Mastodon and free speech
You could at least consider correcting your writing? It's easy, it's like correcting your redaction at school when you unintentionally change words.
The summarize what you bring to the table.
Also the text you just written has an ambiguity error at the start.
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.
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).
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.
That's the point, you expressed nothing and tried to pull the "you're wrong and here are the blank papers" card while you didn't even show why you disagree. If you summarize anything with content you said in the discussion you end up with nothing. Also, stop editing the comment to always say that I'm not responding, that's really annoying when I'm literally trying to respond to everything you say.
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.
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.
It doesn't limit the choice of people (it's quite the opposite actually). It's limiting people access and restricting people from the tool itself instead of letting the people themselves isolating naturally their groups without restraining others' liberties. They can do anything as a private space but that doesn't mean everything every decision is good and can't be criticized. Also, I defend the right of those instances to be assholes even if I disagree with everything and if someone would try to FORCE a specific set of rules on any instance I would stand for their rights; bit again, that doesn't make them free of doing bad things with their rights or from criticizing, and my criticism is that the Internet should be free as in freedom.
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.
Do you genuinely don't know what is criticizing someone about or is it just you don't want to admit you criticize people but don't want to allow them to criticize your ideals?
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.
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.
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.
- You were not explaining a meaningless question so I couldn't answer so you needed another guy to explain what he thought you were saying so I could answer your question that you still doesn't wanna explain with your own words. Else you were trying to trick me into answering a question that couldn't be efficiently answered, you lack the capacity of explaining further or you dropped your text before thinking out of a emotional explosion.
- Then who are you to criticize anyone? I don't believe you're god and every human has the same value so why should you be able to criticize others while others can't criticize anything?
The title is the paradox and not paradoxes. Also, agreeing with the two ideas makes him a paradox or a double standard guy.
So he agrees with both statements? That makes him a paradox for agree with opposite ideas so.
- 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.
Are you just gonna repeat that like a broken CD?