Educating Annoying Ignorances

[Queen Michael]

Not tech related, but people who think pansexuality is the same as bisexuality(it's not), or those who haven't heard of pansexuality and are like "what" or "that's stupid" or even "you're going to hell for you sexuality, why don't you change??".

And some of these people I've even seen here on the Escapist. It's insane.

That's because most people use the word "bisexuality" to mean "anyone who's not restricted to one gender sexually," while pansexuals don't.

 

[Saltyk]

Here's one that I've been seeing in recent threads here. On every single one of the recent "Was This Shooting Justified" threads someone exclaims that they should have shot the dangerous criminal in the knee. This bothers me so much. So, let's go over this.

#1. Shooting a person in the leg is not easy. The leg is much smaller than the torso and likely moving. Even trained marksmen don't go for the leg shot. No one shots for the leg. You can easily miss the leg and bullets don't stop. They keep going and could hurt someone else. Even if you did hit the leg, nothing says the bullet would stay in the leg. While the torso is larger, easier to hit, and more likely to stop a bullet.
#2. Shooting a person in the leg is just as likely to kill them as shooting them in the torso. The Femoral artery is a very large artery in your leg. So much as nicking that will cause a person to bleed out in a few minutes. If the bullet hits the bone, it could shatter and send shrapnel throughout the leg. Seriously, shooting a person in the leg is potentially just as deadly.
#3. Just because you shot a person in the leg, that doesn't mean it will stop them. Especially if they have a gun.
#4. Anyone who fires a gun accepts that they are shooting to kill. Especially trained people like police officers. There's a reason the police don't shoot running suspects. They always shoot to kill. Not to wound. Not to stop. Not to slow. To kill. So, if you're shooting to kill, you might as well shoot them in the easier to hit area anyway.

I've mentioned this on everyone of those threads. Yet, it keeps popping up. I'll make sure people stop making this claim eventually. Stop getting your lessons about weapons and human anatomy from movies and video games, people!

Oh, and before some brings up warning shots, one of the first things I mentioned was the potential to hurt other people by accident. So why would you willingly fire away from the dangerous subject and potentially hurt someone else?

 

[Bloodtrozorx]

I work in health insurance, Customer ignorance is part of the job. Though even I have to admit, insurance is pretty terrible.

 

[Tipsy Giant]

People saying "it's just a theory" with a smug "take that scientist" look on their face.

People assuming sales equal quality "must be 'blank' of the year it sold Gajillions"

People assuming that our very specific version of capitalism is "the way it's always been"

People treating patriotism as a vertue, when it is the opposite.

People thinking that an art form can belong to a single race (looking at you Hip-Hop Haters)

People thinking that the mainstream is a fair representation of modern music (shoot me if that's true)

People celebrating being famous over doing something of worth anonymously


Thanks OP, feels good to get it off the chest, ahhhhh!

 

[Kordie]

Not tech related, but people who think pansexuality is the same as bisexuality(it's not), or those who haven't heard of pansexuality and are like "what" or "that's stupid" or even "you're going to hell for you sexuality, why don't you change??".

And some of these people I've even seen here on the Escapist. It's insane.

I have to nit pick here, in part because I have not heard of pansexuality. Not KNOWING of something is not the same as being igorant. Not acknowledging something once you know of it is. Not knowing is not a problem, no one knows everything. Ignorance is what happens when you IGNORE knowledge.

 

[Lord Mountbatten Reborn]

Intensive purposes. That is all. *twitch*

Holy fuckballs. This.

Man, I only came into this thread to make a lame "first world problems" gag and now, upon reading this sentence have turned into a complete gibbering mess. It's just so wrong, so utterly ridiculously...just...I don't even...uuugh

Funnily enough, I've never seen it or heard it be used, unless it's by people saying how irritating it is.

What is very real and the single most irritating and simple ignorance I know of is the failure to differentiate between the words "lose" and "loose". I am pretty much okay with everything but this.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Spoiler: snip

Here's one that I've been seeing in recent threads here. On every single one of the recent "Was This Shooting Justified" threads someone exclaims that they should have shot the dangerous criminal in the knee. This bothers me so much. So, let's go over this.

#1. Shooting a person in the leg is not easy. The leg is much smaller than the torso and likely moving. Even trained marksmen don't go for the leg shot. No one shots for the leg. You can easily miss the leg and bullets don't stop. They keep going and could hurt someone else. Even if you did hit the leg, nothing says the bullet would stay in the leg. While the torso is larger, easier to hit, and more likely to stop a bullet.
#2. Shooting a person in the leg is just as likely to kill them as shooting them in the torso. The Femoral artery is a very large artery in your leg. So much as nicking that will cause a person to bleed out in a few minutes. If the bullet hits the bone, it could shatter and send shrapnel throughout the leg. Seriously, shooting a person in the leg is potentially just as deadly.
#3. Just because you shot a person in the leg, that doesn't mean it will stop them. Especially if they have a gun.
#4. Anyone who fires a gun accepts that they are shooting to kill. Especially trained people like police officers. There's a reason the police don't shoot running suspects. They always shoot to kill. Not to wound. Not to stop. Not to slow. To kill. So, if you're shooting to kill, you might as well shoot them in the easier to hit area anyway.

I've mentioned this on everyone of those threads. Yet, it keeps popping up. I'll make sure people stop making this claim eventually. Stop getting your lessons about weapons and human anatomy from movies and video games, people!

Oh, and before some brings up warning shots, one of the first things I mentioned was the potential to hurt other people by accident. So why would you willingly fire away from the dangerous subject and potentially hurt someone else?

Argh yes.

Though, actually, police do sometimes shoot people in the legs, if they are wearing body armour say. This happened in the North Hollywood shootout, most offices fired centre of mass (as they are trained to do), but since they couldn't penetrate the body armour the criminals were wearing to any great extent, someone tried shooting one in the legs. He went down and bled out before the ambulance reached him. Even knowing the criminals were wearing body armour, though, everyone else kept shooting centre of mass, mind.

It was also how they got Ned Kelly and at least one of his gang way back when, though Ned survived and was executed later on.

 

[OniaPL]

Well... In my biology class my teacher was talking about the current state of EU, and one girl raises her hand and asks "What is EU?".

So later on, I give an angry rant about this to my aunt, who responds: "Well, it's not like she needs to know. I think that men should be men and women should be women. Women should be concentrating on looking good and leave thinking and working to men."

Then I cry out of frustration.

My grandmother says similar things.

Older generations are kind of sad, no?

Hmm... rather than simply saying that older generations are sad (while it may be true in some cases), I would say that it is a proof of how we humans cling to what we learn in our earlier years from our families and friends.

Of course this worries me immensely since the younger part of the general public is a flock of idiots who worship reality tv- stars, ignorance and idiocy.
And yes, I am an elitist.

*sigh*

 

[WindKnight]

Spoiler: snip

Here's one that I've been seeing in recent threads here. On every single one of the recent "Was This Shooting Justified" threads someone exclaims that they should have shot the dangerous criminal in the knee. This bothers me so much. So, let's go over this.

#1. Shooting a person in the leg is not easy. The leg is much smaller than the torso and likely moving. Even trained marksmen don't go for the leg shot. No one shots for the leg. You can easily miss the leg and bullets don't stop. They keep going and could hurt someone else. Even if you did hit the leg, nothing says the bullet would stay in the leg. While the torso is larger, easier to hit, and more likely to stop a bullet.
#2. Shooting a person in the leg is just as likely to kill them as shooting them in the torso. The Femoral artery is a very large artery in your leg. So much as nicking that will cause a person to bleed out in a few minutes. If the bullet hits the bone, it could shatter and send shrapnel throughout the leg. Seriously, shooting a person in the leg is potentially just as deadly.
#3. Just because you shot a person in the leg, that doesn't mean it will stop them. Especially if they have a gun.
#4. Anyone who fires a gun accepts that they are shooting to kill. Especially trained people like police officers. There's a reason the police don't shoot running suspects. They always shoot to kill. Not to wound. Not to stop. Not to slow. To kill. So, if you're shooting to kill, you might as well shoot them in the easier to hit area anyway.

I've mentioned this on everyone of those threads. Yet, it keeps popping up. I'll make sure people stop making this claim eventually. Stop getting your lessons about weapons and human anatomy from movies and video games, people!

Oh, and before some brings up warning shots, one of the first things I mentioned was the potential to hurt other people by accident. So why would you willingly fire away from the dangerous subject and potentially hurt someone else?

Argh yes.

Though, actually, police do sometimes shoot people in the legs, if they are wearing body armour say. This happened in the North Hollywood shootout, most offices fired centre of mass (as they are trained to do), but since they couldn't penetrate the body armour the criminals were wearing to any great extent, someone tried shooting one in the legs. He went down and bled out before the ambulance reached him. Even knowing the criminals were wearing body armour, though, everyone else kept shooting centre of mass, mind.

It was also how they got Ned Kelly and at least one of his gang way back when, though Ned survived and was executed later on.

In a similar note, that its more 'pro' to go for headshots, when, as you mentioned, most professionals are trained and experienced enough to go for centre of mass shots to reduce the chances of missing.

Additionally, the whole 'being exposed to vacuum makes you explode' myth. Thank you hollywood for that little pile of giblets. Its especially frustrating when a video reviewer who's a self confessed SF fan reacts to a more realistic depictions of people in vacuum by going 'hey, why hasn't he suffered explosive decompression! he should be sploded!'

 

[Saltyk]

People thinking that the mainstream is a fair representation of modern music (shoot me if that's true)

Let's see, there's popular music like Katy Perry or Lady Gaga. Then there's good music.

Spoiler: I think this is a pretty good song from a pretty obscure band. You never hear them on mainstream radio at least.

 

[Connor Lonske]

Not tech related, but people who think pansexuality is the same as bisexuality(it's not), or those who haven't heard of pansexuality and are like "what" or "that's stupid" or even "you're going to hell for you sexuality, why don't you change??".

And some of these people I've even seen here on the Escapist. It's insane.

I have to nit pick here, in part because I have not heard of pansexuality. Not KNOWING of something is not the same as being igorant. Not acknowledging something once you know of it is. Not knowing is not a problem, no one knows everything. Ignorance is what happens when you IGNORE knowledge.

I think think most of the people I described in my post meet your requirements, so my point still stands. I apologize if I didn't make myself clear enough before.

Not tech related, but people who think pansexuality is the same as bisexuality(it's not), or those who haven't heard of pansexuality and are like "what" or "that's stupid" or even "you're going to hell for you sexuality, why don't you change??".

And some of these people I've even seen here on the Escapist. It's insane.

That's because most people use the word "bisexuality" to mean "anyone who's not restricted to one gender sexually," while pansexuals don't.

I'm not going to correct you on the assumption you don't agree with what you said.

snip*

That just sounds like you're being greedy.

What do you mean by that?

Its a joke mate, lighten up.

I couldn't really tell if it was a joke or an insult, as I didn't really see the insult or the joke to be found anywhere. I guess it went over my head.

 

[Blunderboy]

ATM machine
PIN number

Oh Jeebus. Don't even get me started on those.

 

[Saltyk]

Spoiler: snip

Here's one that I've been seeing in recent threads here. On every single one of the recent "Was This Shooting Justified" threads someone exclaims that they should have shot the dangerous criminal in the knee. This bothers me so much. So, let's go over this.

#1. Shooting a person in the leg is not easy. The leg is much smaller than the torso and likely moving. Even trained marksmen don't go for the leg shot. No one shots for the leg. You can easily miss the leg and bullets don't stop. They keep going and could hurt someone else. Even if you did hit the leg, nothing says the bullet would stay in the leg. While the torso is larger, easier to hit, and more likely to stop a bullet.
#2. Shooting a person in the leg is just as likely to kill them as shooting them in the torso. The Femoral artery is a very large artery in your leg. So much as nicking that will cause a person to bleed out in a few minutes. If the bullet hits the bone, it could shatter and send shrapnel throughout the leg. Seriously, shooting a person in the leg is potentially just as deadly.
#3. Just because you shot a person in the leg, that doesn't mean it will stop them. Especially if they have a gun.
#4. Anyone who fires a gun accepts that they are shooting to kill. Especially trained people like police officers. There's a reason the police don't shoot running suspects. They always shoot to kill. Not to wound. Not to stop. Not to slow. To kill. So, if you're shooting to kill, you might as well shoot them in the easier to hit area anyway.

I've mentioned this on everyone of those threads. Yet, it keeps popping up. I'll make sure people stop making this claim eventually. Stop getting your lessons about weapons and human anatomy from movies and video games, people!

Oh, and before some brings up warning shots, one of the first things I mentioned was the potential to hurt other people by accident. So why would you willingly fire away from the dangerous subject and potentially hurt someone else?

Argh yes.

Though, actually, police do sometimes shoot people in the legs, if they are wearing body armour say. This happened in the North Hollywood shootout, most offices fired centre of mass (as they are trained to do), but since they couldn't penetrate the body armour the criminals were wearing to any great extent, someone tried shooting one in the legs. He went down and bled out before the ambulance reached him. Even knowing the criminals were wearing body armour, though, everyone else kept shooting centre of mass, mind.

It was also how they got Ned Kelly and at least one of his gang way back when, though Ned survived and was executed later on.

Oh, I must admit that I didn't know about that incident. But it does illustrate my point perfectly. Not only were the police shooting for the "lethal" shot, but shooting the guy in the "non-lethal shot" still killed the suspect before the ambulance was even able to arrive.

 

[Thaluikhain]

In a similar note, that its more 'pro' to go for headshots, when, as you mentioned, most professionals are trained and experienced enough to go for centre of mass shots to reduce the chances of missing.

Well, police snipers do do for certain parts of the head, but otherwise yeah.

Excepting the failure drill, which is 2 at the chest and 1 at the head. And then repeat until the target goes down, which is generally forgotten about.

 

[Genericjim101]

I once had to explain to my stepdad that having a high definition television doesn't automatically upgrade every DVD and TV signal to HD. That was a shitty Christmas : s

 

[Thyunda]

Here's one that I've been seeing in recent threads here. On every single one of the recent "Was This Shooting Justified" threads someone exclaims that they should have shot the dangerous criminal in the knee. This bothers me so much. So, let's go over this.

#1. Shooting a person in the leg is not easy. The leg is much smaller than the torso and likely moving. Even trained marksmen don't go for the leg shot. No one shots for the leg. You can easily miss the leg and bullets don't stop. They keep going and could hurt someone else. Even if you did hit the leg, nothing says the bullet would stay in the leg. While the torso is larger, easier to hit, and more likely to stop a bullet.
#2. Shooting a person in the leg is just as likely to kill them as shooting them in the torso. The Femoral artery is a very large artery in your leg. So much as nicking that will cause a person to bleed out in a few minutes. If the bullet hits the bone, it could shatter and send shrapnel throughout the leg. Seriously, shooting a person in the leg is potentially just as deadly.
#3. Just because you shot a person in the leg, that doesn't mean it will stop them. Especially if they have a gun.
#4. Anyone who fires a gun accepts that they are shooting to kill. Especially trained people like police officers. There's a reason the police don't shoot running suspects. They always shoot to kill. Not to wound. Not to stop. Not to slow. To kill. So, if you're shooting to kill, you might as well shoot them in the easier to hit area anyway.

I've mentioned this on everyone of those threads. Yet, it keeps popping up. I'll make sure people stop making this claim eventually. Stop getting your lessons about weapons and human anatomy from movies and video games, people!

Oh, and before some brings up warning shots, one of the first things I mentioned was the potential to hurt other people by accident. So why would you willingly fire away from the dangerous subject and potentially hurt someone else?

Warning shots don't make any sense anyway - especially in the 'was this shooting justified' thread - I think our vandal was well aware of the gun in his face. The officer made damn sure of that.

 

[Vidi Kitty]

We have these photo machines at work where you get to sift through your pictures and print up the ones you want. 3 out of 4 people require help with these machines. 2 out of those 3 will sit there with a stupid expression as you explain how to work the machine a few times. Most of those will glean absolutely no information from your help and will just fuck up and have to start over, asking for help again.

And I am 3 shades of fed up with people enlarging wallet sized pictures and throwing a ***** fit when it comes out fuzzy and pixelated.

And people who think copyright laws don't apply to them should walk out onto the highway.

And people... nah I'm just going to leave it at people.

EDIT: I should specify that my examples are all for people who have been told many times about the outcome of what they are doing. They just keep coming back...

 

[Saltyk]

Here's one that I've been seeing in recent threads here. On every single one of the recent "Was This Shooting Justified" threads someone exclaims that they should have shot the dangerous criminal in the knee. This bothers me so much. So, let's go over this.

#1. Shooting a person in the leg is not easy. The leg is much smaller than the torso and likely moving. Even trained marksmen don't go for the leg shot. No one shots for the leg. You can easily miss the leg and bullets don't stop. They keep going and could hurt someone else. Even if you did hit the leg, nothing says the bullet would stay in the leg. While the torso is larger, easier to hit, and more likely to stop a bullet.
#2. Shooting a person in the leg is just as likely to kill them as shooting them in the torso. The Femoral artery is a very large artery in your leg. So much as nicking that will cause a person to bleed out in a few minutes. If the bullet hits the bone, it could shatter and send shrapnel throughout the leg. Seriously, shooting a person in the leg is potentially just as deadly.
#3. Just because you shot a person in the leg, that doesn't mean it will stop them. Especially if they have a gun.
#4. Anyone who fires a gun accepts that they are shooting to kill. Especially trained people like police officers. There's a reason the police don't shoot running suspects. They always shoot to kill. Not to wound. Not to stop. Not to slow. To kill. So, if you're shooting to kill, you might as well shoot them in the easier to hit area anyway.

I've mentioned this on everyone of those threads. Yet, it keeps popping up. I'll make sure people stop making this claim eventually. Stop getting your lessons about weapons and human anatomy from movies and video games, people!

Oh, and before some brings up warning shots, one of the first things I mentioned was the potential to hurt other people by accident. So why would you willingly fire away from the dangerous subject and potentially hurt someone else?

Warning shots don't make any sense anyway - especially in the 'was this shooting justified' thread - I think our vandal was well aware of the gun in his face. The officer made damn sure of that.

Which one? I've seen this same argument on at least three different threads.

 

[Queen Michael]

Not tech related, but people who think pansexuality is the same as bisexuality(it's not), or those who haven't heard of pansexuality and are like "what" or "that's stupid" or even "you're going to hell for you sexuality, why don't you change??".

And some of these people I've even seen here on the Escapist. It's insane.

That's because most people use the word "bisexuality" to mean "anyone who's not restricted to one gender sexually," while pansexuals don't.

I'm not going to correct you on the assumption you don't agree with what you said.

I personally use the word "bisexuality" about all sexualities that include both men and women, since that's what Wikipedia told me and that's what people and dictionaries generally agree the word means. I see pansexuality as a particular kid of bisexuality, but I'll gladly hear your definition of the words.

 

[Vhite]

People thinking that an art form can belong to a single race (looking at you Hip-Hop Haters)

I can relate to that. I dont like when people say that anime is only made in Japan or asian countries. Thats probably because one of my favorites is French.