SanctimoniousApe

Humans too often prefer the lies as it drastically "simplifies" the very complex reasons behind the topic at hand, AND it lets them blame those people who DO get the actual truth and cause them to subconsciously feel stupid (which - let's face it - by choosing lies over truth, they are).

Depressing AF, really.

All I'm reading is the ramblings of a typical thoroughly in denial of actual reality Trumper who couldn't make it in a world driven to destroy itself by those he worships. So he offed himself in a manner he obviously deep down knew wouldn't make a damned bit of difference, but continued spouting defiant bravado in the face of said reality because that's the ONLY way he knew how to deal with what he couldn't control.

So fucking typical, pointless, and pathetic.

I think it was more hoping we could dismiss the period as a fever-driven nightmare that wasn't actually real. The fact he accomplished so little during that time kinda helped the idea that it wasn't real.

This time around they're coming in hot & heavy, fully prepared to make the most of their chance to destroy all the checks & balances that have kept them at least somewhat at bay up until now. There's not only no way to deny the forthcoming reality this time around, there's just no way to overstate just how real shit's gonna get.

Yeah, kinda hard to tell if the character's grammar is poor, or if they're effectively saying "you had your chance."

Brigading actually occurred to me while writing that comment, which is part of the reason I said it wasn't the best written (but was too tired to try to do it right). It definitely would be a fine line to walk, which is why I said the users should have the power to override the mods at least to a certain extent. It's not a fully fleshed out idea because it only occurred to me just before I wrote it.

To address the question you just posed, my first thought (also just now) is that it might be addressed by allowing either side to appeal to "a jury of their peers" - some sort of randomly chosen group (in an effort to reduce the possibility of stacking the deck) equally made up of moderators and users across various instances that have all opted in to be a part of the pool of potential jurors (this system would obviously need some time to build up the pool before it could be implemented). Exactly how many people would be required for a proper jury and pool of potential jurors would need to be hashed out.

This is just spitballing off the top of my head, however. Setting up such a system would be a significant undertaking. But I think it's at least a start down the road of coming up with a way to solve this thorny issue.

(I'm going to try to get a little more sleep before I have to get up & get going so I'm unlikely to respond for a good while, just to let you know.)

Sorry, I meant to reply to you with [this comment] (https://lemmings.world/comment/12766392), but - further proving what I said in it first - I inadvertently sent the reply to the wrong person (I'm only noticing it this quickly because I was woken up by the call of nature).

My sleep meds are kicking in, so I'm not going to be able to give this a proper response. However, I just want to put this thought on record in response to your question.

The community itself should have the power to override the mods - at least to some certain extent, IMHO. Each community should have a meta channel of sorts wherein issues related to the community itself are addressed, such as disputes like these. I disagree that some single person or small group should fully "own" the community, and those who've invested time in being part of it should have no ownership or control over it whatsoever.

This thought probably isn't the best articulated, but that's why I'm going to bed now. Gnite, and I hope you all have a good discussion for me to read up on tomorrow. Thanks.

Moderation certainly takes significant time and effort, which is why there will only ever be a rather small subset of the wide variety of personalities found in humans actually doing the work for free. It's tailor-made for those without much else to do in life & who are desperately seeking to have more control over something in their lives. Not saying that's true of all mods by a long shot, but it's definitely a major draw for those of that persuasion. They're always going to be an issue unless there's some way to counterbalance their power without having to abandon the community and start all over again building another - one which still is just as vulnerable to falling prey to the whims of a person who shouldn't be moderating.

They didn't call anyone tankie - they referenced the type of people falling under that classification. Big difference from making an accusation.

The problem with the "freedom to do whatever you want" argument you're making here is that one person (the moderator in question) has significant power and sway over what others trying to speak with similarly-minded people in that community are allowed to say - making for a serious imbalance of power. You need to use that community if there's no other similar ones with an established & active user base which covers the topics that community is centered around.

As such, it should be incumbent upon the moderators to strive to be as close to the ideal of "impartial" as humanly possible. It is perfectly reasonable for users to call out bad faith moderation when it happens, otherwise Lemmy will be no better than a more disjointed Reddit.

"I reject your reality, and substitute my own."