Here's the wiki page on the Mann Act (which some of the pro-stitution types might find interesting, along with the wiki page on the first guy arrested under this act).
And speaking of people arrested under the Mann Act, here's Charlie Chaplin's FBI file.
And in less hilarious news, some of you may have heard of things like the Active Denial System (which is where troops and hopefully police will be given huge microwave guns that they can use to cause huge amounts of pain to people they don't like).
Well I'm not going ot talk about that, but a related project that also involve evil crowd control lasers, known as PEP.
Now I was under the misapprehension apparently that PEP was evil because it was designed, primarily, to be able to flay the skin of people/cause their eyeballs/lungs to explode/all of the above so as to "subdue" them in a "non-lethal" way.
However, recent tests indicate that it can also be used as a long range taser, if tazers could cause people's lungs to explode with the side effect(!) of causing mere pain and paralysis in people hit by it.
And speaking of paralysis, it seems that some folks have been trying their hand at Weather Control experiments (again) - but the kicker is that they've decided to use a poisonous element called Barium to seed the clouds, thus showering folks with an element that is quite quite poisonous should it become diluted in water and drank.
And on that note, I should just point out that the weather will be fine until 12:07 AM, when a shower will commence, lasting until 1:30 AM...
Have a pleasant evening.
Showing posts with label it's... stupid. Show all posts
Showing posts with label it's... stupid. Show all posts
11/22/2007
9/15/2007
radnom anti-zionist thingie
...Zionists are another good examples of this, because Israel was supposed to be a socialist utopia originally, and being just as big a fucking buddha, and despite all the anti-semites who funded the holocaust and pogromed like hell under stalin giving Israel a shit load of weapons and money, the anti-semitic bourgious are still here, screwing semitic peoples over, and fully capable of turning most of the jews in the world into mere shadows on the glowing midnight walls of post-nuclear Tel Aviv. A good thing those anti-semites need Israel to be a handy hate figure their pet arabs can use to keep their subjugated populaces angry at the wrong people really.
But a well fed goat that produces excellent milk may still be slaughtered for its meat should it stop lactating, more so in fact...
But a well fed goat that produces excellent milk may still be slaughtered for its meat should it stop lactating, more so in fact...
9/05/2007
Wordgirl: kicker of the balls of cute widdle puppies
Ugh:
Blah blah blah monolingual dora the explorer for an older age demographic blah blah blah.
Anyway, the stupid comes in where he's trying to work up Teh seXY based OUTRAGE:
I keep trying to respond to this but the stupid has left me quite literally lost for words.
If only I'd grown up with Wordgirl to look up to!
I do love his gender education gap post, the whole "I don't have any figures to back up what I'm saying, but if I did, they'd agree with me" logic is wonderful, reel sophistrycated. basically you'll recall taht a while ago someone did a survey in britain about how adult men preferred less sophisticated books - like vonnegut's Slaughter house 5 (because only idiots read sci-fi or something) - and women are all like "romance books from the 18th century are way kewl" thereby proving once and for all that all men are alike, all women are the same, people are born in pods and gender essentialism is a perfectly acceptable thing in teh 21st century.
*headdesks*
So anyway, his post on wordgirl gets stupid when he attempts to clarify:
I suggest that one of the words that Wordgirl uses be Parthenogenesis, preferrably when she explains her origins.
And then one of her enemies can be that tosser from harvard who declared that women's brains over heat when we try to think.
because, you know, women are not routinely told they're unable to do anything, and thus must be given no encouragement lest we harness the power of the split participle and take over the world.
According to Elizabeth Jensen, "A New Heroine's Fighting Words", 9/2/2007, NYT:THERE’S a new superhero on the block this fall, and she might just have the strength (or as she would most likely say, the “fortitude”) to render a big vocabulary cool among schoolchildren.
The weapon of choice for PBS’s new “WordGirl” is words: the more expressive, the better. When the fifth-grader Becky Botsford dons her red cape and spits out mouthfuls like “preposterous” and “bicker” and “cumbersome,” her enemies — from the often-tongue-tied Chuck the Evil Sandwich-Making Guy (whose name is a chance for WordGirl to define “absurd”) to the Butcher, who mangles words while hoarding meat — capitulate.
Blah blah blah monolingual dora the explorer for an older age demographic blah blah blah.
Anyway, the stupid comes in where he's trying to work up Teh seXY based OUTRAGE:
Given that pre-adolescents are traditionally in search of ways to feel superior to adults -- not that they ever need to look very far -- perhaps exactly what the nation needs these days is a role model to inspire more fifth graders to become snarky and obnoxious by using big words and correcting the usage of others. I think the idea, though, is just to use the snark as a way to sugar-coat the pill of vocabulary enrichment, not to turn out a whole generation of David Foster Wallaces.
But children's shows are inevitably about symbols of identity as well as about transmission of literal content. (I don't think it's an accident that the generation who grew up with the multicolored fur of the Sesame Street puppets took to dying their hair orange and green and purple in college.) And from the point of view of identity symbols, the role of gender and class in WordGirl also deserves a comment.
WordGirl is presented as the champion of English as a literary language. Her super-enemies are almost all adult males, including especially The Butcher, complete with deep voice, five-o'clock shadow, male pattern baldness, and stereotypical working-class accent. (The Butcher's superpower apparently involves forcing opponents to eat too much meat, but that's a topic for another post.) So I wonder: how long will it take, after the pilot airs at 4:30 this afternoon, before the first schoolboy with an interest in reading and writing is nicknamed "WordGirl" by his classmates? My bet is on the morning recess at school tomorrow, in those areas where the schools are already in session.
Maybe the show's creators have a plan for dealing with this issue, I don't know. But on the face of it, the clips posted to YouTube suggest that this show could have a large and negative impact on the educational gender gap.
I've been vocally skeptical about the genetic and neurological basis that some have claimed for this problem; and it remains unclear whether the problem is that boys are doing worse, or that girls are doing better. But the gap is real, and the way to improve things may not be to associate vocabulary improvement with a 5th-grade female superhero correcting the English of adult male villains.
I keep trying to respond to this but the stupid has left me quite literally lost for words.
If only I'd grown up with Wordgirl to look up to!
I do love his gender education gap post, the whole "I don't have any figures to back up what I'm saying, but if I did, they'd agree with me" logic is wonderful, reel sophistrycated. basically you'll recall taht a while ago someone did a survey in britain about how adult men preferred less sophisticated books - like vonnegut's Slaughter house 5 (because only idiots read sci-fi or something) - and women are all like "romance books from the 18th century are way kewl" thereby proving once and for all that all men are alike, all women are the same, people are born in pods and gender essentialism is a perfectly acceptable thing in teh 21st century.
*headdesks*
So anyway, his post on wordgirl gets stupid when he attempts to clarify:
If it's not clear to you why WordGirl is any way problematic, try to imagine the reaction to a show where MathBoy defends the world against villains like Ms. BadAd, a PR consultant who doesn't understand percentages, and CheckoutGirl, who is too dim to make change correctly.
Apparently a female villain, "Lady Redundant Woman", is due to appear in a WordGirl episode next spring -- though her fault, I imagine, will be to use too many words. And according to the wikipedia entry, two of the 30 WordGirl shorts (shown on PBS Kids GO! last fall) featured the villain Granny May, although neither of these appears to be on YouTube -- and it's not clear that Granny has any vocabulary problems. The WordGirl web site identifies her as "a mean, grumpy criminal ... [who] plays the role of a feeble, kindly, hard-of-hearing grandma in order to deceive the city and rob everyone blind".
Perhaps at some point we'll learn that Y chromosomes are also to be found on the planet Lexicon, where WordGirl comes from, and that not everyone who misuses or misunderstands the vocabulary of Standard Written English is male. But as presented in the YouTube clips, the show seems designed to persuade boys that words are for girls.
I suggest that one of the words that Wordgirl uses be Parthenogenesis, preferrably when she explains her origins.
And then one of her enemies can be that tosser from harvard who declared that women's brains over heat when we try to think.
because, you know, women are not routinely told they're unable to do anything, and thus must be given no encouragement lest we harness the power of the split participle and take over the world.
6/18/2007
Okay Twisty, I have to doff my pimping hat at you
Twisty wins this week's Curious Retoric Award for this wonderful and beautiful line:
Which as every Libertarian and Fiscal Conservative/liberal knows, means that only the total deregulation of the penis placement market can allow the invisible hand of Feminism to free us all from the...err... other invisible hand of patriarchy (unlike feminism's invisible hand, which is soft and caring as only a "post gender" invisible feminine hand can be) which is always trying to cop a feel when you least want it to).
The whole peice is interesting, not just because Twisty for once actually deigns to come up with some thing akin to a mechanism for her whole nihilistic "Oh it's the end of civilisation as we know it and I feel alright I suppose, I have badminton practice* and my food to keep me occupied and all" thing that seems to be the only bit of unifyng theoretical frame work that stops the radfem community dissolving in a squidgy mess of autophagy.
But any the, crux of the whole peice is really that Salon has finally noticed the existence of asexuals (when New Scientist had a peice from the guy who runs AVEN way back in 2004 ffs) and Hilarity promptly ensues:
What's that you say Twisty? People going on paternalistically about how people who've probably put quite a bit of thought into their life style haven't really, according to the randomised and arbitrary standard that they invented back when blacks drankfrm different fountains, and man-on-man was a crime, exained their choices is a tool commony used by the patriarchy to force women to live within patriarchy affirming lifestyles?
Next you'll be saying that the patriarchy also works by pinning women and men between two mutually exclusive sociological dichotomies, and then squeezing them together till we give up or die.
However the doctors do have a point that some asexuals probably are a bit damaged, for instance;
Now you can't tell me that's normal. The thinking that S&TC is representative of how the other 99% live that is, not the platonic relationships thing, which I think we've all experienced in some form or another, but they tend to get eclipsed somewhat by the emotional rollercoasters that makeup sexual relationsips.
Do you know what? I'm just gonna cut this post here because the ironic dissonance between the two peices is kinda obvious, and I've gotta see a man about an auxillary dingus anyway.
As we have seen, patriarchy relies for its continued success on precise regulation of penis placement.
Which as every Libertarian and Fiscal Conservative/liberal knows, means that only the total deregulation of the penis placement market can allow the invisible hand of Feminism to free us all from the...err... other invisible hand of patriarchy (unlike feminism's invisible hand, which is soft and caring as only a "post gender" invisible feminine hand can be) which is always trying to cop a feel when you least want it to).
The whole peice is interesting, not just because Twisty for once actually deigns to come up with some thing akin to a mechanism for her whole nihilistic "Oh it's the end of civilisation as we know it and I feel alright I suppose, I have badminton practice* and my food to keep me occupied and all" thing that seems to be the only bit of unifyng theoretical frame work that stops the radfem community dissolving in a squidgy mess of autophagy.
But any the, crux of the whole peice is really that Salon has finally noticed the existence of asexuals (when New Scientist had a peice from the guy who runs AVEN way back in 2004 ffs) and Hilarity promptly ensues:
But some experts see a potentially damaging downside to the asexual pride welcome mat and are concerned that freshly "validated" asexuals, rushing headlong into acceptance, may be so quick (and relieved) to call their condition an "orientation" that they'll buy the T-shirt before they've fully explored how they might have gotten that way.
"I don't think that masses of people -- who might be confused about sexuality, or afraid about sexuality, or who have not yet experienced sexual attraction and sexual pleasure, or who have experienced sexual trauma -- should be encouraged to define themselves as 'asexual,'" says Aline Zoldbrod, a Boston-area psychologist and sex therapist and author of "Sex Smart: How Your Childhood Shaped Your Sexual Life and What to Do About It." "I worry about boys and girls, men and women, finding an 'asexual' Web site and accepting their asexuality as an identity without even trying to understand its genesis. Some of these people need help."
What's that you say Twisty? People going on paternalistically about how people who've probably put quite a bit of thought into their life style haven't really, according to the randomised and arbitrary standard that they invented back when blacks drankfrm different fountains, and man-on-man was a crime, exained their choices is a tool commony used by the patriarchy to force women to live within patriarchy affirming lifestyles?
Next you'll be saying that the patriarchy also works by pinning women and men between two mutually exclusive sociological dichotomies, and then squeezing them together till we give up or die.
However the doctors do have a point that some asexuals probably are a bit damaged, for instance;
Jay, who started calling himself "asexual" when he was in high school, says he has many close friends, develops crushes on both men and women (more of an urge to see them 24/7 than to see them naked), and enjoys watching "Sex and the City" with friends anthropologically, as a way of observing how the other 99 percent lives.
Now you can't tell me that's normal. The thinking that S&TC is representative of how the other 99% live that is, not the platonic relationships thing, which I think we've all experienced in some form or another, but they tend to get eclipsed somewhat by the emotional rollercoasters that makeup sexual relationsips.
Do you know what? I'm just gonna cut this post here because the ironic dissonance between the two peices is kinda obvious, and I've gotta see a man about an auxillary dingus anyway.
6/05/2007
Whiny Ass Titty Babies Need Hysterectomies, Stat!
Oh lordy, well we've got a big bagful of Post-Gilliard Blogisode.
Because we're long past a mere blogwar folks, this is an epileptic seizure of leftblogistan, this is what I can only describe as a tuppin episode.
Apparently some brittany woman in nashville reposted, without additional comment, a wingnut's post who ahd this charmingly subtle epilogue to Steve Gilliard's career as a good and progressive writer;
Because while progressives, being sissy wusses, actually back up claims of, for want of a better term, uncle tommery with this funny thing called evidence, Conservatives being so god damned manly that they're scared of women, brown folk, books and apparently the living, can just call someone a bigot and a house negro because... well because he's fat and he's black, oh and he's also dead, because there's nothing more manly than starting a fight with a man who can't fight back.
What's amusing me however is that I was unaware specifically which of the big bloggers steve gilliard was (nothing personal, but I started tuning them out once I realised they were all just debunking things that the neo-cons said - and then I realised that the neo-cons were stuck on a loop and hadn't come up with any new material since 1978, and while I suppose someone had to keep slogging away at it, I for one couldn't be bothered to read it anymore) and was kinda "oh, steve gilliard was black, well..." which at least explains on average why he hadn't done anything notably stupid in the past couple of years.
Which is a commendation in my eyes, any blogger big enough to be mourned by the other big bloggers after his death who isn't almost as stupid and humorless as that wingnut there, is both notable and impressive giving the intellectual contraints placed upon him by the very nature of big blogging itself. Kudos.
Which brings me back to the Blogisode, because unfortunately Jesus' General saw brittany's commentless repost and LEAPED to the attack... you'd expect as much, "dear Smantix..." it'd begin and then he'd really get into it...
Umm... wait a second, it was Smantix's post...
Well that's good but she's just doing what Atrios does, which isn't really "repackaging as a WKRN 2 Nashville product" in any sense of the term so...
Umm...
Err...
Of course little did the General know that The French had cunningly reconned the blogosphere so that it was now impossible for a blogger to post in a contextless vacuum, as was decided during both The Not All That Suprising DKos Pie Fight and The Incredibly and Inexplicably Stupid Battle of BurkaGate, in which it was decided that if you show the ability to be intelligent, you do not then get to play the "Oh but I'm just a stupid conservative duh-ho-whoa, context and context, what is context?" card, waffle about PC oppression and just generally be a collosal nitwit on an unimaginable scale.
Which is unfortunate because even a casual reading of Brittany's writing at Nashville Is Talking should lead you to realise that she is on average liberal, and that, unless she actually states otehrwise, a quote of that nature with no comment, in the inexplicably popular stylings of, I repeat, Atrios, should be read as such:
Title (*Fucked Up Quote* + *silence*) = Ironic Title! ZOMGWTFBBQ.
Of course, as you are claiming that you don't do irony any more, having undergone some sort of Hulk like transformation into an idiot, ("don't make me greive, you wouldn't like me when I grieve") I can only assume that you will now be posting drivel like that but... and here's the New Format Jesus' General twist... You shall be saying stuff like that in total unironic seriousness.
Of course we all know what's really going on here.
We've all felt that sort of soul raking grief that leads to crazy actions - I remember when a freind of mine died I kept starting fights in bars - which ultimately culminated in me successfully beating the crap out of a guy who had tried to get fresh with me, 3 bouncers and some random passerby who looked at me funny, at this club, and managing to take one of the bouncers' eyebrows clean off with my hideously swollen knuckles before a few freinds managed to drag me off and away.
They sat on me all night and made me promise never to be such a psycho while I ranted and raged and insulted all their mothers.
I'm not proud... Welll I'm a bit proud (his eye brow was just a bloody gash above his eye, that's impressive, if morally Wrong), but it's all mixed in with shame towards those poor bouncers who had no idea that when they got ready for their night job that evening that later that night they would be partially mauled by a skinny greiving martial artist who does not like men touchign her without an invitation (though they were trying to stop me wailing on this other guy, so it's wasn't a bad touch, so much as "how dare you touch me impudent pig dogs, DIE!").
To cut a long story short, in other words, we understand, in fact as Zuzu made clear over at, it's perfectly understandable that Jesus general would immediately go into a hyperventilating hysterics about such a thing, he's hurt, he's sore, he's bruised all over his brain, and if you don't make perfectly clear and beat him over the head with ultra obvious sarcasm and teh irony , well then of course he's going to flip out out like a epileptic ninja at a disco.
And so what if he does spaz out like that, os what if he does let his weak inferior male, overly emotional self make him get himself into a position where his ego won't let him back down - because he's invested all this anger from Gilliard's death into being Le Outraged at Brittany, and he's got no where else for that misplaced anger to go - so what eh?
Just a blow up on the internets right?
Except Brittany quit blogging pretty much because of the grief she was getting from both this bullshit, and from the constant attacks every liberal blogger gets from conservative haters.
SO for the recap here's what's happened so far:
Female liberal writer puts a douche bag into the spot light
Male liberal writer reacts and sets his (actually really existent) posse to harass her
She explains
He demands an apology for the shit that only actually happened in the inside of his own head
She quits because of the harassment.
Well color me shocked and surprised that shit like this could happen in Left blogistan (that's heavy sarcasm btw folks).
A hearty Fuck You to all those responsible in this mess. Steve Gilliard would not wnat this to be how he's commemorated, but NEVER MIND, who gives a fuck about the dead eh?
Self Absorbtion really does mean never having to say you're sorry, and it also apparently means being able to demand an apology from the people you've hurt for very comprehensible, but no less FUCKING STUPID, reasons.
Fuck You all.
Because we're long past a mere blogwar folks, this is an epileptic seizure of leftblogistan, this is what I can only describe as a tuppin episode.
Apparently some brittany woman in nashville reposted, without additional comment, a wingnut's post who ahd this charmingly subtle epilogue to Steve Gilliard's career as a good and progressive writer;
It goes without saying that the term “house negro” gets bandied about with great frequency against anyone of seemingly African descent when they are on the Right. [It doesn't actually, nad if you had to say it, then it doesn't actually go without saying then, does it? - RM] Be you Clarence Thomas, Condoleeza Rice, Michael Steele, or J.C. Watts, you can expect a Harry Belafonte, a Danny Glover, or yes - even a Steve Gilliard to call you out for being the race traitor that you are. The sell-out, Oreo cookies who do Whitey’s bidding and put a black face on racist policies that would otherwise be rightly called out for what they are. Uncle Thomas and Aunt Thomasinas alike. [It should be Aunt Thomas' actually, he's confusing uncle toms with tsars, also for clarity it should reallky be "uncle and aunt Thomas' alike." - RM]
But really, who is doing whose bidding in those situations? Can Howard Dean call Condoleeza his “do right answer mammy who be smart”? Can James Carville call out Clarence for collard greens? [Not really... - RM]
Which brings us to today’s marquee morbidity. The tragic, untimely death of Donk ["donk"? - RM] House Negro and all around bigot Steve Gilliard. Who knew that boiling bacon grease in a spoon and mainlining it into the neck vein was bad for your health?
Because while progressives, being sissy wusses, actually back up claims of, for want of a better term, uncle tommery with this funny thing called evidence, Conservatives being so god damned manly that they're scared of women, brown folk, books and apparently the living, can just call someone a bigot and a house negro because... well because he's fat and he's black, oh and he's also dead, because there's nothing more manly than starting a fight with a man who can't fight back.
What's amusing me however is that I was unaware specifically which of the big bloggers steve gilliard was (nothing personal, but I started tuning them out once I realised they were all just debunking things that the neo-cons said - and then I realised that the neo-cons were stuck on a loop and hadn't come up with any new material since 1978, and while I suppose someone had to keep slogging away at it, I for one couldn't be bothered to read it anymore) and was kinda "oh, steve gilliard was black, well..." which at least explains on average why he hadn't done anything notably stupid in the past couple of years.
Which is a commendation in my eyes, any blogger big enough to be mourned by the other big bloggers after his death who isn't almost as stupid and humorless as that wingnut there, is both notable and impressive giving the intellectual contraints placed upon him by the very nature of big blogging itself. Kudos.
Which brings me back to the Blogisode, because unfortunately Jesus' General saw brittany's commentless repost and LEAPED to the attack... you'd expect as much, "dear Smantix..." it'd begin and then he'd really get into it...
News Director
WKRN 2 Nashville
cc: Allison Hatcher, Weekday Evening Anchor, WKRN 2 Nashville
Brittney Gilbert, Blogger, WKRN 2 Nashville
Dr. Harry R Jacobson, Vice-Chancellor for Health Affairs, Vanderbilt U.
Dear WKRN 2 News Team,
I really enjoy Brittney's new "Kick The Body Before It's Buried" feature on the WKRN 2's Nashville is Talking blog, and although my inner Frenchman stormed out of the room after reading the inaugural post about his friend, Steve Gilliard, I'm certain it brought a smile to his lips for a moment before he went back to grieving. I bet it did the same for Steve's family and the thousands of others who loved and respected him as well.
Umm... wait a second, it was Smantix's post...
Now I know your blogger, Brittney, isn't the author of those lines, but she deserves a lot of credit for republishing it without comment and thereby repackaging it as a WKRN 2 Nashville product.
Well that's good but she's just doing what Atrios does, which isn't really "repackaging as a WKRN 2 Nashville product" in any sense of the term so...
That young woman is certainly an asset to your organization. You should consider giving her a spot on the nightly news.
I'm thinking of something along the lines of a short in-studio segment where Brittany and WKRN 2 Nashville Weeknight Anchor Allison Hatcher attack someone from the local black community who passed away that day. I bet your writers would have a lot of fun finding new ways to denigrate black people and the circumstances of their death. You might even get State Sen. Stacey Campfield to join in. I'm sure he'd love it.
Umm...
Let me know if I can help you in any way--I might be able to find you a good deal on white robes or pointed sticks you can use to poke the bodies. I'd be glad to hook you up.
Err...
Heterosexually yours (in a chaste and biblically appropriate kind of way, of course)
Gen. JC Christian, patriot
Of course little did the General know that The French had cunningly reconned the blogosphere so that it was now impossible for a blogger to post in a contextless vacuum, as was decided during both The Not All That Suprising DKos Pie Fight and The Incredibly and Inexplicably Stupid Battle of BurkaGate, in which it was decided that if you show the ability to be intelligent, you do not then get to play the "Oh but I'm just a stupid conservative duh-ho-whoa, context and context, what is context?" card, waffle about PC oppression and just generally be a collosal nitwit on an unimaginable scale.
Which is unfortunate because even a casual reading of Brittany's writing at Nashville Is Talking should lead you to realise that she is on average liberal, and that, unless she actually states otehrwise, a quote of that nature with no comment, in the inexplicably popular stylings of, I repeat, Atrios, should be read as such:
Title (*Fucked Up Quote* + *silence*) = Ironic Title! ZOMGWTFBBQ.
Of course, as you are claiming that you don't do irony any more, having undergone some sort of Hulk like transformation into an idiot, ("don't make me greive, you wouldn't like me when I grieve") I can only assume that you will now be posting drivel like that but... and here's the New Format Jesus' General twist... You shall be saying stuff like that in total unironic seriousness.
Of course we all know what's really going on here.
We've all felt that sort of soul raking grief that leads to crazy actions - I remember when a freind of mine died I kept starting fights in bars - which ultimately culminated in me successfully beating the crap out of a guy who had tried to get fresh with me, 3 bouncers and some random passerby who looked at me funny, at this club, and managing to take one of the bouncers' eyebrows clean off with my hideously swollen knuckles before a few freinds managed to drag me off and away.
They sat on me all night and made me promise never to be such a psycho while I ranted and raged and insulted all their mothers.
I'm not proud... Welll I'm a bit proud (his eye brow was just a bloody gash above his eye, that's impressive, if morally Wrong), but it's all mixed in with shame towards those poor bouncers who had no idea that when they got ready for their night job that evening that later that night they would be partially mauled by a skinny greiving martial artist who does not like men touchign her without an invitation (though they were trying to stop me wailing on this other guy, so it's wasn't a bad touch, so much as "how dare you touch me impudent pig dogs, DIE!").
To cut a long story short, in other words, we understand, in fact as Zuzu made clear over at, it's perfectly understandable that Jesus general would immediately go into a hyperventilating hysterics about such a thing, he's hurt, he's sore, he's bruised all over his brain, and if you don't make perfectly clear and beat him over the head with ultra obvious sarcasm and teh irony , well then of course he's going to flip out out like a epileptic ninja at a disco.
And so what if he does spaz out like that, os what if he does let his weak inferior male, overly emotional self make him get himself into a position where his ego won't let him back down - because he's invested all this anger from Gilliard's death into being Le Outraged at Brittany, and he's got no where else for that misplaced anger to go - so what eh?
Just a blow up on the internets right?
Except Brittany quit blogging pretty much because of the grief she was getting from both this bullshit, and from the constant attacks every liberal blogger gets from conservative haters.
SO for the recap here's what's happened so far:
Female liberal writer puts a douche bag into the spot light
Male liberal writer reacts and sets his (actually really existent) posse to harass her
She explains
He demands an apology for the shit that only actually happened in the inside of his own head
She quits because of the harassment.
Well color me shocked and surprised that shit like this could happen in Left blogistan (that's heavy sarcasm btw folks).
A hearty Fuck You to all those responsible in this mess. Steve Gilliard would not wnat this to be how he's commemorated, but NEVER MIND, who gives a fuck about the dead eh?
Self Absorbtion really does mean never having to say you're sorry, and it also apparently means being able to demand an apology from the people you've hurt for very comprehensible, but no less FUCKING STUPID, reasons.
Fuck You all.
6/02/2007
Note to Piny:
I won't declare that anyone else has an eating disorder.
I still think that, all things being equal, the explanation that MeMe's remarkably pathological reaction to even the most marginal body fat on someone else is more likely than anything else to be a symptom of a eating disorder than anyting else.
In fact I have no idea what else it could be, given who she was talking about (who really wasn't fat in any sense of the word, she was at worst "not hyper-skinny") but that's not the point...
Yes I do kinda object to bewing lumped in with the guzillion and 8 mouthbreathers who were spouting off about that "skinny bitch", but then again, I can't really be arsed to fight for my right to diiiiiiagnose people over the internets with ED.
You find it offensive, say no more, but just remember that I am a unique and special snowflake of a mouthbreather - who mouthbreaths with style and flair and some sense that doesn't make me a hugely misogynistic assburger, goddammit.
And yes I'm still pissed off at Clarke for inexplicably declaring that I'm some sort of dog murdering anti-liberal terrorist, but I forgive him because well, who sweats the hysterics, really?
Also, for everyone else, is anyone else getting the impression that Heart's conception of transpeople has been created entirely from watching too much Ranma 1/2?
I still think that, all things being equal, the explanation that MeMe's remarkably pathological reaction to even the most marginal body fat on someone else is more likely than anything else to be a symptom of a eating disorder than anyting else.
In fact I have no idea what else it could be, given who she was talking about (who really wasn't fat in any sense of the word, she was at worst "not hyper-skinny") but that's not the point...
Yes I do kinda object to bewing lumped in with the guzillion and 8 mouthbreathers who were spouting off about that "skinny bitch", but then again, I can't really be arsed to fight for my right to diiiiiiagnose people over the internets with ED.
You find it offensive, say no more, but just remember that I am a unique and special snowflake of a mouthbreather - who mouthbreaths with style and flair and some sense that doesn't make me a hugely misogynistic assburger, goddammit.
And yes I'm still pissed off at Clarke for inexplicably declaring that I'm some sort of dog murdering anti-liberal terrorist, but I forgive him because well, who sweats the hysterics, really?
Also, for everyone else, is anyone else getting the impression that Heart's conception of transpeople has been created entirely from watching too much Ranma 1/2?
4/05/2007
I'm sick of these motherfucking Shoggoths on this motherfucking roof!
So I'm listening to the sample Mp3 of the Byakhee song from the Cthulhu mythos musical ("A Shoggoth on the roof") on windows media player.And it does the whole "find album cover picture" thing as it usually does, largely because I neither know nor care how to turn the damn thing off...
And that little piccie there, that's what it came up with.
Byakhee Byakhee, sung by Ben Affleck and Samuel L Jackson in the infamous blockbuster muscical "Changing Lanes".
Okay universe, I'm quite capable of free associating randomly all on my own thank you very much...
4/04/2007
No More With The Fighting Now Please!
It is an arguement that can only end with tears and no satisfactory resolution! Can we not for once eat the cup cakes of solidarity?
(The first bit does make me wonder how many spartans it takes to lynch one black guy, what wusses, no wonder they don't go for the manwichs, man-on-man action would snap their fragile little aryan bodies like they were so many twigs!)
 |  |  |
 |
(The first bit does make me wonder how many spartans it takes to lynch one black guy, what wusses, no wonder they don't go for the manwichs, man-on-man action would snap their fragile little aryan bodies like they were so many twigs!)
3/23/2007
Err, What?
Felicia
Decapitated by a Model
Twiggy: I think she's very beautiful. I don't like this photograph this week.
Miss J: You're so used to moving, that when you're dead, you're just that: capital D-E-A-D, dead.
Nigel: All the other girls managed to have some sort of spark even in this sort of morbid situation. I think I look at you in this picture, and you actually just look dead. One of the simplest things, like acting dead, can be the most challenging. The problem is that you didn't do anything. You just gave up and thought that that was being dead.
(via feministe)
3/18/2007
Destructive Criticism Vs. Constructive Criticism: A Comment
A comment left in response to this buffoon:
Admitting bad judgment on your part if you are a rape victim (or victim of some other crime) is also not “blaming the victim”
Well yes but it's completely irrelevent to the issue at hand: which is rape.
We can tell this because... well let's set up two hyperthetical situations where a rape occurs, both of which involve exactly identical conditions and actions on the part of the man and woman, but one has none of this "bad judgement" radiation emitted by the woman, and the other one does.
Okay so one woman is raped, but there's no "bad judgements" involved (let's ignore your rather curiously open ended and generic conception of "bad judgement", which seems to consist of... well... never giving any guy the benefit of the doubt ever and assuming that they're all rapists a priori) on the other hand another woman is raped, same circumstances, same sort of rape, same reaction to the rape as the first time, but there's this "bad" judgement stuff involved...
so?
That's the problem, you and many other bloggers like you have spent exorbinant amounts of time and billion upon billions of pages of text talking about "resposibility" and "bad judgement" and all that jass... the thing is I've yet to see any of you actually provide a point, a woman shows bad judgement this one time; and? A woman slips up and makes a erroneous assumption or makes a mistaken action; yes? What is the point of this exactly?
You see there's two sorts of criticism: one is destructive criticism, whihc is designed to tear down an arguement or person, and then there's constructive criticism, which is designed to help the target improve in some way.
This criticism you and many many others have whipped out again and again, with nearly the same arguements each time mark you, doesn't constitute constructive criticism, because it is useless for preventing rape, on account of it assuming that there is always things that are really accurate "tells" that the man you're with is likely to have sex with you against your will and basically consists of nothing more than conflating asocial paranoia with sanity.
And if we actually apply it in a real post-rape situation, the destructive nature of it becomes even clearer.
Scenario 2: I have just been raped, and I immediately start trying to figure out what tells were presented which I overlook in an attempt to figure out how to avoid such a situation in the future.
What's wrong with this scenario?
Well for one thing, the rapist's tells are unique to him, because everyone is a unique nad precious snowflake. Second off, I've probably gone out with any number of guys who, presented with the exact same situation that this rapist was, didn't rape me yet at the same time, gave off what, in hindsight, would look like a tell when it came from teh rapist - and which would be overlooked the next time I went on a date if I like the guy (and if I like someone I assume they're not a rapists, beacuse I don't like rapists).
This is called sample bias, and when the datum size equals 1, it's pretty much all biased and there's very little actual trustable data to be analysed because your analysis is running off of nothing less than unsubstantiated assumptions. What actually occurs in these silly little peices (which are produced after all news catching rapes) is that people start pointing out things that they think might be common to rapists, or more often, things that were exploited by specific rapists to rape a woman (which have ranged from "getting into a taxi", to "going out in public without wearing something to cover the temptatious female ankle", all the way to the crazy-ville of "being a lesbian") and which are completely useless if you're not being attacked by that singular specific rapist, or if random guess work and social training isn't correct in what it perceives to be "rapist-like" behavior.
And then there's the sheer uselessness of all this destructive criticism for cases of close aquaintance rape that is committed by people you not only know, but in fact have been going out with, or may have even married (which isn't exactly rare you know) because if you're having that sort of relationship with someone, you like them, you not only want to give them the benefit of the doubt, but you trust them enough to enter into a serious relationship with him.
And in fact, what the sort of presumption of him being a rapist would do is poison your relationship, and you would be doing while having no way of knowing if the tells you're seeing are even accurate warnings of him being a rapist.
Which gets to the ultimate problem with these essays: Ever bit of advice they give out is being ignored by millions of women across teh globe as I type, some woman out there is, right now, ending the evening, fucked off her face with a guy she barely knows who is taking her back to her residence, and will proceed to put herself in every situation that might potentially lead to her getting raped.
And in the morning, she will still not have been raped because merely eliminating instances that a rapist might use to rape you, or failing to, is no garuntee that you will/will not be raped.
Because if a rapists really wants to have you, they can distract you for a split second, slip a roofie in your drink, then take you off to the toilets when you're too drugged to stop him, and you'll spend most of the rest of the evening in casualty getting the rips in your asshole sewn up.
Because there are never enough precautions that could ever possibly garuntee that you won't get raped, and so someone will always be able to another variation of this essay explicating how, in that instance where through a wide variety of rather mundane reasons that largely involved you leaving the house that morning, you were in some way responsible for a man slipping drugs into your drink and violently raping you in the toilets.
And unfortunately there are a grand total of two sane ways to react to that information:
1) grab the shotgun, run to the hills, build a logcabin and live off the land avoiding contact with any other human being for the rest of your life surrounded by cats.
2) Accept fate, and focus on actually enjoying yourself considering that at any moment the next person you meet might be a closet ted bundy who'll rape and murder you (and not neccesarily in that order).
So take your pick of reactions, because I don't care because I don't personally feel a pressing need to pat myself on the back while also performing cunninglingus on myself because I have had the good fortune not to have been raped at some point in my life.
And because I don't engage in that sort of self-centred waffling, I don't have people say things like, I dunno.. GIVING DESTRUCTIVE CRITICISM TO RAPE VICTIMS IS JUST PLAIN WRONG YOU ASSHOLE.
because you're right, it's not blaming the victim exactly, but is still wrong in a whole special morally repugnant way all its own.
Admitting bad judgment on your part if you are a rape victim (or victim of some other crime) is also not “blaming the victim”
Well yes but it's completely irrelevent to the issue at hand: which is rape.
We can tell this because... well let's set up two hyperthetical situations where a rape occurs, both of which involve exactly identical conditions and actions on the part of the man and woman, but one has none of this "bad judgement" radiation emitted by the woman, and the other one does.
Okay so one woman is raped, but there's no "bad judgements" involved (let's ignore your rather curiously open ended and generic conception of "bad judgement", which seems to consist of... well... never giving any guy the benefit of the doubt ever and assuming that they're all rapists a priori) on the other hand another woman is raped, same circumstances, same sort of rape, same reaction to the rape as the first time, but there's this "bad" judgement stuff involved...
so?
That's the problem, you and many other bloggers like you have spent exorbinant amounts of time and billion upon billions of pages of text talking about "resposibility" and "bad judgement" and all that jass... the thing is I've yet to see any of you actually provide a point, a woman shows bad judgement this one time; and? A woman slips up and makes a erroneous assumption or makes a mistaken action; yes? What is the point of this exactly?
You see there's two sorts of criticism: one is destructive criticism, whihc is designed to tear down an arguement or person, and then there's constructive criticism, which is designed to help the target improve in some way.
This criticism you and many many others have whipped out again and again, with nearly the same arguements each time mark you, doesn't constitute constructive criticism, because it is useless for preventing rape, on account of it assuming that there is always things that are really accurate "tells" that the man you're with is likely to have sex with you against your will and basically consists of nothing more than conflating asocial paranoia with sanity.
And if we actually apply it in a real post-rape situation, the destructive nature of it becomes even clearer.
Scenario 2: I have just been raped, and I immediately start trying to figure out what tells were presented which I overlook in an attempt to figure out how to avoid such a situation in the future.
What's wrong with this scenario?
Well for one thing, the rapist's tells are unique to him, because everyone is a unique nad precious snowflake. Second off, I've probably gone out with any number of guys who, presented with the exact same situation that this rapist was, didn't rape me yet at the same time, gave off what, in hindsight, would look like a tell when it came from teh rapist - and which would be overlooked the next time I went on a date if I like the guy (and if I like someone I assume they're not a rapists, beacuse I don't like rapists).
This is called sample bias, and when the datum size equals 1, it's pretty much all biased and there's very little actual trustable data to be analysed because your analysis is running off of nothing less than unsubstantiated assumptions. What actually occurs in these silly little peices (which are produced after all news catching rapes) is that people start pointing out things that they think might be common to rapists, or more often, things that were exploited by specific rapists to rape a woman (which have ranged from "getting into a taxi", to "going out in public without wearing something to cover the temptatious female ankle", all the way to the crazy-ville of "being a lesbian") and which are completely useless if you're not being attacked by that singular specific rapist, or if random guess work and social training isn't correct in what it perceives to be "rapist-like" behavior.
And then there's the sheer uselessness of all this destructive criticism for cases of close aquaintance rape that is committed by people you not only know, but in fact have been going out with, or may have even married (which isn't exactly rare you know) because if you're having that sort of relationship with someone, you like them, you not only want to give them the benefit of the doubt, but you trust them enough to enter into a serious relationship with him.
And in fact, what the sort of presumption of him being a rapist would do is poison your relationship, and you would be doing while having no way of knowing if the tells you're seeing are even accurate warnings of him being a rapist.
Which gets to the ultimate problem with these essays: Ever bit of advice they give out is being ignored by millions of women across teh globe as I type, some woman out there is, right now, ending the evening, fucked off her face with a guy she barely knows who is taking her back to her residence, and will proceed to put herself in every situation that might potentially lead to her getting raped.
And in the morning, she will still not have been raped because merely eliminating instances that a rapist might use to rape you, or failing to, is no garuntee that you will/will not be raped.
Because if a rapists really wants to have you, they can distract you for a split second, slip a roofie in your drink, then take you off to the toilets when you're too drugged to stop him, and you'll spend most of the rest of the evening in casualty getting the rips in your asshole sewn up.
Because there are never enough precautions that could ever possibly garuntee that you won't get raped, and so someone will always be able to another variation of this essay explicating how, in that instance where through a wide variety of rather mundane reasons that largely involved you leaving the house that morning, you were in some way responsible for a man slipping drugs into your drink and violently raping you in the toilets.
And unfortunately there are a grand total of two sane ways to react to that information:
1) grab the shotgun, run to the hills, build a logcabin and live off the land avoiding contact with any other human being for the rest of your life surrounded by cats.
2) Accept fate, and focus on actually enjoying yourself considering that at any moment the next person you meet might be a closet ted bundy who'll rape and murder you (and not neccesarily in that order).
So take your pick of reactions, because I don't care because I don't personally feel a pressing need to pat myself on the back while also performing cunninglingus on myself because I have had the good fortune not to have been raped at some point in my life.
And because I don't engage in that sort of self-centred waffling, I don't have people say things like, I dunno.. GIVING DESTRUCTIVE CRITICISM TO RAPE VICTIMS IS JUST PLAIN WRONG YOU ASSHOLE.
because you're right, it's not blaming the victim exactly, but is still wrong in a whole special morally repugnant way all its own.
3/12/2007
Dear next person to make a spartan-centric movie
Please include:
- More hot man-on-man action (I'm not gonna see the proper movie on account of my head will explode if there's not the little wall that was actually used at thermopylie, but the porn spoof version should be... interesting).
- At least some passing reference to why the spartans had such a well trained army (Helot uprisings? Massive slavery from the conquest of neighbouring states? Just some mention that the spartans were complete barbaric nutjobs of the first kind, nay references would be good)
Please do not include:
- Vile evil faceless mass of evil woggy brown folk as the vile evilIranians Persians who are even more suicidal (some how) than the 300 themselves.
- Matrix-stylee slow mo action scenes, it's been done, by john woo, back in the 80's, in hong kong, it's going to be this generation of big budget films' cliche, which future film critics will look back on and laugh at, like dodgy psychedlia from the 60's, but even lamer.
As they should.
I mean COME ON! A several thousand year old bit of white supremicist masturbatory propaganda, and it's been converted into a cliche ridden hack & slash action movie, a story that explicitly had the spartans precede every battle with copious hair grooming and mutual man-on-man oiling action, and it's been parsed into the "fight in the shade" comment and some pretty CGI beheadings.
COME ON! It's the freaking Iranian empire invading a neighbouring (nominally) white country for conquest and booty, there's comparatives! Metaphors! Allegories! Hot man-on-man oiling and grooming scenes! All sort of subtle and not subtle things you could do with the thermopylea epic.
BUT NO! Fucking hack and fucking slash and fucking slow-mos!
Fuck them all, the fucking fuckers.
- More hot man-on-man action (I'm not gonna see the proper movie on account of my head will explode if there's not the little wall that was actually used at thermopylie, but the porn spoof version should be... interesting).
- At least some passing reference to why the spartans had such a well trained army (Helot uprisings? Massive slavery from the conquest of neighbouring states? Just some mention that the spartans were complete barbaric nutjobs of the first kind, nay references would be good)
Please do not include:
- Vile evil faceless mass of evil woggy brown folk as the vile evil
- Matrix-stylee slow mo action scenes, it's been done, by john woo, back in the 80's, in hong kong, it's going to be this generation of big budget films' cliche, which future film critics will look back on and laugh at, like dodgy psychedlia from the 60's, but even lamer.
As they should.
I mean COME ON! A several thousand year old bit of white supremicist masturbatory propaganda, and it's been converted into a cliche ridden hack & slash action movie, a story that explicitly had the spartans precede every battle with copious hair grooming and mutual man-on-man oiling action, and it's been parsed into the "fight in the shade" comment and some pretty CGI beheadings.
COME ON! It's the freaking Iranian empire invading a neighbouring (nominally) white country for conquest and booty, there's comparatives! Metaphors! Allegories! Hot man-on-man oiling and grooming scenes! All sort of subtle and not subtle things you could do with the thermopylea epic.
BUT NO! Fucking hack and fucking slash and fucking slow-mos!
Fuck them all, the fucking fuckers.
3/04/2007
Magical Interracial White Girl Transforms into Black Knight - racism ensues
I was going to post something about the whole ChasingMockolate thing, but I figured that any one who will take her husband into a bar fight, Other him into a token, and then proceed to use that tokenised husband as a blunt instrument, beating off anyone and everyone who dares try to stop her smashing the place up (while heart goads her onto ever stupider avenues of retoric) is not someone I want to get into a direct conflict with, so I shall leave that to Bfp.
Largely because my well honed barfighting instincts are giving me two clear choices:
1) Run away before she starts trying to bite people's legs off.
Or
2) Set fire to the bar, then run away (aka the Saotome Ultimate Technique, the most powerful martial arts move in the world).
So here's to all those black knights out there, may your fleshwounds be minor, and your enemies really indifferent, lest they squash you.
Why yes I'm officially washing my hands of chasingmoksha, I wasn't exactly liking her back when she was calling all asian people racist and for some unknown reason started going on about how fat people would naturally start slimming down "if they wanted to be mobile" or something like that, I'm certainly not going to like her any better now she's othering people left, right and center while playing March of The Marcottes on that tiny little violin we whiteys always seem to have secreted about our persons for just such emergencies.
She's no Sammo Hung connoisser that's for sure.
And how can anyone like someone who's so uncultured?
Largely because my well honed barfighting instincts are giving me two clear choices:
1) Run away before she starts trying to bite people's legs off.
Or
2) Set fire to the bar, then run away (aka the Saotome Ultimate Technique, the most powerful martial arts move in the world).
So here's to all those black knights out there, may your fleshwounds be minor, and your enemies really indifferent, lest they squash you.
Why yes I'm officially washing my hands of chasingmoksha, I wasn't exactly liking her back when she was calling all asian people racist and for some unknown reason started going on about how fat people would naturally start slimming down "if they wanted to be mobile" or something like that, I'm certainly not going to like her any better now she's othering people left, right and center while playing March of The Marcottes on that tiny little violin we whiteys always seem to have secreted about our persons for just such emergencies.
She's no Sammo Hung connoisser that's for sure.
And how can anyone like someone who's so uncultured?
2/26/2007
Damn the Black Jewish Female Hispanics who wadded up my silken panties!
I'm sure there's a word for this other than "stupid". (hat tip to BA)
Can't think of one yet.
It's an interesting whine, one does however wonder what manner of crazy nonsensical fairies she's batting at with the post.
Of course she, like many of these conservative, *sigh*, "shock" bloggers doesn't seem to know what the "bad words" she's flinging around actually mean.
And I do actually sigh everytime I encounter this pathetically dull brand of comedy, because I like intelligence in my comedy, that's why I like hip-hop, there's word plays and irony and puns that don't suck toast - and best of it has tragicomic elements.
I also love the work of Spike Milligan, and most of it is, unabashadly racist - it was written in the 50's and 60's, even if it was written in britain which didn't have segregation or anything, so the lines of comedic taste are further towards pandering to the tastes of racists than otherwise.
but does any goonshow episode have the sort of words that the modern "shock" "anti-PC" "comedians"? No.
Why? Because it didn't need to, Milligan could whip out actual satire, and wierd little surrealistic things, could even play with racist stereotypes, there's one episode where they have a ridiculously over the top "Umm me big chief" type character, who of course shows up to give the cowboys (who's fort has of course moved over onto "Indian" land because it was built on shifting sands) a bill for unpaid taxes on the booze that was transported across the border in the fort.
The juxtapositioning of the uncultured savage stereotype with the idea of customs inspectors is the source of the comedy in that joke, not the stereotype itself - and it's practically a mcguffin, because the rest of the episode revolves around the sheer stinginess and cowardliness of the cowboys who are trying to do everything in their power to avoid paying taxes on the booze - until the episode culminates in Commander Bloodnock declaring that they'll have to "drink their way out" of the predicament.
However the best "joke" from the Goonshow is, imho of course, something from the episode "the yeti".
It's an odd joke, which I haven't even seen done elsewhere - probably because it only really works with radio. It relies not a traditional punchline of any kind because the punchline is that, during an inexplicable shift from a dialogue based narrative structure to a first person narrative structure, the point of view suddenly gets switched around between two people so that one voice actor ends up narrating from the first person for the character played by the other voice actor.
That's a rather dry of explaining it, basically, the usual narrative of the goon show is expounded through characters talking to each other and the sound effects, but for no real reason (other than to satirise the radio serials of the day which resorted to first person narratives, but you don't have to know that to get the actual punchline) the narrative suddenly shifts to a first person narrative, told from the perspective of the character Neddy Seagoon (played by harry seacombe)...
Neddy Seacombe: As I was sitting down to watch the telly in the house next door but one, we had thins walls you see, there came a knock from the front door...
*sound of two knocks and a crashing noise*
Gridpipethin: I appear to have put my fist through your door...
NS: He said. don't worry about it, a bit of plaster should sort it out.
G: He said. Oh don't worry I only grazed my knuckles.
...And somewhere during this is a bizare interchange with lots of "he said I said he said" after which NS ends up with the part of gridpipethin and G ends up finishing the skit with; "and after gridpipethin left, I sat down to watch the telly in the house next door but one..." and the audience is left confused but amused at the way the switch round was done so fluidly that you know that the narrative perfectly justified the switch round while at the same time the actual switch around makes no sense whatsoever.
You may at this point wonder why I'm waffling like this, well that's a simple question to answer - because I'm amused but confused at that anti-PC post, except with out the amused part because there's no actual switch around, nor build up or set up for the gag, she just comes out and basically says "political correctness was created by oppressed peoples".
Now I'm going to say what all progressives know but probably don't say to often because it's so pathetically obvious that it'd be like stating the color of the sky or pointing out that things fall towards the ground - you don't have to state it, it's that obvious and well known.
but I'm gonna say it, because it should clarify what's so very very very wrong with that post, what is in fact wrong with every single post any conservative has ever written about the great beast called "political correctness". In so doing I will of course be agreeing with the original post, but I shall then explain away the nonsensical juxtapositioning of reality with conservative fantasy which, I'm reasonably certian, is what is sucking "teh funny" out of every single attempt by conservatives to be humorous.
So here's the blatantly obvious: Political Correctness is racist.
Yes, I know, they actually brought me down to their level of pathetic-obviousness-cum-revelatory-gnostic-truth, but it obviously needed saying by a non-idiot.
Why is it racist though? Ah yes, I know, I know, "because political correctness is a term for the 'polite' 'civil' and otherwise politically acceptable ways for white people to screw over the downpressed, hence the name 'political correctness'", I know that, and you know that, but the poor little dearie at violent acres doesn't, nor do any of the other half witted o'rly-wannabe buffoons out there.
it's not their fault, they're stupid, it doesn't make them bad people.
The fact that they seem to wallow in these childish cries for attention they portray as "humor" at the expense of oppressed people does however make them both bad people, and even worse than that: Bad comedians.
That's what's so wrong with evil clowns, The Clown is a creature designed by evolution over millions of years to be amusing, but never is, and I think you'll find that in nature, the eviller the clown, the more convinced they are of their own jocularity.
And make no mistake, the sad, warped and just plain unfunny nature of the evil clown's attempts at humor are no accidental coincidence, but is in fact causative - the evil clown is unfunny because it can't take being told that it's not funny, it cannot accept that its jokes do not tickle peoples' funny bones, and these facets of the evil clowns' personality lead it to also be evil - evil is inversely proportional to a person's ability to laugh at themselves, which is what allows comedians to actually grow as comedians in the first place, that ability to adapt and refine their act until it actually becomes funny. And with that, they end up learning to accept heckling and/or criticism without being a whiney baby.
Evil Clowns laugh at their own jokes, but never at themselves, and thus can never grow as comedians.
*waves at Bill O'rly*
In part, this is due to the fact that comedians have to know what they're tlaking about, comedy is a form of poetic almost scientific examination of the world, a method of parsing down reality to its basest form.
This has largely taken the form of fart jokes through out the millenia, especially with thomas edison for some reason (he invented a rectal stovepipe to direct farts out of smell and out of mind), largely because life is pretty fart-like - stinky and socially awkward.
But I would be very surprised if those early cave paintings of well endowed men weren't an early form of satirical cock mockery that has evolved into today's humorous progressive bloggers. Of course the modern progressive bloggers mock the modern republican party's obsession with man love, especially in light of which ever gay republican has unveiled his "no homo pro bono" policies this week, rather than just pointing and laughing at the tribal leader's bizarre propensity for adding padding into his banana hammock.
Of course why conservatives aren't funny is also due to the fact that, while they have troubles laughing at themselves, this is in large parts due to their inability to actually stop and observe reality prior to trying to laugh at it - they just know how the world works, mexicans are lazy, jews are greedy, black people are scum - they know these things so why should they bother actually trying to learn anything?
But this leaves them deeply unfunny because you can't pun if you don't understand what two homophones each mean.
So when violent acres says "nigger", she's using it as she understands the word - she knows what it means, it means "black person", and damn the eyes of anyone who tries to add context or baggage to that word - and of course she's using it in the infantile way conservatives always have used it outside the confines of political correctness; like a child saying "shit" to their parents, wiht about as much subtly or depth.
But what does "nigger" actually mean?
Well it doesn't just mean "black person", it means something along the lines of "slave/scum/untermenschen/blackperson" - actually that's not quite right because it doesn't mean any one thing exactly, but rather refers to a whole range of attitudes towards black people, and all of them are negative.
This is why PoC started reclaiming it - they call each other "nigger" to say "yes we're 'niggers', and we're proud of it", and this has gone on and gone on until it has gained its present meaning among PoC communities, so that when they say "nigger" they mean; "I am spartacus."
It's a method of showing solidarity.
This may also explains why Chris Rock was gibbering crap with his "and then there are niggers" skit, because nothing quite says responsible, politically aware black dude quite like using nigger with the exact same meaning as it has when Klansmen use the word.
Now don't get me wrong, he's got other material, and some of it is even funny, but the bit with the niggers seems to be the only bit that white people ever see for some reason, and way too many see that, go "woohoo!" and run off with some presumption of having license to divide "good" black people from those slave/scum/untermenschen/niggers and get attention from mommy by saying that oh so shocking word.
No you don't. Also, grow the fuck up already.
So with all this context, all this meaning, what of white folk using the word? And more to the point of violent acres' original post, what does this mean as far as political correctness goes. So let's get back to defining what we're actually talking about when say stuff.by
Now political correctness, as its name suggests, is the process and phenomenon where by white people now say and do certain things in a way that is politically acceptable.
What political correctness isn't, is black people, or jews or whoever getting pissed off and threatening white people until they shut up. Alas, it'd be nice if it was because then white people, who for some reason are deeply in love with sucking authoritive cock, wouldn't go about being deeply pleased that they can still verbally whip the plantation slaves, but it isn't.
What it is then, is that politicial correctness is racism via other means - white people aren't allowed to call black people niggers in public these days, not because it pisses off black people, but because it interrupts the business of screwing over black people through politically correct methods, because actually locking black people up by their ankles and forcing them to work for no money is only acceptable, if the black people in question can be labelled "criminals" in some way.
For instance, it is politically incorrect to call a black person "nigger", it is however politically correct to try to drown a city full of poor black people through gross incompetence.
Slavery is not politically correct, but maintaining a system of immigration laws and policies that enable white businesses to efficiently control non-white laborers through fear of deportment, incarceration and direct physical violence so that the non-white laborers are working for next to no pay , is politically correct.
Segregation is not politically correct, but linking property values to the major public services like schools, hospitals and public transport so that the dirt poor and non-white areas of the country that have the lowest property values as a result of segregation have disproportionately shitty public services while white areas that became incredibly affluent as a result of segregation have excellent public services, is politically correct.
Throwing jews into the siberian work camps is not politically correct, funding and arming the most violent and anti-semitic anti-isreali organisations is.
Funding and arming people who throw jews into gas chambers is NOT politically correct, funding and supporting the most incredibly reationary Isrealis who squelch non-violent anti-zionist groups, and who get the IDF to engage in atrocities and provocations that justify and support the most violently anti-semitic militant palestinian groups is very politically correct indeed.
"foul mouthed" is PC, "irrational and overly emotional woman" is un-PC.
"eloquent" is PC, "somebody shoot that uppity nigger already" is un-PC.
Asking "can't we just discuss keeping this minority from having full civil rights under law for the most asinine of reasons?" is PC, saying "I hate homosexuals" is not PC.
Saying "Affirmative Action means giving jobs and college places away to unqualified people" is both inaccurate, a lie, and deeply deeply Politically Correct.
On the other hand, saying "the legacy system and old boy network gives jobs and college places to unqualified people, and has in the last 6 years led ot the deaths of several thousand americans through incompetent people being placed into positions that required competent people - but at least they were white unqualified people, and most of the people they killed were either poor or black so that's alright then" is not PC.
"class war" is un-PC, "eminent domain" is PC.
"Anti-PC" is PC , "bigotry" isn't.
Are we seeing a pattern here yet?
Oh but that's unfair, what evidence exists to support these claims that Political Correctness is some doublethink method of making common racism and bigotry more acceptable?
Well because the basic logic that underpins the whole the thing doesn't make sense...
"Okay, so there's this grand conspiracy that is persecuting us right, that is in fact interfering with our constitutional right to free speech right, right, and this grand conspiracy, the sort of conspiracy that has launched the careers of countless radio and tv unpersonalities, which in fact justifies their existence to battle against this awesome force that oppresses countless middle class heteronormative cissies to the point where they spend every waking second of their day obsessing about whether or not some stray and entirely thoughtless action or utterance might bring down its almighty wrath upon them!"
Ooh-kay, and what does this conspiracy look like Dr. Oppressed?
"uh, well, you see when we call Them, you know, people who aren't heteronormative middle class cissies, names and things they find deeply offensive, or do things which makes their working and home lives unbearable, or when we, you know, sexually assault them or beat them up or murder them and blame it on our glands or make up other fake stories to justify it all they... well they complain! And then we feel guilty or people fail to treat us like we're nice people after they find out what we did!"
Uh...
"Why I remember this one time, at bandcamp, I raped this woman, and the lying bitch told on me..."
... err, how exactly was she a 'lying bitch', if you don't mind me asking?
"huh? Well she told people I raped her against her will! Can you believe it?"
O_o movingswiftlyon, and then what happened?
"yeah, where was I? Oh yeah, she fucking tattled on me, and then it got around camp people treated me like a complete jerk, and well, you can imagine how I felt after that can't you?"
I'd rather not. Uh, well thank you Dr Opressed, please be with the shutting up now!
You can, I'm sure see the serious fuckedupness of that strain of thought, basically you have freaking adults, grown boys and girls, crying foul when they limit themselves and then make up some mystical fucking force that means that the most privelaged, the people born with all the advantages it's possible in society to get, are whining, motherfucking whining, about how they have to actually moderate the tone ratehr than the intent of their language so that they're not obviously calling Obama Barack a muslim terrorist nigger.. Mark that htough; they don't even have to moderate their deep seated thoughts and beliefs as african and native americans and muslims and jews and catholics have all been expected to change their deepest held convictions over the centuries on the fucked up whims of colonialists and imperialists. If there was any frikking justice in this world...
They're being asked to use nothing more than the semblence of intelligence to proudly and boldly express their bigoted little thoughts in public and what do they say?
"I'm being oppressed by being expected to actually put even the most rudimentary amount of thought into what I say and do!"
It makes a kind of sense when IDers and evopsychics and Libertarians and gnostic cultural colonialists and other members of similar religions of wilful ignorance start whining about being expected to put the most rudimentary amount of thought into stuff.
But for you weirdos to be complaining about how your own demogogues are asking you to be less obvious about your assbaggery while at the same time complaining about how hte people your own consciences seem to be telling you to stop opressing are in fact opressing you by not allowing you to oppress them and...
Mein Gott! Do you see the convuluted nature of that last sentence? You see what I'm driven to?
And why the fuck do they even think that people who aren't them would want them to address them at all, let alone by some intentionally derogatory term? I'm a white het girl and I don't particularly like you using the same language as me, because you're kinda making them feel dirty, and not in that sexuality type way but in that "Richard M Nixon" kinda way.
So to help facilitate communications in future, let me give you a quick guide to how to address Other people:
Step 1: If you meet an Other person in the road, RUN AWAY! If they're black they might rape you and inject you with their evil bootilicious jungle fever, if they're gay you might catch homo-cooties, and if they're hispanics they'll probably retroactively get you hooked on hardcore narcotics in highschool.
Step 2: If step 1 for some reason fails and you are unable to get away from the Other person, as soon as you have the urge to cry "Yo! Queer!" or "Waaassup homey!" or "Hola my nigger! Clean my room!" simply think of them having sex with another of their kind, this will cause your sphincter to contract and promptly rob you of the power of speech until they are out of hearing range.
Step 3: If all else fails, I can only give you two further options to deal with the scourge of political correctness. First of all there is suicide, don't worry, it's less scary than you think it is because the distinction between brain death and your usual state of being is far greater than the bias on most medical instruments, the transition should therefore be neither difficult nor particularly shocking. the second option involve whining some more about it, because that's just so fucking productive dontchaknow.
But do it quieter, please, it's not that I object to you being loudly stupid, I'm white and therefore used to people like you, the problem is that what you're being stupid with is so void of content that I actually find myself liking creationists, because at least their evolving theories about biblical dinosaurs are amusing by comparison.
Whining incessantly while the point goes whoosh over your head? How is that even worth the time it took you to one-finger-type that all out?
Can't think of one yet.
It's an interesting whine, one does however wonder what manner of crazy nonsensical fairies she's batting at with the post.
Of course she, like many of these conservative, *sigh*, "shock" bloggers doesn't seem to know what the "bad words" she's flinging around actually mean.
And I do actually sigh everytime I encounter this pathetically dull brand of comedy, because I like intelligence in my comedy, that's why I like hip-hop, there's word plays and irony and puns that don't suck toast - and best of it has tragicomic elements.
I also love the work of Spike Milligan, and most of it is, unabashadly racist - it was written in the 50's and 60's, even if it was written in britain which didn't have segregation or anything, so the lines of comedic taste are further towards pandering to the tastes of racists than otherwise.
but does any goonshow episode have the sort of words that the modern "shock" "anti-PC" "comedians"? No.
Why? Because it didn't need to, Milligan could whip out actual satire, and wierd little surrealistic things, could even play with racist stereotypes, there's one episode where they have a ridiculously over the top "Umm me big chief" type character, who of course shows up to give the cowboys (who's fort has of course moved over onto "Indian" land because it was built on shifting sands) a bill for unpaid taxes on the booze that was transported across the border in the fort.
The juxtapositioning of the uncultured savage stereotype with the idea of customs inspectors is the source of the comedy in that joke, not the stereotype itself - and it's practically a mcguffin, because the rest of the episode revolves around the sheer stinginess and cowardliness of the cowboys who are trying to do everything in their power to avoid paying taxes on the booze - until the episode culminates in Commander Bloodnock declaring that they'll have to "drink their way out" of the predicament.
However the best "joke" from the Goonshow is, imho of course, something from the episode "the yeti".
It's an odd joke, which I haven't even seen done elsewhere - probably because it only really works with radio. It relies not a traditional punchline of any kind because the punchline is that, during an inexplicable shift from a dialogue based narrative structure to a first person narrative structure, the point of view suddenly gets switched around between two people so that one voice actor ends up narrating from the first person for the character played by the other voice actor.
That's a rather dry of explaining it, basically, the usual narrative of the goon show is expounded through characters talking to each other and the sound effects, but for no real reason (other than to satirise the radio serials of the day which resorted to first person narratives, but you don't have to know that to get the actual punchline) the narrative suddenly shifts to a first person narrative, told from the perspective of the character Neddy Seagoon (played by harry seacombe)...
Neddy Seacombe: As I was sitting down to watch the telly in the house next door but one, we had thins walls you see, there came a knock from the front door...
*sound of two knocks and a crashing noise*
Gridpipethin: I appear to have put my fist through your door...
NS: He said. don't worry about it, a bit of plaster should sort it out.
G: He said. Oh don't worry I only grazed my knuckles.
...And somewhere during this is a bizare interchange with lots of "he said I said he said" after which NS ends up with the part of gridpipethin and G ends up finishing the skit with; "and after gridpipethin left, I sat down to watch the telly in the house next door but one..." and the audience is left confused but amused at the way the switch round was done so fluidly that you know that the narrative perfectly justified the switch round while at the same time the actual switch around makes no sense whatsoever.
You may at this point wonder why I'm waffling like this, well that's a simple question to answer - because I'm amused but confused at that anti-PC post, except with out the amused part because there's no actual switch around, nor build up or set up for the gag, she just comes out and basically says "political correctness was created by oppressed peoples".
Now I'm going to say what all progressives know but probably don't say to often because it's so pathetically obvious that it'd be like stating the color of the sky or pointing out that things fall towards the ground - you don't have to state it, it's that obvious and well known.
but I'm gonna say it, because it should clarify what's so very very very wrong with that post, what is in fact wrong with every single post any conservative has ever written about the great beast called "political correctness". In so doing I will of course be agreeing with the original post, but I shall then explain away the nonsensical juxtapositioning of reality with conservative fantasy which, I'm reasonably certian, is what is sucking "teh funny" out of every single attempt by conservatives to be humorous.
So here's the blatantly obvious: Political Correctness is racist.
Yes, I know, they actually brought me down to their level of pathetic-obviousness-cum-revelatory-gnostic-truth, but it obviously needed saying by a non-idiot.
Why is it racist though? Ah yes, I know, I know, "because political correctness is a term for the 'polite' 'civil' and otherwise politically acceptable ways for white people to screw over the downpressed, hence the name 'political correctness'", I know that, and you know that, but the poor little dearie at violent acres doesn't, nor do any of the other half witted o'rly-wannabe buffoons out there.
it's not their fault, they're stupid, it doesn't make them bad people.
The fact that they seem to wallow in these childish cries for attention they portray as "humor" at the expense of oppressed people does however make them both bad people, and even worse than that: Bad comedians.
That's what's so wrong with evil clowns, The Clown is a creature designed by evolution over millions of years to be amusing, but never is, and I think you'll find that in nature, the eviller the clown, the more convinced they are of their own jocularity.
And make no mistake, the sad, warped and just plain unfunny nature of the evil clown's attempts at humor are no accidental coincidence, but is in fact causative - the evil clown is unfunny because it can't take being told that it's not funny, it cannot accept that its jokes do not tickle peoples' funny bones, and these facets of the evil clowns' personality lead it to also be evil - evil is inversely proportional to a person's ability to laugh at themselves, which is what allows comedians to actually grow as comedians in the first place, that ability to adapt and refine their act until it actually becomes funny. And with that, they end up learning to accept heckling and/or criticism without being a whiney baby.
Evil Clowns laugh at their own jokes, but never at themselves, and thus can never grow as comedians.
*waves at Bill O'rly*
In part, this is due to the fact that comedians have to know what they're tlaking about, comedy is a form of poetic almost scientific examination of the world, a method of parsing down reality to its basest form.
This has largely taken the form of fart jokes through out the millenia, especially with thomas edison for some reason (he invented a rectal stovepipe to direct farts out of smell and out of mind), largely because life is pretty fart-like - stinky and socially awkward.
But I would be very surprised if those early cave paintings of well endowed men weren't an early form of satirical cock mockery that has evolved into today's humorous progressive bloggers. Of course the modern progressive bloggers mock the modern republican party's obsession with man love, especially in light of which ever gay republican has unveiled his "no homo pro bono" policies this week, rather than just pointing and laughing at the tribal leader's bizarre propensity for adding padding into his banana hammock.
Of course why conservatives aren't funny is also due to the fact that, while they have troubles laughing at themselves, this is in large parts due to their inability to actually stop and observe reality prior to trying to laugh at it - they just know how the world works, mexicans are lazy, jews are greedy, black people are scum - they know these things so why should they bother actually trying to learn anything?
But this leaves them deeply unfunny because you can't pun if you don't understand what two homophones each mean.
So when violent acres says "nigger", she's using it as she understands the word - she knows what it means, it means "black person", and damn the eyes of anyone who tries to add context or baggage to that word - and of course she's using it in the infantile way conservatives always have used it outside the confines of political correctness; like a child saying "shit" to their parents, wiht about as much subtly or depth.
But what does "nigger" actually mean?
Well it doesn't just mean "black person", it means something along the lines of "slave/scum/untermenschen/blackperson" - actually that's not quite right because it doesn't mean any one thing exactly, but rather refers to a whole range of attitudes towards black people, and all of them are negative.
This is why PoC started reclaiming it - they call each other "nigger" to say "yes we're 'niggers', and we're proud of it", and this has gone on and gone on until it has gained its present meaning among PoC communities, so that when they say "nigger" they mean; "I am spartacus."
It's a method of showing solidarity.
This may also explains why Chris Rock was gibbering crap with his "and then there are niggers" skit, because nothing quite says responsible, politically aware black dude quite like using nigger with the exact same meaning as it has when Klansmen use the word.
Now don't get me wrong, he's got other material, and some of it is even funny, but the bit with the niggers seems to be the only bit that white people ever see for some reason, and way too many see that, go "woohoo!" and run off with some presumption of having license to divide "good" black people from those slave/scum/untermenschen/niggers and get attention from mommy by saying that oh so shocking word.
No you don't. Also, grow the fuck up already.
So with all this context, all this meaning, what of white folk using the word? And more to the point of violent acres' original post, what does this mean as far as political correctness goes. So let's get back to defining what we're actually talking about when say stuff.by
Now political correctness, as its name suggests, is the process and phenomenon where by white people now say and do certain things in a way that is politically acceptable.
What political correctness isn't, is black people, or jews or whoever getting pissed off and threatening white people until they shut up. Alas, it'd be nice if it was because then white people, who for some reason are deeply in love with sucking authoritive cock, wouldn't go about being deeply pleased that they can still verbally whip the plantation slaves, but it isn't.
What it is then, is that politicial correctness is racism via other means - white people aren't allowed to call black people niggers in public these days, not because it pisses off black people, but because it interrupts the business of screwing over black people through politically correct methods, because actually locking black people up by their ankles and forcing them to work for no money is only acceptable, if the black people in question can be labelled "criminals" in some way.
For instance, it is politically incorrect to call a black person "nigger", it is however politically correct to try to drown a city full of poor black people through gross incompetence.
Slavery is not politically correct, but maintaining a system of immigration laws and policies that enable white businesses to efficiently control non-white laborers through fear of deportment, incarceration and direct physical violence so that the non-white laborers are working for next to no pay , is politically correct.
Segregation is not politically correct, but linking property values to the major public services like schools, hospitals and public transport so that the dirt poor and non-white areas of the country that have the lowest property values as a result of segregation have disproportionately shitty public services while white areas that became incredibly affluent as a result of segregation have excellent public services, is politically correct.
Throwing jews into the siberian work camps is not politically correct, funding and arming the most violent and anti-semitic anti-isreali organisations is.
Funding and arming people who throw jews into gas chambers is NOT politically correct, funding and supporting the most incredibly reationary Isrealis who squelch non-violent anti-zionist groups, and who get the IDF to engage in atrocities and provocations that justify and support the most violently anti-semitic militant palestinian groups is very politically correct indeed.
"foul mouthed" is PC, "irrational and overly emotional woman" is un-PC.
"eloquent" is PC, "somebody shoot that uppity nigger already" is un-PC.
Asking "can't we just discuss keeping this minority from having full civil rights under law for the most asinine of reasons?" is PC, saying "I hate homosexuals" is not PC.
Saying "Affirmative Action means giving jobs and college places away to unqualified people" is both inaccurate, a lie, and deeply deeply Politically Correct.
On the other hand, saying "the legacy system and old boy network gives jobs and college places to unqualified people, and has in the last 6 years led ot the deaths of several thousand americans through incompetent people being placed into positions that required competent people - but at least they were white unqualified people, and most of the people they killed were either poor or black so that's alright then" is not PC.
"class war" is un-PC, "eminent domain" is PC.
"Anti-PC" is PC , "bigotry" isn't.
Are we seeing a pattern here yet?
Oh but that's unfair, what evidence exists to support these claims that Political Correctness is some doublethink method of making common racism and bigotry more acceptable?
Well because the basic logic that underpins the whole the thing doesn't make sense...
"Okay, so there's this grand conspiracy that is persecuting us right, that is in fact interfering with our constitutional right to free speech right, right, and this grand conspiracy, the sort of conspiracy that has launched the careers of countless radio and tv unpersonalities, which in fact justifies their existence to battle against this awesome force that oppresses countless middle class heteronormative cissies to the point where they spend every waking second of their day obsessing about whether or not some stray and entirely thoughtless action or utterance might bring down its almighty wrath upon them!"
Ooh-kay, and what does this conspiracy look like Dr. Oppressed?
"uh, well, you see when we call Them, you know, people who aren't heteronormative middle class cissies, names and things they find deeply offensive, or do things which makes their working and home lives unbearable, or when we, you know, sexually assault them or beat them up or murder them and blame it on our glands or make up other fake stories to justify it all they... well they complain! And then we feel guilty or people fail to treat us like we're nice people after they find out what we did!"
Uh...
"Why I remember this one time, at bandcamp, I raped this woman, and the lying bitch told on me..."
... err, how exactly was she a 'lying bitch', if you don't mind me asking?
"huh? Well she told people I raped her against her will! Can you believe it?"
O_o movingswiftlyon, and then what happened?
"yeah, where was I? Oh yeah, she fucking tattled on me, and then it got around camp people treated me like a complete jerk, and well, you can imagine how I felt after that can't you?"
I'd rather not. Uh, well thank you Dr Opressed, please be with the shutting up now!
You can, I'm sure see the serious fuckedupness of that strain of thought, basically you have freaking adults, grown boys and girls, crying foul when they limit themselves and then make up some mystical fucking force that means that the most privelaged, the people born with all the advantages it's possible in society to get, are whining, motherfucking whining, about how they have to actually moderate the tone ratehr than the intent of their language so that they're not obviously calling Obama Barack a muslim terrorist nigger.. Mark that htough; they don't even have to moderate their deep seated thoughts and beliefs as african and native americans and muslims and jews and catholics have all been expected to change their deepest held convictions over the centuries on the fucked up whims of colonialists and imperialists. If there was any frikking justice in this world...
They're being asked to use nothing more than the semblence of intelligence to proudly and boldly express their bigoted little thoughts in public and what do they say?
"I'm being oppressed by being expected to actually put even the most rudimentary amount of thought into what I say and do!"
It makes a kind of sense when IDers and evopsychics and Libertarians and gnostic cultural colonialists and other members of similar religions of wilful ignorance start whining about being expected to put the most rudimentary amount of thought into stuff.
But for you weirdos to be complaining about how your own demogogues are asking you to be less obvious about your assbaggery while at the same time complaining about how hte people your own consciences seem to be telling you to stop opressing are in fact opressing you by not allowing you to oppress them and...
Mein Gott! Do you see the convuluted nature of that last sentence? You see what I'm driven to?
And why the fuck do they even think that people who aren't them would want them to address them at all, let alone by some intentionally derogatory term? I'm a white het girl and I don't particularly like you using the same language as me, because you're kinda making them feel dirty, and not in that sexuality type way but in that "Richard M Nixon" kinda way.
So to help facilitate communications in future, let me give you a quick guide to how to address Other people:
Step 1: If you meet an Other person in the road, RUN AWAY! If they're black they might rape you and inject you with their evil bootilicious jungle fever, if they're gay you might catch homo-cooties, and if they're hispanics they'll probably retroactively get you hooked on hardcore narcotics in highschool.
Step 2: If step 1 for some reason fails and you are unable to get away from the Other person, as soon as you have the urge to cry "Yo! Queer!" or "Waaassup homey!" or "Hola my nigger! Clean my room!" simply think of them having sex with another of their kind, this will cause your sphincter to contract and promptly rob you of the power of speech until they are out of hearing range.
Step 3: If all else fails, I can only give you two further options to deal with the scourge of political correctness. First of all there is suicide, don't worry, it's less scary than you think it is because the distinction between brain death and your usual state of being is far greater than the bias on most medical instruments, the transition should therefore be neither difficult nor particularly shocking. the second option involve whining some more about it, because that's just so fucking productive dontchaknow.
But do it quieter, please, it's not that I object to you being loudly stupid, I'm white and therefore used to people like you, the problem is that what you're being stupid with is so void of content that I actually find myself liking creationists, because at least their evolving theories about biblical dinosaurs are amusing by comparison.
Whining incessantly while the point goes whoosh over your head? How is that even worth the time it took you to one-finger-type that all out?
2/14/2007
Cats On Wiki
So anyway, I accidentally tripped over this kittne pron page on wiki...
...Which led to this page on wiki...
...And then led me to this page on wiki, which had such memorable lines as:
When cats are happy, they are known to paw their guardian, or that on which they sit, with a kneading motion. Cats often use this action alongside purring to show contentment and affection for their guardians. In the vernacular this action is often referred to as paddy-pawing, happy feet, making muffins (or biscuits), making butter, boop bopping, skronking, stompy, farfeling or treading paws.
Some of these totally made up terms for cats kneading people have to be reusable in the hillary and obama's
There is after all only so many ways to say "fellate" and "rim", and if nothing else comes of that inane contest, a wider variety of ways to cuss out toadying suck ups should.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
