Why? For not playing along all this babble, where a gullible child blindly trusts .ml admins, gets all "waaah ur stupid!" and then a bunch of other kids are "WOW! THIS LOOKS LIKE OUR SKIBIDI PLAYGROUND FR FR?"
[Note for other users: since the other user is simply grasping at straws with argumenta ad hominem, and there's zero valid argumentation, I'll have my fun at his expense.]
While I can appreciate how much effort you put into the affectation of the appearance of intelligence [implied: "lvxferre is pretending to be intelligent"]
"Oh noes! How does someone DARE to disagree with Our Holy King AntiOutsideAktion? They must be stupid!"
...or perhaps I'm intelligent enough to not fall for your obvious bullshit. Not that this is some achievement, because I bet that even a dog could do it.
and how well you’ve internalized “more words = more good” as a writing style
If my verbosity deeply offends your precious, oh-so-precious sensibilities and your entitlement to abridged content, well... I don't care.
Now let's see if you have some actual argumentation or if you'll keep whining [yes] this shitty ad hominem. (Onwards "AAH")
I observe that you are still a dumb motherfucker who should just keep their idiot mouth shut.
Nope, it's still AAH.
And bossing me around to "waaah! shut up! shut up!!! I'm going to cry if you don't shut up!" is ineffective, by the way.
Basic reading comprehension: I was calling you and the rabble of .world accounts toxic.
I.e. you were using a non-descriptive weasel label that can be used to justify everything and nothing at the same time, to whine at LW users and me, because you have the same intellectual honesty of a hypothetical child of Elon Musk and a genderbent Spez, and can't back up your claim.
But no, something must be wrong. People aren't laughing at your shitty arguments because they're bloody stupid. No - it must be because they're stupid!
Yeah, I’ve heard of it. Where did you hear of it? In a court system? Not on a private forum the owners of which can decide who they want to join or not?
Oh look, the Musk x Spez child never heard about moral values. ...and suddenly your babble makes a lot of sense.
Again, I’m not calling you a fucking moron frivolously. You’re a fucking moron.
"Again, I'm not calling you a fucking moron frivolously. You dare to disagree with me, even if reality magically bends around my belly button and makes even my inane and immoral shit become true, As if By Magic®"
AAH still ongoing... *yawns*
The word is “gullibility”
Yeah, nah. The word "gullibleness" is registered at least in Wiktionary, WordHippo, bab.la, and the spelling corrector that I'm using.
Next time that you want to prescribe against the usage of some specific word, at least make sure that the word isn't actually valid. Otherwise you'll keep making a fool of yourself. Although... by this comment, it's clear that you're willing to be the laughing stock of everyone here, right?
But hey. Let's pretend, for a tiny moment, that your prescription held some merit here. Ah, my bad if my L3 English offends your sensibilities! I forgot that Lemmy is supposed to be the WASP e-Lebensraum, and that you're expected to have native tier proficiency! Mayocide is threatening me and I must fight against it!
lol
Yeah, I've already noticed that you're braindead. You don't need to reinforce it.
Ordinarily I wouldn’t expect someone to brag about moderating a pedophile instance.
Finally, you found something else than argumenta ad hominem! I'm so proud of you!
And it's still a fallacy. Changing goalposts - since the bullshit claim that ani.social contains CSAM is too stupid even for you, you're now claiming that it's a "paedophile instance".
Stop making shit up. Not even the individual .ml admins agree with each other about it. It's just that one is too stubborn to admit that he was wrong (he does the same all the time in LG), and there's another [not in the linked conversation] clapping to what the stubborn one does.
(Blame still goes to the admin team as an entity.)
This concludes my response titled “Why you’re too much of a stupid piece of shit to engage with seriously”
You do realise that, if you did this in your own home instance, you'd be correctly banned, right? You're supposed to disengage without arguing. (Or trying to, in your case.)
That without even considering the blatant linguistic prejudice that you showed in this comment.
"You could've gone to sleep without that." - local saying.
I can tell you get off on imagining that your words carry some kind of intimidating weight over the internet
I can tell that you're assumptive (i.e. stupid) as a brick and prone to make shit up about things that you cannot reliably know, such as what others imagine. (Unless you have a functional crystal ball. Yeah... nah.)
Think for a moment on the purpose of that utterance in the context of the comment, and then hopefully even you will realise why it's there. Spoilers: burden of proof.
purpose - what that piece of text is doing in the whooole text. It's just linguistics vocab leaking.
utterance - something said. Discourse analysis, same shit as above. If you want further info on that I recommend Bakhtin, as his approach towards DA borrows heavily from Marxism.
burden of proof - basically, "you prove it!". The one bringing this up was not me, but the muppet who was then sharing this excerpt outside its context, in all their butthurtness*.
Well, without the proper context it's hard to interpret things correctly, indeed. And yet it's what we (people in general) should do, to avoid being unfair. Doubly so when we're in a position to dictate what others should/shouldn't share, like the admins of an instance are. [EDIT: it's what we should do = interpret things correctly.]
I hope the encounter in stardew valley is different enough not to count as SA
If you're in the mood, give this link a check. It's the whole 3min scene, straight from the game. Just keep in mind that, as I mentioned before, the player avatar and Shane (purple hair guy) are already dating.
So cut off the crap. You aren't fooling anyone here.
The mod log says they were banned for breaking the rule against bigotry [rule 1]
And I'm calling bullshit on the stated reason why .ml banned OP. More on that later.
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, you fucking moron, not the person casting doubt on it
Epistemically speaking the burden of the proof falls on both, since you're "conveniently" omitting that you didn't just "cast doubt" towards OP's claims - you also did your own claims there, by implying that the ban was to exclude [ipsis ungulis] "their toxic asses" from the community. (Whatever "toxic" means.)
On a moral level though? OP is defending themself. Have you ever heard about presumption of innocence?
In both cases, you still need to back up your claim. Now at least try to pretend to be a decent person, and do it, instead of running again with tail between legs.
Just on a personal note, you’re a fucking idiot for taking a story like this on face value when even in the OP’s text the actual reason for the ban isn’t touched on. It’s amazing how poor your critical thinking skills are.
My sides went into orbit. That's specially hilarious coming from someone who shows blatant gullibleness towards the reasons stated in the .ml modlog.
But let's roll with it. Contrariwise to your assumption = bullshit, I don't trust OP's narrative due to lack of critical thinking skills. I trust what OP is saying here because it's extremely consistent with what I've personally observed as a former .ml user who used to mod two comms there:
The .ml admin team, as a team*, has the same reading skills of a potato, is often prone to witch hunting and assumptive behaviour (consistent with this case), and uses "rule 1" (bigotry) and "rule 2" (unwelcoming behaviour) as catch-all for "we want a bullshit reason to get rid of this poster". And it never admits when it fucked up.
If you want evidences of that, just go dig on the defederation of ani.social, where the admin team distorted the concept of child sexual abuse material to [unnecessarily] justify it. Or I can come up with the modlog of one of the comms I used to moderate there. Your choice.
*I'd gladly give you names. But I don't know if it's allowed here.
The game in question allows you to date and marry different characters, among them Shane (represented in the comic with the purple hair). In order to do so, once the character reaches an affection level of eight hearts towards you, you need to give them a bouquet, that clearly signals that the player's avatar has romantic interest towards that person.
The comic represents Shane's ten hearts event. As in: you can only reach that point if you already showed romantic interest towards Shane. And in the context, the kiss is not even sexual in nature, it's just Shane excited with the game.
As in, there's no fucking way to interpret this as sexual assault.
But of course. Slacktivists gonna witch hunt, right? They're unable to understand context, but they're still really eager to screech at you. And .ml moderation in special has a nasty tendency towards both slacktivism and witch hunting.
Engels talks about the subject. Including some comparisons between the Peasants' War and the revolutions in 1848~9 (fresh in his memory as the text was initially published in 1850). I recommend everyone here to give it a check.
I gave it a check. It's hard to take a lot of conclusions from a single word, but
Quechua - kumar, khumara
Rapa Nui - kuma porá
Maori - kūmara, kūmera
Hawaiian - ʻuala
Tongan: kumala
This got to be at least two instances of borrowing, since either Rapa Nui picked another variant of the word to borrow or solved the issue with the ending consonant in a different way (by eliding it instead of adding a new vowel).
The Hawaiian cognate underwent /k/→/ʔ/ (spelled ʻ), so it's probably really old.
Based on that, if I had to take a guess: Polynesians contacted the Amerindians multiple times across the centuries, and it was kind of a big deal for Rapa Nui ones. Sadly a better analysis would need a bigger lexicon than a single word.
I do think that it was more than just a few small interactions, but I don't think that they happened in Rapa Nui island, or that they got the chance to develop an Amerindian minority there. I think that, instead, the Polynesians had small coastal settlements here in South America, used for trade.
So those 10% admixture would be like in your other hypothesis - mixed kids raised Polynesian.
The key is that what you said is true for the Polynesians, but not for the Amerindians - from the Polynesians' PoV the Amerindians were a big cluster of potential trading partners with exotic resources, but from the Amerindians' PoV it was just a small island in the middle of nowhere, that could be only safely reached by knowing how to navigate the oceans - and at least Andean Amerindians likely didn't know how to do it, as they were way more focused on land-based tech (terrace farming, road building, freeze-drying...).
I wonder if there was ever a minority NA population on the island alongside Polynesians
That's an interesting hypothesis and definitively worth checking, but I personally find unlikely that Rapa Nui had any sort of meaningful (in numbers) Native American minority - there's practically no material pressure to do so.
It's tempting to look for potential vocab exchange between Rapa Nui and (Quechua and Aymara). That could help dating the exchange with the Andes, as the lexicon stops following the lender's sound changes to follow the borrower's instead.
(Polynesian syllabic structure and small phonemic stock make this extra tricky though. For example, Classical Quechua /s ʂ h/ would probably end all merged into /h/, and you'd see multiple epenthetic vowels popping up.)
Even then I wouldn't be surprised if they contacted the folks up south, like the Mapuche. Specially as I don't expect the landing spot from a Rapa Nui → South America to be the best spot to start the opposite travel, due to sea currents.
Dependendo dos teus gostos, MATE. É um fork do GNOME 2, mantido por outro grupo de desenvolvedores. Muitos dizem ter uma interface antiquada, mas francamente: o MATE funciona bem, sem encher o saco. E sem a ladainha associada com o GNOME propriamente dito.
E sim, é altamente customizável. Inclusive há algum tempo atrás eu tava rodando um híbrido de MATE com o Xfce, e sabe que o djanho funcionou legal?
So moreso the German split happened around when Roma finally collapsed?
Roughly so. The date is mostly for reference though; you could argue that it happened even earlier, because even as far as 1 AD you already got some dialectal variation. To complicate it further, Standard German is slightly artificial, since it's the result of a written standard shared by speakers of different varieties. So we might as well argue that what's being dated is not the English-German split, but rather the split between English and those varieties that eventually formed German. (With then for example Dutch being the result of one of those varieties [Old Low Franconian] getting its own competing standard.)
But to the point: yes, Rome collapsing is a good reference, and directly tied to that.
"Please don't speak up, let us dogpile you."
The only king here is you. And I happen to have fresh entrails from a priest.