As you’ve asked before, and I’ve answered before, I’ll just offer the same explanation I offered yesterday that you never responded to - you know where you were once again offering lists of grievances (specifically in /politics)

But there seems to be something totally lacking. Anything that showed you had the slightest bit of self awareness. You claim no motive for sharing, but just about everyone else sees what you’re doing. You claim innocence, “I didn’t write the article” but when asked repeatedly to explain why you found it interesting, you have literally never answered, only saying “I don’t have to explain anything!”. Which is true, in so far as when you don’t explain your motivations, people will fill in the blanks.

Everyone else here who is a regular or even occasional poster has “tells” of one type or another. We’re human, and by definition that means we have biases. I generally can often guess who posted something without even looking at the user name, and that’s fine. And that’s just as true of other people guessing when I’ve posted something. The rest of us engage with posts and comments in a way that matches our personal views.

But supposedly not you. You claim no bias, no agenda and spend most of your time in the comments being disingenuous - not only about your agenda (which is plain to see), but in claiming you have no motive for what you do. That’s not genuine human behavior, which is probably why there’s so many who believe you’re a bot. Your behavior in posting and commenting falls smack dab in the uncanny valley. The only other explanation is that you’re not being honest.

As for the rest, please don’t pretend that you haven’t been trolling yourself. The modlog is evidence enough for that.

You keep acting like it’s the articles you post that are the problem when it’s your behavior in the comments that makes people angry. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a genuine conversation with you involved. It’s obfuscation, sealioning, deflection, and playing the victim.

And don’t do your usual “Just block me if you don’t like it!” When people see someone pollute a shared communal space, they should call it out, not turn a blind eye to it. Otherwise it’s just another example of the Tragedy of the Commons.

You have every right to keep posting (as long as the mods are willing to shoulder the extra work you create), but if you do, do it honestly. Stand up for what you believe in, even if folks say you’re wrong. Be an advocate for ideas, people, and movements. Explain why you think what you do - the only cost is the potential for someone to change your mind, and the benefit is you might change someone else’s mind.

But don’t be dishonest about why you’re doing whatever it is you think you’re doing here. Don’t hide behind “I didn’t write the article” and “I don’t have to explain anything to anyone”. You might still get downvoted to oblivion, but you might not.

I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, I tried to have a real dialogue, and you just double down on the trolling.

You answer that with four of your own questions.

1. Such as?

2. What is the obvious dishonesty?

3. Let me guess, me asking that question is “sealioning,” right?

4. Is this where you are gonna reply with the sea lion comic?

The technique of sealioning has been compared to the Gish gallop and metaphorically described as a denial-of-service attack targeted at human beings (i.e. overloading a target with questions).[6]

Look at it in the Lemmy.world instance, not all submissions are federated to yours.

I assure you my numbers are accurate.

I’m probably not the right person to answer this because I think sealioning is another nebulous term that can mean a variety of things, similar to trolling. If you want to call someone out for bad behavior, I think you need to be specific about what they did in clear terms that everyone will understand.

But, to my understanding, demanding evidence for something perceived as obvious or self evident in a seemingly polite but deliberate attempt to annoy or waste people’s time is one form of sealioning. I’m not saying that’s what you did but perhaps it’s what they believe.

But that’s kind of the issue I was discussing here. What’s obvious to me may not be to you and vice-versa. So it’s hard or impossible to know if that’s what’s happening in any specific example.

I think the sea lion in the comic is being criticized for being overly persistent in demanding evidence and a debate with people who never wanted to discuss anything with him. But yeah it’s a bit weird because they start the interaction by publicly criticizing the sea lion, so of course he wants to defend himself. And while it’s obviously over the line to pursue people demanding they debate you about something, that’s not really a thing that happens in online discourse—it’s easy enough to just ignore someone. So I’ve never found it a concept that makes much sense to me.