That’s pretty much the size of it. And even during the thread’s Pit tenure, the more level-headed posters have formed the solid majority, although they don’t tend to be as loud as the belligerent ones. So overall, I don’t think this debacle speaks ill of the board community itself.
Now you’re being cilia.
Nzinga, we’re still cool. Dinner at your place or mine? 
See, that’s the rub though. Perhaps she didn’t “accept the fact” that she was dickish because the majority of the respondents didn’t think she was either. Just saying.
Really? Bwahahahahaha!
Askthepizzaguy, thanks so much for your expertise! How could I have not understood. Your examples of a drunk panhandler or an able-bodied person on the bus are so universally applicable as to render any further cunting discussion moot!
I’m just not sure why you needed to qualify your examples, since it does undermine their generalizability. I mean, the money in my pocket is mine regardless of whether it is a drunk or a victim of a mugging asking for it right? And my seat on the bus is mine to the same degree if an able bodied man or a blind woman with one leg, a bag of medical supplies and four infants clutching at her, right?
I’m still equally within my rights to refuse these dictionary-defined requests from these people, right?
I LOLed.
Yes, it’s interesting how people become so indignant and the very thought that they should do ANYTHING for ANYONE. Because people like that (for example…you…and the OP) are probably the people who will scream the loudest when someone else refuses what they believe to be a simple request.
And your post is a rather interesting study in your social behavior. It was fascinating watching it go from scholarly “this is an interesting study” speak to full on rant-ese.
Once you CAPPED, bolded, and underlined the word “Demand”, it wasn’t a long journey to swearing, was it? I mean, only 9 sentences and then you were off to the races. Then came the assumptions of various physical and personality flaws generated by your anger at your own examples, because, as we all know, anybody who asks for money is a “loitering drunk”. I mean, really - where the hell did that come from?
Never mind. As a pitting against imaginary offenses by imaginary people with imaginary flaws, it was a good 8+ on a 10 point scale. Bravo! 
But which trumps which? 2) “with the least disruption” means take an empty seat in an empty area, don’t crawl over others and/or ask them to move.
It’s kind of odd - one doesn’t really trump the other. They operate in overlapping ranges and it’s up to people to negotiate them without an established guidebook. Some are better at it than others. Some get all worked up, anxious, angry and intransigent about the whole process.
This. I’d suggest people take a look of the image I posted of a theater in the same multiplex, and my reverse telling of the incident.
I know, it’s more fun to fuck with me, as Bob said, or scream, shout, stomp your feet, and name call while calling others rude.
Hmm…
Pretty high on the asshole scale, SDMB and otherwise.
It’s a good movie. I’d suggest you actually watch it rather than play with a mobile device. But some people…
But my dog died, my apartment burned down, my car got stolen, and my Great Aunt
Mabel got the mumps!
And I just wanted do go to the movies to get away from it all! :o
Y’all should have elected “row captains” and let them make the decision. 
“Row captains” isn’t original with me, I think George Carlin gets the credit, bless him.
I don’t come to the pit as a rule, but sometimes a thread sounds so interesting, I just have to read it through.
In this instance, my comment and quote is both satirical and an attempt at a little humor.
Quasi
I don’t know who you’ve been talking to, but my penis is not mobile.
IMO there are some people that like to “compete” for resources and don’t like it if the passives are encouraged to be uncooperative.
IMO the OP was well within the “not obligated” zone. As a lifelong “get there early” guy, I have zero sympathy for the “efficient” “planned to get there on time but am always late” people.
Do tell.
I cannot believe this is still going on… I’m amazed!
Hey - pipe down, we’re trying to watch the show.
I’d amend his conclusion. Most humans have adopted a retributive morality. We take it for granted that others will follow certain codes and punish them disproportionately when they fail to do so. I’d also be interested in further research about conservatism and ease of navigating the moral spectrum. Would that be that they comprehend fully Rawlian, Kantian or Utilitarian ethical arguments and discard them, or that they form heuristics by which they ignore ethical arguments with outcomes which dissatisfy them?
Edit: Wait, no, Haidt is a joke. Just remembered who he was. There’s fuck all equivalence between the two parties.
Well, the primary theory of dyslexia is that of the phonological deficit - dyslexics have a harder time reconstituting the phonemes that comprise words. Of particular note in correcting typographical errors would be the lower activation of the parietotemporal region and the occipitotemporal region, which would make it easier to miss typos for a dyslexic person. This would be amplified when the typos themselves are both correct words (so wouldn’t register on a spellchecker) and more or less homophones (depending on the accent). If the dyslexic person uses the heuristic of sounding out the words to determine their acceptability, the error is unlikely to register.
I think it may be to do with the poisoning of the well with the term “entitled”, which carries considerable political second order signifiers. For instance, here’s Santorum complaining about entitled children wanting food and healthcare. These issues are a matter of framing, something Republicans have historically been very good at. As I mentioned above, humans tend to adopt retributive systems (no comment on the validity of such systems, I accept Hume’s Is/Ought distinction). Humans are incensed at the notion of exploitation - this informs both Marxist and Libertarian thought. In the former, the bourgeoisie are sustained at the expense of the proletariat, who by indoctrination and repression fail to throw off their masters. In the Libertarian, the unproductive exist at the mercy of the entrepreneurs while hindering their progress. The tyranny of the majority prevents the quashing of this group. Such terms can induce very interesting politicised responses. In fact, I’d consider the following an example of a Labriolan praxis.
Editing mine. I found the juxtaposition amusing. The “bad things happen to bad people” expressed a belief in a Just World (unless it was a typo) and the UDHR declares that every human has the right to be considered a human under law (rather than an entitled privilege!). Those declarations are supposed to bind governments, though, not citizens.
First of all, it’s not a pile on because most people seem to be agreeing with the OP, which, after being on this board for all this time, does not surprise me at all.
Second, it’s not about rules. There is no rule which says you have to slide down a seat to accommodate a couple. It’s simply a nice thing to do. And most people do nice things because they are nice. If there’s a good reason not to do a small nice thing, you politely explain and decline. But otherwise you do it, and you don’t really think about it. Mademoiselle even knows this, or else she wouldn’t have mentioned miasma Mary sitting one seat over. (As if the 18 inches would have made any difference, not to mention the many other people in the theater shedding virus into the circulating air, including, apparently, the OP herself.)
But for some people, unless it’s required by law or mutually agreed upon policy, doing these tiny little niceties is a gross violation of their rights and autonomy. I don’t know what causes this attitude, but it’s a dysfunction all too common on this board. It’s why Askthepizzaguy can’t see the difference between giving up his bus seat to an able bodied person is completely different from sliding one space over so a couple can sit together in a seat with a decent view.
Yeah, I agree the other people aren’t covering themselves in glory, though probably they were shocked that anyone wouldn’t accomodate such a tiny request. But they aren’t here, and we aren’t receiving the most objective account of their behavior.
1000 posts!