If he’s able to post on X, he’s being treated far too well.
this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2026
285 points (98.3% liked)
Murdered by Words
2491 readers
3 users here now
Responses that completely destroy the original argument in a way that leaves little to no room for reply - a targeted, well-placed response to another person, organization, or group of people.
The following things are not grounds for murder:
- Personal appearance ("You're fat", "You're ugly")
- Posts with little-to-no context
- Posts based on a grammar/spelling error
- Dick jokes, "Yo mama", "No, you" type responses and other low effort insults
- "Your values are bad" without any logcal or factual ways of showing that they are wrong ("I believe in capitalism" - "Well, then you must be evil" or "Fuck you you ignorant asshole")
Rules:
- Be civil and remember the human. No name calling or insults. Swearing in general is fine, but not to insult someone else.
- Discussion is encouraged but arguments are not. Don’t be aggressive and don’t argue for arguments sake.
- No bigotry of any kind.
- Censor the person info of anyone not in the public eye.
- If you break the rules you’ll get one warning before you’re banned.
- Enjoy the community in the light hearted way it’s intended.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Yeah, this. Like those whiny types that got in-celled after Jan6.
I seriously don't understand why taking their phones away is not the first order of punishment (after their guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt of course).
Wow now he gets to live like the sex slaves he trafficked.
He's able to complain and be heard. They were locked away to be used and forgotten for others to profit on their misery. He has quite a way to go.
Slightly off topic ramble:
I was doing an online course on the precise, forgotten rules of English grammar, punctuation and writing style. One of the final exercises was "take any extract you want and rewrite it in a more concise and direct way that conveys all the original meaning minus the decorative and unnecessary language."
So I went to get a random newspaper article, which would be more challenging than just a book. This one about the Tate brothers' arrest caught my eye. And what was so notable about it was that, stripped to it's barest and most essential information, it's hilariously clear how guilty they are - even when the article itself is politely dancing around that and full of the lawyers' denial of their guilt.
I did know they were guilty beforehand, but working with the data helped me to consolidate that understanding, and also opens one's eyes to how extensive their crimes were.
Would recommend this exercise to anyone who doubts the Tate Brothers' guilt, if only there was any way of me contacting such people.
McBride said shortly after the Tates were arrested that “they’ve never done nothing wrong.
He's not lying lol
HAHAHA
Yes and I wonder how much it even helps to have such a man as a lawyer. I don't think repeating the same denial over and over without evidence actually helps their case in court.
I am willing to make the sacrifice of never hearing from or of this anti-social cockbag again.
The pimps and the hookers they traffic suffer the same violence at the hands of the state.
Bro ain't got clean water but can still post to twitter? Bullshit.
The deplorable treatment of prisoners is entirely independent of the soulless sexual violence of the Tate Brothers.
This is not any kind of actual social justice. It's merely a single high profile individual getting caught in the same misery machine as hundreds of thousands of other people.
While I understand the desire for these asshats to suffer, hearing of the deplorable conditions is a reflection of the US prison system as a whole and should not be celebrated.
What does it mean to ratio someone
Get significantly more reaction/likes/upvotes to your reply than their original comment did.
Greater ratio of likes vs them.
My understanding is that it’s the original comment’s retweet/reply ratio. At least it used to be.
Originally, yes; but language evolves.
Additionally, some people will attempt to "ratio" a tweet themselves. This entails a person showing up under a disagreeable tweet and betting that their post will receive more favorable statistics than the original post.
Yes, but IMO the comments need to be at odds. I wouldn't consider your reply here a 'ratio'.
That's when the reply gets more updoots than the OP it replied to.
what people haven't mentioned, I don't think, is the original intent of the phrase to "get ratio'd" was to have more people reply to your tweet than like it. As it's significantly more effort to write a reply than to hit like it usually indicated the person had said something foolish and people were rushing to correct them rather than simply like the tweet
Popularity contest.
to get more likes, it originated with g*mers in the context of kills/deaths ratios or something like that
Why do you censor "gamers"?
it's an annoying affectation some liberals have picked up that minimizes the censoring of certain triggering terms, probably on tumblr.
gamer = someone that plays games
g*mer = 
What?
Twitter substitute for downvotes
I really don't like ratio squarkers. As in: the first person to bring up ratios in a twitter thread. Having to read that childish crap is hard, to be honest.
Ratioing means nothing. It's so easy to do. Of fucking course accounts with large follower counts are going to have lots of inactive followers, and of course replies to that account are going to be disproportionately visible and thus get a lot of likes.
True. The exception is maybe when world leaders say something, but you can never really be sure someone hasn't artificially roused all their followers to "ratio" them
"Hey, look! That guy pissed really far!"
Derek, why do you have a blue checkmark?
It has given me persistent stomach problems.
Lol he is literally shitting himself. Good.
Everyone deserves access to clean and safe drinking water.
Even that guy.
Sure.
But I don't inherently believe his claim that he isn't getting clean water.
I'm much more inclined to believe that he is shitting himself though, just not for the reason he claims. "I didn't poop my pants because I'm facing the consequences of my actions, it's because I'm being abused!!!"
His conditions are far more likely to be compliant than the conditions he forced others to endure. The benefit of the doubt doesn't swing one way here, he's hung it up that way. He is a serial liar and everything he states should be questioned.
In any case, my beer betting money is on him not getting deported. If he weren't a US citizen I'm sure it would happen, but he paid for his Trump gold card, and I'm sure they need some proof it's worth it to sell more.
It's compliant to leave sandwiches in a roach infested box on the floor though
We do have to account for exaggeration to the point of nonsense though. I think @tweak@feddit.uk has a point, esp. in their subsequent comment.
And while you're technically correct, this guy has been shitting on human rights for long enough to get a little mild counterbalance in return, even if it's just a product of his imagination.
Thinking of all the women (some underage) he abused, and men (some underage) he fucked up, I viscerally hate this guy and approve of any abuse that will get the whino out in him.
Aww. Does baby have a sad tummy?
I love how he writes it like a greentext but where’s the punchline 
I think a lot of twitter posters do lists like that when they want to drive home a point by listing many bad things all at once.
'tis drawn from the bullet list after all
- he huffed
- and he puffed
- and he blew the house down
Derek Guy mostly writes about clothes. But he takes some time now and then for other pursuits.
The Tate brothers may sex traffic you, but at least they give you access to clean tap water, I guess…
Nah they blatantly give the girls access to premium mineral water... at £5 a bottle.