Mod Abuse

fuck that. catch you on the flippety flip

Hey,

I think it would be best if you guys stopped responding to each other on this post: https://alexandrite.app/lemmy.world/post/11141507 The many many reports you have made do not qualify for removal. Calling someone a fed is not a personal attack, you are, however abusing the reporting system. I don’t want to have to take action so this is your warning to stop reporting things that aren’t actual rule violations. Also it seems like your argument is pretty circular now, continueing will probably lead one or both of you to some action that will result in concequences you may not want.

As always we want to keep things on the rails as much as possible it is not our place to silence people you don’t agree with or try to cool opposing viewpoints.

---------------

calling someone a fed is literally an ad hominem: it attempts to undermine their position not by dealing with their actual claims but, instead, by implying that they are a bad person. either the rule should not be written as it is or you are not enforcing it properly.

-------------

Banned from the community Political Memes reason: Abusing reporting system expires: in 3 days

Removed Comment edit: added legacy media Not sure if /s but will add info to push back a bit on legacy media's Russiagate, for the curious. FYI for those that forgot, Bernie Sanders was also called a Russian asset in 2016. --- >Veteran New York Times reporter Jeff Gerth dissects the role of the media in concocting a false narrative portraying Trump as a 'Russian asset' rather than a homegrown horror. How the media misled us about Russiagate w/Jeff Gerth | The Chris Hedges Report [32:18 | Feb 24 2023 | The Real News Network] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IiefPIKp9XY --- >Briahna Joy Gray and Robby Soave discuss yesterday's new report from special-counsel John Durham over Former President Donald Trump. Russiagate Hoax: Rising Reacts To Damning Durham Report [09:30| May 20 2023 | The Hill] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_dwmNxaqUY by USERNAMEREDACTEDBECAUSEITDOESN'TMATTERWHOWROTEIT reason: Misinformation. Videos from Russian owned asset

I have had a comment removed today because, purportedly, I was spamming too many responses to a single other comment. I find this reasoning to be specious: I provided just as much evidence for my position as the other commentor did for theirs, and did so succinctly. This isn't spam: it's a conversation.

I have noticed, in my tenure on the internet, that it is common for people to produce quite long, meandering comments in response to some quip they didn't like. A failure to address each of these points is, eventually, and almost without exeception, greeted with "you didn't answer my questions" or some variation. This tactic smacks of the Gish gallop: a rhetorical technique where you throw every concievable argument, no matter how specious, into the debate, attempting to make it seem as though a failure to answer ANY point means that point must stand.

I reject being told how long or thorough a response must be to any particular comment: if a claim can be rebutted in a single word, then that word should suffice. Further, if someone produces a great, meandering rant on the topic du jour, surely they understand each of the points tehy made, and can defend them even in isolation from the other, tangentially related points. So responding to each point in single comments, even if that means many single comments, breaks up the gish gallop, and allows the readers to see the problems with each point without subjecting them to multiple walls of text.

Finally, no rule explicitly says that a comment must meet an objective standard for length, nor that you may not respond to a comment more than once if you have two different things to say to that comment. It is my conclusion that the removal of my comment was, therefore, capricious and unwarranted.