Comments by "cosmosofinfinity" (@cosmosofinfinity) on "Louis Rossmann"
channel.
-
156
-
Shows that he doesn't actually actually evaluate the merits of or care about issues, only if the people making them have personally annoyed him in the past, which is childishly simpleminded and reactionary emotional thinking. Sick of whiny thoughtless do-nothings being in charge of a job that is supposed to improve people's lives. Legitimate criticisms aren't always charitably worded, in fact complaints and anger go hand in hand, it's still valuable data that can be used to improve whatever it is you're working on and a real adult would look past that negative and make use of the positive.
Imagine if every time someone's job got some attitude from the customer, they just stopped doing their job. Would there be anyone doing any jobs at that point? Your job isn't to get personally offended by the occasionally classless behavior of those you serve, your job is to DO YOUR JOB. If you don't like it, well, that's why you get paid for it. It's work. We're not trying to have a good fun time here, we are trying to get tasks done, and these people sitting in positions of power don't want to do what they were hired to do, so they shouldn't have even applied
5
-
5
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It's sort of like what Louis has said about building his business style of building a relationship of partnership, instead of an adversarial one. Once it is made clear you're an adversary, we don't have to care what you want, since you don't care what we want. And the arms race/endless cycle of retaliation begins. But if respect is paid, respect is given back. If Google respected its users, it would get respect back. But it is a company operating under an endless expansion profit motive. Look how Wikipedia sustains and is beloved. It is a non-profit, and it respects its users and never went back on its principles. But in capitalism, profit comes over principles, always, by necessity and legal obligation to the ravenous shareholder mob.
So, like with any other relationship, when YouTube crosses a red lines, it makes people reevaluate their relationship with YouTube, and realize it is one of animosity. And YouTube makes it that way. Not us. We're the ones who simply want to use and engage with their service that they created, in the hopes of getting a pleasant experience, but YouTube sabotages their own experience by also being the one who makes that hard for us by not respecting people's boundaries. And not respecting boundaries is how all wars begin.
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Just looking at the title... um, yes? Lying in general is wrong, unless you are Trump where you are a creature that has (d)evolved to the point where it is the only way you can survive. Also, in regards to your affection for Trump being "not ***[[[really]]]***", that implies there is some amount of like there just not a humongous amount, and having any lingering like for him at all is pretty insane. You also base this weaksauce statement on his "leadership style", which sounds to me like his general personality and not his equally horrendous policies. Even if he was of a temperament like all the buttoned-up types of Republicans (who still agree with him on everything and just didn't like his tweets), he would still be an abject monster in terms of both domestic and foreign policy. To not condemn fascist insurrectionists outright is to give them undue ground and paints a false coat of civility on what they are actually about
You also don't factor in just how MUCH of a lie Donald Trump's numbers were. They were cartoonishly obscene, more than any of these other people's numbers you're throwing out. So it's just not the same. The idea that Trump should not be prosecuted for lies because other people lie and nothing's happened to them yet, is one of the most common excuses in the Trumptard playbook, so you appear to be one of them
I suspect everyone else in New York lying about this gets away with it because it hasn't been put to the test in a high profile legal matter, so yeah, they should all be dealt with too. New York sets the precedent, but they can also end the precedent, and I hope they do. But because there are some unsolved murder cases, doesn't mean Jeffrey Dahmer now gets to go scot-free. It is also similar to how Jeffrey Dahmer and celebrity crimes get more coverage than the crimes of ordinary people; obviously it is because they are high profile people, Joe Shmoe with his more ordinary level of crime is not going to get the same kind of headlines or scrutiny because nobody is aware of it, he gets reported in the local paper and stays there because he does not capture the national interest
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1