Discussion in 'The Sanctum Santorum' started by Meserach, Nov 7, 2012.
My Little Pony: Tax Cuts Are Magic
Seeing as his username is "Namath1968" I think it's safe to say that he might be 44. Just a guess.
ChuckJ was responding to was a comment on that guy's page, not the poster himself. So chances are that ~Palemeno, not being Namath1968, probably isn't 44.
Yeah, that's what I was talking about. But still -- I'd much prefer to go on thinking that the "conservative brony" was a younger guy with more of his life still ahead of him, than a 44-year-old. (And I say that as a 41 year old who still watches lots of cartoons). I'm just gonna assume he's just a big fan of Broadway Joe's 1968 season in the AFL since I don't know anything about sports except what I read on Wikipedia.
Oh, I missed that part. Whups.
Good lord, precious. Your skin is so thin these days.
Also, there should be a comma before "asshole."
Also also, u mad?
I want to make out with this post so badly.
But not too much book learnin. Don't want them gettin' ideas and thinkin' for themselves. That leads to votin' Democrat, gay marryin', and other forms of witchcraft.
Quick grammar question: is a comma in that spot absolutely necessary? I mean, yeah, it's common to separate a form of address from the rest of a sentence. But is it actually required?
You needn't worry. Even if I did love your posts in general, I wouldn't dream of lecturing on those topics in this thread. Largely because they're completely irrelevant. Similarly, you needn't worry about me lecturing you on proper computer code commenting procedure, how the different amino acids affect protein folding, or Plato's theory of forms.
I dunno, is chewing with your damn mouth closed really necessary?
I mean, yeah, it's common to not annoy the shit out of everyone around you. But is it actually required?
edit: you know i love you man, but it perhaps is 11:38 on a friday p.m. if you know what i'm saying
Yes, because without it you can't really tell whether he might have left out OTHER punctuation. Is it
"And nice job making up words I never said, asshole."
"And nice job making up words. I never said asshole."
Sorry. Despite my previous back & forth with ChuckJ, I wasn't asking the question with a desire to argue with you. I've gotten the impression that you're something of a grammar expert, and I was curious to get an expert opinion on that.
Yeah, I read the sentence as the second one and was kinda confused.
Actually he didn't. Not that I really want to be in the business of defending Brett, but "it is the parents job to deal with this situation" is not the same thing as saying "the school should never discipline kids at all". It really was putting words in his mouth.
Congrats then, you just got into the business of defending Brett.
"Parents definately, school? Not so much, its not the schools responsibility to parent children."
Just another overarching generalized statement that he thinks, in his head, doesn't mean as much as it literally does mean because he doesn't have the mental capacity to nest his ideas into and from specifics, which is something that people can train parrots to do.
I like parrots.
I like people who have developed an amazing super power called "not responding to trolling." Unfortunately it is exceptionally rare.
I also like republican tears. Which there needs to be more of in this thread.
I love people who actually give a fuck about having discussions in Sanctum Santorum, especially in threads made specifically to make fun of shitty Republican dipshits.
And we only have the tears of a parrot, because this is a liberal hivemind.
Liked for that mental construct. Now someone needs to make a song out of it, and also, bottle them.
Guess where they probably picked up their racism from?
It has nothing to do with race...
I gave you a like, but I'm kind of tired of this argument, so:
1: West Viginia became a free state in 1863. The territories are another whole bag of rocks, but New Mexico territory was bought taken from Mexico (duh) so slavery was illegal there (kind of). So this map is at least 6 states off now. Progress!
2. Lincoln was a Republican! Explain that! And I don't want to hear any stupid facts, especially about a period of history that is still in some people's memories. Lincoln was a Republican, and you are betraying him.
Yeah, I mean seriously, WTF West Virginia. It's like you and regular Virginia had some sort of Freaky Friday switcheroo. Or maybe you fell and hit your head and became special and then big brother Virginia had to step up and care for you, learning valuable life lessons and growing in the process.
Sorry, I was just making some snark at your expense (because it was late on a Friday, knowumsayin). AFAIK Jerri's right, and the comma is actually required.
I actually don't know that much about formal grammar as far as what's literally required to not be incorrect; I concern myself almost entirely with stylistic things so "reads like ass but is still technically correct" is not a distinction that I draw.
Which is a waaaaaaay, way better place to be IMO.
New York Magazine did an email interview with the LibertarianRepublican "spit on Democrats" guy, where they go through increasingly ludicrous scenarios to determine exactly how far he's willing to take his Dem-shunning.
While I like this bit:
It's giving too much attention to a guy who made his blog rant private. Even worse, the rest of the article comes dangerously close to making it sound like Dondero is coming around and starting to be in on the joke.
Come on, communist rag; we're still working out all that pent-up election anger. It's too soon to start bringing people together and calming them down through humor. I like my internet shaming one-sided and cruel.
Speaking of tears of parrots, and giving things too much attention instead of dropping them:
Man, I am disappointed. You were off to such a good start at the beginning, repeating back what I'd already said in a condescending and accusatory way. "Histrionics" was a particularly well-done flourish, as was the paragraph detailing how little you care about me.
But you can't go the "look how absurd your argument is, you silly little man" route, once you've taken a blog post on a gossip site about racist tweets from teenagers, and compared it to the New Deal. It doesn't even warrant a thatsthejoke.gif, that's how disappointed I am. Why can't you be more like
Elyscape ? He pulled off the one-liner + condescending "just saying", and we weren't even arguing all that hard.
While you're at it, would you maybe like to tell Jezebel to get back in the kitchen?
That's dumb, sinfony.
Anyhoo: HA, HA, HA
"Waaaah I want a recount!!!!"
How's that? Work with me, here. Gawker puts up posts making fun of women (celebrities, most often); Jezebel puts up posts outraged at people on the internet making fun of women. It's kind of elegant, actually.
And Jezebel might as well have a "Give Me Something To Be Angry About" button, like Google's "I'm Feeling Lucky." So those of us who aren't racist or misogynist can go "Grr, that is simply outrageous!" and post a link to our Twitter feeds and Facebook accounts, where our equally non-racist and non-misogynist friends can continue the cycle. An advertising machine powered by our liberal outrage: green, renewable energy.
So which part of what I said is "idiotic," exactly?
Yeah, right. We'll see what he was when the movie comes out.
What can I say? I'm good at what I do.
That depends. You mean "get back in the kitchen" in the sense that my making fun of Jezebel automatically turns me into a sexist caricature? Or "get back in the kitchen" as in they could start posting recipes? Because the latter might be useful: I'm a lousy cook, so giving me a recipe would be telling me something I don't know. "A lot of people in Congress and on the internet are really, shockingly awful" is telling me something I already do know.
ETA: The better version would've been: "Making fun of Jezebel means I'm anti-feminist, as much as making fun of Kotaku means I'm anti-video games." But it's too late now. I can't even derail a thread the right way.
Deadspin is where the recipes are.
Pretty much all of it, actually. Gawker and Jezebel aren't vertically integrated, and the article linked had nothing to do with liberalism or feminism (unless you think calling out bigots is exclusively liberal or feminist).
Gawker poking fun at celebrities has nothing in common with taking secret pictures of unsuspecting women and nothing in common with people publicly describing the POTUS as a monkey or n*****, and pretending they are the same is stupid.
Your broader point is also stupid, in that you assume its bad or not useful to point out examples of racists, or misogyny. Pointing out people behaving badly is a basic societal check and is pretty much the only effective way to combat noxious speech on the internet. If you don't want to read it, don't, but don't poop on others who are in fact interested.
Finally, you're basically trading in Limbaugh-esque platitudes about white-guilt and faux liberal outrage, which is both stupid and boring.
from the White People Mourning Romney site: the White House petition for Louisiana independence.
from "The Economist:"
La Federal taxes, 1990-2009: $397.8 Billion
La Federal subsidies, 1990-2009: $601.2 Billion
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
(Just kidding, Louisianans, I don't really want you to go!)
I wonder how much of that is Katrina relief?
Mitt Romney's first and only tweet since election night
Well, there's one thing we have in common. I also think it's stupid when Limbaugh, Coulter et al try to reduce their "opponents" into shallow stereotypes who all think and talk alike. The difference is that I don't think it's stupid because they're "right" and I'm left; I think it's stupid because people with intelligence don't align to some simplistic Us vs Them mentality. Even in a thread about "Democrat Gloating/Republican Tears," which I'm pretty sure most people can recognize is not entirely serious. And I think it's really stupid when ostensibly intelligent people gleefully jump head-first into acting like a bunch of goddamn caricatures.
So you can say that I "assume it's bad or not useful to point out examples of racists, or misogyny", or you could read where I said the exact fucking opposite in my first post on the topic. And you can read me making fun of the cartoonish stereotype of humorless liberal outrage, and reply "That's not funny and it makes me angry," or you can recognize it for what it is.
And you can keep on with the "if you don't like it, don't read it!" bullshit, or you can acknowledge that there are more than just two valid responses to an internet article: a) "Grr I too believe racism is bad and have nothing else to contribute save my righteous indignation" or b) silence.
I don't know who exactly was pretending that a post about racist tweets, a celebrity gossip blog, and upskirt photos are all the same. It sure as hell wasn't me.
And I think it's stupid to say "Gawker and Jezebel aren't vertically integrated," leaving it ambiguous: is it just that you don't appreciate hyperbole enough to be able to imagine a fanciful assembly line that runs on internet outrage? Or are you denying that the two sites regularly cross-post, and in addition to sharing a layout and owner, there's a well-circulated memo from Denton himself outlining that they all share the same editorial policies? Stirring up controversy is priority one, by his own admission; that's not even a conspiracy theory, it's how high-traffic sites work. Or maybe it's that I dared to call Jezebel a "gossip site," when they link to TMZ, call it "Dirt Bag", put it in the Google search under "Gossip" and they don't have any problem with it?
I don't have any problem with it, either, except when -- and I already said this bit, too -- they act like they have the moral high ground. Far be it from me to impugn the integrity of a site that has an entire hashtag devoted to Lindsay Lohan nip slips, but when they publish something, I'm going to be skeptical. When they publish something and make it sound like they're serving some higher purpose, I'm going to be extra skeptical. And when their companion site takes controversy and dresses it up as social commentary, I'm double-plus skeptical. That George Clooney thing I already linked to -- the post slug (the original title) just describes it as gay speculation gossip. The published version laments that single men aren't called "old maids," and it slaps an old maid's wig onto a stock photo. Yet apparently, I'm just making shit up when I say that they start with gossip and put a feminist spin on it to make it sound like social commentary.
It can be gossip and social commentary, and that's fine. At least, until anyone tries to act like they're doing The Lord's Work. Or acts like putting a feminist spin on it automatically turns it into an unbreakable combo move, where criticism of Jezebel is a dismissal of feminism itself. Or acts like calling out racists makes it unassailable, and criticizing any part of it is an assault on basic decency. I can totally believe that a writer saw a bunch of tweets saying disgusting shit about the President, was genuinely outraged by it, and posted an article. What I don't believe is that their continued posting about it is for the greater social good, any more than I believe that Gawker is earnestly trying to get Ms. Lohan the professional help she needs.
I see them making a post calling out a bunch of people posting racist messages on Twitter, and I already said what my response to that was. But then, after I've already gotten at least a dozen tweets and FB listings from people saying "this makes me sick!", I see a follow-up post on Jezebel. One where a writer is posting pictures of a bunch of teenagers online, going through their tweet history, searching for their Facebook pages, and calling their schools. And I ask where's the line between teaching them a lesson and genuine harassment? The answer: "It doesn't matter! Racism like this needs to be exposed! The schools have a right to know how they're being represented!" Then later, I see it cross-posted with a map and the question "what can we conclude from this?" and their conclusion is basically "the South is racist." With data! And then I get to waste time explaining exactly how I think whatever good intentions or ethical behavior may have started this business, any notion of good or ethics got abandoned a long time ago.
You want to pass on stuff on the internet without stopping to think where it came from? Want to keep acting like the ends always justify the means and there's nothing about internet dogpiles that should give you pause? Suit yourselves. I just don't think that makes me the idiot.
And y'all can make fun of me for being long-winded all you want. I'm just trying to make sure this is finally the last thing I have to say about this bullshit.
Separate names with a comma.