It’s because everyone feels the need to enforce things, and these people think that they must enforce a hierarchy where smart, strong people pick on and scam weakers, dumber people who they assume are either also scammers or dumb enough to deserve it. These groups believe in things like might makes right and ableism. They do not care to build a reality based on science or facts or good faith arguments, instead it is based on hierarchy and bullying. They do not even understand what a good faith argument really is.

What content broke the laws? Can you give more info? BlueSky has been pretty good so far so this surprises me

Yeah, there are a lot of men on here who really go to bat for pedophilia. Don’t even BREATHE a word about AI porn of children being immoral because it is modeled after irl children and can be made to blackmail kids etc. Don’t ever argue with any Muslim misogynists on here that child marriage is bad or that feminism in Islam is good. Never be upset that a man was saying it is “probably” not good for kids if they participate in sex acts (we have specific physiological signs like bedwetting that show CSA is inherently damaging to humans) but that it should be totally normal to have your kids WATCH you fuck because they probably did that in medieval times.

And people wonder why my bio recommends BlueSky

Then you lose. I accept you quit and lost. Bye.

I think you’re actually doing here what you are accusing me of re: misinterpretting. My last comment was mild af.

The world has become more hateful. It’s not just online or in people’s heads. We have evidence that massive online warfare happens, literal psychological warfare and soldiers paid to post hate online all day every day. One independent journalist estimated at least a trillion dollars spent for various election/political meddling in 2024 and 2025, with protests in Romania, Georgia, Serbia, Slovakia, South Korea, Germany, Poland, etc etc etc.

So yeah, you got a downvote, grow up about it. You’re wrong and didn’t contribute anything meaningful to the conversation. This isn’t even “hate,” this is simple disagreement that you are too thin-skinned to handle.

Hate is stuff like: ableism, misogyny, racism, homophobia, transphobia. Eg a roomba yelling the N word at people. It is not disagreeing with you and downvoting you, lol. For fucks sake.

Edit for your E2: The massive online armies are using online hate to conduct genocides and kill people more efficiently. With massive networks of countries with camps and slavery including Assad’s knowledge of death camps.

BlueSky is genuinely one of the least toxic socials I’ve had in a while. I can agree to disagree there on normal issues like whether UBI should be given in a lump sum, weekly, monthly- it’s not fucking assholes “debating” if aliens built the pyramids and whether we should drink our own pee or if good faith arguments are important or if it’s “natural” to be attracted to 14yr old girls as an adult man (all topics I’ve seen on Lemmy).

Someone hacked a roomba last year to yell the N word at people on a mic.

The WORLD has become more hateful, it is not simply perception.

Theres so much pedophilia, wanton violence, racism, misogyny, homophobia, ableism, transphobia… fuck all these people. May they never find peace or happiness. We owe no one politeness.

Okay, there’s still some evidence, which I emphasized was very mild.

Yes, you do need to provide evidence for your claims. I’ve provided evidence and explained my position, and your position has been fallacies and ad homs. That’s not a valid refutation. That you need this explained to you is … Lol

your fallacy is the fallacy fallacy

That’s not how fallacies work lol. You have to specifically outline what part of speech is using fallacious arguments. It’s not “my” fallacy lol

That’s also not how the fallacy fallacy works in argument, because it 1) shows you admit you have argued in bad faith and 2) goes back to arguing in good faith because that is what is considered reasonable, that is, able to be reasoned with, and not nonsense 3) you based your argument on the fallacies themselves, thus making it fallacious

That the argument is fallacious only means that the argument cannot succeed in proving its consequent.[6] But showing how one argument in a complex thesis is fallaciously reasoned does not necessarily invalidate its conclusion if that conclusion is not dependent on the fallacy.

Your conclusions are dependent on the fallacy, you admit it is a fallacy, and you cannot argue in good faith at all. That’s known as - you lose. You have no substantial argument.

Again, that you need this explained to you is lol

May you end up in court some day, please 🙏

Wait until you hear about mercury contamination from gold mining practices

Candace Owens doesn’t believe in dinosaurs, he may as well think this, we live in profoundly stupid times

Lol, I don’t cause you to argue in bad faith (with entire comments full of fallacies), that’s you who does so of your own “brainpower.”

You’ve not once made a valid counterargument or even provided evidence. What evidence? The only content I’ve seen is your ableism and ad hominems. Can you actually form an independent, good faith argument backed with valid evidence? I haven’t seen evidence of THAT being able to happen yet.

Again, you seem to think Lemmy mods are in charge of who is and isnt a Nazi, that’s so strange lol. But I dont usually report to mods, I’m an adult who can handle an argument (are you?). I also am an adult who can read what people write and form opinions about them, without needing another adult to intervene or tell me how to think. Maybe that’s your issue? No mod or big friend to tell you how to argue in good faith here?

Normally I would just mock you by pointing out that liberals stay in the tweets while leftists get out on the streets, but you’re obviously suffering from mental illness

Here’s an ad hominem and ableism. Your refusal to debate the argument here is a fallacy and bad faith.

and I don’t think it’s very nice to make fun of people who are clearly having a mental breakdown, judging by your totally normal reaction.

2nd instance of ad hom and ableism in this comment alone.

As for BRICS,

Thanks for reminding me you failed to answer any questions and lost this debate completely.

Also, hey @antlion@lemmy.dbzer0.com, turns out it’s uh checks notes BRICS that’s censoring Wikipedia to convince you not to drink your own pee.

Strawman, that was never said. I also have a longform comment to that user already explaining why the science of the pee drinking stuff is bogus, so somehow you did a double strawman.

Yup, bunch of totally normal people in these comments.

3rd instance of ad hom and ableism

Now for this comment.

you’re very clearly dedicated to whatever this wonderful and deep narrative is that you’ve crafted

That’s literally just having integrity and debating a position. You can’t argue because you don’t know how to argue this topic in good faith and apparently too childish to admit it.

and also, argonians have stinky fish breath

This is an ad hom, it is being used in an argument to strengthen your side, and further, you are basing the entirety of your refusal to discuss in good faith on ad homs in the previous comment.

you’re wrong, because your arguments suck

This is also a fallacy and bad faith argument, it would be dismissed. Circular reasoning.

An ad hominem is an attempt to refute an argument by using a personal attack

That’s what you did. Literally. Don’t gaslight. I quoted it so you can see. You then changed the exucse to not argue in good faith in this most recent comment to lack the ableism, which is why it looks hilarious, like you’re upset I’m able to argue and think.

Oh, and if you’re going to call someone a nazi, at least make it someone the average person would believe is a nazi

You are one or you support them which makes you one.

If I was anything of the sort, I personally know three admins of my instance who would not hesitate to ban me in an instant, and one or two of them could probably dox me if they wanted to.

Really bad application of appeal to authority - fallacy. Lemmy mods dont determine who is a Nazi lol

Intolerance is only an issue when it is equated with violence. There’s no real issue or paradox of intolerance if you equate intolerance with asserting boundaries nonviolently - this is the literal basis of unconditional love.

Removed by mod

That would probably be Ray Peat. Ray Peat was friends with Linus Pauling, and he had a special diet he recommended (and lived to be 86, died in 2022). It focused on fat soluble vitamins A, E, K, and D, and promoted low low PUFA (fatty acids, eg seed oils), and high vitamin C. He did have a little PUFAs later in life in his diet though as he became elderly. He wasn’t a quack, but it is likely his extreme diet was missing some obvious important components like omega 3s and 9s.

He is also the person who talks about proportions of fats to each other, eg taking vitamin E to combat negative affects of vitamin A, which is still used to treat vitamin A toxicity in ERs to this day.

https://raypeat.com/articles/articles/unsaturated-oils.shtml

https://grasslandbeauty.com/blogs/news/seed-oils-friend-or-foe-part-2?srsltid=AfmBOoqokUh0Dq71q6CwXOi6brvscWnjFYPqAszfsZF-UYOuXtXb2lty

https://raypeat.com/articles/nutrition/oils-in-context.shtml

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6406961/

Joke’s on OP, turns out he was right and helping people (very mildly)

deleted by creator

Strawman, literally no one said that.