Skip Navigation

whoever loves Digit 🇵🇸🇺🇸🏴‍☠️

@ iloveDigit @piefed.social

Posts
33
Comments
435
Joined
2 mo. ago

Digit is Digit. I love her. I knew her online from wallstreetbets and she disappeared while going through some shit. I keep needing proof she's safe.

To anyone I've ever treated unfairly, I apologize.

  • me trying to find common sense on piefed/lemmy too

  • Definitely enlightened but I'd also definitely say I'm extremist, not centrist

  • Definitely seems like an intentional dark pattern then. I don't see how you'd miss how bad that is in the whiteboard phase, let alone while building and having it deployed

  • So yes, it is an intentional design choice? Blocking people stops them from replying, but doesn't stop you from replying or put a label on your comment saying "this person blocked the person they're replying to" or anything?

  • Not reading all that, see previous reply

  • Weird, how come this MAGA chud's reply shows up for me but I can't reply to them? Did someone think it was a good design choice to let chuds comment in a thread but block replies for the person they're replying to?

  • Why are you putting your own statement in quote marks? Seems like you're trying to pretend you can't understand the difference between my statements and what you just said

  • Who are the people who pretend to know nothing about weapons but do?

    Mainly donors and lobbyists, I guess.

    It's an oversimplification - it's more like they confuse you about who's making the decisions, than that they pretend to know less than they do. But when they formulate arguments based on lies, that's also pretending to know less than they do, so the oversimplification isn't actually wrong.

    Complex thing being described simply: decisions are made by people who know how guns work, but a public figure announcing a decision might embarrass himself talking about guns. He might know how guns work, and just be pretending not to. But if he actually knows how guns work, the people sending him out to do the public speaking are the ones "pretending not to know more" - or rather, making you think "wow this guy is an idiot" instead of "wow these decisions are being made by lying donors and lobbyists."

    Simpler thing that makes the oversimplification more exactly correct: even if the guy doing the public speaking genuinely doesn't know how guns work, it's still dishonest of his handlers to send him up, and in the process, they still make false arguments that omit their knowledge on the topic, meeting the exact original statement.

  • But that wouldn't show how the parties mirror each other from the view of a neutral third party just trying to survive.

    The point is to make Republicans think about how they look the same as Democrats when they join in on blocking me from getting guns, and vice versa for Democrats because they join in on blocking me from getting vaccines. They both complain about the other side lying and replacing experts with fools in important positions, but they both go along with it when the money says, leaving people like me far from restoring our rights.

    The message would be totally lost if they were separated

  • Bonus question: is there a better format for the same meme?

  • I’d actually loooove to see your papers on which vaccines should be approved and which should be rejected and backed up by your own peer-reviewed and published research as to why they should be given those conditions. Or at least, your degree in biomolecular sciences with a ruggedized essay on your opinions.

    What do you mean? What made you think I had any of that stuff?

    And if you can’t link those things, maybe stfu about vaccines?

    No thanks.

    But if you're using those things to decide who gets to make the decisions, and the people who have those things are apparently dumber than me, maybe stop letting those decisions include which vaccines I can access?

    Like if you can’t tell me why mercury was a perfectly fine viral attenuator, then i’m not interested in discussing the intricacies of vaccine methodology.

    And? Why are you telling me this? Did something I said seem like I was suggesting we discuss the intricacies of vaccine methodology?

    As much as I love the rationalized view, I dont need to go back in time and un-invent them.

    That's fine, but I do need to avoid gunshot wounds, according to people whose medical knowledge can be verified in better ways than just asking for credentials (e.g. asking if they're aware gunshot wounds are unhealthy).

    Gun control has worked in multippe other countries for decades and could always be better and tighter.

    But I don't want things designed to kill me and my loved ones to work. I want to survive and protect my loved ones. I want it to not work when you try to endanger me and my loved ones. I think you're a bad person for changing policy in a way that gets people killed and then saying that means it's "working."

    I dont need every fuckwith with a room temperature IQ holding a gun.

    Then don't hold one. I will still need one.

    That’s whats got America completely fucked up and the morons just cant stop repeating NRA talking points because they froth at the idea of killing other citizens in the name of political ideology.

    You're the one trying to do social murder here. I just want my fucking right to self defense.

  • I'm sure the old WW2 German Nazis would have disagreed with me if I lived then, for thinking defeating them was a good idea.

    I just don't think it matters. Not all opinions are equal. I'm basically just better than people who think my best ideas are bad.

  • I am not helping you chuds grow Truth Social after you banned me from the Donald Trump subreddit after the one time I voted for him 9 years ago. If you're having trouble getting people to join your new thing now, I'm laughing at you - I'm not the person to ask for help.

    I have not quite given up on finding a piefed/lemmy community where this will be appreciated.

  • I just can't think of a template that would be better for this. Maybe I should just try a template that's more directly fitting, even if it doesn't seem "better" to me, in case I'm just reading the situation wrong

  • It is very good use of the format.

    Until someone can think of a better format for the same meme, and then it would be downgraded to just a good use of the format, not very good.

    But that hasn't happened yet. As it stands, I definitely qualify it as very good using this format to make Democrats and Republicans think about how they mirror each other on vaccines and guns, from the view of someone dedicated to surviving and protecting loved ones.

  • I would be pleasantly surprised if, after figuring out a way to remake the same meme from a more fitting template, it found more acceptance

  • Red and blue are the color code for Republican and Democrat in the US

    But yes, I am stretching the meme format

  • I wish you were right.

    I can't think of a way to repurpose the meme with a more fitting format, but if you could, I believe you'd get similar responses. I think it's basically just Democrats hating being called out for violating my rights because they support gun control and, on the other hand, they prefer blaming Republicans for blocking me from accessing vaccines.

    Not about the meme's format, but the message itself, sadly.