Not only is this ad hominem (calling a person “too stupid to look up the moderators” is not relevant to whether the research they did is valuable, the two are independent and you’re addressing (incorrectly perceived) personal characteristics rather than flaws in an argument) but also, friend, you’re telling on yourself. Spam is a legitimate concern in this and every online community. Nicole is a known spambot. You spammed your own community as a moderator. Apparently as a joke that most people seem to have gotten. Your response is basically [I’m the mod here, I can do whatever the fuck I want]. And no, you can’t. Contrary to what you might think, this isn’t your community. You are just currently (actually, looking at the mod list for this community that seems to be formerly) one of the people responsible for facilitating the dialogue this community is, in principle at least, trying to foster.

A joke is one thing, but coming out of the gate hot like this calling people “stupid insipid cows” because they reported nicole spam is… unempathetic and tends to suggest a power trip. In other words, “Be nice :)” applies to you, too.

if so facto, …

Ipso Facto

If the rules are “You gotta pay for the book” and they don’t pay for the book, they broke the rules, that’s what I consider cheating. I don’t necessarily agree with the rule, I disagree with cheating. This is, of course, relative, as truth and morality in general are.

“How are we supposed to win the race if we can’t cheat?!”

yeah this is for sure medium effort at least

deleted by creator

They said this about the rise of fission, electricity, steam power, computers. The extra production was either captured by capitalists, or simply didnt materialze. What’s different this time?

No, if you want to see that era of global prosperity, you need to address a lot of deep, fundamental issues that humanity has trouble even acknowledging let alone actually acting toward fixing. edit: Though, stopping fascism would be a necessary first step.

This, but for all media.

google walked into removing its dei programs with open eyes and arms outstretched

My mistake.

is this a cave?

Its fine if you don’t want to do the ‘homework,’ but op doesn’t get to complain about the rules not being enforced on the notoriously democratic editable-by-anyone wikipedia and refuse to take up the trivial ‘homework’ of starting the rule violation procedure. The website is inherently a ‘be the change you want to see in the world’ platform.

It’s giving chatgpt.

This bigotry constitutes hate speech and should be reported as such.

You assume a non-complicit legal system.

𝅘𝅥𝅮Oh mother, I can feel

𝅘𝅥𝅮The soil falling over my head…

I don’t think what you describe is meaningful action either.

Do I understand that you agree the proposed “blackout” is symbolic, and that you wish there were something more meaningful being proposed; or are you defending the blackout as meaningful itself? Do you agree with the criticism of the blackout’s being symbolic, but want to go along with it despite its lack of meaning (or perhaps better stated, lack of effect)?

For my part, I’d be much more pleased with the idea of the blackout if I could be convinced that it would have useful results, and would generally be in favor of so-called “meaningful action.” This blackout wouldn’t effect me either way since I’ve already given up amazon and google stuff almost entirely except what I need for work. I just need to know what the meaningful next step would be.

It sounds like a call to avoid symbolic action and take meaningful action instead, to me.