Perspective. Yes and no. The concept of not dating a person because of association to you is the same- however, in the hierarchy of self loathing, feeling so bad about yourself that you are essentially sorry to trouble someone with your existence doesn’t require the same level of self hate that you would actually think less of a person just for being able to see a good quality in you. The first implies that you can’t see good in you, the latter implies that not only can you not see good in you, but you believe yourself so bad that no one else could possibly see good in you unless they were mentally deranged. More over- the first suggests some concept of love- and where there is a concept of love for others, there can be a concept to love ones self. The latter shows no concern for others or ones self, it exists in a void where one sees themselves not as a stain but as an aboration. Thus I consider the latter to be the less redeemable and ultimately more self deprecating expression.

“What were you thinking Johnson?!?! The point wasn’t to push a fukxin block for your health- we need blocks. We are building a CUBE building. How do I build a freaking cube with spheres?!?! Even if I hire another guy to chip this back into a cube, which will cost more time and money than your doing what I asked, the plans spec’d the size of the cubes where it was. I’ll lose hundreds of square feet. The plumbing... none of it would work! My permits... gosh damnit. Do you think? Did you not see everyone else on the crew doing it the way I asked? You just figured you were smarter than all of us? Then why do I own a construction company and you can’t push a fuxking block without Messi g it up? The marble you chipped off that block is worth more money than the time it would take you to have pushed it!! Shut it. I don’t want to hear it and I don’t care if you’re my sisters kid. You’re fired.”

It’s a legitimate concern. Balancing what is best for ones health and well being, and what is best for their career and professional image is a challenge that many still sadly face. Conditions with little or no obvious outward signs, and less “cinemamatic” ones like GI problems have it pretty bad. Not being able to stray far from a restroom, spending possibly hours in the rest room, and many of the seemingly unrelated complications like vision or other issues that GI problems can bring don’t often get much real empathy from most. A “pooping disease” doesn’t quite pull the same heart strings as other conditions, and some may even laugh at the idea. Most people will never deal with the most severe pains and symptoms of a serious GI condition and so relate to what they know as “stomach pain” or the like, which is a totally different beast.

Your discretion is appreciated. While the matter of using a condition to ones advantage on rare occasion is generally not going to cause great harm, and it becomes a personal issue to decide what if any level of use one might call a “harmless perk,” wanton, excessive, or frequent use of such “perks” is, beyond opinions of personal honor, a way to ultimately hurt all people who suffer similar conditions. So I applaud your restraint in the matter, I would hope you haven’t or never need surgery for fistula, abscess, or any other possible complications that can come from GI diseases, but making sure ones word is in good standing should they arise is also prudent, as such events can take quite a bit of time to care for and allow to heal.

At least in the US there is possibly legal action one can take for that. If you have a temporary or chronic condition resulting in loss of bowel control- it is not up to a supervisor to believe you or not. They can request a medical note on the subject post factum, but they cannot prevent or impede your rights to use the bathroom. Essentially forcing a person to shit themselves is potentially humiliating and damaging. It is notnprofessional conduct, and as a working adult it is your prerogative to say when you need to use the bathroom, and not theirs to say you cannot. There are legal and professional ways for a business to protect its interests against abuse or legitimate need of a bathroom when doodies interfere with duties, but “shit yourself to prove it..” isn’t one of them. I’m sorry you went through that.

Even if it is still inventivization to buy their product- it is not underhanded and they are sacrificing actual profits and can’t take the donation as a deduction. Well- to be fair likely can’t. I’m not as well versed in international tax laws and am basing my information on US tax law.

“My way or the highway” philosophy. One of the biggest things apple haters hate on is how restricted the “appleshpere” is, however whenever apple offers an alternative for people who don’t want to use a product the way apple designed it, haters will make apple the bad guy for that too. People like that demonstrate that they aren’t actually upset over logical concerns but are following the same blind brand mentality that they accuse apple users of, onlyninstead of thinking everything apple does is great, they think everythingnit does is terrible. Swallow this pill- many apple users use the products they do because for their purposes they suit their needs and were their best solution. Just because you’d buy a ford truck doesn’t mean you’d buy a ford car, just because you’d buy Mountain Dew doesn’t mean you’d buy Pepsi just because they are made by the same company. Some people don’t buynon brand, they buy based on what fits for them in that situation.

*apple: removes headphone jack so they can build a smaller and more water resistant phone. *haters: “see? Those evil bastards removed the headphone jack to force you to buy their headphones (even though every phone without a jack comes with headphones and any Bluetooth headphones work...)” *apple: makes it so that the phone can accept an apadpter to use regular headphones, sells an adapter or you can buy third party. *haters: “see? They made a headphone jack so you have to buy their jack!” *apple: creates compact and discreet wireless ear buds. *haters: *”yeah. They’re small so you can lose them and they can sell you more headphones!” *apple: makes a tether so you don’t lose your buds if you’re prone to that. *haters: “see? Now they’re selling you wires after they charged you for wireless!” Haters gonna hate. I applaud them for offering these products instead of just pushing their idea of how you should use their product. That has always been the big complaint with apple and their...

.. you could analyze and understand my own though process upon first reading. You do not need to defend your position as you have already stated your position, and we have already agreed there was a misunderstanding, not an actual issue of contention.

I’m not missing your point. Not everyone on the internet is arguing with you. I was explaining WHY I had PREVIOUSLY misunderstood your intentions. I actually wrote 2 posts but the second one seems to not have went through? But further detailed the exact quotes and relations or conflicts where I had taken meaning from. It could be your ability to communicate, or it could be my ability to comprehend, or it could be that our communications styles didn’t mesh up. It is possible to have misunderstanding without fault, or equal fault. There is no “missing of the point,” as I said in my reply, you have clarified your point to me previously. And nothing about my reply calls in to question your asserted points, it merely notes the areas in which the original post obscured your point from me. The inclusion of those areas is not a critique, you may or may not choose to eliminate possible perceived ambiguities in the future as you see fit. I noted them for posterity and so that if you desired to..

@ewqua- I agree there. I wouldn’t call this specific example bigotry as much as I would call it generalization based on fact. There are a certain set of jobs that most people without documentation and accredited education, connections, etc. tend to end up doing because those are the jobs that tend to be less regulated and not require all the various forms of traceable or preempted means by nature of entering a country without any paper work and being at risk for deportation. I was merely agreeing with the statement that one could possibly commit “soft bigotry,” and since no definition was given in previous replies, for the ease of any reading the thread I thought I would document the general concept to make things easier to follow if one wasn’t aware of the concept. I did not mean to specifically direct that at you, as I have no reason to believe or way to know your knowledge base. Apologies if I came off as such.

I can certainly understand. There is precision, accuracy, and validity. Something can be all at once, or any combination but not all. It is valid to say that deep down we are all alike, but not precise, and not accurate. It is accurate to say people of different XYZ don’t have identical bones- because some may but all don’t- but imprecise. One can, using accurate fact and precise detail demonstrate a theory that the moon landing was s hoax- but it is not valid. Communication which uses less than all 3 is wide open to interpretation if the receiver does not think the way you do, or has a different communication style. No method is completely sure to be understood, but the less ambiguity, and the more validity, the less other people must fill in on their own, which preserves intent.

@halfdeadhammerhead- I’m sorry if I hurt your feelings by making you feel as though I thought I was somehow better than you. You seem to have a lot of hostility as the issue was a misunderstanding of your point, which you have clarified, and if you had desired could have done so without making personal attacks. When you say things like: “so fnck debates with anti-vaxers.” That implied to me a finality- that one shouldn’t bother to communicate with them. The next line:
“This type of people should stick to challenge other people's view on the color of a dress but not judge things they clearly haven't got any clue of.”
Implied to me that they should speak on trivial matters but not on things they don’t know about- hence my reply that even the uninformed have rights to opinions if they feel strongly. Then: “The problem is these people are not excluded from public debate like in the pre-internet, or rather, pre-facebook days.” Implying to me an exclusion of them, taking their voice away.

... different than any other generalization. It looks past a person in front of you and replaces them with a totem just the same as if yousaw a person of another race with their child in public and said “wow- isn’t it great how that dad stayed with his family?” “Isn’t it great those parents aren’t beating their child?” “Look- how nice they’ve done so well. They own their own car and can even afford tickets to the movies!” And so on- especially when you wouldn’t think or say that tompeople of your own race or other races than the one you’re seeing. So it is nuanced- but there is a type of prejudiced thinking that revolves around thinking so little of a group of people that you’re amazed when they do mundane things, and are generalizing a human being based on race just the same as someone saying “all XYZ people are criminals!” It’s not an abscence of prejudice to think that way, just another face to it.

@ewqua- Ever been patronized? Someone saying “Oh, you’re going to fly on a plane? That must be so exciting for you!” Or “Wow, I really like how you tied your shoes. That’s a good knot!” Etc? Imagine someone making a huge deal you signed your name correctly, but because of your race. Because even though you, and many others do it every day, to them it is so amazing you were able to do something they wouldn’t make a big deal about to their younger than you children. It shows a mindset that because you are a certain race you must automatically have suffered a disadvantage, it takes away you as a person and reduces you to a race, and not a very flattering concept of what people of that race are capable of. That is what they are taking about. It’s a thin line- we CAN acknowledge when people have overcome adversity to achieve the same thing others did easier. We can rejoice personal and social milestones. But to assume that a person has felt disadvantage because of their race is no...

That community the whole point is supposedly to save? Before these changes have even gotten a chance to tear it up, people are doing it on their own over what might be in store or what the future of the site might be like based off what? A couple weeks? If people want to leave they should leave. But it’s way to early for people to be as worked up as many are getting, and throwing that negativity around in a vacuum is just making it worse.

Do we know he didn’t sell because the site was in the red? And here comes a buyer who says “things will have to change to keep this site running. I may not make much, but I’ll make enough to run the servers and pay back what I spent slowly...” how do we know? Does anyone? And then what- people get mad and tear it apart anyway after they just spent tens of thousands on the site, most likely with the intention of keeping it up and running- possibly for users, or as much for the users as for themselves? Why did they buy this site? Anyone know? Actually know- not guess? Not fill in the blanks with whatever answer allows them to act out theor revenge fantasies and “o would have told that guy off but...” that they can’t IRL? Anyone? Because I guarantee the most hurt isn’t being done to the new owner- but to the community. When veteran users leave one way or another the new owner probably doesn’t miss them- but we do.

So what is the “win” for the new owner? They gut their revenue model they likely bought the site for- and then.... what happens in 6 months if they make a business decision to change something and people get upset again? You e seen how far this has gone without even talking to the person, and after only a couple weeks. So what do they have to look forward to, and knowing the reaction of many people talking about active sabatoge and such- why would you even want to keep users who when they get upset will try and destroy your business? People want corporate honesty- integrity. They want business to eat it when they do wrong, to put them first and reward their coming back... and yet... where does the responsibility on the consumer end fall? After this company has done everything it can while still actually making a profit- and the customer leaves when they say “no” to something, even with legitimate cause? Ever seen Zues’ s books? What were his profits or expenses like? Why did he sell?

... the cost to keep them is usually less than to replace them. Most customers aren’t loyal anyway. They let prove or features or hype make the final decision over brand or what you’ve done in the past. Most people won’t keep buying from the same amazon seller outside specialty goods simply because they did them right, if they search an item they’ll go cheapest price, fastest shipping. And in an industry where the profit model is based on free cost browsing of memes- what is the customer impact? You don’t need power users. You need a wide user base. You don’t care if the same people are clicking 1 million times or 1 million are clicking once, because regardless the second something better comes, or you do something they don’t like, they’ll jump ship anyway.

Because here is the truth of modern consumerism- people want money. Ask yourself- if you are a staple of the local game store- always there, trading, playing, but mostly you buy online... everyone knows you, likes you, values you. What is that value worth in money? The owner may be sad if you left- but they’d also likely loose maybe a couple hundred dollars tops? And someone would replace you. Not the same no. But people leave. They always do. New ones come. The new ones don’t care about the guy that was “the man” 5 years before they started coming. 5 years later profits are... not effected. There is a dofference between a power user and a power customer. A difference between a sponsorship and some rando schilling. And “loyal” customers are the ones you know are most unlikely to leave anyway, velocity model. It’s 2018. The world is online now. Customers in most industries are cheap, customer retention isn’t a huge priority anymore in most industries because customers are fickle and...