this post was submitted on 14 Feb 2026
-2 points (46.9% liked)

Ye Power Trippin' Bastards

1802 readers
3 users here now

This is a community in the spirit of "Am I The Asshole" where people can post their own bans from lemmy or reddit or whatever and get some feedback from others whether the ban was justified or not.

Sometimes one just wants to be able to challenge the arguments some mod made and this could be the place for that.

Posting Guidelines

All posts should follow this basic structure:

  1. Which mods/admins were being Power Tripping Bastards?
  2. What sanction did they impose (e.g. community ban, instance ban, removed comment)?
  3. Provide a screenshot of the relevant modlog entry (don’t de-obfuscate mod names).
  4. Provide a screenshot and explanation of the cause of the sanction (e.g. the post/comment that was removed, or got you banned).
  5. Explain why you think its unfair and how you would like the situation to be remedied.

Rules

Expect to receive feedback about your posts, they might even be negative.

Make sure you follow this instance's code of conduct. In other words we won't allow bellyaching about being sanctioned for hate speech or bigotry.

YPTB matrix channel: For real-time discussions about bastards or to appeal mod actions in YPTB itself.

Some acronyms you might see.

Relevant comms

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com
unruffled@anarchist.nexus
-2
FlipAnarchy: Insults don't belong in rules (multiverse.soulism.net)
submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by Grail@multiverse.soulism.net to c/yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com
43 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Rule 7 of !flippanarchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com is:

No shaming people for being anti-electoralism. This should be obvious from the above point but apparently we need to make it obvious to the turbolibs who can’t control themselves. You have the rest of lemmy to moralize.

I think a community with an ideology is a fine thing, and rules that prevent people with opposing ideologies from taking over the conversation are a good idea. FlipAnarchy's rules 3, 4, and 6 are well designed to accomplish this goal and I like them. And I've even taken a little inspiration from lemmy.dbzer0.com when I designed My instance's rule 2, which limits authoritarianism on the site, sometimes in a way that ruffles outsiders' jimmies - I once got a 2 day ban from .ca for reporting a screenshot of a post by someone named "princess". I was marking the post for later deletion because we don't want content from hereditary monarchist users, and the .ca admins didn't get it. My anarchism was a bit too radical for them to understand.

Anyway, FlipAnarchy rule 3 targets "right-wing" and "anarcho-capitalist" posts. Good, these are well-defined labels for ideological opponents to anarchism. Rule 4 targets "redfash", which is a lot looser, but fortunately comes with a well-reasoned explanation why tankies are not welcome. Rule 6 warns people who aren't "anarchist", and again we have some well designed rules here, very clear on who they're aimed at.

Rule 7 is a bit different. The tone of this rule is a lot angrier than the rest, and it being the last, it's easy to imagine that it was written in haste after the community mod became frustrated by posts that didn't break the rules, but weren't welcome. I think it's time to give this rule another pass to polish it up to the same spec as the other rules.

Sentence A of this rule is pretty clear, so far off to a good start.

Sentence B... is where it all goes wrong. It's saying no shaming people for anti-electoralism should be obvious based on rule 6, which says it's an anarchist community. But I'm an anarchist and I don't see how this rule is obvious. I think there's a lot of ongoing debate between anarchists about when voting is appropriate and necessary. Sentence B continues by calling everyone who breaks this rule a "turbolib".

Sentence C says "you have the rest of lemmy to moralize", but who is "you"? Is it the turbolibs? Are anarchists allowed to moralize on this community? Are they allowed to moralize if they disagree with db0's personal opinion?

This rule reads as angry, and defensive, and targeted at a particular idea of a rulebreaker in the moderator's head. What are the boundaries of the rule as they apply to people who don't fit this idea? Anarchists like Myself, who are not electoralist, but are pro-voting? Unclear until we see the rule in action.

So let's see the rule in action.

Removed Comment You've got to be kidding me. The fact that an anarchist sub moderated by a libertarian socialist has that rule is really shameful and embarrassing. by Guy Ingonito@reddthat.com
reason: Rule 7

This Guy doesn't look like a "turbolib" to Me, they look like a fellow anarchist annoyed by the way this rule appears to insult them.

Removed Comment "Dems never learn! That's why we need to withhold our vote to teach them a lesson!" by PugJesus@lemmy.world
reason: Rule 7

Okay, I know PugJesus, and he's no turbolib. He leans centrist on gender issues, but he's also done a lot to oppose redfash ideology on Lemmy and PieFed, he has a clear understanding of communist ideology and would seem to be exactly the sort this community should welcome.

Banned
TrickDacy
@lemmy.world
from the community Flippanarchy
reason: Too many rule 7 violations to deal with manually

TrickDacy moderates !fuck_ai@lemmy.world, a very radical community.

Removed Post Communists vs Tankies on voting
reason: Rule 7

Well surely a post that portrays communists and tankies as ideologically opposed must be anarchist! I refuse to believe the OP of this is a turbolib! (it Me)

I'm cherry-picking, to be sure. There are plenty of instances of this rule in action where the target was someone who I would be willing to agree is indeed a turbolib, even if I wouldn't personally use that wording. But this rule isn't just for them, it's also for anarchists who simply don't agree with db0 on the best way forward in our current political situation. And we've got Marx quotes to back us up and everything, if you really need to test our ideological purity.

So this rule should be changed in one of two ways: It should either be reworded to stop insulting anarchists and make it clear that this is a point the moderator is unwilling to compromise on, OR it should be revised to only target neoliberals, and allow us anarchists to speak freely on this debate.

Until one of those two changes is made, the rule is currently abusing moderator authority to present a personal opinion, controversial within the community, as the only truth of anarchism. And that's not very anarchist.

all 45 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

This post doesn't belong in YPTB. YPTB is about showing moderator overreach, not about trying to convince to to change the rules of communities. Such a post would be fitting somewhere like !div0@lemmy.dbzer0.com

I'm leaving this just locked as it's tangentially related.

[–] brunchyvirus@fedia.io 15 points 5 months ago (1 children)

sounds like it's anarchy over there

[–] anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Petition to amend rule 7 to read 'dont be an electoralist twat' so that it's even more insulting to turbolibs

I dont think You're the type of anarchist You believe Yourself to be, if this rule offends You.

[–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net -5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

A lot of these comments that are being removed under the rule aren't even breaking it. A lot of these comments are saying "The Republicans are doing bad things and we should try to stop them", and this opinion is being construed as anti-electoralist and "turbolib". However, if a person disagrees with the statement "The Republicans are doing bad things and we should try to stop them", I must question whether they are in fact the "turbolib". I have seen plenty of radical centrist and redfash takes from non-voters in !flippanarchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com. For example, I saw a comment in which a person called Kamala Harris (a black woman) by "it" pronouns, because she worked as a prosecuting attorney. That is the kind of mixing of extreme left and extreme right positions that tends to characterise radical centrism. Fortunately, the user was banned.

[–] anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Anarchism views hierarchy as inherent in both parties - those comments are rulebreaking because they ignore that distinction.

You can disagree with that analysis, but You can't wield it like a cudgel in an anarchist space.

There arent any rules against claiming the anarchist label, but when there's this much of a disconnect it becomes pretty hard to recognize it as legitimate

[–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net -2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

They don't ignore that distinction, they're just not about that distinction. It isn't relevant to the conversations going on in the posts I quoted. But Unruffled quoted a post elsewhere in this thread that said:

I wanted the Democrats to win, even if they're shitty neoliberals

And there you have a comment that addresses the very distinction and lands firmly on the anarchist side, which was still inappropriately removed under rule 7.

[–] anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

"I wanted d party to win" is still very much being electoralist, I'm sorry to say

You've also repeatedly used the word 'neoliberal' when 'liberal' would be more accurate. Kindly fuck off

[–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It's not electoralist. Electoralism is the view that we should work towards the rule of our society through elections. I don't support elections, I merely wish to use them to delay the Furher's coronation, that we might buy time to build a communist militia and escort the refugees to safety. I would see the representative democracy replaced with a highly local direct democracy, sans elections.

Your plan of abandoning the refugees and leaving the reigns of power to Trump will increase the ability of the Nazi power to influence policy through elections. Were it not the case that they seek to do away with elections and institute a dictatorship, I would say you are making elections more prominent in society, and thus are an electoralist. Fortunately for your reputation, and unfortunately for society, the fascists are on the brink of absolute power, while you sit here and play your fiddle.

So anyway, how many recruits signed up for the militia this month? We've got 3 years to get that militia ready for the revolution before Trump becomes dictator and effects martial law. I wish we had more time for revolution building, but you're too centrist.

[–] anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 5 months ago

Lmao

'It's not electoralism'

proceeds to describe an electoralist perspective

Good luck with the communist militia

[–] flamingos@feddit.uk 6 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

once got a 2 day ban from .ca for reporting a screenshot of a post by someone named “princess”. I was marking the post for later deletion because we don’t want content from hereditary monarchist users, and the .ca admins didn’t get it. My anarchism was a bit too radical for them to understand.

This gives the impression of being needlessly tedious to deal with, not radicalism.

[–] commiunism@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 5 months ago

This whole post reminds me of this old gmil comic.

When it comes to anarchism, socialism, communism and whatever, there are some positions that are a matter of principle or proven by analysis, thus aren't merely subject of "opinions" else it goes against those analyses completely without any substance. Imagine one day some self proclaimed anarchist going "all bourgeois nation states are legitimate and should continue to rule forever because they sometimes give treats to the workers they exploit, viva il duce!" then once called out they'd go "it's just an opinion bro" - it would be ridiculous, wouldn't it?

Imma be blunt, but a turbolib is an apt description of you given the removed memes you posted recently - someone who's deep in the capitalist superstructures and just parroting their talking points without much thought, but cloaking themselves under some "radical" ideology (soulism is an infamous ideology shopper nonsense) to appear unique. Can't really blame you - we've all been there, and the best way out of it is to either stop pretending, read actually good theory to understand the world better or just grow out of it.

[–] Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

DickTasty and SubJesus are the worst possible examples someone could make to illustrate this point.

The other Guy, I don't know much about, but he was breaking the rule. You only showed one of his removed comments. This comment was a blatant violation of rule 7, and the user is a self-described [liberal] progressive, so 🤷 I guess.

I'll also just point out that there is no barrier for anyone to open up an Anarcho-Electoralist community. Personally I like the rule in place, it stops the community from being swamped by libs during the US election cycle. Why should we all have to suffer through their bullshit?

[–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net -4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

That comment you screenshat isn't a turbolib comment at all. That comment explicitly calls the Dems "shitty neoliberals". The part of the comment you take offence at can be, I believe, fairly described as "pointing out a bad thing the Republicans did and asking you to do something about it". And I think that's a valid point. The Republicans do bad things! We should all do something about it!

If the revolution succeeds and America becomes a communist co-op, great! I would love that to happen! But American communists aren't making much progress, so I think it's far more likely that the end of all this fascism will only come after WW3. And even if the revolution succeeds, there are people who already died because of this bad thing the Republicans did. I don't like it when innocents die, I want to try and save everyone. That's not the opinion of a turbolib, it's the opinion of a decent person.

And as for PugJesus, well I know he's a transphobe, but he's far less problematic about it than the lady who was in this thread earlier calling Me subhuman filth. You should ban her for transphobia if you're such a radical. She's banned from Blahaj, she's banned from MULTIVERSE. Is dbzer0 too liberal to ban a transphobe who called a black woman "it"?

[–] HuntressHimbo@lemmy.zip 5 points 5 months ago

Rule 7 is a bit different. The tone of this rule is a lot angrier than the rest, and it being the last, it's easy to imagine that it was written in haste after the community mod became frustrated by posts that didn't break the rules, but weren't welcome. I think it's time to give this rule another pass to polish it up to the same spec as the other rules.

It is easy to imagine, but is that what happened? Doesn't lend much credence to have to invent context to support a view. Also frankly the example users chosen here are exactly why that rule needs to be there.

[–] turdas@suppo.fi 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

mucho texto

[–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

tl;dr: db0 uses the rules to insult anarchists who disagree with him and present his opinion as the only anarchist truth

[–] cassandrafatigue@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 5 months ago

Untrue. Insults turbolibs.

Or if true, not at evidence here.

[–] cassandrafatigue@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Counterpoint:

Turbolibs who cannot shut the fuck up about the elections they lose so masterfully anf blaming theor spectacular failures on everyone else ruin every space. You cannot have a discussion with them around and they need to be banned.

I have had more productive conversations with a literal nazi who was trying to surround me in a dark alley while we talked. At least the nazi could run with a bit.

[–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I do believe there's a good version of this rule that prevents neoliberals from dominating the space, but right now db0 is using this rule to call fellow anarchists "turbolibs" for disagreeing with their personal opinions, with the weight of the modlog behind them. We need to work out what to do about the anarchists who are being called turbolibs.

[–] cassandrafatigue@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

I don't realky care. I don't really want to talk electoralism and genuinely the shitlibs have scared me off voting forever. I don't want to discuss it and im not eager to waste bandwidth+screen space seeing it discussed. It's genuinely slightly triggeting for me, and I'm clearly not the only one.

So what anount of care is owed to people like me? Can you tag every thread you've hijacked for your boot licking? Current policy works for me.

[–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net -4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I'm sorry, but the hottest two posts on that community right now, with 446 and 370 upvotes respectively, are about electoralism. The users on that community want to talk about electoralism. Lemmy as a whole is boosting the posts on that community which are about electoralism. And those posts aren't breaking the rules as they currently exist.

If you wanted to suggest revising the rule to some form of "electoralism is a banned subject, do not attack or invalidate your fellow anarchists for their pro- or anti- electoralist views and do not post about the subject", I would 100% support you in pushing for that change, and I would be very happy with the result, because I also dislike these shit-stirring posts that drive a wedge through the most controversial issue in the community and I think the debate is played out at this point. So it seems you and I have something in common there.

Also, *You. I use capitalised pronouns in all three grammatical persons.

[–] cassandrafatigue@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I don't care about anti electoralist positions. Those donct trigger me.

I clicked on one of thoss posts im pretty sure it's about how rabidly shitlibs do this.

Feels like you're arguing in bad faith here. Electoralists are scum. I'm not interested in hearing their bullshit even if they are 'fellow anarchists' and I'm not tribal enough to privilege somevody's bad idea just because others would put us in the same broad political category.

This rule easily shuts down the turbolibs, makes clear who it's talking about, and makes subhuman filth who feel entitled to rehash their bullshit in every space feel unwelcome. It's a good one and nothing you've said has read to me as anything but 'we should have sympathy for shitlibsamirite fellow kids?'.

[–] MysticMushroom1776@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 5 months ago

I think it gets the point across, they really don't want people promoting electoralism there, and they really don't want people shamed for being against it either. If it offends you, maybe you should reflect on why. if it applies to you maybe that community isn't for you.

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today -3 points 5 months ago

ive seen some tankies in some of the posts, so i thought it was wierd.