this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2026
50 points (91.7% liked)

Ye Power Trippin' Bastards

1918 readers
197 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:

  1. Which mods/admins were being Power Tripping Bastards?
  2. What sanction did they impose (e.g. community ban, instance ban, removed comment)?
  3. Provide a screenshot of the relevant modlog entry (don’t de-obfuscate mod names).
  4. Provide a screenshot and explanation of the cause of the sanction (e.g. the post/comment that was removed, or got you banned).
  5. Explain why you think its unfair and how you would like the situation to be remedied.

Rules

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.

Relevant comms

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
unruffled@anarchist.nexus
50
Banned from !collapse@lemmy.zip for calling out ecofascism (lemmy.blahaj.zone)
submitted 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) by rockSlayer@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com
31 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I had to trim my screenshots due to being a mod elsewhere, so I can see mod names. I think the screenshot of the interaction really sums this one up. I initially commented after a brief skim of the article, basically enough time to figure out that it wasn't spewing great replacement bullshit, and then gave a little reminder that ecofascism is real and uses language such as "humans are parasites".

OP responded with a suspicious comment, and another comment pointed out the author's true intent, so I went looking deeper. At the very last part of the article, like 3rd to last sentence in the last paragraph, the author calls for a "non-coerceive" means to kill 70% of the human race. I called it out, and was banned.

all 33 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Sanctus@anarchist.nexus 31 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (4 children)

eleitl is an ecofascist. I bet if we mathed it out we'd find we could easily provide for even more people if we weren't wasting most of our resources.

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.blahaj.zone 21 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Good to know that my fash detector is working at least.

we could easily provide for even more people

110%. We absolutely can provide for everyone and a growing population. We have everything we need. We just need to do it.

[–] carotte@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 3 days ago

oh yea, we could provide for more than 10 billion people if we didn't produce goods (especially food) in comically wasteful ways

also, for having listened to people like this before… you just know which 70% of humanity these people want to elimitate. and it's not the ones most responsible for climate destruction!

[–] punkisundead@slrpnk.net 8 points 3 days ago (1 children)

eleitl is an ecofascist. I

is this like a known fediverse fact or just based on this single screenshot? Would be good prxis to link to additional proof so that this statement is even more convincing

[–] Sanctus@anarchist.nexus 13 points 3 days ago (2 children)

I think the evidence presented before us is enough. Two actions, both related, clearly offended, and then they also defend their position of what amounts to mass genocide.

[–] punkisundead@slrpnk.net 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Fashs need to get bashed and to be honest, I wouldnt bash someone (or take any other drastic action) just based on this. If they are really fascist there will be more situations like this anyway, so its probably just a matter of time till I am fully convinced as well.

[–] Sanctus@anarchist.nexus 4 points 3 days ago

Imo they are already telling you who they are in the most concerned way, listen to them.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I'd like more evidence, since they never suggested that as a solution, but presented as a result of overshoot if we don't drastically change. Which clearly we are not. Earth Overshoot Day regresses every year.

As for saying the poor and powerless will be affected first, how is this not true? They already ARE being affected first now, and it's not getting better.

Unless I see more they're just saying what's been said by so many over the years, and we're not changing course. There's comments in here about how we can do this and that to take care of the 8+ billion we have, but... okay? Let's start? Like 20 years ago?

All I see here is overshoot facts, not a suggestion that we should start rounding up people or help the climate do what it's going to do.

And I finally found the actual post, and I guess saying that they didn't agree with the last part of the article or anything it suggests means nothing, huh? The ban might have been a bit heavy for just a single word, although there were better ways to argue the point. Doesn't make the moderator one, as they said themselves that direction wasn't a good one. Maybe OP should have argued if the article had merits enough to stay linked, vs. calling all involved names. And definitely inferring a name without evidence here.

[–] Sanctus@anarchist.nexus 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io -3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I was about to post the link. Now we can see the actual discussion. Was a ban needed, probably not from what's shown here. Don't know if OP took it to DM and escalated it. I notice a possible brigading of downvotes though... interesting.

Nevertheless, the point of overshoot stands, and it will have an effect on population numbers. Like I said, it already is, look at conditions in third world nations thanks to the modern world's progression. But that's really not the discussion here, or rather, what it should be about. It's simply was the argument about the word ecofascist and is that ban-worthy, and was it FOR that? I guess it was, since that's all we have to work with.

[–] Sanctus@anarchist.nexus 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

See and now you are in here spouting the same lies that overshoot is inevitable as the divine right of kings. Its not. We can reduce consumption without genocide. Fucking hell, the urge to go directly to murdering people. There are no third world nations thats cold war alignment bullshit. There are vulnerable people to climate change, and from what I can see, systems that haven't fully collapsed yet. Kill your gods and your masters, theres still time to save the Earth before they murder us all.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io -2 points 3 days ago

I covered all that in the other reply, this isn't the place. You're not wrong that we can make efforts. I think it's too late to fully turn it around, but something is better than nothing. Be nice if we started.

Would you prefer non-westernized countries, developing nations, what? I just used a common phrasing, and it was clear who I meant. The ones who complained at the IPCC and got shrugs.

But this is for unfair bans, which no one has even talked about lol. I think it seems heavy just from the actual posts. I suspect there's more to it, as there always is from one-sided arguments.

[–] A404@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I actually put some tought into this. During the second world war 50% of all food in the US was homegrown. we could do that again but this time with aquaponics systems. They are easier to maintain and they grow food much faster than traditional permaculture.

[–] Sanctus@anarchist.nexus 2 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Why every home isn't built with a greenhouse, or one of those compact inside systems I think.you are describing, is beyond me. You dont even need space anymore.

[–] A404@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Thats because if everyone could grow their own food they wouldnt have a reason to go to work anymore. Theres a reason why states enclosed the commons.

[–] Sanctus@anarchist.nexus 9 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Well I can't grow computer chips or the complex machinery I love. I'd still have to trade for that, we'd still need some sort of industry for advanced applications. But yeah you couldn't get me to show up at a bullshit office job thats for sure. I'm sure others would tho.

[–] A404@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

i tought of that aswell. There are already computers that run off of pressurized air. The one mentioned in the article was factory made but am sure we can figure something out. If that fails we could fall back to mechanical computing.

[–] Sanctus@anarchist.nexus 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

The only thing I'd argue to try to keep is medical equipment and modern medicine. Thats the Only thing that has me hesitate with den industrialization.

[–] A404@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 3 days ago

if we somehow do end up being able to do a controlled descent, the medical sector should be the last to go. if stuff like this interests you then check out the low-tech magazine

https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/

[–] zarathustrad@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

All you really need are some 10 gallon buckets, some cheap aquarium air pumps, dozens of dollars of LED shop lights, seeds, then access to water and fertilizer (3 part dry powdered inorganic hydroponic mix is cheap and stores forever).

LEDs are so cheap now, they produce little heat, and take negligible power (solar panels are also cheap enough that a few hundred bucks and some car batteries can run a personal garden all year even if you're in the frozen north (or grow cool weather crops inside during the blazing summer, of your already cooling that space for humans anyway, the plants benefit from your AC/heat use).

[–] davel@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 days ago

eleitl is an ecofascist.

Maybe. At best they’re unknowingly perpetuating ecofascist propaganda, as liberals often do.

[–] RickyRigatoni@piefed.zip 27 points 3 days ago

PTB. It really is an ecofascist statement and calling ecofascism a slur just makes them sound even more guilty.

[–] CombatWombat@feddit.online 13 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The response they left me in that thread was so over the top I literally could not

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 3 days ago

Yea, their response to you was fucking nuts!