> There is no need to denigrate a political faction. It's flamebait and off-topic.
And like witnessing a shooting star, I've witnessed manipulation. What this person was upset about was the insinuation that MAGA is conspiratorially minded. That's bad - can't have people agreeing with that! So they first play at striving for fairness (to poor helpless political parties lol). But realizing it's so just beyond the pale at this point to try to treat MAGA as a good faith actor that it wouldn't fly, they pivot to citing tenuously implicated rules.
If this weren't so poorly executed (and if I hadn't caught the edit) I wouldn't have even noticed but given that it is so poorly executed I gotta wonder whether this is just someone slacking at their botfarm job.
Edit: just so no one can accuse me of making this up, here is the screenshot from my reader app which still has the original comment:
I'm proposing an extremely simple thing: there are no circumstances under which one can read the op (a comment about a billboard about a woman, the same woman all the other comments on this page are about) as having anything other than incidental relation to MAGA. So why browbeat/concern-troll about political flamebait or whatever? The answer I arrive at is the obvious one: someone would prefer that the comment were flagged and removed for "breaking the rules".
Lol just like merely calling a protest an insurrection doesn't make it so, merely calling my describing what you literally did "instigation" doesn't make it so (neither for op).
Right before I refreshed this comment said
> There is no need to denigrate a political faction. It's flamebait and off-topic.
And like witnessing a shooting star, I've witnessed manipulation. What this person was upset about was the insinuation that MAGA is conspiratorially minded. That's bad - can't have people agreeing with that! So they first play at striving for fairness (to poor helpless political parties lol). But realizing it's so just beyond the pale at this point to try to treat MAGA as a good faith actor that it wouldn't fly, they pivot to citing tenuously implicated rules.
If this weren't so poorly executed (and if I hadn't caught the edit) I wouldn't have even noticed but given that it is so poorly executed I gotta wonder whether this is just someone slacking at their botfarm job.
Edit: just so no one can accuse me of making this up, here is the screenshot from my reader app which still has the original comment:
https://imgur.com/a/njjy4Fd
Edit 2: in case this person edits again, the comment currently reads
> Please don't instigate political arguments.
There were at least 3 edits. I think the original was something along the lines of it being a statement against a political party.
I don't think it is worth debating.
> statement against a political party
I'm proposing an extremely simple thing: there are no circumstances under which one can read the op (a comment about a billboard about a woman, the same woman all the other comments on this page are about) as having anything other than incidental relation to MAGA. So why browbeat/concern-troll about political flamebait or whatever? The answer I arrive at is the obvious one: someone would prefer that the comment were flagged and removed for "breaking the rules".
1 reply →
[flagged]
Lol just like merely calling a protest an insurrection doesn't make it so, merely calling my describing what you literally did "instigation" doesn't make it so (neither for op).
5 replies →