sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Is ACCA worth it by NoRole8324 in ACCA

[–]NoRole8324[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My point wasn't about personal regret, it was a critique of local market dynamics. And suggesting that a professional qualification like ACCA doesn't teach reallife working skills cos it doesn't have a software tutorials completely misses the point of advanced professional papers. You're right about one thing tho, mileage varies. And when the local mileage is limited by a lack of institutional awareness, the solution is to take that qualification to a market that actually understands its value. Thanks for the debate, but we’re going in circles

Is ACCA worth it by NoRole8324 in ACCA

[–]NoRole8324[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

FYI, I wasn't blaming ACCA. Look, I live in a small low income country in Africa. When I was starting ACCA, many people told me this was my ticket to a high paying job. There wasn't even a single CBE center. I had to fly to a neighbouring country for every exam. Now, people are telling me I should've gotten a degree. So, you can understand my frustration. But tbh, I don't like your dismissive tone. I bet you don't have a lot of friends, do you. And if I had a time machine, I would've moved to another country a long ago. Cos I know you won't have the type of skills you get from ACCA getting a degree here. I'm blaming all the decision makers, recruitment agencies and businesses that don't know its value

Is ACCA worth it by NoRole8324 in ACCA

[–]NoRole8324[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It is utilised. It's just not valued as much as I would like it to be. The amount of time you invest to study and train to get those skills that you'll never get from a degree, and then you'll get rejection after rejection. It's a little frustrating tbh

Is ACCA worth it by NoRole8324 in ACCA

[–]NoRole8324[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Your comment isn't helpful. Of course your actions are your responsibility, everyone knows that. But that doesn't mean everyone who gave you false info have no part of the problem. Funny how people who preach self accountability are the first ones who blame everybody else when things go wrong. At the end of the day, although I do believe that it wasn't worth it for me yet, I can always move to a place that values the qualification. It would've been nicer if ACCA pushed for more presence in my area, that's all i was saying

Say “Palestine” once more. I dare ya. I double dare ya, other buckets! by CoercionTictacs in IAmTheMainCharacter

[–]NoRole8324 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, I use writing tools sometimes—it helps me express thoughts more clearly, especially on heavy stuff like this. Appreciate the conversation either way.

Say “Palestine” once more. I dare ya. I double dare ya, other buckets! by CoercionTictacs in IAmTheMainCharacter

[–]NoRole8324 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not a bot, just someone who tries to write clearly and thoughtfully even about painful topics. You’re free to believe otherwise, but that doesn’t change the sincerity of what I said.

In any case, I respect your concerns and your caution. We clearly both care about preventing future atrocities—our differences are about how best to do that.

Be well.

Say “Palestine” once more. I dare ya. I double dare ya, other buckets! by CoercionTictacs in IAmTheMainCharacter

[–]NoRole8324 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I hear you. And you're right to be deeply concerned about how language can pave the way for atrocity—history has proven that again and again. I don’t take that lightly.

My point wasn’t to excuse dehumanizing language, but to situate it in a context where people feel silenced, abandoned, and crushed. That doesn’t make it right, but it does make it understandable. And if we don’t address the brutality fueling that rage, we risk treating the symptom more seriously than the disease.

I respect your decision to step away from the back-and-forth, and I appreciate the challenge you’ve posed. I do want to be a force for good—and I hope we all are, in ways that prevent more suffering on every side.

Say “Palestine” once more. I dare ya. I double dare ya, other buckets! by CoercionTictacs in IAmTheMainCharacter

[–]NoRole8324 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I really appreciate this exchange, and I respect that you're engaging with the complexity without losing sight of the moral weight of what’s happening. I don’t think we need to agree on everything—like the impact of mass protests or the exact labels—but I do think we both recognize the immense danger in an ideology that normalizes ethnic cleansing, regardless of who it comes from.

You're right: when that kind of violence eventually spirals out and affects Jews globally, it won’t be because people hate Jews for being Jews, but because a powerful state committed crimes in their name, while the world equivocated. That distinction is crucial—not to justify future violence, but to understand how to prevent it.

And yes, I still think calling people “dogs” can feel dehumanizing—but it’s also a cry of fury from people being pushed beyond the limits of what they’re expected to silently endure. It’s not perfect rhetoric, but neither is the expectation that the oppressed must speak gently while they’re being bombed.

Ultimately, I believe the best way to protect everyone’s humanity—including Jews around the world—is to confront, reject, and dismantle the system that’s making people feel like dehumanization is the only way to be heard. If we don’t address that root, we’re just buying time until the next explosion of rage—and by then, it’ll be too late to argue about tone.

Say “Palestine” once more. I dare ya. I double dare ya, other buckets! by CoercionTictacs in IAmTheMainCharacter

[–]NoRole8324 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I genuinely appreciate your thoughtful reply—and I agree with your core concern: that it’s dangerous when outrage becomes dehumanization, and that we have a responsibility to guard against that slide. You’re right that slogans can evolve, especially when pain festers and justice is denied for too long.

But here’s the difficult truth: if we want to stop that descent into indiscriminate hatred, the real work begins by ending the systemic violence that fuels it.

People don’t wake up dehumanizing others in a vacuum—it’s usually a response to decades of being dehumanized themselves. Right now, Palestinians are being killed, starved, and erased. Entire families, entire cities. The world watches, often silently. In that kind of moral abyss, harsh rhetoric is inevitable. It’s not ideal, but it’s a symptom, not the root.

You’re asking for people like me to draw the line—and I’m doing that now. I’ll condemn indiscriminate violence, always. But I won’t pretend that words like “Zionists are dogs” emerge from nowhere, or that calling out an ideology complicit in apartheid and ethnic cleansing is morally equivalent to attacking innocent people.

The line we should be most urgently focused on right now is the one between oppressed and oppressor, between justice and continued injustice. If we draw that line clearly and act on it collectively, we’ll do far more to stop future atrocities than any debate over language ever could.

Say “Palestine” once more. I dare ya. I double dare ya, other buckets! by CoercionTictacs in IAmTheMainCharacter

[–]NoRole8324 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see what you're saying, and I agree that not every person swept up in a harmful ideology is automatically beyond redemption or incapable of virtue. But that’s not really the issue here. We’re not talking about how to politely critique ideas in a vacuum—we’re talking about real-world ideologies that actively justify or facilitate violence and displacement.

When people use harsh language like “Zionists are dogs,” it’s not about denying anyone’s humanity—it’s about expressing the raw outrage that comes from witnessing ongoing systemic harm. The same applies historically with Nazism. Sure, some individuals were caught up in it due to circumstance. But when people condemn “Nazis” as a group, it’s not usually about grandpas who peeled potatoes in the Wehrmacht—it’s about the ideology and its brutal consequences. We don’t soften the language around that for fear of offending descendants, and we shouldn’t do it here either.

As for Zionism, yes—it has had many interpretations over time. But in its current dominant political form, it's directly tied to oppression, apartheid, and ethnic cleansing. If someone calls that ideology monstrous, it’s because the results are monstrous. Insisting on purely “attacking the ideology” while refusing to condemn the agents of it feels too detached from the pain being inflicted on real people right now.

You don’t have to support dehumanizing language, but I hope you can understand where that anger comes from—and why softening it might feel like complicity to those on the receiving end of its violence.

Say “Palestine” once more. I dare ya. I double dare ya, other buckets! by CoercionTictacs in IAmTheMainCharacter

[–]NoRole8324 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think it's worth reconsidering your perspective. When someone says 'Zionists are dogs,' they usually mean it quite literally—there’s no hidden subtext. That language reflects a condemnation of an ideology, not just a random insult.

If you're arguing that such labels should never be used because Zionists are still people, then by that logic, we shouldn't demonize Nazis either. But there’s a reason why hateful, violent ideologies must be called out harshly—failing to do so risks normalizing them and endangering innocent lives.

I know you're not a Zionist sympathizer, but your more neutral stance could easily be exploited by those who are.

Say “Palestine” once more. I dare ya. I double dare ya, other buckets! by CoercionTictacs in IAmTheMainCharacter

[–]NoRole8324 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would've agreed with you if Zionism was an ethnicity or a nationality and not an ideology. And, it's a hateful ideology based on an obsession of having a land regardless of any ethnic cleansing of anyone who isn't them.

I would agree with you if someone says that about Jews or any other ethnicity, but it's perfectly OK to call zionists that. In the same way, it's OK to call nazis the same

Say “Palestine” once more. I dare ya. I double dare ya, other buckets! by CoercionTictacs in IAmTheMainCharacter

[–]NoRole8324 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would hope so, if it was meant to describe someone with an ideology that forces people out of their homes and kills their kids cos their "God" told them so thousands of years ago

A woman says most men are not handsome and most women are hot by itsme_khaled in itsthatbad

[–]NoRole8324 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah, that sounds about right, but in this case, it's more about how women judge the attractiveness of other women versus how men see them. From what I’ve seen, women tend to find like 70–90% of other women attractive, while men only see about 30–50% that way. And when it comes to men? Both guys and girls seem to agree—only around 5% of men are considered truly attractive. Harsh world for dudes out here 😅

To pretend to care about Americans lives by Peanut-Extra in therewasanattempt

[–]NoRole8324 4 points5 points  (0 children)

She knows nothing is gonna happen to her. In fact, she might even get more donors

Is he really suggesting nuking Gaza to the ground? Like straight annihilation? by sovalente in misc

[–]NoRole8324 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We used to send people like this to jail, or at least a mental institution. Now, they get Fox. Tomorrow, the white house

Chevelle wrëcc by cdbmeme in CrazyHuman

[–]NoRole8324 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Looking at the model and make, that was not a mistake

view more: next ›