can confirm, i was already banned on there, and in return blocked the community, i have no interst in biased censorship filled communities

power mods gonna power mod.

as in be unhinged weirdos who can't tolerate anything they disagree with

I'm a bit torn on your comment. I agree that many misuse the term 'Islamophobia' to describe legitimate criticism of Islam. But I've also seen truly 'Islamophobic bigotry' firsthand so I'm not sure I can agree it's not or shouldn't be a 'legitimate' term for those cases just because it's misused in others.

Its more objective criticism of governments and cultural practices that happen to be islamic is not islamophobia. There is absolutely real prejudice by people against others who practice specific faiths and cultural practices.

That was the original definition of islamophbia, we shouldn't give up the definition because abusers and tyrants are using it as a shield or else they'll just hide behind the next word we choose to describe prejudice against a community.

Islamophobia just means bigotry against Muslims and it's perfectly legitimate and often apt.

This whole routine about calling Muhammad a pedo or the Koran "the mother-load of bad ideas" was cute back in 2012, but it tunes out that the bad ideology in danger of being legitimized was reactionary politics in the skeptic community.

I don't think that some misuse of a term means the term itself is terrible and invalid and should be opposed at all costs.

Because despite the misuses, islamaphobia doesn't mean "blasphemy" or even that no one can ever say anything negative about Islam. What it does mean, and what it is used for, is as a general descriptor for the propagation of bigotry or hatred, when the propagation of hatred is often actively trying to masquerade as "legitimate criticism" or mere blasphemy.

If I say that the “prophet” Muhammad is a pedophile for raping a 9 year old girl or that the Quran is comparable to Mein Kampf, those offended should not have the ability to silence me with the bogus “islamophobia” excuse.

Depending on a lot more context than is provided here, that "islamophobia excuse" may or may not be particularly bogus.

If someone is going to insist that it is their absolute right to inject "Muhammud is a pedophile" into any and all discussions even vaguely touching on Islam, I'm going to question the motives of that behaviour pattern. I don't think someone would be unreasonable to note that it sure seems like the goal is a lot more to either antagonize muslims or to slant perceptions of the faith, given how out of pocket the remarks are to the room, or how persistent the focus on spreading that exact take might be.

I think that comparing Quaran to Mein Kampf is ... a little above and beyond. I personally wouldn't have cited that as if it were a clearly innocuous remark I wanted community support towards legitimizing. I don't think the fact that you chose Quaran instead of Bible or Torah makes it worse - I think it's just being shitty and insensitive towards multiple groups of people all at once no matter what 'sacred' text you're choosing. In that light, though, I don't think another person would necessarily be wildly out of line to question the choice to target the Quaran specifically, and doubly so if - perhaps - the account making those remarks has a pattern of targeting Islam with provocative or negative behaviour.

Being a bigot against Muslims is one thing, but to try to infer that not respecting their beliefs is necessary being a bigot to them is laughable.

Worth pointing out - that's not what "they" are saying. It's not that anyone who doesn't always respect their beliefs on their terms is a bigot.

What they are saying is actually the reverse: That many bigoted people act on their bigotry by disrespecting their beliefs - and most bigots won't admit to their bigotry. A pattern of behavior that leans in one specific direction that happens to look a lot like the bigots and isn't very worried about not looking like a bigot is generally just ... actually a bigot.

I don't know how to tell which it was. I just found it in the mod log but can't see who.

EDIT: I filtered by mods of World News and I'm pretty sure @Newsman is the mod who banned me. Their mod activity history paints a pretty clear picture of their bias.

Yeah the ban said 'trolling, islamophobia' but the comment removal said 'rule 3' which is 'Respectful Engagement: Keep it civil!'.

I guess if that comment wasn't civil enough I don't belong in that community. In my book civility is about how you address individuals. I was just expressing frustration at the entire idea of 'holy books'.

But the trolling accusation seems pretty silly and islamophobic is just absurd.

Still better I think, but it'll never be perfect and developing policies\code to make it better still will take time.

I agree about permabans, maybe it should take a mod+admin in agreement to permaban.

I don't see why its not like blocking. List of users that have engaged on the site with little circles with a slash that can be white or red.

bans can be reverted on Lemmy, I've seen that happen in modlogs

*you're

Actually I've been forced to do what a 'holy book' said because a holy book said it, so I reserve, and actually relish the right to say 'fuck holy books' whenever the subject comes up in a public forum.

Also not an athiest, or agnostic since that'll be your second guess. But to reiterate- super mega fuck all holy books.