Because, like Trump, they have no intention of giving up power.

R² of like nothing

Surprised resident shit bird Ed Case isn’t on that list.

I just can not, in the name of the great spaghetti monster, noodle be thy name, figure out why the fuck @givesomefucks@lemmy.world insists on being the water carrier for Democrats. As in, in the traditional sense, being the apologist.

They’ll acknowledge the issues. They’ll be open and understanding the critiques. But they’ll die on the hill of protecting Ken Martin, whom, I think everyone on the left had some hope for, but who has been about as disapointing as cat shit. Just like we would have expected any corporate Dem to be. Its like they don’t want to acknowledge that actually, a party of feckless electors happy to rig primaries, lick any corporate boot, and only willing to pivot to the right, thats pretty much who makes up the Democratic party as far as leadership. They’ arent’ redeemable.

But they just won’t fucking hear it. They’re like, on a personal mission to save the sole of the DNC as it currently exists. Its like Ken Martin has his own personal Apostle Paul.

Why it’s different this time, is the DNC is going to keep supporting progressives instead of sabatoging them

Tax fraud? in this economy?

Brother…

Nahh. its just sloppy brigading by the terminally online.

This kind of editorial moderation is what libs and fascists do when they know their arguments can’t stand up to critiques. The silence dissent, because if they didn’t, it would be clear how in the wrong they are.

Same shit. Same mindset. Same goals. Same outcomes.

We’re years into this. No one takes this kind of terminally online shit seriously: because it only exists to serve one particular nation.

Its entirely inconsistent and always has been. And no amount of brigading, editorial moderation, or any thing else will change that.

Its something you’ve ended up on the wrong side of, and everyone with eyes can see that. It doesn’t matter what it sounds like in the ever smaller echo chamber.

If you really believed you were right, you wouldn’t need to hide behind the same veil that liberals and fascists excuse their actions with.

Dare say… by design?

If you have to silence people who disagree with you to make your point, your point is weak. Its not more complicated then that. And this very very very particular form of editorial moderation, is for all practical purposes only enlisted in defense of one particular nation.

If the defense was convincing, you’d never need to silence it’s critics. Why would you ever do that? You’d be silly. Why would you hide your arguments if they are so strong.

But we all know the truth. They aren’t strong arguments. Heck, by and large, they aren’t really even arguments. Its masking a legitimate critic of one bad actor with criticism of another bad actor. They’re independent things. Two things can be true. Two nations can be doing bad things.

Its what MAGA does to dissent in their spaces. Its what liberals do in theirs. No differences. Same goals at the end of the day, to be the hedgemon.

If you think you’ve got some strong arguments, argue against censorship so the discussions can be had. There really are no excuses for this kind of petty tyranny of the moderator at this point.

Sure. It could be. Heck even three things could be true at much. Maybe even three ignorami all easily manipulated by their propaganda de jour. And its not like I’m new to this little panty-bundle pet issue you choose to editorially moderate around. We all see you. We all see what you are doing and have been doing around this issue for years. Just like we see Jordan Lund for what they do. Or Ruud. Or squid.

The issue to me isn’t the disagreement: its your refusal to have it and to use your moderator powers to suppress conversations which you can’t actually engage in, in a public manner, and expect to convince people to come to your side. And what it does, the way its almost exclusive to one particular pet issue: it dramatically weakens your stance.

Any point you could possibly be making which might actually be convincing becomes basically meaningless because you can’t do it rhetorically. You choose to not allow for it. Just like Squid coudlnt defend zionism rhetorically, and so they abused the power of moderation; just like Jordan Lund and their defense of establishment poltiics. These are your peers. These are who you share a bench with when you choose to engage in this manner.

If your arguments were really good and convincing, you wouldn’t need to editorialize via moderation. When you do what you do, it says more about the weakness of your perspective than it does show any kind of strength.

Two things can be true at the same time. They can be a vibed up shitlib. You can be a moderator trying to use your power to cultivate a narrow and specific interpretation of world events.

Removed by mod

sending like 3 or more page long rants

How do you think I got so good at writing?

with no response from me

👆 whats that?

You being toxically establishment pilled and baby brained changes nothing about my commentary, what I write, how I write it, now or in the past.

The fact that you’ve regularly gotten yourself banned for shit like this and have to rotate accounts so often should be feedback enough for you to understand, that you, are in-fact, a troll.

The hall pass came at a cost. Billionaires will now be compliant in keeping the ossified leadership in place.

And the same hogs who eat up the anti-Hasan rhetoric eat this up too.

Its a problem with this particular version of the gif. It was a poor clip, so its got a frame from the scene immediately after.

His news outlet Breitbart and working partner Milo Yannopolis were the main instigators of it.

I appreciate you mentioning this. Something I’ve been looking for is a signal in the data which can show how this happened, lets say… from the other side of the mirror.