i don't trust it because it is very big on the design meaning to be "censorship resistant" and there are certain kinds of posts that people make that probably should be censored, and while i like that some tools exist to make pseudononymous, censorship-resistant communications possible (tor and i2p are good. freenet is fine imho), this one looks like a grift that has a neon sign saying "censorship resistant".... and i am sure that associating with those people will lead to encountering some of that material that probably should be censored.
PeggyLouBaldwin
0 Post – 67 Comments
Joined 3 months ago
oh shit. super bad guy. glad i never installed a fucking client. fuck everything about this.
I don't understand why people mischaracterize him. he's a good person. he's smart.
I really wanted to like the ms launcher. very customizable, and frankly it is kind of awesome. but I didn't stick with it. I was using oneui for years when I started shopping for launchers, and I landed on kiss.
claiming evidence exists is not the same as presenting that evidence.
There’s a good reason Lemmy doesn’t have videos.
peertube exists. it's activitypub. lemmy is the reddit-like interface to activitypub. but the fediverse definitely has video. it even has live streaming through OwnCast (though i think peertube has livestreaming scheduled to be implemented as well)
edit: hey i just found a movie station!
this is a mischaracterization
and for the right reasons
have a nice day
They either believe Jill Stein will actually win ... Or... they have looked at the difference and decided that it isn’t much
this is still putting words in their mouths. it's not good-faith engagement.
No, that’s reality.
stating your perspective about it doesn't make it reality. you need to actually listen to what people say, and if you think it's unrealistic, then you can say you think it's unrealistic, but you can't just assert that they can't possibly have any other motivations.
she did say "why bother" but it wasn't in a statement about ukraine formerly belonging to russia. it was in the context of showing that everyone knows putin is a bad guy. she has never said she has no issue with russia erasing ukrainian identity, but she has called the invasion illegal. and she did say that nato's saber rattling provoked it, but she still condemns the invasion.
surely you can understand that the ai was not giving a complete definition, and you don't need to know that you are being dishonest in order to be engaging in bad faith. simply accusing others of lying about their own position is, itself, bad faith.
edit:
you seem to be alright with going along with copilot. when i asked
if someone tells me they're voting for jill stein, can i say it's because they either don't understand that she can't win or they don't care who the real winner is? is it bad faith to assume a motivation like that?
it said
Characterizing someone’s vote as either a lack of understanding or indifference to the outcome without knowing their personal reasons could be considered an assumption made in bad faith. It suggests a negative judgment about their decision-making process without evidence.
In discussions, especially political ones, it’s important to approach others’ choices with an open mind and avoid making assumptions about their motivations. It’s more constructive and in good faith to ask questions and listen to their reasons for voting a certain way. This fosters a respectful exchange and understanding, rather than attributing motives that may not be accurate or fair.
west does not support genocide anywhere
biden is literally shipping weapons and cash to a genocide.
he has never said that.
but then continued to enable them
he never said give up or rgive putin any part of ukraine. he called the invasion illegal. and the united states is IN nato, so the president (which he is running to be) would actually have influence over nato policy.
in your own link, he calls putin a gangster.
she said the invasion is illegal.
you don't see any way the war can end without giving part of ukraine to russia?
but Cornel West hasn't actually suggested that they give up part of Ukraine, and he isn't im government now deciding whether to arm them.
strategic voting is what leads to party consolidation.
calling me names doesn't change whether you're making up baseless accusations
i have provided exactly as much evidence as you.
Jill Stein wants no war. your accusation is pure bad faith.
you literally accused people who said they want Jill Stein to win of lying and actually wanting another candidate to win. that's bad faith.
no, they are saying they don't want any of that and voting against Republicans and Democrats at the same time.
No, they don’t care who wins because they are privileged and think it won’t affect them.
another bad faith statement. you need to ask them what they want, and believe their answer, or dialogue cannot progress.
You are engaging in bad faith by misrepresenting my words to form a what you think is a strawman to argue against.
what straw man?
i asked copilot to weigh in on this. i have edited it for brevity (there was a lot of boiler-plate), but this is the last half or so completely unedited:
Whether or not someone is engaging in bad faith would depend on their intent and whether they genuinely believe in their arguments or are purposefully distorting the discussion.
It’s important to approach such discussions with the aim of understanding and addressing the actual points being made, rather than attributing motives or misrepresenting positions. This fosters a more productive dialogue and helps avoid the pitfalls of bad faith arguments and logical fallacies. If you feel the discussion is not progressing constructively, it may be beneficial to step back and reassess the approach to ensure a good faith exchange of ideas.
well i am not interested in getting bogged down in defending any particular motivation, i'm only trying to keep the conversation intellectually honest. it seems that you understand, now, that there might be other motivations, and as such that your previous accusations were in fact bad faith.
You didn’t actually listen to what I said, you in fact deliberately and in bad faith edited out parts so that you could argue against what you want to argue against.
i made your position more succinct. you provided two options and said they were the only possible explanations, then said "that's reality". you constructed a false dichotomy. there was no nuance to your comment that would have undermined this construction of your argument. your assumption of other peoples beliefs and motivations is a bad faith approach altogether.
Why are we engaging at all?
because i objected to your bad faith characterization of another user's comments.
i'm open to the possibility that you're right, but my experience is that criticism of the cia or zionism is tolerated to a much greater degree on .world than criticism of china or soviet russia is tolerated on .ml.
can you point to specific instance-wide bannings for talking shit on us foreign policy or zionism?
i think this is pretty hard to draw a direct comparison. first, a few mods/admins deciding to ban is not the same as hundreds of individuals voting. even if half of them are bots (no one games lemmy votes, though, do they?), that's still a far cry from someone stepping in and actually silencing a user.
second, while i think you're right about the nature of western societal control, i don't think there is any conspiracy to enact that on .world. maybe i'm naive though.
but write in candidates can win. McDonald's menu options are disanalogous to voting.
peertube uses webtorrents to share bandwidth among users: if you're watching a video, you share the data to other users at the same time.
a claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence