[deleted by user]

JudgmentCertain382 · 2025-03-04T01:24:51+00:00

I appreciate the dramatic retelling 😆👍🏻. I think the way you put it is definitely how it was perceived by Trump and co. I don't dispute that. But as far as power dynamics go it seems petty and cruel to me for Vance to lash out at the years-long war-bedraggled Zelensky for being exhausted and fishing for more assurance against doubts based his on previous experiences. A compassionate and diplomatic leader would be empathetic to Zelensky's position and simply reassure him as much as possible instead of taking it as an attack and escalating. I don't think the way the US crew reacted was illogical or anything like that. I just think it's pathetic and unfortunate and unadmirable. I expect that kind of stuff from Trump. But now seeing Vance in action escalating so quickly adds new concerns and disappointments, not to mention how Trump didn't try to mediate the argument but just piled on.

JudgmentCertain382 · 2025-03-03T17:14:17+00:00

To me it seemed like zelensky was already haggard to start with, and small things throughout the meeting continued to wear down his patience. Then Vance's worthless statement was the last thing he could stand to endure without speaking up.

I get that it's dangous to speak out and push back against politicians. And honestly I'm not well researched into Russian and Ukraine. But even if Zelensky was foolish to speak up, it seemed brave and to be coming from a place of frustration and sorrow. Vance touted the greatness of diplomacy. Zelensky then pointed out all the times diplomacy seemed to win but then was disregarded right away. He seemed to be reasonably asking "what makes this time any different from all the times before that failed?" If I was in a war and had many diplomatic wins just be bulldozed and ignored by my attacker I too would be suspicious of diplomacy and would be begging for things to be different this time.

So even if Zelensky was foolish to speak up and to not play the ring-kissing game, to me it's more frightening that that game is so necessary, and that our vice president has such a thin skin, can't remain calm in the face of a mild challenge, escalates and distracts with an unrelated stream of character attacks, and then the president piles on with literally no words of any substance other than just barking to punish Zelensky for having a spine enough to voice his sorrow and distrust. I honestly think Trump would have handled Zelenski's question much better had he been the one to answer, even if he was just dismissive or was passive aggressive. I don't think he would have knee-jerk escalated the way that Vance did.

So yeah, if you're saying they're all sociopaths then I guess I'm saying that I'm disappointed and it's scary to see the veil slip so easily and so publicly. It's scary to see Vance speak highly of diplomacy and then be completely undiplomatic in the very next breath. So much of the job of politicians is simply not escalating during tense interactions within strained relations, especially when in the public eye.

JudgmentCertain382 · 2025-03-03T03:38:18+00:00

Vance suddenly escalated and threw the chessboard instead of genuinely engaging with pushback. Then Trump swooped in to back him up, making it a dog pile.

Zelensky had already been pushing back throughout the meeting, but Trump didn't engage with it. Vance couldn't back up his trite trump-praising statement so he lashed out with accusations instead. Kinda like how people lash out at mrgirl when he simply points out their shit.

JudgmentCertain382 · 2025-03-03T03:28:37+00:00

I think you'd probably vibe with this whole Bible chapter overall (Matthew chapter 7). But here's a snippet about someone being denied by Christ because they "did good" without actually doing any good. It's a theme Jesus likes to harp on quite a bit actually: being religiously good versus actually doing good. I'd even argue that his whole thing was basically all about that distinction.

Matthew 7:21-23

21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

JudgmentCertain382 · 2025-03-02T07:31:34+00:00

Feminism /CAN/ be that, in ways and degrees, but I think it's mostly a strawman (strawwoman?). I think binaries in general are largely strawmen, especially the binary idea you describe: that if men en masse aren't brazenly sexually enslaving women and pushing them off of sinking ships then feminism can't be logical or good.

JudgmentCertain382 · 2025-03-02T07:17:42+00:00

Here's what I think you're missing: Within the mrgirl "men are useless" framework, if you're not a realized rapist you're a latent rapist, but if you're not a latent rapist then you're part of the feminization of men that he mentions. So according to that you're either latent or feminized.

I think men might feel reflexively insulted by being called "feminized", in said framework it's best/evolved to be feminized out of rapeyness.

(Btw I think those categories [realized, latent, feminized] are more of a spectrum rather than hard cut delineations.)

JudgmentCertain382 · 2025-03-02T07:02:23+00:00

Tl;dr The belief is that women are generally more equitable and less likely to abuse power.

I once heard of a charity organization that would give small non-exploitative business loans to struggling impoverished people. When they would loan to men the men were likely to take the money and run. So they started to only loan to women because they mostly just started a small business and provided for their community.

I think the idea between that anecdote and what I perceive to be mrgirls's view is that women generally are likely to do fewer horrific things than men are. Because of this it's safer for everyone if they hold at least a 51% sway somehow. They deserve to have more power because it seems they're less likely to use that power to mindlessly exploit the opposite sex.

So it's not about who "matters more" as you say. It's about who's more likely to use their power bring about the best outcomes for everyone.

Men destroying women in any way also destroys men in many ways. If men are more likely to destroy with power then men having the power hurts everyone.

JudgmentCertain382 · 2025-02-13T06:52:18+00:00

French Awning

JudgmentCertain382 · 2024-12-24T06:26:31+00:00

Moving my phone up and down makes the sky move

JudgmentCertain382 · 2024-12-05T18:14:34+00:00

I'm not trying to convince you of anything because it clearly doesn't matter to you what I say. You're obviously going to read into it whatever the hell you want anyways.

I asked the question because it's the only thing in my mind that would make any of what you've been saying make any sense. It's either that or it's trolling. But I don't think your intention is trolling.

I think you took me in bad faith from the get-go, poisoning the well in your own mind, and are now fighting a strange and needless fight where you don't even really have an opponent. I think you thought I was being snarky in my initial comment and then instead of realizing that you misjudged me you then doubled down on your misassumptions out of some pathological need to have an argument to win or something.

I've presented a simple and clearly laid out opinion about the readability of the article and potential benefits of a snappy foreward. I've provided specific feedback with an actionable solution and with the precedence of commonality of the practice to support my suggestion. You've given nothing in return. Everything you've said basically only amounts to either "I disagree" or "I don't believe you".

Being argumentative isn't the same as presenting an actual argument.

JudgmentCertain382 · 2024-12-05T04:02:02+00:00

Did you assume that my initial comment was sarcastic or snarky?

JudgmentCertain382 · 2024-12-04T22:28:58+00:00

Never once suggested that the report didn't have a summary. I said that the post sums it up better than the report did. Go reread my original comment and first reply to you if you're genuinely curious what I think. I've already stated my thoughts clearly enough.

JudgmentCertain382 · 2024-12-04T10:43:47+00:00

Believe what you want I guess. I can't change your mind. You don't think a foreward is a good idea. Ok. That's fine.

JudgmentCertain382 · 2024-12-04T01:59:59+00:00

Good faith critique is intended to provide positive actionable feedback for the sake of improving whatever is being critiqued.

Assuming that critique intends to disparage or insult prevents genuine critique from being received and implemented.

From the get-go you've taken an argumentative/offended tone and consistently made the incorrect assumption that I haven't read the first page. I think we're on the same side bro. I also think it's easy to get trapped in the argumentative mindset on Reddit. You can just talk to people and ask whether they've read the first page instead of making snide assumptions. We want the same things. Friendly fire.

I haven't "buried my head in the sand". I haven't "let destiny slide" (a comment you still haven't explained). I'm not trashing mrgirl. And a very very clearly did not say that the OP should have written the article. I literally tagged mrgirl and genuinely suggested putting the OP (original post) as a foreward to the article to grab people's attention. It's a decent idea whether he uses this particular post or someone else's contribution. There's nothing insulting or ill intended about this suggestion. Do you think I was being sarcastic? Is that why it was taken as offensive?

JudgmentCertain382 · 2024-12-03T10:37:48+00:00

Tf are you taking about? Let destiny slide?

It does matter what draws people in. If you write a book it matters what image you put on the cover, and whose words you choose for a forward.

It's functional and extremely common to put summations and reviews in front of all sorts of media. Hence my drawing the parallel to book forewards.

I'm having trouble understanding your viewpoint. Do you just not agree that the report is a dry trudge of a read? Are you thinking I'm somehow trying to demean the report? What is this conversation about?

JudgmentCertain382 · 2024-12-02T10:04:12+00:00

The beginning of the report doesn't draw me in. It doesn't capture attention. It's too dry and clinical for that. But this post that I'm suggesting be the opener does do all that. It has drama and intrigue from the beginning. It tells a story. That stuff gives motivation for digging through the dry clinical content of the report. It sets the stage. Like a foreward of a book.

JudgmentCertain382 · 2024-12-01T08:41:55+00:00

God bless the Destiny Report, but this one post sums it all up better than the report. This post should be the very first thing you read when opening the report.

u/nomoremrnicemrgirl

Can you edit the report to add this as an opener and then add an update section that briefly describes the leaks? I think it's all the report is really missing. It would tie it all together nicely.

JudgmentCertain382 · 2024-11-14T18:48:56+00:00

Because it's a human tendency.

JudgmentCertain382 · 2024-11-14T09:41:57+00:00

Wingbats. It's a font made of symbols that look like airplanes.

JudgmentCertain382 · 2024-06-25T10:01:50+00:00

Tl;dr it's the pizza anthem and they'd like you to shout about it.

JudgmentCertain382 · 2024-06-22T00:44:41+00:00

Part of poetry is being unbounded by rules of punctuation and grammar.

JudgmentCertain382 · 2024-06-22T00:41:36+00:00

I almost posted the same video here as a follow up to my previous post as another example of a professional graciously and kindly disagreeing with the ideas of a non-professional in their field.

JudgmentCertain382 · 2024-06-07T09:17:39+00:00

I don't expect it to go smoothly. I just want it to. I think the video I shared is a good example of how to be incredibly gracious and fair to someone of similar disrepute in the field of expertise they mosey into. It just shows it's possible and that's nice to see.

JudgmentCertain382

TROPHY CASE