this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2023
179 points (100.0% liked)

the_dunk_tank

15859 readers
27 users here now

It's the dunk tank.

This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.

Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 3: No sectarianism.

Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)

Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.

Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to [email protected]

Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

"Some of you may be willing to die, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make" but unironically

Edit: The user has since apologised https://hexbear.net/comment/3848285

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The press release contains a clear and obvious link to the report itself. I didn't claim otherwise.

You provided a link to some pro-russian propaganda that selectively quoted from what seems to be a fair and balanced report. I provided a link to the press release for the original report, and point out that it has more to it than the selective quotes.

You then claim bad faith. Given the ease with which you claim bad faith whenever anyone argues with you, I think that you should define what you mean by good and bad faith.

And now you promote bullying/violence with the reference to school lockers? Grow up.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Fuck you, stop nitpicking, stop doing weasel shit, engage with the arguments instead of doing this debatebro bullshit. You say I "claim bad faith" despite me clearly describing TWICE what it is you are doing that is bad faith. You're not being clever, it's obvious what you are doing, you're a sad little impotent porridge farmer, with nothing between the ears.
Fuck you, I hope you get an open fracture

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nitpicking says the guy who whined about a clearly marked edit on a comment. Whatever man.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You're doing it again :) You focus on one single issue presented amidst a wealth of others (this I have already explained to you twice, but of course you do not engage with it, instead pretending you have not had this and other things explained), which you then misrepresent in order to create a point that's easier for you to prove. fuck you.
The report itself still details the use of human shields used by Ukraine. This point was one of many, but instead you choose to focus on me not picking the official press release, rather than the contents of the argument - an argument that was not just about Ukrainian civilians being used as human shields. You are willful- why am I walking you thru this again? I know you're just going to misrepresent and misinterpret a single point made, focus on that and then act as if you've done something. Fuck you.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Most of the time I am on my phone which isn't the best for essay style responses. If I notice a particular point that is worth commenting on, then I focus on that point. Sometimes I forget to quote just that point which may be confusing, and I apologise for that.

You tend to write a lot and jump all over the place trying to answer everything at once and introduce new points, preempting questions, and throwing in personal criticisms and judgements, which is quite exhausting. I suspect that you also jump to the conclusion that because I am criticising one point, that I am criticising everything.

I used to write work emails a bit like that, until I got similar feedback a few years back. The threaded approach is also common in business messaging apps, shared editing of documents, etc.

I do appreciate your good English. It's far too rare these days.

I wonder whether it would be worth it for hexbear to maintain an FAQ or wiki, as I think you and others spend a lot of time repeating the same things to many people. Sometimes a link is worth a thousand words.