Anilist mod Taluun is starting to ban users that voted for Trump.

He definitely disavowed having anything to do with writing it. (And as I covered, he indeed did not write it.)

It's 900 pages long. It is hardly noteworthy that some of a conservative politician's policies resemble some in a conservative publication. His recently enacted policies are generally ones he already supported.

I'm American but I don't support either of the two main rotating parties or really like or support 99.9% of their stated or actual policies or individual politicians serving as their national and state-level representatives and office-holders (though I have voted and not voted, depending on the election in question, over a very few specific limited number of pet issues), but apart from all that, that is the problem with Anilist crystallized and on display for all to see. I just wrote a post on this very topic on MAL quite recently.

That website, including its forum, is run by a clique of clear ideologues who go above and beyond and overreach in seeking to serve as some form of wannabe totalitarian censorious language police and try to enforce a uniform line of groupthink and ideological conformity tuned to their preferences and specifications down the throats of all their members and participants. It's really disgusting and unsightly behavior for the type of website it is, which should not be involved in any way, shape, or form whatsoever in forcing some ideological purity test on its userbase or promote an atmosphere of discrimination of some over their political and philosophical beliefs.

Even on MAL which is generally more free, especially in off-topic sub-forums and threads or areas dedicated to such discussion, I pretty seldom get too involved in discussing and debating all those issues because in most cases I've been there done that arguing over that stuff online for years in the past, am burned out on it and have arrived at a more apathetic position on a lot of it, though can still generally understand and sympathize with both or multiple conflicting perspectives. But on places like Anilist I did so even less, meaning hardly ever (probably primarily because I just used that website including its forum, even from the beginning of joining it, comparatively less than MAL), and yet still received some snippy PM warning from one of the thought police over there at one point for not using some word correctly or the less PC version of some term in favor of some other. So ridiculous, meaningless, and inconsequential, I don't even remember the details of it and my memory is normally quite sharp for minutiae.

But from that point on I realized it was hardly worth investing any time or energy over there if folks like that were empowered to attempt to force their values and will on others like some religious cult, so I've hardly posted on the forum at all over there in the past several years.



The reality though, is that no one is entitled to that money. If the U.S. decides to withdraw it, that is its sovereign prerogative, regardless of how many foreigners die as a result. Every state has that sovereign privilege to revoke foreign aid at any time, even if billions of lives are weighed against a penny or closest penny equivalent in their national currency (even if in practical terms it's something which only concerns wealthy donor states in the developed world).

The reality is also that the U.S., like any other government in the present-day or in all of human history, was never doing it out of a sense of humanism or benevolent charity to begin with, but influence-currying



The NSDAP is demonized because it lost the war to a collection of states which had a shared vested interest in preventing upstart countries from gobbling up their share of the planet's spoils. If it had prevailed in the war then it would be glorified instead because its beneficiaries rather than its victims and opponents would be overseeing the school textbooks. And in both instances, most people would mindlessly cheer or boo either way because most ideology is acquired via osmosis.

It's perfectly fine for a mod to ban a user that repeatedly spout hate/discriminatory speech on their forums (which I guess is something a few users would disagree with anyway, since they got all sad when they banned BigBoyAdvance). But to ban them for things they said on other websites isn't exactly the right thing to do. Even if it might be tempting to ban potentially toxic individuals, there shouldn't be any reason to ban them if they have yet to do anything wrong on the forum they moderate. And sure, you can't assume that someone supports all the things a politician says because they voted for them. On it's own, to say that you voted for Trump doesn't count as hate speech (but that won't stop me from judging them though).

Trump promised to enforce free speech laws on social media, it'd be funny if what he is doing would be literally illegal.

@JaniSIr
He promised to free speech from government censorship. Which was already illegal, yet Biden did it anyway.

@Lucifrost I mean sure, but there is still so much of modern communication going through a few mega corporations, that if they choose to censor something for whatever reason, that's a serious liability. If the government doesn't have that right, then private corporations shouldn't either. But sort of the issue with ancient documents such as the constitution that back when it was written, people couldn't have possibly imagined the technology we have now.

The US government does not have the legal right to punish people for their speech, with some exceptions such as speech involving crimes. But punishments meted out by the state are things like imprisonment and fines. Corporations never had that legal right either. What they do have is their own freedom of speech, including regulating what is on their privately owned platforms. If the government were to interfere in that and force companies to allow all speech, they would be infringing upon the Constitution and effectively punishing groups of people (like companies) for exercising their free speech rights.

while you sheeple are talking about Trump, the EU wants to ban sigma boy. let that sink in

https://ukraine.news-pravda.com/en/world/2025/01/27/24626.html

@Commit_Crime That's almost as bad as when Pepe the frog was labelled a hate symbol.

while you sheeple are talking about Trump, the EU wants to ban sigma boy. let that sink in

https://ukraine.news-pravda.com/en/world/2025/01/27/24626.html

I don't really care since I don't currently have an Anilist account and I don't know if this claim is even actually true since it's so common for political zealots to play victim. They very well could be just breaking actual rules at a higher rate. If it were the case of as is face value of just literally banning people for votes, it's not really something Id do in such a position.



Because The Heritage Foundation wrote it but involving multiple people with close ties to Trump. He didn't disavow it, he said there is good ideas in there and some bad ones but he never said what they were which shows deceitful intent. It doesn't matter if he doesn't do all of it just a single bad move is stil la bad move.

These are articles about a book his niece Mary L. Trump PhD who is a clinical psychologist wrote about Donald. She was just short of diagnosing because it goes against formality of diagnosing and ethics. I mean when his own family calls him a liar who doesnt empathize much you probably should listen.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/narcissism-demystified/202007/provocative-psychological-analysis-trump-trump



https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/us/trump-learned-to-lie-to-please-his-father-niece-says-in-new-book-1.4299082

And here is what she said on Project 2025

https://www.rawstory.com/news/mary-trump-uncle-bad-liar-project-2025/

Some comments in this thread are making me consider that perhaps their decision was correct.
That's some pretty blatant power abuse.
It would be one thing to ban people explicitly agreeing with specific statements and policies of his (Which would be most of them), but such a general ban simply feels wrong to me.

Not because I feel that people that are open about it on anime forums did so "because of the egg prices", but because I feel that mods banning you for things you did outside their website is a pretty bad precedent.

What kind of flawed logic is this? It would be different if she had no ties to him but someone who personally knows him and has access to the rest of the family to talk to anyone in the same position if they aren't masochists would be opposed to someone like that having one of the highest powers on the planet

She isn't the only family member that tried to expose him.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-nephew-disability-memoir-b2585139.html


@Lucifrost
She doesn't personally know Biden so she couldn't give a psychological profile of him that personal. Plus she is just his niece, who hates their uncle? And did you read the other article about his nephew?