After nearly a full day of inactivity where people lived their damn lives, you came back to offer nothing new, yet you keep trying to nitpick your way into an argument. Why is this so important to you?

Actually, no, don’t answer. Just stay on your weird family-fucking hill until you die on it, as you so obviously want to. I’m done with you.

Your permanent ban for defending incest, a situation that is widely agreed to be an abuse of trust in any configuration, thus making consent dubious. Specifically, your response defending a woman who fucked her son, suggesting grooming to be at play.

Once again, is this a cause you want to keep fighting for? Or do you want to just take the damn L already?

And if you ignore the spirit of the rules entirely, you get shitty people doing shitty things while clinging to technicalities. If I say “I technically didn’t steal your watch”, you would still want your watch back.

The solution is to uphold the letter of the rules and, if they are insufficient, you update the rules.

The ban fits the spirit, if not the letter, in a sort of “we didn’t think we needed to specify a dog can’t play basketball” situation. I suspect the wording of the rule will be changed to reflect this.

By making this post, you are still fighting on it.

Leaving aside whether the rule was the right one to use, I will stress that, when it comes to incest, the power dynamics in play make consent dubious at best. This is doubly so for parent/child incest, such as the case you were talking about.

This is a weird hill. Are you sure you want to die on it?

It’s possible your coworkers are the ones dealing with those issues, and you just never notice.

They said “perfectly”, not “90%”. You’re trying to move the goalposts.

And nothing of value was lost.

Edit: This was written taking OP at face value, and now I know the truth, it takes on new meaning.

all of your claims have so many asterisks attached that they’re essentially pointless

No they don’t, but say whatever you need to ignore me. That’s definitely what someone arguing in good faith would do.

internet access has been shown to have all the same negative effects

Citation needed.

it’s a useful technology

Quite the opposite, actually. It causes enormous problems and has no benefits that aren’t better served by existing technologies that lack those problems.

Nobody who uses AI treats it like a tool, they treat it like an employee they can claim credit for. And most tools aren’t actively detrimental to the user to the point of proven intelligence drops, lawsuits and environmental destruction. Also, the enemy charges you money to use it.

The only person who benefits from AI is the person selling it. So why are you trying to defend it?

There’s a Mitchell and Webb sketch about the Apprentice being full of idiots, for an audience of idiots. At the end, they note there are some non-idiots who watch out of a sense of irony.

“And remind me, how do these ironic non-idiots show up in the ratings?”
“They show up the same, my friend.”

So I’m not feeling much better knowing this is a mod abuse done ironically.

Nah, but I suspect it.

…Can we pretend I was calling Not Dr Wesker submissive? Please?

I’m serious about the new “no victim blaming” rule. This is a safe space. This isn’t Ye Hippie Dippin’ Bastards where the village idiots are allowed to weigh in with their acronyms. Victim blaming is a banable offense now.

That is a direct quote from a pinned mod message.

My suspicion is that the sub is so tightly wound against “victim blaming” (aka, “not instantly agreeing with OP”) that any correction is seen as opposition. My other suspicion, from looking at the comm and how often they mock this one, is that they tried and failed to play the victim here, and decided to make their own mod abuse comm with blackjack and hookers. PTB

And any discussion of pedophiles, or the epstein class. Seriously, you can keep looking through that list and it’ll keep getting worse and worse, but I had to click “reply” at SOME point.

Than Go was the guy who painted sunflowers, right?

…But you ARE trusting them. You’re taking their word that the internet is doing horrible things to him. You forget that they are ALSO on the internet, and capable of lying to discredit the consequences of their own actions. You are ALSO on the internet, and a part of the toxicity you rail against.

Take your hands off the keyboard, put them on your lap, take a deep breath, and audibly say the words “it is possible I am wrong about this.”

We have proof the guy tried to secretly censor the entire fediverse to promote a conservative agenda. We have proof they committed cyber crimes. There is a pattern of dishonest behaviour.

We don’t have ANY evidence of the death threats or doxxing beyond the claims of a man proven to be dishonest. You don’t have any, and try to hide the fact you don’t have any with a weak “you wouldn’t believe it”. The same way I tell my friends “you wouldn’t know her, she goes to a different school.”

Right now, the two possibilities are that literally everyone except you has been tricked, or you have been misled by a desperate, proven liar. Take a second to consider the possibility that, maybe, you’re wrong to trust them.