Periodic Table of Swearing

Old subthreads
AnonymousCowherd
.
.
Posts: 1708
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 2:49 am
Location: The Penumbra of Doubt

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#22296

Post by AnonymousCowherd »

LouFCD wrote:
BarnOwl wrote:US electoral smackdown from McCreight:
Obama isn’t perfect, but he’s the only option that supports equal civil rights for women, racial minorities, and LGBT individuals.
Obama isn't horrible, and I'd agree that he's the only viable option, but the President is somewhat of a Mr. Johnny-come-lately. There is an actual progressive third party in this country, and it's been around awhile. Look here. It's just not a real option so long as the Democrats know they can keep drifting to the right and they've got the progressives of the country in a hammerlock. What are we gonna do, hand the country over the wingnuts?
Lobby for proportional representation?

windy
.
.
Posts: 2140
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:41 am
Location: Tom of Finland-land

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#22297

Post by windy »

LouFCD wrote:
BarnOwl wrote:US electoral smackdown from McCreight:
Obama isn’t perfect, but he’s the only option that supports equal civil rights for women, racial minorities, and LGBT individuals.
Obama isn't horrible, and I'd agree that he's the only viable option, but the President is somewhat of a Mr. Johnny-come-lately. There is an actual progressive third party in this country, and it's been around awhile. Look here. It's just not a real option so long as the Democrats know they can keep drifting to the right and they've got the progressives of the country in a hammerlock. What are we gonna do, hand the country over the wingnuts?
Sure about that first part?
[youtube]Skw-0jv9kts[/youtube]

I can understand US progressives supporting him to avoid something even more horrible domestically, but Europeans should get their collective head out of his ass already, for starters.

BarnOwl
.
.
Posts: 3311
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:18 pm
Location: The wrong trouser of Time

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#22298

Post by BarnOwl »

WHARRRGAARRRBBLL Pepsi product!11!!

http://instagram.com/p/RTnIRSjUbB/

Also, why the fuck is there bottled water at a hotel banquet?

/treehugger

LouFCD
.
.
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 12:23 pm
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#22299

Post by LouFCD »

AnonymousCowherd wrote:
LouFCD wrote:
BarnOwl wrote:US electoral smackdown from McCreight:
Obama isn’t perfect, but he’s the only option that supports equal civil rights for women, racial minorities, and LGBT individuals.
Obama isn't horrible, and I'd agree that he's the only viable option, but the President is somewhat of a Mr. Johnny-come-lately. There is an actual progressive third party in this country, and it's been around awhile. Look here. It's just not a real option so long as the Democrats know they can keep drifting to the right and they've got the progressives of the country in a hammerlock. What are we gonna do, hand the country over the wingnuts?
Lobby for proportional representation?
That would be nice. I think I'll write an email to all American politicians asking them to look into it. I'm sure they'll see the fairness of that and get right on it. Forgive the snark and extreme cynicism I'm feeling this morning (still working on my caffeine injections), but money talks and equity can just fuck right off. Unless we can un-stupid a whole lot of people on the ground first, there's no way the progressive left can raise the kind of money the churches are dumping into the system.

...or I may just be cranky because the caffeine hasn't clogged up enough adenosine receptors yet (or however that works...).

LouFCD
.
.
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 12:23 pm
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#22300

Post by LouFCD »

windy wrote:
LouFCD wrote: Obama isn't horrible, and I'd agree that he's the only viable option, but the President is somewhat of a Mr. Johnny-come-lately. There is an actual progressive third party in this country, and it's been around awhile. Look here. It's just not a real option so long as the Democrats know they can keep drifting to the right and they've got the progressives of the country in a hammerlock. What are we gonna do, hand the country over the wingnuts?
Sure about that first part?

[snip vid]

I can understand US progressives supporting him to avoid something even more horrible domestically, but Europeans should get their collective head out of his ass already, for starters.
Fair points, and I agree. I should have said, "Obama isn't as horrible as Romney", but I too am (sadly) subject to the principle of the Overton Window, it would seem.

AnonymousCowherd
.
.
Posts: 1708
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 2:49 am
Location: The Penumbra of Doubt

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#22301

Post by AnonymousCowherd »

LouFCD wrote:
AnonymousCowherd wrote:
LouFCD wrote:
BarnOwl wrote:US electoral smackdown from McCreight:
Obama isn’t perfect, but he’s the only option that supports equal civil rights for women, racial minorities, and LGBT individuals.
Obama isn't horrible, and I'd agree that he's the only viable option, but the President is somewhat of a Mr. Johnny-come-lately. There is an actual progressive third party in this country, and it's been around awhile. Look here. It's just not a real option so long as the Democrats know they can keep drifting to the right and they've got the progressives of the country in a hammerlock. What are we gonna do, hand the country over the wingnuts?
Lobby for proportional representation?
That would be nice. I think I'll write an email to all American politicians asking them to look into it. I'm sure they'll see the fairness of that and get right on it. Forgive the snark and extreme cynicism I'm feeling this morning (still working on my caffeine injections), but money talks and equity can just fuck right off. Unless we can un-stupid a whole lot of people on the ground first, there's no way the progressive left can raise the kind of money the churches are dumping into the system.

...or I may just be cranky because the caffeine hasn't clogged up enough adenosine receptors yet (or however that works...).
Gosh, hadn't they thought of PR before? It's quite common elsewhere you know. Blink, blink.

(/apparent obtuseness.)

I'd be cynical if I lived in the US. Hell, I'm cynical about your election from here, even. It's not much of a choice you have. Just a question of which invisible hands are driving the sockpuppets, like a lot of places these days.

ReneeHendricks
.
.
Posts: 2244
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 9:48 am
Location: Kent, WA
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#22302

Post by ReneeHendricks »

LouFCD wrote:
windy wrote:
LouFCD wrote: Obama isn't horrible, and I'd agree that he's the only viable option, but the President is somewhat of a Mr. Johnny-come-lately. There is an actual progressive third party in this country, and it's been around awhile. Look here. It's just not a real option so long as the Democrats know they can keep drifting to the right and they've got the progressives of the country in a hammerlock. What are we gonna do, hand the country over the wingnuts?
Sure about that first part?

[snip vid]

I can understand US progressives supporting him to avoid something even more horrible domestically, but Europeans should get their collective head out of his ass already, for starters.
Fair points, and I agree. I should have said, "Obama isn't as horrible as Romney", but I too am (sadly) subject to the principle of the Overton Window, it would seem.
It's all about voting for the lesser of two evils at this point and it pisses me off. I *want* to give my vote to Gary Johnson. But then, as we are setup the way we are for voting purposes, it's akin to taking my vote and tossing it out the fucking window.

Not pleased at all that I'm forced into the "lesser of two evils" position :(

LouFCD
.
.
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 12:23 pm
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#22303

Post by LouFCD »

AnonymousCowherd wrote:
Gosh, hadn't they thought of PR before? It's quite common elsewhere you know. Blink, blink.

(/apparent obtuseness.)
Thanks, that actually made me chuckle for some reason, and improved my mood significantly. :)
AnonymousCowherd wrote:I'd be cynical if I lived in the US. Hell, I'm cynical about your election from here, even. It's not much of a choice you have. Just a question of which invisible hands are driving the sockpuppets, like a lot of places these days.
I tend to see the two major American political parties as a choice between

A: The Party of Completely and Utterly Batshit Fucking Insane
B: The Party of Slightly Less Batshit Fucking Insane

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#22304

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

Can we have a US Politics/Elections thread?

Not that I don't care, but...

BarnOwl
.
.
Posts: 3311
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:18 pm
Location: The wrong trouser of Time

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#22305

Post by BarnOwl »

Re: the book discussion from a page or three back-
“They are totally divorced from reality,” said Myers, a prolific science blogger and professor of biology at the University of Minnesota, Morris, best known for his online disputes with creationists.

Myers, whose new book, “The Happy Atheist,” comes out this summer, was one of the keynote speakers at CSICon, a meeting of skeptics, atheists and other nonbelievers held this week at the Music City Sheraton.
From here.

decius
.
.
Posts: 1365
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:08 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#22306

Post by decius »

BarnOwl wrote: Also, why the fuck is there bottled water at a hotel banquet?

/treehugger
I suppose they provide tap water for those who prefer it. I for one like my water carbonated and non-chlorinated. And my food non-vegan. And my civil aviation functional and readily available. The "environmentalists" are free to implement their pseudo-solutions to problems with technological and scientific answer in their own fucking sandal-wearing communities.

Problem? ;)

Mykeru
.
.
Posts: 4758
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 6:52 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#22307

Post by Mykeru »

Michael K Gray wrote:
JackRayner wrote:So tell MKG, if you're still hanging on to your view by the time I hit the "summit" button: Can you name a single pragmatic reason why women should be allowed in the infantry?
Yes: Some women are better at your listed tasks than some men.
Barring these women by default is counter-productive.
I know women who belong to the Survival and Primitive skill groups I do who are also avid hikers. And I mean mountain goat long hard hikers. They could carry a pack on a 10k hike and otherwise the requirements for being in the infantry. They don't bitch on a winter overnight when it gets down to 20 degree below frost. Any woman that could fire my Mossberg 500 Persuader with 3" magnum bear slugs (Read: No fun whatsoever) can handle most light infantry weapons.

People can't argue on the basis of "the average woman" or the "average man", which seems to be some of the underlying thinking.
I don't agree with lowering standards. But I think there are a lot of women who can meet them.

I can see "not allowing women" as a reaction to there being a very different set of standards for men and women which will translate into "In case of emergency, use male for heavy lifting", but barring women as a group? Really?

windy wrote:
LouFCD wrote:
BarnOwl wrote:US electoral smackdown from McCreight:
Obama isn’t perfect, but he’s the only option that supports equal civil rights for women, racial minorities, and LGBT individuals.
Obama isn't horrible, and I'd agree that he's the only viable option, but the President is somewhat of a Mr. Johnny-come-lately. There is an actual progressive third party in this country, and it's been around awhile. Look here. It's just not a real option so long as the Democrats know they can keep drifting to the right and they've got the progressives of the country in a hammerlock. What are we gonna do, hand the country over the wingnuts?
Sure about that first part?
[youtube]Skw-0jv9kts[/youtube]

I can understand US progressives supporting him to avoid something even more horrible domestically, but Europeans should get their collective head out of his ass already, for starters.
Something to that. I was so expectant when Obama was elected, that some ass would be kicked and names taken, perhaps even a New New Deal. That moment came and went (as did, by design, the up-swell of civic thinking following 9/11). In the wake of the banking scandal Obama made sure that GM workers made concessions, while his boys at Goldman Sachs never lost a dime on their throwing good money after bad with AIG.

Obama has been a major appointment's. Especially his craven unwillingness to fight the increasingly entrenched and irrational right wing that only cares about taxes and deregulation and would ship the National Archives, Bill of Rights and all, to China if they had half a chance.

His one saving grace is that he's not Romney. The Republicans see to be, more and more, fronting absolute ciphers who will carry out whatever empty-headed, destructive policy.

However, in Jen McCreight's case I'm probably going to not give a shit about abortion, for example. I'm in favor of legal abortion, but as I'm really not effected by it, and Jen McCreight really doesn't give a shit about any issue that doesn't effect her or those she identifies with, why should I care what Romney might do?

You know what's sad? As much as I try not to be effected by being immersed in the "men are all rapists" thinking. Just before I had fucked off to the laundry room and got my stuff out of the dryer. I was folding my patriarchal man-pants when one of the 20-something women walked in. More and more when I see women that I don't know, especially when they are of the fully indoctrinated age, I try not to acknowledge their presence at all. Someone I know, I will, from a "s'up" head nod to an acknowledgement that it's about time they did some laundry.

She got nothing. I saw her come in, I looked down. Unless I have any reason to I won't even acknowledge a woman is there when I'm alone with a stranger in this way. If she asks me if a machine is working or something else, I tend to say "I don't know", because it's the safest thing to say. Because, quite frankly, when I'm alone with a woman I don't know like that, even in a public space, my aim is to get out of there with some alacrity.

And so the men liked pigs and the pigs looked like men.

ERV
Arnie Loves Me!
Arnie Loves Me!
Posts: 1556
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 4:57 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#22308

Post by ERV »

BarnOwl wrote:WHARRRGAARRRBBLL Pepsi product!11!!

http://instagram.com/p/RTnIRSjUbB/

Also, why the fuck is there bottled water at a hotel banquet?

/treehugger
You just arent an environmentalist like those A+ers. You just. Dont. Get it.

decius
.
.
Posts: 1365
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:08 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#22309

Post by decius »

ERV wrote: You just arent an environmentalist like those A+ers. You just. Dont. Get it.
The bottled water pseudo-problem was solved more than a decade ago in most of Europe. It didn't involve bitching against what people chooses to drink or turning the clock back to the nineteenth century.

BarnOwl
.
.
Posts: 3311
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:18 pm
Location: The wrong trouser of Time

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#22310

Post by BarnOwl »

decius wrote:
ERV wrote: You just arent an environmentalist like those A+ers. You just. Dont. Get it.
The bottled water pseudo-problem was solved more than a decade ago in most of Europe. It didn't involve bitching against what people chooses to drink or turning the clock back to the nineteenth century.
Tap water is still a choice at most US hotels that I'm familiar with, but in the last decade or so, I've only gone to scientific meetings that are local or within two days' drive. In the not-so-distant past, pitchers of ice water and glasses were available in the back of the conference rooms at scientific meetings. I'm probably spoiled here, because our tap water comes from an aquifer, and requires minimal chlorination. At work I can fill up a reusable container with filtered tap water - it's not a big deal to travel with the container, and fill it at water fountains. Most bottled water in the US is just filtered tap water anyway.

Almost everyone on this forum bitches about some aspect of FC(n)/A+ behavior - seems to me that it's up to the individual 'Pitter to choose what to bitch about.

SenorBeagle
.
.
Posts: 163
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 7:23 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#22311

Post by SenorBeagle »

ReneeHendricks wrote:Not pleased at all that I'm forced into the "lesser of two evils" position :(
Once again, had to...

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lrufh ... o1_500.jpg

decius
.
.
Posts: 1365
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:08 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#22312

Post by decius »

BarnOwl wrote: Tap water is still a choice at most US hotels that I'm familiar with, but in the last decade or so, I've only gone to scientific meetings that are local or within two days' drive. In the not-so-distant past, pitchers of ice water and glasses were available in the back of the conference rooms at scientific meetings. I'm probably spoiled here, because our tap water comes from an aquifer, and requires minimal chlorination. At work I can fill up a reusable container with filtered tap water - it's not a big deal to travel with the container, and fill it at water fountains. Most bottled water in the US is just filtered tap water anyway.

Almost everyone on this forum bitches about some aspect of FC(n)/A+ behavior - seems to me that it's up to the individual 'Pitter to choose what to bitch about.
Bitch away freely, by all means.

Here's my unsolicited opinion. Your brand of environmentalism is ineffective, regressive, depressive for the economy and - if implemented - would cost countless jobs to real people.
Sure, water from aquifer is a decent substitute, especially for bottled tap water, but not for quality mineral water. Conferences via video-link are no substitute for meeting, and socialising with, people in meatspace, at best they're an alternative to commercial TV.
Next, we'll all be expected to live like fucking Amish - no, thanks.

Moreover, there exist effective, if imperfect, technological solutions to these problems, which could have been implemented already many years ago, had the public known what to actually demand from their politicians, en lieu of naive expectations.

JackRayner
.
.
Posts: 1166
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 12:27 am
Location: In the basement of the University of Minnesota Morris
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#22313

Post by JackRayner »

Michael K Gray wrote:
JackRayner wrote:
Michael K Gray wrote:
JackRayner wrote:So tell MKG, if you're still hanging on to your view by the time I hit the "summit" button: Can you name a single pragmatic reason why women should be allowed in the infantry?
Yes: Some women are better at your listed tasks than some men.
Barring these women by default is counter-productive.
"better [...] than some men" does not mean they will be worth anything as a grunt. Not all men are built to be grunts, either. This isn't my argument.
It certainly came across as EXACTLY that. With the old goalpost positions, that is.
JackRayner wrote: If I can restate it, I would ask for you to present some pragmatically valid reasons why allowing women into infantry units* would make these units better at their jobs.
Wow. If I ever need some goalposts shifted, I'll look you up in the Yellow pages.
http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x17/ ... epalm2.gif

Okay. So, there are two different things going on here. One is the question I asked you specifically, which you seem to have misunderstood. The other is what standards I think women should meet to be allowed into the infantry. Integrating women, whether fit or unfit, will not be anything short of a logistical nightmare. I'll spell a few of these out, without needing to even think long: Separate living quarters, separate bathrooms, female specific hygiene and medical concerns, reproduction [Yes, women get pregnant, even while deployed. One of the women in my company did while out in goddamn Iraq.], political correctness. Only an idiot would believe that the only difference would be in genitalia and that all work would resume as was usual prior to such an integration.

When I originally asked the question, I thought about wording it as "If I was the commander of an infantry division, what would you say to convince me that all of the money and work that it is going to take to integrate women into the infantry will be worth it?", but being in love with brevity and being naive enough to think that you wouldn't get emotional, I went with "pragmatism" instead. I'll take the hit for that.

Then, when I restated it, I again left out what was my original though and should have been my original question. I'll take the hit for not spelling it out for you there, too. I'M SORRY!!!!!!1
From "should be allowed into the infantry" to "make these units better at their jobs" in one easy swoop!
Am I going to need to explain what pragmatism [the part that you seem to be conveniently ignoring] means? Integrating women into the infantry for pragmatic reasons means the benefits of their integration would outweigh the costs. Something they bring to infantry combat has to outweigh, to the point of at least coming out even, all of the logistical/political/sexual-behavioral/whatever issues that will arise from integration. This is different than integrating them out of principle.

- Aesthetically, I would prefer to own and drive an Infiniti G37. Pragmatically, the cost of owning the car would far outweigh the benefits.
- In principle* , women who meet the standards should be allowed into the infantry**. Pragmatically, the cost of integration far outweighs any advantages*** gained from their inclusion.

*The Marine Corps does not function based on principle.
**I agree with this statement, but is is not related to my question.
***THIS WAS MY QUESTION. Name advantages that outweigh the cost!
I explained clearly why women should be allowed to apply for infantry duty, on the same terms as are men.
As did another poster.
Equality of Opportunity.
Then, defeated, you shift the goal-posts to imply that I should have answered a question that:
1) You did not ask
and
2) I did not imply.
1] As I've made plain in follow up posts, if a woman can meet the standards then I'm fine with them earning the job. This wasn't my question, however. 2] Defeated? Are you a child? Who claims victory so quickly, and when they've made it apparent that they're missing pieces of the puzzle? 3] You conveniently ignored "pragmatic". If you don't like the question, don't answer it. Acting like I asked a different question is dishonest. I didn't ask you if some women can outperform some men, or even to prove that some could perform the work. I said it myself; "Can some females hack it? Of course..." AGAIN. This wasn't my concern.
You aren't a creationist by any chance?
Are you a gender ideologue, by any chance? :lol:
(Rhetorical) Why on earth do you wish the entry of females to "make these units better at their jobs", rather than maintain the status quo?
No, I think that I know. It is because your question was answered clearly and satisfactorily, yet that does not fit in with your clearly misogynist agendum.
Yes, I said "misogynist", for that is exactly what comes across with your expressions of your attitude toward ALL females, competent or not, being "permitted" (for fuck's sake) into combat rôles because in your opinion, they would not "make units BETTER"!!
Dictionary definition.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: It's Ok, MKG. You missed the point of the question! Hell, you are even conflating it with my personal philosophy. No need to throw a hissy fit over it. :violin:
JackRayner wrote:Call me a physical elitist
I'll call you a sexist tosspot if you prefer.
JackRayner wrote:Like I said before, the realities of combat will not ease up just because a unit's standards did...
More shifting of several goal-posts.
More goal shifting, even thought that's a rewording of the sentence that immediately follows the original question you misunderstood?
JackieRayner wrote:So tell MKG, if you're still hanging on to your view by the time I hit the "summit" button: Can you name a single pragmatic reason why women should be allowed in the infantry? Unlike the military's physical standards, the necessities of combat will not make themselves more comfortable to women's specific needs or physiological limitations...
Go back and look, dude. It's all there. Geez. I used to think that you were cool. What happened? Weak show, man. Weak show! :roll:
I ask you: why should it matter what sex one is if one can do the job?
I bet you cannot answer succinctly and coherently.
It shouldn't. Now please answer my question. ;)

decius
.
.
Posts: 1365
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:08 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#22314

Post by decius »

As a practical example, for nearly twenty years we've had the necessary technology to build the NextGen air traffic control systerm. Incompetence and lack of vision are still standing on the way of making enormous savings in time and fuel consumption without depriving ourselves of a functioning civil aviation. Yet, hardly anyone has heard of it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/tra ... story.html

Jan Steen
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 3061
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 3:18 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#22315

Post by Jan Steen »

The A-plussers keep exposing new kinds of privilege:

http://i.imgur.com/FhcGe.jpg

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic ... 473#p39473

How long before these Social Justice Warriors accuse somebody of being privileged for not being privileged?

Al Stefanelli
.
.
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 3:55 am
Location: Peachtree City, GA
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#22316

Post by Al Stefanelli »

Jan Steen wrote:The A-plussers keep exposing new kinds of privilege:

http://i.imgur.com/FhcGe.jpg

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic ... 473#p39473

How long before these Social Justice Warriors accuse somebody of being privileged for not being privileged?
Don't forget "and children of all ages." Check your privilege for being able to act like a child when really an adult. There are adults all over the world, especially in third-world countries, who do not have the freedom to act like a child.

cunt
.
.
Posts: 2768
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:06 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#22317

Post by cunt »

Temper temper.

cunt
.
.
Posts: 2768
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:06 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#22318

Post by cunt »

Lots of guests. Whats going on?

Al Stefanelli
.
.
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 3:55 am
Location: Peachtree City, GA
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#22319

Post by Al Stefanelli »

cunt wrote:Lots of guests. Whats going on?
Last night:

http://alstefanelli.com/64.jpg

It had jumped up over 100 briefly...

cunt
.
.
Posts: 2768
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:06 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#22320

Post by cunt »

Al Stefanelli wrote:
cunt wrote:Lots of guests. Whats going on?
Last night:

http://alstefanelli.com/64.jpg

It had jumped up over 100 briefly...
Can't be atheism+ then :lol:

Tigzy
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 6789
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 6:53 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#22321

Post by Tigzy »

cunt wrote:Lots of guests. Whats going on?
It is bloody busy at the moment. Maybe one of the lurkers can post as a guest and enlighten us?

JackRayner
.
.
Posts: 1166
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 12:27 am
Location: In the basement of the University of Minnesota Morris
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#22322

Post by JackRayner »

Tigzy wrote:
cunt wrote:Lots of guests. Whats going on?
It is bloody busy at the moment. Maybe one of the lurkers can post as a guest and enlighten us?
Maybe a commenter mentioned/linked to the pit in that terrible "article" that Becky wrote for Slate? I dunno. Seems unlikely, not that it's out of my mind and in front of me as text....

JackRayner
.
.
Posts: 1166
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 12:27 am
Location: In the basement of the University of Minnesota Morris
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#22323

Post by JackRayner »

JackRayner wrote:
Tigzy wrote:
cunt wrote:Lots of guests. Whats going on?
It is bloody busy at the moment. Maybe one of the lurkers can post as a guest and enlighten us?
Maybe a commenter mentioned/linked to the pit in that terrible "article" that Becky wrote for Slate? I dunno. Seems unlikely, not now that it's out of my mind and in front of me as text....
Fixed. That typo made too big of a change to leave alone. :?

cunt
.
.
Posts: 2768
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:06 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#22324

Post by cunt »

Weird. Anyway, guests:



Al Stefanelli
.
.
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 3:55 am
Location: Peachtree City, GA
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#22325

Post by Al Stefanelli »

Today's Lulz: Transgendered Girls of the Third Reich

http://www.alstefanelli.com/tgottr.jpg

justinvacula
.
.
Posts: 1832
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:48 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#22326

Post by justinvacula »

BarnOwl wrote:US electoral smackdown from McCreight:
Obama isn’t perfect, but he’s the only option that supports equal civil rights for women, racial minorities, and LGBT individuals. And to me nothing more is important in my country than equal rights for all. If you put your pocketbooks ahead of equality, you’re selfish and downright immoral. My grad student stipend is technically at the poverty line for Washington state, and I would still happily pay higher taxes if it meant providing social services and helping those who need it the most. Heaven forbid I don’t have the luxury of an iPhone because I think someone’s children having food on the table is more important.
In essence I agree with most of her points, but of course she neglects to mention that most USAians who live at the poverty line don't receive regular infusions of cash from mommy and daddy.
The ONLY option? What happened to third party candidates?

Al Stefanelli
.
.
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 3:55 am
Location: Peachtree City, GA
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#22327

Post by Al Stefanelli »

Fuck me running... That should be:

Today's Lulz: Transgendered Weapons of the Third Reich[/b]

http://www.alstefanelli.com/tgottr.jpg[/quote]

Tigzy
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 6789
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 6:53 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#22328

Post by Tigzy »

justinvacula wrote:
BarnOwl wrote:US electoral smackdown from McCreight:
Obama isn’t perfect, but he’s the only option that supports equal civil rights for women, racial minorities, and LGBT individuals. And to me nothing more is important in my country than equal rights for all. If you put your pocketbooks ahead of equality, you’re selfish and downright immoral. My grad student stipend is technically at the poverty line for Washington state, and I would still happily pay higher taxes if it meant providing social services and helping those who need it the most. Heaven forbid I don’t have the luxury of an iPhone because I think someone’s children having food on the table is more important.
In essence I agree with most of her points, but of course she neglects to mention that most USAians who live at the poverty line don't receive regular infusions of cash from mommy and daddy.
The ONLY option? What happened to third party candidates?
http://troglopundit.files.wordpress.com ... u-2012.jpg

Al Stefanelli
.
.
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 3:55 am
Location: Peachtree City, GA
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#22329

Post by Al Stefanelli »

BarnOwl wrote:The ONLY option? What happened to third party candidates?
The Russians covered it for us. Благодарю Вас, мать

[youtube]MnY6QK5pRuU[/youtube]

BarnOwl
.
.
Posts: 3311
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:18 pm
Location: The wrong trouser of Time

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#22330

Post by BarnOwl »

decius wrote: Here's my unsolicited opinion. Your brand of environmentalism is ineffective, regressive, depressive for the economy and - if implemented - would cost countless jobs to real people.
Sure, water from aquifer is a decent substitute, especially for bottled tap water, but not for quality mineral water. Conferences via video-link are no substitute for meeting, and socialising with, people in meatspace, at best they're an alternative to commercial TV.
Next, we'll all be expected to live like fucking Amish - no, thanks.

Moreover, there exist effective, if imperfect, technological solutions to these problems, which could have been implemented already many years ago, had the public known what to actually demand from their politicians, en lieu of naive expectations.
I can pretty much guarantee that the bottled water in the photo was not "quality mineral water." I don't disagree that there are effective technical solutions to many environmental problems, but it's ridiculous to dismiss environmental concerns as all being ineffective, regressive and depressive for the economy. I could buy a new Chevy Suburban every two years and drive it to work every day; I can afford it, and it would be good for the domestic economy, but that doesn't mean it's a reasonable thing to do. I'm not sure how you could possibly know what my "brand of environmentalism" entails in any case, and as a biomedical researcher and minimally successful backyard gardener, I'm certainly not expecting anyone, including myself, to live like the Amish.

One of the things we do in this forum is point out and document the hypocrisies of the FC(n) and A+ers. I'm really not fond of all the fat-shaming and fat jokes that are posted here, and the FC(n)/A+ers have not been hypocritical in that arena - but I'm not going to tell other 'Pitters to stop posting what they want to post. Environmentalism, however, is an arena in which the FC(n) display hypocritical behavior, and so yeah, I'm going to post about it.

BarnOwl
.
.
Posts: 3311
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:18 pm
Location: The wrong trouser of Time

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#22331

Post by BarnOwl »

Sorry, being US-centric: for those 'Pitters not familiar with our vehicles, the Suburban is a large SUV.

http://www.northtexasautoleasing.com/ho ... burban.jpg

Tigzy
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 6789
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 6:53 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#22332

Post by Tigzy »

BarnOwl wrote: I'm really not fond of all the fat-shaming and fat jokes that are posted here, and the FC(n)/A+ers have not been hypocritical in that arena - but I'm not going to tell other 'Pitters to stop posting what they want to post.
Nowt wrong with a few fat jokes - and I speak as someone getting a bit on the chubby side meself. Way I see it, if you're not bothered about being porky, fat jokes aren't going to bother you. If they do, then your problem is not so much about the jokes, but with being fat. In which case, eating less and exercising more should be higher on the list of priorities than being upset with a few piss-takes.

In fact, fat jokes could be seen as a good motivator in encouraging people who don't like being fat in taking up exercise and diet. So it's kind of a good thing, really.

Al Stefanelli
.
.
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 3:55 am
Location: Peachtree City, GA
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#22333

Post by Al Stefanelli »

BarnOwl wrote:Sorry, being US-centric: for those 'Pitters not familiar with our vehicles, the Suburban is a large SUV.

http://www.northtexasautoleasing.com/ho ... burban.jpg
http://www.alstefanelli.com/suv.jpg

Reap
.
.
Posts: 630
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 10:27 pm
Location: Reno Nevada
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#22334

Post by Reap »

JackRayner wrote:
Mykeru wrote:
Al Stefanelli wrote:This oughta raise some hell: Are Men's Rights Legitimate?
No, of course not, you fucking misogynist.

Just finished with Reap. Topics discussed include:

[*]Al Stefanelli raped me.
[*]JackRayner: Digital penetration with a smile.
[*]Justin Vacula, "Rapeula"
[*]Phil_Giordana_FCD, The art of the stealth pearl necklace.
[*]Welch: With a name like "Smuckers" it has to be rape.
[*]ReneeHendricks : Two more shots and it'll be double rape.
[*]Cunt: Cunt
[*]Rystefn: Everyone line up for some rape
[*]Ophelia Benson: What cunt said, cunt.

And, of course, everyone else.
:lol:

Be sure to let us know when that goes up, Reap!
Editing now -it's going to be a 'Special edition' of the ReapSowRadio podcast -have it done later today

GenerallyFading
.
.
Posts: 106
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 11:31 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#22335

Post by GenerallyFading »

Tigzy - With respect - FUCK ALL OVER THAT. As a type 2 diabetic, who has weight issues due to HIGH BLOOD GLUCOSE LEVELS, and nothing to do with fucking exercise, fucking eating less and fucking dickheads who know nothing about what's wrong with dieting, the "healthy" five a day crap, the useless "Reduce your cholesterol levels" and all the other shit people come out with as an excuse to use "fat" as the new sub-human class, I get really pissed off when sceptics buy into this woo-woo.

I eat loads of fat, loads of calories now, and am losing weight. I never lost weight by dieting and 'eating healthily'. So making fun of fat people really doesn't help, not in the way you are implying. It makes them more depressed, feel more of a failure and stops them from seeking the real culprit for their obesity.

BarnOwl
.
.
Posts: 3311
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:18 pm
Location: The wrong trouser of Time

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#22336

Post by BarnOwl »

Tigzy wrote:
BarnOwl wrote: I'm really not fond of all the fat-shaming and fat jokes that are posted here, and the FC(n)/A+ers have not been hypocritical in that arena - but I'm not going to tell other 'Pitters to stop posting what they want to post.
Nowt wrong with a few fat jokes - and I speak as someone getting a bit on the chubby side meself. Way I see it, if you're not bothered about being porky, fat jokes aren't going to bother you. If they do, then your problem is not so much about the jokes, but with being fat. In which case, eating less and exercising more should be higher on the list of priorities than being upset with a few piss-takes.

In fact, fat jokes could be seen as a good motivator in encouraging people who don't like being fat in taking up exercise and diet. So it's kind of a good thing, really.
Currently I teeter on the border of normal weight/overweight, but I exercise daily, have freakish endurance for my age, and eat a healthy diet, and my primary care physician hasn't expressed any concerns whatsoever. I'm undoubtedly sensitive about it, though, and my non-USAian friends (mostly South American or European) tease and poke and criticize me about my weight incessantly. Fat-shaming is pretty low-hanging fruit when it comes to criticizing the FC(n) and A+ers, and I really haven't seen them being hypocritical about it - but again, that's my perspective as a USAian.

ReneeHendricks
.
.
Posts: 2244
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 9:48 am
Location: Kent, WA
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#22337

Post by ReneeHendricks »

Am I wrong or being completely obtuse here?

I've been reading quite a bit lately on the usage of pronouns and such that ensures we aren't limiting things to a binary (male/female) state and I'm frustrated. Not because I don't feel those who do not feel comfortable with a 1 or 2 state should be excluded but rather because the English language is freaking hard enough as it is. Adding more words and more complex meanings seems to me to ensure (in the long run) a complete fuckery of the language.

I remember reading not too long ago that people coming from other countries into the US, trying to learn the language, are struck by how so many words sound so similar and yet have very different meanings. That's just the tip of the iceberg for those learning the English language.

I'm going to just apologize in advance and say I'll be a horrible person and just stick with the language set I already have. Feel free to berate me or call me an ass but I don't have enough years on this planet left to learn an entire new subset of the English language.

ReneeHendricks
.
.
Posts: 2244
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 9:48 am
Location: Kent, WA
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#22338

Post by ReneeHendricks »

Oh, and another topic that has peeved me over the past 24 hours - Zinnia Jones' bitching about Cenk Uygur using "non-straight sex" to describe sex between a man and transgendered woman.

I talked to my guy about this last night. I asked him "what is straight sex, to you?" His answer, "sex between a man and a woman". So, then I told him about Zinnia's post recently and asked him if he knew of a word or phrase that would be appropriate to describe sex between people who don't fit the binary or where one person does but the other does not and excluding both straight sex and gay sex from the results. He had no answer other than "non-straight". He's a pretty fucking smart guy - one of the smartest guys I know.

Is this another fucking case of "we need to create a word for that so people won't be offended"?

Al Stefanelli
.
.
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 3:55 am
Location: Peachtree City, GA
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#22339

Post by Al Stefanelli »

ReneeHendricks wrote:Am I wrong or being completely obtuse here?

I've been reading quite a bit lately on the usage of pronouns and such that ensures we aren't limiting things to a binary (male/female) state and I'm frustrated. Not because I don't feel those who do not feel comfortable with a 1 or 2 state should be excluded but rather because the English language is freaking hard enough as it is. Adding more words and more complex meanings seems to me to ensure (in the long run) a complete fuckery of the language.

I remember reading not too long ago that people coming from other countries into the US, trying to learn the language, are struck by how so many words sound so similar and yet have very different meanings. That's just the tip of the iceberg for those learning the English language.

I'm going to just apologize in advance and say I'll be a horrible person and just stick with the language set I already have. Feel free to berate me or call me an ass but I don't have enough years on this planet left to learn an entire new subset of the English language.
Shit, I can't keep up and I'm a professional writer. Seems every week there's a new definition for something being tramped out onto the runway of literary terminology. As well, there seems to be almost no slack cut for a first offense, either. Hell, I spend quite a bit of time advocating for the LGBT community, which includes writing letters, promoting protests and sending briefs of amicus curai to various courts.

During this, I have spoken to literally hundreds of LGBT human beings and not once, mind you, has anyone told me that the word 'tranny' was offensive. So, when I used it (innocently) 'someone' not only called me out on it, but implied that I was being transphobic.

What the actual fuck...?

JackRayner
.
.
Posts: 1166
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 12:27 am
Location: In the basement of the University of Minnesota Morris
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#22340

Post by JackRayner »

I can't be bothered to go back and see exactly who I was having the exchange with, but here is footage that shows that Felix Batwgjfvcjkarsgniwu3r made a sonic boom when he broke the sound barrier on his jump. http://www.grindtv.com/outdoor/blog/382 ... c+skydive/ [Listen closely at the 25 second mark.]

If it's true, then that's fucking amazing. :clap:

Gumby
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 5543
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:40 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#22341

Post by Gumby »

JackRayner wrote:I can't be bothered to go back and see exactly who I was having the exchange with, but here is footage that shows that Felix Batwgjfvcjkarsgniwu3r made a sonic boom when he broke the sound barrier on his jump. http://www.grindtv.com/outdoor/blog/382 ... c+skydive/ [Listen closely at the 25 second mark.]

If it's true, then that's fucking amazing. :clap:
Just imagine what happened when he broke the light barrier!

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/816780/thumbs ... -570.jpg?6

JackRayner
.
.
Posts: 1166
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 12:27 am
Location: In the basement of the University of Minnesota Morris
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#22342

Post by JackRayner »

Gumby wrote:
JackRayner wrote:I can't be bothered to go back and see exactly who I was having the exchange with, but here is footage that shows that Felix Batwgjfvcjkarsgniwu3r made a sonic boom when he broke the sound barrier on his jump. http://www.grindtv.com/outdoor/blog/382 ... c+skydive/ [Listen closely at the 25 second mark.]

If it's true, then that's fucking amazing. :clap:
Just imagine what happened when he broke the light barrier!

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/816780/thumbs ... -570.jpg?6

:lol:

Did they really put that up during broadcast? Dammit, why didn't I hear about this before?!

Tigzy
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 6789
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 6:53 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#22343

Post by Tigzy »

GenerallyFading wrote:Tigzy - With respect - FUCK ALL OVER THAT. As a type 2 diabetic, who has weight issues due to HIGH BLOOD GLUCOSE LEVELS, and nothing to do with fucking exercise, fucking eating less and fucking dickheads who know nothing about what's wrong with dieting, the "healthy" five a day crap, the useless "Reduce your cholesterol levels" and all the other shit people come out with as an excuse to use "fat" as the new sub-human class, I get really pissed off when sceptics buy into this woo-woo.

I eat loads of fat, loads of calories now, and am losing weight. I never lost weight by dieting and 'eating healthily'. So making fun of fat people really doesn't help, not in the way you are implying. It makes them more depressed, feel more of a failure and stops them from seeking the real culprit for their obesity.
Waah, waah, it's not my fault I'm fat, it's because etc. etc.

Sorry. Seen too many overweight people complain about being fat because of their diabetes/glands/big bones whatever. Then one day they take up regular exercise and start eating less (and not those 'diet foods', which are packed with sugar and/or high fructose corn syrup - which may be worse in calorific terms that fat itself) and generally find themselves amazed that they are...losing weight.

Funny how you never see a fat person when a news crew is reporting from some area blighted by famine.

Gumby
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 5543
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:40 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#22344

Post by Gumby »

JackRayner wrote: Did they really put that up during broadcast? Dammit, why didn't I hear about this before?!
Yep, they sure did. Many a laugh was had at their expense, of course.

ReneeHendricks
.
.
Posts: 2244
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 9:48 am
Location: Kent, WA
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#22345

Post by ReneeHendricks »

Al Stefanelli wrote:
ReneeHendricks wrote:Am I wrong or being completely obtuse here?

I've been reading quite a bit lately on the usage of pronouns and such that ensures we aren't limiting things to a binary (male/female) state and I'm frustrated. Not because I don't feel those who do not feel comfortable with a 1 or 2 state should be excluded but rather because the English language is freaking hard enough as it is. Adding more words and more complex meanings seems to me to ensure (in the long run) a complete fuckery of the language.

I remember reading not too long ago that people coming from other countries into the US, trying to learn the language, are struck by how so many words sound so similar and yet have very different meanings. That's just the tip of the iceberg for those learning the English language.

I'm going to just apologize in advance and say I'll be a horrible person and just stick with the language set I already have. Feel free to berate me or call me an ass but I don't have enough years on this planet left to learn an entire new subset of the English language.
Shit, I can't keep up and I'm a professional writer. Seems every week there's a new definition for something being tramped out onto the runway of literary terminology. As well, there seems to be almost no slack cut for a first offense, either. Hell, I spend quite a bit of time advocating for the LGBT community, which includes writing letters, promoting protests and sending briefs of amicus curai to various courts.

During this, I have spoken to literally hundreds of LGBT human beings and not once, mind you, has anyone told me that the word 'tranny' was offensive. So, when I used it (innocently) 'someone' not only called me out on it, but implied that I was being transphobic.

What the actual fuck...?
That's just it - *every* week we're told there's yet another word/phrase we should use and to throw out the one's we've just started to remember to use.

I don't put nearly the level of concentrated effort into the LGBTQ (see what I did there?) community as I'd like - I'd love to be at your level. If and when I get more time, I will put more towards securing their basic *human* rights. In the meantime, I'll sit over here frustrated in the knowledge that I'm going to piss off one or more individuals by not updating my lexicon on a daily basis.

Shit. I have a hard enough time remembering my name most days.

JackRayner
.
.
Posts: 1166
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 12:27 am
Location: In the basement of the University of Minnesota Morris
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#22346

Post by JackRayner »

ReneeHendricks wrote:Oh, and another topic that has peeved me over the past 24 hours - Zinnia Jones' bitching about Cenk Uygur using "non-straight sex" to describe sex between a man and transgendered woman.
"Non-cis sex", maybe? :think: Has Zinnia included any suggestions with her complaining?

Pitchguest
.
.
Posts: 4024
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 3:44 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#22347

Post by Pitchguest »

JackRayner wrote:
ReneeHendricks wrote:Oh, and another topic that has peeved me over the past 24 hours - Zinnia Jones' bitching about Cenk Uygur using "non-straight sex" to describe sex between a man and transgendered woman.
"Non-cis sex", maybe? :think: Has Zinnia included any suggestions with her complaining?
Do you even have to ask?

Rystefn
.
.
Posts: 635
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 10:03 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#22348

Post by Rystefn »

ReneeHendricks wrote:Am I wrong or being completely obtuse here?

I've been reading quite a bit lately on the usage of pronouns and such that ensures we aren't limiting things to a binary (male/female) state and I'm frustrated. Not because I don't feel those who do not feel comfortable with a 1 or 2 state should be excluded but rather because the English language is freaking hard enough as it is. Adding more words and more complex meanings seems to me to ensure (in the long run) a complete fuckery of the language.

I remember reading not too long ago that people coming from other countries into the US, trying to learn the language, are struck by how so many words sound so similar and yet have very different meanings. That's just the tip of the iceberg for those learning the English language.

I'm going to just apologize in advance and say I'll be a horrible person and just stick with the language set I already have. Feel free to berate me or call me an ass but I don't have enough years on this planet left to learn an entire new subset of the English language.
Fuck it. Fuck it all. From now on, anyone who's too good to be referred to as one of the standard English pronouns (he, she, it, they) will be referred to by my new gender-neutral, non-binary, one-size-fits-all pronoun: Sally. I sincerely hope it gets under Sally's skin and drives Sally fucking nuts. Alternately, Sally could get the fuck over Sally's shit, and come to accept that inventing words for Sallyself is pretentious douchebaggery of the first degree.

ConcentratedH2O, OM
.
.
Posts: 6555
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 8:51 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#22349

Post by ConcentratedH2O, OM »

I've posted a few fat jokes and insults. Way I see it, anything one has the power to change about oneself, one can expect to be used for a cheap laugh: obesity, religion, or dying your fucking hair blue.

It's why I don't make race jokes, or laugh at people with a disability (I hated the username that was something like "Spacklick", for eg). I love the hypocrisy of many television celebrities, who go on panel shows and make jokes about Heather Mills, then come November they've got the poppy on and are schmoozing with wounded war vets.

ReneeHendricks
.
.
Posts: 2244
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 9:48 am
Location: Kent, WA
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#22350

Post by ReneeHendricks »

JackRayner wrote:
ReneeHendricks wrote:Oh, and another topic that has peeved me over the past 24 hours - Zinnia Jones' bitching about Cenk Uygur using "non-straight sex" to describe sex between a man and transgendered woman.
"Non-cis sex", maybe? :think: Has Zinnia included any suggestions with her complaining?
Not that I saw other than suggesting (though not directly, as far as I can tell) that it be called straight sex.
But when a man has sex with a woman who’s trans, that is not “non-straight sex”. When a man and a woman are having sex, there is no conceivable way that any sexual act could be described as something other than straight. Calling this “non-straight” means claiming that there is some element of homosexual desire or tendency involved, simply because the woman is trans or has a penis.
However, she's making the assumption that most people think of non-straight sex as being homosexual. Which is awfully pompous of her, in my opinion.

debaser71

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#22351

Post by debaser71 »

Tigzy wrote: Funny how you never see a fat person when a news crew is reporting from some area blighted by famine.
On this point it could be that people with health issues that would make them fat would simply die if they lived in an area blighted by famine.

JackRayner
.
.
Posts: 1166
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 12:27 am
Location: In the basement of the University of Minnesota Morris
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#22352

Post by JackRayner »

Pitchguest wrote:
JackRayner wrote:
ReneeHendricks wrote:Oh, and another topic that has peeved me over the past 24 hours - Zinnia Jones' bitching about Cenk Uygur using "non-straight sex" to describe sex between a man and transgendered woman.
"Non-cis sex", maybe? :think: Has Zinnia included any suggestions with her complaining?
Do you even have to ask?
:doh: :lol:

And, actually, after a little more thinking [am I being pedantic, now?] I think that the fellow in question falls under "pansexual".

I mean, if they're ok with that label. 'Cause if not, I could just refer to them however they like! ACK! DON'T GLITTER BOMB ME!! :o

Al Stefanelli
.
.
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 3:55 am
Location: Peachtree City, GA
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#22353

Post by Al Stefanelli »

ReneeHendricks wrote:Oh, and another topic that has peeved me over the past 24 hours - Zinnia Jones' bitching about Cenk Uygur using "non-straight sex" to describe sex between a man and transgendered woman.

I talked to my guy about this last night. I asked him "what is straight sex, to you?" His answer, "sex between a man and a woman". So, then I told him about Zinnia's post recently and asked him if he knew of a word or phrase that would be appropriate to describe sex between people who don't fit the binary or where one person does but the other does not and excluding both straight sex and gay sex from the results. He had no answer other than "non-straight". He's a pretty fucking smart guy - one of the smartest guys I know.

Is this another fucking case of "we need to create a word for that so people won't be offended"?
Don't even get me started on that post...

ReneeHendricks
.
.
Posts: 2244
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 9:48 am
Location: Kent, WA
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#22354

Post by ReneeHendricks »

Rystefn wrote:
ReneeHendricks wrote:Am I wrong or being completely obtuse here?

I've been reading quite a bit lately on the usage of pronouns and such that ensures we aren't limiting things to a binary (male/female) state and I'm frustrated. Not because I don't feel those who do not feel comfortable with a 1 or 2 state should be excluded but rather because the English language is freaking hard enough as it is. Adding more words and more complex meanings seems to me to ensure (in the long run) a complete fuckery of the language.

I remember reading not too long ago that people coming from other countries into the US, trying to learn the language, are struck by how so many words sound so similar and yet have very different meanings. That's just the tip of the iceberg for those learning the English language.

I'm going to just apologize in advance and say I'll be a horrible person and just stick with the language set I already have. Feel free to berate me or call me an ass but I don't have enough years on this planet left to learn an entire new subset of the English language.
Fuck it. Fuck it all. From now on, anyone who's too good to be referred to as one of the standard English pronouns (he, she, it, they) will be referred to by my new gender-neutral, non-binary, one-size-fits-all pronoun: Sally. I sincerely hope it gets under Sally's skin and drives Sally fucking nuts. Alternately, Sally could get the fuck over Sally's shit, and come to accept that inventing words for Sallyself is pretentious douchebaggery of the first degree.
I'm starting to lean towards "shit". Forget s/h/it. Just shit. So: I sincerely hope it gets under shit's skin and drives shit fucking nuts. Alternately, shit could get the fuck over shit's shit, and come to accept that inventing words for shitself is pretentious douchebagerry of the first degree. :D

ReneeHendricks
.
.
Posts: 2244
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 9:48 am
Location: Kent, WA
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#22355

Post by ReneeHendricks »

Al Stefanelli wrote:
ReneeHendricks wrote:Oh, and another topic that has peeved me over the past 24 hours - Zinnia Jones' bitching about Cenk Uygur using "non-straight sex" to describe sex between a man and transgendered woman.

I talked to my guy about this last night. I asked him "what is straight sex, to you?" His answer, "sex between a man and a woman". So, then I told him about Zinnia's post recently and asked him if he knew of a word or phrase that would be appropriate to describe sex between people who don't fit the binary or where one person does but the other does not and excluding both straight sex and gay sex from the results. He had no answer other than "non-straight". He's a pretty fucking smart guy - one of the smartest guys I know.

Is this another fucking case of "we need to create a word for that so people won't be offended"?
Don't even get me started on that post...
Isn't that just full of glorious crappery? It caught my eye the other day and has been just digging at me. Both my guy and I are at a loss. And *that's* no usual as he's pretty damned good at helping me through the crappery posts.

Locked