SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
No bio...
User ID: 225
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
10mo ago
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.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
1mo ago
Dude, you need to take off the tinfoil. There's no effort to take control of computers away from you. What you're seeing is the government making efforts to get it so that software for the government is written in memory safe languages. They don't give a shit what individuals do.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
10mo ago
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.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
10mo ago
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.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
10mo ago
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).
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
1yr ago
Ah, so you're not playing semantic games, you're accusing me of bad faith. Yes, that's so much better. /s
No, my good man, I'm not using the term "taking" to try to cash in on some negative connotations in a disingenuous way. It was just a simple word choice, one which I maintain is actually the correct one (taking never has meant that one must deprive someone of something, nor does it have negative connotations, contrary to your assertions on both counts). But even if I were wrong on that score (which I don't believe I am), I'm not some kind of bad faith commenter trying to twist words to my advantage. At the absolute worst, I made a poor choice of words.
It's honestly super obnoxious that you (and others) have chosen to jump down my throat over a simple word choice, one which doesn't actually affect my position even if I had used something else. Maybe instead of assuming bad faith on my part, you should follow the forum rules (you know, the other holy texts) and be charitable.
No, you're taking it. The semantic game you're trying to play is silly.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
10mo ago
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.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
10mo ago
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.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
10mo ago
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.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
10mo ago
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.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
10mo ago
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.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
3mo ago
Then, you should probably refrain from letting your anger rule your decision making. The rest of us don't particularly care to watch the political crossfire continue to destroy the country.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
10mo ago
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".
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
10mo ago
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.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
1yr ago
You're playing silly semantic games with "taking". To take something does not require deprivation of possession, but even if it did that's a poor hinge for your argument. You're nitpicking my word choice, not offering a substantive objection.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
2mo ago
Have you ever met someone who genuinely believes pit bulls are no more dangerous than any other breeds if given their love?
I mean, that's true. I've known pit bulls with good owners who were as gentle a dog as you could ever ask for. I've also known pit bulls with shitty owners who turned out to be a menace. But that's on the owners, not the breed. It just happens that shitty owners gravitate towards pit bulls.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
10mo ago
Indeed. People are picking a fight where there is no disagreement lol. Kind of the whole theme of this thread, funnily enough.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
10mo ago
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.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
10mo ago
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.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
10mo ago
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.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
10mo ago
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.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
1yr ago
Again: that is not part of what it means to take something. But even if it were, that is still not a substantive objection to my point. That is nitpicking my choice of words, not actually a meaningful argument against my position.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
1yr ago
"completely subjective" is redundant. A thing is either objective or subjective. There's no such thing as "partially objective", that makes it subjective.
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.
More options
Context Copy link