shinigamiookamiryuu

Well just look at what I said there. I'm no expert on German law, but I explain right then and there why I was saying the AfD wouldn't be Nazis, at least to the Germans who still have cultural PTSD over it.

Imagine if we had Germans in our midst. There'd be like a 30% chance right now they'd be a part of the AfD. What are we going to do, ban 30% of Germans from interacting with us?

Could we maybe apply some kind of due process to this situation before proceeding with anymore conclusions? This whole thing, which has chased me around everywhere even though I go into length (including in previous interactions in this chain about the many proofs that it should be all a bunch of dead horse issues, has already caused stir among the mods.

I currently have an instance controller who finally expressed enough interest to say "hey, can we talk this out somewhere", which scarcely anyone up to this point has been willing to do at this point, instead seeing one side of the story and being incited into a frenzy over just that. If anything illustrates why I respect authorities and their decisions in matters like this (in contrast to the populace), this is why (and I suspect they are how I got demoted a second time, until this all gets settled I am guessing).

Davel specifically says the words "they interact with each other" and leads up to "and they all create the same kinds of “ask me”/“casual conversation” posts", which sounds a lot like what ShiverMeTimbers was saying.

If he is truly the person in charge of his domain, I'd willing to bet, actually bet, that if he (and a bunch of other people, if they wanted to make sure he was being truthful) were to release IP's, he wouldn't be able to say anymore that we are the same individual.

He is also lying when he accuses me of impersonating when I can dig into the past and prove I would be the one being impersonated.

As for who appointed me back, Candyman337, who is one of the leading rule enforcers, added me back. They thought you were giving a bombshell until I explained my side of the story, you know, the thing nobody asked me for. Do they think you are being honest now? My faithful side says no.

I have never, ever used any secondary name to reappoint me.

What a liar you are (makes me wonder if those who "upvote" what you say are "alts").

Admins ask for multiple names to work in coordination in rule enforcing depending on the instance. I make it no secret who my secondary names are. It also should be made clear "ShiverMeTimbers" is not one of them. I'd be willing to bet life and death on that. Supposing you or someone else extracted data/info from me, you would find what I'm saying to be true.

Again, not me. The only other name I have is KaneLivesInDeath. I’d be willing to bet life and death on that and am surprised a self-proclaimed “admin”, like the one we call Davel, would take such a passive approach when you’d expect such a person to have access to all the IP codes.

The only other name I have is KaneLivesInDeath. Nobody else here is me in any way. I'd be willing to bet on that and am surprised a self-proclaimed "admin", like the one we call Davel, would take such a passive approach when you'd expect such a person to have access to all the IP codes.

The reasons for adding me back were discussed within Matrix. I also don't make the connection between me and the KaneLivesInDeath name a secret. Admins ask for multiple names to work in coordination in rule enforcing depending on the instance. I thought all rule enforcers knew.

A few things are to be considered (things which prove the power of seeing both sides through).

• When it shows a message about me supposedly abusing power, it shows a message specifically about me enacting disciplinary measures against people trying to encourage Luigi Mangione copycats. I would have thought I was serving the TOS by doing that, and still would think I am, and some instances have showed they hold the same thoughts and that I'm not just acting on my own subjective sentiments. It's based on the whole "what's it to you" response where their thing later comes into play where they say I was supposedly downplaying Musk's salute. Though I do think intent matters, my thinking is if they're both fair, then they're both fair, and if they're both "dogwhistling", they're both "dogwhistling". Of note, I don't encourage deaths in any form, I'm just getting mixed messages on what that necessitates.
• The "slur + bigotry" part happened two (if not three) years ago. As I explained to the mods of Ask Lemmy, I was fighting with a friend who has DID and BPD because I got fed up with their trust issues and snapped and it manifested like that. Yes, it was transphobic to say that, including using a slur whose origins I didn't know (it was from One Piece so I thought it was just slang, as why would a kids' anime have some random slur as a setting name). Feeling guilty immediately afterwards, some friends confirmed to me an apology was the best way to express the sorrow, and I did apologize (the wording about "being told" to refers to not knowing how to manifest it, it doesn't refer to the apology's supposed lack of sincerity). In any case, he forgave me, and we have been friends for two years since. Neither of us are the people we were two years ago, and we will both maintain it's not up to other people to speak for whether the issue has been resolved. He recently came to me for guidance, though, when he was down on himself while someone who is actually associated with the people slandering me (including the person we are responding to) who is still transphobic started going at him (they were in a relationship, with the non-trans boyfriend being unwilling to accept the person who broke up with him is trans). This, sadly fittingly, came after he (the trans friend) defended me while asking why they aren't focusing on other people in the situation (only to be censored if you look at the original source), showing they don't actually care about transgender justice, only about whether I look bad in the process or not (because I am the accusers' grudge).
• As for the other matter, I think your first sign there's more to it than meets the eye is the fact the date on one of them is way after the actual date I got removed from their community, with proof of that date both in other interaction histories as well as the community itself. The context for the other two things can be found in the message chains themselves that are kind of linked to. Both were semantic miscommunications (one around whether "date" was always "romantic", the other in whatever shipping entailed). The people in charge there knew that and so did nothing. I was removed from that community two years later for being too vocal about being pro-abortion when the art community started filling up with Roe VS Wade content.

Human services.

If they're fine with it, so am I. I am in no place to get between people.

"Rude" can be so many things that it depends. In your situation, I would've removed him. He violated policy. When I work somewhere, it's my job to protect what I must. Anything else I just treat as expression.