You don’t understand that ICJ genocide cases take years to legally prove therefore you think it isn’t genocide. They’ve killed 40,000+ civilians. That’s literally genocide. What did you expect? You should get off lemmy with such a horribly wrong opinion. No where should welcome such ideology.
You got banned for genocide denial because you were literally denying genocide. Did you think you weren't denying genocide, or did you think that denying genocide should be allowed on a politics community?
Its not technically against most instances' rules. If it was against most instances' rules then why havent the mods removed _cryptagion's commen. Surely, if it was against the instances' rules, then other people would downvote _cryptagion.
The ICJ has a reputation for its failures to stop past genocides and waiting until it does not matter anymore before they finally submit the judgement. Besides genocide denial you are factually incorrect.
It's genocide by any other definition. You can split hairs all you want and call it "crimes against humanity" or whatever, but it's a distinction without much difference when we're talking about targeted missile strikes upon schools, hospitals, and apartment buildings. Pedantry isn't going to convey some nuance that people are missing, and the mods were right to put a stop to it.
If making targeted strikes against specific structures is grounds for calling it a genocide then what does launching 10,000 unguided rockets randomly into who-knows-what in a single day count as?
I hold the incredibly unpopular opinion that both sides have been absolutely terrible for a long time so don't come at me for picking a side. I am genuinely curious if you consider both of those acts of aggression as a genocide or not based on your own listed definition.
Because you're playing pedant with people's lives to stroke your own ego and/or prove that you're the smartest one in the room. Meanwhile, people make those same arguments to try to discredit anyone who says the IDF and Netanyahu are killing civilians on purpose, that they're killing women and children with abandon, that they're committing war crimes like they're going for the high score.
Perhaps you don't have malicious intent, but you should at least recognize that you sound like someone with an agenda and haven't conveyed a take that they haven't all made themselves before.
In short, you sound like a shill for war crimes, whether you mean to or not, and you should reflect on why you feel it's important to quibble about the difference between "crimes against humanity" and "genocide." This is not an international courtroom.
If one considers the war a genocide or not is still a political and
legal argument at the moment. I am making such an argument in my OP. Suppressing political debate that doesn’t violate the rules is blatant powertripping to enforce a political agenda.
Especially in the Israel/Palestine conflict, accusations of (slow motion) genocide have been leveled against Israel decades before the current Gaza war. I think in this case, it’s only used as a phrase to demonize Israel, not actually understand and describe the situation. The whole debate is part of the conflict in the information space.
Denying genocide is rule breaking but I still don't think censoring you is proper here.
You should be able to express yourself and people should be able to have a discussion with you. Your arguments rely on assumptions about international order that don't actually exist.
Well, I'm going to start off with the obvious thing. You absolutely do not have a leg to stand on as far as what you said being genocide denial. You can quibble about semantics all you want, but that's literally what you did.
That being said, you're right about one thing. Genocide denial isn't an explicitly listed rule.
But you still broke multiple rules. The fact that you can't see that genocide denial falls under them, even though it is most definitely not listed as a specific rule of its own, that may be a thing where c/politics needs to refine its rules for better understanding, or it may be that you need to understand that you don't have to list every possible iteration of a broad rule for it to be part of a rule.
Then, if you go to the very bottom of their rules it does explicitly state that posts and comments may be removed even if they don't break any enumerated rules. My app doesn't let me flip back and forth to copy/paste what's written there word for word, but he mod action taken is within their stated standards.
Do I think that them using a ban reason that doesn't match their rules in wording was a good idea? Hell no. They should have just listed it as an extension of their misinformation rule, and there wouldn't be any question about it being appropriate. Seriously, you have made comments about the debate over whether or not the actions of Israel meet the definition of genocide, but the debate is essentially being framed on shaky ground to begin with, and none of the "it isn't" arguments hold water. So they definitely fall under misinformation.
Now, was your comment ban worthy? Maybe, maybe not. If it was your first offense, I'd say anything beyond a one day ban was over the top. I don't have the patience to sift through your user history to know how prone you are to that kind of thing. But it is a temporary ban. That's not going to be PTB territory under these circumstances. Temp bans are a tool to give a user time to cool down, think, and hopefully reach out for clarification. That's not power tripping at all. A permanent ban over a single offense, that might be power tripping, depending on the circumstances. It probably would be unless it was for an explicitly listed rule, and/or permabans are listed as a consequence for violating core rules.
So, summing up. This is not power tripping because your comment did break rules, and the ban is temporary. That you didn't understand the rules is irrelevant to that. Take this as a chance to clarify things with that community, and possibly suggest (in a calm and polite manner) that the rules be reworded so that better understanding is possible in the future
Edit: rule 3 is where they list misinformation. It isn't very well written, imo, but it's there
We aren't going to engage with the arguments here at all. This isn't a politics community. Only reason I even mentioned it at was to avoid knee jerk responses.
Seriously, you can't roll up into a community that's about gathering opinions in moderator actions and expect regulars to go very far debating other things. It isn't the place for it, and it isn't a useful aspect of determining power tripping beyond the bare minimum needed for accuracy.
If anyone wants to discuss the details of the merits or flaws of your opinion, that's on them, but it's outside the scope of the community, so I'm not.
I specified rule 3 of c/politics already, and referred to their elastic clause of reserving the ability to moderate outside of enumerated rules. I'm not sure what else you want in that regard, but I'm not in the mood to break down every single rule when just those two cover the question of power tripping.
PTB. Substantive discussions around the definition of genocide are not the same as Nazis saying the Holocaust never happened or whatever and I think it’s ridiculous to conflate those things. There is no rule that would cover this other than one against misinformation—but OP has not challenged the facts on the ground, just the way language is being used. Language is always going to be a subjective and arbitrary thing.
That said, other things OP has said here might constitute misinformation so that makes me wonder if there is any missing context beyond this single comment.
If you don't think this is relevant then you have not reached that stage in your personal development journey.
Majority of people never do but it ain't rocket science and enough bad events will force the most dense of us to rand recognize these material conditions imposed upon us.
If u want a news community that won't ban u for dissenting opinions then ur welcome on [email protected] . Follow instance rules and engage in good faith and I won't ban u. However i will warn u it would be up to db0 if this comment would be an instance rule violation. I will defend ur right to comment but sure as shit won't be defending what ur saying.