They probably thought you meant something different than what you actually meant.

...

You think they do an annual review of threads?

It was over a year ago I made the comment, they banned me for it five days ago.

I don't know man, it's weird you're not getting that, but it doesn't really matter.

I'm sorry if I'm explaining it poorly.

I did remember it wasn't I blocked a mod, I explained why I might not respond. And apparently they didn't like that I had blocked their instance

That wasn't why he was given the nomination, it was the excuse given for why it had to be Biden.

Like, I have a very low opinion about the intelligence of the people running the dnc...

But they couldn't be stupid enough to believe that shit, even if Biden honestly did.

Weird, maybe because I looked at world's modlog and not theirs like you seem to have done.

I clicked on the link, it was a comment from literally a year ago lol.

https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/3159844

I blocked the mod of that sub about a week ago, so they likely went and saw my last comment there and banned me for it.

Like I said tho, I'm perfectly fine with it. I blocked their whole instance a long time ago, I think it might have actually been that thread that clued me in it wasn't worth ever going there again.

Thanks for finding that tho! I'll remember to check an instance's own modlog in the future for more details.

Quick edit:

(which your agreement to could be seen as agreement with trans-segrigation in sports).

Nah, I was explaining how the only way to get better at chess is to play better people, and there's no reason for any classes based around gender. And the explanation for difference in skill, is simply that the best men refused to play women, so they never improved. The first female grand master was only that good because her dad was crazy good and made her and her sister play him constantly.

You need the experience of high level play to be able to play at a high level, and any gender divide in division just prolongs that. So I was arguing against any segregation at all.

That's why they let it stay up a year until I blocked the mod of that community.

And suddenly it was transphobic.

What?

You want me to drop a specific name?

If you really want me to I can look at the DOJ top chain of command and find at least one that seems willing to do their job if you really wanted, but I'm not sure why you'd expect me to have a list of candidate prepared for you.

Do you want me to see if they have time for mock interviews too?

I could name drop it's for you if you think it'll help, but frankly I'm worried no one will reach back out...

Because I know who Merrick Garland is and have observed his behavior over the last four years?

It's legit one of the few areas I agree with Biden:

In recent weeks, President Biden has grumbled to aides and advisers that had Garland moved sooner in his investigation into former President Donald Trump’s election interference, a trial may already be underway or even have concluded, according to two people granted anonymity to discuss private matters. That trial still could take place before the election and much of the delay is owed not to Garland but to deliberate resistance put up by the former president and his team.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/09/white-house-frustration-with-garland-grows-00140813

Although I disagree with Biden on his path forward. Rather than replace Garland, his plan is to grumble to aids and adversers that Garland doesn't do what he wants, I believe Biden should have never appointed him in the first, and can offer no plausible explanation for why he hasn't been replaced other Biden is (say it with me) unwilling to fight fascism as hard as it needs to be fought.

A "tankie" isn't the same as a communist.

A "tankie" is someone that takes China's side (the tanks) in that famous picture of Tiananmen square.

Being a "tankie" is using communism as a facade for authoritarian governments where a small group of "upper party members" are essentially oligarchs.

Mate, let me save you some trouble:

When the vast majority talk of a generation or any type of group, they're talking about the majority and not every single one of them.

He was having an affair with a woman almost 30 years older than himself, and she died in 1951

And surely a wealthy Christian man in England 70 years ago would never be hypocritical....

But like I said, maybe it's a coincidence and not an intended statement. But the books are incredibly preachy and Lewis writes as if his personal beliefs are clearly and obviously the right and only beliefs.

It's been decades since I've read them, but I'm not the only one with that takeaway from his writings.

And while a child being married under 16 immediately sounds like pedophilia to you (as it should) this was back when the law was being passed and lots opposed it. There were people fighting it for decades after even.

And it literally explains why Susan was held to a different standard than Pete:

This section re-enacts section 1 of the Age of Marriage Act 1929 which set the minimum marriage age at 16 with consent of parents or guardians and 21 (since lowered to 18) without that consent. Marriages contracted by persons either of whom is under the age of 16 years are void.[10][11] Before 1929, the common law and canon law applied so that a person who had attained the legal age of puberty could contract a valid marriage. A marriage contracted by persons either of whom was under the legal age of puberty was voidable. The legal age of puberty was 14 for males and 12 for females.

In 1971, Eekelaar wrote that the prohibition now contained in this section "though desirable, is extreme and inflexible." According to him it could result in "genuine hardship", such as where it is discovered, after years of apparent marriage, that a mistake was made, at the time of the ceremony, regarding the age of one of the spouses, or where one of the spouses concealed their real age, though, after 1971, some protection was afforded by section 6 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1970[12] (now repealed and replaced by the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_Act_1949

So while you think I'm making an assumption in saying his opposition to this law was likely and may have influenced what he wrote about....

You've also twisted that into me labeling him a pedo that wants to marry a child younger than 16 and implied everyone agreed that this law was a good thing. One thing you've just invented and another that's easily disproven

That clears up any doubts I had, which is more than I hoped for.

I mean, it was written by a Christian and the first book was published 1950.

The 1949 law was passed in the UK barring marriage under 16, and went into effect 1/1/50.

Knowing Lewis the entire reason for the "Susan problem" was him likely being upset child marriage had been (slightly more) outlawed.

So Susan turned 16 and Lewis made a big deal about a sudden change and now she's an adult.

Granted, I could very well be wrong.

But it seems like somebody upset about progress, and I wouldn't be the first to label Lewis as such. But it's hard for anyone to claim he wasn't using his writing to shoehorn his opinions in and get kids to agree with him.

That rich people be held to the law???!!!!!

Reginald! Get the fainting couch, I need to go get my pearls so I may clutch them

He also points out that it would have not have survived the fierce temperatures of the baker's oven—though Albarelli counters that it could have been added to the bread after baking. While they disagree on the cause of the hallucinations, on one point they are united—the need for a French government inquiry to get to the bottom of what really happened in Pont-Saint-Esprit all those years ago.

Yeah, LSD and heat isn't a good mix.

And I'm doubtful how well they could have dosed fresh baked unsliced bread. It's the CIA, they could have physically gotten it on the bread, but they'd have to be doing something like spraying an incredibly diluted water solution on the bread, very lightly because anything more than a light spritz would roll off.

I could believe the CIA would dose a town, destroy evidence, and blame it on ergot in bread.

It just makes zero sense to use bread as the dispersion method. Especially since whatever method they settled on wouldn't be viable on a population.

Would make a lot more sense to use some kind of aerosolized local agent. Especially if it was a slow sustained release in a place lots of people go into but don't stay long, like a bakery. Or triggered to release at the door when people entered.

The least believable part of this is still thinking the bread from the cover story has to be related to what happened

What investigation is needed?

There's no way this is legal, it's what "blatantly illegal" means.

Like, if someone stripped naked, got a full automatic gun and walked around the White House busting off caps, it's "blatantly illegal" no investigation needs to be done.

This isn't like Musk went home and put pants on, he's still running around literally everyday till the election doing this.

You stop the person from committing the crime, and lock them up if there's reasonable suspicion they'll keep committing crimes.

Then when you've stopped more crimes from happening, you investigate the crimes that already blatantly happened, as well as looking for others.

Nah, I replied to OP and they deleted the comment.

Maybe that looks weird on some federated instances or apps tho.

If it looks like I'm replying to someone else, that would explain the down votes.

OPs post gets reposted pretty frequently, always by new accounts which tend to disappear a day or two later after some lazy posts.

I really do think it's the same person who's bans are in the screenshots.

It's too random that a bunch of brand new accounts all find the post and quote it with perfectly formatting including all the pictures just to repost it the same place they found it.

Especially since the new account always claims they're "helping new users" like they've been here forever.

But sometimes I do need face to face communication with team members I’m concerned about, or with customers.

Yes..

You need that, because that's what you grew up with.

I'm sure you don't know how to send a carrier pigeon, but at one point that was very important in business and government.

It's not Gen Z's fault that a lot of boomers are unable to retire due to the policies their generation voted for or their own personal irresponsible savings and retirement planning.

The youngest boomers are 60, so any "older boomer" is going to be well past retirement age.

Stop trying to insist every future generation has to compromise with your archaic needs.

You are the one out of place, they are the ones that are literally the future.

The first rally he came out for trump, he flat out said "if trump loses I'm fucked".

It's logical to assume if he's being this blatant because even a little digging would show obvious crimes.

He's already fucked, he has no other option than to double down with blantant shit.

All the more reason to act now, the election is in two weeks, but if looking into this gets a head start to find some shady shit before January...

Well, it's probably all hypothetical, Biden wouldn't have the balls to do anything.

No they don't.

They learn that pain is a valid motivator and consequences only come from being caught.

They don't learn to follow rules.

Like, it's 2024, this has been widely studied....

Did nobody tell you? I have a degree in psychology so maybe my expectations are too high, but you're honestly the first person I've seen in at least the last decade say child abuse is an effective strategy

A lot of people think if two groups disagree then just picking the middle makes them better than either, likely because it may make the two sides court them so they feel important. Which would explain the pro-spanking stance too. The people who fall into that were often attention starved as children and view any attention as a positive.

So when you get full blown fascism on one side, and ineffectual pro-corproate neoliberalism on the other...

Those people may very well say that the correct path is in-between the two.

In this case letting a billionaire buy an election for the fascist and then honestly say with a straight face:

arresting Musk two weeks before the election could be a huge backfire.

Like if one mob wanted to burn their house down, and another mob wanted to burn half, they'd pat themselves on the back for "negotiating" to have 75% of their own house burnt down, and declare everyone has to be satisfied because it's a compromise.

What a Bunch of nonsense.

What is the nonsense and why are you bringing up child abuse like it helps people?

Musk is actively doing damage and blatantly breaking the law...

And you think the best plan is to ignore it till after the election, completely ignoring this is targeted at battleground states in a tight election?

Like, did you see how long it took to hold people accountable after 1/6?

What's important is stopping it now with an injunction.

Blatantly illegal.

But Biden won't step up and make Garland do his job.

Just throw it on top of the giant piles of reason "not trump" isn't enough to fight fascism.

We need people actually willing and able to fight, best case scenario for Biden is he's only one of those things.

And as president, he's clearly able to direct the DOJ, if he believes he shouldn't be able, that makes him unwilling to fight fascism.