- 72 Posts
- 48 Comments
14·1 year agoWhich part don’t you understand?
Yes, despite their own rules, that’s exactly what happened. Then he went to another place to make it even more personal, which inspired a question of mine.
As it happens, exactly a day later after I said anything, a famous science commentator dropped the first bombshell on this often-fidgeted-with topic, complete with the same cited sources.
Heh, I am amused someone is referencing this thread (which I forgot about) for a book about the noosphere being a part of the fediverse and being federated (through a technology built by aliens that uses a combination of machines with airwaves and dream influencing to unify dreams, which is a part of the fediverse) and the fact the reason we might not realize we’re in each others’ dreams is because the appearances in the dreams differ in inconsequential ways in the same way multiple versions of redrawn scenes or parallel style fiction do due to being federated, with the occasional individual defederation.
Dovahkiin, is that you?
1·1 year agoNo worries then, it’s algorithm-based, not religion-based (I am agnostic).
That’s a bit oddly specific, this wasn’t intended to be about that, but alright. I’m not one of them but know enough people who are to know she goes overboard with her criticisms sometimes. For example, she singles certain people out for their “treasure hunting” when it was a folk tradition practiced by many people at the time, misconstrues their dress code on more than one occasion, and paints Joseph Smith’s expression of polygamy as dirty when, if it was as dirty as people say, it would’ve been one of the crimes he was charged with by the courts. I singled her out because she’s the easiest person to get stuck seeing on the front page, so it quite literally and unavoidably feels in your face, thus it’s a bit of a meme right now to cite her.
I feel like this comment of yours is a jab against me, but Leah Remini herself, after being asked to weigh in on Mormonism, said it’s nowhere near as bad as people paint it, so I at least have the OG to help back things up.
Partially but not entirely.
That’s 100% what I mean. I didn’t have the right words for it though.
deleted by creator
Refresh me on that, what happened?
Enabling as in justifying something that normally cannot be justified.
It’s a sequel to a previous question. I’ve been watching people bombard someone I met with claims that she must be a narcissist/schizophrenic/whatever based on trivial disagreements and them thinking she thinks she’s always right (despite the people saying that being in a very specific demographic), and in turn other people saying she comes off as thinking she’s always right as an immune response to people gaslighting her in the first place. She posted a few demonstration videos on Tiktok which one of the supposed gaslighters then decided to infringe the copyright on and post on YT saying it makes them look good (ironically the “gaslighter” is coordinated with another infamous guy who has pushed the same agenda). And here I am trying to find a way to ask “wtf is this” but can’t because the AITA groups either don’t allow people saying things on others’ behalf or don’t allow the video format. At this moment there’s a new video from her that hasn’t been deleted yet (she deletes the ones that are copied) but which is inevitably going to be deleted when the other guy replicates it.
You wanna say that to the whole community? I’m using it how it was designed to be used, following up on a previous message (and preceding another one) that also used it how it was designed to be used. And these were, in turn, responses to other things where people might say what you just said but haven’t. The way to address an issue is not to leave/relocate like someone who was forcefully evicted.