Random BS people say that you get fed up with.
- Thread starter Brendan Stepladder
- Start date
One of my biggest annoyances is the image running around Facebook right now explaining how "we should flood Facebook with the REAL pledge: one nation UNDER GOD..." Given that the insistence on including a single specific deity wasn't started until the 1950s and our country's been around for a good deal longer than that with no issue (hell, we've likely gone a lot further down the toilet in the last 40 years than the previous 200), it really pisses me off that the Christian Right think they should be forcing their crap down everyone else's throats.
I guess it would be too obvious to mention astrology, soothsaying, young/flat/hollow-earth movements and homeopathy?
Fine then, I'll pick something that's less obviously full of shit.
The anti-GMO movement is pretty badly informed it seems. I think we can count that.
Fine then, I'll pick something that's less obviously full of shit.
The anti-GMO movement is pretty badly informed it seems. I think we can count that.
Yes! This annoys me. It seems that it's almost impossible to have a "depressed" character who isn't just a grizzle jawed veteran who's stupidly stoic. As soon as you try to show someone reacting realistically to trauma they are deemed "whiny". An example of this that really annoys me is Hope from Final Fantasy XIII, admittedly, yes, perhaps he is a tad too whiny but he's 14! In the space of about 3 hours he is exiled from his home, watches his mum die and is branded a terrorist, I think the resultant freak out is quite understandable!Xdeser2 said:
Also those people who claim they saw a plot twist coming, even if it wasn't foreshadowed in anyway, they act like it makes them smart but it doesn't because any reason they would have for predicting such a plot twist would be stupid and would make them stupid by extent. I think we have all met those type of people.
People who think that a character not doing the 100% most logical decision is the same as a plot hole, have you met people they make stupid decisions all the time, even the smart ones.
People who think that a character not doing the 100% most logical decision is the same as a plot hole, have you met people they make stupid decisions all the time, even the smart ones.
I have a point of contention with this.Baron_BJ said:
If someone "could not care less" about a topic, they'd have been truly apathetic towards it and highly unlikely to have commented at all. But, by the very virtue that they deem in necessary to voice their level of caring shows that said level or caring is above, however so slightly, nil. And thus, the amount of caring in fact could be less.
OT: When people think that just because someone has died automatically erases all their faults they had when they were alive. And, whenever you try to point out that the facts indicate that the supposed sweet little cherub isn't as innocent as they would have you believe, they shout you down like jackasses.
Actually not from Gaslands. I've seen both parts. This is an excerpt from a separate documentary.Esotera said:
PS to all those who think this is "fake": Please do me a favor and go watch any one of the dozens of other videos like this, or interviews with thousands of others who have had their lives devastated by fracking. When you do, tell me that they are all faked, and most importantly, watch Gaslands. If you are feeling really adventurous, watch Gaslands Part II afterwards. Clearly, it's all faked. The EPA tests that never get anywhere, the people silent under NDA's and the contaminated water supplies. All faked, like the moon landing obviously. I'd better stop ranting here before I invoke Poe's law.
Fuck fracking and those who perpetuate it.
Good evening ladies and gentlemen.
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.Chemical123 said:
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.
"If we want to save the planet, we have to leave all the remaining oil in the ground."
No we do not. The planet is not something sacred, if we screw it up, it'll adapt and change. Furthermore, we are SO dependent on that oil that suddenly stopping all drilling would RUIN MODERN CIVILIZATION. Plus, my province would suddenly have an unemployment rate of about 85% (or higher, since the government wouldn't be able to afford any of its workers anymore), and I know that's the case for a lot of other places.
So please... stop acting as though oil is the root of all that's evil. Kill society's dependence on it, THEN we'll talk. Not before.
No we do not. The planet is not something sacred, if we screw it up, it'll adapt and change. Furthermore, we are SO dependent on that oil that suddenly stopping all drilling would RUIN MODERN CIVILIZATION. Plus, my province would suddenly have an unemployment rate of about 85% (or higher, since the government wouldn't be able to afford any of its workers anymore), and I know that's the case for a lot of other places.
So please... stop acting as though oil is the root of all that's evil. Kill society's dependence on it, THEN we'll talk. Not before.
Pretty much anything that comes out of a liberal's mouth. Hey-ooooooh! 
But joking aside (or not aside if you just wanna call me a hypocrite), I don't like when people say "Nuh-uh! Your opinion is invalidated because of (x),, and (z)!" I'm not saying that an opinion can't be objectively proven to be incorrect. You can be of the opinion that a human can fly purely by flapping their arms really fast, empirical evidence would prove your opinion wrong.
But, for instance, an opinion on a game or a movie. So long as you have things you can point to by saying "This game is crap because of the (blah), the (blee), and the (bleebity blah)" then your opinion cannot be proven wrong. But still, people will try to argue with you, saying that the blah, the blee, and the bleebity blah are all GOOD things, refusing to accept that you just straight-up didn't like them...thus making that your opinion on them.
This goes hand-in-hand with the jackmunchers that insist their opinion is fact.
But joking aside (or not aside if you just wanna call me a hypocrite), I don't like when people say "Nuh-uh! Your opinion is invalidated because of (x),
, and (z)!" I'm not saying that an opinion can't be objectively proven to be incorrect. You can be of the opinion that a human can fly purely by flapping their arms really fast, empirical evidence would prove your opinion wrong.But, for instance, an opinion on a game or a movie. So long as you have things you can point to by saying "This game is crap because of the (blah), the (blee), and the (bleebity blah)" then your opinion cannot be proven wrong. But still, people will try to argue with you, saying that the blah, the blee, and the bleebity blah are all GOOD things, refusing to accept that you just straight-up didn't like them...thus making that your opinion on them.
This goes hand-in-hand with the jackmunchers that insist their opinion is fact.
"No."
Let me explain.
You know that kind of person, the kind who's always really eager to be the one that tells the story. The kind who always wants to believe that you were completely ignorant of what they are telling you, until they've told it, entirely incorrectly.
I'll give an example
Friend: Have you seen that new Twilight movie?
Me: The one where it's all a dream?
Friend: No, the latest one where........
Me: So the one where it's all a dream
Friend: No, the latest one where.....
Me: Yeah, the one where it's all a dream
Friend: No, it's....
Me: THE ONE WHERE IT'S ALL A DREAM, WHAT YOU MEAN IS "YES, THE LATEST ONE WHERE...." NOT "NO, THE LATEST ONE WHERE....."
Let me explain.
You know that kind of person, the kind who's always really eager to be the one that tells the story. The kind who always wants to believe that you were completely ignorant of what they are telling you, until they've told it, entirely incorrectly.
I'll give an example
Friend: Have you seen that new Twilight movie?
Me: The one where it's all a dream?
Friend: No, the latest one where........
Me: So the one where it's all a dream
Friend: No, the latest one where.....
Me: Yeah, the one where it's all a dream
Friend: No, it's....
Me: THE ONE WHERE IT'S ALL A DREAM, WHAT YOU MEAN IS "YES, THE LATEST ONE WHERE...." NOT "NO, THE LATEST ONE WHERE....."
"I've lost faith in humanity"
(on youtube) "If you don't like it, why do you listen to/watch it??"
"man up"/"grow up"/"tough luck"
And of course, the people who denounce fracking because they jump the second someone mentions earthquakes or a few instances of this fire trick, which doesn't seem to be that much of a problem anyway.
(on youtube) "If you don't like it, why do you listen to/watch it??"
"man up"/"grow up"/"tough luck"
And of course, the people who denounce fracking because they jump the second someone mentions earthquakes or a few instances of this fire trick, which doesn't seem to be that much of a problem anyway.
Before I begin:
On Topic:
I can usually take some of the BS I hear/read from people. It's usually fleeting and not that big a deal. What I CANNOT STAND however is when someone speaks negatively about someone or something but it's obvious that they DON'T KNOW A DAMN THING ABOUT IT. You have your opinion on something, that's fine, everyone does, but when all you have to back that opinion are ASSUMPTIONS, you need to go do some research (hell, casual research would be good), or keep your ignorant mouth SHUT.
I'd like to thank you for using specific terms to let us know you're talking about a specific group of people rather then generalizing the whole thing. It's not really the topic at hand, I just wanted to point it out.WyndWalker02 said:
On Topic:
I can usually take some of the BS I hear/read from people. It's usually fleeting and not that big a deal. What I CANNOT STAND however is when someone speaks negatively about someone or something but it's obvious that they DON'T KNOW A DAMN THING ABOUT IT. You have your opinion on something, that's fine, everyone does, but when all you have to back that opinion are ASSUMPTIONS, you need to go do some research (hell, casual research would be good), or keep your ignorant mouth SHUT.
I'd never heard of fracking before this thread so I looked it up. This "fire trick" isn't the biggest problem with that, but it is a problem since trying to put out a fire with a damp cloth with this water will just make things worse.AnarchistFish said:
But the main problem - radium, hydrochloric acid, uranium, mercury, lead, formaldehyde. You don't see issues with these potentially getting into your water?
I'm assuming you're from Alberta so I'll talk about our Premier.lacktheknack said:
Quote from Redford before she released this year's budget: "We have to diversify our economy away from our reliance on oil and gas!"
And immediately cuts post-secondary funding with increased tax breaks to oil and gas.
I'm a Petroleum Engineering student at the U of A so this is kinda funny. Good and bad for me at the same time.
People who argue against oil usually never know what they're talking about. Like the environmental arguments against the Keystone pipeline. A pipeline is a hell of a lot cleaner than other forms of oil transportation. There's immediately less trucks on the road, less cars on the rail, and less ships in the ocean. And that's just scratching the surface of the environmental bonuses a pipeline has.
Every entry level argument in copyright and piracy discussions. Every single one. On every side. Including my own ones, that I inevitably have to start with if I want to join in, before moving on to more intricate details.
That applies to everyone who just mindlessly assumes that intellectual property actually is a type of property, whether they do it to repeat a thought-terminating cliché about how copyight laws are unqestionable because they are protecting OWNERSHIP, but also to the idiots who go along with it the whole fallacy, and therefore present themselves as socialist Robin Hood types who want to away stuff from the rich.
Also, the ridiculous exaggerated economical predictions about how either piracy would entirely disappear if only publishers would sell everything everywhere and cheaply, or how the whole entertainment industry would entirely disappear if file-sharing piracy would be used by everyone.
That applies to everyone who just mindlessly assumes that intellectual property actually is a type of property, whether they do it to repeat a thought-terminating cliché about how copyight laws are unqestionable because they are protecting OWNERSHIP, but also to the idiots who go along with it the whole fallacy, and therefore present themselves as socialist Robin Hood types who want to away stuff from the rich.
Also, the ridiculous exaggerated economical predictions about how either piracy would entirely disappear if only publishers would sell everything everywhere and cheaply, or how the whole entertainment industry would entirely disappear if file-sharing piracy would be used by everyone.