News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
If someone needs my help and is hanging out with me and doesn't ask me for help, how am I supposed to know?
OH NO!
Poor rich people! They have it so hard!
That's the whole point. You aren't. You've just been alerted to this asocial behavior being a sign of someone suffering, so you ask. You just want to assume they are a bad person not worthy of friendship.
Do you honestly need it to be explained that rich people can suffer from mental and emotional problems as well? Taking that away from them is just blatant dehumanization.
Well, if they don't pay attention to me saying "let me know if you need any help," then, again, they're not a very good friend. I can't help it if they don't care enough about what I've told them to just ask me for help. If they asked me for money, again, I wouldn't think "they need help." I get that you would, but I wouldn't.
And sure, rich people can suffer from mental and emotional problems. They also can afford a therapist.
I'm not sure what to say, it's been pointed out that this is kind of like a cry for help, and you still insist on holding it against them. I guess we're still squarely in the time if people seeing mental health issues as personality flaws.
I wouldn't have known that without reading this article, would I? Which was my point.
I originally responded to you claiming it was "just shitty behavior." Are you telling me you had read the article at that point?
That is simply false. You originally responded to this comment:
Holy nit-pick, batman. I was one post off, but the timing remained the same and the question still exactly the same.
Okay, well you clearly know what I meant better than I did.
I literally asked you a question because your post made no sense in the context of having read the article first. And that is the equivalent to knowing what you are talking about. Lol
You asked a question that you answered yourself in the next sentence without my response. This is what you said:
https://lemmy.world/comment/9372718
Now you're upset about a response to your rhetorical question you didn't like?
Incidentally, I never said anything about anyone being an asshole when you said that, this is what I said:
You can try being dishonest about a conversation everyone can see, but it won't work very well.
So, wait, had you read the article at that point or not? If so, what the fuck did you mean? I'm really confused because you are going off on some other tangent at this point.
To explain, I feel like your position has totally shifted with no admission that something said earlier was wrong, so I'm trying to figure out if I misunderstood or if you are just pretending at this point that you weren't actually arguing what you were. So far, you've dodged it with every post, more and more so trying to make it about me.
I don't think you actually want to know what I meant. You've already decided you know.
Don't blame me for your inability to explain yourself.
Although, when you complained "well you clearly know what I meant better than I did" I should have known this was a warning that it was something you did, or were going to do.
I'm perfectly capable of explaining myself. You just obviously don't want me to do so if it isn't saying what you want to hear.
Then stop being a hypocrite, telling me you know better than I know about what I meant, and simply explain yourself. This shouldnt be that hard.
If you actually wanted me to explain myself, you would have done it a long time ago. Whatever I say now doesn't matter, you'll find a way to argue with it.
Oh, so it's not that you can't, it's that you realize any explanation will be BS and I won't let that slide.
That I agree with.
As I said, you don't actually want me to clarify because you'll find a reason to disagree with whatever I say.
Again with the hypocrisy that you know what I want better than I do.
But good on you for ignoring the "pointless" exercise of actually defending your claims, in favor of the pointless exercise of just claiming the other person isn't fault for your inability.
Really makes the implicit claim that you are avoiding something "pointless" very strong.
I quoted the words you said. You literally said any explanation I gave would be bullshit.
Yes, we both know its true. Your ego is too fragile to admit you are wrong, and you've realized that you've painted yourself into a corner. The only thing left is to attack me and make it my fault. So of course any attempt at an explanation will be BS.
That being said, I would be happy to be proved wrong and would admit to it right here and right now. This is one of those advantages of seeking the truth rather than trying to be right.
I'm not attacking you or making it your fault. Once again, you said any explanation I gave would be bullshit, so there's no point in giving an explanation.
I can't help what you said.
"I'm not making it your fault...but here's what you just said and why it means I can't explain myself."
Lol
Yet again, if literally any explanation I can possibly give would be a lie, why should I bother?
So wait, now it is my fault? Two posts ago it was my fault. Then the last post it was not my fault,... But actually my fault. And now it's fully my fault again. I can't keep up with this rollercoaster! Lol
You realize it says a lot about you that you are willing to do this rather than just try to explain yourself.
Yet again- if any explanation I give is a lie, why should I explain myself?
So now we're back to you just blaming me for your inability to explain yourself. Probably won't even admit that you were wrong when you claimed you weren't blaming me.
Do you want me to explain myself?
Stop arguing with flying squid, the guy hates rich people
So I go out with a rich friend and they want to stop and get a drink in a bar they like the look of, they buy us each a pint and it costs $14. Later I have to send them seven dollars which means I have to cut down on my food shopping and worry about spending, maybe I have to cancel going out with another friend.
They don't care about this and nor do you, the only thing that matters is the rich person might feel anxious about their social status? That's total bullshit, don't you think I'd feel shitty sitting there not drinking with them or ruining their evening by declining the suggestion to stop for a drink like I would alone? When do my social fears matter in this equation? Oh of course, never because it was written by some affluent fuckwit trying to justify the fact all their old friends find them insufferable.
'They don't care about the 4 dollars' quote actually translates to 'they don't care about you as a person or any difficulties you might go through in a practical sense because a lingering self-doubt that everyone has regardless of the situation trumps all'
Everyone worries that their friends don't really like them, it's part of being human. Pushing that onto your friend as a practical problem when they already have the many emotional, psychological, and practical worries associated with the situation is a selfish dick move.
You've learned that it's a cry for help. What you choose to do with it is up to you.
But I was responding to someone claiming this was just shitty behavior, and suggesting it makes them a bad person. I was addressing this. It's quite presumptuous to turn that into me not caring about what happened in some hypothetical situation that you just posed to me right now.
But the point we're making is it's not a cry for help it's pushing their emotional problems on someone else in a physical form while refusing to take on board other people's emotional problems caused by their poorer economic position.
'Beating my wife is actualy a cry for help, pity me!' No you're an awful person objectively in the wrong.
Just writing an article about how hard done by you are doesn't change the reality you're in the better position in every regard and pushing your issues onto your friends is not the action of an actual friend. Suck it up or use money on therapy.