Get Premium
Dark mode theme is available exclusively for premium users. Learn more about the benefits of subscribing.
No fees, cancel anytime.
Dark Mode 
No fees, cancel anytime 
Join the Fun!
Join 1.2 million Panda readers who get the best art, memes, and fun stories every week!
Thank you!
You're on the list! Expect to receive your first email very soon!
Bored Panda is Even Better on the App!
Stay Updated with Real-Time Notifications
Instant Access via Homescreen Tap
Simple Interface - Even Your Cat Can Use It!
Margerita Wargola
Community Member
3 posts
9 comments
793 upvotes
39 points
Polish, living in Ireland. Proud mother of autistic Son, Artist, Photographer, depression warrior.
Margerita Wargola • upvoted 40 items 1 year ago
Sun_Mother reply
I truly hate playing with my kid. I do not want to play Barbies, dolls, or ponies. I can do crafts, coloring, puzzles, dancing. But I hate imaginative play.
kiwi_rozzers reply
I was listening to a podcast once, and the host articulated something profound in a very well-stated way. He said (I paraphrase): "I will never argue with a flat-earther, or an anti-vaxxer, or any of those people. The reason is because that these people have made that into _their whole identity_, and they are prepared to address any possible argument I could come up with. And because I care about facts and truth and they do not, my only possible response would be '...uh, I'll have to look into that, I don't know off the top of my head'. It doesn't matter that their response is incorrect or based on faulty research or has been rejected by the scientific community or whatever; by the time I discover that, they will be long gone and talking about how they won another debate." This is it in a nutshell. If you argue about an issue with someone who has made _that one issue_ into the core of their persona, you will lose unless you are someone who has made arguing against that issue also into the core of your persona. Of course I know that Andrew Wakefield is a liar and a scammer and of course I know that Apollo astronauts placed retroreflectors on the Moon which can be used to prove that they went there and that their photos of the spherical Earth are real, because I've done enough research to convince myself. But have I done enough research to convince someone who refuses to be convinced? And someone who has also done that research and come up with plausible-sounding nonsense to counter each of these arguments? Why would I waste my life doing this?Sun_Mother reply
I truly hate playing with my kid. I do not want to play Barbies, dolls, or ponies. I can do crafts, coloring, puzzles, dancing. But I hate imaginative play.kiwi_rozzers reply
I was listening to a podcast once, and the host articulated something profound in a very well-stated way. He said (I paraphrase): "I will never argue with a flat-earther, or an anti-vaxxer, or any of those people. The reason is because that these people have made that into _their whole identity_, and they are prepared to address any possible argument I could come up with. And because I care about facts and truth and they do not, my only possible response would be '...uh, I'll have to look into that, I don't know off the top of my head'. It doesn't matter that their response is incorrect or based on faulty research or has been rejected by the scientific community or whatever; by the time I discover that, they will be long gone and talking about how they won another debate." This is it in a nutshell. If you argue about an issue with someone who has made _that one issue_ into the core of their persona, you will lose unless you are someone who has made arguing against that issue also into the core of your persona. Of course I know that Andrew Wakefield is a liar and a scammer and of course I know that Apollo astronauts placed retroreflectors on the Moon which can be used to prove that they went there and that their photos of the spherical Earth are real, because I've done enough research to convince myself. But have I done enough research to convince someone who refuses to be convinced? And someone who has also done that research and come up with plausible-sounding nonsense to counter each of these arguments? Why would I waste my life doing this?
Carved Stone Chain Link Column Dating Back To 1106. Found On The Facade Of The Collegial Saint-Lazare D’avallon In France
"This Old Picture Of My Great-Grandmother, Far Left, Makes It Look Like The Cameraman Just Stumbled Into A Secret Meeting Of The Grandmas..."
Comics
“Yes, But”: Artist Creates A Series Of Illustrations That Depict Our Society’s Contradictions, And Here Are 23 Of The Newest Ones
Show All 40 Upvotes
Margerita Wargola • submitted 17 list additions 4 years ago
Margerita Wargola • commented on 2 posts 1 year ago
Margerita Wargola • commented on 2 posts 2 years ago
Margerita Wargola • commented on 3 posts 3 years ago
Margerita Wargola • commented on a post 4 years ago
Margerita Wargola • commented on a post 5 years ago
Margerita Wargola • upvoted 20 items 1 year ago
Sun_Mother reply
I truly hate playing with my kid. I do not want to play Barbies, dolls, or ponies. I can do crafts, coloring, puzzles, dancing. But I hate imaginative play.kiwi_rozzers reply
I was listening to a podcast once, and the host articulated something profound in a very well-stated way. He said (I paraphrase): "I will never argue with a flat-earther, or an anti-vaxxer, or any of those people. The reason is because that these people have made that into _their whole identity_, and they are prepared to address any possible argument I could come up with. And because I care about facts and truth and they do not, my only possible response would be '...uh, I'll have to look into that, I don't know off the top of my head'. It doesn't matter that their response is incorrect or based on faulty research or has been rejected by the scientific community or whatever; by the time I discover that, they will be long gone and talking about how they won another debate." This is it in a nutshell. If you argue about an issue with someone who has made _that one issue_ into the core of their persona, you will lose unless you are someone who has made arguing against that issue also into the core of your persona. Of course I know that Andrew Wakefield is a liar and a scammer and of course I know that Apollo astronauts placed retroreflectors on the Moon which can be used to prove that they went there and that their photos of the spherical Earth are real, because I've done enough research to convince myself. But have I done enough research to convince someone who refuses to be convinced? And someone who has also done that research and come up with plausible-sounding nonsense to counter each of these arguments? Why would I waste my life doing this?"This Old Picture Of My Great-Grandmother, Far Left, Makes It Look Like The Cameraman Just Stumbled Into A Secret Meeting Of The Grandmas..."
At Airport, Just Handed This... Challenge Accepted... Good Luck Buddy. Standby For Results, Take Off In 40
Carved Stone Chain Link Column Dating Back To 1106. Found On The Facade Of The Collegial Saint-Lazare D’avallon In France
This Panda hasn't followed anyone yet
This Panda has no followers yet