Starting with this post:

https://sh.itjust.works/post/44999037

Continues here:

https://sh.itjust.works/post/45035437

More posts discussing the fallout:

Dbzer0 admin claiming Uyghur genocide is ‘overblown and misrepresented’

Dbzer0 admin casually defending Uyghur genocide denial because “libs worse”, yikes

Banned from meanwhileongrad for “No db0 allowed”.

On Dbzer0, ‘harassing mods’ is when you criticize the top admin of .ml for responding to a Wiki link with a Lemmy search

Does lemmy.ml own db0? db0 denies the Uyghur genocide, begins to backtrack that maybe there are human rights abuses, and then immediately backs off as soon as lemmy.ml admin, Davel, steps in.

Tankie bar, db0, will remove your comments and ban you if you criticise lemmy.ml admin, Davel, for denying the Uyghur genocide

When the tankie bar, db0, is pushed about communists purging peasants, Davels swoops in with dehumanisation. Also, if you bring up the Holodomor then you’re a nazi.

Removed false allegations against goat from a post on db0

An anarchist tankie did a write-up of the constant use of ‘degenerate’ as an insult specifically in the MoG comm

Another anarchist tankie did a write-up of the situation

More links: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/52444570

https://sh.itjust.works/comment/329886

https://sh.itjust.works/post/151703/234360

https://sh.itjust.works/comment/338067

  • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    71·
    3 months ago

    “I didn’t say it, I implied it.”

    That’s your uncharitable reading, not what I wrote.

    By ‘adjusted’ you mean ‘rejected them as irrelevant’

    Also not what I did or said. But do feel free to uncharitably read what you want out of my sentences, nothing I say seems to stop you from that practice.

    Or here, “No anarchist” to “No EXPERIENCED anarchist”

    No mate, I didn’t reject inexperienced anarchists from anarchism. I merely pointed that it just so happens that you label experienced anarchists as tankies and keep the inexperienced ones who happen to agree with you as examples of the good ones. People can make their own conclusions from that.

    • PugJesus@lemmy.worldEnglish
      16·
      3 months ago

      That’s your uncharitable reading, not what I wrote.

      Sorry that you find a basic reading of what you wrote to be ‘uncharitable’, I understand it’s tied up with your own struggles with basic English.

      Also not what I did or said.

      This you, fascist?

      but the one person (you claim is an anarchist) that hangs out with goat all the time, is gone. Figures.

      No mate, I didn’t reject inexperienced anarchists from anarchism. I merely pointed that it just so happens that you label experienced anarchists as tankies and keep the inexperienced ones who happen to agree with you as examples of the good ones. People can make their own conclusions from that.

      You asked me to name a single anarchist I talked to. I did so. You then rejected them as irrelevant, and then denied that rejecting them as irrelevant was ‘discarding’ them in context. Sorry that you didn’t understand your own request? Like, holy fuck. Do you work at being this bad at basic communication, or does it just come naturally once you start simping for fascists and playing apologist for genocide?

        • PugJesus@lemmy.worldEnglish
          18·
          3 months ago

          Why? Because you think that you shouldn’t be called out for supporting Holodomor denial, making not just bad faith arguments, but shitty and easily disproven bad faith arguments (I note that you didn’t actually understand the refutation of your claim about No True Scotsman, instead trying to link it to identity instead of the refinement of a disproven argument’s claim), and simping for fascist coup attempts as some bizarre form of anarchism against revisionist neolibs like Rosa Luxemburg?