>We don't need to make much commotion about it, though. Just check the meta if you're more curious. I won't continue the conversation here, though.
No, but you'll drop just enough info to arouse suspicion. It both possibly poisons the well here against our mods and opens the door to reinvigorate the argument over in Meta w/more on your side so you can create an illusion of strength of numbers.
>(BV here gets all angsty when you bring this up)
Pathologizing dissent is a known Alinsky tactic. Anyone who's interacted much with any of our mods knows "angst" is not a defining characteristic of their comms style. It ranges from DGAF to Takes No Shit, but I'll put up $100 to anyone that can post BO/BV showing "angst."
Good strawman, tho. Cuz whether you agree or disagree with a man who puts up a strong defense, his strength is itself to be respected. But if his defense can be mislabeled as "angst," well that kind of pathetic faggotry's not respectable at all.
Manipulative bs is the real faggotry here.
Don't know whether it's respected on voat,
but it certainly isn't here.
>These are crumbs, anons.
Oh wow, now you're trying to get us to forget Q told us no oustide comms?