![[CW: Racism] The mod log has become hilarious again](https://hexbear.net/pictrs/image/23e656bb-0357-4bfd-83cb-08c40b966093.jpeg){kind=link}
Thank you, federation, for bringing libs to our lair once again.
They really always default to the same fucking shit "BOT! XINNIE THE POOH!" like an actual NPC 
Thank you, federation, for bringing libs to our lair once again.
They really always default to the same fucking shit "BOT! XINNIE THE POOH!" like an actual NPC
You took a criticism of a piece of fiction as an attack on yourself. When I talk about "treat defending" that tends to be what I'm talking about: when people identify with a consumer product to the point that they feel attacked personally if that product is criticized.
If you're going to do that, that leaves no room for discussing (and especially not criticizing) the product outside of mandatory agreement with you.
EDIT:
I criticized a piece of fiction, not you or your identity. By contrast, you did directly make this about personal attacks on my character, and by your own admission, you've maintained that hostility for some time now.
Ok one more reply since this is an excellent example and to not reply would be at least one type of liberalism. I took your comparison of my words to lobster man as an attack on myself, which it was. My original reply was not hostile and intended to correct your critique so that you can better target future ridicule of these books. But because you have this weird persecution complex you interpret any disagreement as treat defending, and collapse further, more hostile replies into that. When you're usually the one that escalates hostility in the first place!
I absolutely think these books are worthy of ridicule because they're full of unexamined cringe patriarchy from start-to-finish.
I saw you do this exact same thing in a thread just yesterday or the day before. It's incredibly off-putting.
It's a shame because I've learned a lot from your posts (i.e. about how gross the gambo writer is, etc.) and they often prompt me to write replies to you before I delete them because I know that if my reply isn't a 100% circlejerk of your point, you're going to jump down my throat and immediately escalate into hostility over it. That's what I can't stand about your participation here.
I will be disengaging now and would appreciate you doing the same.
I tried to send this as a personal message several times but it didn't go through, and because it isn't technically violating a disengagement because you posted a lot more than a disengagement declaration of intent in your last post, I'll just post the message here.
Privately, I just read your most recent message in good faith (even if it blatantly violated the disengagement rules) and I think you did have a point.
I saw "shallow reading" as a presumptive, and yes, arrogant claim that if I read it deeper (and I wasn't interested; the patriarchal presentation and the bad female writing and the gendered magic system in the books put me off very early on) that I would agree with you, thus my Petersonian reference.
Looking back, comparing your post to Jordan Peterson's "you can't disagree if you watched enough videos" sophistry was incendiary and I actually do regret that, especially because I didn't even know that you actually agreed with me about the actual ideological presentation in the books more than you originally let on. But that was lost in the spiraling escalation.
You don't have to like me, and I'm not exactly happy about "I never liked your posts and you don't belong here" hostility, but I think I will take some of what you said to heart anyway.
"Disengage" posts are supposed to be just that: a declaration of disengagement. You didn't post that; you posted a lot more.