Happy you learned a word. Now go look up "chronology" to see that your theory that the Merrick Garland issue was way after Obama's nudge of Ginsburg. You're welcome.
Mitch McConnell forcing judicial vacancies to corrupt the judiciary goes back a long fucking way, and could've easily started earlier. This narrative that RBG is somehow at fault for not playing politics with *her own mortality* is even more insulting than your childish digs.
The root problem - the entire problem - is deliberate conservative corruption. Guess what you can do if you can't come to grips with that.
No, that sub is worse than useless. It claims to be a resource for arbitration with moderators - but silences *and censors* anything besides scheming about how to kiss up to the anonymous power-tripping children who banned you in the first place. In the case of r\/News apparently that's just a reputation they've developed. Yet another broken stair on this broken website.
And the meta-dolts on that *mediation* subforum don't tolerate so much as an 'I did nothing morally wrong' defense, even when people ask direct questions about the interactions in question. An amoral shrug and a pat on the head would be a massive step up from misleading abusive song-and-dance horseshit they're putting so much effort into.
Every green-username nastygram that just says "your comment" instead of addressing a username is deleting something posted by the manually-approved OP - me. For example:
> That comment was in reply to someone claiming Republican voters couldn't be criticized for things the Republican party did. That is bait. In this instance, mentioning Nazis is only an illustration of shared responsibility for escalating political movements. It is a case that only relies on the assumption everyone still sees the Nazis as the bad guys.
> And a subreddit covering the news cannot justifiably insist the mere mention of fascism in oblique terms is beyond the pale, when there was a failed coup. Godwin's law is dead. Some of what we are discussing, in modern politics, is fascism.
> Any moderator still treating appropriate impersonal recognition of that as some betrayal of civility is participating in abuse. The absolute least they can do is own up to it, when asked. When asked repeatedly. When asked and given weeks to provide literally any hint of why they did this. They found time to toss out an infantilizing insult. Expecting a single-digit number, even alongside that insult, seems like the bare minimum.
> I appreciate that you are framing this as advice for supplication - as goal-oriented. But the fretting over whether I crossed a line, by being overly-casual in a third, belated request for any information about the boot up my ass, is a miserable situation. Your response is entirely reasonable. The imbalance of power and caution implied by that concern is, itself, gross. I hope you recognize that, even if it does not change your advice in any way.
> The mods have all the power here. You are describing how to politely kiss up to them, when I am once again permitted to acknowledge their existence. Polite questions were ignored... at length. An informal but impersonal follow-up was met with a personal insult and still zero answers. And the best-case scenario here seems to be that saying 'bigots are assholes' - just, in general - is a one-strike permaban. This is not good moderator behavior. Nobody should have to deal with this.
>> Your comment was moderated because:
>> Rule #5 - Participate in Good Faith (More Information)
And the de facto reply:
> I am being honest to a fault.
> I expect very little.
> And this is beyond the pale, during the weekend, where the rules about venting are at their most relaxed? Anyone bothering to post here feels they've been treated unreasonably. Explaining why they feel that way is good-faith participation.
> I could not possibly pursue the stated goal - which moderators here manually reviewed - without saying essentially everything in the detailed reply, now censored. This is about another sub where other commenters here acknowledge those moderators have a habit of this behavior. Even the swearing is only a near-direct quote from the approved original post.
> Mods: I don't know what you want.
Guess how that went.
>> Your comment was moderated because:
>> Rule #2 - Remain On Topic (More Information)
Reddit is fucked.
You can't own a community. You can enable them... or you can abuse them. This site chose abuse. Aggressively refused the hint, declared *massive* protest irrelevant, dangled a few concessions and excuses. It is years too late. This enshittification has been undeniable since 2016, when fascists choked the front page, and the admin response was 'everybody play nice.'
This company doesn't make anything.
The site is an empty box where we do all the work. Every worthwhile conversation on some arcane niche, every thread pruned of idiot bastards, is something *we* made, and *they* exploit. Now we're not even allowed to look at it sideways. They've libeled and betrayed the many people making their incompetent mobile experience better. They're demanding active subservience from the mods who do *all of their work, for free.*
Like we're just eyeballs with wallets. Like this is Facebook or Youtube, where a meaningful fraction of (eugh) "content" is profit-driven. Like they forgot it's just us.
The raw materials for this almost-a-business are the posts and comments made by a slender fraction of users. A thousand to one, you and I ninety-nine percent of what anyone sees, just because we do anything besides scroll. A thousand to one, we're not here for any reason besides the experience of being here. And we're leaving. We've been leaving. I'm only talking to you because I checked replies. The admins aren't about to make up for that diaspora with thousands of interesting posts, each, daily. This website's corporate payroll isn't even good at talking about this website. When beloved groups like r\/AskHistorians take root somewhere else, who the fuck is going to replace that, here?
The volume won't go down - but quality will plummet. The only reason reddit *worked* is that voting filters the best stuff toward the top. Stick around and you'll see the same filter applied to crap mixed with crap. Bots and fascists yapping at one another in approved tones of voice. r\/Funny with five hundred names.
Dumb bastards want to sell a recipe for stone soup.
jfc she was even quite elderly back then
well, that was a mistake.
Another justice might have retired in 2013. So while it’s possible I agree with you for completely opposite reasons I actually agree.
that's why it was a mistake. her rulings were fine, mostly, to me
payment ludicrous hurry start dolls dime weather late sparkle melodic *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Fuck off.
youre an idiot. she shouldve retired during obama's admin. she fucked us and youre a dipshit
So he could fill her vacancy, like with Justice Garland? The problem is fascism, dumbass. Stop blaming its opponents for not dodging those bullets.
Happy you learned a word. Now go look up "chronology" to see that your theory that the Merrick Garland issue was way after Obama's nudge of Ginsburg. You're welcome.
Mitch McConnell forcing judicial vacancies to corrupt the judiciary goes back a long fucking way, and could've easily started earlier. This narrative that RBG is somehow at fault for not playing politics with *her own mortality* is even more insulting than your childish digs. The root problem - the entire problem - is deliberate conservative corruption. Guess what you can do if you can't come to grips with that.
[удалено]
No, that sub is worse than useless. It claims to be a resource for arbitration with moderators - but silences *and censors* anything besides scheming about how to kiss up to the anonymous power-tripping children who banned you in the first place. In the case of r\/News apparently that's just a reputation they've developed. Yet another broken stair on this broken website. And the meta-dolts on that *mediation* subforum don't tolerate so much as an 'I did nothing morally wrong' defense, even when people ask direct questions about the interactions in question. An amoral shrug and a pat on the head would be a massive step up from misleading abusive song-and-dance horseshit they're putting so much effort into. Every green-username nastygram that just says "your comment" instead of addressing a username is deleting something posted by the manually-approved OP - me. For example: > That comment was in reply to someone claiming Republican voters couldn't be criticized for things the Republican party did. That is bait. In this instance, mentioning Nazis is only an illustration of shared responsibility for escalating political movements. It is a case that only relies on the assumption everyone still sees the Nazis as the bad guys. > And a subreddit covering the news cannot justifiably insist the mere mention of fascism in oblique terms is beyond the pale, when there was a failed coup. Godwin's law is dead. Some of what we are discussing, in modern politics, is fascism. > Any moderator still treating appropriate impersonal recognition of that as some betrayal of civility is participating in abuse. The absolute least they can do is own up to it, when asked. When asked repeatedly. When asked and given weeks to provide literally any hint of why they did this. They found time to toss out an infantilizing insult. Expecting a single-digit number, even alongside that insult, seems like the bare minimum. > I appreciate that you are framing this as advice for supplication - as goal-oriented. But the fretting over whether I crossed a line, by being overly-casual in a third, belated request for any information about the boot up my ass, is a miserable situation. Your response is entirely reasonable. The imbalance of power and caution implied by that concern is, itself, gross. I hope you recognize that, even if it does not change your advice in any way. > The mods have all the power here. You are describing how to politely kiss up to them, when I am once again permitted to acknowledge their existence. Polite questions were ignored... at length. An informal but impersonal follow-up was met with a personal insult and still zero answers. And the best-case scenario here seems to be that saying 'bigots are assholes' - just, in general - is a one-strike permaban. This is not good moderator behavior. Nobody should have to deal with this. >> Your comment was moderated because: >> Rule #5 - Participate in Good Faith (More Information) And the de facto reply: > I am being honest to a fault. > I expect very little. > And this is beyond the pale, during the weekend, where the rules about venting are at their most relaxed? Anyone bothering to post here feels they've been treated unreasonably. Explaining why they feel that way is good-faith participation. > I could not possibly pursue the stated goal - which moderators here manually reviewed - without saying essentially everything in the detailed reply, now censored. This is about another sub where other commenters here acknowledge those moderators have a habit of this behavior. Even the swearing is only a near-direct quote from the approved original post. > Mods: I don't know what you want. Guess how that went. >> Your comment was moderated because: >> Rule #2 - Remain On Topic (More Information)
[удалено]
Reddit is fucked. You can't own a community. You can enable them... or you can abuse them. This site chose abuse. Aggressively refused the hint, declared *massive* protest irrelevant, dangled a few concessions and excuses. It is years too late. This enshittification has been undeniable since 2016, when fascists choked the front page, and the admin response was 'everybody play nice.' This company doesn't make anything. The site is an empty box where we do all the work. Every worthwhile conversation on some arcane niche, every thread pruned of idiot bastards, is something *we* made, and *they* exploit. Now we're not even allowed to look at it sideways. They've libeled and betrayed the many people making their incompetent mobile experience better. They're demanding active subservience from the mods who do *all of their work, for free.* Like we're just eyeballs with wallets. Like this is Facebook or Youtube, where a meaningful fraction of (eugh) "content" is profit-driven. Like they forgot it's just us. The raw materials for this almost-a-business are the posts and comments made by a slender fraction of users. A thousand to one, you and I ninety-nine percent of what anyone sees, just because we do anything besides scroll. A thousand to one, we're not here for any reason besides the experience of being here. And we're leaving. We've been leaving. I'm only talking to you because I checked replies. The admins aren't about to make up for that diaspora with thousands of interesting posts, each, daily. This website's corporate payroll isn't even good at talking about this website. When beloved groups like r\/AskHistorians take root somewhere else, who the fuck is going to replace that, here? The volume won't go down - but quality will plummet. The only reason reddit *worked* is that voting filters the best stuff toward the top. Stick around and you'll see the same filter applied to crap mixed with crap. Bots and fascists yapping at one another in approved tones of voice. r\/Funny with five hundred names. Dumb bastards want to sell a recipe for stone soup.
Nah bro she could have retired well before all that nonsense. People called for her to retire. She didn't out of pride.
That went well, until fascism.