The mods of all the major communities there remove comments criticism Hexbear and usually follow it up with a ban. It’s absolutely clear what is happening and it shouldn’t be allowed to continue.

  • gedaliyah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    ·
    4 months ago

    We generally don’t consider something to be bigotry if it is directed at an ideology or behavior that people can control. Ability or disability, gender, religious/ethnic background, race, age, nationality, etc. are all factors that are beyond an individual’s control.

      • Deceptichum@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        37
        ·
        4 months ago

        Of course not. They apply their rules subjectively.

        For instance I got rule 1’d for saying “Fuck China” but I bet you, you wouldn’t get banned for saying “Fuck America” or “Fuck Israel” (fuck ‘em all imo).

        • Lemminary@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          24
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          I got rule 1 for posting an image of a yassified Patrick because I, a huge homo, may find discomfort in what gay memes I share, I guess!

        • Lath@kbin.earth
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          4 months ago

          If you have evidence of abuse and selective enforcement of the rules, show it in order to allow the admins to act on it.
          Don’t just lash out, document the exchange. Keep a record of the favouritism.

      • Lath@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 months ago

        You can try, within your interpretation of their rules. And if you get banned for that, take pictures.

    • Lath@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      Understandable, however, generalities sometimes aren’t enough in a court of law.
      The difference between the spirit and letter of the law allows for interpretations that don’t agree with each other. As we can see in this situation.

      And like it or not, this is a social court of law. Moderators and admins are judges who follow the rules and administer relative justice. You can either agree to give them the latitude to have their own interpretation of the rules as long as they stick to them, or you make concise rules that offer no room for discussion.

      You might say each instance can have its own rules and that is true, but when those written rules are the same and defederation starts to happen because there is disagreement on the meaning of those words, the “in general” part is going to be the mainstay of how rules are enforced.

      And, in general, that’s part of what causes societies to fall.