The instance owners do not wish to host potentially problematic content.

I will try to locate a more suitable instance.

    • mindbleach@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      ‘We’re deliberately rejecting this law.’

      ‘But the law!’

      ‘Laws can be changed.’

      ‘But the law!’

      ‘This law is bad.’

      ‘But the law!’

      ‘Civil disobedience is strategic.’

      ‘But the law!’

      ‘Do you speak English?’

      ‘But the law!’

      Alongside the finger-wag to oooh-so-scary report me, yeah, I’m about done humoring you. You know less than nothing, you patience vampire. Next time try to act less stupid.

      • Dodecahedron December@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        My argument: “the law exists”. My argument isn’t about the ethics of what you should or shouldn’t do. I’m saying there is a law, and that it exists. I win this argument, unless you are denying that the law doesn’t exist.

        Your argument: I don’t know anything because I can’t spell. You’ve yet to back up your claims for this, once.

        • mindbleach@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          ‘But the laaaaaaaw!’

          Ignoring ethics is why you’re wrong about this. Nobody’s arguing non-existence - and you can’t win an argument against nobody. The issue is something else, as I’ve repeatedly explained to you, but alas, you are functionally illiterate.