EatATaco @ EatATaco @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

2,804

Joined

2 yr. ago

Having your picture in someone else's album is such a non-thing that it just doesn't make sense to be this upset over it.

I swear this is like arguing that you don't want to say please and thank you because you don't like talking to other people. Just suck it up and do it, as it greases the wheels of social interaction and would clearly, at least in the case of the OP, make this person happy.

If you said no and they did so anyway, that would be disrespectful and mean. But telling you that it's the polite thing to do, and that you're just getting upset over what amounts to nothing, is neither of those two things.

Spitting on someone, aside from being freaking nasty, mean, and frequently motivated by some type of bigotry

It's a figure of speech. This is just pedanticism that completely avoids the actual point I made.

Also, why do you- or whoever- get to have their feelings considered, but not OP’s? why do you feel like you- or whoever- is so entitled to another person’s likeness that they should just “Suck it up”?

Because it's the OP asking for advice on what to do in a certain situation. If it were someone else asking me what to do in the situation where they want to take a picture with someone that doesn't want their picture taken, I would tell them to suck it up and go home without the picture.

This is ignoring the simple reality that sometimes, that photo going up on the internet puts the person who didn’t want it up in direct, literal, harm. maybe their profession has some religious prohibition that there’s violation. Maybe there’s a stalker ex. Maybe they’re in some type of witness protection or secret agent.

Except they gave us a reason: "I'm a private person." Almost the first line of their post. The situation we were presented isn't some case where it's dangerous for them to have their picture taken. They just don't want it. If it is risky for them, absolutely just decline.

People should be respected when they say “no, I don’t want my picture taken.”

Absolutely. But he didn't say this, and explicitly said he doesn't want to explain himself. So I responded to their actual request.

It’s best to simply be candid and decline.

I disagree. I get not wanting to give your number out to a patient or see one outside of work, and in that case you decline. I think most would understand this and not be offended.

But this person just wants a picture with them, baring some ridiculously rare shit that they made implicitly clear is not the case, it's a simple, virtually riskless request and it's best to just make another person happy and take a picture with them.

It's shocking how many people are suggesting lying in a way that's so easy to get caught. "Weird I just took a picture with the nurses and the other doctor." That's going to make it even more awkward.

If I were you, just suck it up and take the picture, and then say you dont hand out your private number to patients and like to keep the relationships professional. This is presumably honest.

Not taking the picture is really spitting in the guys face. It's so quick and it goes a long way to making them feel good, and feel good about you. It's one of those things I would explain to my kid that you just do it and get it out of the way even if you don't like it.

Not giving our your number is entirely reasonable, and I suspect is also honest.

One of the primary arguments against doing anything is that it might hurt the economy. If you can counter that claim, by pointing out that it will actually help the economy, then you've removed an argument against doing anything.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

As I noted elsewhere, the latter argument about him having to sell to bail out x is a compelling argument. That their values are inherently tied together by virtue of him being owner I'm less convinced about because people claim the stock prices are linked, but have no provided no evidence that it is the case, despite it being a relatively easy thing to prove mathematically.

You could have just said it was speculation. All the attacks and lies about what I am doing or what would satisfy me were completely unnecessary.

I'm sure it's a bunch of things, but people are so used to rushing to conclusions without giving it some real thought, myself included, that when someone doesn't immediately take a side...well, they must be taking the opposite side as me.

If one stock goes up/down, the other does too. This has happened repeatedly with these two companies specifically, even.

This should be easy to prove that their correlation to one another is significantly more than to the market, or maybe more accurately to tech stocks as a whole. do you have these numbers or is it just speculation?

The other poster makes a much stronger argument, pointing out how some investors in Tesla are concerned about musk having to sell stock to support x, which could lead to a fall in x prices.

A strong point for sure, thank you.

If you can show me some strong correlation between x and Tesla stock, that doesn't also correlate with the market as a whole, it would go a long way to proving that point. Other than that, it's just speculation that it might influence the price of his own stock, which seems like an extremely tenuous claim as to why it's reasonable to believe he should recuse himself.

Can someone explain the conflict they see here? X and Tesla are 2 different companies.

What did it do to YouTube? I remember there being a huge uproar over it...but I don't use it much but totally forgot that this even happened as it has made no difference for my light use.

I'm more than willing to defend my position. Which you did not actually address because just an empty insult is, of course, much easier than making an actual point.

Also how is your obsession with people being obsessed with shitting on\talking up America not equally absurd?

Because I only point it out when it happens? I'm not like looking around for this, it's just in most every thread. And I certainly don't bring it up when it makes no sense. Although I admit I'm less confident now in my judgement based on this alternate explanation.

I'm all for laughing at obsessed gun nuts when it makes sense. But if you are bringing up obsessive gun nuts when the topic is about the Canadian government covering up a major industry for poisoning it's own people...well, you have serious obsession problem.

I love how often when I bring up this obsession, people can't grasp the fact that I'm not defending America or Americans.

The only way to read what you submitted and think that the original statement that "it means no thought" makes sense is if you are picking the one about being asleep or unconscious. Which means someone can't read things in context while hilariously shitting on people for no being able to read.

Maybe. But that doesn't change the fact that the obsession with shitting on America is equally absurd as the jingoistic "America is always the best!" obsession.

You'll have to explain what you think I don't understand and how you came to that conclusion.

Funny because it you talk to libertarians, we've never had a pure capitalist society. You probably just don't realize how similar they all are to the people who claim we've never tried our Communism.