Politics Too - where reasonable debate can be short-circuited and winners selected at random.

imgflip.com/i/7i1mdm?nerp=1681544766#com25043514

In case anyone wants to look at the context of all that.

what is going on

Look through the comments... I was arguing points, evidence and reasoning, which indicate that Paul Pelosi's attacker was anything but MAGA. In response I was falsely called "MAGA", and had my credentials as a leftist derided, by someone who is in no position to make those judgements. Suddenly, a Mod steps in and deleted my point-by-point reply, and gave me an 8 hour timer - for "Trolling" - or more accurately - challenging a fraudulent orthodoxy.

Do it next time without throwing insults, you'll get much farther and much more respect.

So then why were the guy - who STARTED throwing the insults - posts not deleted? Why no timers for him?

My guess? Without having contacted the mod(s) involved? Probably because you screwed yourself by acting out. But that's just a guess.

Ok. That's YOUR GUESS - and YOUR (rather Biased) ASSESSMENT. But if the rules are being applied equally, and fairly, then my responses to his provocations, should have no bearing, on his punishments.

Again, from what I can see comes down to you guys not liking people telling the truth about the corrupt corporatist CIA Democrats.

My policy, is that I'll stop telling the truth about THEM - when they stop telling lies about me, and others (like former TYT host, and Pacifica Broadcaster Jimmy Dore). I understand, telling the truth about the Democrats doesn't make people popular with them. And so they come up with elaborate rationalizations for silencing them, often for conduct less egregious than their own.

What you see is your biased assessment. Which, you're welcome to have.

You presume that we moderate equally. We admit we don't. If you had read the copy of various rules I linked you, you would know that. I'm not sure why you're still sticking to this.

Because the only thing that would result from the kind of moderation you were doing, would be protecting sacred cows, that in this case don't appear to be true - and creating a safe space for bullying, by those of your own political stripes. I'd advise that you rethink some of that. Or alternatively - don't get all butthurt, when you get called-out for it, in this stream.

TYVM

No prob

PoliticsTOO Mods moderating their stream.

aka TERRIBLEModerations.

Because you were held accountable? Sounds like we did our job.

No. Because I was insulted and simply responded, in kind, though in a more accurate fashion - while the one who began with the insults and the Disinformationalist tactics - remains unpunished - the insults still up, when last I checked.

http://whale.to/m/disin.html

"5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues."

You have a much higher appreciation for your work than is warranted, and you're still making excuses for it.

I can't read that article without falling temptation to apply the tu quo que fallacy. I will say that it is perplexing to me why you would cast stones at us when you're guilty of half the things on this list.

Really?!??? Which specifically - please provide examples and show your work.

I started out with a ln attempt at a rational discussion. Then I was smeared with #5, as part of the overall strategy, which is pretty much just "9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect."

Yes - I do have pattern recognition skills...and I've seen these tricks before. At that point it may be fair to begin questioning motives.

You're suffering from the fundamental attribution error while also dealing with the spotlight effect. Once you can get past those, you'll be able to review and critique y our own posts to see your mistakes :) Enjoy.

I think you do protesteth too much.

I asked you to show your work. That's a Failing Grade.

And really it just seems like some sophistry, that goes around the edges of the clear reality, which is your own bias - you admit to it there, why not here?

I'm sure that David Brock, Sally Albright and the gang at SKD Knickerbocker will be pleased with your work - but the fundamental assumption upon which these notions of yours are based, is that none of them exist, or do the work that they're well paid to do.

Poorly - and in a one-sided fashion.

So, you don't know me, and I don't know you. You and I have never spoken. I came here to pass on the information as it was presented to me. Yet, here you are, shooting the messenger. Given your volatile and salacious demeanor, I can see why these deletions/timers were put in place.

I don't care that you're mad about how you were held to account for your actions and I am no longer interested in looking into this matter further.

Grow up. You'll get farther when you act maturely with people instead of how you presented yourself here. Thanks for coming to our stream, we hope you can change your ways to speak on political matters without having to create a negative experience for everyone else. The proverbial bouncers have thrown you out.

Yeah. I well I don't feel like I shot anyone - though I have shot some holes into your attempts to defend some TerribleModerations - which is entirely appropriate and on topic in this stream. You presented your case in the most favorable light possible. I presented my case. You apparently take offense to straightforward and honest speech - as has been demonstrated by the moderation on that page. Nothing I've presented strikes me as volatile or salacious. Yes, I used a colorful metaphor with a guy challenging my credentials as a leftist. They're substantial. Later in the same argument he brought into question whether he was a leftist. I aver that he is not, he then said that he never claimed to be one. But if he's not a leftist where does he get off saying that I'm not one - simply because we disagreed about a point of fact?

The Bouncers aren't infallible, nor are the people who wrote the rules for your stream. In fact, the jabs are neither "safe" nor "effective" - if they were, then Taylor Hawkins and thousands of others wouldn't have just #DiedSuddenly, and Fauci and Biden wouldn't have had multiple cases of Covid (though perhaps there given just saline, and added to the societal "control group", who count as "vaccinated" for legal purposes).

The American Electoral system is neither secure nor verifiable, nor sacrisanct - Jimmy Carter, who has certified Venezuela's elections - says he couldn't possibly do that here.
https://blackboxvoting.org/proof-of-fraud

2000 & '04 showed that.
In 2016 the $hillary people cast many doubts on the Trump win - suggesting at one point that "Russia" and "Putin" were to blame - and not the DNCIA cheating a better candidate, in favor of one of the least popular candidates in decades. People of color in Wisconsin and Minnesota stayed home, that probably had far more to do with her loss, than the "RussiaGate" BlueAnon Conspiracy Theories debunked journalists like Aaron Maté and Glenn Greenwald and (yes even) Jimmy Dore, as well as Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity like Ray McGovern and William Binney (a fmr NSA Technical Director).

It feels like your rules, like the Moderator who made these bad calls - are simply protecting articles of faith. The person I was arguing with, claims that he didn't flag anything. So this wasn't his feelings being protected. It was a narrative.

I'm a mod and an owner on several streams, as well. I know fair standards of moderation.

I'm not here to defend, I'm here to provide insight. Whether or not you take that insight is your prerogative.
"But if he's not a leftist where does he get off saying that I'm not one - simply because we disagreed about a point of fact"

That's all you had to say to him/them/her whoever you spoke to.

"The Bouncers aren't infallible, nor are the people who wrote the rules for your stream."
I agree, that's why we have the disclaimer in our rules stating that we are human and are not immune to making mistakes.

"In fact, the jabs are neither "safe" nor "effective" - if they were, then Taylor Hawkins and thousands of others wouldn't have just #DiedSuddenly, and Fauci and Biden wouldn't have had multiple cases of Covid (though perhaps there given just saline, and added to the societal "control group", who count as "vaccinated" for legal purposes)."

Yeah, not sure what you're talking about here. I'm only aware of the one time Biden got COVID. I don't really care what anyone has to say about it. the odds of adverse reactions are less than 1/10000 I believe. As far as COVID itself goes, it is a lethal disease and millions have died from it in the span of one year. We have a strict policy on conspiratorial fear-mongering in that regard. The topic is not open for discussion on our stream.

Yeah, well I'm an owner at imgflip.com/m/COVID_Truth. Those kinds of discussions are welcome there. But notice I didn't come to PoliticsToo to have them. I merely mean to point out the problems embodied in those rules of yours.

In fact, the data indicates that you're off by an order of magnitude on adverse reactions. 1/1000 is considered a conservative estimate, it could be much closer to 1/100. Former Hillary supporter Steve Kirsch pegs the Under Reporting Factor from VAERS at ×41, at his Substack blog. Nobody at the CDC or FDA are willing to debate with him - not even for a $1million donation to the CDC or FDA Foundation, or just as an "honoraria".

Previous studies suggested VAERS captures at as low as a 1% rate. Doctors don't get paid to fill out VAERS reports, which are onerous and time-consuming - and which have been shown to get erased from the database, after the fact. And there's a pretty awful campaign of lawfare being waged against Doctors who speakout, and their certifications and ability to practice. One of the nation's premier and most published cardiologists, Dr Peter McCullough, or Dr. Paul Marik for instance.

California's (Dem) Senators Pan and Weiner got a law passed, to punish Doctors for expressing heterodox views - without regard to the science or clinical experience behind their statements. Thankfully I believe it's in the process of losing in Court. But it's illustrative of the dishonesty, and the campaigns of censorship and deliberate Disinformation, coming from Big Pharma and Government, at present.

Pfizer just won a dismissal in the Brooke Jackson lawsuit. It was a shocking and telling as the arguments made in the DNC Fraud lawsuit, back circa 2016. Maddie DeGaray was paralyzed by Pfizer - during the trials. She was listed by them as suffering "abdominal discomfort". The Judge just ruled that Pfizer could commit frauds, of that sort. That should shock the conscience.

They killed the Swine Flu vaccine roll-out, back in the 1970's at a number of dead below 30, as I recall. We'd far exceeded that, with these entirely experimental, Synthetic mRNA Gene Therapy injections, in the first few weeks. But sadly - nobody (in an official capacity) is performing competent autopsies that could determine the causes of death amongst the jabbed, accurately, or is willing to honestly look at the evidence. https://youtu.be/2SLp6B_kkRI

Instead they just shut down the Twitter accounts of even Democrats like Steve Kirsch and RFK Jr.

Cited Rule Violations

So you think the Center-Right Corporatists who STOLE the DNC(IA) nomination from Bernie Sanders - TWICE - are the left? That the folks who appear to have stolen Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Congressional seat from Tim Canova - TWICE - are the left? That those who explicitly oppose any kind of Universal Health Care coverage, and every war and attempt at NeoCon "Regime Change" for the last 20+ years - are THE LEFT? Interesting.🤔

Your definitions of "blatant falsehoods or disinformation" - appear to be TRANSPARENT falsities and Disinformation, themselves, in multiple instances - though they never came up.

My reply to the comment of @"Ultramega" had nothing to do with any of your examples listed. It was a specific statement, about the falsity of one (or both) of the two diametrically opposed political philosophies attributed to him, first by Democratic-Party media assets, and then by @"Ultramega". His responses never produced any evidence to support the claims made. Instead - I was then falsely labeled and libeled as a "MAGA" and a "false flagger". Incidentally that's not a false flag - we all agree upon the identity of Paul Peposi's assailant.

It feels like the real rules being enforced there - is "thou shalt not challenge or call-out Democratic party orthodoxies, no matter how demonstrably false they may be".

You circle DNCIA and MSDNCIA - both are accurate descriptors, far too often. The CIA was brought into being by Harry Truman. Former California Party Chair, Bill Press, was a Case Officer. MSDNCIA proudly employs Former CIA Directors like James Clapper (who blatantly lied to Congress, as proven by the Edward Snowden revelations, and without any investigation or referrals by the Democrats in Congress), and a known CIA asset like Ken Dillanian.
Sorry if you don't like easily provable FACTS.

I don't care what you think, or what the message says. I see you putting in Conspiratorial nonsense 'DNCIA" and "MSNDCIA" giving the implication that they have some extra affiliation with the CIA without any proof other than conjecture. You go on to say that Dems are not the left. That may be true in some cases, but under which context? The 1990s? How is that relevant today?

"And then there's the "BlueAnon Shitlib." Which is reason alone to delete the comment.

So there's that. I don't need to read your reply any further as you can reference the "shitlib" comment. That attack creates a wide brush that you apply to everyone in the stream. It also invalidates anything else you said in the post.

Oh... It's EVIDENCE you want?

https://covertactionmagazine.com/2021/10/01/a-company-family-the-untold-history-of-obama-and-the-cia/

https://covertactionmagazine.com/2022/01/03/there-is-absolutely-no-reason-in-the-world-to-believe-that-bill-clinton-is-a-cia-asset-except-for-all-the-evidence/

That's called Covert Operations Analysis, or Research - as opposed to "Conspiratorial nonsense".

How many people does MSNBC (as undeniable a DNC mouthpiece, as Fox is for the GOP), currently have on their payroll - who come DIRECTLY, from the CIA and other Agencies? Seriously, I'd love an accurate count. But as I previously noted - Ken Dilanian and Michael Hayden are obvious examples. Dilanian got fired from the LA Times (another OPERATION MOCKINGBIRD-type of outlet, frequently) - for getting caught running his articles past Langley, before he gave them to Times editors - or pethaps for just putting his own name onto Agency Disinformation.

The now-(self-)deleted comment said that he felt dumber for actually reading something I spent several minutes composing. There was no substantial rebuttal, nor substantive arguments made in response. That is the textbook definition of hand-waving and ignorance. I would argue that in context, my replies were appropriate, and didn't escalate beyond the level of insult coming at me.

Self-deleted. Are you sure it was self deleted? How can you tell?

Because he replied to my reply, and then deleted it. Are you saying it happened a different way?

Rather than being coy and disingenuous - why not just post a screen shot of the moderation logs from that page, and remove all doubts?

Yep. I said that - in response to a Center-right Corporatist Democrat "$hitLib" - questioning my credentials as a leftist. And $hillary Clinton famously IS a Goldwater Girl - who never saw a war or a weapons system, or a Jihadist "Moderate Rebel" that she didn't like, from what I can see. That was in response to flippant comment about how he wasn't going to read a fairly lengthy comment, written in response to a dishonest insult - that "[I'm] not leftist". That seemed like textbook bullying and the kind of human DDoS attack known as "Sealioning".

And this all started with my challenge to his assertion that Paul Pelosi's attacker was "MAGA" - a claim for which he has no producible source, and which doesn't appear to be true, based upon the articulated facts of the case. That comment 1)violated none of your rules - that I can tell 2) began this debate, and his scurrilous attacks - and was nonetheless deleted, anyways.

I didn't come to PoliticsToo to troll or debate anyone. I came following a link from Pythagoras' page, which brought me to the meme. I was curious. I disagreed with the original meme - but didn't feel like getting into a debate with maker about it. But then I saw the claim that Paul Pelosi was attacked by "MAGA" - and that struck me not just as false, but a politically motivated attempt to pin the crimes of one fairly eccentric or crazy guy - upon a whole bunch of other folks, who probably don't support/like him, or even endorse his political actions.

The recent rises in Political violence in this country are troubling. Blaming them upon unrelated parties to score political points, does nothing to help the situation - and may actually make it worse. Particularly in an environment with those reasonably trying to 'correct the record', or ascertain the underlying facts which may have led to a disagreement - are then unfairly and unjustifiably insulted and demeaned, without cause or provocation.

If that's your issue, raise it with the mods. Don't go on insulting tirades like this. It kinda puts you in the box. Come to us first, explain your grievance as you have here.

I didn't feel any need to flag anything, or ask for the Mods protection. It just seemed like those were the standards being followed, in that stream and thread.

When someone steps to me, the get what they give, generally. I felt like I had things handled adequately - except for actually getting an answer to the question of how that guy was determined to be "MAGA" - after previously being called 'a leftist' and a Jimmy Dore fan, in a now-deleted Daily Beast hit-piece. Both charges appear to be baseless.

I saw no way offered me to have that discussion, as you suggest. And as we've seen with the wave of censorship in this country, and "the Twitter files"...Democrats (and even some
actual leftists) appear to have forgotten the brave stance of the ACLU in re Nazis marching in Skokie. The answer for speech you disagree with isn't censorship - it's more speech, trying to show who's right and who's wrong. The alternative is a slippery-slope to totalitarianism. At one point the left believed in questioning authority - that was a better time.

Is there some page where appeals to PoliticsToo moderations can be made?

"Is there some page where appeals to PoliticsToo moderations can be made?"
I'll bring it up with mods.

"I saw no way offered me to have that discussion, as you suggest. And as we've seen with the wave of censorship in this country, and "the Twitter files"...Democrats (and even some
actual leftists) appear to have forgotten the brave stance of the ACLU in re Nazis marching in Skokie. The answer for speech you disagree with isn't censorship - it's more speech, trying to show who's right and who's wrong. The alternative is a slippery-slope to totalitarianism. At one point the left believed in questioning authority - that was a better time."

That is fault of the design of the website and not our own. At the top of the stream this is written "PoliticsTOO is Imgflip’s flagship liberal stream: where left-of-center and moderate viewpoints can be reliably seen and heard. User-created: For us, by us. Be advised we have a stricter moderation outlook than the main politics stream. This is not your safe-place for hate-speech, cyberbullying, conspiracy theories, or fundamentalism of any kind."

I understand you came through a link, so you essentially bypassed that message. Nothing we can do at that point to further push that info to you; it's out of our hands. P2 was created in 2020 I believe. After being sick of the extreme amount of incendiary remarks in the #politics stream, we made our own channel that we work as diligently as possible to keep conversations civil. If what they say upsets you, check your emotions, evaluate what's being said. Is it bullying? If so, determine what kind, what tools are they using? Having these answers will make it easier for mods to make a determination that is more likely in your favor. If you want to speak with "leftists" about politics in the manner you were kicked for, then politics stream is the channel for you. Though, from what I've seen, the only p2 members who go there are those who are just there to speak truth to power and are not interested in debate (usually.) I myself go to politics on occassion to highlight contradictions, double standards, etc. Only to be met with buzzwords, whataboutisms, etc. But w/e.

I'll pass your message to the mods and have them review this entire forum to make a determination. If we're lucky, they'll put in their two cents.

Yeah well, as an actual leftist, sadly, I often find a warmer reception over at Politics, despite my political differences with many of the folks over there. Often I find common points of agreement and unity, or at least just respectful debate and conversation. It seems like that's Too much to ask over at PoliticsToo - where if you don't agree with every whopper told by DNC Democrats - it's just a foregone conclusion, and a goto Ad Hominem, that you must be a Trump supporter.

Speaking Truth to power - was exactly what I was trying to do, vis-a-vis the attempts to conveniently mischaracterize the politics of Paul Pelosi's attacker. Rather than rational argument, I was met with several of the 25 Traits of the Disinformationalist. http://whale.to/m/disin.html

As an actual leftist, I'd have hoped that I would have had a more tolerant reception there.

Tact.

That street runs both ways. I would argue that "Ultramega" was the more egregious of the offenders, there - and the one who began the degeneration of the discussion. My first two comments were entirely tactful and showed actual comity. The first comment was one of the last to be deleted...

"That street runs both ways. I would argue that "Ultramega" was the more egregious of the offenders, there - and the one who began the degeneration of the discussion. My first two comments were entirely tactful and showed actual comity. The first comment was one of the last to be deleted..."

Then if you flagged and kept your cool, then we wouldn't be here.... would we?

That's true... But again.

'Calling the Cops' isn't really in my nature. In my experience they're not reliable. When I do make a call like that, the suspect is either in Cuffs already when they arrive, or has managed to slip my grasp and flee the scene.

Neither Ultramega, nor I felt any need to go there (allegedly). I believe in playground rules...and I wasn't thinking of your streams rules page, as I was reacting to his remarks.

An act in good faith (I don't know if you have these permissions) is to re-title this forum to something more neutral or, fact-based that expresses your discontent without poisoning the well in a way that mischaracterizes the actions of the mods.

It's not my forum - but I feel like it's a good title. And that's how I felt after the first one-sided "moderation" - after the one-sided across-the-board deletions - of all my comments questioning the characterization of Pelosi's attacker as "MAGA" - and a 24 hour timer, while my adversary's libelous insults remained, make me quite content with the fit on things.

"I didn't know you or that I could or should. I'm not 100% certain - but I thought you had to be followed by people you memechat with. When I looked Slobama appeared to be the top Owner, anyways - I probably would have gone there, first."

You could have just clicked our profile and browsed submissions until there was an image that wasn't featured in P2.

Yes well, I'll have that for next time.

But why would I assume that those who appeared to have been colluding against me, to enforce rules upon me that they don't enforce upon others, equally guilty - would be willing to have a reasonable discussion. The Remarks in the notification seemed dictatorial, and in no way consultative or even handed.

Now that you were 'put on blast', as it were, you're interested in discussing... But the notification could have directed me to a place to discuss things right then, but didn't.

Consider this page as an attempt at reach - to everyone, yourselves included.

Apparently it found it's way into the sight of your coven's Palantir, somehow.

"Yes well, I'll have that for next time.

But why would I assume that those who appeared to have been colluding against me, to enforce rules upon me that they don't enforce upon others, equally guilty - would be willing to have a reasonable discussion. The Remarks in the notification seemed dictatorial, and in no way consultative or even handed."

>>I'll concede that we don't offer a way to appeal, that is a fair point and one worth addressing. That said, before feeling the need to stand up for yourself in such a volatile nature that warranted moderation, seek a moderator *first*. Wait for them to act. Give it at least 24h after contact was made before escalating.
Finally, respect their decision. If you disagree, get a second opinion. Failing that, you can go back and let them have it, but do so in a way that highlights their fallibility (the person who aggrieved you in the first place.

Now that you were 'put on blast', as it were, you're interested in discussing...
>> I didn't know this stream existed until it was shared amongst mods with what you were posting, so of my own free will and curiosity, I checked it out and wanted to investigate of my own volition. Such is the nature of an independent moderator. Others may not have given you a second glance.

But the notification could have directed me to a place to discuss things right then, but didn't.
>> As I said, I will bring this up.

Notification of strike-ban.

Yeah. I posted that too, below, when all the comments were deleted and the ban one-sidedly imposed, while the insults and lies that prompted the exchange remain up.

I went back and flagged those - just to see what would happen. It looks like Democrats unfairly attacking progressives is perfectly acceptable under your rules - at least as you (don't) enforce them.

Per our ruleset, we are independent moderators, we don't coordinate together over every flag that comes our way. I don't know the nature of why your comments were deleted and the others were not. I can only offer insight.

Still, you're being *super* edgy, even in your escalation.

What you call *super* edgy - I call righteously pissed off. I was given no opportunity for appeal - so I took this to the court of public opinion.

Which moderator(s) actually made these deletions and punishments. Perhaps THEY should be the one(s) having this discussion?

Did you try to appeal?

I saw no opportunity to do so - except for making this meme. Where should I have made such an appeal? I sent a "CommunityModerator" a memechat about it, but never heard back.

I asked @"Ultramega" about it - he said he didn't flag anything. I asked if he was using alt account, and/or was secretly a PoliticsToo mod... Because of the rapid and suspicious timing of things. Thank you for showing some indication of who was 'dropping dimes' - but I've no way to confirm that isn't an Alt-account, either.

You didn't try to message me.

I didn't know you or that I could or should. I'm not 100% certain - but I thought you had to be followed by people you memechat with. When I looked Slobama appeared to be the top Owner, anyways - I probably would have gone there, first.

Rules.

So a "safe space" for DNCIA LIES AND LIARS... Noted.

Putting words in my mouth, noted.

More of an accurate characterization of those rules - as I saw them interpreted against me.

"If you're perfectly happy making totally biased moderations - then don't bother trying to defend them."

Your sentence precludes the notion that I made such moderations, I didn't. I pointed to where you violated the rules, which with your incendiary rhetoric, to which you admitted to being guilty of, was enough for a ban.

At the end of the day, that's all we needed. When you can behave yourself and act like the mature adult that I know you're capable of being, I will happily discuss whatever point you want. But given our conversation thus far - you've got a long way to go.

If you're going to complain about our unfair moderation, maybe you shouldn't have done something that warrants moderation in the first place.

Here's your sign.

Again - the "incindiary rhetoric" was calling things by their true names. I realize that feelings weren't spared. But that was in response to insults - violations of your alleged rules, that were never punished. I even flagged them, to grant y'all the opportunity to make your even-handedness apparent, if that were possible.

I was using the collective "you" - like "y'all". But so far the perpetrators of the "TerribleModerations" are still parties unknown, since you're choosing not to reveal them.

Here's a sign for you.

Google:
Bill Engvall - "Best Here's your sign moments"

You obviously took what I wrote and tried to define it in-context rather than ask what I meant.

I saw the CIA Scion dropping a mic, and assumed I knew what you meant. I've never been a follower of Foxworthy, Engvall or the Cable Guy, so I just took it all at face value.

Isn't calling a leftist a "MAGA" an abusive and bullying insult - within an allegedly left (actually - Center-Right, apparently), context?

Maga is an umbrella term for one who holds right wing views, is combative in threads, doesn't carry civility. But then, the term is subjective for many, as Gender is a subjective term for MAGA. That, and "Patriotism" as they *clearly* don't follow the actual definition of it.

But again - I'm a leftist - not one who "holds right wing views". I was a Pacifica News Producer and Broadcaster ffs. That's essentially per se libel, and a truly unfair insult. Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi's views, are more right wing than mine. They still think that Juan Guaido is the President of Venezuela - a title he never earned, and he lost his seat in their legislature.

So what is insulting about holding right-wing views?

If said about someone that actually holds them (over in Politics, for instance), it's probably only a mildly perjorative descriptor. They'd say that they 'right-thinking patriotic Americans'. I don't think the John Birch Society even calls themselves rightwingers.

But used as a bludgeon, against a life-long leftist, who doesn't hold any of those views, and who hasn't said anything that could be fairly used to infer that... It's extremely insulting. That's the kind of thing that COINTELPRO operators would use to "bad-jacket" someone.