irmoz
@irmoz@lemmy.world
- Comment on The name "seagull" implies the existence of landgulls, airgulls, and firegulls. 1 week ago:
No, that’s a durtgull. A landgull would be a kangaroo.
- Comment on The biggest privilege rich people have is to be extremely stupid on purpose. 4 weeks ago:
It doesn’t say being poor makes you smarter, just that it strongly incentivises you to smarten up, or else your life will be much harder
- Comment on The biggest privilege rich people have is to be extremely stupid on purpose. 4 weeks ago:
Stating that the paragraph exists doesn’t really convince me… are there any specific sentences you can point at, and explain why they imply that rich = stupid and poor = smart? Seems to me they’re just saying that they have the privilege to choose to be stupid, not that being rich means they are stupid.
- Comment on The biggest privilege rich people have is to be extremely stupid on purpose. 4 weeks ago:
What you described is the division of labour, which has nothing to do with what OP is talking about. Of course woodcutters, generally speaking, don’t need to know quantum mechanics; of course engineers aren’t generally well versed in military history, etc. But “people generally only know their chosen subjects in detail” isn’t groundbreaking, nor is it what OP said.
- Comment on The biggest privilege rich people have is to be extremely stupid on purpose. 4 weeks ago:
No correlation was mentioned
- Comment on The biggest privilege rich people have is to be extremely stupid on purpose. 4 weeks ago:
That’s not a privilege, that’s a punishment, whether they recognise it or not
- Comment on We Should Immediately Nationalize SpaceX and Starlink 5 weeks ago:
What do you mean by that?
- Comment on We Should Immediately Nationalize SpaceX and Starlink 5 weeks ago:
Depends what you mean by “us”
- Comment on [deleted] 5 weeks ago:
So, this is where it all went wrong. For some reason, you thought that “ignorant and insensitive” were being directed at your reply to my comment, and not to the comment I was originally responding to. Perhaps you forgot that my original comment was a reply to someone else? Either that or you’ve been trolling the whole time.
Also, this marks the moment where you change the subject away from whether that comment was insensitive, and towards discussing whether OP made any demands, which was never an issue on my mind. Damn fine trolling work, I must say, keeping me distracted for so long.
- Comment on Denying uniqueness is both a compliment and an insult. 5 weeks ago:
Thanks I guess?
- Comment on Denying uniqueness is both a compliment and an insult. 5 weeks ago:
“Wanting to be offended” is a myth perpetuated by people who want to be offensive. Nobody “wants” to be offended. Offence is a genuine emotional reaction, is automatic, and is unpleasant. Cut that bullshit out.
- Comment on Somewhere out there is a blooper reel for the movie "Shindler's List" 5 weeks ago:
Imagine messing up halfway through a terrible rape scene
- Comment on [deleted] 5 weeks ago:
Don’t bother, seems people just aren’t ready to be told they’re being insensitive
- Comment on [deleted] 5 weeks ago:
The text of the original post demonstrably does not contain the phrase you attribute to it. And i have provided evidence of the comment to which I was referring, which is not your own. There is no further proof necessary; and you yourself have even quoted that same post, which even in your attempt, still did not contain the phrase you claim. Only your own comment did.
You have not provided any evidence which supports your claims. Your quotes only prove my point: the OP did not request for this to stop, just stated that they “hate” it.
Further, I even provided reasoning by way of example: my hatred of soap operas and Tesla not motivating a wish for their destruction.
What more do you want? Like I’ve already said, if i misunderstood, then correct me. You have failed to do so.
This really doesn’t need to go as far as it has. You never even needed to reply to me, because you were off topic and not saying anything relevant to my point, which is that their comment was off base.
- Comment on [deleted] 5 weeks ago:
No, that’s not my point, that’s just you refusing to see my point. Please, if you’re going to contradict me, provide evidence or sound reasoning. Prove that I misunderstood. I have provided proof for my points. You have neglected that duty.
- Comment on [deleted] 5 weeks ago:
This wasn’t you. Like I said. You have jumped in and added nothing of value to the conversation.
- Comment on [deleted] 5 weeks ago:
Yes, I am standing up for OP. I am standing against the “it’s just marketing” idea. The “they should stop” idea was uttered by you, not by OP. You can hate something without demanding for it to stop: I hate soap operas, but don’t demand they stop. I hate Tesla, but don’t demand they should shut down.
If I have misinterpreted OP, then quote where they clearly and unequivocally demanded for it to stop, or where they stated that it was more than just marketing.
- Comment on [deleted] 5 weeks ago:
There’s no way you actually believe I’m a bot. You’re just running away from the conversation.
Now, look:
THIS is the comment I responded to. Observe how it is entirely unadopted by YOUR username. This is the comment I took issue with. Not what you said. The actual issue with what you said was that you entirely ignored the point of the OP, and what I said, to support the “it’s just marketing” idea, which belittles OP’s pain.
OP just wanted to vent, not make suggestions for corporations.
- Comment on [deleted] 5 weeks ago:
Stop saying that!!! I’m not a fucking bot!! I am a human being with thoughts and feelings and autism, and i am far too fucking sick of being called a robot my entire fucking life. I deserve respect and dignity, not to be treated like a defective toaster.
I will not be bullied for standing up for another person. Never. I will not back down just because you tried to throw your weight around and oppress me.
- Comment on [deleted] 5 weeks ago:
Why do you need to believe that? Can’t you comprehend that I might actually have a point?
- Comment on [deleted] 5 weeks ago:
Yeah sure, saying “I hate this” is clearly an endorsement that it should continue to happen.
Did I say that? No.
Stop playing fucking games.
It is neither an endorsement for it to continue, nor is it a demand for it to stop.
It is “i hate it”. It is a statement of feeling.
Learn the difference between is and ought. Stop mistaking your next thought for their next statement.
Yes, hating something generally means you want it to stop. But you cannot be quoted as asking for it to stop until you actually say so.
- Comment on [deleted] 5 weeks ago:
I never said anything single thing about YOUR statement. Look at the comment I responded to before you jumped in.
You have to be trolling at this point.
- Comment on [deleted] 5 weeks ago:
Like, I don’t get what you’re doing at all. It just strikes me as insensitive to reply to a post saying something upsets them, just ignoring the emotional content completely to say that the upsetting thing is just marketing. Why has this devolved so far, and why do you only want to discuss the content of YOUR reply to my reply to the original reply?
- Comment on [deleted] 5 weeks ago:
Wtf are you talking about??? I’m not a bot FOR FUCK’S SAKE, stop trolling me. All I said, all I’ve EVER said, is that the top level comment i replied to was an insensitive reply. Then you popped in trying to elaborate on what that comment was saying – completely ignoring what I had said – and now for some reason you’re upset that I don’t want to talk about YOUR comment.
Why?? Why are you doing this to me?? You’re driving me fucking INSANE.
WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM ME??
- Comment on [deleted] 5 weeks ago:
the second part was from my post.
So OP never told anyone to stop using those terms… you put the words in their mouth.
Why should I consider what YOU said, when making statements about what OP wants?
You forget everything that was said just in the last post before.
No, that just wasn’t relevant to what I was saying. Not even a little.
- Comment on [deleted] 5 weeks ago:
What about “I hate when websites use the terms” and “Makes me want to cry” tells you that OP wants websites to advertise with mother’s day/father’s day?
Don’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t say they wanted them to use. I specifically said that you can infer they don’t want them to use it.
But, like I said, there is no demand there, is there? You can’t get an ought from an is.
what about “Websites shouldn’t use the term for marketing/websites should allow you to opt out” tells you that I said people (and not only companies) shouldn’t use these terms?
That quote is nowhere in the OP. What are you talking about?
- Comment on [deleted] 5 weeks ago:
I did, nothing about people no longer using the terms was said in the OP. Please don’t resort to wild claims of lying like that.
- Comment on So close! 5 weeks ago:
Yeah ofc, but boiling isnt always making soup, sometimes it’s just boiling, and what you’re “dumping out” isn’t soup
- Comment on [deleted] 5 weeks ago:
I’m not suggesting that, and it didn’t seem to me like OP was either
- Comment on So close! 5 weeks ago:
So, it’s still just boiling.
