32769 pts ยท June 11, 2019
In general, as I've always understood it, trolls aren't doing what they're doing because they think they're right - although they often secretly do - but ONLY to piss people off, because they enjoy pissing people off. Now, the word has come into usage, at least on Imgur, as a description of... I'm not sure, just anyone saying or trying to imply something hateful, it seems. Like, it's just being used as a synonym for 'asshole,' even though it does have a specific meaning.
To some, maybe. Learning about the Crusades in high school was kind of an eye-opener for me.
Maybe the definition has changed over time, but my working definition has always been that a troll is someone who is purposely trying to anger people.
Yeah, every single piece of shit on the internet isn't either a bot or a troll. Usually, it's just a person with very little empathy for others, in this case with a lifetime of conditioning as regards to how they're supposed to think of those who break the law. People, in other words, just shitty people.
Jesus, that comment section.
#26 Say Car Ramrod!
You really ought to consider using /s. I know it always seems like it should be obvious when we're joking, but it just isn't.
9/11 had a massive impact on a lot of things.
I was more referring to the bombing of their immediate neighbours. To be clear, I mean that for every nation he intends to do this with, but I really, really don't like sitting next to the guy looking for things to bomb.
His parents' bedroom on the night of his conception.
Canadian, here. I would love it if the U.S. did not adopt the values Israel is currently exhibiting. Or, not adopt them further, I guess.
Your username raises another pretty good question, but not one I have the fortitude to pursue, right now. The fact is that the video is easily-dismissable, but that's not the claim you originally made, which is the one I originally responded to. The video could be presented as evidence and accepted into evidence. It would then need to be shut down in court, which we both agree is easily-done. Either way, this debate isn't in danger of ending anytime soon, so I'm just going to bed.
with? Not posting a video.
The video DOES contain evidence. She posted a video of herself eating, and it contains the words. Now, a person could argue that "she" instead of "I" means someone else took the video and altered it without her knowledge. BUT THAT STILL HAS TO HAPPEN. And the entire reason we were arguing was that you were claiming reasonable doubt while ignoring that, as a piece of evidence, the video still exists. It's not a hard case to defend, but you know what would make it even easier to get away1
Right. So disprove that in court. I'm telling you now, the entire lynchpin of that case is the video, not just some vague story about her deciding to spice up her food, that day. Reasonable doubt kicks in when you shut down the video evidence.
Reasonable doubt isn't a magic wand, either. A person would have to disprove the validity of the video to convince most reasonable people, not just make the claim that she just decided to put peppers in her food that day, out of nowhere. The words on the video literally claim otherwise, which makes the bad-luck defense a useless one. Disprove the video, and THEN make that claim.
We're going to have to disagree. If a person posts a video like this, it can be used against them. The ONLY thing that might trigger reasonable doubt would be if they could make the case that they did not post the video with those words on it. Everything else you've said was just because you like the idea of someone who did bad getting a comeuppance. To be clear, assuming nobody got hurt, I have no problem with it, either. But the video could be a problem if the lunch-stealer makes it one.
That's the first thing you've said that might have merit, making the case that the video was posted by somebody else and cannot be proven to be related to the events that took place. But that's not what you've been saying, is it?
Reasonable doubt would apply if she hadn't posted this video with those words, my friend. It says, right there, that she added them specifically to find out which coworker was stealing her lunch. This meant that: a) she expected somebody to steal it, and b) she added ghost peppers BECAUSE she knew somebody would steal it.
Can't argue with that.
Legally, I'm not sure that would make a difference. It indicates that it was spiked specifically to cause someone enough distress that she'd be able to tell. Depending on how much she put in, it could actually be considered poisoning. Foods with a high level of capsaicin can actually do damage to the esophagus and stomach lining. Does the perpetrator deserve it? I waffle back and forth on that. Did she potentially incriminate herself with this video? Yep.
#1 Gotta point out that Sinners didn't romanticize vampirism. They were functionally and thematically villains, victims, or both.
They, um, posted a video indicating as much. It's the very post that's being commented on.
Are you talking about the post, or the similar-sounding story that was linked in a comment?
Canada. It amounts to much the same, no matter how much better Canadians like to think this country is.
It's a parent thing, more than a Karen thing. I've met more parents than not who seem to think their kids are exempt from the rules.
So is that a ghost in the background or...?
I think we're in a place where violence is likely to become the only rational response, but this post REVELS in it, which is gross.
Part of being educated is actually taking in what you were taught and letting it inform your perception. That fucker is NOT educated.
Grateful. Endlessly having to defend and guard your food or possessions is draining, particularly with things being so expensive now.
In general, as I've always understood it, trolls aren't doing what they're doing because they think they're right - although they often secretly do - but ONLY to piss people off, because they enjoy pissing people off. Now, the word has come into usage, at least on Imgur, as a description of... I'm not sure, just anyone saying or trying to imply something hateful, it seems. Like, it's just being used as a synonym for 'asshole,' even though it does have a specific meaning.
To some, maybe. Learning about the Crusades in high school was kind of an eye-opener for me.
Maybe the definition has changed over time, but my working definition has always been that a troll is someone who is purposely trying to anger people.
Yeah, every single piece of shit on the internet isn't either a bot or a troll. Usually, it's just a person with very little empathy for others, in this case with a lifetime of conditioning as regards to how they're supposed to think of those who break the law. People, in other words, just shitty people.
Jesus, that comment section.
#26 Say Car Ramrod!
You really ought to consider using /s. I know it always seems like it should be obvious when we're joking, but it just isn't.
9/11 had a massive impact on a lot of things.
I was more referring to the bombing of their immediate neighbours. To be clear, I mean that for every nation he intends to do this with, but I really, really don't like sitting next to the guy looking for things to bomb.
His parents' bedroom on the night of his conception.
Canadian, here. I would love it if the U.S. did not adopt the values Israel is currently exhibiting. Or, not adopt them further, I guess.
Your username raises another pretty good question, but not one I have the fortitude to pursue, right now. The fact is that the video is easily-dismissable, but that's not the claim you originally made, which is the one I originally responded to. The video could be presented as evidence and accepted into evidence. It would then need to be shut down in court, which we both agree is easily-done. Either way, this debate isn't in danger of ending anytime soon, so I'm just going to bed.
with? Not posting a video.
The video DOES contain evidence. She posted a video of herself eating, and it contains the words. Now, a person could argue that "she" instead of "I" means someone else took the video and altered it without her knowledge. BUT THAT STILL HAS TO HAPPEN. And the entire reason we were arguing was that you were claiming reasonable doubt while ignoring that, as a piece of evidence, the video still exists. It's not a hard case to defend, but you know what would make it even easier to get away1
Right. So disprove that in court. I'm telling you now, the entire lynchpin of that case is the video, not just some vague story about her deciding to spice up her food, that day. Reasonable doubt kicks in when you shut down the video evidence.
Reasonable doubt isn't a magic wand, either. A person would have to disprove the validity of the video to convince most reasonable people, not just make the claim that she just decided to put peppers in her food that day, out of nowhere. The words on the video literally claim otherwise, which makes the bad-luck defense a useless one. Disprove the video, and THEN make that claim.
We're going to have to disagree. If a person posts a video like this, it can be used against them. The ONLY thing that might trigger reasonable doubt would be if they could make the case that they did not post the video with those words on it. Everything else you've said was just because you like the idea of someone who did bad getting a comeuppance. To be clear, assuming nobody got hurt, I have no problem with it, either. But the video could be a problem if the lunch-stealer makes it one.
That's the first thing you've said that might have merit, making the case that the video was posted by somebody else and cannot be proven to be related to the events that took place. But that's not what you've been saying, is it?
Reasonable doubt would apply if she hadn't posted this video with those words, my friend. It says, right there, that she added them specifically to find out which coworker was stealing her lunch. This meant that: a) she expected somebody to steal it, and b) she added ghost peppers BECAUSE she knew somebody would steal it.
Can't argue with that.
Legally, I'm not sure that would make a difference. It indicates that it was spiked specifically to cause someone enough distress that she'd be able to tell. Depending on how much she put in, it could actually be considered poisoning. Foods with a high level of capsaicin can actually do damage to the esophagus and stomach lining. Does the perpetrator deserve it? I waffle back and forth on that. Did she potentially incriminate herself with this video? Yep.
#1 Gotta point out that Sinners didn't romanticize vampirism. They were functionally and thematically villains, victims, or both.
They, um, posted a video indicating as much. It's the very post that's being commented on.
Are you talking about the post, or the similar-sounding story that was linked in a comment?
Canada. It amounts to much the same, no matter how much better Canadians like to think this country is.
It's a parent thing, more than a Karen thing. I've met more parents than not who seem to think their kids are exempt from the rules.
So is that a ghost in the background or...?
I think we're in a place where violence is likely to become the only rational response, but this post REVELS in it, which is gross.
Part of being educated is actually taking in what you were taught and letting it inform your perception. That fucker is NOT educated.
Grateful. Endlessly having to defend and guard your food or possessions is draining, particularly with things being so expensive now.