Fuck me, this dude loves to hear himself talk.

This word soup is fucking trash. Let me do everyone here a favor:

This post is highly verbose, filled with tangential points, and jumps between topics, making it difficult to follow. Here’s a breakdown of what the person seems to be saying:

1. The Incident: The poster was involved in an online situation where their behavior led to complaints in various forums (e.g., Lemmy, Ask Lemmy).

2. Their Defense: They shared their perspective on the incident in another forum or blog and were encouraged by someone named Blaze to post it in a specific community ("YPTB"). However, moderators of YPTB rejected their post and directed them to share it elsewhere.

3. Actions Taken: Following the moderators' advice, they posted it in another community ("!fediverselore"), which they claim has some precedent for allowing such discussions. Despite this, the moderators from YPTB showed up there to criticize them for not following the original community's "specific posting guidelines."

4. Rules Debate: The poster argues that the supposed "posting guidelines" they were accused of breaking either don’t exist or weren’t clearly stated. They tried to dissect the rules piece by piece to show they didn’t violate any, and even Blaze agreed with them.

5. "Unspoken Rules": The moderators, according to the poster, eventually justified their criticism by referring to "unspoken rules" or norms not explicitly stated. This concept frustrates the poster because it undermines their defense and supports what they see as a subjective or inconsistent enforcement of rules.

6. Broader Grievance: The poster feels ostracized and believes that the community or moderators operate under a "groupthink" mentality, where dissenting views (like theirs) are dismissed or punished. They also criticize the practice of using downvotes or negative feedback as a measure of validity or correctness.

7. Hypothetical Question: They sarcastically propose a scenario where they could ban everyone in their own spaces for supporting someone named Luigi Mangione, claiming this would be no different from how the moderators are applying their discretion under "unspoken rules." They are questioning the fairness of such norms.

8. Final Thoughts: The post ends with an open-ended challenge or provocation, suggesting that the community or moderators’ logic is flawed and asking how they will respond to this critique.

TL;DR:

The poster feels unfairly treated due to vague or non-existent rules being used to criticize their actions. They believe the moderators and community enforce norms subjectively, based on group consensus or unspoken rules, rather than clear guidelines. They see this as hypocritical and are challenging the logic behind it. The post is laden with frustration, sarcasm, and an air of intellectual superiority.

I have no idea what you're talking about or what your issue is. There's a lot of words and oblique references but very little actual information.

YDI

The comment from @ProfessorOwl_PhD@hexbear.net on your original post before it was removed hit the nail on the head imo:

I think the way you talk around the issue (e.g. “a man named after a certain plumber”) really demonstrates an underlying understanding that you’re in the wrong here: you’re avoiding direct confrontation with him and his motives in order to paint this as a simple murder. You linked to excuses about how Brian Thompson was actually innocent, because denying life saving medical coverage isn’t technically the same thing as personally murdering them, despite having the same effect. You paint agreement with his actions with pledging direct allegiance to him personally.

There are legitimate arguments around not lionising his actions (as Hexbear discussed at the time), but you’re just getting upset about civility and direct violence disrupting the indirect violence of capitalism.

Let's get real here. The State has a monopoly on violence in most countries. That's one of the ways they keep control of the population. That's why it's perceived as such a threat to the State when ordinary people use violence to challenge the status quo. The State made it perfectly legal for people to like Brian Thompson to deny life saving treatments and procedures from the sick and dying in order to turn a larger profit margin. That is an example of state-sanctioned violence. All those involved should be in prison and held accountable. But they never will be, because State is organized around protecting the rich and powerful from the consequences of their deeply immoral, unethical and (ought to be illegal) acts that turn a profit. Don't forget that slavery was legal and Nazi concentration camps were legal at the time. That's why your moralizing position rings hollow. Because all you are doing in effect is defending the right of the state to continue with it's immoral agenda of exploiting the sick and poor for profit, without ever having to accept any consequences for it.

When the justice system is corrupt, when the laws are written by lobbyists, when politicians from both sides of the aisle are bought and paid for by corporations, what other option do we have to resist the abuses of the rich and powerful? This is why people consider Luigi a bit of a folk hero. Because he gave people a bit of hope that real change was possible, and that (at least occasionally) the rich and powerful might get what's coming to them.

On another topic, your original blog post was imo not in keeping sidebar rules, especial rule 1:

Post only about bans or other sanctions from mod(s).

It seems to me you are more upset that basically nobody here agrees with your position on this topic, rather than because of any PTB issues.

You have got to condense this down, use some periods. Run it through chat gpt maybe. But it’s nearly incomprehensible.

Lenny, you got the same problem as I do: writing huge walls of text, with really long sentences and paragraphs, that are really hard to parse. People lose track of what you're talking about, so simply paraphrasing excerpts won't help; you probably need to restructure the whole thing, if you want to be understood.

To make it worse, you're redirecting the reader over and over, both through links and through indirect references.

This is on-topic here because I don't think that db0 was power-tripping, but I don't think that you deserved it. I think that it was just miscommunication; under a quick glance your post linking to buzzly.art doesn't seem to be about rule enforcement, it sounds more like a rant plus request for advice.

Objectively, "Luigi did nothing wrong" could be defending what he allegedly did, but could also be supporting the idea that he's been falsely accused.

I also agree with the mod saying your initial post didn't fit this community given the written rules on the sidebar, without factoring any "unspoken rules" or whatever the fuck you're babbling about.

As an aside, I really dislike your rambling writing style.

I'm nobody, and my opinion isn't especially relevant. But since you asked, I think you're wrong for the initial ban and having your last post removed was the right call by the mod here.

Seems like the right place to bring the complaint, but I'm not gonna click forty links to figure out what you are actually complaining about.

Cliff notes buddy. Maybe one link to follow. 250 characters or less.