Archive

Monthly Archives: February 2014

What is one thing people say that instantly makes you think they are annoying

 

“As a ___________, [insert non-sequitur argument here].”

e.g. “As a former pro-wrester, I think that global warming is just way to empty tax-payer pockets.”

 

(my responce) 

 

“…as a mother, for the love of god give me the drugs.”

“as a race realist, i got the track job no sweat.”

“as a girl who likes picnics, feminine hygiene products are a lie. not feminine at all, and they made the food taste weird”

“as a techie, don’t beckon me as ‘asshole’.”

“as a nudist, i don’t dodge wrenches or balls”

“as a mechanic, i don’t think ‘lawyer up’ portends masturbating.”

“as a student of phillosophy, that sir was the dumbest thing i’ve ever heard.”

“as a smartass, i like waffles. luckily it is a part time gig”

“as a german, we don’t sing everywhere we go anymore.”

“as i am a belimic, you don’t the meaning of “chucking balls”.

“…as a keyboard warrior, i think you exaggerate.”

“as a singer, i like to move it- move it.”

“as an exhibitionist, i resent being confused with furniture”

“as a russian, harddrive fucks computer.”

“as a public speaker, i am not a jungle gym.”

 

 

… i think this one actually checks out as humorous rather than annoying. i wonder if people are anoyed by the jokes they just can’t get.

humanity to a coddled lady.

>men are the only ones willing to put up with me because there’s a chance I might sleep with them if I do.

i think what she said was rather sad. it is like reading:
“i try to be funny but i’m not.
i try to be smart, and cunning, and witty, but i’m not.
i try to be pretty but i’m not.
i try to be kind and charming, but i’m not.
i’ve tried to be every good thing beyond my physical limits;
but i’m not.
i am nothing more in chance, than the risk and thrill of the hunt. i am the charity and harvest, persephone wrenched from sunken hades, to return to lofty flowered glades, but in rebirth- i yet not the spade- lost en the abyss, the frosted breath fades.
i am the embodiment of flatulent hope.
soulless as breath long gone, plunging deep into the ether, my diaphram drops as i freeze in this space but soul willn’t return- my humanity a caricature- not even mortal.


a wonderful but traggic paradigm, to think the only value one can offer as compensation is sex or sleep. the quote again

>men are the only ones willing to put up with me because there’s a chance I might sleep with them if I do.

… if I do. not ‘if they do’. seemingly “i might sleep with someone if they put up with me”. traggic that the person sees futility in attempts at self improvement, and honor/dignity identified by sexual character in this case proclivity.

 

it is messed up but this is earnest enough i can grasp the speaker’s consideration and meaning. it let’s me see through the door in the looking glass. deep behind the ripples of vanity, is teh over affectionate and well intended words to sheild the child and heal from pain. but the child by not having to deal with criticisms through having such support, never learned how to take failure in stride rather than personal.

 

i need to keep this in mind next time i have to interact with someone who expresses based on that specific type of experiance but doesn’t cite it. (i’ve not experianced similar ever so it is difficult to imagine it as a reliable world mechanic)

hate is a good emotion. it is the state one enters when one has tried everything and is so frustrated they just can’t deal with the frustration anymore so they externalize it and blame the other party.

if you want the actual answer, it is dishonest lexical shift. basicly people don’t liek it when others attempt to change words out from under them. it is why english teachers dislike alteration of irony from being a dramatic element where something happens the exact opposite of expected, to some mildly humorous coincidence. the offence is in the word which is a tool, not having the presumed capacity and can’t fit the role anymore.

this is paired with a related occurrence called ‘semantic satiation’. which basicly means people when reading a word over and over, tend to lose it’s meaning. this relates in that if you study something too much, beyond a limit, you grasp it less. so if you study rape, and the word rape is used to often that you feel exhausted by the over use of the term, your mind become more malleable and the new meaning which occurs could be different from the plurality opinion needed to communicate with the average person.

this semantic satiation often also causes equivocation (confusion about word to meaning purpose), and act verbose aka thesaurus mouth, where the speaker sounds like they are trying to use large words for the sake of using large words rather than because the larger word has some attribute or element which is necessary for the expression.

going back to the main theme, the people who are adamant about gender relations and feminism, tend to be willing to change the meaning of words which leads to strawman/unintelligible arguments and equivocation. their arguments would be more acceptable if they didn’t intentionally try to equivocate the emotional reaction to rape for things the public don’t consider to be rape. and the childish demands to compensate and ameliorate their preference are met with hostility on the ground they aren’t being honest.

they are being earnest, but their expressions are warped into a deviant ideological pretence and don’t realize they are behaving in an inviable manner which is not conducive to argument or communication. some of their sentiments are quite good, but the pretence that the majority are wrong and need to get an education- which an appeal to a pyramid scheme is fruitless and futile. they take pride in their deviant apexual bias, and feel wronged that it isn’t respected. when they dishonor their culture by being dishonest.

so, what is wrong with ‘us’ is what is wrong with you. when it comes to language, if the majority believes something and you disagree, you are wrong. you aren’t incorrect necessarily, but you are wrong. which leads to an important point regarding grasping the operative words meanings and recognizing the weakest part of an arguement and eviscerating it.

one other relevant thing is that even if the lexical shift concludes, there will still be allot of people who wont cede their loss. people who are looked at like ‘racist grandparents’ today. you likely won’t fix people’s truths but just alienate any new people who identify with them to bully and discourage people from dissenting against your preference. culture/bullying is remarkable in how it allows that indoctrination through extortion and perceived blackmail.

generalyl speaking the cause for your beliefs isn’t reason or logic but:

  • early exposure,
  • creation of parental prejudice, pattern, and preference as normal, and
  • fraternal bonds.

you are shaped first by the lexicon of your parents, and then by the preferences of your peers.

more bluntly, what is wrong with me is your opinion.

so just to start, honor refers to a person’s credibility. more specifically having honor reflects one doing the actions expected of them by societal norms. there is a (stupid) liberal lexical shift to use ‘respect’ in place of honor. the key to honor is that it is about personal traits, not argument. meanwhile respect is about viewing a seccond argument as both permissible and plausible until the argument itself proves itself invallid. they are similar but not the same.

 

now to talk about social standards. basicly if you are to expect a certain behavior of some disfavorable people you will generally have to expect it from all people or the double standard will cause you to be offended when those you consider some way dont’ consider themselves that way.

for example, clothing. if you want to be able to do some action, like walk around naked, you should be just as okay with any and all other people doing the same action- even ugly, disfigured, or diseased people. there are cultures where the spread of disease is frowned upon and so they reconcile/rationalize anti-disease clothing to be for the public welfare, by extension if there is a vollup of double standard there must be the ideological premise present to ‘reasonably’ rationalize the double standard. these cultural rationalizations don’t come into being by one person’s passion, but by collective myth crafting the narrative/reasoning; you can’t believe you are right ‘so hard’ that everyone else just gives in. and trying despite that nature will just lead to frustration; but i digress.

see to not respect culture will cause culture to not honor you. the entitled whining of ‘i deserve it’ meets a “like i care”. sometimes dis respect will beget more than a lack of honor, but active dishonor, where members of the culture are compelled to correct you. now here again, how will you spin the cultural narrative as it stands to favor your point of view?

i don’t particularly care about people wearing clothing, at first i’d probably find it gross to see certain people naked. but it also could be a helpful step away from puritanical moorings if culture so desires.

when arguing a cost benefit analysis one has to argue honestly. the negative delta of seeing ‘gross’ people would have to be taken into account. as would the diminished premise of exclusive intimacy in the reveal of one’s body. that attitude change of bodies as banal enough to not warrant exclusion could be good or bad. but the real issue with the reasoning is how the people making the pro nudity arguements are generally young and positive thinking unto being delusional. allot of the arguments boil down to either “i want to see that person’s hot body” or “i am entitled to be nude wherever”, from there they are vacuous due to no further consideration.

i seems the wants of others seem irrelevant and subhuman to these narcississtic/solipsistic idiots; not in a pejorative fashion, literally driven by id.

if the primary directive of society is to make people feel secure in their own bodies, thus not obliged to go any further to clothe; why? why should the standard of clothing as manditory/honorable be changed? and what should it be changed to? how should one support/rationalize the deviance as actually following an instruction by ‘culture’?

 

yesterday was a chilling day (lots of snow) full of sadness. one thing got to me more than anything else giving a sense of significance to the other events.

 

one of the smaller events has been a couple confrontations that i’m alien to my culture. people start from a common personal standpoint which is often undeveloped by consideration. it is disheartening.

 

the common opinion of any demographic seems putrid in complacency, and due to thinking about wrongs, it stagnates and it creates second part frustration.

 

“when will it stop being their fault? more precisely when will you stop blaming them?” when they stop being at fault. you will always be guilty of your past, that isn’t reason to forget it. the spotlight effect makes it so you will remember regretable things more often than others will- but that against isn’t an argument against the vallidity of the practice. to appeal to naturalism, one would have to be able to show that we had better guilt memory but evolved out of it due to a benefit to individual genes.

(kid) “emma doesn’t like chocolate, isnt that weird?”

(some lady messing with her kid) “yes that is very weird. i don’t want her in my house, i don’t want you to marry her”

(kid) “mooom”

that isn’t clever. it is just a strange yet banal teasing.

 

it feels like i’m back in adolescence. antoehr person was wondering abotu the consequences of religion and it occured to me just how great a chasm there is between my vernacular and those on the other side.

 

they don’t seem to understand the consequence of ideals. or the desire to see self as contributive to one’s community- change for change’s sake driving allot of lexical redundency… maybe i’ll write about one of those, or share the thing about the consequences of religion.

 

on an unrelated note i noticed that “saying turned into ‘sane’ which allowed ‘insane’ as a misunderstanding of ‘insaying’, and a lexical shift.