What do you mean?

As damning as that is, all that’s said there doesn’t mean the church is a “pedo protection organization”, in fact one of the things you refer to is Pope Francis specifically saying the issue is a plague that needs to be fixed. That’s the opposite of it being a “protection organization”. In the same way I wouldn’t call the Lemmy crowd a “terrorist protection organization”, even though both issues are concerning where they can be found.

Bialterous/biromantic. You can be asexual and still be interested in people. And you call me the gatekeeper?

You say that like there are sources for that too.

seems

Not everything is as it seems. Especially when going by second-hand sources.

“Saint” Luigi? Source this please.

By the way, what a weird thing to push when people are up and arms about what to wear to the pope’s funeral and what imagery to make following it. Or perhaps I’m wrong.

It’s not even new, it’s just beating a dead horse.

A few two cents…

1. That’s your criteria for deciding who is who? Imagine if you had money stolen and was like “my brother likes to steal money from me, so it must have been him.”
2. The group you describe isn’t “just” targeting people or “made for” it. Above all, it was made for an angle of freedom of speech many places don’t live up to. It even clarifies front and center that they’re not responsible for the questionable acts the members commit. And honestly they aren’t.
3. TIL giving the literal Crash Course definition of asexuality would be considered gatekeeping. By this logic, a dictionary is a book of gatekeeping. I am an asexual, I can confirm asexuality is defined by a resistance of physical mingling, just as it’s not gatekeeping to say atheism is defined by a resistance of God or anarchism is defined by a resistance to inherent government authority. It’s literally in the name. ASEXual. By your logic, do I have to be interested in other women to be a lesbian, or homosexual as would be the useful term here? HomoSexUal.
4. People can use a term ironically or in the context that the person they’re responding to is using it, I’m sure.

In the end, the only one who can validate or invalidate an apology is the recipient, the victim. Or victims if there’s more than one. This is how it would be in any situation, especially since there are no “objective enhancing traits” in an apology.

In some cultures, this would be the way to do it.

Whoever designed this game knew what they were doing.

Does that mean if they get banned in a community they are ban evading?

By definition, yes.

Aside from a single example that admins specifically requested of me, the closest I get to that is having a few people with whom we share ideas on topics. Alas, people thought they were “alts” and took it out on them. I’ll actually be one of the first people to say that, under normal circumstances, only those with misguided excuses “need” them.

“Still” around? You’re wishing I die as if you’re not less than a week into the community.

The same inspiration as always.

Sorry, who is Leni?

Someone who has had a mix of things in her past that she regrets but made up for and things that are easy to take out of context or exaggerate (and who has had people follow her everywhere who don’t care which is which because they want to blemish her as much as possible), with many of the examples you were given having been removed by rule enforcers on the basis of going against genuineness, if that serves to indicate you fell for others’ dishonesty.

It moreso covers how many of you will take things out of context. I can’t even say a Chuck Norris joke without someone claiming Chuck Norris is a Nazi simply for not agreeing with the local masses. My position is that, when it comes to what someone is going for, the mind behind an act or gesture matters, not the minds observing an act or gesture. Before the autism registry in America seems to have been cancelled (let’s hope this is true), I have recently gone on record as saying RFK has been acting very Nazi-esque, so I am definitely against Nazism and I am definitely not against bringing them or their atrocities up. However, there comes a point where making the accusation is premature. You could say I deconstruct it into two categories, “de jure” (as in, the person identifies as a Nazi, think Kanye West’s rants) and “de facto” (the person inherits the philosophical traits of Nazis), and so someone saying “that person is a Republican, thus they’re a Nazi” is not something I understand. I do not violate any TOS by trying to elaborate my approach.

For both of the things you allude to, I could take a few approaches when trying to verify myself. I could go by Snopes. I could repeat what the encyclopedias say. I could consult an AI. I could consult a Q&A service. And I could also check something akin to Ground News. I have done all of these. Most of the time, if they agreed with the person I’m arguing with, they’d be quoted. Here, they’re not. I’m the one quoting them in these matters. I dedicate myself to trying to steer clear of falsehoods, and here I am, at odds with a majority who have suddenly abandoned these in a way that, to some, might resemble appeal to the masses based on convenience. As for the other matters about me you linked to, they are misconstrued in other ways, such as the part where it claims I chatted with someone in a place I couldn’t have because I was banned from there at the time, and this too brings into question your claim about discussion being the best modus operandi for dealing with claims. Not because it’s not true, but because here you are showing how powerless it is. I had just about forgotten there ever was an issue until, out of nowhere, people like you just randomly decided to bring my name up here. I am not a populist. Deal with it.

May I ask how so?

In case you haven’t noticed, I’m not relevant to any of this either. You’re the first person to bring me up and what all this hoopla about me right now is based on. I’m not sure how someone is a clown for sticking to values she is always willing to discuss.

How have I done any of that?

What you refer to is not what you would call asking about what someone means.