TBF it’s technically a Daoist philosophical treatise, rather than a how-to on war. To really understand it you have to look at it from that perspective.

And people wonder why they like to pal around with American conservatives.

My favorite is the one where Anubis is doing his unhinged rant and O’Niell comes in with a full coffee mug, listens for a minute, and then goes, ‘Who talks like that?’

Those pics are awesome, especially the coast and the Seattle skyline shots!

Which is just further proof that twat had no taste lol

Pretty sure a DDOS is an actual crime…

‘Those people were awesome as long as they agreed with me’

That’s fair.

But I also don’t think they did anything whatsoever to ‘let people know’ about the blocklist like they claimed. In fact, it seems to me from how much they tried to hide it that they never intended to share that they had one, at all.

As far as the death threats… meh, who knows? From all their comments, and their attempting to defend themselves in the third person using alt accounts, they seem to be quite a drama queen with only a loose connection to reality. They interpreted lots of rather rational comments back in the beginning of all this saying ‘dude, you can’t just force people to use your blocklist’ as vicious attacks against their person and character, so I can see them interpreting more aggressive ‘how dare you tell me what to do’ comments as actual threats against their person.

On the other hand, negative self-centered people tend to attract negative, self-centered people, and I can imagine that some of those might take… poorly to finding out they’d ended up on his blocklist for disagreeing with him. Especially if they had thought they were on the same side.

‘The missing missing reasons’

Lot of the same energy there.

That still doesn’t excuse the DDOS.

And given how well he hid it, it’s obvious that he never intended that anyone see that list but him. That’s most of the ‘how dare he block so-and-so’ that I’ve seen; people mocking him for blocking them, yes, but they almost always tied it back to the fact that he was censoring the feeds of others without any kind of notification or opt-out for his users.

Saying ‘here’s my blocklist; if you don’t like it, you can toggle it off, or find another frontend’ is curating, and that’s okay. But deciding what others get to see because ‘you know best’ and hiding that list of people and instances you blocked so no-one can find out what they’re not being allowed to see is censorship, and it’s not okay.

There was some drama recently relating to him deciding to make pifed.social block content creators from engaging too much. Probably related to that.

PugJesus talks about it, before signing off for good.

I wouldn’t say all of them. My parents’ last cats… well, one got chased all over the house by a squirrel, and once lost a fight with a mouse. The other made friends with the birds that landed on the roof.

Doesn’t mean she doesn’t have standards.

Ahem. From the article:

This is what Hambrecht and Parsons are doing with their male-only gyms. They’re spreading conspiracies about morality and traditional marriage that cast women as dangerous. They’re promoting men rising up as warrior-kings who are ready to fight evil, and they’re getting rid of women who they claim are ruining everything.

Sorry. I tend to use Lemmy as another stand-in for fediverse, same as people say Kleenex for facial tissues.

But you still seem to think this ban on interacting too much with people is a good thing, which I just can’t fathom.

No-one can vote on a post more than once, and the votes are meaningless anyways. Plus, the more content and interactions, the better the fediverse is. So why stop people from voting to their heart’s content? The admin even flat-out said he thought too much interaction in the fediverse was a bad thing, which is like… that’s why we’re here? To interact with people?

Yes, but PugJesus hosted all his stuff on Pifed. That’s why he left; it was just too much to move.

And again, if he was hitting it regularly, just a regular Lemmy content creator, that limit was way too fucking low.

And again, since the limit is well-displayed, it’s not hard to get around it.

So it’s fucking stupid.

No? Again, one account, one vote per comment. Each account votes once, on one person’s comment, isn’t going to trigger shit.

If anything, making a ton of puppet accounts and having only some vote in rotation to push your agenda would be the best way to get around it. So it encourages a problem while claiming to fix a problem that isn’t there.

Worse, it drives off the people who are on Lemmy a lot and make a lot of the content. That idiot admin just wants Lemmy to be silent, and he should just unplug his computer and go touch grass on a mountainside somewhere if he wants silence.

But again, that’s a group. It doesn’t trigger over an entire instance, it triggers only on individual accounts. So it would do absolutely nothing against an issue like that, as I pointed out.

Right, and like he points out, as a frequent poster he often engages low-key with the people who comment on his posts with upvotes. So this really made it hard to engage for him.

Regardless it’s a shit decision by the admin. Everyone on Lemmy gets one upvote/downvote per post they interact with. It’s not as if you can upvote or downvote a post multiple times (unless you go though multiple accounts, which that stupid rule wouldn’t fix anyways), so who cares if some people are upvoting or downvoting more than others? That just means they’re on Lemmy more, which is fine.

So it’s a shit rule for something that isn’t a problem, and doesn’t address a possible adjacent problem (making lots of puppet accounts to push personal agendas) that could actually be an issue. That admin is just an idiot and an ass. I don’t blame Pug for leaving.

I dunno, seems like ‘but I have a black friend’ or ‘I’m not racist but…’ energy, if they’re dumb enough to think blahaj of all places is a terrorist organization…

piefed.social

PugJesus talks about it, before signing off for good.