Skeptic Project

Brenton is a historical revisionist of the highest order. Whatever it is that he once liked and is retarded is of no consequence now, because, you know, he's 21 and kids his age change opinions the way most people change their socks. That means of course that anything he said in the past is null and void and the only expression of reality is what he claims to believe in the here and now, which will change dramatically within the next 24 hours.

He lives in a fantasy world where Zeitgeist is not a cult, Peter Merola and Jacque Fresco are not con artists, Lady Gaga is a respected musical artist, and rhinoplasty is a legitimate means of self-expression.

I will admit he's quite entertaining.

I was right! I said earlier back that album 1 was about dealing with the concept of fame (which was obvious) and that album two was about expressing her nightmare world and that album three is all about her finally having confidence! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6Gs6d1-Sew

correct correct correct! LOL

So yes Questionmark, she is comfortable being a part of the ilLOLminati.

No. I haven't been drunk for a while.

Yo Matt, I'm all for calling people out on stupid shit, but do we have to use the word "fag"? Its actually one of the few words that bothers me. I can totally get that you aren't using it as hate speech, but its hard to circumvent the connotation of a word like that with the intent.

Its rather erroneous d to assume its liberal guilt, Matt. There are wide ranging perspectives on linguistic accuracy and usage that don't pertain to some artificial sense of political morality engendered through pseudo-conscious nit-picking. I happen to find issue with the word because I am of the belief that common symbology carries with it some fairly clear messages that cannot be ignored, and the use of a term does not free its subject or object of broader implications without first doing some real development in the milieu. I can't make you stop using the word, and I asked if you would stop and you said no. So I have to be content with that even if I disagree with that on a fairly broad level.

That which appears to be common may really be older than the form we are accustomed to, but of course why should we know that?

I don't deliberately misunderstand context at all, Matt. The context is clear, but that doesn't mean that I find the use of a word acceptable or apt. I don't subscribe to the view that context is capable of disassociating or eliminating broader lexicon issues involved. The word is, unquestionably, rooted, now in a system of intolerance. That of course doesn't make every user of the word intolerant or a homophobe, and it certainly does not immediately obscure the intended message- but it does create a diversionary tract. It bothers me because I know what that word is used to accomplish and it is nearly impossible for me to disassociate it from that context. Its not a reflection of you the user, but a reflection of me the audience. We are both entitled to be here in equal amounts, and I'll have to live with it- even if I disagree with it.

No, I do have an issue with it and I would. Just like black people referring to each other as "nigger" is not okay in my book. Again, context doesn't mean everything because there is always more than one context at play. This is not some crusade on my part. I am irked by the word, it makes me uncomfortable, it reminds me of some of the more subtle forces at work in human social life, and its still entangled in much deeper issues.

Not going to happen bro. First lesson I learned here: never trust Matt. Ever.

okay.

Etymology.

I didn't realize it bothered you so much. I was using it to prove a point, but I totally get where you are coming from. I'll refrain from using it again as much as I can.

cat.

Probably better than that Duck video that went viral a couple of years back. Still not touching it (thats what she said).

"thats what she said" isn't a term. Its a phrase. Maybe you can explain the disgust you have with the phrase- assuming competent linguistic capabilities to properly explicate the deeper and more involved issues associated with that phrase. Did she, or did she not say it? In what context? Was the language saturated with question of power relations? Gender and sex inequality? Was the phrase born of a patriarchal dynamic of oppression and suppression?