Yeah that’s one of those excuses I was talking about. Everyone always consumes animal products from their uncle’s farm. They never, ever buy animal products from the store, or from a restaurant, or fast food, or whatever. Nope. All the animal products you consume are 100% from your uncle’s farm and they’re all mega happy, and you know them all by name!

lol

hello, I’m a vegan, I try not to annoy people because I know we’re all going through a lot of shit, but since you asked, you should know: the level of suffering caused by the animal agriculture industry is so extreme and horrific. Like, think of the worst torture imaginable, and it’s worse. And they subject thinking, feeling beings to that. Think about how angry you would feel if you saw someone abusing a dog. Now imagine that on a global, mass-production scale.

The problem is that human brain is really good at protecting itself from having to deal with the mental anguish of knowing that you’re responsible for suffering, so you’ll come up with any number of reasons to excuse your behaviour - it’s natural, it’s the circle of life, etc. etc. but that’s all just excuses. You let other living being suffer so badly because you like how they taste, and you can either accept that fact or you can change.

So it’s nothing to do with what’s natural then, is it? Or you’d object to chicken cat food. And let’s not forget that everyone has also seen cats eat grass. Is it possible that you don’t really know what the nutritional needs are for cats and that you’re just arguing based on your ideological beliefs, rather than the best interests of cats? Maybe so you can feel good about yourself, and your own diet?

That’s all completely aside from the fact that it is completely irrelevant. Whether or not you disagree with some random internet vegan should have no bearing on how you judge the behaviour of a moderator abusing their power to enforce their individual opinions upon Lemmy communities.

Not only is your point irrelevant - two wrongs don’t make a right - but I have to ask… you know cats don’t “naturally” eat chicken or tuna either, right? And they especially don’t naturally eat canned food.

As soon as someone in a position of power shows their willingness to use that power to further their own agenda in any way, rather than for the benefit of the community, they should immediately and unequivocally have that power withdrawn.

Rooki has showed us all who he is, and what he is willing to do with power. He has not felt any consequences. In future, he’ll just be more cautious with how he abuses his power.

• this is a worldwide news sub. the bot is ridiculously US-centric. everything it considers left or centre is right wing at best.

• it’s the pet project of literally one guy, based entirely on his opinions. he’s very clearly got biases, too: very pro-right wing, pro-israeli.

• it has extremely ridiculous justifications for a lot of why the “left” publications are considered “mixed”, and right-wing publications don’t get the same treatment.

It’s just totally useless garbage. It would be just as worthwhile as having a bot to automatically post my personal opinion of every news website beneath every post on this community.

I think that would be an example of a wildly unpopular change, yeah.

They’re probably not lying, that implies that they’re intentionally trying to deceive. They believe what they say, I’m pretty sure of that. They’re just wrong.

Not sure what you mean - I don’t think most of the people still using Firefox are going to switch to a Chromium based browser any time soon, I can’t speak for everyone of course but it feels like Firefox users tend to have an ideological objection to Google having a monopoly on web browsers.

It’s always worth trying a different browser when you have issues on websites - there are a lot of things that can be different beyond the layout and javascript engines - cookies, configuration, addons, etc. Yesterday I noticed a big difference between Chromium and Firefox in that even if you hard-refresh on a HTTP/2 connection, Chromium reuses a kept-alive connection, and firefox doesn’t — I would totally argue that Firefox’s implementation is more correct, but Chrome’s implementation will lead to a better experience for users hard-refreshing.

The moment that Firefox goes too far, it’ll immediately be forked and 75% of the user base would leave within a few months. Their user base is almost entirely privacy-conscious, technologically savvy people.

No, it wasn’t. You’re lying through your teeth. I’m not going to get into the details because they’re frankly not very relevant.

I get to share my opinion. They can do what they want with it. If you don’t like that, go make your own thread.

People will go to any lengths to justify their bad behaviour to themselves.

All you need to do is not interfere in communities where you have no idea what you’re talking about, stop assuming you know better than everyone else just because you have some power over a meaningless message board. This isn’t an anti-vax community we’re talking about here and you’ve totally blown this way out of proportion to prevent admitting that the moderator was out of line.

You, the mod/admin exist to stop spam and hate speech and to empower users with tools and features that they want and find useful. Otherwise, just stay the fuck out of the way. Do not impose your will on your little petty fiefdoms, that is unwanted and unhelpful.

The OpenReach model fucking sucks too. It’s a private for-profit corporation with an effective monopoly. The infrastructure should be owned and operated by a publicly owned organisation and access to it should be covered by taxes and just force all the private operators out of business. Every single one of them sucks.

Look, it’s obvious that you either can’t, or don’t want to, have a good-faith open discussion about Israel’s genocide. Either way, you’re wasting my time.

None of what you’ve said changes anything. If a French guy committed genocide, that wouldn’t justify a genocide against all French people.

Likewise, as I already established with my first comment, Israel definitely has demonstrated genocidal intent, very very clearly. There are a number of Israeli politicians who have openly stated in public that they want to push all Arabs out of the region. They’re taking pretty much every genocidal action categorised.

You are behaving as though you are literally incapable of considering whether you could be wrong.

Uh, sorry, I didn’t realise we could just come up with our own “considerations” of words with meanings which are widely acknowledged under international law.

Here’s the basic criteria: State killing, maiming, attempted reduction of the birth rate, forcibly transferring children, or inflicting conditions calculated to bring about the destruction of, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part.

For the October 7 attacks to be acknowledged as a genocide, firstly, the State of Palestine would need to be acknowledged as a bona-fide state and Hamas recognised as the government of that country. Then we could discuss what the potential intent of the attacks were, but I don’t think that it would be a stretch to consider Hamas a genocidal organisation, or to consider the October 7 attacks genocidal in that case. These attacks, no matter how deplorable, do not justify genocide as a response.

Are you willing to acknowledge Israel as genocidal under the same framework?

I’m not sure what your point is, here. If the bombing was worse, you’d be happy to consider it genocide? How many people does it take for a bombing campaign to pass your “genocide” barrier? Is that in whole numbers, or as a percentage of population?

I would also consider those acts of bombing to be absolutely unjustified, evil, crimes against humanity and wholly deplorable. I’ve even spoken out against the bombings of civilians on this very account.

Just ignored all of my comment to get upset about a rhyming chant, did we?

You have the projection backwards. It’s the genociders who project into that chant.

So you’re saying that Israel’s genocide is fine because it hasn’t caused as much loss of life as a nuclear bomb?

It’s a fucking wonder to me how you believe that the fucking life expectancy data is going to be anywhere near up to date or verifiable, considering that Israel have killed like three years worth of the yearly death rate in 9 months.

First of all, let’s not conflate criticism of Israel with anti-semitism. I am an ardent opponent of anti-semitism, and while criticism of Israel may well be used as a dog-whistle among anti-semites, that doesn’t mean that all criticism of Israel is inherently anti-semitic. Indeed, I am very happy to know that there are many Jewish people who oppose Israel’s genocide who I can stand with.

As for your question - I don’t believe any individual person’s claims of genocide, but rather consider the evidence. These are the facts as I know them:

1. Israeli politicians have gone on-record, several times, all the way back to David Ben-Gurion, about their intent to, at the very least, displace, the arab population in and around Israel. In more modern times, the rhetoric is far stronger and very dehumanising.
2. Israel has continually treated Arab Israelis as, at best, second class citizens, denying them citizenship and property rights, displacing them, causing them to flee in conflict and refusing them the right to return to their homes.
3. Israel built a wall around Gaza, tightly controlling the flow of people, food, water, medicine and other forms of aid into Gaza. The West bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem have been illegally occupied by Israel since 1971.
4. A series of conflicts have seen Israeli employing overwhelming and disproportionate military force against Arabs indiscriminately, bombing schools, hospitals, residences, and destroying vital infrastructure, as well as maiming, killing or imprisoning journalists, human rights monitors, aid workers, and so on.

I could go on, but honestly, that’s enough for me to call it like I see it. Israel’s grand ambitions extend at least as far as driving all Arabs out of the territory immediately surrounding Israel, from the banks of the River Jordan to the Mediterranean sea, and possibly further. They are willing to go to any lengths to achieve that goal, including war crimes, crimes against humanity, extrajudicial killings, mass murder, bombing civilians, destroying schools, hospitals, mosques, regardless of who is inside, they’re willing to illegally push people out of their homes, bulldoze Palestinian settlements, steal, kill, and lie about it the whole time they’re doing it.

The original point you made was that the musician didn’t do the right thing, and I was explaining why I thought you were wrong. We weren’t talking about whether it was right or wrong for the venue to deplatform him.

I’m happy to talk about that, but I am curious about your thoughts in reaction to my original response