The way they weaponized it is by filling it with disturbing or anger inducing posts nonstop even if they are anti-deep-state posts.
Why? Because anger and disgust weakens the soul allowing actual demons to cross your aura and steal life energy. The less life energy you have, the worst you feel mentally and physically.
To counter first turn on all safety settings to blur images that might be disturbing. This alone helps a lot.
2nd, don't give them your fear. That is what they want. Anger, disgust are branches of fear. Instead, forgive the disturbance but acknowledge it and then move on. Do whatever you can to make the world better so we can avoid these problems but don't get angry.
Anger is milked not just from social media but from TV, economics, corporations, etc...
Don't fall for the trap so you starve the beast and if the dark side thinks they can't milk you, then they will flee and find another they can milk which will clear your field and boost up your own Life Energy eventually to ecstatic levels.
Funny, incoherence has never been against the rules in this open-minded forum. Failure to address the argument is also not against the rules if one chooses not to attack but to speak of something related. Nor does disrespect seem to be the issue here.
It would be a hard stretch to shoehorn this comment, or similar ones, into an overbroad category of "disrespect" or "subversion" or "spam" without making those words totally arbitrary. Disrespect is in the context of personal attack such as namecalling, subversion is in the context of meta posts, and spam is in the context of inorganic content, none of which apply. The post isn't "low quality" or "trolling" or "intentionally misleading". The worst we've got is that it's contrary to norms (which is what the forum seeks after all), that it can sound illogical (not a deletion criterion because paradox often helps explain conspiracy), or that it slides the forum (but this account never posts, is easily ignored, and has no stated agenda). So I reluctantly tolerate this content, and interact with it from time to time as I am "inspired".
I notice how you are ignoring the fact that I was threatened with a ban over the comment you are replying to.
Were you?
Oh, I guess I didn't read it as a threat because it was indirect.
To speak indirectly about it, a lot of people think that they should be free to drop all kinds of intentional hints indirectly but that when they infer a nuance from someone else's indirection then that other person should be punished for the nuance that they received. I would certainly hope that's not you.
To speak directly, when you say "make coherent statements" you're not saying the comment is incoherent but you are implying (connecting it to rule 1) that you think it's potentially worthy of discipline; and when u/Thisisnotanexit says "this is spammy harassey stuff" she is saying the comment is potentially spam or harassment and implying thereby that she thinks it's potentially worthy of discipline. Both statements are equally indirect.
So I applaud your desire for justice and equal treatment and would encourage you to continue calling out things that look imbalanced to you. Over time the discussion will help us all come to agreement on proper balance. But so far I haven't been persuaded by your case.