Random BS people say that you get fed up with.

[Abomination]

Excessive use of exaggeration.

Key examples are phrases containing
"faith in humanity"
"literally"
"makes my eyes/brain/organ melt/bleed/die"

People who make use of those phrases make me lose faith in humanity and literally forces my brain to melt out my ears.

 

[irok]

Plox. Its not please, I have no idea where the ox came from its not a clever abbreviation, normally the way it goes down is "can I x plox" x being anything at all it doesn't matter, and if it was please, or even a question mark I would be like yeah sure or yes I can help you x but if there's a plox instead, I will make it my goal in life to stop you from x'ing and you and your offspring will never x again! Your on fire? you said "help me plox?" no.

 

[Ferisar]

Outside of outright wrong statements, I'm not bothered by too much stuff people say. I do think that exaggerating non-existent or tiny issues is quite literally the dumbest thing one could do.

Literally.

LITERALLY.

That's right, bite me. Wait, no, don't bite me. You'll probably think I'm using the literal sense of the word.

Literally.



Oh, OH.

I guess I get a bit peeved when people say "chai tea". I kind of got over it though (mostly).

And yes, I'm aware of the paradox/hypocrisy in my statement. Please don't lecture me on it x)

 

[Jolly Co-operator]

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.

 

[Austin Manning]

Also, what gets me is when people complain about an emotional outburst from a character. I've never understood the mindset that sates when someone close to a character dies, or when a traumatic event occurs, they can't show any emotion at all. Seems dumb, and completely lacking in empathy, which is pretty much needed when speaking for a character.

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!

Its kind of funny, but that isn't a new attitude, it goes back at least as far as Shakespeare's time. There's a scene in Macbeth where a character finds out his entire family's been murdered and begins freaking out. One of his lieutenants tells him to man up and be stoic about it causing the character to round on him and say (paraphrased for simplicity) "Of course I'm freaking out about this! I wouldn't be human if I wasn't!".

I suppose it originates in older gender stereotypes where it was considered masculine to never allow oneself to be emotional and its just been flanderized into being tough (male or female) means showing as little emotion as possible (besides rage).

 

[cdemares]

People complaining about "hipsters", "yuppies", or anything being "emo" irks me. First of all, nothing is more hipster than complaining about hipsters and yuppies. It gives away a superior attitude towards people that are probably exactly like you. And the only thing more hipster is talking about people and things being "real".

Chain-posts on Facebook that try to make you like or share them. You know the ones. "Like this unless you hate the troops", "If you like this, Cancer will kill itself", and this one is real, "A half naked girl can get 100 likes on Facebook, how many can our female soldier get?". See how self-important and annoying those can be?

"What's your favorite game?" This question is totally understandable, and I don't resent it, but I can't really answer that. I just deflect to telling them what games I'm playing currently. People who ask me this are always expecting a current game anyway, and they're older people that don't know about games. They don't need the finer points. But when I hear that question, I just feel exhausted. I think about my mental rolodex of games and feel old.

 

[DANEgerous]

There is no gravity in space, Vaccines do more harm than good, Evolution is just a theory.

Those are just stupid things to say and many people say them. My own father uses the first and last and that makes me kind of sad that he can not grasp some of the basic points of physics and biology

Oh and as this is a gaming site any thing that would imply the average age of a game is like 7 and no one over 13 plays video games. My dad did say that but I got Civ 5 and now he has many hours on that game. He was even wondering how it could be the firth installment as "Kids could not grasp such high concepts" yeah okay Sim City was made in what 92... holy crap 89 and Civ 1 in 91 yeah we have had deep strategy for some time now. Get off it games are just like movies some are mindless some are deep complex works of art that you may learn a lot from.

Speaking of a lot "alot" IT IS NOT A WORD GOD DAMN IT!

 

[Lonewolfm16]

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.

 

[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.

 

[MCerberus]

I always respond with "yep. Just like the germ theory, or the sperm theory, or the round earth theory, or the heliocentric theory, or relativity..." once I had someone tell me the sperm theory wasn't a theory, because it had been proven. I have never wanted to reach through the internet to slap someone so badly.

They should just hook me up to a generator. These people would help power the world with my FURY OF A THOUSAND SUNS BURNING BRIGHTLY.

 

[Jolly Co-operator]

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.

That's a good point. I still think it's a weak excuse, but I'll rethink my argument on the matter.

 

[lacktheknack]

Petty example, but...

"Deergh, the Indiana fridge scene was ridiculous! He couldn't have survived that, it'd be impossible! That film was shit and ruined my memory of the real ones!"

Well, obviously. But it's equally ridiculous to survive hopping out of a plane aboard a life raft and skiing it down the Himalayas. And all the other improbable nonsense Indie's been through for the sake of adventure.

Making it worse is the fact that they don't know what they're talking about. Indiana Jones getting in a lead-lined fridge totally could save him from the blast at that distance. The fridge would not have flown like that (it would have been lucky to cross the room), but that scene was one of the MORE plausible moments in the franchise that gave us "hearts catching fire by proxy".

 

[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).

 

[Mark Rhodes]

I hate when people think that a fact has to be true. Anything which can be proven OR dis-proven is a fact. I am 100 feet tall is a fact. It can be dis-proven. On a different note, the statement "God is real" is a paradox since it is set up like a fact but the very notion of God, or at least the Judeo-Christian God, can not be proven, that is kind of his whole deal.

 

[solemnwar]

I hate when people think that a fact has to be true. Anything which can be proven OR dis-proven is a fact. I am 100 feet tall is a fact. It can be dis-proven. On a different note, the statement "God is real" is a paradox since it is set up like a fact but the very notion of God, or at least the Judeo-Christian God, can not be proven, that is kind of his whole deal.

Uh... according to who?

noun
1.
something that actually exists; reality; truth
2.
something known to exist or to have happened
3.
a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true
4.
something said to be true or supposed to have happened

Edit: Goddammit the last bit of my post got eaten let's try this again:
While there are things that we have once taken as fact (i.e. the earth is flat), once something has been DISPROVEN (we have discovered the world is round), it is no longer a fact, as it is no longer true. The whole point of a fact is that it is TRUE. Otherwise it's a "fiction" (or "lie" if you prefer) or a hypothesis (for lack of a better word here).

 

[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!