before i made an account, i reached out to the chief admin of lemmy.dbzer0.com

i was recently banned during a discussion on the validity of a claim regarding the consensus about the safety of a vegan diet:

and, if you bother to go find that discussion, you’ll find that, in fact, my interlocutor did become incivil. i did report that. and somehow, my discussion and the subsequent report were the basis of a ban.

it was less than 2 hours. it’s almost not worth discussing.

but given my pre-application discussion, i felt strongly that my conduct is within the bounds of the acceptable use of the instance. so if my conduct is not within the acceptable use, that means i basically cant use my account(s) as i planned and under the terms which i agreed.

db0 has said he doesn’t want to be the benevolent dictator for life, and has specifically both recused himself from ruling on my conduct and encouraged me to post here and in !div0_governance@lemmy.dbzer0.com (though i’m still holding off on that for now).

so, did i deserve it? power tripping bastard? what do you think?

    • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
      8·
      2 days ago

      Right, because you’re a narcissist and incapable of ever admitting (or even convincing of the possibility) that you’re ever in the wrong, even in cases where you very clearly are.

      Honestly I’m not at all convinced that you actually believe half the things you say, it’s just a bunch of rhetorical positioning. Your actual belief is opposition to veganism and then you reach for any words or positions that allow you to attack it, even if they make no fucking sense or require you to ignore evidence and hyperfocus on random specific points while ignoring the bigger picture. It’s bad faith debate pervertry of the highest level.

      • NSRXN@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
        14·
        2 days ago

        Your actual belief is opposition to veganism

        no. “skepticism”, maybe, but i’m not opposed to it.

        • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
          8·
          2 days ago

          Yes, you very clearly are.

          Maybe “unopposed” in the sense that you don’t want to literally force meat down vegans throats, but you are certainly opposed in the sense that you will reach for any argument, no matter how spurious, to argue against veganism, and are actively trying to persuade people not to be vegans.

          I don’t understand why you people always feel the need to play games like this. I suppose it’s a standard motte-and-bailey tactic, take a more minor position rhetorically because it’s easier to defend, while you privately hold a more extreme position that you don’t want to submit to critique. It’s bad faith and cowardly, you should want your real beliefs to be critiqued. But you’re more concerned with “winning” than the truth.