this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2026
18 points (69.6% liked)
Ye Power Trippin' Bastards
1666 readers
130 users here now
This is a community in the spirit of "Am I The Asshole" where people can post their own bans from lemmy or reddit or whatever and get some feedback from others whether the ban was justified or not.
Sometimes one just wants to be able to challenge the arguments some mod made and this could be the place for that.
Posting Guidelines
All posts should follow this basic structure:
- Which mods/admins were being Power Tripping Bastards?
- What sanction did they impose (e.g. community ban, instance ban, removed comment)?
- Provide a screenshot of the relevant modlog entry (don’t de-obfuscate mod names).
- Provide a screenshot and explanation of the cause of the sanction (e.g. the post/comment that was removed, or got you banned).
- Explain why you think its unfair and how you would like the situation to be remedied.
Rules
- Post only about bans or other sanctions that you have received from a mod or admin.
- Don’t use private communications to prove your point. We can’t verify them and they can be faked easily.
- Don’t deobfuscate mod names from the modlog with admin powers.
- Don’t harass mods or brigade comms. Don’t word your posts in a way that would trigger such harassment and brigades.
- Do not downvote posts if you think they deserved it. Use the comment votes (see below) for that.
- You can post about power trippin’ in any social media, not just lemmy. Feel free to post about reddit or a forum etc.
- If you are the accused PTB, while you are welcome to respond, please do so within the relevant post.
Expect to receive feedback about your posts, they might even be negative.
Make sure you follow this instance's code of conduct. In other words we won't allow bellyaching about being sanctioned for hate speech or bigotry.
YPTB matrix channel: For real-time discussions about bastards or to appeal mod actions in YPTB itself.
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.
Relevant comms
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I find your deflections and extrapolations both completely irrelevant and also deeply distorted.
You started the deflecting, you started asking if advocating for a two state solution was zionism, then pivoted to 'whats realistic' when I said 'yes, obviously.'
Thats why my last post was actually completely relevant.
You introduced Zionism into the discussion.
I question that advocacy for a "two-state solution" is necessarily Zionism, whereas your complaint rests squarely on such an assumption. The entire settler population being expelled is not feasible. Zionism should not be represented so broadly as to include everyone who is merely practical.
Your grievances about a thread from nine months ago obviously are irrelevant.
It's why OP was banned from other places.
The link I posted has numerous people explain that advocating for the liberation of Palestine isn’t the same as advocating for a genocide or expulsion of Jews in Israel.
It's not, and the fact that you jumped to that is why I respond in kind.
The purpose of the post and community is for others to appraise the justification for the moderator action, not summarily to assume its correctness and then simply to explain its merits.
None if it bears on whether advocacy for a "two-state solution" is necessarily Zionism.
They were banned for trolling, their past behavior is absolutely relevant.
I can spell it out for you:
Two states
One of those states is Israel
Israel is a settler-colonial state produced through dispossession and genocide
Accepting its legitimacy and permanence is Zionism
Advocating for it is Zionism
Your appeal to 'realism' just means accepting the colonial status quo. Given current power relations, a two-state solution would rapidly become apartheid by another name.
As insinuated, an objective of full parity among all current occupants of Palestine, settler and Palestinian, including freedom of movement for Palestinians throughout the entire territory, would seem to be sufficient to achieve a dismantlement of settler-colonialism in the region.
"One of those states is Israel" is not a meaningful argument, because it begs the question of which transformations may have been imposed on Israel and the territory.
That is not a two-state solution as normally understood.
That's more like one state with equal rights. You are not addressing my point either, you are substituting something different as if it answers my critique. Kind of a bait and switch.
Additionally, 'parity' does not actually address decolonization, ie the stolen land and material inequalities baked into the infrastructure and economy. Still sounds like apartheid.
If Israel is so transformed that it no longer functions as a settler-colonial state then the proposal is no longer a standard two-state solution and calling it one is misleading.
The "two-state solution" is a vague proposal that encompasses a very broad range of concrete possibilities.
One might say it is a range of different proposals all described under a common phrase.
We should not pigeonhole the phrase into one particular, narrow representation insisted as the one "normally understood".
Simply, I question the narrowness of your characterization.
Vagueness doesn't make the term neutral. Political proposals are defined by how they function in practice, not by every hypothetical version someone cooks up.
Every actually existing two-state proposal affirms the legitimacy of Israel as a settler-colonial state and confines Palestinian self-determination within that framework. If the 'transformations' you're imagining undo that, then you’re no longer talking about the same thing.
You are maintaining the label but redefining the proposal until it no longer resembles reality, while simultaneously appealing to 'realism' as a reason to dispense with discussion of ending the settler-colonial state.
Vagueness challenges the particular, narrow representation you insist is universally accepted.
There is no concrete catalog that affirms which representations are "actually existing". There is rather open discourse with diverse contributions.
You are being overly narrow.
Proposals that matter in any 'realistic' sense (as you appealed to earlier) are not constituted by open-ended discourse, but by the concrete situations created through institutions, negotiations, and enforcement.
There's plenty of examples of what these proposals look like in the historical record.
You are continuing to be narrow and obtuse, now seemingly deliberately.
I simply will repeat that "two-state solution" encompasses a broad and open range of concrete possibilities.
Repeating abstractions to avoid engaging material reality. I’ve made my point and you've made it clear that you're more concerned with hypotheticals.