How did this happen? Did this journalist only go to some of the worst events?
-
-
Replying to @o_guest @siminevazire and
Take the second screenshot as an example. Literally *everyone* explained why they came to SIPS. Generally these were positive/constructive motivations, sometimes also with regret or frustration. In the context of the article this doesn't become clear.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Research_Tim @o_guest and
The article is terrible. But the fact people had diverse motivations, most of them rational, easy to endorse, share, did come across. What I wonder though is what happens within wh smb says (if that is true) I want vindication or I want 2 burn the house down? Does anyone say smt?
2 replies 2 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @IoanaA_Cristea @Research_Tim and
I don't think that was the format of the meeting... I heard all 200 or so attendees were asked to state their reasons for attending in a single sentence. Doesn't take much to imagine hyperbole and giddy comments galore. Perhaps better to ask why author choose to quote from this.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @t_awkr @Research_Tim and
Perhaps just not say it the next time, as we are all past 14 and can practice self-restraint?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @IoanaA_Cristea @Research_Tim and
perhaps.... and then we should also all do away with the (I would think not unreasonable) assumption that when a bunch of academics blurt out jokes, these most likely won't end up being displayed as serious quotes in a high profile piece...
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @t_awkr @Research_Tim and
Some jokes are not funny and they are very unfunny to a several swathes of the population. This is smt I think we can realize as adults in 2018. For instance any reference to physical violence is not a joke that can or should be done. It also should not make one giddy, but ok.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @IoanaA_Cristea @Research_Tim and
@hardsci characterised it better as "airing frustrations". Before reading your interpretation I didn't consider for a second that the comment could refer to physical violence (against people or anyth not-abstract). It's bad enough as is, let's not add further hyperbole interprets1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @t_awkr @Research_Tim and
I meant it ab the term "thugs" which I think is a not only uniquely stupid, but also pretty nasty and abhorrent. And VERY machist. Some people cannot help thinking about physical violence, presumably because they met "thugs" a plenty and it wasn't fun.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @IoanaA_Cristea @t_awkr and
On a more personal note, I thought in 2018 the whole oxymoron of the thug who we know wouldn't hurt a fly or of the "good thug" (gentle giant whatever) stopped being funny. Apparently not.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
It's also kind of racial. 
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.