I’d work more, since I have so little money that free time without additional income would dry up my money fast.

Yeah, but how would you actually define the term? You bring up issue with what you dub “corporate news agencies”, and then when I look up the news you point to here, I don’t know how what I get would feel any different, except for the fact it’s mainly presented as satirical.

That depends. How would you define a “corporate news agency”?

If you say so.

You do know what the bourgeoisie archetype/stereotype is, right? A person with a strong enough thirst for wealth that they will disregard all compassions and sensibilities to achieve it?

Saying the officials in the North Korean government using dying soldiers as instruments of material gain doesn’t ring bourgeoisie bells is like saying L Ron Hubbard building the world’s most elaborate artificial tithing system doesn’t ring bourgeoisie bells.

“Even if they die there it does not matter, because North Korea sent them out without officially recognizing them,” Lee said. “They were sent there not to bring honor to the country, but to give up their lives and bring back lots of money.”

A money-back-guarantee refund would be welcome here if ever.

Yup, it says so on the water bottle’s warning label.

If you didn’t, it would be considered slavery, would it not?

Well it’s true. Both Chernobyl and the Exxon oil spill can be in part traced back to this issue.

You should probably work somewhere else if your job doesn’t allow you to get your eight hours of sleep. Minimum wage without minimum sleep is akin to cheating.

Having a family.

Someone I know had a ceremony modeled after the Klingon ceremony from Star Trek.

The color, yes.

I grew up thinking “sympathy” meant the ability to feel sorry for someone while “empathy” meant relatably feeling sorry for everyone, as in you could flashback to the experience someone was going through.

This is not a default attribute of mine, so when people would ask me about having empathy, I’d say “no, I don’t have that”. This grew into a misunderstanding which grew into a bad aspect of my reputation.

That said, even with the misunderstanding in mine, I still think our worth comes from our character and that alone. Whether someone mentally is actually in-tune to how everyone else thinks is irrelevant.

Rule one says “post only about bans or other sanctions from mod(s)”.

I am a mod.

It was about a ban.

Therefore it was “about bans or other sanctions from mod(s)” as rule one says.

It doesn’t say the discussion itself can’t be from the mod. It just states the action in question must be “from mod(s)”.

Unless there is something lost in translation here, that is.

If not, you might as well have said “I simply don’t like you” as the reason, and you being in charge there, I would’ve accepted my fate, even if I still would’ve spoken about it somewhere.

The last time this happened, the blanket explanation given to me was hinted to be a euphemism for discriminatory sentiment.

What rule does it break by the way?

The rules say…

• Post only about bans or other sanctions from mod(s). (it was about a ban)
• Provide the cause of the sanction (e.g. the text of the comment). (that’s exactly what I was doing)
• Provide the reason given by the mods for the sanction. (I did that, and in fact this explains what I was saying about the other person having broken more rules than me, because their rundown was inaccurate)
• Don’t use private communications to prove your point. We can’t verify them and they can be faked easily. (I didn’t, in fact the only private communication I used was to prove to you I was asked)
• Don’t deobfuscate mod names from the modlog with admin powers. (I’m that person, so naturally the rule was upheld)
• Don’t harass mods or brigade comms. Don’t word your posts in a way that would trigger such harassment and brigades. (again, did not break this rule)
• Do not downvote posts if you think they deserved it. Use the comment votes (see below) for that. (I didn’t do that… but others are doing it to me and you don’t seem to mind)
• You can post about power trippin’ in any social media, not just lemmy. Feel free to post about reddit or a forum etc. (certainly did not break this rule)

And yet when I try to ask or bring up how the rules were broken, I get lots of thumbs down but no answers, almost as if there is none. Hence I said the Y might as well be removed.

I would moderate it :(

Who ever said I thought people were intellectually inferior to me? Like who? I’m the last person to do that (heck I cheated my way out of my high school finals), I’m just saying people shouldn’t give up once something gets too elaborate. That and maybe work with me when I try to negotiate or work my way to a resolution. You know, as opposed to giving nothing more than a thumbs down to questions that try to address the thing people are stumped by.

When you say “that does not endear you to anyone”, a thought that comes to mind is the possibility of how many people are judging a book by its cover, and/or thinking they can read between the lines when whatever is between them is all in their head. Especially in a world where people complain of culture shock, it’s kind of inconsiderate in its own way.

There is no option, as it stands, to remove people from only part of a community, unless I misunderstand you.

Considering the whole context, where two other people were removed for reasons, the alternative would have been to just ban those two people and risk receiving complaints on their behalf about the fact the response wasn’t evenly distributed (It was the temporary ban of Person F I was referring to when I said I did it “for understanding’s sake”, referring to the fact I made it only three days which have ended a day ago, not the removal of the comment).

Person F, although it’s not inaccurate to say they may have spoken in the wrong place at the wrong time, hence the fact it was as temporary as it was, still said something that, given the serious matter and its different steps, could not be ignored.