Link lemmy.world/post/53701678/26577239
My guy. You got mad that someone said you were wrong about a conspiracy, and then you got mad at someone telling you it would be ok. It’s a day long ban.
This is a sign to take the day off from arguing on the Internet and go outside. I think it’ll help your mental health.
With the given context kinda leaning BPR: looks like a thread getting way out of hand/off-topic for what seems like splitting hairs on what amounts to localization? Not an express rule-break but a charged situation that needs a cooldown.
Given I had to dig through the modlog for how long the ban lasts: a day seems not unreasonable. Breathe until it’s over, there are other things to do and you’ll be okay :)
The topic is about systemic erasure of science in the Islamic world in Western education. Your comment on this post is less relevant than my comment on the original. Do not talk down on me condescendingly.
Do not talk down on me condescendingly.
I’m not reading any condescension in the comment to which you’re replying. I’m reading some suggestion that you’re misinterpreting the modlog’s message. And here I start to wonder whether you’re misinterpreting the comment to which you’re replying. And you’re admonishing the good-faith commenter in an aggressive and mildly menacing manner.
There’s a trend emerging, and it strongly suggests that a day without commenting would really help you.
You provided one screenshot of comments, no context on what your stance was, and said you were banned without providing that info either. You didn’t even state why you thought it was unfair, just said “being able to read Wikipedia.”
The fact that I already had to dig for the ban itself doesn’t help the cause on being able to make a judgment.
FTR: I agree that there’s systemic bias against Islamic contributions to society. I was taught about the golden age Islamic science/math achievements in my high school education but I know that’s not universal. Hell, I thought you were stating the Wikipedia page as spoken gospel.
Assuming hostility when I constructed my response on the information provided is unnecessary.
You can read the screenshots of the comments which were removed they contain no hostility. Only facts. Yet they were removed as misinformation.
The link to the post is in my post. Little digging is needed. lemmy.world/post/53701678/26577239
You defend the moderators decision without any knowledge of the situation and tell me I should not complain about receiving a one day ban without acknowledging the ban is unjustified nor the comments will not be reinstated
Bait Provoked Reaction =/= YDI.
BPR = mod overreacted in a heated situation. If the comments were genuinely hostile then it’d be a rule break and a different post entirely.
You have several comments on that same post that still remain up. There are also other removed comments in that same thread in response to you. I’m not sure what else you’re asking for here; you’re free to dislike my opinion, but it remains on the same grounds.
It is a comment making a claim about what a Wikipedia and Google page says. Not bait or a heated discussion. The made up unsourced misinformation from the other poster is all still up but my factually correct claim about what Google and Wikipedia say has been deleted.
You are quick to call my comment bait. Then tell me I should not throw a tantrum. And now you then walk it back as if you did not do that.
Oh for chrissakes:
From the rules bar:
Some acronyms you might see.
- PTB - Power-Tripping Bastard: The commenter agrees with you this was a PTB mod.
- YDI - You Deserved It: The commenter thinks you deserved that mod action.
- YDM new - You Deserved More: The commenter thinks you got off too lightly.
- BPR - Bait-Provoked Reaction: That mod probably overreacted in charged situation, or due to being baited.
- CLM - Clueless Mod: The mod probably just doesn’t understand how their software works.
Does that mean I baited the mod? I cannot see how my comment is in any way provoking it is quoting what Wikipedia and Google say.
Link lemmy.world/post/53701678/26577239
bruh, do you know how to link?
.worldAyuh. There’s your problem, right there.
My favorite ban reason from them was a hidden rule that you can’t quote the modlog to ask why a comment was removed.
Which became clear after their constant defense of terrible mods
I have had the entire instance blocked for years now. Every once in a while I think “hmm, should I unblock it?”
Nope.
Just imagine what the threadiverse could be today if
.worldwasn’t the instance most noobs land on, regardless of how poisoned they may or may not be from years of corporate social media exposure. The loss of good users who end up there and then think better of the whole idea after a taste of “exactly like reddit, but elsewhere” is incalculable.Absolutely! Especially over time, it makes it extremely difficult to build up niche communities that Reddit still has a stranglehold on.
Instead, those people just don’t join anything.
(Note that even mentioning blocking .world gets downvotes)
That one troll hiding behind “that’s just what the monks wrote 1000 years ago, he was translating academic texts from arabic and didn’t know what Ibn (son) means and just went with what his neighbor told him” 🤣
more likely it was legit how he pronounced Ibn Sina but that’s no excuse to keep his dialect lmao
Also if you need to boil your blood real quick here is a good read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Avicenna#Change_name_from_Avicenna_to_Ibn_Sina
Impossible. The commenter told me that Wikipedia is open and free to edit for everyone.
I was in that thread. I don’t really see what your basis for your “opinion” is.
But, a ban for misinformation? Maybe because you didn’t provide a source?
I think Broadfern is right. BPR
Wikipedia is not a source?
Your source states that the name is latin phonetic translation, shows both names, and uses the actual name in the write up.
It doesn’t support your “westernization” hypothesis at all hahahahah
There is only one name in the title not two. Suggestions about changing the name to what it really is have been shot down.
Hey buddy, I’m on your side. You seem to want confrontation though…
Didn’t say it was in the title. If you go to the page, or type in search, it shows up.
I’m not sure why recommendations to change the actual title have been shot down. But it doesn’t look like anything has been “overwritten”.
Hey buddy, I’m on your side. You seem to want confrontation though…
seems like a weird thing to claim after
It doesn’t support your “westernization” hypothesis at all hahahahah
Which seems quite confrontational.
K.
