They do controlled burns, but the ability to do that safely has been hampered by years of drought conditions. At least Democrats admit climate change exists I guess?

Oh sorry I thought you had a point that you were trying to communicate! Like, it’s not for me, but for the people.

What a disingenuous deflection! Explain again how we’ll see “more of this”, which might be interpreted as banning harmful substances, so there’s an easy out for you! If only you would or could support your assertions…

Oh yay, you learned a native phrase! Your handler must be so proud 🥰.

Oh, except for the part where you put it no effort and just look like an idiot.

“The wheel is turning”, cool bro but towards what? “See much more of this”, but when asked what was meant by “this”, you responded, “this”.

You’re right, it’s my reading comprehension at issue.

Blah blah blah, and yet you still haven’t made a coherent point to respond to. Do you get paid by the word?

You people just don’t even try anymore, do you?

More of what?

Said the potato.

And yet you offer nothing to rebut the point. How is that not what you said? It seems spot on to me.

Oh was there something inaccurate in the story?

No, you see the mod log doesn’t count, because he would prefer to be notified more directly! If things aren’t exactly the way he prefers, they don’t count!

You’ve been told multiple times where to find your explanation. You didn’t like the answer, and so now you seem to be pretending that you didn’t hear it.

Using inflammatory language as a way to make your point seem more valid is just manipulative, and betrays the general lack of a point that you have.

You were not “prosecuted”, and I’ll be generous and assume you meant “persecuted”, which again is such an inappropriate use of that word given the mildness of the indecency you experienced.

Is it a dick move to ban without explanation? Yes. Most sites don’t do that though, so I assume you have some very specific grievance that prompted this.

You weren’t banned from the world, and there are many instances in the fediverse, so take your speech to any number of instances where the mods aren’t dicks.

I already addressed it. You can say what you want, and private websites have no argument to host literally anything that you want to say.

Why don’t you try addressing my actual point this time instead of quibbling on semantics. I already granted that you can call it censorship, but that does not equate with what is meant when people discuss government censorship.

Oh so network television doesn’t employ censors? Your distinction of government censorship is just flat out incorrect. You’re confusing censorship with freedom of speech.

And I’m arguing the same point as you about private entities hosting your speech in that same comment, so not sure why you feel the need to point it out to me.

If it makes you happy to call it that, then fine. But comparing that to government actually suppressing your speech is childish and lacking any nuance or common sense.

Censorship is suppression or prohibition of speech. As I already said, you’re free to say whatever you want, so you are not being censored. When you go outside to touch grass, as has been suggested, then you can practice saying whatever you want to whomever you see!

If you think privately hosted websites are obligated to host whatever garbage the worst of the Internet can create, because deleting anything ever is “censorship”, then you are wrong. Imagine being so entitled!

You aren’t being “censored”, and you don’t have a point. You can spout whatever shitty point of view got you banned on the street with a sign if you want, nobody will stop you.

It would seem to do that, yes. You don’t even have to be abroad, as you could easily be stationed in a different state from your “home” residence.

This has no effect on federal elections of course, and so I think it’s not that unreasonable to say that you only get to vote on local issues if you are living locally.