subignition

joined 2 years ago
[–] subignition@kbin.social 6 points 2 years ago

Pardon me for sounding like an armchair psychologist here, but it seems to me like you have fallen down some weird rabbit hole where you are excusing your creepy behavior patterns with this concept of privacy. I suggest you take an honest look at how you behaved in this interaction, because "privacy loving" is neither a cause or justification for what you described doing in the OP.

Instagram and Snapchat play a vital role in the dating, no one is willing to share their # anymore. If you say you don’t have Insta or Snap all you’ll get is a weird up to down stare and the words “I’m sorry”.

If you really believe that, then tough shit: you can't have your cake and eat it too. You chose to stay off insta and snap, so you have to accept the consequences of that choice. Your decision to try to spin up a burner account and hastily attempt to make it look legitimate was stalker-tier behavior. Not to mention that painting a whole class of people with such a broad brush as "no one is willing to share their number anymore" is dangerously close to incel bullshit all on its own. It is far more likely that no one is willing to share their number with you because you are pushing to get too familiar too quickly and they are rightly picking up on the major red flags.

The appropriate response would have been to be honest about not using it (and in general being honest is ALWAYS THE RIGHT MOVE when you're meeting people, so long as sharing wouldn't put your safety at undue risk), and to accept the odds of the weird stare you expect to get.

Because everyone is a unique person, and you don't actually know when you're going to run into someone with similar views as you about privacy, if that is really your true concern. But it seems like your desperation overrode whatever principles you purport to have in that moment. Changing who you are to try and get in someone's good books is fundamentally manipulative and is a serious problem. You are never going to be capable of a healthy relationship until you nip that in the bud.

It sounds like you are young, so the good news is that most people have been a fucking idiot in this regard at one point or another, and it's easily fixed! Accept that you fucked this up and take an honest look at how you approach interaction with others, and you will already be farther along the path to normal social relations than you think.

[–] subignition@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago

Well most replies already suggested a LLM but good old fashioned search skills work fine too.

For simple questions, as long as you know the correct terminology that is relevant, just asking the question of a search engine is usually good enough to turn up articles or stack overflow answers that'll help

If you don't know the terminology or you struggle to ask a precise question despite your knowledge, going up one level , so to speak, and consuming more information about the stuff in the immediate context, can often either fill in the gaps to allow you to ask the right question, or sometimes it's the missing bit of info you didn't know you needed to solve your actual problem.

[–] subignition@kbin.social 6 points 2 years ago

So it's not just me who couldn't long press any of the links to open them in background tabs

[–] subignition@kbin.social 5 points 2 years ago

they're not even the person who said that. Neither of squiblet's posts even contains the word "nothing". Drink some coffee

[–] subignition@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

That might be one of the least flattering pictures ever taken of President Biden lol

[–] subignition@kbin.social 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It does, doesn't it?

I think it's the warmer lights. Subconsciously we know that stuff is supposed to stay there only temporarily, I suppose.

[–] subignition@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago

Did you click through to the first article I linked? I called them performative because corporations just exploit loopholes to avoid paying their dues anyway.

I understand the importance of raising taxes on the wealthy. However, I also understand that those efforts will be meaningless if they aren't backed up on the enforcement side.

[–] subignition@kbin.social 13 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Here's hoping the person(s) responsible for these crimes are swiftly brought to justice.

[–] subignition@kbin.social 10 points 2 years ago (2 children)

These people must have hated it when Biden created a 15% minimum corporate tax rate.

If the status quo is any indication, corporate tax rules are largely performative. I would be happy to be wrong about that and see actual enforcement happen as a result of the Inflation Reduction Act, but I'm not gonna hold my breath.

https://itep.org/55-profitable-corporations-zero-corporate-tax/

There is some detailed guidance about the CAMT I found here, but someone with more specific knowledge will have to parse through it to determine how easily they are gonna be able to dodge this, too.

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-23-20.pdf

[–] subignition@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago

That, and/or the amount of profit one can collect from anything relating to residential zoning should be capped harshly, like 10-20%

[–] subignition@kbin.social 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Maybe it's similar to the glitch on kbin.social where if you are composing a reply but load a different thread before you send your reply, you can reply on the wrong thread?

Their account is reasonably old and their older replies look authentic.

[–] subignition@kbin.social 16 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (9 children)

I've said this for a long time, but we don't even need to make radical changes to the tax code. I bet if we fix the loopholes so that companies can't avoid paying the (21%) tax they are SUPPOSED TO BE paying with clever accounting, the extra $8+ billion annually would move mountains.

https://itep.org/55-profitable-corporations-zero-corporate-tax/

Not that radical changes to the tax code aren't also a good idea.
edit: grammar

view more: ‹ prev next ›