SleepingSilence

Tell Me Your Workplace Stories.

Hmm...

So, I have a laundry list of always being that kid who ends up being correct, or smarter than the adults. That made life fun. I guess it at least got me a few fans in the teacher case, in that I was always hardworking enough and unlike most of the school not an uncooperative/rebellious pain in the ass. (So, the kid that respects and wants to learn from authority. It just happens to point out the truth in most situations.)

This happened to be the case in work environments too. So, I had this job when I was 15-16?, where I was making/following recipes for a frozen food service. I had only one other co-worker who was nice enough, but was clearly not as capable but for justifiable enough reasons. (mental) Never actually thought badly of him, often I bought him drinks and snacks to help him on the job.

So, I was basically better and faster in every preparation and task they could throw at us by a country mile. We were both hired/paid to do the same job. But in 48 hours or so, it became clear for the actual people running the place that there was an issue. I can only assume (and correctly processed back then) that it probably wasn't a great feeling for him either.

So to compromise, I was given 95% percent of all the work. Because I could accomplish it anyway. All the precise food preparation, food storage, cleaning the station, sorting out the freezer etc. And the remaining 5% percent was his responsibility. Vacuuming the front, wiping down tables etc. The kind of work that wouldn't actually take much time, not enough for a full work day, even for him mind.

Then we both got paid the same amount at the end of the week. On reflection I can immediately understand how one becomes political from past experiences. And I don't exactly remember how this conversation/argument was sparked. (Might have literally been nothing, I no longer remember.)

I think it might have been the woman (who didn't work for the place, but watched over the other guy.) told me to do one of his jobs when he was literally doing nothing for about an hour or so. I did end up doing it, but I also said something to the effect of "Why can't he do it? When he's done nothing?" To butcher my own past self. Which was inferring to him in the moment.

Now with a little retrospection on my part. Yeah, I still don't have a filter and I worse growing up. And I assume this statement was taken as a double meaning. I was addressing that he wasn't doing anything -at that moment or the past hour-, which was true. And I was working, harder than usual, so things will slip out. I'll just assume it was taken to her as, "He does nothing. Period." So it's more grandiose and harsh statement. So her actions, assuming were suppose to be well-intentioned and not just being a total b*tch was meant to make me sympathize with him.

She handed me a rag and cleaning products after I did his job, and told me to do the rest of his job too. (Which in further retrospect just meant I did even more than 95% of the work that day, but that's neither here nor there.) Without further word or any instructions.

So I cleaned everything in about 5-10 minutes tops and reported back. (Not complaining about it and just assuming maybe it was because he wasn't feeling well or something. So I was already sympathetic toward him, and I never actually showed ill-will toward the guy.) Then in the smuggest, most self-satisfied way you could imagine, walks over to some of the stations and shows me some secret compartments that I wasn't made known to exist. And she came off about as passive/or just downright aggressive. "SEE!? LOOK AT YOUR FATAL FLAW! YOU UNDERESTIMATE ALL THE WORK HE DOES!"

So, back then I just kind of chalked it up to her being a complete and total bitch. But I didn't have the rebellion in me, to say "I didn't complain about him doing this work. You had to tell him this, or he wouldn't know that either. And if known or presented that information from the outset, I'd have been able to clean each with an extra minute of time. So, all you did is waste my time and the people who pay me's time not doing what they pay me for, just so you could make your 'point.' You smug c*nt."

I just kind of kept my mouth shut, and felt like shit the rest of my work day. Didn't blame the guy though, pretty sure I still got him a drink during our break.

The people I worked for appreciated my hard work and liked me just fine. Results/Matriarchy and all.

Moral of the story: Supervisors aren't the best at doing their actual jobs. Also places I worked for weren't very interesting. (Or have mostly similar outcomes. This is probably my best instance of having been "in the wrong" even if there is no good person in this story.)

Ask RPG.

Do you guys prefer milk, dark, or white chocolate?

@HaleyTheRandom

Finally. Someone's asking the hard hitting question on here.

Milk chocolate always, because sugar. :D

My important very follow up...

Caramel or Butterscotch?

Cinema General

Only thing being done on purpose here is you making it all the more annoying to have a discussion with your silly ordered list.

@Fabricant451

>Weighing the possibilities and the pro's and con's of this single sentence.

1. The statement is really lacking any forethought. And despite every other point being made previous in a single (non split up/divided) format. Somehow it's the replier's fault for wanting to respond in a cleaner and more concise manner. By foregoing including the entire reply, split up into unnecessary/uneven chunks that makes the list possible in the first place as a counter balance to the clusterfrick.

2. The "I'm rubber, your glue/no u infinity" defense is being used. Typical, for some discernible reason. Aside from it's just much easier to copy/paste than be creative or concise.

3. You genuinely think and want my reply to include me taking all your reply and inserting it into my commentary unnecessarily. Despite the fact there's multiple point we both are repeating ourselves, and you are just outright missing context that you wouldn't if you didn't reply that way.

>Regardless, it's responding to a joke again. So clearly not much on the to-do list. Do you bother even reading (let alone responding) to the rest?

1. Do literally anything else. (That requires you having something to do that you'll be interested in sticking with while you feel like achy and moody from lack of sleep)

2. Don't lie to yourself. You have nothing better to do.

>I also graciously await a TL:DR statement, or you repeating this in some way, shape or form.

This is what you do to me.

But fine. You want me to do what you're doing...I'm sure this will be *so* much clearer.

---

What's the fallacy here?

@Fabricant451

See your own phrase highlighted in purple.

You're over here making claims about movies you haven't seen

@Fabricant451

It's called having first impressions and basic pattern recognition. One in which has yet to actually be challenged.

and then acting like you're making sound reasoning and logic because you've read a couple reviews.

@Fabricant451

Untrue.

"Don't knock it until you try it"

@Fabricant451

Man, I see what you mean this splitting up business is much cleaner than replying all at once.

is the exact opposite of what you're doing.

@Fabricant451

Because I don't want to commit that fallacy.

You're literally knocking it without trying it because you think

@Fabricant451

I probably wouldn't even have written this sentence, if I didn't split off this thought.

trying it will just further play into your own biases.

@Fabricant451

Frankly, having this conversation is playing into my own biases...

---

Yeah. No, even I'm tired of replicating that. So back to just a single overall response. To refrain from repeating myself ad-infinitum. Okay, so out of everything said. Here's maybe a few things I can respond to. (and hopefully end.)

This entire conversation has been a blatant contradiction. You've stated that in terms of audience and critic opinion, that nobody can really be wrong. Basically the idea and general two sides of subjectivity and objectivity. On one side that there is objective truth and that people can very much be wrong. And the other, that everyone has their own subjective truth and that saying somebody is wrong (is also wrong objectively.) Gee, wonder which side makes more sense.

But in this case, you've just argued both. Because everyone else can have their opinion. You just tacitly admitted to never watching Venom but you've made a statement on the movie and used it as a general example to simply have a discussion. (and I can only guess you've had the sense -not- to watch all Micheal Bay movies.) But you understand the general pattern of his movies enough to make a critical judgement of those movies. And both of those things, are fair and obvious to me.

But nothing I've done is different to what you are currently doing. I'm simply already aware of this.

I stated I generally prefer my horror movies to be without messages, listed ones off the top of my head, and said regardless of their quality, I'd would prefer to not have them crammed into a story. I simply gave an opinion. To be fair, Dynamo's first comment brought up the racial point. So that's what started it, and our conversation happens to have spawned from that. But then again, your first response is "If you think the story felt preachy/like a lecture to you" then *insert attributed motive here* (Whether playful or serious, it doesn't really matter here.)

So if you find my original statement off the cuff. Fine, it is. But you had just made your own loaded statement in response. When you later clarify and contradict that friends you have did dislike the movie without having this problem. To summarize. My original comment was not what it was twisted into. In your own convenient terms, I'm not "wrong" for having these first impressions. And after the repeated (and equally snarky) explanations about the racial message and nothing else, it doesn't help the movie's case that the movie wasn't designed to have those kind of conversations about it.

And because I don't want this conversation to spiral down, I'm merely being playful in the beginning. And don't actually intend to antagonize. I get the intention. I know the idea of someone having an surface opinion can make people defensive, but it wasn't my intention. My claim is no less provable, and far less personal than either of your reactionary responses. I'm certainly well aware that my preconceived stubbornness can lead me to missing out, and I already make attempts to be better in spite of how often is goes the way I expect. But I do you hope (and I'd like to think I'm not alone that looking at your statements) would only highlight and emphasized how the message overwhelms the noteworthiness rest of film. Because nothing else was even described, and was used as a "weapon" to attach a label on someone with simple reservations.

And I see the slight irony of discussing doing things in a concise manner and taking forever to get to the point, even if it was partially on purpose. I'm sorry. I'm moody and bored and it makes me sounds overly serious.

Cinema General

You totally did it again on purpose didn't you?

1. ...Yes? The purpose of my entire assortment of paragraphs is debunking that idea, because it's a pure fallacy of logic. Like it's literally a fallacy argument.

2. You can think that. I don't.

3. 'Discounts' is the wrong word. 'Pointless' is more accurate. You sincerely responding to my (admitted in the very next line to be a) sarcastic comment. Won't get anyone anywhere...

4. *Now you're getting me to do a double take, because I swore I already mentioned my negative opinion of Venom on here, but now I realize it might have just been the discord* Yes, I've heard of Venom...and I didn't really like the movie. XD

And no, it's really not. Reviews on why the movie was liked, are just as important as ones that didn't. I mean even this entire conversation, the only thing you've mentioned about the movie is the racial point. Certainly not hard selling me to give it a chance. Not that you need to. But you essentially said, "It's okay to be disinterested or dislike media, but you have to watch everything presented to you before you can approved said disinterest."

And I know for a fact, nobody does that with consistency. So I don't even believe, that you sincerely believe that. Because if you did believe that audiences and critics could both be wrong all the time and its a wild west where you may never know. You would never have used the Oscars to validate certain movies, because that also relies on outside opinion.

5. Literally every single movie has themes. As many as audience members would love to interpret. The last time I was lambasted by multiple people that I never saw the movie so I could never understand the sheer depths of its astounding quality was that shitty Ghost In The Shell movie. And I was proven right and wasted a considerable amount of time on something I knew was going to blow chunks. I'm pretty sure how I've said I've been proven wrong on movies before, but in those cases it wasn't so concretely backed up with outside opinion and was more of a vague hunch. And I try to be at least a little better than that now. But I will not see every movie, especially in theaters, if I don't think I'm going to enjoy it. You don't have that much time in your life.

6. I'm watching a "My opinion is better than your opinion." shine on through without much self-awareness. I'd be wrong in your eyes if I saw the movie or not. So let's be clear that doesn't matter to the conversation at hand. See previous answers. If all you want is a semantics argument over my word choice, and completely skip over the whole "I don't want "a message" in my horror movie..." Then we've reached a foregone conclusion. (Also, your own explanation of the movie is the same as every other person I've seen explain the movie.)

7. I'm not saying they don't happen all the time. But it's not my brand of horror movie, usually. Cabin In The Woods worked because really it was a comedy/satire of the genre before being anything else. I'm not knocking a horror movie for "not being scary." Since again, most of what's being discussed is subjective anyway. The best way to shill for a movie (or anything that) you like, for people that don't want to/haven't seen it for various reasons. Is not attacking them, or trying to attribute some motivation.

Your best defense and chance of trying to get someone to watch a movie that has reservations is not going "This movie has so much more nuance than you think, and you're probably one of the racists they strictly cover throughout the entire movie." Just spitballing there.

8. Yes, it is stupid to use outsider resources to justify your own point of view. It was merely a single example. I didn't intend to post several thesis papers on the movie when that was never my point in the first place...

(Yes, only those dumb IMDB comments and the hundreds who liked/agreed with the comment think the movie is heavily about race. That's why out of the several things I've mentioned about the movie and the other person mentioned about the movie was solely about race. When that was never apart of your original point and we ourselves brought it up first.)

Look, I don't even disagree with look beyond critical or audience reactions. If you want to watch something, because it looks good to you. Do it, you don't have to let others influence you. But if you don't want to, I think it's equally valid to save yourself the trouble. But again, you both started this argument that I didn't even intend to make.

9. We really are just arguing semantics with that last one aren't we? (Nothing else said wasn't something I didn't touch upon already in some shape or form.)

10. Basically don't use pedestrian reviews and opinions to make up your mind. Use Hollywood. Appeal to authority. But they also can be wrong, see Venom. Got it.

I'm sorry, but that's bull. Everyone makes surface judgement about every aspect of life, let alone the unimportant stuff, if you even have your own taste and critical perception. You've both hammered on the race satire, but please note that I didn't mention that anywhere in my original comment. And note I even suggested that I disregarded their individual quality. I never said something is bad, when I didn't watch it. If I'm not allowed to have impressions of trends in horror movies. Then forgive me for having no pedestal to stand on.

This conversation has done wonders showing me that there's more than meets the eye.

Cinema General

@Fabricant451 That comment really didn't deserve the split analysis. It was also replying (partially sarcastically) to a defense of what boils down to "Don't knock it, till you try it."

1. See above statement. But if you think it's hard to pull out reasons that Oscars aren't taken seriously by many more people than me. It won't feel like it to me. But it's hard to really nail an opinion down...

2. If you read it all first, before responding to it, you would have seen the very next sentence of "No, not really."

3. I respectfully disagree. I'm admittedly picky with my movies, so you can take what I say with a grain of salt. But I don't need to see every bad movie or movies that I know weren't made for me to watch, to know not to bother with them. Again it's not even like I just watch a trailer and make my mind up, I almost read other material and see the general reviews and what they talk about. Most times I do see a movie anyway, it rarely turns out favorably.

Well I'd agree with the statement "The fact that different people come away with different interpretations of the ideas and themes presented should be counted as a strength." But literally every review nails the same points down. And it's not just imdb reviews, hence why I begged not to make me find more. Websites, Rotten Tomatoes, take your pick. The racial messages/stereotype commentary wasn't missed by a soul. But I'm willing to accept there's probably other things to like for people. I'm sure those who like comedy in horror, enjoyed all the Key & Peele style humor. Maybe if they make a comedy, I'd be more inclined.

4. Again, you wouldn't have said something that makes you look like you didn't read what I wrote. If you read it all at once. Because this question is already been answered. "Even if I agreed with the point of it, and assuming what I've read about it, I would."

5. See previous point. If you're going to criticize the site, and not just reviews as a whole. Find me one site that doesn't mention the racial message anywhere in the review. (and if you can manage that, I'll see how "well written" it is.)

6. I read other material. I watch reviews. I have friends who watch movies too and have similar tastes. I'm watching you and somebody else lecture me how you can't believe I don't like the subtle movie that you both know is about 'benevolent racism' when everything said about it thus far proves my point further.

7. Not always, but it isn't comparable. But then again, it comes down to taste. Comedy and Horror are opposing tones. I'm not saying it can never work. But that's why I take more things into consideration.

8. See previous statements that have already repeated, "I don't actually just use IMDB, to decide what movies to not blow 12 bucks a pop on in theaters." But your own words give it away...

"So you don't agree that systemic racism is a thing and that people that champion for colored people are often just as racist as the more overt racists?"

Getting off into the weeds, Systemic racism can't be portrayed or actually be 'subtle' because its an entire system. The idea the thing that controls everything and everyone is somehow a subtle idea is preposterous. I digress. I'm willing to assume Key & Peele made their message/satire as slick as they possibly could.

I'm not the kind of guy to complain/boycott about the content (or perceived content) of a movie. You should be free to make whatever kind of movie you want. You using Oscars to defend movies that you like. Isn't really that much different from using review aggregate scores to make my decision on watching it. If you seriously watch literally all movies, play all games and listen to every album on the planet without looking at any outside content to influence your purchasing power/time spent. Godspeed. I simply won't be able to help myself.

Edit for other comment: I actually was going use him for a point though I passed for another easy target, but since you brought him up. Do you need to watch all the transformers movies and ninja turtles? You never know their quality and all the potential themes if you don't watch 'em. Don't forget to watch the director's cut, where it added an extra hour of explosions and racial stereotypes.

Cinema General

@Lord Wraith I just used that for a blunt point. But I'm certainly not the only one that doesn't like the Oscars, but that's often because the audience and critics see movies for different reasons. That's why there's always been Oscar bait movies that no one actually likes, or fondly remembers that end up getting showered with rewards.

Also, more recently there's people who don't even see the goddamn movie before voting for it. Like how there's people that admitted they voted for 12 Years Of Feel Guilty, without actually seeing it first. But just because they think it's socially important.

Cinema General

@Fabricant451 Oscars aren't exactly something I hold in high-esteem. Suicide Squad won an Oscar...

@Dynamo Frokane Because someone that says they don't care for it, immediately hammer on a racial point, or points out that "it's about someone." Kind of reveals the film's hand/purpose don't it? ;D

But, no not really. If we avoid the semantics, putting the word "hamfisted" on the side, it's because I've seen enough about it without needing to see it. Or do I have to watch the Amazing Spiderman 2 myself, because you never know until ya see it? Or can one smell "a message" being the sole "strength/crux" of your movie from a mile away and when it's confirmed with outside media, be smart enough to avoid it.

Again, even if I agreed with whatever message it tried beating me subtly over the head. Like just read some of the IMDB reviews...

People who rated it a 10 or highly. (highest rated ones too, for the record)

"This film physiologically well expressed Caucasian's minds in the US society in post Obama era."

"There are no "monsters" here. The real villains are entitlement, egotism, and objectification, and god they are scary!"

"Get Out" doesn't replace the scares with humour – Peele is too smart to do that. Instead, he balances the fear with laughs and then laces everything with social comment..."

"Then of course there's the brilliant ways that race and the black experience make it into the film."

*Don't make me look for more things*

Ignoring that most IMDB reviews aren't written well. You're allowed to love that *everything is laced with social commentary*. Even if I agreed with the point of it, and assuming what I've read about it, I would. But again, at best, it's preaching to the choir.

I don't really care for comedy in my horror. Even if I like a few Key & Peele skits, I don't really want it in a horror movie. (Same reason I didn't like all the disjointed comedy moments shoved into Halloween, for that matter.) It didn't look interesting from it's trailers, and nothing I read about it changed my mind...

*If a message or theme is remotely subtle, every single positive IMDB score will likely -not- mention exactly what it was about and what it stood for. With no differences in interpretation, because it was never meant to be taken any other way by the audience*

Current Mood in One Gif

"Why do I keep staying up until 5-6 in the morning? I barely get anything accomplished. I know let's go to bed early. Be in control of your own destiny."
>Nearly two hours later
>Roommate comes in, turns on lights near my door, has his girlfriend over, turns on television at normal/loud volume, and turns up heat to an absurdly high degree to the point I can -smell- the heat.

Cinema General

If it wasn't already clear. I hadn't watched those movies I've mentioned, mostly because I almost always spoil myself to reviews to avoid watching movies that I'll likely not enjoy. But that presumption does me no favors, because the idea that there's even a possibility that "this movie was about you ya know, wag wag finger wag" is the kind of movie I don't want to see. Because at the very best, it preaches to the choir.

Cinema General

Whether you like it or not, I don't want to feel (even in the sense) that I'm getting preached/lectured to in my horror movie. Your tolerance for it may vary.