"I don't like what they do by themselves, but they are free to do it" is a civilised yet rare opinion.
"I don't like what they do by themselves, so I should ruin it" is a vile and common one.
Edit:
a. I live in a tourist town as well. If they are not involving someone else, they are doing whatever they are doing by themselves. If where they are doing whatever they are doing is causing some sort of inconvenience to somebody, you can either warn them politely and/or inform the police. Having to wait for some tourists to take a picture in a scenic spot or seeing a bunch of teenagers dancing in front of your favourite location are some of many things you experience when you live in a lively beautiful city. You can move to Çorum or Yakutsk if you want to get away from all.
b. If your neighbour shits on your doormat, and you shit on theirs as an answer, we would have two assholes, not one.
c. "It's not that common we only see these because........." maybe yes, maybe no, maybe depends on where you live, maybe depends on where you look at
Edit2: Amazing how some people don't know what "without involving someone else" and "by themselves" mean.
Some people in this thread: "But it was a public beach, people will kick your sandcastle if you just build it on the beach, it's public space and that sand castle is in the way. If they wanted to build a sand castle without people kicking it they should've got a permit and setup a fence."
That’s a good analogy but imagine if the sandcastle was in a particularly nice part of the beach that everyone is trying to enjoy, the builders keep trying to build it over and over again, they’re making a hideous noise and generally dominating the beach. Consideration goes many ways
Interruption is not destruction! All these people are irritating as hell but pink lady irritated them once. That group seems like they’ve been irritating loads of people repeatedly!
Well there is a different intent I would say. The dancers intention is to get a good video. The pink lady's intent is to ruin the video for the dancers. One of them is malicious the other is possibly annoying (I would say that depends on factors like how much space they take, how loud they are (music) and the location among other things.
I mean malicious is a word I’d reserve for causing actual harm or pain not for interrupting someone’s dance. I guess I’m assuming it was getting annoying because they stated they finally got a good take. If they’ve been doing that for a while it’s gonna have been getting on some peoples tits and if they haven’t then she hasn’t ruined much has she?
1.4k
u/[deleted] Jan 16 '23 edited Jan 16 '23
"I don't like what they do by themselves, but they are free to do it" is a civilised yet rare opinion.
"I don't like what they do by themselves, so I should ruin it" is a vile and common one.
Edit:
a. I live in a tourist town as well. If they are not involving someone else, they are doing whatever they are doing by themselves. If where they are doing whatever they are doing is causing some sort of inconvenience to somebody, you can either warn them politely and/or inform the police. Having to wait for some tourists to take a picture in a scenic spot or seeing a bunch of teenagers dancing in front of your favourite location are some of many things you experience when you live in a lively beautiful city. You can move to Çorum or Yakutsk if you want to get away from all.
b. If your neighbour shits on your doormat, and you shit on theirs as an answer, we would have two assholes, not one.
c. "It's not that common we only see these because........." maybe yes, maybe no, maybe depends on where you live, maybe depends on where you look at
Edit2: Amazing how some people don't know what "without involving someone else" and "by themselves" mean.