Take a deep breath. Now rant about something.
Today's writer's block. Fucking lazy, if you ask me.
Brother, I rant each week on LJ, and I will again when I get a new monitor.
NONE CAN STOP THE CRUSADE OF THE RIGHTEOUS.
What do you love about Hanukkah?
I love the start of the story where Alexander the Great is kicking ass.
A military mind so great he's included in no less than three religious texts.
I'm not Jewish, but I like knowing the history of events and cultures. So I'll say the history.
Sure, that.
Hi, everyone. Due to my monitor not communicating with my tower, planned upcoming entries will be held off til further notice. Tech issues second December straight. It's getting annoying already. Hope to be restored soon.
Stay safe and smart, everyone.
Sounds like captain bullshit can't work her Mac to me.
Hi everyone. I'd like to start this week by giving KingBob a little message: it's over. Stop trying to get into the Pawpet channel. You have been banned. Take the hint. I knew you were stupid, but Jesus Christ, this is just too much, even for you. Get over it. Find some other channel to annoy and get banned from.
Pawpet.
Jesus Christ someone ragequit my LS today and the last straw seemed to be that no one cared he was leaving.
Friend, if you're going to act like a babby it's probably best you go.
Now, comedy is supposed to make you laugh and relax, maybe as you rest after a long day at work, or whatever you do. But Dennis Miller, comedian most well-known for his similes, had his last show geared toward the side with the red sabers. When you show full bias in your entire supposed comedy show, not everyone will be able to relate, making it not funny. But throw a ton of easily-found insults and biased attacks, and it's fucking horrible.
And yet when Jon Stewart does it, it's all in good humor.
I am a firm believer that comedy and politics seldom mix well.
Dennis Miller is the only comedian I've ever seen do this. And I don't give a damn how popular, well-known, or good he is, he's still just a human. To use a comedy show as your soapbox is sickening.
Daily Show--
The Colbert Report--
There might be people who are saying "but Dennis Miller is a comedic legend." No, George Carlin was a comedic legend. And he received an award posthumously, by the way. You know who else is beyond Dennis Miller's league? Jim Carrey and Robin Williams. And they can also act.
Did you just call Jim Carrey a comedic legend?
Really, Ace Ventura, comedic legend?
Okay.
And now, I go into dangerous waters: politics. Why? Cause I'm sick of bullshit. President Obama has done some impressive things so far. There were solutions toward dictators over in parts of North Africa and parts of the mid-east performed without our help under his watch. He saw to the end of bin Laden. He's going to bring the soldiers home from Iraq after a "war" that should have never been started. Yet he gets no credit. And why is that? Because people are still focusing on the economy.
Yes, let us give credit where credit is due: the Middle East is in flames, America is rapidly becoming a police state and a welfare state, Africa is rife with civil war, the economy will probably never recover in my lifetime, BUT AT LEAST THE IRAQI WAR ENDED.
That'd be like when I was in school if I failed all my classes and called the chancellor a whore and raped a girl but my defense was "well I didn't shit my pants, so I think I deserve a little credit here."
I'm not saying they shouldn't focus on that, but at least turn your frustration at the people who don't give a damn about you: the Repubs. You know, the lapdogs of the Tea Party.
Shouldn't I turn my anger to the people responsible?
Like Obama, whose administration has spent more than all the past presidents combined, including the presidents that oversaw the largest military conflict in the history of the world and the president who oversaw the American Civil War, which by virtue of it being a civil war was a loss to American life and materiel on both sides?
That's right, the Repubs don't give a crap about you, average person.
And Obama and the Democrats do?
Holy shit, honey, there's brainwashing and then there's fucking brainwashing.
You got it bad.
What does this have to do with Obama and the economy? Easy to answer. The repubs don't want the black president to have another term, so they're pulling out all the stops. It's about stopping Obama at all costs, even if it means costing the country jobs. What? I said costing the country jobs. Obama is trying to push a jobs bill and the fear the Repubs have of Obama following through on his promises cause them to say no.
You know I'm having quite a time finding a job despite being a qualified educator (a notoriously recession proof industry) so if Obama is creating tons of jobs I'm not really seeing them.
In fact at a recent job fair the room was more or less filled to capacity with qualified educators in a similar boat to myself.
And, disconcertingly, they were all far, far older than I was but let's not dwell on that.
"You are the most qualified people we could find," said the presenter lady.
Why do I seem so out of place?
Oh well.
They're denying the jobs bill. I have no doubt that if the Repubs really cared about the country, they'd swallow their pride and put the bill through. I also have no doubt that if that happened, that accomplishment would be Obama's, too. Which is what they also fear. So make sure you're frustrated at the right people. By the way, the economy's climbing, so far at 2.5%, under Obama's watch.
I found this funny chart.
I found another funny chart that makes it even clearer in case you're really clueless.
The second chart, I'm sure this brainwashed cunt would argue, is "just" the debt ceiling but honestly why raise the debt ceiling if you don't need it?
And in case you thought my comments about welfare state were a bit theatrical, my final piece of evidence.
Now, the second guy, as much as I respect his creativity, is Steve Jobs. That's right. The man Apple lovers revere so much as the god of their OS. Yes, he was a creative guy, but those who knew him and weren't made to sign a non-disclosure agreement said he was a controlling, demanding, abusive tyrant.
NO SHIT?
A guy that builds a multinational media conglomerate isn't a nice guy?
You don't fucking say.
The article has this to say about ol' Steven Jobs:
Indeed there were things Jobs did while at Apple that were deeply disturbing. Rude, dismissive, hostile, spiteful: Apple employees—the ones not bound by confidentiality agreements—have had a different story to tell over the years about Jobs and the bullying, manipulation and fear that followed him around Apple.
Sounds like a typical ruler to me.
I don't believe a good ruler has to be rude or dismissive but he must be hostile, spiteful, manipulative and command an air of fear.
I would contend the best rulers dress that up with a lacquer of politeness and beneficence but Steve was, at his heart, a nerdling.
It has been said that there's one in every family. Well, now there has been one on set and one in a corporation. Fame turned Shatner into an asshole and who knows what made Jobs such a bastard.
I'm going to put this to you simply so even a small mind such as yours can appreciate it:
to be in a position of authority is to be this way. You know how being a pretentious cunt is what lead to this journal, and if you weren't that way you wouldn't have this journal?
If you aren't a flaming asshole you aren't in charge. Simple as that.
This is Tahisha, signing off.
Have a nice night, everyone! And have a safe and happy Halloween.
Tashisha.
Oh boy.
Hi everyone. You know, I've encountered stupid people in my life, and I've been beating the whoopties out of them week after week. But this week, I turn my focus to some ignorant guy from..guess where. Yeah, 4chan. Go figure.
Excuse me?
Are you taking 4chan seriously?
The same website that produced this image (as funny as it is):
Probably isn't the website you want to read for its serious political debates.So let's see if I can open some eyes here in another point-by-point, starting now. Points from the 4chan guy were posted as was, with no editing or correction.
Okay.
It should be illegal for a woman to give birth to a child without a signed consent form from the biological father. When a man doesn't want a child, and the woman uses her religion as an excuse to not get an abortion (or any other reason) children are born without a loving home with two financially stable parents. This behavior has created endless problems in our society. I would posit that having children, like having sex, should be a decision reached mutually, and not forced upon a party by one overbearing, overzealous individual.
This is a classic 4chan debating tactic at its finest because ultimately it turns two deeply held beliefs on each other.
Gender equality
A right for a woman to choose.
An especially astute high schooler could probably argue his way out of this by saying simply that a pregnancy has a far, far greater risk ratio to the woman than the man then she should ultimately be the one to decide what happens to the child.
Or, simply, you could reverse the logic: by this reckoning a woman should be able to tell a man when she wants him to get her pregnant, since if what was stated is true this should likewise be applicable in reverse.
Somehow I doubt she has much experience debating with a seasoned troll.
Being a seasoned troll I do. See what I mean?
Some feminists have suggested 'sexual consent forms'. Why are there two different standards for getting consent for the sexual act, and the birthing act?
See what I mean? He blatantly states he's turning these two beliefs against each other.
To the casual observer like our cunt with the blog here this may seem like a bad idea but it's actually an important tactic.
Outright stating your argument in this manner has three effects:
1. it makes your argument seem blunt
2. it flusters your opponent, who expects subtly in the opening of an argument
3. simple statements like this often prove difficult for the uninitiated to successfully argue against
The beauty of this kind of trolling is that, even though I haven't read the rest of this post, I'm sure I will soon be able to demonstrate from sentence to sentence his essay (or whatever you want to call it) doesn't really form a coherent argument. The beauty is it doesn't have to. As long as a single part of it draws someone out it has done its job.
Contrary to what Christians would have you believe, people have sex for pleasure, and only rarely set out with the intention of creating a child.
See what I mean? What does Christianity have to do with anything?
His second sentence ultimately has no bearing on anything and his complete nonsense but what he's hoping for is someone to say "you know you can't really prove that people usually have sex for pleasure and blah blah" because as I said, his goal isn't to debate, it's to inflame you.
Children are most often an accidental byproduct of the act. Women should not have a monopoly on reproductive rights.
A simple argument to make here (that I'm sure she isn't taking) is that women don't have a monopoly on reproductive rights.
But he's combined pregnancy with reproductive rights. Due to his previous couple of sentence you might have lost sight of that subtle distinction.
I would also like to take the time to remind you that his true position on this issue is impossible to know based off this post.
A good troll will go wherever the trolling takes him. He has no stand to take.
I can agree with the wrongness of the religion part, but bringing legality into something natural is just plain bullshit. And how do you know they're financially unstable? You don't seem to be speaking generally. "This behavior has created endless problems in our society"? I don't think that's what has caused endless problems in our society.
See this is exactly what I'm talking about. An uninitiated debate partner.
I have absolutely 0 stake in either side of this-- whatever you want to call it (I refuse to call an idiot respond to a troll post a debate) but even I can say when you use phrases like "I don't think..." you're already taking a very weak position.
I can think of a number of things that have, though. "Not forced upon a party by one overbearing, overzealous individual." I agree with this, guys. After all, this doesn't seem to describe women. Since when has a guy been intimidated into having sex? "Look, Joe, we're doing it right now!" See how dumb that sounds? When's the last time a guy said he's had a headache and the woman kept urging him.
At this point your argument is as bullshit as his is.
The difference is, and where the comedy of this comes in, is you're being serious.
This goes on and on, too. Good grief.
All right, I'm skipping down.
There is a new "energy drink" that is actually named Cocaine. I am not joking. I would not joke about that. It has 280mg of caffeine. The daily recommended amount of caffeine is 200mg.
When they put actual cocaine in it I might take interest.
The reporter tried one dose and his bood pressure rose and he got tremors in his hands.
People, do I really need to tell you-..? What am I saying? Of course I need to tell you! Companies are overdoing their products cause they know people are stupid enough to buy and try it.
So?
People do stupid shit all the time.
You know there's 0 medical proof that the ingredients in cough syrup help with a cough, right?
Where's your crusade against cough syrup?
Do people think at all when they make up slang?
Let's try two old ones. First, "back in the day". Which one? There have been quite a lot of days over many years. Which day are you referring to? Second, "in my day". Do you have a day? Maybe your birthday. But can you really call that day your's? I'm sure others have a birthday on that day, too.
I'm going to link you a Wikipedia article.
I want you to read it and carefully consider it before you continue making an ass of yourself.
Even on answers to phrasing, the English language is stupid. There are a couple phrases I have noticed that are never really answered right. If someone starts a question with "Are you sure" or "do you mind", that is the question you're supposed to answer, in connection with the words in the question that follow.
Yeah languages don't make a lot of sense.
Apparently this is your first day on Earth so let me be the first to welcome you.
Proper response to "how do you do"?
HOW DO YOU DO.
Shit doesn't make sense. Get over it.
Another one that annoys me is when someone asks "what did you think I meant" or "what did you think I said" and the answer given is "I don't know". OK. Thinking and knowing are two different things. You're being asked what you thought, not what you know. It seems that people don't think about what they're being asked. Or maybe they don't know about what they're being asked.
I don't know, the implied being "I don't know [what you meant]" or "I don't know [what I thought you meant.]"
A simple statement I suppose (I suppose) would be "I misunderstood." But, as a man who is no stranger to anger, this seems mighty silly to get upset over.
And the phrase "as American as apple pie" needs to stop. The apple pie was started in England. The phrase is a damn lie. It turns out that the pie was a lie the whole time, not the cake.
And apples are from Kazakhstan originally and bread is a Neolithic invention so it's really rather silly to assume the British were the first people to put the two together, and yet somehow the phrase "as human as combining apples and bread" is even more opaque.
Seriously, idiomatic speech. Look into it. This shit isn't meant to be taken literally.
It's not just the English language that bothers me. It's also how many Americans interpret and "translate" some foreign words and terms. A big misunderstanding was created out of the word "jihad". People use it to describe the "evil" Muslims. Oooo, they're so evil, aren't they? A bunch of "Jihadists". No! That crap is false. The word "jihad" means "struggle". That's all. Nothing evil in that. Nor are all Muslims evil. Most are rather nice.
Fucker declares a Jihad on me he's getting it returned in kind.
Also the only Jihad most Americans are familiar with is the one that involved the destruction of one of our most important monuments and the deaths of thousands of our citizens so forgive us for being a bit jumpy when the term is brought to bear.
You get on a ship, but that's fine, cause it has no roof to it. You get in a boat, which is right, cause it has a sloping inset. You get in a car, and that's right, due to the roof. But I'll be damned if anyone is getting on a train or on a plane.
Well you board planes and trains but you don't board cars, so hence the choice of prepositions.
Technically speaking you are on a boat because you board a boat as well as a ship.
Just because this shit doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean there isn't an explanation that does make sense.
In fact, for someone who so hates ignorance what I'm reading here is pretty much the definition of ignorance.
I have other problems with the English language and how Americans have mangled it, but I've said enough about it these past few weeks.
So far none of the things you've brought up are specific problems of how Americans interpret English.
Oh boy, another post on this nonsense.
Are you all-American? I don't think you are. Nobody is all-American. It's a bogus title, really. And these days, it's a fake state of mind.
Except Native Americans.
All of us have a history, and that history comes from an origin. Your origin would've been the country where your last name originated from if not for the USA, which has become just a place where people from other countries come for various different reasons.
I had a buddy in elementary school whose last name was Iron Shell. He was American Indian.
Would he qualify? Based off this definition--
Anyway, when you're careful, you're full of care, right? So why is the word "awful" used to describe something horrible?
Because "awe" and "dread" are near synonyms, classically speaking?
God this is legitimately starting to piss me off.
Some words and terms go through more changes than a human body during puberty. "Piss" was a word that can be traced back to the 14th century. It means to urinate. But how did it go from that to meaning angry? Quite a jump, it seems to me.
Because around that time the Norman grip on England was slipping so the old Anglo-Saxon words were slowly creeping back into the lexicon and so we get to benefit from such words as piss (Anglo-Saxon) and urinate (Latin).
Other examples include "fuck" (Anglo-Saxon [unclear original meaning]) and "copulate" (Latin), "shit" (Anglo-Saxon) and "defecate" (Latin), "pig" (Anglo-Saxon) and "pork" (Francophone, Latin origin) "cow" (Anglo-Saxon) "beef" (Francophone, Latin origin)-- are you sensing a pattern here?
Anglo-Saxon to the English mind and therefore the American mind are down-to-earth and blunt terms while Latin terms are high-minded and proper, so one will always be perceived as vulgar and the other will always be considered clinical and proper. That's why Anglo-Saxon terms have flexible applications like that.
The incredible thing to me is that you have five posts of this ignorant drivel that I suppose is supposed to be funny but the only thing that's funny is the tumor I'm developing over this.
A word that has undergone quite a conversion is "gay". It once meant happy. That is not the case anymore. It went from happy to homosexual with no transition. And now it's being used as a replacement for the word "stupid" by ignorant jackasses who don't have one damn clue on what the word means. Doing so just shows their idiotic laziness and non-willingness to look things up.
Your sweeping ignorance on everything English related leads me to believe you also haven't looked any of this up.
To the Elizabethan mind "gay" had implications of carelessness and a distinct lack of protocols or due consideration for station so therefore had implications of immorality and hence the easy jump to homosexuality to the 1950s, American mind.
I'm not asking for mastery of the English language, here. I readily accept the level of understanding I just demonstrated in this entry is beyond the ability of 99% of all English speakers but if that's the case just keep your mouth shut.
And who can look into the word "gay" without looking at the words "fag" and "faggot". Here is another case of the lazy ignorant jackasses making stuff up instead of *looking* it up. "Fag" means to work hard or to tire out.
Before you just showed a decided lack of research. This is the first instance where you've been blatantly incorrect.
"fag" "faggot" and all of its permutations come from the Latin "fasces" which is a bundle of sticks.
The correlation should be clear but in case it isn't let me spell it out: dick = stick, bunch of sticks = gay shit.
Jesus Christ, you people.
We call someone who likes to cause trouble a troll. Women are called things like harpies and succubi. What about satyrs? What about elves? What about gnomes? Why use some mythical creatures and not use all? Some aren't feeling the love.
I've heard children described as elfish.
In fact, even though the book can eat a fucking dick "The Scarlet Letter" describes a child as elfish, so there's your literary proof.
Satyrs-- kind of a difficult comparison to make, honestly, because satyrs were well known for being bestial and lustful and they were a fusion of a man and an animal and were basically there as a commentary on the nature of man (maybe we aren't as far removed from beasts as we thought hurr durr) so comparing man to a symbol of man's own nature is needlessly convoluted.
And, really, if you're arguing "some mythical creatures aren't feeling the love" why stop at satyrs?
Why not get into the obscure?
Where's my comparison to Talos?
Stay tuned, people, cause I'm not even close to finished with my language problems just yet.
Next week is part four.
I've only addressed two parts but I think I can safely conclude your problem revolves mostly around you being an uncultured slob.
All right, I clicked on part two.
One more, just one more.
When did "fucked" and "screwed" become substitutes for "messed-up" and "done" and "dead"? The meaning of the words has been twisted and bent out of shape to fit today's formats. What the point of that is, I don't know.
This originates from the French phrase "la petite mort" which means "the little death" which was a euphemism for an orgasm.
While I haven't bothered to look up the exact origin of this term I know Cavalier poets of the 17th century found this very funny so included it in every fucking poem they could so I'm guessing it's around 400 years old.
Have you heard the 80s song "I Just Died in Your Arms Tonight"?
Someone with a literary mind.
Something else I agree with Hal Sparks on is using the words "pussy" and "balls" in association with fighting being used in the wrong context. You call someone who backs out of something a pussy and you say that someone with a brave streak has a lot of balls. That is wrong! Think about it. Think of how tough a vagina really is. You can slap, poke, and prod it for hours.
The clitoris alone possesses three times the nerve endings the testicles do.
Further, a swift kick to the cunt can have catastrophic health implications where as the balls will, after a brief period of agony, likely be completely fine.
Is there a solitary point in your little essays here where you aren't dead fucking wrong?
GOD I KNOW TOO MUCH SHIT. MY BRAIN IS COLLAPSING IN ON ITSELF.
I've noticed the word irony being used very loosely and wrongly for a long time. There is a difference between irony and coincidence.
Took you three entire essays but we got there.
Finally, you made a point that isn't incorrect.
On this note of triumph (such as it is) I'm leaving.
I am going to bed with a headache.
No comments:
Post a Comment