:lol: :lol: :lol:
Printable View
Can't wait for Audit the Audit to start doing confrontations between Ukrainian citizens and Russian soldiers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJJ8zmcBH2A
"The woman gets an A for standing up to aggression. The soldier also gets an A for not blowing her head off."
"The man gets an A for kindly offering the tankers a tow. The tankers also get an A for not blowing his head off."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14gVDF2b1vA
At this point I really question what Putin's end game is. Even if he takes Kiev, kills Zelenskyy, installs a puppet government and so on, he'll be batting insurgents for decades and nobody will accept the new leadership.
I keep hearing 'obviously russia will win'... superior firepower yadda yadda but what about any historical context. The Taliban took back Afghanistan from the US like yesterday, and today they're saying: well obviously Ukrainians could never do anything like that. I'm all JackieChanWTF.jpg over here.
If the numbers are to be believed, Russia suffered more fatalities in the first few days of this than the US did in the entire Afghanistan deployment.
Just some perspective, since the comparison was brought up.
As much as I'd like to believe Ukraine is beating Russia's ass, I find it really hard to. Russia has a big advantage in everything military.
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/02/25/e...ntl/index.html
Granted, they may not be using it all, or using it effectively, but it seems incredible they could be losing. OTOH, Russia does have some history of being bad at war, so who knows.
That said, I would take any casualty figures coming out with a huge grain of salt.
The thing about a war in times of social media is that there's an abundance of information but you can't trust any of it. It's safe to assume the real number of russian casualties is much lower than Ukraine is reporting, but I can believe that it is very high.
Firepower didn't matter much in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam... It didn't matter in Czechoslovakia and that was with a russian army with plenty of combat experience and not operation baby shield. Have you seen the pictures? It looks like germany's last effort in 45 over there.
Putin was hoping for a repeat of Georgia/Crimea. He for sure didn't expect nearly as much pushback. The russian economy is getting railed by sanctions. This is so much more expensive than Afghanistan ever was for the US, and it will be an ongoing war until Putin decides to stop it. I really think you have it backwards. I do not see how Russia can "win" this, unless we're really stretching the definition of what winning means.
I agree there's different definitions of "winning." If you mean kill more Ukrainians than Russians, I think Russia will win that war. If you mean control and pacify the country, I don't like their chances.
The parallels with Vietnam are interesting. In both cases you have soldiers on the aggressor's side whose hearts don't really seem to be in it. OTOH, there's a very determined and righteous bunch of citizens on the defender's side. It's that dynamic that makes me think the Russians have a very poor chance of subduing Ukraine.
Best case scenario is it goes so bad that someone inside Russia decides it's time for a new leader, and someone a lot more reasonable takes over from Putin. I think he's the one really pushing this thing. Worst case scenario is that he gets frustrated and goes scorched earth on Ukraine. That would be awful.
I can't help but think the long-term consequences of the isolation of Russia's economy is going to cause more suffering than a short-term war.
Russia is vast and gutting the economy is going to hit the poorest the hardest.
I'm not an economist, but fucking hell, they're still getting hammered from all sides economically.
I think the most "win" Russia can get out of this is no NATO in Ukraine (possible), recognition of Russian sovereignty of Crimea (unlikely), and autonomy for the breakaway states (unlikely). If that's the end result, Russia has had a fantastic result.
Only succeeding in ensuring no NATO in Ukraine would probably be seen as a Russia win, but not quite so emphatic.
If NATO ends up in Ukraine, then Russia has lost.
That's my metric.
I'm guessing Putin didn't wargame this scenario.
https://twitter.com/3TrAmvL026aJRar/...59021537120262
Who said it?Quote:
"Putin may circle Kyiv with tanks but he'll never gain the hearts and souls of the Iranian people."
a) Liz Truss
b) Joe Biden
c) An EU official
d) A NATO official
Either A or B is my guess.
Meanwhile Finland is right at this moment discussing joining NATO, and Sweden has indicated they'll be doing the same after the dust settles. With the way this has unified EU and brought most of the planet against them, there's 0 chance this will be a win for Russia by any metric.
Finland are discussing it because a petition of 50,000 forced the politicians to talk about it. I'd be very surprised if they actually did it.
Well, Finland used to do quite a bit of trade with Russia, less so after the 2014 sanctions though. Quite a bit of electricity/oil/natural gas imports still, some of which would be tricky to replace quickly. All of that is pretty much out of the window anyway now, so not surprised if we're joining relatively quickly.
Because doing so would destroy Russian relations.
Russia won't attack Finland for a multitude of reasons. It would still risk NATO involvement, certainly Sweden, it would also consume a huge amount of Russian resources, and it will be a long, bloody war, they will never subdue the Finns. Russian relations with Finland are currently amicable, and given Finland are an ally of the West, it's good to have someone who can act as a mediator.
Finland should continue to set an example of how Russian border nations that are not politically aligned to them should manage their Russian relations. You don't have to kiss their ass, you just have to not pose a threat to their security. Russia respects Finland because Finland do not seek NATO membership. I understand they'll discuss it when Russia invades another country, but I don't see any reason why Finland should be afraid of a Russian invasion. It makes no sense.
NATO doesn't guarantee security. What it does guarantee is that if a world war breaks out, Russia's border countries that are NATO members are the first places to get hit. If we back Putin into a corner and he says "fuck it", suddenly being in NATO means you're at war.
Is it really worth it? Maybe it is for Ukraine, but I really don't think so for Finland.
They don't need friends like Putin.
A lot of people thought Russia would never invade Ukraine. In fact, you can make all the same arguments about Ukraine as about Finland. Maybe the latter is a bit more likely to be protected by NATO, but other than that...
Lol, Russia is going to be too busy running for the Urals to attack any of its neighbors if it starts a war with NATO.
If I were living in Finland, I would want to get along with Russia, sure. But I'd be a lot quicker to trust NATO than to trust Putin. Maybe if Russia had a different leader you could trust them, but not with Putin in charge.
It doesn't have to be a binary choice. And the problem is, once you join NATO, you're forever an enemy of Russia. You might not see NATO as an anti-Russia alliance, but they do. Being in NATO is the same as declaring Russia your enemy. It is not a neutral status.Quote:
If I were living in Finland, I would want to get along with Russia, sure. But I'd be a lot quicker to trust NATO than to trust Putin. Maybe if Russia had a different leader you could trust them, but not with Putin in charge.
I didn't think he'd invade Ukraine, not like this. I thought we might see a semi-invasion, like the Donbas region, but not full scale. Still, there are big differences between Ukraine and Finland. Ok, Finland has been part of the Russian Empire, but afaik they have not been part of the Soviet Union. There's also not much to be gained strategically by invading Finland, assuming they are neutral. It's useful to Russia as a buffer zone.Quote:
A lot of people thought Russia would never invade Ukraine. In fact, you can make all the same arguments about Ukraine as about Finland. Maybe the latter is a bit more likely to be protected by NATO, but other than that...
They are anything but, at the moment there are no relations. Finland has joined the sanctions with full effect, sending military aid to a warzone in the first time in its history.
You do remember that in WW2 we were not in NATO and were the first to get hit?
In my opinion, we could use the NATO deterrent, and we could use article 5 in case shit hits the fan. We should have joined in the early 2000s together with the Baltics, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia and Slovenia. The next best time is probably right now.
Well, they were amicable until the invasion. At least, I thought they were. Obviously you know better than I do.Quote:
Originally Posted by cocco
Yeah let's not talk about how Finland were, briefly, fighting alongside the Nazis against the Soviets, before joining the Allies to fight the Nazis. It was only because Finland lost to the Soviets that they were forced to expel the Germans from Lapland.Quote:
You do remember that in WW2 we were not in NATO and were the first to get hit?
But no, I didn't know that Russia attack Finland in WWII. We didn't learn that at school, at least I don't think we did. The war started for us when Germany invaded Poland, though I also don't remember learning that the Soviets invaded Poland at the same time as Germany, with plans to share the territory between them. Soviet WWII history was largely missed out of my history lessons. I have to teach myself this stuff.
I mean, if Finnish public appetite really is there for joining NATO, good luck to you. I think it takes away an important mediator between NATO and Russia and worsens the security situation, but Putin has surprised my with the invasion of Ukraine and it's reasonable to ask how much further he's willing to go.
Yeah that did happen, not our proudest moment. That was in a different war though, the Continuation War of '41-'44. I was talking about the Winter War of '39, where they fired artillery against their own targets (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelling_of_Mainila) as an excuse to invade. The Continuation War was initially launched to get back those areas we lost in the Winter War, but I guess we got greedy.
It's anything but an easy decision, there are only bad options. I've been hesitant about joining, but after this shit and Putin fondly reminiscing about the Russian Empire, if they succeed with Ukraine I don't see them settling for that.
I think NATO has to do its bit by simply giving Finland guarantees that it will be protected, but without committing missile systems to the territory.
The thing with Finland's awkward past with the Nazis, it kinda shows the shitshow that geopolitics is. Your enemy's enemy is your friend. And the UK must take some of the blame for allowing Finland to turn to Germany, because they approached us first but we were at war with Germany and didn't want to get drawn into a war with the Soviets. I guess that's war games, we were waiting for the Nazis and the Soviets to turn on each other, and ultimately that strategy won the war in Europe. But we should not have abandoned Finland then, and we should not do so now. NATO or not, the West cannot sit idle and watch Russia annex Finland. That has to be a huge red line.
Finland wasn't exactly keen to join the Nazis, it had been a democracy since getting its independence in 1917. It was just that Russia had attacked it in '39 and taken some border territories so in '41 Finland saw a chance to get them back. It refused to send its armies beyond its 1939 borders iirc, which pissed Hitler off because he wanted their armies to join up.
Also, the allies had not helped Finland in '39 so it had to fight Russia alone (and it gave Russia a good spanking for a few months before getting overwhelmed by numbers - it was a real "finest hour" moment for them).
Stalin was just as much a cunt as Hitler. He took half of Poland, attacked Finland, occupied part of Romania, and annexed the Baltic states in the first two years of WWII. There's evidence he was getting ready to attack Hitler before Hitler attacked him first.
No surprise, it's Craig Murray who is the voice of reason. Here's an opinion that is critical of both Russia and NATO.
I should remind you guys this guy is a left wing socialist. When it comes to foreign policy, I shift heavily towards the left. Ironically, leftists seem to be shifting alarmingly to the right. It's bizarre.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archi...ting-of-putin/
I've not heard anyone (left or right) say this. All the media has been reporting is how shitty Russia is doing, and how brave the Ukranians are.Quote:
A section of the western left chooses to boost the propaganda of western arms manufacturers by talking up Russian power, claiming the Russian military is massively capable, putting a good gloss on the performance of the Russian military in Ukraine, and insisting that Putin is a strategic genius.
The bolded is completely out of left field, and makes me wonder where this guy has been getting his information.
If they are, they're being pretty quiet about it. Or maybe he's using the same mind-reading technique as you.Quote:
many on the left are hoping for a Russian victory.
I think he makes a good point here though. NATO is definitely OP vis-a-vis Russia. Like I said, if it came down to a war, NATO would kick Russia's ass in no time. That said, the countries in NATO have to cover a lot more ground than just Russia. China is also a potential threat.Quote:
NATO does not defend the interests of the people of Europe. It embodies the interests of the global elite, who benefit from feeding the military industrial complex. NATO is an instrument of the military and the weapons manufacturers. To exist, it needs an enemy. NATO’s role will always be to secure its own existence and its controllers’ cashflow, by creating enemies.
If the world were just NATO, neutrals, and Russia, I'd say fine, they're totally overdoing it. And they're probably still overdoing it (though tbf, it's mostly because the US spends so much, and the US is still defending an "empire" of sorts, so they're going to spend a lot).
The whole argument about the military-industrial complex running the show everywhere is a bit stale too. Historically, countries have routinely spent 1-3% (and often a lot more) of their GDP on their military. Was France in 1799 run by the military-industrial complex (which apparently was a lot of people getting rich sewing those ridiculous hats?) Was Britain in 1850? Spain in 1520? Seems unlikely it's all just for the sake of profits. Countries do have to be ready to defend themselves.
http://eh.net/encyclopedia-graphics/eloantra003.gif
This is the weirdest war ever. "Hey look, we got a tank!"
https://twitter.com/olex_scherba/sta...59588779368449
Titkok might not be dead after all.
https://twitter.com/visegrad24/statu...88452291215364
My youtube algorithm thing for rec'ing videos keeps bringing up female track and field athletes. Maybe I should stop watching them so it won't do that. ;)
The funny thing though is they all basically have the same physique. You could pretty much put one of their faces on another's body and not know the difference.
I'll have to watch some more to confirm this theory.
Judge is all like wtf just happened here?
https://twitter.com/DrGBuckingham/st...17002898276356
If you watch it looks like he's too stunned to stop the stopwatch
Meanwhile, Russian bears are hooked on huffing gas fumes.
This is the weirdest timeline.
Apparently, Australian cricket legend Shane Warne died of "natural causes".
I agree. It's perfectly natural for the heart to stop working when you nail four hookers, with the aid of Viagra and cocaine. Allegedly.
Way to go buddy. What a fucking legend.
Yeah I heard I can't get an appointment not because there's not enough doctors, but because the ones we have are only working 48 hour weeks. Lazy.
It's a joke, mocking the vast amount of middle management the NHS has. Images of Karen barging to the front of petrol queues screaming "I'm a key worker" because she's a diversity awareness officer for the NHS spring to mind.
We had a couple of admin guys in our dept. whose jobs became obsolete. One was obsolete when he started I think, I don't remember him ever doing much of anything for about 10 years. Every once in a while you'd see him doing something and it always came as a surprise lol.
The other guy was a handyman kind of guy who worked in the workshop building things for people's labs. They decided to close the workshop but kept him on for a few more years, while he basically just wandered around doing nothing afaict. Finally both guys got a golden handshake.
Good management there, let's pay people to do nothing for years then give them a big severance package.
When I was around 18 I worked at a printing factory through an agency, 12 hours shifts on a printing production line. Fucking tedious it was. Every now and then, the machines would break, requiring engineers to fix. We were supposed to go and help out in other areas of the factory when this happened, but my favourite trick was to pick up a clipboard and walk round the factory in circles pretending to be busy. Nobody ever asked what I was doing. I'd usually get an hour out of it.
I didn't give a shit if I got fired, it would have been a blessing. 5 days a week, 12 hours a day, and the worst thing about the job was that I'd dream about my work so even sleep wasn't a respite. Still, I held that job down for six months or so. I haven't always been a lazy shit.
60 hours minus 1 hour still equals 59 hours.
Heh.
The worst job I had was in a place that sold steel products - rods, bars, pipe, etc.. My job was to lug the steel from the yard to the customer. There were no light tasks, it was basically an 8 hour strenous workout. At the end of the day every muscle in my body was exhausted. I lasted two weeks then finally decided it wasn't worth worth it and quit.
Runner up was a job on an assembly line that made cultivator shovels. I was at the end of the line and my job was to buff off the scale using a pneumatic wire brush thing. 10 hour shifts, four days a week, and a 45 minute walk to and from work as I had no car. I think I lasted about six months, and was relieved to get fired for missing a couple of shifts.
I managed one day of hard graft at the Safari Park where I was a seasonal ride operator. I applied for early off-season work the one year, preparing the park for opening. I had to help build one of the rides, which meant laying the concrete foundations. After just one day, every part of my body hurt. I took the next day off, turned up on day three full of apologies, and asked to paint fences instead. I discovered right there that I'm not a grafter. It did give me a lot more respect for the maintenance staff though.
Still, worst job I've had wasn't either of those. It was a job in a butchers, chopping up meat and serving customers. I really hated this. The place stunk, the staff I worked with were arseholes, and they had absolutely no respect for food safety. Drop some meat on the floor? Throw it in the grinder. It's a bit grey? Throw it in the grinder.
Never buy mince from a butcher.
Oh, the one day one of the kids who worked there tried to steal the day's takings. I just happened that day to take a five minute break because I wasn't feeling too well. That turned out to cast initial suspicion on me. Police were obviously involved and I was informally interviewed in the office. The next day when I turned up, one of my colleagues was missing. Turned out he took the money out the back door, and hid it in the loading bay to collect later. He didn't realise the area was covered by CCTV. Idiot.
My best job, on the other hand, was working for an irrigation company. We'd drive out for half an hour or hour to a farm, fix a couple of pipes with holes in them, drive somewhere else, rinse and repeat. Ezy money.
But the best part was the guy I worked with was totally accident-prone and nearly offed himself on a daily basis. His name was Wally Woo.
The boss was a little bald Japanese guy, and whenever Wally would fuck up the boss would rub his little bald head and go "Oooooh, Wally Woo!" It was like living in a cartoon lol.
I'd still be doing that job today if I could. Unfortunately, it was seasonal work for 3 months a year so worked well while I was in uni, but after that I had to say goodbye to Wally Woo. My last year he almost died when he tried to siphon gas from a truck and ended up with a lungfull. It was during the offseason and I noticed he had quit smoking. I asked him about it and he told me that story. When he told me about it it was all I could do not to laugh. Obviously I laughed my ass off later on with my friends. What a fuckup lol.
That sounds too ridiculous to be true. In fact the only reason I believe it is because I don't think you've give him such an unacceptable name by 2022 standards if you made that up on the fly. It has to be real.
I didn't work with anyone quite like that, but the biggest fuck up has gotta go to the guy who was running a little kiddie's train, which went round a track at like 2mp. Nobody wanted to run that ride but everyone had to take their turn. This guy was bored and, somehow, figured out how to speed the train up. The controls were simple... three buttons... start, stop, big red stop which is the same as the little stop but bigger. Oh and on on/off switch and a key. I genuinely do not know how he made it go faster, this requires engineering knowledge and not something they train mere ride operators. He didn't seem the clever type but there you go. Anyway, obviously he set it too fast and it derailed on a corner, with kids crying in a mangled wreck of a tipped over train. I'm probably exaggerating that a bit, this is how it was described as word got around.
Why would you even do that? If it doesn't derail, they just complete the ride faster and you have to do more work. I'd want to slow it down so I can sit on my arse for longer.
btw no kids were harmed in the derailment of the train. Shocked parents though.
The closest I've had to an incident was when a dude decided to allow his child to have a piss in the ride area of a roller coaster. Lifted him over a fence. I shit you not. I'm sat in my chair just after launching the coaster, I'm watching as it's going up the ramp, and I look into the area ahead of me and just know something is wrong. It takes a few seconds for me to realise there's a kid running around. I hit the big red button and the car, still on the ramp, comes to a stop. Once the car comes off the ramp, I can't stop it until it reaches the end.
Dude had no idea the danger he put his kid in.
Sahara sand making the skies orange in Western Europe today.
https://twitter.com/jcrgordon5/statu...34619905597448
I had a nearly identical experience to this video when I was a kid. A bunch of farmers must have tilled their soil at the same time, then a big windstorm came up. It was entirely brown though, not orange, but it came over me just like the cloud in this video.
The kicker was I was walking and eating an ice cream cone at the time. Had made a special trip to the store to buy it, started walking back and about halfway through this cloud of dust came and in about 10 seconds my cone was covered in grit. Yummy it was no more lol.
Ah Twitter, you never disappoint.
https://twitter.com/twlldun/status/1508732492358078467
Best job ever.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...b-global-en-GB
This needs some wholesome commentary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeOVE9jjk0o
Ugh.
There's a very good point here and she needlessly muddied it by adding layers to the hypothetical. Chris Rock could have been off balance, causing him to fall and hit his head. No need for Chris Rock to be anyone else. This is a very real point that people whose only experience with violence is in entertainment or who don't understand how often unlikely things come to be. This is actually a very strong argument for a bright delineation between words and violence, but she fumbled badly.
All she had to say was "violence is not an appropriate response to an insult," and left it there. But instead she tried to be clever and achieved the opposite.
That said, I don't think that an open hand slap on the cheek from one grown man to another is ever going to be lethal. It's pretty hard to knock a person down with a hit like that, as the body is much more stable laterally than it is going forwards or backwards. Neck rotation will absorb a fair bit of the force as well, which doesn't really unbalance a person.
A hard horizontal shove to the chest or to both shoulders, or a straight on punch is much more likely to topple someone over and cause them to hit their head (which has been documented many times). At least that's what I think. Might be one for the physics thread though.
Hmm, depends. Here's how the pros do slapping...Quote:
Originally Posted by poop
Well, there's one pro here and one amateur. See if you can guess which is which before they start slapping.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOpcW1EFj_0
Guy took a dive. This game is mobbed up.
idk, the sound of that slap burst my eardrum, I dread to think what it did to his.
bold edited in. I need a proof reader.
Anyways, you're right that a simple push can very well be lethal-- not sure my intuitions align that it's more likely to be lethal than an open handed smack. That said, we haven't even gotten into how this could lead to reasonable escalation. The door had been opened to violence. Rock reasonably could have reacted in a way where there wasn't a clear end to the violence interaction, leading to violence thats much more likely to end in serious injury or worse.
This gets into other helpful hypotheticals. Smith has weight and reach on Rock. What if the roles were reversed? What if a smaller man marched on stage to violently confront a larger man? The larger man likely would successfully defend himself. How does the "Smith had every right" crowd work this into their morality? Clearly what they don't realize is that their justifications for Will Smith's assault implicitly imply a might = right morality.
I thought both handled it fairly well. Smith was angry yet chose an open hand slap. That shows restraint. We can argue he shouldn't have resorted to any kind of violence, and that would be fair, but if you do use violence, minimal violence is obviously a lot better. btw I do not think Smith was "within his rights". He should have shown more restraint. But at least he showed some.
Rock handled it superbly. He was smiling even as he was slapped, and made light of it on stage. He refused to press charges, and will probably milk this incident in his stand up shows. He took it like a man.
The idea that a slap can cause someone to fall over and break their head so they die is just sensationalism. That happens 0.000001% of the time [citation needed]. It's so ludicrously unlikely that it's not worth bringing into the debate.
agreed, it is very unlikely, but the point is that once the line is crossed into violence, you open the door to the possibility. It is the weaker leg of the argument, and so it's no wonder you didn't address the fact that any form of violence opens the door to escalation, which is much more likely to lead to serious injury or worse. Essentially, given that the smack happened, it went as well as it possibly could have. This shouldn't be overlooked.
Let's say that Rock absolutely knew that Smith's wife had no hair because of a medical condition. If we have this information, it's something of a game changer. If someone mocked my wife's medical condition (assuming I'm married of course), I'd want to slap them too. In fact an open hand slap is somewhat letting them off the hook.
The closest I've come to starting a fight in my adult life was when a male friend of my girlfriend had an argument with her and kicked her in the leg. She was being a cunt, she and her best friend (the guy's gf) were eavesdropping on a phone call he was having with a female friend of his. This guy and my gf had been friends for a lot longer than I'd been seeing this girl, they were more like brother and sister than friends, very close but often bickering. It was a really weird situation for me. I had a word with him, and by that I mean I threatened him. He had my finger around an inch from his face as I threatened him. That could easily have escalated into violence, and I kind of wanted it to because I was furious and wanted to hurt him. But I showed restraint, and so did he. He said ok, apologised and that was the end of it. If he reacted differently, it was a fight.
Ok he actually kicked her rather than insulted her, but still, if someone insults my gf I'm still not going to be happy about it and that can end up as a fight too. It's human nature. So I can understand why Smith did what he did. I think most men do the same.
This is a good point. You don't know if and how things are going to escalate.
Words are just words. If the three of them were standing alone together in a room and Rock had said that, then a knee-jerk slap is kind of understandable. Instead, Smith had to walk over to him (in front of the entire world) and slap him. It showed poor self-control on his part. He had several seconds to think "is this really a good idea?", and did it anyways when obviously nothing good was going to come from it.
I'm assuming that it was during this walk that he decided to slap him rather than punch him, but who knows what was going on in his head?
You say words are just words, but if someone was racially insulting your wife/gf, you're not going to accept that. There comes a point where someone says too much and deserves a slap. I don't think that's the case with Rock, I believe it was a sincere mistake, that he genuinely didn't know that Smith's wife had a medical condition. To be fair, she's incredibly stylish, and it's not unreasonable to think she chose to shave her head. I certainly didn't assume a medical condition and initially found Rock's joke mildly funny, thinking Smith greatly overreacted. It was only when I found out she had alopecia that I could understand Smith's reaction. That's not the same as condoning it. He's definitely in the wrong.
Yeah, it's a shitty thing to do. It wasn't a hard kick, but that's not the point. The funny thing is, it's not like he had anger issues or anything, he seemed pretty chilled, but he really let himself down there. He's lucky that I showed restraint, and that he didn't give me any backchat, because I was raging and ready to give him everything I had. I think he had instant regret, he seemed ashamed of himself. Rightfully so.
Yeah I was wondering along those lines too. Like did he jump up thinking he's going to give Rock some ground and pound then cool off to the point of a slap? It was a weird slap, the way he threw it kinda from the hip. It was about as tame an assault as you can give while still being serious enough to make a point.
Not really. Otherwise I'd be slapping people left and right lol.
The future is now. Or something.
https://twitter.com/aliceysu/status/1511558828802068481
Anyone want a surprise? I'm on a week long online course, work-from-home customer service. I'll have a guaranteed job interview at the end of it. Might get a job being one of those guys who does the online chat help for some random company, or something like that.
I'm on my webcam in a teams meeting and everything.
*tear*
They grow up so fast.
Cool. Best of luck.