All right, R is off work and can confirm all of this. I'll preface by saying: I definitely got heated after someone suggested I get the gun I didn't know they had and shoot myself in the head.

But I'm getting ahead of myself.

1/
First, to set the stage: both R and I were a bit leery of it to begin with. We'd had get-togethers and in all of the recent ones where were a lot of "those goddamned millennials" talk.

2/
With "millennial" meaning "anyone younger than them" since apparently it covered everyone from school administrators probably only a decade my mother's junior to my younger brother's (currently a college Senior) classmates.

Obviously that's not quite right.

3/
But don't worry, we're the "good" millennials who aren't lazy good-for-nothings.

So we were already prepared for *some* kind of awkward ranting.

Dinner approaches.

And I'm going to now caution people that I have... strange eating habits.

4/
I think everyone does on some level, there's something about how they eat what they eat that others find off-putting (R squishes ketchup into eggs in a way that I can't watch, I put ketchup on macaroni and cheese in a way that used to make @mpark6288 gag when we were kids)

5/
Knowing this, I try to restrain myself. The beef is pretty... bad. It wasn't anything about the cooking, it was just not a great cut and meat can be kind of random anyway. So I get the Worcestershire sauce.

But I can't get it to soak up into the meat.

6/
So, I put it in a shot glass.

Bite of meat, sip of Worchestershire. Inelegant, but gets the job done.

My mom begins to freak out. R attempts to mediate (yes, it's weird, just don't watch).

Whatever you think this is about to spiral into, think weirder.

7/
At this point my stepfather declares that if I'm going to do "that" he should go get the gun they have upstairs so I can shoot myself in the head.

Regardless of how off-putting the Worchestershire in a shot glass is, we've gone all the way to 11.

8/
I'm... honestly stunned. I don't know how long I sat there trying to process "what the actual, serious, genuine fuck just happened", but apparently something about the awkward silence of "just suggested I kill myself" lent itself to a rant about "toxins" in Worchestershire.

9/
Some incredulous sound came out of my mouth, apparently, because he felt inspired to repeatedly and loudly invoke that he was the only person there who "works in the medical field".

For the sake of how ridiculous this situation is, imagine what you think his job was.

10/
For context, if @DomSkyeRN told me "sipping Worchestershire out of a shot glass while eating meat means I should kill myself" my response would be "what the *fuck* is in Worchestershire?"

His job "in the medical field"? Head of a sales team for a medical supply company.

11/
At this point I'll admit I got irked. Being told to kill myself is a bit much, and as a 29-year-old licensed attorney being lectured about "toxins" was a bit much.

I slammed the remainder of the shot glass back like two fingers of whiskey and slammed the glass on the table.

12/
This made... basically no one happy.

So at this table with my wife, my mother, stepfather, little brother, and two friends of the family, we sit in stony silence eating rubbery meat.

I *probably* could have muddled through and just left. In hindsight maybe I should have.

13/
It's at this point I lean in close to R to get a sense of how completely off-base I am. I'm stubborn, I'm not exactly humble, so in a situation like this I don't always have the best sense of whether I'm on the side of the angels.

R is simply flabbergasted.

14/
But she confirms (a) he really did say that, and (b) my behavior wasn't really *that* atrocious.

So I decided that fences needed mending. Specifically in the form of "I'm probably owed an apology for being told to kill myself."

Any guesses on how that goes?

15/
Short version: he once again invoked his medical expertise. I retorted that's like saying a janitor at a hospital has medical expertise because they work in the medical field.

And thus ensued the shouting back and forth, and orders to leave their house.

16/
As we were packing up to leave, he kept shouting that "no one here supports you", while R was standing right next to me. *That* was the part she took umbrage at. Because that either means she's not a person, or they think she's supporting me out of wifely duty.

17/
Anyone who knows R can attest that "blindly supporting me out of wifely duty" isn't really her thing.

And that was basically it. I tried one more time to text "hey, here's why telling me to kill myself was kind of shitty", got a "thanks for explaining how you feel".

18/
R is actually *more* mad now than she was. Mom and her remained FB friends, and when R posted on FB about her being diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis earlier this year it really bugged her that mom didn't reach out at all despite having seen it.

19/
And... that's it. Kind of anticlimactic since my current strategy is "eventually I win the argument by default". The only other time I can remember them reaching out was to complain about when we got doxxed, which is fair since that was my fault and unfortunate.

20/20

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Actually malicious, no actual malice

Actually malicious, no actual malice Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @apark2453

8 Dec
I *do* want to pick it apart!

And... Wow. This is art.

154 pages.

One entry on the table of contents: "Motion for leave... page 1".

1/ Image
Typically one can sue a group of defendants together whey they acted in concert. It'd be a weird kind of joinder rule to be allowed to file one lawsuit against three different defendants under three different theories of wrongdoing solely because "it's all election stuff".

2/ Image
Each of these is alleged at a different state. None are *true* of course, but even if true I'm not sure why Paxton thinks he can file one suit against all three on three different theories.

And the third is just silly.

3/ ImageImageImage
Read 76 tweets
8 Dec
wsj.com/articles/south…

This is an interesting set of hot takes from the governor overseeing the highest positive testing rate of any state in the country.

I'm sure it won't come as a galloping shock that her "better" numbers are bullshit.

1/
This is already untrue. Cases in the last seven days/100,000 in South Dakota is 98.6. Illinois is 75.6.

If we include data since January 21st, South Dakota's per capita rate is almost twice as high.

But I'm sure we'll stick with "last seven days" throughout, right?

2/ Image
Recent figures are probably the better measure, and Noem is correct to use them. Otherwise we're getting a lot of noise from the early going based on where the virus cropped up. At this point it's everywhere. So current numbers are more indicative of competence

3/
Read 6 tweets
8 Dec
Let's take some time to break this down.

Starting with the weird analogy between "actual distribution of species on the planet" and "representation of groups of people in fictional media."

It's a step or two removed, but it's basically the thermian argument.

1/
It requires viewing a fictional world like a continent: it either does or does not have certain things in it and that's just how it goes. There just don't happen to be kangaroos in Europe, so don't complain.

NB: there are, people pay to see them

2/
As no one should need to be reminded of: fictional worlds are not real places. Everything in them is put in them by choice. There's no natural selection, no speciation which leads to some species of birds in some places and not others. Every blade of grass is put in by choice

3/
Read 6 tweets
7 Dec
Oh my goodness this article is bad. I have the day off so let’s do a good, old fashioned, “how are you this wrong” breakdown. And I want to lead off with the best one.

Keep in mind this is an argument for the US Supreme Court overturning the PA Supreme Court.

1/
The basic argument is this: Latches can’t apply here because the challenge is to whether a statute is constitutional. So the Supreme Court would reverse.

To support this the author cites, poorly, to “Stilp v. Hafer (1998)”.

2/
I say poorly because it’s missing two of the ways you’d know that’s not a US Supreme Court case. The actual citation is either “553 Pa. 128 (1998)” or “718 A.2d 290 (Pa. 1998).”

So let’s be clear: even if the author were right, this is SCOPA deviating from SCOPA precedent.

3/
Read 37 tweets
7 Dec
For those curious about this doctrine. The “Colorado River doctrine” is named for Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976).

1/
The actual background is kind of fascinating, and if anyone (particularly east of the Mississippi where you don’t deal with prior appropriation) wants an explanation of “what the hell does ‘owning’ water even mean” I can explain.

2/
But the upshot is this:

Following changes to Colorado water law administration there were a whole lot of lawsuits in Colorado courts about water rights, including the water rights of tribal land (administered by the US itself).

3/
Read 9 tweets
6 Dec
Small problem. Even in your “fediverse” model, so long as I can post somewhere I don’t myself own, you are either (a) accepting someone else is liable for what I wrote, or (b) need the equivalent of 230.

If I can’t what you’ve created is email. If I *can*, you need 230.

1/
Whether people *should* want the interconnectivity of “publicly posting on other people’s walls/timelines/replies”, clearly people *do* want it.

The vagueness of “interconnection of sovereign spaces owned and controlled by individuals” only muddies the waters.

2/
If your vision is “twitter or Facebook but everyone owns their own page and no 230”, each individual “client” would face incredible liability.

If your vision is that people wouldn’t be able to freely post on other people’s pages, you haven’t made an FB competitor.

3/
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!