I think the issue is we don’t really have a measurement for intelligence. Qualitatively, I think you are more intelligent if you have the reasoning capabilities to logic yourself out of reactionary feelings like racism, but it’s really hard to measure that.

Be the change you want to see in the world

I’ve been walking on my hands this whole time!

My point is not what my line for murdering someone is or how it compares to anyone else’s. My point is that most people have that line, so it’s not very deep to point out that it exists, and all of them will believe that they are still the Good Person and the person they want to murder is the Bad Person as laid out in the OP.

Now the very last sentence is a bit wibbly. I’m sure that many people might not automatically send someone who disagrees with their line into the Bad Person zone, but I’m sure you could construct scenarios similar to the last line that people would end up agreeing with, they just think that their particular line is justified.

I think funnily enough heart attack was meant as a catch-all kind death for people that was the authors first thought to just move past that hurdle. Heart attacks are definitely not the least harmful way to die, well, it depends on the type of heart attack. Certain aneurysms might be more painless. But overall it’s a bit of a hand wave.

(almost) Literally everyone inside and outside of social media. Everyone has a line for when they would murder someone, or at the very least think they deserve to die somehow. And almost everyone of those people would think they’re still a good person while wishing death on someone.

The op seems like a clever sort of epiphany about how everyone’s a hypocrite but it’s not that deep.

I think social media allows people to post their first gut reaction faster than they can think. And I think the op is maybe referring to specific online bubbles that will extrapolate “I don’t like dogs” into knowing that that person would be better off dead, but as it is I don’t think this post says much in itself.

It’s crazy that the tragedy of the commons is only a problem because the commons are also free for people to close up and start charging for.

I think twitter also might still give blue check marks to “important” people it’s just available for anyone to buy now

My only barrier to it is the T9 text input. I’m constantly writing notes on my phone. I would have a hard time if I had to T9 every note in.

But then the guy wouldn’t have “watched her chug vodka for 5 minutes” he would have watched her take one shot and 4.9 minutes not chugging. I don’t think they mean chugging for 5 minutes straight but I also think it’s silly to pretend like it was a teensy sip of vodka. Also the thing says pound shots so it’s at least 2.

Yes, but why are we making fun of a guy for doing what he loves (posting “but what about men?” In a post talking about women)?

(This is a joke btw.)

And there’s a difference between “I’ll have a sip of vodka to loosen me up” and “I’ll ‘pound shots’ and ‘chug vodka for 5 minutes’”

You can add new bones to your body any time you please

Reading this thread I think the conclusion is that both men and women can consider themselves “perverted” but the bounds of what each consider “too extreme” is so different that they both think that the other side is just too kinky/disgusting.

Edit: or maybe I mean the other way around. People saying “yeah I’m kinky” and someone else going “eh, that’s nothing”. Two people both thinking two different things are extreme and then learning that mutually, both their extremes are considered tame by the other person.

Also these “jokes” come from the long history of women having to marry for status/stability instead of being able to think about their own attraction.

Listen Meta, all you have to do is make the technology free and available to everyone, prove you aren’t motivated by profit, use your vast wealth and resources to improve society, and be completely transparent with all your business interactions. Then you wouldn’t be getting all this hate

This made me laugh pretty hard.

Yeah if you don’t go to a lot of restaurants and realize the food is mid, you just aren’t good at cooking yet.

High quality restaurants that can beat my cooking exist, and are in every town. I’m not just comparing myself to a Michelin star. Another thing restaurants have over me are deep fryers and other superior cooking equipment, which make food I just can’t make myself.

And I would never deny, the way I make my home cooking taste better than a restaurant is by taking an hour or two to cook the food and being able to buy fresh, small quantity ingredients the day of.

But I mean come on. To your point, people who work in kitchens can make a better meal for themselves at the end of their shift than what they generally serve in a day. Restaurant food is designed for quantity and consistency, that’s about it.

I think it’s the “yes, but” that makes it bad. Implying that the second image makes the first image worse. If it was just the two images side by side it could be interpreted as just an observation.

It does not take very many tries to start cooking better than a restaurant. And the best part is you can make sure that only your favorite ingredients get in there.

After like maybe half a year of cooking for myself a couple times a week (instead of frozen food or like canned food) it’s seriously started to astound me how bad some restaurant food is.

I know take out is mostly for convenience, but if the problem is taste you’re in luck because the bar to clear for tastier food than take out is really really low.