I'm trying to put forward legit criticisms that the mod in question has been too brash in deleting the entire thing.
You just keep accusing me of being "mad", while you feel the need to smugpost with ancient images. (I know how big our folders are, you're putting in the extra effort here. You know you need to defend and deflect.)
>take things for what they are, make more constructive criticism
A criticism, by definition, is an alternative outlook on how things are. These POVs are mutually exclusive.
I'm just calling for putting moderators (especially ones like comatoast) more in the public light, I would like to see him defend himself with the deleted content in question in front of the mod team.
But since the mod team is <somewhere> and they tend to discuss things in their own secret IRC or whatever, next best thing is indeed throwing around a bunch of random arguments and performing costly signaling that this is an issue at least some care about. (and hoping that someone somewhere notices)
It makes perfect sense for the userbase to deeply distrust any sort of overt moderative overaction.
The community has already split over this, and it can't and shouldn't take BS like that again.
So curb your spinning of truths. A thread didn't just die, it was murdered for having no idpol exhaust elsewhere.
Also the thread OP needs to be edited again: it says "don't post idpol out of containthread", but apparently there's a casus to delete any thread that two posters can fuck up in five flames. So much for being Fedresistant
Everyone knew deleting idpol containment would cause widespread idpolposting. Any thread that doesn't tell the posters what to post literally could be one. The problem is not gone, just a symptom of it.
Unpopular opinion threads have been with us for a long time, and were a great source of disagrees and dialects. If you want to ban these types of threads, publicly announce you will in the OP and tell the userbase you're planning to do so instead of anonymously displacing all the lurking anons whenever.