Susaga

joined 1 year ago
 

"But you ARE a lawyer."

"Yeah, so where's my present?"

[–] Susaga@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

We don't even know if you even read about it. Unless I have experience of what you're talking about, I can't say you're wrong. Heck, even if I have experience, I don't know that you didn't just have a different experience.

You can find a good source for your claims, or some supporting evidence, or someone else can come along and back you up. I still wouldn't know, given how easily you can fake sources on the internet, so you could still be lying.

At a certain point, you just need to take it on faith.

[–] Susaga@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 days ago

Yes, but the only people with the power to stop them have a conflict of interest too.

[–] Susaga@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

In that timeline, Loraine shot Biff, causing old Biff to slowly fade once he got back to 2015. It wasn't explicit in the final cut, but you can see him in pain when he leaves the Delorean.

So, is Melania going to shoot Trump?

[–] Susaga@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'm not American. I don't know what those terms mean. I just have a skybox.

[–] Susaga@sh.itjust.works 8 points 3 days ago (4 children)

My TV lets me pause live TV, so I pause, leave the room for a bit, come back and fast forward through the ads.

[–] Susaga@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

What wrong thing am I repeating? Where did you address the lyrics themselves and not the context the lyrics were written in? Why is my interpretation flawed? Why is your interpretation the only one allowed? How does the first portrayal of a song supporting my interpretation of the song make that a problem?

And as I asked before, yet you ignored, why the fuck are you complaining about someone being bothered by the song?

[–] Susaga@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

Jesus fuck, this is some bad faith. I was ignoring nothing. I was asleep. You waited 7 hours to reply to me, and you couldn't let me sleep for 5 without me "ignoring what you don’t want to hear". Waking up and seeing three extremely long comments that amount to re-explaining the historical context of the song while not actually addressing how the song is about pressuring someone into staying over didn't really seem worthy of reply.

Plus, the idea that you copied someone else's comment as spam just makes it worse.

If you're allowed to use "it's an old song" as your argument, then I'm allowed to use the first presentation of the song to the public as mine. And since the presentation of the song has ALWAYS been one person pressuring another into staying over despite their protests, it's always been rapey.

The only real defence in pointing out historical context is to say that a rapey song was not unacceptable for the time period. So what?

The song is a problem for people who don't want to hear someone pressuring someone into illicit relationships. It's not "willfully ignorant", and your idea that someone not liking something is just because they don't understand it is DEEPLY troubling.

If it's okay to be bothered by the song, as you directly state, then why the fuck are you complaining about someone being bothered by the song?

[–] Susaga@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 week ago (5 children)

You provided historical context while not actually addressing the contents of the song. There's really nothing to respond to. Plus, I can't have been ignoring anything since I was asleep. There is no point in spamming this.

[–] Susaga@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 week ago

I admit, I would have brushed it off as just a bit weird if it weren't for the memory of the guy who kept posting about gut stabs. But seeing the comment where they describe the stomach as a soft and vulnerable area rang such a specific bell that I couldn't ignore it.

Plus, they asked this question in two question subs (deleting one of them), and they only seem to want to know the general opinion on justified self-defence. If they aren't a troll, their motives are bizzare.

[–] Susaga@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago

Yeah, pretty much. Look at how often the word "belly" comes up, especially combined with being described as soft and vulnerable. Then ask yourself why half the post was a vivid description of the stab, but there wasn't ANY description of the scene of the incident.

[–] Susaga@sh.itjust.works -4 points 1 week ago (9 children)

...No she fucking isn't. She never says she wants to stay.

I simply must go (Baby, it's cold outside)
The answer is, "No" (But, baby, it's cold outside)

She says no. He ignores her. I don't give a fuck what was intended, I only care about what was said. What was said was a violation of consent. If you want the intent to reflect in the song to a modern ear (which are the only ears we have) then change the lyrics.

 

So they can hide in cherry trees.

Alright, why don't you ever see elephants hiding in cherry trees?

Because they're very good at it.

 

Silly or serious, big or small, I wanna see them!

view more: next ›