Revisions | Conspiracies - Conspiracy Theories & Facts

Reason: None provided.

I'm guessing you would similarly ban South Park and all comedians whom you personally disagree with.

No, of course not.

You will find no issue with this post

https://twitter.com/SethDillon/status/1504901417953243136

Ok so you are against the Babylon Bee being locked out of their Twitter account until they delete a tweet naming Rachel Levine as Babylon Bee's Man of the Year?

https://twitter.com/SethDillon/status/1505663712266493958
https://twitter.com/SethDillon/status/1505666033620815880
https://twitter.com/libbyemmons/status/1505899446722301954
https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/1507014373964886017

You would also be against Twitter recently locking the account of @TuckerCarlson until he deletes a tweet in support of Babylon Bee and for recent segments raising debate about biological males in women's competitions?

https://twitter.com/TPostMillennial/status/1506075101732737028
https://twitter.com/SethDillon/status/1506679268373377024
https://twitter.com/SethDillon/status/1507441160951721990

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFl88Wkz6eI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3Jmv0vZvJ4

And you would also be against Twitter locking the account of the Babylon Bee's editor

https://twitter.com/Adam4d/status/1506281322695872517
https://twitter.com/Not_the_Bee/status/1506282198655242247

What you did was attempt to incite other people to hate on transgender people.

Nice dodge of my questions and comments in the parent comment.

Where have I seen this before?

I did not incite anyone to hate or promote violence against transgender people.

Posting a picture of Biden Assistant HHS secretary Rachel Levine winning USA Today 'women of the year' award and in the submission statement politely raising the question asking if CIS women feel disenfranchised by biological males identifying as transgender women when permitted to compete in awards and sports competitions is not promoting hate or inciting violence.

That is called debate.

Biological males have XY chromosomes in their DNA and are born with male physical characteristics. You can't simply wish this away even if you call yourself a woman.

The argument is based on human biology.

What is the TOS violation?

Is it because the topic is simply LGBTQ, and controversial?
Is it reporting that USA Today gave Rachel Levine a women of the year award?
Is it stating that Rachel Levine is a biological man identifying as a woman?
Is it stating that transgender women are biological males?
Is it asking if CIS women feel disenfranchised by a biological male receiving a woman's award?
Is it by raising any question it might unintentionally raise awareness that the LGBTQ lobby have been repeatedly trying to erase and censor 200+ years of human biology, psychology, medicine, and the field of science itself?

None of these topics or questions are 'hate speech' or inciting violence.

The LGBTQ lobby has positioned itself within social media and intimidated, bullied, threatened, and canceled anyone that might say that a biological male is a transgender woman or question whether CIS women feel disenfranchised by biological males receiving women's awards and competing in women's competitions.

Apparently LGBTQ and their acolytes do not want debate, they want compliance with their orthodoxy. Raise a question and you will be banned for wrongthink.

When they ban you for holding a different opinion ('wrongthink'), they don't want compromise, that is not enough, they want you to bend the knee and change your opinion to match their own world view.

That is why you were banned, and they told you right away in simple language.

Simple language lol It was ambiguous world salad.

I was provided Orwellian newspeak.

I repeatedly asked for clarification what in the submission or submission statement was a TOS violation. I was stonewalled and gaslit for days with evasive posts and doublespeak much like your own.

Again where have I seen this before?

You completely passed over my questions much like the mod

I think you are part of a coordinated effort, and I'm sure the mods there do to. Your game is to alley-oop your daily reminders of basic facts so your bros over at TMOR can swoop in with enough hate speech to get the attention of the admins (who are also your TMOR bros). Then the issue will by why they allowed you to do this in the first place and after a long debate the subreddit will be banned.

lol.

I really am getting the distinct impression you are a mod of r/conspiracy trolling here to defend running a honeypot while issuing perm bans using private blacklists for wrongthink.

I am no part of SPLC or TMOR, but your motives are fairly transparent here. Did you really think coming here anonymously to peddle the same nonsense and defend your actions was going to look convincing?

I repeatedly stated I was willing to post within a sandbox and asked for a list of banned topics in r/conspiracy to prevent further misunderstanding. Mods refused to answer.

I compromised and communicated that in the future I would not state in r/conspiracy that a 'biological male is a transgender woman'

That was not good enough for the mod. They wanted me to bend the knee, grovel, and conform to their world view that saying or implying that a 'biological male is a transgender woman' is 'hate speech' and a TOS violation. As stated, I can agree not to discuss a list of banned topics in r/conspiracy, but will not be bullied into saying this is 'hate speech' and disregarding human biology.

If they would have said, please refrain from discussing LGBTQ as it could subject the sub to reprisal from Admin, I would have honored the request.

I had no real problem with the r/conspiracy mod team up until last week with exception of selective enforcement of their rules about memes. Permitting some memes and banning for others was bewildering. It made no sense as some submissions with simple humor and no informational value were allowed to remain while other submissions that contained humor + informational value that could spur further debate were removed.

I see no reason to further continue responding to you if you are going to evade my questions, gaslight me, and not engage in honest discussion.

2 years ago

0 score

Reason: None provided.

I'm guessing you would similarly ban South Park and all comedians whom you personally disagree with.

No, of course not.

You will find no issue with this post

https://twitter.com/SethDillon/status/1504901417953243136

Ok so you are against the Babylon Bee being locked out of their Twitter account until they delete a tweet naming Rachel Levine as Babylon Bee's Man of the Year?

https://twitter.com/SethDillon/status/1505663712266493958
https://twitter.com/SethDillon/status/1505666033620815880
https://twitter.com/libbyemmons/status/1505899446722301954
https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/1507014373964886017

You would also be against Twitter recently locking the account of @TuckerCarlson until he deletes a tweet in support of Babylon Bee and for recent segments raising debate about biological males in women's competitions?

https://twitter.com/TPostMillennial/status/1506075101732737028
https://twitter.com/SethDillon/status/1506679268373377024
https://twitter.com/SethDillon/status/1507441160951721990

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFl88Wkz6eI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3Jmv0vZvJ4

And you would also be against Twitter locking the account of the Babylon Bee's editor

https://twitter.com/Adam4d/status/1506281322695872517
https://twitter.com/Not_the_Bee/status/1506282198655242247

What you did was attempt to incite other people to hate on transgender people.

Nice dodge of my questions and comments in the parent comment.

Where have I seen this before?

I did not incite anyone to hate or promote violence against transgender people.

Posting a picture of Biden Assistant HHS secretary Rachel Levine winning USA Today 'women of the year' award and in the submission statement politely raising the question asking if CIS women feel disenfranchised by biological males identifying as transgender women when permitted to compete in awards and sports competitions is not promoting hate or inciting violence.

That is called debate.

Biological males have XY chromosomes in their DNA and are born with male physical characteristics. You can't simply wish this away even if you call yourself a woman.

The argument is based on human biology.

What is the TOS violation?

Is it because the topic is simply LGBTQ, and controversial?
Is it reporting that USA Today gave Rachel Levine a women of the year award?
Is it stating that Rachel Levine is a biological man identifying as a woman?
Is it stating that transgender women are biological males?
Is it asking if CIS women feel disenfranchised by a biological male receiving a woman's award?
Is it by raising any question it might unintentionally raise awareness that the LGBTQ lobby have been repeatedly trying to erase and censor 200+ years of human biology, psychology, medicine, and the field of science itself?

None of these topics or questions are 'hate speech' or inciting violence.

The LGBTQ lobby has positioned itself within social media and intimidated, bullied, threatened, and canceled anyone that might say that a biological male is a transgender woman or question whether CIS women feel disenfranchised by biological males receiving women's awards and competing in women's competitions.

Apparently LGBTQ and their acolytes do not want debate, they want compliance with their orthodoxy. Raise a question and you will be banned for wrongthink.

When they ban you for holding a different opinion ('wrongthink'), they don't want compromise, that is not enough, they want you to bend the knee and change your opinion to match their own world view.

That is why you were banned, and they told you right away in simple language.

Simple language lol It was ambiguous world salad.

I was provided Orwellian newspeak.

I repeatedly asked for clarification what in the submission or submission statement was a TOS violation. I was stonewalled and gaslit for days with evasive posts and doublespeak much like your own.

Again where have I seen this before?

You completely passed over my questions much like the mod

I think you are part of a coordinated effort, and I'm sure the mods there do to. Your game is to alley-oop your daily reminders of basic facts so your bros over at TMOR can swoop in with enough hate speech to get the attention of the admins (who are also your TMOR bros). Then the issue will by why they allowed you to do this in the first place and after a long debate the subreddit will be banned.

lol.

I really am getting the distinct impression you are a mod of r/conspiracy trolling here to defend running a honeypot while issuing perm bans using private blacklists for wrongthink.

I am no part of SPLC or TMOR, but your motives are fairly transparent here. Did you really think coming here anonymously to peddle the same nonsense and defend your actions was going to look convincing?

I repeatedly stated I was willing to post within a sandbox and asked for a list of banned topics in r/conspiracy to prevent further misunderstanding. The mods refused to answer.

I compromised and communicated that in the future I would not state in r/conspiracy that a 'biological male is a transgender woman'

That was not good enough for the mod. They wanted me to bend the knee, grovel, and conform to their world view that saying or implying that a 'biological male is a transgender woman' is 'hate speech' and a TOS violation. As stated, I can agree not to discuss a list of banned topics in r/conspiracy, but will not be bullied into saying this is 'hate speech' and disregarding human biology.

If they would have said, please refrain from discussing LGBTQ as it could subject the sub to reprisal from Admin, I would have honored the request.

I had no real problem with the r/conspiracy mod team up until last week with exception of selective enforcement of their rules about memes. Permitting some memes and banning for others was bewildering. It made no sense as some submissions with simple humor and no informational value were allowed to remain while other submissions that contained humor + informational value that could spur further debate were removed.

I see no reason to further continue responding to you if you are going to evade my questions, gaslight me, and not engage in honest discussion.

2 years ago

1 score

Reason: None provided.

I'm guessing you would similarly ban South Park and all comedians whom you personally disagree with.

No, of course not.

You will find no issue with this post

https://twitter.com/SethDillon/status/1504901417953243136

Ok so you are against the Babylon Bee being locked out of their Twitter account until they delete a tweet naming Rachel Levine as Babylon Bee's Man of the Year?

https://twitter.com/SethDillon/status/1505663712266493958
https://twitter.com/SethDillon/status/1505666033620815880
https://twitter.com/libbyemmons/status/1505899446722301954
https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/1507014373964886017

You would also be against Twitter recently locking the account of @TuckerCarlson until he deletes a tweet in support of Babylon Bee and for recent segments raising debate about biological males in women's competitions?

https://twitter.com/TPostMillennial/status/1506075101732737028
https://twitter.com/SethDillon/status/1506679268373377024
https://twitter.com/SethDillon/status/1507441160951721990

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFl88Wkz6eI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3Jmv0vZvJ4

And you would also be against Twitter locking the account of the Babylon Bee's editor

https://twitter.com/Adam4d/status/1506281322695872517
https://twitter.com/Not_the_Bee/status/1506282198655242247

What you did was attempt to incite other people to hate on transgender people.

Nice dodge of my questions and comments in the parent comment.

Where have I seen this before?

I did not incite anyone to hate or promote violence against transgender people.

Posting a picture of Biden Assistant HHS secretary Rachel Levine winning USA Today 'women of the year' award and in the submission statement politely raising the question asking if CIS women feel disenfranchised by biological males identifying as transgender women when permitted to compete in awards and sports competitions is not promoting hate or inciting violence.

That is called debate.

Biological males have XY chromosomes in their DNA and are born with male physical characteristics. You can't simply wish this away even if you call yourself a woman.

The argument is based on human biology.

What is the TOS violation?

Is it because the topic is simply LGBTQ, and controversial?
Is it reporting that USA Today gave Rachel Levine a women of the year award?
Is it stating that Rachel Levine is a biological man identifying as a woman?
Is it stating that transgender women are biological males?
Is it asking if CIS women feel disenfranchised by a biological male receiving a woman's award?
Is it by raising any question it might unintentionally raise awareness that the LGBTQ lobby have been repeatedly trying to erase and censor 200+ years of human biology, psychology, medicine, and the field of science itself?

None of these topics or questions are 'hate speech' or inciting violence.

The LGBTQ lobby has positioned itself within social media and intimidated, bullied, threatened, and canceled anyone that might say that a biological male is a transgender woman or question whether CIS women feel disenfranchised by biological males receiving women's awards and competing in women's competitions.

Apparently LGBTQ and their acolytes do not want debate, they want compliance with their orthodoxy. Raise a question and you will be banned for wrongthink.

When they ban you for holding a different opinion ('wrongthink'), they don't want compromise, that is not enough, they want you to bend the knee and change your opinion to match their own world view.

That is why you were banned, and they told you right away in simple language.

Simple language lol It was ambiguous world salad.

I was provided Orwellian newspeak.

I repeatedly asked for clarification what in the submission or submission statement was a TOS violation. I was stonewalled and gaslit for days with evasive posts and doublespeak much like your own.

Again where have I seen this before?

You completely passed over my questions much like the mod

I think you are part of a coordinated effort, and I'm sure the mods there do to. Your game is to alley-oop your daily reminders of basic facts so your bros over at TMOR can swoop in with enough hate speech to get the attention of the admins (who are also your TMOR bros). Then the issue will by why they allowed you to do this in the first place and after a long debate the subreddit will be banned.

lol.

I really am getting the distinct impression you are a mod of r/conspiracy trolling here to reaffirm and defend running a honeypot while issuing perm bans using private blacklists for wrongthink.

I am no part of SPLC or TMOR, but your motives are fairly transparent here. Did you really think coming here anonymously to peddle the same nonsense and defend your actions was going to look convincing?

I repeatedly stated I was willing to post within a sandbox and asked for a list of banned topics in r/conspiracy to prevent further misunderstanding. The mods refused to answer.

I compromised and communicated that in the future I would not state in r/conspiracy that a 'biological male is a transgender woman'

That was not good enough for the mod. They wanted me to bend the knee, grovel, and conform to their world view that saying or implying that a 'biological male is a transgender woman' is 'hate speech' and a TOS violation. As stated, I can agree not to discuss a list of banned topics in r/conspiracy, but will not be bullied into saying this is 'hate speech' and disregarding human biology.

If they would have said, please refrain from discussing LGBTQ as it could subject the sub to reprisal from Admin, I would have honored the request.

I had no real problem with the r/conspiracy mod team up until last week with exception of selective enforcement of their rules about memes. Permitting some memes and banning for others was bewildering. It made no sense as some submissions with simple humor and no informational value were allowed to remain while other submissions that contained humor + informational value that could spur further debate were removed.

I see no reason to further continue responding to you if you are going to evade my questions, gaslight me, and not engage in honest discussion.

2 years ago

1 score

Reason: None provided.

I'm guessing you would similarly ban South Park and all comedians whom you personally disagree with.

No, of course not.

You will find no issue with this post

https://twitter.com/SethDillon/status/1504901417953243136

Ok so you are against the Babylon Bee being locked out of their Twitter account until they delete a tweet naming Rachel Levine as Babylon Bee's Man of the Year?

https://twitter.com/SethDillon/status/1505663712266493958
https://twitter.com/SethDillon/status/1505666033620815880
https://twitter.com/libbyemmons/status/1505899446722301954
https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/1507014373964886017

You would also be against Twitter recently locking the account of @TuckerCarlson until he deletes a tweet in support of Babylon Bee and for recent segments raising debate about biological males in women's competitions?

https://twitter.com/TPostMillennial/status/1506075101732737028
https://twitter.com/SethDillon/status/1506679268373377024
https://twitter.com/SethDillon/status/1507441160951721990

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFl88Wkz6eI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3Jmv0vZvJ4

And you would also be against Twitter locking the account of the Babylon Bee's editor

https://twitter.com/Adam4d/status/1506281322695872517
https://twitter.com/Not_the_Bee/status/1506282198655242247

What you did was attempt to incite other people to hate on transgender people.

Nice dodge of my questions and comments in the parent comment.

Where have I seen this before?

I did not incite anyone to hate or promote violence against transgender people.

Posting a picture of Biden Assistant HHS secretary Rachel Levine winning USA Today 'women of the year' award and in the submission statement politely raising the question asking if CIS women feel disenfranchised by biological males identifying as transgender women when permitted to compete in awards and sports competitions is not promoting hate or inciting violence.

That is called debate.

Biological males have XY chromosomes in their DNA and are born with male physical characteristics. You can't simply wish this away even if you call yourself a woman.

The argument is based on human biology.

What is the TOS violation?

Is it because the topic is simply LGBTQ, and controversial?
Is it reporting that USA Today gave Rachel Levine a women of the year award?
Is it stating that Rachel Levine is a biological man identifying as a woman?
Is it stating that transgender women are biological males?
Is it asking if CIS women feel disenfranchised by a biological male receiving a woman's award?
Is it by raising any question it might unintentionally raise awareness that the LGBTQ lobby have been repeatedly trying to erase and censor 200+ years of human biology, psychology, medicine, and the field of science itself?

None of these topics or questions are 'hate speech' or inciting violence.

The LGBTQ lobby has positioned itself within social media and intimidated, bullied, threatened, and canceled anyone that might say that a biological male is a transgender woman or question whether CIS women feel disenfranchised by biological males receiving women's awards and competing in women's competitions.

Apparently LGBTQ and their acolytes do not want debate, they want compliance with their orthodoxy. Raise a question and you will be banned for wrongthink.

When they ban you for holding a different opinion ('wrongthink'), they don't want compromise, that is not enough, they want you to bend the knee and change your opinion to match their own world view.

That is why you were banned, and they told you right away in simple language.

Simple language lol It was ambiguous world salad.

I was provided Orwellian newspeak.

I repeatedly asked for clarification what in the submission or submission statement was a TOS violation. I was stonewalled and gaslit for days with evasive posts and doublespeak much like your own.

Again where have I seen this before?

You completely passed over my questions much like the mod

I think you are part of a coordinated effort, and I'm sure the mods there do to. Your game is to alley-oop your daily reminders of basic facts so your bros over at TMOR can swoop in with enough hate speech to get the attention of the admins (who are also your TMOR bros). Then the issue will by why they allowed you to do this in the first place and after a long debate the subreddit will be banned.

lol.

I really am getting the distinct impression you are a mod of r/conspiracy trolling here to reaffirm and defend running a honeypot while issuing perm bans using private blacklists for wrongthink.

I am no part of SPLC or TMOR, but your motives are fairly transparent here. Did you really think coming here anonymously to peddle the same nonsense and defend your actions was going to look convincing?

I repeatedly stated I was willing to post within a sandbox and asked for a list of banned topics in r/conspiracy to prevent further misunderstanding. The mods refused to answer.

I compromised and communicated that in the future I would not state in r/conspiracy that a 'biological male is a transgender woman'

That was not good enough for the mod. They wanted me to bend the knee, grovel, and conform to their world view that saying or implying that a 'biological male is a transgender woman' is 'hate speech' and a TOS violation. As stated, I can agree not to discuss a list of banned topics in r/conspiracy, but will not be bullied into saying this is 'hate speech' and disregarding human biology.

If they would have said, please refrain from discussing LGBTQ as it could subject the sub to reprisal from Admin, I would have honored the request.

I had no real problem with the r/conspiracy mod team up until last week with exception of selective enforcement of their rules about memes. Permitting some memes and banning for others was bewildering. It made no sense as some submissions were simply attempts at humor were allowed to remain while other submissions that contained humor + informational value that could spur further debate were removed.

I see no reason to further continue responding to you if you are going to evade my questions, gaslight me, and not engage in honest discussion.

2 years ago

1 score

Reason: None provided.

I'm guessing you would similarly ban South Park and all comedians whom you personally disagree with.

No, of course not.

You will find no issue with this post

https://twitter.com/SethDillon/status/1504901417953243136

Ok so you are against the Babylon Bee being locked out of their Twitter account until they delete a tweet naming Rachel Levine as Babylon Bee's Man of the Year?

https://twitter.com/SethDillon/status/1505663712266493958
https://twitter.com/SethDillon/status/1505666033620815880
https://twitter.com/libbyemmons/status/1505899446722301954
https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/1507014373964886017

You would also be against Twitter recently locking the account of @TuckerCarlson until he deletes a tweet in support of Babylon Bee and for recent segments raising debate about biological males in women's competitions?

https://twitter.com/TPostMillennial/status/1506075101732737028
https://twitter.com/SethDillon/status/1506679268373377024
https://twitter.com/SethDillon/status/1507441160951721990

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFl88Wkz6eI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3Jmv0vZvJ4

And you would also be against Twitter locking the account of the Babylon Bee's editor

https://twitter.com/Adam4d/status/1506281322695872517
https://twitter.com/Not_the_Bee/status/1506282198655242247

What you did was attempt to incite other people to hate on transgender people.

Nice dodge of my questions and comments in the parent comment.

Where have I seen this before?

I did not incite anyone to hate or promote violence against transgender people.

Posting a picture of Biden Assistant HHS secretary Rachel Levine winning USA Today 'women of the year' award and in the submission statement politely raising the question asking if CIS women feel disenfranchised by biological males identifying as transgender women when permitted to compete in awards and sports competitions is not promoting hate or inciting violence.

That is called debate.

Biological males have XY chromosomes in their DNA and are born with male physical characteristics. You can't simply wish this away even if you call yourself a woman.

The argument is based on human biology.

What is the TOS violation?

Is it because the topic is simply LGBTQ, and controversial?
Is it reporting that USA Today gave Rachel Levine a women of the year award?
Is it stating that Rachel Levine is a biological man identifying as a woman?
Is it stating that transgender women are biological males?
Is it asking if CIS women feel disenfranchised by a biological male receiving a woman's award?
Is it by raising any question it might unintentionally raise awareness that the LGBTQ lobby have been repeatedly trying to erase and censor 200+ years of human biology, psychology, medicine, and the field of science itself?

None of these topics or questions are 'hate speech' or inciting violence.

The LGBTQ lobby has positioned itself within social media and intimidated, bullied, threatened, and canceled anyone that might say that a biological male is a transgender woman or question whether CIS women feel disenfranchised by biological males receiving women's awards and competing in women's competitions.

Apparently LGBTQ and their acolytes do not want debate, they want compliance with their orthodoxy. Raise a question and you will be banned for wrongthink.

When they ban you for holding a different opinion ('wrongthink'), they don't want compromise, that is not enough, they want you to bend the knee and change your opinion to match their own world view.

That is why you were banned, and they told you right away in simple language.

Simple language lol It was ambiguous world salad.

I was provided Orwellian newspeak.

I repeatedly asked for clarification what in the submission or submission statement was a TOS violation. I was stonewalled and gaslit for days with evasive posts and doublespeak much like your own.

Again where have I seen this before?

You completely passed over my questions much like the mod

I think you are part of a coordinated effort, and I'm sure the mods there do to. Your game is to alley-oop your daily reminders of basic facts so your bros over at TMOR can swoop in with enough hate speech to get the attention of the admins (who are also your TMOR bros). Then the issue will by why they allowed you to do this in the first place and after a long debate the subreddit will be banned.

lol.

I really am getting the distinct impression you are a mod of r/conspiracy trolling here to reaffirm and defend running a honeypot while issuing perm bans using private blacklists for wrongthink.

I am no part of SPLC or TMOR, but your motives are fairly transparent here. Did you really think coming here anonymously to peddle the same nonsense and defend your actions was going to look convincing?

I repeatedly stated I was willing to post within a sandbox and asked for a list of banned topics in r/conspiracy to prevent further misunderstanding. The mods refused to answer.

I compromised and communicated that in the future I would not state in r/conspiracy that a 'biological male is a transgender woman'

That was not good enough for the mod. They wanted me to bend the knee, grovel, and conform to their world view that saying or implying that a 'biological male is a transgender woman' is 'hate speech' and a TOS violation. As stated, I can agree not to discuss a list of banned topics in r/conspiracy, but will not be bullied into saying this is 'hate speech' and disregarding human biology.

If they would have said, please refrain from discussing LGBTQ as it could subject the sub to reprisal from Admin, I would have honored the request.

I had no real problem with the r/conspiracy mod team up until last week with exception of selective enforcement of their rules about memes. Permitting some memes and banning for others was bewildering. It made no sense as some submissions were simply attempts at humor while others brought humor + informational value that could spur further debate.

I see no reason to further continue responding to you if you are going to evade my questions, gaslight me, and not engage in honest discussion.

2 years ago

1 score

Reason: None provided.

I'm guessing you would similarly ban South Park and all comedians whom you personally disagree with.

No, of course not.

You will find no issue with this post

https://twitter.com/SethDillon/status/1504901417953243136

Ok so you are against the Babylon Bee being locked out of their Twitter account until they delete a tweet naming Rachel Levine as Babylon Bee's Man of the Year?

https://twitter.com/SethDillon/status/1505663712266493958
https://twitter.com/SethDillon/status/1505666033620815880
https://twitter.com/libbyemmons/status/1505899446722301954
https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/1507014373964886017

You would also be against Twitter recently locking the account of @TuckerCarlson until he deletes a tweet in support of Babylon Bee and for recent segments raising debate about biological males in women's competitions?

https://twitter.com/TPostMillennial/status/1506075101732737028
https://twitter.com/SethDillon/status/1506679268373377024
https://twitter.com/SethDillon/status/1507441160951721990

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFl88Wkz6eI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3Jmv0vZvJ4

And you would also be against Twitter locking the account of the Babylon Bee's editor

https://twitter.com/Adam4d/status/1506281322695872517
https://twitter.com/Not_the_Bee/status/1506282198655242247

What you did was attempt to incite other people to hate on transgender people.

Nice dodge of my questions and comments in the parent comment.

Where have I seen this before?

I did not incite anyone to hate or promote violence against transgender people.

Posting a picture of Biden Assistant HHS secretary Rachel Levine winning USA Today 'women of the year' award and in the submission statement politely raising the question asking if CIS women feel disenfranchised by biological males identifying as transgender women when permitted to compete in awards and sports competitions is not promoting hate or inciting violence.

That is called debate.

Biological males have XY chromosomes in their DNA and are born with male physical characteristics. You can't simply wish this away even if you call yourself a woman.

The argument is based on human biology.

What is the TOS violation?

Is it because the topic is simply LGBTQ, and controversial?
Is it reporting that USA Today gave Rachel Levine a women of the year award?
Is it stating that Rachel Levine is a biological man identifying as a woman?
Is it stating that transgender women are biological males?
Is it asking if CIS women feel disenfranchised by a biological male receiving a woman's award?
Is it by raising any question it might unintentionally raise awareness that the LGBTQ lobby have been repeatedly trying to erase and censor 200+ years of human biology, psychology, medicine, and the field of science itself?

None of these topics or questions are 'hate speech' or inciting violence.

The LGBTQ lobby has positioned itself within social media and intimidated, bullied, threatened, and canceled anyone that might say that a biological male is a transgender woman or question whether CIS women feel disenfranchised by biological males receiving women's awards and competing in women's competitions.

Apparently LGBTQ and their acolytes do not want debate, they want compliance with their orthodoxy. Raise a question and you will be banned for wrongthink.

When they ban you for holding a different opinion ('wrongthink'), they don't want compromise, that is not enough, they want you to bend the knee and change your opinion to match their own world view.

That is why you were banned, and they told you right away in simple language.

Simple language lol It was ambiguous world salad.

I was provided Orwellian newspeak.

I repeatedly asked for clarification what in the submission or submission statement was a TOS violation. I was stonewalled and gaslit for days with evasive posts and doublespeak much like your own.

Again Where have I seen this before?

You completely passed over my questions much like the mod

I think you are part of a coordinated effort, and I'm sure the mods there do to. Your game is to alley-oop your daily reminders of basic facts so your bros over at TMOR can swoop in with enough hate speech to get the attention of the admins (who are also your TMOR bros). Then the issue will by why they allowed you to do this in the first place and after a long debate the subreddit will be banned.

lol.

I really am getting the distinct impression you are a mod of r/conspiracy trolling here to reaffirm and defend running a honeypot while issuing perm bans using private blacklists for wrongthink.

I am no part of SPLC or TMOR, but your motives are fairly transparent here. Did you really think coming here anonymously to peddle the same nonsense and defend your actions was going to look convincing?

I repeatedly stated I was willing to post within a sandbox and asked for a list of banned topics in r/conspiracy to prevent further misunderstanding. The mods refused to answer.

I stated I would not state in r/conspiracy that a 'biological male is a transgender woman'

That was not good enough for the mod. They wanted me to bend the knee, grovel, and conform to their world view that saying or implying that a 'biological male is a transgender woman' is 'hate speech' and a TOS violation. As stated, I can agree not to discuss a list of banned topics in r/conspiracy, but will not be bullied into saying this is 'hate speech' and disregarding human biology.

If they would have said, please refrain from discussing LGBTQ as it could subject the sub to reprisal from Admin, I would have honored the request.

I had no real problem with the r/conspiracy mod team up until last week with exception of selective enforcement of their rules about memes. Permitting some memes and banning for others was bewildering. It made no sense as some submissions were simply attempts at humor while others brought humor + informational value that could spur further debate.

I see no reason to further continue responding to you if you are going to evade my questions, gaslight me, and not engage in honest discussion.

2 years ago

1 score

Reason: None provided.

I'm guessing you would similarly ban South Park and all comedians whom you personally disagree with.

No, of course not.

You will find no issue with this post

https://twitter.com/SethDillon/status/1504901417953243136

Ok so you are against the Babylon Bee being locked out of their Twitter account until they delete a tweet naming Rachel Levine as Babylon Bee's Man of the Year?

https://twitter.com/SethDillon/status/1505663712266493958
https://twitter.com/SethDillon/status/1505666033620815880
https://twitter.com/libbyemmons/status/1505899446722301954
https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/1507014373964886017

You would also be against Twitter recently locking the account of @TuckerCarlson until he deletes a tweet in support of Babylon Bee and for recent segments raising debate about biological males in women's competitions?

https://twitter.com/TPostMillennial/status/1506075101732737028
https://twitter.com/SethDillon/status/1506679268373377024
https://twitter.com/SethDillon/status/1507441160951721990

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFl88Wkz6eI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3Jmv0vZvJ4

And you would also be against Twitter locking the account of the Babylon Bee's editor

https://twitter.com/Adam4d/status/1506281322695872517
https://twitter.com/Not_the_Bee/status/1506282198655242247

What you did was attempt to incite other people to hate on transgender people.

Nice dodge of my questions and comments in the parent comment.

Where have I seen this before?

I did not incite anyone to hate or promote violence against transgender people.

Posting a picture of Biden Assistant HHS secretary Rachel Levine winning USA Today 'women of the year' award and in the submission statement politely raising the question asking if CIS women feel disenfranchised by biological males identifying as transgender women when permitted to compete in awards and sports competitions is not promoting hate or inciting violence.

That is called debate.

Biological males have XY chromosomes in their DNA and are born with male physical characteristics. You can't simply wish this away even if you call yourself a woman.

The argument is based on human biology.

What is the TOS violation?

Is it because the topic is simply LGBTQ, and controversial?
Is it reporting that USA Today gave Rachel Levine a women of the year award?
Is it stating that Rachel Levine is a biological man identifying as a woman?
Is it stating that transgender women are biological males?
Is it asking if CIS women feel disenfranchised by a biological male receiving a woman's award?
Is it by raising any question it might unintentionally raise awareness that the LGBTQ lobby have been repeatedly trying to erase and censor 200+ years of human biology, psychology, medicine, and the field of science itself?

None of these topics or questions are 'hate speech' or inciting violence.

The LGBTQ lobby has positioned itself within social media and intimidated, bullied, threatened, and canceled anyone that might say that a biological male is a transgender woman or question whether CIS women feel disenfranchised by biological males receiving women's awards and competing in women's competitions.

Apparently LGBTQ and their acolytes do not want debate, they want compliance with their orthodoxy. Raise a question and you will be banned for wrongthink.

When they ban you for holding a different opinion ('wrongthink'), they don't want compromise, that is not enough, they want you to bend the knee and change your opinion to match their own world view.

That is why you were banned, and they told you right away in simple language.

Simple language lol It was ambiguous world salad.

I was provided Orwellian newspeak.

I repeatedly asked for clarification what in the submission or submission statement was a TOS violation. I was stonewalled and gaslit for days with evasive posts and doublespeak much like your own.

Again Where have I seen this before?

You completely passed over my questions much like the mod

I think you are part of a coordinated effort, and I'm sure the mods there do to. Your game is to alley-oop your daily reminders of basic facts so your bros over at TMOR can swoop in with enough hate speech to get the attention of the admins (who are also your TMOR bros). Then the issue will by why they allowed you to do this in the first place and after a long debate the subreddit will be banned.

lol.

I really am getting the distinct impression you are a mod of r/conspiracy trolling here to reaffirm and defend running a honeypot while issuing perm bans using private blacklists for wrongthink.

I am no part of SPLC or TMOR, but your motives are fairly transparent here. Did you really think coming here anonymously to peddle the same nonsense and defend your actions was going to look convincing?

I repeatedly stated I was willing to post within a sandbox and asked for a list of banned topics in r/conspiracy to prevent further misunderstanding. The mods refused to answer.

I stated I would not state in r/conspiracy that a 'biological male is a transgender woman'

That was not good enough for the mod. They wanted me to grovel and conform to their world view that saying or implying that a 'biological male is a transgender woman' is 'hate speech' and a TOS violation. As stated, I can agree not to say it in r/conspiracy, but will not be bullied into saying this is 'hate speech' and disregarding human biology.

If they would have said, please refrain from discussing LGBTQ as it could subject the sub to reprisal from Admin, I would have honored the request.

I had no real problem with the r/conspiracy mod team up until last week with exception of selective enforcement of their rules about memes. Permitting some memes and banning for others was bewildering. It made no sense as some submissions were simply attempts at humor while others brought humor + informational value that could spur further debate.

I see no reason to further continue responding to you if you are going to evade my questions, gaslight me, and not engage in honest discussion.

2 years ago

1 score

Reason: None provided.

I'm guessing you would similarly ban South Park and all comedians whom you personally disagree with.

No, of course not.

You will find no issue with this post

https://twitter.com/SethDillon/status/1504901417953243136

Ok so you are against the Babylon Bee being locked out of their Twitter account until they delete a tweet naming Rachel Levine as Babylon Bee's Man of the Year?

https://twitter.com/SethDillon/status/1505663712266493958
https://twitter.com/SethDillon/status/1505666033620815880
https://twitter.com/libbyemmons/status/1505899446722301954
https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/1507014373964886017

You would also be against Twitter recently locking the account of @TuckerCarlson until he deletes a tweet in support of Babylon Bee and for recent segments raising debate about biological males in women's competitions?

https://twitter.com/TPostMillennial/status/1506075101732737028

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFl88Wkz6eI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3Jmv0vZvJ4

https://twitter.com/SethDillon/status/1506679268373377024
https://twitter.com/SethDillon/status/1507441160951721990

And you would also be against Twitter locking the account of the Babylon Bee's editor

https://twitter.com/Adam4d/status/1506281322695872517
https://twitter.com/Not_the_Bee/status/1506282198655242247

What you did was attempt to incite other people to hate on transgender people.

Nice dodge of my questions and comments in the parent comment.

Where have I seen this before?

I did not incite anyone to hate or promote violence against transgender people.

Posting a picture of Biden Assistant HHS secretary Rachel Levine winning USA Today 'women of the year' award and in the submission statement politely raising the question asking if CIS women feel disenfranchised by biological males identifying as transgender women when permitted to compete in awards and sports competitions is not promoting hate or inciting violence.

That is called debate.

Biological males have XY chromosomes in their DNA and are born with male physical characteristics. You can't simply wish this away even if you call yourself a woman.

The argument is based on human biology.

What is the TOS violation?

Is it because the topic is simply LGBTQ, and controversial?
Is it reporting that USA Today gave Rachel Levine a women of the year award?
Is it stating that Rachel Levine is a biological man identifying as a woman?
Is it stating that transgender women are biological males?
Is it asking if CIS women feel disenfranchised by a biological male receiving a woman's award?
Is it by raising any question it might unintentionally raise awareness that the LGBTQ lobby have been repeatedly trying to erase and censor 200+ years of human biology, psychology, medicine, and the field of science itself?

None of these topics or questions are 'hate speech' or inciting violence.

The LGBTQ lobby has positioned itself within social media and intimidated, bullied, threatened, and canceled anyone that might ask or question whether CIS women feel disenfranchised by biological males receiving women's awards and competing in women's competitions.

Apparently LGBTQ and their acolytes do not want debate, they want compliance with their orthodoxy. Raise a question and you will be banned for wrongthink.

When they ban you for holding a different opinion ('wrongthink'), they don't want compromise, that is not enough, they want you to change your opinion to match their own world view.