I had that exact moment happen to me a few years ago. I was at a donut shop counter, waiting for my donuts, when the next customer came up to the counter and said “Large black.” And I just looked at him and fought back the strong  urge to say, “Small white.”

I don’t think he was 100% throwing it away, but I do think it was a low percentage “Either my guy gets it or it’s incomplete” back corner throw.

“After hitting a three-pointer, he ran back too slowly on defense. I’m going to elbow him in the face after a rebound, you know, because of the disrespect.”

I’m curious who people think I’m talking about in this story.

Nothing is more infuriating than being told what to do by someone you don’t respect.

If they were indeed rhetorical questions, dimbulb, you wouldn’t expect me to answer them.

Why are all these dumb trolls asking Intro Philosophy epistemology questions? “What is the nature of knowledge? Can words actually do harm?”

Snark isn’t an argument.

Doubling down on “Racism is a victimless crime” is hilariously on brand. We need a better class of troll around here.

Because Joe Pavelski bled on the ice and it was real scary, San Jose had the opportunity to score four straight goals with the man advantage

I'm not sure why I thought of it, but one thing worse than mustard would be cream cheese

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/02/26/the-impressive-american-high-school-senior-who-was-actually-a-23-year-old-ukrainian-man/

Jesus, I know concern trolling is a problem online, but you could always ask me to be more specific.

I mean, repeating the same arguments doesn’t make them right. And implying that I must also be an abuser because I disagree with you doesn’t make you right, or a good person.

Is everyone who disagrees with you disgusting? Because all I have been arguing from the beginning that they should have followed the disciplinary process. I mean, scroll up, it’s right there at the top. I’ve never argued any more or less than that. And your response was that it’s his own fault that he resigned, which…

The thing is, you never substantiate your theory that he quit to pre-empt an investigation. You just say it, then argue that “he’s responsible for choosing to resign” to support your conclusion, even though that argument doesn’t stand up to any level of scrutiny.

But there are no mitigating factors that would go in Franken’s favour?

So I’m hoping that Barrett gets to do the locker room and sideline pep talks instead of Winston...

That’s the thing, the integrity of an argument doesn’t rest on which end of the equation you sympathize with. Either the argument is true or it isn’t. Either people are responsible for all of their choices or they aren’t.

Honestly, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to be contrite forever after something like this. Every time it comes up you stick to, “I did something wrong, I’m sorry about it, I regret it, and I try to do better.”