When you throw out words like "fan of eugenics" it kinda weakens your case "skaffen-amtiskaw", especially since you, yourself, are a pen name. I actually know a bit of history about what "fans of eugenics" have done and do not take kindly to the word being used lightly.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
You’ll notice that I constantly engage with people who are pseudonyms on this site. I try hard not to discount people because they don’t use their drivers license name. I’m pointing out defending peoples right express themselves should be obviously valuable to you.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
I just want a standard of evidence for the hypothetical article you require that extends beyond direct sourced quotes, which you said you'd reject. Please advise.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Long form, make the case. I did that before, fo de-anonymization of moderator of r/creepshots and r/jailbait. Too many people are acting like too many things are Hitler incarnate. I’m not denying there’s terrible stuff out there—but a careful and good-faith case needs to be made.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
So your main requirement is "not Twitter?"
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
No, well-argued and documented. Since when is Twitter good for that? Twitter sucks for that.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
But the fact I used a screenshot of content on a reputable link: that's not a problem?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
You know the number of times I thought one thing from a screenshot and I was wrong? If things are clear enough, and if the danger is real and there someone should make the case properly. Actual danger is worth more than a few scattered Twitter threads that are hard to follow.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.