Jump to content

Oh my Gawd! - Totally unOfficial Pet Peeve Thread.


Sassy Kenin

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Rowan Amore said:

Seems like.someone is dying for a new thread to berate people for their position and beat them to death with inane questions about that position.  

Right there.  And again, was I wrong?

Anyway...have at it.  I'm off to make some smoking and drinking photos.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

New pet peeve, people who can easily change the channel, scroll down or just go to another Youtube video. These people who complain about something triggers them, when they have the power to just scroll change the channel or even find a different video on social media. I mean I am sorry that you feel that way, but it makes it hard nowadays to create content. When someone is triggered by anything. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sammy Huntsman said:

New pet peeve, people who can easily change the channel, scroll down or just go to another Youtube video. These people who complain about something triggers them, when they have the power to just scroll change the channel or even find a different video on social media. I mean I am sorry that you feel that way, but it makes it hard nowadays to create content. When someone is triggered by anything. 

*Sarcasm font*. But what about the children??!!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Orwar said:

   A friend of mine died in a car crash. So, pictures containing vehicles ought to be banned.

   Another friend of mine drowned. All the beach pics must go.

   My grandfather died of old age, so obviously we can't have pictures of old people around.

   Oh, wait, the world doesn't revolve around me.

I think you misunderstand the post to which you respond.     He says that, because his father died from a smoking-related disease, he finds images glamorising smoking particularly offensive, just as other people offended by images glamorising the Confederacy in the US Civil War.     I can certainly understand that.

Since imagery glamorising smoking is, though, now banned in most countries, I'm not sure what the specific issue is here.

Generally, though, I would think that, among the questions to be asked about any particular form of imagery and its appropriateness are the degree of hurt and offence its display is likely to cause, and to whom, and the reason someone is going to the trouble and expense of displaying the imagery in the first place.     

It's because the world doesn't revolve round any individual, I would have thought, that we need rules in place to prevent particular groups of individuals maliciously displaying them in a way likely to cause harm or offence ("maliciously" meaning with an awareness of its likely effects, rather than inadvertently), since the fact they may think they have good reason for causing harm, offense or distress to others, and even that it's their right to do, if they feel like it, doesn't necessarily mean others should have to put up with it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Orwar said:

   I think you failed to recognise my overt sarcasm. 

No, your sarcasm was pretty obvious. 

To my mind, though, it was also misdirected, and I meant to indicate that I thought you were parodying a position he had not, in fact, taken.

But one way or the other, let's drop it, please.    It's not at all important.

Edited by Innula Zenovka
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said:

To my mind, though, it was also misdirected, and I meant to indicate that I thought you were parodying a position he had not, in fact, taken.

   Except he was the person who started the entire thing the other day by whinging about it in 'How does your avatar look today?'. Don't tell people they're mistaken if you don't keep up with what's going on.

giphy.gif

   And oopsie, is John Goodman holding a cigarette, in an award-winning cult classic seen by millions around the globe?! 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

 

cat smoking.jpg

Posting a picture of an animal smoking really does negate your whole position here now doesn't it?  You defend someone's right to be triggered by an avatar smoking yet you then post a picture mocking the very thing they are offended by. Good job!

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Sam1 Bellisserian said:
5 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

 

cat smoking.jpg

Expand  

Posting a picture of an animal smoking really does negate your whole position here now doesn't it?  You defend someone's right to be triggered by an avatar smoking yet you then post a picture mocking the very thing they are offended by. Good job!

I'd say her post is even worse since it depicts animal cruelty.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Orwar said:

   Except he was the person who started the entire thing the other day by whinging about it in 'How does your avatar look today?'. Don't tell people they're mistaken if you don't keep up with what's going on.

giphy.gif

   And oopsie, is John Goodman holding a cigarette, in an award-winning cult classic seen by millions around the globe?! 

while I really don't have any skin in this particular game, it's probably no bad thing to point out that the "award winning cult classic" you use to support your case (whatever that may actually be) was released in 1998.

Even if we overlook the obvious argumentum ad populum fallacy of your logic (I know you like a bit of Latin) it might still be better if you could dig out something more relevant than an excellent movie getting on for a quarter of a century old.

I know you understand that this slip up would normally provide me the opportunity to indulge in the same level of Reductio ad Absurdum reasoning as you revelled in earlier so I won't spell it out for you, and I definitely won't indulge in the "overt sarcasm" you apparently pride yourself in - I sort of adhere to the old "sarcasm as the lowest form of wit" perspective.

Now apparently this sort of post would leave me open to allegations of rampant pomposity, but I feel pretty safe in this case because.. well to be frank, if you called someone pompous the irony would be palpable.

 

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, SynesthetiQ said:

I sort of adhere to the old "sarcasm as the lowest form of wit" perspective.

   Would you like me to finish that half quote you used? This is quite amusing, you're going to love it.

   “Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, but the highest form of intelligence.”
   - Oscar Wilde

oops-aquaman.gif

   Pet peeve: sock puppets. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the other day I wanted to do a certain type of picture.  I looked on MP for a pose...despite owning almost EVERY POSE IN EXISTENCE...and found one I liked for said picture.  I cringed at the fact I would be paying 280L for a pack including only three poses.  I'm cheap that way!  But I bought it anyway.  

The next day I unpack them because I am ready to take the picture, but there is a problem.  I purchased pose pack b and the poses inside the pack delivered are pose pack a.  

No problemo, says I.  I shall simply contact the seller and inform her of the error and get the correct poses sent to me.  Several days later I am still waiting a response.  So I check her profile for her CSR type people and think I shall drop my NC on them as well because maybe seller is not contactable at present or they may be able to give her a poke and get her on to my problem.

"*store name* is closed, please message the owner if you need assistance."

PEEEEEVED!!!!!!

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...