Me too.

Tired and hungry reply.

I let them get under my skin and pulled you into the firing range too. I think I was hoping for some recognition of how they were off the mark with their intolerant twist on the nazi bar parable. They weren't asking for obvious nazi to be censored but .ml and anyone who spoke up for them.

My sincerest apologies.

Are you trolling? You've consistantly avoided making any qualative evaluation of either of our posts. Every response you have made is losely supportive of their demands for toxic authoritarian censorship.

Their logic is the same as the racist complaining that all african americans are criminals and rapists and you're wringing your hands while presenting tabloid clippings of crimes african americans have been found guilty, without comment.

It's highly ironic that either of you think that this is how you fight facism.

They should be banned. No one was arguing otherwise.

Their offensive McCarthyite screed wasn't based on protecting victimised minorities from facists it was trying to protect the orthodoxy of establishment inculcation.

The nazi bar parable doesn't have a horseshoe theory (Which is a sectarian cant that misrepresents socialism as the clothes it wears and not the body inside) component because it's specifically focused on the tolerance paradox. If someone comes into your bar that while otherwise comporting themselves in a civil manner yet it is crystal clear they hold aggressively contemptful and intolerent views you should kick them out regardless. Everyone else deserves at least a base level of respect.

What it doesn't say is people advocating for tolerance of normal people are secret nazis. It doesn't say that because one biker gang from Berlin came in with nazi tattoos you should ban everyone from Berlin because that is text book closed minded intolerance.

it's beyond the pale!

This is all patent nonsense.

Private Eye

Not everyone's cup of tea. Actually becoming aware of the amount of corruption and injustice in the UK can be accutely depressing.

Their online offering is a tiny fraction of what is covered in the hardcopy.

It makes sense.

Not everyone on .ml wants to eat your dog. Just as not everyone on .world is Trolleyman.

I'd say that the majority of people on the fediverse are capable of having a civil conversation on most topics. Some might have a handful issues that they dig their heels in over but can be civil if you comport yourself respectfully. And then there are a tiny minority of narcissistic zealot idiologues that try to maintain a narrow normative pressure on permissable opinions.

It's a reasonable argument for giving you tools for tailoring your own feed but not for censoring entire groups out.

Yhe lack of traffic in London was amazing

Thank Christ we finally get away from the endless skinny jeans -> baggy jeans cycle.

That whole argument was painful to read. By the end he was so frustrated he became very obnoxious. Not cool.

I didn't get the sense of someone deliberately sowing misinformation however. Being misinformed isn't a dealbreaker nor is a poor rhetorical style.

I think it is important to continue forward with users with a wide range of sources. None of us have a monopoly on the truth and all of our 'trusted' sources palter and decontextualise their facts to some degree.

I know it's probably an unrealistic expectation but I'd rather mods, in general, had higher standards for curating civility in discussions.

I haven't really had that experience with anyone from .ml yet. There are a handful of actual tankies there but for the most part, from want I have seen, it's mostly various forms of far left opinion which no one should be afraid of.

Some people here do spend an unseemly amount of time complaining about them. Which is more toxic than anything they're usually complaining about.

It wouldn't be a reset if you only change a few faces. That'd just be a new lick of paint on the same old crumbling drywall.

Any chemical that can exist as a solid, a liquid and a gas at the same time isn't safe to put into our bodies!

Yeah. It's not an entirely salient point. It does, however, underline the ubiquitous nature of fluorine.

The biggest source of Flourine in the environment is just the normal weathering of rocks that contain it. The biggest of the anthropogenic sources include brick production, phosphate fertiliser application and coal burning.

The minor amount added to drinking water really wouldn't be the biggest issue if it was as toxic as it's made out to be.

The hypocracy of people exaggerating the scale of the problems and piling-on about other instances in their manic drive to turn this place into an echo chamber is depressing.

Mulleted stinkbird thank you.