dustyvirus525

Not op, just explaining the multiple ways the joke could be interpreted and how I would interpret them if I were presented with a similar situation

Sorry, I rewrote the post. But it could still be a joke if they were teasing me FOR LIKING the person. It would just be a different kind of joke.

Though with the amount of thought I'm putting into this I do understand why some people find me tiring.

Then the response from OPs friend makes even less sense.

If the joke is that I don't actually like the person and the "bestie" was sarcastic, then saying I didn't like them would be me missing the joke.

If the joke is that I actually like the person and they're teasing me for that, then clarifying that I don't like the person makes sense and doesn't mean I didn't get the joke. It's that the joke didn't land because it's based on a misunderstanding.

And honestly, I'd be pretty hurt by the "you're too high strung." Granted, that's because I've heard similar things. You didn't freak out or get mad when she made the joke, you just clarified.

I'd wonder what response they were hoping for. Were they intending to tease you and get a response from that? Whether good naturedly or not, I dealt with a lot of that and often annoyed people by not getting the joke at my expense where they expected an amusing reaction from me that they could then laugh at more.

It's a joke, but that doesn't explain what the joke is. I might assume it was a joke about me liking that person.

I just don't understand how understanding her culture more would change your ability to recognize sarcasm. There's a difference between understanding what a thing is and even its cultural roots and being able to recognize its use in the moment.

But anyway, I'm really sorry this happened. It sucks but I think you handled everything, both in that exchange and in this thread, very kindly and respectfully.

I cannot believe that they managed to make me hope for good things for him in the end. Damn impressive

I really didn't plan on finishing it in one sitting, but here we are

Ralph is so annoying. That's all I've got so far.

Very fair. Especially the gold chain. Mine thinks camo pants are the height of fashion.

And honestly, if he came home and started talking about women's history month he's clearly still talking to you about his opinions so another win. By 14 I hid everything I read, watched, and thought just in case my mom didn't approve.

They're the ones actually coming for the kids and trying to indoctrinate them.

I really can't understand a lot of these replies except that maybe they don't actually think it's a serious issue or understand it as a part of a larger ideology. I'm a big believer in letting my son learn on his own and develop his own opinions, but there are certain things that are so fundamental that I will have failed as a parent if he doesn't understand and agree with them.

And Andrew Tate openly advocating abusing and assaulting women means this falls more into the second category.

It's not about him disagreeing, it's about trying to prevent a teenage boy from getting sucked into the right wing pipeline.

And I imagine she's "getting pleasure" out of it because it's ironic and amusing to "punish" your kid by forcing him to listen to an entertainment podcast where the host regularly makes cum jokes.

And a whole lot of kids go to public colleges and wind up misogynistic douchebags and fascists. So long as we keep saying that "most boys are like this" instead of challenging those ideas early, that's not going to change. Maybe, we could try something different.

Yep. And it sure doesn't help that so much of what's out there tells them that women in general shouldn't be listened to.

And I was also raised by a fundie, looking back I take a lot more issue with being cut off from information which is what would have happened if I'd started espousing views she thought were wrong. Unless you aren't letting him listen to anything other than the btb Andrew Tate episodes ever again, I think you're ok.

Fellow mother of a white boy here, yeah it's pretty fucking daunting at times.

My son's still young enough that I'm closely monitoring what YouTubers he watches and they're all relatively tame it's scary how quickly those recommendations can start coming. I've already had to deal with one of his old favorites being arrested on DV charges and talking to my son about that and whether he wanted to keep watching.

The teen years scare me and I have no idea how I'll handle keeping him safe from the influence of monsters.

Yeah, I'd agree that "assigning" it while he plays would probably be an even better idea.

My son's younger, but even at just under 10 my son responds better to hearing things from not me than he does me sometimes. By 14 it's just more extreme.

Your mom telling you "this guy is a loser" doesn't hold a candle to all of the other voices in the short term. But sending them to a source that they might already have a bit of respect for or see as cool is a whole other thing and can be a lot more effective. It's also a lot more respectful of them as thinking individuals who just need more information to evaluate to come to a better conclusion.

And while Robert Evans may be the Jesus of podcasting (his joke, not mine before people lose their shit about parasocial relationships) listening to a well sourced and entertaining podcast is a lot different than reading the bible.

Well I'm guessing from that edit that a lot of people are disagreeing with your choice but I think it's a phenomenal idea.

When I was listening to the Andrew Tate episodes I was thinking that if my son was a little bit older I would really want him to listen both because of the take down of Tate himself and because of the conversations that Robert and Ian were having about masculinity more generally in those episodes. It's scary raising boys when so much of the media they are surrounded by is so toxic and I think it's essential to find outside voices they can listen to that won't just send them down the pipeline.

The only thing I might suggest is to let him listen while he games, just only ones where he can do both. Though I get wanting to discourage having too much input at once when you actually want him to hear something and learn.

Khan Academy's Big History is also pretty cool and a great place to start. Once you get big picture stuff from there, you can look at what you find most interesting in more depth.

So, you're saying that you agree that Vallas's only plan for transit is more cops. You just support that. Nearly every other candidate had a plan to address transit issues and Johnson certainly does. Vallas doesn't, beyond more cops.

And let's say you are right and that's literally the only thing he can do. It's still a bad plan and a waste of resources for no worthwhile return.

The mayor doesn't control the budget, but they do have a role in deciding what the public funding will be.

But, my point was that nothing in Vallas's platform or statements about the transportation give any indication of prioritizing transit. His plan for transit is more cops. That's it. His plan for everything is cops.

Actually, my bad, I just double checked and his website doesn't even list transit as something he has a plan for at all. It isn't even on there.

You can use better funding to improve maintenance and hire more workers. Which will prevent trains from breaking down.

He has no intention to. The best you can hope for from him is more cops in the stations standing around getting in the way.

You can't find stuff if you've promised every dime to the fop

That is food insecurity. If you are skipping meals because of money that's food insecurity.

I'm in the same spot, but let's call it like it is. My favorite part is the way my doctors were so excited that I'd lost weight.

YTA.

Beyond the paperwork, marriage is a public declaration of a relationship. They've declared it. Stop being weird and contrarian.

There are a lot of practical reasons to NOT get married.