't part of what I was trying to say.

        People aren't following you around, they reply to comments you make about the whole situation

        @eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com became very upset that an admin (he kept emphasizing that, like I need to treat someone different because they're an admin, IDK, bow and scrape? It was nothing related to admin duties, they were just weighing in in a massive whiny slapfight (on both sides)) had replied to my comment and I hadn't responded to them. One, two. I explained myself, they didn't like the explanation, and they started jumping into among other places a 4-day-old thread to try to continue the argument.

        Like I said in that reply, I saw absolutely no point in getting in a new slapfight about it, told them so, and they really didn't like that explanation and tried to start the slapfight anyway in multiple threads (sort of accusing me of doing something wrong by not wanting to? IDK, it's weird, check it out.)

        Anyway, that's weird, following me into random additional old threads to try to continue the argument I'd already explicitly told them I wasn't interested in is what I referred to as "following me around."

        • I've been following things from afar.

          they started jumping into among other places a 4-day-old thread to try to continue the argument.

          People who use "New comments" are going to see new comments posted, whatever old the threads are. I use that filter, and I regularly comment on weeks old threads to reply to someone.

          Eugene's comments on the 4-days old thread came up when you mentioned that UM was involved (whey they were not, and you know I'm not a fan of UM), and it was made by another user: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/49344640/20291854

          he kept emphasizing that, like I need to treat someone different because they’re an admin, IDK, bow and scrape?

          The context is

          If you accuse an instance of power tripping, be ready to answer when they reply, otherwise it just seems to be arguing in bad faith.

          • People who use "New comments" are going to see new comments posted, whatever old the threads are. I use that filter, and I regularly comment on weeks old threads to reply to someone.

            Reply to them on the same topic you've been talking with them about in some other thread, which they told you they weren't interested in discussing further, angry that they're not giving you responses you think you deserve back in the original thread? If so, I think you should stop doing that, however it is that you're finding their messages in other threads.

            If you accuse an instance of power tripping, be ready to answer when they reply, otherwise it just seems to be arguing in bad faith.

            I mean maybe that's fair. The whole message was so hostile and dishonest that I couldn't really see any point to giving a reply though. Also, like I said at the time, PugJesus already gave a pretty detailed reply that more or less mirrored what I would want to say about it (which Unruffled of course did not respond to.) Also, I'd already covered my POV on it to death in other comments by that point.

            Excerpts of the message I didn't reply to:

            he’s an angry turbolib who blames the left (and Eugene in particular, for some reason) for the pathetic failure of the corporate-c**k-sucking Democrats to defeat Donald Trump. There is plenty of evidence for all of those things.

            PJ has a bad temper, and that he’s been losing his shit more and more lately. He even states as such in his profile. While I do feel empathy for the fact he lives in chronic pain

            I mean, what’s the difference between your position here and something like, “Harvey Weinstein has made lots of great movies and nobody else has complained about him, so that woman must be lying”? There is no difference.

            What the fuck am I supposed to do with that stuff lol

            When db0 came in here and talked about the exact same issue, but in a non-frothing manner, I had a normal conversation with them. I don't agree with the points they raised, and they presumably think I'm wrong as hell, but it's fine, we can just talk. Because they didn't accuse me of protecting any sexual predators or call anyone removed, we got to hash it out, which is how it's supposed to work. I did the same with Ada over in that thread; I don't agree with her but I told her directly what the issue I was trying to communicate was, and we got to talk about it, there's no particular bad blood (at least not from my side), it's just a conversation.

            I don't feel though like I need to engage in every conversation no matter what kind of unhinged nonsense is coming at me from the other side, or how low the probability of it ever going anywhere, whatever little badge is attached to the person's username.

            • PugJesus already gave a pretty detailed reply that more or less mirrored what I would want to say about it (which Unruffled of course did not respond to.)

              Nobody on dbzer0 saw that reply, and even less could respond to it as he's banned from the instance.

              Maybe that's the piece missing to solve that matter.

      • @HikingVet@lemmy.ca clarify please

    • dbzer0 is an Anarchist instance: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

    • This is definitely not new. They were very much pushing the "Kamala and Trump are the same" narrative before the election.

    • Pug has always been right on the Tankie line. I've had multiple accounts banned after interactions with them.

288 comments