One of the easiest ways to strengthen a community against attacks is to shine a spotlight on the behaviors shown by people attempting to sabotage it. This is done by labor organizers in real life to strengthen a group of workers against union busting, for instance.
The term often used for this is “inoculation”. Similar to being vaccinated once you are aware of an attacker, the effectiveness of their behavior decreases.
So Hexbear comrades, what patterns have you noticed in wreckers, trolls, and feds? Comment in the thread and I’ll update this post to include your feedback.
Terminology
Troll
:troll:
Standard internet bog person. Not particularly clever or inventive. 4chan-tier. Nothing in their brain but slurs.
Wrecker
:silver-legion:
Typically fixated on the site, repeat and/or sustained activity. (Eg Pumpkin Spice Flintstone guy). Might be a reference to an old USSR term for saboteurs in the party?
Fed
:fedposting:
Rare (?). Tries to encourage illegal behavior. Bad at it. Often doing it just to see who corrects them and in what ways.
Patterns I’ve noticed
General
:cissues:
-
new account with slightly “off takes” that gradually becomes increasingly aggressive
-
“just asking questions”
-
“innocently” brings up incredibly specific past struggle sessions
-
tries to position obvious shitposts as sincerely held opinions that somehow reflect poorly on the site (eg “everyone loves hunter biden”)
-
attempts to take other user’s sentences out of context and spin it into an argument
Wrecker Types
Fresh Accounts without History (FAWH)
:amogus:
These are accounts created in the last few weeks with little to no activity FAWHs indicate ban avoidance, shell propaganda accounts, and/or a desire to hide a pointed agenda. Identify and counter this by checking post histories.
Defrosted FAWHs
:corporate-art:
These accounts behave similarly to FAWHs but show a much older registration date combined with long periods of low activity, reflecting history editing or dormancy. They will occasionally only have comments at or around the time of struggle sessions. Identify and counter this behavior by checking post histories.
Drive-by Accounts
:stupidpol:
These accounts post bigoted or inflammatory comments in active threads then delete/edit their comments a day or two after the submission dies to obscure the pattern of their activity.
This is hard to spot unless you check back in with your suspected trolls or seek them out by reviewing. If you catch them in the act it's hugely indicative of subversive intent.
Identify and negate this by monitoring suspected trolls for post deletion and reporting before they are deleted. Also quoting especially aggressive replies so they can’t edit it away.
I’ll update this based on other’s comments. Viva la Hexbear!
heterodox opinions, argued in good faith, are not "wrecking" the site
edit: i'm deleting my insulting language, per feedback of "Dumpster"
yeah thanks for the example, buddy
Considering how readily the website bans people even with long histories, taking no intermediate steps between "silently removing comments hours later" and "banned", it's no wonder you get people with new-ish accounts and negative opinions on the assumptions people make for the sake of community discipline.
You, and now I mean specifically you as an example, are creating a narrative in which everything can be dismissed with the same level of critical thought as "Russian bots" and "wumaos" and so on because of how readily you assume they're a wrecker, implying they should be banned, which means that if they want to participate they need to make another account, and thus will be commenting from a new account. It's a feedback loop.
I don't think I'll change your mind, I'm just thinking aloud because I only just now realized how that loop works. You can't simultaneously be loosey-gooosey with bans and then implicitly penalize people for having new accounts if you want something more than a mechanism to enforce the specific ideologies of the moderators with no ability to discuss what might be worth changing.
That's really not it. I don't care if the person I replied to is a hardcore Nazi who sleeps with a copy of Mein Kampf under their pillow and is currently posting on 8chan about how they owned the commies, or if said individual is the most commie communist who ever communized and will personally lead the global revolution in 2027. Their behavior is not useful to this forum and it should be ceased, one way or another. I would prefer that they simply fall in line with the vibe and stop being an asshole, but if they double, triple, quadruple down on it and get banned I won't lose any sleep over it either.
The most important thing to keep in mind when you're dealing with a project like this one is that the identity of the individuals in question is completely irrelevant. It is not the person who is the problem, it is their behavior. We're going to have trolls lurking one way or another, but preventing them from making trouble is what matters. If that means I tell a communist who's being an asshole to stop being an asshole because they look :ursus-hexagonia: :amogus: then so be it
:this: there’s a certain type of debate bro who would learn a lot from going to local shows and getting thrown out of them for being shitty
This is important. Trying to judge motivations is a losing game that is way too exploitable because of how meta people can make it. This conversation is a decent example, actually. Lenin had provocateurs in his inner circle and was able to make progress, not because the provocateurs were necessarily bad at their jobs, but because the party had falsifiable standards for actions.
And to be fair, I think site leadership and membership alike could put more effort into establishing those falsifiable standards. We have the TOS and the CoC, but those aren’t rules which are generally integrated into the culture of the site. I’m not sure what the answer is here, but have a feeling that we could use some major help from a statistics nerd with a background in social sciences willing to guide experimental and incremental reforms.
Could you provide a source where I could read more about this?
I can try. It may take some digging
Here is what I was originally going to say in response:
And then I thought about your comment for an extra two seconds and realized "Oh wait, they do know what they are saying." You actually want the website to be ideologically static and for challenges to be shut down. I don't know what to tell you except to offer this: I don't have the audacity to assume that I'm correct about everything, and I won't ever be corrected where I am wrong if I create a space where the overriding directive is to "fall in line". Do you believe that such a space can correct your errors? Or do you assume that you're already right about everything? Or do you just not care? I'm struggling to find an answer beyond those three options.
If you can't discuss disagreements without being indistinguishable from someone whose goal is to upset people, then that is a problem with the way you approach discussions and something you need to solve. For example, in response to a non-hostile good faith post by a 10 month old account in good standing which is intended explicitly to encourage discussion, one should probably not come out of the gate throwing insults at them while posting from a seven day old account.
We just established that account age is worthless, didn't we? And there's an implicit ideology in the OP that is really toxic along "everyone I disagree with is a Russian bot" lines.
I agree that that one respondent should control their language, but that still wouldn't be enough for anything but this specific case. A lot of what the disagreements are are on political and moral issues. It's normal and expected (and indeed happens regularly) that people think negatively of someone disagreeing with them, but then that just means there's like a two comment exchange and then the person is banned when a Mod gets around to it.
If I oppose your opinion on, let's pick an example, the attitude we should take towards sex work, are you not going to call me an asshole for it? And I'm not even saying you shouldn't call me an asshole for it, but let's counterfactually assume I'm correct and you are not on that specific issue. You will still be morally outraged at me, and probably I you, and then I will be banned for being an "asshole" (which, again, is a reasonable impression to have of someone who is supporting views you think are immoral) and then nothing changes and you remain wrong.
There is no way of being "civil" enough to circumvent the conflict of moral beliefs, you will think I'm an asshole either way, that's what moral argument usually is. That can't be a basis for a ban by itself if you want to even pretend to yourself that you're practicing half-decent epistemology.
Moderators do not operate on the level of epistemology. Bad faith actors make a point of being walking thought experiments to waste your time. Moderation’s purpose is social and trying to disentangle it from the murkiness of social nuance is a bad idea. Standards can be put in place, as can checks on power, but it can’t be divorced entirely without rendering it pointless
Read the rest of the comment
Done. Now what?
My point was that moral disagreement makes someone "an asshole" no matter how carefully they choose their words. That's not a jab at the site culture, that's just how basically any society I've ever heard of functions. Because of that, if "being an asshole" is sufficient to ban someone, you are banning moral disagreement, which is a little hazardous.
The site ideology has crystalized over time because of this, and some elements of that are actually really good, e.g. :some-controversy: , but some I think are holdovers from when the community was more of a "standard radlib but ruder" space.
There may be some contradictions in the fact that we purge core usership along ideological lines. Typically, that sort of purge is more effective in leadership, but the goal of the site is not to be a vanguard party in and of itself.
But it sounds less like your concern is with holding ideological standards and more with the standards set for specific topics.
Well, I guess I mean that the ideological standards should perhaps be "higher order" and so stances on specific issues in the world should have some leeway so long as they are argued from a reasonable position (e.g. there are legitimate communist criticisms of the CPC, and then there are radlib, neolib, and hard-right criticisms).
If I could just have my way, I'd say "ban liberal reasoning", but I got a :who-must-go: for that one, so I'll take what I can get.
this is fair. i've deleted the language, and i regret that my being a jerk, by my tone/insulting language, is becoming conflated with a substantive point about what kind of posting substance ought to be disciplined.
a prudential line, that people should not be rude or insulting jerks, would be a fair one. that doesn't seem to be what has historically been applied.
I can't really speak on that, personally. Obviously I'm not a mod, and I don't want to be a mod, and if I ever become a mod I promise to ban everyone who disagrees with me about anything similar to how I promise to systematically dismantle the United States when I become president. All mods are bastards.
So I can only speak for myself, but personally I apply my logic both ways. He who easily becomes :sus: just as easily becomes :unsus: through the power of good posting. :anarchy-heart:
sure, and, of course, if i become a mod, you will be the first to be banned (please read this in the spirit of jest).
i don't know what the last line means. but i will continue with my good posting, incorporating your/others' advice to be less of a jerk.
ban me if you can coward :arm-L: :party-parrot: :arm-R:
I am reading her comments as arguing for something similar to rules of engagement for internal disagreements
That would be worthwhile if there was a better basis for what "internal" means but, again, with bans being offered readily, that doesn't pan out.
The line is blurry, for sure. But I think it’s blurry in response to various historical constraints of the site. I see the creation of an ingroup culture and the enforcement of that ingroup via moderation as an inevitable outcome of a site looking to embody socialist values, be inclusive to marginalized people, remain pseudoanonymous, and remain engaging. Whether or not any of these goals are good and whether or not any of these goals have been achieved is a separate conversation. But I think these are indeed the goals and I don’t see a way around creating an outgroup via establishing social norms.
You can't realistically say that the current social norms are the only way to protect those goals.
No, not the current ones in particular. Just that some social norms are going to be involved, which is going to inevitably lead to mistakes in aggregate.
Sure, but then I guess the other comment thread is the relevant point.
Fair enough
Lol what are you talking about? Just thinking of the two long time users that were banned most recently, they had a very long history (well over a year) of saying either misogynistic or overly aggressive things without being banned. That really doesn't match up to the experiences you're describing here. I think most people knew the most recent dude was likely to pop off if you so much as suggested he do something differently
Are you respectively referring to Skoubalon and Z-Poster?
PootrKrobuttkin is the most recent banned person I think? But what I said could be used to describe both Pootr and Z-Poster, since they were needlessly aggro all the time
For clarity, I meant Pootr and Skoubalon in my post. I don't remember Z-Poster being misogynistic
Since I made this account to get the other post deleted, I'll do a "fuck it, mask off" and disclose being Skoubalon.
Regarding the other two (tangential)
I took a small break from the site and missed Pootr flaming out, though I accidentally seem to have incited it on a proximate level. I don't remember Pootr well outside of their discussions with me (where they were kind) and, looking up some relevant threads and trying to piece together what actually happened and what they actually said is confusing.
Z was never misogynistic to my knowledge, I assumed you meant them for angry one and Pootr for the misogynist since they flamed out after me and people called me a misogynist. All this to say, I basically can't weigh in on negatives of the specific histories of people who were not me.
Anyway, the reason I ask is because you talk about me having a "long history" of such and such, and that would actually be a good reason if that was a disciplinary history, i.e. a bunch of times where the mods told me to act otherwise and I repeatedly regressed. That's not what happened. What happened was various comments and one or two posts were deleted after the fact and I didn't know about almost any of it until after I was banned. You can create a story for yourself about personal history proving I should be booted, but really I think it shows that I was acting in good faith rather than just some mask-wearing shit who occasionally went mask-off.
What I am contending, not to get that account back (I think I was able to delete it), but as a point of contention about how the site is moderated is that, if a user does shit that merits mod interference, you should actually let them know and maybe even discuss it with them instead of just letting it fly under the radar until you decide it's enough to ban them over, because that's essentially applying every infraction retroactively. Does that make sense?
It would also have the side effect of making legitimate disagreement slightly more possible.
Edit: i see the irony in my two uses of "mask-off". To clarify, the first refers to literal identity and the second refers to ideology. I try to be transparent, or at least honest, about my ideological leanings.
Oh hello lol
I think it would be tough to find what Pootr was saying before getting banned now. I'm pretty sure his old account was deleted and his alts mostly got purged. I saw some of it live and it was just his usual getting very upset because he was criticized. I had nice interactions with him sometimes, but others were very toxic. I personally liked Z, it's too bad they couldn't chill out. I'm sad they were banned
I see what you're saying about reaching out when comments are removed. I think that's a reasonable thing to ask.
Out of curiosity - the last comments you had removed were about abortion and shifting autonomy away from the person that's pregnant in certain circumstances. That's not good any time, but especially right after Roe was overturned seems especially shitty. How would you like a conversation to play out with you about those removed comments? That might be good feedback since it addresses a specific, recent situation
I know you don't mean it this way, but it feels like :bait: . I've been trying to not relitigate the specific issue despite talking about how it was moderated.
Basically, I was annoyed at people using liberal reasoning and decided to go complain about it on c/strugglesession because that's where people go to have arguments on topics that people feel strongly about, right? Fuckin' whoops. Maybe just a "Hey, actually the thing you consider liberal reasoning is also a dogma of the website, so comply or get banned, okay?" from a mod and then they ban me when I keep arguing. That'd be fair enough from a transparency standpoint, whatever I may think of it ideologically.
But you can't have it both ways. You want to talk about how it's moderated, but the context of what you said does matter. It's not bait to say that. You downplayed pregnant people's full autonomy and that can't be separated from what happened after you said that
If you wanted a mod to reach out during that, I think that sounds reasonable
Did I not just "have it both ways"? It seems to me that I can just not speak on the issue itself and completely ignore your objections to what I said and things are just fine, based on your last sentence.
You didn't. You're trying to downplay what you said and divert attention away from it as "a difference of opinions." Bodily autonomy is not a difference of opinions. It's clever to say my comment was bait in the hopes of shifting the conversation away from what you said, but I'm not gonna let go of that.
I called it bait as a way of directly saying that I don't want to address it. I have no interest in lying and I also don't want to be banned. At the same time, I'm petty, so congrats I've taken the bait:
There is no way the existing US government should not have federal protection on abortion, preferably one outside of the power of the Supreme Court, but otherwise on similar grounds (i.e. blanket protection). Looking at the nature of the government and the cultural lines that have been drawn, it is unlikely that anything other than blanket protections on abortion are a viable way of protecting abortion rights for women in the US, as anything else is vulnerable to chipping. On similar grounds, I have never seen a protection on abortion that any country has even proposed, much less enacted, as a bad thing, at least that I can remember offhand. I was overjoyed when it was passed in Ireland a few years ago, for instance (and I don't remember it making the US news in other countries since, though I could be forgetting).
There's debate I guess about situations where eugenicist tried to give minorities abortion access in hopes of "population control" but, as far as I know in situations where it really was nothing but abortion access, the racists in question were accidentally helpful to the people they were trying to surpress. Obviously, such initiatives more often are paired with things like forced sterilizations, and that practice is bad and therefore we would need to take those campaigns as being bad, but abortion access is not the cause of that badness.
My support for abortion protection being law is not grounded in liberal ideas about natural rights, but my best crack at socialist reasoning about women's liberation, which can be advanced with legal rights but which should not be mistaken for axioms about rights bestowed by God or "nature" or a priori or by any other means.
Is that clear enough?
they don’t let people debate transphobia on this site, why would they let dudes debate abortion?
There's a difference between listening to lived experiences and fully embracing standpoint epistemology.
I’ll make this easy so we don’t need to have a meta conversation about episcopalians or whatever.
Q1 - do you believe people have the right to an abortion?
Q2 - do you believe people have the right to define their own gender(s)?
Do you believe in natural rights? If so, where do they come from? If not, what do you mean by "right"? Obviously women in the US do not all have a present legal right to abortion [and just as obviously them having that right taken from them is a bad thing ], so clearly that's not what you mean.
Gender identity is necessarily internally defined (that's what progressives usually mean by "gender") by that person. It's a mental feature, not a physical one (like sex).
so like… I’m going to try and be sincere here. you do get how this kind of comment reads to people, right? It has huge :debate-me-debate-me: energy and you keep dragging yourself back to this completely different topic around defining words.
do you not understand what people mean in every day conversation when they say “right”? is your approach to leftism entirely “Rationalism” and rhetoric?
this lacks both written coherence and empathy, my dude. ofc people are going to think you’re anti-abortion or whatever if you pitch this kind of thing. It’s uncanny how much it matches the tone of right-wing convos.
Abortion rights aren’t an intellectual cardio sesh for anyone who can get pregnant, it’s a matter of life and death. Having someone sniff their belly button lint and pontificate on “what even are rights anyway lol” feels dismissive
I’m commenting with this in case you somehow really don’t understand what you’ve been doing and how it reads to people.
I don't care what you think of me and while I'm annoyed at what you project on to me, but it's not like I know you so there's not much I can do to change your mind. Go read my response to someone who asked a better question if you're so desperate to avoid thinking about tacit assumptions.
:doubt:
I care a little more what you think of me, admittedly
Generally, if someone says they don't care what someone thinks, then posts a lot more replies after that to the person they supposedly don't care about what they think, I press X.
Counterpoint: Some people are just argumentative
That doesn't counter what I said. At all.
you literally got banned for being a dick but ok king go off lol
That's a really appealing argument to make to someone who explicitly made this account to talk about how the moderation practices are bad
deleted by creator
Spite, basically. I gave a more direct answer elsewhere.
Okay, not entirely spite. The actual reason, and this is connected to the original ban, is that I believe women should have the legal right to abortion but I object to the notion of natural rights, so when I am asked "Do you think X have the natural right to Y" my answer is "no" no matter what X and Y are, but that doesn't mean I don't think X should have the legal right to Y. I said over and over "Roe being overturned was bad, but not because of natural rights" and people read it as me saying "women don't have rights, I'm a paleoconservative".
The problem is that we've inherited a lot of dogmatic axioms from people trying to argue for progressivism within a liberal framework when that framework is ultimately both inaccurate and unable to accomplish what they want it to. Granted, when it comes to arguing something to a court or within some other government body in the US, you basically need to find a way to make it liberal, but that doesn't mean you should reason to yourself or to like-minded people in that fashion.
Edit: Last explanatory part that was missing is that, because I was spiteful, I responded antagonistically to the couple of people here who jumped down my throat about this despite having no idea what I said in the first place. I should try to be less spiteful.
deleted by creator
There was one time where I gave a snippy answer, but generally in that thread I was trying to be thorough. You can't just assume behavioral consistency over time when people have things like "moods" and "experiences".
Also literally the next line is me explaining that that's not entirely true.
deleted by creator
I got almost no ppb but a ton of Shapiro comparisons. I think part of the problem is that even when people have much more personable communication than I've exhibited here, they are still called a "debate bro" for basically making any actual argument instead of just restating their conclusions.
While it's inadequate, I think there's a good case for the "bully people left" ethos. People are rarely argued into different camps, even if they are sometimes persuaded on fine details that aren't too far from them. People's ideologies are based on their relationship to their own environment, there's no arguing someone out of that if it's got its claws in them. By just bullying people and saving time on arguments that usually amount to nothing, it gave the subreddit the ability to exert disproportionate control over the website culture by intimidating dissenters and amplifying agreement.
That has much less pro-social application on an insular website like this one, but there is some merit to it in general.
My compromise position, which would apply less in a more public setting like the sub was, is that even if you resolve to only bully people who are vocally not on the left, if they are on the left and seem to be communicating in good faith, then it's not just permissible but necessary for the development of half-decent ideology for there to be debate.
Those are my thoughts on the matter, anyway. Thank you for weighing in despite my situation being such a miserable bog of internet dramatics.
deleted by creator
I assume based on context that love is using “right” to mean “a prescriptive assertion of freedom”, regardless of whether that freedom is materially available
That's my guess too, but I don't want to act based only on that assumption.
Cracker meltdown about racism vs prejudice, started talking about race wars and shit
I've seen a couple of people saying that, but I've also seen how people have radically mischaracterized what I have said, and I haven't seen quotes from them, so . . . It's hard for me to just believe that on faith.
It was on a separate account, but it was indeed unfortunately reactionary. I hadn’t seen that from Pootr before and was surprised. @Awoo seemed to think that they were having some kind of crisis and were acting out. It wasn’t appropriate regardless, but was still upsetting to watch
That particular user had sleeping problems, lost access to their usual means to deal with those problems, and it's somewhat understandable that they'd be more on edge. I don't condone the :lmayo: burnout, that said.
There's :brainworms: and then there's that shitshow. I feel like it's pretty clear something extra was going on when everyone talks about it as a "meltdown" for someone we saw as rather stable for over 2 years.
This was your original contention as well, yeah? Not the ban, but the lack of notification. I think the reason for this is a mix of technological and a holdover from when launch-time wreckers were manipulating screenshots of conversations with mods. But I agree that the lack of notification isn’t ideal and would be a good idea for the mod team to review if they haven’t already
Yeah, I made this account to make a thread on that subject. idk, back when I was part of the mod team it was a normal practice to do things like "temp bans" and banning an established user without any sort of intermediary steps was frowned upon.
Hexbear has temp bans?
Not yet. Carcosa just recently posted about it
Thank you
At the time, the practice was to ban someone and indicate that the ban was to be lifted in however-many days. Typically both in the ban message and the mod chat, so another mod could handle it if you happened to not be on that day or something.
Obviously there are some issues there with elegance, but I just wanted to mention it as an example of something that's possible that isn't the current paradigm.
uh, and I am Spactacus/Skoubalon.
:rat-salute:
bruh there is literally a public mod log and you could have appealed why are you writing essays
Because the ban isn't the point. The mods kindly unbanned me so I could delete my account and I did (I think, it took a couple tries for some reason)
then what is the point
That I have attachment to this website and wish it would shift the moderating style a little for its own sake.
deleted by creator
much more articulate than i've been. thanks.
:heart-sickle:
:lmayo:
deleted by creator
tf does “heterodox opinions” mean use normal words dude
ffs lol
That’s a start, thnx
look, come on, that's not a reason to dogpile on my post. "heterodox" is reasonably understood in everyday language, and is certainly commonplace in leftist discourse.
Heterodox
Heterodox
i know lol?
It’s for anyone reading the thread who doesn’t know what it means
could be more helpful to respond to the poster who claims not to know what it means, but you do you.
WE GOT ANOTHER LIVE ONE FELLAS
:sicko-fem:
who's the wrecker? the poster who, in good faith, suggests possible discursive improvements for the board, or the poster who responds to every post in the thread with the purpose of agitating everyone?
You don't just get to say that about yourself, bro. Lmao chill out
How dare you accuse me, the epitome of humbleness, of arrogance?
shitty, you might want to provide the definitions for some of your words above, not all the posters might know them.
deleted by creator
If anyone asks for a definition, I’ll provide it. Weird thing to be snide about
okay but please be sure to respond to me when you do.
i'd say my evaluation of my intention is as valid (or more so) as the evaluations of the goofs who have offered nothing of content/substance to thread.
This forum has no ability to distinguish between "people who disagree but can hold a conversation," "absolute scum of the earth," and "wreckers". People refuse to think critically about their positions on any subject that matters, or even their reason for supporting it when you both support the same conclusion. Either get used to it or find a better way of agitating for change, but complaining about it to a random person embodying the website's culture is not going to get anyone anywhere.
deleted by creator
I'm circumlocuting because I literally got banned for discussing the same topic like a week or two ago.
deleted by creator
You'd fucking think so, but that's not the case. The mod log is gone, but literally in that thread I said over and over women should have the legal right for at least three distinct reasons, and my objection is the magical reasoning around natural rights, but nope, natural rights won.
deleted by creator
i don't mean to keep re-litigating a re-litigation (and so feel free to not engage obviously) but it seems to me, that many posters positively and continuously engaged with dumpster and were inviting themselves to a debate, as it were. not really fair to accuse him of being ben shapiro when he's trying to clarify his point of view, and his interlocutors continually read him, uncharitably, as a conservative wrecker or w/e. (if there were to be bans for debate-broing, at least one should ban all instigating parties.)
and, at risk of turning this into a longer and longer thread, and only because i feel like it connects, obliquely at least, back to the original thread and the original thrust of my comment: i have no familiarity with duster's OG thread, but i shouldn't see why, dumpster or an analogous poster, should be banned by you or someone else, for a thread deliberately made for debate, that opened himself to be dunked on (i.e., opened himself up to be corrected by the board), that self quarantined in the strugglesession sub, and that made clear that he want to interrogate the rhetorical or ontological usefulness or truth of liberal rights discourse wrt to abortion, not the issue of abortion itself (and wherein he clarified that he's not "against" abortion itself in a normative sense)? how does one discuss rhetoric or reasoning without being pedantic, or without "debating"? what is preserved or protected by preventing that thread from occurring?
(edit: okay, pig-poop balls me all you want lol. very constructive.)
deleted by creator
i'm not dumpster. i don't have the energy to re-read, but it certainly didn't strike me as a friendly chat, when agitating posters kept responding to him and implying he was a transphobe or whatever.
and out of fair play, this must be fitting for you. :lepigpoopballz XD:.
deleted by creator
It's worth nothing and it's bad moderation policy, but I appreciate the attempt at a consolation, for whatever that's worth.
You’re the dude who had the nuance opinion that abortion was infanticide, yah?
Do you honestly believe that that was what I said?
idk my lady brain was so distraught by roe v wade being destroyed that I couldn’t rationally debate bodily autonomy from a position of privilege can you explain to me again lol
:bait:
That said, it's totally reasonable that some people, especially those most affected by the decision, would not be in a position to get into arguments about it. That's why I posted it in c/strugglesession, which I thought was explicitly created so people who have good reason to not want to deal with that shit could very easily opt out.