because it sucks.

  • aaro [they/them, she/her]
    ·
    5 days ago

    Okay thanks, I think I've got that all. Time to put it into practice.

    Oh wait oh fuck

    • asante [comrade/them]
      ·
      5 days ago

      for everyone who's just joined us, this is what's happening in @aaro@hexbear.net's brain:

      • aaro tries to read post
      • they see it's a "comprehensive" guide on why not to read the post that they are reading
      • guide is 3 words, therefore guide is not comprehensive
      • argument of the post is baseless and there is no reason to not read the post
      • they won't not read the post therefore they should read the post
      • cycle repeats blob-no-thoughts
      • aaro [they/them, she/her]
        ·
        5 days ago

        Thanks for breaking it down honestly that really helps, let me give this another go

        i-told-you-dog stairs

        • asante [comrade/them]
          ·
          5 days ago

          then there's the question of whether or not the guide is comprehensive.

          if this guide is comprehensive, then you shouldn't be reading the post that you are reading. but if it isn't, then you should read the post that you wouldn't read that you are reading.

          and what do we define as "comprehensive"? is comprehension subjective? how subjective are the rules that define what is and isn't subjective?

          is this post comprehensive by virtue of our interpretation of subjective theory, or is this post inherently incomprehensive by being a badpost that is distributed through the medium of c/badposting?