Has anyone ever actually circled back later when they said this? I remember it being a meme for "I'm going to ignore you now".

If you're using Wiktionary, instead of a reputable dictionary like Miriam Webster, Cambridge, or Oxford, that tells me all I need to know about the quality of your argument.

Also the constant strawman arguments, shifting topics each reply, and resorting to personal attacks in a professional subreddit. But those are things you're doing to yourself, I'm merely pointing out why I don't want to engage in discussion with you.

>If you really think (one who presides over a discussion) is (a person who supervises conduct and morals), you can go to 4chan. Let me know how the experience is there.

Replaced the terms with the December 2022 Miriam Webster dictionary definition of the terms, to help elaborate on your argument. I think everyone can see the quality of your argument better if the terms are directly referenced from a dictionary definition.

But regardless, I'm not here to be your strawman, where you put other people's arguments in my mouth. If you require someone like that, I think your bathtub rubber ducky would be most appropriate.

I agree with all of your points, decentralization is a better method.

Edit: But why now, when a year ago all of the same things were happening, just with a different group of people in charge, and a different group of users being censored?

I honestly find this "moving to Mastodon" movement confusing.

They're upset that Twitter won't censor the people they want to censor, so they move to a platform where they can each, personally choose who gets censored? How is that not just Twitter with an autoblock feature?

What is the value proposition there? I sincerely do not see the point.

That's... the actual legislation the Democrats tried to pass (H.R. 8296), compared to the actual legislation as passed in 80% of the American Midwest states.

If that wasn't the party stance, why would they write and vote for a bill that contains it?

Edit: As you've blocked me, and I see a automod deleted comment beneath this one, I don't think anyone saw your response. But I assume you're pivoting to personal attacks rather than discussing the facts, because the facts are not on your side.

Sites like this get shared among super liberal places like reddit. But can you imagine grandmothers on Facebook using it? No.

So you get skewed distributions of things. It only represents those people that take the survey, and by the nature of the site those people will all strongly think the same.

Also the questions aren't useful. Should abortion be legal? Simply a yes/no doesn't give any meaningful information. The debate is basically down to 'if it should be legal, when should it be legal'. The current left wing stance is that it should be legal up to 1second before labor happens. The right wing stance is 'sometimes legal, often before heartbeat'.

But according to that poll site everyone supports abortion.