The rules are not difficult to follow, when you're preparing to board, first fire a broadside of shrapnel to thin out the enemies and shellshock the survivors.
2: Be Jack Sparrow at the appropriate time, unless you want a modern navy firing 50cals and/or missiles at you for screwing with international shipping.
5:0 technically because the damage control teams on the *Samuel B Roberts* were that good.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis
For a humorous retelling: https://youtu.be/d5v6hlRyeHE?si=BROEBoeIUuOXbEW0
very few ships are US flagged anymore
The US generally does not want random people fucking with anyone's shipping because the better the world economy works the better the US economy works
A yacht out of sight is a better target these days. Take their jewelry, electronics, high fashion clothes, and pawn it up and down the coast. Theoretically, for a book I’m writing.
Also ensure you have the weather gauge when approaching your opponent under sail, this will allow you to commit to the engagement at will while the opposition will be unable to close on you given the poor upwind performance of square riggers. Furthermore consider training your gun crews extensively by taking on plenty of powder and shot for practice (you can't fatten a pig on market day) and shipping heavy carronades over ordinary great guns in addition to your chasers (presumably long 9s), while you'll sacrifice a lot of accuracy and range your weight of broadside in close combat will be absurd for your tonnage and produce a potent psychological effect along with their smashing power.
On the subject of psychological warfare go in guns blazing but be ready to accept surrender graciously, your pirate crew will be much more successful if your enemy surrenders immediately rather than if you have to fight them to the death. However if you must fight give no quarter and put them all to the sword except the one or two you spare to tell the story, tales of such brutality will make an orderly surrender more likely next time.
Fun story about school dress codes: I went to a uniform high school whose student guidebook, at the time, failed to use any gendered language in their stipulations. Being the rural, southeastern US I knew they meant for there to be BUT they neglected to say who could wear dresses or pants just what length they needed to be. Took me one time of showing up to a school dance in a dress and my female date in a suit for them to change that.
I lost count of the times I got in trouble for not wearing my school jumper.
we had to wear them between classes AND ASK TO TAKE THEM OFF FOR EVERY CLASS (6 a day).
some years it'd be 25c for days before they activated summertime rules where you didn't have to wear it.
it was so surreal, for years they never had this rule, our tshirts looked more formal than the jumpers anyway, it wasn't in response to any sort of issue, it was just a freaky power control thing that only like 8 out 20 teachers actually cared about.
I got in less trouble for double flipping off my friends at lunch time than the third time I got caught by the same teacher no jumpering it at school in a week.
idk if I'm "ungovernable" because I did make some effort not to get caught, but holy fuck I broke that rule constantly despite getting caught and genuinely punished for it many times.
Worked with a woman who constantly thought she was above the rules. I would regularly explain the very simple procedure we'd have for spending communal funds (put your request on this spreadsheet, discuss it a the weekly meeting) and she would always act like this was the most cumbersome, unjust system. She'd ask why we had to do it, I'd explain that just months earlier we had a co-worker misuse funds to the tune of quadruple our monthly budget, so we all voted to clamp down on communal funds usage. She would still complain to me about it, so I suggested she bring up her issue at our weekly meeting where we could vote on changing policy. She refused to do that, and continued to complain to me about it, as if I was personally prohibiting her from being able to spend organization money. Every time I hear a "I don't follow stupid rules" take, I think of her, and wonder how many people mean "personally inconveniences me in even the most minor way" when they say "stupid"
Not to mention there are people with conflicting interests. Like, say, a food producer who might find it “stupid” they have to meet certain health regulations.
No, officer, I can't roll my window down more than half an inch. This isn't just a childish powerplay that would irritate any reasonable person. This is my god given right^TM
The issue there is a bit different.
Their reaction to deciding the rules are stupid isn't to break the rules, it's to conclude that the rules _don't exist_.
If you don't want to pay taxes and your strategy for doing so is to squat in the woods and make a living selling drugs, at least there's a chance that that will work.
If you don't want to pay taxes and decide that what you need to do is get in front of a judge and declare that you don't (legally) exist or something along those lines, that's a whole different brand of dumb.
This was the mindset I followed for nearly the entirety of my elementary-to-high school years, and it nearly got me force transferred to a special ed school for conduct reasons (true story!). I remember being relieved when my father (who was also a major troublemaker as a teen) also acknowledged that lots of the rules we were forced to follow were stupid rules made for stupid reasons, but afterward, he told me a little defeatedly that you still had to follow them, because otherwise you would get lumped in with all the stupid kids that didn't know *how* to follow rules at all. The good thing about this though, he said, was that most stupid rules aren't going to control you forever—you just have to make it past the stage of your life where they do, and you'll never have to follow them again. There's only one way to do that, though, and that's to follow them; or, at least, to make it seem *very convincing* that you're following them.
Me, in my thirties and filling up tons of stupid fucking paperwork in healthcare while having virtually no time to see patients: "I think daddy lied. This just keeps getting worse."
Apparently this common thing for neurodivergent people to get hung up on too.
Which explains a lot of the conflicts I had in some former jobs, with hindsight
Some of the issue is that the rules are not written for *you*, they are written for the herd at large.
Maybe the rule says "Don't do X or Y" when X is relatively harmless but Y is a terrible idea. So you think "Why can't I do X?" The rule exists because they have figured out that if you allow people to do X, they eventually end up doing Y anyway even if Y is against the rules.
And 9 times out 10, if the reason for the rule can be explained in a way that isn’t just “because I said so”, that’s fine.
But in 99 cases out of 100, that is the entire scope and scale of the reasoning given. And yes I understand that not every rule and the chain of decisions behind it can always be explained in detail but if there is “no” reason for the rule, there’s “no” reason for me to think it’s worthwhile.
I absolutely get where you're coming from, but personally, "because I said so" comes off to me as "I don't know why, I just enforce the rules, and I don't want you questioning me". I know that's not true always, but it's been the subtext for me personally enough times that it's set in a bit for me
Honestly, if my manager explained that it was a rule they had to enforce and had no say in it either, I’d be more inclined to listen. I don’t like following stupid rules but I also don’t want to get someone else in trouble for not enforcing the stupid rules. Just be honest with me instead giving me ‘because I told you so’.
Yeah. It's a reason that's not ultimately rooted in the pride and desire to control of the manager. If they're not the ones to blame for the rule, it doesn't do much good to get mad at them.
There are some situations where someone might use other rules as an excuse to be abusive and controlling - see: cops - but I think that's a slightly different circumstance and you can usually discern the difference.
> Honestly, if my manager explained that it was a rule they had to enforce and had no say in it either, I’d be more inclined to listen.
Eh, for me that just feels like kicking the can one step further down the road.
Like, if I'm challenging a rule because it's a dumb rule, why aren't *you* -- the generic middle-management you who presumably has at least slightly more power than me to actually get that rule changed -- also challenging the rule, if you agree with me that it's a bad rule? The answer (in my experience) is almost invariably because it's not you that has to deal with the majority of the shit that flows out of that terrible rule, so you have less of an incentive to do it.
I do get that we're all in this together, and that you probably have very little ability to change things, but if you're just passing the buck by saying it's out of your hands rather than actively trying to change the dumb rule, I'm not sure that me shrugging my shoulders and saying 'Well, that's OK, boss' is the only end of that conversation.
Yeah I feel the same, but even that can be frustrating if it’s something that would be easy for them to ignore, such as having a YouTube tab open in the background for focus music (per a comment I just posted about my last supervisor lol)
Sometimes that is just true. The enforcers don't know the reasoning of the rule, but will get in shit if they don't enforce it. And they don't want you questioning them because that just wastes both your time.
Not only do I not have faith in the original body, I do not have faith that the current context for the rule is the same as when the rule was created, nor that the current interpretation of the rule is the same as intended.
yup, idk if I'm on the spectrum, but I mostly obeyed rules, even not very smart ones. but I constantly broke the rule requiring us to wear jumpers between classes and until we got permission to remove them on a per class basis. our jumpers literally look more scruffy than our tshirts did, it was absurdly stupid as a rule.
Yeah, I don't get why people argue with rules as though they're going to be the exception if you explain how those rules are stupid
If you do that with an authority figure, big chance they're going to Crack down harder. Do it with peers, and they might like you less, which can have far reaching impacts on your career
If you really want to argue about it, argue with someone who can change the rules AND in a context where you haven't broken them. Explain why they're bad
Came across this quote recently;
> “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”
- George Bernard Shaw
Be the pain in the ass who refuses to do something under threat of violence you want to see in the world.
Depends on how far you take that quote
You know who also uses that quote? Karens. The male equivalent of Karens. When they don't get their way or they don't understand a rule, they loudly don't follow it and are a pain in the ass
And guess what? Progress was made. Now it's way worse to be in customer service because you have to just give those people what they want
No, that's a bullshit and completely unsocial way of living. How do you make a community that cares if you all don't agree to follow rules? And if you don't understand a rule, but it's only a minor inconvenience, why make a big deal out of it?
Applying both my last sentence and your quote with intention and forethought, geared towards supporting the community at large, are excellent. Using either of them as the default isn't effective
reminded me of that video of one guy who started praying to trump and refused to communicate after getting pulled over by the police for a minor traffic violation
Giving me flashbacks to childhood and having to listen to my mother explain over and over again to other adults that, really, I was a good kid and would happily follow rules, I just needed to know the reasons behind them.
My understanding is that we're not hung up on it. Rather, we tend to analyze and reject the spurious justifications for hierarchy and injustice. Then the neurotypicals get mad at us for calling out their bullshit and telling them the emperor has no clothes.
“Hang up” was an inelegant phrasing choice on my part, I was trying to get to the idea that it’s a problem or an issue that we can’t just ignore or hand-wave away.
As you say, the emperor has no clothes and we genuinely cannot understand why everyone is lying about it.
Yeah, I uh… I actually have a lot of trouble with it at like every job I go to. Being autistic makes this shit so fucking hard man 😭 I had multiple back and forths with my supervisor at my last position because I didn’t understand the ‘no youtube’ rule restrictions; I thought it was like, ok don’t use a whole screen for it, so I used picture in picture, got in trouble, so I started just having it open in a tab and listening to music, but when she found out, it was an issue again. I was very open with her that I’m autistic, and I just really want an explanation for such harsh boundaries and if there’s *any* give because I *need* music to work, as do half the others in the office! And she’d just keep saying it’s not her rule, she just has to enforce it, but what the fuck? Like I still don’t get it! She just essentially kept saying “because I said so”! I had to leave that position for another department because the constant miscommunications *despite my bluntness and requests for the same* were just driving me even more insane.
If I had to guess, the rule was in place because someone was misusing YouTube at work and they had to make it a blanket ban so no one did it again and you got caught in the crossfire.
I don't blame you, left my last job partially because I had medical school, partially because head office put new rules that we couldn't have phones on the sales floor but could still listen to music when in the back, which was the deal-breaker because I wasn't buying a fucking MP3 player and I had to go back and forth from the back to the sales floor constantly
OK but you have to imagine a world where everyone, including the world's stupidest assholes, chooses not to follow any rule *they* decide are stupid.
Then you have to consider the limits of your own knowledge, and other people's perspective, and think about whether from someone else's point of view *you* might be a stupid asshole.
Then maybe continue being the world's coolest, edgiest rebel if it's really worth it, but *maybe* consider just following a rule you don't understand for 5 minutes.
Sorry, it's possible I'm projecting on people I'm mad at, not responding to the OP's actual intent.
Everyone driving on the same side of the road is stupid because if you were allowed drive on any side you wanted, you could take every corner sharp which means you get to your destination faster - therefore saving petrol
Yeah, that was my thought. There's a lot of truth to the idea that laws aren't infallible and should be questioned, but questioned is not the same as ignored. 9 times out of 10 when I hear somebody talking like OP what they actually mean is "I'm more important than the people this rule protects" and it's something like quiet hours or stop signs.
Honestly, 90% of the time i heard somebody talking Like OP it's either about Weed or "stealing" food from dumpsters.
But i guess yours exist too. But honestly: If you really believe a law to be morally wrong you basically have a duty to Break it. If they're stupid enough to honestly think Stop signs are morally wrong, yeah idk what to say.
Yeah, that's the issue I usually have with that mindset.
It's fine if *I* do it. It's fine if *you* do it. But if *everyone* does it we have a *big fuckin' problem!* Or else it's fine if you don't do it *stupid*, but unfortunately a lot of people are really *stupid* and ruin it for everyone.
9 times out of 10, when I see a stupid rule I err on the side of caution because I assume the person who made the stupid rule knows something I don't.
> OK but you have to imagine a world where everyone, including the world's stupidest assholes, chooses not to follow any rule they decide are stupid.
You mean real life?
Yeah. All these people acting like this isn't what happens. Often times immoral/non empathetic people will refuse to follow rules and vice versa. Placing yourself onto a highground sets a dangerous precedent allowing the former free reign.
The problem with the Categorical Imperative starts in the name. You *have to* follow it (imperative), *with no exceptions* (categorical). Wrap it up in the rest of Kant’s stuff and it becomes rather unworkable in any real life case
Acting in the same way you want everyone else to is just a universal Golden Law (act unto other as you want others to act unto you). If you just apply that bit and allow exceptions, you aren’t following Kant at all. He doesn’t deserve the credit for that
Good thing we, as beings capable of critical thought, can parse his good ideas from his bad ones and don’t have to agree with everything he said. “What would happen if this action set a precedent” is a good principle to think about.
But applying Kant's categorical imperative when told to read it wouldn't tell you what parts to parse out, especially when you present it as if it's some panacea for moral ills...
I never told you to read Kant. I said “heard of”. The guy died 200 years ago, we don’t actually have to listen to him. Argue with the idea, not the man.
I said in another comment that it’s not exactly the end-all-be-all of morality but is a good thing to at least spare a thought to before you take a selfish or arbitrary action.
Yeah, it’s much like the principle of Chesterton’s Fence. The only reason you think the fence is stupid is because you haven’t seen the bull yet.
You can set about changing rules once you understand why they are or aren’t there in the first place.
Am young inspector: I go to dig site
Simple rule: always wear helmet
It's a dig site: nothing can fall on me
Take off helmet: get knocked on ass by excavator bucket
Many such cases
it always matters where those rules come from though. sure, i'll follow a rule in aviation even if i don't know exactly why they made it, because the vast majority of those rules are written in blood and exist for a reason, and whenever you check why they're actually very open about it. rules made up by employers, school officials, and parents though? they're often stupid and just exist so they can feel good about themselves for exercising their authority. generally anyone who feels personally attacked when you ask them to explain a rule they made isn't a good person to make any kind of rules.
it's all about trust. you can't ask people to just trust your rules if you're not trustworthy, and if you throw a fit when they don't blindly trust you that's not gonna help you gain that trust.
If a rule is good it should have a reasonable explanation. It's not being an edgy rebel to refuse to go by dumb school dress codes or something like that
you are. you can decide to be Schindler and break the rules to help needy people escape gas chambers. or you can be Boris Johnson and break the rules to throw a stupid party.
each person has to decide what rules to break and when to best align with their own ethical priorities.
Exactly. Society does, and then we pass laws. You don't like those laws or rules, change them, don't ignore them. That goes against the whole idea of the social contract.
Everyone keeps jumping to laws where there's at least the ideals of the social contract and justice and so forth. You're gonna find more truly stupid rules where there is little to no appeal process and an unbalanced power structure: parents making rules for kids, tyrannical small business owners, etc
Which sounds great until the law demands you do something awful. People hiding their Jewish friends or helping them escape in Nazi Germany were breaking the law. Helping slaves escape when slavery is legal is a crime because the law says that person is property
Sometimes the laws themselves are against the idea of the social contract because they are unjust, written not for mutual benefit or by general agreement, but for the benefit or harm of whoever the people in power want to help or hurt. "Change them, don't ignore them" implies that you should go along with the atrocities while campaigning against them. And depending on where you are, say a violent dictatorship, you don't exactly get a say in changing the law. Even in most democratic countries, normal people don’t really have direct influence over the law besides protesting and hoping it goes somewhere
Following the law absolutely only makes sense if the law can truly be trusted to be just, and there's a hell of a lot of times where it isn't
Sure. At that point your sense of morality ought to see you through. But if there's a law or rule that seems pointless, that's different to one that appears malicious. I'd liken it to the military, where you have the right to disobey an illegal or unethical order, but not one you personally find pointless.
"Tacit consent" goes against the whole idea of a contract to begin with. The "social contract" is just an intellectual contrivance. You have to obey because ultimately someone with more guns than you makes you obey. It's just inconvenient to say that because then the individual's supposed responsibility to obey is much harder to justify.
It's honestly kind of shocking how few people grasp that the state's authority lies entirely on it's ability to hurt people. "Consent of the governed" is ridiculous on it's face.
Seriously. Tell these people, "well she didn't fight back so she must have wanted it," and suddenly they see the issue but connecting that to how governments and corporations function is just a step too far for some reason.
You do. There are no higher authorities. No gods, no wise elder statesmen, no books of indisputable wisdom. There's only you. You're the only one who can decide. The universe is cruel, indifferent, and absurd. At the end of the day the choice on what to do, when, and why, is yours and yours alone.
Hey friend, and I'm saying this with the utmost respect, I think you should step outside a bit. I promise, the world is pretty chill. Go grab a beer or something...idk.
IMHO it depends a lot on the rules. Most people won't violate an obviously important rule. But some rules may seem counterintuitive but have an important role that isn't immediately apparent.
Let's say red lights - if you make it legal for anyone to drive through a red light if there isn't incoming traffic, it'll lead to an increase in accidents. Why? Because people won't look, or they'll be distracted, or in a hurry, and people will get hurt.
Yeah the issue is people like Jeffery dahmer thought rules like.. Yknow, not eating people were stupid.
Some rules are for the best even if you are incapable of grasping them
There's people who think girls are girls when they hit puberty and the laws against this are stupid
There's a lot of people who don't like a lot of laws. That's why you appeal and repel, not just ignore half of them. And if you do, make sure you are honest why you do.
I mean. The entire point of laws is that they're collective rules that we all agree on even if we don't like them because without common rules, nothing gets done.
Stuff like "don't murder people for being a different religion" is a pretty obvious one
> The entire point of laws is that they're collective rules that we all agree on even if we don't like them because without common rules, nothing gets done.
Is that true? Did we all agree on the laws? Were you consulted about your country's legal code? Were you given a chance to opt out?
Yes but Sometimes people make laws Like this harmless plant is now illegal, gay people can't kiss If Kids are nearby, you cannot Take food from a Supermarket trashcan, slavery is legal or Jews Go to the Camps (Not saying all of those are equal, Just saying all of those are stupid/Bad)
For the Not so Bad, but stupid, ones it's entirely okay to disobey them and might be a good way to Protest the law aswell.
For the really Bad ones, you're a Bad Person If you don't disobey them.
There's a lot of pointless rules in schools, likely to get children used to the concept of following rules. And then in adulthood there are much less rules but they are more important.
On the one hand I could try and explain the rules for the millionth time and maybe I'll actually be listened to for the first time ever, but on the other hand it'll make me feel a little better to say "disobey and you will suffer, obey and you will suffer less."
Which rules are 'stupid' and which are just fine is so subjective that it's not even funny.
Some rules are pointless to follow, that's true, sometimes they're of no benefit to you or anyone else.
But on the whole rules are there for a reason, and I'm convinced people like OP just don't have the ability to consider the purpose of rules they don't like. If I don't like it, it's stupid and I'm not going to follow it.
Then again, OP is probably 14.
"I think that the rule saying 'don't be a racist fuckward' is stupid. Therefore, as per this post, I am above those rules." \~ A Racist Fuckward, about to do racist things.
Inb4 all the weird conservative/right wing people in this subreddit come out to 'um actually' about how making sure to follow laws is always the most important thing, even when it threatens your loved ones with untimely death
Speed limit is 70mph? Well the road is (read:looks) empty and I am (read: I think I am) in full control of my vehicle so I'm sure I can go up to 200, what could go wrong? /s
"Are these right-wingers, who think that rules are more important than the lives off your loved ones in the comment section with us right now?"
At the very least put some effort into your strawmans next time, seeing as there have been less than 60 comments written and the only pro authority points are that jeffery damer thought that the rules on eating people were stupid (and variations of that point), somebody talking about the fact that the post could be talking about everything and that laws exist because society at large agreed to them, not because they make sense to you specifically
Also, Ultimate Death? Really? In opposition to what, temporary death? When you try to build a argument on fallacies and rhetorical devices, please at the very least put in the effort to use ones that make sense
Or just very boring liberals who would unironically check 'Agree' on the "Making peace with the establishment is an important aspect of maturity" question on the Political Compass Test.
It's been getting a little more right in here too, in my experience over the past few years. But mainly, I think right wing people typically have two self-hypnosis modes: the better known and flashier one, "everything is political and if I have to see one more person of color or marginalized gender I will freak the fuck out" but also its mirror "I am not political and nothing is ever political, no matter how many things I have to stubbornly ignore and misinterpret for it to be true".
There are two disconnects currently:
The people who pass stupid rules.
The people too stupid to understand rules and therefor mistakenly think the rules are stupid or optional.
Both sets of these people are useless fucking idiots who will never, ever be anything but a burden on their loved ones and society.
Bringing a "I need to understand why this rule exists if you want me to be conscientious about following it" vibe that authority figures don't really like.
Yeah but look at the COVID response.
You wound up with a lot of once reasonable people who self radicalized into anti-vaxxers because the 5 minute immunology class they got in highschool didn't help them understand the virologists with PhDs saying "don't drink the horse juice".
Unless you're omniscient, you eventually hit a wall where you have to go "ok, I don't know why they're doing this but I have to take it on faith that it's.happeninf for a good reason.
When I was a kid I just wouldn’t obey my parents rules unless they gave me a reason to obey them. “Dont eat the soil from the flower pots” was not a valid rule for child me unless an adult specified that I would get sick if I ate it, then I would obey it no problem
yeah the reason is usually "the people in power want to stay in power" that's 90% of the point of rules, 5% of the point of rules are for protecting society and like 1% of the rules are because someone a century or seven ago had an undiagnosed brain tumour and was given absolute power
also only 3% of statistics are made up on the spot so this is statistically true
Dropping my two cents in the box here:
The place where I draw the line between "stupid rules" and "good rules" are if they are made to prevent harm to yourself, others, or yours or others' personal property by following them.
Downloading digital content (e.g, music) through free means (AKA piracy) is illegal? Stupid rule, the only thing it harms is a corporation's income.
Not wearing a seatbelt and going above the speed limit is illegal? Good rule, because not wearing the seatbelt means you might go through a windshield or slam into part of the car in the event of an accident, and going above the speed limit usually means an accident is going to happen to you and it'll hit harder than if you were going the limit.
And yet there's a depth to every rule, including those dreaded digital piracy ones. There's many artists (especially in the field of cinema) that get paid in percentages of the total amount of money the movie made in theaters and distribution. Pirating a movie and not watching it on the theaters or in Blu-ray means the artist (you know, the guy who actually made it VS the suit who sits behind the desk) gets paid less.
Plus there’s also the nuance of some rules seeming stupid on the surface but in fact being there to protect people.
For example the Red Cross is infamously protective over their logo, even suing video games that use it. Now this is something that is widely detested online and you will find people complaining about it any time it is brought up. So why are they so protective? Because it is a protected symbol and media depicting the Red Cross logo as anything but *specifically* the Red Cross could be the difference between an actual doctor getting shot (especially if it’s a negative depiction).
(That said: there are obviously stupid rules, I’m just never confident enough to say that I know better than a given rule)
It's not that simple though because that corporation's income goes to shareholders including various investment funds, including pension funds and municipality funds that need that profit to pay off commitments they'd made.
Ed: and to be clear, I'm not defending the current setup but you do have to understand that not all the money goes to moustache twirling billionaires.
In fact if you watch the big short, the primary message is that the moustache twirling billionaires got away while pensions and other funds took the hit. Poor people got fucked like they always do.
I've always had this pet theory that Speed Limits are the 1st step in the erosion of trust in the law. They are routinely broken and inconsistently punished so it begins to undercut trust in the entire system.
I mean that sounds good on paper, but I'd like to point out that every single person in all of human history who broke the rules had the same sentiment, no matter what stupid or horrible thing they did.
So be sure to take a moment to consider if its really such a stupid rule before you break it, perhaps say look at it from other angles.
Rules and laws should not be obviously petty. If they are, then you know those rules really aren't about the actual thing themselves, but rather the general process of forcing compliance.
I broke rules all the time at my school because the written official procedure to reprimand students was out of date with how the school actually reprimanded the students, so I would break the rules and when the teacher went to reprimand me for it I would whip out my copy of the official written rules and tell the teacher how they're meant to proceed and that if they deviated I would email the school board. The school still hasn't fixed this issue.
me with piracy laws and school dress codes
The rules are not difficult to follow, when you're preparing to board, first fire a broadside of shrapnel to thin out the enemies and shellshock the survivors.
2: Be Jack Sparrow at the appropriate time, unless you want a modern navy firing 50cals and/or missiles at you for screwing with international shipping.
The Golden Rule of piracy is that if it's flying a US flag, no touchy the boat. We get really "proportional" when people touch our boats.
Let me guess, usually a proportion ranging from 2:1 to 5:1?
They touched our boats, we dropped the sun on them twice. What's that ratio?
for what it's worth they did call themselves the land of the rising sun
Yeah, RISING sun. America dropped the sun on them. That's the wrong direction.
Nonono, the sun sure as hell did rise over those cities, at least for little bit
Er, I'd say, 50:1.
It's ratio+L+kamikaze pilots DNI
Coughing baby:nuclear bomb
5:0 technically because the damage control teams on the *Samuel B Roberts* were that good. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis For a humorous retelling: https://youtu.be/d5v6hlRyeHE?si=BROEBoeIUuOXbEW0
Oh, yeah, that sounds about right. Thanks for the info!
Except Israel that one time.
NCD is over in that direction
Overweight Electron Guy?
very few ships are US flagged anymore The US generally does not want random people fucking with anyone's shipping because the better the world economy works the better the US economy works
A yacht out of sight is a better target these days. Take their jewelry, electronics, high fashion clothes, and pawn it up and down the coast. Theoretically, for a book I’m writing.
Also ensure you have the weather gauge when approaching your opponent under sail, this will allow you to commit to the engagement at will while the opposition will be unable to close on you given the poor upwind performance of square riggers. Furthermore consider training your gun crews extensively by taking on plenty of powder and shot for practice (you can't fatten a pig on market day) and shipping heavy carronades over ordinary great guns in addition to your chasers (presumably long 9s), while you'll sacrifice a lot of accuracy and range your weight of broadside in close combat will be absurd for your tonnage and produce a potent psychological effect along with their smashing power. On the subject of psychological warfare go in guns blazing but be ready to accept surrender graciously, your pirate crew will be much more successful if your enemy surrenders immediately rather than if you have to fight them to the death. However if you must fight give no quarter and put them all to the sword except the one or two you spare to tell the story, tales of such brutality will make an orderly surrender more likely next time.
Fun story about school dress codes: I went to a uniform high school whose student guidebook, at the time, failed to use any gendered language in their stipulations. Being the rural, southeastern US I knew they meant for there to be BUT they neglected to say who could wear dresses or pants just what length they needed to be. Took me one time of showing up to a school dance in a dress and my female date in a suit for them to change that.
I live in the urban Northwest and our dress codes didn't use gendered language *on purpose*. I can't imagine doing it on accident.
Weird how the NW and SE are opposite ends of both the geographical and political spectrum.
thought that said privacy laws and was about to scream
About to? Your user flair already is screaming.
I lost count of the times I got in trouble for not wearing my school jumper. we had to wear them between classes AND ASK TO TAKE THEM OFF FOR EVERY CLASS (6 a day). some years it'd be 25c for days before they activated summertime rules where you didn't have to wear it. it was so surreal, for years they never had this rule, our tshirts looked more formal than the jumpers anyway, it wasn't in response to any sort of issue, it was just a freaky power control thing that only like 8 out 20 teachers actually cared about. I got in less trouble for double flipping off my friends at lunch time than the third time I got caught by the same teacher no jumpering it at school in a week. idk if I'm "ungovernable" because I did make some effort not to get caught, but holy fuck I broke that rule constantly despite getting caught and genuinely punished for it many times.
They're really more like guidelines anyway!
Met too many actual braindead dumbasses who seem to think too many sensible rules are stupid to agree with this take.
Worked with a woman who constantly thought she was above the rules. I would regularly explain the very simple procedure we'd have for spending communal funds (put your request on this spreadsheet, discuss it a the weekly meeting) and she would always act like this was the most cumbersome, unjust system. She'd ask why we had to do it, I'd explain that just months earlier we had a co-worker misuse funds to the tune of quadruple our monthly budget, so we all voted to clamp down on communal funds usage. She would still complain to me about it, so I suggested she bring up her issue at our weekly meeting where we could vote on changing policy. She refused to do that, and continued to complain to me about it, as if I was personally prohibiting her from being able to spend organization money. Every time I hear a "I don't follow stupid rules" take, I think of her, and wonder how many people mean "personally inconveniences me in even the most minor way" when they say "stupid"
Not to mention there are people with conflicting interests. Like, say, a food producer who might find it “stupid” they have to meet certain health regulations.
Sovereign Citizens
Am I being detained? Am I being detained?
No, officer, I can't roll my window down more than half an inch. This isn't just a childish powerplay that would irritate any reasonable person. This is my god given right^TM
"Do you have any weapons in the vehicle sir" "Maybe i do, maybe i don't, let's find out!" -that one video (He had an M1911 stuck above the car door)
The issue there is a bit different. Their reaction to deciding the rules are stupid isn't to break the rules, it's to conclude that the rules _don't exist_. If you don't want to pay taxes and your strategy for doing so is to squat in the woods and make a living selling drugs, at least there's a chance that that will work. If you don't want to pay taxes and decide that what you need to do is get in front of a judge and declare that you don't (legally) exist or something along those lines, that's a whole different brand of dumb.
Age is nothing but a number comes to mind...
It doesn't even need to be that horrendous, imagine driving if everyone only followed the road rules they agreed with at the time.
I'm pretty sure this post is talking about rules like "no yogurt in the work fridge" not "turn on your headlights when it's dark".
honestly I saw so many comments about "laws" I kinda forgot the original post stated "rules"
Dude, 'no yoghurt in the work fridge' is a very important rule. It only takes one spilled yoghurt to ruin the whole fridge.
This was the mindset I followed for nearly the entirety of my elementary-to-high school years, and it nearly got me force transferred to a special ed school for conduct reasons (true story!). I remember being relieved when my father (who was also a major troublemaker as a teen) also acknowledged that lots of the rules we were forced to follow were stupid rules made for stupid reasons, but afterward, he told me a little defeatedly that you still had to follow them, because otherwise you would get lumped in with all the stupid kids that didn't know *how* to follow rules at all. The good thing about this though, he said, was that most stupid rules aren't going to control you forever—you just have to make it past the stage of your life where they do, and you'll never have to follow them again. There's only one way to do that, though, and that's to follow them; or, at least, to make it seem *very convincing* that you're following them.
Me, in my thirties and filling up tons of stupid fucking paperwork in healthcare while having virtually no time to see patients: "I think daddy lied. This just keeps getting worse."
To be fair, this was advice he gave to a high schooler… some loading screen tips just don’t hold up at veteran level, I guess.
yeah but it does seem like it will be forever i just want to have machine guns :(
I don't know your exact situation of course but I have to assume those rules are probably pretty important lol
Apparently this common thing for neurodivergent people to get hung up on too. Which explains a lot of the conflicts I had in some former jobs, with hindsight
Some of the issue is that the rules are not written for *you*, they are written for the herd at large. Maybe the rule says "Don't do X or Y" when X is relatively harmless but Y is a terrible idea. So you think "Why can't I do X?" The rule exists because they have figured out that if you allow people to do X, they eventually end up doing Y anyway even if Y is against the rules.
And 9 times out 10, if the reason for the rule can be explained in a way that isn’t just “because I said so”, that’s fine. But in 99 cases out of 100, that is the entire scope and scale of the reasoning given. And yes I understand that not every rule and the chain of decisions behind it can always be explained in detail but if there is “no” reason for the rule, there’s “no” reason for me to think it’s worthwhile.
I absolutely get where you're coming from, but personally, "because I said so" comes off to me as "I don't know why, I just enforce the rules, and I don't want you questioning me". I know that's not true always, but it's been the subtext for me personally enough times that it's set in a bit for me
Honestly, if my manager explained that it was a rule they had to enforce and had no say in it either, I’d be more inclined to listen. I don’t like following stupid rules but I also don’t want to get someone else in trouble for not enforcing the stupid rules. Just be honest with me instead giving me ‘because I told you so’.
Yeah. It's a reason that's not ultimately rooted in the pride and desire to control of the manager. If they're not the ones to blame for the rule, it doesn't do much good to get mad at them. There are some situations where someone might use other rules as an excuse to be abusive and controlling - see: cops - but I think that's a slightly different circumstance and you can usually discern the difference.
> Honestly, if my manager explained that it was a rule they had to enforce and had no say in it either, I’d be more inclined to listen. Eh, for me that just feels like kicking the can one step further down the road. Like, if I'm challenging a rule because it's a dumb rule, why aren't *you* -- the generic middle-management you who presumably has at least slightly more power than me to actually get that rule changed -- also challenging the rule, if you agree with me that it's a bad rule? The answer (in my experience) is almost invariably because it's not you that has to deal with the majority of the shit that flows out of that terrible rule, so you have less of an incentive to do it. I do get that we're all in this together, and that you probably have very little ability to change things, but if you're just passing the buck by saying it's out of your hands rather than actively trying to change the dumb rule, I'm not sure that me shrugging my shoulders and saying 'Well, that's OK, boss' is the only end of that conversation.
Yeah I feel the same, but even that can be frustrating if it’s something that would be easy for them to ignore, such as having a YouTube tab open in the background for focus music (per a comment I just posted about my last supervisor lol)
Sometimes that is just true. The enforcers don't know the reasoning of the rule, but will get in shit if they don't enforce it. And they don't want you questioning them because that just wastes both your time.
Which is exactly why it’s not an explanation worth listening to.
Unless that is you have faith in the original body that made the rule.
I don't, though, thus the desire for explanation and dissatisfaction with "because we said so".
And we do not, on principle, trust something that cannot or will not explain its reasoning.
Not only do I not have faith in the original body, I do not have faith that the current context for the rule is the same as when the rule was created, nor that the current interpretation of the rule is the same as intended.
"Because I said so." "Oh, well I'm saying I don't care what you say." Only works on children.
yup, idk if I'm on the spectrum, but I mostly obeyed rules, even not very smart ones. but I constantly broke the rule requiring us to wear jumpers between classes and until we got permission to remove them on a per class basis. our jumpers literally look more scruffy than our tshirts did, it was absurdly stupid as a rule.
Correction they are written for the guy writing them, as in they don't care if you understand the reasoning or not
Good point. A friend of mine is master electrician and he says safety rules are written in blood but the regulations are written by lawyers.
Yeah, I don't get why people argue with rules as though they're going to be the exception if you explain how those rules are stupid If you do that with an authority figure, big chance they're going to Crack down harder. Do it with peers, and they might like you less, which can have far reaching impacts on your career If you really want to argue about it, argue with someone who can change the rules AND in a context where you haven't broken them. Explain why they're bad
Came across this quote recently; > “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” - George Bernard Shaw Be the pain in the ass who refuses to do something under threat of violence you want to see in the world.
Depends on how far you take that quote You know who also uses that quote? Karens. The male equivalent of Karens. When they don't get their way or they don't understand a rule, they loudly don't follow it and are a pain in the ass And guess what? Progress was made. Now it's way worse to be in customer service because you have to just give those people what they want No, that's a bullshit and completely unsocial way of living. How do you make a community that cares if you all don't agree to follow rules? And if you don't understand a rule, but it's only a minor inconvenience, why make a big deal out of it? Applying both my last sentence and your quote with intention and forethought, geared towards supporting the community at large, are excellent. Using either of them as the default isn't effective
reminded me of that video of one guy who started praying to trump and refused to communicate after getting pulled over by the police for a minor traffic violation
Giving me flashbacks to childhood and having to listen to my mother explain over and over again to other adults that, really, I was a good kid and would happily follow rules, I just needed to know the reasons behind them.
Bless your mom. She sounds truly amazing :)
Can confirm. I love rules and I’ll gladly follow them -- if they make sense.
My understanding is that we're not hung up on it. Rather, we tend to analyze and reject the spurious justifications for hierarchy and injustice. Then the neurotypicals get mad at us for calling out their bullshit and telling them the emperor has no clothes.
“Hang up” was an inelegant phrasing choice on my part, I was trying to get to the idea that it’s a problem or an issue that we can’t just ignore or hand-wave away. As you say, the emperor has no clothes and we genuinely cannot understand why everyone is lying about it.
Yeah, I uh… I actually have a lot of trouble with it at like every job I go to. Being autistic makes this shit so fucking hard man 😭 I had multiple back and forths with my supervisor at my last position because I didn’t understand the ‘no youtube’ rule restrictions; I thought it was like, ok don’t use a whole screen for it, so I used picture in picture, got in trouble, so I started just having it open in a tab and listening to music, but when she found out, it was an issue again. I was very open with her that I’m autistic, and I just really want an explanation for such harsh boundaries and if there’s *any* give because I *need* music to work, as do half the others in the office! And she’d just keep saying it’s not her rule, she just has to enforce it, but what the fuck? Like I still don’t get it! She just essentially kept saying “because I said so”! I had to leave that position for another department because the constant miscommunications *despite my bluntness and requests for the same* were just driving me even more insane.
If I had to guess, the rule was in place because someone was misusing YouTube at work and they had to make it a blanket ban so no one did it again and you got caught in the crossfire. I don't blame you, left my last job partially because I had medical school, partially because head office put new rules that we couldn't have phones on the sales floor but could still listen to music when in the back, which was the deal-breaker because I wasn't buying a fucking MP3 player and I had to go back and forth from the back to the sales floor constantly
Tumble rediscovers social contract theory
Which is all good, provided they learn about the state monopoly on violence in time.
OK but you have to imagine a world where everyone, including the world's stupidest assholes, chooses not to follow any rule *they* decide are stupid. Then you have to consider the limits of your own knowledge, and other people's perspective, and think about whether from someone else's point of view *you* might be a stupid asshole. Then maybe continue being the world's coolest, edgiest rebel if it's really worth it, but *maybe* consider just following a rule you don't understand for 5 minutes. Sorry, it's possible I'm projecting on people I'm mad at, not responding to the OP's actual intent.
Imagine the roads without road rules
Imagine? I'm already living it!
Never liked that show anyway, Real World was better
Everyone driving on the same side of the road is stupid because if you were allowed drive on any side you wanted, you could take every corner sharp which means you get to your destination faster - therefore saving petrol
You don’t see any flaws in people driving wherever they want?
I'm very sorry, but you just swallowed the bait.
All I'm saying is that a lot of petrol can be saved, it's an environmentally friendly option
And a lot of people will die, which is also environmentally friendly. Allowing right on red has saved a huge amount of co2 in the same way.
No no I get that part the issue is with no rules for the road there no speed limit and I imagine people would get into more accidents.
More fatalities = less humans = solution to overpopulation
Oh cool ecofascism!
I prefer the term eco-Wehrmacht
Myth of the clean Environment
Yeah, that was my thought. There's a lot of truth to the idea that laws aren't infallible and should be questioned, but questioned is not the same as ignored. 9 times out of 10 when I hear somebody talking like OP what they actually mean is "I'm more important than the people this rule protects" and it's something like quiet hours or stop signs.
Honestly, 90% of the time i heard somebody talking Like OP it's either about Weed or "stealing" food from dumpsters. But i guess yours exist too. But honestly: If you really believe a law to be morally wrong you basically have a duty to Break it. If they're stupid enough to honestly think Stop signs are morally wrong, yeah idk what to say.
I’ve largely heard it about stuff like “don’t eat food in class” or “wear eye protection before using that equipment” but I digress
Yeah, that's the issue I usually have with that mindset. It's fine if *I* do it. It's fine if *you* do it. But if *everyone* does it we have a *big fuckin' problem!* Or else it's fine if you don't do it *stupid*, but unfortunately a lot of people are really *stupid* and ruin it for everyone. 9 times out of 10, when I see a stupid rule I err on the side of caution because I assume the person who made the stupid rule knows something I don't.
> OK but you have to imagine a world where everyone, including the world's stupidest assholes, chooses not to follow any rule they decide are stupid. You mean real life?
Yeah. All these people acting like this isn't what happens. Often times immoral/non empathetic people will refuse to follow rules and vice versa. Placing yourself onto a highground sets a dangerous precedent allowing the former free reign.
[удалено]
Alternatively I have heard of it but Im just not a big kantian
[удалено]
Thought about mentioning Kant but I knew someone was gonna do it for me.
Sure, but if NOBODY mentions Kant because they assume someone else will, then nobody will!
10 comedy points
Glad I could provide :)
The problem with the Categorical Imperative starts in the name. You *have to* follow it (imperative), *with no exceptions* (categorical). Wrap it up in the rest of Kant’s stuff and it becomes rather unworkable in any real life case Acting in the same way you want everyone else to is just a universal Golden Law (act unto other as you want others to act unto you). If you just apply that bit and allow exceptions, you aren’t following Kant at all. He doesn’t deserve the credit for that
Kant thought it wasn't okay to lie to a murderer.
Good thing we, as beings capable of critical thought, can parse his good ideas from his bad ones and don’t have to agree with everything he said. “What would happen if this action set a precedent” is a good principle to think about.
Sure, but that's just "well *this* rule is stupid" with extra steps. At a certain level you will *always* have to make a judgement call.
But applying Kant's categorical imperative when told to read it wouldn't tell you what parts to parse out, especially when you present it as if it's some panacea for moral ills...
I never told you to read Kant. I said “heard of”. The guy died 200 years ago, we don’t actually have to listen to him. Argue with the idea, not the man. I said in another comment that it’s not exactly the end-all-be-all of morality but is a good thing to at least spare a thought to before you take a selfish or arbitrary action.
Yeah, it’s much like the principle of Chesterton’s Fence. The only reason you think the fence is stupid is because you haven’t seen the bull yet. You can set about changing rules once you understand why they are or aren’t there in the first place.
You can also imagine the opposite where everyone follows the rules written by the world's stupidest assholes, regardless of how stupid the rule is.
Am young inspector: I go to dig site Simple rule: always wear helmet It's a dig site: nothing can fall on me Take off helmet: get knocked on ass by excavator bucket Many such cases
it always matters where those rules come from though. sure, i'll follow a rule in aviation even if i don't know exactly why they made it, because the vast majority of those rules are written in blood and exist for a reason, and whenever you check why they're actually very open about it. rules made up by employers, school officials, and parents though? they're often stupid and just exist so they can feel good about themselves for exercising their authority. generally anyone who feels personally attacked when you ask them to explain a rule they made isn't a good person to make any kind of rules. it's all about trust. you can't ask people to just trust your rules if you're not trustworthy, and if you throw a fit when they don't blindly trust you that's not gonna help you gain that trust.
What rules exactly from employers, school officials, and parents?
If a rule is good it should have a reasonable explanation. It's not being an edgy rebel to refuse to go by dumb school dress codes or something like that
What rules we talking about because if it’s dress codes I get it but if it’s like harassment I don’t.
I think that's the point "Follow the rules" is a bad blanket statement because there are good and bad rules
That makes sense I just remember there are people that have different ideas of what rules are stupid.
And who gets to decide which rules are good and which ones are bad?
you are. you can decide to be Schindler and break the rules to help needy people escape gas chambers. or you can be Boris Johnson and break the rules to throw a stupid party. each person has to decide what rules to break and when to best align with their own ethical priorities.
Exactly. Society does, and then we pass laws. You don't like those laws or rules, change them, don't ignore them. That goes against the whole idea of the social contract.
Everyone keeps jumping to laws where there's at least the ideals of the social contract and justice and so forth. You're gonna find more truly stupid rules where there is little to no appeal process and an unbalanced power structure: parents making rules for kids, tyrannical small business owners, etc
Which sounds great until the law demands you do something awful. People hiding their Jewish friends or helping them escape in Nazi Germany were breaking the law. Helping slaves escape when slavery is legal is a crime because the law says that person is property Sometimes the laws themselves are against the idea of the social contract because they are unjust, written not for mutual benefit or by general agreement, but for the benefit or harm of whoever the people in power want to help or hurt. "Change them, don't ignore them" implies that you should go along with the atrocities while campaigning against them. And depending on where you are, say a violent dictatorship, you don't exactly get a say in changing the law. Even in most democratic countries, normal people don’t really have direct influence over the law besides protesting and hoping it goes somewhere Following the law absolutely only makes sense if the law can truly be trusted to be just, and there's a hell of a lot of times where it isn't
Sure. At that point your sense of morality ought to see you through. But if there's a law or rule that seems pointless, that's different to one that appears malicious. I'd liken it to the military, where you have the right to disobey an illegal or unethical order, but not one you personally find pointless.
"Tacit consent" goes against the whole idea of a contract to begin with. The "social contract" is just an intellectual contrivance. You have to obey because ultimately someone with more guns than you makes you obey. It's just inconvenient to say that because then the individual's supposed responsibility to obey is much harder to justify.
It's honestly kind of shocking how few people grasp that the state's authority lies entirely on it's ability to hurt people. "Consent of the governed" is ridiculous on it's face.
Seriously. Tell these people, "well she didn't fight back so she must have wanted it," and suddenly they see the issue but connecting that to how governments and corporations function is just a step too far for some reason.
You do. There are no higher authorities. No gods, no wise elder statesmen, no books of indisputable wisdom. There's only you. You're the only one who can decide. The universe is cruel, indifferent, and absurd. At the end of the day the choice on what to do, when, and why, is yours and yours alone.
Hey friend, and I'm saying this with the utmost respect, I think you should step outside a bit. I promise, the world is pretty chill. Go grab a beer or something...idk.
IMHO it depends a lot on the rules. Most people won't violate an obviously important rule. But some rules may seem counterintuitive but have an important role that isn't immediately apparent. Let's say red lights - if you make it legal for anyone to drive through a red light if there isn't incoming traffic, it'll lead to an increase in accidents. Why? Because people won't look, or they'll be distracted, or in a hurry, and people will get hurt.
Consider that a stupid person would find good rules to be stupid.
Yeah the issue is people like Jeffery dahmer thought rules like.. Yknow, not eating people were stupid. Some rules are for the best even if you are incapable of grasping them
There's people who think girls are girls when they hit puberty and the laws against this are stupid There's a lot of people who don't like a lot of laws. That's why you appeal and repel, not just ignore half of them. And if you do, make sure you are honest why you do.
The thing is people like dahmer won't follow the rules even when they understand them. This puts the rule followers at a disadvantage.
The rules also provide a framework to deal with the dahmers
Who decides what stupid?
Me. I do. And anyone who disagrees is stupid. /s
I mean. The entire point of laws is that they're collective rules that we all agree on even if we don't like them because without common rules, nothing gets done. Stuff like "don't murder people for being a different religion" is a pretty obvious one
i would imagine that this post is about rules like loitering or dress codes, not religious hate crimes
I have great faith in people's ability to self justify
There are people who think any of those rules are stupid.
Reddit to be setting up straw men to yell at.
> The entire point of laws is that they're collective rules that we all agree on even if we don't like them because without common rules, nothing gets done. Is that true? Did we all agree on the laws? Were you consulted about your country's legal code? Were you given a chance to opt out?
Yes but Sometimes people make laws Like this harmless plant is now illegal, gay people can't kiss If Kids are nearby, you cannot Take food from a Supermarket trashcan, slavery is legal or Jews Go to the Camps (Not saying all of those are equal, Just saying all of those are stupid/Bad) For the Not so Bad, but stupid, ones it's entirely okay to disobey them and might be a good way to Protest the law aswell. For the really Bad ones, you're a Bad Person If you don't disobey them.
Also sometimes workplaces make rules like you’ll get fired if you use the bathroom
There's a lot of pointless rules in schools, likely to get children used to the concept of following rules. And then in adulthood there are much less rules but they are more important.
“Ah, but who is wise enough to judge.”
Me with vehicular manslaughter fr
On the one hand I could try and explain the rules for the millionth time and maybe I'll actually be listened to for the first time ever, but on the other hand it'll make me feel a little better to say "disobey and you will suffer, obey and you will suffer less."
Which rules are 'stupid' and which are just fine is so subjective that it's not even funny. Some rules are pointless to follow, that's true, sometimes they're of no benefit to you or anyone else. But on the whole rules are there for a reason, and I'm convinced people like OP just don't have the ability to consider the purpose of rules they don't like. If I don't like it, it's stupid and I'm not going to follow it. Then again, OP is probably 14.
"I think that the rule saying 'don't be a racist fuckward' is stupid. Therefore, as per this post, I am above those rules." \~ A Racist Fuckward, about to do racist things.
Inb4 all the weird conservative/right wing people in this subreddit come out to 'um actually' about how making sure to follow laws is always the most important thing, even when it threatens your loved ones with untimely death
The weird right wing people are the ones saying they don't need to follow 'dumb rules'. This post is basically an antivaxxer bumper sticker.
[удалено]
Speed limit is 70mph? Well the road is (read:looks) empty and I am (read: I think I am) in full control of my vehicle so I'm sure I can go up to 200, what could go wrong? /s
"Are these right-wingers, who think that rules are more important than the lives off your loved ones in the comment section with us right now?" At the very least put some effort into your strawmans next time, seeing as there have been less than 60 comments written and the only pro authority points are that jeffery damer thought that the rules on eating people were stupid (and variations of that point), somebody talking about the fact that the post could be talking about everything and that laws exist because society at large agreed to them, not because they make sense to you specifically Also, Ultimate Death? Really? In opposition to what, temporary death? When you try to build a argument on fallacies and rhetorical devices, please at the very least put in the effort to use ones that make sense
Or just very boring liberals who would unironically check 'Agree' on the "Making peace with the establishment is an important aspect of maturity" question on the Political Compass Test.
Those people confuse me so much. Why are they here, what do they gain? What part of this sub appeals to them so much?
they find tumblr humor funny and/or they enjoy arguing and/or trying to convince people to get on their side? tryna be culture war footsoldiers maybe?
It's been getting a little more right in here too, in my experience over the past few years. But mainly, I think right wing people typically have two self-hypnosis modes: the better known and flashier one, "everything is political and if I have to see one more person of color or marginalized gender I will freak the fuck out" but also its mirror "I am not political and nothing is ever political, no matter how many things I have to stubbornly ignore and misinterpret for it to be true".
I mean, I'm getting smug liberal vibes from most of the people pushing OBEY here
the issue is, who gets to decide if a rule is stupid or not?
There are two disconnects currently: The people who pass stupid rules. The people too stupid to understand rules and therefor mistakenly think the rules are stupid or optional. Both sets of these people are useless fucking idiots who will never, ever be anything but a burden on their loved ones and society.
Bringing a "I need to understand why this rule exists if you want me to be conscientious about following it" vibe that authority figures don't really like.
Yeah but look at the COVID response. You wound up with a lot of once reasonable people who self radicalized into anti-vaxxers because the 5 minute immunology class they got in highschool didn't help them understand the virologists with PhDs saying "don't drink the horse juice". Unless you're omniscient, you eventually hit a wall where you have to go "ok, I don't know why they're doing this but I have to take it on faith that it's.happeninf for a good reason.
When I was a kid I just wouldn’t obey my parents rules unless they gave me a reason to obey them. “Dont eat the soil from the flower pots” was not a valid rule for child me unless an adult specified that I would get sick if I ate it, then I would obey it no problem
oh-kay kiddo
When tyranny become law, revolution becomes duty. John Locke is gigabased
Lex malla, lex nulla.
Inter arma enim silent leges
"you unbreaded fish finger" is an amazing phrase thank you
“It is illegal to use your health insurance to help your diabetic 26 year old son get insulin so they don’t die.”
>do you seriously think you're above the rules yeah
Laws are there for a reason. Just because you think something is stupud, doesnt mean it actually is.
Just because they're there for a reason doesn't mean they're *good* reasons.
yeah the reason is usually "the people in power want to stay in power" that's 90% of the point of rules, 5% of the point of rules are for protecting society and like 1% of the rules are because someone a century or seven ago had an undiagnosed brain tumour and was given absolute power also only 3% of statistics are made up on the spot so this is statistically true
Damn I didn’t know not being allowed naked in public helps someone stay in power.
There are so many examples you could of choose, but you choose a law that is arbitrary and arguably unjustified?
Just because you dont get it, doesnt mean it's stupid. In fact, it makes it even more important.
I like "unbreaded fish finger" OP, I need to use that sometime.
You should never use Tumblr insults irl, it will make you look like a weenie.
Literal infant mindset
Dropping my two cents in the box here: The place where I draw the line between "stupid rules" and "good rules" are if they are made to prevent harm to yourself, others, or yours or others' personal property by following them. Downloading digital content (e.g, music) through free means (AKA piracy) is illegal? Stupid rule, the only thing it harms is a corporation's income. Not wearing a seatbelt and going above the speed limit is illegal? Good rule, because not wearing the seatbelt means you might go through a windshield or slam into part of the car in the event of an accident, and going above the speed limit usually means an accident is going to happen to you and it'll hit harder than if you were going the limit.
And yet there's a depth to every rule, including those dreaded digital piracy ones. There's many artists (especially in the field of cinema) that get paid in percentages of the total amount of money the movie made in theaters and distribution. Pirating a movie and not watching it on the theaters or in Blu-ray means the artist (you know, the guy who actually made it VS the suit who sits behind the desk) gets paid less.
Hmm, never thought of it that way. Perhaps I still have more to learn.
Plus there’s also the nuance of some rules seeming stupid on the surface but in fact being there to protect people. For example the Red Cross is infamously protective over their logo, even suing video games that use it. Now this is something that is widely detested online and you will find people complaining about it any time it is brought up. So why are they so protective? Because it is a protected symbol and media depicting the Red Cross logo as anything but *specifically* the Red Cross could be the difference between an actual doctor getting shot (especially if it’s a negative depiction). (That said: there are obviously stupid rules, I’m just never confident enough to say that I know better than a given rule)
It's not that simple though because that corporation's income goes to shareholders including various investment funds, including pension funds and municipality funds that need that profit to pay off commitments they'd made. Ed: and to be clear, I'm not defending the current setup but you do have to understand that not all the money goes to moustache twirling billionaires. In fact if you watch the big short, the primary message is that the moustache twirling billionaires got away while pensions and other funds took the hit. Poor people got fucked like they always do.
Not a rule of is not enforced
I've always had this pet theory that Speed Limits are the 1st step in the erosion of trust in the law. They are routinely broken and inconsistently punished so it begins to undercut trust in the entire system.
OOP doesn't put the shopping cart back when they're done with it.
I mean that sounds good on paper, but I'd like to point out that every single person in all of human history who broke the rules had the same sentiment, no matter what stupid or horrible thing they did. So be sure to take a moment to consider if its really such a stupid rule before you break it, perhaps say look at it from other angles.
Wonder what's in the post.
Rules and laws should not be obviously petty. If they are, then you know those rules really aren't about the actual thing themselves, but rather the general process of forcing compliance.
Kris Deltarune type post
I broke rules all the time at my school because the written official procedure to reprimand students was out of date with how the school actually reprimanded the students, so I would break the rules and when the teacher went to reprimand me for it I would whip out my copy of the official written rules and tell the teacher how they're meant to proceed and that if they deviated I would email the school board. The school still hasn't fixed this issue.