Why be like that? Whether you think their position is silly or not, this person obviously gets called out on this a lot. And rather than pitch a fit over being needled about it for the umpteenth time, they responded with links that ought to satisfy any genuine curiosity. Considering the times I’ve seen an empty “Go educate yourself!” as a response from petulant children, I’d say buddy did us a solid. They don’t owe us a personalized response.
Why be like that? Whether you think their position is silly or not, this person obviously gets called out on this a lot.
Well, at least he’s being more polite about it than this guy …
“I will be shitting on you and your stupid fucking license vociferously from here on out because you’re an arrogant egotistical asshole.,”
But yeah, didn’t think responding with informative links would be considered as disrespecting someone. 🤷♂️
And rather than pitch a fit over being needled about it for the umpteenth time, they responded with links that ought to satisfy any genuine curiosity. Considering the times I’ve seen an empty “Go educate yourself!” as a response from petulant children, I’d say buddy did us a solid. They don’t owe us a personalized response.
Originally I was just telling people to look through my chat history, as I had discussed the same topic many many times before, and didn’t want to detail the conversation by having to talk about it again.
But I was told that that was rude of me to do, and someone suggested I supply links instead. So I did. But apparently that’s not the right thing to do either.
I actually have been trying to work with the community about this in good faith, but each thing I do something as a compromise it seems to be complained about anyway, never satisfying those who dislike me having a license declaration.
At this point I’m just sticking with the smaller font and using links when someone asks me about the license, there’s nothing else I can do to satisfy those people who object, and I’m NOT going to discontinue licensing my content.
For what it’s worth, most of your comments aren’t eligible for copyright; they aren’t sufficiently original or information-packed. Just like @onlinepersona@programming.dev and their licensing efforts, it’s mostly a vanity to attach a license to unoriginal one-line throwaway jokes. I wouldn’t say that it’s arrogant so much as lacking in self-awareness; a one-liner must be deeply insightful, contain a pun or paraprosdokian, address the current zeitgeist, or otherwise be memorable above and beyond the time and place that contextualized it.
For what it’s worth, most of your comments aren’t eligible for copyright; they aren’t sufficiently original or information-packed. Just like @onlinepersona@programming.dev and their licensing efforts, it’s mostly a vanity to attach a license to unoriginal one-line throwaway jokes. I wouldn’t say that it’s arrogant so much as lacking in self-awareness; a one-liner must be deeply insightful, contain a pun or paraprosdokian, address the current zeitgeist, or otherwise be memorable above and beyond the time and place that contextualized it.
I disagree. And last I checked, I have awareness on the subject. It’s been discussed very often with me here on Lemmy (much less on Reddit for some reason).
Your measurement of what is content is not legally factual. One’s opinions, of any length (and I think it’s safe to say that my opining has not been short in nature) is legally considered as content.
You may not like my content, but it doesn’t mean you can disavow it as content in the first place.
And once more, as a friendly reminder. If you feel my content is not content, feel free to block me.
Derailing a conversation? That’s a bit dramatic… And now you are doing it by your own measure. I was just having a conversation, in a comment thread man. Chill out.
Derailing a conversation? That’s a bit dramatic… And now you are doing it by your own measure. I was just having a conversation, in a comment thread man. Chill out.
Are we talking about why fastDOOM is fast right now? No, we’re not. That’s called derailing a conversation.
As far as me chilling out, I’ve actually had someone else say this to me…
“I will be shitting on you and your stupid fucking license vociferously from here on out because you’re an arrogant egotistical asshole.,”
There’s a history with people harassing me about using an open-source license in my comments. Just check out my posting history, and you’ll see that I’m not being dramatic at all.
I don’t particularly like being lumped in with a bunch of jerks who’ve treated you badly tbh, but equally if you’re feeling harassed I’m happy to put a pin in this.
I don’t particularly like being lumped in with a bunch of jerks who’ve treated you badly tbh, but equally if you’re feeling harassed I’m happy to put a pin in this.
I won’t lie, I’ve been harassed so much (sincerely, check out my posting history, its a trip) that at this point its hard to distinguish people who are just curious, and people who are truly rude/trolling/intellectually dishonest. If you’re one of the former, my apologies.
I do stand by what I said about derailing a conversation though, I would say that to anyone, under the same circumstances.
All good, I did read the links you sent so I could see some of the “feedback” you received. It seems we both want Lemmy to be a nice place with constructive conversation so we’re very much on the same page there.
That said, I don’t think gatekeeping others with “you can only talk about the thread topic” is a healthy way to do that, so we diverge there.
I’m not going to stop doing it and, if you look around, you’ll see plenty of others doing it too, so I’m in good company there.
It’s nicer if we let conversation flow naturally and don’t set arbitrary constraints - the mods can do that via the community rules if they want to but, again, you won’t find many examples of that either.
I do stand by what I said about derailing a conversation though, I would say that to anyone, under the same circumstances.
I don’t think gatekeeping others with “you can only talk about the thread topic” is a healthy way to do that, so we diverge there.
I’m not going to stop doing it and, if you look around, you’ll see plenty of others doing it too, so I’m in good company there.
It’s nicer if we let conversation flow naturally and don’t set arbitrary constraints - the mods can do that via the community rules if they want to but, again, you won’t find many examples of that either.
My understanding is that derailing any conversation, hijacking it, has been frowned up socially, both in 1) social media (since the days of dialing into BBS sites with our modems), as well as 2) in real life. Something that is considered harmful/distractful to the ACTUAL conversation being had.
Fun fact. “Conversation Hijacking” is even used in nefarious ways as part of social engineering to get into your computer (actually true, look it up). That it is a type of phishing scam.
Are you saying that is no longer the case,that it is ok to derail/hijack a conversation?
The links I supplied above seem to say otherwise, and that’s my understanding of the current consensus of the Internet/Humanity.
https://lemmy.world/comment/15437341
https://lemmy.world/post/14942506
https://lemmy.world/comment/9850401
Good chat
Why be like that? Whether you think their position is silly or not, this person obviously gets called out on this a lot. And rather than pitch a fit over being needled about it for the umpteenth time, they responded with links that ought to satisfy any genuine curiosity. Considering the times I’ve seen an empty “Go educate yourself!” as a response from petulant children, I’d say buddy did us a solid. They don’t owe us a personalized response.
Well, at least he’s being more polite about it than this guy …
But yeah, didn’t think responding with informative links would be considered as disrespecting someone. 🤷♂️
Originally I was just telling people to look through my chat history, as I had discussed the same topic many many times before, and didn’t want to detail the conversation by having to talk about it again.
But I was told that that was rude of me to do, and someone suggested I supply links instead. So I did. But apparently that’s not the right thing to do either.
I actually have been trying to work with the community about this in good faith, but each thing I do something as a compromise it seems to be complained about anyway, never satisfying those who dislike me having a license declaration.
At this point I’m just sticking with the smaller font and using links when someone asks me about the license, there’s nothing else I can do to satisfy those people who object, and I’m NOT going to discontinue licensing my content.
Appreciate the civility support, thank you.
This comment is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
For what it’s worth, most of your comments aren’t eligible for copyright; they aren’t sufficiently original or information-packed. Just like @onlinepersona@programming.dev and their licensing efforts, it’s mostly a vanity to attach a license to unoriginal one-line throwaway jokes. I wouldn’t say that it’s arrogant so much as lacking in self-awareness; a one-liner must be deeply insightful, contain a pun or paraprosdokian, address the current zeitgeist, or otherwise be memorable above and beyond the time and place that contextualized it.
I disagree. And last I checked, I have awareness on the subject. It’s been discussed very often with me here on Lemmy (much less on Reddit for some reason).
Your measurement of what is content is not legally factual. One’s opinions, of any length (and I think it’s safe to say that my opining has not been short in nature) is legally considered as content.
You may not like my content, but it doesn’t mean you can disavow it as content in the first place.
And once more, as a friendly reminder. If you feel my content is not content, feel free to block me.
This comment is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
😿 so sad
If my comments make you feel sad, feel free to block. 🤷♂️
This comment is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
I was intrigued and thought it might spark a conversation… Why do you think that’s so wrong? What a massive overreaction.
Repetitiveness is worse to see than derailing a conversation.
This comment is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Derailing a conversation? That’s a bit dramatic… And now you are doing it by your own measure. I was just having a conversation, in a comment thread man. Chill out.
Are we talking about why fastDOOM is fast right now? No, we’re not. That’s called derailing a conversation.
As far as me chilling out, I’ve actually had someone else say this to me…
There’s a history with people harassing me about using an open-source license in my comments. Just check out my posting history, and you’ll see that I’m not being dramatic at all.
This comment is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
I don’t particularly like being lumped in with a bunch of jerks who’ve treated you badly tbh, but equally if you’re feeling harassed I’m happy to put a pin in this.
I won’t lie, I’ve been harassed so much (sincerely, check out my posting history, its a trip) that at this point its hard to distinguish people who are just curious, and people who are truly rude/trolling/intellectually dishonest. If you’re one of the former, my apologies.
I do stand by what I said about derailing a conversation though, I would say that to anyone, under the same circumstances.
Have a nice day.
This comment is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
All good, I did read the links you sent so I could see some of the “feedback” you received. It seems we both want Lemmy to be a nice place with constructive conversation so we’re very much on the same page there.
That said, I don’t think gatekeeping others with “you can only talk about the thread topic” is a healthy way to do that, so we diverge there.
I’m not going to stop doing it and, if you look around, you’ll see plenty of others doing it too, so I’m in good company there.
It’s nicer if we let conversation flow naturally and don’t set arbitrary constraints - the mods can do that via the community rules if they want to but, again, you won’t find many examples of that either.
My understanding is that derailing any conversation, hijacking it, has been frowned up socially, both in 1) social media (since the days of dialing into BBS sites with our modems), as well as 2) in real life. Something that is considered harmful/distractful to the ACTUAL conversation being had.
Fun fact. “Conversation Hijacking” is even used in nefarious ways as part of social engineering to get into your computer (actually true, look it up). That it is a type of phishing scam.
Are you saying that is no longer the case, that it is ok to derail/hijack a conversation?
The links I supplied above seem to say otherwise, and that’s my understanding of the current consensus of the Internet/Humanity.
This comment is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0