Blocked for life from Reddit? Again?

Today I was blocked for life... from Reddit. Again.

"This account has been permanently banned. Check your inbox for a message with more information." Same thing, right?

Why? What could I have done to get banned...for life? What's this mean? 

It means Reddit has permanently banned my account, preventing me from posting, commenting, or interacting on the platform. It said I should check my inbox for a message from Reddit explaining the reason for the ban. The message might include details about the specific rule violation and whether you can appeal the decision.

I've been banned before. Some say if you haven't been banned anywhere, you're not trying hard enough. I try hard. But I've always gotten accepted back. The Trump years have forced many of us to speak out.

"First They Came" by Pastor Martin Niemöller...

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

So we speak out, cause a ruckus, make noise, draw attention, and risk being banned. Or in an evolving fascist state such as we are now, imprisoned, "disappeared", or murdered.

I was listening to Irish Radio, RTE Radio 1 the other day and they were talking about "The Disappeared" and some news about it. 

The "Disappeared" refers to individuals, primarily Catholics and republicans, who were abducted, murdered, and secretly buried by the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) and other paramilitary groups during The Troubles (late 1960s–1998) in Northern Ireland.

The IRA justified these killings by accusing the victims of being informers or traitors. Many families of the Disappeared spent decades not knowing what happened to their loved ones.

In 1999, as part of the peace process, the IRA admitted responsibility for some of the disappearances and helped locate burial sites. A government-backed organization, the Independent Commission for the Location of Victims' Remains (ICLVR), was established to find the bodies.

Some of the most well-known cases include:

• Jean McConville (1972): A widowed mother of ten, accused (falsely) of being an informant. Her remains were found in 2003.
• Columba McVeigh (1975): A 19-year-old suspected of being an informer, still missing as of 2024.
• Kevin McKee & Seamus Wright (1972): Members of the IRA accused of being British informers, found in 2015.

Of the 17 officially recognized Disappeared, most have been found, but some remain missing.

Wait. Only the IRA did this? Really.

While the IRA is most associated with The Disappeared, British forces and loyalist paramilitaries also engaged in killings, disappearances, and cover-ups during The Troubles (1968–1998).

• British security forces (Army, RUC, MRF) conducted secretive killings and colluded with loyalist groups.

• Loyalist paramilitaries (UVF, UDA) abducted and murdered Catholics and suspected IRA members.

• Notable cases include Pat Finucane (1989), a lawyer murdered with British collusion, and The Hooded Men (1971), tortured by the British Army.

While the IRA admitted to and helped locate their Disappeared, the British government and loyalists rarely acknowledged their own role in such actions.

I bring this up because this is the kind of dire situation America finds itself in now with an evolving conservative, Republican fascist state trying daily, hourly, to push limits, subvert our laws, to get away with hopefully not (yet), murder. Subvert, override, usurp, undermine, whatever they can get away with. So we need to speak up and out, loudly.

Often I've been misunderstood not because I was unclear, but because I was too clear, and those judging me who did not understand English well enough. Some were in a foreign country working for social media because they're cheaper wages there. When it's English as a second language (EASL), I explain and they relent. But it's said that it's also happened too often with those who have English as their primary and only language. 

It often disturbs me how some Americans who can only speak English and often not that great, denigrate those in foreign countries as stupid, when those people have massively long or difficult to pronounce names, and speak multiple or many other languages than their primary language.

I've been experiencing this my entire life because I'm fairly erudite and have a sizeable vocabulary since childhood. I got "grounded" as a kid a lot, and I would happily go to my room and read a book. Suddenly I was in another country, another planet, or another universe. 

My friends didn't understand me much of the time until one day a good friend told me that people liked me a lot, but half the time they didn't know what I was talking about or the meaning of words I used. I grew up greatly because of my mom's mom, that you should always strive to be better tomorrow than yesterday, in every way. Surround yourself with people smarter than you. As an adult, try to be around doctors or lawyers or scientists, writers, artists, or whoever you can find to become friends with. While some may point out issues with that, it's a far better way of living than to surround yourself with the more ignorant and less educated people.

So I listened to my friend and dumbed down my speech, used idioms and common usage terms more, and guess what? Things did change. Then one day, someone I had just met pointed out I didn't seem so bright. Sigh... We continued to talk and they quickly realized I was very different than I was projecting. They asked me why I talked like that?

Just proximity, I guess. You try to fit in. So I learned about context and how to do what our mother had always taught us, to be able to fit into any social situation. Things got better. 

Proximity has a lot to do with our lives. Your friends were who you came into contact with, who clicked with you and you with them, as much as is possible. Or you have no friends. You also date or marry within the cohorts available that you are nearest to. 

Today, with social media, some of that has changed. But it has also evolved social and info "bubbles" of those who migrate into and remain without those siloed environments. It has aided division in America. It has been weaponized by political and international enemies online. And so on.

So, what the hell did I post that got me banned for life from Reddit?

I tried to figure it out, but hey, they delete it so you can't find what it was to argue your case. It said "5 hours ago" so I went to another social media platform and found what it might be.

This... 

With that, I had posted: "Inquiring minds. One DOES want to know. I need time to plan the party..." No other social media responded negatively (esp., not Twitter, I mean, "X", sigh...).

Here's the thing. On the surface, it looks bad, what I posted. But take it piece by piece. The meme is merely making an observation of what MILLIONS of citizens ACTUALLY are thinking and have been wondering since Donald Trump's first POTUS45 administration. And then, he gets re-elected?!! Yes, that's frustration. My comment that I added merely enhances that. It's satire. 

Donald Trump is still POTUS45, who worked hard to normalize his chaos & autocratic bigotry. Which is playing out now as POTUS47, his now normalized version. But all still Donald. The guy who is not our friend. Unless you're a person of very questionable orientation. Or utterly deluded.

Satire is actually protected by the US Constitution.

Just saw someone post this

Satire is protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as a form of free speech. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the right to satire and parody, even when it targets public figures or political leaders. In Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988), the Court ruled that public figures cannot claim damages for emotional distress caused by satire unless it includes false statements of fact made with actual malice. This case reinforced that satire, even when offensive or provocative, is a fundamental part of protected speech.

So, if Reddit bans me for satire, is that illegal?

No, if Reddit bans me for satire, it is not illegal. The First Amendment protects us from government censorship, but private companies like Reddit have their own rules and policies. As a private platform, Reddit can enforce its content policies and ban users for violating them, even if the content is satirical. However, if you believe a ban was unfair, you may be able to appeal it through Reddit’s support system.

And so I did. I said, "You banned me for a post that you deleted, so I cannot know what it was in order to defend myself. If it WAS the Charlie Brown tweet, it was merely an observation of what millions are thinking and not a call to action. It was satire."

But again, they don't share why you're being banned, having deleted what they found offensive. And, the only give you 250 characters to give them a definitive explanation. I find it an effective system in this being about my fourth or fifth ban. But a rather inefficient one.

We'll see what happens. I've been through this before and always been allowed back on. It indicated a single person had turned me in because their feelings were hurt, apparently. It said a person, not an algorithm, has banned me. So a human being had seen and read my post. And they still did not get it as satire. Sigh. 

Legally speaking, the statement is unlikely to qualify as hate speech under U.S. law. The First Amendment protects offensive and controversial speech, including harsh political criticism. Since there’s no direct incitement to violence or a credible threat, it would generally be considered protected speech.

However, private platforms like Reddit, Facebook, or Twitter have their own rules, which often go beyond legal definitions. They may interpret such a statement as violating policies against harassment or violent speech, even if it’s rhetorical or satirical. If a platform bans you for it, it’s not a legal issue but an enforcement of their community guidelines.

OK then. But I can't tell you how many times I've said something that offended someone that wasn't at all offensive, and once I explained ENGLISH to them, grammar, and at times even word definitions, they often recanted and at times, even apologize. 

Anyway, time will tell what happens with this one, this time.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT and Ignorance

The NRA sure seems nuts. Surprised?

Is the NRA's Wayne LaPierre insane. Or just self serving? It is after all, his job.

Add armed guards to all our schools? We can't even afford to pay our teachers a decent wage, now we need armed guards? Guards who you know won't be the cream of the crop, let's face it. Have you SEEN the TSA? Putting armed guards in thousands of schools would boost the NRA's credibility and boost the gun industry by quite a bit. But it wouldn't protect all that much. Most of those schools would never see an incident and it would be a huge waste of money and resources.

Wouldn't it make more sense, along with whatever else we decide upon to correct this rather small but very noticeable national trend of mass murder, to reinforce the schoolrooms so that they can be locked down when something happens, securing the children, teachers and administrators from attack and locking off or in, the perpetrators? Wouldn't that create jobs? Jobs that would begin and then be over but not go on forever like armed security?

Perhaps having a locked down gun in every school and one or two members of schools to have training access to use that weapon should something ever happen, before police show up, might be a reasonable thing.

The NRA has called their suggested program, the "Shield Program". Isn't that what I'm suggesting here? To give schools the ability to engage a shield if an when it is necessary? Isn't this far more aligned with being a "shield" than the NRA's suggestion of bringing more guns into the schools?

Consider, how often does this happen to schools? How many schools are there? This is not a massive thing, it's effects on us emotionally is massive. According to the National Center for Education Statistics via NPR, March 16, shows that in 1993 and 1994 there were 40 homicides each year in elementary and high schools. Guess the insanity of Junior High schools keeps most crazies out of those institutions for reasons of competition? Or maybe they are grouping Jr. High and High schools?

Does this look like an epidemic? 

The point is, the media has saturated us with this event. Yes, it's horrible. Yes, if it were my kids killed or even in that school I'd be incensed. But that's why we have calmer professionals around, to think for us when we can't.

No, I don't think we need to arm our schools, or our society. Yes, we have the right to keep and bear arms. Work it out. But in an intelligent way. We need more jobs right? Which makes more sense, hiring armed guards, or putting laborers to work on schools?

Then there is legislation. Do we really need assault weapons? Well, perhaps it's our right, but just as we don't or shouldn't have the right to own anti tank weapons, we probably should not have full assault weaponry. Perhaps we can with limitations. For a long, long time it's been legal to have fully automatic weapons but the license for it is very expensive, or used to be. You can own a suppressor/silencer, but you need the licensing. Not every Tom, Dick and Idiot needs to be owning one.

Of course, you can make your own and most of what's going on subverts gun laws so how cracking down on guns legally will keep illegal usage down, I'm not so sure. Yes, less guns around is less ability to use them. But it seems that a lot of these killings (and most are in inner cities but no one seems to care about that, just when children are kills, so if you'd paid attention sooner to the people you DON'T care about, maybe your kids wouldn't be getting killed now?

And I think that is a relevant point. It's not the guns that are killing people. It's the attitude and the culture of this nation that is doing it, or at least, allowing it to be possible. Even, if you think about it, reasonable  Reasonable in that sense that you can reason why this might happen, not in the sense that it's a reasonable thing to allow, or put up with.

So, should we do something? Yes. But let's make it something that will functionally do something and not just waste money. Going to war with Iraq was doing something about 9/11 but was it the most functional thing to do considering the situation? Hell, no. Going into Afghanistan was and we did that within a few weeks and we kicked some serious ass, but almost no one knew that, because we wanted more pain on the other side. What other side? We didn't really care, we wanted to lash out and old Bush Jr. was happy to help out and look good.

Like now, we want to lash out, but does it matter if we do anything reasonable, or functional? Or should we just have a bunch of knee jerk reactions to what feels good to do?

Let's do something to solve the problem. Because whatever that is, it probably won't feel good, or good enough, but it could be the right thing to do.

More guns, isn't the solution to guns. Those controlling the guns, is where the real issue lay, and no one wants to deal with that. I'm actually getting exhausted repeating this line over and over again to people. Because, no one is listening.

They just want to last out and hope that stops these things from happening. Well, guess what? It won't. Because you see, you actually have to do something that is useful, to stop things that you don't want to happen, from happening.