|
2024
May 21, 2024 13:22:06 GMT -7
Post by Don Swifty on May 21, 2024 13:22:06 GMT -7
People aren't saying that parasitic worms are crazy or non existent they are saying it's crazy that a candidate for president would go on TV and disclose something like that. I don't understand why. Is it crazy for a Presidential candidate to say they had some other common medical condition and beat it? Would a candidate who said they had cancer but beat it be considered crazy for disclosing that or considered brave, strong, and honest? Would a candidate who mentions they had some rare form of a rare disease be thought crazy for mentioning it? I'm not saying it was a good idea for RFK to do so because he's already got plenty of other things that give people reason to think he's kind of crazy; just saying that the reactions I've read about it make it sound like he's crazy for thinking he had a parasitic worm in his brain at one time and that those who are calling him crazy (for the worm thing) are either completely unaware of the prevalence of parasitic worms all over the world or that someone who is/was a victim of that is on the same scale as someone who gets an unpronounceable STD. Sure, if a candidate says they caught a nasty STD it could alienate certain voters who judge on character, but if it's something completely not their fault and very common why should anyone think badly on them for either having it or talking about it? I'm guessing it's because in RFK's case it just sounds weird for people without personal/family/friend experience with parasitic worms, and also because it reinforces that many already consider him crazy before his announcement. If something is rare or non-existent in America than it's not "normal," no matter how many other people are experiencing that same thing, because for many, (white) America sets the standard for what's considered to be normal.
|
|
|
2024
May 21, 2024 13:29:32 GMT -7
Post by EddieBlake on May 21, 2024 13:29:32 GMT -7
You can't see why saying "I have literal brain worms" while on the campaign trail is worthy of ridicule?
I think you're thinking about this too much and have way too much free time.
|
|
|
Post by dbg465285 on May 21, 2024 13:36:13 GMT -7
He was told he had a tumor and right before being operated on a additional opinion found it to be a parasite. From what I read he did not bring it up himself but it is something that happened to him years ago.
|
|
|
Post by Don Swifty on May 21, 2024 14:09:47 GMT -7
He wasn't lying about it or making anything up. He didn't do anything irresponsible or socially unacceptable that caused him to have a parasitic worm which made it's way into his brain. He didn't get some weird disease because he fucked a monkey where he'd be crazy (not only for fucking a monkey) for talking about it. I'd never vote for the guy because of his anti-science/anti-vaxx views and other reasons, but it's not like he said he has a worm living in his brain telling him what to think and do. He spoke of a medical condition common throughout the world that was originally thought to be a tumor but found to be a parasitic worm he picked up while traveling through Latin America. Giving him shit for that or thinking he's crazy for either having had it or even just mentioning his experience seems like shaming to me. Not much different to me than shaming someone for having a mental health condition that's no fault of their own and/or seeking treatment for it. I thought shaming people for mental or medical situations they're dealing with through no fault of their own was out of style now - guess I'm wrong. But I once had a case of Giardiasis, so maybe I'm more sympathetic to what he went through as opposed to wanting to give him shit or thinking him crazy for talking about it. I still think he's nuts, but that's purely based on some of his political positions (which he's voluntarily chosen to take), not at all because of his medical history and medical events he had no control over and his willingness to talk about them when they are so common in the world.
|
|
|
Post by dirtyrice on May 21, 2024 19:59:39 GMT -7
Brainworm is not a bad band name
|
|
|
Post by bear on May 21, 2024 22:30:47 GMT -7
|
|
|
Post by Don Swifty on May 22, 2024 6:07:15 GMT -7
You can't see why saying "I have literal brain worms" while on the campaign trail is worthy of ridicule? I think you're thinking about this too much and have way too much free time. I spent as much time thinking about what my opinion was on this as you probably did to come to the conclusion that he's worthy of ridicule. Pretty much instantly. It's just that calling someone crazy is quick and easy (and in RFK's case even more so considering his political stances), but to explain why you think someone isn't crazy or worthy of ridicule when the majority are ridiculing that person takes a bit of actual explanation - as I've done in other posts. I might agree with you more if what you said was actually true. You said he's said "I have literal brain worms," when the fact is he no longer does. Past tense. He received treatment so it's not like he's asking voters for their support while he's campaigning with a parasitic worm still lodged in his brain and nobody knows how he'll react to the surgery or whatever treatment is necessary to remove it. Asking people to vote for you when you currently have cancer is completely different than asking for their vote and telling them you've had cancer but with treatment, bravery and support from loved ones, beat it. I didn't have to think about it too much, but I did take the time to learn the actual facts behind what he was saying before making any rush to judgement. Sorry for thinking instead of instantly going into ridicule mode solely because I don't like him as a candidate. And I don't believe in shaming people for being honest about their experiences with a past or current medical condition (in his case, common globally) they contracted solely by traveling and not because they fucked a pansexual monkey sex worker (in the monkey kingdom) while shooting detergent into their veins using the same rusty needle the monkey had just used.
|
|
|
Post by EddieBlake on May 22, 2024 6:14:48 GMT -7
Jesus christ dude, I wish I had the time you have to parse words on here all fucking day and night.
You're obviously so smart because you KNOW from living in Peru that brain worms are normal, actually. Got it.
You're not thinking at all about how it sounds to the folks who live here and never encounter that shit in their entire lives, the people who will actually be voting for him.
|
|
|
2024
May 22, 2024 6:35:32 GMT -7
via mobile
Post by Not your moms 🌮 on May 22, 2024 6:35:32 GMT -7
Based on the average intelligence of most people around here I'm surprised more of them are not being driven by brain worms.
|
|
|
Post by deadphishbiscuits on May 22, 2024 6:41:37 GMT -7
Brain worms may be a farce, up the pee hole worms are not
That is all
|
|
|
Post by Not your moms 🌮 on May 22, 2024 6:48:43 GMT -7
My boss only uses four names for just about everyone. All women are princess or squirrel, men are skillet or big worm. Except for Tory the waitress/bartender, he calls her by name. But she also gets blamed for anything that goes wrong. Even if it had nothing to do with her.
|
|
|
2024
May 22, 2024 7:28:03 GMT -7
via mobile
Post by ferd on May 22, 2024 7:28:03 GMT -7
My boss only uses four names for just about everyone. All women are princess or squirrel, men are skillet or big worm. Except for Tory the waitress/bartender, he calls her by name. But she also gets blamed for anything that goes wrong. Even if it had nothing to do with her. He could get into some trouble for that...
|
|
|
2024
May 22, 2024 7:58:47 GMT -7
via mobile
Post by bussit on May 22, 2024 7:58:47 GMT -7
Squirrels are cute. I like it
|
|
|
Post by Not your moms 🌮 on May 22, 2024 8:30:39 GMT -7
My boss only uses four names for just about everyone. All women are princess or squirrel, men are skillet or big worm. Except for Tory the waitress/bartender, he calls her by name. But she also gets blamed for anything that goes wrong. Even if it had nothing to do with her. He could get into some trouble for that... This bar is some sort of bizarre vortex I cannot make actual sense of. Nothing has changed since the 1950s. Which explains the great food and total political incorrectness. My boss host republican meetings. And all the democrats from the courthouse a few blocks away are regulars. I could write a mile long list of things he could get in trouble for. But I think as long as the district attorney and prosecutors are sitting with their back to his gambling machines every evening he is probably safe. I wish I knew these people a few years sooner. I would have felt a lot safer exploiting the medical cannabis rules. I made friends with and bought a bike off an old lawyer who's dad was the head prosecutor for 30 years. And I've been more or less told if I end up in any trouble not to worry about it.
|
|
|
2024
May 22, 2024 9:26:49 GMT -7
ashell likes this
Post by Don Swifty on May 22, 2024 9:26:49 GMT -7
My boss only uses four names for just about everyone. All women are princess or squirrel, men are skillet or big worm. Except for Tory the waitress/bartender, he calls her by name. But she also gets blamed for anything that goes wrong. Even if it had nothing to do with her. So. Are you skillet or big worm?
|
|
|
2024
May 22, 2024 9:30:50 GMT -7
via mobile
Post by Not your moms 🌮 on May 22, 2024 9:30:50 GMT -7
My boss only uses four names for just about everyone. All women are princess or squirrel, men are skillet or big worm. Except for Tory the waitress/bartender, he calls her by name. But she also gets blamed for anything that goes wrong. Even if it had nothing to do with her. So. Are you skillet or big worm? Usually big worm. But the names are not reserved for specific people.
|
|
|
Post by Don Swifty on May 22, 2024 9:31:38 GMT -7
He could get into some trouble for that... This bar is some sort of bizarre vortex I cannot make actual sense of. Nothing has changed since the 1950s. Which explains the great food and total political incorrectness. My boss host republican meetings. And all the democrats from the courthouse a few blocks away are regulars. I could write a mile long list of things he could get in trouble for. But I think as long as the district attorney and prosecutors are sitting with their back to his gambling machines every evening he is probably safe. I wish I knew these people a few years sooner. I would have felt a lot safer exploiting the medical cannabis rules. I made friends with and bought a bike off an old lawyer who's dad was the head prosecutor for 30 years. And I've been more or less told if I end up in any trouble not to worry about it. I once bartended at a place where the Korean War vet owner was as politically incorrect and intolerant as they come, yet most of the bar's income came from all the Venice Beach freak regulars who filled the place at night as opposed to the straggler tourists who drifted in from the boardwalk during the day. He might have hated his regulars, but he liked their money.
|
|
|
2024
May 22, 2024 11:54:23 GMT -7
Post by Don Swifty on May 22, 2024 11:54:23 GMT -7
Jesus christ dude, I wish I had the time you have to parse words on here all fucking day and night. You're obviously so smart because you KNOW from living in Peru that brain worms are normal, actually. Got it. You're not thinking at all about how it sounds to the folks who live here and never encounter that shit in their entire lives, the people who will actually be voting for him. You asked: "You can't see why saying "I have literal brain worms" while on the campaign trail is worthy of ridicule?" I gave you an answer explaining why I don't see RFK Jr. is worthy of ridicule (over this), esp. when you got an important fact wrong. Do you still feel that RFK Jr. is worthy of ridicule, even though it's been pointed out that he doesn't currently suffer from having a parasitic worm as you stated, but that he did and it was successfully treated? If so, do you also feel that Biden is worthy of ridicule for talking about once being a stutterer (or if he still was)? Do you feel that a candidate who admitted to once being afflicted with mental illness or addiction but who received treatment and recovered is worthy of ridicule? Since you've given no other reason for feeling RFK is worthy of ridicule for his past medical condition, do you include yourself in that group of folks who've "never encountered that shit in their entire lives" and are using that to base your opinion on? Do you think they have a valid opinion for thinking him worthy of ridicule? If so, okay, you share their opinion. If not, why are you using their arguments to say you can't understand how someone would believe RFK's not worthy of ridicule (over the worm thing)? Do you think he's worthy of ridicule? If not, why question someone who agrees with you? If so, well, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. Don't get upset and take it personally if others don't agree with you. If you've changed your opinion why not just say so? Ain't nothing wrong with changing an opinion based upon what someone tells you when you've asked them why they don't see things your way and what they said makes sense to you. But if you still feel he's worthy of ridicule than that's fine. We can agree to disagree. I wasn't looking to change your opinion and you're certainly entitled to your opinion. No need to try to attack someone personally for merely critiquing your argument when they haven't attacked you personally. Debate should be an exercise, not a playground fight or Trump-like tweeting of insults and name calling - though I'll admit you haven't resorted to name calling. I lived there off/on for over 40 years and keep up with American media so I'm fully aware of how politics divides, influences, and plays an abnormally large part in the lives of Americans, esp. compared to most others in the world who are more concerned about things like daily survival and soccer. I'm aware that there are a lot of people who have no interest in looking outside of their bubble and think that the American way of thinking about something automatically makes it the "right" way to think about something and justifies their opinions. I have no idea if you're like that or not. Are you really suggesting ignorance of an easy to Google fact justifies someone's opinion? So if ignorance of the prevalence of parasitic organisms worldwide justifies the opinion of those who've "never encountered that shit in their entire lives," then it's valid to think that someone who's suffered from them is worthy of ridicule for discussing it? Using that same logic, it'd be okay for someone to use their ignorance of an easy to Google fact to justify their belief that's it's okay to discriminate against gay people from entering their place of business because they believe that breathing the same air as a gay person will turn them gay and they've "never encountered that shit in their lives?" Let's lower the collective bar and use ignorance to justify discrimination , beliefs on who in society is worthy of ridicule, or any number of things? Hooray for ignorance! It's bliss! If I'm ignorant of a fact and someone enlightens me as to the facts my response is to revaluate my opinion based on the new shit that's come to light, man. It's not to get defensive and try to insult the person who hipped me to the facts simply because they dared to critique my opinion or lack of knowledge, or to double down and use my ignorance to shift the goalposts so I can continue to justify my opinion. I'm not going to get snarky with them for correcting me. If I said something about how the NY state legislative process works and you pointed out something I got wrong I wouldn't get snarky with you because you KNOW from working there. I'm open to being enlightened to things where I was previously ignorant or flat out wrong. I may argue what I believe to be the facts I base my opinion on, but I don't take criticism of my subjective opinions personally, don't respond with attempted insults, and don't use ignorance of the facts to justify my opinion. I'll either admit I was ignorant and change my opinion, or amiably agree to disagree because I don't believe what they said is factual. If you're going to post a subjective opinion on a public forum and are invested enough in that opinion to feel you need to not argue the facts, but only get your goat up, try to make personal insults, and criticize the messenger for critiquing your opinion (without criticizing you personally), maybe you should spend a bit more time on thinking and parsing words by looking into the facts of the subject being discussed if you can't understand why someone disagrees with you. You say you "whish you had the time...," but it took me all of five minutes to Google and parse the facts on this topic. Surely with all the movies you have time to watch at work you could do the same if you're truly interested in the facts about what you're posting and not just about making knee-jerk reactions based on your (valid, imo) opinions on RFK Jr.'s policies and validity as a candidate. I'm wondering if it's not a question of a lack of time, but more you wanting to simply make your opinion known, and believe that once made no one should ever question you or critique your opinion. If that's so, sorry, but that shit happens on internet discussion forums. Have a good rest of your day.
|
|
|
2024
May 22, 2024 12:20:02 GMT -7
Post by EddieBlake on May 22, 2024 12:20:02 GMT -7
Jesus christ dude, I wish I had the time you have to parse words on here all fucking day and night. You're obviously so smart because you KNOW from living in Peru that brain worms are normal, actually. Got it. You're not thinking at all about how it sounds to the folks who live here and never encounter that shit in their entire lives, the people who will actually be voting for him. You asked: "You can't see why saying "I have literal brain worms" while on the campaign trail is worthy of ridicule?" I gave you an answer explaining why I don't see RFK Jr. is worthy of ridicule (over this), esp. when you got an important fact wrong. Do you still feel that RFK Jr. is worthy of ridicule, even though it's been pointed out that he doesn't currently suffer from having a parasitic worm as you stated, but that he did and it was successfully treated? If so, do you also feel that Biden is worthy of ridicule for talking about once being a stutterer (or if he still was)? Do you feel that a candidate who admitted to once being afflicted with mental illness or addiction but who received treatment and recovered is worthy of ridicule? Since you've given no other reason for feeling RFK is worthy of ridicule for his past medical condition, do you include yourself in that group of folks who've "never encountered that shit in their entire lives" and are using that to base your opinion on? Do you think they have a valid opinion for thinking him worthy of ridicule? If so, okay, you share their opinion. If not, why are you using their arguments to say you can't understand how someone would believe RFK's not worthy of ridicule (over the worm thing)? Do you think he's worthy of ridicule? If not, why question someone who agrees with you? If so, well, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. Don't get upset and take it personally if others don't agree with you. If you've changed your opinion why not just say so? Ain't nothing wrong with changing an opinion based upon what someone tells you when you've asked them why they don't see things your way and what they said makes sense to you. But if you still feel he's worthy of ridicule than that's fine. We can agree to disagree. I wasn't looking to change your opinion and you're certainly entitled to your opinion. No need to try to attack someone personally for merely critiquing your argument when they haven't attacked you personally. Debate should be an exercise, not a playground fight or Trump-like tweeting of insults and name calling - though I'll admit you haven't resorted to name calling. I lived there off/on for over 40 years and keep up with American media so I'm fully aware of how politics divides, influences, and plays an abnormally large part in the lives of Americans, esp. compared to most others in the world who are more concerned about things like daily survival and soccer. I'm aware that there are a lot of people who have no interest in looking outside of their bubble and think that the American way of thinking about something automatically makes it the "right" way to think about something and justifies their opinions. I have no idea if you're like that or not. Are you really suggesting ignorance of an easy to Google fact justifies someone's opinion? So if ignorance of the prevalence of parasitic organisms worldwide justifies the opinion of those who've "never encountered that shit in their entire lives," then it's valid to think that someone who's suffered from them is worthy of ridicule for discussing it? Using that same logic, it'd be okay for someone to use their ignorance of an easy to Google fact to justify their belief that's it's okay to discriminate against gay people from entering their place of business because they believe that breathing the same air as a gay person will turn them gay and they've "never encountered that shit in their lives?" Let's lower the collective bar and use ignorance to justify discrimination , beliefs on who in society is worthy of ridicule, or any number of things? Hooray for ignorance! It's bliss! If I'm ignorant of a fact and someone enlightens me as to the facts my response is to revaluate my opinion based on the new shit that's come to light, man. It's not to get defensive and try to insult the person who hipped me to the facts simply because they dared to critique my opinion or lack of knowledge, or to double down and use my ignorance to shift the goalposts so I can continue to justify my opinion. I'm not going to get snarky with them for correcting me. If I said something about how the NY state legislative process works and you pointed out something I got wrong I wouldn't get snarky with you because you KNOW from working there. I'm open to being enlightened to things where I was previously ignorant or flat out wrong. I may argue what I believe to be the facts I base my opinion on, but I don't take criticism of my subjective opinions personally, don't respond with attempted insults, and don't use ignorance of the facts to justify my opinion. I'll either admit I was ignorant and change my opinion, or amiably agree to disagree because I don't believe what they said is factual. If you're going to post a subjective opinion on a public forum and are invested enough in that opinion to feel you need to not argue the facts, but only get your goat up, try to make personal insults, and criticize the messenger for critiquing your opinion (without criticizing you personally), maybe you should spend a bit more time on thinking and parsing words by looking into the facts of the subject being discussed if you can't understand why someone disagrees with you. You say you "whish you had the time...," but it took me all of five minutes to Google and parse the facts on this topic. Surely with all the movies you have time to watch at work you could do the same if you're truly interested in the facts about what you're posting and not just about making knee-jerk reactions based on your (valid, imo) opinions on RFK Jr.'s policies and validity as a candidate. I'm wondering if it's not a question of a lack of time, but more you wanting to simply make your opinion known, and believe that once made no one should ever question you or critique your opinion. If that's so, sorry, but that shit happens on internet discussion forums. Have a good rest of your day. Im not gonna read all that. I have a fucking job dude.
|
|
|
2024
May 22, 2024 15:17:29 GMT -7
Post by Don Swifty on May 22, 2024 15:17:29 GMT -7
Im not gonna read all that. I have a fucking job dude. Jajaja. Seriously? That same "fucking job" where you watch movies all day and post reviews here? And you claim you wish you had the time to look up the facts on what you commented on that took me no more than five minutes to Google and read? To paraphrase Brandt, lack of free time is clearly not the issue here, dude. But bravo on scoring a job where you can get paid to watch movies all day on the taxpayer's dime. Hope you're getting some seriously overtime pay for those hours you do work. It's simple. I stated an opinion that I didn't direct at you in any way. You are the one who initially quoted me and asked how I could believe the way I do. I answered your question. You apparently didn't like the fact that I critiqued your opinion and corrected something you posted that wasn't factual so you got a bit snarky instead of addressing the content of what I said. Oh, wait. You eventually did use people's ignorance of RFK's past (not present) medical issue to justify your opinion that he's worthy of ridicule. Ignorance is always an easy, if not valid, justification to ridicule someone. Your responses leave me to assume you'd agree with those who are ignorant on the facts about people who stutter and mistake it for lack of intelligence being justified in believing Joe Biden worthy of ridicule for having or even discussing his past experience with stuttering and the work he put in to overcome it. Or a candidate who's a former addict who completed treatment and mentioned it when asked about it to also be worthy of ridicule. It's all the same logic. Only the individual candidate's politics and policies change. Be offended when someone you believe unjustly ridicules your preferred candidate, but jump to conclusions based on admitted ignorance when it's a candidate you don't agree with. Textbook double standard. You're certainly entitled to your opinion on who's worthy of ridicule and why. I'm fine with our being in complete disagreement on this topic. It was never my intent to change your opinion or even seek out your opinion citing people's ignorance as a good reason to think RFK is worthy of ridicule. I just answered the question you asked me. Thanks for sharing your opinion on the topic, though. As lork might say, "telling." I hope that people don't find you worthy of ridicule for medical/mental/addiction issues that you may have suffered in the past that you've overcome or are dealing with in the present, and that those who might would take the few minutes to read up on the facts and try to understand what you've been through before going straight to ridicule mode only because they don't like your politics. You (and RFK Jr.) deserve better than that. But if you do get (or have been) ridiculed, maybe you'll consider it karma or that what goes around eventually comes around instead of being bitter and hurt about being ridiculed. Looking forward to the daily reviews of the next four movies you'll be watching at work your job. You pick some good ones and your opinions on them are pretty spot on, imo.
|
|