The context behind the last part is that certain marginalized friends wanted someone on the inside to act as a buffer in case they come up in conversations, and it led to a whole debate about whether the intentions of the founders of a community, the intentions of the majority of a community, and the intentions of each individual in a community can be separated. I am an individual and don’t endorse the values the group is associated with. I previously used the analogy of an alternate timeline where nobody likes Uncle Iroh because he joined the fire nation military even though he never actually did any of the fighting. It’s an oversimplification to say I’m “defending kiwifarms”.

I’m going by dictionary definitions, not what a certain biased organization says. I wouldn’t deny both of the organizations you mention there are biased. But the dictionary isn’t.

Suppose you are right and the ADL is biased and controlled “by Zionism” (which sounds a bit like a conspiracy theory). What does that make the Snopes organization? What does that make the literal 50% of America who doesn’t disagree with the ADL? What does that make the people who call it a double standard that so many people are willing to support murder of one kind but not another, or that intentions matter sometimes but not all the time?

It’s a war crime. Not all war crimes are a genocide. Certain criteria have to be fulfilled for that. Similar to how not all mass shootings are acts of terrorism. Are you really dedicating a whole confrontation just to debate semantics?

I’m not searching for conflict. The people you allude to keep coming to me. I didn’t really even know your name before you came to me, for example. Besides, I’m not the only one who has offered to fill the shoes. If everyone got lucky with that except me, I would still support them.

How is that genocide denial?

Whole instances have banned each other. And it’s not really uncommon for people to be banned from multiple places. It’s a rite of passage to be banned by ML, for example.

I look forward to working with you.

You do realize that simply linking to something in a place like that once isn’t the same as being that individual, right?

A few points from someone who knows how this works.

1. Everyone has been “banned” from multiple places. Nobody has a perfect score. But that’s just defederation for you. Whether they’re even “bans” or not is technical.
2. What you point to are technicalities, ones which have been brigaded upon me constantly by you and others who show the signs of being “alts” in all but name. Sometimes you phrase it as “she is a Nazi” just because you know you’re speaking to the right audience to demonize me when none of that applies. The second thing is also inapplicable here in the way you are applying it, for the same reasons. I don’t defend harassment. I don’t defend racism, ableism, transphobia, or homophobia. I don’t defend marginalization. Get that out of your head.
3. If all the signs are right about who you are, not only are you ban evading to try to tell us all of this, but you’re also someone who even people in charge have had to point out tries to weaponize the karma system to make those you have a grudge on seem worse than they are.

May I @EllaSpiggins@lemm.ee?

deleted by creator

I’m yet to find such a group of people outside the feds.

That there is more to the context than what you see (not to mention it happened years ago with any amends that needed to be made having been made, the kind of thing pictures wouldn’t show) and that the person you initially were responding to who is trying to spread around the claims “about Triagonal” has been a part of an ongoing harassment/stalking/slandering campaign against the people they’re referring to, which is what I was alluding to.

The last two pictures portray things that took place in response to other things. The other person in the first one only got upset because she was recommending something far more NSFW and someone missed a beat when a second thing was suggested which didn’t have any inherently non-platonic-related undertones. Same with the picture after it. Everyone was throwing loose answers out there in response to a joke thread about an art phenomenon, and there was only one pairing not taken up.

The first picture’s vagueness aside, it’s amazing anyone takes someone’s word for plain grey text on a plain white backdrop that portrays something you’d expect to be impossible if the individual doing it is banned from that place for whatever reason they got banned for. It’s the equivalent of accusing someone of writing their own name on a bathroom wall when the accused person has been dead for a month. Is gullibility just the modus operandi for fediverse revolutionaries?

I can’t point out conflicts of interest?

The point being that doesn’t square well with the original verdict.

Sadly some people only care about their own perspective.

So you’re not aware then that this is someone whose descriptors match someone accused of constant returning/evading and who has been proven wrong.

So you’re not aware then that this is someone whose descriptors match someone accused of constant returning/evading and who has been proven wrong.

So you’re not aware then that this is someone whose descriptors match someone accused of constant returning/evading and who has been proven wrong.

So you’re not aware then that this is someone whose descriptors match someone accused of constant returning/evading and who has been proven wrong.