Lemdro.id

1 point

1 year ago

A straw man fallacy occurs when someone takes another person’s argument or point, distorts it or exaggerates it in some kind of extreme way, and then attacks the extreme distortion, as if that is really the claim the first person is making.

Everything in life is a matter of degrees my man. It’s odd you don’t see this, you seem smart enough.

report

[ - ]

rwhitisissle@lemmy.world

1 point

1 year ago

That doesn’t fit here because your own initial argument isn’t really even an argument. It’s just the assertion that “Beehaw is authoritarian,” lacking any supporting argumentation or evidence. I can’t misrepresent your argument because you don’t even really have an argument. And you’re effectively admitting to being unable to answer the question: what makes Beehaw’s moderators authoritarian but lemmy.ca or another’s not? If you’re unable to answer that question, then maybe you just have a weird chip on your shoulder, or maybe you got banned for using a slur and are bitter about it? I don’t know what it is, but if you can’t defend your own position then you might wanna do the mature thing and admit it.

report

[ - ]

1 point

1 year ago

That doesn’t fit here because your own initial argument isn’t really even an argument.

Sure it does, your inability, or unwillingness to understand isn’t really my problem. Beehaw is a politically authoritian echochamber. And I’m not talking about “slurs” as you ignorantly believe, you are not allowed to have politically contrary opinions, that’s how the friggen echochamber is maintained.

Anything else you’d like to say?

report

[ - ]

rwhitisissle@lemmy.world

1 point

1 year ago

It’s not authoritarianism if your participation is voluntary, bud. Your opinion, as horrific as I can only imagine it is, might not be allowed on Beehaw, but Beehaw moderators can’t make you go there and post, either. If you invite someone over to your house and then they start telling you in the middle of dinner they think “[insert group here] deserves the gas chambers,” that might be “just an opinion” to them, but you’d be well within your rights to ask them to leave. You’re not an “authoritarian” for not tolerating their “difference of opinion,” because they have no real right to be there without your consent in the first place. Same deal with any lemmy instance. I’m sorry your feelings are hurt that other people aren’t obligated to listen to whatever odious beliefs you have, but I think this XKCD sums it up best.

report

[ - ]

1 point

1 year ago

It’s not authoritarianism if your participation is voluntary, bud.

I’m voluntarily having this conversation, but that doesn’t make you any less authoritarian.

Being well within your right to do something doesn’t make it not authoritatian.

If you invited me over for a party, and then kicked me out for a political opinion, yes that’s authoritianism.

report

[ - ]

rwhitisissle@lemmy.world

1 point

1 year ago

Okay, so, first of all, thank you. I’m really glad you made this comment because it basically just proves by pure example that you literally just don’t know what the definition of the word “authoritarian” is.

It’s ironic, really, because your own definition of authoritarianism (which is pretty much just people creating and enforcing rules for how you interact with them) implies that what you really don’t like is the fact that you lack the ability to force your own will on others. Beehaw’s administrators and moderators don’t want you there because you insist on being able to voice beliefs that they find offensive or dangerous, but the implication of your criticism of them as “authoritarian” is that you think they shouldn’t have the power to keep you out, and that you should have the power to come and go as you please and to say whatever you want without consequence or censure. In other words, you want the authority to force others to cater to your desires and to run the website in a way that benefits you, at the cost of what others may want. If others don’t want to be around you or interact with you because they find the way you act to be harmful or offensive, but you think they should be forced to tolerate your presence and be forced to interact with you regardless, then you’re saying you think you should be able to impose your own will over theirs.

Does this…remind you of anything?

report

[ - ]

1 point

1 year ago

Dude you project a LOT of convulted shit.

In other words, you want the authority to force others to cater to your desires and to run the website in a way that benefits you, at the cost of what others may want.

I’m a fucking anarchist 😂 Please quote me exactly where I said I want authority to force others to cater to my desires. The exact sentence.

Also just a heads up, when you start spewing a bunch of bullshit like “it’s not authoritianism because you have no valid claim to rights.” I don’t see the point in arguing. If fudging details makes you feel happy, that’s your choice.

And your xkcd comic was shit. I’ve seen it, and it makes me fucking sad Randall Munroe could produce such ignorant drivel. Freedom of speech exists beyond it’s legal representations. Like holy fuck, that is a BAD argument.

For fun, want to go into some of the implications of what you’re saying? For example, in a hypothetical would you be okay with beehaw refusing to serve gay members? You’d be okay with that?

And McDonald’s could do the same eh? Or XYX cake company. Or a fucking private hospital. Where’s your line? Do you have one?

report