A few days ago, I asked if we could talk about things that happen outside the fediverse. I got a lot of different answers ranging from “yes” to “no” to “it depends”. Hunting someone down somewhere and saying “ah ha I found Zezima on X” isn’t the kind of thing I meant. This is.
That moment when an admin outright makes it absolutely clear if you read the room (those who remember past messages will be able to do that) that they’re going around trying to get back at people and further complicate things for them, the instance in question being in spiteful response to a promotion. The incentive to weigh in is thus pre-existing, plus I am fediversally relevant because I have been accused of being them (not that I’m the only one), so I get the contagion.
It’s a bit much.
Mate… Go outside
You wanna say that to the whole community? I’m using it how it was designed to be used, following up on a previous message (and preceding another one) that also used it how it was designed to be used. And these were, in turn, responses to other things where people might say what you just said but haven’t. The way to address an issue is not to leave/relocate like someone who was forcefully evicted.
Uhhhh, what?
deleted by creator
I just did, and still don’t get what you mean
deleted by creator
What is the link between Lemmy and the kiwifarms post on Reddit, and the tweet at the end? Seem unrelated
deleted by creator
Nobody knows what you’re on about, and to be honest we don’t really care enough to try and figure it out.
deleted by creator
Glad it’s not just me
Which part don’t you understand?
Nothing of all of this makes sense to me. It’s just s rambling mess of words.
He’s not kidding when he says the context to understand the whole thing is in what he redirects to.
For example, the second and third sentence is a direct response to the replies which talk about the conditions for which the actions he is asking about would be considered “good”. Take the top response for example: “I think you might be the drama at that point.”
In the fifth sentence, he alludes to the understanding that the person who made a “first move” (which would be relevant in the discussions just mentioned) is the individual in question, before citing the first few moments of the context (before continuing to elaborate the first part of the fifth sentence). The “promotion” mentioned is an admin promotion. “The incentive to weigh in is thus pre-existing” refers to this, and then he mentions why it applies to him.
I have English issues and even I could comprehend all of this.
I just watched the Youtube video, I’m even more confused. Is that channel accusing you of being a pedophile? What the heck?
Yes, that’s what going on. I’ve always been someone people are inclined to make into a target.
That seems messed up on so many levels. Have you tried reaching out to Youtube to remove those videos?
You saying all that context doesn’t affect their ability to ignite people into a deceptively charged fury? I can imagine this is frustrating. People just amaze me. They say the biggest signal that something is a cult is that the person in charge has so much charisma that they can say anything (and I mean anything, for example someone could claim “I am not crude matter, I am a human-shaped beam of light”) and have people believe them without critical thinking or vetting something for contradictions, like what the leader of the Ant Hill Kids was said to be able to do. And they say the biggest signal that something is a gimmick is that some attribute of something makes people resort to exceptionalism in their critical thinking, as is the case when one person happens upon the best case (though still flawed since it’s not true) someone like you must a pedo based on the flawed evidence, and people who normally have standards for how they treat others forgo those entirely and say it’s fair game to give you literal hell (think of the pretty patties from Spongebob: “but, but they’re colored”… apply that to someone’s life and say “I must keeeel them, they’re colored like a pedo”).
Somewhat makes me wonder if it’s accurate to say that, in a world where some people steal trust by exploiting psychology, people not trusting you is actually a sign of your trustworthiness, in the same way as how a billionaire who clearly stole their wealth has a lower worth than someone poor out of their mind. Especially when they’re not just exploiting mental weaknesses but attacking people merely for not immediately agreeing and conflating them with their target. I noticed the whole clique is obsessed with misinformation.
