I challenge that the definition of “bigotry” is as broad as each individual wants to make it, and the kit gloves with which trollish behavior is consistently moderated differ significantly from the approach taken to a very broad definition of “bigoted” opinions, which regularly invite heavy reprimands. As long as the definition of “bigotry” is rigorously defined, I don’t necessarily disagree with you. As I see things, it isn’t.

And yes, much of this could have been avoided if the people attacking Monk had been held to a higher standard of acceptable behavior. That is exactly the argument I’m making. None of that crap should have been allowed to spiral out of control.

My point is they shouldn’t allow either. The only thing worse is using a double standard, because it prioritizes assholes you agree with over polite users you don’t.

So the user you’re responding to just accused me of being a troll. Yet you responded…

I honestly am getting much more trollish vibe from you than I have ever gotten from monk all the times I disagreed with them and pointed it out.

The definition you gave in your initial comment is the definition I use. I very clearly didn’t ignore what you said, have no idea what “a patronizing” has to do with anything, and asked you a very simple question, which you ignored.

The fact that after only two replies you went straight to personal attacks tells me I’m unlikely to get anything productive out of this exchange.

And decisions to take a more punitive approach to the expression of certain opinions and beliefs than to shitty, antagonistic behavior will ensure that never changes.

So, again, can you define “troll” for me? I think you and I are operating based on fundamentally different definitions, and I’d like to see yours spelled out so I can understand the difference.

…intentionally.

That’s why moderation sometimes requires judgment calls. When someone is intentionally avoiding whatever the moderation cut off seems to be, then it’s clear their participation is intentionally as provocative as possible without triggering enforcement. In that case it’s the user playing the mod team against the rest of the community because they know your boundaries and can weaponize them to “win.”

I think it’s troublesome that there’s more firm enforcement against any kind of “denialism” and “bigotry” than there is for demonstrably antagonistic behavior. Lemmy is veering too strongly toward curating a list of acceptable opinions and too far away from enforcing civility standards, if you ask me. That’s a surefire way to create an ironclad left-leaning echo chamber.

If “not genuine good faith engagement”, “dismissive”, “need for engagement”, “too much free time”, “unwillingness to understand or acknowledge other arguments”, and “toxicity” aren’t signs that someone is trolling, then can you please share the definition of trolling you’re using? In my eyes all of those things are classic troll behaviors.

I think that would carry more weight if downvotes had some kind of meaningful effect on the user’s engagement with the platform. As it stands they’re purely symbolic.

Additionally, deferring to user blocks does two things: 1) It decreases the chance that the problematic behavior will elicit meaningful criticism or pushback from more engaged participants, which amplifies its unchallenged visibility/effect on marginally engaged lurkers, and 2) it puts control of the dialogue squarely into the hands of committed trolls, rather than the community or the community’s moderators. Blocks don’t do anything to change or improve the community, they just allow people to filter their own version of it.

Don’t shoot the messenger. Damn y’all need to learn how to read the fucking article.

Judging from your response, apparently it is.

You seriously think it will lead to a rebuilt democracy, rather than a bloodthirsty fascist hellscape, followed by a multi-polar civil war and then periodic cycles of warlord rule, culminating with invasions by foreign adversaries? That’s cute.

We’re about to get fucked like the countries we spent centuries fucking to get here.

Being “realistic” doesn’t mean expecting promises of things that Congress would never approve.

Reading comprehension is hard.

The distance between you and a Trump supporter is smaller than you realize.

Typical

No. I’m not saying anything. I didn’t write the fucking article.

None of that has anything to do with Kamala Harris. Again, what the hell are you talking about? That paragraph is addressing CONSERVATIVES.

What the hell are you talking about? Did you even read the endorsement? It doesn’t even mention Bush.

Like you, we wish for the return of the Republican Party of Ronald Reagan, Bob Dole, John McCain, and Mitt Romney, a party animated by actual ideas.

Emphasis mine. They’re pining for the party of Bush because it was grounded in truth and ideas.

If you’re saying that Kamala will restore the GOP, then it seems that the American people will never be prioritized. In which case, we should all leave and emigrate to Scandinavia where their people are treated like human beings rather than servants

How on Earth did you get that from this endorsement? In fact, they said exactly the opposite:

only Trump’s final defeat will allow your party to return to health

That whole paragraph is prefaced with “If you’re a conservative who can’t abide Harris’s tax and immigration policies”. They’re not talking to you, they’re addressing conflicted conservatives.

You really should have read it more carefully.