• wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Fully applies here, because the legal documents that the charity has posted for the past decade are more than the ample amount of evidence to drop jirard like a hot stone.

    Jirard claims the reason why he lied for a decade about donating the money instead of hoarding it like a dragon is sheer incompetence. Many people think that is a lie, and its actually a long con he was in on the while time.

    But regardless of if he was actively evil or just horridly incompetent with the money of hundreds of thousands of trusting fans, both explanations are full reasons to cut contact with him on a business and personal level.

    What company wants jirard the “10 year long charity fumbler” completionist as a partner? Who would intentionally advertise that they work with either the charity scammer or the guy who didnt realize his charity wasnt a charity for a decade?

    So a completely rational business cuts ties with a bad business partner. And you respond by misreading an internet comment, and taking the game out of your wishlist.

    • BumpingFuglies@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      Yeah, and if you look further down, you’ll see I was ignorant of that until another commenter informed me, then I changed my tune accordingly.

      Regardless, there was nothing preemptive on my end. “Preemptive” means taking preventive action in anticipation of something possible in the future. I was reactive; I saw the content removal as morally wrong, and reacted with a small personal protest (which, granted, I didn’t edit out of my original comment, but have since rescinded). Nothing preemptive about it.

      Semantics are fun!

      • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        Yes, and so was the removal of jirard from sea of stars. Reacting to the knowledge that jirard mishandled his charity. Thats why it was funny. Because you mislabeled what they did while doing the same thing they did.

        Im sorry, I didnt think that part needed spelling out.

        • BumpingFuglies@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Still not preemptive, though. Do you seriously not understand what the word means? I even gave you an armchair definition in my last comment.

          Here, this might help: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/preemptive

          EDIT: I think I finally understand. You must’ve forgotten what your original reply said. Here it is:

          Its kinda funny to criticize someone for supposed preemptive action by yourself making a preemptive action.

          That doesn’t jive with this in your most recent comment:

          Because you mislabeled what they did while doing the same thing they did.

          I hate to argue semantics - that’s a lie; I actually love it, but I know most people hate it - but while the latter quote is correct in the context of my misguided li’l protest (I mislabeled a simple reaction as preemptive, then I made a simple reaction), it’s an incorrect explanation of the “humorous observation” - that I mislabeled a simple reaction as preemptive, then I made a preemptive action.

          I understand that appearing intelligent is probably very important to you, so you really should make more of an effort to reread your posts when somebody calls out a mistake you’ve made, rather than dig your heels in.

          Learning from our mistakes is how we grow.

          • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            … Yes, which is why it was funny. You mislabeled their reactive comments as preemptive when they werent, while doing the same thing they did while calling it reactive.

            Pumpkin, do I need to draw you pictures? Ive explained this for you 3 times.

          • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Adding an edit hours after my comment is cute, but adding an edit where you detail misunderstanding my first comment is adorable.

            • BumpingFuglies@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              Yeah, I started to edit then got distracted. I have a life.

              Do you get some satisfaction out of constantly lying? Or are you truly that dense? Either way, I suppose there’s no point in continuing this.

              You got more upvotes than me, so I guess that means you win. Your mother must be so proud.

              • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                11 months ago

                Jesus, you care about votes on lemmy? Im sorry to hear that bud

                Ive repeated myself so many different ways for you, to help you grok the sentence everyone else got the first time. Its very cute you think the same concept reworded for you in different ways is what lying is.

                Are you this big a dickrider for jirard? Or did I accidentally step on an insecurity of yours? If I did I promise it wasnt on purpose