40495 pts ยท December 21, 2012
You should be doing something productive.
They're saying what they said in response to the fact that it seems like the majority of people are on the abuser's side. The suggestion being made is that the main reason for that is they take comfort in the fact that they, too, could get away with it. Even if they don't mean literally everyone, they're suggesting that THAT is the reason for most people, which is an insane way to think. OP didn't even give a reason why people are being sympathetic. There are far more reasonable conclusions.
This is a dangerous way to think. If you start thinking that everyone is an abuser just "waiting for their chance," you'll never function like a normal person.
Death sentences are not anything like eugenics. Tesla's ideas would have far more people sterilized than are currently being executed.
Good luck out there, buddy. I hope you make more friends one day.
The Olympic games are a celebration of skill on a worldwide stage. Just because we call them games doesn't mean they're "just" games. There is no need to belittle a thing because it doesn't matter to you, personally. Remember that a lack of empathy doesn't make you cooler. You're putting out big weirdo vibes right now, my guy.
And that's not even to say the video game team comparisons are bad, necessarily, but it's like saying a professional league of legends team is the same as a randomly picked group who plays together for one game. People on a real team have seen how capable their teammates are, and they know that that person is still the best choice even if they have a bad game occasionally.
You're correct on everything you've said, and any olympic competitor would agree with you. I think people in this comment section don't have the ability to think more than two layers deep on a topic. The video game comparisons give away their ignorance. The teammates were all chosen due to their history of performance and an evaluation before the games. They earned their spot due to the level of trust their country has in their ability. They all contributed to their spots on the podium.
Whoa, dude. Many people literally train their entire LIVES for the Olympic games. This is one of those games where you're not allowed to call it "just a game."
Which is hilarious and horrible. It's likely that the reason they need to do that is so that if AI uses anything you own to create something, they aren't liable for letting those resources be used. Just convenient that they also suddenly own all your content.
As much as I want to believe it, that probably was a wave. Ain't no way someone who wants to be taken seriously is going to do that on TV in front of the entire US. Acting as if it was genuinely some kind of dog whistle makes us look unhinged, though.
Oh, you're not one of THOSE people are you? You're not silly enough to have seen a couple of out-of-context videos and actually been enough of a sheep to believe that "guided tour" stuff?
What's funny is this is kind of correct. The CEO's job is to keep a bird's eye view on the company's resources and operations and make adjustments where needed to increase the efficiency of the company. And act as a point of contact between workers and the board of directors. It's just that most CEOs of large companies don't care about morale nearly as much as they care about money.
Is this a Beware of Chicken reference?
Since they never really explained it and the Mauler twins were always kind of melancholy about it when they addressed it directly, I figured they actually did know, but they understood that each copy had just as much a right to exist as the other. My interpretation was that the arguing was a coping mechanism, because neither clone is likely the original.
...you're gonna have to explain that statement a little more.
I think the intended assumption is that it probably wouldn't. The question seems to be asking whether that is worth it to you. If you ever watched the show Invincible, it would probably be like what the Mauler twins (the blue guys) do every time one is killed. The remaining one goes to sleep and wakes up next to a clone of himself. Neither knows which is the original.
Edit: Maybe not a lack of understanding, but an inability to engage with the hypothetical. Just answer it or don't, but don't give a reason for why you CAN'T answer unless it's "I don't wanna." That's the only excuse that makes sense.
Dude, come on. When someone gives you a hypothetical situation, they shouldn't have to baby walk you to an iron-clad description of said situation. Don't be the guy who says "this could never happen in reality." You understand the question as it is intended. Just imagine that there's a button you could press that would definitively tell you that the clone is perfect and answer the hypothetical. If you don't want to answer, that's okay, but your reasoning shows a lack of understanding.
"Local man unable to grasp the concept of a hypothetical."
The premise isn't reasonable, so the question isn't worth answering. Just remember what I said.
...what? If you actually just typed that with the belief that it was the most correct thing to say, then you are a genuinely unreasonable person. If anyone ever calls you unreasonable, think back to this post and consider that they may be correct.
I think you have the wrong idea here. I'm not on the conservative's side. I think he was making inappropriate jokes and that's a bad thing. But if anyone threatens anybody while holding a gun, or even directly IMPLIES threatening them, they need to be banned. It's not a cute joke, or a veiled threat that you can hide behind. If you say, "you know I have a deadly weapon in my hand right now?" with the implication that you will attack somebody specific, serious or not, that cannot be tolerated.
You're too far gone. I just want you to think back to this post one day once you're better and realize that you are genuinely insane for saying these things. I'm empathetic, and I'm not sure what the civil solution is to our issues, but you are implying with your words that the only answer is to kill the Republicans before they kill you, and I'm very sure that's the wrong answer. You do not know what you're pushing for.
Not once have I said anything in support of the conservative in this situation. God, I hate trying to argue reason in threads like this, because it's impossible to do it without people assuming you're on the complete opposite side. What I'm saying that the reaction the OP had to the conservative's joke was insane, and he deserved to be banned. You can't threaten to shoot someone at a gun range. It's so easy for that threat to become action in that environment.
I get your point. But political affiliation is not nearly as sensitive a topic as racism, and we shouldn't conflate the two in this case.
No. The mental bias that someone has to have to consider this ban unjustified is insane. He threatened to shoot someone at a gun range. No one here seems to understand how seriously that needs to be taken.
You cannot threaten someone with a gun because of a mean joke. Please, please just try to comprehend why that is a bad thing. And I know your first thought after reading that is to throw it back in my face and tell me to comprehend why the joke was bad, and I get it. But the reaction that he had was the nearly the MOST wrong way to handle the situation.
They are not the same. They are CLEARLY not the same. If someone turns to someone else at the gun range and implies they'll shoot them if they keep making mean jokes, that person NEEDS to be kicked out. You can argue that they both should have even banned, sure, sure, but one of these threats was much more direct than the other.
What do you mean? The targets aren't actually people, or even people-shaped. The republican was making a politically insensitive joke. What our guy did was threaten an actual person.
Maybe you could take a politically insensitive joke as a threat if you want to be very uncharitable. But that is not the same as turning to someone and threatening to shoot them directly. The reason people call us crazy is because so many of us won't acknowledge simple stuff like this.
They're saying what they said in response to the fact that it seems like the majority of people are on the abuser's side. The suggestion being made is that the main reason for that is they take comfort in the fact that they, too, could get away with it. Even if they don't mean literally everyone, they're suggesting that THAT is the reason for most people, which is an insane way to think. OP didn't even give a reason why people are being sympathetic. There are far more reasonable conclusions.
This is a dangerous way to think. If you start thinking that everyone is an abuser just "waiting for their chance," you'll never function like a normal person.
Death sentences are not anything like eugenics. Tesla's ideas would have far more people sterilized than are currently being executed.
Good luck out there, buddy. I hope you make more friends one day.
The Olympic games are a celebration of skill on a worldwide stage. Just because we call them games doesn't mean they're "just" games. There is no need to belittle a thing because it doesn't matter to you, personally. Remember that a lack of empathy doesn't make you cooler. You're putting out big weirdo vibes right now, my guy.
And that's not even to say the video game team comparisons are bad, necessarily, but it's like saying a professional league of legends team is the same as a randomly picked group who plays together for one game. People on a real team have seen how capable their teammates are, and they know that that person is still the best choice even if they have a bad game occasionally.
You're correct on everything you've said, and any olympic competitor would agree with you. I think people in this comment section don't have the ability to think more than two layers deep on a topic. The video game comparisons give away their ignorance. The teammates were all chosen due to their history of performance and an evaluation before the games. They earned their spot due to the level of trust their country has in their ability. They all contributed to their spots on the podium.
Whoa, dude. Many people literally train their entire LIVES for the Olympic games. This is one of those games where you're not allowed to call it "just a game."
Which is hilarious and horrible. It's likely that the reason they need to do that is so that if AI uses anything you own to create something, they aren't liable for letting those resources be used. Just convenient that they also suddenly own all your content.
As much as I want to believe it, that probably was a wave. Ain't no way someone who wants to be taken seriously is going to do that on TV in front of the entire US. Acting as if it was genuinely some kind of dog whistle makes us look unhinged, though.
Oh, you're not one of THOSE people are you? You're not silly enough to have seen a couple of out-of-context videos and actually been enough of a sheep to believe that "guided tour" stuff?
What's funny is this is kind of correct. The CEO's job is to keep a bird's eye view on the company's resources and operations and make adjustments where needed to increase the efficiency of the company. And act as a point of contact between workers and the board of directors. It's just that most CEOs of large companies don't care about morale nearly as much as they care about money.
Is this a Beware of Chicken reference?
Since they never really explained it and the Mauler twins were always kind of melancholy about it when they addressed it directly, I figured they actually did know, but they understood that each copy had just as much a right to exist as the other. My interpretation was that the arguing was a coping mechanism, because neither clone is likely the original.
...you're gonna have to explain that statement a little more.
I think the intended assumption is that it probably wouldn't. The question seems to be asking whether that is worth it to you. If you ever watched the show Invincible, it would probably be like what the Mauler twins (the blue guys) do every time one is killed. The remaining one goes to sleep and wakes up next to a clone of himself. Neither knows which is the original.
Edit: Maybe not a lack of understanding, but an inability to engage with the hypothetical. Just answer it or don't, but don't give a reason for why you CAN'T answer unless it's "I don't wanna." That's the only excuse that makes sense.
Dude, come on. When someone gives you a hypothetical situation, they shouldn't have to baby walk you to an iron-clad description of said situation. Don't be the guy who says "this could never happen in reality." You understand the question as it is intended. Just imagine that there's a button you could press that would definitively tell you that the clone is perfect and answer the hypothetical. If you don't want to answer, that's okay, but your reasoning shows a lack of understanding.
"Local man unable to grasp the concept of a hypothetical."
The premise isn't reasonable, so the question isn't worth answering. Just remember what I said.
...what? If you actually just typed that with the belief that it was the most correct thing to say, then you are a genuinely unreasonable person. If anyone ever calls you unreasonable, think back to this post and consider that they may be correct.
I think you have the wrong idea here. I'm not on the conservative's side. I think he was making inappropriate jokes and that's a bad thing. But if anyone threatens anybody while holding a gun, or even directly IMPLIES threatening them, they need to be banned. It's not a cute joke, or a veiled threat that you can hide behind. If you say, "you know I have a deadly weapon in my hand right now?" with the implication that you will attack somebody specific, serious or not, that cannot be tolerated.
You're too far gone. I just want you to think back to this post one day once you're better and realize that you are genuinely insane for saying these things. I'm empathetic, and I'm not sure what the civil solution is to our issues, but you are implying with your words that the only answer is to kill the Republicans before they kill you, and I'm very sure that's the wrong answer. You do not know what you're pushing for.
Not once have I said anything in support of the conservative in this situation. God, I hate trying to argue reason in threads like this, because it's impossible to do it without people assuming you're on the complete opposite side. What I'm saying that the reaction the OP had to the conservative's joke was insane, and he deserved to be banned. You can't threaten to shoot someone at a gun range. It's so easy for that threat to become action in that environment.
I get your point. But political affiliation is not nearly as sensitive a topic as racism, and we shouldn't conflate the two in this case.
No. The mental bias that someone has to have to consider this ban unjustified is insane. He threatened to shoot someone at a gun range. No one here seems to understand how seriously that needs to be taken.
You cannot threaten someone with a gun because of a mean joke. Please, please just try to comprehend why that is a bad thing. And I know your first thought after reading that is to throw it back in my face and tell me to comprehend why the joke was bad, and I get it. But the reaction that he had was the nearly the MOST wrong way to handle the situation.
They are not the same. They are CLEARLY not the same. If someone turns to someone else at the gun range and implies they'll shoot them if they keep making mean jokes, that person NEEDS to be kicked out. You can argue that they both should have even banned, sure, sure, but one of these threats was much more direct than the other.
What do you mean? The targets aren't actually people, or even people-shaped. The republican was making a politically insensitive joke. What our guy did was threaten an actual person.
Maybe you could take a politically insensitive joke as a threat if you want to be very uncharitable. But that is not the same as turning to someone and threatening to shoot them directly. The reason people call us crazy is because so many of us won't acknowledge simple stuff like this.