I have no issue with either one, and neither am I comparing them just because one was the inspiration for the other. It's an overlooked science trope and I wanted to see what people would realistically do in such a scenario.
CraigOhMyEggo
joined 10 months ago
It wasn't one of the ml buddies that got banned (I don't even have any), the instances of people banning each other that inspired me to make this did so because I wanted to know the borders of what people considered overreach when it came to ethically justified bans, and me inquiring something shouldn't be any issue either way.
Ever ask if maybe you and maybe others are being a tad toxic? Funny how I've been experiencing this ever since standing up for someone from another instance (completely unrelated here) as if there's something more going on. If you don't understand/like something, talk it over or leave.
I was speaking generally because my question didn't refer to any specific situations.
I personally don't understand why the five boroughs (there even being precisely five or six of them, which would make this all the better) don't adopt a system of governance similar to the five Iroquois tribes which once lived right next door to it. It was quite designed against the possibility of totalitarian rule.
This is a "creep" question?
I'm asking because school just started for everyone in the Northern hemisphere.
Update: It seems they/affiliates have a YouTube account (alerted by someone I know, apparently they think I'm Leni which a true admin of all people who has IP address records would know is true or false and not have to speculate that a defender is an alt by virtue of defending anyone, and at least more than one admin is saying "false") and until now I've been just someone in the audience. Looking into their content, I guess this is who one of the people they positively link to refers to as tri-hard and exists in a rent-free state that can't defend itself properly inspiring other things (uncool even if the doxxing party is earning their ire by throwing absolute fire onto the mod in more ways than one for bringing his behavior to light).
There's still a lot too extreme for me to understand.
pleainly
You prove my point. There's a difference between ways of communicating that go against the rules of language and ways of communicating that simply, to some people, seem to overuse it. My original message had no typos.
There's nothing stopping a sound mind that wants to understand it from understanding it. Or this sound mind could also, in theory, ask for a paraphrasing, and maybe the asker would have the courtesy to elaborate in some way.
Treating someone as having committed an offense worse than using slurs, just due to the way they explained something in the style of normal speech and language rules, is at least two levels of escalation above that and unprovoked.
Wait, it does? I was always taught it had the fertility of a three thousand kilometer savannah.
If what I say correctly abides by the rules of language, then the only issues with what I write would thus be technical.
I'm going to pull a quote out of [email protected]'s playbook and say if you insist standards for how people present themselves should be so high, a community of people exchanging questions and answers, especially ones with high concentrations of socialists, isn't for you.
"Thing", "ban", and "jurisdiction" don't cease to have meanings just because the most general sense of each word is used. Go look them up in a dictionary, my meaning of them isn't narrower than what the dictionary says, and what a dictionary says should suffice for an avid user of the language.