Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
from the dialogues dept
This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is That Anonymous Coward on our post about the ruling that a college can't order a student to stop talking about an instructor, responding to another commenter who decided to go on a bizarre rant questioning the student's disability:
They are called sunglasses, perhaps one you get your head out of your ass you might learn about them.
Oooh and you get to decide if her disability is or is not real.
Are you one of those assholes who demand people parked in handicapped spots prove their disability to you?
You know they faked it to get the permit hanging from the rearview & now they have to answer to you...On the upside your entire rant really highlights why many people with disabilities often just suck it up because they really don't feel like explaining to petty able bodied tyrants the exact nature of their disability and having to perform like a circus animal to meet your mental requirements for being disabled enough.
Did you read a different letter?
No where was there a request or demand to give bad reviews, merely honest reviews.I offer you a big hearty fuck off from someone who sometimes is light sensitive, sometimes doesn't need his cane, sometimes needs to park closer to the entrance who is fed up with assholes like you who think unless your missing limbs you aren't disabled & are required to prove it on demand by every fucking Karen who is just pissed that there are a couple spaces they can't use.
In second place, it's That One Guy with a comment about the Minneapolis cops who demanded a no-knock warrant then killed an innocent gun owner nine seconds after entering a residence:
Criminals lying? Perish the thought
No no, gunning someone down on the spot after you broke into their house in the middle of the night and they're disoriented from being woken up is totally reasonable so long as you say 'police' and 'warrant', I mean can you imagine criminals ever doing something like that or police ever shooting an innocent person?
Clearly not, which means that if someone armed breaks into your house yelling about how they're cops they have a right to be there, and so long as you're innocent you have absolutely no reason to be worried or feel the need to defend yourself or even protest in the slightest.
For editor's choice on the insightful side, we start out with another comment from That One Guy, this time in response to the opposition from companies to good new regulators:
'You can't nominate them, they might do the job!'
As with Sohn, now with Bedoya: The greatest sign that a person is qualified for the job is when the corrupt come pouring out of the woodworks to try to keep them from it.
Next, it's a comment from someone who we haven't seen in these lists before, under the name... That Other Guy. The comment comes in response to a German court fining a site owner for "sharing user data with Google" by using web fonts:
One of the many terrible things about this decision is that the website owner didn't send the user's IP address to Google; the user's browser did.
Over on the funny side, our first place winner is Bobvious, with a comment about the Boston police department's bullshit gang database:
Are you saying
that the Boston Police Department has been frequenting areas notorious for MS13 gang activity?
In second place, it's Toom1275 on our post about Penguin Random House and Maus in the wake of its controversial removal from Tennessee schools. One commenter complained about calling this a "ban", Mike pointed out that the post discussed the fact that it's a bit more complicated and wondered if the complainer had read it, and Toom had a reply:
It seems unlikely anyone supporting the book ban would be a fan of reading.
For editor's choice on the funny side, we start out with David and one more similar crack about the gang database:
Are you rooting for the criminals?
After all, Ortiz has a record of associating with people who have a record of associating with people.
Finally, it's one more comment from That One Guy, this time in response to Apple opposing the trademark on an indie film, Apple Man:
Apple: Our customers are INCREDIBLY stupid
No, that makes perfect sense, why just last week I went to the grocery store because I heard they were selling apples and to my great surprise I was pointed towards a pile of fruit. How dare the store and it's staff deceive people by telling their customers that they are selling apples when they clearly are not, don't they understand that when someone hears 'apple' the only thing that comes to mind is electronics of various types?
That's all for this week, folks!
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Nananananananana That Gang, That Gang, That Gang...
giggles
Oh noes... Bostons gonna put us in a database.
I am once again impressed that people have adapted to knowing what I meant to type instead of whats actually on the screen.
I miss letters, I repeat words, I miss words despite my best efforts sometimes.
Oh and if someone wants to tell me I was to harsh
This shit happens more than people know & its always some ablebodied asshole who "knows" all about disabled people & if we can't perform to meet their standards we must be faking.
Imagine being blind, someone is trying to rip your guide dog away from you & some rent-a-cop demands you somehow prove your blind because Karen knows your faking because shes the expert on blind people & you don't look like the 1 blind person she knows... oh and is still demanding that her kid be allowed to pet the guide dog.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nothing unbelievable at all there...
Sadly I have no problem taking you at your word with your example as I can all too easily believe some self-righteous jackass was harassing a blind person because they aren't blind, I know what a blind person looks like!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nothing unbelievable at all there...
The story is surreal and worth a read.
(Its a series of screenshot from Reddit posted by the blind victim of Karen).
Well the blind girl had a phone and Karen knew she looked at at...cause screen readers and adaptive tech for the disabled only exists on Star Trek.
And the amazing thread through Karen getting 2 security guards and trying to steal the dog is that her daughter gets to pet the dog because shes been good today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nothing unbelievable at all there...
"Well the blind girl had a phone and Karen knew she looked at at...cause screen readers and adaptive tech for the disabled only exists on Star Trek"
Even if she was reading it - being legally blind to a degree needed to require a guide dog does not mean that you literally can't see anything. It just means they've suffered enough vision loss in a way that requires help getting around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Nothing unbelievable at all there...
Well Karen explained that ALL blind people had milky eyes so she had to be lying.
What shocked me was the 1st Rent a Cop on the scene defaulted to assuming Karen had to be right & now he was demanding the blind person prove to him she was blind.
Mind you the dog is in an actual harness, not one of those silly fake vests Karens buy from Amazon so they can claim they can take their dog everywhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nothing unbelievable at all there...
Let’s see, protests against police brutality and a legal system that treats certain people as second class citizens, versus a ‘protest’ against the fact that the ‘wrong’ person won an election that involved an attempted insurrection to overthrow the democratic process, there’s something different between these two but I just can’t place my finger on it…
https://www.myehtrip.me/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nothing unbelievable at all there...
This spambot scraped a year-old comment by That One Guy to regurgitate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Nothing unbelievable at all there...
They are more eloquent than most, if not all of the basement trolls here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Concerned citizen
But they were a concerned citizen.
Its natural that they have the right to intervene if they spot something they believe is suspicious.
See something, say something.
Only you can prevent criminal activity and still leave someone breathing but angry afterward.
Also, you cant put police in the gang database as its already in the most powerful gang on earth called the police union and therefor should already be in it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Concerned citizen
There is some dark humor in police accusing others of being members of dangerous gangs, yes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Life is a performance
It may sound trivialising, but I have experienced people's unwillingness to refrain from categorising on the basis of limited experience as a nuisance from a musician's perspective. When I took up singing lessons because of tenor problems, I got diagnosed as a baritone with the vocal break right where it does not make a lot of sense for tenor singing. So I decided to go for the upper register (never was a fan of bass clef) and switched to alto.
Now I rebuilt a repertoire around chanson and klezmer and folk using the alto voice and took up accordion since the previously used guitar did not quite keep up with the carrying power of the voice.
So essentially for any occasion I am singing at, I get the questions afterwards "why are you singing with a woman's voice?" "was there anything wrong with it?" "no, but why?". And that's apparently what has been eating at them the entire performance. After about a year of that I've had it, spent a few months in public transport closely observing how females moved and behaved and then modeled a stage persona for me. I'd actually hesitate to call it drag since it wasn't really molded as an exaggeration.
That stopped the questions. Like, completely. I wasn't getting "why are you wearing women's clothes" or something like that instead of "why are you singing with a woman's voice". People were able to get into the act.
Apropos accordion: in the age of electronic instruments and miniaturisation, electronic accordions are a superbly transportable keyboard controller. They'd be super versatile except that they look like accordions. So people will not accept any other sound emanating from them. But they are fine with people in folksy garbs swinging around hollowed-out accordion corpses without reed blocks to playback sounds of actual players.
So if you want the respect and support of seeing people due to blind people, you better look the part. Whether or not you actually are blind is less relevant than how comfortable you make your counterparts in filling their role in your interaction. The more stereotypical, the more comfortable they'll be.
If humans weren't obsessed with roles, the whole gender and sexuality mess would just not be a thing. People would be able to just do and look what they are in the mood of without worrying about what others may think about them and how annoyed they will be about having to readjust the way they enjoy thinking about you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gender essentialism is a concept at least partially rooted in religion, especially here in the States. Just look at all the Christian assholes who think a woman’s place is barefoot in the kitchen between pregnancies and men should never show any kind of emotion outside of anger.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, "woman" and "man" are categories that are associated with a ovaries and testicles and if you have nothing else to go by and no other roles to fill, that assignment makes some sort of sense in a pre-civilizational world due to biological consequences of the function of ovaries and testicles.
Where it gets annoying if we have the refusal to admit civilization has set it, and we have the refusal to see more in a person than ovaries and testicles.
And when you get the equivalent of "you may think of yourself as a mountaineer because you climbed every peak in the Himalaya but you are still from the Netherlands", it becomes aggravating. Particularly when coming from someone who has problems climbing the reclining chair.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Men are nothing but walking wallets and sperm donors. Once the futanari master race is implemented on top of the omnibinary spectrum we can finally banish incels to the dregs of history like we do to Nazis, because straight men and Nazis are completely indistinguishable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]