You must log in or register to comment.
Not being aware of others and how your actions and being affect them.
Very simple example: fuckers who walk towards you on a sidewalk and don’t even blink (edit: I meant think but this is funny nonsense lol) about moving an inch to the side to avoid hitting you. Like looking straight past you not budging even a bit…
You see it’s a game of chicken. You blink you lose, you budge you lose.
Recognising people other than you exist is the ultimate cowards move forreal forreal
fuckers who walk towards you on a sidewalk and don’t even blink about moving an inch to the side to avoid hitting you. Like looking straight past you not budging not even a bit…
I call those people Zax after the Dr. Seuss story.
Lean the shoulder that’s about to make contact forward. Fuck em.
Even if you do bump into them they still act like no other person exists besides them, y’know?
Or when there is a group of people walking all side to side covering the whole pathway and you walk towards them, but they don’t move aside, as if they expect you to fly over them or just dissappear from the earth.
Then you stand your ground and they look at you like you are at fault.
Narcissism and superiority complexes are the two main showstoppers for me.
That last U.S. president was a great example
Truly!
I suspect a lot of yall should say this:
There is nothing worse than seeing my own flaws reflected in someone. Like, if they’re a lazy neckbeard who talks about niche media and old-sci-fi while contributing nothing to society.
Especially the flaws i had when i was younger. I die a bit every time i see an unaware selfish arrogant teenager.
Celebrity worship. If you spend all your time on instagram or TikTok following the latest trends and being emotionally affected by the behavior and actions of a “celebrity”, then we probably have nothing in common and I probably don’t want to have a conversation with you.
I said this in another post and i got accused of thinking I’m better than someone who watches celebs.
:)
You don’t have to say it, I will.
You are measurably better than someone who worships celebrities.
I’ll happily counter that sentiment!
Thinking your opinion/ethics have a high ground compared to others
To be fair though, some ethical views do have a high ground to others. People against murder have the high ground over people ok with it for example. People against dog fighting or any other form of animal abuse have the high ground over people ok with it.
Any time there’s a victim being harmed, people ok with the injustice have lost the high ground
Being perfectly fine not knowing something and not caring to get answers aka willful ignorance.
Why don’t you want to know?!!! How is it that the thought proceding “I don’t know” is not immediately “but I want to find out”?! We can’t know everything but we have so many answers at our fingertips. As if you don’t want to absorb as much of it as you can?!
It immediately makes me think that the person I am speaking to is not worth my time. Chances are, the more they’re willfully ignorant about, the more likely they’ll also not care about how their actions affect others. Major red flag for me.
Edit: I should’ve mentioned I was thinking of particular types of situations where the person has the mentality of “oh man, I don’t know, it’d be cool to know that” and proceeds to not do anything about it or when they are regurgitating something they heard on foxnews with such blind conviction without bothering to look into it further
God this is everyone I know.
I have friends that will literally say something that they just plucked out their arse and when I have the audacity to question it, or even if worse attempt to find the answer online I’ll be called out for fact checking.
I’m dumbfounded like y’all just want to operate without facts and just say what you want and people should believe it?
Edit: To your point I think that no, they don’t care to know. The vast majority of people have zero curiosity and I find it weird. These are the same people that are bored all the time but seemingly do nothing.
They’re satisfied with the picture of the world in their heads, and looking into things might prove it wrong and then they’d need to go through the effort of changing it, and that’s a hassle, so they don’t. And then you do, and make them do work, which is annoying.
It’s why “don’t shoot the messenger” needs to be a proverb instead of just common sense.
deleted by creator
I understand the sentiment, but there are things not worth knowing. I don’t care who was drafted in 1987 by the San Diego NFL team. I don’t care about the extras who appear in the 1957 film Witness for the Prosecution. I don’t care what you had for breakfast. My point is, I think your issue is less about curiosity, but of values. People who don’t value the things you care about, or worse, don’t even value the things they purport to care about.
You’re right. Sorry, I should’ve mentioned I was thinking of particular types of situations where the person has the mentality of “oh man, I don’t know, it’d be cool to know that” and proceeds to not do anything about it.
Or like you say, having strong convictions about something but not having done the reading themselves. I don’t mind listening to opposing opinions if they actually believe them and didn’t just regugitate something they heard on foxnews.
I think in most cases, curiosity is what drove human development to such heights. And to just stop it at “oh yeah, I dunno hey” takes a very particular type of person… A type of person I just can’t understand!
Thanks for pointing that out though, I hadn’t quite fully figured out how to articulate what I was trying to say!
particular types of situations where the person has the mentality of “oh man, I don’t know, it’d be cool to know that” and proceeds to not do anything about it
My effort in any given day is limited, and gone are the days of high school/college where I would just stay up all night because I found some random rabbit hole of trivia I wanted to know more about. Like yeah, there’s plenty of things I would gladly download to my brain given an instantaneous button to do so, but a much smaller list of things I actually consider worth the effort, even if I’m interested
There’s also people who are willfully ignorant about things that are too taxing for their mental health, such as the war in Ukraine. Some people think it’s very important that everyone knows the details on what is happening, but it might do more personal damage than good on individual who is already struggling with stress, depression, anxiety etc.
The only time when willful ignorance is bad, in my book, is
A: They’re being willfully ignorant about an essential skill that they need in order to make everyone’s day go smoother
B: They’re willfully ignorant about something but somehow still give as much of a shit about it as experts on the topic. These people are the worst.
And with how easy it is to look things up, it could just take moments.
There’s a lot of people who are actively avoiding being wrong though - they know they’ll be wrong, so they never want to look into anything.
It depends on what the subject is. Learning things requires energy, which we don’t have an unlimited supply of. If you ask me a question about, say, Hotwheels toys, I’m gonna tell you I don’t know the answer, and I do not care nearly enough about Hotwheels to put time and effort into researching anything other than surface-level facts about them. This type of ignorance is fine by me, I’d rather deal with a person who knows they don’t know anything about a subject and doesn’t care about it than someone who knows little yet cares deeply about it.
Them being rich.
Oh I thought I was among poor, but no, it’s just that I was avoiding them for some reason.
Define “rich”.
Oh I thought I was among poor, but no, it’s just that I was avoiding them for some reason.
Smokers. Hope they all suffer severe respiratory disease and feel like they’re suffocating.
Being a prick or a cunt
How about “using misogynistic slurs”?
Being bri’tsh. Agree can’t stand them
Yeah, only total cunts do that
deleted by creator
Anything…?
Did they stutter?!
deleted by creator
That’s a bit more specific than simply just possessing “any right-wing” trait
deleted by creator
what color is your hair sugarpie
That’s not a trait, it’s a mindset.
TBF, so are half the other responses in this thread.
Only birds allowed are amputee birds
That’s rather narrow minded. I’m not saying I agree with them, but to instantly despise someone for holding a belief makes you no better than them.
deleted by creator
Despising people aligning themselves with the people who want to continue taking away our rights is narrow minded, is it?
That you think of the whole right-wing that way is.
What you’re speaking of is quite specific. OP said “Anything right wing” meaning he instantly despises a person with any right-wing traits
Capitalist rent-seeking. Feeling entitled to make a profit off doing nothing except buying a resource other people need, because you already have enough money to do this. Maybe “despise a person beyond belief” is a bit strong, but I hate that people do this, and I hate that it’s condoned and even admired in capitalist societies.
If there were no homes to rent, where would people who can’t or don’t want to buy live?
Let’s imagine there was somehow zero rental market. Imagine there was a law against purchasing a dwelling and then not actually using it as your residence. People still need to live somewhere, so there would be a demand for housing. People would see a profit in meeting that demand, so someone would build and sell housing. Currently, those who can’t afford to buy a home have rental as a cheap alternative. Without that, there would be an open niche for something to meet the need for housing. There would be a market pressure to solve the discrepancy between the price of housing and the available capital of the average person. House prices might be forced down, salaries might be forced up, I don’t know what would happen precisely but there would be a pressure to make it possible for people to live somewhere.
You can see evidence for this in what happened in a lot of major cities. People have been able to use one home that they own as collateral in buying a second, and then use the income from renting it out to pay that off plus a little profit. That leaves them with two properties as collateral and a little cash spare, making it easier to do it again with a more expensive place. Rinse and repeat and you’ve got wealthy landlords buying up all the properties so there’s no need for the people selling those properties to drop prices to where first-time buyers can afford them - the usual dynamics of supply and demand that keep prices in reach of buyers have been disrupted, and the two types of buyer separate into two tiers that get pushed further apart, getting harder and harder for people to jump from the lower tier to the upper. This is how you end up with people paying £1000 in rent while the bank tells them they can’t have a £700-a-month mortgage because they can’t afford it, and that £1000 a month leaves them nothing left over to save up for the £30,000 deposit they’d need anyway. The market pressure that led to this situation are obvious, and reversing those pressures is the most obvious way to fix the situation.
The abscence of landlords does not preclude the existence of housing. The house would still be there if there wasn’t a landlord attached to it.
You’re ignoring apartment blocks and similar high density developments.
I don’t follow, are you suggesting it’s impossible to own a single apartment in a block? As someone who lives in an apartment I own without owning the entire building, I can tell you that’s definitely false. You don’t need a landlord to make high density housing to work.
So nobody owns the building?
The people who own the apartments. Individual units have individual owners, shared areas have shared ownership by whoever owns the units unless specified otherwise. Maintenance of common areas is the shared responsibility of all owners.
Would imagine it’s an HOA situation.
There’s a company that owns the land, and it’s sole purpose is to maintain the land and common areas of the building. All the units could be individually owned, and that company exists to have a bank account that can pay for repairs/repaints. In this situation I’m describing, while the company would own the building, they have no ability to raise rents, as all the units would be owned by the tenants.
That sounds an awful lot like a landlord. And if no rent is being collected, where is the money for the bank account coming from?
No it would just be a piece of land. The landlord bought the Land and built the house, without the landlord, it would be land owned by the government or a realty company.
In many cases, landlords buy already built houses and rent them out. The solution is to remove the landlord and give the house to the resident.
Free land and house, what kind of thinking is that?
What, do you think people should have to pay to be able to sleep in a safe place?
I can’t speak for OP but I think in general the idea that “landlords shouldn’t exist” or whatever doesn’t just stop at eliminating rentals. There is more than enough housing in the US to house everyone here (and probably the world? if not, there’s enough resources to build housing for everyone), and it seems unjust to let people be homeless or exploit their need for shelter due to artificial scarcity.
I like to think that most of us could agree that everyone deserves the dignity of having shelter regardless of what luck life has dealt them, even if we can’t immediately agree on how.
There is more than enough housing in the US to house everyone here
Only if you assume that the entire country is a single market where specific location is largely irrelevant. The places where a lot of housing is available is usually because it’s not where people want to be. Like I could buy a house on main street in the town where my grandparents grew up for <$100,000. But do I want a small house in bumfuck nowhere that doesn’t have any land attached to it and requires significant upgrades and maintenance due to age? No, not particularly, especially because it would either mean a 2+ hour commute to a nearby major city or an entirely remote job.
When people get offended on behalf of others, especially when their stupidity harms the people they claim to be offended for.
Case in point, the Hogwarts Legacy situation. It made trans people look unhinged by association, even though the seemingly vast majority of them were cis progressives.
And if I as a trans person mention how I don’t feel represented and don’t appreciate what they are doing? Suddenly I’m a Russian troll or something. So stupid.
I think you make a good point that over reacting to perceived offenses can make the “victims” look bad, but the idea that only those who identify as the victim have any right to speak on it is nonsense. I’m a white person but I’m going to call out racism when I see it because to my view of a just society, that racism cannot be allowed. I have nobody in my life that is trans and the current right wing war against trans people doesn’t affect me at all, but I’m still going to be an ally and stand against it.
And honestly anyone who blamed trans people for the harry potter game backlash likely wasn’t a fan of trans people to begin with. I wouldn’t worry so much about their opinion.
You must be like all other trans people or we can’t put a label on you. Didn’t you get the memo sent out from Trans Headquarters?
Hating minorities or believing in a one party system of governance.
Littering, or any other type of casual damage to the environment.
The slightest hint of financial superiority. Snobbery, if you will.
This is what makes me sometimes unsure whether I should offer monetary help if I don’t know the person intimately enough to judge this sufficiently.
All the people richer than you?
Only those that lack humility and/or fail to acknowledge privilege.
