31908 pts ยท January 16, 2017
Imgur hates my favorites.
This is a child's line of reasoning. "Everyone hates it when I throw tomatoes at their head, but they like it when tomatoes are on their burger?" Yea man, context matters. Sometimes a bad thing can do good, sometimes a good thing can do bad. And sometimes things are neither good nor bad, or they're both. Ring cameras are bad because they're contributing to the growing police state, but they can do good by providing home security. It's not complicated, or hypocritical.
So telling someone to walk off a cliff is obviously a metaphor that everyone will understand the intent behind. Using the word "maybe" however adds so much ambiguity to a sentence that we have to waste half this conversation talking about it.
You got me calling for the death of people for the words they speak from me saying words maybe don't warrant death.
Your first message was calling for the OP to commit suicide, if we're going to start pretending to clutch pearls and tone-police.
Is your argument here a semantic disassembling of my exact verbiage? You don't like that I used a certain phrase to denote a negative answer?Or did you just forget what my first message was, because it had been multiple days since you read it, and now you're trying to pivot your own mistake into a semantic discussion?
Can't easily catch it, so you have to keep it in a cage or on a leash, so now you either have to carry a cage on a cross-country trip or risk dropping the leash. Also Smeagol became their guide about halfway through the journey and he'd absolutely kill any animal smaller than him within a day.Like even if the magic aspect of a chicken owning the ring panned out, the pragmatics just don't at all. It's the kind of solution that movie Gimli would think up and be laughed at for.
The company loses a warehouse in a fire>The prices go up and there is a mass layoffThe company has its most profitable year since it was founded>The prices go up and there is a mass layoff
Incredibly true. It's been a trend online where everyone has to think of every scenario like they're making a genie wish. Tolkien himself spent probably decades thinking about these sorts of scenarios, and LotR has a pretty tight narrative as a result. Half of the solutions people come up with are directly debunked within the books themselves. The whole "give it to an animal" is just particularly annoying because it's obvious even within the movies why that would not work.
The WHOLE reason Frodo broke off from the Fellowship is that the ring corrupts more than just the person tasked with literally holding it. Introducing MORE things for it to corrupt could only make the situation worse.
While I agree with the sentiment, I'd argue the solution is a swift and speedy trial, rather than releasing individuals (who may know fully that they are about to be sent to prison for a long time) back into the general populace pre-trial.And a swift and speedy trial is not always possible (or even good for the person standing trial).
Expecting people to fight back in the exact right way is why it's so hard to get movements going. Change requires disruption, and there will always be easy ways to disapprove of disruptions. However, I do think it's important that voices and perspectives like yours act in tandem with demonstrations of force such as this. Reasonable voices like yours are the ones that will be invited to the negotiating table. Demonstrations like this are what will earn your invite.
My local schizophrenic took all the pro-Trump bumper stickers off of the trunk of his car a little over a week back. I honestly didn't think such a thing could happen. Granted, that's a level of political engagement on par with unfriending someone on Facebook, and I've seen the line get crossed for these people over and over again only for them to meekly pretend it never happened a few weeks later, but it's still... something. I won't hold my breath but it's nice to see their neurons fire.
They are of the level of intelligence where they can comprehend evil and choose to partake in it. So dolphins *can* be dicks.
Read my initial reply again.
To preface this: I do not disagree with you at all. I think the general bemusement/approval when this sort of thing happens is not a reflection of a moral failure of the people who feel that way, rather it is a result of people in power not being held accountable for failing to represent the interests of their constituency. We are in an age where it feels like the only consequences those in power will ever possibly face are extralegal acts of violence. We are here due to systemic failure.
A valid-ish observation that would be a lot more valid on a post about Mike Tyson, and I've seen this exact observation on Mike Tyson posts get 100+ upvotes. On this post it's just whataboutism, and that's why you're currently sitting pretty in the negatives.
You're defending a statement you didn't even hear, while just assuming positive context for it, and your assumption is flatly incorrect. And the vast majority of people do not agree with the things Kirk said, Republicans aren't even a majority and he was a niche within that group.
If he wasn't transphobic or racist, the very last words out of his mouth wouldn't be an attempt to blame minorities for gun deaths. There is no means to uplift the trans community by labeling them as mass shooters. Half of his career was founded on shoddy dog-whistling; intentionally saying horrible things but giving himself the barest amount of plausible deniability. The other half of his career was man-on-the-street debates, the absolute lowest form of political discourse.
It's objectively government overreach, they forced a person to receive a surgery after that person explicitly refused to receive the surgery. After they forced her to attend a court hearing without legal counsel present, mid-labor. It doesn't matter whether you personally agree with her decision, what the hospital did here is ridiculous.
The literal, final words out of his mouth was a transphobia into a racist dogwhistle true combo. An attempt to sow division and endanger the lives of others. Does that warrant death? Maybe not, but I'm not going to mourn him or say dark humor regarding his death isn't allowed.
The story is a work of fiction. We don't see the House Elves say anything at all; we see how a British woman wanted her fictional slave race to behave. She has never been a slave, she would not have been a slave in the era of race-based slavery. Here is a race of slaves, the oppressed, as written by one who would have been their oppressor, either within universe or without. She speaks on their behalf, and she writes them in such a way where slavery is an enjoyable life for them.
Authorial intent matters, especially when your more forgiving interpretation of the work involves injecting a tone and lesson that you concede isn't actually present in the work itself. And even if it was the intent, using slavery as the backdrop for a lesson like that is still morally repugnant. You should not use an actual cultural practice that has caused millenniums of harm to teach a milquetoast, buried-in-interpretation lesson about cultural tolerance to children.
Simply featuring a happy slave in virtually any non-critical context is slavery apologia. The notion that there is "good slavery" which makes the slaves happy vs "bad slavery" which makes slaves sad is a wholesale abhorrent point to make, it was a point that has been repeatedly made as propaganda in countries that had active slavery, and HP makes that point in spades. And while Hermione is anti-slavery, she is mocked and dismissed for her stance and virtually no other characters agree with her.
There is no technicality that would make the bacteria in your body a slave. Slaves are human by most definitions. There is also coercion inherent to slavery, you don't coerce your bacteria.In the context of a fantasy setting like HP they'd be 'people' by definition, aka they'd have to be sapient.The relationship you have with your bacteria isn't even slave-adjacent, and pretending that it is undercuts the very real harm that slavery has caused throughout all of human history.
6 months in jail for multiple rapes of a child should be genuinely shocking, even with a guilty plea in mind. People who plead guilty for drug possession get more than 6 months in prison. By Texas law, what he did should carry a minimum sentence of 25 years. 9.5 years probation and multiple lawsuits to a 64 year old worth over $100 million is not a punishment, it's a slightly early retirement and a minor nuisance.
My point was more that it is a matter of intent of the comedian and the audience's reception of the joke, rather than what the comedian's specific minority status is. Given the overall sex-positive vibe of the meme dump here, and the OP's long running history of very similar dumps, I think it's reasonable to assume the intent isn't incel-adjacent. And the lesbians have to get their memes from somewhere.
I know a cadre of lesbians who would 100% send this meme to one another tbf
Genuinely confusing response. Please check your carbon monoxide detectors.
Humor should speak truth to power, so "touchy jokes" should always be punching up. The Catholic Church is one of the most powerful organizations in human history, it's hard to tell a joke about the church that punches down somehow.Also I don't respect or empathize with any organization that provably enables pedophiles to harm children.
I've seen 2 videos, 1 being from the Go Pro and the other being clearly a handheld camera looking out a window, I have not seen any Ring camera footage. The handheld angle is where the idea that Alan Ritchenson started the fight came from, since it only starts once Ronnie Taylor is on the ground.I would not be shocked to find out that whoever shot that angle was trying to frame Ritchenson, since it's very "convenient" to only start filming at the point that frames Taylor as an innocent victim.
This is a child's line of reasoning. "Everyone hates it when I throw tomatoes at their head, but they like it when tomatoes are on their burger?" Yea man, context matters. Sometimes a bad thing can do good, sometimes a good thing can do bad. And sometimes things are neither good nor bad, or they're both. Ring cameras are bad because they're contributing to the growing police state, but they can do good by providing home security. It's not complicated, or hypocritical.
So telling someone to walk off a cliff is obviously a metaphor that everyone will understand the intent behind. Using the word "maybe" however adds so much ambiguity to a sentence that we have to waste half this conversation talking about it.
You got me calling for the death of people for the words they speak from me saying words maybe don't warrant death.
Your first message was calling for the OP to commit suicide, if we're going to start pretending to clutch pearls and tone-police.
Is your argument here a semantic disassembling of my exact verbiage? You don't like that I used a certain phrase to denote a negative answer?
Or did you just forget what my first message was, because it had been multiple days since you read it, and now you're trying to pivot your own mistake into a semantic discussion?
Can't easily catch it, so you have to keep it in a cage or on a leash, so now you either have to carry a cage on a cross-country trip or risk dropping the leash. Also Smeagol became their guide about halfway through the journey and he'd absolutely kill any animal smaller than him within a day.
Like even if the magic aspect of a chicken owning the ring panned out, the pragmatics just don't at all. It's the kind of solution that movie Gimli would think up and be laughed at for.
The company loses a warehouse in a fire
>The prices go up and there is a mass layoff
The company has its most profitable year since it was founded
>The prices go up and there is a mass layoff
Incredibly true. It's been a trend online where everyone has to think of every scenario like they're making a genie wish.
Tolkien himself spent probably decades thinking about these sorts of scenarios, and LotR has a pretty tight narrative as a result. Half of the solutions people come up with are directly debunked within the books themselves. The whole "give it to an animal" is just particularly annoying because it's obvious even within the movies why that would not work.
While I agree with the sentiment, I'd argue the solution is a swift and speedy trial, rather than releasing individuals (who may know fully that they are about to be sent to prison for a long time) back into the general populace pre-trial.
And a swift and speedy trial is not always possible (or even good for the person standing trial).
Expecting people to fight back in the exact right way is why it's so hard to get movements going. Change requires disruption, and there will always be easy ways to disapprove of disruptions.
However, I do think it's important that voices and perspectives like yours act in tandem with demonstrations of force such as this. Reasonable voices like yours are the ones that will be invited to the negotiating table. Demonstrations like this are what will earn your invite.
My local schizophrenic took all the pro-Trump bumper stickers off of the trunk of his car a little over a week back. I honestly didn't think such a thing could happen.
Granted, that's a level of political engagement on par with unfriending someone on Facebook, and I've seen the line get crossed for these people over and over again only for them to meekly pretend it never happened a few weeks later, but it's still... something. I won't hold my breath but it's nice to see their neurons fire.
They are of the level of intelligence where they can comprehend evil and choose to partake in it. So dolphins *can* be dicks.
Read my initial reply again.
To preface this: I do not disagree with you at all. I think the general bemusement/approval when this sort of thing happens is not a reflection of a moral failure of the people who feel that way, rather it is a result of people in power not being held accountable for failing to represent the interests of their constituency. We are in an age where it feels like the only consequences those in power will ever possibly face are extralegal acts of violence. We are here due to systemic failure.
A valid-ish observation that would be a lot more valid on a post about Mike Tyson, and I've seen this exact observation on Mike Tyson posts get 100+ upvotes. On this post it's just whataboutism, and that's why you're currently sitting pretty in the negatives.
You're defending a statement you didn't even hear, while just assuming positive context for it, and your assumption is flatly incorrect. And the vast majority of people do not agree with the things Kirk said, Republicans aren't even a majority and he was a niche within that group.
If he wasn't transphobic or racist, the very last words out of his mouth wouldn't be an attempt to blame minorities for gun deaths. There is no means to uplift the trans community by labeling them as mass shooters. Half of his career was founded on shoddy dog-whistling; intentionally saying horrible things but giving himself the barest amount of plausible deniability. The other half of his career was man-on-the-street debates, the absolute lowest form of political discourse.
It's objectively government overreach, they forced a person to receive a surgery after that person explicitly refused to receive the surgery. After they forced her to attend a court hearing without legal counsel present, mid-labor.
It doesn't matter whether you personally agree with her decision, what the hospital did here is ridiculous.
The literal, final words out of his mouth was a transphobia into a racist dogwhistle true combo. An attempt to sow division and endanger the lives of others. Does that warrant death? Maybe not, but I'm not going to mourn him or say dark humor regarding his death isn't allowed.
The story is a work of fiction. We don't see the House Elves say anything at all; we see how a British woman wanted her fictional slave race to behave. She has never been a slave, she would not have been a slave in the era of race-based slavery. Here is a race of slaves, the oppressed, as written by one who would have been their oppressor, either within universe or without. She speaks on their behalf, and she writes them in such a way where slavery is an enjoyable life for them.
Authorial intent matters, especially when your more forgiving interpretation of the work involves injecting a tone and lesson that you concede isn't actually present in the work itself. And even if it was the intent, using slavery as the backdrop for a lesson like that is still morally repugnant. You should not use an actual cultural practice that has caused millenniums of harm to teach a milquetoast, buried-in-interpretation lesson about cultural tolerance to children.
Simply featuring a happy slave in virtually any non-critical context is slavery apologia. The notion that there is "good slavery" which makes the slaves happy vs "bad slavery" which makes slaves sad is a wholesale abhorrent point to make, it was a point that has been repeatedly made as propaganda in countries that had active slavery, and HP makes that point in spades. And while Hermione is anti-slavery, she is mocked and dismissed for her stance and virtually no other characters agree with her.
There is no technicality that would make the bacteria in your body a slave. Slaves are human by most definitions. There is also coercion inherent to slavery, you don't coerce your bacteria.
In the context of a fantasy setting like HP they'd be 'people' by definition, aka they'd have to be sapient.
The relationship you have with your bacteria isn't even slave-adjacent, and pretending that it is undercuts the very real harm that slavery has caused throughout all of human history.
6 months in jail for multiple rapes of a child should be genuinely shocking, even with a guilty plea in mind. People who plead guilty for drug possession get more than 6 months in prison. By Texas law, what he did should carry a minimum sentence of 25 years. 9.5 years probation and multiple lawsuits to a 64 year old worth over $100 million is not a punishment, it's a slightly early retirement and a minor nuisance.
My point was more that it is a matter of intent of the comedian and the audience's reception of the joke, rather than what the comedian's specific minority status is. Given the overall sex-positive vibe of the meme dump here, and the OP's long running history of very similar dumps, I think it's reasonable to assume the intent isn't incel-adjacent.
And the lesbians have to get their memes from somewhere.
I know a cadre of lesbians who would 100% send this meme to one another tbf
Genuinely confusing response. Please check your carbon monoxide detectors.
Humor should speak truth to power, so "touchy jokes" should always be punching up. The Catholic Church is one of the most powerful organizations in human history, it's hard to tell a joke about the church that punches down somehow.
Also I don't respect or empathize with any organization that provably enables pedophiles to harm children.
I've seen 2 videos, 1 being from the Go Pro and the other being clearly a handheld camera looking out a window, I have not seen any Ring camera footage. The handheld angle is where the idea that Alan Ritchenson started the fight came from, since it only starts once Ronnie Taylor is on the ground.
I would not be shocked to find out that whoever shot that angle was trying to frame Ritchenson, since it's very "convenient" to only start filming at the point that frames Taylor as an innocent victim.