This post is not only to try finding the best Mastodon instance/server but I also wanted to express about the Mastodon instances. Most of Mastodon servers are apparently harsh about other instances that include things they don’t like and are quite serious about getting those Internet points putting how the place isn’t welcome for “bigotry” and is for everyone and so diverse, and I wouldn’t have any problems with this if this wasn’t frequently used by people who will try to shut you if they disagree enough with you and will try to present themselves as so virtuous. You’d expect that the free side of the Internet would have people that value freedom and should let anything that isn’t a crime or something that prejudice the instance itself or whatever space they’re in but it seems this vision is getting far from the reality with time.
what statement is that, exactly? and what is your source that it is the opinion of the “majority of the people” what people?
we are not discussing countries, nor are we discussing how they act towards each other. e are discussing mastodon instances and their internal rues of conduct. as I said before, this is both a false equivalence and straw man.
Straw man
False equivalence
moving on…
by ignoring the vast differences in context and scope to pick out what tiny similarities there may be, you are:
Cherry picking
if you have to perform such mental gymnastics to make your point, you might just as well give up, as you’re convincing nobody.
So you don’t say anything of consistency just to say afterwards that someone is doing the specific thing because you think that makes you seem smarter than you are. But you would look smarter if you instead said anything with meaning and then said I was discussing something entirely different, instead of, you know, say basically absolutely nothing; it would still be dumb but you already chose the worst way so I don’t believe you would have problem choosing the second worst.
the only thing consistent about you argument is that it is consistently flawed as I have consistently explained, and that you consistently blame me for your own consistent failures at rational discussion and comprehension— which I have also pointed out, consistently.
The summarize what you bring to the table.
I have explained my position fully, simply, and repeatedly. If you still fail to comprehend, that is not my problem. at this point you are clearly
Sealioning
That means you bring nothing, okay. I mean, at least you bring a lot of terms to describe yourself so… “I see that as an absolute win.”
only if your only purpose here is contrarianism and to argue for your self-entitlement and logical fallacies and expectations for me to accept blame when you fail. then, no, I offer you nothing.
could you please link to where I said this (or described myself to you in any way)? I suspect you’ll ignore this, too.
What can I be contrary about other than your aggressive behavior and the apparent ideals you seem to have because not even your ideas you’ve been able to affirmate cause everything you did was to drop a bunch of terms that, funnily enough, describe how you behaved during the discussion.
how am I being “aggressive" by simply pointing out the facts? or by asking you questions? or by asking you to explain your logic? or pointing out that you constantly refuse to answer many of my questions? how is it “aggressive” just because I’m not responsible when you fail to comprehend simple concepts or sentences? Especially when you are the one who makes repeated accusations and claims without providing any proof and ignore repeated requests for evidence?
inconvenient facts aren’t “aggression” nor is asking questions just because you can’t or don’t want to answer them. facing the consequences of your actions is not a state of victimhood, and I’m not to blame for the things you do or fail to do.
edit:
what ideals have I claimed to have? please link to said comment(s) where I claimed any ideals.