[ern_ave]

In my opinion, if I had said anything that you could demonstrate to be false, you would quote what I said and present an explanation for why it's false. I believe you're not doing that because you cannot do it.

> You are the one bringing politics into this

No, that's not true. The person I responded to characterized the old, pre-musk twitter as "a place where decent human beings cared to gather" and contrasted that with the current twitter.

What possible non-political interpretation of that viewpoint is there? He is clearly saying that when twitter was run by people on the political-left, and (for example) Trump was banned, that was "decent human beings."

My rebuttal is to show a large list of verified accounts making hateful statements. My point is, those statements were allowed under pre-musk twitter. Hate was allowed before, and it's allowed now.

The only difference is that the person I responded to finds the former brand of it acceptable.

Which part of this analysis is incorrect?

> Even collecting that image is odd and strange

It's odd and strange to pretend that you believe I personally collected those examples. You're well aware of how the internet works. You know that someone else created that image.

[ern_ave]

> horrible people like you posting to it.

I challenge you to quote anything I've said that you can argue constitutes a "horrible person"

Why do you believe things that you cannot defend?