The context behind the last part is that certain marginalized friends wanted someone on the inside to act as a buffer in case they come up in conversations, and it led to a whole debate about whether the intentions of the founders of a community, the intentions of the majority of a community, and the intentions of each individual in a community can be separated. I am an individual and don’t endorse the values the group is associated with. I previously used the analogy of an alternate timeline where nobody likes Uncle Iroh because he joined the fire nation military even though he never actually did any of the fighting. It’s an oversimplification to say I’m “defending kiwifarms”.

I’m going by dictionary definitions, not what a certain biased organization says. I wouldn’t deny both of the organizations you mention there are biased. But the dictionary isn’t.

Suppose you are right and the ADL is biased and controlled “by Zionism” (which sounds a bit like a conspiracy theory). What does that make the Snopes organization? What does that make the literal 50% of America who doesn’t disagree with the ADL? What does that make the people who call it a double standard that so many people are willing to support murder of one kind but not another, or that intentions matter sometimes but not all the time?

It’s a war crime. Not all war crimes are a genocide. Certain criteria have to be fulfilled for that. Similar to how not all mass shootings are acts of terrorism. Are you really dedicating a whole confrontation just to debate semantics?

I’m not searching for conflict. The people you allude to keep coming to me. I didn’t really even know your name before you came to me, for example. Besides, I’m not the only one who has offered to fill the shoes. If everyone got lucky with that except me, I would still support them.

How is that genocide denial?

Whole instances have banned each other. And it’s not really uncommon for people to be banned from multiple places. It’s a rite of passage to be banned by ML, for example.

I look forward to working with you.

You do realize that simply linking to something in a place like that once isn’t the same as being that individual, right?

A few points from someone who knows how this works.

1. Everyone has been “banned” from multiple places. Nobody has a perfect score. But that’s just defederation for you. Whether they’re even “bans” or not is technical.
2. What you point to are technicalities, ones which have been brigaded upon me constantly by you and others who show the signs of being “alts” in all but name. Sometimes you phrase it as “she is a Nazi” just because you know you’re speaking to the right audience to demonize me when none of that applies. The second thing is also inapplicable here in the way you are applying it, for the same reasons. I don’t defend harassment. I don’t defend racism, ableism, transphobia, or homophobia. I don’t defend marginalization. Get that out of your head.
3. If all the signs are right about who you are, not only are you ban evading to try to tell us all of this, but you’re also someone who even people in charge have had to point out tries to weaponize the karma system to make those you have a grudge on seem worse than they are.

May I @[email protected]?

Which two?

Yeah, but how would you actually define the term? You bring up issue with what you dub “corporate news agencies”, and then when I look up the news you point to here, I don’t know how what I get would feel any different, except for the fact it’s mainly presented as satirical.

That depends. How would you define a “corporate news agency”?

If you say so.

You do know what the bourgeoisie archetype/stereotype is, right? A person with a strong enough thirst for wealth that they will disregard all compassions and sensibilities to achieve it?

Saying the officials in the North Korean government using dying soldiers as instruments of material gain doesn’t ring bourgeoisie bells is like saying L Ron Hubbard building the world’s most elaborate artificial tithing system doesn’t ring bourgeoisie bells.

“Even if they die there it does not matter, because North Korea sent them out without officially recognizing them,” Lee said. “They were sent there not to bring honor to the country, but to give up their lives and bring back lots of money.”

A money-back-guarantee refund would be welcome here if ever.

Yup, it says so on the water bottle’s warning label.

The scary part is, supposing he wasn’t the murderer and the actual one is out there, under normal circumstances, people could post wanted signs to see if someone might find this “actual” killer, but we aren’t under normal circumstances right now, with our circumstances being ones where the turnout for finds would be low in a world where wanted signs of random billionaires hang in random places in New York, with Brian Thompson actually not being a big opponent of society, having come from poor, rural Iowa and wanting to reform the business but lagging due to hoops (only to, then, be killed by someone he had not had under his insurance to begin with).

Genuine question, but supposing we were to consider this theory, why would there also, one, be complaints about the cops parading him around as a victory, and two, people saying Luigi was a hero?

Whether you love or hate cops, they are not stupid. I’m sure if there was even an ounce of suggestion that they got the wrong guy, the cops would quietly decide not to be so smug about it.

And to those who side with him, he’s either a hero/idol or he didn’t do anything. Pick one. I myself pick the third choice.

Also, of note, it’s quite a coincidence they found the guy, then found out his name, and then found out his wealthy upbringing, evidenced by the fact he was trying to be as low profile as possible at the time, which would’ve curbed the ability to do all of that in reverse order. If he wasn’t the killer, that’s like firing a bullseye in the dark.