i got into an argument with my in law about a 60$ sticker to block the ‘waves’ on my phone. for my health. and my phone will still work… it was a hologram sticker.
deleted by creator
well, they do sell ones that work. you can measure them blocking all em radiation from exiting out the back of your phone… instead blasting all of it into your head. significantly more of it too, since the normal reaction of a phone that loses signal is to boost its own in order to find a tower.
The moment I knew that I had to break it off with my ex was when a comment about tea-cup saucers turned into an accusation that I “always had to be right”.
We were having cake for dessert:
Her: “Can you grab plates?”
Me: Grabs a couple of small plates.
Her: “No, those aren’t for cake. It’s the really small ones.”
Me: “Okay, but FYI the small ones are actually teacup saucers. You can tell the difference because they have the indent in the middle so the teacup doesn’t slip around.”
Her: “You just always have to be right, don’t you?”
What followed was a truly bonkers argument where I found myself accused of “lording my intelligence” and told that I had to be right in everything.
For the record, I told her I literally didn’t give a shit what she wants to eat cake off of. I’m the guy that would happily use a Tupperware lid as a plate if it was the closest thing to hand. I was just pointing out an “interesting fact” (in my mind at least).
Understanding each others’ definitions is key to communication, so I’m with you on this one. I’ll often get accused of “you know what I meant!”, when I really didn’t and was honestly asking for clarification.
Kids, don’t take ontology classes even if your friends say it’s cool.
“you know what I meant!”
This is why I’ve learned to repeat what I thought someone said back to them so they can confirm if they communicated it clearly or not.
“Bring it to me.”
"Which one? I see 5 of them here.
“Oh, I meant the blue one.”
How dare you point out something. Stop hurting her feelings by pointing out anything she doesn’t know. “I would’ve pointed out you were about to drink soap but then I’d ‘Always need to be right’.”
That is essentially the vibe I got from that argument. We didn’t last much longer after that.
you’re right. Saucers (despite the English name) are meant to drink beverages, therefore they are small glasses, not small plates
Obligatory mention: Full Body Workout Every Other Day?
Holy butts, that was the good kind of bonkers
the one where the democrats are the ‘party of slavery’ because of what the parties stood for in 1860. yeah that’s why I’m voting for Lincoln and the union this year dumbfucks
And yet California—a solidly blue state—just voted by public referendum to uphold slavery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_California_Proposition_6
Yeah, the problem here is calling them the party of slavery, when both parties are blatantly in favor of it.
I wonder why so many Democrats left the party during the civil rights movement? I wonder why David Duke left the Democrat party? I guess we’ll never know.
Probably had a big fight with Jefferson Davis
They might want to look up how the parties flipped during the civil rights era.
Whether if something is deceptively [a trait] does it mean it’s the inverse of the trait or more of the trait than it appears, ie: if you call something deceptively shallow, does that mean it is shallow, but looks deep, or that it is deep but looks shallow. Hours of arguing with my family and checking numerous sources, we came to the conclusion that the phrasing can be used either way.
I think if something is described as deceptively shallow it means that it looks deeper than it is. IMO
deleted by creator
An event that happens biweekly could occur at the same frequency as an event that happens bimonthly.
Goddamit. I was so certain it was the inverse, and now here I am debating myself
You’re debating whether not-3 is the same as “less than three”.
It’s => but not <= so it’s not ==.
AAAAHHH
You can thank me later
Anytime I enter one with a purist/gatekeeper. You just can’t reason with them and they absolutely refuse to see the other side of the argument. They must always believe that their direction is the direction for all things regarding X fandoms or general hobby.
Or people who are pedantic.
“The sky is blue.”
“No it isn’t! It is red at sunrise and at sundown.”
“Ok comic book guy.”
My wife and I bought 10 lottery tickets at a time when the pot got up to 300 million or something like that. we were talking about what we would would do with the money once we won and couldn’t agree on how many of our friends mortgages we would pay off. we MAY have had some other things going on in a relationship at that time, but it’s still one of the stupidest arguments I’ve ever gotten in.
Any time I think of the lottery I can’t help thinking of this infamous reddit post that should be mandatory reading by anyone who wins.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/24vo34/comment/chb4v05
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/24vo34/comment/chb4yin
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/24vo34/comment/chb51su
I like to believe that I would pay off mortgages for immediate family, and buy a house for any immediate members who don’t have one. If I have some left over I would think about extended family and friends.
I think I’m with your wife on this one.
I really shouldn’t respond to this since I’m just rehashing up one of the stupidest arguments I’ve ever had. but, what you said is actually pretty close to what my position was. we parted ways when it came to the more distant cousins. I suggested a cool hundred K USD out to second cousins 'cause, after all, 300 million doesn’t buy as much as it used to
but surprisingly, it didn’t really matter because we didn’t win the lottery. imagine that. /s.
My lesson learned was that arguing on principle isn’t usually worth it
Oh, when I said “I’m with your wife”, I meant physically. No way do I agree with her.
HA! sick burn
I’d make trust funds for them and make it clear that this was it. If you give them cash they will hate you because you gave them only $1,000,000 a year ago and didn’t give them more this year.
Oh no, no cash. Just a large asset that will appreciate, and that’s it
ugh. gotta be the one about jesus preaching pacifism. The person said the turn the other cheek was not to be taken literally but a thing he says after he admonishes a disciple for cuting off a soldiers ear and healing the ear but then he says his fight is yet to come and he will need to be armed and armored for it. that he feels is literal and not prose at all. smh.
This one…
Nuh uh!
This one…
A really stupid one was when my older sister started tossing out a bunch of random attacks on my character when I was about to drive her to work. I asked when I ever demonstrated any of these traits and she brought up when I jumped into an argument that had nothing to do with me the night before and supposedly said horrible things.
Anyone who knew me would have known I was in my room with headphones watching the Gravity Falls finale the night before. I think that was the first time anyone failed at gaslighting me, because I was that obsessed with Gravity Falls.
I told her to call a cab to work and she started crying. :/ Like, what did you expect…
Ah, the classic Gravity Falls defense. I use it all the time ;)
One of the best shows I’ve seen in a long time.
Anyone with good taste had an alibi that night.
deleted by creator
Which side were you arguing?
deleted by creator
Whether 12:00:00 is a period of time and could be AM or PM, or whether it was a point in time i.e., the meridian, and was neither AM nor PM.
12:00:00 exists in both AM and PM. I have my lunch at 12 PM.
Whether the saying is “if they think that, then they’ve got another think coming” or “if they think that, then they’ve got another thing coming”.
That one always gets me. The phrase means that the person is wrong about something, and circumstances will compel them to reconsider their position or opinion. The word “think” refers to a cognitive process, such as reconsidering their position or opinion. As for the alternative, what’s the “thing” that’s coming? Their latest Amazon order is out for delivery?
it was about nutrition. it started with the fact that proteins, fats and sugars all have different energy densities and so how much weight you gain is dependent on what the food is, which is all fair. but then i made the mistake of saying “your weight won’t go up by more than the weight of the food, anyway.” and that spiralled out of control completely. apparently that’s wrong and you can gain infinite weight from one chocolate bar.
as usual for this person they felt that i refused to take the “holistic” view into account.
a more recent conversation started with them talking about some sort of blood sugar sensor that athletes use and when i said “that’s interesting, what’s it called?” they started talking about gut microbes.
you can gain infinite weight from one chocolate bar.
Eventually you’ll turn into a black hole.
“holistic”
Aka, “Keep science and evidence out of this”
Well, nutritional science doesn’t have a great track record. While a lot of bullshit is justified using the word “holistic”, it is also true that nutrition and in general our metabolism are affected by so many factors that a reductionist approach to nutrition more often than not fails to give actionable insights, especially if you move away from very broad statements. It doesn’t help that every few years, some core concept of nutritional science is discovered to be the result of lobbying.
There’s almost some truth to it. Certain foods, like salts and carbs, in certain situations, like low salt/carb diets, can have a ripple effect. 100g of carbs, or a few grams of salt, can cause your body to retain water. The effect being that you gained several pounds from eating just a few (hundred) grams of certain foods.
However, for your body to retain that water, you must also consume said water.
I was talking with someone from the UK about this article that they showed me. They were outraged by it, and I said I don’t see what the problem is with it. They were weirdly fixated on the “asylum seekers” part, to which I told them the article says it will apply to vulnerable persons regardless of immigration status, and I asked them why they were fixating so much on this applying to one specific demographic.
This caused them to go on a tirade about “migrants are getting more rights than people who were born in this country” and how they aren’t a racist because they married an Italian. They said “it’s all about divide and conquer” and I asked them why they care so much about what ethnicity or nationality a person is, over if they’re vulnerable and receiving healthcare equality or not. This quickly devolved into them going on about how the UK is “being taken over by migrants”. So, I asked them if they knew any of these migrants, if the UK is “being taken over” by them. They said no.
This started from them watching a YouTube video made by some influencer who was getting angry over the same article. I’m more than convinced that social media can have its bad sides.
I can kind of see their thought processes there. They’re sharing right-wing media so they’re likely already primed for those biases, plus that article title is intentionally misleading by suggesting asylum seekers will by default get priority over all other patients. It isn’t until the sixth paragraph that they admit it’s priority care for vulnerable people which is a group that happens to include asylum seekers and undocumented migrants (terms which this writer uses interchangeably, because of course they do). Very poor journalistic integrity even for a rag like this one, imo.
This type of article is intentionally misleading and written primarily to rile up people with poor media literacy. Making people angry makes it easier to manipulate them, and vulnerable groups are naturally less able to fight back so they’re an easy target.
In an ideal world after being challenged they would have reevaluated the source and their beliefs. In practice very few people do that and they just get more entrenched instead. Especially if it’s someone anonymous online just telling them they’re wrong.
Yeah, it seems like there are a lot of people who will only read the headlines, which when combined with what headline they went with is egregious. Honestly, clickbait such as this is a pet peeve I have with media in general.
