What's bogus is you trying to ignore Harris's entire platform because it's clearly superior to Trump's platform. You're hoping that people don't compare the two platforms because anyone who is able to read can see that Harris has better policy positions across the board, including in abortion rights, LGBT rights, taxation, foreign policy, energy, and immigration.

In the debate, as I have shown in the parts that I quoted, Trump also claims that he "wouldn't be outdone" and would "do it harder and meaner" on the topics that you are pretending to care about. That is what people are expected to do in a debate. Even then, Trump lied about immigrants eating cats and dogs, while Harris acknowledged Palestinians' right to self-determination.

Not sure why you bother with Lemmy when your pro-Trump rhetoric is a better fit for Gab and Truth Social.

The historical context is not the same. The watermelon stereotype is an anti-black racist trope from the 1800s that arose from resentment against newly emancipated former slaves. It accused black people of being "happy to do nothing but eat watermelon". In comparison, the stereotype of white girls enjoying pumpkin spice doesn't have the same negative connotation.

Same policies, my ass. Harris supports abortion rights, LGBT rights, more progressive tax policies, and has a stronger foreign policy strategy with respect to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, among many other policy positions that are superior to Trump's. On the other hand, Trump supports the far-right vision of Project 2025 and wants to impose ridiculously high tariffs on imported goods to sharply increase the cost of living for most Americans. Most Lemmy readers see right through your bothsidesism.

We criticize Russia-backed propaganda campaigns such as Tenet Media because they disinform voters to promote Trump, who is content with Ukraine being annexed by Russia. Crying Russophobia doesn't excuse the fact that Russia sees Trump as a tool to further Russian imperialism.

While you certainly are free to not care about lemmy.ml mods blocking users from unrelated communities for criticizing China or Russia anywhere on the fediverse, which effectively silences lemmy.world users, there are currently 1,019 upvotes vs. 92 downvotes on the "Lemmy.ml tankie censorship problem" post, which suggests that most lemmy.world users who are aware of the issue do care.

Nobody is claiming to be trying to change the minds of lemmy.ml mods. We just don't want to have to worry about whether posting something mildly negative about China or Russia on a post anywhere on the fediverse that somehow catches the attention of lemmy.ml mods will cause us to lose the ability to participate in a community such as !linux@lemmy.ml.

Condoning this censorship from lemmy.ml corrupts the "marketplace of ideas" because it distorts the discourse visible on lemmy.world to favor the political preferences of lemmy.ml's mods. This affects every lemmy.world user, whether they block lemmy.ml or not, because there is no way to opt out of the chilling effects other than defederation.

It is lemmy.ml's fault that their moderators have been blocking users who criticize China or Russia from unrelated communities like the Linux one. A user's ability to participate in a Linux community should not depend on them refraining from posting criticism about China or Russia. Defederation protects lemmy.world users from having to self-censor themselves politically to participate in general interest communities.

Your conspiracy theory accusing Meta of being responsible for lemmy.world users wanting to defederate from lemmy.ml is ridiculous. Nobody forced lemmy.ml moderators to block people who criticize China, Russia, or Marxism-Leninism from all of their communities.

These lemmy.ml moderators made these bad choices all by themselves without Meta's help, and lemmy.world has the right to exclude those communities through defederation so that no lemmy.world user has to worry about whether their comment to a front page post goes against a lemmy.ml moderator's political ideology.

I see more than enough justification to defederate. Being banned from every lemmy.ml community such as the Linux community because you dared to make a critical comment about China or Russia in another lemmy.ml community is ridiculous and unacceptable.

lemmy.world should only support communities with reasonable moderation policies that do not punish users for merely contradicting a lemmy.ml moderator's political stance.

lemmy.ml has changed their level of transparency about their political leanings twice. Look at the history of their home page description:

April 2021 to June 2021:

The flagship instance of lemmy.

June 2021 to November 2022:

A community of leftist privacy and FOSS enthusiasts, run by Lemmy’s developers

November 2022 to now:

A community of privacy and FOSS enthusiasts, run by Lemmy’s developers

Nobody is saying that there should be no moderation at all. What we are saying is that lemmy.ml moderators tend to remove users and content that are seen as even mildly critical of China, Russia, or Marxism-Leninism, and then sometimes hide the evidence of the removals from the modlog. That's not acceptable to many people, including me.

I know that and that's why I said .ml could stand for the country of Mali. However, the .ml in lemmy.ml and lemmygrad.ml clearly stands for Marxism-Leninism, not Mali, the same way the .tv domain suffix often stands for television, not Tuvalu.

.ml = Marxism-Leninism

This wasn't obvious to me because ML could also mean the country of Mali or machine learning, but based on their content and moderation patterns, it's unmistakable that the ".ml" in Lemmy instances like lemmy.ml and lemmygrad.ml stands for Marxism-Leninism.

Hope that clears things up.

Not necessarily a happy ending.

From the comments:

So did Dr. Baxter end up waiving the right of inspection repairs? A proper remedy in this case should include, at a minimum, the seller paying for any identified repairs (given that Dr. Baxter was in a poor position to negotiate due to the seller's illegal behavior) and any legal costs Dr. Baxter has incurred.

If the seller's (and, frankly, the buyer's) agents want to show they take this seriously, they should act to make sure that, one way or another, none of those costs are incurred by Dr. Baxter.

@Matt Thanks for reading and commenting. She did waive the right of inspection repairs, yes. She says it's a decision that she now regrets but at the time she was scared of the entire sale falling through.