You may have noticed a distinct lack of return2ozma. This is due to their admitting, in a public comment, that their engagement here is in bad faith:
I’m sure there will be questions, let me see if I can address the most obvious ones:
- Can I still post negative stuff about Biden?
Absolutely! We have zero interest in running an echo chamber. However, if ALL you’re posting is negative, you may want to re-think your priorities. You get out of the world what you put into it and all that.
- Why now?
Presumption of innocence. It may be my own fault, but I do try to think the best of people, and even though they were posting negative articles, they weren’t necessarily WRONG. Biden’s poll numbers, particularly in minority demographics ARE in the shitter. They are starting to get better, but he still has a hell of a hill to climb.
- Why a 30 day temp ban and not a permanent ban?
The articles return2ozma shared weren’t bad, faked, or from some wing-nut bias site like “beforeitsnews.com”, they were legitimate articles from established and respected news agencies, pointing out the valid problems Biden faces.
The problem was ONLY posting the negatives, over and over and then openly admitting that dishonest enagement is their purpose.
Had they all been bullshit articles? It would not have taken anywhere near this much time to lay the ban and it would have been permanent.
30 days seems enough time for them to re-think their strategery and come back to engage honestly.
Look, I have zero illusions to how popular of a decision this is in this comm, and this isn’t my instance so who the fuck cares what I think.
but
I have a very hard time seeing this as anything other than a disagreement over personal political tastes, rather than anything to do with a violation of some unwritten rule. Your comm already has rules regarding article quality, misinformation, and off-topic posts and comments that could be used as a justification here if it applied. If there was a problem with the volume of posts for which he was responsible (i think this is the legitimate concern here), then you could either call it spamming or there could easily be a rule added limiting the number of posts per day that applies globally and isn’t reliant on subjective judgement.
I’ve been very vocal about my own political opinions, and have myself been accused of bad-faith trolling and of being a covert agent of some type or other. Speaking for myself, I think there’s a pretty obvious bias (maybe preference is a more fair term) when it comes to the coverage and rhetoric about the upcoming election in the US specifically. There’s legitimacy to the observation that inconvenient bad press about Biden is ignored/rationalized/dismissed on a ‘lesser evil’ and ‘at all costs’ political rationale that I (and I think ozma) tend to react negatively to. Breaking through the iron curtain of electoral politics to people who genuinely share political values (not all of them, mind you) sometimes involves repeated reminders and presentation of counter-partisan coverage. I personally appreciate ozma’s contributions because often these posts and articles encourage real discussions about the limitations of this particular politician, and people like @[email protected] frequently jump in and provide nuanced dissection and context to what would otherwise be an easily dismissed issue.
This is not my instance so It’s not up to my judgment what the right or wrong thing to do is here, but .world being an instance that has already de-federated with most others with louder left-leaning politics, the overton window has already been considerably narrowed. By removing the loudest dissenters (who are ‘not wrong, just assholes’), you run the risk of warping reality for those who don’t care enough to confront coverage they might find uncomfortable and might prefer a more quiet space to affirm their politics instead of being challenged. You’re cultivating an echo chamber simply by cutting out the noise you find disagreeable. The goal of agitation is to get exactly those people to engage more so that we can move the overton window further left and accomplish more at the electoral level in the future. It isn’t ‘bad faith’ to be motivated by that goal, it just might be unfair to people who are comfortable with where that window currently is and would rather not be challenged by it moving further left.
- Is okay: Having a viewpoint, whatever the viewpoint
- Isn’t okay: Pushing a particular chosen viewpoint regardless of how well it aligns with the information you’re drawing from, being upfront about that being your strategy, and then following through to a beyond-parody level of annoying everyone and repeating yourself day in and day out
IDK why everyone’s so eager to read a pretty detailed explanation of why the issue isn’t his viewpoint, and then follow up right away with extensive hand wringing over the idea of censoring his viewpoint.
IDK why everyone’s so eager to read a pretty detailed explanation of why the issue isn’t his viewpoint, and then follow up right away with extensive hand wringing over the idea of censoring his viewpoint.
Simple. They’re not buying the explanation.
Dude admitted to being a propagandist. You have no argument here.
he was posting stories from reputable sources.
And ONLY certain stories that fit a narrative. How is this part being ignored?
Oh… I get it. You also support that narrative.
no one shouldbe compelled to spread a story that supports a point of view with which they disagree. so long as his posts were, in themselves, in compliance with the rules, there should have been no problem.
Do you have a problem with reading comprehension? This was all explained already. They were spamming the community with agenda-based news. No one suggested they share news they disagree with.
And if you check the mod logs, not ALL of what they shared was legitimate.
They were rightfully banned. And I’d prefer it permanent, but it’s still a step in the right direction. Not arguing this with you further.
He admitted he disliked Biden. That does not make him a propagandist.
He admitted he only chooses to post negative things about Biden. Don’t move goalposts for someone else… it’s VERY bad look.
When people only post negative things about Trump what is the reason?
Find me someone that does nothing but post negative shit about Trump all day here and I’ll concede this discussion.
Because it’s pretty clearly about his viewpoint, since the cited comment in the post is ‘this is my viewpoint, and that viewpoint is why i’m posting these things’
If it’s about the volume of posts call it spamming and address it with a rule about post limits. Calling it bad-faith is necessarily about the reason he’s making the posts, not how many of them there are or the quality of the articles.
I have a new idea: Anyone who wants to hide behind “I am posting this as a far left person, to help the left, because I care super much about the left and if you don’t like my viewpoint you are clearly a shitlib censoring my helpful left viewpoint of shitting relentlessly on Biden,” has to post at least a 1:1 ratio of posts in favor of ranked choice voting, or local helpful leftist candidates, or directing people to a Palestine protest, or some left helpful viewpoint that isn’t “let’s have Trump come to power because Biden isn’t everything I hoped and dreamed for, as for-sure genuine leftist.”
If the shills are gonna accuse people of policing viewpoint let’s police some fuckin viewpoints, to make sure they make some sense
(Note: I am clearly joking about this. Mostly.)
I’m noticing you do this a lot:
“We should require proof of support of some leftist goals from people who want to criticize biden - i’m only kidding (kinda)” “This instance looks a lot like a troll farm - i’m not accusing just saying it’s suspicious”
Sounds to me like you wouldn’t be opposed to a political alignment test as a requirement to participating in political discussions (i’m clearly joking about this. mostly)
I talk from time to time about wanting to set up a forum where if you say something, you have to back it up, as a way to mitigate the impact of low-effort trolling “of COURSE we all agree Biden ruined the climate” from 5-10 different accounts as a technique to distort the discourse. I think it’s toxic if it is politically slanted so that someone with mod power is deciding what is the “right” political viewpoint, obviously; on that much we will agree. But I do think that the discourse is being radically distorted by the existence of organized shilling efforts, and I think about what would be a good solution to it (which seems like a pretty difficult problem), in ways which I am sure would be wildly unpopular with a certain segment of the userbase.
You can characterize that as me thirsting to silence dissenting political views, if you want. I won’t stop you.
I don’t think you’re trying to silence political views at all, but I do think you’re trying to dismiss them as fringe, dishonest, or intentional subterfuge.
Castigating people you disagree with as ‘shills’ or ‘bad faith actors’ is, in my opinion, the lowest quality of political commentary. It excuses you from engaging with what that person saying, simply because you doubt their honesty, as if somehow that invalidates what they’re saying. I think it’s lazy and I wish mods would enforce their own rules against it.
I also find it frustrating that you continuously accuse people like myself and ozma of acting according to some agenda, but then appear in every political thread giving impassioned arguments about how we need to look past Biden’s flaws no matter how real they are, as if that is not itself a political agenda. Do I think you’re arguing that in bad faith? No, but then again i’m not in support of banning people who are simply too loud about their perspective.
Castigating people you disagree with as ‘shills’ or ‘bad faith actors’ is, in my opinion, the lowest quality of political commentary. It excuses you from engaging with what that person saying
Can you point to anyone who’s said anything that I responded to without engaging on its own merits?
Everyone has a rosy view of themselves I am sure, but in my mind, I’ve spent an almost pathological amount of time here talking to ozma about the merits of what he’s saying, on the face of them, and likewise for you, likewise for a lot of the other people. Then also in addition to that, if they display shill-like behavior I tend to call it out instead of just avoiding the potentially-unfair accusation. But I don’t think I have ever really led out of the gate with anything along the lines of “you’re a shill so that means I don’t have to respond to what you just said”.
Can you point to an example of someone who said something and I just dismissed what they were saying instead of breaking down why (in my view) it wasn’t right, at least as a first step even if later I proceeded to what I thought of their motivations or changing the subject or etc?
Well said.
It’s actually not a disagreement. :) I actually agree with a lot of the substance of the articles. Biden needs to address his support in minority communities for example.
The problem comes from posting negative news purely to be negative, over and over and over.
It becomes less constructive and more about harping on Biden, a la Fox/Newsmax/Oann.
I think it’s safe to say you do disagree about what constitutes ‘fair’ coverage of Biden
I think it’s safe to say you don’t understand them when they tell you it was because it was agenda-based spam.
If it’s spam then set a limit on the number of posts and move on. If it’s because he has an agenda then I guess everyone here should be banned, too, including jordanlund, since ‘there’s too much anti-biden coverage here’ is an agenda-based determination itself.
.
“Biden doesn’t have enough slips to merit the number of negative posts”
edit: You did the same thing here. You keep twisting the argument being presented into something facially ridiculous rather than engaging with what other users are actually saying.
He’s specifically supporting his argument that some accounts criticizing biden are bad-faith actors, by providing an example of what he doesn’t consider to be bad faith (the difference being generalized support with some loud criticisms). I don’t think I misrepresented him at all, and mozz and I discussed it at length, if you care to read it
.
You honestly think mods have the time to count how many posts each person makes?
RTO has been spamming this community and others with anti-Biden rhetoric for a long time. People have been complaining a LOT in the comments. To the point where it was damn near biased that they kept protecting the clown.
There’s enough anti-Biden stuff around posted in this, and other communities that it’s not necessary for ONE person to pepper a community with that shit all day.
Let’s not resort to bad faith comparisons when the explanation was sound. Even if you disagree with it.
Mods hardly do anything manually, i’m arguing for a automated limit that’s community-wide. So no, I don’t think mods have time to count the posts of their thousands of users, but I think scripting that rule into an automod would be almost trivial.
Let’s not resort to bad faith comparisons when the explanation was sound. Even if you disagree with it.
It’s not bad-faith, my point is that having an agenda doesn’t make behavior bad-faith. I don’t even think it’s unreasonable to ask for fewer posts from ozma, just call it what it is and enforce it for everyone, instead of making it about the specific perspective he’s pushing.
[if ALL you’re posting is negative, you may want to re-think your priorities. ]
It’s okay to do that about a specific politician if that is your true opinion. However, it does seem like this person was arguing in bad faith by admitting he is aware things are not as bad as his posts seem.
by admitting he is aware things are not as bad as his posts seem.
Let’s do a little mental exercise. What does this next line imply?
Both good and bad news about Trump is out there. I prefer to share the bad news
The only ones arguing in bad are the ones completely twisting what he said to find an implication that does not exist and accuse him of it.
The irony of someone constantly being banned from here for misinformation, here to defend an admitted propagandist.
Weren’t you just accusing this community of supporting Israel in another post somewhere? Ahh yes, here it is:
You should know /politics and /news ban anyone critical of israel and Lemmy.world is ran by Zionists.
Wasn’t that you?
As I recall, you said you weren’t posting here anymore.
Amazing you managed to not respond to a single argument and went for ad hominems and proving my point.
Nothing here is ad hominem if it’s true. You HAVE been banned for misinformation, you ARE defending OP
There is no argument to respond to as you’ve not made one.
I am unsure why you are appealing to authority in a post questioning said authority.
If you have nothing but ad-hominems I have nothing to respond to anymore.
Point out the ad hominem for me please.
To a certain kind of person, saying they’re wrong is a personal attack.
Oh Linkerbaan, are you really calling out people for not responding to your argument? You, of all people?
Your primary mo is to go in every thread and screech “Zionist” before anyone dares question your posts or comments and you want to talk about ad hominem? Cute.
Let’s do a little mental exercise. What does this next line imply?
Both good and bad news about Trump is out there. I prefer to share the bad news
It implies you are arguing in bad faith. Doesn’t matter whether you are talking about Joe Biden of Convicted Felon and Sex Offender Treason Trump.
removed by mod
So you’ll be banning people that post only negative news about trump?
.
We have negative posts on here when Trump as much as farts. If there is anything bad faith it is claiming that there is a balance in positive and negative posts about Trump.
But…. mUh WHaTaBoUT!
Check the mod logs. FAR more posts are removed for arguing WITH leftists than posts BY leftists.
And no one here believes R2O is even a leftist. Dude is a straight up propagandist.
So the rule was spamming? They should make that an actual rule then instead of banning people for posting articles supporting their opinion.
The mod logs aren’t showing them banned at all, Is there something I’m missing?
I think his comments are more damming evidence of his bad faith engagement than what’s being presented in this post. None of his articles were lies, and considering how most people only share the good, being committed to only sharing the bad to give some fucking perspective isn’t in and of itself necessarily bad faith engagement.
Anyone seeing this and unfamiliar with Ozma may look at this and see it being a bit of an extreme reaction. Dude has plenty of comments that support the fact he wasn’t just adding perspective, though, that could be added for more context.
Thats not a bad faith argument anymore than a liberal posting something bad about trump because it fits their narrative. Like many leftists I hate democrats more than Republicans because Republicans don’t pretend to care. Republicans will tell you to your face who they are, democrats will lie to your face about inclusion and acceptance and proceed to legislate like their conservative counterparts.
There are no 1775 democrats. Every single 1775er is a Republican. That’s a wrap right there but I’m gonna keep going because then it sounds like I’m avoiding the rest of your points.
Republicans have been stonewalling Congress since 2010. Both parties have issues with partisanship and gatekeeping but you’re confusing 3 points all together at once. 1) conflating effective governance within the limits of a bicameral legislature, designed to advance only through compromise, with hypocrisy. 2) trying to lie about republicans somehow having more integrity than Democrats 3) telling yet another lie implying that Democratic legislation is anywhere near as conservative as what republicans put out and bonus point number 4) pretending democrats have contributed to the advancement of neo fascism by playing hide the sausage with the term “conservative” in the same way or at the same level as Republicans have.
The argument that Republicans are honest about who they are is itself a Republican talking point. Look at how they flip flopped on matters of law and order as soon as Trump got convicted. Stop letting yourself be deceived. If you’re a leftist who hates Democrats more than Republicans you sound like what would have been considered a useful idiot by the Soviet Union, cutting off your leg to spite your face.
deleted by creator
removed by mod
deleted by creator
And I am very curious on which metric you use to say that Republicans are fascists and Democrats aren’t.
WTF Have you not been paying attention to current events? Support for American values of democracy and freedom.
That must be why they voted to renew the patriot act every 3 years since 2002, because they value freedom.
Please. All the worst legislation is bipartisan. Republicans are just stupid enough to say the quiet part out loud.
All the worst legislation is bipartisan
Mostly true. Because most of the Republican Party is made up of unamerican neofascists.
deleted by creator
The same values that are used as justification by the two parties to invade/intervene in any country that has something that interests the US?
No. That that is almost never the US justification for war. But yes, saving South Korea from being ruled by the North Korean dictator was a great thing.
And seriously, what democracy? In which you “elect” the president in an indirect system that does not necessarily elect the most voted by the people?
So that is the same as “fascism”. GTFO with that ridiculous nonsense.
I call this a joke of a democracy.
Because you are not comparing it with the absence of democracy, You are comparing it with a perfect democracy. The absence of a perfect democracy is not a “joke”, it is the difference between fascism and non-fascism.
No matter what your opinion of the North Korean regime, to praise this war is to praise mass murder.
Dude nobody is praising North Koreans and Chinese for their war of aggression and mass murder. Also please stop your implied racism against South Koreans by undervaluing their freedom.
This has been used as at least a minor motive in Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam and Iraq, to name a few.
Sort of true with Korea and Vietnam. Not true at all with the rest.
The consequences are there to be seen.
Yes the consequences are very apparent. South Korea is a thriving free democracy. North Korea is still the worst country in the world to live.
There is no such thing as “incomplete democracy”:
That’s why nobody is claiming there is. There is a measurable scale for how good a democracy is. Starting with the obvious “Is there freedom of the press?” and going to stuff like: Is every vote weighed the same? Is it easy to vote?
Not “same” as fascism, but not democracy at all.
Not democracy because votes are grouped by states? How idiotic can you get?
both parties claim they are the true defenders of american values of democracy and freedom. is it possible neither actually is?
It is theoretically possible but not in fact the case at all. The War On Democracy always comes from the Republican Party
obama had a kill list and extrajudicially murdered us citizens. bill clinton signed the welfare reform and the crime bill and he signed off on moving the us embassy to jerusalem. under kennedy, we went into vietnam.
democrats don’t value democracy. they do what the war machine wants, and sometimes that means having a war against democracy.
obama had a kill list .
Yes. Osama Bin Laden.
bill clinton signed the welfare reform and the crime bill and he signed off on moving the us embassy to jerusalem. under kennedy, we went into vietnam.
WTF none of those have anything to do with democracy. Did you think “democracy” meant “do everything that you personally want”? Do you not get that you are not the only voter? LMFAO.
that means having a war against democracy.
How is going into Vietnam a war AGAINST democracy. Vietnam does not have a democracy, although South Vietnam had a democracy in 1975. And South Korea has a democracy today, because of the Korean War.
Which party tried to overthrow the government again? And is still trying to?
deleted by creator
(Criticizing the government does not count as trying to overthrow it, even if you’re lying to do so. Advancing an impeachment process or taking violent action against the government counts.)
Lol, so you’re saying lying in order to stop the will of the people is not considered trying overthrowing the government? Trying to stop the certification of an elected official, raiding the capital, building a gallow to hang the VP, not to mention trying to activate the national guard to stop the certification process. Not fascist at all, according to you.
There’s nothing wrong about critiquing the government, but if you’re willfully ignoring everything that’s happened even before the 2016 election, you’re not arguing in good faith, champ.
deleted by creator
Lying is totally a right by the First Amendment, no matter what your goal is with it.
I never said otherwise, but they lied and still are in an attempt to overturn the election.
is that you can’t say that the “Republican Party did this” when “who did this” were a bunch of civilians who weren’t being run directly by the Republican Party.
Lowering them goalposts.
You absolutely can, who lead the charge? Who organized the entire rally? Who helped bus in the Republicans from all over the country? The GOP. They are complicit and are the ones who organized the entire coup attempt. On top of being in kahoots with right-wing militias like the proud boys who their leader (who has been charged) also had an active role on J6
Riiiight. Everything that you don’t like is “fascist” and the bOtH siDeS rhetoric is OLD.
Your own party is fascist. Their ratchet effect keeps fascism in power and keeps shifting the Overton window
Nice mental gymnastics you got going there, champ.
Ringling Bros is talking about mental gymnastics
Kind of incredible someone can be banned for posting too many negative stories about Biden (and admitting they like posting them, I guess?) while the mods here ignore users that post comments denying that specific homophobic instances occurred. Happy Pride! 🥳
It’s really disappointing to see you constantly delete comments you perceive as rude or uncivil with extreme vigilance but then be stupid enough to allow bad faith posters like return2ozma repeatedly try to control political narratives for months on end. I’m really tired of seeing your name in the Modlog policing politeness but then sleeping on issues like this. Anyone with half a brain could have recognized ozma’s dishonesty a long time ago.
You ought to be ashamed of yourself for the mess you’ve allowed to propagate for an extended period of time, you ought to consider extending the 30 day ban to a permanent one, and you have to be better moving forward.
Oh no a clearly leftist user said bad things about Biden. Next thing you know he posts bad things abuot israel too.
Hey look my 1month ban for absolutely nothing just expired. At least its clear now that criticism of Biden == Ban.
What’s the difference between r/conservative and c/politics, the color of the MAGA hat?
Unsurprising to see the usual suspects agitating on this issue in the comments section.
I honestly don’t know how I feel about this, other than that a temp ban is better than a perma-ban. Ozma is annoying as shit, but that’s not a strong admittance of bad faith, even if it’s obvious by his posting to anyone with functioning eyes. At the same time, he does nothing but continuously post this dreck, and a community necessarily must trim bad-faith actors to maintain itself. Otherwise you end up with a shithole like 4chan.
I don’t know. I’m glad it’s not my call.
I’m sorry but how is that admitting bad faith? Feels more like just saying they’re posting the negative because no one else is.
Refusing to stop posting debunked claims is dishonest
And yet that’s not the reason for the ban or mentioned
what was the debunked post?
Why not all the shit blaming him for what Republican congress members does?
maybe you could just link one?
Why would I bother search through his account history now?
if what you are saying were true, you could do it. a claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. i don’t believe you, and no one should.
Ok so I scrolled back line 2 weeks of the dudes history, and apparently he posts dozens of times per day and I can’t be bothered to scroll further. Some dozen articles on polls blaming the admin for stuff they aren’t responsible for, ignoring things they did do, and some article insinuating dementia, and a bunch of doomerism. There’s probably better examples further back than 2 weeks, but I can’t be bothered. Other people in this thread has given examples of stuff they’ve seen from him so maybe check for yourself
Only posting bad news about one person is trolling. They weren’t here to engage honestly.
they were here to post links to political news that complied with the rules. your capricious moderation has been a problem since your first week.
Admtting he was only posting negative news for the explicit purpose of being negative was what earned the temp ban.
capricious moderation is the only real explanation.
If that were true, I would have banned them AGES ago when people first started complaining about them.
It took 11 months to earn this ban, and a temp ban at that.
given that their behavior has been the same this whole time, this doesn’t hold water.
The behavior has been the same, what changed was the admission. Until then they had the benefit of doubt.
Please explain how that’s trolling when said person keeps doing things to warrant bad press?
You say it’s okay to post negative stories about Biden but then say if we say we’re posting negative stories that means a ban?
Biden doesn’t have enough slips to merit the number of negative posts, and the absence of anything positive indicates he was only here to stir shit up.
It IS possible to mention that Biden’s numbers are improving (they are) or that the (Murdoch owned) WSJ article was bullshit:
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4704853-white-house-wall-street-journal-biden/
careful haha i’m with you for most of this thread but this comment dives into an argument that weakens your position i think.
i didn’t block that account because of the number of negative biden posts. personally i blocked them because they kept being abusive to people in the comments in a way that they clearly enjoyed, aka trolling. (i don’t think personally i ever even noticed the biden thing, just that they were mean a lot.) i think it’s enough to ban them for abusing the platform in a way that is contra to the average user having a constructive experience (and then admitting to the means of it)—you don’t really need to stoop to counting Biden’s “slips” as that is just opening yourself for more dissent
cheers ☕️☀️
Biden doesn’t have enough slips to merit the number of negative posts, and the absence of anything positive indicates he was only here to stir shit up.
I’m not here to debate this perspective, but you should be aware that this sounds a lot like editorializing.
That is often the problem with Ozma. Picking the most editorialized lowest quality source. Focused on turning nothing into something. In order to meet some “biden bad!” Quota. Not every single time. But often enough. Some of them were pretty ridiculous how hard they were reaching.
If there’s a bad source then I would imagine it would either be removed or at least challenged in the comments.
Him presenting a lot of examples that support his opinion isn’t bad faith, imho
Polls improving doesn’t mean there’s not negative stories due to him.
Or that Murdock owned press are the only ones writing about him.
Uh oh, sounds like someone is heading towards a Bad Faith Engagement!
Prepare the black bags of silence, it’s time for reeducation.
I generally agree with your reasoning. In a ranked choice world, they would likely have a candidate they would back, and support. I think many of us here would be happy to be in that world.
Reminder for everyone to vote every election, and local and state are super important, it’s where you have a chance to get ranked choice in the discussion.
Unfortunately, implementing ranked choice nationwide requires politicians who are responsive to the will of the people.
If we had that, we would already have what we needed ranked choice for.
Absolutely! Make note of your election dates and vote in all elections.
You deserve representation.
Yup, yup. Fixing elections is a tall order, but if freakin’ ALASKA can get ranked choice, why not everyone?
Alaska is notoriously anti-establishment so ranked choice is almost a perfect fit for them.
I agree with this take on r2ozma. They obviously criticized Biden and the DNC relentlessly, but to me it came from a place of frustration from wanting better representation. It’s a good case study in how the 2 party system generally fails us all.
I’m sure that troll account will behave from now on /s
Hey, a permaban is always on the table. ;)
I find it’s about 70/30 when it comes to temp bans. 7/10 I get PMs of “sorry, I’ll do better” and then 3/10 it’s… well… (note, this was a different user)
Yikes -ee-ola
That’s unhinged
…and people behaving like this is why we cannot have nice things. I can remember the days of BBS (often heavily moderated) as contrasted with the (mostly unmoderated) USENET.
I think things on the unmoderated side were only barely holding on prior to The Eternal September; in hindsight, it is surprising things worked as well as they did.
Christ in a hand basket, if that’s genuine then I say ban the troll
Oh, yeah, this guy was permabanned across the whole instance, not just Politics.
Whoever that was was going off about this, lmao.
I think he got banned in my instance as well because he kept posting your profile photo over and over, saying nasty ass shit. I blocked him real quick.
I just checked the date, and this is a different asshole lol
The one I saw was around the time I first came onto lemmy and hoo boy, was he all verklempt and mighty pissed off.
Y’all got profile photos? Weird
Oh, the photo guy was a TOTALLY DIFFERENT one.
Good
Good move, they were a clown and pointing out that they were arguing entirely in bad faith is correct. They did it under the guise of being far-leftist, but as a far-leftist myself, I have a hard time believing it was for anything other than pissing people off. Hopefully they can go practice being happy instead of doom-posting on niche Internet forums.
I have a hard time believing it was for anything other than pissing people off.
this is why I blocked them. Also, kinda felt I didn’t want to be seeing his crap. Biden is an awful candidate but R20 ain’t helping matters.
