You may have noticed a distinct lack of return2ozma. This is due to their admitting, in a public comment, that their engagement here is in bad faith:
I'm sure there will be questions, let me see if I can address the most obvious ones:
- Can I still post negative stuff about Biden?
Absolutely! We have zero interest in running an echo chamber. However, if ALL you're posting is negative, you may want to re-think your priorities. You get out of the world what you put into it and all that.
- Why now?
Presumption of innocence. It may be my own fault, but I do try to think the best of people, and even though they were posting negative articles, they weren't necessarily WRONG. Biden's poll numbers, particularly in minority demographics ARE in the shitter. They are starting to get better, but he still has a hell of a hill to climb.
- Why a 30 day temp ban and not a permanent ban?
The articles return2ozma shared weren't bad, faked, or from some wing-nut bias site like "beforeitsnews.com", they were legitimate articles from established and respected news agencies, pointing out the valid problems Biden faces.
The problem was ONLY posting the negatives, over and over and then openly admitting that dishonest enagement is their purpose.
Had they all been bullshit articles? It would not have taken anywhere near this much time to lay the ban and it would have been permanent.
30 days seems enough time for them to re-think their strategery and come back to engage honestly.
Or baseless accusations of being a Trump supporter or a Russian shill.
Or just straight up abuse.
Sometimes the accusation is just cowardly implied, as mozz is doing here.
PS: But for some reason is Ozma the one arguing in bad faith.
Pretty sure I was engaging with you purely on the merits of your arguments, in a decent amount of detail, and I actually thought we reached a point of okay not seeing eye to eye but hey I said my bit, I read up what you said, I went and looked and we talked about how the discourse was, and it was all cool to move on. I mean I called you out for the pure strawman of "lots of blind support and promotion for team blue", but again, purely on the merits, and I thought we had moved on from it and actually had a pretty factual conversation about it.
But sure, if you took me including you in my hey-look-the-instance-distribution-is-hinky list to be a specific accusation against you that I was too cowardly to make directly, I'm happy to talk more about it. I looked over your user; you've left 5 messages in this thread, which is more than you've ever left before in any thread. You've never left even 4 messages in a thread before. Mostly, it's one-sentence-in-one-message quick takes. Somehow, out of all the possible things to care about in the whole universe of political or technical or societal topics, you suddenly decided that saying that there's lot of blind support and promotion for team blue and ozma was providing a needed counter balance, was the thing you cared about most out of any conversation you've ever had on Lemmy, and started getting super passionate and talkative about.
Also, the longest conversation you've ever had other than this was posting another grouping of shill talking points -- here, in this thread full of blind support and promotion for team blue. Not voting, and ozma's user, are apparently the only two things you've ever cared about enough to write more than a handful of sentences about in all the time you've been on Lemmy.
Having looked over your user, I think it's pretty likely that you're a shill, and most of your not-shill contributions to Lemmy are just a smokescreen of a small number of quick messages and one conversation about eclipse glasses. I think the timing of you coming into this particular topic is probably just to deploy here to defend ozma. Again, the truth is that I have no idea, but that's what seems most likely to me. Does that seem less cowardly?
Right on, brother
your profile-stalking is half-assed and won't ever tell you what you think it does about people, only their user accounts. it's toxic as fuck.
Why wouldn’t a person’s comment history tell you anything about who they are as a person? What else do you have to go on? It’s literally their persona in the context of a pseudonymous forum.
Calling it “stalking” and “toxic” is a lame dodge, usually by people who got found out. They hate that their behavior fits a recognizable pattern - they don’t want to be accountable for their own public actions.
i didnt say it won't tell you anything. i said it doesn't tell mozz what they think it tells them
no, it is toxic. it's teh very definition of an ad hominem: instead of dealing with what they said here and now, you are maligning their character.
The person specifically called me out by name and said that I’d accused them of something but been too cowardly to engage with them directly on it. I hadn’t, but since they brought it up, I looked into it a little and confirmed that yes, I feel comfortable accusing them directly, and did so, and explained why. Thus they have a chance to defend themselves directly if they feel like what I said was unfair. But I didn’t bring the ad hominem into it and never intended to until I was specifically invited to. Until then, I was, as I pointed out, engaging with them purely on the merits of what they were saying.