this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2026

15 points (56.4% liked)

Ye Power Trippin' Bastards

1879 readers

5 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:

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

Rules

Post only about bans or other sanctions that you have received from a mod or admin.
Don’t use private communications to prove your point. We can’t verify them and they can be faked easily.
Don’t deobfuscate mod names from the modlog with admin powers.
Don’t harass mods or brigade comms. Don’t word your posts in a way that would trigger such harassment and brigades.
Do not downvote posts if you think they deserved it. Use the comment votes (see below) for that.
You can post about power trippin’ in any social media, not just lemmy. Feel free to post about reddit or a forum etc.
If you are the accused PTB, while you are welcome to respond, please do so within the relevant post.
Keep the comments in YPTB posts about the moderation action itself, not about the general topic in which the moderation took place.

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.

PTB - Power-Tripping Bastard: The commenter agrees with you this was a PTB mod.
YDI - You Deserved It: The commenter thinks you deserved that mod action.
YDM new - You Deserved More: The commenter thinks you got off too lightly.
BPR - Bait-Provoked Reaction: That mod probably overreacted in charged situation, or due to being baited.
CLM - Clueless Mod: The mod probably just doesn't understand how their software works.

Relevant comms

!fediverselore@lemmy.ca

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com

Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com

unruffled@anarchist.nexus

Banned from multiple communities for saying incest shouldn't be a crime (between consenting adults) (lemmy.today)

submitted 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) by Wren@lemmy.today to c/yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com

182 comments fedilink hide all child comments

This is going to be a fun one.

So here are the facts:

I commented on a news article about a mother and adult son charged with incest (and adultery as well for her.) This is what I said:

Someone responded to me and I replied before I realized my original comment was removed for being inappropriate. Then I added the edit when I saw.

The next day I discovered I'd been banned from that community for "pro-incest comments" and several others I don't think I've ever been in for rule 4 violations. The orignal post was removed.

You can see those here:

Site rule 4 is: Usernames or posts/comments containing transphobia, homophobia, sexism, racism, ableism, zionism, anti-veganism, or trivializing COVID. No self-described or obvious fascists, conservatives, or reactionaries.

My comments had none of those things. I'd even go so far as to say my banning was reactionary.

Now, I'm not defending incest, especially not for myself. My problem is with puritanical laws interfering with the private sex lives of people. In my original comment I stated that grooming was a separate issue and should be dealt with, but that there is nothing inherently wrong with incest. That is, enthusiastic consensual sex between capable adults.

I know someone will bring up the Hapsburgs, so yes, children of incest should be avoided.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 day ago

It really sucks when mods decide to interpret rules overbroadly

[–] elevenbones@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 days ago

What a divisive issue lol

[–] MrOtingocni@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago

I like how as soon as anyone sets foot in this thread to make a statement they are immediately sucked into a long winded argument.

[–] Susaga@sh.itjust.works 79 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (97 children)

Leaving aside whether the rule was the right one to use, I will stress that, when it comes to incest, the power dynamics in play make consent dubious at best. This is doubly so for parent/child incest, such as the case you were talking about.

This is a weird hill. Are you sure you want to die on it?

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 days ago

Yeah, cousins, or even siblings potentially, I don't see too much of an issue with morally, but parents I'm going to draw a line. I'm very permissive on what people should be allowed to do. There's no way to have even power dynamics in a parent relationship though. Even anything to do with inbreeding aside, assuming it isn't even possible, that relationship can never be fair. (This includes step-parents, as much as porn loves to use the trope, because it's easy to write.)

load more comments (96 replies)

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 10 points 3 days ago (11 children)

What a deeply weird post and thread. It seems like a lot of people somehow think the idea that incest is bad is only related to religious beliefs. I don't really care if it is even considered bad by religions (I'm not even certain it is), because it's bad for obvious reasons that have not a damn thing to do with religion. I had no idea so many people would argue in favor of incest.

[–] cosmos8188@leminal.space 4 points 2 days ago (2 children)

..Which is extremely problematic - but not because OP did X or y, but because this community is about power tripping bastard mods not OPs morality.

That is the weird bit, and it proves that this community isn't what's promised.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (10 replies)

[–] tyranny@crazypeople.online 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

hi pal, i want to preface this by saying I'm with you, both because punishment is worse than crime, and because arguing about genetics presumes everyone is heterosexual. my reasons aren't really important though. i really hope you find community, offline or on, that respects you and bigs you up. I'm watching you fighting with these people who want nothing better than to call you a rape-lover, and i really want better for you. i want you to be able to express yourself and spread your philosophical wings without being piled on or called names. i hope you find kinder ecosystems. big up yourself in the meantime 👍

[–] Wren@lemmy.today 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I appreciate that. I like Lemmy for the most part, and the response is pretty much what I expected.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] cerebralhawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com 37 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

PTB. Ban doesn’t fit the rule.

I don’t agree with OP’s position, but that isn’t the subject of this thread. The ban is. And I don’t think it’s justified.

[–] Susaga@sh.itjust.works 17 points 4 days ago (7 children)

The ban fits the spirit, if not the letter, in a sort of "we didn't think we needed to specify a dog can't play basketball" situation. I suspect the wording of the rule will be changed to reflect this.

load more comments (7 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] MehBlah@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

I guess but ewwwww.

[–] Fleur_@aussie.zone 24 points 3 days ago

You chose to die on the mums can fuck sons hill idk what to tell you man XD

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

People clutch their pearls. With certain topics, a lot of people are incapable of nuance.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 26 points 4 days ago (12 children)

I said this below, but i think it requires visibility.. you people are just missing the actual problem:

just so you fully understand...

everyone is consenting adults

incest cannot be about 'consenting adults' because those adults psychology are incredibly intertwined, and the decision to perform the incest cannot be held separately form those relationships.

its a power dynamic tangential to rape, and the only people 'pro-consenting-adult incest' are completely ignorant of the actual issue.

there is no such thing as a 'healthy' sexual relationship with regards to incest, hence its illegality.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 10 points 3 days ago

incest cannot be about ‘consenting adults’ because those adults psychology are incredibly intertwined, and the decision to perform the incest cannot be held separately form those relationships.

Not every incestuous relationship fits that description. Two half-siblings of the same sperm donor don't share any of the problematic psychologies you describe.

there is no such thing as a ‘healthy’ sexual relationship with regards to incest, hence its illegality.

I just described one. Any number can exist. Criminalizing the parties in the situation I described is fundamentally unjust.

The problem you're describing isn't actually one of incest. The problem you are describing is one of a power imbalance significant enough to justify stripping one of the parties of their personal agency with regard to consent. While the scenario you describe does call for the state to so deeply tread upon the individuality of this person, it is not their biological kinship that justifies this intrusion. It is the power imbalance between them; the exploitation by the social superior against a subjugated inferior.

load more comments (11 replies)

[–] zeppo@lemmy.world 15 points 4 days ago

on hexbear? well yeah, fuck that

[–] Zamboni_Driver@lemmy.ca 12 points 4 days ago (1 children)

It's only a 7 day ban.

I'm not sure how grooming could possibly be made illegal.

I agree that maybe siblings could consent to healthy sexual relationships as adults. It's gross to me but doesn't need to be illegal.

I don't agree that parents and children fucking eachother should be legal. Parents are the guardians and protectors of their own children. That role doesn't end when a child transitions to being an adult. I think it would be nearly impossible to micromanage a relationship in order to determine that grooming took place, better for society to just make it illegal for parents to ever fuck their children.

I think that it's appropriate that you're being muted for a week for repeatedly defending the right of a parent to fuck their child.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Social media principle #1: "Questioning any aspect or detail of the Right side means you're on the Wrong side."

[–] Wren@lemmy.today 1 points 2 days ago

Nope, no nuanced opinions allowed.

load more comments