Despite continually running into them dog-piling me in shared spaces, where they defer to their mod/admin actions as gospel without critical thought, I am embarrassed that this only occurred to me today.

Dude. Totally

I usually don’t even know what’s going on with moderators and rules. I mostly try to be decent and correct any transgressions. Whenever there are communities with toxicity or people on a power trip, I don’t want to be there anyway.

"Unethical moderation."

Bruh.

"Authoritarian."

like authoritarian is a word you use to describe a government. This just isn't how people think. You're talking about authoritarianism like it's some kind of value that some people follow. Nobody is deferring to Lemmy mods because of their faith in some general abstract concept of authority, that they must act authoritarianly to appease the Authority God.

like authoritarian is a word you use to describe a government. This just isn’t how people think.

Are you pulling my leg?

Of course it's how some people think; that's why they're in favor of such governments.

It's... confusing at the best of times. Especially when the reason fields are filled in with nonsense and you can't dig to find out more. It makes it hard to find out if they're even toxic/power-tripping as you say, or just acting appropriately to toxicity by removing/banning it. Maybe they were exhausted and didn't want to show their reasoning. Maybe they were trying to cover up their abuse by not leaving a paper trail of self-admissions of "This person isn't breaking any rules, but I don't like them."

I quite enjoy polite conversations with people I disagree with. I personally feel that's how people learn and grow.

... unfortunately that's considered "trolling" by some.

No, people support authority because they think they won't be the people affected by it and that they will benefit from it, nobody actually thinks that being controlled is a good deal, not a single soul except for a handful ultra-rare edge-cases, maybe.

In the real world, it's where one group supports the oppression of others because of certain privileges they gain from that oppression, that's why people support oppressive systems. A fascist, for example, supports a very specific type of authority that they think will benefit them, not authority in general. That's why saying people agreeing with moderators have authoritarian psychology or ideals or some shit doesn't make any sense and is a bit sily. The political concept and what you're talking about have zero relation. You have vastly over-generalized the concept and are semantically equivocating things that have no useful relationship in reality, like calling all things that swim "fishitarian" and then analyzing people who bathe as if they are fish: "They are fish! Of course they think submerging themselves in water is beneficial to their health!"

Those people sided with the mods of whatever community you're vagueposting about because, here's my take on it... like, maybe, hear me out...

They just disagree with you and agree with the moderator, no authoritarian mind control necessary.

I've literally been told, paraphrasing, "I'm not going to look at what happened because it says you're [bad thing] in a mod log."

I never said anyone was mind controlling anyone, either.

You're being silly.

P.S. You can whine about my refusal to break local Rule 3 all you want, I'm not going to do it.