Oh yeah, what's appealing about it to you?

Naww... Sounds like you stopped laughing. I guess I should let you in on the joke. A piece of context your little googled fact didn't help you realise is that the Seneca Falls Convention of 1848 is only considered the beginning of the women's rights movement in America. The term that describes the beginnings of feminism across the world is First-wave Feminism. And guess what? Mary Wollstonecraft is known as the mother of First-wave Feminism. It is so strange that you, with your 2 masters degrees and having read nearly 100 papers on feminism, haven't shown any sign of knowing that. Or any of the facts on the subject. Please do continue on about how the mother of feminism is irrelevant to feminism. It sure makes me look uneducated.

Sure thing. You: [Feminism has been thinly veiled misandry since nearly the beginning.](https://www.reddit.com/r/RedditCensors/comments/1ask527/comment/kqr7twm/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) Me: [“Let woman share the rights and she will emulate the virtues of man.” Mary Wollstonecraft, 1792, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman.](https://www.reddit.com/r/RedditCensors/comments/1ask527/comment/kqravh5/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) You: That's where we are up to. You made a claim... Could not, have not, and are unable to validate the claim with any reputable source. I refuted your claim, with a reputable source, that you cannot discredit. All you keep trying to do is hold on to your little googled fact and not address the argument being made. But hey, as long as you think it's funny; I guess I'm laughing with you and not at you.

And my source is foundational. You seriously want to keep dismissing Mary Wollstonecraft and her book A Vindication of the Rights of Women? Google who the mother of feminism is. Better yet, don't take my or Google's word for it. Meet [Dr Bridget Cotter.](https://www.westminster.ac.uk/about-us/our-people/directory/cotter-bridget) As you can see Dr Cotter is verified as having a PhD, which bury even your imaginary credentials, and is a a lecturer at the University of Westminster. She leads units on subjects such as Western Political Thought; Questioning Rights; Gender, Politics and the State. Dr. Cotter's specialisms for postgraduate and undergraduate dissertation supervision include: political theory; feminist theory; and gender equality. Let's see what she has to say: [In this article she published in The Conversation](https://theconversation.com/mary-wollstonecraft-an-introduction-to-the-mother-of-first-wave-feminism-201046#:~:text=Mary%20Wollstonecraft%20has%20had%20something,refusing%20to%20take%20her%20seriously.) Dr Cotter says: *"As the author of an impassioned plea for human rights, and one of the earliest and most-read statements of feminism, Wollstonecraft today has a well-deserved status as a feminist icon."* *"Wollstonecraft’s most famous text, A Vindication of the Rights of Women, is largely a treatise on the edifying effects of the right kind of education on virtue."* *"Wollstonecraft did not mean sexual purity when she spoke of virtue, however. Virtue was indicative of moral character and primarily expressed in the ability to make sound, informed and rational judgements."* *"Wollstonecraft argued that women are equally capable of acquiring these virtues and of benefiting from a full education if only given the chance to develop their capacities in the same way as men.*" *"Rational qualities, argues Wollstonecraft, are not naturally gendered. They are learned and shaped by environment, especially by upbringing, education and culture. If education is narrow and confined, it will produce narrow and confined thinking. This is what she meant when she wrote of women: “Make them free and they will quickly become wise and virtuous.”*" You see, the thing is... you haven't refuted the legitimacy of my source in any way. So there hasn't been any need for additional sources. I made my point and cited it in my very first reply to you, for anyone else who was educated enough to understand it. The rest of this was me curious about how committed you are to this bit. So go on, show anyone reading this just how clever you really are. Build your argument, make your case, and provide clear and reliable citation. Looking forward to it!

Hence your ban from the other sub I guess. Probably just a matter of time before I get the same notification.

Ok ten day old account with an abhorrent username.

[I literally cited a source in my previous comment. You pretending like you don’t see it because you don’t want to address the irrefutable evidence it presents is hilarious.](https://www.reddit.com/kr5mwk7?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=2) Is that you, in another comment thread, citing one book and pretending to be an expert? I suppose it's a good thing you aren't a hypocrite, that way we can all safely conclude you are projecting. What would I have to be angry about? I have pretty clearly stated and demonstrated that you are all talk and no substance. For example, you're still at zero citations for any of the claims you've made in this exchange with me. The really strange thing is, I never claimed to be an expert. You did that about yourself. You're the one supposedly with the masters degrees, who has read nearly 100 papers on feminism... Yet somehow you think Mary Wollstonecraft's book is a "shit source" when it comes to the subject of feminism. By the way, if I spent a couple of hours reading your comment history and you see that as proof that I am obsessed with you... What does it say about you that you have spent 100s of hours reading feminism literature, but don't defend women's rights? I know you can't answer that, not even with the benefit of having two imaginary masters degrees.

You would think someone with two masters degrees would realise when someone is laughing at them. But you didn't answer my question, are you banned from the Austrian economics sub? If you won't answer that, then let me ask another. Out of the 2-4 other people you're presumably arguing with right now... Have you tried telling them you have two masters degrees yet? It might sway them, it's pretty convincing.

So did they ban you from the Austrian economics sub? You should totally go back to tell them how immigration is making them unhappy. It's so odd that they wouldn't accept you as an authority on what makes them happy. We're not in the same boat, I've seen your game. Low effort and lazy.

Ok zero citations.

The angry voting is one thing. The one that gives me a chuckle is when they block me. Like, isn't that the same thing your post is complaining about, and now you're doing it to me? *I feel so silenced for speaking out against the narrative.*

The evidence I provided shows a pattern of you making assumptions and not being able to back them up, you really don't have to keep doing it with me. The evidence I provided pushes back against your original claim. The evidence you provided has yet to be provided. Your comment history speaks for itself, I just put a couple of the greatest hits from the past month in a comment. Well, I say a couple but it was more like a dozen or so from memory... From the past month. As in, you are constantly doing this. But you know what? You could have sailed right past all of that and simply addressed my question about feminism at the end. But your precious little ego couldn't let you. Because deep down you want this argument derailed, because that's all you've got. Every argument you've had for the past month, which is way too many to be healthy, proves that. Turns out you don't display many outward signs of being a feminist in any way, that was a shocker.

I saw those replies and got the same general sense of what the original comment may have said too. I'd still be interested to see the contextualising of the comment with the mods. It's definitely a case of more than just "an idiot" took issue with the comment. I fear op is being less than completely honest with us.

It would be better if you posted a screenshot of you pleading your case to the mods and trying to explain things to them. Just so we have more information.

Nah, I'm not so insecure that I feel the need to spout off my credentials at every turn. But I am curious, that much is true. I also like to read, Soni took some time out last night to read your comment history going back over the last month. What a ride. Turns out, you're constantly making busted arguments all day on Reddit and getting called out for it. [Okay Edgelord “two degrees” Jackson](https://www.reddit.com/r/CreationNtheUniverse/comments/1aevxug/comment/koogab8/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) was a personal highlight. [Here,](https://www.reddit.com/r/DeclineIntoCensorship/comments/1ajyyzy/comment/kpe1tit/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) [here,](https://www.reddit.com/r/AnythingGoesNews/comments/1ah60d8/comment/kp52dq9/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) [here,](https://www.reddit.com/r/clevercomebacks/comments/1acojof/comment/kk254kj/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) [and here](https://www.reddit.com/r/clevercomebacks/comments/19b4num/comment/kir1tbb/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) are comments that can be applied to any and all of the arguments I read through in your history. There's a very clear pattern of your insecurities on display and consistency in the way other users see through your nonsense. Just on that topic, I thought I had seen you make the most insecure comment on Reddit until I read this gem: [Eh, every metric that has ever measured my intelligence has said otherwise.](https://www.reddit.com/r/clevercomebacks/comments/1acojof/comment/kk1hzez/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) But then, you hit me with: [I am smart. Aced my ASVAB with a 99, got a 1450 on my SAT, a 30 on my ACT, finished both masters magna cum laude.](https://www.reddit.com/r/the_everything_bubble/comments/195yye8/comment/ki6oazp/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) I literally had to stop for a moment at that point because I was laughing so hard. Perhaps my favourite thread for the schadenfreude entertainment was the one that ended with: [I’m convinced you don’t even comprehend the words you’re using.](https://www.reddit.com/r/austrian_economics/comments/19fahus/comment/kjukx2y/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) That particular thread was a massive disaster for you. Did you get banned from the Austrian economics sub after that? I hope not, I would love for you to go back to tell those very clearly educated people just how clever you are. Maybe you can tell them about your two masters degrees, while sounding like someone struggling to pass high school. I will give an honourable mention to [Maybe you do have degrees. If so, I would agree it was a waste of your time. You seem to have come out of University the same dullard who went in. I'm incredulous as to your education level, not because of a schoolyard envy as you maintain, but because you share the misguided notions of a backwater welfare case.](https://www.reddit.com/r/the_everything_bubble/comments/195yye8/comment/ki3whsx/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) That while comment was pretty spot on and the best you could muster was to call it an unhinged rant. Says everything about you really. But maybe another Redditor put it best when they said: [Buddy, there is no point in answering you. Whatever answer I provide, your response will be the same. Combative, assumptive, derogatory, imperious. And angry. So very, very angry. This is, seemingly, the tone you use whenever anyone triggers you, and you sir are quite easily triggered. So that will be a hard pass from me. I'm not here to indulge whatever mental demons are tormenting you. You're not interested in an exchange of ideas and we both know it. Honestly, I'm not sure how someone who is so full of venom can even function. I imagine that in real life, you probably don't. I feel sorry for you. That's not fake- I truly do. Take care of yourself, bud. I suspect that if you were left to your own devices you would probably keep screaming at my comments indefinitely, but this will be my last interaction with you. I sincerely hope that you find more constructive outlets. Be well.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AnythingGoesNews/comments/1ah60d8/comment/kp8remx/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) It seems clear to me and everyone else you try to flex on here that your output does not live up to your claimed level of education. Simply by drawing the conclusion that I've only read one book on a subject is pretty telling about the way you think. But more telling is the overwhelming lack of citation for any of your claims. The first thing I was taught at university was how to determine the validity of a source. And you, as a reliable source of information, suck. With all that out of the way, did you want to talk about modern feminism or it's beginnings? Because you've been a little bit inconsistent... To say the least.

"I've read close to a hundred and written multiple thesis' on feminism" is perhaps the most insecure thing I've seen anyone say on Reddit. None of this is about who is the authority on the matter, it's about who constructs the most solid argument based or verifiable information. You've provided exactly zero in that department. Tell me more about how awesome you are though, I think you're about to convince me. Just out of curiosity, how passionately do you support the women's rights movement after reading so much on the subject? You must be a mega fan of feminism or something.

Hmmmm... She predates the official beginning of the movement and published a book which is considered the earliest and most important treatise advocating equality for women. I'd call that basically at the beginning of feminism. I'd encourage you to just read this book and stop trying to let google fight your battles. Maybe think for yourself?

Calm down captain insecurity, before you miss out on your promotion to major. I am responding to your claim that: "Feminism has been thinly veiled misandry **since nearly the beginning."** Mary Wollstonecraft is basically the beginning. If you don't know how to cite reputable sources to back up your claims, I don't know what to tell you. Maybe it's time for you to get another MFA in fine arts, from the ATM machine, using your PIN number.

And yet you haven't provided any evidence to support your claims up until this point. That's weird for someone with a master's degree, in my experience at least. I bet I wouldn't need to look too far into your comment history to find you demanding someone provide you with evidence of their claims though. Also, the 'FA' in MFA stands for fine arts. It's especially weird that you don't even know that much. Based on the evidence I've seen... I choose to believe you are full of it.

I love to learn new things. What did you mean when you said ALWAYS?

[Find me a feminist that advocates for the conscription of women](https://www.reddit.com/r/RedditCensors/s/WpPlP75MjD)

Sure, Reddit expert, sure.

Speaking on behalf 100% of western women certainly says a lot about who you are. Let me introduce you to [Eleanor Smeal.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleanor_Smeal?wprov=sfla1) She is a modern day feminist who believes women should be included equally when it comes to conscription. [Here](https://feminist.org/resources/feminist-chronicles/part-iii-the-early-documents/women-and-the-military/) is an article she wrote advocating for women to be included in the draft. In it she asserts: "omission from the registration and draft ultimately robs women of the right to first class citizenship" Ultimately though, she is against the draft in general.

>*Feminism has ALWAYS been a cesspit of misandry.* Wollstonecraft's position was for the education of women for the betterment of society, where's the misandry in that?

No. Instead of forcing anyone into military service, the draft should be done away with all together. Conscription violates freedoms such as personal choice and bodily autonomy.

>Sure, Mary, sure. I guess you haven't read A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. More people should.

When you say feminism has ALWAYS been a cesspit of misandry, you must have missed that Wollstonecraft argued women are entitled to an equal education. One which aligns with their position among society, as mothers, housewives, and laborers. She discusses the idea of “woman’s place” within society and reasoned that, instead of simply being regarded as domesticated housewives living in the shadow of their husbands, women could become “companions” to their male counterparts through the means of equal education prove beneficial for all of society. Is that the cesspit of misandry you believe feminism has ALWAYS been?

Naww... Poor little fella is still going. What's got you so excited?

What a stupid fucking bot.

I already did: [https://www.reddit.com/r/RedditCensors/s/4eacB3CLoD](https://www.reddit.com/r/RedditCensors/s/4eacB3CLoD) There are ten points contained within the report that you have failed to address or refute. Like I said, I was in line first. You are yet to make a single legitimate request, let alone 6. Now, put up or shut up.

No... You didn't. First you replied as if you have no idea what it was, then you tried to pivot to the Mueller report, **then** you tried to ascribe a deliberately misleading quote to as being a part of that report. If we're really going to get to the bottom of everything, I believe I was first in line. Refute the findings of the Senate intelligence committees report that I originally linked to you, or otherwise prove pretty much everything I've speculated about you is essentially accurate.

If you can't address the Senate intelligence committee report, just say so. Since you haven't provided any sources that corroborate any of your claims, I guess I can safely conclude that I do know more about certain aspects of America than you. Man that must sting, after 30 years working in the system... Both state and federal! But you should know, right?

You still haven't even addressed the Senate intelligence committee report and/or the direct quote from it in my first reply to your claim. From there all you've done is dance back and forth between topics, acting like you're some kind of expert, but showing you don't even know what you're talking about. And when I call you on your crap directly, the best you could muster up was some indignant response as if this whole thing is about the "Biden business model". I've already pointed out that Republicans obfuscated the evidence found in their investigations when talking to the press. I even provided a link, you choose not to engage the facts laid out within it. Honestly, it's pretty funny how badly informed you are about all of this. What are your news sources?

What I said was there is no agreed definition of the word "collusion" **in this context**, you know context?... That thing you keep trying to step around? I have in no way contributed to your imaginary pension, I'm not in or from America. I am telling you the facts as most people can see them around the world. You asked me about what I find substantial earlier and the answer to that, in context of this entire exchange between us is: criminal charges and convictions. Trump is facing those because of substantial findings in investigations. Biden is not because of a lack of substantial findings in investigations.

Ah, no... The Senate intelligence committee report does not state that at any point. What you have linked in Marco Rubio's press release on the report, made completely independently from the committee. His assertions are seriously undermined by the report itself. I've already said that there is no agreed meaning of the word 'collusion' so your quote there falls completely flat as far as I'm concerned. If you read the report, not even very far into it, just the Findings section at the start, you would see that: - “The Committee found that Manafort’s presence on the Campaign and proximity to Trump created opportunities for Russian intelligence services to exert influence over, and acquire confidential information on, the Trump Campaign. Taken as a whole, Manafort’s high-level access and willingness to share information with individuals closely affiliated with the Russian intelligence services ... represented a grave counterintelligence threat.” - “While [Russian military intelligence] and WikiLeaks were releasing hacked documents, the Trump Campaign sought to maximize the impact of those leaks to aid Trump’s electoral prospects. Staff on the Trump Campaign sought advance notice about WikiLeaks releases, created messaging strategies to promote and share the materials in anticipation of and following their release, and encouraged further leaks. The Trump Campaign publicly undermined the attribution of the hack-and-leak campaign to Russia and was indifferent to whether it and WikiLeaks were furthering a Russian election interference effort.” - “Trump and senior Campaign officials sought to obtain advance information about WikiLeaks’s planned releases through Roger Stone.” - “The Committee further found that [George] Papadopoulos’s efforts introduced him to several individuals that raise counterintelligence concerns, due to their associations with individuals from hostile foreign governments, as well as actions these individuals undertook. The Committee assesses that Papadopoulos was not a witting cooptee of the Russian intelligence services, but nonetheless presented a prime intelligence target and potential vector for malign Russian influence.” Additionally, if you keep reading, you will see that Rubio initiated a vote to include in the report the statement that "Donald Trump did nothing wrong." The vote was lost because obviously anyone who looks at the evidence can see he was absolutely in the wrong. I'm starting to doubt your credentials there champ.

Firstly, you are the one that brought up the Mueller report like it had some sort of final say on the subject, while I am trying to explain to you that the Senate intelligence committee used that report as a starting point for their own, much more thorough, investigation. It's odd that someone that has worked in the system for 30 years, both state and federal, needs that pointed out to them. Secondly, third party fact checkers have explained that the SARs, and all the money flowing to various companies and Biden family members were legitimate business transactions or investments. Unfortunately, the evidence was obfuscated in the press by some Republicans. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/08/17/how-republicans-overhype-findings-their-hunter-biden-probe/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/08/17/how-republicans-overhype-findings-their-hunter-biden-probe/)

The Mueller Report is covered in the Senate intelligence committee's investigation. It was a much more in depth investigation than Mueller could achieve. You should really read it. I think the investigation into the Biden family is a fishing expedition that keeps blowing up in Republican lawmakers faces, like a Road Runner cartoon. I have zero doubt that Joe Biden is corrupt and I believe corruption should be stamped out of politics. I feel that it's pretty incompetent of the oversight committee not to have found anything more substantial.

What is this crazy post? OP says they were banned by someone butt hurt and then goes on to make literally 100 comments in this thread. Take a breath kid.

To read these thousand pages and come away with the conclusion that they amount to evidence of “no collusion” really involves a protestation of faith, not a dispassionate assessment of presented evidence. Debating what constitutes “collusion” is not worth anyone’s time, given that the word has no agreed-upon meaning in this context and that to say that there was none of it doesn’t answer in any event the more important question of what the facts amount to. Here are the conclusions the Intelligence Committee’s evidence supports: - The Trump campaign and Donald Trump himself were certainly aware in real time of Russian efforts to intervene in the 2016 presidential election. The campaign had a heads-up that Russia had stolen Democratic emails. And Russian operatives sought and received a meeting with senior Trump campaign officials promising “dirt” on Trump’s opponent. As the campaign wore on, and the Russian efforts were increasingly made public, Trump personally and publicly encouraged them. - The Trump campaign was run for a time by a man with an ongoing business relationship with a Russian intelligence operative, to whom he gave proprietary internal polling data. - The Trump campaign did not discourage Russian activity on its behalf. In fact, it sought repeatedly to coordinate its messaging around WikiLeaks releases of information. The campaign, and Trump personally, sought to contact WikiLeaks to receive information in advance about releases and may well have succeeded. - The campaign sought to obtain disparaging information about Hillary Clinton from actors who either were Russian operatives or it believed were Russian operatives. It did so through a number of means—some of these efforts were direct. Some were indirect. - The Russian government and affiliated actors clearly regarded the Trump campaign as a prime target for influence and recruitment. Russia targeted a diverse array of people associated with Trump for contact and engagement through an astonishing variety of avenues. Some of these attempts were rebuffed. Many of them were successful. The result was a sustained degree of engagement between the campaign, and later the transition, and Russian officials and cutouts. - Trump’s personal and business history in Russia provided a significant opportunity for kompromat. Such material was very likely collected. There is less evidence that it was ever deployed, though Trump’s mere awareness of his vulnerability gives rise to substantial counterintelligence concerns. - Trump’s active pursuit of business deals in Russia while running for president and denying any such deals created significant counterintelligence risk. - Trump’s campaign, and later transition, were filled with a remarkable number of people who had secret interactions with Russian actors, about which they lied either in real time or in retrospect. - All of this activity, particularly cumulatively, amounts to a grave set of counterintelligence concerns, in which any number of Trump campaign figures—including the candidate himself—exposed themselves to potential coercive pressure from an adversary foreign actor. - Trump to this day will not criticize Russian President Vladimir Putin or acknowledge unambiguously Russian intervention in the 2016 election.

[Senate Intelligence Committee report on Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential election Volume 5.](https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf) >Page 948: *It is our conclusion, based on the facts detailed in the Committee's Report, that the Russian intelligence services' assault on the integrity of the 2016 U.S. electoral process, and Trump and his associates' participation in and enabling of this Russian activity, represents one of the single most grave counterintelligence threats to American national security in the modem era.*

In the 1700s the scientific and religious communities (not entirely separate) widely believed in the concept of "preformation," which stated, essentially, that all species had been made by God at the time of Creation, and animals "growing" was simply the unfolding of preformed parts. In the late 1800s Americans popularly believed that "rain follows the plow," the idea that farming a particular plot of land made it more likely for it to rain in that area. I still don't understand your point. Perhaps if you constructed some kind of argument involving the morality for or against abortion there would be more to address.

I'm sorry, I don't understand your point. Abortion was once illegal? Your source, from 1979, only talks about outdated abortion practices from hundreds of years ago, and only really specific to America. There's no argument for morality at all.

I saw that wasn't the first time you had spoken negatively about Trump on there. Given some of the other replies you were getting about your comments in other subs, it just seemed like their issue was more about who you are than it was about Trump. Admittedly you have engaged with that community more than I have though.

I'm guessing it happened during one of your last comments made on the sub? If I'm wrong about that I apologise. I'm referring to whatever the other user in r/conservative assumed about who you are, based on your username. I'm speculating that your response to that may have played a larger role in your banning than the Trump daddy remark.

This isn't "safe space" mentality, it's just people maintaining their space. You act like people should be allowed to make dog and horse posts over on r/cats. There are plenty of spaces on the internet where people can disagree and express their own views. But that doesn't necessarily mean that it is appropriate to do so everywhere on the internet.

We're talking about a specific subreddit, not the entire internet. That's sort of my point too, op has the rest of the internet to go say whatever they want.

[With the publication of DSM–5 in 2013, “gender identity disorder” was eliminated and replaced with “gender dysphoria.” This change further focused the diagnosis on the gender identity-related distress that some transgender people experience (and for which they may seek psychiatric, medical, and surgical treatments) rather than on transgender individuals or identities themselves.](https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/diversity/education/transgender-and-gender-nonconforming-patients/gender-dysphoria-diagnosis#:~:text=With%20the%20publication%20of%20DSM%E2%80%935%20in%202013%2C%20%E2%80%9Cgender,%2C%20medical%2C%20and%20surgical%20treatments)) More than answers your "question". I'd be happy to address the rest of your bad faith rubbish, but since you haven't provided a single credible source for any of your assertions... It doesn't seem like there's much to address. The science hasn't been on your side for well over a decade now.

Gee, it seems like you're using your feelings to argue against science. Someone warned me against that just a few comments ago.

According to the [UKs National Health Service:](https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/#:~:text=Gender%20dysphoria%20and%20gender%20identity&text=Some%20people%20with%20gender%20dysphoria,problems%20because%20of%20gender%20dysphoria.) "Gender dysphoria is not a mental illness, but some people may develop mental health problems because of gender dysphoria." But they're probably lying right?

We have also learned that transgender people do not have a mental disorder, do try to keep up.

Based on your comment history, it seems more like you were banned over standing up for who you are than any criticism of Trump.

Remember when homosexuality was a mental disorder?

See them rally against this comment?

Who's the left wing candidate in America?

This post is proof they are still able to say it. It's just op can't say it again in someone else's space. People have the right to say something, but that doesn't mean others have to listen to or put up with it.

His mother isn't too bright, it's genetic.

It seems very much like you're the butthurt one.

The only thing the mod is supposed to do is be all-seeing? The report function is there to bring something to the mods attention. You were in the wrong and you were a dickhead about it. Can't really blame that mod for not wanting that type of crap in their space.

One of them has something in their hands, neither of them have their hands restrained, it just doesn't seem to be enough information to conclude they are definitely prisoners. Your context clues seem to be causing presumption here, I am interested in the facts that op was relying on.

Do you have any other information, other than what you can see in the photo, that they actually are prisoners? Like, do you know for sure, or have other evidence to support the theory?

That's... not a question. In your response to the mods in this post, and in this post itself, you say you were just asking a question. Only, you didn't ask a question. Looking at the context of it all, it seems more like you were trying to say something instead. What question did you think you were asking?

I can't see the question you asked, what was it?

Banned for no reason? I thought you said it was because you rage against the Reddit machine with hard hitting statements like "spez is a pussy." Pick a lane. Look, there isn't some big conspiracy working against you to preserve spez's good name or anything. What I think most likely happened was: you made an incredibly low effort comment, it was reported for being uncivil, the mods investigated by looking at your history, realised they don't want to listen to your shit, and banned you to avoid dealing with you. You're not being silenced, you're being a dick. The mods you have issues with are not required to platform you being a dick. It's really as simple as that. I imagine most of the bans you've posted and complained about have a similar story behind them.

Looks like you get banned from a lot of subs. Have you considered the possibility that you might be the one in the wrong at least every now and then?

Sorry, I missed you were someone different. My bad. I consider a marriage a right in the context of the [Universal Declaration of Human Rights.](https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights) I would define rights as a moral or legal entitlement to have or do something. Why would me being from Europe have anything to do with anything?

I'm pointing out that you're nitpicking. Marriage is considered a right for people of the appropriate age. You pointing out there are people outside of that doesn't prove anything beyond there are people outside of that. You didn't answer my question though. What are your views on gay marriage?

Can you post what it is you actually said that got you banned? What was the argument you put forward?

There does seem to be some inconsistencies from the mods in that thread. I am curious though, why did you wait a month before making this post?

As opposed to what and/or when?

What do you mean moderators have too much power? They have control over their space, nothing more. If someone was in my home spouting off racist bigoted nonsense I would be well within my rights to kick them out. That's not censorship or an abuse of power. The same can be said for a subreddit. You are not owed a platform on someone else's space. If you take issue with that then your recourse is to start your own subreddit and run it any way you choose. It's probably worth pointing out that making abortion illegal amounts to state enforced pregnancy and that fits your definition of fascism much better than your example with the mod. I can't speak for that mod but I imagine what they are referring to is your apparent support of that particular fascist viewpoint.

Gun control which creates greater restrictions on who can get a gun, and what type of gun can absolutely save lives. Also, the idea that guns keep people safe is just plain wrong. Studies have repeatedly shown that people who own guns are actually at an increased risk of homicide. [Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home - Arthur L. Kellermann et al. ](https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506) Conclusion: Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance. [Homicide and suicide risks associated with firearms in the home: A national case-control study - Douglas J. Wiebe](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0196064403002567) Conclusion: Having a gun at home is a risk factor for adults to be shot fatally (gun homicide) or commit suicide with a firearm. As for healthcare, pretty much every developed nation in the world does a much better job of it than America. The major reason for this is obstruction by the GOP in response to corporate lobbying. Healthcare would be simple if they were obsessed with saving human lives.

I'm sure you draw the conclusion that anyone that thinks differently from you is an idiot. But it's not really enough to just say it, you need to point out what I got wrong and why what I said is wrong. Thanks for adding to the ongoing discussion though, awesome contribution.

Well, your comment does promote hate towards a marginalised group based on identity. I can understand a zero tolerance policy for something like that. Natural advantage within sports is already a factor, completely independent from gender. The permanent ban may have been a little heavy handed, but a trash comment like that needs to be dealt with decisively.

>Posting wrongthink around authoritarians. aka: “it’s the rest of the world that’s wrong, not me” >What are these mods getting wrong when they selectively enforce rules and ban certain people and not others over political bias? Your thoughts on that? A cursory glance at your post history reveals that you have been posting multiple times per day in that sub and have done so for, what looks like, months. If it were a simple case of political bias enforced by authoritarians then why wasn’t it done much sooner? It seems you want to portray yourself as some victim of injustice, rather than face the reality that all that is happening is cause and effect. >Edit: I'm also getting it wrong to take your bait *“Again, everyone is else wrong. Not me”* Challenging your narrative is not bait, it is an opportunity for you to make your position clear so that others may understand it. If you’re correct in what you say, then you should be able to explain it. It’s the response I hope to receive. >and be dragged into another argument where you'll probably say, as usual, that there was no mod abuse and the ban was totally reasonable. That the problem is just me Well, as usual, I don’t see any evidence of mod abuse and the problem does appear to be you. Given the information I have I cannot comment on the reasonableness of the ban, but from a spam perspective alone I can see why a case might have been made. >and I've never documented here instances of me actually being on the receiving end of censorship, excessive mod action/mod abuse, except I have, numerous times. Because you post wrongthink? Right? Like you’re just speaking truth to power in a totally balanced and bipartisan way, and for some reason mods all over Reddit single you out to be their target of abuse. >And I'm not going to tell you to go away or anything but It is curious why someone who comes off as pro censorship, is doing lurking here It’s interesting how quickly and comfortably you want to label someone that disagrees with you as pro censorship. I thought you only engaged in good faith? Sinking to the level of smearing someone because they disagree with you is something I’m willing to bet you complain about more than anything. And yet you engage in the practice so readily. Interesting indeed. >and you only seem to discount experiences of the users you don't like or agree with politically, one of those users being myself - who you've followed here from other subs - political subs to be specific. So now it’s “users” plural, not just you? And followed from other subs? Dude, you have thousands of posts, from all over Reddit. It’s a statistical likelihood that a person will encounter you on this website, but that doesn’t make you important. Last time you were singing these blues I confirmed you were engaged in this type of rhetoric with other users and on other subs. It’s pretty easy to see that you’re simply being challenged on your shit and that you possess poor skills for handling it. >I would say you're getting it wrong with that partisan hackery and this weird obsession/hate boner you have for me. So this time I think I will just toggle my inbox. *”Again, I’m not wrong, it’s the other people that are mistaken.”* Weird obsession/hate boner is a good one though. How many posts have you made in the last 2 and a half months? How many of those posts have I “followed you from other subs” to try and “pro-censorship” you? It’s like you use words you just don’t understand the meaning of. Obsession has a fairly specific definition and much like most of what you say, you cannot substantiate you assertions.

I was wrong and I’m not above admitting that. In a previous comment, I made the claim that, by continuing to post what op claims to be quality submissions, op would be back here in a months time complaining about being banned from yet another sub without explanation. I was wrong about that and I want to acknowledge it here and now, so we all can learn from it and grow. The comment in question can be found [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/RedditCensors/comments/11yo0z4/permanently_banned_from_rwholesome_without/jdcbz0f/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1&context=3) and it clearly shows I had made the claim 2 and a half months ago, not one. What is it you’re getting wrong op?

I do provide a service where people can surrender their drugs to me so I can dispose of them thoughtfully.

It looks like the optometry subreddit has fairly strict rules regarding posting on their space. The ban may have been a little heavy handed, but I can see how they might of concluded that you aren’t capable of meeting their required standards. Where I’m getting stuck is how that rises to the level of harassment and what you’re hoping to achieve with that report, can you walk me through that?

Perhaps, instead of the sub having been compromised by “evil racist fascist terrorist genocidal totalitarian communist CCP agents”, it’s simply the case the mods of r/Korea weren’t interested in platforming the type demented discourse you seem to want to espouse in preference to expressing well made points.

Downvoted into oblivion? The comment is at -7. I disagree that downvoting is a form of censorship, it’s a form of expression. I think what’s really going on is people are calling out your bullshit and you’re having a sook about it.

I know this may seem like a foreign concept to you, but I don’t spend every waking minute of my life on Reddit. I don’t see every single post on every single sub. I don’t even challenge every single piece of bullshitery I see, yours or otherwise. But I do challenge it somewhat regularly. If you feel as though you are getting an unequal amount of push back from me, then that’s more of a comment on your output of bullshit more than anything. A claim that can be supported by the amount of false censorship posts you make on this sub, and no doubt to amount of other people challenging your bs in other subs. In fact, I bet you are pulling the same old shit with other people in real time while having your little whinge here. You are not a victim of anything here. There’s nothing to be outraged over. You have been banned from subs for what amounts to bad faith engagement, that’s the whole story. Edit: Hahahahah… literally one minute after you commented here you [continued a spat with someone else.](https://www.reddit.com/r/DescentIntoTyranny/comments/12116n6/the_fbi_used_an_undercover_cop_with_pink_hair_to/jdokgyn/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3) I totally called it. Seriously, it’s not the rest of the world that’s the problem. Look inward.

Sure, you’re the only one I call out on this sub. Because you’re so special and always the victim. [https://www.reddit.com/r/RedditCensors/comments/yndc35/banned_from_florida_because_i_do_not_agree_with/iv8fpey/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/RedditCensors/comments/yndc35/banned_from_florida_because_i_do_not_agree_with/iv8fpey/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3) I call out bullshit whenever it pops up on my feed. It’s hardly my fault that you post more of it than most. >Rule 5 is for fakers Total projection moment. I wonder how long it’s been since you accused someone calling out your bs of projecting? I think the only reason why you’re trying to make it seem like I’m breaking rules is because you’re trying to get me banned. Which, if true, makes you a hypocrite along with everything else.

Damn dude are you still butt hurt and going on about this? I guess I struck a nerve and the truth hurts. Look, you are not being oppressed. You are not a victim. You are acting like an entitled cry baby and by doing so causing harm to legitimate anti censorship efforts. Get over yourself. The dozens upon dozens of posts you make on this sub imply that all the places you’ve been banned from are run by deranged moderators abusing their power for kicks. But in reality if that were truly the case then those subs would die out from all of their user base being banned for “no reason”. But that’s not happening, only you are being banned. Because you are the problem. You are the one that needs to change your practices. If anything, your posts are in breach of rule 5.

Ok cool, just show me the mod message that says you were banned for not getting enough upvotes or handing out enough gold. Otherwise conceded there is more nuance in determining the quality of a submission. And yes, I know what I am… not banned from all the subs you are banned from. Keep stepping on those rakes Sideshow Bob, one day those rakes will see it’s actually them that’s fucking up. Then we will all see… right?

So your submissions getting upvoted is proof of their good quality, but my comments being upvoted is proof of some systemic conspiracy against you? If you are a loud and disruptive presence in someone’s place of business, they are entitled to ban you from their premises. They don’t have to give you a warning, they don’t have to even give you a reason. Moderators have the same freedom when it comes to their subs. It’s bizarre you constantly try to make this something personal about you. Nobody on Reddit knows you personally. All we have to judge you on is the quality of what you submit, which is garbage. Clearly I’m not the only one that points this out to you. If you want to keep crying about this without any self reflection then maybe you could save yourself some of this self inflicted “pain” by switching platforms altogether. Facebook is just over there. If you’re having trouble finding it, just follow the stench that smells exactly like what you’re shovelling.

**“You’re just spamming reposts everywhere - go find a new sub to farm in.”** Seems an awful lot like they consider your “quality content” to be some sort of bullshit and they don’t want to put up with it. I don’t really see how pointing that out is me gaslighting in any way. You are certainly free to take your “quality submissions” to other subs, but then you’ll be back here in a months time after being banned from those subs for “no reason” and “without explanation”. But you have to understand that the moderators of those subs are free to ban you if they don’t like your content or your practices, they don’t owe you anything. Hell, start your own sub and post whatever you want there, free from the worry of ever getting banned.

r/IAmTheMainCharacter

There’s no quashing of a narrative, you’re not being censored, you’re not being abused. People would rather not put up with your bullshit, as is their right. Get over yourself, you’re not the main character, this isn’t a heroic tale of the underdog defeating oppression. This is you having a sook and a tantrum. There are some excellent examples of censorship posted on this sub, none of them by you. Try to understand what I’m telling you, you’re the problem not everyone else.

You always post on this sub about being banned from other subs and it’s always the same story. So again, maybe you’re doing something wrong, maybe your steadfast refusal to really think about and consider what others are telling you is causing you to make the error. For example, in these posts you pretty much always add the phrase “without explanation” in the title. But then, the explanation is in your post description. Now you might say that there wasn’t an explanation at the time of posting, but this happens all the time. As in, you’re not learning from your mistake and realising that your explanation will likely come if you’re patient. But instead of learning from your mistake, or even admitting you’ve made a mistake, you act all indignant as if everyone other than you is in the wrong. No doubt you carry this attitude all across Reddit and that’s no doubt a driving factor behind you making so many posts about being banned from places. Look inward dude.

>Link spam/karma farming is not welcome. If you’re sharing images/links across multiple subs at a time, you’re likely link spamming. This reads like an actual description of your entire account. >Sorry, pretty much all you do is link farm. We’re not interested. Thank you. Seems like the sub has standards and don’t want your substandard submissions bringing down the quality of the place. Considering it’s their space that is a completely reasonable position to take. Also, according to their rules they aren’t really big on people earning money from their sub. Considering you are rather likely to be a paid shill for Russian disinformation outlets, an argument could be made that you are also breaching this rule as well. Seems like once again, and as always, you’re in the wrong but want to blame everyone else. Time to either grow up or get a better job.

>this reeked of mods either giving into report abuse or they just disagree with the sentiment and don’t want open debate. Those being the only two options because you are never in the wrong, right?

I replied to you without looking at your post/comment history at all. But now it’s the weekend I had some time to check it out and discovered r/JimmyDoreGrifter. So thanks for your comment. Just looking at that sub I’d say you probably have a better handle on how Jimmy expresses himself in writing and maybe have a point about op. Perhaps they are all the same person, the same sad, sad, person.

I don’t know, I just can’t see Jimmy Dore typing and posting as much as op has. @libtard01 on Twitter seems extremely low effort in comparison. My theory is that both Jimmy and op are paid by the same people. And I’m only subscribing to that theory because the idea that op is really this stupid and actually believe all the nonsense they espouse, is just a little bit too sad to be real. But then again the whole Jimmy Dore grift is a bit too sad to be real, so I can easily see why someone would figure them to be the same sad person.

>Anyone here can search my username author:karmagheden over there and see I have posted plenty of quality content. And I would argue even the small minority of posts that are sitting at 0 (and were seemingly downvote brigaded) aren't even rubbish content, just like with my recent pro FTV posts there. It seems there are many, many, mods that disagree with you. Again, maybe, just perhaps you’re posting trash and might not be aware of it. Although I doubt it considering there are probably people pointing out that your posts are trash on a daily basis. >Because I have been banned from a bunch of subs and unreservedly so and my guess is at least some of this has to do with targeted downvotes and report abuse. A report is sent to mods and/or admins where they make a determination on whether the reported content should remain on a sub or the site at large. There is no targeted abuse in this equation, get over yourself. You post garbage and it is probably dealt with accordingly. >Users here can look at my past posts I remember you once invited me to do the same until I started calling out the bullshit you were spouting in other places and you began to complain that I “followed you” to other subs to harass you. Bit of a bitch move if you ask me, but you never really struck me as a person of integrity. >but I would not be posting here if I thought they were. Just curious if you believe any ban you have ever got was warranted in your mind, or are the mods always wrong and you’re always right? >you and I have a history That’s a charitable way of putting it. I called out your shit for a while when it was showing up on my feed multiple times a day. As far as I’m concerned you’re just another voice in the chorus of idiots. The only noticeable difference is that your specific brand of stupid seems to always align with Russian interests, almost statistically impossible to accidentally do that as many times as I saw it. >i.e. you used to follow me from the politicalvideos sub to leftist politics subs that I posted to and you would just shit talk me and the creators of the content I posted Still trying to play the poor victim card on that I see. You invited me to look through your post history, I found more examples of what I was talking about and pointed it out to you. Toddlers have more nuance than you and your childish crap. >and I was coincidently banned from those subs along with politicalvideos. I wonder if you reported me / the content I posted in the hopes to get the it removed / me banned. Again, maybe… just maybe, perhaps there is the slightest chance that it was the content of your posts and comments that got you banned from various subs. I have no power to remove anyone or anything from any sub. >I wouldn't be surprised and it would make it extra fucked up that you come here now and be upvoted for basically saying I'm imagining mod abuse and that the bans were deserved. Anyways, just to give readers here some background on how you would troll my posts. The victim mentality doing mental gymnastics is extra thick here. I mean, mod abuse? Mod abuse directed pretty much exclusively at you? Like the mods are all power mad, but mostly targeting only you. Mods are people and they don’t owe you shit. If you want to post garbage and disinformation on their space, then you also have to live with the consequences that go along with that behaviour. For a better view of the problem look inward. >This is you gaslighting and projecting. Because you’re always right and everyone that disagrees is always wrong? Just like those pesky mods that are all abusing you for no reason. How many times in the last month have you accused someone of projecting? Seems like “projecting” has been stuck in your word of the day calendar for years. Although I could be wrong, maybe… perhaps, it’s just possible that you dusted off that old classic because you’re talking to me. See what I did there? I made allowances for the possibility that I’m wrong about something. Although I’m pretty confident that I wouldn’t have to look too far through your history to find someone calling out your shit and you replying with the word projection. How do they say smell ya later in Russia?

Or maybe, perhaps, you post rubbish that mods don’t want on their sub. Looking at r/RedditCensors you post here a lot about being permanently banned from other subs. It’s almost as if you’re the one doing something wrong. It might be worth considering at least, the idea that you’re incorrect about… well pretty much everything you complain about here.

Here’s some additional information to address your question and maybe help you to understand how you are in the wrong: [https://youtu.be/I7JDSKJyJ5Y](https://youtu.be/I7JDSKJyJ5Y)

To begin using pubertal blockers, a child must: - Show a long-lasting and intense pattern of gender nonconformity or gender dysphoria - Have gender dysphoria that began or worsened at the start of puberty - Address any psychological, medical or social problems that could interfere with treatment - Have entered the early stage of puberty - Provide informed consent *Particularly when a child hasn't reached the age of medical consent, parents or other caretakers or guardians must consent to the treatment and support the adolescent through the treatment process.* This is the basic medical procedure developed by professionals in the field. It addresses your ‘concern’ over a child’s ability to consent to such treatments. Comparing medical care for trans people to pedophilia is pretty awful, something only a bigot or an incredibly ignorant person would do. Which one are you?

I’m just pointing out that what you’re saying happens to align perfectly with bigots and hate groups. I’m not really complaining about anything. Your “question” isn’t framed as a way to find out what’s true, it’s framed to try and manipulate people into thinking trans people getting medical care is wrong. Again, perfectly aligned with bigots and hate groups. I suspect if you weren’t a bigot you would have taken greater issue with that comparison by now. But I do wonder if you realise you’re championing their cause so much.

Influenced and manipulated by who? Are you of the opinion there are people out in the world trying to give kids ‘the trans’? If you do believe it then you should probably also know that is literally homophobia repurposed to attack trans people. Medical procedures are developed by medical professionals. Whether it’s brain surgery or trans care there are procedures and protocols in place to ensure things are done with the patients best interests in mind.

If you’re actually having this much trouble understanding these issues, then perhaps a better course of action would be to go learn more about them rather than complain about it online. And then complaining about other peoples reactions to what amounts to hate rhetoric. Whether you’re doing it deliberately or otherwise, you are making the same points literal hate groups are making. If I found myself agreeing with those types of people over subjects like this, I’d probably pause for a moment to reflect on where I went wrong. Something to consider maybe?

You acted like a dickhead so you were treated like a dickhead. You’re not being oppressed, stop playing the victim and own your bullshit.