my brain just threw up a little…

November 27, 2017

Dear Angry who tried dragging me into mud on FB.

Filed under: Anti-SJW,Daily Crazies,immortalized (™),lawls — Sol @ 10:50 pm

Ah, but you thought wrong.
You invested all this time and effort trying to spite me because it makes you feel better.
And I just slammed the door in your face and ignored your fevered attempts at trying to fling mud.
Kid, you embody almost everything what’s wrong with the feminism in these last thirty years. You are rude, unfair, obnoxious, toxic, petty, entitled, poorly reasoned, hypocritical AF, and to make it all worse – you have convinced yourself in a lie and you choose to continue believing it. I think DSM5 has that listed as a symptom.
You cannot see any of this because you are not very bright. You know a trick or two, you’ve read a book or few. But underneath all that internal struggle you are as shallow as water under the urinal cake. And what’s worse is this stench of convenient lies you were fed by your “reliable” and conveniently anti-me sources. You can’t possibly think of a bias because you are not interested in any bias. You are only interested in your own social standing and your feels. How good will it feel when you rail on this… this… this man.
I will leave you to wallow in your own shit. This is your high point. You are righteous and just and most importantly you have your social support. Good on you, kid. Without your social support, your little gaggle of screeching “friends” whoever, you amass to half-witted ass. Oh dear me… your efforts did pay off! Look! You gave me an inspiration to rhyme something. Amazing…
So much for my rant
I shall never repent
And remain forever a runt
and in my troubled mind
Only this I can find:
You forever remaining a…

November 10, 2017

oh, Louis C.K.

In order to procreate some people just need a shaved pony, covered in motor-oil, standing on a ladder in the corner of their moldy basement, reading the Greater Chicago White Pages through a ballgag. Different strokes, see? Who are we to judge people’s kink, however twisted it may be?

So I saw Louis C.K. in the news with some allegations against him. Apparently this married dude who has babies or something, has gotten some alleged kink where he wants women watch him masturbate. He propositioned some ladies over the years to watch him masturbate. Now Louis C.K. is on the grill between Kevin Spacey and that Harvey dude.

Let me see if I get this right. Propositioning sex is bad. So if propositioning sex is bad, then how do people get sex? Hookers? Can’t be hookers all the way down! Can we please legalize prostitution? So dudes like Louis could get a great lunch deal. They get to crank one off during hooker’s lunch. She has food while watching him baitin’. Free grub and tip for the hooker. And Louis C.K. is happy and a wee bit out of breath. Everyone wins, see? Alas, no hookers. Man gotta do what a man gotta do – seek out sex. I suppose magical faeries make that sex thing happen, no?
So I asked a friend about that. No snark, just serious wtf are we expected to do? Turns out waiting for the right moment is the answer.

When is the right moment?

After dinner. And after movies. After some level of intimacy has been established.

How do you establish intimacy? (don’t ask for sex. you DO everything for sex. but do not ask for it!)

You act yourself.

But myself wants sex! Then act like you want dinner before anything else.

Alright! I will not impose sex. I’ll sex myself. After dinner. And to make a compromise with myself I will ask this person not for sex, but to watch me sex myself. And I’ll be honest! I’ll just be like “Come to my room and eat tacobell and watch me while I vigorously apply lotion to my schlong. It is not like you have to actually sex at me. Also you get very intimate tacos.”

No, this is not how it works. They will just get offended!

But I am not touching on them. I am not actively making babies with them. I am sexing on my own hand! Where is the harm?!

This is not how it works!

Oh yeah? You like tacobell?

 

./dropmic

November 9, 2017

Saved for V to yell at me. ./hug

Filed under: Anti-SJW,commentary,Daily Crazies — Sol @ 1:18 am

So a friend dropped this article on me, suggesting I read it, because there were “some good points” in it. I read it and did not have the time to discuss this with my friend. So I am dropping my inline review here for her to angry at me later.

 

 

Why do women get all attractive if they don’t want to be harassed? Glad you asked

By Heidi Stevens, www.chicagotribune.com
View Original
November 2nd, 2017

A man named Steve emails me every now and then to take issue with something I’ve written. He checked in a few weeks ago after I wrote about the #MeToo movement, which was inspired by sexual harassment and assault allegations against Harvey Weinstein.

“The core question you should be asking, Heidi,” he wrote, “is: Why do women try to make themselves more attractive?”

*** this is the skinsuit programming aimed at procreation. Like it or not, it is what it is. Whether or not the attracting and attracted individuals are capable of handling the results of attraction should have no bearing on the rest of the human race.***

I don’t think that’s the core question we should be asking, actually. But I know plenty of people are asking it — have been asking it for decades, in fact. Are asking it ad nauseam these last few weeks, as harassment and assault allegations mount against powerful men in entertainment, politics, journalism.

*** no, you found something popularized to bitch about and you are squeezing it with no final result in mind. You are just another droning echoists who is adding another anti-man bit of garbage propaganda to the smoldering shit pile that is politisized gender relations.***

If these women are so opposed to being hit on, why are they going to all that trouble to look so enticing? Men are just supposed to pretend they don’t notice?

I emailed Steve something benign about how women make themselves attractive for the same reasons men do: to feel confident, to earn social capital in a culture that prizes physical beauty, to turn on their partners, to land dates with people they find mutually attractive — physically or otherwise.

*** so… procreation. I am actually quite impressed that you did not just throw in a sentence entirely built of confident buzzwords, and instead actually gave a passable answer.***

It’s not a contradiction to want all those things and not want a superior to masturbate in front of you. That seems pretty simple.

***Why not?***
*** different topic, but yeah, ponder that***

But I wonder if it’s a little too simple.

***which part is “too simple,” the watered down “procreation” answer, or your sudden leap into masturbating bosses? Did you write this piece so you could answer other people like this person who wrote to you asking an obvious question, or did you just found a pretense to wax angry on some rich bastard trying to get his jollies off by trading roles in his films for some sleazy action?***

I don’t think we can have an honest conversation about sexual harassment and sexual assault right now without talking about all the ways we have taken women’s bodies and turned them into vessels.

***Who is this “we” and how did you just jump from “sexy looks” to Harvey Wassaname to “sexual assault” and face-first into predication of “we turned women’s bodies into vessels?” ***

We use them to carry our political arguments about reproductive rights, paid family leave and affordable health care. (Who can forget U.S. Rep. John Shimkus arguing men shouldn’t be responsible for prenatal carewhen their bodies don’t go around making babies? Nevermind everyone’s vested interest in the health of those babies.)

*** Men do not carry babies. What’s your point?Are we on affordable healthcare now? From Harvey the slimeball? And what do you mean USE THEM? Who are the WE? We The People? Because as far as I see, the only person doing anything to anyone’s body is their doctor. What’s this “vessel” business?***

We use them on billboards. We use them to sell gym memberships, plastic surgery, cars, magazines, liquor, bikini waxes, multivitamins, underwear, shampoo, perfume, bottled water and all-inclusive resorts.We use them in porn and at strip clubs to get the blood flowing to all the right places, no emotion required.

***So the LOOKS are being used because there is an innate and undeniable attraction between genders. Or sexes. Or whatever we suppose to call that shit now. Apache Attack Helicopter?
So yeah, I see she is onto something here. Sex Sells. Aye, it sold for a pretty long time. It sold as long as there was a human on this planet, and it even sells with other mammals. Hells bells, even with insects. It is the nature of it. It IS a procreation trap. Would it help if this was spelled out in Chinese?***

*** … and yes, no emotion required. Why do you feel like bringing this up? Please explain.***

We detach women’s bodies from women’s humanity so frequently and so seamlessly that we have to work backward to realign them. Wait, she’s a human first, remember?

*** no, we detach nothing. We do not know anything aside from visual cues. We do not see them hugging their Diploma and we know nothing about their view on Space Travel. We are tied to a SkinSuit. We have to use our eyes. Because using your voice gets you fucking maced and branded as a stalker often enough. Because trying to simply ask based on visual attraction is rapey. See? No, I guess you do not see, because you are not really looking for answers. You were already told what all those answers were. Oh well. My friend told me to read this because there were some valid points. So here I am, reading.***

We don’t remember. We, as a culture, think women’s bodies are ours for the taking.

***Stop right there. You are insinuating that appreciating the look is akin to rape. (unless you are talking about stealing corpses).***

“Why do women try to make themselves more attractive?”

I wonder why we understand ownership so much better when we’re talking about a person’s prized possessions than when we’re talking about a woman’s body.*** There is a grand flaw in your thinking. ^^ just there. I know you are intentionally doing this, but I have to point this out as a “hey look, I found a flaw!” We understand ownership because we can own an inanimate object. Woman is a human and unless mummified, is not an object. Did you just flaw your thinking into actually objectifying women?***

I’ve never once heard a man explain away a burglary by questioning why a homeowner bothered taking such good care of his house if not to entice others to break in.

*** I have heard and am somewhat familiar with people “casing” houses based on the looks of the house***

Lawn mowed just so. Solid oak front door. Three-car garage. Why do you make your house so attractive if you don’t want someone to break in and start taking stuff?

*** No, your logic is akin to “did you make this airplane streamlined and aerodynamic so it could… plunge into the ground like a fucking DART***

I’ve never once heard a man explain away a carjacking by questioning why a driver bothered driving such a nice car.

*** I have. And what does this have to do with makeup and fashion?***

Why are you driving a Lexus if you don’t want someone to take it from you? You even keep it all shiny and new-looking. You don’t think that sends some kind of message?

***yeah, it reads “I am a rich fucking bastard. Welcome to my sperm.”***

Apples and oranges, you might be thinking. No one ever wants their house broken into. No one ever wants their car stolen. Sex is different.

***Did you just equate sex and burglary?***

But it’s really not. When I trust you, I will invite you into my house. I might even give you something to take home. When I’m ready, I will let you drive my Lexus. (I drive a 2008 Honda, actually.) They’re mine (again, hypothetically speaking — my house isn’t that fancy either), but I’m happy to share them with the right person.

***So you are much like the rest of us average joe’s and jane’s and your vagina is a house. You need to work on better analogies, Mrs House. You have just jumped into analogy that was nothing short of “appreciating women’s look is like casing a house!” As in “your looking at me is only welcome when I allow it!” Oh do wake up, Heidi. You cannot even draw a reasonable analogy, and your final goal is what? Oh, probably to finish writing this piece and to get paid. sigh…***

National Public Radio’s news chief, Michael Oreskes, resigned Wednesday following accusations that as an editor at the New York Times, he suddenly kissed two women while they were discussing job prospects with him.

Imagine he had leaned over and ripped their iPhones out of their hands and pocketed them. He’d be a thief — no gray area.

We’re not quite there with harassment and assault. We’re still stuck in the gray area. We’re not quite ready to consider a woman’s body her possession and her possession alone.

*** “Woman’s body”… “we are not quite there”… are you feeling ok? There are laws protecting ALL HUMANS from assault to their person and/or property (at least the ones under such laws in 1st world countries). What “gray area?” Are you trying to get the rest of the world to agree with your cognitive dissonance of “vagina-is-a-house-lexus?”***

Powerful, predatory men are dropping like flies. That’s a start. For far too long, the behavior that brought down Weinstein and Oreskes (and Roger Ailes and Bill O’Reilly) was par for a seriously messed up course. Forcing yourself on a co-worker wasn’t a career-derailer.

That’s changing, thankfully. What may be harder to change is the sense that women are somehow to blame for their own violation.

*** Are you saying that women are aware of the effect their appearance has on men? If that appearance/effect is your intended topic. Or you could maybe do something else with my time, because you try oh so hard to burst through an already open gate. Your need for making big noise is apparent and just oh-so-dramatic and lame. ***

I actually think we’ll get there. As irritated as I was at Steve’s question, I was grateful to him for asking it.

I’m not a silver-lining kind of gal, especially when it comes to hundreds upon hundreds of women suffering through harassment and assault.

But something positive can come from this seemingly endless storm of accusations. We can, with some good faith effort, figure out how to give women unconditional, unassailable agency over their bodies and, therefore, their humanity. We can examine the biases that have kept that from happening thus far, and we can ask, honestly, why we’re so reluctant to dislodge them.

***or maybe you could use laws that are currently in place, instead of taking the deal with the devil in exchange for some tang? Like all the now famous actresses who were given roles by that Harvey guy. Do you really think they are “victims?” Does it not look maybe a tad wee bit odd that they took the roles? It’s a role in a film, not The Last Parachute, ffs. I guess everything has it’s price.***

And that, I think, is the core question we should be asking.

 
*** please quit journalism and go do volunteer work in Sudan. It will give you some god damned perspective.***

./end

oh, and I found a picture of whoever edited this:

October 31, 2017

On world rocking.

Filed under: Anti-SJW,Daily Crazies,immortalized (™),screen-shots — Sol @ 11:47 am

Please note that this is an expressed opinion and in no way a direction of what to do with your life.
Pass the pasta, please.

(From https://imgur.com/r/funny/XnY91ct )

 

October 18, 2017

Group politics and scrotums

Filed under: Anti-SJW,Daily Crazies,immortalized (™),random crazies — Sol @ 10:38 am

By providing benefit to A Group we deprive B Group of same benefit. Unless Group A was previously deprived of benefit in an unjust manner and it was returned to this Group A. Unless it is done at the expense of Group B. In which case Group B is deprived of benefit and becomes Group A, while Group B elevates into status of Group A (becoming Group A). If looked at with consideration of timeline, this status shift is perpetual and resembles a pendulum. It takes a while to reach equilibrium, and history shows that such balance is fragile, failing to human element’s shortcomings.
Earlier I unfollowed another person on FB over a pretty bashy post/repost of some anti-men crap … which was cheered on by a bunch of angries.
Never you mind that had anything of sorts been posted targeting women, they would all get triggered, have a seizure of feels, and start calling for blood and tears of all men.
whatever happened to “do onto others” idea? Whatever happened to attempt at fairness? I found this repost upsetting and instead of saying anything I just unfollowed the guy because arguing with people’s belief is like pissing in the wind – no matter if you are right or wrong, if you are trying to show a different side of whatever action that’s being taken by a group trying to reinforce their own belief, all you will get is a face full of piss and get branded as a criminal.
I think I’ve dabbled in this route long enough to tell you safely that all I can do is avoid all these exchanges and worry about my own world by keeping these warped and twisted hypocrites away from myself and my house. As I recall there was some old bit of wisdom about that. “You can only change yourself.” Let them ruin the world. We will all be dead in a few decades anyway. I do not think their gender-bashing will matter when they unplug my unresponsive skinsuit.

Pro-Woman is not Anti-Men. Their words, not mine. They like to forget that. I don’t.

October 11, 2017

needs more parfait

Filed under: Anti-SJW,commentary,Daily Crazies,QOTD,random crazies — Sol @ 1:46 pm

I need a polebarn. About 50x100ft with 16ft tall walls. All insulated, heated, and airconditioned. With solar panels on the roof to supplement power.
And a chocolate cookie parfait. I have the parfait. Just need that polebarn.
Three of those. I mean two barns and one parfait. Since I am in possession of one chocolate cookie parfait, I just need me the two polebarns. At least one polebarn if I cannot have two.
I am willing to part ways with said chocolate cookie parfait if I can have a reasonable explanation for the outrage of angries about too much sexy female form and too much male roles in the new blade runner sequel.
On second thought – never mind that outrage explanation. Parfait is more important than their impotent tantrum.
*eating me parfait and thinking polebarns*

March 6, 2016

random bit from an earlier conversation with a friend

Filed under: Anti-SJW,Daily Crazies,lawls,QOTD,random crazies — Sol @ 5:39 pm

” I just invented a spinach pie sandwich which is sandwich but without pie crust. Ciabatta bread instead. Oh my dear fluffy lord I am so disgustingly fat now. I would go drown but my buoyancy is not allowing me to sink. So I flop on a surface like some kind of a pale whale designed by Durer…. with a mouth full of spinach and feta cheese. I am disgusting”

February 29, 2016

from an earlier conversation

Filed under: Anti-SJW,commentary,Daily Crazies,immortalized (™),QOTD — Sol @ 11:28 am

“…in this country you have to issue a stack of warning labels as big as yellow pages when you give someone a lollypop!”

February 26, 2016

ponder this

http://www.cracked.com/video_19644_why-idiocracy-would-actually-be-utopia.html

February 21, 2016

on dietary choices and religious repercussions

“Surely i’m going to hell for this. But at least I smell pleasantly of bacon and stifled agony!”

20160221_115058

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress