So I try to make heads or tails of this situation. I got randomly banned from a community where I posted a youtube video showing something from a Convention. Then I wanted to post a question today but realised that I couldn’t since I was banned. That community is sadly the biggest of all Star Citizen communities (the next one would be from lemmy.world)
I took a look at the Mod log and see the following line in it:
So no clean up of violating comments or posts, just a strict out ban.
The community has a pretty standard ruleset:
further, the moderator @Rumblestiltskin@lemmy.ml hasn’t posted anything since a year, so what gives here, or was it some other mod that was able to declare the ban?
Emphasis mine. That is not how it looks like in the original context:
You’re clearly casting a value judgment over the Cuban political system, and defending US intervention in other countries.
With that out of the way, it’s yet another case of rule #1 (no bigotry) being used to prevent people from criticising the admins’ views, because they can’t be arsed to list in the rules “5. Don’t criticise our political views here.”
Side note. I do not want to engage on the discussion of capitalism/socialism/communism here, as it falls outside the scope of this community. However:
I don’t see how. Please elaborate.
It’s a bunch of little things together:
Together they make your “like Cuba” immediately read as “bad”, even if you were trying to be as neutral as possible.
And at the end of the day, no matter the subject, it’s almost impossible to be truly neutral and not cast any sort of judgment. We do this all the time, often without even realising it.
[Just to be clear: I am not defending the .ml admins and their bullshit removal of your comment as if it was bigotry. It is not bigotry, nor it should be removed as such. OK?]
Didn’t think you were defending .ml admins. I was curious how my statement could be construed as judgmental. I was genuinely trying to be neutral in my statement and your criticism helps me see how I could improve it in the future.
Yup, I get it - that’s why I focused on how it reads, not on your intentions. I believe you when you say that you were trying to be neutral.
…yeah, I’m aware that the first bullet point is exactly what I said that I didn’t want to do. It’s just that the tidbit about terminology is relevant here.
The second bullet point is something else though.