I was watching some highlights from a recent fight night, and it got me thinking about how much of combat sports is just pure, unadulterated ego. There is a very thin line between being "in the zone" and being completely delusional about your own power.
Don't get me wrong, you need that level of supreme confidence to step into a cage or a ring. If you go in second-guessing every punch, you've already lost. But there's a specific type of bravado where a fighter starts talking about specific ways they're going to end a career or pull off a feat that's never been done before. It feels less like preparation and more like a psychological gamble.
I've always wondered if that kind of trash talk is actually a tool to settle their own nerves, or if it’s just a way to bait the opponent into making a mistake. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it just makes them look like a clown when they get outworked.
Do you think hyper-confidence actually helps performance, or is it usually just a mask for being unprepared?
If we're going to let one person decide whether they can leave their house based on their own judgment, then that rule has to apply to everyone else, too. In an actual emergency, trying to micromanage individual decisions just isn't smart—or even practical... It would be much more logical to simply penalize those who break the rules after the fact, rather than setting up special emergency tribunals just to debate whether someone’s sense of urgency was valid. That’s my first point. And secondly—we only have his word that he was actually caught out in his own yard. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if he was spotted wandering around the neighborhood, just like that guy who claimed he was "splitting wood."
I’m kindly asking for a review and a change in how the COVID topic is being "moderated" in the politics section.
Exponential growth is currently being proven in Europe—if you look at the data from Denmark or the Netherlands, for example, and compare it to the growth rates reported by other reliable sources just a few days ago, or even China outside of the Hubei province from last month—it's a trending topic on Google... yet posts containing recommendations from the WHO, Mayo Clinic, and similar organizations are being deleted under the guise of "avoiding panic."
The first thing I want to address is that "panic," as the moderator perceives it, seems to be a very subjective concept based more on zombie movies and perhaps reading too many posts about immigrants (and no, I’m not being sarcastic or mocking, I’m just observing) rather than the actual definition of the word.
The second thing I want to touch on is that—since this is the largest forum in the country, and there's a high chance people will come here looking for individual advice because the topic is indexed in search engines—it is extremely dangerous during this epidemiological phase to repeatedly claim that the WHO, Mayo Clinic, and FEMA are idiots... we all know that people in certain parts of our own country don't need much encouragement to simply ignore official guidelines just because they are labeled as "recommendations."
I'm no statistics expert, so I listen to those I trust—and I assume others do too regarding this matter—otherwise, I ask my doctor, and my doctor tells me what the health authorities tell them. However, I do understand the law, and a recommendation from an official body is a legally significant matter that shouldn't be allowed to be mocked or deleted "to prevent panic." Recommendations from public or emergency agencies are based on the constitutional assumption that we are all free, civilized members of a community who realize we have an impact on it, and they rely on that. We've seen clearly in other countries how things unfold when recommendations aren't taken seriously, forcing the government to declare a state of emergency and then implement mandatory measures—nobody decides on that easily, and usually, such decisions are made far too late.
So, I am truly, most kindly asking you to assign someone to moderate this topic according to the general forum rules.
There will always be some contrarians, conspiracy theorists, rude individuals, nationalists, and the like (I run into them on the train every day, after all—they actually just stopped laughing at me today for coughing into a tissue and being angry that I smell like antiseptic because I had to touch something )... but the general forum rules are more than enough to keep them in check.
There is a massive difference between being cautious and panicking.
So, please consider this. Thank you and best regards...
Maybe someone would actually take you seriously if you didn't end an introductory post about alienated philosophers by claiming we should just abolish philosophy altogether—since they're all mentally unstable, with the sole exception of Thomas Aquinas...😁
Does this mean that on ZAG, if we need to help out at a skyscraper, or if the little dragon organizes something, we aren't allowed to organize anything for that either?
Because, if I understood correctly—and I might be wrong here—you aren't even supposed to mention immigrants on ZAG.
If that's really the case... man, you guys have really gone overboard... 🤦
If you felt the need to shut down that political discussion over in the women's section—where, let's face it, there’s a higher concentration of women than in the general politics threads—simply because the debate regarding immigration turned toxic and hateful, does it not stand to reason that we might see that exact same pattern elsewhere? I mean, if we look at those other political discussions where it isn't just women participating, but also professional feminists, isn't it entirely possible that we will encounter that same level of hate speech and provocation coming from their side as well? You’re constantly bringing up this idea of "misogyny," but it feels like you're always quick to point the finger at just one side of the argument, especially whenever we dive into topics that actually challenge the status quo. Is it just me, or does it seem like the blame is always shifted toward one specific group whenever things get uncomfortable? modernisticki It’s funny how it always seems to work out that way, isn't it? You look at these situations and you see this recurring pattern where people just reflexively point the finger, convinced that one side is inherently wrong while the other is somehow beyond reproach. It’s like there’s this deep-seated tendency to believe that only one party is ever at fault, regardless of the actual facts on the ground. Why is it so hard for anyone to consider that maybe, just maybe, things are more complicated than a simple binary of good versus evil?😉
@Joseph Bailey41, I generally agree with you—don't get me wrong—but look, this specific quote of yours is ALWAYS, and I mean ALWAYS, the starting point for any "debate" regarding gender inequality that actually includes men in the conversation.
Some guy like mistyjackal14 swoops in, and suddenly red alerts go off the second anyone mentions, say, professional feminists.
I'd bet anything that I could write out the next seven or eight (pretty long) posts from this mistyjackal14 guy, depending on which part of his off-topic rant someone decided to latch onto.
I actually wanted to have a real discussion about this once; there wasn't much interest in the Women's Corner, except for the usual group, and over in the politics section, it was the exact same thing every single time—just those five guys rambling indignantly about feminists or whatever other nonsense term they managed to come up with... 🙂🙂🙂
Mods, I really hope you can find some way, any way, to clear out this weeds... because this topic matters. Especially when we're talking about divorce, custody, and asset division—it feels like certain types of discrimination are actually supported by the system, or at least by the individuals who represent it. It’s incredibly frustrating that because of a handful of haters, we haven't been able to have a productive conversation about such an important issue for over a year and a half... 😢
hiddenmarlin14 said:just cause a short circuit. No AC, no lights, no computers... 🥳 just a forced day off 🙂
I'm actually giving it some serious thought—honestly, half the other companies and offices in this building do more harm than good for this dysfunctional country anyway... 😬
hiddenmarlin14 said:Just chill out for a second—grab some coffee to take the edge off... maybe pick up a pen too. If you just let yourself scribble for a bit, things might finally settle down... 😳 Just make sure you don't let anyone catch you... 🧐 😬 🥳
It’s just one of those massive commercial HVAC systems—you know, the kind you find in a glass skyscraper... Honestly, I feel like I could just bring the whole building down if I wanted to... 😍
Elizabeth Anderson63 said:you're sweet, 👋 but I'm looking for at least 50 or 60 strikes... 😢
For cars? Honestly, don't aim too high if you ask me. Just sign up for politics—that way, right when things start getting chaotic, you'll probably end up being handed a baton. And maybe a taser 😁
As we all know, a strike is essentially a refusal to work because the working conditions just aren't cutting it.
If we look at a situation where a few moderators—just as an example, of course—disagree with a specific rule and decide to go on strike, what would actually happen?
According to them, anyway...
In America, with hundreds of thousands of people looking for work, the result of a strike like that would likely be getting fired and having the company just hire someone cheaper from the unemployment office—so, is that a possibility here too?
What I'm trying to ask is, if the majority of moderators disagree with something but are "forced" to enforce it, would they still get screwed over for not following it?
No 🤣🤣🤣 isn't 😁 It’s more that you really have to choose between a dog or a cat—you couldn't quite make up your mind, so I figured... maybe having a loyal little companion just isn't your thing anymore 🤣
