watty

The person you are replying to is talking about pink sky being built on bluesky, and you equate that to Lemmy being based on Reddit. One is a hard technical dependency, and the other is a conceptual inspiration.

You are engaging in an equivocation fallacy, and I think you know that. You even try to sneak it in by switching to a different but similar word (built->based) with a different meaning, then you switched back again to "built" while using the term in the same way you used "based", then you start using other phrasing to obscure it even more. You are gaslighting with word games to try and get people to not notice your fallacy. It's super dishonest.

Seems like you read the first two sentences of my post and stopped there, so you completely missed the point.

It's not JS that is the problem. It's an issue of client resource use. That would be true no matter what language is being used.

That's not necessarily special to JS. It's special to client-side code. A mobile app writing in swift could do this. A cli tool written in any language could do this.

This isn't an argument against JS, it's an argument against misuse of client resources.

I used to think that the perceived complexity of the fediverse was creating a hurdle for more adoption.

Now all these fucking people are learning Chinese to better use RedNote.

Apparently convenience isn't actually a barrier? I'm baffled why so many people are flocking to anything other than the fediverse.

Do people think a bidet is using the water from the toilet bowl instead of fresh water?

I never claimed to support genocide. I claimed that it is better to vote for the better option of the two. You are moving the goal posts.

I'll make it simple for you by reframing my position, as a simple syllogism so maybe you'll stay on topic:

Premise one: Kamala's policy on Palestine (and pretty much every other policy) was better than Trump's.

You've asserted without evidence that Kamala's policy is the same as Trump's. That is factually false. They may be close, but they are not the same. Even if Kamala lied about her policy and continued Biden's policy of providing unconditional resourcing, it is still better than Trump's policy of providing even more unconditional resources.

Premise two: If one is presented with only two options, and one of those options will be selected no matter what, one should select the better option.

You have not provided any refutation to this point whatsoever.

Premise three: No one other than Kamala or Trump could have won the election

You've also not refuted this in any way

Conclusion: Because Kamala's policies made her the better option of the two options, and one of them would certainly become president, one should have voted for Kamala.

Unless you are able to refute the accuracy of the premises or show that the conclusion does not follow from those premises, you have nothing to stand on.

Whether or not you can "support this" is irrelevant. Whether or not it "crosses a line" is irrelevant. Voting is not endorsement, nor is it support of a candidate or all their positions. It is one of your few ways to peacefully influence the direction of the country. You want a viable party that is anti-genocide? Me too. That option didn't exist. Go run for office. Go make that party. In the meantime, stop rolling over for the fascists and letting them get their way.

Ah, you aren't even American and you are arguing American politics. No wonder you are full of shit. You don't have to face the consequences of a Trump presidency directly. No wonder you are so fucking privileged.

Stop trying to influence American politics and stick to your own. I'm done with you, there's no point to this.

What does it mean to cross the line? Does it mean that you just give up and stop trying to use your vote to push the world toward the better future than the worse future? Then never.

If I can choose between a better world or a worse world, I'll choose the better world every time. I won't sit on my hands while the fascists choose the worst one, and it's despicable that you did.

Quite impressive how you can read minds and see the future.

None of that changes the fact that you had a choice between one possible future and a worse possible future, and you opted not to choose and to allow the worse future to arrive.

I'll make it simple for you by reframing my position, the position you were attempting to mock, as a simple syllogism:

Premise one: Kamala's policy on Palestine (and pretty much every other policy) was better than Trump's.

You've asserted without evidence that Kamala's stated policy is not true and that she would follow Biden's established policy of providing unconditionally continued resourcing. Even if that is true, it is still better than Trump's policy of providing even more unconditional resources.

Premise two: If one is presented with only two options, and one of those options will be selected no matter what, one should select the better option.

You have not provided any refutation to this point whatsoever.

Premise three: No one other than Kamala or Trump could have won the election

You've also not refuted this in any way

Conclusion: Because Kamala's policies made her the better option of the two options, and one of them would certainly become president, one should have voted for Kamala.

Unless you are able to refute the accuracy of the premises or show that the conclusion does not follow from those premises, you have nothing to stand on.

You are changing the subject instead of defending your position.

Biden has nothing to do with it. He wasn't running for President.

Kamala's position was to strive for a ceasefire, and Trump's position was to give Israel whatever they need to get the job done.

By voting 3rd party, you've taken the position that these two options are identical in your eyes. Either Israel continues with likely similar reluctant support, or Israel continues with encouragement and unlimited support. Which do you think will lead to more Palestinian deaths?

On top of this, this was Kamala's weakest policy, and she still clearly wins out. You are not only willing to throw the Palestinians under the bus, you're willing to throw trans people, women, and immigrants under the bus too. All of this so you can be on your high horse and pretend to be morally superior while enabling the worst future for everyone. Good job.

Right, so a genocide that kills 1 million Palestinians is the same as a genocide that kills 2 million Palestinians, for example?

Just because two things share a characteristic, doesn't make them the same. One genocide can absolutely be worse than another. You are completely lacking nuance and reason.