If you don't mind me asking, what was the environment? That sounds miserable.
Ookami38
joined 2 years ago
As a dude with weird AF sitting positions (seriously, this is vanilla compared to the curl of limbs I can become), I've never once crushed my junk from sitting. I don't know how people have trouble with them.
I'd love a single giant lady to finger...
What were we talking about again?
Nice comparison. Clearly smearing feces on yourself requires the same level of forethought and financial burden that getting multiple tattoos does.
I'm not even commenting on her taste, or yours. Just the juvenile declaration that she somehow does not care, when she's investing as much time and money into her looks as she has.
As far as tastes go, yours are as valid as hers are, I'd just choose a less inflammatory way to say you disagree with someone's taste.
Someone who puts that much effort into their outward expression of themselves clearly cares about how they look. You just have misaligned tastes.
That's just like, your opinion, man.
Hey, screw you buddy. My offense is absolutely necessary!
The only hope is that they keep rereleasing so much they end up back at Morrowind. Except they'll probably ruin it.
Get my resume together
Not who you replied to, but your arguments remind me of Peter Singer. Basically, that none of us live ethical lives because of exactly the first problem you mentioned. If we CAN donate to a cause we know will do good with the money, more good than we could do ourselves, then we MUST do so. Failing to do so is a moral failing.
It's definitely an appealing argument, and I enjoy exploring the limits of such philosophies. To me, it's about immediacy, guarantee, and proximity. I see something that has a shorter timeline as something that must be acted on with higher priority. Something that's guaranteed is higher priority than a slim chance. And I'm more likely to help those closer to me than across the world.
We're all limited in our capacity to know and to do. I don't have to be perfect, I can accept that some of my actions are less moral than they could be. I just aim to be as above the line, so to speak, trying to bring more positive than negative. I think the comment you initially replied to is a pretty good heuristic to follow to do so.
The one near me no longer has people taking orders. To get food, you scan your card at a kiosk and order through a touch screen.
Proofreading your own work without a significant time gap is pretty useless. You'll catch a few obvious errors, but approaching the same problem in the same mental space tends to lead to the same thought patterns, tends to lead to making or overlooking the same mistakes.
You'll do a bit better reapproaching the subject a few days later. It's almost, but not quite, like reading a new piece of writing. In my experience, comments are set and forget, unless you're obsessive like me and enjoy rereading your old shit.
By far the most effective proofreading, though, is an Editor. There's a reason it's a paid position for anyone who makes a living writing. A completely different person will read the text more as-is, without accidentally interpreting it how they INTENDED it to be written. This will catch far more errors, but isn't really practical for shit posting in social media. The closest you'll get is someone calling out a typo or grammatical error.
As long as the intent of the message is clear, it passes the bar for acceptable social media content. We're not writing PhD theses, we're just having fun discussions. We're not writing a paper meant to be readable to someone independently, we're engaging in dialogue and can easily ask the other person to clarify.
TL;DR high-level proofreading and error correcting isn't really as viable on social media as it is formal writing, nor is it really necessary as long as the message received is the message intended.