this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2023
6 points (100.0% liked)

Mastodon

196 readers
2 users here now

Decentralised and open source social network.

https://joinmastodon.org/

GitHub

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

This post is not only to try finding the best Mastodon instance/server but I also wanted to express about the Mastodon instances. Most of Mastodon servers are apparently harsh about other instances that include things they don't like and are quite serious about getting those Internet points putting how the place isn't welcome for "bigotry" and is for everyone and so diverse, and I wouldn't have any problems with this if this wasn't frequently used by people who will try to shut you if they disagree enough with you and will try to present themselves as so virtuous. You'd expect that the free side of the Internet would have people that value freedom and should let anything that isn't a crime or something that prejudice the instance itself or whatever space they're in but it seems this vision is getting far from the reality with time.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Milk_SDF_Possum@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Mind you, the second half of the text is wrong (like unironically and objectively, despite I agreeing with the second half, contradicts the first half.

[–] dr_catman 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

No it doesn’t. There is no contradiction there. You’re talking nonsense.

Do you know how Goebbels infamously described the Weimar Republic’s attitude towards the Nazi Party?

Essentially, if you’re not familiar, Goebbels was quoted as saying something along the lines of “I have no idea why they allowed us to exist in their system and take power. It should have been obvious that as soon as we gained power, we’d use that power to dismantle the system and ban the traditional parties from politics. Anyone with half a brain would have realized that and banned us first.” Then he cackled like a witch.

Ok I made up the part about the cackle.

[–] whiskeypickle@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

in what way? if it's so wrong, it should be easy for you to prove, logically.

[–] Milk_SDF_Possum@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

First half is saying tolerance to the intolerant causes intolerance while the second half is saying intolerance to the intolerant causes intolerance. It is a writing error, I wasn't talking about the idea itself despite I disagreeing with it.

[–] whiskeypickle@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

that's not an error by the writer, that's an error in your understanding of the text and the meaning of the word "paradox".

[–] Milk_SDF_Possum@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So he agrees with both statements? That makes him a paradox for agree with opposite ideas so.

[–] whiskeypickle@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Milk_SDF_Possum@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I understand what the text tried to say and I disagree but I want to point out the writing itself is wrong and not the writer ideas. If you try to re-read the text you can notice the writing unintentionally implies different things despite being supposed to be the same.

[–] whiskeypickle@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I understand what the text tried

[X} DOUBT

but I want to point out the writing itself is wrong

incorrect. you simply fail to comprehend it. how unfortunate.

If you try to re-read the text you can notice the writing unintentionally implies different things despite being supposed to be the same.

you're seeing what you wish to.

[–] Milk_SDF_Possum@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you insist to trying tricking yourself that I was exposing an idea and not pointing out the errors in the text composition, why didn't you just corrected the text and said you disagree to then go do your life things? I mean, it's easier to forcing yourself to not see the obvious.

[–] whiskeypickle@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

i find it much less likely that everyone who disagrees with you is wrong, and that you simply fail to grasp the clear logic of something that you happen to disagree with and choose to lash out at me with insults rather than to admit you were wrong.

[–] Milk_SDF_Possum@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 1 year ago

Also the text you just written has an ambiguity error at the start.

[–] Milk_SDF_Possum@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I said the text was written wrongfully but you refused to revise it and says I'm dumb cause I noticed an error on the text.

[–] whiskeypickle@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

just because you can't comprehend what i've written doesn't mean that i made an error. don't blame me for your failures.

says I’m dumb cause I noticed an error on the text.

quote where i said that

[–] Milk_SDF_Possum@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You could at least consider correcting your writing? It's easy, it's like correcting your redaction at school when you unintentionally change words.

[–] whiskeypickle@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

your failures are not my errors.

still waiting on that quote...

[–] Milk_SDF_Possum@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Are you just gonna repeat that like a broken CD?

[–] whiskeypickle@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

you're free to talk to someone else.

[–] BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

re-read the title. do you not know the meaning of the word “paradox”?

ignorance on your part does not constitute an error on the part of the writer.

[–] Milk_SDF_Possum@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The title is the paradox and not paradoxes. Also, agreeing with the two ideas makes him a paradox or a double standard guy.

[–] BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago

that’s not what is happening. it’s sad to witness such a spectacular failure to comprehend.

load more comments (1 replies)