Categories
kitties

Why I won’t pet cute kittens any more

The kind of cat I used to pet

NOTE: This post will make a lot more sense if you read this first. 

When it came to petting cats, as a slow-moving human with a soothing voice, I had no problem getting headbutts from Chicago’s most beautiful cats.

I could have any cat I wanted. I met some nice adult cats, but invariably I went for the fluffiest, most adorable kittens I could find.

My life was pretty much this:

I petted as many as three kittens a week, many of them cute enough to be kitten gif models, but eventually I realized that petting the cutest young things had its drawbacks — I found them flighty, silly and vapid.

I mean, look at these ridiculous creatures.

Adorable kittens who get a fair amount of attention get full of themselves. Eventually, I was dreading booping them on their tiny kitten noses because they were constantly being distracted by whatever shiny thing entered their field of vision. Literally.

Looking for a cat with a greater attention span than a gnat, I started petting a couple of cats who aren’t cat calendar models. The two are now living in my apartment with me and occasionally vomiting on things. I met them at a local cat shelter.

One of the cats I’m currently petting.

People like me who don’t mind talking in a baby voice and who aren’t given to sudden, startling movements have the pickings when it comes to petting cats but eventually I found that I wanted a cat of substance, not a ball of fluff.

The cats I pet now couldn’t be gif models, but they are still pretty kitties aren’t you yes you are!

When people get to a certain age, they realize that it’s important to pet kitties that don’t spend their entire waking life careening around the apartment knocking things over. Just part of their waking life doing that. All right, 80%. But come on, you’ve got to admit that kittens are kind of exhausting.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

86 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tosca, Chaos made Flesh
Tosca, Chaos made Flesh
3 years ago

So…he had meaningless sex with hot but unworthy partners until that started to pall, and decided he wanted something more substantial?

Alpha fux, beta bux!

GMBigKev
GMBigKev
3 years ago

I won’t pet cute kittens anymore, because I want to adopt older kitties from now on.

NickNameNick
NickNameNick
3 years ago

Speaking of terrible articles, here’s David Wong on Cracked.com explaining why we need to be nicer towards racists.

I mean, he does explain why these people are wrong but little comments like this bug the shit out of me…

It has been my observation that for the average kid raised in the free information era, their guts turn only in the presence of two things:

A) Censorship

B) Hypocrisy

This is why their most important cultural voices came to the defense of JonTron and PewDiePie after their respective racism controversies. Racism is bad, they say, but censorship is worse.

Other than the fact neither of them were in any way, shape, or form censored – Wong doesn’t even challenge their simplistic, self-serving definition of the word. He just accepts it and treats such a sentiment as valid. That’s just…infuriating.

I find it rather troubling when people think someone losing part of their fanbase or a sponsorship deal is considered “censorship.” Hell, it shows an outright hostility towards others who are practicing their own free expression or freedom of association. It’s like Animal Farm when the pigs declare that all animals are equal, only to add “but some animals are more equal than others” – except instead it’s free speech.

Apparently JonTron and PewDiePie’s free speech is “more free” than anyone who’s in their audience or who’d sponsor them. Thus, they should somehow be immune to criticism and no one else can criticize them negatively (but you can be a sycophant who lathers their feet in sloppy kisses all you want) and obligated to pay them money despite not wanting to. As if that isn’t entirely anathema to free speech as a concept.

Then there’s this…

They came armed with piles of very convincing facts, carefully chosen and filtered from solid sources.

Um, what? Didn’t he admit they were full of shit at the beginning? Maybe I’m nitpicking but saying “facts” instead of “arguments” and calling the sources “solid” instead of “influential” is basically legitimizing them when there is no legitimacy to be found…as he admitted before this sentence…

Oh, it gets worse.

Calling them Nazis hits them exactly as hard as when some PETA protest calls you a murderer for eating a hot dog.

Like, what ludicrous nonsense is this? “Don’t point out why the sentiments they hold aren’t much different from another group who held similar views, because it will hurt their FEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELINGS!”

Fuck their fucking feelings. These are the same people who constantly mock those they disagree with as being overemotional (i.e. “realz over feelz!”), so why should I give one solitary shit about theirs’? Maybe, just maybe, if they were willing to acknowledge and consider the feelings of the people they dehumanize then…well, they actually wouldn’t be racist assholes.

But, no, sorry – I’m not going to walk on eggshells for them. I’m not going to coddle them and leave them unaccountable for being unable to ever compose themselves, while putting all the responsibility on others to do just that to an absurd degree. If they believe in free speech so goddamn much, shouldn’t others be able to speak to them however they want? Hell, they certainly do it and we’re supposed to have some kind of saint-like tolerance towards them ’cause reasons.

Time to face-palm like you never face-palmed before…

Talk to them. Now, before it’s too late. Actually, that’s Step Two. Step One is listening.

Christ Almighty, when is enough enough? Plenty of people in favor of social justice have done nothing but engage with those in the alt-right, time and time again, but it’s never good enough somehow.

Again, I find it amazing David Wong – amongst others like Thom Avella – puts all the responsibility on one group and never once considers that these alt-right types might be the ones unwilling to listen or engage. Sure, they’ll talk and talk and talk and talk but they’ll never listen to a goddamn word you say unless it validates them. Y’know why I say that? Because, despite all the times those left-leaning YouTubers had fairly civil discussions with them, they nonetheless double- and triple-down on their views or revise their views even slightly after thoroughly being proven wrong.

How the hell can you engage with someone in a conversation, when they have no interest in engaging whatsoever? Why waste time and effort when it’s so pointless? Because of some imaginary moral high ground?

weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee

If the defenders of racist YouTube stars cared so much about “free speech” you’d think they’d just as ardently defend women who get suspended from Facebook for screen capping harassing messages or posting breast feeding pictures. Or trans people who are only out online but have been disallowed from posting with their chosen name under their true gender because it’s not their government name. Or you’d think they would care about artists who are actually censored by their authoritarian governments. Or activists imprisoned unjustly. Etc, etc.

But no, they only care about internet Nazis. It’s almost like they just want to defend racists and the whole freeze peach thing is a convenient smokescreen meant to disguise the fact that they’re assholes.

NickNameNick
NickNameNick
3 years ago

@W.W.T.H.:

Or you’d think they would care about artists who are actually censored by their authoritarian governments. Or activists imprisoned unjustly. Etc, etc.

That’s what makes their claim of “censorship” even worse – they may as well be shitting upon people who actually suffer from those authoritarian regimes.

I’m pretty certain JonTron and PewDiePie haven’t been imprisoned or killed or tortured or coerced by the government over what they said and, in fact, still allowed to say as they wish without having their rights infringed upon. There was a term they used on Peep Show called “grief thievery”, which describes someone who uses the misfortune of others to self-victimize and get more attention. That perfectly explains both of them as well as every other YouTube personality who cries “censorship” upon being criticized or losing a sponsorship deal as a reasonable consequence of something they said.

I don’t have little sympathy for them – I have no sympathy for them.

Zenobia Augusta
Zenobia Augusta
3 years ago

I’m a former model who has always preferred overweight men. I’d probably blow these people’s minds. Then again, I wasn’t a bikini model, so maybe not.

LindsayIrene
3 years ago

@ Troubelle

Yeah, you are so far ahead of 17 year old me. No one even bothered to talk to me about going to college. I was just barely squeaking through high school, due to no one realizing that girls can have ADD.

Viscaria the Cheese Hog
Viscaria the Cheese Hog
3 years ago

@Tosca, I can’t believe he wasted his youth on the Bikini Model Carousel.

Imaginary Petal
Imaginary Petal
3 years ago

Yeah, at 17 I was a super awkward kid who had dropped out of high school, refused to wear glasses despite being half blind and had Nice Guy crushes on every girl I knew. Not sure if kids are just lots smarter and more mature now, or if some were always like that and I never noticed when I was that age. Either way, congratulations, Troubelle.

Hambeast (fan of diversity)
Hambeast (fan of diversity)
3 years ago

NickNameNick said

Again, I find it amazing David Wong – amongst others like Thom Avella – puts all the responsibility on one group and never once considers that these alt-right types might be the ones unwilling to listen or engage. Sure, they’ll talk and talk and talk and talk but they’ll never listen to a goddamn word you say unless it validates them.

There’s a show on Viceland (https://www.viceland.com/en_us/show/hate-thy-neighbor) called Hate Thy Neighbor that illustrates this. A British comedian, Jamali Maddix who is also a POC goes and basically embeds with different hate groups long enough to do an hour show about them.

It’s a hard show for me to watch, but what really fascinates me about it is that these groups are nice, polite, and respectful* to a person that they claim to hate; I think because he’s listening to them and giving them a platform. Mr. Maddix does get some digs in and tries to make them think about their beliefs, but it’s more about exposing than changing. I don’t know how he does it, frankly.

*generally, but I’ve only been able to watch the first two episodes and there are six in the first season.

Ooglyboggles
3 years ago

@NickNameNick
You’d think after a Chinese guy got beaten up bloody and unconscious for not giving up his seat for United Airline employees he’d reconsider playing uncle chan for these types -_-

Then again David Wong has a history of thinking his perspective is the one that tops all other perspectives so this is kind of expected behavior.

@Makroth – Agent of the Great Degeneracy
That is some good news. This might help get democrats from other states to start voting in democratic representatives in office.

PeeVee the (Noice) Sarcastic
PeeVee the (Noice) Sarcastic
3 years ago

Talk to them. Now, before it’s too late. Actually, that’s Step Two. Step One is listening.

I think this is important, actually. It is something we tell others to do here, when it comes to feminism, f’rex.

Before totally educating them, of course.

And that’s the point of Wong’s article, and that quote in particular, IMHO. To nip this shit in the bud before those 18-24 year olds get too firmly entrenched in their Red Pill mindset that they suddenly become Middle-aged Richard Spencers and Andrew Anglins.

Shrug. YMMV, NickNameNick.

@OoglyBoggles, Wong isn’t Asian; that’s his pen name.

There was also an article on that horrible event with Dr. Dao on Cracked.

Ooglyboggles
3 years ago

@PeeVee the (Noice) Sarcastic
Egg on my face then, still though his tendency to think his point is the most valid stands. Cracked as a whole I do like, their more serious articles like how whistleblowers are treated badly in our society or how actors help train agents by acting like the troubled youth they’re supposed to protect.

Troubelle: Moonbeam Malcontent + Bard of the New Movement
Troubelle: Moonbeam Malcontent + Bard of the New Movement
3 years ago

@LindsayIrene + IP

Not most kids my age, sadly. I’m an outlier of my age group, and I recall from my days in high school that a lot of students just didn’t give a shit–including some that I was friends with. (And I went to one of the top ten schools in Kentucky. My roommate didn’t, and she said there were common fights in the halls.) Even here where I go, some students in the same program are deliberately skipping class, and while I’ll gladly admit to cutting it close for assignment completion and being a little lax on studying, missing class is something I just don’t do unless I’m dreadfully sick. (And the “normal” [18+] students? Don’t get me fucking started.)

People need to be improved, somehow. But all methods that spring to mind are some combination of impractical and unethical.

PeeVee the (Noice) Sarcastic
PeeVee the (Noice) Sarcastic
3 years ago

@Ooglyboggles, their Personal Experience articles are wonderful! I am so glad they started doing that.

The article about the troubled youth made me cry. There’s a few that jarred me deeply, like the dark net one…

IBH Ardipithecus
IBH Ardipithecus
3 years ago

@lea

So, I guess great beauties can also be talented, passionate, interesting and intelligent.

Its almost as though the two things aren’t linked.

Dalillama: Irate Social Engineer

@Ogglyboggles

Then again David Wong has a history of thinking his perspective is the one that tops all other perspectives so this is kind of expected behavior.

As far as I’m aware, David Wong (Or rather Jason Pargin, who uses the pen name David Wong ) is white.
EDIT:Ooops, just saw that Peevee already pointed that out

PaganReader - Misandrist Spinster

@Jedi Mind Tricks of the Bible

The four kitties on the jeans were HB9s.

Excuse you, all kitties are HB10s. Some are even HB11s

Hambeast (fan of diversity)
Hambeast (fan of diversity)
3 years ago

PaganReader said

Excuse you, all kitties are HB10s. Some are even HB11s

This is true.

NickNameNick
NickNameNick
3 years ago

@PeeVee:

I think this is important, actually. It is something we tell others to do here, when it comes to feminism, f’rex.

My problem isn’t listening or engaging with anyone, my problem – as stated before – is that Wong is putting all the responsibility on one group while leaving the other unaccountable for composing themselves in conversation. The worst part being that responsibility is being put on those arguing in favor of social justice, but not those holding bigoted beliefs who make absurd claims.

It certainly doesn’t help that many within the latter group often don’t argue in good faith and couldn’t give a flying fuck about having any sort of conversation.

Before totally educating them, of course.

That’s another thing: many of those people could do the research themselves, many of them could easily scour the internet for information about topics that interest them – but they don’t. Instead, they demand others do all the leg work of finding evidence to convince them otherwise and (of course) they’ll likely dismiss out of hand because it doesn’t confirm their biases.

It really feels like a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t situation. You don’t provide them with evidence? They demand it. You provide them with evidence? They flippantly ignore it.

Maybe I’m just a little fucking sick of being finger-wagged, especially by other progressive individuals, for not engaging enough despite doing so many times over and simply find I’m wasting my time and energy on someone who doesn’t give a shit what I have to say.

And that’s the point of Wong’s article, and that quote in particular, IMHO. To nip this shit in the bud before those 18-24 year olds get too firmly entrenched in their Red Pill mindset that they suddenly become Middle-aged Richard Spencers and Andrew Anglins.

If it was his point, he made it badly.

Accepting the notion that JonTron and PewDiePie were “censored” without challenging it is troubling, as is constantly portraying one side as claiming all discussion is verboten on the subject without even once providing an example of that happening. Then there’s the goddamn “what about their previous wittle feelings?!” bullshit, which just gets on my nerves.

Like, honestly, hearing someone whine about how someone made them “feel bad” for pointing out something they said was problematic in some way elicits absolutely no empathy in me. Maybe it once did, when I was younger and far more egocentric, but then I grew up and realized I wasn’t so special that it made me the center of the universe.

If I learned anything, it’s that when people are actually suffering due to the ideas you hold – your feelings on the matter don’t mean shit. Y’know whose feelings matter? Those who are suffering – they’re the ones who need consideration. Not some entitled white kid who can’t stand being disagreed with on any level.

PeeVee the (Noice) Sarcastic
PeeVee the (Noice) Sarcastic
3 years ago

NickNameNick, okay.

You got something completely different than I did, and I have zero intention of arguing with you on this blog about it.

NickNameNick
NickNameNick
3 years ago

Captain Andy recent uploaded a video that does a good job explaining why I kind of take issue with David Wong’s article, albeit in reference to Noel Plum:

https://youtu.be/nBL8gf5O_do

Betrayer
Betrayer
3 years ago

I can kind of see there being a point in saying we shouldn’t call people Nazis. The term is really loaded. It shuts down any possibility they might listen to you, if that possibility ever existed. The “PC” term for it would be “white nationalist.”

The problem is… well… they fucking ARE Nazis, damnit. If they realize being a Nazi is bad, they should stop being a Nazi not get to be protected from the term.

glassspiider
glassspiider
3 years ago

@NickNameNick –

Your points are all solid and your feelings completely valid. It’s too bad you cherry-pick elements from the source to prove your rage is justified.

Ironic, really.

NickNameNick
NickNameNick
3 years ago

@Betrayer:

The problem is… well… they fucking ARE Nazis, damnit. If they realize being a Nazi is bad, they should stop being a Nazi not get to be protected from the term.

That’s a big part of what bugs me – moreso when you aren’t even calling them a Nazi. You might just be explaining why certain kinds of talking points have been used by people, such as the Nazis, to justify discrimination against a marginalized group.

Hell, I’ve had people assume that just describing why something is racist is the same thing as calling them racist. Yet I get accused often of being the “oversensitive” one…

Like, how the fuck can you call anything what it is when people flip the fuck out over a single phrase being used regardless of the context?

@glassspiider:

Your points are all solid and your feelings completely valid.

Thank you.

It’s too bad you cherry-pick elements from the source to prove your rage is justified.

Ironic, really.

I’ve read the article several fucking times over and if you’re going to claim I cherry-picked anything, you should at least try explaining why instead of just stating it as self-evident. I really love it when people do that, like when they claim I “didn’t get” a movie I didn’t like but don’t bother explaining what they “got” that I didn’t – apparently I’m just supposed to take their word for it.

I used those quotes specifically because they imply a lot, but – to prove I’m not “cherry-picking” (which you haven’t bothered to back up whatsoever), here’s some more quotes from the article that bugged me and explain why:

Can you debunk those numbers up there without Googling them?

He does this right off the bat, after listing a bunch of fallacious racial realist arguments. Is he saying that having to do research is proof they might have a point? Is he saying that people who want to argue against those points need to counter-arguments memorized by heart?

He doesn’t clarify this statement, before going off on one hypothetical after another:

So do you scold the kid, ask where he heard such awful things? Would you tell him that this “JonTron” character sounds like a racist Nazi and forbid him from ever watching again? Do you walk away confident that those labels will be sufficient to shut down those wayward thoughts, secure in your ruling that this is a Forbidden Subject?

You get that nauseated feeling I mentioned above because decades of socialization trained you to have it, taught you that even discussing the subject of racial superiority or inferiority makes you a monster. You were inoculated against it, in the same way society has been inoculated against toothbrush mustaches.

For a kid who has been told that their race is the equivalent of Harry Potter wizards or Star Wars Jedi, declaring it a Forbidden Subject only solidifies it in their mind. Remember, they were presented this information as “The Facts THEY Don’t Want You To Know.” As you were inoculated against racism, they are inoculated against any attempts to quarantine ideas.

Declaring a subject forbidden doesn’t protecting them from jack shit. Not anymore.

He keeps talking about these people, presumably parents, declaring a subject forbidden to youths (again, it’s a rather convenient way to frame an issue instead of considering the larger discussion). I’d totally believe him given his comparisons to porn but…what is any of that actually based on? Just making comparisons to porn doesn’t prove his point, because I can find plenty of evidence showing adults literally forbidding children into ever thinking about sex even now. I’d like to see actual instances of people literally claiming the subject is forbidden from discussion, than just be gullible enough to take his word for it.

Based on observing others, it seems to me no one is just declaring a discussion on race to be verboten right out of the gate – whether it is from adults to children or amongst peers – and are quite willing to explain why certain racist beliefs are factually wrong. Even in my personal experience, plenty of adults other than my parents were quite patient with me when discussing race-related concepts. Maybe I’m lucky because my parents were also a fairly open-minded sort who exposed me to things pretty early on and tried to build up my understanding from there. They rarely told me anything was forbidden except, like, maybe a movie or two they thought I wasn’t ready for. Big whoop.

The way David Wong explains it, he may as well be living in an 80’s teen movie where all the adults are buzz-kills who don’t allow them to do anything and they need to rebel.

Going back to the opening quote, he also like to set up a lot of caveats on how one side should behave while leaving the other unaccountable. Which, again, is really convenient when you pose it purely as a adults-versus-teen situation…

That’s how we’ve been handling it — either smearing the sources or shutting down the discussion as forbidden unless conducted entirely in bumper sticker platitudes about equality.

“Smearing the source”? Again, how? Does that mean any criticism of their source? If it is, when how is anyone suppose to prove racist beliefs are actually wrong? Are we suppose to not point out, say, Breitbart News has a history of selectively editing footage or obfuscating situations to suit their agenda? Am I not suppose to point out all the “alpha male” bullshit from PUAs is based on faulty research? That the man who conducted it even clarified that, other than it was based on wolves in captivity, wolves didn’t operate that way out in the wild at all? That those “beta male” and “zeta male” concepts have no actual basis in reality?

So they will criticize talk show hosts for having discussions with accused white supremacists, but the choice is not between giving these people a spotlight or denying it to them. They have their own spotlight — curious teens can find these guys on YouTube or wherever they operate. It’s a matter of whether or not you want to let them have that spotlight all to themselves. Me, I’d rather a curious young person see Tomi Lahren debating Trevor Noah than listen to her speaking unopposed on her own show.

I love how he completely misconstrues why people took issue with the Lahren-Noah discussion or why so many people hated Yiannopoulos showing up on Real Time. Again, he keeps making it out as if people are claiming it should be forbidden – except that isn’t the case.

Both cases involve the individuals being soft-balled by way of “civility” and how there’s no actual discussion going on. Lahren didn’t care what Noah had to say and Yiannopoulos did nothing but insult the other guests while being an attention-seeking asshole. Sure, Larry Wilmore actually called him out – though many of Yiannopoulos’ fans claim he was just “triggered” than having a legitimate grievance about the guy’s behavior during discourse – but Bill Maher proceeded to act like he’s just a charming little rascal and compare him to Christopher Hitchens.

It doesn’t help that, prior from his fall from grace, supporters of Yiannopoulos would decry any single time someone did not want to give him a venue…despite already having been given many. The guy had so much exposure as is yet his sycophants think every place is obligated to indulge in his histrionic bullshit.

Again, I’m having difficulty seeing how this isn’t a disproportionate amount of responsibility being put on one side while leaving the other largely unaccountable. It never even occurs to David Wong, considering how psychology works, that many of the teens who already agree with Lahren or Yiannopoulos simply want their biases confirmed further and couldn’t give a shit about what the other side has to say. He never considers that, just maybe, a lot of these teens are just contrarians rather than having any genuine interest in hearing other perspectives.

Love those straw-man quotes too…

“Discussion of this subject must be limited to shaming the enemy. Digging into the details is legitimizing the racists, treating it as just another opinion! To even acknowledge that there is complexity or nuance in the discussion is playing right into their hands, damn it! Punch them in the face!”

“But debating them is treating their position like it’s mainstream and legitimate!”

Yeah, I’ve totally heard people say these exact things!

…Oh, wait, no I haven’t…

The second one would be legitimate, if it wasn’t for the fact such a sentiment is often clarified further. But who gives a shit about that, right?

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
3 years ago

There’s one thing a few people seem to be missing here: David Wong has a very long, very storied history of doing this. He’s the walking definition of a “Muh white fee-fees” brogressive who thinks of himself as being so much more enlightened than those hysterical wimminz and uppity PoC, he only gives a genuine damn about “White economic anxiety” – regularly indulging in the ridiculous “Republicans don’t hate Obama and Clinton because he’s black and she’s female, they hate them because the economy” lie – and if there was ever anything in good faith about his opinion pieces (I can’t call his brain sharts “Articles” anymore), there sure as shit isn’t anymore.

Nick and I butt heads often, but he’s bang-on right about this one. Wong can take a seat on a cactus made of Legos.

Ooglyboggles
3 years ago

@glassspiider
If you have got some enlightening info as to why NickNameNick is incorrect aside from namedropping a logical fallacy, feel free to post it.

NickNameNick
NickNameNick
3 years ago

Nick and I butt heads often, but he’s bang-on right about this one.

And I feel rather sorry about that afterwards, actually. So I appreciated that.

I can get rather passionate to an intense degree. I get how off-putting that can be and don’t blame people who may not want to deal with me, because of that.

Ooglyboggles
3 years ago

@NickNameNick
If it makes you feel better I found your long posts on your thoughts regarding David Wong’s piece to be quite fascinating and a worthwhile read. You’ve strung up a more cohesive response where alot of people might find themselves lacking the right words to express their frustrations due to their rage.

weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee

There’s one thing a few people seem to be missing here: David Wong has a very long, very storied history of doing this.

Yeah, this.

I’m 99% sure he was also the Cracked writer who wrote a post hand waving away misogyny in male nerds because it was just hard for them to not get to date the popular hot girls who dated the bad boys in high school so of course they get enraged when feminists object to male entitlement.

Never mind that there were plenty of awkward and/or nerdy women who didn’t get dates with the popular hot guys in high school. Yet we somehow managed to not form “movements” dedicated to threatening and harassing men.

PeeVee the (Noice) Sarcastic
PeeVee the (Noice) Sarcastic
3 years ago

Having read Cracked for years, I can attest to SFHC’s assessment of Wong…but I’m not talking about him as a person, just that I got a different conclusion from the article, which I wrote above.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Oh, but today I saw a newly created troll account that posted a Heartiste “Trump Club” rules verbatim, without attribution, which made me laugh.

NickNameNick
NickNameNick
3 years ago

@Ooglyboogles:

Thanks. I know I get really verbose and, honestly, I sometimes go back to older posts of mine wondering why I wasn’t more succinct.

Part of it is because I hate being misunderstood, thus I’d rather be thorough about it than make a brief comment that can be misconstrued. If someone does misunderstand it, I can at least attribute it to them being unwilling to read what I wrote than because I made it badly.

I’ve noticed, on Facebook, it becomes apparent rather quickly if someone actually read what you wrote or not when you make it long enough. They won’t quote anything you say and, even when they do, they take it wholly out of context – suggesting they only skimmed it and little else before responding without much thought.

@W.W.T.H.:

It was rather shameful of me, back in my high school days, how much of an oblivious shithead I was to girls who actually showed an interest in being around me. No, I just wanted attention and validation from the girls every other guy in the schoolyard longed for because they were considered far more attractive.

Seriously, were I able to travel back in time – part it would involve me literally smacking sense into my younger self and tell him to ask that awkward, geeky girl he liked talking to on a date. Hell, it’d probably make me a far happier person than I am now as a result…

Ooglyboggles
3 years ago

@NickNameNick
An understandable feeling. No one likes the idea of people not understanding what they are saying and what they meant.

If I ever traveled back in time, the first thing I’m gonna do is tell him to go find a new set of friends, almost all of them are nazis/elitist pricks in the making. The second thing is to walk out the door the minute your intro to accounting teacher starts making you watch The Apprentice while admiring Trump exploiting people. Just walk out instead of raging quietly in the your seat thinking about how the people around you seem to think scam artists are better people. Third is to talk to the school psychologist to figure out why everyone else seems to be able to focus on things and do things a whole lot faster than you. It’ll save old me years of grief. Fourth is to not lash out at your mom when jackasses call you c**** when you’re walking home. She didn’t do anything wrong.

NickNameNick
NickNameNick
3 years ago

I see glassspiider never responded back – I’ll just take that as meaning they didn’t have an actual argument…

Anyway, Shaun of the “Shaun and Jen” YouTube channel uploaded a video a few hours ago. David Wong’s article did try to explain the mindset, yes, but the way he conveniently frames it – along with misrepresenting the sentiments and arguments of others – is basically white privilege apologia (e.g. “b-b-but…what about their FEEEEEEEEELINGS?!”). Shaun, thankfully, never starts to make excuses on their behalf or finger-wag others for not having some kind of saint-like tolerance towards these people:

https://youtu.be/a_yfnQPaD_E