-1

Hiding the tankie donate box (lemmy.dbzer0.com)

submitted 3 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

64 comments fedilink hide all child comments

If you don't want to be pestered with the notice box to donate to the tankie dev of Lemmy, you can plop this into uBlock: Origin to block the box from appearing.

lemmy.dbzer0.com##.show.fade.alert-info.alert

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] [email protected] -1 points 3 days ago

I'm sorry I genuinely don't understand.
First you tear down my bad analogies. Ignores the point, but fine.
Then you go and make the same, or similar point I was making? I'm not sure. And think by some twist of logic maybe, think I wouldn't engage positively with someone I have disagreements with?

I read your comment three times and I still don't understand what you're trying to get across.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 3 days ago

I'm not sure why you'd be struggling with this, honestly. You understand the proxy relationships you created in your weird one-offs right?

"Don't set my bones, Dr. Steve donated to X" is not the same as "I don't want to donate to X". You inserted yourself in the middle of it and then claimed in a life threatening situation he wouldn't have an issue giving you money. You are not the tankie. You don't matter in the OP's decision regarding donations to the tankie. The roofers don't matter in the OP's decision regarding donations to the tankie. The tankie is the only one who matters in that scenario, it doesn't matter who you inject between them as a shield.

You might read about the separation of roles and responsibility. That's not ignoring the point, its proving you have no point to be made.

As for your other comment: You said you wouldn't engage positively with someone you disagree with like the OP, but yet the OP is required according to you to engage positively with the developer who he disagrees with? If the OP can't post about the dev in that way, why are you able to post about the OP in that way?

If you still struggle with that, I don't know what to tell you. Maybe look up "hypocrisy"?

[-] [email protected] 0 points 3 days ago

Ok. I understand a little better now. You may have skimmed what I wrote quickly, and made a bunch of assumptions and guesses about what I meant.

“Don’t set my bones, Dr. Steve donated to X” ... claimed in a life threatening situation

I'm an Xray tech, not a doctor.
Never mentioned setting bones just taking xray images.
I also didn't mention or imply any life threatening situations. That's purely your imagination.

The roofers don’t matter in the OP’s decision regarding donations to the tankie.

My roofer example didn't mention tankies at all.
I implied I would pay the roofer (singular) even though they were a (t)Rump supporter, and I don't support their politics.

You said you wouldn’t engage positively with someone you disagree with like the OP

Never said anything of the sort. That's your imagination again.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 3 days ago

I didn't skim. You only wrote 3 lines...

At this point you're just trying to argue semantics like that will somehow make your non-points logically coherent. As for that last thing you wrote that you said you didn't write, its verbatim from your later comment. so yeah you did say that. Literally just had to scroll up to find it, man. That wasn't hard.

Either way, doesn't matter. You're just backpedaling at this point trying to say you either didn't say something or argue that I'm wrong because your analogies don't make sense (like I'm responsible for your bad writing). I've given you terms to research, I hope you do better when you try to start arguments online in the future because you did a terrible job tonight. Later.

[-] [email protected] -2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

You see how I didn't even address your point, and instead brought up a different and only tangentially related argument? Makes me seem like a dick doesn't it.

That part?
That's sarcasm. See how I called myself a dick for doing that?

It was only 4 lines. And yet you misread, misunderstood, or just plain missed, multiple things on each and every one of them.
Maybe that's my fault for writing poorly. But since you didn't even count them all, I'm doubtful its all my fault.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago

Would I not pay my roofer if they were a Rump supporter?
They did a good job on my roof. What do their political opinions matter?
If I was XRaying your broken arm, would you refuse, because I support a tankie for writing apolitical software I like to use?

1... 2... 3... See, in Lemmy the comments are attached under the post. That's how you know what a person is responding to.

[-] [email protected] 0 points 3 days ago

Excellent work!
Line is however subjective. On my device that's actually 5 lines, because 2 of them wrap. And you didn't count the blank line between your lines 2 and 3. That would make 4 if you had.

But that's just coincidence and post hock nitpicking. Really I assumed you were referring to both of my primary comments together, since you also referenced the second. And calling the short paragraphs lines. Count them that way, there were also 4.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago

Remember me saying you're arguing semantics? You are now trying to argue that you wrote 4 lines not 3 because of a blank line...

[-] [email protected] 0 points 3 days ago

Try nothing. I actually did it! 👨‍🎓

[-] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago

That is correct. You argued that a blank line counts as part of your original argument... I am playing chess with a pigeon it seems.

“Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good you are, the bird is going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around like it won.”

[-] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

You thought this was chess?
With your first reply you played a game of pointless pedantic posturing in the pursuit of pretend points. I just had fun playing along during moments of down time between patients.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

No, it wasn't chess. It was me spanking you logically, pigeon.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

Pretending to out position, a pigeon playing at being a person, may be a preposterously puerile peacock, like I've never perceived.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

You got your cheeks clapped in an argument and now you're trying to downplay it. 👏 👏 👏

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Hell my checks clap whenever I walk, that's got nothing to do with this.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

👏...👏...👏...

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

You fell in the the Tankie argument trap where nothing they say makes any sense yet they still think youre the idiot. You also sometimes feel like an idiot trying to deconstruct the incoherent trans theyre saying.

[-] [email protected] -1 points 2 days ago

We never argued tankie anything.
From Modikins first response it was all pedantic drivel. Nothing of substance. They started by attacking my bad analogies, without actually reading them. I just played the game they started, and took it to its logical conclusion.