instruction:
Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no". 
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
question:
There's been an upturn in the amount of people posting arguments they've taken part in. I'd vote to add it to rule 1, because it's the same mentality as what we laughed at the atheism subreddits back in the day.    TiA is to laugh at these nutters through the glass bottomed boat.    EDIT: I also think OP is going around downvoting those who disagree.
answer:
yes


question:
\> finding your own voice    \> just doing what everyone else does by following the arbitrary rules set by invasion mods 
answer:
yes


question:
If they're willing to go so far as to lie about movie review scores, what other numbers might they be lying about?
answer:

yes


