schroed4 [he/Him]

I’m very confused as to how this is a reply to my comment when I didn’t write the quoted comment and this does not appear to discuss my comment lol

I really think it is quite unfortunate how much grad/hex tainted communism. I’m not a communist, but I was open to good discussions about it, particularly because I know it’s important to look at the flaws in your own systems.

Now? I’m scarred. I can’t just assume a post js something posted by someone I could probably agree with after a discussion.

I assume something similar has happened to other users. It’s unfortunately hard to grant someone the grace of assume they aren’t a tankie when you know they’re out there. I feel your pain and I’m sorry. I also don’t know how any of us can change now.

Legit thank you.

I’ve wondered on the right way to do this in R… Too many times.

Man, I was refering to one section of the video you linked me to didn’t mean it to be a personal attack.

That’s not what I learned from Stay Stay, DPRK! You clearly haven’t done your homework.

For what its worth, my personal easiest-to-consume media is podcast (ideally in a form where its a proper conversation and ideas that are being presented are being challenged). Less about text-vs-video, more about time-i-have-free. Podcasts at least I can focus on while doing other activities.

This does feel like an interesting video to watch, though I’m about 5 minutes in from your start-point) and I may be a bit out of time. May get back to this at some point, but I sadly don’t have the 80 minutes to finish it, much less the time to do the additional research required (since IMO a lecture by itself on a subject like this may simply take some things I disagree with as fact, rather than proving them to me)

Thank you lol it was genuinely nice to listen to while I was reading through what I had to read

I truly commend you for that. Wish I could - just realized I’ve talked to you a bit here already! I continue to wish you the best! For what its worth, it took me a half hour (some of which was while I should have been paying more attention to my baby…) to get through all related context.

I have now spent the requisite half hour reading through related materials, and I’m gonna edit my post

Your right - so I actually finally just spent a half hour to read through all related available material that I could find 100% took me longer to read through and reply to this stuff lol

Wow it sure is easy to prove someone is a dumbass when you put words in their mouth, isn’t it. Sure is easy to post something like that when the vast majority of the community agrees with you. Almost like it gives you… Authority to just kinda be mean.

Why am I replying. At this point it’s caused me as much stress and time as it would have to actually give the post the time it may have deserved to research.

So, the bare post is 1500 words, not counting any links. Do you really read posts at 300 words per minute? To me, that’s skimming, which I try to not do. Can’t imagine trying to read something that quickly that I wanted to properly digest.

Frankly? That’s one of the more fair replies I’ve gotten lol. You already know you probably disagree with me, and your using my same reasoning lol

Wait, are we literally seeing different things cus of different instances? I see 1500 words (did a copy paste check). Screenshot is too large for me to post.

But to be clear, I’d also need to read all linked articles. This is not a quick task, unless I’m misunderstanding something.

Have you ever read something that you disagree with where you feel the need to do supplemental research in order to form a accurate opinion because you feel like the source is biased?

Gotcha thank ya, the phrasing I got to did not sound like that to me in the post As in, she reposted it herself on her LinkedIn?

Get where your coming from here, and I generally agree.

It felt like it would have taken me several hours to get to that place though.

God why am I even relying here I don’t have time to get 7 more replies for a comment that boiled down to ‘sorry I couldn’t finish but I don’t think I agree’

Really just don’t want to, since I got a third a the way in. Realized I was only a third in Realized I didn’t really agree so far Remembered some of the ideological differences between myself and some posts here Decided it would be too much effort to go through the rest for too little benefit.

It is simply not possible for me to read through all of this. Wish I could.

But it sounds like your harassing someone for taking positions that you feel are contradictory, when they are not. And your taking great pains to justify why it’s ok to harass this person.

Spoiler, it’s not justified. EDIT: Spent 30 minutes trying to read through everything linked in the post including: The original article The original hexbear post Jessica’s linkedin Her Atlantic Council bio (an failed attempt to find) the original linked CIA document

Have some questions/comments/summary

1. In general, do people here feel as though the noted content moderation policy (“Do not post content that encourages, glorifies, incites, or calls for violence or physical harm against an individual or a group of people; likewise, do not post content that glorifies or encourages the abuse of animals.”) is wrong, unfair, or incorrectly implemented?
2. I can understand the plausibility that she was made a CEO of reddit by the CIA, but I’m curious if anyone opinions about her would actually change if it was somehow ‘knew’ that she was not - I ask because it feels (to me) as though the actions she took could have reasonably been taken by someone who wasn’t a CIA plant, which to me should affect the thought process
3. I can 100% understand blocking posts on a job-related website that disparage your work, and I think it would be unreasonable to expect otherwise. Like… legit. Does anyone think it would be reasonable to keep disparaging posts on your linkedin bio? Just not the vibe.
4. I know some of you do really try to read all context for posts replying, but do all of you? Like, if I posted something here, and important context was basically a book… would you really try to read it all before replying? Is that the standard y’all hold yourselves to?
5. Even assuming The Atlantic Council is a CIA firm, I still find it reasonably plausible that the CIA did not put her in the role - her roles for The Atlantic counsel feel like a natural fit for a content moderation team executive, and (per what I said in #2) it doesn’t feel like she made any decisions that a CIA plant would have been much more likely to have made.

Thank you to those who have been kind in this process of me doing the research, and spending the effort to make this edit.

Thats… A surprising good example lol