auk
It’s very deliberate.
One of the key features of an abusive relationship is shutting you down from people who can help you.
If someone’s in the middle of a disaster, and Joe Biden’s federal government comes and helps them out, it’s a catastrophe for the Republicans. It brings the psychotic lies people have been told about the government into contact with the reality of the federal government in the real world, which is one of the few ways they might be able to break out of their elaborate propaganda-bubbles.
If, on the other hand, they’re convinced that FEMA is now coming to kill them, but also their home has been washed away in a mudslide, then they might wind up fleeing the state, living with their family on their brother-in-law’s couches, trying to scrape by, becoming more and more desperate, with no one to give them any substantive assistance of any kind. The desperation increases. The fear of anything governmental or democratic can continue, and increase.
And then, when their brother-in-law offers them a rifle and an invitation to come with a few people and shoot up the election office, or the Democratic organizer’s home, because the government already tried to kill them once when they were at their lowest point, and they escaped only by the skin of their teeth, so it might as well be go time… well, they might accept the offer. Because why not?
By demonizing FEMA, the Republicans are turning what would have been a problem into a recruitment tool.
I don’t watch its every move. I do spot checks of its judgements. I tried posting some of them to !santabot@slrpnk.net to democratize the process, but I think it’s too abstract for people to be all that interested.
Something just clicked for me when you said that, though. I think the way to set it up is for moderators to be able to have Santa to auto-report comments, instead of autonomously removing them on its own.
That would only be of interest in communities where the moderators are interested in removing consistently obnoxious people. For some reason, that doesn’t seem to be the case. It’s very strange to me that so much moderation on “mainstream” Lemmy is based on an arbitrary set of rules, inconsistently applied, instead of relying to any extent on common sense or realizing when someone’s an obnoxious jackass and getting rid of them.
Post a politics-related web site or tool? A video? Sorry, it’s not an article. FUCK YOU, GET OUT.
Post 72 times per day, every day, and overtake MediaBiasFactCheck as the most downvoted account in Lemmy history? Nothing we can do. We are powerless to do ought but give you a little safe space for your propaganda. If only there were something we could do. But there isn’t.
I don’t think there’s any tool in the world that can fix that.
People’s Party and Green Party are natural enemies. Like leftists and Democrats. Or leftists and tankies. Or leftists and Green Party. Or leftists and MAGA. Or leftists and anarchists. Or leftists and leftists. Damn leftists! They ruined the left!
“You leftists sure are a contentious bunch.”
You can still collect downvotes from other instances. Even if your instance doesn’t accept or display them, they’ll still get federated to the instance that hosts the community.
You’ve got a bunch of negative rank, mostly from the argument under the “Network Switch” post, but you’re fine. If you did that habitually, you’d get banned. It’s hard to get banned for real. The intent, and most of the reality, is that bans are limited to people who go around getting downvoted constantly because they are consistently obnoxious.
Edit: Santa is a robot moderator I made for this community. That is necessary context for this comment, clearly.
Santa removed this comment, because you don’t have a lot of recent participation, and you have some heavily downvoted comments. This is what I’ve been calling the “grey area,” where Santa will judge accounts that it can’t confidently assign scores to extra harshly, in order to protect against throwaway trolls. A couple dozen downvotes can put you into a category where your comments will be removed until you’ve built up a solid track record of comments that gather more of a normal or neutral reaction.
Looking over your history, that’s clearly the wrong call. You don’t have a ton of participation or upvotes, but you have a little collection of both. Definitely enough that a couple of comments that accrued some downvotes shouldn’t exclude you from participating.
I restored the comment, and made Santa less aggressive about sniping comments from users in the grey area in the future. I’m still tweaking this part of the functionality, since it’s hard to test in the abstract, and it only comes up a couple of times a month. Carry on. You’re fine.
If they manage to hit 5% of the vote this election, which of course would mean a Trump win, then they will in no way, shape, or form have guaranteed ballot access in the next election. They’ll be lucky if they aren’t in prison or worse.
This person who’s going around calling herself a socialist, and also risking Trump getting elected, is showing an incredible level of thick-headed cluelessness as to what he plans to have the police and military do to anything that looks any type of left-wing, over the course of his second term.
They also won’t hit 5%, but that’s not even the main concern here.
Here’s what happened:
On and after October 7th, Hamas combatants invaded Israel, committing rape, gang rape, and sexual torture among other crimes as they went.
Then, the Israeli government exaggerated what had happened, fabricating outlandish stories to accompany the genuine ones, because lying and demonizing Palestinians is in their DNA.
Then, the New York Times published a story featuring both true and false accounts of sexual assault, ignoring people within their organization who were trying to raise the alarm that some of the information they were relying on was not credible.
Then, supporters of Palestine seized on the inaccuracies in the Times’s reporting to try to pretend that no sexual assault had ever happened. Hallmarks of this type of disinformation include zeroing in on irrelevant questions. Were the widespread rapes that occurred during the invasion officially ordered by Hamas leadership? What sorts of evidence did Pramila Patten’s investigative teams find, and what sorts did they not find? Did the Israeli government lie? By focusing in on these questions, it’s possible to produce answers which create a strong impression that the question you have asked is, “Did Hamas commit widespread rape on and after October 7th?” and that the answer is no. But the answer to that question is clearly yes.
Here are Pramila Patten’s findings: https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/03/1147217
They speak for themselves. She’s very open about her methodology, her sources, her conclusions, and the boundaries of her conclusions. The rhetorical methods of the people who seize on or exaggerate those careful boundaries, as a way of attempting to argue that she didn’t actually find clear and convincing evidence of widespread sexual assault, also speak for themselves.