People have to choose a server with mastodon, and you can’t just pick any server because of the mess of defederations.

Obligatory:

I’ve volunteered for a few charity shops (UK version of a thrift store) in the past, the weirdest thing was the trash people would “donate”, like used diapers.

The term isn’t quite as specific as you want, but it sounds like a positive feedback loop? (the linked article even gives ponzi schemes as an example)

Sunk cost fallacy?

“don’t worry about it being perfect” and “stop being so self critical”

This election was crazier than the last election. On the other hand it will be less crazy than the next election.

Eugene Debs ran for president while in federal prison for sedition, so it’s not really unprecedented.

So you didn’t vote for anyone for president?

I’m not American, if I was I would have voted for Stein though.

Not voting for someone who is aiding and abetting genocide is morally correct, it’s not complicated.

If genocide isn’t a red line for you, what is?

Need more capacity for all the liberal tears?

Octopodes no longer die when they give birth, meaning they can teach their young and form societies.

But the SC should never decide the president in a Democracy

That already happened in Bush v. Gore

To give you an actual answer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_threat

The true threat doctrine was established in the 1969 Supreme Court case Watts v. United States.[3] In that case, an eighteen-year-old male was convicted in a Washington, D.C. District Court for violating a statute prohibiting persons from knowingly and willfully making threats to harm or kill the President of the United States.[3]

The conviction was based on a statement made by Watts, in which he said, “[i]f they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.”[3] Watts appealed, leading to the Supreme Court finding the statute constitutional on its face, but reversing the conviction of Watts.

In reviewing the lower court’s analysis of the case, the Court noted that “a threat must be distinguished from what is constitutionally protected speech.”[3] The Court recognized that “uninhibited, robust, and wide open” political debate can at times be characterized by “vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.” In light of the context of Watts’ statement - and the laughter that it received from the crowd - the Court found that it was more “a kind of very crude offensive method of stating a political opposition to the President” than a “true threat.”[3]

I stole it from Babylon 5, but “assassin of joy” is one I’ve used a few times

Technically taking human remains isn’t grave robbing, it’s body snatching. Grave robbing is taking artifacts like jewellery.

Yew, so many are really old and have a mystical air to them.

Scaled, on subscribed communities. It seems to act mostly like “new” with some extra weight given to voted posts.

A third party becoming relevant, if not actually winning, could do.

Of course, the last time that happened in the USA they imprisoned the leader.