It's obvious to us but aside from the Trump-can-do-no-wrong crowd, there's a lot of oblivious people who just...don't know.
It's a situation I have a hard time grappling with as someone who reads the news but I'm regularly introducing people (in-person) to political events. They know about the most recent plane crash or whatever but not that Israel killed another journalist or that Trump sent a legal resident to a concentration camp. It's wild...but following politics is kind of a hobby. There's so much going on all the time, you can't just passively absorb it.
In some ways I resent them but in other ways I'm jealous. Following it like I do has brought me a tiny bit of joy and a whole lot of stress.
I love Nebula. I go there to watch Nebula Exclusives but it's not great for browsing or discovering new channels...I found everyone I subscribe to on YouTube first
I'm not defending the guy here (he does seem like a douchebag) but I think I'd rather hang out with a skeptic than someone dumb enough to believe crystals have healing energies.
Plus, the videos exist because the witches didn't ignore him. No shortage of magic-believers in the replies.
None of this is newsworthy but I'm cringing harder at the angry replies than the fact that he's rage baiting
I looked for the video and came across a reddit thread about it. Here are two really funny comments:
I think its rather silly to say the least especially since curses require a certain amount of anger and hatred that im sure next to nobody feels to this person.
Oh yeah that's why it didn't work
Magic requires willpower and intention to use properly. I doubt any of these randos on the internet actually possessed the genuine desire or emotional investment to actually curse a random guy on the internet who had heretofore never interacted with them
Anyone who actually understood this likely didnt rise to the bait.
I feel like if someone locked in a dark room with a blue box was asked what color it was, they'd say "I don't know" as opposed to "black"
Interesting point about is vs looks. I was thinking about LEDs before (hence the "reflect/emit" part) but I think I want to walk that back a little...if an LED only emits blue light, we'd say the LED is blue. But an RGB LED? It definitely depends on what it's currently doing. In both cases, the reflective properties of the LED module while it's off are the same. So it's like there's a hierarchy to how we define color...color it's emitting > color it CAN emit > color it CAN reflect > color it's reflecting.
I'm just riffing here so I don't really have a conclusion for that but it's intersting to think about. There's probably other examples that go against my hierarchy idea.
I agree that when we say something IS a color, we mean "it reflects certain wavelengths" but I disagree with the conclusion.
Let's say you have a red box and a blue box. You put a brick in the blue box then put both boxes in the dark closet. Someone asks you the color of the box with the brick. What do you tell them?
If it makes sense that the blue box is no longer blue in the dark, we'd ask "what color will the box be when I open the door?"
Therefore, I'd argue that the color of an object is defined by it's capacity to reflect/emit light. After all, is a farmer not a farmer while they sleep?
He's having a laugh. They're the ones bringing "hateful energy" into the world... And it's not like he's the first one they've angrily hexed