Appeals require time + evidence of good behavior + a statement of what your future behavior will look like. Convince us you'll add value to our community.
If you spam us we'll ban you
Don't ask about getting temp bans removed 1 hour early. Reddit timer is weird but you will be unbanned when it's over.
I found your "what if they secretly want to do terrorism but we don't have any evidence, we can't let them in" thought experiment to be particularly engaging.
what if they secretly want to do terrorism but we don't have any evidence, we can't let them in
Also the psychology on display here is fascinating. The hypothetical was extremely clear that the government had evidence the prospective immigrant wanted to commit terrorism.
But you continually misunderstood the simple point, and apparently still don't understand it. I suspect there's something deeper going on. Is it cognitive dissonance? Like deep down you understand the stupidity of absolute open borders, so your subconscious prevents you from considering a scenario where it doesn't work?
Do you think we’re fucking stupid or something? Oh yea my innocent hypothetical about deporting an American citizen I’m going to freak out over if you dare question. You’re a loser looking for a fight and you’re too much of a coward to actually argue for what you believe. My only regret is another mod already permabanned you or I would have done it.
And btw, you aren't just a victim of circumstance, you control your life. And you can choose to change it for the better. Being a self-important unpaid, internet janitor for a billion dollar corporation is not the height of what you can achieve. You can be better. You must!
Yes, people who think it's tyranny to not allow terrorists or war criminals to immigrate are fucking stupid.
My only regret is another mod already permabanned you or I would have done it.
This so pathetic, it actually makes me feel very bad for you. Is this what you had imagined for your life? If the child version of you saw what you had become, would they be proud or horrified? I suspect the latter.
Hey I remember you, you're the guy who literally thinks its tyranny to not let terrorists or war criminals into the country. Hi again!
I'm glad that you're still pretending that it's crazy to not let people in who want to commit terrorism, I was worried you were going to do some self reflection!
I was banned for racism, and I truly do not know how my comment was construed as saying that I believe Shiites deserve collective punishment. I do not believe this at all!! I would not and did not write that or imply that! I have a lot of history on this sub, and I have never ever glorified the killing of civilians. Also, please note that I’m replying to a user named “Bashar Al-Assad”.
I was trying to say that an Israeli war with Hezbollah was inevitably going to displace Shiites, because Hezbollah is embedded in areas which are predominantly Shia, and war displaces civilians no matter what. Hezbollah is essentially trying to hold Shia civilians hostage as human shields. If that’s “ethnic cleansing” or “collective punishment”, and Israel is fully to blame, all war is ethnic cleansing and the term has no meaning.
My understanding is that Israel is following the rules of war in Southern Lebanon, and Israel has tried to make sure civilians have been evacuated. (Which is why I think Mod comparing me to a Milošević supporter is pretty uncalled for. Milošević encouraged his supporters to kill civilians, which is disgusting.)
My understanding is that Israel is following the rules of war in Southern Lebanon
The Rules of War are when you loot and burn the houses and farms of random civilians, apparently. Because I guess these rules were written by İsmâil Enver, Adolf Hitler, and Slobodan Milošević.
But nobody is disputing it's ethnic cleansing. They're saying the Islamic death cults want innocents wounded, and ask what viable choice Israel actually has beyond its Sophie's choice. What I think we want is to debate if there is a feasible way, given "show restraint" is assumptive (Israel would argue it has, and without access to strategic intelligence we cannot know if this is true or not); and "do nothing" is not a solution we would accept were our death cult neighbours throwing rockets at us.
This is why I think the situation is not served by the oversimplification which the succs are drawn to. At this point I think it's most useful to focus on what the future holds and hope for some accountability through those ICC warrants. Smugly saying "well but ethnic cleansing is bad, stop" is the kind of shit the r/politics crowd might say to feel less helpless; but for a sub that prizes evidence over everything else, it's very weaksauce.
War has bad things happen, in fact some form of these bad things in some quantities happen in all war. This is why there's no difference between the American occupation of Iraq and the Rape of Nanjing.
Somehow, a post in which I reply to someone who themselves is reasonably pointing out that Southern Lebanon is a Hezbollah strongly by sarcasistically noting Islamists deliberate use civilian infrastructure to ensure reciprocity kills the innocent and plays into grievance politics, was "glorifying violence".
Per these comments from today, I have absolutely no love of or defence of the Islamist position and it would be a stretch beyond reason to conclude this comment translates into glorfying violence:
It's pretty weird huh? How just pointing out basic facts about the situation instead of just screeching about what a big ol meanie Israel is being gets you banned.
I hope I speak for you and myself when I say I don't want any of this shit to be happening and it's awful. My frustration is people's inability to acknowledge that Hezbollah and Hamas want it to be this way. Why are we getting banned for acknowledging what these groups are openly telling people. They want it this way!
Obligatory if Israel has committed war crimes that's bad and their actions in the West Bank are reprehensible.
I think what I was trying to get to was an evidenced based discussion that put personal discomfort over the quantum of the dead aside for a moment to try to understand more fully how this is a pot that's been simmering for decades, just boiled over now; and I cannot see any world in which it works differently, unless that world is decoupled from Realism.
This is the issue: we want restraint, but arguably Israel has been restrained (in that what we see now is Israel unrestrained). When it has gone off the leash in the past, most notably with the Osirik reactor in the early 1980s, even the US publicly censured them. And that restraint has allowed Islamist militants to embed a strategy of launching attacks from within civilian infrastructure on the cold, awful calculus that the ensuring reciprocity will kill innocents on their side and they can use it for a stunning PR campaign.
States have a fundamental right to self defence under Article 51 of the UN charter, and it's a bit rich that the UN - an organisation captured by petty grievances across most of its arms - and its Charter, which Israel largely has little regard for, is the home of this right. A state also has a duty to its citizens to protect them from conflict.
They also have obligations to follow customary international law.
What this conflict is illustrating is that substate actors who don't follow international law can wedge states into situations from which there is no clean outcome. If the argument is that Israel should show restraint or not attack if it cannot eliminate the risk of collateral damage, then it is a flawed argument because Israel cannot - and should not accept it.
If the argument is that those areas housed Islamists (and I'm grouping Gaza and Southern Lebanon together here for this one) and therefore fair game, then no because it's a very short line from that to collective punishment; to executing civilians just in case they collaborate, or executing PoWs because they're probably beyond redemption.
Where I think I sit is: morality will get itself exhausted and depressed if applied here. A pragmatic outcome is probably for Israel and the Lebanese government to pincer Hezbollah, jointly rebuild the South once they've removed that tumour, and the UAE play an enhanced role in this too so that efforts can be made to move these countries beyond the need for armies of 8th century fanatics. I would like to see surviving HAMAS, Hezbollah, and some Israeli leaders indicted by the ICC for WC and CAH after the war, but I understand that is unlikely for a variety of reasons. I think though, if you have to have awful acts, accountability afterwards takes some steps towards a sense of justice.
But we can't have these discussions because the quantum of the dead in the Lebanon conflicts with the personal values of a single mod, it seems, who uses the rules to arbitrate on comments that do not align with their personal values. But to do that, that mod has fallen into the classic trap of dividing the world into two camps, flushing nuance down the toilet, and saying - Dubya style - if you don't agree with their POV you must be against it entirely. Therefore, if you don't unequivocally condemn Israel you must glorify the violence they perpetrate.
The comment I made did not glorify a single violent act. It was unfair and inaccurate to say otherwise.
Forbidding collateral damage which is excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated is in fact black-letter law in the Geneva Convention. If you think that demolishing 48 villages, letting 16,500 acres burn, and making sure 270,000 people cannot return to their homes is not excessive, you need to make that argument. The surrounding "context" that does not directly relate to the expected concrete and direct military advantage is irrelevant to that argument. Irrelevant, that is, unless the argument is instead that some war crimes are justified by the situation around them. And I think the mods are entirely correct to view any form of "Hamas Israel had no other option" as exactly that.
If you think that demolishing 48 villages, letting 16,500 acres burn, and making sure 270,000 people cannot return to their homes is not excessive, you need to make that argument.0
I didn't get to make any argument, a trigger happy succmod "YIKES'd!" their way into assuming intent and moderated according to personal beliefs.
The surrounding "context" that does not directly relate to the expected concrete and direct military advantage is irrelevant to that argument.
With respect it is because it provides an explainer - not justification - into why Israel acts as it does. Reducing someone to the level of a cartoon pastiche is silly and unproductive; moreover, it leaves you at a disadvantage trying for serious analysis.
I am not litigating right or wrong here. I am trying to provide a casus belli from the Israeli perspective because without understanding it we cannot contextualise events. I also don't need to casus belli up Hezbollah - "Islamist bullshit" does the job well.
Irrelevant, that is, unless the argument is instead that some war crimes are justified by the situation around them. And I think the mods are entirely correct to view any form of "Hamas Israel had no other option" as exactly that.
I did suggest warrants would be a nice-to-have resolution, only because I feel there is slim chance of that happening.
But no, it's not to say they're justified. It's to suggest they are perhaps inevitable given the tactics, history, and course of events that precede them. Hence the point about restraint; Israel has, it would argue, shown restraint and that has just made the situation worse.
Because I cannot see a situation in which an Israel does nothing when it's got Hezbollah periodically lobbing missiles at them and preparing for other strikes. October 7 exposed some weaknesses in Israel (and if Haaretz was to be believed, Bibi dismissed warnings about weakness as elitist IDF officers who disliked him politically...) and there will be no appetite to let Hezbollah wander in and rape, murder, and kidnap.
I think the biggest issue here, besides a moderator inappropriately applying their values to rules, is that in trying to make sense of it people are inserting an enjoyment of the situation to it. But that's dangerous too, because the world is not itself absent of nuance. Making sense of the why is not the same as endorsing it. I would very much prefer not to see such wanton destruction, but I feel the problem is we continue to focus all attention Israeli conduct which allows the likes of HAMAS and Hezbollah to escape any blame that they richly earned.
Someone making a purely intellectual argument about the need for strategic empathy for Hamas is already begging to be banned by a mod. If half the mods give them a pass because it was borderline, the other half won’t.
I don't think people actively make a case for strategic empathy. It's just that they're unaware of the extent to which HAMAS has identified the opportunity for serious PR wins and they believe, sometimes rightly sometimes wrongly, that Israel should be held to higher standards by virtue of being a liberal democracy, and not a terrorist organisation.
This creates a double standard by which HAMAS largely escapes the ire they richly deserve for wasting innocent lives on both sides, because of a belief - a strange belief - that any letup in the criticsm of Israel, even to criticise right wing Islamofascist theocratic bigots - would be to be tacit in Israel's actions. So nuance dies for some hyperconformist position which basically exists to make people half a world away feel less helpless. Another way it manifests is bans like mine.
I also note in this wider conversation, I made the point that the government in Beiruit has not got control over the south and does not want to see its territory used as a staging ground for attacks on Israel. In the absence of governmental control and an undiluted appetite from Hezbollah, I asked what else Israel could do apart from basically accept the attacks. This should point to good faith engagement too, not a glorification of violence. I had a reply open which I lost when I found out about the ban, when it was said "not raze Southern Lebanon". Since I think Poobix has this idea people might be celebrating ethnic cleansing (and let's question if a mod's understanding of intent should trump the actions of the posters, another time), I wrote but could not share: "The reality is I don't know that there is a viable approach that any reasonable person would call tenable. It's degrees of utterly awful. This is why I think the Saudis and Emirati wanted Israel to put a permanent end to the MB-aligned HAMAS, per Woodward's book "War". Because elimination is the only way they will stop attacking and trying to have their own people killed in reciprocal attacks. The biggest threat to the people of Southern Lebanon is Hezbollah; of that we probably all agree. But I genuinely cannot see how you can reason with death cults, and I don't know that Israel hasn't already tried to lower civ casualties like they did in Gaza. I'm just reminded of Golda Meir's comment, modified for this: about how when they love their own people more than they hate Jews, we'll see peace."
So after seeing further edits, I get what you think you were trying to prevent p00bix, but I'm not taking the stance you think on this. 3 years on, Iran's emboldened, America's weaker, Russia's stronger... a bit over it all. Not going to play the terminally online revolutionary any time soon sorry.
Once again, it's because you are playing coy in an attempt to support ethnic cleansing. I know you know what Hezbollah is, so by asking "Why is Israel in Lebanon?" in response to "Israel is committing genocide/ethnic cleansing against Shia in Lebanon" you are clearly trying to prompt the response of "to stop Hezbollah," and then use that response to justify Israel's actions.
We all know what you're doing by "just asking questions," and I know you understand why you got banned.
All I was trying to do was see if that commentator even knew the bare minimum. There is nothing wrong with doing that.
If that's ban worthy then your account should be launched into the sun with your cute, coy "Israel delenda est" and referring to them as Nazi-esque. You either don't know how bad Hitler and the Nazi regime was or you're just playing games.
I always thought it was assumed that anyone posting here knows what Hezbollah
is.
And yeah, I'll admit I've taken my opposition to Israel to far at times, but I don't know how you can look at Ben-Gvir and not point out the obvious. I mean, even Israelis have compared their far-right to the Nazis. Remember the Springtime for Hitler parody with Ben-Gvir?
Most people know dick all about these groups, their motivations, and the broader history of the region.
If you want to compare Ben-Gvir and Smotrich's rhetoric to Nazi-esque language that's fine. I'd agree. Neither of those guys are in charge of the military. The same military is more than capable enough of actually genociding the Gazans and/or driving them out. They could have killed the the current number of deaths in the first few hours of the war easy. The quote mining doesn't match the actions.
I have zero issues believing Israel has committed war crimes. I'd want the US to leverage against them to reduce that and push to punish bad actors. My frustration is people ignoring that Hamas wants it to be this way and they openly tell you this and people ignore that fact. It's fucked.
Can’t see who I was actually responding to but gave one above for some context. Basically the most bland and common neoliberal position I could imagine and got banned for it lol
You were not banned for supporting Israel bud, way more the “the only reason for its existence is to destabilize and destroy Israel”
Yeah lots of Palestinian leadership, especially Hamas, focus on that heavily, but you’re implying the only reason that Palestinians and their government exist is just to oppose Israel and as if they don’t have their own right to exist otherwise.
If I was implying that Palestinians only existed to destabilize Israel than why not provide my full quote? Where I clearly say Palestinian leadership not Palestinians? A neoliberal isn’t allowed to hate Palestinian leadership and call them out for not having the interests of Palestinians in mind? I want what is best for Palestinians, which is leadership that supports and advocates for them and doesn’t see them as a pawn in their game of chess with Israel. I say the same about Israel and how they treat non Israeli Palestinians.
I don't know why you are grimacing. Hamas is clear about its goals. They tell you this and you refuse to listen. There will never be peace with leadership like that.
Obligatory that doesn't mean Israel should commit war crimes.
If Hamas isn't interested in peace then why should Israel be? You can't have peace unilaterally.
Pre October 7th restrictions were being lifted on the blockade, more work permits were being issued, fishing zones were expanded, and the red line around border was shrinking. Life was getting better for Gazans. Things were trending in the right direction. They were infinitely closer to a two state and peace than they are now.
If it makes it easier for you to just pretend Israel has always wanted this outcome then just go comment in the dozens of other subs or platforms were people will tell you how brave and handsome you are for parroting the usual talking points with zero knowledge of the region. If I needed the equivalent of a sleep aid I can go read your opinion a million times over on Tik-Tok for example.
The person you are defending believes that palestinians exist solely to be a wedge issue for israel. That our inherent existence is antisemitc is something I heard more than you’d believe. That us dying and being treated like shit since my great grandfathers time is something we caused ourselves just to make the world hate israel.
And yes. Things where so good before oct/7 for palestinians! So fucking well that my cousin 17 yearold cousin was bombed and burned alive in 2021.
You’re literally so in it you have no idea why what Op said is offensive, you’re just taking the side that says Palestinians hate their children and have no reason to exist.
I wasn't defending him so much as I was explaining why I got banned. I support a two state solution and I want peace and prosperity for Israelis and Palestinians. I don't think any of these people are inherently evil. I don't really care if you're Palestinian and if want to know my stance on something just ask. If it's easier to pretend I'm a genocide loving Zionazi then I appreciate it but I'm already tired and I don't need anymore sleep aid.
I didn’t say I said it I said I support it’s right to exist, two different things. What I said was that Palestinian leadership doesn’t want peace but wants to destabilize and destroy Israel, a common view among neoliberals who believe Israel has the right to exist.
I do not agree this comment is glorifying violence, I explicitly stated that I do not agree with destroying the Lebanese villages but added more context around the other tacts Israel has tried in southern Lebanon
Enough with the diplomatics. Fuck the American poasters (except a few who are cool). Genuinely the most self-obsessed poasters I've had the displeasure of experiencing.
Anyway, I'm going to actually go now (sorry if this is spam, I just needed to get it off my chest).
I'm not sure I get what you mean? If you mean I'm being xenophobic to Americans then maybe its true in that I shouldn't make sweeping accusations. It's just hard for me to bother with being sensitive about it because they already own the sub anyway so what do they care what a rando is shouting.
It's a bit outrageous that US citizenship can be stripped in a civil case
-Trojan_Horse_of_Fate (+1 point)
Well, from a sort of technical standpoint, it's not really stripping it. And unlike most civil cases, there's usually a higher evidentiary requirements beyond the preponderance of evidence, because the consequences of denaturalization are higher. Which is why, for example, you can't just be denaturalized from a default judgment, for example. In practice, while it is civil, you probably shouldn't think of it as a regular civil trial. And the reason it's not criminal is simply because it's not, from a strict standpoint, a criminal punishment. Because these denaturalizations are not actually the government punishing you, they're the government fixing mistakes, right? They're not depriving you of citizenship. They are correcting themselves for granting citizenship
To me this makes a lot more sense than treating it as criminal because by and large you probably don't want every time the government says that they incorrectly assign someone a benefit, the removal of that benefit to be considered criminal punishment. Citizenship is obviously more important than almost any other thing that the government confers upon people, which is why it's held to a higher standard than those other types of removals by the courts, but it's fundamentally not criminal in nature because the government isn't punishing you with criminal sanctions
-el_dandy (Moderator, +1 point)
Rule XI: Toxic Nationalism/Regionalism
Refrain from condemning countries and regions or their inhabitants at-large in response to political developments, mocking people for their nationality or region, or advocating for colonialism or imperialism.
If you have any questions about this removal, please contact the mods.
Can I get an explanation for this? Because it seems fairly odd to call this Toxic Nationalism unless we are banning literally everyone for stating what nationality law is in countries around the world.
ive restored it. looks like its responding to this report, which then frames it as "downplaying stripping citizenship" instead of "justifying civil over criminal procedure"
The irony is I actually have complex views on birthright citizenship, particularly for people who hold multiple passports. My children are going to have a lot of citizenships when they're born. And I do sometimes worry that might not be the best thing
I generally favor the New Zealand model, which is that it does eventually terminate, passing down down a line, and for the people born in New Zealand, you get at least the highest of the parents. I don't think this matters as much for America because America is so big and its culture is so prevalent but my views really shook after meeting someone who was born in New Zealand and got a passport that way before we reformed I think in 2005 and he didn't realize New Zealand had a PM not a president.
When I invited the guy to come to a Waitangi Day BBQ, he didn't even show up.
Really, the main problem with the US system isn't birthright citizenship. It's that we just don't process people and that we have long-standing people who are not holding valid visas and we don't have a pathway for them, which isn't really a birthright problem
I mean, what we really need to do is just periodically do citizenship jubilees Or just, you know, process applications in a timely manner and allow the right number of people into the country
•
u/mostanonymousnick Mod May 28 '26
Appeal if you were censored for your neoliberal beliefs