What don't you give? A sh*t.
What don't you give? A sh*t.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
-
Simple Minded
Re: What don't you give? A sh*t.
I tried to download the article, but I would have to subscribe. Screw it! 
-
Simple Minded
Re: What don't you give? A sh*t.
Then there is a down side to caring too much..... the world needs more noddy!
a German friend defined Schadenfreude for me as "the good feeling you get when your nasty neighbor's house burns down."
Progressive Academics Shocked That Their Creatures Turn on Them
June 12, 2015 5:49 am
When the cult of sensitivity begins to eat its children.
by Bruce S. Thornton // FrontPage Magazine
Recently several progressive professors have publicly complained that their students are hounding them for failing to consider their tender sensibilities by straying beyond the p.c. orthodoxy on sexual assault, sex identity, linguistic correctness, and a whole host of other progressive shibboleths. Northwestern “feminist” professor Laura Kipnis found herself in a Title IX star chamber for an article she wrote decrying the immaturity of her legally adult students. Over at Vox, another progressive confessed (anonymously, reminding us that academics are an invertebrate species) he was so “scared” and “terrified” of his “liberal” students that he self-censors his comments in class and has changed his reading list.
These incidents follow the complaints of other progressives like Kirsten Powers and Jonathan Chait that the intolerant ideology at the heart of progressivism is now getting out of hand––something that many of us have been writing about for nearly 3 decades. That these progressives should now be shocked at such intolerance and persecution after decades of speech codes, disruptions of conservative speakers, campus inquisitions which ignore Constitutional rights, cancellations of commencement speakers, and ideological litmus tests imposed on new hires and curricula, bespeaks not principle, but rather indignation that now they are on the receiving end of the bullying and harassment long inflicted on conservatives and people of faith.
Indeed, the campus intolerance progressives are now whining about is the child of the progressive ideology many of the complainers still embrace. Modern progressivism is at heart grievance politics, the core of which is not universal principle, but identity predicated on being a victim of historical crimes like sexism and racism, and on suffering from wounding slights defined as such by the subjective criteria of the now privileged victim who is beyond judgment or criticism. Once acknowledged by the state, victim status can then be leveraged into greater political, institutional, and social power. The mechanism of this leverage is the state and federal laws that empower students whose feelings have been hurt by their teachers’ challenging or provocative questions and ideas.
Sexual harassment law, for example, with its “intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment” language, guarantees that subjective, irrational, or even lunatic standards of what constitutes an “offense” will be used to justify limits on academic freedom and expression, and to punish transgressors. The overbroad and elastic language of Title IX, the law used to haul Kipnis before a campus tribunal, likewise has invited subjective and fuzzy charges from anybody who feels that “on the basis of sex” she has been “excluded from participation in” or “denied the benefits of” or “subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.” Finally, the Department of Education’s 2011 “dear colleague” letter, which instructed schools investigating sexual assault complaints to use the “more likely than not” or “preponderance of the evidence” standard of evidence rather than the “clear and convincing” one, ensures that any complaint no matter how preposterous or irrational will have to be investigated, and the guilty punished.
Yet the obsession with the victim and his suffering, and the need for everybody else to cater to his sensitivity, reflects wider cultural trends. Robert Frost recognized this development in 1942 when he spoke of “the tenderer-than-thou/Collectivist regimenting love/with which the modern world is being swept.” In this therapeutic vision, the cultural ideal now is Sensitive Man, who revels in his superiority to others based on his sensitivity to suffering, and his public displays of what Alan Bloom called “conspicuous compassion” for state-anointed victims. Consequently, as Charles Sykes writes in A Nation of Victims––which in 1992 detailed the cultural shifts that have led to today’s hyper-sensitive and litigious students––“One must be attuned to the feelings of others and adapt oneself to the kaleidoscopic shades of grievance, injury, and ego that make up the subjective sensibilities of the ‘victim.’ Everyone must now accommodate themselves to the sensitivity of the self, whose power is based not on force or even shared ideology but on changeable and perhaps arbitrary and exaggerated ‘feelings.’”
In my 1999 book Plagues of the Mind, I drew out the implications for higher education of this cult of sensitivity, which has made “infants of people, particularly college students, who are led to believe that the world should be a place where they will never feel bad or suffer disappointment, where they will be coddled and indulged and mothered, and where their already overinflated estimation of themselves will be continually reinforced . . . No one seems concerned about what will happen to these adults when they have to enter the real world and discover that it can be a cold, uncaring place where their anxieties and psychic fears are not the prime order of business.” Sixteen years later Kipnis made a similar point in her article when she observed, “The myths and fantasies about power perpetuated in these new codes [of sexual behavior] are leaving our students disabled when it comes to the ordinary interpersonal tangles and erotic confusions that pretty much everyone has to deal with at some point in life.”
As Kipnis’s troubles show, today this obsession with the feelings of students and their demands that they be protected from anything unpleasant or “hurtful” has manifested itself in the hysteria over an alleged epidemic of sexual assault of female college students. (Professor Kipnis got into trouble for calling this phenomenon “sexual paranoia.”) Yet this is nothing new either. In the late 90s commentators were warning of the “New Puritanism” and the “new Victorianism,” the title of Rene Denfeld’s 1995 analysis of this corruption of feminism. This phenomenon is a mélange of intolerance for inherently predatory males, the proliferation of “codes” governing courtship and sexual encounters in order to protect fragile women, the ever expanding list of prohibited words that might traumatize the “oppressed,” the establishment of tribunals judging the accused without the benefit of Constitutional protections, and the noisy protests, shaming, and invective like those aimed at Professor Kipnis, all in order to enforce orthodoxy through fear and self-censorship a la Professor “Schlosser,” the pseudonym of the poltroonish professor mentioned earlier.
Worst of all, the spread of this intolerance throughout universities makes impossible the very purpose of higher education: to broaden students’ minds by allowing what Matthew Arnold called “the free play of the mind on all subjects” and by familiarizing them with the “best which has been thought and said in the world.” That ideal has now become scarce on our campuses. As Sykes wrote over 20 years ago, “Once feelings are established as the barometer of acceptable behavior, speech (and, by extension, thought) becomes only as free as the most sensitive group will permit.” This is precisely the state of affairs in American universities today, where the old notions that truth is a liberating force and that suffering teaches, and the great classics that embodied these and other verities of the human condition, have been sacrificed on the altar of victim politics and its aggrandizement of institutional power. So our universities now produce “snowflakes,” as some have called them, students with fragile psyches and empty minds.
The big noise being made over the Kipnis affair is a dog-bites-man-story for anyone familiar with the American university. The only difference now is that the progressives’ children are devouring their creators, the inevitable outcome of revolutionary passions and utopian goals that lack coherent principle and intellectual rigor. That’s why progressives suffering the wages of their ideology deserve no sympathy.
a German friend defined Schadenfreude for me as "the good feeling you get when your nasty neighbor's house burns down."
Progressive Academics Shocked That Their Creatures Turn on Them
June 12, 2015 5:49 am
When the cult of sensitivity begins to eat its children.
by Bruce S. Thornton // FrontPage Magazine
Recently several progressive professors have publicly complained that their students are hounding them for failing to consider their tender sensibilities by straying beyond the p.c. orthodoxy on sexual assault, sex identity, linguistic correctness, and a whole host of other progressive shibboleths. Northwestern “feminist” professor Laura Kipnis found herself in a Title IX star chamber for an article she wrote decrying the immaturity of her legally adult students. Over at Vox, another progressive confessed (anonymously, reminding us that academics are an invertebrate species) he was so “scared” and “terrified” of his “liberal” students that he self-censors his comments in class and has changed his reading list.
These incidents follow the complaints of other progressives like Kirsten Powers and Jonathan Chait that the intolerant ideology at the heart of progressivism is now getting out of hand––something that many of us have been writing about for nearly 3 decades. That these progressives should now be shocked at such intolerance and persecution after decades of speech codes, disruptions of conservative speakers, campus inquisitions which ignore Constitutional rights, cancellations of commencement speakers, and ideological litmus tests imposed on new hires and curricula, bespeaks not principle, but rather indignation that now they are on the receiving end of the bullying and harassment long inflicted on conservatives and people of faith.
Indeed, the campus intolerance progressives are now whining about is the child of the progressive ideology many of the complainers still embrace. Modern progressivism is at heart grievance politics, the core of which is not universal principle, but identity predicated on being a victim of historical crimes like sexism and racism, and on suffering from wounding slights defined as such by the subjective criteria of the now privileged victim who is beyond judgment or criticism. Once acknowledged by the state, victim status can then be leveraged into greater political, institutional, and social power. The mechanism of this leverage is the state and federal laws that empower students whose feelings have been hurt by their teachers’ challenging or provocative questions and ideas.
Sexual harassment law, for example, with its “intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment” language, guarantees that subjective, irrational, or even lunatic standards of what constitutes an “offense” will be used to justify limits on academic freedom and expression, and to punish transgressors. The overbroad and elastic language of Title IX, the law used to haul Kipnis before a campus tribunal, likewise has invited subjective and fuzzy charges from anybody who feels that “on the basis of sex” she has been “excluded from participation in” or “denied the benefits of” or “subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.” Finally, the Department of Education’s 2011 “dear colleague” letter, which instructed schools investigating sexual assault complaints to use the “more likely than not” or “preponderance of the evidence” standard of evidence rather than the “clear and convincing” one, ensures that any complaint no matter how preposterous or irrational will have to be investigated, and the guilty punished.
Yet the obsession with the victim and his suffering, and the need for everybody else to cater to his sensitivity, reflects wider cultural trends. Robert Frost recognized this development in 1942 when he spoke of “the tenderer-than-thou/Collectivist regimenting love/with which the modern world is being swept.” In this therapeutic vision, the cultural ideal now is Sensitive Man, who revels in his superiority to others based on his sensitivity to suffering, and his public displays of what Alan Bloom called “conspicuous compassion” for state-anointed victims. Consequently, as Charles Sykes writes in A Nation of Victims––which in 1992 detailed the cultural shifts that have led to today’s hyper-sensitive and litigious students––“One must be attuned to the feelings of others and adapt oneself to the kaleidoscopic shades of grievance, injury, and ego that make up the subjective sensibilities of the ‘victim.’ Everyone must now accommodate themselves to the sensitivity of the self, whose power is based not on force or even shared ideology but on changeable and perhaps arbitrary and exaggerated ‘feelings.’”
In my 1999 book Plagues of the Mind, I drew out the implications for higher education of this cult of sensitivity, which has made “infants of people, particularly college students, who are led to believe that the world should be a place where they will never feel bad or suffer disappointment, where they will be coddled and indulged and mothered, and where their already overinflated estimation of themselves will be continually reinforced . . . No one seems concerned about what will happen to these adults when they have to enter the real world and discover that it can be a cold, uncaring place where their anxieties and psychic fears are not the prime order of business.” Sixteen years later Kipnis made a similar point in her article when she observed, “The myths and fantasies about power perpetuated in these new codes [of sexual behavior] are leaving our students disabled when it comes to the ordinary interpersonal tangles and erotic confusions that pretty much everyone has to deal with at some point in life.”
As Kipnis’s troubles show, today this obsession with the feelings of students and their demands that they be protected from anything unpleasant or “hurtful” has manifested itself in the hysteria over an alleged epidemic of sexual assault of female college students. (Professor Kipnis got into trouble for calling this phenomenon “sexual paranoia.”) Yet this is nothing new either. In the late 90s commentators were warning of the “New Puritanism” and the “new Victorianism,” the title of Rene Denfeld’s 1995 analysis of this corruption of feminism. This phenomenon is a mélange of intolerance for inherently predatory males, the proliferation of “codes” governing courtship and sexual encounters in order to protect fragile women, the ever expanding list of prohibited words that might traumatize the “oppressed,” the establishment of tribunals judging the accused without the benefit of Constitutional protections, and the noisy protests, shaming, and invective like those aimed at Professor Kipnis, all in order to enforce orthodoxy through fear and self-censorship a la Professor “Schlosser,” the pseudonym of the poltroonish professor mentioned earlier.
Worst of all, the spread of this intolerance throughout universities makes impossible the very purpose of higher education: to broaden students’ minds by allowing what Matthew Arnold called “the free play of the mind on all subjects” and by familiarizing them with the “best which has been thought and said in the world.” That ideal has now become scarce on our campuses. As Sykes wrote over 20 years ago, “Once feelings are established as the barometer of acceptable behavior, speech (and, by extension, thought) becomes only as free as the most sensitive group will permit.” This is precisely the state of affairs in American universities today, where the old notions that truth is a liberating force and that suffering teaches, and the great classics that embodied these and other verities of the human condition, have been sacrificed on the altar of victim politics and its aggrandizement of institutional power. So our universities now produce “snowflakes,” as some have called them, students with fragile psyches and empty minds.
The big noise being made over the Kipnis affair is a dog-bites-man-story for anyone familiar with the American university. The only difference now is that the progressives’ children are devouring their creators, the inevitable outcome of revolutionary passions and utopian goals that lack coherent principle and intellectual rigor. That’s why progressives suffering the wages of their ideology deserve no sympathy.
-
Nonc Hilaire
- Posts: 6194
- Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am
Re: What don't you give? A sh*t.
I predict lots of draft cards with "Sexual Identity:Female" in our future.
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”
Teresa of Ávila
Teresa of Ávila
-
YMix
- Posts: 4631
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:53 am
- Location: Department of Congruity - Report any outliers here
Re: What don't you give? A sh*t.
Amusingly silly article. A better man wouldn't have written such an article. Sadly, Bruce S. Thornton is not that man.Progressive Academics Shocked That Their Creatures Turn on Them
A dubious hyperbole followed by a superficial statement. The "Collectivist regimenting love" swept mainly parts of that loose entity known as the West. The rest of the world didn't see much of it. Similarly, that "cultural ideal" also belongs to the same entity and the rest of the world doesn't care about it. To be more precise, the Sensitive Man is an issue, as far as I know, in the USA and Sweden. The rest of the West (and of the world) has to contend only with pockets of "tenderer-than-thou" radicals that nobody really takes seriously. Sure, there's a culture of tolerance in the West, but the West is not a giant US campus.Robert Frost recognized this development in 1942 when he spoke of “the tenderer-than-thou/Collectivist regimenting love/with which the modern world is being swept.” In this therapeutic vision, the cultural ideal now is Sensitive Man, who revels in his superiority to others based on his sensitivity to suffering, and his public displays of what Alan Bloom called “conspicuous compassion” for state-anointed victims.
Case in point: "Contemporary French feminism, compared to Anglophone feminism, is distinguished by an approach which is both more philosophical and more literary. Its texts are effusive, metaphorical, and conceptually rich, rather than pragmatic. They are not as concerned with immediate political doctrine or a "materialism" which is not of the body."
It's superficial and lazy to focus on these radicals just because they are visible and loud. Then again, the "tenderer-than-thou" and the "conservatives" are two bickering minorities that need to take each other seriously to keep that creeping feeling of irrelevance at bay.
Boring.In my 1999 book Plagues of the Mind, I drew out the implications for higher education of this cult of sensitivity, which has made “infants of people, particularly college students, who are led to believe that the world should be a place where they will never feel bad or suffer disappointment, where they will be coddled and indulged and mothered, and where their already overinflated estimation of themselves will be continually reinforced . . . No one seems concerned about what will happen to these adults when they have to enter the real world and discover that it can be a cold, uncaring place where their anxieties and psychic fears are not the prime order of business.”
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... am/395780/
“There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country’s so innocent? Take a look at what we’ve done, too.” - Donald J. Trump, President of the USA
The Kushner sh*t is greasy - Stevie B.
The Kushner sh*t is greasy - Stevie B.
Re: What don't you give? A sh*t.
If this statistic had any basis in reality, then it would make middle and upper class American, mostly white, males attending university some of the most dangerous sex predators on the planet.Campus rape is an epidemic in America.
According to a 2007 study commissioned by the Justice Department, 19 percent of women report being sexually assaulted by the time they leave college.
My guess is that the definition of what consists sexual assault is overly . . . broad.
Apparently the university bureaucracies in the US are falling over each other in a rush to implement presumed-guilty-until-proven-innocent bylaws and tribunals.
Glad I was not living and dating in the US in this kind of environment. One crazy girl and there goes ones reputation and career.
Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
-
Simple Minded
Re: What don't you give? A sh*t.
amen. For many political activists and talking heads, the minute they stop promoting a boogey man behind every blade of grass (racists, capitalists, communists, sexists, lefties, righties, 1%ers, oligarchs, etc.) they lose not only their raisin de entrée but also their paychecks!YMix wrote:
It's superficial and lazy to focus on these radicals just because they are visible and loud. Then again, the "tenderer-than-thou" and the "conservatives" are two bickering minorities that need to take each other seriously to keep that creeping feeling of irrelevance at bay.
Last edited by Simple Minded on Thu Jun 18, 2015 8:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Simple Minded
Re: What don't you give? A sh*t.
agreed. As I recall, 1977-87 was a good time to be in college.Typhoon wrote:
Glad I was not living and dating in the US in this kind of environment. One crazy girl and there goes ones reputation and career.
The 1960's were still in our minds, we had older siblings who were hippies, bra burners, Vietnam vets, draft dodgers, maybe 5% of the students were putting themselves thru school, most students were not getting a "100% free ride" from their parents, most students knew exactly why they were going to school, parents had not yet decided that the college education of the kids was a status symbol of the parents, it was exciting to learn who the different students were, where they were from, what they thought, professors were not preaching PC bromides.
This was prior to PC epidemic era of group identity of "Oh, you are a _______. I know how you people think!" and the red badge era of hyper-sensitivity where "If you are not a victim, then you must be an oppressor!"
If someone clamed to be offended, their indignation was often met with "When are you going to grow up you big baby?" or "What time is your mommy coming to pick you up?"
Zeitgeist changes......
It has been interesting over the last 20 years watching the sensitive types attempt to establish a hierarchy of oppressed archetypes.
Note 1994 release date. Probably could not make this movie today!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-L14NqSLVU
Curious, when were you going to school in the US?
-
YMix
- Posts: 4631
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:53 am
- Location: Department of Congruity - Report any outliers here
Re: What don't you give? A sh*t.
Ummm... a dried grape sitting on a small course served before a larger one?Simple Minded wrote:raisin de entrée
“There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country’s so innocent? Take a look at what we’ve done, too.” - Donald J. Trump, President of the USA
The Kushner sh*t is greasy - Stevie B.
The Kushner sh*t is greasy - Stevie B.
Re: What don't you give? A sh*t.
I did not attend a US school. I was sent by ***** to the US to work.Simple Minded wrote:agreed. As I recall, 1977-87 was a good time to be in college.Typhoon wrote:
Glad I was not living and dating in the US in this kind of environment. One crazy girl and there goes ones reputation and career.
. . .
Curious, when were you going to school in the US?
The nature of this work brought me in contact with a lot of grad students, post docs, etc.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
-
Simple Minded
Re: What don't you give? A sh*t.
I'm glad you avoided the era of hyper-intolerant snowflakes.Typhoon wrote:
I did not attend school a US school. I was sent by ***** to the US to work.
The nature of this work brought me in contact with a lot of grad students, post docs, etc.
There's only so much room in the world for "special people."
Re: What don't you give? A sh*t.
i think if you seperate the vanity caring from the actual doing something caring - it gets alot simpler to see who actually cares.
a bit of focusing on outcomes instead of rhetoric helps aswell, my experience has been that these 2 are not linked on any level, if anything the relationship is inverse.
the university sjw's - they are mostly irrelevant to the wider population even if they do dominate some media types, barring a few science disciplines i think university itself is irrelevant.
a bit of focusing on outcomes instead of rhetoric helps aswell, my experience has been that these 2 are not linked on any level, if anything the relationship is inverse.
the university sjw's - they are mostly irrelevant to the wider population even if they do dominate some media types, barring a few science disciplines i think university itself is irrelevant.
ultracrepidarian
Re: What don't you give? A sh*t.
Simple Minded wrote:amen. For many political activists and talking heads, the minute they stop promoting a boogey man behind every blade of grass (racists, capitalists, communists, sexists, lefties, righties, 1%ers, oligarchs, etc.) they lose not only their raisin de entrée but also their paychecks!YMix wrote:
It's superficial and lazy to focus on these radicals just because they are visible and loud. Then again, the "tenderer-than-thou" and the "conservatives" are two bickering minorities that need to take each other seriously to keep that creeping feeling of irrelevance at bay.
the "tenderer-than-thou" and the "conservatives" are two bickering minorities that need to take each other seriously to keep that creeping feeling of irrelevance at bay.
this is absolutely the truth of it.
ultracrepidarian
-
Simple Minded
Re: What don't you give? A sh*t.
SJWnoddy wrote:i think if you seperate the vanity caring from the actual doing something caring - it gets alot simpler to see who actually cares.
a bit of focusing on outcomes instead of rhetoric helps aswell, my experience has been that these 2 are not linked on any level, if anything the relationship is inverse.
the university sjw's - they are mostly irrelevant to the wider population even if they do dominate some media types, barring a few science disciplines i think university itself is irrelevant.
Love it!SJW
Social Justice Warrior. A pejorative term for an individual who repeatedly and vehemently engages in arguments on social justice on the Internet, often in a shallow or not well-thought-out way, for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation. A social justice warrior, or SJW, does not necessarily strongly believe all that they say, or even care about the groups they are fighting on behalf of. They typically repeat points from whoever is the most popular blogger or commenter of the moment, hoping that they will "get SJ points" and become popular in return. They are very sure to adopt stances that are "correct" in their social circle.
The SJW's favorite activity of all is to dogpile. Their favorite websites to frequent are Livejournal and Tumblr. They do not have relevant favorite real-world places, because SJWs are primarily civil rights activists only online.
#1:
A social justice warrior reads an essay about a form of internal misogyny where women and girls insult stereotypical feminine activities and characteristics in order to boost themselves over other women.
The SJW absorbs this and later complains in response to a Huffington Post article about a 10-year-old feminist's letter, because the 10-year-old called the color pink "prissy".
#2:
Commnter: "I don't like getting manicures. It's too prissy."
SJW: "Oh my god, how f**king dare you use that word, you disgusting sexist piece of lavender!"
thanks Bro. I need to hang out with the cool kids more......... If one can't be intelligent, there's always indignant!
Re: What don't you give? A sh*t.
whenever you cant tell if a group is real or a piss take, you have to shake your head in confusion.
bible thumping conservatives and social justice warriors both fit into that category.
bible thumping conservatives and social justice warriors both fit into that category.
ultracrepidarian
-
Simple Minded
Re: What don't you give? A sh*t.
downside of dyslexiaYMix wrote:Ummm... a dried grape sitting on a small course served before a larger one?Simple Minded wrote:raisin de entrée
rai·son d'ê·tre
/ˌrāzôn ˈdetrə/
noun
unpunctuated: raison dêtre; noun: raison d'être; plural noun: raisons d'être
the most important reason or purpose for someone or something's existence.
"an institution whose raison d'être is public service broadcasting"
Re: What don't you give? A sh*t.
your fault for using fancy pants words .
shoulda said 'its porpoise'
shoulda said 'its porpoise'
ultracrepidarian
-
YMix
- Posts: 4631
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:53 am
- Location: Department of Congruity - Report any outliers here
Re: What don't you give? A sh*t.
Yeah, I figured out what you were trying to say. Still, raisin de entrée sounds pleasantly surreal in the context.Simple Minded wrote:downside of dyslexia
rai·son d'ê·tre
“There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country’s so innocent? Take a look at what we’ve done, too.” - Donald J. Trump, President of the USA
The Kushner sh*t is greasy - Stevie B.
The Kushner sh*t is greasy - Stevie B.
-
Simple Minded
Re: What don't you give? A sh*t.
me, you , and YMix all agree on that one.noddy wrote:whenever you cant tell if a group is real or a piss take, you have to shake your head in confusion.
bible thumping conservatives and social justice warriors both fit into that category.
An RA at college had one of the best responses I've ever seen to the perpetually disgruntled.
Whiner: "This isn't right! What we should do is _____"
Tom: "Good idea! You're in charge!"
Whiner:
......................
Last edited by Simple Minded on Fri Jun 19, 2015 12:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Simple Minded
Re: What don't you give? A sh*t.
sorry bro.... forgot my audience.... damn my hyper-active intellect.........noddy wrote:your fault for using fancy pants words .
shoulda said 'its porpoise'
Excessive intelligence is a serious impediment to popularity.......
-
Simple Minded
Re: What don't you give? A sh*t.
One of my female, French friends once pointed out to me that in an email voila and viola have two different meanings....... who knew?YMix wrote:Yeah, I figured out what you were trying to say. Still, raisin de entrée sounds pleasantly surreal in the context.Simple Minded wrote:downside of dyslexia
rai·son d'ê·tre