It’s rude to mention your name in passing as someone who could help understand a part of a larger topic if necessary, while staying on the larger topic, instead of immediately diverting?
It’s rude to mention your name in passing as someone who could help understand a part of a larger topic if necessary, while staying on the larger topic, instead of immediately diverting?
Putin is not a coward, he is brave, wise and strong.
He is leading the world into a better future. He will remove western influence from Afro-Eurasia and maybe even South America.
The Russian Army is just removing Nazi influence from the Ukraine, Russian civilians did nothing wrong. No Ukrainian civilians have been killed, it’s all lies from the Nazis.
So you’re saying this unmitigated drought is intentionally orchestrated by the noble men and women of the government of the United States of America?
Joe wants this?
You’d still be autistic, just as I am.
But you can change your response to hearing your name. Don’t stubbornly hold on to awkward behavior after you’ve identified it, you are perfectly capable of excising undesirable traits from your personality. You’re autistic, not retarded.
Yeah, I’m arguing you should reconsider your stance.
You should be aware that that’s an extremely autistic way to view this.
I believe it’s not necessarily unreasonable to expect you to just take notes of the points as they come up, and expand on them if requested by the client.
It also doesn’t make sense that mentioning your name should prompt you to immediately start explaining shit. People can mention you or something about you and move on. Maybe just acknowledge it briefly.
Had to view source to see the “insert thing here” things. Some issue with the formatting using < and >, not sure if it’s just on the Jerboa app.
Laughter from a pun like this is a rare thing, a charisma check of 19 with disadvantage.
I’ve been saying this for a long time – the working class is no longer culturally aligned with the left after it became so serious about not tolerating rude, crude, insensitive men.
Those are working class men.
Politically opposing the break room behavior of the guys you claim to represent doesn’t work well. I still think there are enough of them in principle in support of various rights that they would make up a good majority of it was just about that, but the 2010’s push to punish insulting humor and misgendering lost too many, it’s now only supported by a minority of working class men. That is why going as far as Trump became a viable option for the GOP.
The difference between Bush and Trump represents, to me, the difference between two things. The working class’s support for “live and let live” style rights to be with and become what you want, and in contrast is their objection to the expansion of “don’t be rude, shut up, play along” style restrictions on speech in various social arenas.
I really believe that if the left had clearly rejected the wesk minority’s desire for.enforcement of political correctness, it would have either a more comfortable lead, or a close race against someone less extreme.
The left rejected their base.
Because they were crude.
Instead of changing course, the left would rather just judge and lose. “Look at those men! They are not ethical! They are not smart! They shouldn’t choose him over us! We are better for them!”
But you make no sacrifice to win them back.
You’d rather roll your eyes, sigh, and let it happen.