It’s not a blind link: it tells you it’s from Reuters, which lets you know it’s a legit news article. You can click on it and read it.
I forgot at the time that Reuters doesn’t follow OAuth Internet standards, and thus didn’t display a summary as I expected. I was too upset to summarize. Cut me some fucking slack.
Lecturing someone when they are angry is shitty. I would be more inclined to help if you ask nicely. Just like you wouldn’t have been mocked about the acronym thing if you just had asked what things meant. (And if that feels like a lecture, consider how I felt being treated like a little kid.)
Darren mentioned the most important part. They want an informal “virtual primary” to be held over the phone. Something that could in no way actually replace votes. It does nothing to fix the supposed problem they claim to have.
And they were willing to blow up BLM to get it. Because, to most people, that website is BLM. This will now forever be quoted by MAGA and Republicans any time anyone says Black Lives Matter.
Before I could say that Dems didn’t care about this because they do feel they got what they voted for. They don’t feel like they were cheated out of democracy. But then BLM of all groups decided to validate that Republican talking point.
That’s why I was saying the DNC would probably do it to avoid risking blowing up the convention. But I was assuming this would be wider spread than it seems to have.
We are in perilous times. A lot of things have to go right, and we don’t need those who are supposedly inside trying to tear things apart.
It happens to me sometimes as well. It’s pretty annoying when Reuters (and sometimes CNN!) won’t give a preview from a link, and for whatever reason (usually because something IRL requires my immediate attention) I don’t have a chance to summarize and/or quote the article.
Maybe you should have stayed away from the thread until you cooled down. It’s not our fault that you’re upset.
Also, that’s quite the wall of words, which is odd since you did it in the same breath that you complained about “being lectured”.
And that’s condescending. It’s your thread. Why should we have to ask you nicely for help?
Having said that. I’m the one that asked the question. I didn’t know what you meant by ‘demanding an informal phone call’. We’re in the pit, you don’t have to cite anything, I get it. But a link to an article that doesn’t contain the phrase “informal phone call” or even the word “phone” (and ‘informal’ was my 3rd crtl-f search) and doesn’t go the the BLM site where you said it was posted meant extra work for us. Yes, I found it in the link and I also found it on their site. “They’re demanding a virtual primary” is all I was looking for since “demanding an informal phone call”, at least without context, doesn’t make much sense to me.
I tend to notice that only when I preview, but I’m usually checking the preview to make whatever I’m quoting from the article isn’t the same thing the link is automatically displaying.
Side note: is there a best practice for those situations? When the part I’m quoting is the same as what automatically shows up, I’m never sure if I should leave my quote in or not. I hate to have the same thing written twice, but I also figure that preview may not show up on everyone’s device and/or the site I’m linking to may swap out what’s being previewed, which could lead to confusion.
But this is probably better for an ATMB thread.
People here like to mock. They need little excuse to do so. It’s pretty clear from reading other threads and posts that most folks here prefer not to have to decipher initialisms that aren’t commonly known. I’m certainly not alone in that.
Sorry you’re upset in general. It is an upsetting time. Please don’t take it out on me. I, like most other Dopers, don’t consider a mere link to be much of a response. Links are for elaboration and more details about what a poster has written but they answer nothing on their own.
The great thing about the SDMB is the expectation we hold for people to sensible write out their opinions and ideas–not merely to point to someone else’s ideas without adding anything.
Link addresses say all kinds of things-- Reuters or NYTimes or YouTube or the Daily Mail. What of it? To me it’s still a “blind link” if that’s all a person bothers to write. What do others consider a bling link to be?
You’re being unreasonable. This is the Pit. It’s where we post when we’re angry. You literally just expressed anger at me. Demanding I wait until I’m not angry makes no sense.
I wasn’t even angry in my reply. I was politely responding to someone who had been a bit of a dick to me for no good reason. Your post is far, far angrier than mine. It doesn’t really make cohesive sense. I’d think you just had angry brain (which makes rational thinking hard), but then you calmed down just fine in other parts.
It is entirely reasonable to ask someone to “ask nicely” when they simply want you to give them more info. It’s not wrong. It’s basic boundary setting.
You’re turning a perfectly reasonable post into a reason to get upset. Your logic for why there is anything wrong with it is flawed. And I get to point that out. I don’t have to just sit back and take it when people are unreasonable towards me.
That said, I do tend to put trolls on ignore. If you have some sort of problem with me, then let me know, and I’ll stop interacting with you. But if you do choose to interact with me, I do expect you to not to make unreasonable demands or manufacture reasons to be upset at me.
@I_Love_Me_Vol.I You were pitted for the acronym thing. People thought you were a troll. Not because people don’t like explanations for acronyms, but because of how you brought it up.
You chose the same tone with me. You used phrases like “use your words,” which is something you tell a toddler.
If you don’t want to click on links, that’s your choice. But then you can do what everyone else does and ask for a summary. “I don’t want to just click on a link. Could someone summarize the answer for me?” That’s all I’m asking from you.
You told me that I should not have posted until I cooled off. This is unreasonable. This is the Pit. The reason I opened this thread was to express anger.
You attacked me, then now are pissed at me that I didn’t just sit back and take it. I instead pointed out you didn’t make sense, and pointed out your anger was clouding your judgement, and you decided to say “fuck you.”
I know you’re angry now, but when you come back later, I hope you can see that you started this. You went after me for things that didn’t make any sense.
For now, I’m putting you on ignore. Like I said, I have personal boundaries. If someone is upset at me for doing something wrong, I’ll listen.
When all they do is say "fuck you " and do the same thing I did, then I won’t.
And here we see that the damage has already started. The specific group who grabbed the domain name blacklivesmatter.com just wants to create a splash regardless of whom it hurts. The movement referred to as Black Lives Matter wants to stop the wholesale and institutionalized murder of black people in this country. Those are two very different goals.
That’s hardly “Demanding I wait until I’m not angry”. It was based purely on BigT’s statement that he’s “pissed enough I won’t be watching this thread.” It wasn’t meant to be mean spirited. He said he wasn’t going to watch the thread because he was pissed off enough. It seemed to me, he was still pretty pissed off.
It’s also a highly decentralized movement. The people who own the domain, and who run the foundation don’t own the movement. I believe one of the people who coined the hashtag is/was involved in the foundation/website, but even so, they don’t own the movement.
It’s a true grassroots movement, where people hear about the idea, like the idea, and promote the idea, it’s not pushed down from a boardroom after a couple dozen focus groups and marketing professionals weigh in.
Imagine if the WWW was around in the 70s, and someone made a Disco.com web site, and posted something controversial. And then people hated disco. That makes about as much sense as turning against BLM over this.
(Though hating disco would have been more justified.)