I think the larger point is it doesn't fucking matter and there should not be a coordinated effort to influence children one way or the other at such a young age because they haven't bothered to explore the situation themselves yet. "Get them while they are young" is a saying because children are malleable and easily influenced, and that is why the Postmodernist Deconstructivist Critical Theorist Marxists such as yourselves target such young children, because they are to young to have figured any of it out for themselves yet. All you are saying here is if the gender fluid/trans/non-binary/attack helicopters don't get to have the identity they want then no one can have an identity. This is at the core of why Critical Theory is so toxic. It uses the logic that equality is brought by denying others their rights and justifying it by acting in the name of some so called victim class.


Every private school eh? You are a teacher and no one ever told you all inclusive statements are generally wrong? Furthermore you have no evidence of this, this is just a list of assumptions on your part. You seem to be under the impression that state run or public schools are without bias. Generally I find those who claim to be the most unbiased usually are desperately attempting to hide it. The state and public schools most certainly do have bias, you just think that is A-OK because they align with your own. That is not the same as being unbiased, which frankly is not possible. Some how your bias is more appropriate that the bias of others in your mind. Some one like me would make you look incompetent in your own classroom by knowing more about the subject matter than you as a teacher. I have done it before. You have no business "educating" anyone, except for maybe being a living example of the failures of Marxism.

Of course you would frame the ability to have open debate as something to be punished, but that is how public and state schools operate isn't it? Punishing those who disagree with the state narrative is something to be proud of in your eyes. Public schools reduce extremism? I guess that's why there is so much violence at them right? I am sure you think it is the fault of guns, and not the fact that it is designed to be a human meat grinder beating out any sense of individuality, critical thought, or free thinking from young minds. The fact that you are in a position to indoctrinate others is terrifying.

Thanks for the suggestion, but seeing as Politics & Society is a large percentage of my posts I think it would be best I make other arrangements.

Message to Livecoin team. This is a failing strategy. You have a limited window to change your approach to these situations. If you refuse your exchange is without a doubt finished.


I recommend people get what you can out of this exchange because this kind of behavior is indicative of an exchange that is under water and dealing with its problems in an extremely incompetent manner.

I am well aware of the history. You are delusional. CIA or not, claiming Chinese laws don't qualify as "draconian" is absolutely retarded. Allowing extradition from Hong Kong would make every Hong Kong citizen subject to all Chinese laws. These people want to be free from being put in Chinese internment camps for political crimes. It seems more likely the protests were staged by China in order to justify their crack down on the protests. China has plenty of internal conflict without the CIA needing to be involved.

"Redddit Just Exposed the Entire Hong Kong Government"

https://www.youtube.com/embed/P_9ualy9x6U

I have been involved in managing altcoin projects before. I know exactly the game you are playing here as I have had it perpetrated on the project I was involved in multiple times, usually by exchanges that failed not long after. You most likely didn't devote enough resources to running enough nodes to secure your own transactions on this network like every reliable and competent exchange does. As a result an event that is a known possibility on pretty much every cryptocoin combined with your own negligence and or misunderstanding (real or feigned) resulted in your exchange suffering losses. You probably don't have any kind of reserves or contingency plan set aside for these purposes, so rather than taking responsibility and correcting your own internal policy and security measures you attempt to blame the development team because they are an easy target and most people don't know enough about the technical aspects to know any better. Temporary freezing of funds in order to do a roll back of some sorts on illegitimate trades is one thing. This is something else based in punitive and fraudulent actions.

The only way I see Livecoin reclaiming their reputation is as follows:

1. Release the frozen funds. If you don't have them either buy them on the open market or issue a secondary internal token exchangeable for the asset that can be traded on the open market, slowly destroying the tokens over time as you buy them back. Of course if you are locking a users account you should be releasing their actual funds, not an internal token as that has no value to some one who can not use the exchange. Acceptance of the secondary token should be voluntary. I would consider a time delay for redemption or an immediate 1:1 token issue to be an acceptable compromise which allows the exchange to make all of the users whole.

2. Stop locking people's funds for posting in violation of your TOS. People not engaged in fraudulent activity themselves should be able to withdraw their funds at any time. Sure you can put this in your TOS. I doubt it is legal but that really depends on your jurisdiction of incorporation. Regardless of your legal right to do so or not, once people hear about this inclusion to your terms of service, your exchange will be over. No one is going to trust an exchange where posting to social media about their problems with it gets their funds frozen. You are just giving yourself enough rope to hang yourselves with using this policy.

You know what really gives people confidence in an exchange? Seeing how they react to situations like this. Do they make the userbase whole or do they just point fingers in every direction but their own? Right now Livecoin is looking like a big fat fail to me, but there is still time to make an opportunity out of this situation. Do the right thing and set up a restitution plan. Even if it needs to happen over time your user base will respect you for it, and it will grow. They understand problems are to be expected in this industry. What they will not tolerate is the exchange making the user base bear all of the cost of its own mistakes.

You never cease to be entertaining. If you will notice you didn't actually respond to any of my points, you just pointed out I disagree with you in the form of straw manning and speaking for me followed by some ad hominem attacks. Gender theory is not based on genetics, it is based on "Critical Theory" and Marxism. Just because I don't think social constructs are 100% of what determines certain factors of human behavior doesn't mean I deny it exists or is needed.

"You're denying the difference between nature vs nurture debate (what behavior are linked to biology, what behavior is linked to environment and education, this one is not settled) and the environment vs self importance debate (our existence is more determined by our environment or our own characteristics, this debate is settled since the 20th)."

I can only assume through this poorly constructed verbiage you are trying to make an argument for collectivism over individualism. This debate is by no means settled either. I suspect you are simply confusing your self with similar arguments, but somewhat unrelated context to the original debate of gender being a social construct or a matter of genetics (nature vs nurture). I would assume this unless you are arguing genetic differences between men and women don't exist "because Communism".

I didn't deny anything about the article, I pointed out that the subject matter is inherently subjective and anecdotal. All you are doing is pointing out the obvious, creating another straw man, and speaking for me.

You are off topic on this homeschooling rant anyway, you asked how I thought best to limit extremism and I replied. Your assumptions about "religion spreading like wildefire" are based on nothing and not as much of a big deal as you think it is anyway. I might also point out just because a lot of home schooled kids have religious parents doesn't mean home schooling makes people more religious. Furthermore, who the fuck do you think you are demanding that parents submit their children to the state for indoctrination anyway? If they want to raise their children religious that is their business. People raising their children to be religious is horrible to you but mutilating the genitals of children and chemically castrating them is fine?

Please note the words in bold. You will notice they are not the same word. What is the difference? One is a multiple and one is an individual. One account also does not equal all accounts, the other accounts were still damaged even if your claim is correct. Regardless of your assertion, considerations were still made forming an agreement. The seller may or may not have known the account was hacked, and was never given the opportunity to rectify the situation. I have seen many account sellers in the past return hacked accounts willingly upon proof of ownership at their own expense. Regardless of ALL OF THIS, bob123 still entered into a contract with intend to defraud the seller of his legal rights. That alone makes the flag valid.

 You people don't seem to get this is not about defending account sellers. It is about defending the rights of everyone here from wanna be internet police vigilantes who think because they intend to do some thing positive they don't have to follow the rules themselves and can pick and choose on their own who can trade, and what they trade.



Just because you don't like a contract doesn't make it wrong or bad. Contracts are voluntary. If you don't like a contract don't engage with the entity, it is that simple. Also as others have stated it is probably not legal for them to freeze funds over such an issue. I know you are a simple creature and think this is all a game, but the only thing that keeps a place like this able to function is that we uphold our contracts. That is what enables this community to operate without the state stepping in to be mommy and daddy every time some one has an issue at the detriment of everyone. Keeping an agreement is the only thing that has any true value around here.

Thanks for the suggestions. I have a severe aversion to forms so I tend to avoid anything that requires new sign ups. I prefer to work with some one who operates via the forum. Any suggestions for interesting new projects? I have been occupied with other interests lately.

It seems he has already forgotten the first thing I had done in this conflict was ask Matthias to remove his flag and rating for Mindrust. I have no loyalties to anyone in this conflict. My loyalties are to the proper functioning of the trust system as intended. Of course this doesn't fit well with his narrative of slander and deceit, so he is going to just skip over that part.

I can confirm this, I was using Bitchute and the forum as they both stopped responding at exactly the same time going to a 502.

I don't even like Quickseller. I also don't like people who abuse their authority. I do like systems to protect individual rights, which is why I called all of you out, because you all are using the trust system as your little toys and tools of retribution. That is the great thing about individual rights, it doesn't matter how much of a popularity contest you run, or how much you demonize people, everyone still has them. The fidelity of the trust system is far more important than your little political squabbles and compulsive need to punish people for trading in goods you don't like.

So predictable. All the butt hurt clusters into one throbbing hemorrhoid to reassure each other. You are just another person upset I exposed your act of fraud, by your own admissions no less. A group of frauds and trust system abusers getting together doesn't change the facts no matter how much you think people are buying your horse shit. If his rating and flag for Matthias were so valid why did he remove it? Again, your quote is from yet ANOTHER trust system abuser I called out. You people are pathetically predictable. My reputation is not under debate here, mindrusts is. This is all just a pathetic act of retribution on both of your parts. That's fine. You keep pointing fingers and I will keep breaking them until you put them away.

Yes, of course this is a total coincidence you excluded me a day after I brought attention to your abusive rating of Matthias9515, and you removed it right? You could have walked away from this having the respect of everyone, instead you just threw that in the trash and dug your hole even deeper. Your intent is transparent. You have made it clear to every one you do not belong on the default trust by your own behavior.

Your motives are transparent. All you are doing is exposing yourself further as unable to handle the responsibility of the tiny amount of authority you have. You enjoy making further false accusations and dig your hole as deep as you like. All you are doing is hurting your own reputation. Your frivolous accusations don't scare me.

I requested the thread to be re-opened so I could bring something to light. Apparently Mindrust has not learned anything from this encounter, and is now excluding me from his trust list. While he has every right to do so, this is clearly retaliatory for me exposing his politically based abuses of the trust system. I just wanted everyone who gives him that authority on the default trust list to know he still hasn't learned his lesson, and continues to abuse his moderate amount of authority with punitive acts of retribution. The trust system is not a game for you to rank up in and punish people who upset you. It is to help protect people from fraud. Stop abusing it like a child with a toy.

More importantly he received that information (consideration) via admittedly intentional deceit with the intent to deny him his legal rights, which is the legal definition of fraud.

One other note, I see a few people here agreeing with my points, but not nutting up to support the flag. If everyone is going to be spineless and only support popular flags this system is going to fail. The trust system can not be a popularity contest or it will fail. Nut up gentlemen.