you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 51 points 5 months ago* (41 children)

I have you tagged "the reason women choose the bear" over your behavior the last time that came up - you have a long long history of being an incel and claiming any criticism of a man is criticism of all men, which you're doing yet again in this thread.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 41 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 5 months ago (15 children)

    Does voyager app have this tag feature?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Yes. Long press a username and it'll bring up a menu that allows you to create a tag

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Mine must be broken. I only see send message and block user.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (8 children)

    I think so... but also PieFed has it innately.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (7 children)

    What? Where? How? App or web UI?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    PieFed offers user tagging in both its web UI and in the API so that any app using it could pull from them, although regarding the latter I am not sure which ones actually do or not (Mlwm reportedly does, surely I would think that Blorp would as it touts itself as offering greatest compatibility with PieFed, etc.).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Blorp dev here. Blorp does have user tagging, but it actually stores all that data client side. I had no idea PieFed had user tagging built in. It would be nice to integrate with the PieFed API, but it would be a little tricky.

    Currently, if you tag a user in Blorp, that tag is stored at the app level. You can login to your app with a Lemmy and a PieFed account simultaneously. If you tag a user from your PieFed account, you will still see that user tag after you switch to your Lemmy account.

    If we did tagging at account level instead of app level, the user tags you see would change base on which account you switch to.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    Which might even be useful, but yeah could also be confusing, though so too could someone coming to Blorp from the web UI... it's complicated for sure. Possibly the ideal might be to either have separate behaviors for Lemmy vs. PieFed accounts, or an option to keep them all mirrored/synched up.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Thank you so much. I have now tagged you "helpful" and it shows up everywhere except for this exact comment. Weird. maybe it just takes some time to propagate, although I don't see why.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

    If you are using the web UI, does refreshing the page help?

    Regardless, I am glad to be helpful, some of the time (hopefully more often than the opposite:-P).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 5 months ago (7 children)

    Just found out Boost also has this feature. Neat.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago* (2 children)

    I do wish it was innate to lemmy like it is in piefed so they'd (theoretically?) carry over between mobile and web, but yeah it's very nice.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    I've been trying to find out how to do that on Boost.

    Halp.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 2 points 5 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 16 points 5 months ago

    For the most part I like lemmy, but the community is incredibly incel-heavy. One of the most successful forms of bait on here (besides political trolling) is posting any even slightly contentious topic about women's experiences in society or things like institutional sexism. Seriously, keep an eye out - it's depressingly predictable.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -16 points 5 months ago* (14 children)

    What a random mischaracterization, feels like I've been mistaken for somebody. Theres really nothing to even respond to, here, except point out ad hominem.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 5 months ago* (13 children)

    Criticism of a person's behavior when that's the subject at hand is not an ad homeniem, it's the argument. You've got a long history of misapplying logical fallacies and taking these sorts of commentaries where a man is portrayed negatively incredibly personally and then poorly defending your claims.

    For example: elsewhere in this thread, where you've refused to back up your claims that the author is a "well documented" misandrist. If it's well documented, it should not be a burden for you to provide evidence, and yet you refuse repeatedly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [+] -20 points 5 months ago (12 children)

    Criticism of the criticism of a person's behavior, via attacking the person and not the argument, is Ad Hominem, and also Whataboutism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 5 months ago*

    I'm directly criticizing two separate things: your behavior, and your claim that pizzacake is a well documented misandrist. That your behavior is remarkably predictable around these issues doesn't invalidate your claim; we get the conclusion that your claim is baseless from the way you refuse to support it.

    Neither of those are an ad hominem or a whattaboutism, and you would be well served by finding out what those terms represent before you try and defend yourself with them.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (10 children)

    Saying it does not make it so. It seems to me that referencing your prior behavior and attacking your lack of sources are both relevant and productive for discussion, while misusing fallacies to shut down arguments you don't like is, ironically, a rhetorical fallacy. They aren't deflecting by randomly bringing up some unrelated characteristic (for example: you shouldn't trust this influencer's opinion on food, I have it on good authority that they're a terrible parent!), they're calling back to your previous behavior in similar situations (for example: you shouldn't trust this influencer's opinion on food because they have a history of giving people food poisoning!). That isn't ad hominem, or whataboutism.

    If your character and actions might be damming to your arguments, attacking them is attacking your argument, especially when also attacking your sources! Ironically, continuing to attack the comic artist without citing sources is ad hominem, by definition.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 5 months ago* (9 children)

    Sources?! You need fucking Data? You need a scientific study to discern the precise level of sexism of Pizzacake? Did you ask for sources when Kanye West was in the news for chanting "Heil Hitler"? If not does that mean you need a news article about it from the New York Times or some shit? Did you ask for sources on altright comic artist StoneToss?

    I have, multiple times now, demonstrated that a very large number of people recognize this artist as sexist with specific examples going back many years.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago* (8 children)

    Nope, you've repeatedly asserted a large number of people recognize her as sexist.

    The only thing that approaches having "demonstrated" her "well-documented" misandry is the single incredibly begrudging example you provided - one that multiple other people have also referenced, and which is at very worst a quite bad take from an otherwise pretty progressive artist.

    You've refused to show anyone this well documented pattern of misandry, but you're quick to claim you have. And that kind of openly deceptive behavior is exactly why it's so important to ask for sources.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 5 months ago* (7 children)

    My top level comment alone has 18 upvotes. And I have linked for you sealioning assholes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago* (6 children)

    First:
    What an absolutely spectacular example of Argumentum ad populum! Unfortunately no, just because you got upvotes does not establish your claim that it's well documented. "Many people believing" something does not make that something true (#EdgyAthiestHumor). But well done on finally finding a real logical fallacy!


    Second:
    "You claim this is well-documented but refuse to show us that documentation"
    *"Well you're sealioning!"
    No. Sealioning is a bit like DARVO: while they are useful concepts in sociology, you cannot simply throw the terms out like Pokemon and expect them to do all the work for you.

    Yes, I know you begrudgingly provided a single link, I talked about that. Your single link didn't at all establish your claims, as multiple people have explained. Asking for actual proof of your claims is not bombarding you with requests, it's a single request that you have utterly failed to address.


    You gotta realize this is just not a great look for you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    The argument was "sizeable number of people think this way."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago* (4 children)

    No, buddy, the argument was "Well documented misandrist". That you're trying to present it like it's always been "Lots of people think that she is [xxxxx]" is a textbook example of shifting the goalposts, another informal logical fallacy. You're on a role finding these!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    I said

    "I have, multiple times now, demonstrated that a very large number of people recognize this artist as sexist with specific examples going back many years."

    You said

    Nope, you’ve repeatedly asserted a large number of people recognize her as sexist.

    Skill issue on your part.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Oh my god lmfao. You're actually claiming that 18 people is "a very large number of people"? In that case I apologize, I had no idea you were trying to prove something so... lame.

    I mean sure, you have demonstrated that 18 accounts agree with you. No argument there. That's not generally what a "very large number of people" is used to mean, but sure fair play.

    Of course if we're going by that, I've already demonstrated a mindbogglingly stupendously large number of people think you're an incel - x2 the number that think pizzacake is a misandrist. By the rules of one-number-bigger-than-other-number I think I win...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Polls work by gathering opinions from a relatively small subset to draw conclusions on larger numbers of people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 5 months ago*

    Yeah you know what that's a really good point. And by this extrapolation, the overwhelming opinion of all of humanity is that you're... ah. Hmm.

    Maybe this wasn't the best route for you to take.

    Look. Although I can happily keep this up all day (I confess that this kind of internet bickering is my platonic ideal of relaxation), on basically every issue except women's representation in society we agree. While I'm more than happy to continue this, maybe we should just... stop this latest go-around? It's disheartening that with all the bullshit in the world you're so entrenched in this deeply toxic perspective, but you're not looking to see an alternative perspective and I'm clearly not trying to change your mind. This isn't productive, it's just yelling.

  • source
  • parent