OK, so you're just here to troll. Goodbye.

The anticipated bad faith response from a volunteer corporate shill - what would social media be without comments like this one? If the customer, as a practical matter, can not spent his money at a competing firm, then the business he is left with as his only alternative is, by definition, a monopoly. This is not an opinion, this is not a personal perspective, it's simply what the word means. A simple, awkward and undebatable fact that NS tries to distract us from by tossing word salad. ​ >That's a bit different to what is typical of a monopoly where their market position is usually marked by massive financial benefits and power. ​ Let's look into that, shall we? [https://www.statista.com/statistics/206959/revenue-of-amc-theatres/#:\~:text=In%202021%2C%20the%20revenue%20of,before%20the%20COVID%2D19%20outbreak](https://www.statista.com/statistics/206959/revenue-of-amc-theatres/#:~:text=In%202021%2C%20the%20revenue%20of,before%20the%20COVID%2D19%20outbreak). Annual revenues, $2.53 billion, and they're going up from a "mere" $1.24 billion, last year. How massive do financial benefits have to be? That's not part of the definition of a monopoly, anyway, but even if it were - 2.53 billion is chicken feed? Give me a break, and let's get back on the subject. What NS is trying to do is create a confusion in the mind of the reader between an anti-competitive trust and a monopoly by acting so confidently that the more suggestible readers won't let themselves notice that he has posted absolute nonsense.

I have no idea, but I know who would know: u/Hohehathegnome, the fellow whose thread I was mentioning in the piece. He's here, taking part in the discussion that made him Reddit famous.u/Hohehathegnome, the fellow whose thread I was mentioning in the piece. He's here, taking part in the discussion that made him Reddit famous. :) More of account is here. [https://www.reddit.com/r/RedditCensors/comments/116cufp/im\_an\_evil\_giant\_was\_ah\_yes\_because\_overly/](https://www.reddit.com/r/RedditCensors/comments/116cufp/im_an_evil_giant_was_ah_yes_because_overly/) [https://www.reddit.com/r/RedditCensors/comments/116cufp/comment/j961qol/?utm\_source=reddit&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/RedditCensors/comments/116cufp/comment/j961qol/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) [https://www.reddit.com/r/RedditCensors/comments/116cufp/comment/j965wgq/?utm\_source=reddit&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/RedditCensors/comments/116cufp/comment/j965wgq/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) Sorry I had to install my story in pieces like that, but I had to deal with some of the passive-aggressive choices the developers made, such as only allowing us to upload images in the first post in a thread, and only allow us to insert them into text-free image posts like the one I started with.

>"Fun fact about this account: I created it in order to deal with an earlier act of censorship on yet another sub." If you were wondering about that, I just told the whole story here. [https://www.reddit.com/r/RedditCensors/comments/116cufp/im\_an\_evil\_giant\_was\_ah\_yes\_because\_overly/](https://www.reddit.com/r/RedditCensors/comments/116cufp/im_an_evil_giant_was_ah_yes_because_overly/) It's not a great story, but I did bring it up, so if anybody was curious, there it is.

I hear it only last for 15 minutes, so I'd suggest that you have fun with those groupies, now. You only have ten minutes left.

I posted it, and the OP liked it [https://www.reddit.com/r/nothingeverhappens/comments/pbx0sv/comment/hafwegf/?utm\_source=reddit&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/nothingeverhappens/comments/pbx0sv/comment/hafwegf/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) but one of the mods must not have, because if you go to where the comment should be [https://www.reddit.com/r/nothingeverhappens/comments/pbx0sv/comment/hafvhfz/?utm\_source=reddit&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/nothingeverhappens/comments/pbx0sv/comment/hafvhfz/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) you'll find nothing but a mention of it having been deleted by a moderator. To this day, I've been given no explanation of this, but a few weeks ago, I was shown a way of dealing with this kind of garbage. A friend re-inserted a copy of my old comment into the discussion, mentioning the censorship, quickly archived the repost and his profile in both Archive Today and the Internet Archive, and notified the moderators of what he had done, before he notified me. What he told them was that, at this point, they were going to get transparency whether they liked it or not. This time, the comment stayed up for a while, until I got around to creating this new account, one that (I hope) won't be in the crosshairs of some of the deranged pro-authoritarian people I was dealing with during the lockdowns. Having done so, I then reposted my own censored content, roughly where it should have been, did the archiving myself, and my friend deleted his copies. I won a tiny victory for myself, and my friend was being a good friend, and there's satisfaction in that, but a lot less fun than there should have been. All of that work just to upload a silly little piece of prose to a discussion where not many people will probably see it, because it's a year old discussion. Am I glad I bothered to circumvent the censorship? Sure, because of the principle of the thing. But I'm left without an incentive to have much more to do with that subreddit. ​ ​ Any time I want to get my writing to an audience, all that I really have to do is take the train into Chicago, find an open mic night (like, say, the jam at the Green Mill), pull up a chair and read to an audience that will number in the hundreds, even on a slow night. This isn't bragging. Anybody can do this, and the worst thing to be said about the experience is that one has to pay for the two drink minimum. I get my two club sodas, because I come from that kind of money. It's a positive experience. One has a great audience, and instead of yelling in frustration at a computer screen, one gets to meet people, face to face. I've read stuff way wilder than the content you saw above, and not once have I seen even the least amount of drama follow. This brings us to a question that I've seen greeted with an attitude, but never an answer. Why should we put up with the Internet's crap? The cancellations, the gang stalkings, the censorship, any of that? There's a real world out there, with real publications in it, that for a long time has been offering better exposure for one's work that this medium does, and none of the abuse. Somebody is going to say "the Internet is free," but when one has to spend so much time dealing with the control freaks just to be heard, is it really free? Isn't one's time worth something? How about one's piece of mind? The real world is a vast, complex place, with so much to explore. Remember when we were out in it, a lot more than we are now? When did we forget how satisfying that could be?

This is what I posted. ​ >Midget. Midget. Midget. Dwarf. Dwarf. Dwarf. Midget. Midget. Midget. Dwarf. Dwarf. Dwarf. Midget. Midget. Midget. Dwarf. Dwarf. Dwarf. Midget. Midget. Midget. Dwarf. Dwarf. Dwarf. > >I don't know why typing that felt so right. Maybe because of my height privilege, but maybe because I was listening to this musical classic as I did so. > >[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bfyS-S-IJs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bfyS-S-IJs) > >"Short people got no reason to live." That line made me tear up, the first time I heard it, so badly that I immediately went out and bought a short guy, a rescue midget from down at the shelter. He was great at learning simple tricks and he was very loyal, but we never did manage to housebreak him, so finally I had to have him put to sleep. > >I miss him, sometimes, but he did keep insisting on bringing me my slippers when I got home, and that got weird. I think he chewed on them while I was away. > >What were we talking about, again? ​ Getting that into this discussion was no small trick, by the way, because Reddit's system kept removing the text I cut and pasted. There was a way around that which I could explain, if anybody is interested, but if not, let's continue.

Last year, on r/nothingeverhappens, I saw a post titled "Ah yes, because overly offended people don't exist" by u/Hohehathegnome which consisted of the partial screen capture you see above. [https://www.reddit.com/r/nothingeverhappens/comments/pbx0sv/ah\_yes\_because\_overly\_offended\_people\_dont\_exist/](https://www.reddit.com/r/nothingeverhappens/comments/pbx0sv/ah_yes_because_overly_offended_people_dont_exist/) This left me in a silly mood, which I suspect is exactly what the OP was hoping to inspire, and so I posted this ... please be patient, right now I'm having trouble cutting and pasting something into this discussion, probably because one of the developers at Reddit thought he had a bright idea ...

I see that your comment has dropped in karma by two since I thumbed it up two hours ago. I get the feeling that some old (ahem!) "friend" followed me in here, and is thumbing you down, just because you're talking to me. Sorry some people around here act that way. I wish there were a good way for me to get them to stop, but if there is one, I have no idea of what it would be,

Yes, but at least in both cases, there was an understanding that movies or TV shows were going to be talked about. One can choose to not be a film student, and to avoid podcasts about shows. If we're, say, in a discussion of steak recipes, and somebody burst out with a plot synopsis for a movie, that's a lot different. What's insane is that online, on the social media sites, we're now being asked to accept that, as if it were something completely natural. Also, there is the idiotic argument, already seen here, of "it's your fault that you didn't see the movie in the theaters when it came out." I literally got to hear (OK, see) that one, recently, about a movie that came out in the mid 1980s. ​ ​ ​ >**Me, blinking as I stare at the screen in astonishment:** "What is my job, right now?" > >**Spoiler Apologist:** You don't have a job. You're a graduate student. You already told us that. > >**Me:** Very good. How old would that make me? > >**S.A.:** Somewhere in your 20s, I guess. > >**Me: W**hen was I born? Do the math. > >**S.A.:** Duh, what? > >**Me:** I wasn't born, yet, in the mid 1980s. How the (expletive deleted) would I have gone to see that movie in the theaters, at a time when my parents hadn't even met, yet? > >**S.A.:** (vague, meaningless boomer hand waving) > >**Me:** Was I supposed to have rented a time machine? How, exactly, am I supposed to have gone to the movies back then? > >**S.A.:** You seem very negative. You must be fun at parties. > >**Me:** (Pictures self holding baseball bat, looking at boomer, and yelling "batter up" as everybody in the room starts to scream and ... it gets kind of graphic after that) ​ ​ ​ I suppose that the lethal use of blunt force would be wrong, probably, but these guys seem to be going out of their way to make it tempting. This is an ongoing problem with social media: the trolls will do something that is plainly trolling, and then the normies will try to normalize it. What results is disgusting behavior.

>I find most people do have a statute of limitations on it, especially if it’s over 10 years. I find that most people don't, OFFLINE, and I think I know why. Offline, if one acts in the way that people routinely do on social media, one is likely to get the living crap beaten out of one, sooner or later and probably sooner. The old way of doing things might not be very nice, but I will say this much for it: it works, and so far, nothing else seems to. Right now, there's somebody over on r/PublicFreakout who replied to the complaint about spoilers by posting another spoiler. That's not somebody with another point of view. That's somebody who's having fun being a dick. That's a troll.

He literally just told you what's wrong with that argument, and your only response is to double down on it? What's wrong with you?