To be fair, they didn’t actually say that what the others called it was smart or correct, just that they did call it that. But given nuance can be deduced from people’s words, I think we can both assume that the person you’re engaging with isn’t playing with a full deck of cards…
Your first sentence is somewhat correct, I’d argue that dealing with any kind of absolute like you have done is incredibly dumb though. Of course being outspoken can get you bullied. It may be less likely in a university/college setting, but it’s definitely gonna happen. And your second second sentence is so wrong it’s almost comical. Bullying at a tertiary education level is so common that I guarantee there’s a bunch of studies done on it and probably a wiki page for it too.
Edit: lol, yep, shit loads of studies (and there’s plenty more to be found than just these few), and the wiki exists.
Honestly, it’s worse, if you’re thinking of the Chappelle’s Show skit. At least the character Clayton Bigsby is also blind so he literally doesn’t know he’s actually white.
How can that be a classic behaviour? For one, they haven’t done it, as illustrated by how hard they’ve cracked down on any facist behaviour since the cessation of WII. And wouldn’t they have had to have done it more than once for it to be a classic behaviour? They’ve literally been nazists once. They’d have to have been nazists more than once, and gone through the phases you’ve described for any normal person to call it a “classic”.
You know what is an example of a classic behaviour though? Internet “experts” who just trust what they’re given and don’t do any research about it. Like you’ve done. Want proof? Read the other reply to the comment you’ve replied to here. And if that’s not enough, explain to me why the German foreign minister hasn’t been jailed/charged/etc for these remarks. Never trust just one source.
Nah, it’s easy to imagine that. Multiplayer. The Nazi team wins. Swastikas everywhere. Pretty sure it’s why cod no longer has swastikas in multiplayer anymore (and if I’m remembering rightly, they kept it in the single player as they felt it wasn’t offensive as it is given with a hell of a lot of context that multiplayer rounds simply don’t have).
Actually, she did have HIV in the movie, the screenwriter confirmed it a few years ago. She did have hep-c in the book though.
Which is totally fine. Your usage of them as you did would be called a scare quote.
You sure as shit don’t. They used the quotation marks just fine. So fine in fact, that this usage you are so against is a well established grammatical device, look up “scare quotes”.
deleted by creator
You don’t understand basic English comprehension.
Let’s break down your initial comment.
But if he was shooting pub goers
He wasn’t so the rest of your comment is irrelevant. He had shot pub goers, but he wasn’t when he was killed. He had been subdued. Don’t need to break down the rest cos it’s as useful as you are in general to society, not very.
The article says “after the shooting” the gunman was killed.
Pretty fucking clear to me. Note it doesn’t say “during” or any of its synonyms.
Okay, here’s some reading comprehension for you. The person you intially replied to made it clear that the death of the gunman happened after the gunman was subdued. They also said that appropriate force would be reasonable if he was actively shooting. You’ve basically repeated what they’ve said, trying to antagonise a response. It’s a shitty way to try and have a discussion, and I’m gonna call people out on this every day of the week. Be better.
deleted by creator
You know what else is common sense? Not commenting on a topic when you don’t have all the facts. How do you know the force was appropriate? Cos all I’m reading says that gunman appears to have been killed after he’d been subdued. Hence the charges.
“I don’t get my info from Google”. Then use your search engine of choice, “google” is basically genericized by now. The info is all there for you to read and not rely on your memory which is clearly wrong. And that’s understandable. It’s been 10yrs.
And you’re not entirely right on the YouTube not stealing users from tiktok. YouTube shorts have more active users than tiktok does by a good margin. And tiktoks growth is slowing as a result. Again, these are all facts.
And finally, you’re a fucking idiot. Why the fuck did Instagrams user count explode when they implemented short form video if that wasn’t an attractive feature? Why is my Instagram feed 85%+ videos over pictures? I don’t even follow celebrities on there, a handful of bands (be less than 10), the rest is friends but mainly content creators creating comedy. Be it memes, original creations, stand up clips, etc. Your memory is shit and fallible, the pages I literally just read are not as they are saved for posterity. I suggest you take my original suggestion and do some research on the topic instead of relying on your feelings before you make yourself look like a bigger idiot. Cos yeah, Instagram didn’t take 100% of vines users, but it still took a fucking huge amount of them. The data is all out there, written way better than I can write it. Go read it and stop trying to act like you know all, cos after you read a bit, maybe you might change your tune…
Sure, you might not have, but the data suggests that Instagram allowing its users to post 15s videos and monetise them was what allowed them to poach a lot of vine users. This isn’t me just talking shit, google “why did vine shut down” and I guarantee 95%+ of the results will say the same thing. Twitter got scooped in a big way. I mean, vine had more users than Instagram before it’s downfall.
Data caps may have played a part, but it would’ve been insignificant. They were 6s videos after all, and the average American was already using over 1GB of data even back then. Instagram had about the same amount of users at the time. And their willingness to give their users more flexibility than vine was by giving users 15s videos and the ability to monetise was all it took. It wasn’t helped by twitter giving zero shits about vine. Which kinda makes sense, they had their own video thing going.
Reading other articles, it sure sounds like the gunman was subdued and no longer a threat, then was killed. Not killed during the subduing as you are implying, but after it.
It happened 2weeks ago, that’s plenty of time for an investigation of some description to have occured. And reading elsewhere, it sounds like the gunman was subdued, then killed. And that certainly changes things.
deleted by creator