>Conservatives wont win because everybody is unhappy with them
>Labour won't win because Ed Milliband is a tosser
>Lib Dems won't win because Clegg is a spineless, backstabbing bastard
>THE MONSTER RAVING LOONY PARTY WILL REIGN SUPREME!!!!!!!!!!

>implying the lib dems are a better choice
>implying the torries havent fucked us up enough
>implying UKIP isnt a bunch of whiney children

>implying labour wouldn't fuck up England even worse than the did before

Get over it? This is the hating board. This is the place made to let everyone complain about shit and you're saying, "Get over it." Get the fuck out of life, anon.

Sometimes the victim is to blame.

Dont pay. Complain. How does a book get overdue for 2 days anyway? You're not in the wrong.

how the fuck did i get thumbed down

Funnily enough, I enjoy that aspect of my social circle.

And I am Adonis reborn.

Why do you hate that?
Do you want to be ugly?

Or did you just come here to compliment yourself and get attention?

I guess he/she is saying they hate having ugly friends.

It seems cool, what's wrong with it?

I thought it was alright. Why do you hate it so much?

BECAUSE OF THE STUPID ASS COMBO CHALLENGE I'VE BEEN STUCK ON FOR FOREVER

>Not reporting her for assault.

>Not slapping her back.

Slapping her back would just make him the biggest asshole in existence these days.

To society, he is a villain.
To us, a hero.

Can I ask for an example of someone who should be?

People who act like outrageous faggots

Is that faggots in the homosex sense, or faggots as in popped collar yolo420swag? Or some other kind of faggotry? The word has lost all meaning these days, it basically equates to 'I feel negatively about you.'

-Swagyolo kids
-gay people who have to let the world know how gay they are by shoving dildos down their throat in public, or wearing extremely gay outfits
-Weaboos
-A lot of the brony fan base

For the first one, I basically argue my case with swiftykidd - tl;dr judge the behaviour, not the person.

The rest is basically people wearing their interests loud and proud. I don't agree that we should judge them for liking what we don't, nor for showing it off. I'm aware that freedom of expression works both ways though, and them being open about their interests means people will openly criticise them. I don't have a problem with people being annoyed by people who shove their interests in your face, as long as they aren't angry because they like something the offended party doesn't.

I still say we shouldn't judge them as people for that though, even more so than with yoloswag kids. You can't tell anything about someone personally by what they like and how they choose to express it, other than they like x and are extroverted enough to be proud of it.

No, you dont judge the behaviour, you judge the person.

But you can't tell whether or not the person is as awful in the rest of their life as they are in your experience. Purely from a statistical point of view, you shouldn't make assumptions based on limited amounts of data. And if you do judge them, which I won't fault you for - everyone makes judgements like that every day - be open-minded about it, and be prepared to change your opinion if you learn something new about them.

If i see them on the streets in public performing chavy activities they are a chav, nothing but garbage. if they are in private and act all nice within the confines of their home they are still trash. You are who you sell yourself in public.

I tend to see it the exact opposite way. People are much more likely to be dicks in public than in private, myself included, because you have an audience of peers to perform in front of. And conversely, you get people who seem lovely in public who turn out to be murderers or wife-beaters or paedophiles, because they put on a convincing act for society.

If you act out in public because of your friends you are sheep trash

- I have one of the annoying gay people very close to my locker, I will judge them because they all seem to be loud and annoying ( Not all gay people, just the annoying ones )
- Weaboo's just annoy me for some reason, and I see most of them being neck beards
- Bronies have to involve their fanbase in EVERYTHING, so I judge them

Those are just my reasons why I judge them and why I think they should be judged

The first one seems silly to me - you're judging flamboyant gay people based on a sample of literally one. I know someone like that too, and he's great, he has good taste in music and is fun to talk to. Besides, even if you don't like the fact that he's loud and he annoys you, I don't think that's a valid base to judge him. Surface impressions are not, in my view, enough to form personal judgements of people.

I'm going to take weaboo to mean people who are very open with their love of anime/manga/japanese culture, because otherwise it in itself is a judgement. I agree that it can be very grating (as an aside I cannot stand Hatsune Miku or anything to do with it), but again, judging any or all of them as people based on a thing they are interested in and the way they show it seems very shallow to me. And neckbeard is another pejorative term in itself, and using it opens a whole other thing about judging people based on their appearance.

Same for bronies, in essence - I don't like them sticking their hooves in everywhere either, it gets tiresome, but I wouldn't judge anyone personally based on the fact that they like sharing pony content.

I hate to tl;dr again but basically appearances, interests and small samples of people or behaviour aren't enough to judge character.

Well, I still judge them for it. But that's your opinion.

Have a puppy. I hope you meet some people who change your mind.

I hope I don't run into any of the people I mentioned.

I'm saying I hope you run into a flamboyant gay dude who you feel you can respect, or a weaboo you'd call a friend, or a neckbeard who's a nice guy or a bronie you'd have a drink with. I hope you realise people aren't defined by their interests.

There's a difference between flamboyant and loud and annoying. Weaboo's are usually elitist, and neckbeards usually have terrible hygiene, and I don't like hanging around people who stink.

No, you aren't necessarily an asshole - I have no idea whether or not you behave like that in all walks of life, or whether you're just insulting me to prove a point. You might be a reasonable, decent guy who took exception to something I said, I can't tell.

That made me laugh a lot, thank you - have a puppy!

You seem in need of puppies.

I second this.

stupid students who dont bother to try and learn but persist on causing tom-foolery and hoodlum activities. He're they are called either Hood-rats or Chavs. thats appropriate.

Fellow britfag, noice. And I can agree to some extent that such labels are a useful way of categorising behaviour patterns, like dicking around in school or being violent or loudmouthed or whatever.

But with regards to labeling people like that, as opposed to their behaviour, I don't think it's wise to jump to conclusions. It's important imo to think about reasons behind such behaviour - you'd be surprised how much of it can be linked back to awful parenting, which in turn can be linked to financial problems.

It doesnt matter, dickish behaviour is dickish behaviour. The parents are chavs too, and their parents and their parents so on. It has to have a source. And they control their behaviour. Ive seen plenty of people from rough families not turn out as garbage.

That's what I'm saying - a surprising number of times the source ends up being poverty. There's also peer groups to consider; I know from experience it's much easier to join in being a chav (because that nowadays is almost the social norm) than to individualise yourself and be threatened with isolation.

I don't mean to say that it isn't fine to call out dickhead behaviour; if someone's actively making things worse for other people feel free to judge that, but try to hesitate before you pigeonhole people without a second thought.

Anyone who is involved in chav activities has no right in being butthurt about a chav (im not calling you a chav) Also, anyone who hangs around chavs because they would rather be in a group than on their own is a sheep and also a chav. there is no excuse in 2013 not to distance yourself.

I wouldn't say they have no right to dislike being part of that group - I know personally people who are involved with that kind of people because they've been accepted there and they don't have many other friends. Calling someone a sheep in this case to me is the same as calling them a chav, in that it focuses on surface behaviour and not the cause. Some people need friends more than others, for self-confidence reasons or insecurities or whatever.

Again, feel free to observe that they're behaving in a way you don't like, but I'd refrain from judging them personally based on outside appearances.

I'm not trying to say that anyone in any situation is exempt from responsibility because of home circumstances, this discussion was about school kids, who by definition are not entirely responsible for their actions. Nor am I saying that nobody should react badly to people in these situations; I'm saying they shouldn't be judged as people because of it.

You can dislike someone all you want because they seem like a prick to you, but I don't think you should advocate pigeonholing people who behave that way because, stupidly clichéd as it sounds, you don't know what they've been through.

also reductio ad absurdum is a terrible way to debate

We might be confusing uses of judgement here. I mean that you can't pigeonhole or stereotype someone as awful or a swagfag or chav or whatever because of how you see them act. Or, at the very least, if you do then have an open mind about it: be prepared to change your judgement of someone in the future, don't set them aside as worthless or whatever.

"Don't have any negative feelings towards me, my uncle touched my no-no zone when I was 4, so I've got a free pass for my behaviour." Reducing my example to it most absurd level in order to make appear stupid qualifies as reductio ad absurdum, no?

And while we're throwing around words that make me 'look smarter,' ad hominem attacks aren't very useful either. I'm trying to discuss this, no need to swear at me.

Yes, but very rarely do people have enough experience of a person to judge them fairly. You may see someone exhibit many stereotypical traits on one occasion, or whenever you see them during the day, but you only have at best partial information about them. Almost nobody stops to build a more complete picture of the people they're judging before they decide to stop looking any deeper and leave them for unsalvageable.

I didn't think you were being serious, and I'm sorry that happened to you and for any long-lasting effects it's had on you as a person. But I never said you were exempt from any negative feeling - I can not like you as much as I want. But I wouldn't categorise you as an asshole, or a bad person, based on how you acted around me, molested or no.

Fair enough, I misused that. You can have a puppy, the insults and such seem to indicate you need some love.

please, please don't draw this into the debate as me judging you, this is for trivial purposes only

no.

no no yes no no

Lets not start this again.

didnt know it happened

well stop. you are neither intelligent nor funny.

i wouldn't think he's unintelligent from that. this is actually one of the more intelligent jokes compared to the rest of this site

A joke that's been told 30,000 times

how do you know that from me making a single comment?

You posted an overused and unfunny comment. that comment was unintelligent and unfunny. its poor humour.