51–60 of 63 posts
I didn't downvote but I do tire of seeing archive links under every post. If people wanted them then all they need is a bookmarklet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody but maybe the CIA and select warlords and old money heirs has any meaningful personal agency.
It is what it is. To paraphrase George Carlin: in any store, we can choose between dozens of different flavors of the same food item, but for some reason, we cannot affect any meaningful change through any of the choices given to us.
He was a typical bully - harassed the kids and teachers, constantly got into trouble.
I was a small, skinny kid, the class joker, academically good and in most ways happy go lucky.
So, we are giving our tests, and this guy would sit behind me, and would constantly bug me to show the answers. I think, I complied a few times.
But one day, I just had it, told him that I would not help. He said, there would be consequences. He caught up with me in the hallway after the test, starts pushing me, there are a bunch of kids.
I've always had anger issues, and when pushed too far, I just blow up.I don't remember what happened, but all I know is at some point I was grappling with him, and next his head went straight into the concrete wall. He just collapsed in a heap.
That was the last day he messed with me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is what it is. To paraphrase George Carlin: in any store, we can choose between dozens of different flavors of the same food item, but for some reason, we cannot affect any meaningful change through any of the choices given to us.
Where is it from?
> The things that matter in this country have been reduced in choice, there are two political parties, there are a handful insurance companies, there are six or seven information centers.. but if you want a bagel there are 23 flavors. Because you have the illusion of choice!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think what I mean is not even taking out frustrations. This behavior doesn't need an a priori frustration. That is the big issue. I'm able to forgive a frustration. You cut me off, you have a bad day/parent in hospital - I'm able to live with that. That is in stoicism, radical acceptance etc. You do it just because - it's a different animal. "Just because" meaning, you take the power. I'm finding it hard to discuss…
There is a strong argument that cooperative populations are more effective/efficient than non-cooperative. Structures and processes that place a high value on all people and their many quirks instead of conformity to an arbitrary leader are likely to do better in most situations than ones that don’t.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bullying has changed if "wouldn't let .. kid sit with them" counts. If I could not-associate with school bullies I would have.
There was only one free seat and the quiet kid had to stand because the bullies wouldn't let him sit next to them. That counts as bullying in my book. Bullying behavior exist also in the bullied: The quiet kid had to appease the bullies. Train these roles often enough, both parties are on a set course for life.
It's clearly implied in my understanding that the cool kids pushed him over however, and that you expect they were to let the kid sit. The interpretation still depends on the environment, and the details, because it is a legitimate concern in principle, that one might not want to associate with another, and it's left open whether the kid really wanted to sit with them or accomodate them with preferable seating arrangements, or frankly would rather stand than associate with them. In small terms it may be actually quite fair if such distension is communicated quickly anyway--same way that you don't elaborate nearly enough to reach an agreement with your conclusion unless the agreement was established prior to the conclusion.
I originally wanted to respond to say fashioning explanations of offensive language is just tongue-n-cheek and near click bait at best, and confusing at worst. But if you have to write about offensive language, while ignoring its ambiguity and offensiveness, and taking as given the term is a legitimate type, and therefore legitimate topic of discussion, then this article is not the worst. I belive such language is be…
Nice classism.
Written by judgemental asshole. Since this article is about labeling other people as assholes, I hope it's OK that I did the same.
Unlike you, he didn't actually label anyone, since he didn't talk about any specific assholes, he just described the category. Big difference.
a) she
b) sure she did
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed. Comedy is usually frowned upon in here, but this article posted is golden. We're all some type of asshole. Definitively a dark eye opener for me.
>a dark eye opener for me. there are some things to be said for not having comedy though.
I originally wanted to respond to say fashioning explanations of offensive language is just tongue-n-cheek and near click bait at best, and confusing at worst. But if you have to write about offensive language, while ignoring its ambiguity and offensiveness, and taking as given the term is a legitimate type, and therefore legitimate topic of discussion, then this article is not the worst. I belive such language is be…
Nice classism.