FriendOfDeSoto

Sounds Swedish.

It’s gossamer thin, admittedly. But there is a shred of a justification for striking Iran that is covered by international law. I’m not saying it is a proven case yet that a preemptive strike against their nuclear program was called for, against a state whose raison d’être is to destroy Israel. But if the circumstances were just right, the Israeli-US allies could get away with it. (And if no good proof materializes, I suspect they will get away with it anyway. Remember Colin Powell’s PowerPoint? Did that have consequences other than killing people next door? I suspect that’s why they’ve crossed this bridge.)

There is not even a hint of a justification for what Russia is doing in Ukraine. Not in international law. And any possible moral high horse has already been shot long ago. It’s just imperial ambitions.

So we should not equate these two special military operations just yet. We may in the future and then we can throw all our rotten tomatoes at DC. But right now one probably should reserve judgment and refer to them as “alleged orcs” if one is given to name calling.

One ping only.

Med al ret!

You do you et bon appetit. I’m sorry if I got hung up on that for no reason.

Maybe he likes being a tad unpredictable. If I had to choose if I wanted to be his friend or if I wanted to be stuck in an elevator with him for an hour, I’d clearly say neither, thanks. History will probably record him as a stirrup-holder of full born fascism.

I don’t like “belong” here. Pineapple is food. People like it, or like it in certain combinations, or they don’t. Highly concentrated uranium or arsenic really don’t belong in food. Pineapple is not the same as uranium.

If you’ve ever been a student or cash strapped you’ve eaten various uncommon combinations of food. You didn’t care what belonged together or not. And neither should anyone care in this regard. Outside of poison and allergies, we don’t need to be paternalistic about telling people what to eat or not. People who get internet mad about pineapple on pizza need to reevaluate their life choices.

When you’re in the top 5% it doesn’t really matter where you rank. You will never have to worry about money ever again.

He is an oddity that became a tech press darling, i.e. somebody to report on although not everyone liked him, through PayPal and then his Facebook investment. So he occupied more press real estate than other, long forgotten silicon valley or hedge fund founders. But the fact that he was a founder and successful more often than not makes him the embodiment of the American dream. The immigrant kid that didn’t enherit an emerald mine. The investor who didn’t have to rely on daddy’s wealth as much (or only) as 47. He stands out because he actually finished a degree, not like the Zuckerbergs and Gates of this world. I would say he’s more intelligent than some of those people as well, possibly more strategic. And he has opinions, many of which are controversial to say the least. And if Melon Usk is an example of the in-your-face out-of-touch billionaire and Bill Gates an example of the more reserved out-of-touch do-gooder, Thiel is the more reserved out-of-touch do-weird-shitter. He doesn’t mind the limelight but he doesn’t really seek it. The Melon shows no signs any more of any long-term planning. Like a bladder weakened by ketamine use he just pisses all over everything he happens to stand next to. Gates has an agenda and applies his wealth strategically - and whatever your opinion about the good he actually does - the intention is to do good. Thiel is like that but the intention is to do rightwing libertarian stuff. Quietly, if possible. But there are eyes on him because of his past press “career.” And I didn’t know about his sexual orientation until quite recently - why should anybody care? - but my guess is that a weird idea spouting gay conservative cannot escape the prying eyes of a, let’s face it, predominantly heteronormative press completely. And if you mix this all up you can see why his name keeps popping up. Especially when you consider who presses the diet coke button in the white house.

I think the stereotype is douchebag because people don’t think about all the possible legit reasons. I wear them when I have a migraine, often even at home. You could also wear them because they’re prescription and you forgot the other pair at home. Or you simply forgot you have them on in the first place. We shouldn’t judge but people like to judge. And they mostly judge douchebag because maybe more people wear shades indoors as an effort to build a personality around their empty shell of a self.

None whatsoever.

I am afraid you are “fucked” if you think AJ is an example of independent media and that YT numbers are enough proof for media suppression. Most people on this planet do not watch YT. And the ones who do tend to be influenced by their algorithms that continuously change. That makes YT numbers as slippery as an eel in a lubricant factory. By which I mean unreliable to start a conspiracy theory about a poor, cash strapped, impeccably impartial artisan media outlet from Qatar. Slash s.

Because we don’t want an American system where 16 blorbs equal 1 waboom. We want as much centi and milli as possible! Resistance is futile.

Why isn’t this a popular thing? Because the majority of people on this planet does not care about time zones and either doesn’t have to deal with them at all or doesn’t see a problem when they do. It’s tradition, it’s convention, it’s well-established, and it just works for most people. We should abolish DST but otherwise this ship has sailed.

We should use the aftermath of a civilization killing meteor hit or thermonuclear war to decimalize time keeping - it would need a catastrophic, cataclysmic event like that. A day is now 100 jiffies long. Each jiffy has 100 centijiffies. Now, if we could alter the time it takes the Earth to orbit the sun to something more even that’d be great.

It’s not just Americans. There are many countries in Asia where the default is year month day. If you ever had to organize files by name and date this is the supreme sorting order. Both Europe and North America are getting it wrong.

If this gets you mad don’t ever look into how the French count from 80 to 99. Or how languages disagree on what’s blue or green. These things happen.

I think the sound you’re hearing is a bunch of people creating throwaway accounts for this one. Not me though. I’m a saint.

Perp walks. Teachers in school in front of class. Other kids in school being mean. Public dress downs at work. I’m sure there are more. Not all perps walked reoffend. Kids get their shit together because they don’t want to be made to look silly in front of their peers. I think for some employees this works similarily.

Shaming only works if the shamed feels any. The doublers-down are often the ones who don’t feel shame. So it was the wrong tool for the job. Won’t work on 47 if you know what I mean.

Just to clarify: I would personally put this tool in the “break glass in case of last resort” section of the tool box. But I’ve worked with bosses who didn’t put these restrictions on themselves and it can work.

You could question their leadership qualities if you wanted to. That’s a benefit of arm chairing this stuff in an internet forum.

Just by origin of the word polyglot means you have many tongues. Tongues is of course well established as a stand-in for languages. If you can speak more than one, you fall under the definition.

I think people have attached more to the term than just that though. I’m thinking of well traveled and culturally sensitive as well. Somebody who would be alright no matter where you dropped them.

How many languages can your better half say good morning in? She might just be trying to pay you a compliment and you with your humilis gloriatio are not having it. In any case, I wouldn’t recommend going back to her with arguments obtained from a random group of internet users to settle your interpersonal disagreement.

I was shooting for “neutral you”.

I think you missed.

I assumed that you were also a fan.

You know what you do when you assume, don’t you?

Thus any course of action that happens to also serve it warrants scrutiny.

If that’s what you think I’m surprised you asked the question in the first place considering one of the binary choices you provided is essentially d-humping. Your mind is already made up. I also feel you’re moving the goal posts. You asked who is more idiotic, not whose behavior should be under more scrutiny.

So I wonder what “you” you, and from here on that means you personally unless otherwise stated, are referring to. Are you ascribing idiot-shouting behavior to me personally? Or are you referring to the neutral “you,” which can be replaced with “one?” The reason I’m wondering is that I have given no indication that I shout at idiots but your reply could be incorrectly construed in such a way that I do. Which then doesn’t make the motive warning any clearer also. Because it could be a interpreted as meaning I like to be “dominance-humping” and I ought to reflect on that. Or that my reasoning is too Darwinistic. Or that I shouldn’t judge tight calls by small statistical margins. Or that I like correcting people? Etc. It just isn’t clear.

If this was pointed at my personally then you in particular and one in general should keep in mind that the person answering a binary question of the calibre “Which is worse, the plague or cholera?” doesn’t necessarily need to be suffering from either disease to make an assessment. So looping back to your OG query: I would say it’s better not to shout at anyone in general. But I’m also sure you and I after careful deliberation could agree on some exceptions relating to your query that aren’t monkey business. E.g. the idiot could be in danger, the idiot could be a racist abusing the marginalized, the idiot could be hard of hearing, etc. This sort of longer discussion isn’t encouraged by a binary prompt.

If we have defined “idiotic” to a sufficiently objective degree, I think the idiot wins the race. The shouter - although not in the best manner - is at least trying to make the idiot aware of their transgression. It’s a reaction to the idiotic behavior, not out of the blue. And while it will not work in correcting the idiot’s behavior all the time, there is at least the chance that the reaction is memorable to the idiot - public shaming is s powerful tool - which could lead to reflection, and thus prevent a recurrence. It’s these small odds that tilt this seesaw of a question for me.