SOCKS IS BANNED.

submitted by JasonCarswell from (saidit.net)

top 100 commentsshow all 136
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–][deleted] 26 insightful - 4 fun26 insightful - 3 fun27 insightful - 4 fun -  (13 children)

Socks never went around falsely accusing me of being a pedo like you did Jason. That's some low shit right there. And then you go around saying "stay classy," like you're the aggrieved party. It's so calculating and shitty.

I prefer socks and his shitty politics over a lowlife like you.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 8 insightful - 5 fun8 insightful - 4 fun9 insightful - 5 fun -  (2 children)

Your preferences have been noted to be forgotten.

It's called humour, whether you like it or not. It works best when it's absurd. However, you did protest too much so...? Regardless, I gave no evidence, based it on thin air (other than you're often a dick), so no one took it seriously if that's what you fear. I wouldn't have persisted if it didn't get your goat so much. Getting your goat is fun. I'm sure you your goat gets gotten frequently and vigorously by all types.

Stay salty and classy, snowflake.

[–]FediNetizen 17 insightful - 6 fun17 insightful - 5 fun18 insightful - 6 fun -  (1 child)

JC calling someone else a snowflake 🙄

[–]socks-the-nigger 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Next you

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

You are not wrong. This is the same issue I have with u/JasonCarswell, although I prefer him to u/socks which is, IMHO, an absolute abomination.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 7 insightful - 8 fun7 insightful - 7 fun8 insightful - 8 fun -  (7 children)

I didn't call you a pedo. Is there something you'd like to share with the class?

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

No, you didn't. But the hypocrisy gets a bit much for me sometimes.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (5 children)

Examples?

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Right here you're sealioning. You do the things you complain bitterly about others doing.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

I'm not sealioning - and sealioning is not hypocrisy.

If I know the problem then perhaps I can address it.
Or maybe I can invert it to illustrate your hypocrisy.
Or that you're a snowflake.
Or whatever.
I won't know until I have something to work with besides vague accusations.

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You complain about sealioning and here you are sealioning, that is hypocrisy. And you are also being a timesuck because this a useless conversation repeating the same things over and over to you. False allegations, sealioning, timesuck, hypocrite. Pick one of your character traits.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

I'm not sealioning. It's not hypocrisy. You're lying for a fight.

Seems like you're now the timesuck without an argument looking for one anyway. Stay classy and sassy if you can pull that out of your assy.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Sealioning - a harassment tactic under the guise of sincerity by trolls in online discussions to pester others with repeated disingenuous questions and persistent requests for evidence for basic claims, aiming to erode the patience and goodwill of targets to make them seem unreasonable.

load more comments (1 reply)

    [–]package 17 insightful - 10 fun17 insightful - 9 fun18 insightful - 10 fun -  (50 children)

    What did he do to warrant a ban? He's an incomprehensibly retarded leftist normie but I've never seen him do anything even remotely rule breaking.

    [–]Blackbrownfreestuff 15 insightful - 9 fun15 insightful - 8 fun16 insightful - 9 fun -  (48 children)

    She advocated for the torture and murder of Tucker Carlson. This is just one example. https://ibb.co/1r2dy1R

    [–]package 12 insightful - 10 fun12 insightful - 9 fun13 insightful - 10 fun -  (0 children)

    Ah. Yeah that'd do it

    [–]shilldetector 12 insightful - 10 fun12 insightful - 9 fun13 insightful - 10 fun -  (13 children)

    Lol I always viewed Socks as just your standard issue shitlib cuck, the fact Tucker Carlson is able to drive shitlibs like him to homicidal levels of rage is hilarious. Carlson isnt even alt lite, he's just a boring Patrick Buchanan style mainstream conservative, and yet that is enough to be labled the next Hitler in the shitlib mind.

    [–]soundsituation 8 insightful - 5 fun8 insightful - 4 fun9 insightful - 5 fun -  (12 children)

    I think that's the point. Carlson has mainstream appeal and platforms people that disenchanted leftists/democrats listen to, like Dore and Gabbard. People like socks probably don't hate Carlson as much for his politics as they do for the threat he poses to the establishment narrative and/or Democratic party solidarity.

    [–]neomarxist_bullshit 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (32 children)

    If he was banned for this then that's some Reddit-like bullshit. Is this a free speech site or not?

    u/magnora7 thoughts?

    [–]magnora7 13 insightful - 5 fun13 insightful - 4 fun14 insightful - 5 fun -  (12 children)

    Saidit doesn't allow advocating violence, and he was repeatedly advocating open and detailed violence against a specific person which is federally illegal.

    [–]neomarxist_bullshit 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

    Can't say I know the context in this situation, but surely you can't take everything seriously? Is there no space for nuance? Stuff like that could be explained like a fantasy in one's head, something you don't seriously pay attention to.

    If I say "someone should shoot Putin in the head", would I be breaking the rules too?

    [–]socks-the-nigger 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    😯

    [–]Node 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Even if a joke or non-serious, you'll get threats of a ban by m7 and other admins. That's why I quit using this site.

    load more comments (9 replies)

      [–]Blackbrownfreestuff 10 insightful - 6 fun10 insightful - 5 fun11 insightful - 6 fun -  (18 children)

      This site has rules. Socks broke them, repeatedly, was warned, then continued to break the rules.

      [–]HibikiBlack 8 insightful - 4 fun8 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

      Exactly. Saidit is already very liberal when it comes to free speech but it still has rules. Socks kept breaking them and paid the price.

      load more comments (17 replies)

        [–]jet199 10 insightful - 6 fun10 insightful - 5 fun11 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

        He did say Tucker Carlson should be killed.

        Might have been that.

        [–]cisheteroscum 17 insightful - 8 fun17 insightful - 7 fun18 insightful - 8 fun -  (12 children)

        Meh. Socks was an annoying shitlib maybe but at least voiced a different opinion. This site has a dearth of lefty schizos, socks made for good practice

        [–]neomarxist_bullshit 11 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

        at least voiced a different opinion

        Pretty much. That's what the site is for, no? I don't understand how people don't get tired by the "mainstream" opinions on here like "Putin is based and Zelenskyy is a Nazi Jew".

        [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

        Truth is usually not something you want to get tired of?

        [–]jet199 9 insightful - 4 fun9 insightful - 3 fun10 insightful - 4 fun -  (3 children)

        He could offer a different opinion but couldn't always back it up with an argument.

        And that's when he occasionally used to descent into insults and accusations, sometimes at crazy levels out of nowhere.

        [–]cisheteroscum 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

        Yeah but thats what made him(?) the perfect foil for the average user here. It was like talking to a stereotypical midwit NPC

        load more comments (2 replies)

          [–]HibikiBlack 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

          He got banned for his low-level-pyramid-of-debate comments and being overall a shitty user. His opinions themselves mostly weren't the reason.

          [–]Blackbrownfreestuff 13 insightful - 4 fun13 insightful - 3 fun14 insightful - 4 fun -  (4 children)

          He got banned for his low-level-pyramid-of-debate comments and being overall a shitty user

          No she didn't. She got banned for breaking sitewide rules regarding advocating violence, specifically that she wanted to see Tucker Carlson murdered.

          [–]HibikiBlack 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun -  (2 children)

          Yeah, but the fact that he had a long record of being a shitty user played a huge role. I've occasionally unintentionally broke similar rules myself but I always listen after being warned about it.

          [–]magnora7 10 insightful - 5 fun10 insightful - 4 fun11 insightful - 5 fun -  (1 child)

          Yes that's the thing, he's advocated specific violence at least 3 separate times in just the last few months. And not just a passing mention, but long detailed passages about how specifically he's going to torture a specific person. I gave him numerous chances because I realize the value a long term user like him brings to the site, but at the same time we can't have people blatantly breaking rules around here just because they've been here a while.

          load more comments (1 reply)

            [–][deleted] 15 insightful - 3 fun15 insightful - 2 fun16 insightful - 3 fun -  (15 children)

            Don’t get me wrong. I hate socks.

            But a fucking ban? Really?

            [–]newguy 11 insightful - 9 fun11 insightful - 8 fun12 insightful - 9 fun -  (0 children)

            • Breaks rules over and over intentionally

            • Gets banned after multiple warnings

            suprisedpickachuface.jpg

            [–]HibikiBlack 8 insightful - 4 fun8 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 4 fun -  (11 children)

            Calling for violence is literally at the lowest of the pyramid of debate and a lot of active users already had bad experiences with him...

            [–][deleted] 11 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

            Nobody wanted you banned for vote manipulation, Hibiki. Nobody's perfect, doesn't mean we should cast them off the island. As if we could if we wanted to, creating new accounts is trivial.

            [–]HibikiBlack 6 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 4 fun -  (9 children)

            It's not about being perfect or not. It's about people acting with malice.

            I tested the limits of the site out of concern for the same. Socks did many of the things he did out of bad faith.

            [–][deleted] 11 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

            I believe Socks truly believes his own bullshit. And I admit, talking to him about politics drives you crazy, but you ever talk to him about movies or music? Dude has good taste.

            [–]HibikiBlack 8 insightful - 4 fun8 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

            I also think he seems like a decent person to hang around with if he wasn't such a religious zealot, but either way, he has too big of a record of acting with malice like to let it slide and he could still be CIA, for all you know.

            [–][deleted] 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

            Exactly. And socks often enough out great conversations. Sh or he did the research for a lot of the comments. And they brought something to the table.

            Banning should be seen as an extreme last resort. And those calls for violence seem more like desperation or frustration. Not necessarily calls for violence and planning.

            A week long ban should have been sufficient. Or a month long ban. Not a permanent ban.

            [–]JasonCarswell[S] 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

            Threats of violence, humorous, satire, or serious, are a threat to the future well being of SaidIt.

            Tyranny is always looking for an excuse to shut down SaidIt.

            load more comments (5 replies)

              [–]BravoVictor 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

              Even free speech sites have to enforce the law, and calls for violence are against US law.

              load more comments (1 reply)

                [–]FediNetizen 15 insightful - 2 fun15 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

                You've stirred up a lot more shit on this site than socks has. Amazing that he's banned instead of you.

                [–]JasonCarswell[S] 4 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 6 fun -  (2 children)

                I was unfairly banned twice, and restored twice. This is socks' second ban that I'm aware of.

                For whatever it's worth, I've also done a fuck tonne more for SaidIt than most users, and socks has contributed nothing but authoritarianism, conflict, and conversational company for some.

                With a clear conscience I can say that 99.9% of any shit I may have stirred up was justified and not regrettable. A rare few things would I have done differently if I could edit time. Maybe a few were even trollish, for better or worse results.

                [–]FediNetizen 12 insightful - 5 fun12 insightful - 4 fun13 insightful - 5 fun -  (1 child)

                "You've stirred up a lot more shit than socks"

                "Yes, but when I stir up shit, it's almost always justified" 🙄

                [–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

                So you think we should do a survey and get the community's permission to "stir up shit" any time there's an issue to make sure it's legitimate?

                Or how would you go about solving problems for your subjective arbitrary judgemental approval?

                Give me a fucking break.

                [–][deleted] 12 insightful - 6 fun12 insightful - 5 fun13 insightful - 6 fun -  (17 children)

                FINAL. FUCKING. LY.

                Thank you for the good news, u/JasonCarswell

                Now if we could get u/Magnora7 to restore some order to the chat by removing the OWNER status from u/usehername, now we'll be in decent shape to start using the site again. I hereby testify that he did suggest people off themselves a number of times on the chat. "I want you to go die." was said multiple times.

                [–]magnora7 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (14 children)

                userhername has never been an owner or content admin or anything... they mod 4 subs and that's it. Not sure what you are talking about

                [–][deleted] 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

                They are correct, u/usehername registered himself as owner of the two main irc chat channels, #all and #subscribed. But he's done a great job. People just salty cause they want the chance to be head hog like it used to be, and I understand that. But if it ain't broke...

                [–]magnora7 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (10 children)

                There is no "registered themselves as owner of the channels". It resets every day from scratch

                [–][deleted] 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

                Chanserv doesn't reset. I don't know the technicals, but only the people who know the passwords can get various levels of access (half Op, Op, Admin, Owner) and Usher has the top pass. As I said, this isn't really a problem from my perspective. It has fixed a number of problems chat was having with spam.

                [–]Zapped 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (3 children)

                What happens if usher dies with the keys?

                [–][deleted] 8 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

                I'm pretty sure there's a file m7 can just delete if he wants to undo it.

                [–]magnora7 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

                Yes, it's possible to change

                [–][deleted] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

                Please undo it. We don't need a malevolent overlord in the chat.

                [–]magnora7 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

                No they don't have the top pass, I'm pretty certain. They likely just have +o operator status for the channel because they were there when it did the daily reset. If you can show me they have the top pass then that would mean our chat has been completely hacked, but I'm pretty sure it has not been hacked

                [–][deleted] 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

                Owner is designated with a ~ in front of their name in chat and in the user list it clearly designates him as owner.

                It wasn't hacked, Ed was spamming the shit out of chat, we were going through the documentation to find something to stop him. Usher found out how to register as owner of those two channels, I found flood control, Weegs figured out the weird syntax. Now flood control is on by default btw, but also no Op without a person with a password.

                This was a fix to a problem, and Usher isn't abusing it. Who cares.

                [–]magnora7 6 insightful - 5 fun6 insightful - 4 fun7 insightful - 5 fun -  (1 child)

                I am glad it exists as a solution to a problem. D3rr mostly manages the chat. I will contact him. We still have a higher level of control over chat than that so we can cut this out at any time. Thanks for the info.

                [–]usehername 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

                Just keeping the place Ed-free. :)

                [–][deleted] 6 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

                He IS abusing it, he has fits of rage and depression or whatever, he is mentally unstable, he bans and kicks on a whim. He hasn't done it to YOU maybe but it certainly does interfere with good conversation.

                [–][deleted] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

                He somehow made himself OWNER of the Saidit irc chat. We try to have conversations on there but he rules with an iron fist and has fits of rage and other unsavory states that negatively affect our community in the chat.

                [–]magnora7 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

                Saidit chat resets automatically every 24 hours, it's literally whoever happens to load the page first after it resets becomes the owner of that channel (not the whole server, just that channel like #subscribed). Every day it completely resets and begins anew, there are no official appointments to positions in chat.

                [–]Gravi 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

                I second to testifying to that.

                [–]JasonCarswell[S] 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

                ^

                [–]iDontShift 10 insightful - 9 fun10 insightful - 8 fun11 insightful - 9 fun -  (0 children)

                sock (puppet) is banned

                and nothing of value was lost

                [–]noice 10 insightful - 4 fun10 insightful - 3 fun11 insightful - 4 fun -  (3 children)

                I bet we'll get a new one

                [–]CreditKnifeMan 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun -  (2 children)

                Socks was a bot.

                [–]jet199 6 insightful - 5 fun6 insightful - 4 fun7 insightful - 5 fun -  (1 child)

                He was at least 2 different people.

                [–]soundsituation 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

                Looks like you were right!

                [–]Zahn 8 insightful - 5 fun8 insightful - 4 fun9 insightful - 5 fun -  (19 children)

                There was something "off" about Socks. I understand that he would often try to back up his left wing nut beliefs with an "argument". HOWEVER all of his arguments were very "scripted" almost as if copied off of Snopes or otherwise the arguments sounded to the trained ear as if they were pre-scripted "auto-responses' to any opposition to main stream narrative.

                I don't mind having opposition to beliefs, but it's quite literally impossible for anyone considering the preponderance of counter-narrative theories presented from Saiddit users to then yet still parrot Buzzfeed/Snopes level scripted reactions like he did, without at least...taking a step back to re-assess their beliefs on any random topics. Humans would do that, but maybe not Ai's.

                TLDR...Socks was 90+% likely to be 1. a moronic idioacracy level left wing nut. 2. A paid or un-paid (lol) shill.

                ◟(ᵔ ̮ ᵔ)͜💐 RIP Socks....flowers for you...it was a good run you had there. I can't wait to track down your alt user account and whatever other subhuman sell-out miscreants that are sent to take your place.

                [–]magnora7 13 insightful - 10 fun13 insightful - 9 fun14 insightful - 10 fun -  (6 children)

                So you want to hear "off"? How about this... he made a thread on reddit to shame saidit just after being banned (which backfired) and then was also talking to his alt who made the thread using his main reddit socks account, and even fighting with himself!

                https://old.reddit.com/r/RedditAlternatives/comments/uk8kk2/saidit_is_borked/i7odcbj/

                And I know the reddit socks account is his because he started PMing me about it. And the OP of that thread is definitely also him because it was the only person I banned from saidit that day and the thread was created 2 hours after the ban. So they're both definitely socks.

                Talk about strange. I still don't know what to make of that one. Why is he disagreeing with himself using alts

                The way reddit socks says "It’s a Cloudflare security setting, not a Saidit ban. If you need this explained, ask." sounds like he wasn't even operating the socks account on saidit, because he didn't even realize it had been banned from saidit until a few hours later when he started PMing me. Like another person he was overseeing was running it and he thought that person had fucked up. So even though the reddit socks account is clearly associated with the saidit socks account, the reddit socks didn't realize the saidit one had been banned until hours later. So they're run by different people who are cooperating.

                So it seems likely to be a group working together. Either that or he just loves insanely disagreeing with himself to create random public arguments.

                Talk about "off".

                edit: And then he deleted the reddit comment, removing the evidence. And then replied to this saidit comment using another alt account I had to ban. This guy has way too much time on his hands.

                [–][deleted]  (5 children)

                [removed]

                  [–]magnora7 6 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

                  This account has been banned because making alternate accounts for banned accounts is not allowed.

                  [–]JasonCarswell[S] 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (2 children)

                  Would you like to host a decentralized Lemmy instance?
                  Unless it's just talk, several of us will be sharing how to do so soon.

                  Look at the users who support the ban - the craziest of the Saiditors. Look at those who don't support the ban - the smarter contributors.

                  False.

                  load more comments (1 reply)

                    [–]neomarxist_bullshit 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

                    I can't wait to track down your alt user account and whatever other subhuman sell-out miscreants that are sent to take your place.

                    you seem like you would be a great comrade under communism sir

                    [–]Zahn 6 insightful - 5 fun6 insightful - 4 fun7 insightful - 5 fun -  (8 children)

                    It was an oversight for me to paint this with such a broad brush stroke. Yet, Socks was okay injecting defenseless children with an experimental "vaccine". Many shills of his caliber echo this sentiment often. It is un-ethical to use the vulnerable and children as guinea pigs for corporate profiteering. Therefore, people who advocate for this then fail to measure up to a basic modicum of accepted universal human behavior that would protect vulnerable members of society from potentially or provably dangerous things. Hence, the deserved subhuman label.

                    It's a boring but rewarding hobby for me to spot shills in the wild. Sort of like bird watching perhaps. There are so many different varieties, tactics and flavors of forum community disrupters. But no Comrade, I have no interest in hunting down people that simply disagree. There is a time and space for everyone to co-exist peacefully with meaningful discussion. It's just that the "shills" do not understand this premise and cannot help themselves from infiltrating spaces that differ in beliefs from them with the intention of ruining these spaces for everyone.

                    [–]neomarxist_bullshit 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

                    Yet, Socks was okay injecting defenseless children with an experimental "vaccine".

                    I see a lot of pro-Russian shills here and yet I don't stalk them like a lunatic, I just post what I have to say about it when I'm in the mood and then go outside.

                    It's a boring but rewarding hobby for me to spot shills in the wild.

                    Who do you think socks was hurting on this site that's full of anti-system people?

                    [–]Zahn 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

                    pro-Russian shills

                    Being neutral about Russia or even expressing disagreement with Western hegemony doesn't equal pro-whatever and doesn't make the commenter a pro-Russian shill.

                    Who do you think socks was hurting on this site that's full of anti-system people?

                    He was attempting to use the platform as a free advertisement for his twisted cookie cutter establishment narrative and thereby disrupting conversation. It was like having Snopes or Reddit immediately interjected into what would of been a meaningful discovery discussion. I don't mind disagreement, but Socks was such a preposterous normie level rebuttal, it was intellectually offensive. If we wanted to hear what Reddit-tards think, we' be on Reddit. We come here for a higher level of non-censored discussion. This is not a place for his type of pathological authoritarian ilk, and candidly speaking it's not at all welcome...by my standards. However, it was okay to a degree by M7. I understood and accepted M7's viewpoint on the Socks matter.

                    [–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

                    Who do you think socks was hurting on this site that's full of anti-system people?

                    Everyone.

                    Regulars were fed up with his shit. New folks were turned off. Truth-seekers were confused by him. Lonely folks were finding solace in his sketchy conversations. And tyranny is seeking any reason to stomp us - including for advocating violence. And Quakers will be forever maligned via guilt by association.

                    [–]Blackbrownfreestuff 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

                    Yah I think she had a database of scripted responses and insults.

                    load more comments (1 reply)

                      [–]HibikiBlack 8 insightful - 4 fun8 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 4 fun -  (5 children)

                      It's good news. But I'm sure this is hardly the last thing we will hear from socks/Phoenix. The dude has dozens of alts over here. You guys wouldn't believe me if I told you who they are. He is a very nasty dude and not to be underestimated.

                      [–]magnora7 9 insightful - 9 fun9 insightful - 8 fun10 insightful - 9 fun -  (2 children)

                      I already banned one of his alts just now

                      edit: make that 4 of his alts, some over 2 months old sleeper accounts. This guy is really dedicated to breaking the rules. And is also now threatening me on reddit with PMs... fun

                      [–]HibikiBlack 8 insightful - 5 fun8 insightful - 4 fun9 insightful - 5 fun -  (1 child)

                      It's literally the same old dudes and their leader from TMoR over here. We better stay on guard. They’ve been very bloodthirsty towards me, you and d3rr since we are the oldest conspiracists.

                      [–]magnora7 10 insightful - 7 fun10 insightful - 6 fun11 insightful - 7 fun -  (0 children)

                      Yup there is no shortage of shills trying to trip us up and make this site fail, keeps me on my toes. Although they do provide a lot of free traffic lol

                      [–]Blackbrownfreestuff 8 insightful - 5 fun8 insightful - 4 fun9 insightful - 5 fun -  (1 child)

                      Please tell us who they are.

                      [–]socks-the-nigger 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

                      Bardfinn

                      [–]Markimus 5 insightful - 6 fun5 insightful - 5 fun6 insightful - 6 fun -  (1 child)

                      SIUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

                      [–]Blackbrownfreestuff 4 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

                      https://youtu.be/8AMIrxx3gx8

                      [–][deleted] 4 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 6 fun -  (1 child)

                      🤞🤞🤞 🎇🎇🎇🎇🎇🎇🎇🎇🎇🎇🎇🎇🎇🎇🎇🎇🎇🎇🎇🎇🎇🎇🎇🎇🎇🎇🎇🎇🎇🎇🎇🎇🎇🎇🎇🎇🎇 👾

                      (put this in your report you Fed motherfucker)

                      [–]Gaslov 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

                      Is there a site I can go to where advocating violence is allowed? I need to blow off some steam.

                      [–]Blackbrownfreestuff 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

                      Sure, you can go to reddit as long as its the hebrew approved variety.

                      [–]Gaslov 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

                      I want to say the verboten stuff.

                      [–]Blackbrownfreestuff 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

                      You're welcome

                      [–]JasonCarswell[S] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

                      Thank you, thank you, thank you.

                      [–]solder0 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

                      What...? Damn, I just blocked him. He never argued in good faith. I mean, sure, you technically broke the rules before too, but at least your intentions were right and I was bummed when you got a temp ban. I can't say that I'll miss socks, but I'm glad you're still here.

                      [–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

                      Thanks for the kind sentiments.

                      Socks may remain too, but as ban-evading alts, like in chat.

                      load more comments (1 reply)