4 ms·
>the crime of walking through a building; Why are you introducing inflammatory irrelevant misreprentations of the facts instead of addressing the point of my q
by stonogo 4y ago
>the crime of walking through a building;
Why are you introducing inflammatory irrelevant misreprentations of the facts instead of addressing the point of my question?
- sedivy94 4y agoThat’s a reference to the dozens of Americans detained for over a year with no charges or due process. I would pick a different hill to die on.
- stonogo 4y agoNot that I believe you can show me anyone in prison for, or being charged with, "walking through a building," but the point of my question was whether it was impossible to believe that a change in policy at Meta could possibly be the result of good-faith reconsideration of the debate. Instead I got fanfiction with irrelevant agenda-fueled talking points. I'm not dying on any hills, I'm asking why the distraction instead of just considering the possibility that someone might agree with him. Getting this much flak about it is wild.
- NtochkaNzvanova 4y agoI addressed the point of your question directly by offering a plausible alternative explanation for what's going on here.
- stonogo 4y agoNo, you wrote fanfiction about cartoon villains, without explaining at all why it's not even possible that this policy change could have come about through internal reconsideration of the merits of the ban within Meta. I don't know why you bothered, but it has nothing to do with my question.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]