Technology

66892 readers

5027 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each other!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

1106

Multiple Tesla vehicles were set on fire in Las Vegas and Kansas City (www.theverge.com)

submitted 22 hours ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

178 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

The other user elaborated to you on the importance of context. They challenged the definitions of violence. You basically responded "I was right" with very simple ideas. They didn't admit anything later, because their position remained the same throughout. You saying otherwise is the bad faith part. It is okay if you don't understand the complexities, but it is bad faith to misrepresent that other user.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

The other user elaborated to you on the importance of context

Which was unnecessary and irrelevant because the context was already established. That's called "derailing the conversation".

They challenged the definitions of violence.

No they didn't, they plainly agreed.

They didn't admit anything later, because their position remained the same throughout.

It clearly did not. They said that violence did not include property damage, then later admitted that it did. I don't know how you can claim they "challenged the definition of violence" without disagreeing that property damage is violence.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 hours ago

Lord have mercy.

User A stated that property damage is not violence.

User B expanded on that topic (not a derailment because it is relevant. A derailment would be them talking about another topic, example: music) and challenged the scope of different definitions of violence. You ignored this.

When you asked User B if they agree that property damage is violence, they stated their position that yes, it can be.

There are TWO different people, with TWO different opinions, and you are mixing them up.