Random BS people say that you get fed up with.
- Thread starter Brendan Stepladder
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Well, some music is easier to pay attention to. Taking it to the extremes, you can play this-shootthebandit said:
On the other hand, if you want to listen to this-
I'd like to point out that I don't want to be one of those music snobs- Just because something is harder/easier to appreciate doesn't necessarily make it better.
EDIT: I thought I'd posted already in here, but apparently I haven't.
'People in Africa have it so much worse than you, be grateful!'- I am fucking grateful. Doesn't mean I don't have my own problems.
'I don't understand why people commit suicide, why don't they go on a crazy adventure or something!' Suicidal people don't want an adventure, suicidal people want to die. I can kind of understand why people might not understand mental illnesses, it's a mental illness, they think differently, don't expect to understand. Just don't be surprised when they think something that might seem irrational to you.
'Marriage should be between a man and a woman'- If you're fine with homosexual people there is no sensible reason to be against it. Even if you have religious views, marriage isn't necessarily a religious ceremony.
Anything along the lines of 'be tolerant of my views!' when their views are bigoted.
'Creationism is equally viable'- No, no it is not. There is a wealth of evidence for evolution, the overwhelming majority of people who actually know what the fuck they're talking about support it.
Fun fact, NZ has such an abundance of Natural Gas that it is often BURNT OFF at construction sites.The Lazy Blacksmith said:
It's cheaper for us to BURN IT than to ship it and sell it. You guys live in the wrong country.
Also people don't know WTF irony is.
Oh, isn't that a conundrum you're in? MUST BE IRONIC, HUH.
People who see or read one skewed source of information and then declare that they know far more than people who have spent their entire lives studying the matter and call them blind sheep who follow the "official story". This applies mostly to conspiracy theorists, who I have a lot of problems with.
The phrase "Just saying" or something of similar effect. Maybe it's because I associate it with Ray William Johnson, but I find it so annoying to hear/read. It it almost always preceded by the most inane and/or offensive and/or nonsensical statements that the individual has convinced themselves that it 1) It is such a good and irrefutable point and 2) including "Just saying" is a protection against any kind of criticism, perhaps attempting to distance themselves from what they just said.
The phrase "Just saying" or something of similar effect. Maybe it's because I associate it with Ray William Johnson, but I find it so annoying to hear/read. It it almost always preceded by the most inane and/or offensive and/or nonsensical statements that the individual has convinced themselves that it 1) It is such a good and irrefutable point and 2) including "Just saying" is a protection against any kind of criticism, perhaps attempting to distance themselves from what they just said.
If your positive thinking directly results in false solutions, you're doing it VERY wrong. Hence the "false benefits" note.Dijkstra said:
When you cut an emo's fringe a rainbow leaks out. When you kill an emo a Unicorn rises from the ashes.cdemares said:
I understand where your coming from. Thats what the phrase "easy listening" means but in terms of the actual listening you are doing the same thing with both songs. Sure jack johnson is far more pleasant to listen to so perhaps it should be called "pleasant listening". The word easy implies their is a skill invloved which their isntTheRightToArmBears said:
This would be true. Except that a sizeable proportion of people with fracking going on in their community who get natural gas in their water actually always had the gas in there to begin with. Because natural gas companies tend to set up fracking operations in those areas because there's lots of natural gas in the ground.The Lazy Blacksmith said:
It's the same false argument as when anti-mining activists declare that there are high levels of metals dissolved in waterways near mines. Yes, and there have always been high levels of metals dissolved in those waterways, because the ground around them is filled with metals (that's why the mining companies are there!)
Flaming well water is an issue for a small number of people who have fracking operations on or near their land, but it's really just a dramatic pitch to build anti-fracking sentiment. The far bigger danger for people comes from the contamination of wells with the chemicals they use in the fracking process.
But there's two big issues with this:
First is that if done right, fracking is pretty safe. The reason people have so many issues with it is because companies are skirting around guidelines which the government is not enforcing and behaving downright dangerously. In addition, there are many slightly more expensive technologies that can completely replace the dangerous chemicals used in fracking. They are not used for generally the same reason why gas companies skirt around safety measures: because the government's so pro-fracking, they don't want to actually make companies act responsibly, for fear of driving them away.
The second is that, in comparison to our alternatives, fracking is still pretty great. Consider all the pollution and death that comes from coal, the main energy source which natural gas competes with. Thousands of people in the US die each year due to coal; either from waterways contaminated with heavy metals from coal mining, or from the particulate matter which coal power stations produce. Fracking has none of these downsides. And renewables aren't a replacement for natural gas, they are a compliment to it. Combined-Cycle Gas Turbine power stations are basically our best bet to transitioning to a post-carbon economy, and it's unfortunately going to be hard to convert our power grids to a mix of gas and renewables without using fracking to take up the huge demand that coal power's satisfying in the US and other countries.
tl;dr: Fracking's not as bad as it's made out to be. Could be better, but that's up to governments and natural gas companies, not an issue with the technology.
Everyone knows what it means - it's casual emphasis. Pro-tip: people who have previously described themselves as having "died laughing" do, in fact, know what death is.alphamalet said:
OT: There's a special kind of prick who prowls the internet interjecting, "in your opinion," to the end of other people's comments. I know it's my opinion you moron, I fucking said it.
I'm glad someone else on the internet understands hyperbole and how god damned annoying pedants are. I love The Big Lebowski, but every time I see that 'Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man' meme I die a little inside.Woodsey said:
Exactly, apparently it's some sort of misery competition to some people and the prize is being allowed to complain. I was more referring to (makes sense with one of the other gripes I had) people who say that about people suffering from depression, which raises it to a new level of insensitivity.Glongpre said:
Gah, I'm bad at typing things.Dijkstra said:
I was trying to say that the intent was good, just the execution was off. Very off.
My course of logic is that a good message with problematic errors probably isn't "the stupidest thing evar". I'd relegate that to a bad message with problematic errors (my "virtues of blood diamonds" example, for instance).
I guess you could call anything like that a "proposition" as well.solemnwar said:
OT: Somewhat related, this brings up the thing that annoys me: people claiming that something "used to be a fact" or "used to be true". I'm about to get pedantic all up in this mutha, so buckle up. When someone makes a claim about something (e.g., "The world is flat/round/made of yogurt") there exists an implicit time-stamp and subject within the statement. If you were to expand it fully, it would read as "[Insert name here] states that at [insert time of statement here] the world is flat/round/made of yogurt."
Let's use the flat earth example because it is the easiest; even back in Ye Olden Days when that statement was generally accepted as True it was, in fact, a False statement. The "Truth Value" of a statement remains constant from the moment it is uttered until the heat-death of the universe regardless of popular opinion or current scientific consensus. In this example, that statement is False. People may not have known at the time that it was False, but it was False all the same: it was not True while it was believed and then False later because it was no longer believed. This principle can also be applied to statements/theories/hypotheses that cannot be tested with our current instruments: when that statement is made it is either True or False, and our current lack of instruments able to test the theory does nothing to change that.
This also ties into the idea of something being "true for me" or "only true on Wednesdays/lunar eclipses/whatever". In the first case, I think it stems from the same misunderstanding about the true content of the statement. For example:
Person 1: "[Insert diet food here] is a great way to lose weight!"
Person 2: "I've tried that and not lost a pound."
Person 1: "Perhaps not, but it is definitely true for me."
The expanded form of the first two statements would be:
Person 1: "At [insert time of statement here], [insert diet food here] is a great way for [Person 1] to lose weight!"
Person 2: "At [insert time of statement here], [insert diet food here] has not helped [Person 2] to lose weight."
It is not that a proposition is "true for Person 1 and not for Person 2", but that there are 2 propositions in play here and in this example both statements may be True or False without any relation to each other.
Person 1: "[Insert diet food here] is a great way to lose weight!"
Person 2: "I've tried that and not lost a pound."
Person 1: "Perhaps not, but it is definitely true for me."
The expanded form of the first two statements would be:
Person 1: "At [insert time of statement here], [insert diet food here] is a great way for [Person 1] to lose weight!"
Person 2: "At [insert time of statement here], [insert diet food here] has not helped [Person 2] to lose weight."
It is not that a proposition is "true for Person 1 and not for Person 2", but that there are 2 propositions in play here and in this example both statements may be True or False without any relation to each other.
The same logic applies to "timed truth" statements. For example, saying "The cafeteria is serving tacos today" wouldn't be True on Wednesday but become False on a Thursday; making this claim on a Wednesday and again on a Thursday is not the same statement made twice but in fact two completely different statements. The expanded forms:
Person 1 on Wednesday: "At [XXXX hours on Wednesday], the cafeteria is serving tacos."
Person 1 on Thursday: "At [XXXX hours on Thursday], the cafeteria is serving tacos."
In this example the cafeteria serves tacos on Wednesday and not on Thursday, so the first statement is True and the second is False.
Person 1 on Wednesday: "At [XXXX hours on Wednesday], the cafeteria is serving tacos."
Person 1 on Thursday: "At [XXXX hours on Thursday], the cafeteria is serving tacos."
In this example the cafeteria serves tacos on Wednesday and not on Thursday, so the first statement is True and the second is False.
People who mimic Sheldon's speech pattern (that character on that Big Bang show everyone likes). And people who keep going on like "Also, blablabla" and "Plus, blablabla". "lol" is pretty annoying too, but that's been annoying for a long time now, together with all those other things people use now for some strange reason. And other crap they think makes everyone else accept them better and/or makes them seem smarter somehow.
People who seem to think that Eastern martial arts are superior to Western ones because mysticism, which is kind of bullshit. Any art is only as good as the practitioner.
On a related note; people who think that the katana is the ultimate sword (again, mostly because mysticism). No, there's no such thing as the ultimate sword, and if there was, I don't think the katana would be it (and who knows what it would be?).
"Evolution is just a theory". No, evolution is an observed phenomena. The theory of evolution via natural selection is a theory - supported by mountains of evidence.
That science somehow leeches all the mystery out of the world and makes it a dull place. What a load of crap. I don't understand how it subtracts [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRmbwczTC6E].
On a related note; people who think that the katana is the ultimate sword (again, mostly because mysticism). No, there's no such thing as the ultimate sword, and if there was, I don't think the katana would be it (and who knows what it would be?).
"Evolution is just a theory". No, evolution is an observed phenomena. The theory of evolution via natural selection is a theory - supported by mountains of evidence.
That science somehow leeches all the mystery out of the world and makes it a dull place. What a load of crap. I don't understand how it subtracts [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRmbwczTC6E].