At the point of sharing photos and Photoshopping someone to ridicule them, this isn’t an offhand comment said in frustration. This is planned and executed ridicule and mockery.
i mean, we also don’t know what they are. It could be really bad, but it could also be harmless shitposting among the community.
What I’m saying is the person posting (the person in the group) has every incentive to downplay it as much as they can. And the description was still fucking horrendous. I’m not assuming, I’m observing the interests.
We didn’t see anything from Derek. The only source of info was the person in the group chat. He had the incentive to downplay everything 1) what happened in the group, and 2) the reaction. And it was horrendous on all fronts, and that’s when he’s likely playing it down big time.
I have no idea why you’re so weirdly adamant on defending this person that you’re twisting yourself into nonsensical pretzels. Ciao.
idk i like pissing people off on the internet i guess. It’s how i get my read on social norms these days.
As the ancient reddit thread once said, tell everyone that they’re doing it wrong, and everybody will immediately help you to find the answer. (they will just be an asshole about it)
So you sympathize with the poster and come to his defense because you share his same characteristics. Kinda figured there was some of that. You should take his life lesson. Ciao.
no, you’re assuming i care about the poster, for all i care this isn’t even a real scenario.
I’m more concerned with how people are justifying immediately flipping on something like this with this little information, and to be fair, a number of people did concede that.
i mean, we also don’t know what they are. It could be really bad, but it could also be harmless shitposting among the community.
You can look at the descriptors they chose to use, and that’s very likely playing it down big time. I’m betting it was extremely bad.
yeah, but we also don’t know what they are posting, so it’s equally shitty to assume that what they are posting is substantially bad.
Though assuming by the fallout, it seems like it was pretty bad? But then again i’ve seen friend groups break up over smaller shit.
What I’m saying is the person posting (the person in the group) has every incentive to downplay it as much as they can. And the description was still fucking horrendous. I’m not assuming, I’m observing the interests.
derek also has every incentive to overplay it as well.
You don’t need to overplay it to make your point though, that’s the thing. Derek went out of his way to pretty much ruin this friend group.
We didn’t see anything from Derek. The only source of info was the person in the group chat. He had the incentive to downplay everything 1) what happened in the group, and 2) the reaction. And it was horrendous on all fronts, and that’s when he’s likely playing it down big time.
I have no idea why you’re so weirdly adamant on defending this person that you’re twisting yourself into nonsensical pretzels. Ciao.
idk i like pissing people off on the internet i guess. It’s how i get my read on social norms these days.
As the ancient reddit thread once said, tell everyone that they’re doing it wrong, and everybody will immediately help you to find the answer. (they will just be an asshole about it)
Works great here too!
So you sympathize with the poster and come to his defense because you share his same characteristics. Kinda figured there was some of that. You should take his life lesson. Ciao.
no, you’re assuming i care about the poster, for all i care this isn’t even a real scenario.
I’m more concerned with how people are justifying immediately flipping on something like this with this little information, and to be fair, a number of people did concede that.