I have you tagged “the reason women choose the bear” over your behavior the last time that came up - you have a long long history of being an incel and claiming any criticism of a man is criticism of all men, which you’re doing yet again in this thread.
I greatly prefer the lemmy interface to the piefed one, and I don’t really want to bother migrating everything. It’s just a personal preference thing though, there’s nothing beyond that.
PieFed offers user tagging in both its web UI and in the API so that any app using it could pull from them, although regarding the latter I am not sure which ones actually do or not (Mlwm reportedly does, surely I would think that Blorp would as it touts itself as offering greatest compatibility with PieFed, etc.).
Blorp dev here. Blorp does have user tagging, but it actually stores all that data client side. I had no idea PieFed had user tagging built in. It would be nice to integrate with the PieFed API, but it would be a little tricky.
Currently, if you tag a user in Blorp, that tag is stored at the app level. You can login to your app with a Lemmy and a PieFed account simultaneously. If you tag a user from your PieFed account, you will still see that user tag after you switch to your Lemmy account.
If we did tagging at account level instead of app level, the user tags you see would change base on which account you switch to.
Which might even be useful, but yeah could also be confusing, though so too could someone coming to Blorp from the web UI… it’s complicated for sure. Possibly the ideal might be to either have separate behaviors for Lemmy vs. PieFed accounts, or an option to keep them all mirrored/synched up.
Thank you so much. I have now tagged you “helpful” and it shows up everywhere except for this exact comment. Weird. maybe it just takes some time to propagate, although I don’t see why.
For the most part I like lemmy, but the community is incredibly incel-heavy. One of the most successful forms of bait on here (besides political trolling) is posting any even slightly contentious topic about women’s experiences in society or things like institutional sexism. Seriously, keep an eye out - it’s depressingly predictable.
What a random mischaracterization, feels like I’ve been mistaken for somebody. Theres really nothing to even respond to, here, except point out ad hominem.
Criticism of a person’s behavior when that’s the subject at hand is not an ad homeniem, it’s the argument. You’ve got a long history of misapplying logical fallacies and taking these sorts of commentaries where a man is portrayed negatively incredibly personally and then poorly defending your claims.
For example: elsewhere in this thread, where you’ve refused to back up your claims that the author is a “well documented” misandrist. If it’s well documented, it should not be a burden for you to provide evidence, and yet you refuse repeatedly.
I’m directly criticizing two separate things: your behavior, and your claim that pizzacake is a well documented misandrist. That your behavior is remarkably predictable around these issues doesn’t invalidate your claim; we get the conclusion that your claim is baseless from the way you refuse to support it.
Neither of those are an ad hominem or a whattaboutism, and you would be well served by finding out what those terms represent before you try and defend yourself with them.
Saying it does not make it so. It seems to me that referencing your prior behavior and attacking your lack of sources are both relevant and productive for discussion, while misusing fallacies to shut down arguments you don’t like is, ironically, a rhetorical fallacy. They aren’t deflecting by randomly bringing up some unrelated characteristic (for example: you shouldn’t trust this influencer’s opinion on food, I have it on good authority that they’re a terrible parent!), they’re calling back to your previous behavior in similar situations (for example: you shouldn’t trust this influencer’s opinion on food because they have a history of giving people food poisoning!). That isn’t ad hominem, or whataboutism.
If your character and actions might be damming to your arguments, attacking them is attacking your argument, especially when also attacking your sources! Ironically, continuing to attack the comic artist without citing sources is ad hominem, by definition.
Sources?! You need fucking Data? You need a scientific study to discern the precise level of sexism of Pizzacake? Did you ask for sources when Kanye West was in the news for chanting “Heil Hitler”? If not does that mean you need a news article about it from the New York Times or some shit? Did you ask for sources on altright comic artist StoneToss?
I have, multiple times now, demonstrated that a very large number of people recognize this artist as sexist with specific examples going back many years.
Nope, you’ve repeatedly asserted a large number of people recognize her as sexist.
The only thing that approaches having “demonstrated” her “well-documented” misandry is the single incredibly begrudging example you provided - one that multiple other people have also referenced, and which is at very worst a quite bad take from an otherwise pretty progressive artist.
You’ve refused to show anyone this well documented pattern of misandry, but you’re quick to claim you have. And that kind of openly deceptive behavior is exactly why it’s so important to ask for sources.
First:
What an absolutely spectacular example of Argumentum ad populum! Unfortunately no, just because you got upvotes does not establish your claim that it’s well documented. “Many people believing” something does not make that something true (#EdgyAthiestHumor). But well done on finally finding a real logical fallacy!
Second:
“You claim this is well-documented but refuse to show us that documentation”
*“Well you’re sealioning!”
No. Sealioning is a bit like DARVO: while they are useful concepts in sociology, you cannot simply throw the terms out like Pokemon and expect them to do all the work for you.
Yes, I know you begrudgingly provided a single link, I talked about that. Your single link didn’t at all establish your claims, as multiple people have explained. Asking for actual proof of your claims is not bombarding you with requests, it’s a single request that you have utterly failed to address.
You gotta realize this is just not a great look for you.
I have you tagged “the reason women choose the bear” over your behavior the last time that came up - you have a long long history of being an incel and claiming any criticism of a man is criticism of all men, which you’re doing yet again in this thread.
Just found out Boost also has this feature. Neat.
I do wish it was innate to lemmy like it is in piefed so they’d (theoretically?) carry over between mobile and web, but yeah it’s very nice.
Is there any reason to keep using Lemmy?
I greatly prefer the lemmy interface to the piefed one, and I don’t really want to bother migrating everything. It’s just a personal preference thing though, there’s nothing beyond that.
I’ve been trying to find out how to do that on Boost.
Halp.
Click on profile. Press three dots in upper left of phone screen, click “Tag User”.
Much love! I hope you have a great day!
Thank you! This made my day all the better
Does voyager app have this tag feature?
Yes. Long press a username and it’ll bring up a menu that allows you to create a tag
Mine must be broken. I only see send message and block user.
That is weird. Here is how it looks on my end
Must be a difference between iOS and android
I think so… but also PieFed has it innately.
What? Where? How? App or web UI?
PieFed offers user tagging in both its web UI and in the API so that any app using it could pull from them, although regarding the latter I am not sure which ones actually do or not (Mlwm reportedly does, surely I would think that Blorp would as it touts itself as offering greatest compatibility with PieFed, etc.).
Blorp dev here. Blorp does have user tagging, but it actually stores all that data client side. I had no idea PieFed had user tagging built in. It would be nice to integrate with the PieFed API, but it would be a little tricky.
Currently, if you tag a user in Blorp, that tag is stored at the app level. You can login to your app with a Lemmy and a PieFed account simultaneously. If you tag a user from your PieFed account, you will still see that user tag after you switch to your Lemmy account.
If we did tagging at account level instead of app level, the user tags you see would change base on which account you switch to.
Which might even be useful, but yeah could also be confusing, though so too could someone coming to Blorp from the web UI… it’s complicated for sure. Possibly the ideal might be to either have separate behaviors for Lemmy vs. PieFed accounts, or an option to keep them all mirrored/synched up.
Thank you so much. I have now tagged you “helpful” and it shows up everywhere except for this exact comment. Weird. maybe it just takes some time to propagate, although I don’t see why.
If you are using the web UI, does refreshing the page help?
Regardless, I am glad to be helpful, some of the time (hopefully more often than the opposite:-P).
It does show up now.
If I click on a reply straight fron notifications it does not show up. That’s probably a bug.
PieFed is definitely still a work in progress!:-)
I’m told it does, though I don’t use it personally so I’m not sure how it works thru that app.
just long press a username --> edit tag
deleted by creator
For the most part I like lemmy, but the community is incredibly incel-heavy. One of the most successful forms of bait on here (besides political trolling) is posting any even slightly contentious topic about women’s experiences in society or things like institutional sexism. Seriously, keep an eye out - it’s depressingly predictable.
What a random mischaracterization, feels like I’ve been mistaken for somebody. Theres really nothing to even respond to, here, except point out ad hominem.
Criticism of a person’s behavior when that’s the subject at hand is not an ad homeniem, it’s the argument. You’ve got a long history of misapplying logical fallacies and taking these sorts of commentaries where a man is portrayed negatively incredibly personally and then poorly defending your claims.
For example: elsewhere in this thread, where you’ve refused to back up your claims that the author is a “well documented” misandrist. If it’s well documented, it should not be a burden for you to provide evidence, and yet you refuse repeatedly.
Criticism of the criticism of a person’s behavior, via attacking the person and not the argument, is Ad Hominem, and also Whataboutism.
I’m directly criticizing two separate things: your behavior, and your claim that pizzacake is a well documented misandrist. That your behavior is remarkably predictable around these issues doesn’t invalidate your claim; we get the conclusion that your claim is baseless from the way you refuse to support it.
Neither of those are an ad hominem or a whattaboutism, and you would be well served by finding out what those terms represent before you try and defend yourself with them.
Saying it does not make it so. It seems to me that referencing your prior behavior and attacking your lack of sources are both relevant and productive for discussion, while misusing fallacies to shut down arguments you don’t like is, ironically, a rhetorical fallacy. They aren’t deflecting by randomly bringing up some unrelated characteristic (for example: you shouldn’t trust this influencer’s opinion on food, I have it on good authority that they’re a terrible parent!), they’re calling back to your previous behavior in similar situations (for example: you shouldn’t trust this influencer’s opinion on food because they have a history of giving people food poisoning!). That isn’t ad hominem, or whataboutism.
If your character and actions might be damming to your arguments, attacking them is attacking your argument, especially when also attacking your sources! Ironically, continuing to attack the comic artist without citing sources is ad hominem, by definition.
Sources?! You need fucking Data? You need a scientific study to discern the precise level of sexism of Pizzacake? Did you ask for sources when Kanye West was in the news for chanting “Heil Hitler”? If not does that mean you need a news article about it from the New York Times or some shit? Did you ask for sources on altright comic artist StoneToss?
I have, multiple times now, demonstrated that a very large number of people recognize this artist as sexist with specific examples going back many years.
Nope, you’ve repeatedly asserted a large number of people recognize her as sexist.
The only thing that approaches having “demonstrated” her “well-documented” misandry is the single incredibly begrudging example you provided - one that multiple other people have also referenced, and which is at very worst a quite bad take from an otherwise pretty progressive artist.
You’ve refused to show anyone this well documented pattern of misandry, but you’re quick to claim you have. And that kind of openly deceptive behavior is exactly why it’s so important to ask for sources.
My top level comment alone has 18 upvotes. And I have linked for you sealioning assholes.
First:
What an absolutely spectacular example of Argumentum ad populum! Unfortunately no, just because you got upvotes does not establish your claim that it’s well documented. “Many people believing” something does not make that something true (#EdgyAthiestHumor). But well done on finally finding a real logical fallacy!
Second:
“You claim this is well-documented but refuse to show us that documentation”
*“Well you’re sealioning!”
No. Sealioning is a bit like DARVO: while they are useful concepts in sociology, you cannot simply throw the terms out like Pokemon and expect them to do all the work for you.
Yes, I know you begrudgingly provided a single link, I talked about that. Your single link didn’t at all establish your claims, as multiple people have explained. Asking for actual proof of your claims is not bombarding you with requests, it’s a single request that you have utterly failed to address.
You gotta realize this is just not a great look for you.