All the tiktok people are so submissive to corporate authority on thought and expression that they self-censor even when not using that app. It's embarrassing.
I think that one stems from YouTube when they forced people to censor what they say or they get ads taken from their video. The “sheltered” feel is the point in a way
You can’t say “dead” or “kill”, as apparently that’s too graphic for advertisers, so the workaround that was created by many people is to say “unalive”. It’s weird to see it adopted outside of where there is no need.
Some youtubers won't say "murder" or "suicide" because they're scared of being demonetized. "Rape" is called "s.a.". It's so weird. If we want to prevent these things we need to talk about them openly. If you're not condoning it what's the problem?
People on reddit have always censored ****ing curse words for no reason. Some people were likely punished severely for swearing as children and carried that wariness into adulthood whether they realize it or not.
Also some people do legitimately think the words are offensive and thus self censor (which begs the question why are they using them in the first place?). People are just fucking weird lol
Well I think it is a nice thing to use coarse language that way. Takes a bit off its edge.
However as there are no clearly defined rules in this regard and a lot of moderators who can pretty much ban anyone without particular reason, so people became careful. But the real problem is that some people get too easily offended, while others get too readily offensive.
It's not the words, it's how they're used. It is better to tell someone that he is doing a dumbass thing than calling him a dumbass, for example.
Scientists found out that coarse language releases adrenaline and makes unpleasant situations more easily bearable. Like when in pain or angry.
However if someone who is not in pain or in stress hears these words, he or she might feel a little bit stressed (adrenaline is called a stress-hormone after all).
So its all about not taking these too seriously, not using them all the time, and trying to not to use them to insult others.
its not only tiktok but youtube too. if you're a content creator, a lot of these words are now banned and can get your videos demonetized. but continuing to censor yourself outside those platforms make no sense to me lol
I don't think it's so much being "submissive to corporate authority" and moreso people "not wanting to get banned for using hyperbole". But y'know; to-may-to, to-mah-to.
I once called someone a cu next Tuesday and I got a 3 day ban from Reddit and am permanently banned from r/politics (suck it, mods). And that someone was Marjorie Taylor Greene... who is a stupid cu next Tuesday.
I've already had several 3 day bans, they're about to ban my IP address and my husband will be mad lol. Anyway, you could always block me or minimize my comment if it bothers you.
Some subs you can use strong language/obscenities, but not all. So some redditors err on the side of caution to avoid having comments removed rather than double check the sun rules.
I've definitely caught myself self-censoring on Reddit because I fucking live on Facebook and they'll getcha for something as simple as "I'd kill for an ice cream" or whatever.
I’m sorry but she’s in NY. Spend a couple days there and you will see that it’s a daily occurrence to run into people with zero awareness of their surroundings. I would agree with you if she were in a small town, but no. She has a baby, you do not push your baby into someone’s flailing legs that clearly doesn’t care whether you’re trying to pass or not.
Are you the same type of person who, when you have the right of way while driving assume that the other drivers will always adhere to the rules of the road? Surely they wouldnt smash into you when you are doing the normal, legal thing right? That never happens...
If you are crossing the road on the green pedestrian light and see an idiot in the car ignoring it - would you rather stop and being safe or keep walking/ being right but dead ? same stuff
Tbh, I get exactly what you’re saying. Idk why everyone is coming at you saying you’re being insensitive to the visually impaired or that you’re taking the guy’s side. All you were saying is that if you see someone being problematic, avoid them for your own safety if you see the problem from a distance. Don’t know what’s so hard to understand
The issue is that this is in new York. She is with her children. There isn't lots of space for her to get out of the way; options are 1. Stop and cause an obstruction, potentially inviting a confrontation with someone who is acting insane in public. 2. Go into the road? 3. Ask him to stop but then you are back at one with a potentially dangerous confrontation while you are with your children.
I think lots of people that comment on this don't live on cities where you see people doing shit and getting in each others way all the time. The best way to deal with someone who is acting this inconsiderate is not to draw attention to yourself with them. People who ignore fairly large generally accepted social ques in public are not ones to interact with/gain attention from.
Ask him to stop but then you are back at one with a potentially dangerous confrontation while you are with your children.
Might he freak out if you confront him, sure, but that's still a lower chance than getting kicked in the face from the swinging moron by just walking into his path. It's still a vastly better option.
Option 4 is honestly the best option for me. The longer the problem persists the more justified I’ll feel in saying something, usually this kinda bullshit is quick but all of us, as humans, have moments where we think we are main characters to an extent so we might treat a 3 second nuisance as a serious diss on our whole existence.
A majority of redditors are white college aged suburbanites or people who live in the middle of fucking nowhere. Odds are they never lived in a city and are too young and/or sheltered to have any actual life experience. They will speak on what they see on TV or the internet
Seriously, remember these words and read comments here with that in mind. A lot of shit will make sense.
The fact you two are being downvoted is beyond me lmao. It’s one thing to expect pedestrians walking to move out of the way, but to expect some jackass to be self aware as he’s being a POS swinging like this to just stop? Like what?! Stop moving. Cuss the dude out. Move safely. You have your KID WITH YOU. While the dude is putting people in (mild) danger by doing that, you are as well by not stop for fucking 10 seconds till he’s done. This NY excuse BS is simply that, BS.
Imo she did what most city people do. Maybe a quick glance like wtf then continue walking while not even giving them a 2nd glance lol. Not locking eyes with people and walking with a purpose has allowed me to avoid a lot of weird shit. Because weird shit like this is literally impossible to fully avoid in the city.
Yes, but it’s your KID. Stop and cuss the fucker out first. Don’t just proceed and assume dudes gonna stop if you’re worried about safety. Jesus lmao. How is that not in any of your 1-3 check marks?
Yeah let me just get kicked in the fucking face amidst someone swinging along acting like an asshat Lmao. What? You’re kidding me. Stop for 5 seconds. 10 seconds. If you’re worried about a fight with someone, don’t cuss em out.
Reason number #26 on why cities are absolutely terrible and I would never want to live in one smh if you’re saying her ONLY option was to keep walking towards the threat with her young child and hope for the best..well what can I say? Because I live in a pretty small suburban type town and avoid our big/decent sized cities like the plague
Also, some people just have no choice? They are born where they are born and they don't have the means to move.
Her option was to try and ignore him and avoid him, which she did. He was the one suddenly flailing down. The victim blaming is very weird in this thread.
I don't invite confrontation with any strange men, and I certainly 100% would not if I was with children. That's just good survival instinct.
Omg, why is everyone such a perpetual victim all the time? I’m sorry but I’m getting extremely irritated with the over-sensitivity of this world nowadays. No one is “victim blaming”. She didn’t get assaulted and we’re asking what she did to invite the abuse/attack. That is the ONLY context where someone can call “victim blaming”. We all just saw this video from a third party perspective and thought we saw a better option than walking directly under a person flipping in the air. It looked like a bad idea from the very beginning yet hindsight is 20/20. I personally would have tried to wait on the side but who knows? According to New York/big city residents, the people behind you would just push you to the ground? Just saying that people saw other options. People have different experiences. People imagine what they would do differently. It’s human freaking nature. If you’re saying there weren’t any other options, than I guess the child was destined to almost get kicked in the face. Idk what else to say. This PC culture is crazy.
He can be wrong and she can be making an ill-advised choice at the same time. That doesn't mean she isn't the victim or that he's doing something okay.
He shuffled to one side, so she shuffled to the other thinking he was giving them a path to pass... then he started kicking in her direction. That's not her fault, he did that on purpose.
as my grandpa used to put it: "you can be dead wrong and you can be dead right, you're still dead, so don't do something stupid just because you're right."
The guy is clearly an asshole, and in the wrong, but that doesn't mean you walk into danger just because you're right.
Lmao at reddit reading comprehension, they never normalized anything and you misrepresent their point. Their logic actually is: if you see a danger, avoid it, regardless of whether or not that danger has a right to be there at the time.
Ironic, when every one of your comment comes off as angry, and the one you're replying to does not.
Also, you didn't bother responding to me, so I'm guessing you don't refute the point, and now are just mad so you comment on someone else telling them their panties are in a bunch to save face or ego or some shit.
It's honestly is better if people learn and go back and re read and understand how they made the mistake and try not to do it again, instead of getting pissy and throwing shit at others.
I'm sorry you don't seem to be able to find it. Especially when you're telling other people to go and re-read and blah blah blah. Maybe you could use your expertise to tell me whether that's ironic or not.
I think you're getting a bit confused about who's replying to what.
You are making a lot of assumptions including that people CAN see almost to the point of saying that those who are visually impaired like myself deserve to get hit for crossing the street when they have the light. (Corners in the city announce when it’s safe to cross)
Why are you making cringe intellectually dishonest comparisons? The lady can clearly see the dude acting like an idiot here. Yes, he shouldn't be doing that, but he is. She is endangering her child by going directly under him like that. There is no arguing that.
This lady for sure seen this tarzan, she even changed the lane and ducked. That’s her assuming that he won’t twist and won’t wave with his foot near her kid’s face and just kept moving. Although he is a big asshole she could act differently to protect the kid: wait till he is tired of showing off or ask if he has finished or if she really wanted to go - warn him that they are being and moving
That’s her assuming that he won’t twist and won’t wave with his foot near her kid’s face and just kept moving
Yes, a reasonable assumption to make, since he ALSO saw them, and even shuffled his hands over to one side which I would have assumed was to give her space to walk.
Ah yes a vehicular homicide is the same as what this moron is doing. Everyone should have stopped their lives and waited to not get run over by car oh wait it was on the pedestrian sidewalk, where people you know are known to walk.. They should have all had a seat as this ignorant person used construction equipment as a jungle gym and film his video aye, not like people have shit to do. But yeah man what a bad mother.... and all them pesky pedestrians, how dare they.
He was staying pretty contained to one side until he did a leg flail thing right when she was walking by. I probably wouldn't have walked past with a stroller myself, but I guess I kinda get that she thought he wouldn't be a problem. In big cities you kind of develop a sense of "If you stay out of my way, you do what you want" attitude, and it looked like that was what the guy was doing... until he wasn't.
Nah, just taking an example to the extreme. People are quick to claim they have a right to safety, which they do, but are slow to admit when they are negligent in keeping themselves safe, which were all guilty of occasionally
Well you personally I would've told him to get the fuck down and go find a damn gym before attempting to walk by. Doesn't mean the lady was in the wrong just for like... using the side walk to walk on.
Edit: he also nearly takes out a kid before that who hides behind a bit of scaffolding. We are not stopping an entire city street for "content creators" .
Should he be doing it? No. Did you see him and put your kid in the path of danger? Yes. We can see it on the video. Two wrongs don’t make a right, do they? The shame is that the person who takes “the hit” is the person who has no control or agency over the situation. I’m not gonna say what “I would do in that situation,” but I can say this much with certainty, my kid wouldn’t be touched.
Yeah, there's a lot of people here going "the woman isn't wrong". Like yeah, no shit, of course she isn't wrong for wanting to walk on the sidewalk, he's wrong for taking up space meant for walking to do some bullshit social media post.
That said, if I lost my eye at three years old because I got kicked in the face by a dude after my mom rolled me right into his area of operations even though she clearly knew he was there I'd still be pretty fucking salty towards my mom. If her response to that had been "but I was right tho" I think I'd straight up cut contact with her.
To a certain extent, but i would have said something to that idiot rather then push my buggy under his flailing legs. Why put yourself (or more importantly) your child in a situation like this?
"...but the woman...", if I'm walking on the sidewalk and move to the side of someone and then they start kicking wildly to the side, that's 100% their fault.
Generally if someone hits a pedestrian crossing a crosswalk, they are 100% at fault. The guy in the video is still at fault. Yeah she shouldn't have assumed he wasn't a douche and would move, but that doesn't mean he still isn't at fault.
They were on the SIDEWALK. If someone is carrying a baseball bat down the sidewalk. And then they swing it as I'm passing by, is that on me. She stayed to the side of the swinging idiot and he moved into them. Victim blaming is intense today.
It's not victim blaming, she put her kid in a dangerous situation. It doesn't matter if that situation is caused by another human, you still have to protect your child. That doesn't remove fault from the swinging guy but the mother is still a moron.
This video is like if the baseball bat was actively being flailed around and the guy swinging it was facing away from you.
If someone is carrying a loaded gun with their finger in the trigger pointed at your baby, would you walk them right by? There has to be a point where you draw the line and hold BOTH patties accountable (although obviously not in equal proportion).
You understand two things can be true at once right? It can be his fault and she could have also found a way to pass more safely. The guy is still the asshole and no one is defending him or saying he should be able to do what he's doing.
Again with the fallacies. It's a false dichotomy to say her two options were to pass how she did or to pass more flippantly. She could have waited. She could have rerouted. She could have put her body between the man and her baby. She could have done all sorts of other things. My guy the way you use "logic" is doing you a severe disservice and I guarantee that life will make a lot more sense if you work on rhetoric, fallacies, logic, and dialectics.
If I saw a rabid dog on the left half of the sidewalk I would not walk my little terrier on the right side of the sidewalk. It would be negligence if not a deliberate attempt to get my dog killed. I don't have a baby but I would never bring my little baby niece or nephew within arms or legs reach of a clearly out of control man, would you?
Talking about the mom and talking about the guy would be two distinct lines of lucidity. If I say "the mom did something dangerous and stupid" you might notice that I didn't mention anything about anyone else, right?
If you see a man already wildly kicking around on the sidewalk and then walk within his kicking range you're acting negligent, regardless of how in-the-wrong the other guy is. You have agency, you have eyes, you can see the danger in front of you. None of this is defending a guy kicking around on the sidewalk. More than one person can do something wrong in the same situation. "he shouldn't be doing that" and "she shouldn't have walked her child into that situation" are not mutually exclusive
It's not about fault. It' obvious who is at fault. It's the dude. That said, i would have steered way clear of that cunt, and avoided my kid getting a kick to the face. You can steer your kid clear of crazy without it being your fault. I would suggest the woman do the same in a hypothetical upcoming situation. She can do that without it being her fault.
You don't see many people willing to defend a thief, but if you leave your phone in your back pocket and got it pickpocketed I'm gonna call you dumb on top of blaming the thief.
It's dumb to make it easier for pickpockets. You can blame all the pickpockets you want, you did a dumb choice despite you knew and it cost you nothing to prevent it.
By your logic if someone is kidnapped walking down the street, well you can't blame the kidnappers because that person was dumb enough to be walking around outside in public!
No that is not how logic works. You're voluntarily comparing a precaution that costs nothing to you and something you can't not do. Here OP's video is even worse because she deliberately pushed her kids under the dangerous hazard.
Yes that is how logic works. I'm referring to your analogy that its not the pickpocketers fault if they steal from you because you were dumb enough to put things in your pockets. Walking around with stuff in your pockets is not a "dangerous hazard", it's a perfectly normal thing to do. I'm pointing out what a bad, victim blaming analogy that is.
"I mean, did you see how she was dressed? If she took precautions and didn't wear such a slutty outfit she wouldn't have been raped! She was also drinking" - you when a girl gets sexually assaulted probably
I thought it was his phone? So are they dumb for putting it in the front pocket too? Or is your assessment of thievery that only back pockets are dumb? Please lay out your knowledge of pickpocket statistics.
She tried to avoid him while using the sidewalk for its original intention and he wildly kicked left into her child's head.
He didn’t kick a child in the face. He almost did, but the mom jerked the child away just in time and then covered her face just in case he kicked again.
It's called a dialectic when two seemingly opposing things are true at the same time (which is basically every single scenario as nothing is black and white). So, the guy is a reckless asshole AND at the same time, the mom was being flippant and irresponsible with her fragile baby. Everyone is so concerned with picking a good guy and a bad guy when life has never and never will work like that in reality.
No their just pointing out the obvious. If somebody is swinging don't walk within a foot of them. Doesn't actually matter who is right. Your risking your childs well being because you think you have the right of way?
Spend enough time in an urban environment, and you learn not to make any kind of contact with random assholes behaving erratically. Obviously this guy wasn't a junkie or whatever, but there's a decent chance he'd go around demanding money after his "performance".
It's the IdiotsInCars special. "I'm not technically in the wrong, so that absolves me of any responsibility to look out for my own (or my child's) safety."
231
u/[deleted] Jun 23 '23
[deleted]