It really isn’t. Having emotions is not weak. Pretending like you don’t is weak. Expressing the emotions you have, processing them, letting them move through you, and moving on productively is not weak, it is strong. Shoving them down and the having them come out in other nonconstructive ways is not strong, it is avoidant. Allowing yourself to have emotions despite the judgement of others does not make you vulnerable, it means you are healthy and self-assured enough to support yourself emotionally.

heck compare the cost of labour 40 years ago to now

Sorry, I did what? “All of my accounts?” Do I know you?

Fun is fun, but consumption of carbohydrates doesn’t cause diabetes.

How was it “respectful” to accuse two other moderators of being organs of Beaver? Or to start banning people for the sort of disagreement that must necessarily come up so that a consensus can be reached? This was not a good faith moderator action. This was abuse. It happens to be abuse against people you want to see abused. I hope you can see that.

This is exactly the sort of dialogue that should have happened before people got de-modded. I believe I have been as respectful and patient as can be expected given the baseless accusations that have been made against me merely for sharing my opinions in a neutral way. I respect your point of view and if there had been a consensus I could have referred to anywhere, I would have moderated to that consensus and encouraged other moderators to do the same, despite what my personal preferences might have been. I think this was an extremely ugly event that was not handled well, and kind people were disrespected and hurt for no one’s gain.

@TheTechnician27@lemmy.world this comment deserves a response.

It’s okay. We know. You’re good, he’s just trying to rationalize his own behaviour. He can do it elsewhere.

Was de-modding two other moderators because of paranoid fantasies about a conspiracy part of the adequate reaction?

When I shared what I thought of events as one of those moderators, I was de-modded. It’s clear what is really happening here.

I DID receive a message from Beaver a day before the other moderator went wild with power, stating her intentions to perform a three day moderation blitz where things would be extra strict. Due to the limitations of the medium we’re working in, I don’t know if anyone replied to that, but it hasn’t been mentioned. According to the evidence I have, Beaver was trying to communicate and the other moderator was not.

I note that Beaver has now left the site completely, probably due to the dog piling and bullying. So, job well done. You made people unhappy. Good work, the Internet is safe once again.

If Beaver committed some kind of moderator offense by not responding in the second moderator’s unstated timeframe, then surely that second moderator committed an equal offense by demodding THREE moderators without consulting anyone else. No one even knew that this was up his ass before he went nuclear. I don’t know how you all can look at this and say it is anything less than a transparent coup.

Sorry you’re having trouble following this. It’s honestly not very complicated. I think if you read the thread from the beginning with an open mind instead of preconceived biases, you will find it easier to follow.

Clearly you are not interested in engaging. I still love you, though. I just don’t like you very much right now.

deleted by creator

Downvoting a post can be brigading. Voting posts up or down is indeed the primary thing that brigades do.

I did not say that this was an example of brigading. I don’t know that. I pointed out that the views you are sharing imply that you would also be against taking action against brigading.

Thanks. Interesting thoughts.

A) is an opinion and it was stated as an opinion, since the post served in place of the discussion that was skipped. I feel justified in sharing my opinion about the direction I want the community to take. I can’t force my views on anyone, and it seems amazingly insecure to respond to that with a unilateral de-mod.

B) was a request for patience and discussion before people started de-modding each other. But okay, let’s call it “downplaying” for the sake of argument. I don’t see how such downplaying amounts to justification to de-mod me.

C) I can’t respond to but I do find it rather uncharitable. If you can give an example, I’d appreciate that. And D) I can never assure someone who wishes to believe otherwise.

When it comes down to it, it sounds like you are saying the other mod was justified in de-modding me because I voiced disagreement with his choices. Plus a bunch of other stuff about me just plain not deserving to be a mod for reasons I admit I don’t grasp; that I’m just intrinsically deserving of being de-modded. Have I got it?

I’m sure you are aware that brigading has been a problem in The Motherland since the very beginning. Now that we have the tools to detect and address such behaviour, are you prepared to say you are categorically against using that information to inform moderation decisions?

Aggressive? Gasp. BITCHINESS? I am wounded. But I still love you.

Would you care to assay on what justification exists to demod me?

I don’t wish for us to interact.