Not everyone hates the police. But I'm pretty sure everyone hates the joke police.

Oh you did call me personally disgusting on another post, that's what I was referring to. That gotcha is really bad.
Looks like I don't even have to move in, I'm already there.

@memesgobrr I honestly don't even know at this point. I disagreed with them a couple of times to which their reaction was to call me a liar, hypocrite, not genuine, disgusting, and more. If I'm fed up with the false accusations and finally decide to match their level of meanness, they mention it on other posts to shit talk me. If I try to be overtly nice and offer an olive branch, it's interpreted as some big manipulative plot.
I guess I can sleep well with the knowledge that if I ever lose the roof over my head, I can move into their heads rent-free.

And it was going so well, we had a convo going too. I was only trying to be nice and appreciative.

Biden isn't actually realistically doing anything though. Not for the lack of trying, he's just not very capable. There was a push from his administration to make social media more liable for the spread of misinformation, but that's about it so far and afaik it didn't go anywhere yet. Just a few moments ago you talked about shutting up social media altogether (or just for election season if I understood correctly?) so I'm curious if you'd agree with Biden's move to make them more factually accountable?
But anyway it seems strange to blame him directly, what congresspeople or state representatives did, as dumb as it was, isn't really under his control.
I'm also skeptical about your comparison of what Trump and Biden are doing, since the principle seems very much the same to me. Both tried to get a tighter control of the media, which sets a very bad precedent no matter who's holding the leash.

Backed by state authorities? I really don't recall. I recall everyone condemning it except for some absolutely shit media outlet like CNN. Which, yeah, no surprises there. CNN, MSNBC, FOX News... Cesspool next to cesspool next to cesspool. I recommend you look up Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky, really good book on the topic.
The same goes for social media. But I'm not sure how to resolve this issue without being extremely authoritarian.
It's shit under Biden and it was shit under Trump, who tried to expand libel laws so he could control the media even more. And obviously it was shit under Obama too. As a supporter of free speech, I'm really not a fan of either of these men's approaches.

And I really appreciate that you're replying now. The previous convos did pretty much end on that mean note about how I'm just about the worst person alive (note: comedic exaggeration) so this is a breath of fresh air that we're actually talking substance now.

Compromising schools in what way?
I definitely agree that firing someone over an opinion is wrong.
I just still don't understand what you mean by "they". The people burning down cities are definitely not the same people in charge of the education or hiring systems. What links them? Just that they're liberals?

What do you mean by do-over? Like just counting the votes again or redoing the whole election and making people vote again? Because the former sounds great and I'd be for it. The latter seems kinda arbitrary and imo would allow space for more tampering, rather than eliminating it.
Yes, the logic of Trump rallies being super spreader events but not BLM "protests" is bullshit, definitely agree on that.
The point of securitization is that it's done by a politician or known media figure. However, that's actually a good question, whether big Twitter trends like "cancelling" someone could potentially add to securitization. Because it's usually understood as traditional media, but surely social media definitely has an impact too. Good point!

@xvarnah Oh no, I'm willing to accept that just Russiagate itself had many parts. And some Democrats couldn't shut up about it, or Trump in general for that matter. I wouldn't call their whining conspiracy theories though, but if you can show me an example of them engaging in some more conspiratorial shit than Russiagate, that'd be awesome because I can't recall any.
I think it's just the "rich and powerful" part, but there might be something to it.
No no, I didn't mean it as in wrong terminology, just that I think the people who participate in this woke stuff don't and won't actually make an impact. All they can realistically achieve is performative stuff like making movie studios cast more black people and women, not systemic change.
I agree, dissent is a vital part of democracy.

@famousone From what I could dig up, it was started back when he ran for Senate in '04 by his Republican opponent Andy Martin. Some Clinton supporters did circulate is as well though, so yeah, it wasn't just Republicans, but mostly.

Here's the thing. I don't look at usernames when I reply because I don't care who wrote it, if it's a topic I find interesting, I'll reply to the thread because I like debates. The only thing I was hoping for here is that you'd actually reply to what my comment said instead of immediately attacking my person. I've tried this on multiple threads already and so far you always defaulted to "well you said my opinion was terfy this one time, you're a vile hypocrite" and the convo ended there. Possibly with famous chiming in to show support to you, which I'm not gonna lie, is cute in a way. All I want is for people to address the topic at hand instead of endlessly gossiping over some months old disagreement. Is it really that much to ask?

Actually you brought it up twice already, hence why I was so confused as to why you're doing it again.
The wishing death thing was a joke that made sense in that particular context, at least to me. Maybe my sense of humor isn't for everyone, which is entirely fair. Maybe it was even in bad taste. But I did clarifiy that it was meant as a joke back then, and subsequently every time you brought it up again, which is like the third time now.
I've never said anything about you, only to you. I hate gossip and would never do that over a disagreement. Then I caught you gossiping about me on multiple posts. And yet I'm the hypocrite.
I haven't called anyone out on using strawmen in a long time. Exactly zero times in this convo, for instance.

That's not at all what that means and you know it. Anyway I'll just be chilling, waiting for someone who's willing to discuss facts instead of spreading gossip.

Of course I am! Nobody's given me a substantive reply yet

Oh I'm pretty much the opposite of a snob, I just write long comments because I want to be clear and avoid misunderstandings. Which unfortunately even with my long comments I can't seem to be able to pull off as people misunderstand and then even lie about situations.
Though to be fair, although I despise snobbery, it's probably preferable to telling someone "I refuse to treat you in a civil way because you disagreed with me back there". Snobbery sucks but it's better than shit flinging.
Thank you for the feedback though, I didn't realize getting so in-depth into a topic would seem so unbearably snobbish.

What's "it"? Trying to communicate in a civil way?
Could you address my points? Or, y'know, at the very least read the thread?

I do indeed expect civility after voicing my disagreements with you, and it's strange that you find it so outlandish. Isn't being bullied off a platform for having a different opinion the prime right wing victim narrative? Y'know, woe is me, I'm being targeted by the Twitter mob for having different opinions, all that? And now you're saying you will under no circumstances treat me in a civil way because I've voiced disagreement with you in the past. Curious. Perhaps for once you could react to points instead of trying to discredit the person making them?

I beloooooong

Also, a small nitpick (please don't take offense at this, I don't mean it as an attack on your person, just pointing out the conversational dynamic) – quoting what I wrote and only adding "How extraordinary" or "I'm not sure what to tell you other than that sounds about right" adds absolutely nothing of value to the conversation. Metaphorically rolling your eyes at a point I made and expecting I'll understand your counterargument from it doesn't work. Maybe it works with other people, but I like to use words to communicate, not "reading between the lines" and stuff like that. I assume it means disagreement, but can't tell anything beyond that. If you state your disagreement, it'd be nice to also say why you think what I say is wrong, because then the conversation will devolve into nonsense.
Alright that's all, I hope I made everything clear and hopefully we can have a civilized conversation.