Link to original post: [drupal=5503]Teran the House Down[/drupal]
Oh hey UB. When was the last time I made a proper blog entry? A lon long time ago I presume, long enough that nobody cares. Anyway I am bored, and as it's been a long long time since my last post, there are a whole host of things I could talk about. So... instead of writing some emotionally heavy story, or some lament about the difficulties of life, I'll just drop a whole bunch of mental spaghetti on your lap.
There may be many things I say that I do not sincerely believe, this is just going to be a huge offload of thoughts and observations.
Don't you get irked by those people who say "the meaning of life is what you make of it?". I mean I don't like calling things cliché because ultimately everything is in a way, but I mean I suppose the word most often applies when one spouts something that's supposed to be the result of deep thought without actually thinking. Not thinking... yeah. That's sort of a serious problem a lot of people have. So anyway, what is so gay about this saying? I mean first of all, what is meaning exactly? A purpose right, a grand design or something like that. Right, and exactly how does that pan out without any sort of spiritual forces or deity at work? It doesn't because without those, there is literally no purpose to anything you do. "Oh but your actions have a knock on effect, they could affect the world for years to come!". Then the world is destroyed, and the purpose and meaning that lived only within the memory of mankind dies with them. I guess I started out way more pseudo intellectually than I would have liked, I suppose I wanted it to be funnier. But really though, what? So anyway, this is a large part of why I could never blame anyone for clinging to religious or spiritual beliefs even if they were all scientifically debunked without any sort of question (they haven't all been, technically), because that truth isn't even scary, it's flat out tragic. The complete worthlessness and insignificance of everything. I mean, all the suffering and striving to flourish, the journey of life, nullified in a flash. That's got to be the worst feeling in the world, provided you can wrap your head around the idea.
"Life is what you make oif it!" (Unless you are a delusional schizophrenic, then you are insane and need plenty of pills to get better! Enjoy your stay in the padded cell.)
Did you know that horse smegma is carcinogenic?
Have you ever noticed that all those absurd societal rules that everybody knows are baseless but continue to adhere to are mostly enforced and perpetuated by women? I suppose it's partly to do with their jobs as mothers, and their increased social awareness driving them to drum such things into their child, but whatever maaaaaaan. "Oh you mustn't wear a handkerchief in that pocket darling only uncultured people do that."
Zealots of the Status Quo since time immemorial. It's not a bad thing in every case, since a lot of status quo is, of course, quite justified, but it becomes a bit irritating when it is a silly norm. The problem basically becomes exacerbated by the fact that men buckle and bend to all the ******** whims of these women because they are too weak minded to stand their ground over getting some. Depriving men of sex once stopped a civil war, God why are guys so pathetic?
You know I remember once hearing the rationale of "people shouldn't use an offensive even in a context where it isn't offensive, because one can't expect people to think about the context of what was said."
Yes indeed.
One shouldn't expect people to think.
I know I make a lot of wisecracks about society and people in general, but come on, unless you are a vegetable I generally expect you to think. Are we really in a world where actually thinking is considered a rare and exceptional trait?
You know what's hilarious? How both genders truly distrust members of the same gender. How is this apparent? Fathers will not allow a boy within 10 miles of his daughter, because all men know that MEN ARE DOGS. So one day the mother will softly try to break the news of the daughter having a boyfriend, after a particularly delicious meal and fantastic sex, performing certain acts that have long since stopped after marriage. The father's response? "Where is the ***hole, and where's my shotgun?". With any limited (or no) knowledge of the boy in question, he will rationalise how terrible he is for his daughter, how he is at the very best, a total dog because of course, he's superimposing his own mental workings onto him.
Now we all know the bane of a wife's existence is the mother-in-law. Women are massively protective and shelter their sons to absurd extents, moreso than their daughters. Ironic isn't it? You'd think a boy could take care of himself, but when a mother watches her sweet, simple minded son grow up, her precious darling is just far too wonderful and unique to be stolen by some ****ing trampy **** (that starts with a "c") who will do nothing but manipulate her baby, as she manipulated her husband's emotions. The harlot who will twist her son's mind and turn her son against her, his own mother, who gave him life! He is MY son you *****!
Moral of the story: We mistrust and dislike members of our own sex at a deeper level than we do the opposite one, contrary to popular belief.
This is all true because I said so, I performed experiments by using a handful of real life observations, and fleshed it out with countless fictional hypothetical scenarios. Because of this, it is objective proof and is soon to be pulished in the scientific journal "Nature".
It makes me laugh when straight guys tell me "man it must be great being gay in the sense that you don't have to deal with all the bull**** and crazy of women."
Sadly what they fail to realise is that homosexuals are not all masculine behaving (well I think everyone knows this but then they've just said something without thinking again! Oh no this keeps coming up, maybe I should call this "The Power of Thought"), Indeed there are, crudely speaking, 2 types of homosexuals (there aren't, but that's why I said crude you dolt, don't twist this into one of those kinds of debates). There are masculine homosexuals, and effeminate ones. It doesn't necessarily split into active and passive sexual roles, although 9 times out of 10 these of course, do correlate. Also, people don't realise that feminine behaviour does not simply entail wearing gaudy outfits and being all tralalala~ like a total ***got. OH TERAN THAT IS REALLY RUDE. What it entails, is for example, being more prone to act on impulse and intuition rather than trying to think it through andf act, it entails things such as trying to tie everything together and thinking in complex webs, contextualising stuff, sometimes in abstract ways, rather than having a powerfully linear train of thought. These opposite styles of behaviour aren't good or bad, they are advantageous and disadvantageous in certain situations, but that's what variety gives us, strengths and weaknesses. The point is, a lot of guys think that just because a certain gay dude acts like a rational human being and not a peacock with a cactus up its arse that they are a "masculine" gay, and thus their personality will be all chill and "**** it dude", and that their arguments will often make total sense, and that they won't start arguments over totally bizarre leaps of logic. This is untrue, so us ACTUAL masculine homosexuals still have to deal with the same old same old. Still, deep down we know it's what we want. We are attracted to these feminine traits, even with all the less desirable baggage it comes with. Why? Because we instinctively know that their different attitudes and ways of thinking can allow them to perform tasks and make certain important decisions better than we could. The partnership of these two entities combines the strengths of both to form a much more powerful and successful one. In theory anyway.
So since we're on the subject of generalisation (we're not but you're thinking it so I'll use that as a segue), let's close with the most annoying ****ing thing that is constantly repeated irl and on the internet when certain things are said. So say someone says something like this before continuing on a train of thought and they've generally said intelligent and thought out stuff apart from:
"Asians are good at mathematics"
"Asian parents are really strict"
"Men only care about sex"
OH MY GOD. IT'S A GENERALISATION.
NOT ALL ASIANS ARE GOOD AT MATHEMATICS YOU KNOW OMG ALL THIS STEREOTYPING AND GENERALISING.
MY PARENTS ARE COOL ASIAN PARENTS **** YOU.
SPEAK FOR YOURSELF I DON'T ONLY CARE ABOUT SEX.
The point is when one makes a sweeping statement, they generally (lol) don't mean ALL. It's just more convenient. Things like stereotypes and such other things do exist for a reason, and a lot of these observations are not at all baseless, it would just, of course, be stupid to imply that everyone of said group fits within the statement. Of course such statements DON'T imply this, in fact someone with a working brain should find the opposite to be implicit.
But you don't, because you think you're super smart by pointing out a cheap thing to argue against, for the sole purpose of sounding smart and intellectual. Leave the pedantry for the courtroom and academic journals, in the ebb and flow of casual discourse, I like to just say that black people have dark skin and not be refuted by a picture of an albino black man and a smug essayette.
Have a good day.
Teran out.
I did not proof read this blog, I never proof read anything I write.
Oh hey UB. When was the last time I made a proper blog entry? A lon long time ago I presume, long enough that nobody cares. Anyway I am bored, and as it's been a long long time since my last post, there are a whole host of things I could talk about. So... instead of writing some emotionally heavy story, or some lament about the difficulties of life, I'll just drop a whole bunch of mental spaghetti on your lap.
There may be many things I say that I do not sincerely believe, this is just going to be a huge offload of thoughts and observations.
Don't you get irked by those people who say "the meaning of life is what you make of it?". I mean I don't like calling things cliché because ultimately everything is in a way, but I mean I suppose the word most often applies when one spouts something that's supposed to be the result of deep thought without actually thinking. Not thinking... yeah. That's sort of a serious problem a lot of people have. So anyway, what is so gay about this saying? I mean first of all, what is meaning exactly? A purpose right, a grand design or something like that. Right, and exactly how does that pan out without any sort of spiritual forces or deity at work? It doesn't because without those, there is literally no purpose to anything you do. "Oh but your actions have a knock on effect, they could affect the world for years to come!". Then the world is destroyed, and the purpose and meaning that lived only within the memory of mankind dies with them. I guess I started out way more pseudo intellectually than I would have liked, I suppose I wanted it to be funnier. But really though, what? So anyway, this is a large part of why I could never blame anyone for clinging to religious or spiritual beliefs even if they were all scientifically debunked without any sort of question (they haven't all been, technically), because that truth isn't even scary, it's flat out tragic. The complete worthlessness and insignificance of everything. I mean, all the suffering and striving to flourish, the journey of life, nullified in a flash. That's got to be the worst feeling in the world, provided you can wrap your head around the idea.
"Life is what you make oif it!" (Unless you are a delusional schizophrenic, then you are insane and need plenty of pills to get better! Enjoy your stay in the padded cell.)
Did you know that horse smegma is carcinogenic?
Have you ever noticed that all those absurd societal rules that everybody knows are baseless but continue to adhere to are mostly enforced and perpetuated by women? I suppose it's partly to do with their jobs as mothers, and their increased social awareness driving them to drum such things into their child, but whatever maaaaaaan. "Oh you mustn't wear a handkerchief in that pocket darling only uncultured people do that."
Zealots of the Status Quo since time immemorial. It's not a bad thing in every case, since a lot of status quo is, of course, quite justified, but it becomes a bit irritating when it is a silly norm. The problem basically becomes exacerbated by the fact that men buckle and bend to all the ******** whims of these women because they are too weak minded to stand their ground over getting some. Depriving men of sex once stopped a civil war, God why are guys so pathetic?
You know I remember once hearing the rationale of "people shouldn't use an offensive even in a context where it isn't offensive, because one can't expect people to think about the context of what was said."
Yes indeed.
One shouldn't expect people to think.
I know I make a lot of wisecracks about society and people in general, but come on, unless you are a vegetable I generally expect you to think. Are we really in a world where actually thinking is considered a rare and exceptional trait?
You know what's hilarious? How both genders truly distrust members of the same gender. How is this apparent? Fathers will not allow a boy within 10 miles of his daughter, because all men know that MEN ARE DOGS. So one day the mother will softly try to break the news of the daughter having a boyfriend, after a particularly delicious meal and fantastic sex, performing certain acts that have long since stopped after marriage. The father's response? "Where is the ***hole, and where's my shotgun?". With any limited (or no) knowledge of the boy in question, he will rationalise how terrible he is for his daughter, how he is at the very best, a total dog because of course, he's superimposing his own mental workings onto him.
Now we all know the bane of a wife's existence is the mother-in-law. Women are massively protective and shelter their sons to absurd extents, moreso than their daughters. Ironic isn't it? You'd think a boy could take care of himself, but when a mother watches her sweet, simple minded son grow up, her precious darling is just far too wonderful and unique to be stolen by some ****ing trampy **** (that starts with a "c") who will do nothing but manipulate her baby, as she manipulated her husband's emotions. The harlot who will twist her son's mind and turn her son against her, his own mother, who gave him life! He is MY son you *****!
Moral of the story: We mistrust and dislike members of our own sex at a deeper level than we do the opposite one, contrary to popular belief.
This is all true because I said so, I performed experiments by using a handful of real life observations, and fleshed it out with countless fictional hypothetical scenarios. Because of this, it is objective proof and is soon to be pulished in the scientific journal "Nature".
It makes me laugh when straight guys tell me "man it must be great being gay in the sense that you don't have to deal with all the bull**** and crazy of women."
Sadly what they fail to realise is that homosexuals are not all masculine behaving (well I think everyone knows this but then they've just said something without thinking again! Oh no this keeps coming up, maybe I should call this "The Power of Thought"), Indeed there are, crudely speaking, 2 types of homosexuals (there aren't, but that's why I said crude you dolt, don't twist this into one of those kinds of debates). There are masculine homosexuals, and effeminate ones. It doesn't necessarily split into active and passive sexual roles, although 9 times out of 10 these of course, do correlate. Also, people don't realise that feminine behaviour does not simply entail wearing gaudy outfits and being all tralalala~ like a total ***got. OH TERAN THAT IS REALLY RUDE. What it entails, is for example, being more prone to act on impulse and intuition rather than trying to think it through andf act, it entails things such as trying to tie everything together and thinking in complex webs, contextualising stuff, sometimes in abstract ways, rather than having a powerfully linear train of thought. These opposite styles of behaviour aren't good or bad, they are advantageous and disadvantageous in certain situations, but that's what variety gives us, strengths and weaknesses. The point is, a lot of guys think that just because a certain gay dude acts like a rational human being and not a peacock with a cactus up its arse that they are a "masculine" gay, and thus their personality will be all chill and "**** it dude", and that their arguments will often make total sense, and that they won't start arguments over totally bizarre leaps of logic. This is untrue, so us ACTUAL masculine homosexuals still have to deal with the same old same old. Still, deep down we know it's what we want. We are attracted to these feminine traits, even with all the less desirable baggage it comes with. Why? Because we instinctively know that their different attitudes and ways of thinking can allow them to perform tasks and make certain important decisions better than we could. The partnership of these two entities combines the strengths of both to form a much more powerful and successful one. In theory anyway.
So since we're on the subject of generalisation (we're not but you're thinking it so I'll use that as a segue), let's close with the most annoying ****ing thing that is constantly repeated irl and on the internet when certain things are said. So say someone says something like this before continuing on a train of thought and they've generally said intelligent and thought out stuff apart from:
"Asians are good at mathematics"
"Asian parents are really strict"
"Men only care about sex"
OH MY GOD. IT'S A GENERALISATION.
NOT ALL ASIANS ARE GOOD AT MATHEMATICS YOU KNOW OMG ALL THIS STEREOTYPING AND GENERALISING.
MY PARENTS ARE COOL ASIAN PARENTS **** YOU.
SPEAK FOR YOURSELF I DON'T ONLY CARE ABOUT SEX.
The point is when one makes a sweeping statement, they generally (lol) don't mean ALL. It's just more convenient. Things like stereotypes and such other things do exist for a reason, and a lot of these observations are not at all baseless, it would just, of course, be stupid to imply that everyone of said group fits within the statement. Of course such statements DON'T imply this, in fact someone with a working brain should find the opposite to be implicit.
But you don't, because you think you're super smart by pointing out a cheap thing to argue against, for the sole purpose of sounding smart and intellectual. Leave the pedantry for the courtroom and academic journals, in the ebb and flow of casual discourse, I like to just say that black people have dark skin and not be refuted by a picture of an albino black man and a smug essayette.
Have a good day.
Teran out.
I did not proof read this blog, I never proof read anything I write.
