Damn. Angela Collier getting downvotes? Wtf is wrong with all these people. There could not have been a more relevant and helpful response explaining the situation, especially in light of @Varyk@sh.itjust.works’ rather shallow question that seemed to indicate a lack of understanding of the full context here…
Again: Varyk asked about a single aspect (whether or not Katy Perry has called herself an astronaut) and got a 40 minute video about the whole thing. No text summary or indication of whether or not the actual question would be answered, just “watch this”
Sometimes people know about the general subject already, but just need conformation on a detail.
It’s very rarely good practice to answer surface level questions with links to long deep dive videos.
Even if the recipient WOULD like the full picture, an article is MUCH easier to skim or digest whenever you want to.
A video is a time commitment and 40 minutes is about 38 minutes past the maximum reasonable time to answer a quick question.
There could not have been a more relevant and helpful response explaining the situation
Relevant? Possibly. Helpful? For reasons explained above, nope. Not really.
in light of Varys’ rather shallow question that seemed to indicate a lack of understanding of the full context here…
You don’t know that. You just assumed that it was a rhetorical question meant to end discussion rather than an honest question meant to provide context on whether or not the meme itself is fair to Katy Perry. In assuming ignorance and bad faith, you’re being very unfair to Varys.
Btw, just in case they haven’t found out themselves, here’s an ACTUAL answer to the ACTUAL questoion:as far as I’ve been able to find out, she’s NOT self-identified as an astronaut.
While that’s not conclusive, it’s more than likely that a lot of people would comment on it if she did, so someone who knows how to look not finding anything in one eighth of the runtime of that video would make it highly improbable.
It’s exceedingly common for a question about one narrow thing to be an indicator of desire for knowledge about a broader topic. There was basically no reason to believe this wasn’t the case here, and the incredibly rude response from both of you to a user being helpful is really not a good look.
It’s exceedingly common for a question about one narrow thing to be an indicator of desire for knowledge about a broader topic
It’s MUCH more common for a question about one thing to be an indicator of desire for knowledge of just one thing.
There was basically no reason to believe this wasn’t the case here
Except for Occam’s Razor and, you know, how language works.
the incredibly rude response from both of you to a user being helpful is really not a good look.
You’re the one being incredibly rude by insisting that an illogical assumption was the only possible interpretation of a straightforward question and that pointing that out is somehow bad.
If I asked you if it’s raining, would you link me to a deep dive about evaporation and atmospheric pressure? Do you think that would be helpful?
You’re the one being incredibly rude by insisting that an illogical assumption was the only possible interpretation
No, I’m pushing back against how rude the two of you are being.
If you had just stayed silent because you weren’t even involved in this, and if the other user had given a polite “thanks, but I’m already aware of this and just wanted an answer to that one question”, things might have been different.
But that’s not what happened. You came in guns blazing, and so did they. Ironic, considering further down the thread they also made it very clear that they don’t already know the full context here.
I’ll repeat, since you clearly didn’t get the point.
it’s good you guys are learning about vulnerable minorities, but it’s not news to everyone and not relevant everywhere
This here. This makes no sense. What the fuck are you trying to say with this? The parent comment made no indication to suggest that they didn’t know about vulnerable minorities. Quite different from your comment which did imply a lack of awareness of the context about why people would be upset at Katy Perry.
you’re going to try to explain yourself instead of repeating a vague question.
good idea.
“What the fuck are you trying to say with this?”
it’s good you guys are learning about vulnerable minorities, but it’s not news to everyone and not relevant everywhere
“The…[reply]…made no indication to suggest that they didn’t know about vulnerable minorities”
no it didn’t, where did you get the idea they don’t know about vulnerable minorities?
personally I’m very glad that, as I said, they are “are learning about vulnerable minorities”
“Quite different from your comment…”
Right…they had an unrelated answer to my comment…you are agreeing with me, but are trying to sound like you’re not agreeing.
should I pretend you are not agreeing with me here?
okay: harumph! you do not get it. let me explain! grr:
my comment was about how we shouldn’t be attacking someone for something they didn’t say, and my subsequent comment agreed that most of the other comments seem misogynistic(hostile towards women), which explains why people are attacking women.
so it’s weird that the reply was “quite different from my comment”, but not super uncommon on internet comment threads.
i asked “hey did this woman actually say what you guys are all attacking her for?”
the answer was “no, but it’s okay that we’re attacking this woman because other women are also getting attacked”.
the answer was “no, but it’s okay that we’re attacking this woman because other women are also getting attacked”.
Ok. I did actually glance at the rest of your comment after writing that last one. The fact that you’ve written this indicates you clearly don’t understand the broader context, which is precisely what that video was supposed to help with. People are not attacking Katy Perry “because other women are also getting attacked”.
Go watch the video. Or read some of the other critiques that I’m sure have been written somewhere online. Help yourself learn why vapid “girlboss” capitalism is…not actually good for anyone, including women.
Here’s a good video about it
Varyk: asks simple yes or no question
You: here’s a 40 minute video explaining the whole story. It might answer your question, it might not.
Damn. Angela Collier getting downvotes? Wtf is wrong with all these people. There could not have been a more relevant and helpful response explaining the situation, especially in light of @Varyk@sh.itjust.works’ rather shallow question that seemed to indicate a lack of understanding of the full context here…
Again: Varyk asked about a single aspect (whether or not Katy Perry has called herself an astronaut) and got a 40 minute video about the whole thing. No text summary or indication of whether or not the actual question would be answered, just “watch this”
Sometimes people know about the general subject already, but just need conformation on a detail.
It’s very rarely good practice to answer surface level questions with links to long deep dive videos.
Even if the recipient WOULD like the full picture, an article is MUCH easier to skim or digest whenever you want to.
A video is a time commitment and 40 minutes is about 38 minutes past the maximum reasonable time to answer a quick question.
Relevant? Possibly. Helpful? For reasons explained above, nope. Not really.
You don’t know that. You just assumed that it was a rhetorical question meant to end discussion rather than an honest question meant to provide context on whether or not the meme itself is fair to Katy Perry. In assuming ignorance and bad faith, you’re being very unfair to Varys.
Btw, just in case they haven’t found out themselves, here’s an ACTUAL answer to the ACTUAL questoion:as far as I’ve been able to find out, she’s NOT self-identified as an astronaut.
While that’s not conclusive, it’s more than likely that a lot of people would comment on it if she did, so someone who knows how to look not finding anything in one eighth of the runtime of that video would make it highly improbable.
It’s exceedingly common for a question about one narrow thing to be an indicator of desire for knowledge about a broader topic. There was basically no reason to believe this wasn’t the case here, and the incredibly rude response from both of you to a user being helpful is really not a good look.
It’s MUCH more common for a question about one thing to be an indicator of desire for knowledge of just one thing.
Except for Occam’s Razor and, you know, how language works.
You’re the one being incredibly rude by insisting that an illogical assumption was the only possible interpretation of a straightforward question and that pointing that out is somehow bad.
If I asked you if it’s raining, would you link me to a deep dive about evaporation and atmospheric pressure? Do you think that would be helpful?
No, I’m pushing back against how rude the two of you are being.
If you had just stayed silent because you weren’t even involved in this, and if the other user had given a polite “thanks, but I’m already aware of this and just wanted an answer to that one question”, things might have been different.
But that’s not what happened. You came in guns blazing, and so did they. Ironic, considering further down the thread they also made it very clear that they don’t already know the full context here.
I made one flippant but accurate comment for laughs.
You’re the one who made a huge deal about it by holding your incorrect assumptions to be undeniable Truth.
Just give the windmills you’re tilting at a fucking rest already.
“Huh? What are you even trying to say with this comment?”
a 40-minute video unrelated to my question is exceedingly unhelpful.
it’s good you guys are learning about vulnerable minorities, but it’s not news to everyone and not relevant everywhere.
Huh? What are you even trying to say with this comment?
"a 40-minute video unrelated to my question is exceedingly unhelpful.
it’s good you guys are learning about vulnerable minorities, but it’s not news to everyone and not relevant everywhere."
I’ll repeat, since you clearly didn’t get the point.
This here. This makes no sense. What the fuck are you trying to say with this? The parent comment made no indication to suggest that they didn’t know about vulnerable minorities. Quite different from your comment which did imply a lack of awareness of the context about why people would be upset at Katy Perry.
“I’ll repeat…”
it’s okay, i got it.
“this here…”
oh you aren’t repeating anything.
you’re going to try to explain yourself instead of repeating a vague question.
good idea.
“What the fuck are you trying to say with this?”
it’s good you guys are learning about vulnerable minorities, but it’s not news to everyone and not relevant everywhere
“The…[reply]…made no indication to suggest that they didn’t know about vulnerable minorities”
no it didn’t, where did you get the idea they don’t know about vulnerable minorities?
personally I’m very glad that, as I said, they are “are learning about vulnerable minorities”
“Quite different from your comment…”
Right…they had an unrelated answer to my comment…you are agreeing with me, but are trying to sound like you’re not agreeing.
should I pretend you are not agreeing with me here?
okay: harumph! you do not get it. let me explain! grr:
my comment was about how we shouldn’t be attacking someone for something they didn’t say, and my subsequent comment agreed that most of the other comments seem misogynistic(hostile towards women), which explains why people are attacking women.
so it’s weird that the reply was “quite different from my comment”, but not super uncommon on internet comment threads.
i asked “hey did this woman actually say what you guys are all attacking her for?”
the answer was “no, but it’s okay that we’re attacking this woman because other women are also getting attacked”.
I strongly disagree with that reasoning.
Ok. I did actually glance at the rest of your comment after writing that last one. The fact that you’ve written this indicates you clearly don’t understand the broader context, which is precisely what that video was supposed to help with. People are not attacking Katy Perry “because other women are also getting attacked”.
Go watch the video. Or read some of the other critiques that I’m sure have been written somewhere online. Help yourself learn why vapid “girlboss” capitalism is…not actually good for anyone, including women.
“I did actually glance at the rest of your comment…”
there you go!
now if you read the comments before replying to them, you’re not going to get so confused next time.
“…vapid “girlboss” capitalism…”
ah, back to the old “if I change the subject they’ll forget the original topic”.
not going to work, but fun.
You. You made that baseless accusation against them. That’s the only way to interpret your comment.
At this point you’re just being a troll. Goodbye.
“You…”
you are incorrect!
that is actually a quote from your own comment.
as you admitted, you are trying to answer a comment without reading the comment first, so you’re bound to get confused.
Someone was HEAVILY inspired by Contapoints’ videos.