-28
Mastodon and free speech
(self.mastodon)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2023
-28 points (13.2% liked)
Mastodon
4849 readers
1 users here now
Decentralised and open source social network.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
facing the consequences of your actions is not a state of victimhood.
What was that comment supposed to mean?
it’s pretty straightforward… what part do you not understand? the part about facing consequences for your actions, or how that doesn’t make you a victim?
It is not straightforward. What actions are you talking about?
your actions. I’ve said this twice now.
your failure to comprehend a simple statement, even after it’s been deconstructed for you, isn’t my responsibility. if you require such hand-holding through a basic conversation, why did you post here? or is it that the basic concept of personal responsibility for your actions is completely alien to you?
Yes, I'm responsible for my actions and I should see the consequences if they're equivalent to what I did. But what does it have to do with all this?
Also, dropping "your actions have consequences" and refusing to explain further doesn't explain much about what you wanted to say so I don't understand how you expected me to understand a text without any meaning or connection to the discussion.
you say this, but you add the qualifier:
yet you seem to set yourself as the only arbiter of your actions in the spaces with rules defined by others. I ask what do you believe entitles you to this right - to act as you wish, disregarding the rules - and to face consequences as only you define them rather than defined by the owners of that space?
how have I refused anything when all i've done is ask questions which you have constantly refused to answer? I have broken down that statement several times, yet you now make false accusations that can easily be disproven by reviewing earlier comments.
and, additionally, what makes you feel entitled that if you fail to comprehend these basic concepts as I have explained, I should continue to hand-hold you though this conversation? why is that my responsibility rather than yours to either keep up or to step aside when it has clearly surpassed you ability to comprehend?
Yes, consequences shouldn't be bigger than the actions. At least that's the way most countries' laws work, or do you think I should be decapitated if I steal a Nokia?
You can drop any questions but you can't expect people to understand it right away, essentially when the question makes no sense and/or have no connection with the discussed topic.
that’s an opinion, not a fact. just because it’s yours doesn’t make it any more or less valid that anyone else's
what I think about that is irrelevant to the discussion for it is both a false equivalence and a straw man.
I suspect most people here do, in fact, understand, regardless of your refusal to answer them— in fact, I suspect they understand that, too.
It's not an opinion, that's the system most countries' laws use, where the criminal should pay an equivalent amount for the actions they made, be money, jail and even death in some cases but also other punishments that are not as frequently applied or known.
it’s a fact that some countries have laws like that, but it’s your opinion that you should be treated that way everywhere you go and in every situation. and comparing the laws of some country and how some country treats a crime like theft to how a mastodon instance treats behavior of which it disapproves like bigotry is a false equivalence and a straw man.
If you will, I may state that is also the opinion of the majority of people. If you don't expect or accept a country acting like a ass just because it can then why should you do the opposite for anything else? In fact very little things change from this specific comparison as it should remain this way. Both share basically the same characteristics except that one is virtual and a private place open to the public while there other is real and is public.
what statement is that, exactly? and what is your source that it is the opinion of the “majority of the people” what people?
we are not discussing countries, nor are we discussing how they act towards each other. e are discussing mastodon instances and their internal rues of conduct. as I said before, this is both a false equivalence and straw man.
Straw man
False equivalence
moving on...
by ignoring the vast differences in context and scope to pick out what tiny similarities there may be, you are:
Cherry picking
if you have to perform such mental gymnastics to make your point, you might just as well give up, as you’re convincing nobody.
So you don't say anything of consistency just to say afterwards that someone is doing the specific thing because you think that makes you seem smarter than you are. But you would look smarter if you instead said anything with meaning and then said I was discussing something entirely different, instead of, you know, say basically absolutely nothing; it would still be dumb but you already chose the worst way so I don't believe you would have problem choosing the second worst.
the only thing consistent about you argument is that it is consistently flawed as I have consistently explained, and that you consistently blame me for your own consistent failures at rational discussion and comprehension— which I have also pointed out, consistently.
The summarize what you bring to the table.
I have explained my position fully, simply, and repeatedly. If you still fail to comprehend, that is not my problem. at this point you are clearly
Sealioning
That means you bring nothing, okay. I mean, at least you bring a lot of terms to describe yourself so... "I see that as an absolute win."
only if your only purpose here is contrarianism and to argue for your self-entitlement and logical fallacies and expectations for me to accept blame when you fail. then, no, I offer you nothing.
could you please link to where I said this (or described myself to you in any way)? I suspect you’ll ignore this, too.
What can I be contrary about other than your aggressive behavior and the apparent ideals you seem to have because not even your ideas you've been able to affirmate cause everything you did was to drop a bunch of terms that, funnily enough, describe how you behaved during the discussion.
how am I being “aggressive" by simply pointing out the facts? or by asking you questions? or by asking you to explain your logic? or pointing out that you constantly refuse to answer many of my questions? how is it “aggressive” just because I’m not responsible when you fail to comprehend simple concepts or sentences? Especially when you are the one who makes repeated accusations and claims without providing any proof and ignore repeated requests for evidence?
inconvenient facts aren’t “aggression” nor is asking questions just because you can’t or don’t want to answer them. facing the consequences of your actions is not a state of victimhood, and I’m not to blame for the things you do or fail to do.
edit:
what ideals have I claimed to have? please link to said comment(s) where I claimed any ideals.
In this case, your action is saying things that are very similar to the kinds of things fascists say when they to try to get a foot in the door. You may be simply unaware, but you should at least be made aware of what the actions were.
I don’t think you’ll face banning or widespread defederation for respectfully sharing opinions that don’t boil down to “trans people shouldn’t exist” or “women exist to carry fetuses to term”.
In that case consequences should be equivalent in size to my actions which were to type words and the only reasonable consequence would be a discussion; unless I'm preceeding a crime, which would be a threat, which itself is a crime. Also, I didn't even offend him in any way so I don't see sense in him talking about consequences as if I said some absurdity about someone.
No, a perfectly reasonable consequence of saying things is other people choosing not to hear them, and even not to let you say them in their private spaces. You’re welcome to find private spaces that are uncensored, but nobody else is obligated to listen / federate with those kinds of spaces.
I agree with that but a home and a private space open to the public are quite different despite being private and usually follow different set of rules but always follow different set of morals/ethics.
But many of these instances very much aren’t open to the public in the same sense as e.g. a cake decorating business. Plenty of instances require you to write a story about why you should be allowed to join; they’re more like clubs trying to foster specific environments (many of which boil down to “everyone who is tolerant is welcome”).
Facing the reality that you might not be tolerant is probably uncomfortable, but if you’re happy with vocal modern American conservative politicians, you need to take a long hard look at yourself. Whether or not McCain in 2000 was just “not saying the quiet part out loud” (as opposed to actually tolerant), the modern ones absolutely are saying it out loud. And so of course if you spout things that align closely to a Boebert or MTG or DeSantis, those “everyone tolerant is welcome” clubs won’t welcome you. Same goes for the extreme-authoritarian-left tankies, by the way.
I can't really align with anyone these days because everyone is kinda dumb or downright evil. I just know that I'm a right guy and I like freedom, my spectrum would be more of classic liberalism than conservative. Also, they'll actively try to look at something to try to "incriminate" you if you disagree in anything and they'll just exclude you anyways if they can't incriminate you, it's not uncommon for a normal person to get banned from something like a game community cause you disagree with anything or some will straight up ban you for criticizing the game but the common aspect is always you getting accused of some ism. It's a tool these days used by bullies who are too spoiled to accept anything other than praises; so you're always expecting these "inclusive communities" to be a shit place full of bullies and 9 times out of 10 it is the case (the one time it isn't is because you found some illegal group pretending to be from the inclusivity circle).
I’d be super interested in seeing the “normal person” things you’ve said in a gaming community that got you banned.
It occurs to me that people might still be removed from a community in which they “speak inclusively” if they’re saying exclusionary things in other places. People may decide they don’t want you in their social circles because of your actions in other circles. A Klan member or radical tankie who treats me nicely still doesn’t get to be my friend.
A ring that you pay real life money for so you can get more EXP is a pay to win item.
Yeah I’m going to go out on a limb and say that’s not what got you banned unless you’re in a garbage community with garbage mods. See my other reply here: https://sh.itjust.works/comment/873030
These people are always spoiled garbage and won't accept anything if it's not exactly what they're expecting.
You're a bully and just that. My girlfriend is literally trans and most of girls I liked were black.
Why the fuck would someone feel bad about it?
And I wear girl clothes.
He’s just regurgitating the shit he’s been indoctrinated with
That's actually a debate method to basically not bring anything to the table and say everything is wrong but it's really dumb and quite annoying, it's however the only kind of debate most people can have these days.
i'm sure that you find it annoying when people state facts which you find inconvenient-- especially if it happens with most people you encounter...