For context, I talked about on a gaming community, in regards to Discord’s digital ID mandate, that its current CEO was Israeli (likely a Crypto Jew from what I gathered). I correctly pointed this out, and got banned temporarily from that community for racism (despite being partially Ashkenazi myself).
The picture here is from a now-removed post, which I have saved, thankfully, asking if noticing what your own ethnic brethren are doing is classified as racist. It was removed for being “trolling”, though there seems to be no proof that this is the case. I was curious as to if this was the case, which was why I asked the question. However, since I capitalize my titles, I was classed as a troll, despite no proof of that whatsoever (and, it seems the mod who removed me from that community admitted by this action that I was being genuine with my question).
The post in question: https://lemmy.today/post/47486945
You reposted that Nazi “Imperium Now”'s X post with the title “Every Time”, didn’t you?Edit: No, sorry I was wrong. You commented in a thread complaining about Discord’s change to require ID:
“My producer, Neigsendoig, ditched them in 2020, seeing the writing on the wall. Its current CEO is, in fact, of Ashkenazi descent. Guess what Neigsendoig happened to be… yep, partial German-American Ashkenazi”
and
“the current Discord CEO is Israeli, and of course, Israelis don’t want to be noticed. This is why some point to them pushing digital ID”
Which I’m really struggling to interpret in any non-negative way. What does the requirement for ID on Discord have to do with the Jewish descent of the CEO? Your comments read as if that decision logically follows from them being Jews.
That’s not what happened. I simply said that the current CEO of Discord is Israeli, and on average, they tend to be practicing Jews, though they aren’t Jews by blood (Rev. 2:9, 3:9). I inferred that he was a crypto Jew, and that’s what got me kicked out for what could be implied as antisemitic, when I’m partially Semitic myself.
For your question on why Ashkenazi descent (as a partial Khazar [same thing as Ashkenazi], I don’t recommend calling us Jews, for we are not, but do lie [Rev. 2:9, 3:9]), I mentioned Bryan Lunduke, a homosexual tech reporter who’s a Khazar (and he’s right-wing), called for people who aren’t willing to give up government IDs to a site, and that also notice the behavior of the Khazars, to be classified as “bots”, simply because people are noticing Khazars and their disgusting behavior.
Buddy, you are talking like a straight-up white supremacist. It doesn’t matter what your ancestry is. Nick Fuentes is part Mexican, and he is still a white supremacist. Inb4, I am not interested in splitting hairs with you about what constitutes white supremacist language. I’m just telling you that’s why you were banned. And that shit is not going to be welcome here either. That’s my feedback. Take it or leave it. If you reply with an argument, just know that I will not read it, and I will block you.
White Supremecy (of which I’m wholly against, as with any other form) comes from Rome Papal. As I said, I’m brash with my wording, and brutally honest. If I come off the way you label me, it’s because of how I write: quick, to the point, brash, and honest with my opinions… even if they’re the hottest of takes.
Also, I absolutely despise the actions of the Jesuit homosexual in Fuentes (someone on Twitter actually pointed it out), specifically how he behaves when someone against the Church of Rome challenges him on the Vatican’s infallibility (spoiler, it isn’t infallible at all, as the Pope claims).
You used racist language and were trying to bait everyone into an argument, aka trolling. YDI
I believe this, what you are doing, is called poisoning the well.
Proof? https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Poisoning-the-Well
I get it, because I have ad moninems happen quite often. What I was asking was a legitimate question, because I wanted to know if people of one’s own ethnicity being noticed by someone of said ethnicity (i.e. a Khazar noticing the behavior of other Khazars) is considered racist.
That was all I was asking.
And, as a sidenote, I don’t fall for any Jesuit-run false dichotomy, including on the grounds of racism. I’m thick-skinned in that regard, though what grinds my gears is people being unwilling to do the research themselves despite saying they would do so. I detest deceit (113) absolutely, and that’s why I called out the logical fallacy, of which I opined, that you used.
Your fallacy would be correct if what I was saying was wrong and couldn’t be backed up with evidence. Your title used a racist term, and then your post itself was meant to be divisive.
If you want to say I pre-judged you, let’s look at your post history.
4/8 of your posts have been removed. Most of the time when something is removed you come here, complain, and then it also gets removed. You have a grand total score of -70 votes on your posts. Of your 296 comments, you’ve received roughly a 1:1 ratio of downvotes to upvotes (more downvotes btw). You are controversial to say minimally.
You poisoned your own well. Your trust is near zero here. What you do post is inflammatory, and we can tell.
Edit, because you edited, your choice of phrasing is exactly why you get removed. You choose to go out of your way to be polarizing, and these are the consequences.
Now we can get into something called the appeal to motive, of which this looks to be so.
Proof of that is this: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Ad-Hominem-Circumstantial
The reason why I speak truth to light (the way I understand it, at least), and get ratioed to hell and back, is because of the fact that I’m not willing to fallate anyone’s junk after doing my own research (heck, my memory is shoddy to the point where I have the inability to remember exactly what I researched, unless I’m reminding myself of it). Because people know this fact about me (even if they won’t admit it), mods will remove me for seemingly violating a rule (which usually isn’t the case), and they’ll tend to label me something that ends up becoming an appeal to the person, also known as damnation of the source.
That one is this page here: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Ad-Hominem-Abusive
See all of this would be true if we were in some academic argument, but you’re not. You’re not arguing for your case or facts, you’re arguing against people. People who get to define their own rules for their spaces. So, in your own vernacular, if you choose to “fallate anyone’s junk after doing my own research”, which we all know means “I want to be inflammatory and annoy people”, then you’re going to have consequences, because us people don’t want to hear it.
So, how to put this to someone who thinks we’re having some grand debate.
- Mods/admins created a space where they do not want things like racist terms.
- You used racist terms in said space and tried to incite arguments.
- Thus, mods removed your post.
- QED.
If you want to do all of that, go start your own Lemmy instance. There you can walk around and make whatever rules you want and argue with all the people who join.
The issue is, that’s not what I’m saying. If anything, what I should point out is that I’m not willing to take the Jesuit route, which is why I’m neutral on a lot of things. In other words, sucking papal pee-pee is not my goal, even though you might think that way.
That’s also why I never really attempted to say everyone in a particular ethnicity is bad (though you seem to imply that I do this, despite proof elsewhere showing I’m not).
Look, I’ll be very real with you. If you’re being honest, and I have no idea if you are or not. Whether or not you’re intending to come off that way, you are coming off that way. It does not matter at all what you intended, it’s how it’s perceived by everyone, and right now, you are not perceived well. You do not come off as neutral.
It’s mostly due to my brash wording, brutal honesty, and my black and white thinking (autism aside, that is).
