Stoneykins [any]

  • 0 Posts
  • 147 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 30th, 2023

help-circle





  • “than I thought you were”? I’m not the person you were talking to before.

    What is your actual point? Why do you think it is important for you to argue that “actually gambling isn’t pure luck”? And what, in your estimation, is “pure luck”?

    The way I see it people are talking about specific phenomenon, and how they have entirely luck based outcomes (ex like the lottery), and you are trying to increase the scope of the context of the discussion to, in this example, include people who do not participate in the lottery, to try and argue that phenomenon does not have entirely luck based outcomes. But you haven’t proven your point, you’ve been socially obtuse and attempted to derail the conversation from where it was because you have a bizarre point you want to make.





  • Stoneykins [any]@mander.xyztoMemes@lemmy.mlis a hot dog a sandwich
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Salad theory is rigid and respectable.

    Cube rule of food identification exists to be disproven aggressively for comedy and arguing. It’s a good time, until the person that believes it so truly they would kill and die to call a cheese roll up sushi arrives. They can make the conversation stressful.


  • Stoneykins [any]@mander.xyztoMemes@lemmy.mlHave mercy on our souls
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Names of things don’t have to follow “the rules of english” to change and morph with who is using them.

    Acting like there is any immutable qualities to any language or word is kinda silly.

    Currently, with the common opinion split pretty well, the correct answer for how to say it is “‘gif’ or ‘jif’”. Call it whichever you want.








  • I mean if you want to know how it would effect me it wouldn’t. Posts from beehaw don’t even come up, flooded out by more active communities, unless I go directly to the beehaw comms. I functionally use it as a seperate website anyways now, if I ever feel like checking it.

    I don’t really understand your overall goal talk tho. You want to be nice in an intentionally vague way, but you feel like federation is somehow limiting you from achieving this vague state of niceness… Is it just moderation difficulties (not to downplay them) or is something else about leaving the fediverse door open problematic to being nice?

    To be blunt the solution to your problems seems to me the same as every single other time beehaw federation is talked about: the community you want to achieve will require many more moderators than a typical community of equivalent size, they will need specialized mod tools, they will need to be high quality skilled highly vetted mods, and you will need exponentially more of them the more users appear on beehaw. Federation doesn’t directly stop you from doing any of that, but it does lead to faster growth, which leads to too much work if you aren’t constantly adding moderators to match growth.

    You should be asking yourself how big you want beehaw to be, and how big of a beehaw you think can be achieved at all.

    Sorry I didn’t mean to be this rambly when I started writing ignore it if you want


  • Now I feel weird because the discussions here are great, in depth, and nuanced, but the way I feel about this is kinda boring and uncomplicated? Am I missing something?

    If I’m playing a customized character that I made, I prefer characters to be playersexual, allowing custom relationships to match my custom character.

    If I’m playing as a written character and experiencing a set story, it is better for all characters to be written well, and have realistic sexualities, as part of the story presented.

    As far as representation goes, I think both can have problems, but neither are inextricably problematic.