Comment by xscott

> People who have conviction about issues with moderation include links to demonstrate what they mean.

Yes, I see you're using extra words to say "citation required". It's borderline clever, and fits the obvious intention of telling me I'm full of shit, except you're making a strong statement that also needs bolstering. How would you know if the alienated people just quietly go away or silence their opinions to fit in?

Regardless, it's acceptable here to mock climate deniers, capitalists (landlords, CEOs, Billionaires), SUV or truck drivers, religious fundamentalists, various flavors of conservatives, fans of "AI slop" (music or art), etc... You've got better search tools than I do to find the links.

I don't particularly want to defend any of those groups. I just wish we could add cyclists to the approved set, because they're frequently self-righteous hypocrites. I can see I'm unlikely to succeed in this endeavor.

> it's an indication that they just want to spray a little poison into the atmosphere

That seems a more than a bit uncharitable. Do you have any evidence to back it up? :-)

> evade accountability for their own conduct or examination of their claims.

I contradicted a jerk in defense/support of someone who said something I agree with. When the jerk doubled down and became truly belligerent, I bowed out of the conversation and let them have the last word before it turned into an actual flame war.

You came in 12 hours later with an "I don't care who started it" approach, looking for a reason to chastise both of us, and the worst crimes you could come up for me was some weird thing about troping and making fun of cyclist fashion.

Is that accountable enough? Am I supposed to feign penitence like the belligerent kid did?

I've wasted enough of your time. Peace!