You love to see it

I didn’t really explain it well, but I wasn’t really trying to say it was like that. When I say it kinda breaks you apart I mean in a good way, like when you start crushing on someone and in the honeymoon phase, you start to envision how your life could be together with that person instead of just alone. So it changes the way you view yourself and your future.

But yea, breaking up with a mature person for normal reasons shouldn’t totally shatter you. But it does hurt more than a sprained ankle imo. You can’t ice your heart 😭

You could make your own Europe community with blackjack and hookers 🤷

I was on one yesterday for some reason. Had a lot of energy and a lot of time. I think it was because I got a bunch of sleep this week when I haven’t been getting much sleep at all over the past few months

I hope you realize that I have been genuine with you.

I don’t realize that at all. I’ve presented you with comprehensive discussion points and you’ve responded with snide passive aggressive snipes. You responded to my detailed argument with an intentional misunderstanding to imply that I was islamophobic, and then continued to passive aggressively fuck with me for kicks. Your talent for gaslighting is exceptional though, I begrudgingly commend you for that.

It’s hard for me to know whether I am dealing with people who are genuinely misunderstanding my arguments, or if they are simply trying to cast doubt on my conclusions by pretending to misunderstand how I arrived at them. Given the length of my comments and the relative brevity of yours, I am leaning towards you belonging to the latter group. If you were genuine, you would explain what you mean without being ambiguous and respond to at least a portion of the points I have already made, as a demonstration of good faith. Please make better use of your time.

I don’t understand what you are trying to say, sorry.

Ok, I’m stumped on that one. Usually it works like I explained but I don’t know what happened there.

Wow, super interesting article. I love how they simply describe it as hazing the wildlife. Pretty sure I’ve never heard that term outside of a human-human context, but it’s a funny way to describe what they’re trying to do.

This anecdote was also funny

Lackey once responded to a call from Tahoe, where the lead singer of the 1980s hair band Whitesnake had a house. A bear had broken into the house, swam in the indoor pool and was ambling down the hall toward the recording studio. By the time Lackey made it up there the bear was gone, so he set a trap. A couple days later, a bear was caught.

When Lackey arrived at the property and looked in the trap, he noticed it was a different bear than the prior one. As Lackey was dealing with the trapped bear, the bear he intended to trap walked past, ignoring Lackey and his bear dogs, and headed for the house. Lackey released the dogs, and they immediately chased the bear up a tree.

I guess this kind of thing happens when you build a 10,000 foot estate in a remote area that was formerly wilderness until fairly recently. Good for the bears, ransack that house for all it’s worth. Late 80s music has to be among the worst eras in popular music history. That shit has not aged well, and I resent the fact that this dude became a multimillionaire from that bland garbage.

In my experience, every crosspost should have the link on the top. That’s the actual crosspost link. The one in the body of the text is kinda a bonus one that can be deleted according to the poster’s preference. But you’re right, the one in the body is also a hard link (goes to home instance of post) while the one in the top is a relative link (goes to your home instance). So I guess if your instance doesn’t federate the community that the crosspost was originally from, then the top link might not show up? I don’t remember encountering that but I guess I wouldn’t necessarily have noticed.

Can you provide an example of a crosspost that doesn’t show the link in the top part?

thanks bae 😘

The people who left reddit to join Lemmy aren’t representative of the average reddit user. They consisted of a fraction of a percent of the userbase and generally were the type to be calling out bad information hygiene. It might surprise you, but everyone who ever used reddit doesn’t behave in the exact same way or value the same exact things. Tbh, I think the information hygiene was much better here shortly after the API exodus, and it has slowly degraded again over the past few years.

Btw I never heard information hygiene before but I’m going to keep using that, it’s a great term.

You’re a 1%er, what a loser. Everyone who comments more than me is a no-life loser and everyone who comments less is a filthy casual.

You can always just use an alt. Fortunately I haven’t been banned from any communities I really enjoy, but I’ve always had several alts on standby in case that were to happen.

But if the comment was removed, it usually has the transcribed comment directly above the ban reason in the modlog.

However, you are right that the modlog is still very limited and could be much more functional. There are ways to remove posts and comments without them appearing in the modlog, usually by banning the account entirely with the content removal box checked. Then it will show the ban, but all of the removed content is simply gone. It’s a thorny problem to solve to be fair, because people have also used the modlog in an abusive manner, so it’s kinda important to have the ability to actually nuke really bad stuff without it reappearing in the modlog.

Also if you try simply scrolling through the modlog it’s obvious that a bunch of stuff is randomly omitted and completely unclear why. It’s only really useful to check the histories of specific users or mods, because you can sort that way and everything for that particular user seems to come up properly.

You seem to be confused about how my two arms point relates to the rest of my comment. It is somewhat confusing tbf, especially if you have a reason to misinterpret it in a specific way.

The point about humans having two arms is a point about making broad claims in general, and the way that people such as PoVoq tend to willfully misinterpret them in order to attack others and gain a sense of moral superiority. Neither OP nor myself ever made the claim that Muslims in general are problematic or violent or whatever else. That would be totally islamophobic and also probably racist.

The claim is that there is a cultural element that creates an increased likelihood of religious radicalization resulting in indiscriminate violence, and that cultural element is particular to contemporary manifestations of Islamic culture. People make these types of claims every single day about a wide variety of groups, whether they be cops, soldiers, politicians, lawyers, bankers, Christians, Hindus, straight people, gay people, old people, young people, Republicans, Democrats, Americans, Europeans, Argentinians, Australians, Chinese, and so on and so forth. We describe what we think about groups of people based on the behavior that we witness and read about. And oftentimes (nearly always), what we think is wrong, or at least grossly oversimplified.

People say cops beat their wives, that they’re power tripping sociopaths, that they’re racist, and everything else in the book. And each of these claims is somewhat true, and also somewhat untrue, because there are a lot of cops on this planet, and each claim only applies to a certain percentage of them. To the extent that cops statistically commit domestic violence at a higher rate than the general population, one could argue that the claim is true. However, there might also be subgroups of cops among whom that claim is demonstrably untrue.

Similarly, with the claim about Islamic culture and the likelihood of violence, one could say that the claim is true to the extent that Muslims and/or Islamic immigrants commit violent/terrorist acts at a greater statistical rate than the general population. And I believe that the statistical data we have on that question does in fact support the claim, at least in certain contexts. It has nothing to do with making sweeping claims about all 1.5 billion Muslims on this planet, it has to do with probability and risk, and I think deep down you probably already knew that.

Lol, this isn’t a discussion, you’re just taking potshots at people without presenting any sort of argument or justification at all. You don’t even bother to address my arguments or explain why you take the positions that you take and make the judgments that you make. But I already knew that you were that type of user going in, tbf. It’s exactly the behavior that OP describes quite nicely in this very post

It turns out that when people have an option to avoid dealing with ideas they disagree with (even slightly), very many of them choose that option. IMO this is a major (perhaps fatal) problem with social media.

I’m mostly speaking for the benefit of others, because you’re so wrapped up in your personal issues that it’s impossible for me to get through to you via this platform.

Maybe all romantic love kinda breaks your psyche apart to some extent, and then depending on how it goes you might either reassemble the pieces better and stronger, or you’re left in a broken apart state, or somewhere in between.

Where does he make sweeping claims?

And also just because a claim is broad does not make it invalid. I could make the claim that human beings generally have two arms. And your type would vitriolically attack me for saying so, because how could I erase the existence of amputees and other exceptions to the rule.

But I would still continue to make that claim and argue that its a valid claim, partially because the broadness of the claim inherently signifies that it may be subject to exceptions. The purpose of making such claims is to develop an ability to understand the universe, which is a near infinitely complex system, in terms that we as human beings can understand. By developing the ability to understand what is going on in the universe, although our understanding may be slightly less than 100% accurate due to our tiny human brains, we unlock the ability to manipulate the universe to our advantage. This is how critical thinking and science brought us from hunter gatherer societies to where we are now. Because people have continued making claims, which have always been slightly less than 100% true, but close enough approximations to the truth that they are useful in making better decisions. Isaac Newton made claims about physics that have since been proven to be incorrect. Was he wrong to make those claims?

In this case, OP was making a claim that there are clear indications that certain traits and tendencies commonly exhibited by Islamic cultures are perhaps problematic or destructive in the context of Islamic migration to Europe. And your response is #NotAllMuslims. Which is of course willfully ignorant of the overarching point that is relevant in the context of the discussion. It doesn’t need to apply to all Muslims in order to be a problem, and nobody aside from yourself and your ilk ever implied that it did.

Does people blowing themselves up and murdering hundreds of other random people in the name of religion not raise any red flags for you? And yet what OP said does? How can that be possible?

https://sh.itjust.works/modlog?userId=203917

The two comments at the bottom.

Edit: Okay, I see it was a whole thread and those were the only two comments that got removed for whatever reason. I still don’t think I’m misrepresenting anything but I don’t really care to argue about it.