Critical thinking is hindered with group think. Thanks for objectively reviewing my comment history.

If that is how you evaluate individuals, I wouldn’t accept the invite. Principle means more than some invite to an indexer.

Invitations and referrals do carry liability. However, I would say that if you have a differing opinion, others attack with little regard. The “mob mentality” is inert and affluent in social media. Then you are left to defend your differing viewpoint, leaving a trail of more dissenting comments which are also attacked to the nth degree. I honestly thought this federated experiment would be different. I was wrong.

Thanks. We reached that dystopian part where people are judged based on their social credits and “likability” and conformance index to the masses.

We may not all think alike or obtain the same Linux ISOs. I am okay with that and feel we all should be okay with differing opinions and viewpoints, especially in a secular society.

I defended the comedian Dave Chapelle and questioned the term “toxic masculinity” in 2 posts which lead to a long (and apparently scrutinized) comment history.

That is hardly academic. Rather it is tied to a generation that misunderstands the basis of gender as a whole.

You are being toxic.

How is the combination of adjective plus noun going to get you an unbiased study? Toxic anything creates bias before the research on anything has begun.

Feel free to explain the opposite. It’s a poor premise of masculinity, if that is what you think of it.

Agreed. Your down votes and my down votes are toxic celibacy from those who no longer know how to go out and speak to women in person. Their lives are lived mostly on their phones.

If we are going to broadly add buzzword adjectives to one gender, we should add them to all genders, equally: toxic femininity.

Meat, 18 years.

Technically, humans or homo sapiens sapiens are apes.

I have been doing it for decades.

Microwave ice cream that was scooped in a bowl for 8 seconds to soften it.

Taylor Swift to Fox News: “Don’t get involved in journalism…oh wait”

Public cancellation costs people their jobs, livelihoods, and even their lives because a sensitive, loud, and naive sub section of the population felt “triggered” by someone else’s right to free speech. This, in turn, makes others wary of the things they say and inhibits their free speech.

People are presumed guilty without due process and are forced to grovel and apologize for otherwise meaningless acts which elevated the anxieties of the super sensitive. This is a witch hunt and has happened before in the US in Salem and during the McCarthy era. Both periods are seen as sore spots in our history.

This is convenient when your opinion is with the majority. It a threat and unsustainable when your opinion is no longer the majority opinion.

“Full stop”.

I think you’ve missed the point or the intent of the first amenmdebt itself if you are asking that question.

As for your second question, that is a straw man argument.

Public cancellation or being cancelled by a sensitive sub section of the population threatens free speech.

With cancel culture being so sensitive, free speech is under attack. I disagree with NewsMax and Nazis, but they have a right to express themselves without being cancelled.