It really isn’t. Having emotions is not weak. Pretending like you don’t is weak. Expressing the emotions you have, processing them, letting them move through you, and moving on productively is not weak, it is strong. Shoving them down and the having them come out in other nonconstructive ways is not strong, it is avoidant. Allowing yourself to have emotions despite the judgement of others does not make you vulnerable, it means you are healthy and self-assured enough to support yourself emotionally.

heck compare the cost of labour 40 years ago to now

Did you know that vegans are hated on par with drug addicts? Perhaps. Did you know that people who consume a plant-based diet for their health or for the environment are hated much less than people who are vegan because of concerns about animal welfare? I think that’s interesting. People feel judged by the mere existence of ethical vegans. And I think you are demonstrating how those feelings of being judged are expressed as defensiveness and “hatred” (though I know that language seems strong in this context).

Fun is fun, but consumption of carbohydrates doesn’t cause diabetes.

How was it “respectful” to accuse two other moderators of being organs of Beaver? Or to start banning people for the sort of disagreement that must necessarily come up so that a consensus can be reached? This was not a good faith moderator action. This was abuse. It happens to be abuse against people you want to see abused. I hope you can see that.

This is exactly the sort of dialogue that should have happened before people got de-modded. I believe I have been as respectful and patient as can be expected given the baseless accusations that have been made against me merely for sharing my opinions in a neutral way. I respect your point of view and if there had been a consensus I could have referred to anywhere, I would have moderated to that consensus and encouraged other moderators to do the same, despite what my personal preferences might have been. I think this was an extremely ugly event that was not handled well, and kind people were disrespected and hurt for no one’s gain.

@TheTechnician27@lemmy.world this comment deserves a response.

It’s okay. We know. You’re good, he’s just trying to rationalize his own behaviour. He can do it elsewhere.

Was de-modding two other moderators because of paranoid fantasies about a conspiracy part of the adequate reaction?

When I shared what I thought of events as one of those moderators, I was de-modded. It’s clear what is really happening here.

deleted by creator

In light of rising tempers and what I consider emotional abuses of power against fellow moderators, I am going to take a break from this thread.

Do you not think there was a point between when you sent a casual private note to when you made a big public attack on Beaver where you should have engaged with your fellow moderators?

Lots of words are used colloquially that we know we should not. We don’t call each other “crazy”. As someone with bipolar, you are probably very familiar with people being hypercritical of every change in your mood and labeling things as “manic” for their own reasons. It’s not nice.

Look how you responded to my later comment and “ignored” my earlier one. Whatever uncharitable thing shall I infer from that.

I mean it would be a pretty foolish threat to make because you would just demod me. I’m trying to appeal to your rationality and better nature.

Perhaps I should demod you before you can demod anyone else?? This isn’t a threat, it’s an invitation to examine your choices from a different point of view.

You clearly have different ideas about the direction the community should go. For example, you want to invite non-vegans here for the purposes of activism. That seems pretty contrary to the direction implied by the rules and other aspects of the sidebar, the closest thing we have to a constitution or mission. You’ve resorted to using your authority to take unilateral action for what to me seems like an honest disagreement of values and interests. Beaver hasn’t done anything she isn’t entitled to, but you object to how it reflects on you as a fellow moderator, that she isn’t moving in the direction you want this community to be moving in, and your ego is engaged. You should at the very least have brought this up with others. This community may have been dying prior to your intervention, but it’s arguable whether you have improved things.

she actively replied but to something else, showing that she was deliberately ignoring the other portion.

That is jumping to a conclusion. You don’t know what her motivations are for not responding. I think we can afford to assume good faith. Because there is nothing of significance at stake here.

You make a diagnosis of mania. I am myself disabled. If you think that this is a mental health issue, I think a compassionate community could approach it from a compassionate point of view. And if you don’t think it is a mental health issue and you are just throwing words around, please be careful.

Rather than making assumptions about my relationship with Beaver, I would encourage you to ask me.

fwiw, if I had been asked, I’d have said I’m fine with banning people for voting behaviour if that’s the sort of place we want to be. Every vegan community does not have to be about the needs of activism, or the needs of non-vegans and potential vegans. It’s a valid discussion what this community should be about, but until there is some kind of consensus agreement about that, a lot of it legitimately comes down to individual interpretation and personal preferences. I don’t see that any lines have been crossed that needed an intervention and power struggle. This isn’t serious world-changing stuff and if someone needs a few days to process a reply, nbd.

I’d like to see Beaver restored to moderator status if they still want it and are interested in reaching a consensus agreement.