neatchee @ neatchee @lemmy.world

Posts

3

Comments

480

Joined

2 yr. ago

Deleted because nobody can read, apparently.

YES, THERE IS NO FAR LEFT PARTY IN AMERICA. THAT'S LITERALLY WHAT I WAS SAYING.

America's "left" isn't actually left. Actual far left is communism. There is no communist party of any importance in the US

Because deplatforming works. Because tolerating intolerance eventually results in the tolerant being extinguished.

If I'm hosting a party and there's a Nazi on my front lawn, I don't care if I and my guests can mute them, block them, whatever. I'm going to get rid of them. I don't want new guests seeing them when they arrive. I don't want every single person to have to be exposed to the Nazis first before they can then block them out. I don't want the Nazis to exist at all. Nazis don't deserve to exist. We went to war to kill Nazis and I'd vote to do it again if I could.

It's our house. Our community. No. Fucking. Nazis. No toxicity. We don't have to suffer them to exist.

Before I block you I'll be kind and make one genuine attempt to help you learn:

Just like nobody is required to invite someone into their home, nobody is required to listen to someone either. And nobody is required to let them loiter on their property (the server) and act like a douche to their guests (the users).

They are facing the consequences of their actions. People don't like them and instead of considering why that might be and adjusting, you simply complain that people are kicking them out of the party.

They are not owed an audience. They do not have a right to be heard.

Edit: request to be blocked granted

Ok this one made me chuckle

Oh look, he willfully distorts things too! Tell me about free speech next so I can complete my bingo card

I've only ever seen the term "feefees" used by people whining over facing the completely predictable consequences of their actions

You are missing the point. I am NOT saying that he isn't using a dog whistle here. I am NOT saying this isn't extremely thinly veiled threats. I am NOT giving him the benefit of the doubt.

I am saying that this particular instance is a weak example by comparison to some of the far worse things he has said, and headlines that deliberately exclude context to make it sound worse than it would with the full quote do more harm than good. I am saying that it distracts from the much more easily defensible criticisms, by inviting pedantic arguments and cries of unfairness.

You are literally the person I'm trying to communicate with: Stop making it easy for people to derail the conversation. Stop making it easy for moderates to buy into the "democrats are manipulative too" song and dance. Please. It does us no good

Nani the fuck did you just fucking iimasu about watashi, you chiisai bitch desuka? Watashi'll have anata know that watashi graduated top of my class in Nihongo 3, and watashi've been involved in iroirona Nihongo tutoring sessions, and watashi have over sanbyaku perfect test scores. Watashi am trained in kanji, and watashi is the top letter writer in all of southern California. Anata are nothing to watashi but just another weeaboo. Watashi will korosu anata the fuck out with vocabulary the likes of which has neber meen mimasu'd before on this continent, mark watashino fucking words. Anata thinks that anata can get away with hanashimasing that kuso to watashi over the intaaneto? Omou again, fucker. As we hanashimasu, watashi am contacting watashino secret netto of otakus accross the USA, and anatano IP is being traced right now so you better junbishimasu for the ame, ujimushi. The ame that korosu's the pathetic chiisai thing anata calls anatano life. You're fucking shinimashita'd, akachan."

Please, my fellow democrats, I beg that we pick our battles better. This was said in a context that pretty clearly was referencing the impact of a trade war with China. He was talking about car manufacturing in Mexico and tariffs and how it will impact the American economy. There are plenty of quotes where the dog whistle is clear as day. This is not the right example to use when having this argument

Stop excusing their shitty behavior. If the boys can't be trusted not to get violent then the BOYS need to sit out. "Well, they're violent, and we can't talk to them about it, it's just easier to make the girls sit out" is extremely fucked up.

You have to understand that by saying "well the boys are already like this, so what are we supposed to do?" you allow the whole thing to be perpetuated. You are shifting the conversation away from where it should be.

Like, I get what you were saying, and you're not exactly wrong but this is the wrong time to bring it up. It's a distraction from the actual problem. And that only serves to enable these boys and their parents, and the administrators for failing to hold the right people accountable

You try telling 6th grade boys whose parents failed to raise them properly to be more sensitive

There. Fixed that for you.

Place the blame where it should be: on the parents, for raising misogynist, violent little shits. And the boys for, you know, being misogynist, violent little shits.

I'm seriously sick of people arguing this stuff is "just boys being boys". It's not. It's learned behavior. All of it.

I didn't ask them to do their own research. I asked that, if they are skeptical of a claim I made, either do a simple Google search to check if it's very easily verifiable, or ask me directly instead of immediately saying "you're wrong because I would have heard of it"

Like, I'm happy to provide citations when requested, but lemmy isn't a scientific journal where I'm expected to provide every source for my information up front

Hahaha "niche" is what you call multiple massive financial institutions? And that's just what I could pull up in 5 minutes off Google.

Your obstinance is genuinely entertaining 🤣

You're a silly, silly person. Thank you for the laugh. So long, chief

I linked you to my other comment where I provide FIVE links to the thing you said I "can't provide". I had literally already provided it elsewhere. So that's where I sent you. Excuse me for not retyping the same thing for every single person.

I don't owe you my time. I provided a one-click path to what you asked for but you couldn't even be assed to ponder why I linked you that comment.

Done with you now.

Try again

You are just simply wrong and I don't have the energy left to keep digging up the resources to prove it. Go read my other replies elsewhere. There are even people in this thread who have written long comments detailing the same things I'm saying. You do not understand the history of blockchain, only crypto. You do not understand the underlying technology, nor what differentiates the concept of a blockchain from the type of blockchain used in crypto. So I'm done. Too tired of showing people the truth when they refuse to entertain anything but their existing position.

Yeah I imagine they probably would.

Maybe do a simple Google search next time? They ARE using it. It's getting a ton of investment from them.

Also it's over three decades. Bitcoin wasn't the first. They just popularized a specific type of blockchain

Thank you for being in this thread. I felt like I was taking crazy pills with all these other replies. So many people think bitcoin was the first blockchain. And that the paradigm used by crypto is the only type of blockchain there is.

I will never forgive tech bros for making blockchain a buzzword tied exclusively to crypto and NFTs. The amount of lost potential is infuriating

This is false. Bitcoin was the first modern and well known implementation of blockchain but it was not the first.

The principles and methodologies behind blockchain have been slowly building for over 30 years

https://www.vice.com/en/article/j5nzx4/what-was-the-first-blockchain