I made an admittedly editorialized post, but that is allowed. There is no rule against editorializing titles. The link was to this excellent story by Erin Reed:
https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/iowa-dem-josh-turek-releases-anti
The story documents the efforts of Democrat-in-Name-Only Josh Turek to graft Republican anti-trans policies and bigotry into the Democratic party. The (supposed) automoderator flagged the post and removed it for being a "substack post." However, it was likely a manual removal as I would expect automoderator to work quickly, while this was up for hours.
The rule cited was:
"Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading."
This article clearly meets this requirement. Erin in the Morning is an entire journalistic operation with multiple employees. I'm sure they're incorporated in some form. Erin Reed is the most prominent trans rights journalist in the US, probably in the world. She's nationally famous, has won numerous national journalism awards, and has a Wikipedia page. She frequently appears on national media and speaks at events of all kinds. She is one of the most prominent transgender people in the United States.
But apparently if you're trans, to c/politics, regardless of what you accomplish, you can never be a real journalist, only a blogger. Real journalism is for cis people only.
This has been the standard MO for world mods whenever Jordan is brought up so yes. The entire point is you're giving someone who deserves no benefit of the doubt for multiple reasons that benefit and now attacking those people who are tired of their continuous actions like this while also ignoring the context.
And this is still you blaming the poster for not groveling before Jordan
Lmao, like lemmy.world mods are part of some cabal who circle the wagons around one mod.
I don't know if it's possible for you not to project an obsession with this one rando on the backwater of the Internet onto me, but:
TL;DR: I could not have given less of a shit who removed the post. I cared about what the OP wrote in their post, which was "The post was removed claiming a Rule 2 violation. I don't think it was a Rule 2 violation, and here's why."
The power mods and admins absolutely do.
Yet you're upset with me calling out a ptb. I think you care more than you let on
100%
and he's someone who recently was featured on this community.
That would explain a lot
I like how you very conspicuously leave out how I was "featured on this community", because that would make your flimsy character attack completely fall apart.
Here's the thread I was "recently featured" in. Sitting at -8 upvotes, and the OP makes a clown out of themselves the entire thread as they get hit with overwhelming "YDI".
I think your main problem you have with me is that you're an anti-vegan, anti-environmentalist, anti-science, bad-faith troll who doesn't like that I moderate a space for vegans where you're not allowed to just come in and Gish gallop to try to discredit peer-reviewed environmental science. (Note: I have this thread saved after the last time explicitly because they love to show up and give the same canned disinformation to respond to this particular study, so I keep it now as a canned response.)
god I love that you keep showing this link to people
For as much as you love this uniquely annoying, disruptive pattern of replying to the same comment via multiple comments, it's funny that one of them wasn't mentioning the elephant in the room.
Namely that the thread you were talking about, deliberately taking completely out of context, and consicuously not linking to is about as clear-cut a "YDI" response as one usually seems to get on YPTB – with the OP spending the entire thread being so insufferable that everyone understands why they deserved it.
I'm glad you like me sharing the link, because apparently unlike you, I like sharing links to provide context for what I'm talking about.
your insinuation that I deliberately withheld information is wrong. I just didn't want to spend any more time on it. you haven't provided such a link either. are you deliberately misrepresenting the post and hiding the truth??
Sorry, did you miss the part where I said, verbatim: "Here's the thread I was "recently featured" in." Or is this more of your Trumpian "never play defense" pathological lying where you assume that if you just double down forever, you can't ever be wrong?
yes
Okay, honestly fair. Absolute respect for that. I made a worse oversight the other day and attacked someone who was doing nothing wrong because of it.
I'm cool with just stopping this argument here for right now.
I'm neither antivegan nor antievironmentalist. calling me a troll doesn't change the facts
glad I'm not the only one who sees it.
disengage
feel free to block me to remove me from your Lemmy experience.