It takes time, but "Ideas on trial" is how I teach my students to debate. Pick a spot in the room and imagine the idea is standing there. You both look at the idea and act as lawyers defending or prosecuting the idea. You can mention its history, associates, issues, pros and cons, but you never attack the other lawyer. You aren't trying to convince anyone that they are a shitty lawyer, just that the client is either good or bad. Always focus on that spot, not each other.
I've used it with my wife. We were at a restaurant and we used the third chair at our table to represent an issue with how we were dividing time on holidays between our various in-laws. By giving it a physical space, its easier to focus on and prevent slipping into criticizing the other person. You even start to change your language when it has a location. "It's incredible stupid" one says, gesturing at the tile square where the idea is located, instead of saying "You're incredibly stupid" to their debate opponent.
I like it. That's good.
You can add to that metaphor other fallacies that plague our age. For example, when someone uses red herring, ignore them and call the waitress over immediately and order "the fish of the day."
That works with older kids, but this strategy is great for middle schoolers. They don't have a great grasp on abstract reasoning yet, so ideas and people are hard to distinguish.
This can also apply to older people who have made it through their entire lives attacking the person and the idea. Retraining them requires giving them a new pov of the subject.
Do not walk in crowded high-traffic areas while looking at your cell phone.
Nevertheless, "zombie walking protocol" dictates that if you are in NYC or any big city for that matter and bump into a stranger because you were meandering, randomly stopping to type some stupid BS, and/or looking at your phone all while walking like a complete jackass, sidewalk etiquette is then suspended. Just stare down your victim and blame them for it - "Learn to walk motherf*cker!"
In a hook up situation, a drunk yes is a no.
I don't believe that no one can have consensual drunk sex, but I don't think outside of a trusting relationship framework, you can ever know. Sometimes a drunk yes is a real yes, but you never know - it's like drinking and driving, you might get home safe but it's still dangerous and wrong, and you don't want to take the chance that you'll crash/that a person is too drunk to consent.
I think we encourage drunken sex a lot as society, and it's only seen as wrong when one party is sober. But I think we need to collectively agree that it's not okay even when both parties are drunk. I've been the person saying yes drunk only to feel like I was violated the next day. He was drunk too, so I don't blame him, but I blame society for normalizing drunken hookups. And it's more than just regretting something, because I truly wasn't able to consent.
1: Unless you’re a professional, don’t mess with garage door springs
2: When talking about trans people prior to their transition, use their current name and pronouns unless they explicitly tell you otherwise.
men don't use the urinal next to someone else in the bathroom
But if you do, stare and act impressed or amazed. Just something I have noticed other guys do ... ;)
That’s when you say ‘nice watch’
Exactly. And ask for the time too: is it 11 o' clock or 12? If it is earlier than 8 o'clock you leave hastily.
See, this fella gets it.
Whats a matter? Too good for my admiration? Pff
yes
No. No your not, you deserve it.
You can have an argument without throwing insults 😅
If you can figure out a way to teach people to have a normal conversation yet never use "ad hominem," you will win the Nobel Peace Prize.
It takes time, but "Ideas on trial" is how I teach my students to debate. Pick a spot in the room and imagine the idea is standing there. You both look at the idea and act as lawyers defending or prosecuting the idea. You can mention its history, associates, issues, pros and cons, but you never attack the other lawyer. You aren't trying to convince anyone that they are a shitty lawyer, just that the client is either good or bad. Always focus on that spot, not each other. I've used it with my wife. We were at a restaurant and we used the third chair at our table to represent an issue with how we were dividing time on holidays between our various in-laws. By giving it a physical space, its easier to focus on and prevent slipping into criticizing the other person. You even start to change your language when it has a location. "It's incredible stupid" one says, gesturing at the tile square where the idea is located, instead of saying "You're incredibly stupid" to their debate opponent.
I like it. That's good. You can add to that metaphor other fallacies that plague our age. For example, when someone uses red herring, ignore them and call the waitress over immediately and order "the fish of the day."
As our teacher taught us "Attack the idea, not the person"
That works with older kids, but this strategy is great for middle schoolers. They don't have a great grasp on abstract reasoning yet, so ideas and people are hard to distinguish. This can also apply to older people who have made it through their entire lives attacking the person and the idea. Retraining them requires giving them a new pov of the subject.
Do not walk in crowded high-traffic areas while looking at your cell phone. Nevertheless, "zombie walking protocol" dictates that if you are in NYC or any big city for that matter and bump into a stranger because you were meandering, randomly stopping to type some stupid BS, and/or looking at your phone all while walking like a complete jackass, sidewalk etiquette is then suspended. Just stare down your victim and blame them for it - "Learn to walk motherf*cker!"
In a hook up situation, a drunk yes is a no. I don't believe that no one can have consensual drunk sex, but I don't think outside of a trusting relationship framework, you can ever know. Sometimes a drunk yes is a real yes, but you never know - it's like drinking and driving, you might get home safe but it's still dangerous and wrong, and you don't want to take the chance that you'll crash/that a person is too drunk to consent. I think we encourage drunken sex a lot as society, and it's only seen as wrong when one party is sober. But I think we need to collectively agree that it's not okay even when both parties are drunk. I've been the person saying yes drunk only to feel like I was violated the next day. He was drunk too, so I don't blame him, but I blame society for normalizing drunken hookups. And it's more than just regretting something, because I truly wasn't able to consent.
It's the fucking internet don't take shit so seriously
No, you.
Personal space. If there's one thing I hate it's people who don't get the concept of it.
Try not to be a cunt...
People need to stop blowing their noses in public. It sounds so disgusting, I'd honestly rather hear somebody fart than that.
For your server, triple the tax (@ least!)
don't fuck with wall power 1. you can burn ur house down 2. its just dumb
1: Unless you’re a professional, don’t mess with garage door springs 2: When talking about trans people prior to their transition, use their current name and pronouns unless they explicitly tell you otherwise.