I was part of the group that got banned yesterday, and I need to apologize to you all.

I have seen people mention previously that sometimes mods take upvotes for agreement, but I haven’t trained myself to stop the reddit habit of voting on “food for thought” things, useful-addition-to-the-conversation-but-not-my-pov posts, and placemarkers in active threads, and there aren’t downvotes here to easily mark the shitty stuff I want to come back to and learn from. I should always be opening things in new tabs instead.

I foolishly upvoted this comment as a “food for thought” comment and planned to come back to the thread yesterday evening to find it and read the responses and learn from them. instead my upvote counted as agreement and got me banned, which I know is my fault for not adapting to site culture and not foreseeing how that would be interpreted.

I totally understand, feel like the worst kind of fool, and spent my ban time thinking about what a piece of shit I am. far worse than that is the thought that any of you might think I agree with that comment, so I am posting here to apologize profusely and publicly for my upvote. I’m really, truly, terribly sorry, and idk what to do to about it except fuck off and try not to be such a fuckhead in the future.

explanation (not excuse) for those who care to understand why

I live in Ohio, which is immersed in the kind of chud culture that comment was talking about – I see my formerly borderline leftist little brother slipping into it, and it kills me. it’s a point of view I remember seeing a lot when I was in DSA and not liking then, but I lack the information and wisdom to effectively articulate my problems with it. I very much want to understand what to do about it and how to talk about this stuff with people who believe it, but I get why it was offensive and shitty to mark it for myself in a way that would default mean “this is good” to others instead of pushing back on it at all or just opening it in a new tab to look at later. I’m very sorry about doing that.

I didn’t open it in a new tab because I’m pushing triple digits of tabs open and knew it would be easy to find later because the Amber bot was inflating the comment activity. I keep forgetting to be judicious with my upvotes because I’m AuDHD and unlearning a decade of reddit habits is hard.

you didn’t know that was why I upvoted it, it just looked to you like a bunch of your alleged comrades liked that post, and I was one of them. I hope you can forgive me, but I understand if it made you think differently about me. I get it, and I’m just really, really sorry.

as soon as I figured out that I was banned and why, I sent a version of this via DM from my old account to an em_poc user who is very near and dear to my heart, but I don’t feel right only apologizing to one person when so many of you could have been hurt by my upvote, hence this post. I’m sorry that my apology to the rest of you wasn’t that immediate, but I was worried that posting it from my old account would be seen as ban evasion and make my contrition seem insincere.

I appreciate very much the kindness and compassion so many of you have shown me, and it is devastating to know that I have repaid it in this way.

I’m very, very, very sorry.

please heap your scorn and excoriation here.

  • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
    24·
    18 hours ago

    I’m heading to bed but I want to bring up some lines from my boy Sun Tzu that I think can clarify my position and why I find this very concerning, but also why moderation is important and valuable.

    If soldiers are punished before they have grown attached to you, they will not prove submissive; and, unless submissive, then will be practically useless. If, when the soldiers have become attached to you, punishments are not enforced, they will still be useless.

    Therefore soldiers must be treated in the first instance with humanity, but kept under control by means of iron discipline.

    This is a certain road to victory.

    If in training soldiers commands are habitually enforced, the army will be well-disciplined; if not, its discipline will be bad.

    If a general shows confidence in his men but always insists on his orders being obeyed,

    the gain will be mutual.

    So, in this passage, he’s saying that discipline requires trust. If you try to discipline people who don’t trust you they’ll just leave, or otherwise resist. On the other hand, if you have built trust, people will accept discipline because they know you and trust that you’re using discipline as a tool that’s beneficial for everyone. People will accept a chastisement or correction from a leader if they believe in that leader. Even if they think the leader is incorrect they may accept the correction for the good of the whole group, or out of deference knowing that leaders sometimes have to act from imperfect knowledge.

    And once you do have people’s trust, discipline has to be enforced consistently. If the discipline isn’t consistent in when and how it’s applied people will not take it seriously. If they know they won’t be corrected when they have erred they will not pay attention to their errors. However, if they believe they will be corrected when they have not erred they will begin to see errors where there are none for fear of unjust punishment.

    So, when Sun Tzu says that soldiers must be treated with humanity, he’s saying that corrections must be just, consistent, and fair. But he also says that iron discipline is needed. Corrections must be applied in a consistent manner over time and across places. That way, everyone will know that they must always consider their actions, and in doing so they will cultivate discipline in themselves.

    “Habitually” is an important word choice by the translator as habits are things we do without having to think about them. This can be a positive form of self-discipline. If discipline becomes habit then when a person errs they will likely recognize their error without needing to be told. If they do not, then their comrades may notice their error and can correct them at that moment. If discipline is very consistently applied over time it will become self-reinforcing within the community. Individuals will discipline themselves and when they err their comrades will correct them. There will be less need for correction directly from leadership.

    The last line shows the importance of the lesson, which is; An organization does not consist of it’s leadership only, nor of it’s rank and file only. Both are important and their roles depend on each other. Leadership must set the example and offer correction where needed. The rank and file must adhere to discipline to maintain cohesion and create a group that can trust one another and work effectively together. If the leadership has the trust of the rank and file then the orders of the leadership will be carried out consistently. If the rank and file have the trust of the leadership then the leadership can confidently give instructions knowing that the rank and file will carry them out to the best of their ability. But this relationship is built on a foundation of mutual trust. Each must believe that the other is reliable and acting in good faith. Each must believe that the other is acting for the benefit of the group. The relation between leadership and rank and file is a discussion and a dialogue. When that discussion is built on trust the dialogue is effective and the strengths of the group will be realized. But if there is not trust then the dialogue will be disruptive and the group will be weakened. So it is very important to guard trust, to protect it with consistency, habit, and transparency.

    I continually turn to Sun Tzu because the Art of War isn’t really about warfare, but about managing conflicts of all kinds, and Sun Tzu’s overarching goal and message is that one should seek to mediate conflict so that war is prevented whenever possible.