Annoying things people say

[In Search of Username]

People in Youtube comments sections who complain whenever there is an argument going on that doesn't directly relate to the video and the video alone. Those people piss me off because the comments section is supposed to contain discussions, arguments, whatever. This is just one example, I pretty much hate anyone who acts as though all discussion or debate is childish, pointless and inevitably hostile. Morons.

"You'll understand when you..." It's not only how patronising this statement is that bothers me, but the fact that whatever the person is talking about (learning to drive, having kids, etc.) is automatically assumed to be something you will DEFINITELY do, implying you're some kind of incomplete person if you don't. And the fact they consider themselves to be in some higher state of being and therefore able to understand whatever it is so much better since they've done it. Annoys me on so many levels.

Oh, and "It's all part of God's plan." Generally makes me want to say "Well if this is a part of it, then God's plan is fucking stupid."

"That's unnatural!" No it isn't. If you consider ANYTHING done by humans to be natural, you have to consider us a part of nature and therefore anything (technology, society) coming from us is also natural. Even if it wasn't, something being unnatural is not automatically a bad thing.

 

[Nimzabaat]

Oh one popped up today. Not said to me but it still annoyed the hell out of me.

"Hey! You're here!" I'm pretty sure the guy being addressed knew where he was and didn't need to be told. On the off chance that he was suffering from Amnesia "you" and "here" still wouldn't provide enough useful information to help him out.

 

[Vault101]

To the 2 confused posters above, that old adage simply explains why a girl doesn't feel the same level of "achievement" for sleeping with a bunch of guys as a guy does for sleeping with a bunch of girls.

I'm not confused, and I'm not sure Ive seen it used in that way

[quote/]Why would a lock be proud of being unlocked a bunch of times?[/quote]

see I was under the impression that locks were inanimate objects.....

I don't know about "acheivment" but you cant be that general..mabye it is an acheivment, for her..who knows?....mabye they were really hot guys

as for the second part, not sure what you meant but mabye she would be "proud" because she finds sex enjoyable?

 

[Feylynn]

I can't beleive this wasn't said already; "A whole nother"

you can use this phrase if you can tell me what a "nother" is.

I always used it as "Another" just inserting emphasizing word. Like so!
"A-(whole)-nother", "A-(fucking)-nother", "A-(bloody)-nother."
It's still not proper English but it is not claiming that Nother is a thing, just pausing mid word to escalate things.
I do the same thing with "Ri-(fucking)-diculous" etc. No word is safe from unnecessary intermittent vulgarity!

I can't promise that others aren't saying Nother on its own intentionally.

 

[Faladorian]

What makes me spurt vaporized hatred from my ears? Well, it must be the internet's favorite cop-out metaphore:

(Hurr durr) "If a key opens many locks, it's a master key. But if a lock is opened by many keys, it's a shitty lock." (hurhur ammaright, gais?!1 )

It's... Oh, goodness sake, the flaws in that example are glaring! What does that example got to do with anything? It's a broken metaphore, it's not only retarded and hurtful, it doesn't even work. Honestly, to use that example, you're either going to have to be partially brain damaged or a complete bellend.

Of course, it also got the Twat-o-Matic Smug 2000 defence system. Anyone who doesn't join into the hearty laughter your clever suckerpunch of a master-joke deserves is of course a humourless whiner (who aren't gettin' any) who can't see the genius of your comedic talent. Or they've successfully been trolled by you. Both seem to warrant declaring victory in the monkey cage of the Internet.

That metaphor is only used because it demonstrated the way that sex works in the modern day.

There are such a VAST majority of women who use sex as leverage by acting as if they dont need it, but men do, and when a woman has sex with a man, they're "doing them a favor."

It's that state of mind that led to the difference between male and female promiscuity, because that very mindset (girls only have sex with "worthy" men, but men will fuck anything and should feel lucky if a woman agrees to sex) is so common today, a man who has sex often is seen as somebody who's constantly breaking down that barrier that a lot of women have, and women who have sex with a lot of men are sluts, because theyre not helping perpetuate the self-sustained female superiority through manipulation.

---

However, I take a much simpler approach where, regardless of gender, anybody who has a severe lack of standards, regardless of gender, is a whore.

 

[Phasmal]

What makes me spurt vaporized hatred from my ears? Well, it must be the internet's favorite cop-out metaphore:

(Hurr durr) "If a key opens many locks, it's a master key. But if a lock is opened by many keys, it's a shitty lock." (hurhur ammaright, gais?!1 )

I call it the Captain Keydick defence.
Cause it makes me giggle, I want to share it with the world.
Whenever someone uses it, I just think `And there's Captain Keydick!`.

OT- Girl gamers should just call themselves gamers
Yeah, I do.
In real life.
On the internet, you get autopenis'd. Nothing so much wrong with that, but I don't particularly like being called guy, man, dude, son all the time. Plus I indentify online because when I don't people go around saying they've never met a female gamer. Cannot win.

Also, If you don't know, I'm not telling you
Well then how the fuck are we gonna get anywhere?!

 

[deserteagleeye]

"YOLO" and "That's gay". Basically, "YOLO" is Carpe Diem for idiots because I only hear idiots use it to justify them doing idiot things. Sometimes they just say it for the hell of it. "Oh hey you said a popular slang word out of nowhere? Well, you certainly got my attention. There's your prize, *****!"
And "That's gay"? What're you Eli Roth? I should've have to explain why this is fucking stupid.

 

[gyroscopeboy]

I hate the word "strawman", its bandied about these forums WAAAY too much

 

[Woodsey]

If you're the sort to add "in your opinion" to someone else's comment when the topic at hand is entirely subjective, then I think I speak for all of us when I say "fuck off".

Also, I've noticed American Republicans in particular have a habit of doing that whole "it's just common sense/it's just right" schtick (I'm sure the brain-child who came up with the latter found it hilarious); it usually translates into justifying killing criminals and blocking stuff like gay marriage. And passively-aggressively disregarding pretty much any family that's non-white or doesn't have both parents involved.

 

[DugMachine]

I hate the word "strawman", its bandied about these forums WAAAY too much

This. A million fucking times this. I'm sure there are other ways to explain whatever the fuck a strawman is (i'm too lazy to look it up) but that's why I try to avoid debates for fear of being called out on being a man made of straw.

No but seriously, stop saying it it's annoying.

 

[gyroscopeboy]

I hate the word "strawman", its bandied about these forums WAAAY too much

This. A million fucking times this. I'm sure there are other ways to explain whatever the fuck a strawman is (i'm too lazy to look it up) but that's why I try to avoid debates for fear of being called out on being a man made of straw.

No but seriously, stop saying it it's annoying.

OMG You're such a strawman!

 

[DugMachine]

I hate the word "strawman", its bandied about these forums WAAAY too much

This. A million fucking times this. I'm sure there are other ways to explain whatever the fuck a strawman is (i'm too lazy to look it up) but that's why I try to avoid debates for fear of being called out on being a man made of straw.

No but seriously, stop saying it it's annoying.

OMG You're such a strawman!

I'm sorry! I can't help it I was born this way

 

[littlealicewhite]

I can't beleive this wasn't said already; "A whole nother"

you can use this phrase if you can tell me what a "nother" is.

It's short for 'another'. It's just slang.

 

[inquisiti0n]

[quote/]Why would a lock be proud of being unlocked a bunch of times?

see I was under the impression that locks were inanimate objects.....

I don't know about "acheivment" but you cant be that general..mabye it is an acheivment, for her..who knows?....mabye they were really hot guys

as for the second part, not sure what you meant but mabye she would be "proud" because she finds sex enjoyable?[/quote]

I was under the impression that metaphors weren't meant to be inferred literally.

And it has absolutely nothing to do with women enjoying sex or not, I don't where you got that from. It's simply the concise answer to confused women who ask "Why am I not getting high-fived?".

To the 2 confused posters above, that old adage simply explains why a girl doesn't feel the same level of "achievement" for sleeping with a bunch of guys as a guy does for sleeping with a bunch of girls.

Why would a lock be proud of being unlocked a bunch of times?

To the confused sexist I'm replying to, that old adage is a load of bullshit. There's no actual difference in 'achievement', it's merely an illusion.

And a girl isn't a lock. The point isn't to keep people out, it's to have sex with who you want to. Seriously, this is the 21st century. Maybe in 50 years we can get you a time machine to go to your preferred era, but for now try to learn to quit the sexist crap about comparing girls to locks.

There's a lesser sense of achievement if you didn't work for something, and given the whole chase dynamic that's ingrained in male/female interaction, men work for it and women generally don't. And no, modern society has not dissolved that dynamic. Nothing wrong with acknowledging that, especially considering that this dynamic works to the woman's benefit (in the opinion of most women themselves), nor does such acknowledgement reveal what my personal preferences are, but don't let that deter you from conjuring imaginative predictions involving time machines.


And again, metaphors aren't meant to be taken literally. Seriously, that's like Metaphors 101.

 

[Vault101]

I was under the impression that metaphors weren't meant to be inferred literally.

yeah, but as I said...people just throw it around like "this explains it all"

[quote/] It's simply the concise answer to confused women who ask "Why am I not getting high-fived?".[/quote]
its not "why am I not getting high fives" its "why am I being called a slut and shamed in society" big difference

[quote/]There's a lesser sense of achievement if you didn't work for something, and given the whole chase dynamic that's ingrained in male/female interaction, men work for it and women generally don't.[/quote]

somtimes they do....but regardless its no reason to shame the women (even if thats not what you meant)

 

[littlealicewhite]

I get a little annoyed when someone uses the word 'Rape' to mean defeat or death. Like: Someone just killed a dude in a game. Guy says "I totally just raped you!"

That bothers me.

And "You'll understand when [blank]."

Yeah, fuck you buddy. I am not going to take shit from you just because you're a few years older than me, or a parent or whatever. Do not act like just because you might be more experienced than me means I can't understand what you're talking about. Sure, I don't have those experiences. But my brain is perfectly functional, thank you.

 

[inquisiti0n]

I was under the impression that metaphors weren't meant to be inferred literally.

yeah, but as I said...people just throw it around like "this explains it all"

[quote/] It's simply the concise answer to confused women who ask "Why am I not getting high-fived?".

its not "why am I not getting high fives" its "why am I being called a slut and shamed in society" big difference

[quote/]There's a lesser sense of achievement if you didn't work for something, and given the whole chase dynamic that's ingrained in male/female interaction, men work for it and women generally don't.[/quote]

somtimes they do....but regardless its no reason to shame the women (even if thats not what you meant)[/quote]

Lack of respect =/= disrespect. You can't hold a simple metaphor responsible for all the people who go beyond that and all their slut hate.

And it has absolutely nothing to do with women enjoying sex or not, I don't where you got that from. It's simply the concise answer to confused women who ask "Why am I not getting high-fived?".

Yes, it does. Because to believe your crap about how women are like locks and men are like keys then we'd have to assume men's goal is sex while women's is not.

Completely wrong. The difference is in who they have sex with, not that women don't want/enjoy sex. The reality is that men can be frivolous, but women cannot due to the self-evident consequences of the reproductive process. Modern standards take care of this issue (contraceptions, abortions), but it cannot magically revert and wipe away thousands of years of evolution that has ingrained this in human psychology. But whatevs, you're free to dismiss that as "nothing".

And yes, I'm a mind reader for thinking that most women would prefer to be chased after than vice versa. Clearly it's not something that's glaringly evident in almost every facet of society.

I get a little annoyed when someone uses the word 'Rape' to mean defeat or death. Like: Someone just killed a dude in a game. Guy says "I totally just raped you!"

That bothers me.

Why? The usage of the word "rape" in that context is just as figurative as the word "kill".

 

[inquisiti0n]

I was under the impression that metaphors weren't meant to be inferred literally.

yeah, but as I said...people just throw it around like "this explains it all"

[quote/] It's simply the concise answer to confused women who ask "Why am I not getting high-fived?".

its not "why am I not getting high fives" its "why am I being called a slut and shamed in society" big difference

[quote/]There's a lesser sense of achievement if you didn't work for something, and given the whole chase dynamic that's ingrained in male/female interaction, men work for it and women generally don't.

somtimes they do....but regardless its no reason to shame the women (even if thats not what you meant)

Lack of respect =/= disrespect. You can't hold a simple metaphor responsible for all the people who go beyond that and all their slut hate.
[/quote]

People can be smart enough to tell how the metaphor is actually used instead of believing whatever hogwash you claim it means.[/quote]

How something is used and the original meaning/intent are 2 completely different things. I never defended how it was used. People can be smart enough to dissociate the two.

And it has absolutely nothing to do with women enjoying sex or not, I don't where you got that from. It's simply the concise answer to confused women who ask "Why am I not getting high-fived?".

Yes, it does. Because to believe your crap about how women are like locks and men are like keys then we'd have to assume men's goal is sex while women's is not.

Completely wrong. The difference is in who they have sex with, not that women don't want/enjoy sex. The reality is that men can be frivolous, but women cannot due to the self-evident consequences of the reproductive process. Modern standards take care of this issue (contraceptions, abortions), but it cannot magically revert and wipe away thousands of years of evolution that has ingrained this in human psychology. But whatevs, you're free to dismiss that as "nothing".

Completely right. There is no real difference. Women can be frivoluous if they choose.

And maybe you should actually prove that evolution ingrained something in before you claim it. What's so hard for you to understand about the concept of 'proof'?

No real difference? So men can get pregnant now? And of course they have the choice/right to act however they wish, which no one was talking about.

And proof? It's this entire field called "evolutionary psychology". Oh wait, I bet you'll ask me for proof of evolution first.

 

[Astoria]

Swag, yolo, any stupid slag like that which is used by stupid people to try to justify their stupidity. No, you are just stupid, you are not cool or living life to the full or anything, just being stupid. Stupid people -_-

And when people attack your opinion and call it wrong but when you do the same they reply with 'well it's just my opinion'. What makes my opinion wrong but yours ok? There's nothing worse than a hypocrite IMO.

 

[inquisiti0n]

Considering that you didn't start it and have cited no evidence, your view on what it originally means has all the weight of a five year old's view on the economy.

Anyone who can read can accurately interpret the meaning, and no, it doesn't mean "hurl rocks at sluts for being slutty".

Completely right. There is no real difference. Women can be frivoluous if they choose.

And maybe you should actually prove that evolution ingrained something in before you claim it. What's so hard for you to understand about the concept of 'proof'?

No real difference? So men can get pregnant now? And of course they have the choice/right to act however they wish, which no one was talking about.

Yes, no real difference in how they have to act.

You should try providing actual proof of your claims instead of deluded ramblings.

And proof? It's this entire field called "evolutionary psychology". Oh wait, I bet you'll ask me for proof of evolution first.

Evolutionary psychology says men are all pathological liars, so you're lying. Oh see, I can just claim that something is evolutionary psychology without proof too.

Saying 'evolutionary psychology' isn't proof. I can claim anything is 'evolutionary psychology'.

So let me understand this: you're suggesting that there's no difference despite mountains of contrary evidence, that the idea of evolution affecting our psychology in addition to our physical frame is just delusional rambling, that a simple acknowledgement of male/female interactions is sexist, and through some series of complex mental gymnastics, you imagine that the burden of proof is on me?

And even if it was, why would I have to prove something that's already true? Is it less true if you're not convinced? Sorry, but I'm not gonna google and retrieve every study that was ever conducted on the subject just to sway the opinion of some clueless idealist who feigns ignorance about self-evident truths. Not that it would matter as you're too busy attacking some ridiculous argument about "choice" which I didn't even bring up.