It’s too late OP I’ve already portrayed you as the crying loaded questions interviewer soyjak and myself as the ponytail binary paradigm rejecting chad.
This feels a little mean since the guy asking the question did stay pretty calm and respectful and even parted on a handshake. Like he is dumb for asking that question and not understanding you can have both, but at least he wasn't a dick about.
Honestly that whole engagement is shockingly civil.
Sorry for the dirty deletes if you saw what I said. I saw your other replies and felt like I was just doubling down on something you've already heard and there's no point in me being rude or adding. Should kept scrolling first
Didn't see them, but I guess thanks for the retraction? Appreciate this post. One thing I do like about bluesky is that it's more likely to see people talking to people like they're people here than that other place.
The basis of his question is that he's trying to (apparently for his final exam in some class) show whether people care more about economic stability or LGTBQ+ rights.
This is a nonsense question. There's no point in asking this.
Somehow there is, buried underneath the question, an argument that people have to meaningfully choose between these things. And a lot of people believe that, since they think Republicans are better for the economy. The pitch is to make it sound like the people who support LGBTQ+ rights are willing
You can sound polite while advocating for the denial of basic rights. He explicitly wants people to not pick LGBTQ rights as he believes they interfere with economic stability. The He Gets Us type shirt was a dead giveaway.
That was never in question. I merely point out that the crying face is a disingenuous representation of the interaction and I do beleive in being fair, even with people who are so obviously wrong. They can make themselves look bad enough on their own.
I mean yeah, it's a chad/beta meme created to make fun of someone. It's not meant to be a mature, fact-based critique of the interviewer and his ideology. It's meant to annoy a guy who sucks.
You don't always have to be trying to win in the marketplace of ideas, sometimes it's fine to just heckel.
I will slightly counter this that by the act of editing it in the way they did they were trying to convey that the (very Correct) person refusing the question and saying both are possible was atypical and focusing so much on the zipper tic is definitely a choice
What amazes me is that they definitely did try to present the guy refusing the question as being in the wrong, especially with the focus on his stim actions, and the guy refusing the question still comes off as correct to everyone I know whose talked about the video.
Absolutely, I didn't want to outright say it but by focusing on the stimming it's clear they were trying to frame them as neurodivergent & "weird" but it had the opposite effect of, this is gonna sound horrid, the guy who's clearly stressed & stimming is still walking circles around you logically
Honestly I can totally understand the mind space of the guy refusing the question, he did excellent when put on the spot despite how anxiety inducing that would be. I'd make a complete mess comparatively in the same spot.
Discussion requires good faith. Interviewer was asking a question which was a false dilemma and he knew it. The reactionary right relies on weaponized civility to reframe their assaults as "reasonable." Note how he asked if he was getting trolled, etc.
"Well, he was being polite while trying to foment resentment against the LGBTQ community, so that's nice :)"
I doubt you meant to say that but I think you got some real soul searching to do if you want your queer friends to actually be comfortable around you ever again.
How it’s felt talking to anyone about politics or world events since 2020. Inexplicable rules with no foundation in material reality, enforced by people who don’t seem to know what they’re doing. No one names the fundamental disagreement, about the nature of truth, at the heart of the conflict.
Believe it or not LGBTQ makes up a large portion of the consumer population, remove them remove the consumer and guess what the economy is no longer stable
For Christ sake it doesn’t take an economist to understand that
Well, companies hire actual experts in psychology, behavioural analysis, sociology etc to work out and actualise their (often revolting) tactics to exploit people's sympathies and loyalties.
Most of these people are experts in little more than how to be unrepentant asshats. 🤷
Additionally when the guy tried to pivot to gender equality vs a stable economy it was laughably bad.
It was literally women who picked up the economic slack in WW2, working jobs that men had to leave behind. There's a lot of documentation on it. 😅Equality and Economic stability go hand in hand.
If the question you are posing for an assignment is flawed... Then the body of work is probably academically weak. And thus you are making it harder to pass. Unless your assignment is about flawed questions.
"I'm trying to pass my final."
Let me guess, he's studying to become a minister in some RW church, and he's writing a paper showing people don't care about LGBTI+ rights (because they want economic stability).
My only problem with this video is when he tells Bothchad "you can't have both", I wish he just asked "why?". I appreciate he held his ground but I'm really curious why the interview guy was so convinced it was one or the other. I'm sure he didn't have a reason but I'd like to see him challenged.
The interview guy was acting disingenuously. He wasn't convinced about anything. He just wanted a particular framing that made LGTBQ and their allies look unreasonable.
If he had chosen LGTBQ rights, he would have signal that LGTBQ people are uncaring about the economy. So, LGTBQ people're unreasonable & bad. If he chosen the economy, he would have signal that LGTBQ people're selfish assholes that care about unimportant issues. So, they're unreasonable & bad
No, I understand the point of the framing. My statement is, why not flip the question back on the guy? Make him answer for his reasoning. He straight up says "you cannot have both", surely he can explain why he thinks that? Unless even that tiny amount of pressure breaks down his entire interview.
Because you don't want people explaining things that don't matter. By asking him anything you're giving him an out to say some canned bs his audience is primed to think it's right.
Nah. Guy doesn’t need to be even validated enough to be asked why. He clearly does not have thoughts worth entertaining. He doesn’t believe his own shit, no one cheering him on believes his shit, he’s just trying to make a fake argument and everyone knows it already. No “why” for him. He’s valueless
ok first props to the long haired king. second it is clearly a season during this video wtf is with short and sandals. there are no leaves on those trees. cmon guys you’re making me cold.
Also it's extremely clear he's just trying to get people to say "LGBT Rights" so he can potentially shit on them and using stuff like "economic stability" to argue why it's more important than LGBT Rights, WHEN YOU CAN JUST DO BOTH BUT HE KEEPS PULLING "both isnt a answer" WHEN IT TRULY IS
"L'ordinateur n'est pas capable de prédire l'avenir"
C'est plutôt partir du postulat que toute question à forcément une réponse oui ou non, ce qui est déjà faux de base.
That explains the asshole move of editing in a zoom on the guy stimming, then. That's literally the only "gotcha" the fool could work into the entire situation
Yup, basically the poster was trying to draw attention to it and in a very unsubtle way make fun of the guy without DIRECTLY saying the words but it's really clear
honestly i've watched this video again and again and NEVER noticed that our guy was stimming, i was way too engaged in tone of voice and expression. it's SUCH a minimal 'gotcha.'
like it just fails to occur to me that this is supposed to be a "look at the weirdo" moment. he's trying to stop himself from giggling at how owned the bigot is!
I think the main reason why I noticed is because I immediately felt anxious by proxy by the situation? And I mean, I'm usually quite hard to rile up (journo+activist, I've been in *situations*) but this asshole really got to me with how smug he is about such a hateful question
This is akin to someone trying to score a novel redo of an debating team grade-flunk, by insisting that pretending to be a thoroughly convincing asshole is not a wholly invalid modum of makeup.
Plot twist: the guy he failed to troll is among the tenured faculty in charge of regrades.
Exactly. It just made him look aloof and cool as fuck. Like he didn't even give a shit he was being given a false equivalency by some Christian Nationalist asshole.
I thought the same thing, and I can guarantee it was done with malice. Good for him that he stood his ground no matter how stressful the situation obviously was 💜
These types generally have a lack of self-awareness, and he probably thought it would be him "showing how unreasonable the libs are," that sorta thing.
i love how hes so pissed. its so funny he posted this, and tried to edit it with minor stuff like focusing on the guy's hand gestures to try and mock him, and it just backfired on him so hard.
Bro: I failed Intro to Statistics because of woke
Professor: *sighing* Kyle, we’ve been through this. “Here’s two topics; pick one” is not a well-designed survey!
This bozo (whose actual pronouns are ass/hole) is basing his argument on a false premise, and so doesn't deserve an answer in the first place. At no point does he explain why the two options are mutually exclusive, and so his entire argument can be rejected out of hand.
"At no point does find explain why the two options are mutually exclusive, and so jesus entire argument can be rejected out of hand." corrected for his preferred pronouns.
If it was some random survey by someone who I think is good Faith, I would genuinly think about it, and answer in the confines of the hypothetical. This isn't such a case.
Anyone got the post describing this as the most ancient entity the form moderators in the early aughts/late 90s? Something like that, can't remember it perfectly lol
I think he was stimming because he knew the guy was trying to make him comply to his little fascism game and he decided to fuck up his game, but it cost him a lot of mental energy and stressed him out. From the tone of his voice to me it's clear he is investing all his energy here for something good
I was thinking the exact same. It's a really dick and asinine way to try to undermine him, when he's actually responding brilliantly to a pretty hateful line of questioning in a really stressful situation.
Hate the guy asking the question. The very act of asking that question knowing full well these two things do not influence eachother in the slightest is, in and of itself, an act of bad faith.
Good for the champ he recognized what’s what and didn’t play along with that chud’s vile game.
Find/Jesus there really showing his colours considering the two are completely unrelated things
“Would you prefer minorities to have rights, or money?” is basically the same question if you want to reframe it against him like he tried to do partway through.
I like to think he's anonymously scouring internet forums and Facebook comment sections, debating transphobes and Christian nationalists while sipping Mountain Dew Code Red.
Apparently, he's actually not a bad guy, but he also hates getting attention. Would rather be left alone. Hearsay from when I had twitter so take that with a grain of salt, but I'm not convinced this guy's a bad apple.
iirc he was identified by a friend who said he knows about it doing numbers and was just like 🤷 and continued going about his life. could have been completely made up but probably just as likely as anything.
Imagine trying so hard to make the argument of "fuck rights, people want economic stability" but you get a guy who just "you can do both, and fuck your 15 minutes of fame."
The video is from the question asker's TikTok channel; it's full of videos like that, so I assume he's lying about it being for a final.
He likes to ask gotcha questions and post the videos to make fun of "stupid/hypocritical libs", but ponytail guy wasn't having it.
If I had to elaborate, I would say "it is because of LGTBQ rights that economic stability is created. When everyone in a society can feel stable and secure thats when they can participate fully in its economy. It drives prosperity for everyone. "economic stability" doesn't happen in a vacuum."
"It is a well known and much lamented fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it."
/Douglas Adams
If this is the guys "final" I fele he's gonna have to take your class again. Bro, I can't even comprehend 2 things that can both be true at the same time, and if ppl stop worrying about wtf is between my legs and focus on themselves then maybe we wouldn't be here and could have economic stability.
I love this guy: he recognizes the false dichotomy in real time, calls it out, and refuses the premise of the question.
I also love that this guy's wearing a Jesus shirt, while talking about gay rights. Jesus never said anything about that... PAUL (who never met Jesus) did, but not Jesus.
Hell, Jesus hung out with all the sorts of folks that hypocrite probably hates on principle. Poor folks, hookers, lepers, etc - It's appalling to me that the modern Republican party has the Jesus vote, because there's nothing Christ-like in Conservative ideology.
Exactly. I was raised Catholic, and the priests in my parish were pretty clear about Jesus being accepting of others. The conservative stuff I see doesn't fit in at all with what I was taught.
Wow. This is perfection. The t-shirt, the stupid question, the fact that the guy answering never actually left, but kept answering "both," the whole "I need to pass my final," bit, the fact that after being humiliated he posted it anyway. I almost wonder if this was a skit.
It's plausibly real. I've known fellow Christians who've doubled down on their bigotry whilst being oblivious to being a dick. Tends to manifest more frequently in young men who've recently became Christian and are riding that Spiritual High and feel the need to force their Spiritualism on others.
I've known religious people who are this tiresome and un-self-aware. They would absolutely post this online thinking that the person being asked came out looking foolidh.
And conversely, somebody could absolutely have done this as a bit.
I checked out his TikTok account just to see what he posted there, and in all honesty, it didn't help any. It's a lot of Pro-Trump stuff, but it comes across like a MAGA parody account. So, I'm going to fall back to "if there's no meaningful difference, then it's real."
Yeah I wouldn't be surprised if the tiktok guy thinks the other one is an idiot who can't answer a basic question, or more likely he hopes that his followers see him that way
The thing is that the objectively correct answer IS both. If LGBTQ+ people can't get married legally then they can't spend money on a wedding, which stimulates the economy. If trans people don't legally have access to gender affirming care then they can't spend money on it. And, as we're seeing now-
If companies roll back on Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accommodation services then LGBTQ+ people and allies won't buy their products, thus destabilizing the economy. It is legitimately in a company's best interest to be as inclusive as they can.
Still amazed that this guy intentionally, knowingly uploaded this. Like he thought yeah, this is an example of an interaction that I want people to think of when they think of me.
You fail to understand that his audience is primed to see that guy as an unreasonable jerk incapable to follow the rules set in front of him. Also they think both is a wrong answer. I can assure you that video gets a completely different reaction in conservative circles.
Anyone who sticks a mic in my face for stupidity like that can find their way to the roof to collect it after I rub it inside my underwear and chuck it up top.
trying your zoomer tiktok shit on a dude whose aura says he lived through and actively participated in the ron paul years of something awful. you fool.
I miss forums... I fucking miss arguing for weeks or months on a thread that just keeps getting resurrected after days of nothing. None of this upvote bullshit. Just a bunch of people yelling at each other all at once.
Discord rooms just don't hit the same as logging in and seeing that some clown resurrected a thread from three years ago to reply to a legend who's long since disappeared, and 20 people dogpiling them over it before paying their respects and going back to the weekly chat thread.
what's so irritating is he's like "waah why are you trolling me" while wearing a shirt that says "my pronouns are find/jesus" like he doesn't want to get decked
Iirc, he was doing this in my hometown of Portland. This was downtown around the PSU campus if I'm remembering right. So it's actually shocking he didn't get decked, or shanked.
the funniest part of this video is that whoever edited thought that this absolute chad's stimming was some kind of gotcha and zoomed in on every instance of it like it proved... Something.
I can imagine the nega-verse of this where the guy in the left asks the other "discriminate against lgbt or destroy the economy" "both", but I would dare tarnish his image with that question.
The people that vote for politicians who are anti-lgbt expect them to treat LGBT bad but give them special treatment when in reality they just treat the people who voted for them bad and LGBT people worse. You can't expect a person whose campaign is based on hate to have your best interests in mind
counterpoint: no it isn't because that's dork shit. refusing to play his dipshit game at all and then telling him to deal with it is, in fact, the right response.
he knew what was going on from the start. he must've read that "my pronouns are find/jesus" shirt and knew what type of reaction the "interviewer" was trying to gauge, and refused to play along and also gave a reasonable answer in the process.
Comments
He looks like Henchman 21/ Gary Fischer.
And I love that.
oh god
lmao
"Too bad."
"I just did"
Honestly that whole engagement is shockingly civil.
The basis of his question is that he's trying to (apparently for his final exam in some class) show whether people care more about economic stability or LGTBQ+ rights.
This is a nonsense question. There's no point in asking this.
If you answer one way or the other to this question, you either sound like a bigot or a fool. It is set up to be a gotcha question.
There is no reason to bother answering this.
clean cut hairstyles, very polite, while they advocate for extermination of people they deem lesser
like ffs is everyone new here??
"At least they asked the question respectfully!"
I do not get how people can't call it out for what it is and instead admire the 'civility'
You don't always have to be trying to win in the marketplace of ideas, sometimes it's fine to just heckel.
Discussion requires good faith. Interviewer was asking a question which was a false dilemma and he knew it. The reactionary right relies on weaponized civility to reframe their assaults as "reasonable." Note how he asked if he was getting trolled, etc.
I doubt you meant to say that but I think you got some real soul searching to do if you want your queer friends to actually be comfortable around you ever again.
vs the Chad “you’re dumb and I choose both”
Me:
"Too bad."
Don't base your final on spreading propaganda then
"Yeah I could tell that by the question."
For Christ sake it doesn’t take an economist to understand that
Most of these people are experts in little more than how to be unrepentant asshats. 🤷
It was literally women who picked up the economic slack in WW2, working jobs that men had to leave behind. There's a lot of documentation on it. 😅Equality and Economic stability go hand in hand.
Let me guess, he's studying to become a minister in some RW church, and he's writing a paper showing people don't care about LGBTI+ rights (because they want economic stability).
How did he post that thinking he was in the right?
eu seria famoso e por algo BOM
Really was hoping he'd say "ok then I guess your gonna fail"
i just did 😇😇
💪❤️🖖
- it's not a valid question
You need to pick one, you can't refuse the question.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FknQypA5Q70&lc=UgwKGtd_ujiNzRf822V4AaABAg.AFkOgM1OBHLAFkPWzHe--h
"L'ordinateur n'est pas capable de prédire l'avenir"
C'est plutôt partir du postulat que toute question à forcément une réponse oui ou non, ce qui est déjà faux de base.
“Too bad.”
King shit
not sure why he thought that was a good idea
I thought that was an edit made by someone else. The guy who was interviewing was the one who posted like this? Is this the reason???
Wow
"I think you did an Eric Draven and passed your own death, bud. Do you even own a comic book? Because you sound like a really crappy fanfic."
I adore that it's Bepunchables on the right accusing the Bar Sinister Goodman that sent him to the cleaners of trolling him.
Plot twist: the guy he failed to troll is among the tenured faculty in charge of regrades.
Whoop-sie!
More like 100%
Don't forget, kids: Solid Snake says trans rights are human rights
https://youtu.be/O6I5dQjjRk0?si=2MTkEnxaPeWyQbk2
And yet.
https://bsky.app/profile/jelmore.crystalwind.org/post/3llzovdr3dx2o
What are you gonna do, reach inside my brain and force a choice from me?
Bro: I failed Intro to Statistics because of woke
Professor: *sighing* Kyle, we’ve been through this. “Here’s two topics; pick one” is not a well-designed survey!
Jesus fucking Christ!
Good for the champ he recognized what’s what and didn’t play along with that chud’s vile game.
And the other guy is like Henchman #21.
“Would you prefer minorities to have rights, or money?” is basically the same question if you want to reframe it against him like he tried to do partway through.
None of those things are actual pronouns.
bc we all know how that shit ends
He likes to ask gotcha questions and post the videos to make fun of "stupid/hypocritical libs", but ponytail guy wasn't having it.
This is good shit
/Douglas Adams
I agree with you, especially now...
I also love that this guy's wearing a Jesus shirt, while talking about gay rights. Jesus never said anything about that... PAUL (who never met Jesus) did, but not Jesus.
that sentence is only in one version of the Bible, and it's considered to be a terrible mistranslation.
Both.
Giggling, standing your ground, not giving a fucking inch.
If he had kept pushing it, my next response would have been a knuckle sandwich.
Punch every motherfucking Nazi.
I've known religious people who are this tiresome and un-self-aware. They would absolutely post this online thinking that the person being asked came out looking foolidh.
And conversely, somebody could absolutely have done this as a bit.
Zero self-awareness.
He's not making it difficult, it's not his fault that you're a fucking moron, lol.
We're a group of people who will argue for hours, days, even weeks on end asking some of the dumbest, most mentally deficient rhetorical questions.
Over, and over, and over all for nothing more than a post history showing we were contrarian.
Stupid apps ruined it by going back to fitting just a couple comments on the screen at a time.
What he deserved was a slap in the face. From some extremely strong LGBTI activist.
Their "too bad" response replenished 5 hp to my daily health bar each time it was said.
Would need to put like Schumer in his place.
It seems the guy was right about having both, and they are not related at all.
These two subjects are completely unrelated, and the interviewer knows that.
No regrets
CON O SIN EL JEFAZO DE LA COLETA.
It's a false dilemma.
God, what a tiresome person.
Why not? You tell me. You want people to choose only one, explain why they're compelled to.
Good luck with those finals...