Yeah at least you’ll be familiar with the apps, ease the headache switching.

So it’s GUIMP? I thought it was “GNU Image Manipulation Program.”

Well good to know the chips won’t stick to anything since they’re made out of anti-seize grease.

https://www.slackradio.org/

Praise “Bob”

The distinction is meaningless.

Nonetheless, it seems that my main point has been made, we might just have to agree to disagree on the semantic point.

But by your definition, it is censorship, as it was a government doing it, and it was done without violence, so censorship doesn’t need to be violent to be censorship, just repressive, and tankies are repressing the word of dissenters to their favored states (either under the active direction of those states or through propaganda, or by their own free will), meaning their “moderation” is at least only semantically different from censorship (or isn’t different at all, if the state is sufficiently involved for you.)

And it still doesn’t mean that anyone who gets censored by them is right wing.

Tbh even if I could I wouldn’t want to, the terminal is so much better for many things. I advise new users to become comfortable with it at least by following along with a few “linux terminal basics” vids like it’s a class.

Well you wanted to play the game don’t get mad when I start playing too. I mean “It’s not semantic.”

So you’re telling me, that in the wake of Janet Jackson’s titty, CBS/Viacom received or was threatened with police brutality in the form of $550,000 (a small percentage of their yearly revenue)? You think that a large corporation being fined for showing a titty is “police brutality?” That kinda minimizes actual police brutality but go off I guess.

Or that same titty that cost Viacom $550,000 could legally be broadcast in France because they don’t have as draconian of tv titty laws like we do, and nobody was threatened with prison time or killed, they were fined. It’s not always violence, despite your refusal to accept that you’re wrong.

“Anyway, nuh uh,” I’m arguing that just because you’re censored moderated on lemmy it isn’t “because you’re right wing” as you suggest, it’s more likely because you said something a tankie didn’t like. I’m also having fun with the semantics of moderated vs censored but you started that, and the semantics of repression vs violence because you opened it up to that continuation by misconstruing the two, but mainly I’m refuting the former assertion that “they deserved it just because of what they were wearing they must be right wing if an all knowing admin got angwy at them.”

Yeh

Hey kids you like plain text files right?

Me, who grew up reading/referencing text files daily on gamefaqs for cheats, secrets/eggs, and walkthroughs when stuck on various games: Yeh.

There is no threat of violence

Lol oh so you’re definitely unfamiliar with Hexbear then, threatening violence is one of their favorites.

Regardless, where in definition 1b is violence even mentioned? Actually, nowhere in any of those definitions mentions violence, closest you get is “repression,” which can be violent, but isn’t by definition, it can be done through other means like propaganda and censorship. Furthermore there’s no threat of violence on much censorship, be it corporate, self, or govenment censorship. Sometimes there is sure but often it’s something as simple as not wanting to lose your job (corporate) or be ostracized (self), or a simple fine (government). If the FCC catches you saying no-no words on the radio they don’t threaten your life, they threaten to fine you or suspend/remove your license, if you show Janet Jackson’s titty on television you and Janet don’t get tortured, CBS gets fined $550,000.

and the moderated are still able to make their statements on other, equally-federated platforms.

And those censored by nation-states are often still able to make their statements in other nation-states, but they’ve still been censored.

I’m not saying it shouldn’t exist, I’m saying your premise of “if you’ve been censored (moderated if you insist on distinction idgaf) on lemmy you’re clearly right wing and probably deserved it” is verifiably false.

And that you’re probably one of them, if you parrot the same lines they do, of course. If you’re not maybe reflect on why you parrot their lines, perhaps you’ve been duped into thinking anyone who criticizes moderation on lemmy is a right wing troll just because they use a word that is basically synonymous when abused except “state.”

Btw note definition 1b. Would you say a concentrated team of admins and moderators with an agenda silencing those who oppose it fits that definition? I would.

By “abuse disguised as dissent” do you mean it’s abuse to refute tankie propaganda and the bans for doing it (the tankies suppressing it) are then justified? 'Cause…

Like I said in my previous comment, seems like you’ve been moderated for reasons other than your viewpoint.

Like I said in a previous comment, it seems you’re unfamiliar with the entirety of .ml, lemmygrad, and hexbear. Or you support their moderation tactics, and “anyone who dared speak against them must be a right wing troll who deserved it” which coincidentally is what they say any time they ban someone for not praising the CCP or the russians in Ukraine, coincidence? I think not, too many of them around here for that.

Tbf, some of them may be doing it at the behest of some government, it just might not be yours.

But really this is a semantic issue when the real outcome is the same: suppression of dissent. You can pretend you just “didn’t mention” abuse of moderation all you want but this being lemmy, it would have been a good idea when it’s such a prevalent problem, so I’m inclined to believe that rather than simply neglecting to mention it, like many others here you possibly support or endorse it. You also employ the often used tactic of calling everyone who considers this “abuse of moderation” a form of censorship “right wing” which just so happens to be on page two of the tankie handbook, so I’m even further inclined to believe that you’re just aligned with them.

Lemmy has moderation, not censorship. And the fact that you’re being moderated is a big old red flag. To wit: I’ve never seen this complaint from anyone outside the right-wing.

So you’re unfamiliar with [email protected] or [email protected] then? Never seen someone banned for having the gall to speak against Stalin or the CCP, or any other wrongthink according to the Marxist-leninists that run .ml, grad, and bear? You must be new here, or agree with that as “moderation not censorship” because you are a tankie too, or have decided to classify Marxist-Leninist tankies as right wing because “left only when good,” or think “right wing is when call out leftists on their bullshit,” I’m just curious which applies.

My bad.

But yes I agree with her (you) lol.

Well it is illegal to posses, unless you successfully register it as a destructive device with ATF but if you had the qualifications you needed you’d know about it, so we can’t do it.

For sure hollow points though.

Yet you’re suggesting using a molotov cocktail inside your home is safer? I’m guessing you’ve never used one of those, either (and neither have I mr fbi man that’s very illegal and I would never…) but they’re not exactly super controllable.

Nor are they practical, you have to keep them capped or the gas will evaporate, so you’d have to open it, soak your rag, and stuff it all while saying “hold on mr home invader I’ll be right with you.”

Nor is it legal, the AR is a self defense case that in my state is pretty cut and dry, the Molotov is an unregistered destructive device charge, an arson charge, and probably an attempted murder charge since he’ll likely survive with third degree burns tbh.

I’m assuming you’re joking anyway, but fun to debate nonetheless lol.

Yeah I’m not gonna molotov a guy inside my own house, I’ll just use an AR. Easier clean up.