We aren't going to engage with the arguments here at all. This isn't a politics community. Only reason I even mentioned it at was to avoid knee jerk responses.

Seriously, you can't roll up into a community that's about gathering opinions in moderator actions and expect regulars to go very far debating other things. It isn't the place for it, and it isn't a useful aspect of determining power tripping beyond the bare minimum needed for accuracy.

If anyone wants to discuss the details of the merits or flaws of your opinion, that's on them, but it's outside the scope of the community, so I'm not.

I specified rule 3 of c/politics already, and referred to their elastic clause of reserving the ability to moderate outside of enumerated rules. I'm not sure what else you want in that regard, but I'm not in the mood to break down every single rule when just those two cover the question of power tripping.

Well, I'm going to start off with the obvious thing. You absolutely do not have a leg to stand on as far as what you said being genocide denial. You can quibble about semantics all you want, but that's literally what you did.

That being said, you're right about one thing. Genocide denial isn't an explicitly listed rule.

But you still broke multiple rules. The fact that you can't see that genocide denial falls under them, even though it is most definitely not listed as a specific rule of its own, that may be a thing where c/politics needs to refine its rules for better understanding, or it may be that you need to understand that you don't have to list every possible iteration of a broad rule for it to be part of a rule.

Then, if you go to the very bottom of their rules it does explicitly state that posts and comments may be removed even if they don't break any enumerated rules. My app doesn't let me flip back and forth to copy/paste what's written there word for word, but he mod action taken is within their stated standards.

Do I think that them using a ban reason that doesn't match their rules in wording was a good idea? Hell no. They should have just listed it as an extension of their misinformation rule, and there wouldn't be any question about it being appropriate. Seriously, you have made comments about the debate over whether or not the actions of Israel meet the definition of genocide, but the debate is essentially being framed on shaky ground to begin with, and none of the "it isn't" arguments hold water. So they definitely fall under misinformation.

Now, was your comment ban worthy? Maybe, maybe not. If it was your first offense, I'd say anything beyond a one day ban was over the top. I don't have the patience to sift through your user history to know how prone you are to that kind of thing. But it is a temporary ban. That's not going to be PTB territory under these circumstances. Temp bans are a tool to give a user time to cool down, think, and hopefully reach out for clarification. That's not power tripping at all. A permanent ban over a single offense, that might be power tripping, depending on the circumstances. It probably would be unless it was for an explicitly listed rule, and/or permabans are listed as a consequence for violating core rules.

So, summing up. This is not power tripping because your comment did break rules, and the ban is temporary. That you didn't understand the rules is irrelevant to that. Take this as a chance to clarify things with that community, and possibly suggest (in a calm and polite manner) that the rules be reworded so that better understanding is possible in the future

Edit: rule 3 is where they list misinformation. It isn't very well written, imo, but it's there

I would say that a person born with a penis was probably assigned male at birth, within the context of a correct statement. The lack of a penis, at birth or afterwards, does not exclude manhood. Nor does the possession of one exclude womanhood.

It's one of those things that hasn't built up a solid usage yet. It's difficult to parse ideas that are still evolving as we gain better understanding of the situation.

It's just a niggling bit of figuring out the kind of structure to present as much of the concept as possible.

Since manhood isn't defined by genitals, in a true sense, even someone having a penis probably being a man kinda leaves trans people that have a penis that aren't men in a gray area for the purpose of this kind of tangential discussion.

I would say that the " if a person has a penis, that person is probably a man" works fine, I just can't say it's correct. More that it's more correct than the original statement in the comic.

Again, this is about thinking over the passage language of it to eventually winnow down into something that would be correct in a more singular sense.

I have to assume so.

Southern Appalachians

The damn yankees don't realize that snow is different here. We tend to get mixed precipitation more, and even when the roads are prepared for cold weather, or can get stymied by the way we melt and freeze over time.

Snow ain't the same everywhere, and in this neck of the woods, it tends to hide shit you can't plan for.

Really? That's the kind of troll you're going to try and pull?

Like, I knew you were fucking around, but I figured maybe you'd be entertaining about it. That's just boring. You gotta step up your game

It's definitely a slow community :)

Yeah, because the video footage of him doing an actual nazi salute isn't substantive

Sooo, his defense is "nuh-uh"?

Tbh, it isn't an active pursuit for me. I picked up a little via medical terminology, and the colloquialisms that have crept into english usage. So, I'm always interested in more little tidbits to pick up, but I don't put a ton of time into doing so. Full on filthy casual.

You know, that's one of the things dragon convinced me of.

Mind you, I don't have the stamina to rewrite any references to them in a useful way, so I default back to they/them/you. But that's my lack of ability, not their fault.

If drag are a troll, drag have the same net effect of making people think about the subjects of neopronouns, individualized neopronouns, and how those do or don't relate to trans specific issues. Yeah, most people are going to think "I don't like it", and stop, but even that is important. It's likely more than they thought about the matter before.

As a note as to what I mean about not having stamina for using drag as a universal pronoun, a section from above:

If drag are a troll, drag have the same net effect of making people think about the subjects of neopronouns - see, that's grammatically correct. The two "drags" replace they. Trying to write it out like that means having to either abandon the grammar of standard english (which ain't an easy thing once you learn a language), or carefully think each instance of a pronoun out. See, the way standard rules make you think, both of those drags are followed by the wrong word. My brain says "drag is", and "drag *has" because drag registers as a name. It just does. Again, that's my problem, not drags.

But, it means that to apply those pronouns in a clear way, I also have to abandon fluency. I can't think as fast, which reduces the ability to effectively communicate. Now, at this point in things, it should be easy enough to just write normally, then edit for the pronoun drag. But that's when another me problem kicks in.

I tend to long comments. But I'm dyslexic and arthritic. Writing physically hurts. Having to go back and edit once to reduce typos takes time, and hurts. Having to also patch in pronouns makes the process longer.

Again, that's a me problem. But just this comment (that I'm writing now so that I can use it in the future to save pain) has my fingers throbbing and burning.

That's where I become hegemony unwilling to make the switch. As much as drag have convinced me that the matter is important, I just can't make myself take on the extra pain when typing. I have to pick my battles when arthritis, and I pick the ability to say what I need and want to say as my main battle. When my hands aren't fucking with me, I'll do my best. When they are, my best is going to look like I'm not doing it at all.

Again, this is here because I want to be able to write it once and this was as good an opportunity as any.

I mean, people do succeed at it, but it's a lot of hard work to go from zero to any kind of useful income.

You have to actively and aggressively market yourself. You have to do that with the ugly fact that the very people you're trying to convert to paying customers are probably assholes, since people in general are assholes.

You have to put in effort into that side of things, while also dealing with the inevitable trolls too.

You have to differentiate yourself enough to stand out from the crowd, but not go so niche that you exclude the vanilla sorts.

With no moral bullshit or prudery involved, if my kid asked me this, I'd tell them the same thing. It's a shit ton of work for the chance to make something resembling a living. Unless you get really lucky, our won't ever be anything you can do as your main income. If you do, you have to know, not just think about, that it is going to go away eventually. The baked market shrinks the older you get. That sucks, because it isn't like a person can't be sexy as hell their entire life. But it's still true.

So, you can't really call it a career at all.

So, you still have to plan for the future, but you're planning it with the fact that your pictures are now out there. Even if you don't do nudes (and with a lot of luck, that is possible to make work), you've got that hanging there. While I don't have any issues with what someone did do make money in the past, I'm in the minority. Until and unless general society gives up that sense of skewed morals, there's always a chance that picture of you in your sexiest dress can bite you in the ass. And the less clothing is on, the worse the bite can be. The more that picture is obviously done for money, the worse the bite will be.

Again, this is the same speech I would give anyone your age that asked me this irl. It's a decision to make carefully, and once made, needs to be planned out well.

Before you make the decision, start finding the forums and such where people that have done it give advice. Talk to people that have failed, just as much to those that have succeeded.

Yeah, there's plenty of sucky people unfortunately.

I'm sorry you're hurting.

Fwiw, and I know it isn't worth much, I think you being willing to address the issues the way you do is a good thing. It's one of the things that edged me across the line into believing you aren't trolling. You've made me, personally, think harder about several issues, and even shift my opinions a good bit. Dunno if you remember me saying I'd think about what you said regarding neopronouns. But I did, and I still am. You, your words, shifted my opinion on that.

You're right. The degree of sheer nastiness pointed your way when you have never that I've seen offered anything more than mild snark to anyone, it is absurd.

Hell, if you responded to this saying that you have been trolling all along, I'd still be glad you were here on lemmy, doing what you're doing. If you aren't just being a normal, decent person trying to be yourself, you have sure as hell fooled me. And, to me, even if it was a troll, it amounts to the exact same thing as the reality of what you bring to the rest of us.

No bullshit, no jokes, and even with not necessarily agreeing with every stance you take, I'm glad you're here.

I hope that it's enough be a bit of a bandaid on the stress. I know I'm not the only one that likes seeing you around, though not many folks say it.

I've got a friend that's a semi-regular lurker of lemmy. We've talked about you out in the non digital world. I know he respects you a lot. He was throwing around terms like badass.

So, if you've got tears to shed, shed them with the knowledge that no matter how much hate there is towards you, it isn't everyone.

Man, that's the truth. Punk kinda got overshadowed publicly, but the bands that were active were just fucking amazing. Sadly, I didn't discover punk in the eighties lol. I mean, I knew it existed, and I heard some of it. But if it wasn't the Ramones, it wasn't something you heard playing on a regular basis, much less with enough good curation. Well, here it wasn't a common thing to hear.

It wasn't until the nineties that I had a chance to hear a good amount of punk at all. My first, brief, stint in college was in a decent sized city, and there were some dedicated punks in my classes. One girl was wearing some black flag shirt or another, and it set off a conversation during a smoke break because I asked if that was a metal band lol.

That was my intro to punk, hanging out with that crowd, playing tapes in our cars in between classes and such.

So, let's get this straight, you went into a thread, harassed and insulted someone , and you think that's okay?

Nah, not only did YDI, YTA. A giant, gaping, post gangbang A.

Really? I know it wasn't all great, but it saw the birth of hip-hop, the explosion of metal, and a good bit of expansion of what pop could be.

Country got a little worse tbh, but bluegrass started down the road to it's current renaissance.

Well, as noted in that conversation, it wouldn't work in the real world.

My understanding of canon is that transporter technology does use the energy produced by the warp core to deconstruct matter into energy, then reconstruct it at the desired location.

In that process, a computer has to hold the "pattern" long enough to make the transition possible. Hence pattern buffers.

Replicators use the same method, but have what amounts to better memory, and lower resolution.

A transporter can reconstruct things to such a small scale that every synaptic connection remains intact. Replicators can't. They are, barring some exceptions that don't really make sense, unable to produce anything alive.

A replicator cab only produce something it has a "recipe" for. At some point, someone used a transporter or similar device to deconstruct a given thing, like a hot cup of tea. That "pattern", rather than being held in volatile memory, was recorded. Iirc, in the novels it was Spock that helped refine the technology to be as useful as it would be in TNG, but I haven't read those in ages.

So, when Picard wants "earl grey, hot", the replicator pulls up the pattern, uses the energy from a source that isn't well specified, and turns that energy into matter. Literally every single cup of that tea is going to be the same, within the ability of the replicator to resolve. Since tea isn't complicated in terms of long chains of molecules, it should be the exact same cup of tea.

However! There were instances I recall seeing of people adjusting replicator files. Tweaking them to their liking.

And, there's on screen use of big replicators to turn out shuttle parts, as in body pieces.

There's apparently an upper limit on complexity, which was supposedly about not wanting to make things too easy and make it harder on writers to come up with viable plot points. After all, if you can just replicate entire ships, things get crazy fast. "Oh, the Klingons are invading? Let's churn out a few dozen extra battle cruisers"

Well dang it! Here I thought me being tired all the time was just me being old as fuck!

You stop sucking me off, Colin!

Man, wait until you learn that we had music in the eighties!