CraigOhMyEggoAlt

I read the first sentence and think that maybe they were doing it to lowkey show that the non-fediverse world (according to them) sees through the fediverse's claims and motives as dishonest, not so much to sue the fediverse. In other words, a reverse-Streisand, similar to running for office and backing out for the publicity.

If true, the upvotes would suggest their plan is working.

She probably sees the number of fediverse participants that banned her as a drop in the bucket (not that it isn't, the fediverse is huge) and takes advantage of the fact that the communities that are supposed to have banned her are technically still functional to her. She made a vent way back where she said it couldn't have been a true ban due to this and because the TOS was never violated.

The lawsuit though is (supposedly) by a different person who says the two of them maintain the motives for the bans to be false. The upvotes in Karmacourt (which is otherwise mostly a dead community) signify they don't put it past the fediverse.

I wonder what they're thinking by mass-upvoting the lawsuit too. Either they're in the wrong or we're in the wrong.

The logic probably is that they were banned from most of it due to instances asking it from one another, so they might as well.

It does happen. Usually in the case of peer pressure, but it does. For the same reason we have PR disasters in more mainstream politics, like the fact nobody recognizes Taiwan. It's anti-incentivized.

It's why I left Reddit.

Chinese Whispers isn't literally Chinese whispers. It's the name of a game kids play in school. Kids line up, then whisper something in the next kid's ear to pass it along, and once it reaches the last kid, it is spoken out loud to see how much it evolved.

I think here it's being a metaphor for hearsay.

Which one is the motherland again?

So is RationalWiki.

I would say this about all platforms. If you want to see what a platform says, ask the platform.

The platform, at this moment, does not say what you claim it says. That is my point with that. It's not up for argument when anyone can see for themselves.

Show me your source for your new claim now.

I was talking about RationalWiki, not KiwiFarms. You are quoting RationalWiki claiming they're quoting KiwiFarms. This is a strawman.

As for the conversion therapy part, I meant most civilized countries, the ones willing to place such laws. Try convincing a country that slurs are never okay when that country doesn’t believe in those slurs in the first place. It doesn't usually work.

reliable

Uh huh. Right.

Funnily enough, Rational Wiki doesn't have many good things to say about Lemmy in general, including that it's not always trustworthy when conflict arises. Would you risk half of the things you've said so far here to die on the hill that it's a reliable source?

Also, I meant most civilized countries, the ones willing to place such laws. And go ahead and try convincing a country that slurs are never okay when that country doesn't believe in those slurs in the first place.

See, we both can make mistakes. But I'm looking at the modlogs right now. I don't see what you're referring to.