The hesitation was slight and my comment was mainly for fun.

He’s in the category of racists who claim not to be racist on the grounds that they hate all immigrants equally, irrespective of skin colour or nationality, which would still be horribly racist even if it were true. And it’s not.

Support for Farage is in the 30%-40% range (which would likely win him a thumping majority of know-nothing racist incompetent bozos, fruitcakes and loons), and being a far right hate-monger, he and his ardent supporters hate Israel, not because of the destruction of Gaza, but because Israel is Jewish. So yes, they’re Islamophobic and Anti-Semitic at the same time!

Nice try, FBI.

But with your socks still on, right?

Right?

Risky click of the day.

Do it, folks, click it. CLICK!

I liked this short exchange as well ^w

It made me happy. Thank you.

I didn’t memorise the numbers, lol! I just remember there being a surprisingly large number of MAGAs claiming to be American who were outside the US and specifically a lot in Russia.

Xitter turned off the feature pretty quickly, but also a lot of those specific accounts that got outed as non-Americans disappeared thereafter. I suspect they came back with new usernames!

I found the whole thing amusing because I always thought it was pretty braindead to think you were “making America great again” by voting for Trump, who anyone could spot a long time ago was going to be very damaging for the USA, and Xitter accidentally outing MAGAts as foreign actors was a fun example of rightwingers being to stupid to implement their biases without shooting themselves in the foot.

I was only rudely replying to the comment which was oversimplifying a lot of positions as a way to get back at them.

I may be overly aspergic about this, I accept, but please try to say what you mean more.

Instead of “Please define tankie”, why not say “@OP, tankie is a muddy and overused word, please state what you mean by it, and if you don’t have a useful and valid meaning for the term, avoid it.”

Instead of “You’re not OP”, why not say “Wow, you’ve certainly oversimplified a lot of positions there!”.

I’m afraid I’m finding your hidden meanings constantly unsettling. I don’t mind you disagreeing with people and entering firmly into the debate, and I thoroughly approve of the bans you put in place, but I’m finding the indirectness harder to come to terms with.

TBH I’m just tired of the whole semantic circus around muddy words like “tankie”

This is the best thing you’ve said. I found it properly eye-opening because it communicates something about how the word is used that wasn’t as clear in my mind as it is now.

Hey,

:)

Btw, I liked this whole comment overall a lot because it was open and honest, showed me how you feel, made you human and very relatable, and clarified concepts for me. Quadruple win!

I think they meant that the Nazi bots were Russian - Xitter turned user location on and loads of ostensibly American MAGA accounts turned out to be based in Russia!

For some reason I didn’t see your M earlier.

Nevertheless, it now seems like you wanted to publicly have an argument with OP over the use of the term, but instead of directly calling them out on it, you phrased it as a request for information, perhaps in the hopes of trapping them into betraying their prejudices or something.

Now other people started trying to answer your question, which doesn’t meet the agenda you were trying to push and you’re acting like people were unreasonable or silly for answering your question, but you asked it openly on an open discussion forum and in a way that didn’t mention OP and just seemed to be phrased like a request for information.

Being a mod is about moderating discussion, not controlling or directing it. I don’t think it’s about blanket control over who speaks.

(By way of balance, some of the mod actions in this thread have been absolutely spot on, thank you.)

That’s not how Lemmy works. It’s for discussion. If you genuinely only wanted to speak to OP, DM them.

It’s clearly working. You don’t post on r/relationship_advice unless you’re happy to be told that your relationship is doomed and you should split up.

Woman throws milkshake at obnoxious trumpy nazi sympathising uk politician who goes full snowflake on her and calls for an end to political violence (having stayed silent when a leftwing mp was actually murdered), then pursues her through the courts.

explained how your behavior meets it and mine doesn’t.

I can confidently predict that you 100% believe that this is true of everyone who argues with you online and absolutely never true of you!

You truly believe that it’s everyone else that’s being unreasonable and toxic, making wild, random accusations with no basis whatsoever in factual reality, whereas you’re a virtuous truth teller whose opinions are based on firm scientific evidence all day every day! It’s so one-sided that I find it amusing.

I have already defined what crybullying is

I’m not sure you did, or at least if you did, you didn’t phrase it as a definition. Reading back over our conversion, I think “crybullying” is your made-up word for people criticising you and then not obeying your made-up rules for how they should answer your talking points. It paints you as a victim when someone calls you out and completely glosses over your original behaviour. You paint yourself as boldly calling out poor behaviour in others, whilst calling similar behaviours in them crying and bullying. Trump does that kind of projection too, but like me, he never heard of your made up term for it.

You can give it out, but you can’t take it. And I was right in the first place that like that other user you’re argumentative and bad at backing down.

You admitted that you’re argumentative and yet here you are, utterly failing to back down on that point. Do you fancy admitting that you’re bad at backing down too?!

I’m describing a very specific behavior with the term “crybully,”

Yes, the very specific behaviour of criticising you as opposed to criticising other people. It’s an irregular verb: I make valid criticism, you crybully, he/she spews hate and gets emotional.

Evidence or GTFO.

You need me to provide screenshots of your swearing and name calling pms to me, or can we take them on trust? Lol.

You think you’re quite the clever scientist because you tell other people to provide evidence, but the evidence is right here in this conversation and across your post history! Lol.

I keep tuning maybe I don’t have adhd and then I read posts like this.

Lol. When you criticise other people’s behaviour, you call it “calling them out” or “calling you out”, but when people criticise your behaviour, you call it “crybullying”. It’s extreme double standards.

What I actually said, by the way, was that I don’t mind if you call me argumentative. The thing that you don’t have evidence for is when you assigned fault to me in my conversation with the other person.

I can’t quite believe that you put those two sentences in the same paragraph without the merest hint of self reflection.

What can’t you believe about it? Being argumentative is not the same as being at fault.

Then why are you arguing with me at all? Why not just say “oh yeah, that’s me to the core”?

This whole thing started because I saw the two of you doing what you both often do and you were “crybullying” (your term, not mine) the other person for toxicity, when I “called you out” (your term, not mine) on it, you switched to “crybullying” me (your term not mine). This was as predictable as it was ironic, and I find it amusing that somewhere in there you really think that of you just argue a little but more angrily or a little bit longer you’ll prove me wrong to have criticised your style of argument!

Zoom in and look at the wood grain under the spoon.