The Deluge of Absurdity, Ignorance, and Bad Posts

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I don't think this guy actually knows what a bro is. Clearly he doesn't attend UMass.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm having fun with him. 遊びだけですわ～

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Happier than ever to be a homosexual backing Romney.

That's not absurd, ignorant or bad.

I'd say that it's kind of the first but not the second and only arguably the third.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Context:

Pathetic victim of Stockholm syndrome.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

realisticidealist, C is the only acceptable option.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Women don't tend to obsess over specific fields of minutaie the way men do. A lot of the political gossip here is very analagous to female oriented celebrity magazines, but there is nothing they're into that compares to creating a national swing map by county. That's something only a guy would do.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Women don't tend to obsess over specific fields of minutaie the way men do. A lot of the political gossip here is very analagous to female oriented celebrity magazines, but there is nothing they're into that compares to creating a national swing map by county. That's something only a guy would do.

Really, don't most of Memphis's posts in that thread belong here?

That was the only one at the time I submitted it here. 'Welcome to the Deluge' was in my first response to him.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

realisticidealist, C is the only acceptable option.

C may be the best, but I disagree that it's the only acceptable option. For example, I don't think we should have referenda and initatives. They've done terrible things to Washington and California, and they are the opposite of the type of government that I'd prefer.

True. C and one of the two sub-options of B, rather.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

how do people feel about a "no arguing in the Deluge" rule (like the Comedy Goldmine) is...or does awkward self-defense just add to this thread's charms?

The opportunity for awkward self-defense is why this thread exists.

This.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Vosem carries on in the fine tradition of posting directly into the Deluge.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You might have a stronger leg to stand on calling people who have won sort-of-Nobel Prizes 'failed clowns' by comparison to Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh if you weren't a snot-nosed, contrarian teenager who hasn't even been an undergraduate yet.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

True--I was there quite recently myself. I hope your cold gets better soon.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Nixon did NOT escalate the Vietnam War.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The first sentence here is to an extent accurate (or, at least, you won't do very well or last very long) but the second is, uh...

You can't be a dumb f-ck and join up.  As has been discussed before, the average person in the military is better than the average person not in the military.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Haha no, it's funny. Then again, my 12-year-old sense of humor makes me think any and all uses of the C-bomb are gold. Calling a little girl one makes it all the more funny for the juxtaposition as well as her obviously not being one. It is satire, after all...

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Haha no, it's funny. Then again, my 12-year-old sense of humor makes me think any and all uses of the C-bomb are gold. Calling a little girl one makes it all the more funny for the juxtaposition as well as her obviously not being one. It is satire, after all...

I'm actually a little surprised you didn't post directly in that thread, since I was thinking of how upset you were likely getting at a lot of what was being said...

I assure you I was very upset indeed, but I was stressed yesterday as it was.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Thinking that 'any and all uses of the C-bomb are gold' is (in my opinion) bad, and thinking that the definition of 'satire' can be stretched to encompass and justify anything that causes offense and is supposed to be funny is (as I understand that term) ignorant. 'All the more funny for the juxtaposition' is absurd in that I'm not sure what it's supposed to mean.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Who?

Click for context.

I've met Americans who are unclear on who Taylor Swift is. Granted, most of them were olds.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

An Empire is a country which has an Emperor. Ergo, the only country which can make a halfway reasonable claim today to being an empire is Japan.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

An Empire is a country which has an Emperor. Ergo, the only country which can make a halfway reasonable claim today to being an empire is Japan.

You're obviously the expert on Japanese culture here, not me...can you explain why that is absurd and ignorant? I'm not calling you out; this is a topic you know far more about than I do and I'm legitimately curious.

The sociological/political-science definition of an 'empire' in this context involves what's called a metropole exerting influence over what are called peripheries. It's a state that's to some extent set up like the heterogeneous realms ruled by the Western emperors of old, defined by that rather than by the presence of someone with that particular title. Previously most countries with empires were very interested in accruing an Emperor, because orders of precedence put them above kings and queens; this isn't as important as it used to be, and nothing theoretically prevents a republic from exercising its sovereignty in this way. Not only does Japan not really have peripheries anymore (unless you count Okinawa or Hokkaido), plenty of other countries do. Additionally, the 天皇 has his title translated as 'Emperor' and he does in fact outrank other heads of state in certain arcane ceremonial orders, but the terms derive from entirely different conceptions of sovereignty. 'Emperor' in the West implies, well, more or less what I just described. 天皇 implies a sacramental monarchy. Not mutually exclusive, obviously, but far from the same thing.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

An Empire is a country which has an Emperor. Ergo, the only country which can make a halfway reasonable claim today to being an empire is Japan.

You're obviously the expert on Japanese culture here, not me...can you explain why that is absurd and ignorant? I'm not calling you out; this is a topic you know far more about than I do and I'm legitimately curious.

The sociological/political-science definition of an 'empire' in this context involves what's called a metropole exerting influence over what are called peripheries. It's a state that's to some extent set up like the heterogeneous realms ruled by the Western emperors of old, defined by that rather than by the presence of someone with that particular title. Previously most countries with empires were very interested in accruing an Emperor, because orders of precedence put them above kings and queens; this isn't as important as it used to be, and nothing theoretically prevents a republic from exercising its sovereignty in this way. Not only does Japan not really have peripheries anymore (unless you count Okinawa or Hokkaido), plenty of other countries do. Additionally, the 天皇 has his title translated as 'Emperor' and he does in fact outrank other heads of state in certain arcane ceremonial orders, but the terms derive from entirely different conceptions of sovereignty. 'Emperor' in the West implies, well, more or less what I just described. 天皇 implies a sacramental monarchy. Not mutually exclusive, obviously, but far from the same thing.

Thanks -- it seems we're arguing more over the definition of 'empire' than anything to do with Japanese culture specifically, but I appreciate the explanation

You're welcome. (I mean, your definition of 'empire' is the intuitive and obvious one, but it's not the one that's preferred in current political science or the sense in which the other posters in that thread meant it.)

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

My problem is simply just how BORING most of them are. Never any original material.

That kind of goes hand in hand with having a rational, logical approach to the world, you see.  Sorry that we can't all be batsh[inks] insane like a lot of you folks and your weird perspectives of reality.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Hmm, was it the addition of "you see"?  I thought mimicking your insufferability might have crossed the line, and I guess it did.

What's absurd, ignorant, and bad about your post is the content, which was admittedly not as flagrant in its absurdity, ignorance, and badness as in the case of the execrable memphis. Congratulations, I guess.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You deleted your half-apology?  I was about to half-accept it. 

It's not that I retract it; it's that I thought that it made the most sense in the context of the other sentence that I removed.

Here's the original post, as best I can remember it:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Thank you. A little.

(I still think that your post was bad. I admit that my posts were abrasive. I maintain that that was appropriate.)