YDI. It does not sound like an earnest question (Rule 1 of that community), and it reads like bait (Rule 5 of that community).
If it was an earnest question, it does not sound like you did anything to clarify why you were asking, and you later repeated the same question with some extra snark aimed at the mods. If I was a mod there, those would all be red flags for reactionary ragebaiting.
It was an honest question and no one asked me to clarify. The person I asked to elaborate was making a counter argument that authoritarianism isn’t inherently bad.
Well, then you did nothing to rectify it by following up with a snarky meta post.
This isn’t Reddit. The mods here don’t have to play by the rules of some overarching central authority or supermods, and that freedom gives them the ability to have actual human conversations. Lemmy doesn’t have to be the shithole Reddit is, and it starts by thinking of each other as people, not nefarious agents out to ruin everyone’s day.
If you feel the post was unjustly removed and you are in earnest, you should contact the mods next time, rather than trying to passive aggressively swipe at them.
Why? Other people in the thread were being hostile toward me then they removed my post? Why would I want to interact with them, they are obviously poor at their jobs.
The community is about asking questions which you might be afraid to ask elsewhere. This removal goes directly against their mission statement and it shows.
Edit:
I mean, you can be personally offended by that community if you choose, but you will likely run into trouble again elsewhere if you don’t advocate for yourself nicely.
Just remember, this isn’t a reboot of Reddit, and it’s not trying to be Reddit. Lemmy is run and maintained by average people like us, imperfect as we are; people can be earnestly mistaken, just like questions can be in earnest but appear to be trolling.
As we work to overcome these inherent communication barriers, let’s do our best to cultivate a culture of kindness and respect, yeah?
I’ve never had a problem in that community. I’ve contributed there many times.
I won’t be kind when I see the same bullshit moderation happen over and over. Lemmy does this thing where new sorters team up on posts they don’t like then try to aggressively make the OP respond in kind to their trollish behavior. Then you get unthoughtful mods who won’t read through the post to see they are being trolled.
Any moderator who hasn’t caught on, and there are a lot, need a lesson, not contributors groveling for the “right” to post.
Well, good luck with that mentality. I expect we’ll see you again around here.
Nahh this instance is boring, it was suggested to me by someone else. Won’t be back.
Definitely YDI
all that happened was a removal, with rules cited. Those rules were accurately applied. Then, when you made a second post while being a jerk, they still just removed the post with a clear and easy to understand explanation of why. Not even a temporary ban.
There’s no overreach, no arbitrary decisions, no misuse or overuse of rules, not even snark or snideness in the reasons given.
And, the screen shots in the comments that you gave don’t show what you think they show.
Those questions were being made to guide you to the answer you were wanting, not sealioning. It’s a common and useful rhetorical tool, you just didn’t catch it (which is fine, they didn’t bother to tell you what they were doing, and it’s easy to miss context online).
Plus, the rules cited for the removals are in place for a reason; even if you disagree with them, they’re explained well enough that you can’t claim to have misunderstood.
They were the very definition of sealioning. What does “why is nervous bad?” have to do with answering the question “why is authoritarianism bad?”
The rules they sited just aren’t true. I wanted nothing but discussion on the topic and I did not bait anyone.
Edit: sorry, maybe you do get baited with such controversial topics like, “authoritarianism is bad”
Edit2: is this bait?
Edit3:
Bait?
Edit4:
Let me guess, not bait, right?
You don’t understand what sealioning is if you think that’s what it is.
That’s socratic dialogue, not sealioning.
When someone asks questions to illuminate a path of thinking that leads the questioner to the answer they were looking for, that’s a totally different thing than trying to mislead the questioner and the onlookers by asking misleading questions.
You got a discussion on the topic. You got someone that took the time to show you the answer to your question by taking you on a tour of your own thinking.
What does, “why is nervous bad?” have to do with “why is authoritarianism bad?” GTFO
There was nothing socratic about it. They literally just took the last thing I said and went, “why?”
Socrates would laugh in your face.
Edit:
Okay, now you’ve progressed to being an asshole to someone engaging with you in good faith.
If that’s the way you want to be as a person, there’s nothing I can do to change it, so have a good day.
You’re not engaging in good faith. Answer my first question. You can’t.
Two responses and the answer just escapes you.
As a third party, I concur that they are engaging in good faith and you’re acting toxicly.
Agreed. The pooch seems like a bitch.
YDI
Is this where I demonstrate I got my post removed for getting sealioned. I think it might be:
