I joined reddit on the tailwind, so it was all echo chamber, we hate newcomers, gatekeeping, automod frenzy, too many rulebreakers, too many rules, etc I could be wrong, but thats what I imagine it used to be like.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    They banned me for very obviously joking that someone else should punch the fascist attorney general of Indiana in the face and it was some sort of punny reply based on something he said. They only reinstated me because a bunch of mods from multiple subreddits took my side.

    They ban for “won’t someone rid me of this turbulent priest” comments apparently.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You didn’t say “go on, make my day” there. That’s a lie. That phrase doesn’t even appear. What a bizarre thing to lie about when anyone can just look.

            • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              It’s in semiquotes because it’s paraphrasing. Jesus. This level of rigid demand makes sense if you’re on the spectrum or ESL or something - otherwise, what the fuck?

              I said ‘Go on, tell me this one’s synecdoche.’ (Again: paraphrasing.) You said ‘It is synecdoche, though.’ I said ‘Correct. They both are.’ And then you started litigating like I’d insulted you, or contradicted myself. Even when I directly paraphrased what you wrote, to agree with it.

              You missed a common idiom - had it laid out for you in detail - repeatedly took offense over nothing - and I’m guessing reported it. So I’m a little surprised to see you elsewhere in my replies, frustrated at overzealous moderation, when it’s your indirect implications in question.

              You’re wrong about those too, by the way. “Turbulent priest” comments are a call to violence. That line was prototypical stochastic terrorism. Not directly saying “kill that prick” - but clearly communicating that you’d like that prick killed. Even in the twelfth century people recognized this was a flimsy excuse.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                You’re really worked up about this, but you might notice that the moderator also didn’t understand your “common idiom” and told you to explain yourself or shut up. Funny how you left that part out.

                • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  I did explain myself. That’s why I’m asking: what the fuck?

                  What was I supposed to do differently, here? What on Earth did you expect? Is there any sequence of words where you’d go, ‘oh, sure, I get it?’

                  For god’s sake, I didn’t leave it out, it’s why I said I assume you reported it. It’s the whole reason we’re having this conversation. You don’t get to leave these short-ass replies and pretend proper discourse requires all possible details to be covered.

                  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I don’t expect anything. You’re the one attacking me for not supposedly not knowing a phrase which you then said wasn’t the phrase I didn’t know. Much like in the other thread, you’re not making much sense, but you are needlessly aggressive. I have very little patience left for it and will block you if it continues.