You're viewing a single thread.
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.
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.
Besides the moral issues, due to the change of LW ToS with that section
One of the core beliefs of modern medicine is the Hippocratic Oath, and is the logical basis of this section. All users should strive to "do no harm" concerning advice given to other users.
Any studies posted to this site regarding the health or wellbeing should IDEALLY be at minimum peer reviewed, reproducible scientific studies.
https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
Had OP backed up their claim with a peer review study on how horse captivity is harmfulness to them, then LW admins would have had to remove this post to comply with their ToS.
Edit: looks like they did: https://beva.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.2746/0425164044848000
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?
That is morally equivalent to whatabouting the "enslavement of chairs" or "enslavement of cars". Only a sentient creature can be enslaved. But thanks for helping us fill in our carnism bingo cards. "Plants feel pain, tho!"
Plants feel pain and communicate with each other, yet you see them as the equivalent to inanimate objects? And you try to take the moral high ground here?
I'm obviously shitposting but c'mon. You don't see the ridiculousness of calling someone equal to a slave owner for simply refusing to engage?