This post is not only to try finding the best Mastodon instance/server but I also wanted to express about the Mastodon instances. Most of Mastodon servers are apparently harsh about other instances that include things they don’t like and are quite serious about getting those Internet points putting how the place isn’t welcome for “bigotry” and is for everyone and so diverse, and I wouldn’t have any problems with this if this wasn’t frequently used by people who will try to shut you if they disagree enough with you and will try to present themselves as so virtuous. You’d expect that the free side of the Internet would have people that value freedom and should let anything that isn’t a crime or something that prejudice the instance itself or whatever space they’re in but it seems this vision is getting far from the reality with time.

  • BrooklynMan
    5·
    1 year ago

    If you will, I may state that is also the opinion of the majority of people.

    what statement is that, exactly? and what is your source that it is the opinion of the “majority of the people” what people?

    If you don’t expect or accept a country acting like a ass just because it can then why should you do the opposite for anything else?

    we are not discussing countries, nor are we discussing how they act towards each other. e are discussing mastodon instances and their internal rues of conduct. as I said before, this is both a false equivalence and straw man.

    Straw man

    A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man”

    False equivalence

    A false equivalence or false equivalency is an informal fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. Colloquially, a false equivalence is often called "comparing apples and oranges.”

    moving on…

    In fact very little things change from this specific comparison as it should remain this way. Both share basically the same characteristics except that one is virtual and a private place open to the public while their other is real and is public.

    by ignoring the vast differences in context and scope to pick out what tiny similarities there may be, you are:

    Cherry picking

    Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position. Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally.

    if you have to perform such mental gymnastics to make your point, you might just as well give up, as you’re convincing nobody.

    • Milk@lemmy.sdf.orgOP
      14·
      1 year ago

      So you don’t say anything of consistency just to say afterwards that someone is doing the specific thing because you think that makes you seem smarter than you are. But you would look smarter if you instead said anything with meaning and then said I was discussing something entirely different, instead of, you know, say basically absolutely nothing; it would still be dumb but you already chose the worst way so I don’t believe you would have problem choosing the second worst.

      • BrooklynMan
        5·
        1 year ago

        the only thing consistent about you argument is that it is consistently flawed as I have consistently explained, and that you consistently blame me for your own consistent failures at rational discussion and comprehension— which I have also pointed out, consistently.

          • BrooklynMan
            3·
            1 year ago

            I have explained my position fully, simply, and repeatedly. If you still fail to comprehend, that is not my problem. at this point you are clearly

            Sealioning

            Sealioning (also sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity (“I’m just trying to have a debate”), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter. It may take the form of “incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate”, and has been likened to a denial-of-service attack targeted at human beings. The term originated with a 2014 strip of the webcomic Wondermark by David Malki, which The Independent called “the most apt description of Twitter you’ll ever see”.

            • Milk@lemmy.sdf.orgOP
              14·
              1 year ago

              That means you bring nothing, okay. I mean, at least you bring a lot of terms to describe yourself so… “I see that as an absolute win.”

              • BrooklynMan
                3·
                1 year ago

                That means you bring nothing

                only if your only purpose here is contrarianism and to argue for your self-entitlement and logical fallacies and expectations for me to accept blame when you fail. then, no, I offer you nothing.

                at least you bring a lot of terms to describe yourself so… “I see that as an absolute win.”

                could you please link to where I said this (or described myself to you in any way)? I suspect you’ll ignore this, too.

                • Milk@lemmy.sdf.orgOP
                  14·
                  1 year ago

                  What can I be contrary about other than your aggressive behavior and the apparent ideals you seem to have because not even your ideas you’ve been able to affirmate cause everything you did was to drop a bunch of terms that, funnily enough, describe how you behaved during the discussion.

                  • BrooklynMan
                    3·
                    1 year ago

                    how am I being “aggressive" by simply pointing out the facts? or by asking you questions? or by asking you to explain your logic? or pointing out that you constantly refuse to answer many of my questions? how is it “aggressive” just because I’m not responsible when you fail to comprehend simple concepts or sentences? Especially when you are the one who makes repeated accusations and claims without providing any proof and ignore repeated requests for evidence?

                    inconvenient facts aren’t “aggression” nor is asking questions just because you can’t or don’t want to answer them. facing the consequences of your actions is not a state of victimhood, and I’m not to blame for the things you do or fail to do.

                    edit:

                    the apparent ideals you seem to have

                    what ideals have I claimed to have? please link to said comment(s) where I claimed any ideals.