“Notice the lack of surprise.”

It’s definetely better than using normal Chrome but is the most shit of the better ones so I don’t have reason to use Brave if I can use Librewolf or other more private browsers. I can’t understand why so many downvotes on your comment though.

I agree that you shouldn’t use Brave browser cause of things they’ve done in the past but, oh Jesus, that article is so stupid it reminds me the Hogwarts Legacy boycott.

Thanks for proving my point.

On Lemmy you’re automatically an extremist if you’re not socialist.

Okay.

Are you just gonna repeat that like a broken CD?

You could at least consider correcting your writing? It’s easy, it’s like correcting your redaction at school when you unintentionally change words.

Also the text you just written has an ambiguity error at the start.

I said the text was written wrongfully but you refused to revise it and says I’m dumb cause I noticed an error on the text.

That’s the point, you expressed nothing and tried to pull the “you’re wrong and here are the blank papers” card while you didn’t even show why you disagree. If you summarize anything with content you said in the discussion you end up with nothing. Also, stop editing the comment to always say that I’m not responding, that’s really annoying when I’m literally trying to respond to everything you say.

If you insist to trying tricking yourself that I was exposing an idea and not pointing out the errors in the text composition, why didn’t you just corrected the text and said you disagree to then go do your life things? I mean, it’s easier to forcing yourself to not see the obvious.

It doesn’t limit the choice of people (it’s quite the opposite actually). It’s limiting people access and restricting people from the tool itself instead of letting the people themselves isolating naturally their groups without restraining others’ liberties. They can do anything as a private space but that doesn’t mean everything every decision is good and can’t be criticized. Also, I defend the right of those instances to be assholes even if I disagree with everything and if someone would try to FORCE a specific set of rules on any instance I would stand for their rights; bit again, that doesn’t make them free of doing bad things with their rights or from criticizing, and my criticism is that the Internet should be free as in freedom.

Do you genuinely don’t know what is criticizing someone about or is it just you don’t want to admit you criticize people but don’t want to allow them to criticize your ideals?

I understand what the text tried to say and I disagree but I want to point out the writing itself is wrong and not the writer ideas. If you try to re-read the text you can notice the writing unintentionally implies different things despite being supposed to be the same.

1. You were not explaining a meaningless question so I couldn’t answer so you needed another guy to explain what he thought you were saying so I could answer your question that you still doesn’t wanna explain with your own words. Else you were trying to trick me into answering a question that couldn’t be efficiently answered, you lack the capacity of explaining further or you dropped your text before thinking out of a emotional explosion.

2. Then who are you to criticize anyone? I don’t believe you’re god and every human has the same value so why should you be able to criticize others while others can’t criticize anything?

The title is the paradox and not paradoxes. Also, agreeing with the two ideas makes him a paradox or a double standard guy.

So he agrees with both statements? That makes him a paradox for agree with opposite ideas so.

You literally sent in the same message a question and said I’m refusing to answer your question, in the same message.

First half is saying tolerance to the intolerant causes intolerance while the second half is saying intolerance to the intolerant causes intolerance. It is a writing error, I wasn’t talking about the idea itself despite I disagreeing with it.