Lol if we have any sense of self awareness it should be abundantly clear how embarrassing it is for both of us that we’re still doing this.

If you can’t admit that then yeah I’d say you’re not handling it very well.

Being real for a sec, are you doing okay with everything? This can’t have been very fun for you to engage with so it’s starting to seem like you just want someone to talk to.

I try to keep in mind that there are real humans beyond the words we’re typing and these peoples have lives and stress and a bunch of shit we could never see.

Social media, especially karma systems, are a quick way to feel like we’re being social, but the upvote/downvote system psychologically puts us in constant competition, as though conversations can have a clear winner and loser.

I’m not going to call you names back, I’ve played that game, it doesn’t feel very good. Any hobbies you’re currently excited about? I have a couple things I’m doing I could talk about too?

And if you really are just having fun saying “Cunt.” over and over that’s fine too, I’m just confused what you’re getting out of it.

What are you doing? The time to have a polite conversation about this was before you called me a “Cunt”.

You’ve acted way too immature and now are trying to resurrect a dead argument. Cool yourself down, get some fresh air, and move on.

Think of that image you keep posting of the guy going “Jesus Fucking Christ” and leaving the room. It’s powerful because he actually leaves the room. He doesn’t need the last word or to keep engaging with the stuff, he just walks away. You have to learn when to do that for your own sanity and it’s been long past that point don’t you think?

Both.

Considering you started this conversation blatantly calling me dishonest for recommending a writer

You totally misread that. Please don’t blame me for assumptions that only exist in your head. I will tell you what I mean if you ask.

I called you dishonest for saying he did something “problematic” but took accountability for it to immediately saying he didn’t do anything “problematic”.

Either one is true or the other and since it’s your recommendation I was asking you to clarify.

You’re obviously a big fan of this author I’ve never heard of and are taking this very personally.

What did your other response say before you deleted it?

Lmfao, seriously you are letting this bother you so much! Just step away. I accidentally hit some random buttons when I was trying to read your reply and it somehow posted a blank string, if that helps your anxiety.

Have a nice day, enjoy the weather!

Wait, are you telling me the Bible is contradictory?!?

I’m not telling you anything, I simply quoted it. Read the passages.

If you see a contradiction then that’s what your brain is telling yourself.

Or are you going to argue that according to the Bible, it’s other Christians who are actually the ones who are meant to judge?

I’m not going to argue anything. I’m simply going to quote the Bible again.

But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister[c] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”

-Corinthians 5:11-13

Leaving this site aside, its good for everyone, both you and I, to take breaks and focus on our mental when we can.

Whatever you’re doing here, I don’t think the replies you’d tend to get behaving like this are worth the mental energy it seems to be costing you.

deleted by creator

If you’re just here to throw a tantrum and call people mean names I don’t think you will be missed.

They are whether you like that or not.

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."

-Matthew 7:21

Pretty sure your savior had a lot to say about judging others.

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."

-Matthew 7:15

Just a few comments up you said

He stopped using it for that very reason, and took accountability. People are allowed to self correct, if he understands the problem with what he did and course corrected

Now that you were pushed on it a bit you’re saying

It really was not problematic, even at the time of it being used.

Something about this interaction feels really dishonest.

Was there a problem he needed to take accountability for or not?

If someone sends me a one word reply of “yes” to “what is the purpose of this meeting and is my presence beneficial” then it wouldn’t matter what I asked lol.

lol

But just to reiterate the point I was making earlier, the idea is to avoid someone responding to “what is the purpose of this meeting and is my presence beneficial” with something along the lines of “the purpose is to discuss X, Y, and Z. Yes your input would be a big help thanks.”

Curious on your thoughts on the suggestion I made and whether it improves communication or not?

I guess reading comprehension is that bad. Here was the rest of the comment:

The justification for attacking them is that they need to be stopped before they cross the line.

I’m not saying I agree with this line of reasoning, but the clear idea is that Iran doesn’t currently have nuclear weapons.

Murry Wilson

I thought it was a Supreme Court thing? What did Obama do?

Are people in denial? It just seems like a commonly understood thing. I’ve talked to straight CNN consuming boomers and even they see it for what it is.

For the record I’m in Canada so maybe it’s just hard to see from the inside.

If you ask the person who invited you to a meeting “is my presence beneficial” they’re going to answer “yes”. That’s why they invited you.

The purpose is to figure out whether your presence is actually needed, not whether they think it is.

I do like a lot of your ideas though, I might suggest:

“What is this meeting about? I’m trying to figure out if my presence would be beneficial.”

That way you are the determinant of whether your presence is necessary, and the other person has to articulate what the actual benefit would be as opposed to just saying “yes”.

I’m not allowed to be concerned with Israel fucking around with nuclear reactors and potentially creating a cherbobyl level meltdown illegally bombing them because Iran is a “bad guy”?

What is this “good guy” “bad guy” politics you’re talking about?

I’m not 3 you can use a bigger word.

I think the better way to analyze this situation is as “attacker” and “defender”.

Someone is starting a war, violating an international border, and instigating the first attacks. Who is it?

Mathcist