@Lash,
Quote:When someone mentions something you’re not interested in, don’t respond to it or thumb it down to remove it from your sight.
Be a part of other conversations.
That way, everyone has the freedom to talk about what they’re interested in.
None of your recent posts have been removed. You haven't been banned. What has happened is (1) that some of your posts have received criticism and (2) that your behavior in the discussion has been criticized and your motives questioned. "Freedom to talk" would obviously include the freedom to be critical in response to posts.
It all started with your claim that the Pelosi attacker was a leftist. This was a claim for which you failed to provide the information source you'd drawn from. And when you posted, information was already being widely reported which contradicted the claim.
As days passed, more information was being reported almost hourly which further clarified that your claim was false and others here had been posting this information (with citations/links). Some of us pointed out that your claim - which you were still supporting - depended upon (1) such suggestions as nudism or jewelry making using hemp stood as evidence of "leftism" and (2) you ignoring that his Green Party support happened a decade ago and (3) that his more recent social media posts were filled with extremist right wing notions.
Through all this, you refused to back down from your initial claim or to simply admit you had it wrong (imagine how differently the conversation would have gone if you'd simply done this).
Instead, you shifted to the suggestion that we couldn't know what really happened unless the Pelosi family publicly released video of the events that evening. As you and all of us know, when you posted this suggestion of relevant unknowns or hidden facts, some voices on the right (in the attempt to distract and shift the focus of attention and to evade the consequences of current right wing violent rhetoric being further exposed) were also suggesting something similar and were creating fake narratives of a homosexual tryst gone wrong. When I asked you what information such video recordings relevant to the attacker's motives might reveal, you failed to give a response. Further, it was obvious that any/all video recordings made inside or exterior to the home that night would have been quickly viewed by all relevant policing entities.
Then, all of a sudden, you dropped this storyline
without any correction or admission your story was without any foundation and shifted to TERM LIMITS (in upper case).
Quote:‘Distraction’ doesn’t happen on a community discussion board. That’s just a buzzword to try to shut down discussion you don’t like.
The fallacies of irrelevance -
that is, rhetorical techniques to confuse and distract - were codified by Athenians in 500BC. Propagandist use of such techniques have long been studied and written about adding to our understanding of a subject the Greeks addressed. And every social media entity spends enormous amounts of time and money (where they have the financial capacity) identifying and marginalizing bad faith actors, domestic and foreign, who set out to spread false information and to distract.
As you and everyone else here surely grasps, I deem you a bad faith actor. This arises from both the content of what you commonly post and from your posting behaviors.
)
