I think our conservative brethren's overreaction to the hallucination of a beef ban flows from their need to eat copious amounts of beef to balance the copious, unhealthy amounts of bullshit and horseshit and, yes, sure, chickenshit they gladly gorge on.
If one's sex life consists of gooning to "bbc cuckold ladyboy" porn all night while your church-recognized spousal unit is sleeping, then yes, reducing sex would help carbon emissions.
My own theory is even the yahoos who lap up this bullshit don’t believe it (People are only allowed to consume four pounds of meat a year? How would such a thing be enforced even if it were proposed?). But they are so addicted to their outrage response they need that hit of fury or they start to get antsy. What a great money maker for all those conservative outlets -- millions of Americans scrolling away, looking for their next hit. Ka-ching!
this was my take also. how many of just knuckle draggers actually believe this stuff? but the point is, of course, to turn the crank on the outrage machine another round. when you have chosen to float in a sea of shit, who pays attention to any one specific turd? and as to the money-making aspect, these idiots are already hooked into the monthly, weekly, daily recurring charges, with no clue or inclination to get unhooked, so the dough will flow unabated regardless.
it's a bit stunning to watch how easy it is to take the already intellectually incurious and accelerate the descent into stupidlandia.
I'm not sure that came out how you meant it. We have to remember truths, or we wouldn't be able to repeat them. It's true that a liar may forget that he told a lie and slip up, but if you believe something false, like e.g. QAnon "facts," it's the same as believing true facts. Both have to be absorbed and stored in memory, even though some are objectively false.
i meant it in the sense that one does not have to keep track of the truths one has told in the way that a liar must remember all their lies in order not to trip himself up. if i have any sense, and the capacity to make sound judgements based on research into trusted sources, then i should be able to recall this truth at will. so in a way i do remember it, but i don't have to keep it constantly in mind.
By making a show of "believing" something untrue, they show you can't hurt them -- but never figure out that the persistence of their misery means it was never our fault in the first place.
They're trying to show that we can't convince them of anything even when it ought to be easy. It's the opposite of educating people into obedience by making the laws as arbitrary and senseless as possible—_anyone_ can make someone cleave to a rule that makes sense and is obviously good for them, true power is demonstrated and reïnforced by obedience to the arbitrary and even [immediately] hurtful.
(This is a Traditionalist Catholic argument for why the current Church is less powerful that pre-II, and in this case they're right. See also the affection people show toward the Marines, the Foreign Legion, and [in my case] the fanatical karate-dо̄ that gave me forty pounds of muscle and took my knees.)
Meanwhile, Republicans want to ban abortion. And ban contraception. And ban kinds of sex they don't approve of (as in men having sexytimes with other men--but, ya know, some of that lesbian thing is okay, except the bull dykes which, yuck!). And ban sex with children, except for those underage girls that pillars of the Moral Right like Matt Gaetz and Roy Moore find so Lolita-seductive and why should age of consent be a thing anyway? And ban sex toys.
But, you know, it's DEMOCRATS who want to ban sex. Which is only natural because those Democrats are all sexual libertines anyway, and all their pie-wagon women are always doing the ficky-fick with anyone and everyone except ME!
David Brooks: Abstinence has a long and honorable history, from Jesus to St Augustine to Ben Shapiro, but that is of the voluntary persuasion. Imposing abstinence is the bridge too far for the Democrats and the signal that the time is right for the party of personal responsibility, however much wounded by the previous president, to retake its rightful position as the beacon of morality it has been and will be.
Thomas Friedman: I hopped into a cab in Manhattan to visit the Cloisters. The cabbie, a gruff immigrant from Pakistan, complained about the cost of his taxi medallion and then cursed the Democrats. “I immigrated here to escape the sexual repression of Pakistan’s Islamic culture. Now I face the same thing here? I thought the Evangelicals might do this, but not the party of Cuomo!”
Jerry Falwell, Jr.: God doesn’t give us any burden we can’t carry, but the Satanic Democrats certainly do!
Falwell went on to explain that it's hard, and that the thrust of his argument was the cleavage this would surely reveal between the Democrats and those they would fuck by banning fucking.
Not for nuttin, but Falwell Jr, seems to have made a virtue out of spilling the burden that his God gave him to carry. As often as possible, wherever a tissue may be found.
Dang, Roy. I was working on a bit where the angryfolks didn’t object to the part of the climate change plan that restricted sex...BECAUSE THEY DON’T SEX. The silliness passed too quickly for me to get it into shape. Glad you found a way to satirize it.
Don't it always seem to go, you don't know what you got until someone tells you the Dems want to take it away? I had no idea how much I missed not having certain things I already didn't have, and not doing things I wasn't doing, until I heard I wasn't going to be allowed to do it anymore, or have it.
I mean, someone's got to do it! All those things. Even if most of us are too busy trying to make a living and don't have time or energy for much else. If only I could afford all those guns and a decent piece of meat now and then. I guess I'll just have to go on not bathing regular and littering with fierce conviction.
These fucking people. How does this not just get insulting after a while? "Hello, fellow alt-right firebrands, we think so little of your intelligence that we've decided to just tell you Biden, who stands no chance in hell of getting a bankruptcy bill past this opposition party that's even just marginally better than his last one, is going to ban all the farms, declare cows illegal, mandate tofu in all school lunches, and outlaw bacon. Yes, that's right, he will outlaw bacon, the only thing your generation likes better than video games. Send us money."
Hilarious. Remember Matt Couch, the guy who posted the pic of a 72 oz. steak as "My officially response" to Biden's anti-meat proposal? You really don't want to see what he posted as his "officially response" to this one. Suffice to say, the bottle of Michelob is still there, just not completely in frame.
This makes me remember the claim that phishers and 419 scammers _intentionally_ use bad grammar and spelling to try to make sure that people who believe them (or can bear making it to the end of the message) are not the best educated flock of potential customers.
(What's the collective for scammers? Not a 'murder', a 'larcen'?)
I thought it was so the marks would trust them, because they weren't trying to show off by spelling correctly and using proper grammar. Is there a source?
Wasn’t Biden supposed to have killed God by now? It’s been a hundred days, he really needs to pick up the pace!
The Dems are really going to suffer in the midterms because sky daddy has not yet been cancelled, don't ya know?
I think our conservative brethren's overreaction to the hallucination of a beef ban flows from their need to eat copious amounts of beef to balance the copious, unhealthy amounts of bullshit and horseshit and, yes, sure, chickenshit they gladly gorge on.
Or maybe I'm wrong on this.
As someone said on the internets yesterday, “destroying my colon to own the libs”
If one's sex life consists of gooning to "bbc cuckold ladyboy" porn all night while your church-recognized spousal unit is sleeping, then yes, reducing sex would help carbon emissions.
Not just nocturnal carbon emissions either.
Not sure whether that leads to more carbon emissions than their trying to mine Bitcoin with the PS-2.
My own theory is even the yahoos who lap up this bullshit don’t believe it (People are only allowed to consume four pounds of meat a year? How would such a thing be enforced even if it were proposed?). But they are so addicted to their outrage response they need that hit of fury or they start to get antsy. What a great money maker for all those conservative outlets -- millions of Americans scrolling away, looking for their next hit. Ka-ching!
New diet to save the world: Only four pounds of rage per year
They have a work around for the red meat thing. Cook that shit to a nice shade of grey like Fearless Leader they can eat all they want.
Comforting fact: most fast-food hamburgers are mostly cereal. Basically dog kibbles
Add a 2-liter of Cancelled Diet Coke and you're set.
Don't forget the plastic straw!
this was my take also. how many of just knuckle draggers actually believe this stuff? but the point is, of course, to turn the crank on the outrage machine another round. when you have chosen to float in a sea of shit, who pays attention to any one specific turd? and as to the money-making aspect, these idiots are already hooked into the monthly, weekly, daily recurring charges, with no clue or inclination to get unhooked, so the dough will flow unabated regardless.
it's a bit stunning to watch how easy it is to take the already intellectually incurious and accelerate the descent into stupidlandia.
It takes exactly the same amount of brain space and effort to remember a falsehood as it does a truth.
Not sure about that, with a falsehood you have to hold onto all the bullshittery that you use to rationalize believing in the falsehood
Would make an interesting MRI study.
agree. you don't have to remember a truth that you have uttered.
I'm not sure that came out how you meant it. We have to remember truths, or we wouldn't be able to repeat them. It's true that a liar may forget that he told a lie and slip up, but if you believe something false, like e.g. QAnon "facts," it's the same as believing true facts. Both have to be absorbed and stored in memory, even though some are objectively false.
i meant it in the sense that one does not have to keep track of the truths one has told in the way that a liar must remember all their lies in order not to trip himself up. if i have any sense, and the capacity to make sound judgements based on research into trusted sources, then i should be able to recall this truth at will. so in a way i do remember it, but i don't have to keep it constantly in mind.
By making a show of "believing" something untrue, they show you can't hurt them -- but never figure out that the persistence of their misery means it was never our fault in the first place.
Isn't the Persistence of Misery Dali's companion piece to The Persistence of Memory?
They're trying to show that we can't convince them of anything even when it ought to be easy. It's the opposite of educating people into obedience by making the laws as arbitrary and senseless as possible—_anyone_ can make someone cleave to a rule that makes sense and is obviously good for them, true power is demonstrated and reïnforced by obedience to the arbitrary and even [immediately] hurtful.
(This is a Traditionalist Catholic argument for why the current Church is less powerful that pre-II, and in this case they're right. See also the affection people show toward the Marines, the Foreign Legion, and [in my case] the fanatical karate-dо̄ that gave me forty pounds of muscle and took my knees.)
DEMOCRATS WANT TO BAN SEX!!!!111!!!!!
Meanwhile, Republicans want to ban abortion. And ban contraception. And ban kinds of sex they don't approve of (as in men having sexytimes with other men--but, ya know, some of that lesbian thing is okay, except the bull dykes which, yuck!). And ban sex with children, except for those underage girls that pillars of the Moral Right like Matt Gaetz and Roy Moore find so Lolita-seductive and why should age of consent be a thing anyway? And ban sex toys.
But, you know, it's DEMOCRATS who want to ban sex. Which is only natural because those Democrats are all sexual libertines anyway, and all their pie-wagon women are always doing the ficky-fick with anyone and everyone except ME!
David Brooks: Abstinence has a long and honorable history, from Jesus to St Augustine to Ben Shapiro, but that is of the voluntary persuasion. Imposing abstinence is the bridge too far for the Democrats and the signal that the time is right for the party of personal responsibility, however much wounded by the previous president, to retake its rightful position as the beacon of morality it has been and will be.
Thomas Friedman: I hopped into a cab in Manhattan to visit the Cloisters. The cabbie, a gruff immigrant from Pakistan, complained about the cost of his taxi medallion and then cursed the Democrats. “I immigrated here to escape the sexual repression of Pakistan’s Islamic culture. Now I face the same thing here? I thought the Evangelicals might do this, but not the party of Cuomo!”
Jerry Falwell, Jr.: God doesn’t give us any burden we can’t carry, but the Satanic Democrats certainly do!
Falwell went on to explain that it's hard, and that the thrust of his argument was the cleavage this would surely reveal between the Democrats and those they would fuck by banning fucking.
Not for nuttin, but Falwell Jr, seems to have made a virtue out of spilling the burden that his God gave him to carry. As often as possible, wherever a tissue may be found.
onan the barbarian
<Trixie Mattel squawk>
re Brooks, mrs brooks may very much be on board with that imposed abstinence.
What "could" happen is a perennial. Be afraid! And send me your money!
"the Biden plan would require a 92% reduction in sexual activity."
Mrs.Shapiro breathes a sigh of relief and yet again considers her decision to vote for Biden a wise one.
Mr. Dry Ass P**** is also relieved
Obligatory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWNgzbgrDe0
Nice. I believe Garry Shider would say it this way: https://youtu.be/7c0mmPOpsig
RIP, Diaper Man... :(
Dang, Roy. I was working on a bit where the angryfolks didn’t object to the part of the climate change plan that restricted sex...BECAUSE THEY DON’T SEX. The silliness passed too quickly for me to get it into shape. Glad you found a way to satirize it.
Don't it always seem to go, you don't know what you got until someone tells you the Dems want to take it away? I had no idea how much I missed not having certain things I already didn't have, and not doing things I wasn't doing, until I heard I wasn't going to be allowed to do it anymore, or have it.
I mean, someone's got to do it! All those things. Even if most of us are too busy trying to make a living and don't have time or energy for much else. If only I could afford all those guns and a decent piece of meat now and then. I guess I'll just have to go on not bathing regular and littering with fierce conviction.
These fucking people. How does this not just get insulting after a while? "Hello, fellow alt-right firebrands, we think so little of your intelligence that we've decided to just tell you Biden, who stands no chance in hell of getting a bankruptcy bill past this opposition party that's even just marginally better than his last one, is going to ban all the farms, declare cows illegal, mandate tofu in all school lunches, and outlaw bacon. Yes, that's right, he will outlaw bacon, the only thing your generation likes better than video games. Send us money."
Great, Roy. This'll be Tucker's lead story tonight now.
Hilarious. Remember Matt Couch, the guy who posted the pic of a 72 oz. steak as "My officially response" to Biden's anti-meat proposal? You really don't want to see what he posted as his "officially response" to this one. Suffice to say, the bottle of Michelob is still there, just not completely in frame.
This makes me remember the claim that phishers and 419 scammers _intentionally_ use bad grammar and spelling to try to make sure that people who believe them (or can bear making it to the end of the message) are not the best educated flock of potential customers.
(What's the collective for scammers? Not a 'murder', a 'larcen'?)
Clamor
I believe the correct term is "joint-stock corporation"
I was thinking limited liability corporation
I thought it was so the marks would trust them, because they weren't trying to show off by spelling correctly and using proper grammar. Is there a source?
I think it was 25 years ago when I first read "The Stupid! It burns !"
Hilarious!!!