Random BS people say that you get fed up with.

[TheDarkestDerp]

People who ask questions with plain answers, looking for excuses to support their opinions, such as "Is _____ actually a offensive slur?".

Yes, it is. You know it is. I know it is. We all do. Just because you can get someone from a specific ethnicity/sex/sexuality to say "it doesn't offend me" that doesn't change the fact of the matter for the remaining millions of people. From "Trannie" to "******" words used to refer to a person in a derogatory fashion identifying them by an lump-category trait are offensive language, have been for decades or much MUCH longer, end, period, no story, no debate.

 

[Amir Kondori]

I find it frustrating that some people don't call computers with OSX PCs. a PC is a personal computer, the operating system has no bearing on that.

That's nothing, there are still a lot of people that call a desktop computer a "cpu" or a "hard drive".

 

[Austin Manning]

I'm annoyed by the old piracy defense of "It's okay because I'm not depriving them of a physical copy. It's like taking a car, but the car is still there in the morning!"

It's true, they're not taking a physical copy, but that's not the point. Loss of physical copies is not what upsets publishers the most. Think of it this way: If someone actually did steal a car from a dealership, what do you think the dealership would be most upset about?

A.) The loss of the car.

B.) The loss of the money that would have been gained if the car had been bought legally.

It's the loss of money that publishers care about, and pirating a game that you would have otherwise had to pay for still deprives them of that. There are certain circumstances under which I think piracy can be justified (it's an old game that you can no longer buy a new copy of, you already own the game but want to get around intrusive DRM, or you already bought the game, but the disc broke, etc.), but the "I'm not taking a physical copy" excuse just seems weak to me.

The problem with that logic though is that it can easily be applied to borrowing a game from a friend or borrowing a game/book/movie from a public library. In each of those cases you are experiencing content without directly paying the publisher/developer/creator.

However, you have to give those back. And there's no previous copy still in existence for your loaning friend to play while you do.

Piracy is more like photocopying that library book, putting that book back and taking the photocopy. And - shock and awe - that's illegal according to copyright (for that exact reason).

Even if you give them back the publisher (and occasionally developer) would still consider it a lost sale as you played without paying them. This is were the anti-used games stance comes from. When it comes to returning, well there is an analogy for that: deletion. I get the feeling that most pirates will delete their torrents after a while. The reason being that (especially in this age of blu-ray and limit-pushing tech) games and movies take up a lot of hard drive space. So most will delete their torrents to avoid spending hundreds on storage.

 

[lacktheknack]

I'm annoyed by the old piracy defense of "It's okay because I'm not depriving them of a physical copy. It's like taking a car, but the car is still there in the morning!"

It's true, they're not taking a physical copy, but that's not the point. Loss of physical copies is not what upsets publishers the most. Think of it this way: If someone actually did steal a car from a dealership, what do you think the dealership would be most upset about?

A.) The loss of the car.

B.) The loss of the money that would have been gained if the car had been bought legally.

It's the loss of money that publishers care about, and pirating a game that you would have otherwise had to pay for still deprives them of that. There are certain circumstances under which I think piracy can be justified (it's an old game that you can no longer buy a new copy of, you already own the game but want to get around intrusive DRM, or you already bought the game, but the disc broke, etc.), but the "I'm not taking a physical copy" excuse just seems weak to me.

The problem with that logic though is that it can easily be applied to borrowing a game from a friend or borrowing a game/book/movie from a public library. In each of those cases you are experiencing content without directly paying the publisher/developer/creator.

However, you have to give those back. And there's no previous copy still in existence for your loaning friend to play while you do.

Piracy is more like photocopying that library book, putting that book back and taking the photocopy. And - shock and awe - that's illegal according to copyright (for that exact reason).

Even if you give them back the publisher (and occasionally developer) would still consider it a lost sale as you played without paying them. This is were the anti-used games stance comes from. When it comes to returning, well there is an analogy for that: deletion. I get the feeling that most pirates will delete their torrents after a while. The reason being that (especially in this age of blu-ray and limit-pushing tech) games and movies take up a lot of hard drive space. So most will delete their torrents to avoid spending hundreds on storage.

I wasn't talking about giving back to the publisher/dev... I meant giving the game back to whoever you "borrowed" it from.

Also, you're not accounting for how libraries work. My library only has so many copies of each book. I've tried to borrow books before only to find out that they were all taken out, allowing for some form of demand to remain in place. Plus, everything I take out from the library MUST be returned within two weeks, or I get charged.

That's where the "piracy = borrowing" thread falls apart.

 

[The]

People who think Communism and Fascism are the same thing (i.e. "Well you're just a commie fascist"). They're on opposite ends of the political spectrum, dammit!

 

[Norithics]

"Anybody can get by if they just work hard and go to school!"

As someone who worked for one of those schools, I'm unhappy to tell you that you couldn't be more wrong if you told me the sky was green. Because unfortunately the part that everybody always leaves out is "if you're lucky." If you're lucky, you can find a great job. If you're lucky, you'll make enough to live on. If you're lucky, you'll even get rich! But doing the work doesn't entitle you to these things, and possibly more importantly, having those things doesn't necessarily mean that you deserve them more than anybody else who did said work. You also got lucky.

"I'll turn you straight/gay."

First of all, I'm bisexual, you can't. Turn me. Anything. Secondly, if I was gay or straight and you managed to negotiate me to the "other side," all you've made me is- that's right- bisexual. It's a radio dial, not a knife switch, and answering 'both' does not make you a fence-sitter or a sadistic pervert.

"Pedophiles are the scum of the Earth!"

No, pedophiles are people with the single most unfortunate psychological make-up you could imagine. Child molesters are the conscience-free monsters you're thinking of. To make matters worse, it's because nobody makes this distinction that it's virtually social suicide to ever admit to it, thus making it impossible to get any help whatsoever.

"No."

Ugh, god. I hate this! To be more clear and add onto it, "No but" when they're trying to make a point lateral to what you're saying.

Me: You're completely imagining how good home was.
Them: No but I'm really sad about it!

Yes. You mean YES but you're really sad. Grgh.

"Well, that is, like, your opinion."

That and "Well it's just my opinion!" Which seems to roughly translate to "I have the right not to ever analyze anything that pops into my stupid head."

The fact is, verbal harassment isn't going to stop. Ever. Unless humans fire so many nuclear weapons that every single one of us is wiped off the planet, people will continue to say mean things to each other and a thick skin is really the only way to deal with it.

Does... this then make it okay that we're all still a bunch of slavering apes trying to tough each other up through the most indirect, inefficient and moronic way possible? Because I happen to both accept that it's inevitable and think it's not 'okay.'

 

[captainballsack]

I find it frustrating that literally nobody knows how to use the word "literally" correctly.


See what I did there? Total misuse of the word, and I get so sick of hearing people say "literally" when I doubt they have any grasp on what the word actually means.

They do, but they're just exaggerating. It's like when you say that they don't have "any" grasp on what the word actually means, when they obviously have some idea because they're using it in a way that makes some sort of grammatical sense.

Anyway, to answer the question:

"Steam Train and Danny aren't funny, and Danny isn't as great of a singer as Jon."

Listen here you little shit, Danny Sexbang is hilarious. Get some god damn NSP into your brain holes and quit whining.

Also Ross is great, what are you talking about? Mad respect for Newgrounds animators. Hell, animators from Newgrounds are the reason half of us watch Game Grumps in the first place.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

The fact is, verbal harassment isn't going to stop. Ever. Unless humans fire so many nuclear weapons that every single one of us is wiped off the planet, people will continue to say mean things to each other and a thick skin is really the only way to deal with it.

Does... this then make it okay that we're all still a bunch of slavering apes trying to tough each other up through the most indirect, inefficient and moronic way possible? Because I happen to both accept that it's inevitable and think it's not 'okay.'

Of course not, I never said any such thing.

However, just because something isn't ok, that doesn't mean people shouldn't prepare for it. Stealing isn't ok, but that doesn't mean I'm going to leave my care unlocked. Developing a resistance to verbal harassment is essential.

And I certainly shouldn't "literally die in a fire" for suggesting the idea that the "victim" should be more resistant.

 

[ZforZissou]

People who think Communism and Fascism are the same thing (i.e. "Well you're just a commie fascist"). They're on opposite ends of the political spectrum, dammit!

Yes, you're absolutely right! Governments using Communism have in the past taken away peoples' rights to control them and killed millions of people. Whereas Governments using Fascism have, on the other hand, taken away peoples' rights to control them and killed millions of people.

(I get your point, but I don't think that "political spectrum" matters and I wanted to make a joke)

OT:

I get a bit miffed when people try to masquerade opinion as fact, or at least mistake the two.

 

[Agow95]

I just generally get annoyed whenever people who don't understand science condemn nuclear power or genetic modification, both of which are perfectly safe, but are limited in their full use through public misunderstanding and the scaremongering of those who are excessively uninformed on the subject.

 

[Norithics]

However, just because something isn't ok, that doesn't mean people shouldn't prepare for it. Stealing isn't ok, but that doesn't mean I'm going to leave my care unlocked. Developing a resistance to verbal harassment is essential.

And I certainly shouldn't "literally die in a fire" for suggesting the idea that the "victim" should be more resistant.

It depends on how you suggest it. If you're saying it in the spirit of "Things are tough and I don't think we can change it, so you may have to do this," then sure. But if you're actually saying "It's your fault that they victimize you," then that's kinda dickish and wrongheaded.

 

[Austin Manning]

I'm annoyed by the old piracy defense of "It's okay because I'm not depriving them of a physical copy. It's like taking a car, but the car is still there in the morning!"

It's true, they're not taking a physical copy, but that's not the point. Loss of physical copies is not what upsets publishers the most. Think of it this way: If someone actually did steal a car from a dealership, what do you think the dealership would be most upset about?

A.) The loss of the car.

B.) The loss of the money that would have been gained if the car had been bought legally.

It's the loss of money that publishers care about, and pirating a game that you would have otherwise had to pay for still deprives them of that. There are certain circumstances under which I think piracy can be justified (it's an old game that you can no longer buy a new copy of, you already own the game but want to get around intrusive DRM, or you already bought the game, but the disc broke, etc.), but the "I'm not taking a physical copy" excuse just seems weak to me.

The problem with that logic though is that it can easily be applied to borrowing a game from a friend or borrowing a game/book/movie from a public library. In each of those cases you are experiencing content without directly paying the publisher/developer/creator.

However, you have to give those back. And there's no previous copy still in existence for your loaning friend to play while you do.

Piracy is more like photocopying that library book, putting that book back and taking the photocopy. And - shock and awe - that's illegal according to copyright (for that exact reason).

Even if you give them back the publisher (and occasionally developer) would still consider it a lost sale as you played without paying them. This is were the anti-used games stance comes from. When it comes to returning, well there is an analogy for that: deletion. I get the feeling that most pirates will delete their torrents after a while. The reason being that (especially in this age of blu-ray and limit-pushing tech) games and movies take up a lot of hard drive space. So most will delete their torrents to avoid spending hundreds on storage.

I wasn't talking about giving back to the publisher/dev... I meant giving the game back to whoever you "borrowed" it from.

Also, you're not accounting for how libraries work. My library only has so many copies of each book. I've tried to borrow books before only to find out that they were all taken out, allowing for some form of demand to remain in place. Plus, everything I take out from the library MUST be returned within two weeks, or I get charged.

That's where the "piracy = borrowing" thread falls apart.

I know what you meant and I was saying that even if you give the game back to the person you borrowed it from, the publisher/developer would still consider it a lost sale, this is part of the reason why many publishers and developers are against used games.

A form of demand does still exist when torrenting. A download can only occur if there are a number of people "seeding" the torrent, meaning they are allowing the data transfer to occur. If a piece of material is not being seeded it cannot be downloaded and only a few seeds can mean a long download. Furthermore, downloading any random torrent with the name you're searching for is a quick route to malware poisoning, so most people only download torrents from groups of known quality or one's with multiple comments indicating exactly what's in the torrent. Just because you want something doesn't mean you can instantly get it by going to p-... specific torrenting sites.

 

[darkstarangel]

The new term that seems to have dominated the hippie/health nut nomenclature, 'Organic'. Organic means carbon based or a compound with a carbon skeleton. This includes synthetic & man made compounds. It does not mean all natural & healthy.

I read an article about some health nut taking a restaurant to court for serving a mean claimed to be organic but she claimed was partially organic. There IS no partially organic. Her gripe was that pesticides were used on the lettuce prior to harvesting. Pesticides ARE organic because they're carbon based compounds.

If you think this could not get any more rediculous, we have a brand of bottled water called organic water. The only thing organic about water is the plastic bottle its sold in.




Oh & the other thing that bugs me is the overuse of the term racist. Movie bob is one of the biggest offenders with this. Racism has been the cause of much death, suffering & inhumane treatment of other people on earth. It is not something I think that should be lightly compared to actors playing different racial roles with funny hats or for people who disagree with a black guy playing a white guy role due to loyalty to the original source material. The same goes for words like sexist & homophobe also. These can be serious accusations & can be just as dangerous as calling someone a nazi, rapist or peadophile out of context.

Agreed. I am not sure how "organic" got corrupted to mean something akin to "natural" but I really wish it wouldn't be. On that same note, "natural" should not be used as a synonym for healthy. I saw a ad a little while ago that ended with "and don't worry, its natural" referring to some diet pill or something. I can make a cocktail of uranium, lead, mercury, hemlock, rattlesnake venom, poison dart frogs, and ebola and it would be natural. Meanwhile, artificial compunds can be totally safe. Also, no your food does not contain "no chemicals". Water is a chemical. Trust me, you can't not have chemicals.

haha yeah. In the middle of reading this I was thinking of replying with noting that snake venom is natural but then got to your cocktail & figured you pretty much nailed it.

Interestingly, after writing this, I just remembered talking to a mate on the weekend about the asbestos in his rotting back yard shed. I told him the fibre permanently remain in your lungs without breaking down because asbestos is not organic (meaning its silicon based). He thought it was organic because it was mined from the ground, as opposed to synthetically produced. This just proves how confusing using organic to mean natural & healthy can be & all the more to oppose it.

 

[rob_simple]

"It could be worse/someone always has it worse than you."

Ah, what better way to dismiss your own tragedy than by weighing it against the grander scale of general human suffering.

Do you think the guy in the hospital ward who has just lost a leg will feel any better when you tell him there was a guy in last week who lost both of his? Yes, there are people who have been through much worse than me, but that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to feel sorry for myself when something bad does happen to me. Instead, why not say, 'I know this is really shitty, but things will get better if you want them to.'

Also...
"It's their loss."

This one gets tossed around usually when you either break up with someone or don't get a job after an interview. I know it's just a throwaway comment for people who can't be bothered to actually console you, but the thing that annoys me about it is that it isn't their loss: it's mine.

If I'm upset about being dumped and the other party isn't then that is literally my loss and not theirs. The company that didn't hire me? They've found someone else to fill the position --obviously, since that's why I didn't get it-- it's me that lost out on a job opportunity because I wasn't good enough. Instead of passing the buck why not say, 'well, what do you think you could have done better, so next time you can smash it?'

Okay, I think that's enough of me sounding like a bitter arsehole. Oh wait, no, I've got one more...

"I'm so random!"

Kill yourself.

 

[The White Hunter]

Spoiler: Baron BJ's stuff.

I'm gonna be "that guy" and jump in with the response everyone's been expecting, but has somehow not been posted yet.

It's "I could NOT care less", not "I could care less". By this point we shouldn't have to fucking explain why the fuck this is. If you're an adult and you don't know how to properly use the word "Not" by now then I'm going to politely ask you and the rest of your inbred, window-licking kind to line up, side by side and proceed to cap the person to your right. I will then proceed to castrate and parade the last remaining one of you around the world as an example of what not to fucking to do.

Also, to a lesser extent, people who are too thick to know how to use the various versions of the words Their/They're/There and Your/You're. Which is, unfortunately, still too common, even on these forums.

You shouldn't have to explain it because David Mitchell has a handily provided rant explaining it:

Spoiler: Your stuff.

OT: People who end words with an "uh" sound piss me off no end. Or people that just can't speak fucking English properly. Struggling to think of examples right now though.

HA!
That video made me laugh. Thank the queen for me!

Spoiler: My LOL stuff.

That said, I think the phrase "hold the fort down", would come from the idea that you don't want to let the fort get "blown up". That's what came to mind for me anyway.

As for what people say that bugs me? Well, first look at the first thing I wrote in this post.
"HA!"
I said that because the post I quoted made me laugh. I didn't/don't, LOL. I really don't like it when people write LOL instead of just laughing(you know by writing "Ha ha ha" or some variation of it). If you didn't laugh that much, and you don't want to spend what little time it takes to write "Ha ha ha" then why not just write "HA!"?
It's just as long.

But that isn't what really gets to me. People are lazy. I know because so am I. The L and the O are right next to each other, and you got to get back to doing nothing. I get that.

However, people who SAY LOL in real life instead of laughing. WTF! STFU! GO!

Just Laugh, You Bastards[/sub]

You know, oddly enough...


I'm inclined to agree, in a limited form such as a tweet or a text, lol is a perfectly reasonable way of approving a joke and confirming mild amusement.

In a forum post it'd be nice if people would use full written english of some description.

That one was also good.

I get what he means. It is hard to make LOL sound insincere. I don't really have THAT much of a problem with LOL being used when writing on the Internet(unless all you put down is LOL with nothing else, but that's not about LOL. That's about putting as little effort as you can into something, but I digress).

However, I will not forgive it's use in real life.
Don't worry, I'm not going to be going around yelling at people who use it.
>_> Not out loud anyway...

Thanks for the videos, and this little chat!

Oh hell no in real life we do have a way of communicate approval of a joke: laughter.

Damn fucking new age kids ¬_¬

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

However, just because something isn't ok, that doesn't mean people shouldn't prepare for it. Stealing isn't ok, but that doesn't mean I'm going to leave my care unlocked. Developing a resistance to verbal harassment is essential.

And I certainly shouldn't "literally die in a fire" for suggesting the idea that the "victim" should be more resistant.

It depends on how you suggest it. If you're saying it in the spirit of "Things are tough and I don't think we can change it, so you may have to do this," then sure. But if you're actually saying "It's your fault that they victimize you," then that's kinda dickish and wrongheaded.

I'm with you 100 percent.

I just find the whole "Get thicker skin" thing to be more on the former, defensive side and less on the latter blaming side.

 

[moggett88]

People only used 5% of their brains and geniuses are people who can tap into all of 100%. In that case, why are headshots so damn deadly? If we are only using a small percentage of our brains then we can lose most of it and be perfectly fine.

This. People dont understand that it means you use a small percentage of your brain at a time, not just that you only use one corner. You use your whole brain, with each part corresponding to a different function. If you used 100% of it at once you would likely have a massive seizure and die.

Also, that religion is the cause of all conflict. This is wrong - people are. Theyd find something to kill each other for even without religion.

Actually, in Neuro Psychology, we were told about this and it was debunked to us. That quote was made some years ago, and people just accepted it, but we use a large chunk of our brain constantly, whether it be sending out data or receiving it.

Just think to, we are nearly constantly breathing, seeing, hearing, feeling, moving, thinking, and other things, as well as the having the small processes like our noses stopping dust from getting in happening.

...isnt that what I said? That you may not use the whole thing at once, but you use all the different regions at different times?

 

[lacktheknack]

I'm annoyed by the old piracy defense of "It's okay because I'm not depriving them of a physical copy. It's like taking a car, but the car is still there in the morning!"

It's true, they're not taking a physical copy, but that's not the point. Loss of physical copies is not what upsets publishers the most. Think of it this way: If someone actually did steal a car from a dealership, what do you think the dealership would be most upset about?

A.) The loss of the car.

B.) The loss of the money that would have been gained if the car had been bought legally.

It's the loss of money that publishers care about, and pirating a game that you would have otherwise had to pay for still deprives them of that. There are certain circumstances under which I think piracy can be justified (it's an old game that you can no longer buy a new copy of, you already own the game but want to get around intrusive DRM, or you already bought the game, but the disc broke, etc.), but the "I'm not taking a physical copy" excuse just seems weak to me.

The problem with that logic though is that it can easily be applied to borrowing a game from a friend or borrowing a game/book/movie from a public library. In each of those cases you are experiencing content without directly paying the publisher/developer/creator.

However, you have to give those back. And there's no previous copy still in existence for your loaning friend to play while you do.

Piracy is more like photocopying that library book, putting that book back and taking the photocopy. And - shock and awe - that's illegal according to copyright (for that exact reason).

Even if you give them back the publisher (and occasionally developer) would still consider it a lost sale as you played without paying them. This is were the anti-used games stance comes from. When it comes to returning, well there is an analogy for that: deletion. I get the feeling that most pirates will delete their torrents after a while. The reason being that (especially in this age of blu-ray and limit-pushing tech) games and movies take up a lot of hard drive space. So most will delete their torrents to avoid spending hundreds on storage.

I wasn't talking about giving back to the publisher/dev... I meant giving the game back to whoever you "borrowed" it from.

Also, you're not accounting for how libraries work. My library only has so many copies of each book. I've tried to borrow books before only to find out that they were all taken out, allowing for some form of demand to remain in place. Plus, everything I take out from the library MUST be returned within two weeks, or I get charged.

That's where the "piracy = borrowing" thread falls apart.

I know what you meant and I was saying that even if you give the game back to the person you borrowed it from, the publisher/developer would still consider it a lost sale, this is part of the reason why many publishers and developers are against used games.

A form of demand does still exist when torrenting. A download can only occur if there are a number of people "seeding" the torrent, meaning they are allowing the data transfer to occur. If a piece of material is not being seeded it cannot be downloaded and only a few seeds can mean a long download. Furthermore, downloading any random torrent with the name you're searching for is a quick route to malware poisoning, so most people only download torrents from groups of known quality or one's with multiple comments indicating exactly what's in the torrent. Just because you want something doesn't mean you can instantly get it by going to p-... specific torrenting sites.

OK, so what's the analogue for "you have to pay if you borrow a library book for too long"?

 

[DANEgerous]

The Sun is not a star. Apparently because "our sun is a sun" it can not be a star despite being a star because reasons!