GreenTeaRedFlag [any]

  • 1 Post
  • 339 Comments
Joined 4 years ago
cake
Cake day: March 10th, 2021

help-circle






  • You’re just wrong. Although the obvious assumption is that someone did it, and you’re almost certainly correct in that assumption, until you can point out who or why you don’t know that for sure. The best way to communicate the case efficiently is to put up the facts. Then you ask the questions who and why in the article. People complain about passive voice too much here. Cops get the same treatment as others by passive voice because “13 dead, 6 injured in school shooting” is just as common as “man killed by cop.” The phrasing on cops usually separated then more or makes the victim seem less sympathetic, which is the issue, but the passive voice alone is not the problem. In this case, they are not removing a single bit of blame, just presenting what is known as clearly and precisely as possible.



  • No it fucking isn’t. So far they have the body. “Some guy finds prisoner’s corpse” communicates rhe same information with the focus on the finder, not the corpse. This is actually a great time to use passive voice because what was found mattered more. Yes I agree it was most likely the prison that stole his organs, but we don’t know that yet and “prison may have stolen organs” is an awful headline.




  • He’s really not. It’s clear he’s out of the cockpit, and he has no involvement at this point. He made a company and developed a solid formula for video making, carved a nice niche. Why close down the business when he could just leave? Anything that happens at this point doesn’t reflect on him, unlike AVGN who was still reading the scripts and claiming the content.


  • I feel like they’d have a better grasp of the situation than you would, because they’re inside and privy to more information and experience of how it works. I can also imagine some people see the same thing they do and are using the strategy you’ve suggested, but we can’t see that. Tom Scott and matpat both try to avoid problems and real controversy, so if they felt something coming they would naturally dip before getting close to it.


  • Rich people should build more fountains though. That’s a statement that doesn’t even contradict the idea that rich people shouldn’t exist. They do, and they should be building fountains until we eliminate them. I would also say it’s not even liberal especially, but definitely not neo liberal. Throughout human history, where there are wealthy people they are financing public works and art to show off their wealth. They make gardens and parks and statues and temples to raise their prestige, as well as support something they like. Part of the reason most American cities look like shit is because all space was either administered by the government with the lowest possible budget and any spending that wasn’t functionally essential(and quite a lot that was) got treated as a sin, or it was used by businesses. Vanity projects should be theater companies and artworks, not space flights and warehouses full of cars.



  • I’ve got a lot of stuff still internalized about weakness, strength, and identity, so I will say when you are trying to suppress something and someone encourages you to release it it can be maddening. Because you think it makes you weak or a failure, and they’re encouraging it. It’s like offering alcohol to someone recovering from addiction. The main difference is that what they are holding back is not bad. It took me a long time to get the voice saying adhd was an excuse out of my head, and understand people saying I might have it were not insulting me or telling me I was weak or trying to weaken me, but showing me what they thought was true. I am pretty good at making space for other people and silencing judgement against them internally, but I still hold myself to a lot of things I know I shouldn’t. I have the knowledge and will to change, if I didn’t it would just be pain and anger.