Piefed.social Staff
Community owner of [email protected] and [email protected]
Hypocrisy is typically seen as a bad thing, not a justification. You really need that explained?
So what's your justification for using sh.itjust.works when it is also defederated from the same instances lemmy.world is defederated from?
Same reason I used it before blocking lemmy.world, but why would I tell you what reason that is? Rhetorical question again. You have nothing to offer and I don’t feel like saying anything that might expose people to the risk of you harassing them.
Why would you answering why you're using sh.itjust.works despite it doing the same things as lemmy.world expose anyone?
The way you've broken up my quotes, splitting sentences apart makes it impossible to respond to. I'm 100% convinced all of this is a troll at this point. You've split my sentences is to the point where they have no context, and it makes it impossible to respond to you. You keep saying "I didn’t ask if you did. Why waste time typing that?" when I directly to your claims about me made only a few posts back. So I'm just going to focus on one thing.
I didn’t ask, why waste time with this quote?
I didn't say you did "ask", but you did accuse.
Hard to tell if you mean something that’s actually on the record or not since I don’t feel like checking what you’re talking about and you keep lying constantly
Here's you claiming I believe some Lemmy Insider exists.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
You attempted to put words in my mouth and claimed I thought some "Lemmy Insider" would ban you.
The Fediverse is not what?
The Fediverse is not commonly understood as you understand it.
Didn’t ask. Why waste time typing that?
I'm making fun of your claim that replying to your replies constitutes harassment.
How am I supposed to answer this “by my logic” when I’m good enough at logic to comprehend how you’re not necessarily harassing me?
So I'm not harassing you, but I would apparently harass other people who agree with you if you named them to me?
Is there anything in it for me? No. That was a rhetorical question. You have nothing to offer and you’re basically just embarrassing yourself by repeatedly begging me to do shit.
So you can't. As usual. You have insulted me, I have not insulted you back.
You think people disagreeing with you in a forum means you can't safely have a home server instance. That is utterly pathetic. And you unironically did compare your supposed victimisation here with that of political dissidents.
Me: "People targeting you (replying to you) in this thread isn’t the same thing as the state or some other authority somehow targeting you."
You: "Incorrect. The authorities are just people."
You did deny that instances could have their own themes.
I doubt it.
"And in terms of instances, an instance owner can absolutely choose the theme of their instance."
"Incorrect. Federation broken, which prevents this. How many times do I have to say this?"
Incorrect. I have been trying to clear my notification inbox of your replies for hours, and no matter what, you always have more replies before I can finish replying to the last ones. It’s like you’re typing extremely fast or I’m typing extremely slow or something. I’m definitely answering every single thing, though.
Simply replying to me doesn't mean you actually substantially answer my points.
Incorrect, unless you’re just observing that sometimes when you request evidence in bad faith, I might not have it on hand, or even necessarily feel like wasting time/energy providing it.
So why would you expect me to just concur with your claims when you refuse to back them up?
It wasn’t a waste of time, my words matter.
Didn't ask. Why waste time?
Incorrect. Perhaps you have “crying” confused with “replying.”
Are you of the opinion that when I said "crying" there I literally thought you were in tears at your keyboard?
What do you mean?
You mentioned Hamas.ps first. The timeline shows this. Here is the link. You genuinely forgot that was what I posted to you?
Incorrect. You did what I said you did.
No, I didn't.
Does lying make you feel better about being an abusive psycho?
So yet more insults. Reported.
Which is it? “Yeah” or “no-one of any relevance seems to be interested in doing this?”
I can't rule out the prospect, but I see no particular reason to assume that there's anyone both capable and willing to do what you want.
I don’t often use the phrase “not really that bothered” and I never implied I have no long-term plans. Do you have me confused with someone else?
You realise "not really that bothered" wasn't meant to be a direct quote of you, right? It was just some posts I read from you on this where you seemed to downplay your investment in this.
I don’t even remember asking. If I did, I shouldn’t have implied I cared what you had to say anymore by this deep into the thread.
You did ask what I meant some time back by banning.
Didn’t ask for your advice on what will or won’t get me banned.
You seemed to think I was somehow baiting you into incriminating yourself over your opinions on incitement to violence. I pointed out that this wouldn't get you banned.
Trading the affection of war criminals and their supporters for the affection of humanity’s best, isn’t what I call “losing reputation.”
Presumably you would want to allow the incitement of violence for anyone, not just war criminals.
I absolutely did not ask.
So what? You made a comment about the Fediverse term, and I replied.
What the fuck? Everyone(?) is broadly unfamiliar with vast amounts of the future, everyone should still have a strong position on what the future ought to be.
I mean unfamiliar WITH THE FEDIVERSE. Not the future. Mr. "I'm so good at English".
For crying out loud. You just said: "That 100% isn’t healthy, there needs to be a balance where each place has some of each group. I don’t want a place full of nothing but pedophiles, but I also don’t want a place full of nothing but people who send pedophiles to their own place."
Now, this implies that the current instances that currently ban pedophiles on sight would be expected to host some amount of them.
If that was all true, I still don’t see how it would answer my question.
It's closer to being uncensored than Reddit or the Fediverse.
Same ways as me, I guess (except more)
What a non-answer.
Your fluency is so bad that’s what you thought I said?
If you haven't spoken to everyone, then how can you know that you are the most fluent English speaker on the planet?
Do what? You put this after the part where you copied and pasted me asking if there’s a way to prove your answer with numbered links - are you asking me what the burden of proof is yet again? Why do you keep acting like you need things repeated so many times? And you still didn’t answer the question, is there a way to tell if (or maybe when) a post here is edited?
I did none of this. My dude, you don't even know how to check if a post is edited and you're coming up with grand plans for how the future of Lemmy should go.
Incorrect. It was.
No, it wasn't.
I didn’t ask what you had been asking at the time, and putting this after the “no, it wasnt” makes it seem like this is all supposed to flow together to someone who’s not paying attention. But it’s weird to do this manipulative stuff for “someone who’s not paying attention” because, once again I tell you brother, it is pretty much just us this deep into this subthread so far.
Whatever this slop is above me, it's not an answer. I was asking what pressure the lemmy.world admins were supposedly under when they made the instance.
Incorrect on being vague / bizarre, but some people do use “the man” as a synonym
Yes, and that's also vague and basically a constructed boogeyman.
You left a lot out but did you have a point here?
Who else are the relevant agents in the Fediverse outside of the userbase, moderators and admins?
Incorrect. They were always able, but not willing and didn’t do it until years in. I think not even until after Aaron Swartz was out of the way.
I don't really trust you as a reliable narrator here, but it'd be hard to demonstrate this either way given how awful Reddits search is looking for historical threads on this.
Why are you yet again repeating questions I’ve directly given you and others in this thread answers to multiple times?
No, you have never answered this question. If you're going to claim that ICANN would do this, it's just a completely empty conspiracy theory.
It means you clearly don't know what you're talking about. If you aren't even familiar with hardly any instances, how can you claim to know how they all inter-operate, and what ones are non-censorious etc?
Didn’t ask. Why are you wasting time rephrasing this repeatedly?
Because it's an unbelievable level of basic hypocrisy.
I can’t answer for whatever proverbial “you” you’re referring to
I mean, literally you as an individual. Why are you using sh.itjust.works when it blocks the exact same instances here as lemmy.world that you blocked them over?
Didn’t ask. Why waste time typing something so obvious?
Because you commented on it. So I commented back.
Incorrect. I pretty much never refuse to elaborate. In fact, I usually refuse to refuse to elaborate. This is pretty noticeable about me.
You constantly refuse to elaborate. You've provided no evidence of any lemmy instance ever shut down due to outside pressure from the "authorities". You've provided no evidence of lemmy.world moderators being "glowies".
I didn’t ask what you had to say about your own wording. I pointed out that it’s weird, especially in this particular context.
Who gives a fuck? I told you why after I saw you commenting on it.
Incorrect, and you know it. Is there a particular reason you’d pretend otherwise, except to gaslight me?
How do I "know it is", exactly? I know of no such thing. I've never seen anyone hold this bizarre interpretation on federation as you do. Almost everyone in this thread disagrees with you.
Didn’t ask, don’t have to ask, not sure why you thought that.
You speak of "Lemmy insiders" but you don't see have a clue how the basics work.
I didn’t ask if you did.
You claimed that I "seem convinced there is some powerful Lemmy insider who would be worried about me exposing them". This is not true. I never said anything about a lemmy insider. You were the one who proposed that. Not me. I laughed at the idea.
Not sure what you’re trying to say here.
You made up the idea that I think a "Lemmy insider" exists.
I didn’t ask if you did.
But you did claim that I did. It's on record. Full quote: "I think it’s kinda hilarious (but more concerning) that you seem convinced there is some powerful Lemmy insider who would be worried about me exposing them with my posts about Tor integration or something."
No, I implied you seemed to think it. I never said you said it.
Seemed to think it based on what? You bought up the idea of some "Lemmy insider" and I queried it as a nonsense.
Didn’t ask, don’t care, replying from Lemmy.
My point here is that why would someone who doesn't use Lemmy here specifically think this at all.
What’s not?
The Fediverse.
Obviously, if you’re not offering any money, I can’t think of any individuals I would subject to the risk of you harassing them. If you are offering any money, they would want the payment up front before I draw your attention to them and expose them to that risk, and you seem like a capitalist who’s way too poor and distrustful to offer payment up front. It’s hard to guess why you typed this, except that you do seem very obsessed with wasting time.
"Harassing" = responding to them. How am I harassing you anymore than you're harassing me, by your logic?
I think I said “act like,” not “imply,” if I remember right, and I didn’t even say it happened without pointing clearly at exactly where, so where did you get me saying “imply” and not being clear about what I was talking about?
Don't see how I'm acting like it either.
I didn’t ask if you did.
I didn't say you did. I was making the point that you are responsible for your own conduct and how you treat others.
I didn’t ask if it is. However, it’s weird that you seem to think you can judge others for insulting you after you insult them repeatedly.
Name an insult I've thrown at you.
Why did you quote this part twice?
Emphasis
This is always a weird question to ask in text-based discussions where you can just read stuff again, especially when the person you’re responding to is just using the exact plain English words for simple and complete points.
It's just an expression based on how absurd I thought your last point was.
False advertising, I guess? You tell me, you’re the one that came up with the strategy.
Literally no-one cares or views 'federation' as you do.
I have no guess for who you think is going to ban me for you.
That you have to ask this demonstrates how basic your understanding of the fediverse is.
I think it’s kinda hilarious (but more concerning) that you seem convinced there is some powerful Lemmy insider who would be worried about me exposing them with my posts about Tor integration or something.
No, this sounds like something you've made it up in your head. I never said that a "Lemmy insider" exists. That's what you said. Dude, I'm not even on Lemmy.
You barely know anything about the Fediverse. It's readily apparent.
No, they couldn't. Only people who are somewhat familiar with the online geography of the fediverse could give you an overview. You couldn't.