The moment I knew that I had to break it off with my ex was when a comment about tea-cup saucers turned into an accusation that I “always had to be right”.
We were having cake for dessert:
Her: “Can you grab plates?”
Me: Grabs a couple of small plates.
Her: “No, those aren’t for cake. It’s the really small ones.”
Me: “Okay, but FYI the small ones are actually teacup saucers. You can tell the difference because they have the indent in the middle so the teacup doesn’t slip around.”
Her: “You just always have to be right, don’t you?”
What followed was a truly bonkers argument where I found myself accused of “lording my intelligence” and told that I had to be right in everything.
For the record, I told her I literally didn’t give a shit what she wants to eat cake off of. I’m the guy that would happily use a Tupperware lid as a plate if it was the closest thing to hand. I was just pointing out an “interesting fact” (in my mind at least).
you’re right. Saucers (despite the English name) are meant to drink beverages, therefore they are small glasses, not small plates
How dare you point out something. Stop hurting her feelings by pointing out anything she doesn’t know. “I would’ve pointed out you were about to drink soap but then I’d ‘Always need to be right’.”
That is essentially the vibe I got from that argument. We didn’t last much longer after that.
Understanding each others’ definitions is key to communication, so I’m with you on this one. I’ll often get accused of “you know what I meant!”, when I really didn’t and was honestly asking for clarification.
Kids, don’t take ontology classes even if your friends say it’s cool.
“you know what I meant!”
This is why I’ve learned to repeat what I thought someone said back to them so they can confirm if they communicated it clearly or not.
“Bring it to me.”
"Which one? I see 5 of them here.
“Oh, I meant the blue one.”
Anytime I enter one with a purist/gatekeeper. You just can’t reason with them and they absolutely refuse to see the other side of the argument. They must always believe that their direction is the direction for all things regarding X fandoms or general hobby.
Or people who are pedantic.
“The sky is blue.”
“No it isn’t! It is red at sunrise and at sundown.”
“Ok comic book guy.”
i got into an argument with my in law about a 60$ sticker to block the ‘waves’ on my phone. for my health. and my phone will still work… it was a hologram sticker.
I’ve got the new ones that also block radiation, they’re on sale for 120$
well, they do sell ones that work. you can measure them blocking all em radiation from exiting out the back of your phone… instead blasting all of it into your head. significantly more of it too, since the normal reaction of a phone that loses signal is to boost its own in order to find a tower.
But blocking any of it is useless because none of it is going into your head, the wavelength of the radio waves is too large to penetrate skin or bone, it bounces off harmlessly like am/fm radio waves. It’s in the nonionizing range of the em spectrum, unlike ionizing em waves like X-rays, gamma rays, radon emissions, etc that do penetrate human bodies and can cause protein or DNA damage.
actually no, some of it gets absorbed. that’s why there are SAR values available for all cellphones. it measures how many watts of heat get absorbed per kilogram of brain.
since it’s non-ionizing though, the only effect is a slight heating. like microwatts of heating. 15 minutes in direct sunlight is equal to millions of phone calls. but we do measure it!
No question it causes a little heat when it bounces off and the heat is absorbed, but if that heat gets to the point where you’re causing damage cooking yourself with a phone the phone is seriously malfunctioning and broken.
the problem is, apparently, that we just don’t know what sort of effect that heating has when it happens inside the body.
you know, never mind the radio spectrum part of what the sun puts out.
Whether the saying is “if they think that, then they’ve got another think coming” or “if they think that, then they’ve got another thing coming”.
After a cursory search it seems like both are acceptable. “Think” appears to be the original phrase, but “thing” is more common today, especially in America.
That one always gets me. The phrase means that the person is wrong about something, and circumstances will compel them to reconsider their position or opinion. The word “think” refers to a cognitive process, such as reconsidering their position or opinion. As for the alternative, what’s the “thing” that’s coming? Their latest Amazon order is out for delivery?
I’ve always interpreted the other thing coming as a threat or an unpleasant surprise. Ie, the consequences of thinking the thing they think.
Comeuppance.
Yeah, that’s what I’ve always figured, since the implied threat of violence/retribution seems like a very American attitude.
What? No, just via circumstances. As in, the situation will have consequences you failed to predict.
I feel that “another thing coming” has mobster vibes, and a comeuppance is a deserved punishment.
Okay, well, it doesn’t.
Whether 12:00:00 is a period of time and could be AM or PM, or whether it was a point in time i.e., the meridian, and was neither AM nor PM.
I feel like there’s not much to fight about. I can understand the latter perspective, but from a practical point of view it just makes sense to consistently assign it to AM/PM rather than creating an unnecessary edge case (lord knows there are enough of those with date/time systems). Also this is all made moot by the superior system: the 24-hour clock (now THERE’S something I bet you could have a good argument about!).
Indeed, the minute (sorry) difference is what made the argument so dumb. In the end it came down to the implementation of the systems we were working withm which were… not good. My favourite thing about 24-hour time is to be able to use 00:00 and 24:00. And the worst thing is notation in systems only going up to 23:59:59.
12:00:00 exists in both AM and PM. I have my lunch at 12 PM.
I fought with my aunt about “mom jeans.” I was telling her it was a style of jeans and she was adament that it was any kind of jeans that a “mother” is wearing.
Well technically you are both right though she is being pedantic.
That the whole transgender thing is a conspiracy by the healthcare sector to earn more money.
Which side were you arguing?
I just listened for amusement
ugh. gotta be the one about jesus preaching pacifism. The person said the turn the other cheek was not to be taken literally but a thing he says after he admonishes a disciple for cuting off a soldiers ear and healing the ear but then he says his fight is yet to come and he will need to be armed and armored for it. that he feels is literal and not prose at all. smh.
So dumb.
Hour argument, that the final cliff fall scene in Predator 1 was two different jumps in the 2 cuts.
Can see in the first one he is rotating. Second cut is a straight plumb drop into the water.
How were the rotational moments counteracted?
They weren’t, it’s two different jumps/takes.
2 friends came up with some hair-brained arguments that you could stop rotating on the way down. (눈_눈)
The only way would be air resistance, and hands/arms is not going to be enough to create drag to counter the rotation.
Jackie Chan: Always shoot the punch twice.
I hate when people get into minute arguments about what is visually happening on screen versus the story that’s being told. It can be a single jump narratively but two jumps in production. (I’ve never seen the movie.)
I was not invested in the outcome of the argument, just seeing how far they were willing to take being wrong about aerodynamics/physics. Quite far it turns out.
Let’s give more money to billionaires, they will make us rich too.
Ah, trickle-down economics. A tale as old as time.
Someone on Bluesky last night mentioned Woody Allen for some offhand reason, and some sock puppet account was loudly defending Woody and saying he never did anything wrong and that Soon-Yin was never parented by him or anything like that. Imagine being a shill for Woody Allen of all people.
So someone chimed in on a subject that was never broached in the first place? It reminds me of the people on reddit who will always pipe in about how mean John Lennon was no matter what the subject about him is.
Literally someone joked “don’t Woody Allen me” and this account went off with a bunch of “facts”. It was super odd.
When I was on Reddit I was talking about Jian Ghomeshi’s sexual abuse charges on r/Canada (before it got overrun by racists), and a sock puppet account sent me the weirdest PM, about how I wanted to “touch the diamond that is Jian’s life, but holding a melting diamond in your hands is dangerous” or some such shit. I actually feel it was Jian Ghomeshi because it was so narcissistic and weird. I could of course be wrong, but I really think it was. The wording was just too weird.
I can’t remember the specifics (both because it was dumb and because it’s so embarrassing I think my brain is trying to protect me), but from what I recall I got into a heated argument on the internet with someone because I felt that fans weren’t cheering hard enough for a band I liked at a concert.
…yeah, I know. I’m grateful, though, because it was so colossally stupid and pointless that I had a come-to-Jesus moment and swore off internet arguments entirely. I can only imagine the countless hours of my life it’s saved me in the intervening years.
Whether if something is deceptively [a trait] does it mean it’s the inverse of the trait or more of the trait than it appears, ie: if you call something deceptively shallow, does that mean it is shallow, but looks deep, or that it is deep but looks shallow. Hours of arguing with my family and checking numerous sources, we came to the conclusion that the phrasing can be used either way.
I think if something is described as deceptively shallow it means that it looks deeper than it is. IMO
🤔🤯
An event that happens biweekly could occur at the same frequency as an event that happens bimonthly.
Shouldn’t that be semi-monthly? Rounding months to 4 weeks, of course.
Or maybe that’s just me wanting bi and semi to have consistent meanings. Bi is two, semi is a half.
Probably should be, but isn’t. Bimonthly can mean twice a month or every two months.
Goddamit. I was so certain it was the inverse, and now here I am debating myself
You can thank me later
You’re debating whether not-3 is the same as “less than three”.
It’s => but not <= so it’s not ==.
AAAAHHH
I was talking with someone from the UK about this article that they showed me. They were outraged by it, and I said I don’t see what the problem is with it. They were weirdly fixated on the “asylum seekers” part, to which I told them the article says it will apply to vulnerable persons regardless of immigration status, and I asked them why they were fixating so much on this applying to one specific demographic.
This caused them to go on a tirade about “migrants are getting more rights than people who were born in this country” and how they aren’t a racist because they married an Italian. They said “it’s all about divide and conquer” and I asked them why they care so much about what ethnicity or nationality a person is, over if they’re vulnerable and receiving healthcare equality or not. This quickly devolved into them going on about how the UK is “being taken over by migrants”. So, I asked them if they knew any of these migrants, if the UK is “being taken over” by them. They said no.
This started from them watching a YouTube video made by some influencer who was getting angry over the same article. I’m more than convinced that social media can have its bad sides.
I can kind of see their thought processes there. They’re sharing right-wing media so they’re likely already primed for those biases, plus that article title is intentionally misleading by suggesting asylum seekers will by default get priority over all other patients. It isn’t until the sixth paragraph that they admit it’s priority care for vulnerable people which is a group that happens to include asylum seekers and undocumented migrants (terms which this writer uses interchangeably, because of course they do). Very poor journalistic integrity even for a rag like this one, imo.
This type of article is intentionally misleading and written primarily to rile up people with poor media literacy. Making people angry makes it easier to manipulate them, and vulnerable groups are naturally less able to fight back so they’re an easy target.
In an ideal world after being challenged they would have reevaluated the source and their beliefs. In practice very few people do that and they just get more entrenched instead. Especially if it’s someone anonymous online just telling them they’re wrong.
Yeah, it seems like there are a lot of people who will only read the headlines, which when combined with what headline they went with is egregious. Honestly, clickbait such as this is a pet peeve I have with media in general.
