hexbear isn’t fascist

you can lie to cops but not feds

that’s not what duverger’s “law” says.

hate this idea that it’s somehow principled to allow the fascist to win.

i hate to break it to you, but the secret service is allowing him to win. the democrat-run justice department is allowing him to win. you are allowing him to win. you could stop him. but you don’t really believe he’s a threat. you’re just berating people who won’t join your team.

no one is disenfranchising dem voters at all

if their goal was to find an alternate to trump and biden, what do you think they’d be doing now? my guess is they’d be waiting to see if they can actually get behind whatever the dems do next.

if i elect an average right wing conservative (which is redundant) and they go on to do bad things, which is practically guaranteed, I would not feel better.

i couldn’t do that.

but what happens if you vote for someone and they end up winning?

peertube uses webtorrents to share bandwidth among users: if you’re watching a video, you share the data to other users at the same time.

There’s a good reason Lemmy doesn’t have videos.

peertube exists. it’s activitypub. lemmy is the reddit-like interface to activitypub. but the fediverse definitely has video. it even has live streaming through OwnCast (though i think peertube has livestreaming scheduled to be implemented as well)

edit: hey i just found a movie station!

https://movies.ctbperth.net.au/

surely you can understand that the ai was not giving a complete definition, and you don’t need to know that you are being dishonest in order to be engaging in bad faith. simply accusing others of lying about their own position is, itself, bad faith.

edit:

you seem to be alright with going along with copilot. when i asked

if someone tells me they’re voting for jill stein, can i say it’s because they either don’t understand that she can’t win or they don’t care who the real winner is? is it bad faith to assume a motivation like that?

it said

Characterizing someone’s vote as either a lack of understanding or indifference to the outcome without knowing their personal reasons could be considered an assumption made in bad faith. It suggests a negative judgment about their decision-making process without evidence.

In discussions, especially political ones, it’s important to approach others’ choices with an open mind and avoid making assumptions about their motivations. It’s more constructive and in good faith to ask questions and listen to their reasons for voting a certain way. This fosters a respectful exchange and understanding, rather than attributing motives that may not be accurate or fair.

i think this is pretty hard to draw a direct comparison. first, a few mods/admins deciding to ban is not the same as hundreds of individuals voting. even if half of them are bots (no one games lemmy votes, though, do they?), that’s still a far cry from someone stepping in and actually silencing a user.

second, while i think you’re right about the nature of western societal control, i don’t think there is any conspiracy to enact that on .world. maybe i’m naive though.

i’m open to the possibility that you’re right, but my experience is that criticism of the cia or zionism is tolerated to a much greater degree on .world than criticism of china or soviet russia is tolerated on .ml.

can you point to specific instance-wide bannings for talking shit on us foreign policy or zionism?

have a nice day

Why are we engaging at all?

because i objected to your bad faith characterization of another user’s comments.

You didn’t actually listen to what I said, you in fact deliberately and in bad faith edited out parts so that you could argue against what you want to argue against.

i made your position more succinct. you provided two options and said they were the only possible explanations, then said “that’s reality”. you constructed a false dichotomy. there was no nuance to your comment that would have undermined this construction of your argument. your assumption of other peoples beliefs and motivations is a bad faith approach altogether.

well i am not interested in getting bogged down in defending any particular motivation, i’m only trying to keep the conversation intellectually honest. it seems that you understand, now, that there might be other motivations, and as such that your previous accusations were in fact bad faith.

i asked copilot to weigh in on this. i have edited it for brevity (there was a lot of boiler-plate), but this is the last half or so completely unedited:

Whether or not someone is engaging in bad faith would depend on their intent and whether they genuinely believe in their arguments or are purposefully distorting the discussion.

It’s important to approach such discussions with the aim of understanding and addressing the actual points being made, rather than attributing motives or misrepresenting positions. This fosters a more productive dialogue and helps avoid the pitfalls of bad faith arguments and logical fallacies. If you feel the discussion is not progressing constructively, it may be beneficial to step back and reassess the approach to ensure a good faith exchange of ideas.

You are engaging in bad faith by misrepresenting my words to form a what you think is a strawman to argue against.

what straw man?