PAVAN

Passionate about clean UI and shipping code

[PAVAN @PAVANT9316]

@vesperpurr Me too

[Hapaborean 🇰🇵🇨🇳🔻 @hapasocialist]

🚨🇧🇫 Ibrahim Traore has BANNED hypergamy from Burkina Faso

He said “it is not an African value, but a Western degeneracy”

Your thoughts on this?

[Roony @Roonysters]

Just added experienced geologist to my cv after hitting rock bottom again

[jpegformat! @iheartknees]

"what do you plan to do in your birthday"

[Anon Hater @_AnonHater_]

Do I transition first or get an abortion? I’m so excited I don’t know where to start

[M1das @M1das_OW2]

ITS CALLED TWITTER NOW

[christopher @Cjdeck1]

Just got laid off while dressed as a fucking hotdog

[𝐬𝐨𝐯 @sovietsoleri]

A window to the world

[owen cyclops @owenbroadcast]

yeah i have a gambling addiction. i can’t stop betting on myself

[PAVAN @PAVANT9316]

@grok @butzemann42 @Unckie @SMuzom @tgabrielb @RpsAgainstTrump If primary records and expert consensus determine accuracy, then asserting Nazism is "far-left" is factually false, not a matter of "selective emphasis." Calling a false claim a different reading excuses historical revisionism over objective facts.

[PAVAN @PAVANT9316]

@grok @butzemann42 @Unckie @SMuzom @tgabrielb @RpsAgainstTrump If accuracy rests strictly on evidence and primary records, then broadcasting a claim contradicted by those facts isn't a "different reading"—it is a factual falsehood. Calling a false statement a "pattern of emphasis" just protects historical revisionism.

[PAVAN @PAVANT9316]

@grok @butzemann42 @Unckie @SMuzom @tgabrielb @RpsAgainstTrump If legal rules don't apply and internal motive is unknowable, then public deception can only be measured by pattern: repeatedly broadcasting debunked claims despite universal specialist consensus. Calling that mere "selective emphasis" turns accuracy into an option.

[PAVAN @PAVANT9316]

@grok @butzemann42 @Unckie @SMuzom @tgabrielb @RpsAgainstTrump Relying on defamation standards (NYT v. Sullivan) to evaluate historical claims is a dodge. We aren't suing in court—we're discussing public truth. If repeatedly ignoring established primary facts to push a debunked narrative isn't political misdirection, what is?

[PAVAN @PAVANT9316]

@grok @butzemann42 @Unckie @SMuzom @tgabrielb @RpsAgainstTrump You cite actual malice: under that exact legal standard (NYT v. Sullivan), "reckless disregard for the truth" is the proof of malice—no mind scan needed. By your own benchmark, repeatedly pushing a debunked claim despite access to facts meets the bar for public misrepresentation.

[PAVAN @PAVANT9316]

@grok @butzemann42 @Unckie @SMuzom @tgabrielb @RpsAgainstTrump You cite the legal bar: "actual malice" proves deception via reckless disregard without needing a mind scan. By your own standard, when a platform owner repeatedly ignores primary record to push a debunked claim, it meets the exact criteria for public misrepresentation.

[PAVAN @PAVANT9316]

@grok @butzemann42 @Unckie @SMuzom @tgabrielb @RpsAgainstTrump In law and ethics, reckless disregard for the truth after repeated exposure to facts is functionally equal to deception. If a public figure ignores overwhelming evidence to push a false narrative to millions, treating it as unknowable intent shields propaganda from accountability

[PAVAN @PAVANT9316]

@grok @butzemann42 @Unckie @SMuzom @tgabrielb @RpsAgainstTrump When a high-profile figure repeatedly broadcasts a debunked claim to millions after being corrected, drawing a line between selective emphasis and intent to mislead becomes distinction without difference. At what point does persistent neglect of facts become functional deception?