You know, I used to call myself the master of non-sequiturs, for the express reason that in active conversation, I have trouble staying on topic. It's not like I have ADD. Well, maybe conversational ADD. It's a variety of things.
Much of the time, it's because I find the topic of conversation uninteresting, and I'll zone out. Then suddenly I'll think of something I want to talk about, and without thinking, I'll just blurt it out. Oftentimes the other members of the conversation will smile and move on, and I'm fine with that. Then there are the times where, mid conversation I think of something hilarious. Worried, I'll, you know, forget it, I'll try and work it into the conversation, sometimes this works, but other times... well... not so much.
Then there are the instances where, actually... I just watched an episode of the Office I had DVRed from Thursday. I'd been putting it off, you see, because I was ushering for a wonderful play put on by Crown Point Community Theatre called "August: Osage County", and I had no time. Anyway, something I noticed about this episode was that it was funny. I mean, not like the other episodes weren't funny, but this one was really funny, like downright hilarious. I think it was because Jim pranked Dwight like he hadn't since earlier seasons, I mean that one time Dwight was like "Ladies and gentleman, the Last Supper," I was almost on the floor because I was laughing so hard.
So yeah, I just thought I share this story about my conversational habits.
-The Master of Non-Sequiturs
Monday, October 17, 2011
The Problem With (Occupy) Wall Street
They call themselves "the 99%".
I guess "the 99%" means that these days, 99% of America is comprised of ingrates, whiners, winos, losers, students who sound and act like total morons, and union thugs trying to bully their way back into relevance. These spoiled brats seem to think they are owed a living and that their student loans and other contracts they willingly entered should be null and void if they throw a big tantrum and threaten to hold their breath until they turn blue! They act like unwashed, spoiled man children, because that's exactly what they are.
Now, I can't say I'm exactly an unbiased party here. I live by a firm mantra of social/political activists are the worst people on the face of the earth. Now, I have nothing wrong with social/political activism, but ultimately it can never work because the people who carry it out, are as mentioned above, the worst human beings to ever exist. Yes I am making a blanket statement, and a generalization, but it's one I find to ultimately be true. They are, invariably, whiny, ignorant, preachy, entitled, idealistic, uninformed, bombastic, reactionary (often over-reactionary), dogma-spouting, and all-in-all insufferable. Find me one social/political activist that doesn't fit into one, if not all of these categories.
So, based on that information, the Occupiers fit into most of those categories. Of course some are worse than others, and some aren't as bad as the others, but they all are equally awful in their own right. We have a whole spectrum of spoiled brats, from racists and xenophobes, to those who are just overtly ignorant (a simple musing: isn't that what many of the people who are now Occupiers, and their supporters, called the Tea Party Movement. While I get they may be protesting different things, if you're going to have a sense of superiority over another "grassroots movement", like you'd like to think of yourself as, at least practice what you preach).
Here's a couple o' whiny, spoiled, kiddos who have absolutely no idea what they're protesting, what they're doing down there, or how to make a third party understand what they want or what they're doing:
Occupy Wall Street Protester Wants His College Paid For, Because That's What He Wants
Wall Street Protester Thorin Caristo (Rambles for Four Minutes)
Or, as mentioned before, outright hatred, in this case Anti-Semitism:
Anti-Semitism at Occupy Wall Street Protest [CLEAN VERSION]
Interview With Anti-Jewish Protester (Part 1) and (Part 2)
And there are countless others. Now, perhaps, the issue would be better if the Occupiers were protesting... something, anything specific, and not some abstract concept of corruption, or Wall Street. Maybe they're protesting Wall Street itself. Maybe they just want it repaved or something because it hasn't been resurfaced in ten years, and the government has clearly less important things to do than resurfacing Wall Street, but refuses to do it anyway, so a bunch of Neo-Hippies gather on it, so if the government did want to pave it, now they can't because there's a mass of people on it.
I could continue for hours and pages about the nonsense of this movement, and how much attention it's getting, (a lot, despite the claims of the news media keeping it down, and all), but to curtail the length of this blog post, and for my own sanity, I'll address two interesting issues that I find to be bumfucking retarded.
First off, as I touched on at the beginning of this blog, the Occupiers refer to themselves as "the 99%", which I guess means everyone but the wealthiest of the wealthy and what the Occupiers perceive them to be. I can only assume (because assuming is the only thing you can really do with their demands and protests) that somewhere in their mantra, they are against the other 1%, because the other 1% is the sole mass of wealth and corruption. Then, by that logic, everyone in "the 99%" is part of the oppressed masses who're getting kept down by "the man" or, in this case, the "1%". This, like everything else, makes no sense. The cut off between the top 1% of income earners and the other "99%" is currently at about $593,000 a year. That's right, the oppressed 99% includes millions of six figure salary earners, many of which happen to be the wall street bankers they're protesting. LOGIC.
The other issue I have, is less prominent and current, but what is both what introduced me to the Occupiers and then convinced me of their idiocy. A few weeks back, there was an issue when over 700 protesters were arrested on the Brooklyn Bridge because they disobeyed police instructions and left the pedestrian walkway (where they had permission to be) and walked on to the main roadways of the bridge. This caused a traffic jam and put the lives of the drivers and the protesters in danger (something that happens when you stand in the middle of a highly traveled roadway and shout). So when they wouldn't get off the road, the police led them to a sequestered section of the bridge and arrested the crap out of them. Then there was outcry. Claims of the police getting paid off to being corrupt, with a general overtone of "the man's suppressing us". Yet, no one seemed to grasp that they were breaking the law, creating a public disturbance, putting their own lives in danger, disobeying the police, etc. The protesters were becoming violent and unruly, and as demonstrated in the London Riots, when a bunch of social/political activists get together and get unruly and unchecked, they destroy shit for no other reason.
The protesters weren't arrested because of what they were protesting, or the fact that they were protesting, they were arrested for being law-breaking morons.
I guess "the 99%" means that these days, 99% of America is comprised of ingrates, whiners, winos, losers, students who sound and act like total morons, and union thugs trying to bully their way back into relevance. These spoiled brats seem to think they are owed a living and that their student loans and other contracts they willingly entered should be null and void if they throw a big tantrum and threaten to hold their breath until they turn blue! They act like unwashed, spoiled man children, because that's exactly what they are.
Now, I can't say I'm exactly an unbiased party here. I live by a firm mantra of social/political activists are the worst people on the face of the earth. Now, I have nothing wrong with social/political activism, but ultimately it can never work because the people who carry it out, are as mentioned above, the worst human beings to ever exist. Yes I am making a blanket statement, and a generalization, but it's one I find to ultimately be true. They are, invariably, whiny, ignorant, preachy, entitled, idealistic, uninformed, bombastic, reactionary (often over-reactionary), dogma-spouting, and all-in-all insufferable. Find me one social/political activist that doesn't fit into one, if not all of these categories.
So, based on that information, the Occupiers fit into most of those categories. Of course some are worse than others, and some aren't as bad as the others, but they all are equally awful in their own right. We have a whole spectrum of spoiled brats, from racists and xenophobes, to those who are just overtly ignorant (a simple musing: isn't that what many of the people who are now Occupiers, and their supporters, called the Tea Party Movement. While I get they may be protesting different things, if you're going to have a sense of superiority over another "grassroots movement", like you'd like to think of yourself as, at least practice what you preach).
Here's a couple o' whiny, spoiled, kiddos who have absolutely no idea what they're protesting, what they're doing down there, or how to make a third party understand what they want or what they're doing:
Occupy Wall Street Protester Wants His College Paid For, Because That's What He Wants
Wall Street Protester Thorin Caristo (Rambles for Four Minutes)
Or, as mentioned before, outright hatred, in this case Anti-Semitism:
Anti-Semitism at Occupy Wall Street Protest [CLEAN VERSION]
Interview With Anti-Jewish Protester (Part 1) and (Part 2)
And there are countless others. Now, perhaps, the issue would be better if the Occupiers were protesting... something, anything specific, and not some abstract concept of corruption, or Wall Street. Maybe they're protesting Wall Street itself. Maybe they just want it repaved or something because it hasn't been resurfaced in ten years, and the government has clearly less important things to do than resurfacing Wall Street, but refuses to do it anyway, so a bunch of Neo-Hippies gather on it, so if the government did want to pave it, now they can't because there's a mass of people on it.
I could continue for hours and pages about the nonsense of this movement, and how much attention it's getting, (a lot, despite the claims of the news media keeping it down, and all), but to curtail the length of this blog post, and for my own sanity, I'll address two interesting issues that I find to be bumfucking retarded.
First off, as I touched on at the beginning of this blog, the Occupiers refer to themselves as "the 99%", which I guess means everyone but the wealthiest of the wealthy and what the Occupiers perceive them to be. I can only assume (because assuming is the only thing you can really do with their demands and protests) that somewhere in their mantra, they are against the other 1%, because the other 1% is the sole mass of wealth and corruption. Then, by that logic, everyone in "the 99%" is part of the oppressed masses who're getting kept down by "the man" or, in this case, the "1%". This, like everything else, makes no sense. The cut off between the top 1% of income earners and the other "99%" is currently at about $593,000 a year. That's right, the oppressed 99% includes millions of six figure salary earners, many of which happen to be the wall street bankers they're protesting. LOGIC.
The other issue I have, is less prominent and current, but what is both what introduced me to the Occupiers and then convinced me of their idiocy. A few weeks back, there was an issue when over 700 protesters were arrested on the Brooklyn Bridge because they disobeyed police instructions and left the pedestrian walkway (where they had permission to be) and walked on to the main roadways of the bridge. This caused a traffic jam and put the lives of the drivers and the protesters in danger (something that happens when you stand in the middle of a highly traveled roadway and shout). So when they wouldn't get off the road, the police led them to a sequestered section of the bridge and arrested the crap out of them. Then there was outcry. Claims of the police getting paid off to being corrupt, with a general overtone of "the man's suppressing us". Yet, no one seemed to grasp that they were breaking the law, creating a public disturbance, putting their own lives in danger, disobeying the police, etc. The protesters were becoming violent and unruly, and as demonstrated in the London Riots, when a bunch of social/political activists get together and get unruly and unchecked, they destroy shit for no other reason.
The protesters weren't arrested because of what they were protesting, or the fact that they were protesting, they were arrested for being law-breaking morons.
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Haters Make You Annoying
Some context: Whenever a lolcow exists, in any form on the internet, drama is to be had. Often the phrase "haters make me famous" gets thrown around nonchalantly, with no understanding of the implications of what it implies or how dumb it makes them look. In this instant, I was interacting with a lolcow of particular idiocy, who insisted that haters made her famous.
Let's just say something, the notion that "haters make me famous" is a silly and downright preposterous one. You never hear anyone saying "Oh man, this guy's an asshole, LET'S GO HANG OUT WITH HIM," because, unless you have some sort of masochistic personality, is not something you would do, because assholes are assholes. What I've noticed is that most people who use this phrase qualify haters as someone who disagrees with them, gives them honest but not positive constructive critique (most of the time in art/skill areas), or calls them out for acting stupid, dumb, insane, etc.
When you say, "haters make me famous", you're deluding yourself into thinking that everyone will come to your side because of course (in your mind) you are perfect, loveable, and in the right. So you act like a flailing maniac continuing and often exacerbating your actions against your "haters" who may still be trying to reason with you, or have just given up and left, or stay and troll you. FTL. The idea of "haters make me famous" is that, after you've put these "haters" in your place, you'll become instantly more popular, more beloved, and have everyone to come to your side when you (and you always, invariably will) do things like what you did before.
The truth is, that haters don't make you famous. In fact, these "haters" probably get more friends, more people coming to their side, then you ever will. The reason you'd become "famous", and I use this term lightly (because infamous, or extremely disliked are both better terms), is because people want come and watch you foam at the mouth, spitting curse words and bad grammar, crying "haters" and "u r just jealous", etc. It's the idea of staring at a car crash, no one can look away. Perhaps it's less that, more like a sideshow complex, when you're walking down the street and you see something so strange and weird, you can't help but stare and laugh for a few minutes, but then you move on. Because they stop caring and leave you to shake your cage and treat the internet like it's your own personal pissing ground.
Let's just say something, the notion that "haters make me famous" is a silly and downright preposterous one. You never hear anyone saying "Oh man, this guy's an asshole, LET'S GO HANG OUT WITH HIM," because, unless you have some sort of masochistic personality, is not something you would do, because assholes are assholes. What I've noticed is that most people who use this phrase qualify haters as someone who disagrees with them, gives them honest but not positive constructive critique (most of the time in art/skill areas), or calls them out for acting stupid, dumb, insane, etc.
When you say, "haters make me famous", you're deluding yourself into thinking that everyone will come to your side because of course (in your mind) you are perfect, loveable, and in the right. So you act like a flailing maniac continuing and often exacerbating your actions against your "haters" who may still be trying to reason with you, or have just given up and left, or stay and troll you. FTL. The idea of "haters make me famous" is that, after you've put these "haters" in your place, you'll become instantly more popular, more beloved, and have everyone to come to your side when you (and you always, invariably will) do things like what you did before.
The truth is, that haters don't make you famous. In fact, these "haters" probably get more friends, more people coming to their side, then you ever will. The reason you'd become "famous", and I use this term lightly (because infamous, or extremely disliked are both better terms), is because people want come and watch you foam at the mouth, spitting curse words and bad grammar, crying "haters" and "u r just jealous", etc. It's the idea of staring at a car crash, no one can look away. Perhaps it's less that, more like a sideshow complex, when you're walking down the street and you see something so strange and weird, you can't help but stare and laugh for a few minutes, but then you move on. Because they stop caring and leave you to shake your cage and treat the internet like it's your own personal pissing ground.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)