Comment and thread in question: https://lemmy.world/comment/23138585

Ban from that community, memes@lemmy.ml:

Rule 1 of said community: Be civil and nice.

Rule 1 of said instance: No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia. Code of Conduct.

I was clearly not bigoted in any manner, and I believe more civil than the way I was treated, was it the Code of Conduct? Excerpts:

Please be kind and courteous. There’s no need to be mean or rude.

Respect that people have differences of opinion and that every design or implementation choice carries a trade-off and numerous costs. There is seldom a right answer.

I think I was kind with the people I disagreed with, even if they could not be in return, yet those comments (some including ableist slurs) remain. I think this is enough to demonstrate it is merely a difference in ideology which motivated the ban. Well, bans, because it seems they copied and pasted the same ban in all the communities they have access to:

It’s not a general lemmy.ml ban, just those in particular.

I understand this kind of behavior in safe space communities that don’t want outsiders bellyaching about the pragmatism of electoral politics, but that’s not the case in any of the communities I’ve been banned from, nor is it a part of the instance rules or CoC.

PTB or triggered shitlib? Not an exclusive or, of course.

  • TʜᴇʀᴀᴘʏGⒶʀʏ⁽ᵗʰᵉʸ‘ᵗʰᵉᵐ⁾@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    24·
    12 hours ago

    You don’t get to disagree with logic. This is very basic propositional logic. I’m not trying to be pretentious- you’re just genuinely struggling with logic… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_inference

    I don’t think I can make this point more clearly, but you’re arguing from a narrow consequentialist, pragmatic perspective, with the assumption that it is objectively true or the default position, but it is not.

    You behave as if the broad swaths of legitimate philosophic, political, and moral critique of your perspective simply don’t exist. This leads me to believe that you haven’t come to your conclusions through any actual reasoning, despite your attitude about it.

    If you value harming less people, how is the “right” choice not the one that harms less people?.. Long term consequences such as what a worse administration could do for 4 years?.. There is a long term impact to letting the greater evil win. How are Republicans better in the long term?.. I think if your “principles” include less bad things happening, they wouldn’t prevent you from choosing the less bad outcome.

    Others have explained this part to you and I think it would be a waste of everyone’s time for me to bother restating the same answers in my own words