• Zorque@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 months ago

    Because the bar you’d normally go to removed all the comfortable chairs and started selling ad space directly in front of your face.

    • Crozekiel@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      Ok, so I get you are still trying to make the analogy work, but this is like getting mad that your coffee shop sucks, deciding to go to the local car dealership for the free coffee instead, and then complaining that they keep trying to sell you cars.

      This analogy is breaking down rapidly, that was my point. lol.

      • Zorque@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        …except this isn’t explicitly a Linux website. Sure, it’s probably run by people who use it extensively and populated mostly by people who use it at least regularly… but it’s in no way a Linux dealership. I came here specifically because it wasn’t trying to sell me something.

        If you’re trying to say that’s not the case, and that the fediverse only exists as a mechanism to sell people on linux… it might be time to give up on it, I suppose.

        • Crozekiel@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Nah, I’m not trying to give any commentary on Lemmy or Linux in this thread. I’m just talking about how poorly the analogy is lining up for the intended purpose. Honestly, Lemmy shouldn’t be pushing any one thing in general, imo.

          I do get confused about the people that show up in Linux specific communities and get mad about “all the Linux fanatics”, and maybe the original analogy would work for that.

          • Zorque@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            I guess repeating continuing to make analogies in what appears to be a serious tone seems like an odd way to make the argument that the original analogy is broken. You’re not pointing out any flaws, using the current analogy to show how it doesn’t work… just changing the setting while keeping the overall analogy completely the same.

            It’s like going to a brothel and continuing to have sex with prostitutes then saying the brothel is broken… sorry, I had to.