Agree to disagree.
Riccosuave
joined 2 years ago
Joe Rogan was never going to let Kamala Harris on the Podcast. He knows which side his bread is buttered on, and that would piss off his base. All he cares about at this point is money. He gave up the "I'm a socially liberal populist" bullshit after 2016 basically.
We'll see in t-minus 2 weeks which one of us is right.
Her preventing, hindering, or delaying the lawful prosecution of someone who stole state secrets definitely fits the federal criminal code for seditious conspiracy.
They can and should criminally charge her if they had any fucking balls at all.
That was my comment. I'm both a little embarrassed that got referenced after so long, but was also impressed in the moment that someone took the time to actually understand the context in which it was made.
So, I'm torn on the issue of what the appropriate course of action would be in the instance of UniversalMonk, and when it should have been taken. I see the validity in your argument in regards to not moderating in the gray area due to the abuse & power-brokering that comes along with it.
At the same time, in order to create a healthy community long-term I think there needs to be some way to enforce a more black & white standard that dissuades people from engaging in this kind of behavior because it drives away legitimate users who care about the platform.
I don't necessarily have a good solution for that, and again I do appreciate the complexity of the situation from a moderation standpoint.
I mean maybe, but I think it would be pretty obvious given the nature of how and what they post.
If they don't reappear then I think there is a legitimate argument that it was a coordinated propaganda account.
If they do come back with the same level of veracity then I think there is merit to the potential mental illness, or neurodivergence argument.
On that we can agree.