663
me_irl
(lemmy.nz)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2026
663 points (99.3% liked)
me_irl
8343 readers
151 users here now
All posts need to have the same title: me_irl it is allowed to use an emoji instead of the underscore _
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
You didn't strike a nerve, you're just being an idiot.
am I being an idiot?
✅ guy
✅ sits around (well he did)
✅ he did that too
❌ pretty sure this guy got in trouble for sitting around his house jacking off all day.
my point is
edit: am I being punk'd by a bunch of incels?
Yeah mate, you're being a massive idiot here.
You're intentionally misrepresenting what he said and his intent, which everyone else in this thread got except you, so you can make what you feel is a really funny/clever point, that nobody else agrees with.
It's possible someone out there doesn't think you're being an idiot, but they haven't shown up yet.
I think mate was just making a joke, lol. It's really not that serious
No, I have him tagged. He does this shit all the time.
Confrontational just for the sake of it, always puts himself on a moral pedestal and talks down to everyone else for not realizing his superior genius.
He's not just shitposting. At least not deliberately.
no, they're right. I was making a joke, but also trying to make a point that such a vague description of a person can ultimately provide unintended results.
think of me as a Diogenes of sorts.
edit: out of morbid curiosity, what's your tag for me?
Except that everyone here besides you seems to understand that what Epstein got in trouble for wasn't merely "staying at home jacking off," and to frame it as such is doing him and all his buddies a huge favor.
It's like if someone goes to prison for doing murder and you say "Well, that person eats food every day. You also eat food every day. Coincidence?" It focuses on the wrong detail.
I have you tagged as simply "unserious"; likely as an indication of the quality of rational argumentation you've displayed in a previous discussion. It's a fairly tame tag, but from what I've observed of you in the time since then, it seems to hold.
I don't think you're a troll necessarily, just a little overzealous at times and potentially disingenuous
you must not know who Diogenes is.
he's mostly famous for this interaction with Plato.
given the definition of what a "man not causing any goddamn trouble" looks like, I took the opportunity to provide an example that the definition was inadequate and lacked context.
while looking for the story above I found a plethora of others and found this one amusingly relatable.
you can read more about Diogenes here.
Oh I'm familiar with Diogenes. He also fucked dogs if you didn't know.
That exchange with Plato wasn't something that really occured, by the way. It was a scene from a satire, pretty sure written by Aristophanes.
that's such a Diogenes thing to do 🤣
in fairness, he did teach the dog to walk upright and shaved it completely bare to meet the definition of a man.
of course it didn't really happen. it wasn't written down until 600 years later by Diogenes Laertius, and even by then the stories were more parables than historical events.
Okay, that gave me a chuckle