You’re posting rage bait on a platform where people can be banned for giving you the replies you deserve.

I wish you’d ping me with something like this on nostr so I could respond fairly

If you have to tell people you’re enlightened, you ain’t.

Incorrect.

You then spent the rest of the comment building up to calling me an antivaxxer, while you block my access to vaccines.

I’m glad I skimmed your comment instead of reading it, but still, what a waste of time

Someone suggested using the meme format of the guy struggling to decide between 2 buttons, maybe I should try that

That’s actually a great suggestion, thank you muchly. I might try that

Thanks for the response, looks like we are indeed pretty much in agreement then

I still don’t quite get what you’re saying. I’m not trying to be hostile, I did think we were on pretty much the same side when I had asked initially

.mp4 with H264: the most universal, and can be compressed to smaller sizes than you might think. Compatibility and compression will still vary depending if you use AAC or opus audio

.webm with VP9 and opus audio: better compression, not as universal. More open-standards based, maybe best balance of compression and compatibility

.mp4 or webm with AV1 and opus audio: probably best compression, also probably less compatibility than VP9, maybe depends what devices they use - good on new computers / phones / Android based TVs, more iffy on a wider or older range of devives. MP4 maybe friendlier than webm on newish Apple devices

Goodish idea but perhaps illegal as someone else said

Ok so called “leftist,” now you’ve finished your transformation into an anti vaxxer?

I’m so tired of Democrats just being Republicans in disguise

Progressive and communist seem like more meaningful words to describe me with than dork or terrorist, but I welcome them all as long as you’re too busy calling me names to do more “productive” oppression work against me

Dork, communist, terrorist, conservative, “enlightened centrist”

There are many titles for my kind in a world where people just use words at random with no meaning

The thread you can’t see anymore was the thread you had replied to me in at the time.

My facebook wall and posts are mine

Not exactly. You can be banned if you say “fuck Zuck” a lot and tell the truth too much for the authorities to allow. Happened to me years ago. It also really shows you how worthless most social connections are, because most people (at least in my generation / region I grew up) don’t even care about social connections enough to keep them going through a facebook ban.

I’m unaware of any reason Mastodon should, or you would expect them to, handle comments on blog-posts or whatever any differently.

I don’t get what you’re saying. Are you suggesting there should be no warning label to let readers of a thread know a person being replied to can’t reply back, just because other platforms don’t have one? What’s the point of piefed if it’s just going to do whatever existing platforms do and not solve problems?

Exactly, now we’re cooking

me trying to find common sense on piefed/lemmy too

Definitely enlightened but I’d also definitely say I’m extremist, not centrist

Not reading all that, see previous reply

Why are you putting your own statement in quote marks? Seems like you’re trying to pretend you can’t understand the difference between my statements and what you just said

Who are the people who pretend to know nothing about weapons but do?

Mainly donors and lobbyists, I guess.

It’s an oversimplification - it’s more like they confuse you about who’s making the decisions, than that they pretend to know less than they do. But when they formulate arguments based on lies, that’s also pretending to know less than they do, so the oversimplification isn’t actually wrong.

Complex thing being described simply: decisions are made by people who know how guns work, but a public figure announcing a decision might embarrass himself talking about guns. He might know how guns work, and just be pretending not to. But if he actually knows how guns work, the people sending him out to do the public speaking are the ones “pretending not to know more” - or rather, making you think “wow this guy is an idiot” instead of “wow these decisions are being made by lying donors and lobbyists.”

Simpler thing that makes the oversimplification more exactly correct: even if the guy doing the public speaking genuinely doesn’t know how guns work, it’s still dishonest of his handlers to send him up, and in the process, they still make false arguments that omit their knowledge on the topic, meeting the exact original statement.

But that wouldn’t show how the parties mirror each other from the view of a neutral third party just trying to survive.

The point is to make Republicans think about how they look the same as Democrats when they join in on blocking me from getting guns, and vice versa for Democrats because they join in on blocking me from getting vaccines. They both complain about the other side lying and replacing experts with fools in important positions, but they both go along with it when the money says, leaving people like me far from restoring our rights.

The message would be totally lost if they were separated

I’d actually loooove to see your papers on which vaccines should be approved and which should be rejected and backed up by your own peer-reviewed and published research as to why they should be given those conditions. Or at least, your degree in biomolecular sciences with a ruggedized essay on your opinions.

What do you mean? What made you think I had any of that stuff?

And if you can’t link those things, maybe stfu about vaccines?

No thanks.

But if you’re using those things to decide who gets to make the decisions, and the people who have those things are apparently dumber than me, maybe stop letting those decisions include which vaccines I can access?

Like if you can’t tell me why mercury was a perfectly fine viral attenuator, then i’m not interested in discussing the intricacies of vaccine methodology.

And? Why are you telling me this? Did something I said seem like I was suggesting we discuss the intricacies of vaccine methodology?

As much as I love the rationalized view, I dont need to go back in time and un-invent them.

That’s fine, but I do need to avoid gunshot wounds, according to people whose medical knowledge can be verified in better ways than just asking for credentials (e.g. asking if they’re aware gunshot wounds are unhealthy).

Gun control has worked in multippe other countries for decades and could always be better and tighter.

But I don’t want things designed to kill me and my loved ones to work. I want to survive and protect my loved ones. I want it to not work when you try to endanger me and my loved ones. I think you’re a bad person for changing policy in a way that gets people killed and then saying that means it’s “working.”

I dont need every fuckwith with a room temperature IQ holding a gun.

Then don’t hold one. I will still need one.

That’s whats got America completely fucked up and the morons just cant stop repeating NRA talking points because they froth at the idea of killing other citizens in the name of political ideology.

You’re the one trying to do social murder here. I just want my fucking right to self defense.