What's something you immediately judge a person for when you see them wearing or have?
-
This is a german thing, but "Camp David" shirts are the first thing that come to mind. There is a good possibility the person wearing it is the most dense and arrogant person you'll ever meet.
Könnt ihr doch sicher bestätigen Germanbros, oder?
Camp David = the weird but friendly Boomer neighbour that turns full racist after three beers.
-
Edit: What do you judge them for?
wrote last edited by [email protected]"Oh awesome, nice Tool shirt. What's your favorite track?"
Oh, I've never listened to them
seeeeeeeeeeeethe
-
A certain little moustache was generally popular and harmless before Hitler came along, but after the war it forever became the Hitler moustache and shaving one's face in that style nowadays invites the comparison whether or not one means it that way.
wrote last edited by [email protected]TIL Trumps father wore a Hitler mustache until 1950.
After World War II, toothbrush variants were worn by a small number of notable individuals, e.g. American real-estate developer Fred Trump (who wore a split variant), and former president of Zimbabwe Robert Mugabe (covering only the philtrum).
Trump wore a toothbrush mustache from c. 1935 to 1950, about when it fell out if fashion due yo associations with Adolf Hitler
-
old Tesla's yes. New Teslas are HORRIBLE people
In the UK our car number plates actually tell you when the car was first registered - the third and fourth digits are either the year or the year +50. Normally I object to this, since it was only introduced as the result of pressure from British Leyland to try and sell more cars, but it serves as a handy way of instantly categorising anyone with a, say, '23 or newer cuntmobile.
-
Edit: What do you judge them for?
Arc'teryx (hardshell) jackets.
If you're walking around downtown you don't need it.
If you actually needed it you wouldn't be wearing your expensive gear downtown. -
Hood height, engine size, and the physical exterior dimensions of many vans are similar to those of pickup trucks. When used for work, it often just comes down to personal preference. One key difference is towing capacity - most vans are limited to around 750 kg, whereas trucks typically offer much more. Mine can tow up to 3000 kg.
Edit: Also, rear visibility in a van is much worse due to the enclosed cargo area. With a truck, you pretty much have 360-degree visibility.
Ford makes (or at least made) and E-350 van. It can tow anything your truck can. And seat 11 people. And keep your equipment secured and safe from the elements. And it has a backup camera.
-
It's against flag code and is considered not a proper flag.
I mean, if it's on clothing, it's not a flag, it's a flag image. Ergo, the flag code doesn't really give a fuck.
-
Ford makes (or at least made) and E-350 van. It can tow anything your truck can. And seat 11 people. And keep your equipment secured and safe from the elements. And it has a backup camera.
What's your point? That thing is bigger than my pickup.
-
I feel you— but also what does this declaration of hate garner us? Is it anything beyond the base tribalistic fervor: “we are strong fear us”. It makes sense if we were in person— but I fear this is how we create silos.
If there are conservatives here, and we continually assault them directly then perhaps they’ll leave— and while personally I may feel that would make the discourse more favorable, they do not disappear; they leave and find a more homogeneous pasture. We shouldn’t isolate ourselves lest we contribute to make debate a toxic no man’s land.
I generally want good things for all people. However, modern conservatives in my neck of the woods have grown increasingly vile over the course of my lifetime. I like the idea that they might feel isolated because the ideas they champion are backward and negative. And because they seemingly delight in causing harm to others, especially groups who have less power.
-
This applies to vans just as well though. This Ford Transit is little over a meter longer than a Toyota Hilux so these pictures are roughly to scale.
But the front/hood is much shorter in length. Also, people driving that type of van are much more likely to be doing so in a professional capacity and are significantly less likely to be asshole drivers fucking around with their phone while driving. People are bad drivers at baseline quite frequently, but if someone is on the job in a van used for commercial purposes, they're more likely to at least be paying attention and not speeding everywhere.
Edit: I marked up your image to illustrate the point made much more eloquently in the video. Because of the length of the hood, the truck has a much longer distance of road obstructed from view in front of it, and this is with a standard truck that doesn't have one of the very popular lift kits (and assuming that the driver is relatively tall.)
-
Wanna know the difference between a Harley and a lawn mower?
The lawn mower has a reason to sound like that.
I've heard part of the reason some people choose a Harley is because the sound makes them more noticeable in traffic, as a safety thing.
The merch is fucking stupid, but at least the noise does have a safety benefit, plenty of motorcycle riders get killed because other drivers didn't notice them -- good luck not noticing a Harley in close proximity.
-
what do you think about purses/bags with them?
I also have 2 frog bumper stickers and no other ones
Bags are very different to me than cars for some reason. They are more personal, perhaps, as one can usually see the person and the busy bag together.
Thinking about it, perhaps I see bumper stickers as impersonal and maybe even agressive (probably passive-aggressive even). A cute frog or two is vastly different to me than a collage of political sayings and it hardly matters if I happen to agree with the particular statements.
Maybe it’s a matter of taste or perhaps I feel disdain because it looks like political activity but is actually utterly worthless at changing minds?
-
What's your point? That thing is bigger than my pickup.
The point is that both of your points are factually incorrect.
-
Edit: What do you judge them for?
Cigarettes
-
Edit: What do you judge them for?
A MAGA hat. I judge them for MAGA.
-
The paradox of tolerance relies on a lot of assumptions that don't really work in reality. We don't tend to see more open societies have more intolerance, quite the opposite. Part of the problem is that "the intolerant" is not a single group, but many groups that hate each other. And those who are intolerant towards the intolerant are themselves part of the intolerant.
For a less-political example, let's imagine hypothetically that Lemmy is very pro-linux. However, some people who absolutely hate linux show up and start posting anti-linux memes. These people get insulted, downvoted, and eventually banned by others on Lemmy, because they're showing intolerance towards linux.
But then what happens to those anti-linux people? They go off and created their own forums, and talk about how intolerant lemmy is to people who don't use linux. So whenever a linux user shows up on those forums, they're inevitably banned. The result of intolerance of the intolerant is that they remain intolerant, and now the tolerant have become hard to distinguish from them, and there's no way for pro-linux forces to be part of the conversation anti-linux people are having - allowing them to create their own culty filter bubble.
Now imagine an alternative - instead of banning the anti-linux people, pro-linux lemmy users decide to engage with them and correct misconceptions about linux. After all, linux, like many other topics, can get kind of complicated, and linux users need to remember that not everyone has the same background knowledge that they do about the topic. Sure, some linux haters would be persistent, but maybe others would be like "hey, these linux folks are actually kind of cool and helpful, I want to be more like them." That may sound idealistic, but I think that's a lot closer to what we see in reality - intolerance thrives in closed off spaces, and dies in open ones.
-
One of those big trucks but they are immaculate, clean, scuff free. So not used for they are meant for: working.
Now they are just taking up space and being dangerous to the public just to try and help prop up someone's ego.
Yeah I see them parked at my office and always think - someone drove that enormous truck here, then went up the elevator to their office job. What the fuck?
I apologize for the misandry but also we have a saying down here - the bigger the truck, the smaller the cock. If you don't need a work truck for your work, you ought not get a work truck, it's stupid expensive and gas guzzling. I judge you.
-
"cause" stickers
Shut the fuck up. Live your life in an ethical way, we do not need to see a sticker asserting what every decent person already knows is right
I find people who broadcast their ethical positions rarely live by them. Being ethical is a series of decisions on how you act, not what you tell people.
I saw a ribbon sticker that said "support ribbon stickers" on a car here.
-
The paradox of tolerance relies on a lot of assumptions that don't really work in reality. We don't tend to see more open societies have more intolerance, quite the opposite. Part of the problem is that "the intolerant" is not a single group, but many groups that hate each other. And those who are intolerant towards the intolerant are themselves part of the intolerant.
For a less-political example, let's imagine hypothetically that Lemmy is very pro-linux. However, some people who absolutely hate linux show up and start posting anti-linux memes. These people get insulted, downvoted, and eventually banned by others on Lemmy, because they're showing intolerance towards linux.
But then what happens to those anti-linux people? They go off and created their own forums, and talk about how intolerant lemmy is to people who don't use linux. So whenever a linux user shows up on those forums, they're inevitably banned. The result of intolerance of the intolerant is that they remain intolerant, and now the tolerant have become hard to distinguish from them, and there's no way for pro-linux forces to be part of the conversation anti-linux people are having - allowing them to create their own culty filter bubble.
Now imagine an alternative - instead of banning the anti-linux people, pro-linux lemmy users decide to engage with them and correct misconceptions about linux. After all, linux, like many other topics, can get kind of complicated, and linux users need to remember that not everyone has the same background knowledge that they do about the topic. Sure, some linux haters would be persistent, but maybe others would be like "hey, these linux folks are actually kind of cool and helpful, I want to be more like them." That may sound idealistic, but I think that's a lot closer to what we see in reality - intolerance thrives in closed off spaces, and dies in open ones.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I appreciate the detailed comment and example scenario, but I don't agree with the reasoning or the conclusion.
For a less-political example, let’s imagine hypothetically that Lemmy is very pro-linux.
Lol. Yes, hypothetically.
I don't think this non-political example works as an analogy, because: 1. there isn't a moral component to it (or not as much of a moral imperative), 2. the percentage of the populace that hates Linux doesn't have much of an impact on the functioning of society, and 3. the target of the hate here isn't a person or class of people that, you know, has the right to exist.
The reason I'm drawing that line is because the whole idea behind being intolerant of intolerance is because doing the opposite allows the intolerance to spread unchecked and fuck up society, having a very real negative impact on the targeted people. (And not, like, an OS.)
Part of the problem is that “the intolerant” is not a single group, but many groups that hate each other.
This is the difference between the political and non-political examples. In the Nazi vs. anti-Nazi example, one of those groups is absolutely morally right and therefore we should do everything we can to stamp out the intolerance. In the Linux vs. anti-Linux example, ehh, it is closer to a matter of opinion—or at least a lower-impact moral question.
It's about cost-benefit, right? Like, what's the cost to society if Nazi propaganda goes unchecked? Lives lost, people deported, families broken, etc. Seems pretty important then to pay the "cost" of not tolerating Nazis. But what's the cost to society of anti-Linux propaganda goes unchecked? Costlier computers? More inefficient companies due to vendor lock-in and security issues? Maybe more state surveillance? It's not good, but it's nowhere near the same level as with the Nazi thing.
The result of intolerance of the intolerant is that they remain intolerant, and now the tolerant have become hard to distinguish from them, and there’s no way for pro-linux forces to be part of the conversation anti-linux people are having - allowing them to create their own culty filter bubble.
The culty bubble is going to exist regardless. The question is whether we let it infect everything else it touches.
That may sound idealistic, but I think that’s a lot closer to what we see in reality - intolerance thrives in closed off spaces, and dies in open ones.
It only dies in open ones if you shoot it down at every opportunity. But if you engage with it and allow the intolerant to do their "I'm just asking questions" sealioning, then it just metastasizes.
-
I must say this seems a bit shallow...
There is a saying in my country - I am not rich enough to buy cheap stuff.
This means that buying cheap stuff, which usually has poor quality, means you need to pay more to either buy new cheap stuff when it breaks or pay for repairs or maintenance. An expensive item would probably pay itself off and be cheaper in the long term simply due to better quality.
wrote last edited by [email protected]There's a difference between quality and a Gucci bag made in the same factory as a 50 dollar bag the exact same way, though. Or anything like precious metals and jewels.
