this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2026
15 points (55.6% liked)

Ye Power Trippin' Bastards

1904 readers
107 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
 

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
[–] Susaga@sh.itjust.works 94 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 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?

[–] Wren@lemmy.today 8 points 3 weeks ago (10 children)

Won't die on it. Still think it's weird to be banned for it.

[–] Susaga@sh.itjust.works 43 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

By making this post, you are still fighting on it.

[–] Wren@lemmy.today 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I think a permanent ban was unjustified, yes.

[–] Susaga@sh.itjust.works 26 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Your permanent ban for defending incest, a situation that is widely agreed to be an abuse of trust in any configuration, thus making consent dubious. Specifically, your response defending a woman who fucked her son, suggesting grooming to be at play.

Once again, is this a cause you want to keep fighting for? Or do you want to just take the damn L already?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 13 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (80 children)

In a lot of people's mind there can't possibly be consent so it's simply rape which makes you a pro rape advocate. If that makes it make a little more sense to you.

load more comments (80 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] cerebralhawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com 38 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks 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 19 points 3 weeks ago (1 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.

[–] cosmos8188@leminal.space 9 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I disagree, if by "spirit" is how rules and laws are to be followed, this will make it open to ambiguity and alternatives. In effect, negative effects such as abuse-of-power can be seen (as indicated in this scenario).

[–] Susaga@sh.itjust.works 14 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (5 children)

And if you ignore the spirit of the rules entirely, you get shitty people doing shitty things while clinging to technicalities. If I say "I technically didn't steal your watch", you would still want your watch back.

The solution is to uphold the letter of the rules and, if they are insufficient, you update the rules.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] cosmos8188@leminal.space 9 points 3 weeks ago

I agree, this ain't the community for moralising op's shenanigans - but for abuse-of-power inflicted by mods.

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 32 points 3 weeks 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 weeks 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.

[–] nanometer1625@thelemmy.club 9 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

incest cannot be about ‘consenting adults’ because those adults psychology are incredibly intertwined

If you can provide a way to quantify the extent to which 2 people are "psychologically intertwined", I'll consider this, but at the moment, it doesn't sound credible.

[–] Wren@lemmy.today 6 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I disagree. Rape, coersion and sexual interference are already crimes (in many places) and ethically wrong (anywhere.)

As someone who doesn't know most of my family, and assume most everyone didn't grow up with their extended family, I wouldn't say familial relationships are more psychologically intertwined than any other. It's a long walk to assume there's such an unfair power imbalance in incestuous relationships as to make incest tangential to rape.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Fleur_@aussie.zone 28 points 3 weeks ago

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

[–] krolden@lemmy.ml 17 points 3 weeks ago

7 day ban ain't shit quit being gross

[–] zeppo@lemmy.world 15 points 3 weeks ago

on hexbear? well yeah, fuck that

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 15 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (14 children)

YDM. Only a seven day ban, from a couple communities? Got off too lightly.

You're not considering the full picture, and looking at it in a vacuum. The vast majority of people are not ok with incest, so the probability of two people in the same family just happening to be into it is incredibly low. It's far more likely that something fucked up is happening, that there was grooming, that the child was taught it was normal, and it's very possible they were subject to sexual abuse as a child, which is often incredibly difficult to prove. Even in the best case, the power dynamics are very fucked.

You're assuming that the only opposition to it comes only from "puritanical" attitudes. In fact, there are very strong arguments against it from the perspective of consent, especially when it's considered not in some theoretical abstract, but in the practical, material reality of what those cases tend to look like.

Doubling down on it just looks worse. The seven day ban seems like it's just giving you a chance to realize that you're wrong, if that's not happening you should probably be permabanned.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 14 points 3 weeks ago (13 children)

I'll play devil's advocate...

The vast majority of people

...

It’s far more likely

We've seen nearly identical, statistical arguments made against transexuality, against homosexuality, against miscegenation. Those arguments do, indeed, arise from puritanical attitudes, and fail here for the same reason they've failed everywhere else.

Genetic Sexual Attraction between relatives separated at a young age is a common enough phenomenon to argue that "the vast majority" and "it's far more likely" statistical arguments don't actually stand up to scrutiny.

"power dynamics are very fucked" is a valid concern in relationships arising from formalized superior/subordinate social structures in general, which include teacher/student, jailer/inmate, doctor/patient, parent/child, etc. But, those social structures don't necessarily arise in sibling, cousin, and certain nibling relationships. They don't arise in scenarios where the individuals were separated early and did not reunite until adulthood. They don't arise in cases of "accidental incest", where the parties are unaware of kinship beforehand. The "power dynamics" argument actually extends only to a narrow category of incestuous relationships. They justify prohibitions against that narrow category, but they don't justify prohibitions against the general case.

Your arguments don't actually challenge OP's position. The presence of complicated power dynamics issues would conflict with the "consent" requisite they presented.

load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
[–] Zamboni_Driver@lemmy.ca 14 points 3 weeks ago (2 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 (2 replies)
[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 11 points 3 weeks ago (13 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.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 10 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It's pushing the envelope towards PTB, but isn't for two reasons: first, it is a 7 day ban, so a timeout. Secondly, incest is strongly associated with pedophilia, and it typically comes across the same way arguing about age of consent does.

While it's not specifically in their rules, incest and pedophilia would reasonably fall within their lineup of bannable topics given what is on there.

If it was a permaban? Clear and flagrant PTB. But this is just a warning in function.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Mods are people, and people are biased. Yeah, they'll ban you over sensitive-to-them subjects, and there's not much we can do about it but appeal. I happen to agree with you re: incest, but I knew better than to voice it directly to that same article posted in a different comm. You spoke your mind and someone with a bit of power shot you down. So it goes.

But, there's more to it than that.

Lemmy is a general interest, public forum and therefore full of people with opinions that fall in the middle of the bell-curve. Opinions of all types that fall at the edges get shouted down and trimmed off. Everyone is aware that MAGA opinions are in that group, as well they should be in, again, a general interest public forum. But, there are plenty of others, like permissive ideas around incest, and support for AI in there, too. You need to "read the room."

You can find other quite active forums outside of Lemmy that will be more sympathetic to such fringe positions of all sorts, if you feel the need to express support or discuss.

[–] Wren@lemmy.today 7 points 3 weeks ago

You know what? That's fair. I looked at the other comments being made and checked the sidebar. I was a little crass in my verbiage but thought I was participating as I should. Someone didn't like that and I'm still happy to be here.

[–] Zahille7@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I feel like your last sentence could lead down a very slippery slope of ending up on a list somewhere.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] snooggums@piefed.world 10 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Is there a word for being fine with something controversial instead of pro or con? I'm with you, not in favor (pro) but also not seeing any reason to prohibit (con) as long as everyone is consenting adults and there wasn't any grooming, which should be prosecuted as grooming.

Social stigma against it because of the downsides and likelihood of being the result of grooming is enough.

PTB, especially due to the rule not matching.

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 7 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

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.

[–] snooggums@piefed.world 5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (5 children)

The power dynamic thing is also an issue for relationships with age gaps like marrying someone who the older person knew as a minor, but who is not related. Like a teacher marrying a student after the student is an adult. Or someone in their 30s marrying a young adult from their neighborhood who was in their scouts program. They are not exactly the same, but can be very similar, especially when family isn't all located in the same place.

Also, not all incest is between a parent and child. Siblings don't really have the same kind of power dynamic thing. It also gets muddied when adoption and step children are involved. Is incest wrong based on genetics, legal status, or the power dynamic?

I don't think incest should have legal penalties on its own and I think the power dynamic parts that are common between a lot of relationships should have strong legal penalties. Those will apply to most, but not all incest. Absolutely not pro, I think society should continue to discourage it socially because the odds of a power dynamic issue is likely. We should also discourage people from dating people they knew as children because of the power dynamic issues.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MrOtingocni@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks 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.

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

What a divisive issue lol

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 8 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Focusing on the mod action without delving much into the topic, I think your first comment could reasonably be perceived as reactionary (provoking reaction from others) by some mods which fits under rule 4, even if you were genuine in intent.

The other comm bans I think are half a step too far in the PTB direction, but the one comment removal and news comm ban are within the ballpark of reasonableness.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

Idk Americans can be a bit puritanical and weird about stuff. A lot of them never remove their christian brainworms.

Some coms are on a hair trigger though because people that know the age of consent in ever jurisdiction often have a weird interest in bringing up all the ways that doing something something sexually transgressive that might involve grooming is actually cool and good.

Hexbear probably isn't the place to discuss this stuff because they're very defensive of the community vibes and safety of users, and also weirdly puritanical sometimes.

I think it's probably mod overreach your position seems clear that grooming is bad and you're discussing theoretical other scenarios but in the context of the article it's understandable that the timeout would happen.

fwiw I think incest is a crime because it's a blunt legal instrument to just easily protect people from a lot of extremely nasty scenarios.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] exupulosion@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 weeks ago

Americans are weirds. Thank protestantism

load more comments
view more: next ›