geekwithsoul @ geekwithsoul @lemm.ee

I coalesce the vapors of human experience into a viable and meaningful comp

---

Read more

Posts

27

Comments

596

Joined

2 yr. ago

It’s interesting how these third party candidates only seem to care about genocide when Russia and China are not directly involved. Hmm, what could be the common denominator in all this I wonder?!

I mean, DeSantis has already banned mention of climate change and its effects from curriculums and government docs, so you’re not far off

You’re sealioning again bud. You said you wouldn’t reply to me in a separate thread, you then replied to me, and I called you on it. As usual, you can’t stick to the subject at hand. Are you going to address the fact that you edited your response right after I replied, and that you do this frequently?

You do know folks can see when you’ve edited a comment after posting, right? In fact, as of right now you’ve edited four of your last seven comments after posting. If that’s not a sign that you should slow down and think before commenting, I don’t know what is.

And did you just find out how to take screen caps? You seem to be doing this a lot lately like it proves something when all it shows is that you edited your post and downvoted my comments

Edit: see, like that 👆

Your initial reply was just the first sentence:

Fun! So what citizen or politican are you referring to?

I replied and then you added all the rest. Poor etiquette to change something that someone has replied to without noting the edit. And you didn’t even bother to correct the misspelling

Oh, I’m well aware. The difference is that account had basically just as many posts and almost half the comments you made - and he’s been here for two months and you’ve been around for at least a year. If he just posted his articles and made a sane amount of comments that weren’t constantly trolling, he’d have a lot easier time, but he literally goes out of his way to be disruptive in the comments

Interesting how you also significantly changed the comment I replied to, without noting how you changed it.

Friend, I think with you and I, it's just best if I don't reply to you. No matter what I say, I think it's going to frustrate you. So I'll just pass on discussing things with you.

Your words, correct? And yet you then reply to me just moments later. Troll.

Word of the day: quisling: a citizen or politician of an occupied country who collaborates with an enemy occupying force – or more generally as a synonym for traitor or collaborator.

So trolling then, got it.

You stated:

My ban reason says "sealioning" and not "trolling." If they wanted to ban me for "trolling" they could have said "trolling."

We got clarification from the mods that “all sealioning is trolling"

Are you still going to be claiming otherwise?

Well you are certainly free to say that now if you want to.

Thank you I guess? Such a boon.

But I will keep saying that I was banned for "sealioning" because that's what the modlog says. I fully expect you to jump in every time I say it, to update with your thoughts. And that's ok!

I mean, you were banned for sealioning, which is a type of trolling - as one of the community mods explained. To deny you were trolling now would probably give the mods something to think about next time you become an issue. Denying you were trolling just shows you’re not here to engage in good faith and makes every post and comment you make suspect.

Now that you have a response from a mod on the fact you were indeed banned for trolling, we’re good, right?

*“infamous”

Well, not exactly “her party” as that’s just the unofficial community you setup.

@jordanlund@lemmy.world Very sorry to @ you, but it seems that UniversalMonk isn’t aware that he was banned for a form of trolling. Could you clarify for him, as he’s claiming that because his ban was for “sealioning” and not “trolling”, that’s somehow different. TIA

Depends on the mod, sometimes it is very specific (“sealioning”, “civility”, “trolling”) and sometimes it’s more general (i.e. “rule 4”, “rule 3”). As you well know as all those examples above are from the explanations of your removed comments.

And it’s fairly rich for you to speak on behalf of the community. But your semantic games aside, your ban was for a form of trolling. That’s a factual and true statement not up for debate. You can either move forward from it or not, but you can’t pretend it didn’t happen.

Legitimate and sincere question: What exactly did you find interesting about the article?

Dude - again with the reading comprehension.

<sigh>

Sealioning (also sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassmentthat consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity

Source

I love how the one downvote on this comment only appeared after a certain someone’s ban had expired 🤣

Why not both? Reuters is publishing this for the clicks. Based on the OP’s history of posts and most especially of comments, we’re all well aware of their agenda and lack of good faith engagement (he’s just coming off a three day ban for trolling).

And man, I found this amusing:

…Stein told Reuters after a rally attended by about 100 people in the Detroit suburb of Dearborn on Sunday

Weekend rally in one of her supposed “strongholds” of support, and she only had 100 folks show up? There’s city council candidates there that get bigger turnout at events.