I think a lot of it is that he spends much more strategically and with lots of strings attached. He also does a lot of work to basically indoctrinate folks who aren’t big players and fund them until they are - JD Vance being a prime example. He’s basically developed into a cult leader for rich wannabes and ends up owning their asses.

Jim Henson - I was 19 when he died, and it felt like a central focus of my childhood was suddenly taken away.

Fascists can’t be argued with. They love when you get angry and yell at them. But they absolutely cannot stand to get laughed at. Go look up some quotes from Mel Brooks about why he thought it was important for the Hitler references in The Producers.

We should be doing a monthly nationally televised event where Trump, Musk, and the rest are ridiculed.

Just a downvote and no reply? Wow, I really must have touched a nerve.

I honestly at this point can’t tell how much is intentional trolling and how much is that he just doesn’t know any better/doesn’t want to know any better. If it’s the latter, I do feel sorry for him a little as he’s probably neurodivergent like myself but doesn’t have any tools to deal with it or even awareness of the problem. But then he’ll do something that’ll convince me it’s all an act and he just enjoys playing the heel.

Aww, someone is a bit in his feelings, isn’t he? And such a roll call of the abuse you’ve had to endure! Truly harrowing!

But there seems to be something totally lacking. Anything that showed you had the slightest bit of self awareness. You claim no motive for sharing, but just about everyone else sees what you’re doing. You claim innocence, “I didn’t write the article” but when asked repeatedly to explain why you found it interesting, you have literally never answered, only saying “I don’t have to explain anything!”. Which is true, in so far as when you don’t explain your motivations, people will fill in the blanks.

Everyone else here who is a regular or even occasional poster has “tells” of one type or another. We’re human, and by definition that means we have biases. I generally can often guess who posted something without even looking at the user name, and that’s fine. And that’s just as true of other people guessing when I’ve posted something. The rest of us engage with posts and comments in a way that matches our personal views.

But supposedly not you. You claim no bias, no agenda and spend most of your time in the comments being disingenuous - not only about your agenda (which is plain to see), but in claiming you have no motive for what you do. That’s not genuine human behavior, which is probably why there’s so many who believe you’re a bot. Your behavior in posting and commenting falls smack dab in the uncanny valley. The only other explanation is that you’re not being honest.

As for the rest, please don’t pretend that you haven’t been trolling yourself. The modlog is evidence enough for that.

You keep acting like it’s the articles you post that are the problem when it’s your behavior in the comments that makes people angry. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a genuine conversation with you involved. It’s obfuscation, sealioning, deflection, and playing the victim.

And don’t do your usual “Just block me if you don’t like it!” When people see someone pollute a shared communal space, they should call it out, not turn a blind eye to it. Otherwise it’s just another example of the Tragedy of the Commons.

You have every right to keep posting (as long as the mods are willing to shoulder the extra work you create), but if you do, do it honestly. Stand up for what you believe in, even if folks say you’re wrong. Be an advocate for ideas, people, and movements. Explain why you think what you do - the only cost is the potential for someone to change your mind, and the benefit is you might change someone else’s mind.

But don’t be dishonest about why you’re doing whatever it is you think you’re doing here. Don’t hide behind “I didn’t write the article” and “I don’t have to explain anything to anyone”. You might still get downvoted to oblivion, but you might not.

While it’s true you can’t reason someone out of a belief that they didn’t reason themselves into, I think this may be surprisingly effective. It’s not a clip on social media, it’s not a meme, it’s an interview with a real person from the same source they get their daily Trump booster from anyway.

For some, it may strike an emotional blow seeing the woman that Trump has vilified and cartoonishly caricaturized being strong and intelligent while he won’t debate and at his own events rambles (or dances). She looks strong and he looks weak. Most will shake it off, but if even 1% decide just not to vote for Trump, it will probably be enough to swing some states. This wasn’t primarily a call to reason or to change minds, it was a swing at making them doubt Trump and his message. The only way to counter someone like him is ridicule or stirring up doubts. I hate that this kind of thing is what it may take to beat him, but she did it well and it wouldn’t have worked anywhere else but Fox News.

It’s like when they ask someone “What is a woman?” like it’s some gotcha. Whatever you answer, they’ll find a way to twist, exaggerate, or simply lie about.

Almost as if travel and new experiences can tend to broaden one’s mind…

I wonder when we’ll find out how much Putin has spent? I mean they spent tons on influencers, I imagine FB ads are a relative bargain.

Yeah, it really seems that there needs to be some sort of consequences for this. I saw someone referring to it as “lawfare” for the first time, and I think that’s rather apt. This is attempting to disingenuously commit violence on the infrastructure of society.

They like to try and dress it up a bit, but yeah…

“Gaza war stuff”

Wow, could you be any more dismissive of the senseless deaths of innocent civilians? Workers rights don’t mean a thing when you’re dead.

I mean, at least they’re consistent about something! :)

Right - you said you voted for Rachele Fruit, who is vocally pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian. Odd that you find this article interesting to share when the main thrust of the event is that Harris is bad for not doing enough about Gaza and needs to be “punished”. Is your problem with Harris that she isn’t more strident in demanding more Palestinian civilian deaths? Just curious as that seems to be the stance of the candidate you claim to have voted for.

In Nevada, Stein’s campaign was represented by Jay Sekulow, a conservative lawyer who represented Trump in his first impeachment trial. In Wisconsin, Stein’s campaign was represented by Michael Dean, a conservative lawyer who regularly works with Republicans. Her campaign has also hired Accelevate, a political consulting group that’s previously worked with Republicans.

And at a rally in Philadelphia in June, Trump was explicit in his appreciation of Stein and Cornel West, another left-wing candidate who could pull votes from Democrats.

I also love the shortsightedness of them flat out saying Stein doesn’t have a chance, and that their aim is to “punish” Harris - when all voting for Stein will do is punish Gazans, Lebanese, Ukrainians, and every woman, minority, and LGBTQ+ person in the US.

Good to know - so it is something else other than issues that keep you here. Thanks bud!

But why? I mean they must be some pretty powerful beliefs to keep you so active. What issues could be so important? It seems strange that you can never give an answer to that question.

If you can’t say, the only logical conclusion is that those issues don’t actually exist and something else is motivating your nonstop posting and commenting.

No, by all means, continue. You mentioned your “favorite socialist issues” and implied you would be around as long as they were. It would only be fair for you to expound on what those issues actually are.