@SubstantialFrivolity's banner p


I'm not even supposed to be here today

4 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 22:41:30 UTC
Verified Email


User ID: 225


I'm not even supposed to be here today

4 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 22:41:30 UTC


No bio...


User ID: 225

Verified Email

We're a long way off from anarchy in which it's either private citizens enforcing order or nobody at all.

But that isn't the equivalent to what she did. What she did is more like saying "play or move", then when they say "we're going to play in a while", saying "well you lose your chance, I'm playing right now" and shoving them aside to put quarters in the machine.

It would seem to be Hitler, scrubbing articles of content that makes him look bad. ;)

Yes, I have. It doesn't change anything. It's still pretty rude to scan the bike that a kid is literally sitting on. As I've said repeatedly, the kids acted worse but that doesn't mean that her actions (as portrayed by the admittedly biased kids) were OK either.

  • -13

Yes, and? I never said that the magnitude of the offense wasn't different (though the level of difference you're trying to portray is ridiculous, it's not that out of whack). Through this entire thread I've agreed that the kids are more in the wrong, even if their story is true. I just refuse to accept the bad premise that because they're more in the wrong, means that nobody else can be in the wrong.

  • -12

It's perfectly normal to hold someone responsible for their actions even when they were in a stressful situation. When I'm having a bad day and I snap at someone, I go and apologize to them later because I still was in the wrong even if it was understandable that I acted poorly

This isn't victim blaming, this is just basic manners. Nobody is saying that this woman should be punished, just that she was in the wrong to act the way she did (understandable though it was).

  • -14

But, if you know that none of those things will actually happen, as everyone does, how can you condemn even the mildest of social consequences?

The theme running through my whole series of posts is "just because they don't act right doesn't mean you get to act v badly too". Why would that change when it's the government not acting right?

You seem to be taking the position that only governmentally impress consequences are morally acceptable

In this specific instance, yes because it's a government provided service so they need to enforce those rules. That is not a general principle I'm arguing for.

It's not a question of how extreme the consequences should be, so much as them coming from the proper place. I think it would be totally reasonable for the city to fine the kids, or to revoke their accounts on the bike ride system. They certainly seem to be breaking the rules of the bike ride system and would deservedly be punished for it.

Yes, they bear 100% of the blame for their actions. And she bears 100% of the blame for hers (assuming the story we got is accurate, of course). Nobody is in the right here.

  • -16

Which is a nice catch 22 since reporting black men to the authorities is a much bigger violation of norms since they're at high risk of being shot.

That's an idiotic norm and anyone who espouses it needs to be slapped so hard they get knocked into orbit. There's no catch-22 here, IMO.

This is like saying that one person can sit in front of the crab legs at a buffet just eating them as the bucket is refilled, and anyone who reaches past them is violating norms and partly to blame. No, the person not letting others use the unclaimed bike is wholly in the wrong.

Again, you're treating being wrong like a zero-sum game. It's not.

  • -12

What are some examples of condemnations being issued, non-fervently? Tepidly, even? Of someone saying this behavior should not be tolerated?

I have repeatedly said that the kids were in the wrong. I haven't explicitly said it, but I'll explicitly say now that their behavior shouldn't be tolerated. Like I've said, I don't think that the woman's behavior makes theirs ok.

This situation is intolerable to me so anything that isn't full condemnation is the same as toleration to me.

Well first of all, that's a poor standard. It's the exact same behavior as woke purity spirals, where people get into pissing matches to see who can condemn the person most harshly and treat anyone who doesn't participate as an enemy.

But more to the point, the people you're arguing with don't actually excuse the kids' behavior at any point. I agree that no matter what, they were wrong to act the way they did. All I'm saying is that if we assume the kids' telling of the story is true, the nurse acted poorly as well. It doesn't mean "well she deserved what happened", it doesn't mean they were justified, it means that she responded to people acting badly by acting badly in turn. So unless you're prepared to take the stance of "anything that isn't full exoneration of the woman is the same as toleration of the kids' actions", nobody here is tolerating their actions even by your standard.

  • -13

I have repeatedly said that what happened to her was not OK. At this point, the only way you can interpret me as saying that is willful misinterpretation of my words. Which I can't stop you from doing, but I'm under no obligation to defend things I didn't say or even imply.

It’s only rude once you accept the anti-social activity by the teens was appropriate.

No, that is not true. I can point out that both are wrong, there's no need for me to choose one side to be in the right. As I keep saying, many people in this thread need to learn that being in the wrong is not zero-sum.

  • -19

Again, nobody is saying that the kids were in the right to do this in the first place. I agree that it certainly seems like they were in the wrong to try to monopolize the e-bikes the way they were. But, if we assume their account of things to be true, she acted poorly on her end as well. If someone is monopolizing a book at the library, the correct course of action is to report them to the authorities, not to take matters into your own hands and snatch the book off the desk in front of them.

This is what I'm talking about when I keep saying it isn't a zero-sum game. Assuming that the kids' account is true:

  • The kids were wrong to sit on the bikes and call dibs on them.

  • The woman was wrong to just scan the bike while the kid was sitting on it trying to call dibs, rather than just finding another option for transportation.

  • The kids were wrong to not just give up the bike they wanted to use so the tired pregnant lady could have it.

  • The kids compounded that wrong by filming the whole thing and trying to look like innocent victims.

At no step of this sequence of events did anyone act correctly. I don't need to overlook the kids' behavior to assess that the woman was rude in her own way under this view of the events.

  • -17

And when you assign blame to the nurse, you excuse the teens.

No. This is not true at all.

Nobody said that what the teens did isn't a violation of decorum. As I have repeatedly pointed out, it's possible for both parties to be in the wrong.

  • -13

Your mistake throughout this thread is assuming that anyone is "tolerating" and "enabling" what the teens did. Nobody is. You need to learn the distinction between "not issuing condemnations as fervently as possible" and "tolerating the behavior".

  • -11

Indeed. People are picking a fight where there is no disagreement lol. Kind of the whole theme of this thread, funnily enough.

  • -10

How is paying to rent a bike that's available wrong?

Except that isn't what happened according to the teens. According to them, what she did was to scan a bike that one of them was sitting on and had said he was going to still use. This is roughly equivalent to if you find someone at the library who has a book on the desk in front of them, who says "sorry but I'm going to check this book out still", and you snatch it off the desk and check it out yourself. That isn't breaking any laws or anything but would be kind of a dick move.

I'm not saying that this nurse is the worst person in the world, or that she should be fired, or anything like that. I am just saying that as the kids tell it, she was kind of rude to them. That's all.

  • -14

As I said, being in the wrong is not a zero sum game. They can be completely wrong in their actions, and she can be wrong in hers. I certainly am not saying that she was, because (as you, @Amadan and I all agree) they are likely to be lying just to save face. All I'm saying is that, if they are telling the truth, the nurse can be wrong without absolving them one bit.

I truly don’t understand your charity to them.

I'm not trying to defend them, and I don't understand why you act like I am. I'm simply pushing back on the idea that to say the nurse acted poorly means that the kids are absolved for their actions.

  • -10

There's a whole lot of people in this thread who don't understand that being in the wrong isn't a zero-sum game. Like you said, it's hard to tell if the woman actually acted like the teens claim she did (since they have every incentive to lie and all), but still. Assuming they are telling the truth, it sounds like everyone here acted poorly.

You (and @moonrider18) should know that SkookumTree is known to be wildly mistaken in his beliefs about women (check out past Wellness Wednesday and Small Scale Question Sunday threads to see what I mean). Basically, he's convinced himself that he's an ugly autistic freak whose only options for love are to get a bottom tier woman (literal drug addicts, someone who's so fat she will need full time assistive care before long, etc), and persists in that belief no matter how many people here tell him he's dead wrong. I would take anything he says about romantic relationships with not just a grain, but a giant fistful of salt.

Dude, as many people have said (including me) you have a completely distorted view of relationships and what options exist out there. So while I don't expect you to believe it this time either, I'll reiterate that there do in fact exist women (good ones, not 500 lbs meth addicts) who don't actually judge people as harshly as you believe they do.

There's nothing wrong, for example, with having wargaming, Magic The Gathering, and videogames as your main hobbies, but these are not high status activities, and if you lead with these you look like someone who simply doesn't notice what's high status and what's not.

I think you have some valid points in this paragraph, but I think one thing you are overlooking here is that many (myself included, though I'm happily married at this point) explicitly do not want someone who cares about status in the first place. Someone who rejects someone because their hobbies are "low status" is someone I want out of my pool ASAP, because I consider chasing status to be a serious character flaw. So depending on what you are looking for, this item you have listed as a negative is actually a potential positive.

Also I personally subscribe to the theory that you should get the most contentious things out of the way pretty quickly (not on the first date, but within the first few months or so). If something about you is a dealbreaker for someone, no amount of time is going to undo that - so you may as well get it over with and not waste time on a doomed-to-fail relationship. So in that sense I also think "be yourself" is very good advice, because it ensures you aren't faffing about dating someone who is never going to like you anyways.