this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2026
100 points (89.1% liked)
Ye Power Trippin' Bastards
1746 readers
160 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
This is simply an oversimplification to the degree of being simply not true. Are there democrats who are "pro-death but within the rules"? Absolutely. Are they the entire party? No. Some democratic politicians aren't really "pro" anything, they just go with the flow and some are authentically progressive and against endlessly bombing the middle east. Right now we're at a tipping point where there are enough progressives to spook the inauthentic "middle" democrat who doesn't care either way, they just want to get re-elected. All it took was sacrificing a bunch of people domestically (and abroad actually, starving Africans... and probably extra Palestinians) to the blood smeared altar of fascism by letting Trump win again. Congrats to the "anti-genocide" side I guess.
This is conjecture and fundamentally not knowable. Even progressives will control their language to avoid the full ire of the DNC leadership. Just like there are republicans who are legitimately just Nazi's, christian death cultists, or pro-rape or whatever but pretend to be "good ol boys" (though barely bother to do that now) there are progressives who probably secretly want socialism.
I've met plenty of people who describe themselves as "Dem Voters" and people who don't vote at all. To describe the average or median of them as "more progressive" than the most progressive democrat legitimately is an insane thing to believe. Do you live in an urban center in a major blue city or something? (If so I'm jealous) Because that is light years from what I see.
I appreciate that you still have hope and are trying. I mean, I'm still going to do the bare minimum and vote (including primaries) but my days of activism, donating, and volunteering are fucking over now. I'm way too bitter and cynical.
I used to do that. I live in a red state and dude the average person here in is a dire state ideologically. Its like trying to help people who if they knew what I am and what I actually believed would consider me a pariah and probably find me to be a disgusting nihilistic anti-theist communist sexual degenerate.
And they'd be right on at least two counts.
I don't know that I believe that the concept of "left" is coherent anymore. Is punching a progressive liberal OK since they're technically to my right? Doing so seems counter intuitive to electoral victory at all. Tankies are frequently described as to my "left" but tbh I think this makes no sense given who they tend to side with and I'd much rather punch them...
As for punching down, you'll have to pry the r-slur from my cold dead hands. I'm not even sorry because I'm not talking about people with special needs when I use the word. I'm talking about MAGA's, libertarian's, religious people, and ruroids when I use that word.
Scratch a liberal, and a fascist bleeds
Comrade, never entertain fascists.
My cue was “degenerate”
I was describing what other's would describe me as.
In reality, no one should entertain people who value virtue over consequence. You would let the world burn as long as you can describe yourself as ethically pure.
more professional philosophers identify as deontologists than any other ethical system
Being a professional deontological philosopher doesn't actually make an argument for deontology. Or that there more of those than others. That just means a lot of smart people are wrong.
there is a survey of philosophers that shows what I said is true
I wasn't refuting that a lot of philosophers are deontologists. I was saying that's irrelevant.
it's highly relevant to your erroneous claim
"no one should entertain people who value virtue over consequence."
the experts in the field just disagree with this stance.
Experts in philosophy are well educated in philosophy, but generally their reading and discourse choices are specifically guided by motivated reasoning more than in other fields.
Experts are just people who've learned a lot about a topic. While the required reading to achieve that is commendable (given the dire state of literacy these days), so do medical quacks, conspiracy theorists, and theologians and I don't waste time debating or engaging seriously with them either.
if your position is that professional ethicists are wrong, and we shouldn't entertain their stance, I don't see how you're any different from a quack or theologian.
OK, let me actually explain why I don't think they're worth engaging with:
Ethics are based on subjective axioms but they are motivated by certain objective beliefs about reality. Deontological and virtue ethics are both strongly motivated by a belief in free will, compatibilist or libertarian.
Both compatilism and libertarianism are akin to basically believing in magic (free will) because it feels good. And it feels bad to believe you have no free will.
But most people (including experts) believe in it anyway. Because its very human. We are evolutionary biased to believe in this fairy tale. It helps keep us motivated, the idea that we are in control of our fate (we aren't).
And if you believe in free will, deontological or virtue ethics both make perfect sense. So most experts, who are well read and smart people, are operating on on their education but also... motivated reasoning.
If this is unconvincing to you, then yeah there is no reason for us to talk. Go ahead and think of me as a quack I don't give a shit I don't want to waste my time.
if the world is deterministic, ethics don't exist.
If you wanted to goad a response from me, you've succeeded. That statement is false.
If we're going to throw around experts purely as justification for a belief, Robert Sapolsky and Tapio Lappi-Seppälä would like to have a word.
Determinism also isn't precisely the issue itself either, but I suppose its fair to bring that up given I brought up compatibilism and libertarianism. The ultimate point though is that even if the world isn't determined, that simply means its indeterminate. That doesn't justify a belief in free will either.
The very question of whether we have free will itself has a profound impact on ethics. Coming to the conclusion that there is no such thing as free will changes ethics, but it doesn't cause it to cease to exist. Ethics do not rely on free will to exist. All you need for ethics to be meaningful is the existence of conscious experience(s) of a negative or positive quality.
It essentially means that, when you know that "choice" is an illusion for everyone, it means punishment and reward for their own sake makes no sense and our desire for both is just emotional catharsis with a bunch of mental gymnastics to justify it all. It however doesn't mean suddenly that your behavior or the behavior of a body that governs reward and punishment is not influenced by the new information, or that ethical thought itself suddenly shut down.
Humans, and some other biological life forms, are just a bunch consciousness's riding a path of physical entropy. A process with previously set rules, that none of us had any control over. No one chooses to be born. No one chooses their own mind.
"Humans, and some other biological life forms, are just a bunch consciousness’s riding a path of physical entropy.”
if this were true, fascism isn't an evil ideology, it's just a thing that happens and is neither good nor bad.
Its bad because Fascism causes pain and suffering. It causes death. As a policy, it makes existence worse. Fascism itself is largely its own system driven entirely by irrational and emotional thinking and catharsis of demographics with power. Its a threat response that justifies itself with a mystic ideology of a chosen or special group, one that "deserves" to be in charge over others and to dominate.
Further, "Will" is a big thing with fascists.
I don't oppose fascism because the fascists lack virtuousness or are bad people. Why would I give a shit about that? I oppose fascism because of the consequences of fascism. I oppose fascists being tolerated because it can lead to fascism, not because I want them to suffer for their bad fascist thoughts.
I do also want to say: catharsis and the perception of having will power for one's self are not in of them selves bad things. "Making choices" feels good, and I want people to feel good. And another thing fascism does is deprive people of their agency (which is not the same as free will btw). It deprives them of their perception of freedom.
Like I've said, I only care about consequences, because that's the only rational thing to care about.
>I oppose fascists being tolerated because it can lead to fascism
but you can't choose whether you oppose it. your opposition, according to you, is just an emotion you feel as you ride your meat suit to the grave. and fascists can't choose whether to be fascist. and the very act of toleration can have no will behind it, so it can also not be good or evil.
It can be bad because I think its bad.
I'll admit, when I discuss morality in other context's (especially lately as I've lost my patience) I'll use the word "evil". In reality though, the word I mean is "bad" but with an extreme emotionally charged intensity.
I don't believe in "good" in the sense of divinity, the word "evil" is opposite of divinity. Divine vs Evil is mysticism.
I do however believe in good things and bad things. Technically subjective, but objectively they are things contained with in human minds. Positive and negative experiences and consequences. Good things are things we want and need. Bad things are things we avoid and hurt. This applies to us individually and collectively.
So sure, I don't believe in divine vs evil. I only believe in good vs bad.
it can't be bad if it's just a natural phenomenon like gravity. it just is.
As said in another response, "bad" is subjective. But its also objectively a commonality conceptually in the human mind, as it has evolved. "Bad" just is.
"even if the world isn’t determined, that simply means its indeterminate. "
this is such an interesting nuance that I hadn't considered. of course it's not relevant. if the world is somehow non-deterministic but we still don't have free will, this whole conversation is absurd.
Existence is absurd.
you really don't believe you had any choice but to write that response and send it?
I think the information in my mind has been processed and resulted in me typing up that (and this) response. "Choice" is a red herring. Or at the very least, "choice" is just the result of my brain processing input or more concisely, choice is just another word for output.
"If you wanted to goad a response from me"
without free will I can have no intention.
Intention exists, its just a form of information processing in your mind. Like all thoughts and motivations.
it's meaningless since I couldn't choose to act on my intention
Its not meaningless, at least not in a material sense. Trying to identify intent is useful information, it can guide interactions to being more empathetic/sympathetic, productive, or interesting.
Is it meaningless in the sense of like, spirituality? Or existentialism? Absolutely. Like, we aren't here for any reason and no one choose to be here. It never mattered in any mystical, magical, spiritual reason. There is nothing beyond what is here. We just exist and we like what we like and want what we want.
if it's meaningless, why are you so focused on trying to define it and defend your position? you must recognize this is only rational if you have agency.
Because I love discourse. I love discussing these ideas. (Though sometimes I also hate it)
Agency is one's ability to influence your environment. Agency feels good. So does solving puzzles and helping people.
if you're not choosing how to change your environment, you have no agency. rock slides change their environment but they have no agency.
Rocks have no agency because they aren't conscious or contain intelligence.
Characters in books are fictional autonomous beings and are often described as having agency or having no agency on the basis of their level of influence on the story. That's what I'm describing in a sense when I use the word, but applied to real conscious beings.
consciousness doesn't grant agency. free will does. if we can't agree on this, then go on making up your own definitions.
Perhaps I should try for a different word to describe it or modify it in some way. I will concede it ends up entering into semantic debate sometimes (if the discussion even reaches this point) and I find that kind of discussion pretty dull.
if no one chooses their own mind, why are you trying to convince me of anything. it's completely absurd.
Information changes us, whether it be dictated by deterministic or indeterministic forces.
That said, my motivation in my response's here isn't to change your mind. A past version of me would have been motivated by that, but I know full well that the real honest reason I'm doing this is to kill down time at work and to essentially intellectually challenge myself. (Again, because in a certain way it feels good... sometimes)
Changing people's mind via argument is a fool's errand. The past few US elections essentially have proven this to me. You might change 1 in 20 people's minds via debate, and only slightly.
You are exhausting and ML's seemingly favorite phrase to describe anarchists, an unserious person.
Your faction's way of thinking is a major reason I resent existence. You are letting the actual fascists win and there is nothing I could say to change your mind. You might as well have been a MAGA pre-2024. Worthless, stupid, petulantly virtue ethicist.
You have nothing to counter intellectually and its evident. Why should I even try with people like you when this is your vapid fucking response? Waste of time, repeating stupid pointless memes.
Its so depressing. And it just confirms I'm making the right choice to separate myself from this stuff and I don't want to be right, I want to be wrong. I want there to be something here and no one is capable of offering it.
You're very clearly arguing to have your existing beliefs confirmed. If you want to be wrong, ask questions instead of declaring your own positions about things. I'd gladly educate you on why your ideology is wrong and why your beliefs lead to fascism, but it's obvious to me you aren't here to learn
My existing beliefs render me miserable and alienated.
In actuality, I do want someone to demonstrate to me in a way that convinces me. But I'll concede and I'm very good at being convincing in my own defenses of my beliefs to myself.
I have to be ruthless in that way though. If I don't push back as hard as possible, I also wont be convinced that I'm wrong then either.
In a sense, me declaring things is mostly in hopes for a refutation from you with solid reasoning or evidence (though evidence is hard to conjure for ideological arguments). If I ask you what you believe, you will just give me some 101 or something, which wont convince me of anything.
Also to be clear I was using a bit hyperbole with the r-slur statement. Honestly though I have a pretty internally consistent set of reasoning to justify my usage of it.
But whatever, I'm pretty burnt out on my search at this point. My previous post had me increasingly wondering if I just need to get off Lemmy/piefed/whatever. Every time I get into an argument on here it doesn't serve any purpose but to put me in a bad mood for the rest of the day anyway. Just arguing with people not interested in challenging ideas or any ideological dissection. Its always an attack on personal virtue and that's intellectually worthless.
If you're genuinely interested in having a discussion and not a pointless argument, I'd be happy to discuss. Like I said, IMO, it's better to ask questions than just yelling what you already believe at people and talking to them like they're inferior or not as smart as you or something, you'll never get a good response if you approach political discussions like that. Just be curious, if you disagree, instead of saying "NO U R WRONG AND SHIT" you can just say "can you explain a bit more what you mean? in my experience xyz" and you'll get better results in my experience
Anyways my DMs are open, probably better to chat directly rather than using replies if you want.
Brah, seriously? Come on now... Yuck...