This was in Lemmy world politics.
I was banned by feminists for linking credible sources that the supposed suffragetes were Terrorists (It’s on Wikipedia)
The point is I did my due diligence & posted sources & boy these were some vile people I tell you
supposed suffragetes were Terrorists
“Supposed”? Claiming the “suffragettes were terrorists” when < 1% were involved is just plain wrong. With blanket statements like that you sound like a fascist propagandist, and your ban was justified. Thanks for sending me down that rabbit hole though.
Context is key. It looks like the suffragettes had been peacefully protesting for decades before a very small number resorted to militancy, and the result of their “terrorism” was minuscule — 4 deaths and 24 injuries total in 2 years — before they gave it up entirely when WW1 broke out.
Remember! To the monarchs, revolution was “terrorism”. I’d never advocate for harming civilians, but "those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.’
Also western governments historically — especially the criminals in 3 letter agency secret police — have constantly used terrorism to advance their own political, economic, and military agendas around the world. They only decry terrorism when doing so is politically or financially advantageous, like lying about WMD’s in Iraq to transfer trillions to their crony psychopaths in the MIC. Israel literally detonated thousands of pagers recently in a premeditated act of terrorism, but they’re the “goodies” so the incidental murder of civilians is justified (/s #psychotic). The US drone program around the world IS terrorism too.
Authoritarians will never be overthrown peacefully, and all governments will always declare any insurgency terrorism; even when the insurgents have exhausted all other options and are explicitly targeting military. Hell, even Putin likely used the FSB to stage false flag terrorist attacks and seize power.
Suuuuuure
A masterful retort.
Surely this shall be recorded in the annals of history alongside other such historical zingers as “I know you are but that am i ?” or the seminal classic “Your Mother”.
Now hold on, dont come trying to gain some kinda solidarity with your anti woman ass on my post. Shoo. Begone.
Want sources buddy you sexist snob ? Oh wait you don’t care about facts don’t ya
Git. Git on now. Shoo. Git
One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. I have exactly zero issue with terrorism from oppressed minorities.
They were no freedom fighters buddy, but please keep indulging in your fantasy
If bombing churches is freedom to you then I hate to see you define what’s the opposite
First of all, your comment doesn’t make any logical sense. Second, religion is the source of the vast majority of all evil in the world, so churches being bombed doesn’t bother me. Especially since my little sister was molested for years by our pastor, and the church tried to cover it up afterwards and claimed she, an eight year old girl, seduced and distracted him into sinning.
So bomb away. I’ll be grabbing the popcorn.
I got banned by him once because I pointed out, in rather colorful language, that a personal attack isn’t an ad hominem if it’s not directly used to refute an argument.
It was a three-day temp ban, in response to:
The evils are the same. There’s no lesser evil. Dead is dead is dead is dead, you fucking shitwit. You absolute twatwaffle. You self righteous piece of subhuman filth.
You do realize how incredibly stupid that argument is, don’t you? Please tell me you realize what a fucking idiot you are for saying something like that. I want to believe liberals aren’t so fucking brain dead. It was just sarcasm, right?
That’s not an ad hominem. If I say your argument is wrong because you’re a piece of shit, that’s an ad hominem. If I point out that the kids in Gaza are dead either way, so your argument is stupid and you deserve what the republicans are gonna do to you, and that I’ll enjoy watching liberals get their comeuppance and that I hope it’s painful and prolonged, that’s not an ad hominem. Learn what words mean before you use them, dumbass.
I don’t think it was the part about ad hominem that led to the ban.
It’s actually been really interesting reading how people summarize the interactions they had with moderators, and then looking at what actually happened, to see the parts they left out of the summary, and the stuff they put in the summary that wasn’t there.
The people who attract moderator attention sometimes also tend to argue in bad faith and engage in personal attacks. Who knew.
Oh man, I enjoyed reading those again, so thanks. Brings a tear to my eye, definitely some of my better work.
