SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Fine print: The following are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Journal by exaeta
Gillette has been invaded by the enemy.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=koPmuEyP3a0
Just watch it.
Then switch to this razor instead of Gillette:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00PKHIDRA/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_t1_BzxsCbEV973QD
(Disclaimer: This post is not sponsored)
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
I'm wearing PAMPERS!!
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday January 25 2019, @01:10AM (8 children)
huh? Yo no entiende, amigo.
So 'splain to me, Lucy.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday January 25 2019, @02:57AM (7 children)
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday January 25 2019, @04:39AM (6 children)
What? watch a linked Youtube video? Are you new here? That's even less likely than reading TFA. especially since it's an ad.
I never voluntarily watch ads.
I was responding to the journal owner's characterization of fellow humans. I even quoted it so it would be obvious that's what I was talking about.
So I have to ask: Did you even read my post?
It wasn't about the video at all. It was about his characterization of people as "enemies." I don't have to watch the video to get his implication.
And even though I was explicit, you apparently didn't get my point. More's the pity.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday January 25 2019, @01:04PM (5 children)
Now that you've made it explicit, I can tell you you're just wrong. You misinterpreted him, badly so, in a way that appears tendentious and quite possibly in bad faith as well.
If you're going to make a point of refusing to even view the context of the statement, I suppose it's no surprise you wind up misunderstanding it completely.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday January 25 2019, @02:35PM (4 children)
Your command of the English language seems to be lacking or you're being deliberately obtuse:
enemy (n) [dictionary.com]:
When one characterizes those who disagrees with them (especially about trivial issues like this) as enemies, I see that as an indicator of deep pain, mistrust and anger at other humans, mental illness and/or, in a very few cases, disingenuous hateful rhetoric.
Recommending that folks engage in dialogue to discuss and address differences is somehow "bad faith" to you?
I'm not sure what shaped your world view, but it must have been very painful. I'm sorry. I wish I could help to ease your (and exaeta's) pain.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by Arik on Friday January 25 2019, @03:17PM (3 children)
Lol. Now I know I'm being trolled.
"When one characterizes those who disagrees with them (especially about trivial issues like this)"
Trivial issues like *what* exactly?
What issues is it that you imagine here? We know it's imaginary, because you already told us you refused to view the context full stop.
"disingenuous hateful rhetoric."
Like you refuse to view.
"Recommending that folks engage in dialogue to discuss and address differences is somehow "bad faith" to you?"
In context, yes, it makes no sense at all. But again, you don't know the context, you refuse to even glance at it.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday January 25 2019, @04:15PM (2 children)
You assume that I'm acting in bad faith. I'm not. I'm one of those people who believes that for the overwhelming majority of humans, communication and compromise can address most disagreements.
You assume that I'm trolling. I'm not. The video is irrelevant to my point. I was objecting to the characterization that those who express differing views are somehow your enemy. Which makes no sense to me. I respect that others think and believe differently from me. And the best way I know to work through such differences is to communicate, understand and either compromise or agree to disagree. How is that trolling?
A few questions:
Have any of the folks that exaeta referred to as "enemies" done or threatened violence to him or anyone else, as far as you know?
Have any of these folks done anything to harm anyone?
Is anyone *forcing* you or exaeta to do, say or think anything?
The answers to those questions is "no." Please explain to me how that makes it appropriate to consider those responsible as "enemies."
You see what I'm doing here? I'm explaining my position, addressing your concerns and seeking to understand your position so that we can come to an understanding and, if not agreement, at least the ability to communicate without rancor.
If that's trolling and bad faith, then I must have been transported to bizzaro world [wikipedia.org] overnight while I slept.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Friday January 25 2019, @05:00PM (1 child)
No, I pointed out that there are reasons to think you may be acting in bad faith.
"The video is irrelevant to my point."
Then your point is irrelevant to the discussion, because the video is the context of the statement you attacked. No statement can be properly judged out of context.
"I was objecting to the characterization that those who express differing views are somehow your enemy."
Which is an imaginary characterization, one that only appeared on the field when you assumed it.
"Please explain to me how that makes it appropriate to consider those responsible as "enemies.""
How is it appropriate to consider someone an enemy who hasn't specifically, physically attacked you yet? Can you really not think of at least a half dozen answers to that without needing to take a breath?
How about if they repeatedly express deep hostility towards your identity, and a desire for 'legislative solutions' (which is of course a euphemism for legalizing violence against you?) What if that's their hallmark, their way of signalling what they believe to be virtue? Wouldn't that be a bit of a troubling sign, something that might well justify the characterization as "a person who is actively opposed or hostile to someone or something" or "one that is antagonistic to another?" If a company hired a director with a history of transphobic statements and productions to put out an ad that subtly and not-so-subtly amounted to an attack on transfolk (and appeared intended to signal virtue to some right-wing transphobes) would you not understand the response then? What if it were misogynistic or racist instead of transphobic?
Classifying someone as an enemy doesn't necessarily mean they can't be reasoned with, though it's of course not a positive sign on that point. It just means they are hostile towards you, and you have noticed.
And again, this is not a production that invites discussion or question. It's sheer preaching. It preaches a tendentious and often demonstrably false ideology of hatred, and it does so consciously, deliberately, to judge by the history of the director. This is coming from a place that rejects dialogue entirely - only obedience is acceptable. Attempt to start a dialogue with someone like that and you'll be accused of harassment or worse.
This has been going on a long time and I can only barely credit you with good faith if I also credit you with absolute obliviousness.
The US is in the midst of a cultural civil war, it's been going on for decades, and those of us that don't want to take part all too often get caught in the crossfire.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @05:20PM
are you dumb? what dialogue you want from an ad?