Many people refuse to acknowledge the nuance of language development. Especially when mixed with what is socially acceptable. Because that’d mean conceding they could be hurting people.
I’ll join you in the downvotes. You may be oversimplifying a bit too, but I see where you’re coming from.
Dude jerks to the left last minute and your buddy loses a finger
Brilliant. And a suspicious number of them could have experience working backstage in a theatre.
so I was right in my other comment, you’re just a dick. Thanks for confirming.
Oh, disregard my previous comment with the “you might just be autistic” olive branch. You’re just an edgelord asshole.
You aren’t Captain America,standing up for some ideal when the world is against you. The fact that you even consider immoral options as valid shows your intention was never to grow your understanding. You aren’t pointing out some broader social issues like a prophet on a soapbox.
Honestly, you’re showing a lot of signs of being on the autism spectrum. Missing obvious social rules and cues, a rigid sense of morality, and defensiveness at perceived passive aggression. I’ve delt with similar, so this is intended as an olive branch.
The best thing you can do is change or rephrase your question. For example, you could say “How does one end up homeless? Surely there are ways to avoid it, right?” This phrasing leaves the door open for further nuance in responses. Your current phrasing implies responsibility is a simple binary, it’s their fault or it isn’t. The issue, and conversation, isn’t so simple.
Edit: Spelling
People freaked out about the increased use of books, aka "codexes” at the time, over scrolls.They believed the information was better processed when uninterrupted by turning pages, and that books could never communicate the same depth of understanding as scrolls.
The medium isn’t the issue. It’s the motives. Steer those in the right direction instead of longing for some golden past that never existed.
Even calling that hallowed out shell a car is a big stretch.
I mean yeah? Why the question? Both can be true.
The kid (man-child) stole a cookie (election). We all watched. He knew we knew. No consequences.
Of course he’s doing it again.
Most Americans recognize things are usually more complicated. It’s our “representatives” that boil away the nuance. And without nuance it’s easy to label any rebel a terrorist, regardless of their actual tactics and intent.
Well, I will not be blackmailed by some ineffectual, privileged, effete, soft-penis’d debutante.
I totally agree, except the final paragraph. I think the source of the communication issue is a combination of perceived tone in your initial comment and the sensitivity of the subject. Not to fully blame either. So I don’t think people are being belligerent or willfully ignorant.
Conversations like these are a minefield, so don’t take it personally if you stumble. And remember why the minefield is there in the first place. Sometimes you just gotta back out, or set off more mines you meant to disarm.
Metaphor got a bit lost, but I think you get the point.