Poll of the Day > Are you sick of Terminally online people on internet?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Sort of a common rule i have now.

Two rules i live by
1: Dont be terminally online
2: Stay in school.

As compared to being a conspiracy nut and lowering the average IQ of people. I even had to go to "myactivity" on google just to turn off the log so i didnt see the dumb stuff from average youtubers. But as a rule i put away all distractions outside perhaps the informal discord chat with friends when it comes to school homework
(but i guess USA politics is revolutionary blue socks vs red socks, not the rational representative multiparty system, so thats another wall entirely.) But thats what it comes down to. Freedom to be an idiot.

Well i have holidays now (1 week in fall)

But when its not then from Monday to Friday 8 or 9 AM to 16:00/4PM then its work time.
And weekend is lazy days.

But i gotta wonder with all these dorks who makes this low IQ podcasts and such. Internet is not real life.

But i think i read a Reddit post summed up pretty well to people who complain how life is hard.
"Life is easier if you arent stupid"

Touching grass is for cowards. We are posters

But its ok to be online now, let little Jonny have his fun

Hell yea. Especially me

what does terminally online mean? someone who calls you out on your bs?

DirtBasedSoap posted...

what does terminally online mean? someone who calls you out on your bs?

people who spend 10+ hours a day refreshing their conspiracy reddit pages

Lokarin posted...

people who spend 10+ hours a day refreshing their conspiracy reddit pages

Or, you know, work for a living and then also use the internet outside of work. Especially since collaboration software tends to be on the cloud now, so even if you're updating a spreadsheet, you're online.

Count_Drachma posted...

Or, you know, work for a living and then also use the internet outside of work. Especially since collaboration software tends to be on the cloud now, so even if you're updating a spreadsheet, you're online.

That's not usually what the phrase means. You can be online even more as a result of work or usage, but Terminally Online usually refers to the conspiracy peeps

KobraSum9 posted...

Sort of a common rule i have now.

Two rules i live by
1: Dont be terminally online
2: Stay in school.

As compared to being a conspiracy nut and lowering the average IQ of people. I even had to go to "myactivity" on google just to turn off the log so i didnt see the dumb stuff from average youtubers. But as a rule i put away all distractions outside perhaps the informal discord chat with friends when it comes to school homework
(but i guess USA politics is revolutionary blue socks vs red socks, not the rational representative multiparty system, so thats another wall entirely.) But thats what it comes down to. Freedom to be an idiot.

Well i have holidays now (1 week in fall)

But when its not then from Monday to Friday 8 or 9 AM to 16:00/4PM then its work time.
And weekend is lazy days.

But i gotta wonder with all these dorks who makes this low IQ podcasts and such. Internet is not real life.

But i think i read a Reddit post summed up pretty well to people who complain how life is hard.
"Life is easier if you arent stupid"

Not everyone that is online all the time is like this and with the invention of smartphones you can be terminally online even from work or school.

Sure some jobs make this more difficult but you can bet your ass I see plenty of low effort jobs and they spend 70% of their work day or more browsing the internet on the phone.

Your mom is terminally on her webcam

Hell yeah im sick af everybody turn up

DirtBasedSoap posted...

what does terminally online mean? someone who calls you out on your bs?

Basically people who rather argue endlessly online rather than go to school and learning a skill.
Sure if its weekend and holidays then go nuts. Its ok to be stupid by that time. But everyday just sheesh
edit: (or ok maybe i should be more clear, i mean spending too much time on internet as to them its the same as real life, as compared to using weekdays to learn an actual skill)

No, for a couple reasons:

-I'm generally not even aware of it
-It doesn't affect what I do

Lokarin posted...

people who spend 10+ hours a day refreshing their conspiracy reddit pages

Only partly. It also includes anyone who spends way too much time on social media, which includes the perpetual outrage machine of places like Twitter, the festering boil that is Tumblr subculture, and people who can't stop scrolling through TikTok. You could probably even throw people who communicate almost exclusively in memes into the mix.

Hell, even people who spend multiple hours a day reading and posting on GameFAQs would fit the bill, so there's a few people here that maybe need to look in a mirror.

Terminally online people are simply people whose entire perception of the world is based on what they consume on the Internet, and not from any real world interactions with human beings in person. They don't have to be far right wing nuts who think Democrats sacrifice babies to Beelzebub for eternal youth. They can also be completely out of touch lefties who think there are real people who want to be called "Latinx" or some shit.

I just get sick of staring at a screen. Grass and books are necessary to life.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Only partly. It also includes anyone who spends way too much time on social media, which includes the perpetual outrage machine of places like Twitter, the festering boil that is Tumblr subculture, and people who can't stop scrolling through TikTok. You could probably even throw people who communicate almost exclusively in memes into the mix.

Hell, even people who spend multiple hours a day reading and posting on GameFAQs would fit the bill, so there's a few people here that maybe need to look in a mirror.

I have discord in school that i use (But mainly related to school. So it feels more related to what i do)"The two other chats i never click on til weekends or holidays". And Elasto Mania video game that i own on steam is a distraction of a game i use slightly before class starts. Its also non addictive and fun time waster

But thats what you call healthy distraction.

Basically if one were to lets say not go to school. I would just work single handedly focused from 9AM to 4PM, interms of weekdays or whatever i would focus on. Since i think being exposed to all the dumb mush of online people wasting their life not learning a skill, people wasting their time on stupid podcasts have just made me realise that i seriously would avoid turning into that if i can.

BoomerKuwanger posted...

Dude

Like, what the FUCK are you talking about

"Spend a bunch of time online" and "go to school" are not the only two options in life

My one regret is not being more terminally online than I was.

I spent most of my 20s going to school and learning skills and the true winning play in retrospect would be working something shitty and easy and just loading up on index funds and fully maxing out 401k/roth as early as humanly possible and then just coasting off of that.

Nothing is more discouraging than getting multiple degrees/skills and then learning that most work is just soul-sucking repetitive tasks using a companies policies and proprietary software. Or that most industries have their own way of doing things and 90% of your education was pointless.

Don't spend a single second longer working than you have to. Work sucks, online owns.

change my mind.

XxX_6GAMING9GOKU_XxX posted...

My one regret is not being more terminally online than I was.

I spent most of my 20s going to school and learning skills and the true winning play in retrospect would be working something shitty and easy and just loading up on index funds and fully maxing out 401k/roth as early as humanly possible and then just coasting off of that.

Nothing is more discouraging than getting multiple degrees/skills and then learning that most work is just soul-sucking repetitive tasks using a companies policies and proprietary software.

Don't spend a single second longer working than you have to. Work sucks, online owns.

change my mind.

Sounds like you would be in love with Tyler Durden from Fight Club. Though lot of people miss the social commentary about that movie.

KobraSum9 posted...

Sounds like you would be in love with Tyler Durden from Fight Club. Though lot of people miss the social commentary about that movie.

Ironically when I first saw fight club like 20 years ago I didn't resonate at all with it. But now I pretty much think pretty much everything is a scam and the only way to break free of it is just using existing money to make more money.

America's workforce is the worlds biggest pyramid scheme and you just have to try and get in on it early.

XxX_6GAMING9GOKU_XxX posted...

Ironically when I first saw fight club like 20 years ago I didn't resonate at all with it. But now I pretty much think pretty much everything is a scam and the only way to break free of it is just using existing money to make more money.

America's workforce is the worlds biggest pyramid scheme and you just have to try and get in on it early.

I am just saying Tyler Durden is not a rolemodel. He is self destructive and just messed (SPOILER) but watch the movie if you wanna know more on that.

But basically i would rather not be a loser who worships Andrew Tate as a guy i should look up to when he is doing nothing for others, they just fill people with addictive mush, you aint doing anything you're just a loser addicted to nothing of value

Like why should i stoop to their level of idiocy who think this is better than something more useful for the average people that will get you somewhere in life. Like an actual education? Experience, a skill? This is bare minimum something you would be stupid on when its weekend or holidays. But not everyday, thats the problem. Most people waste their time on this EVERY day

KobraSum9 posted...

Its also non addictive and fun time waster

I'd be inclined to disagree, because everything is addictive to the right personality/mindset.

Hell, even old-school Solitaire was addictive to some people.



KobraSum9 posted...

But thats what you call healthy distraction.

And one man's stuff is another man's shit.

We're all more likely to justify our own foibles and condemn other people's, because the alternative is to admit that we might actually be fuck-ups ourselves.

You can say it's being a loser addicted to nothing of value, but I don't feel theres much value in anything people do.

After working in the health and human services field for 10 years, various nonprofits, and then corporate life for another 10, I've come to the conclusion that I'm 100% on board with adding nothing to society and watching dumb memes on twitter because I've decided society pretty much sucks and it's mostly just fun to watch the clown fiesta from a distance.

You either slave to make others rich while you take your cut of the pie, and fuel a shitty world and system no matter what you do. Or maybe you work in the fields of interest where you can feel like you can try and make a difference but then learn that it's absolutely impossible because the populace is so numb to anything that doesn't directly impact them that they'll keep voting in the shittiest people possible against their own interests anyway. Super excited to vote blue no matter who because they're the current slightly lesser evil.

People don't want better things for society. They want to be comfortable, lazy and stupid.

Social media is the ultimate expression of embracing that, it simply cuts out all the pretense.

E: and don't post the man-in-the-well meme because I do think we should improve society somewhat. I've just lost faith that our people and institutions will allow it to happen in my lifetime.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

I'd be inclined to disagree, because everything is addictive to the right personality/mindset.

Hell, even old-school Solitaire was addictive to some people.

And one man's stuff is another man's shit.

We're all more likely to justify our own foibles and condemn other people's, because the alternative is to admit that we might actually be fuck-ups ourselves.

Tell that to people who play FF1-FF6. Holy shit was that boring.
Midgets fighting realistic drawn JPEG with limited animations, its kinda like watching a painted wall dry for hours. Or as this video would call it "Final Fatigue".

So some stuff are very objective when it comes to bad addiction for sure.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10qV_trdonw

The internet especially social media gave people who otherwise had dull lives a platform to express themselves and some of it is good and some of it is not.

BUMPED2002 posted...

The internet especially social media gave people who otherwise had dull lives a platform to express themselves and some of it is good and some of it is not.

Which camp does homophobia fall into, hmmmm?

SoreChasm posted...

Which camp does homophobia fall into, hmmmm?

Equally the same as any knee jerk American social politics falls into of blue socks vs red socks

KobraSum9 posted...

Equally the same as any knee jerk American social politics falls into of blue socks vs red socks

I'm having trouble understanding you here.
Would you say espousing homophobia on social media is good, or bad? (BUMPED seems to think it's good)

shenti 2.0

SoreChasm posted...

I'm having trouble understanding you here.
Would you say espousing homophobia on social media is good, or bad? (BUMPED seems to think it's good)

More that in USA its the two party system that sucks. So i would be trying to fix that before focusing on the other part of issues. Like a Representative Multiparty system would be one solution to many problems there, where if one loses in 4 years then one respectfully accept defeat and try again in next 4 years.

As compared to the revolutionary blue socks vs red socks mentality of just throwing every bully slur like let me think

Leftists: Racist, homophobe, misogynist inbred moron
Right wingers: SJW, snowflake, soyboy.

If that doesnt ring a bell then i dont know what i can say here.

How about you focus on fixing the two-party system and I focus on calling out BUMPED's homophobic views?

I think there's enough people in the world that we don't all have to focus on changing the same thing at the same time.

KobraSum9 posted...

Sort of a common rule i have now.

Two rules i live by
1: Dont be terminally online
2: Stay in school.

As compared to being a conspiracy nut and lowering the average IQ of people. I even had to go to "myactivity" on google just to turn off the log so i didnt see the dumb stuff from average youtubers. But as a rule i put away all distractions outside perhaps the informal discord chat with friends when it comes to school homework
(but i guess USA politics is revolutionary blue socks vs red socks, not the rational representative multiparty system, so thats another wall entirely.) But thats what it comes down to. Freedom to be an idiot.

Well i have holidays now (1 week in fall)

But when its not then from Monday to Friday 8 or 9 AM to 16:00/4PM then its work time.
And weekend is lazy days.

But i gotta wonder with all these dorks who makes this low IQ podcasts and such. Internet is not real life.

But i think i read a Reddit post summed up pretty well to people who complain how life is hard.
"Life is easier if you arent stupid"

what is terminally online? like they are online like 18 hrs a day? how do they work?

CwebbMichSac4 posted...

what is terminally online? like they are online like 18 hrs a day? how do they work?

Basically if online world is more important than learning a skill in weekdays. Ditching school work or work in general, or for the better term. Not balancing out distractions better for the sake of it taking over your life.

BoomerKuwanger posted...

What does the US two party system have to do with whether or not you can denounce homophobia

Seems kinda sus

Because accusation is beneficial if you want to win with a big establishment of hacks. Rather than discussing benefits of policies.

Translation: "I don't have a problem with homophobia and am trying to avoid answering the question because I know that answering it would just make me look bad."

adjl posted...

Translation: "I don't have a problem with homophobia and am trying to avoid answering the question because I know that answering it would just make me look bad."

I have issue with infringing on someones liberty for sure. (Exception if you try to make illegal stuff the norm when it goes against common sense or facts but thats another topic)

But i just dont care about the USA politics circus around it is all

KobraSum9 posted...

But i just dont care about the USA politics circus around it is all

Why does that prevent you from denouncing homophobia?

adjl posted...

Why does that prevent you from denouncing homophobia?

Why dont you denounce sexual predators? Same thing.
In USA its just a slur because your political system is crap and i dont believe anything that comes in and out of it

KobraSum9 posted...

Why dont you denounce sexual predators? Same thing.

Sexual predators are bad.

Oh hey look, I just denounced sexual predators, and I still have loads of time and energy left to devote to discussing the finer points of politics. Who knew such wizardry was possibe?

KobraSum9 posted...

In USA its just a slur

It really isn't. It is occasionally applied inappropriately, yes (like pretty much every word in any language), but there's a very significant number of government officials in the US who are demonstrably homophobic (or at least are acting in a manner that's meant to appeal to voters who are demonstrably homophobic, which is functionally identical) and are actively working to strip away the rights of gay, queer, and especially trans people, including policies that literally constitute genocide. There are millions of queer people outside of that bubble of ignorance you're so proud of who are in very immediate danger from politicians with genuinely homophobic platforms. Dismissing calling them such as being nothing more than political theatre is grotesquely ignorant at best.

"The two-party system is the real problem" is not a hot take. It's about the most tepid, milquetoast piece of rhetoric libertarians have, and that's really saying something given how tepid and milquetoast most libertarian philosophy is. Everyone that's paid even the remotest amount of attention to politics knows the two-party system sucks. Yes, it's true that queer people likely wouldn't be staring down the barrel of such persecution if not for polarizing tendencies of the two-party system, but you can't fix the two-party system in a sufficiently timely fashion to prevent that harm. The only real choice anyone has is to vote against the worse of the two evils, and that's not a remotely difficult decision in the current American political environment. Making any other choice at the ballot box - whether abstaining, voting independent, or voting for the evil - is a conscious decision to enable that evil, no matter how much you want to present it as fixing something.

adjl posted...

Sexual predators are bad.

Oh hey look, I just denounced sexual predators, and I still have loads of time and energy left to devote to discussing the finer points of politics. Who knew such wizardry was possibe?

It really isn't. It is occasionally applied inappropriately, yes (like pretty much every word in any language), but there's a very significant number of government officials in the US who are demonstrably homophobic (or at least are acting in a manner that's meant to appeal to voters who are demonstrably homophobic, which is functionally identical) and are actively working to strip away the rights of gay, queer, and especially trans people, including policies that literally constitute genocide. There are millions of queer people outside of that bubble of ignorance you're so proud of who are in very immediate danger from politicians with genuinely homophobic platforms. Dismissing calling them such as being nothing more than political theatre is grotesquely ignorant at best.

"The two-party system is the real problem" is not a hot take. It's about the most tepid, milquetoast piece of rhetoric libertarians have, and that's really saying something given how tepid and milquetoast most libertarian philosophy is. Everyone that's paid even the remotest amount of attention to politics knows the two-party system sucks. Yes, it's true that queer people likely wouldn't be staring down the barrel of such persecution if not for polarizing tendencies of the two-party system, but you can't fix the two-party system in a sufficiently timely fashion to prevent that harm. The only real choice anyone has is to vote against the worse of the two evils, and that's not a remotely difficult decision in the current American political environment. Making any other choice at the ballot box - whether abstaining, voting independent, or voting for the evil - is a conscious decision to enable that evil, no matter how much you want to present it as fixing something.

Ok. Now try this

Republican: All Democrats are sexual predators.

So what now?. How would you respond now? See the problem with knee jerk two party system here?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


So ok. So one acting like a bigot is fine if its a D next to it. Just not the other one doing it too with the R next to it.

Wow its almost like they both need to learn to stop acting like huge douchebags or something. And talk about policies like adults :)

Which is why i dont like Two Party System to begin with

Any ideas whose alt TC is? Seems a bit like KingDavid.

This is just sad :(
https://youtu.be/Wnju7zOH_Zs?feature=shared

So basically the argument to keep two party is they just dont like parliamentary system. So el dictator rule is more the case of USA politics when getting a Presidental nominee basically : I

KobraSum9 posted...

Ok. Now try this

Republican: All Democrats are sexual predators.

So what now?. How would you respond now?

By asking for evidence of the claim, same as I do whenever anyone makes a claim that doesn't align with the information I have available. Presuming they're unable to produce evidence (a fairly safe presumption, given how outlandish the claim is), I point out that they have no reason to believe that, dismiss the claim accordingly, and suggest that they do the same because it's the only logical course of action.

Why do you think this is in any way analogous to your hesitation to denounce homophobia?