Context: https://lemmy.world/comment/14224519
I was just browsing some comments and came across this... exchange. In addition to "WTF is wrong with you" I also reported the comment for something like, 'this person is using the plain definition of genocide to discredit the idea of genocide. this person is clearly some kind of bigot/troll, or a deeply ignorant and unserious person. please keep a close eye on this person.' I think that's the reason why another mod responded with the genocide articles. All this before I realized they were a mod. Incidentally, this flyingsquid character is still sealioning that nobody answered them and that "the genocide is, as I said, not all that horrific." At least they put the words in their own mouth this time (downgraded from "you must not think it's all that horrific" -what the fuck!?).
When I checked my inbox this morning I found they had responded, but this time I noticed their name, and the M next to it.
So I ask you, in this context (or any, really), is "...good god, you're a mod here?" uncivil? I think the moderator is silencing legitimate criticism. I think it was the moderator being uncivil throughout. I think this flyingsquid character is a Power Tripping Bastard.
I simply cannot agree (edit: based on this reasoning) that "...good god, you're a mod here?" (for the record, intended as something like "your being a mod explains why no action was taken" or "you cannot say the things you have said here in the way that you've said them and also be a good moderator") is an uncivil statement or sentiment to express. Conceivably it was very a uncomfortable, unwelcome, or even upsetting sentiment to read about one's self. From my perspective, it is clear that the mod abusing their powers to silence criticism of their authority, not to remove an uncivil comment.
In contrast to you, I understand "civility" to refer explicitly to politeness in speech and writing, regardless of the actual sentiment (bless your heart is civil, but that doesn't mean its sentiment is not unkind). In those terms, if either of my two comments were uncivil, it was clearly "WTF is wrong with you" which employed vulgarity to make my point. That said, googling civility comes up with anything from that plain "politeness" definition to extremely broad definitions including respect, tolerance, ... I quite frankly cannot be asked to be any more respectful and tolerant towards apparently genocidal sentiments than I already have.
As I see it, they chose to ignore an arguably uncivil remark but exercised authority to remove "incivility" when I implied they were an arsonist hired as a firefighter.
I can't tell the difference here.
Yeah and if you talk to my uncle about something other than race relations or the "lost cause" he's pretty chill too. He loves talking about classical music and math.
Fair enough.
I mean, you can disagree about it being civil or not, but you asked. So, you know, why ask if you aren't going to consider the possibility?
I welcome this challenge and thank you for keeping me honest.
I will rephrase: You have not successfully argued (in my opinion) that the removed comment was uncivil. I remain unconvinced, based on stated reasoning, that the removed comment was uncivil. I emphasize that I recognized the first comment as actually uncivil (both statement and sentiment) which should demonstrate a willingness in principle to recognize my own incivility.