@insomniac7809 said in Tyche Banned:
@GreenFlashlight Once is chance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action.
Yeah, I never really saw his posts, but all the people saying he should have been gone a year ago lead me to believe it was a pattern.
@Auspice said in Health and Wealth and GrownUp Stuff:
The other day I did an hour of Just Dance. It was great. I felt great after.
The following day I could only manage 20 minutes.
The next day I couldn't make myself do it at all and just felt exhausted. Sluggish. Full fibro flare had come up..
Yesterday I slept until 2pm.
Today walking to/from the bus is torture.I hate this. I hate how even finding a method of working out I like.....and my body is rejecting it. I hate how I WANT to get in shape.... I mean an hour may have been the issue and once I recover I should prob do less but I was having fun! I should be able to have fun and enjoy myself and not pay for it for days on end.
Maybe the problem is you're not giving yourself enough time to recover. I'm working out hard, and getting to the point where I'm getting a high from it, so I try to carry on the high by working out on my days off, right? I ruined a whole week like that, exhausted throughout because I was not giving my body time to rebuild everything I'd been tearing down. Because like an idiot, I forgot that highs by definition cannot be maintained.
I don't know how that interacts with fibromyalgia, but maybe taking a day between sessions would make things easier? If I'm being presumptuous, I apologize.
@Ghost said in Tyche Banned:
Anyway, I digress, but it's like: "I ACCIDENTALLY came across this One World News article about Hillary Clinton..."
C'mon. Bullshit.
I can believe it. I'm in a few politics groups, and there's always one Neo-Nazi (I will not be suckered into calling them "alt-right") who's trying to infiltrate by subtly sneaking in articles from sites you don't recognize whose headlines sound progressive but then you read it and you notice it uses the term "Zionist media."
Doesn't sound like it was a mistake in Tyche's case, but I can believe it happening randomly and/or carelessly.
@Misadventure said in PB 'realism':
Do PB fires your imagination, even if it's never seen by others? Or is the critical part that it's seen by others?
I am an aural thinker, not a visual one, so I only imagine my own characters as a few defining characteristics without context (for example, this gunslinger I have in my head dresses in layers to keep from getting sunburn and has freckles across her nose and cheekbones, but I don't know what color her eyes are or how she wears her hair). PBs are something I pick begrudgingly, sort of the same way I begrudgingly wear pants when I go out: because it's the custom of the culture.
@lordbelh said in Tyche Banned:
You can get away with a lot of things on this forum, and personally I'm happy to see a diverse cast of idea and opinions, including ones I wholeheartedly disagree with. But c'mon, why you gotta go there?
I did not see the post in question, but from the way it's been described, he went there because he wants Jewish people to know what safety they have belongs to him and is therefore his to revoke at will.
I like how many of the entries in this thread are some variation on Italian food.
We love our breads and bread variants, we depressed people.
I used to think PBs were important. Then I met a guy who would use his boner for my PBs as a sales pitch for RP; like, "Wow, your PB is so hot, we should definitely meet up and your character should be inducted into the cult mine is a leader of where I'd have total authority over you as well as an implied slavish control over your character's outlook and goals." So I guess I actually do think PBs are important, but in the opposite direction of what they probably should be: nowadays I calculate them less to represent my vision of my character than to try to convince creeps to not bother.
@Roz said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
is this really about one silly tech support call
No.
@Tinuviel said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
@GreenFlashlight said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
I am willing to modify my behavior if you have suggestions.
Alright.
No. I was not speaking to you, nor inviting your advice. Not after that despicable display where I asked you to please help me understand and you lied to me that you would, luring me into trusting you only to rip that gratitude away out of a despicable, pathetic need to demonstrate your intellectual superiority over a random internet stranger who just wanted help understanding something you could have explained by now but actively refuse to.
I cannot adequately convey to you how upsetting or hurtful that is. I can only say that I feel ashamed of myself for thinking you would possibly be kind to me; my skin is burning with the shame of being so stupid as to fall for the trap you were setting from the beginning, and I am focusing on that a lot right now because it is easier to deal with than any of the rest of what I'm trying to process.
Please do not speak to me again. I want nothing more to do with you.
@Tinuviel said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
@GreenFlashlight said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
This confuses me
I don't care.
Then please do not waste my time with false offers to explain things to me; though I suppose it's a little funny you'd lie to me in the same discussion you try to tell me what is and isn't a lie. Not side-splitting or anything, but worth a smile, so thanks for that.
@Sunny said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
Yeah, if you meant 'just doing as he's told' as the meaning you meant by 'just following orders', then yes. I prefer 'doing his job', in this case.
I chose "just following orders" because I believe it applies here; that we must not blame him for the outcomes of his actions because someone else told him to take those actions. Phrasing it differently feels like a euphemism to me and I dislike using euphemisms, since they seem to exist to obfuscate.
ETA: Also I missed this until now but please do not make any assumptions about my opinions based on my upvotes because you clearly don't know enough about me to come to the right conclusion, @GreenFlashlight.
Was it unclear from my phrasing that I was confused and was asking for clarification? Like, did me saying the words "this confuses me" and "which all suggest to me," spoken to someone who claimed he would explain it, not indicate I am asking for help to understand? If so, what phrasing would you like me to use in order to more accurately convey that I am confused and looking for clarification? I am willing to modify my behavior if you have suggestions.
@Tinuviel said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
We don't know the person was lying intentionally, most of the time they have a script they have to follow. So we're not blaming them for the BS.
This confuses me because Sunny upvoted this post despite saying to me, earlier, that "he was just following orders" does not apply and saying he just said something stupid, which all suggest to me that means his words are his responsibility. But in either case, does intention matter? It was still a lie whether he meant it to be or not.
If you want to blame the BS on someone, blame it on the people actually in charge rather than the poor bastard on the phone.
So... he was just following orders?
It's not a big deal. Nobody is making it a big deal. But you seem to think it's being treated like a big deal.
I apologize for seeming to think it's being treated like a big deal. I will try to calibrate my readings of the arguments on these boards accordingly.
@Tinuviel said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
@GreenFlashlight said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
I'm really not getting what the great injustice is here.
Then why are you still going on about it?
Because I want to understand and I keep hoping someone will explain it in a way that makes sense to me if I ask questions that refine the argument down in terms I can understand, since I have tried in the past leaving it at "I don't get it" and getting either no answer or someone saying something like "that's okay, people who get it get it" rather than helping.
@Sunny said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
No, he was a poorly trained kid at a customer service job who said something stupid.
He made a bad choice and the outcome of that choice had consequences? Specifically, the low-stakes consequence of a person he'll never meet saying something snippy to him in response to a lie?
I'm really not getting what the great injustice is here.
He was just following orders?
@Auspice said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
And sure, this 'doesn't matter' until the day someone destroys their equipment trying to get the 'stuck feedback' out.
And why is lying the go-to in the first place? What benefit did lying serve in this position that just telling the truth wouldn't have done better?
@Kestrel said in Separating Art From Artist:
From a quick glance at that wiki article, I don't support that at all.
But in the UK we have laws against discrimination at the workplace, which also covers things like verbal harassment, workplace bullying, hate speech, etc. (Note: I am not a lawyer so may be misusing terms, but these are the basics as I understand them and my employee rights.)
You still need to give a valid reason for firing someone. Going on a racist tirade is just allowed to be one of them.
This is 100% not a danger to me. This is a benefit to me. I shouldn't have to put up with horrible, unprofessional, bigoted treatment at work. If it occurs I can go to HR.
In America, we have been fighting bitterly for more than a hundred years against ever introducing any legislation that includes the words "all people are equal under the law."
@surreality No, I am prioritizing. Specifically, I am prioritizing the safety of everyone a domestic terrorist chooses to target for violence over the financial prosperity of a domestic terrorist's family. It sucks for the hypothetical kid in this situation, but tough shit. We have social welfare programs for a reason, and even if this hypothetical child falls through the cracks, I can live with it. I'm stunned that people think this is even a choice.
@bored said in Separating Art From Artist:
You presented a counter-argument to the idea that collateral damage to dependents was a valid concern. You did it while blatantly avoiding mention of the most likely victims of such a scenario. Sarcastic delivery aside, I am pointing out the holes in your argument as presented.
You are doing so by presenting them as my own. Don't do that. It's dishonest and rude.
And, not that you asked, because you are not interested in knowing what I think if it might conflict with what you have decided I think for the sake of arguing against me, let's say this Klansman does have a child dependent on his Klandaddy for support via the one and only job Klandaddy can get, and that outing Klandaddy will harm that child's financial future. Why are we pretending that child is the only victim here? Klandaddy is in the Ku Klux Klan. He believes non-white people are subhuman and he takes action to support those beliefs. In the best possible cases, he merely engages in the passive violence of oppression via legislation. In the worst, he is actively violent to non-white people, attacking them physically.* Am I to look at all the victims of his Klan violence and say, "Sorry, I coulda done something, but that would have made his kid collateral damage, so I figured it was better for you all to just suck it up?"
*and really, I could make a serious argument the personal violence is less damaging on the whole than participating in organized oppression, just because of the scale of the damage done
@surreality said in Separating Art From Artist:
Let's maybe not use Kestrel as an example in that analogy, since she's not advocating this and it seems like something that could be misconstrued later in the thread if someone skims and thinks she has done so somewhere.
Sorry. I only used her name because I'm so used to everyone dogpiling on her in this thread anyway.
@Derp said in Separating Art From Artist:
Substitute 'clansman' for literally any other political / religious / belief-based organization and you quickly start to see the problem here.
Mmmmmmno, I'm sticking with "The Ku Klux Klan is a despicable, domestic terrorist organization people deserve to know the membership of at all times." Frankly, I think it's wildly insulting to compare them to Democratic Socialists or Muslims, and the slippery slope is a named fallacy for a reason.
@bored said in Separating Art From Artist:
It looks like you forgot something while explaining what dependents are, but don't worry, I fixed it!
I have not put words in your mouth, bored. Please show me the same courtesy, particularly as you have no idea what I think about these hypothetical children.
So if Kestrel reports a Klansman for being at a Klan rally, the effects of that on the Klansman's family belong more to Kestrel than to the Klansman who chose to be at the rally, who chose to be a Klansman, who chose to tie his family's fortune to his Klan participation? Because I feel like it's on the Klansman, and on the Klansman's SO who realistically had to know what they were getting into.