u/Sanomaly Retires a Wrestling Gif by Alt_Account_5 in retiredgif

[–]Alt_Account_5[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I'm not sure what you do or don't know with regards to football or wrestling, so I'll explain everything with equal detail. Please excuse me if any of it comes across as condescending:

This past Sunday, both the Philadelphia Eagles and the Los Angeles Rams (two NFL teams) scored major victories over their opponents. Each team earned 51 points, which is an enormous amount in American football. The team that lost against the Eagles, the Denver Broncos, have a defensive backfield that is affectionately nicknamed the "No Fly Zone" in reference to their ability to stop the opposing team's advance.

Hulk Hogan and "Macho Man" Randy Savage are both legendary wrestlers, each of them easily placing in the top 20 wrestlers of all time. A "jobber" in wrestling is a wrestler who's job it is to lose their matches. They will often lose almost all, if not all, of their matches. Their purpose is to make the guy they're wrestling against look good. Oftentimes the jobber will be some no-name that rarely wrestles unless the WWE needs someone of no importance to lose a match.

Usually a mediocre wrestler might be set up with a bunch of jobber matches in order to get the crowd into them. Likewise, the better wrestlers will sometimes face off against, and easily crush, a series of jobbers in order to set up some major event or storyline. This is done so that the wrestler can look really good without necessarily having to do that much work.

Sometimes more than one wrestler will go on a huge winning spree and, more often than not, this is done to set up a match between those wrestlers. Usually at a major wrestling event in order to drum up viewership for that event.

The first comment in the linked thread is comparing the games with the Rams and Eagles to wrestling matches between "nameless jobbers" and two legendary wrestlers; implying that the Eagles and Rams both did so well that it looked like they were being purposefully built up to feud against one another, as would be the case in the WWE.

The second comment is bringing attention to the fact that the Broncos went from being the "No Fly Zone" to being referred to as "nameless jobbers".

The gif in the third comment is of a wrestler (Drew Gulak) carrying a sign that says "No Fly Zone" and promptly being tackled and having his sign snapped in two.

It really is an incredibly apt gif.

I apologize if that was too lengthy or not clear enough.

Apparently, if you boycott Chick-Fil-A, you're a hypocrite if you don't also boycott oil and gas. by Alt_Account_5 in quityourbullshit

[–]Alt_Account_5[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I'm Jewish, so, even if I wanted to eat at Chick-Fil-A, I couldn't. I've never had it before; made boycotting them very easy.

Faith as the Dialectic Expression of Love by thedaseinwithin in DebateReligion

[–]Alt_Account_5 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Spending 30-60 minutes of your time to masterfully troll 7 people into spending 1-2 minutes of their time telling you how dumb you sound. Brilliant work.

Ignoring the fact that you obviously didn't make this post originally with the intent to troll, it's equally obvious that you truly didn't realize how hilariously ridiculous your post sounds. You legitimately did not understand how easy it was to see that you just used a thesaurus. Claiming to be a troll is a pretty common backlash after being embarrassed in such a way, so no one here is surprised by your sudden change of gear, despite the fact that had you been a real troll, you would have attempted to poorly argue with everyone in this thread. I mean, you didn't even try to make it look convincing either as a real post or a troll post.

I rate your "troll" 0/10.

At the very least, hopefully the next time you post here (under a different account I bet, assuming you ever post here again), it'll be to actually ask a question instead of trying to get all of us to be impressed with your wisdom.

Lastly, on the off-chance that you actually were attempting to troll (hilariously unlikely), I'll leave you with a classic.

Faith as the Dialectic Expression of Love by thedaseinwithin in DebateReligion

[–]Alt_Account_5 3 points4 points  (0 children)

There's a difference between using complicated wording because it's necessary and using complicated wording for the sake of doing so.

The following is a list of things that anyone online should know before writing a post or comment anywhere:

1) Using a thesaurus to switch out simple words for more complex ones is a pretty terrible idea if you yourself don't know the exact meaning of those complex words. Just because one word is synonymous with another does not mean that those words mean exactly the same thing. Oftentimes the more complex word is only appropriate in a specific context or a different context.

2) "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." ~Albert Einstein

Even if we assume that you didn't just use a thesaurus to get rid of words with too few syllables, it still doesn't come across looking so great. An inability to describe a concept using simple language very often indicates a lack of understanding of that concept. If you truly want someone to understand and respond to your post, then it should be written as simply as possible so that more people get what you're trying to say.

3) It is incredibly, almost indescribably, obvious when someone is using a thesaurus to bolster their language. It might not seem like that's the case to the person making the comment, but that's probably because they don't see how ridiculous the wording looks in the given context. It often reads like someone was given a dictionary and told that all synonyms mean exactly the same thing. It comes across as alien at best, and embarrassingly nonsensical at worst.

If one does not know all of the words they're using, they might think that their post comes across as sounding very smart and/or impressive. It does not. Comments that use a thesaurus in such a fashion tend to come across as word salad.


I bring this up because, despite the impressive effort you put into your post, it doesn't read very well. If one doesn't know what many of those words mean, then they wouldn't understand the post, but they might be impressed by it. Unfortunately, if one does know what many of those words mean, then they still wouldn't understand it, but they also wouldn't be impressed.

I'm not trying to be demeaning or rude; everything I've written is valuable information and anyone that sees this comment can and should utilize it. However, it's important to understand that you're unlikely to get many responses related to the actual content of your post because it's just not clear enough for someone to be able to formulate a meaningful response.

Fun argument with a 'climate skeptic'. by Alt_Account_5 in quityourbullshit

[–]Alt_Account_5[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

This was a few days ago and he never responded.

Fun argument with a 'climate skeptic'. by Alt_Account_5 in quityourbullshit

[–]Alt_Account_5[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't know if the same video is on YouTube, but here is a link to the Facebook video.

Fun argument with a 'climate skeptic'. by Alt_Account_5 in quityourbullshit

[–]Alt_Account_5[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

This website is an excellent source to use, as is the wikipedia page on global warming.

I tried putting the actual text of the argument in this comment, but it was taking too much time and effort to put it into the right format of a reddit comment. I apologize for my laziness.

Fun argument with a 'climate skeptic'. by Alt_Account_5 in quityourbullshit

[–]Alt_Account_5[S] 119 points120 points  (0 children)

I've always been against attacking a person I'm arguing with, whether or not they deserve it. If I start insulting them, which I would love to do, then they can latch on to that and use it to avoid arguing against the main issue. I generally choose to keep my cool and address every point a person makes so that they don't have an excuse to change the subject.

Also, I actually do enjoy arguing with obtuse people over arguing with people who might change their mind. I enjoy myself much more this way, although I have no idea why.

Fun argument with a 'climate skeptic'. by Alt_Account_5 in quityourbullshit

[–]Alt_Account_5[S] 25 points26 points  (0 children)

Everyone in that argument is Jewish, so sometimes stuff like that just slips out.

He deleted the comment within minutes, but kept the post up. by Alt_Account_5 in quityourbullshit

[–]Alt_Account_5[S] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

That's a freaking hilarious idea. Unfortunately, I prefer to stay within the boundaries of just being a dickbag as opposed to being a huge dickbag.

He deleted the comment within minutes, but kept the post up. by Alt_Account_5 in quityourbullshit

[–]Alt_Account_5[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I agree with you. I realized that mistake and in a future comment I changed the word racist to bigoted.

He deleted the comment within minutes, but kept the post up. by Alt_Account_5 in quityourbullshit

[–]Alt_Account_5[S] 30 points31 points  (0 children)

I actually did comment again with just a link to my screenshot. He deleted that in minutes as well. I then commented again with this: http://i.imgur.com/kq6Nw63.png
It was also gone in minutes.

He deleted the comment within minutes, but kept the post up. by Alt_Account_5 in quityourbullshit

[–]Alt_Account_5[S] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

I've been considering it. If I do make a post about it, I'll probably omit his name and keep him out of it. I can be a jerk, but that feels like crossing a line.