When men say something is fine, they mean "it's fine". When women say something is fine, it never actually means that the situation is fine.
Why is that? Is it so incredibly difficult to just express your own feelings in an honest way that you have to lie about it?
As referenced here, the most frequent excuses that I've heard from women about why they use the word "fine" in a wrong sense are:
1. "He should already know what's wrong, so I don't want to explain it."
Obviously, he doesn't. That's why he's asking. Common logic dictates that if someone asks you a question, you're supposed to assume that they don't know the answer, and then it's your job to try to answer it for them. If I ask you what's wrong and you say "nothing", then guess what? Your answer is that nothing is wrong, which means I have every right to ignore what I had thought was a problem and what YOU said isn't. Later on, when you get mad because your boyfriend or husband or whatever ignored the problem that was there, well guess what, you had already said it wasn't a problem. In comparison, if you heard a noise coming from the car and your mechanic said nothing was the matter and everything is fine, because he just didn't want to explain to you something that you should already know the answer to, wouldn't you be pissed off if later on, your car died because of a problem? Think about that one the next time you want to lie.
2. "I say it's fine because it really is and I know that I'm overreacting, but I'm still being pissy about it."
....so why are you acting pissy if there isn't an issue anymore? Why use that tone? Just say it the way you'd normally say something is fine when it is.
3. "I want to avoid talking about it."
Then just say you don't want to talk about it. That prevents us from having to keep asking what really is wrong. If you say you don't want to talk about it and you just want to leave it be, then okay, I won't ask again. Without that information, I'm going to keep asking you to clarify what's wrong so I can know what the problem is, better assess the situation, and then try to fix it. I can't fix a problem when I don't know what it is. And don't you want the problem to be fixed, rather than just ignored?
4. "Because you don't care anyway."
Then why am I asking? If I didn't care, I wouldn't bother.
5. "Because I don't want to burden you with my problems."
Again, then why am I asking if I wasn't ready to shoulder some of that burden for you? Let me help you.
There's no need for such a simple response to be so complicated. Honesty is the best policy. Just express your true thoughts and move on from there. Saying the opposite of how you feel is just going to hurt yourself and/or others.
The next time something is bothering you, don't just say that it's fine. Without clearly expressing what's wrong, you'll have nobody to blame but yourself when someone else asks if you're okay and that person goes "yup, she's fine" and moves on with their day while you sit and suffer in silence.
When men say something is fine, they mean "it's fine". When women say something is fine, it never actually means that the situation is fine.
Why is it that some people find it so incredibly difficult to use their turning signals when they're driving? Not only is this so ridiculously annoying, but it's also very dangerous. You would think anyone less than a total moron would do everything in their power to keep themselves safe, wouldn't they? (Then again, people smoke, so...)
We've all been stuck behind that jackass that suddenly decides to come to almost a complete, screeching halt, stopping out of the blue, only to turn without any indication that he was about to. Even worse is when said car proceeds to very slowly make that turn, particularly in a weird fashion like swerving in a huge arc or not pulling off to the side to allow you to pass them.
Have you ever been ready to make a turn yourself, waiting patiently while traffic blocks your path, and then you see that one car going both slow enough that you think you could turn but fast enough that you're not willing to risk it, only to see that at the literal last second, they decided to turn in front of you, meaning you could have gone the entire time? Note: This also counts if you put your turning signal on WHILE you're already turning, or a fraction of a moment before the turn, rather than a little bit ahead of time to let everyone know what's about to happen.
It's not as if this is a hard thing to do. Turning signals are built directly next to where your hands have to be in order to operate the car to begin with. They're there for a reason—you're supposed to use them!
It's also against the law NOT to use your turning signal, yet people neglect it, anyway. And isn't it just awesome when you see ten people do this while you're driving in the span of a few minutes, yet not one single car is stopped by a cop and given a ticket? Miraculously, these people get away with it just as much as the ones that pass you in a no-pass zone or tailgate you when you're going 5 miles over the speed limit instead of 20 like they want to.
Come on, you can even make a game out of seeing if the signal clicking noise matches up to the song you're listening to.
|That is, until the blinker decides to speed up its tempo for some reason...jerk. I was feeling the rhythm.|
The people that don't use turning signals are guilty of some combination of laziness, carelessness, ego and stupidity. It's just too much effort to reach down and flip that switch. Plus, your hands are already busy holding your coffee and your phone, right? And it doesn't matter, those other cars will know that you're turning and they'll slow down. After all, you're you, and you're invincible and everyone bends to your will. Everything will be fine. It's not like if it isn't, you'll get into an accident and hurt yourself or others.
In the rare instances that your turning signal just doesn't seem to be working and it broke in a position where you couldn't get it fixed, that's at least a worthwhile excuse, but there's still the alternative in the hand signals. You know, those things that they taught you when you took your driver's test because you were supposed to know to do them if your turning signals went out???
Novel concept, applying knowledge that you learn, but trust me, it works. You might look like an idiot doing it, and there may be a lot of other idiots on the road that have no idea what you're doing and just assume you're sticking your hand out of the car window because you're working on your arm's impression of a dog (which totally isn't going to work at the comedy club, sorry), but at least for the people that would understand it, you'd be doing them a favor.
In a world where we have drunk drivers and our cars can easily fuck up on their own and cause accidents, something as simple as a turning signal should not be a difficult concept to get around. If that's too much effort to ask for, then society is doomed.
It's become a running gag that every time I go to a McDonald's, if I ask for a milkshake or anything similar to it, I'm told that the machine is broken. While granted, it isn't literally every single time, it's at a frequency where it's almost a surefire bet. The chances of this happening are increased to almost 100% accuracy if you go late at night.
Why is that? It can't be that the world's largest fast food chain invests in such shitty equipment that it legitimately does break down all the time. If that's so, then Ronald needs to stop clowning around, get up off his ass and go fix it.
I have no direct experience working at a McDonald's, so I can't say for sure, but my theory is that it's just laziness. It probably takes a long time to clean the machine and the employees would rather just lie to the customers, say it's broken, disappoint them, instead of having to go through the effort of cleaning it after making one for them.
That's ridiculous if it's true, but that's just my theory.
Does anyone have any insight into this or any funny stories about your experience with this? Have YOU been able to get a milkshake at night?
|They call it a Shamrock Shake cause you're lucky if you get one|
I may not be the biggest casino-goer in the world. In fact, I'm about as far as you can get from the typical person you would find in a casino. My extent of gambling so far has been to put a couple of dollars in the slot machines and lose it all (damn slots) and to continually eye up the roulette table, but wimp out and decide not to bet $100 on black like I'm tempted to.
However, when I do go to a casino (usually for a buffet), I try to make the experience as special as possible.
Is it the biggest thing in the world to go to Atlantic City, particularly when Vegas is the more popular and glamorous one? By no means. But at the same time, the environment is reflective of the people that are in it. One of the things that completely saps that air of class out of a casino is when people are dressed like slobs.
Before you mention it, yes, I know that casinos don't have a strict dress code, and I understand and support that. I'm not saying you should only be allowed in the doors if you're wearing a full tuxedo like James Bond but still, you should be dressed as though you're at least trying to look presentable for what's supposed to be something classy.
|Though come on, nobody does it better|
Think about it. Apart from the casino, how many nice places do you go where you can dress up and not look out of place? It's weird when I'm wearing a normal suit, my girlfriend is wearing a dress, and we're surrounded by people that look like they practically just came off the beach or a trailer park.
Old people are the only ones that seem to get this on a regular basis. Many times, you see the older gentleman walking around the casino in a nice suit. Yet it seems as though the younger you get, the more relaxed the attire at a casino seems to be. Just look at your average 20-something guy. Chances are, he's wearing jeans with holes in them, sneakers, and a t-shirt. Is this the most offensive thing in the world? No. But if this is the best you can do, come on. You can't even put on a polo and some khakis? You're not overdressed if you wear a dress shirt and tie to a casino—you just look nice.
If you'd like to avoid the whole casino scene in general and gamble online, there are services like MobileCasino.mobi that you can check out. They offer all of the same games that you can get in a casino such as roulette, poker, blackjack or slots, however this way you can dress like a slob and sit in front of the TV. If this sounds like your kind of thing, go for it, just don't ask me for any tips, as I suck at gambling. In the mean time, I'll be at the buffet, dressed nice and eating like it's my last meal.
Why can only choosy Moms choose Jif?
Thankfully, Jif has had some advertisements that say "choosy Moms and Dads choose Jif", but if you look, their slogan is still dedicated purely to women.
One of the objectives of Out on Limbs is equality and being fair, whether it's the positives or the negatives. For all the people in the world that want to complain that both genders aren't represented equally, here's a situation where men are being shortchanged.
This is peanut butter, not bras. There's no gender-specific target. Many men are the ones taking care of the children in families nowadays.
If we as a culture want to bitch and complain about every little thing and say that server is a better term to use than waiter/waitress (which I agree with) and that a job title like 'secretary' is offensive (which I disagree with), then we should make sure that in this effort for men and women to have equal ground, we don't focus our efforts purely on one side in anything.
Myself? I'm a very picky eater, and I tend to prefer Skippy...but maybe that's because I'm not a father yet.
|Don't even ask what happens with jelly|
Let me get this first idea out of the way immediately and just flat out state something: smoking is stupid and yes, I think that you're stupid if you smoke. There is absolutely no reason to do it, it's harmful to your body, it's addictive, it costs money, and I've yet to hear a single good reason for why anyone should ever do it, since peer pressure doesn't qualify.
Okay, let's move on to secondhand smoke.
Most places have the sense nowadays to ban smoking, which is making this less and less of a problem for people..thankfully. However, there are still places that have not implemented this rule for one reason or another. Some of those reasons are perfectly valid, such as not being able to enforce rules over property that you have no control over. IE, I as a nonsmoker should not be able to tell you that you cannot smoke in your own home just because I don't want to be around it. Go ahead. I can leave your home—you shouldn't have to leave yours. Before anyone complains, saying that this post infringes on the rights of Americans, remember that I've just made that point.
That being said, my mindset is that the rights of nonsmokers absolutely 100% trump smokers in almost every single situation out there. Smoking in any kind of public place should be regulated with that mentality, and it is annoying when people don't take that into account.
Case in point, I was at a drive-in movie the other day, trying to enjoy myself, when the car next to me housed at least one if not more smokers that were puffing away. That smoke naturally drifted into my car, making me smell it the entire time wherein it became quite bothersome. While it did not directly affect my asthma, it very well could have, and there's absolutely no reason why I—or anyone else—should have to ingest smoke when we've not chosen to do so.
But they were in their car, and that's their right to smoke in it! Yes. But I shouldn't be subject to something harmful to my health just because someone else wants to hurt themselves. In that scenario, they can smoke all they want in their car, provided they shut their windows and keep the smoke from going elsewhere. Then, it's a non-issue.
For people that are smokers and don't quite understand this point, I'd like to present to you an analogy. If you are trying to sleep in your bedroom and the person in the bedroom next to you is making a lot of noise, do you not get upset? You're entitled to have silence in a room that you're attempting to make silent, the other person is entitled to make noise in their room, but there becomes a versus factor that in your mind would equate to "be quiet". The person can be as loud as they want, provided they don't disturb you, correct?
There you have it.
|This dangerous thing shouldn't be around anyone...and yes, by that I mean Lindsay Lohan|
Why? Am I one of those weird people that tries to make it a point in every conversation to let people know that they don't want to have kids (as if it makes them special and interesting)? Do I have some kind of aversion to family fun? Do I hate children and old people?
Not at all. (ok...kind of)
The problem is that the saying is misleading. The intent is to make the audience view the product as being a well-rounded, entertaining thing that anyone of any age could enjoy. People "from 8 to 80" will like it, or so they say.
|You kids like Matlock, right?|
But that's not the truth, now is it?
More often than not, when something is advertised as "fun for the whole family", the message that these companies are sending out isn't that everyone will enjoy it. Instead, it's that nobody will be offended by it.
This is why you see this attached mostly to things that target little kids. You can't have a Veggie Tales episode with a storyline about substance abuse.
|In a very special episode, Bob the Tomato overdoses on the growth hormones he was injected with|
Pixar might be willing to make a film out of toys, cars, insects, and damn near everything else, but we're sure as hell not going to see an animated movie from the perspective of anything rated X. A Bug's Life is fun for the whole family, but A Prostitute's Life is an entirely different audience - and one that I'm hoping doesn't necessarily have a family to take to go see it to begin with.
Fun for the whole family is just a code phrase to let overly sensitive parents know that something is safe. It doesn't matter why you're worrying, they just want to let anyone who might be in this group know that they don't have to be afraid...nothing here is going to push your boundaries.
Most of the time, it seems like the targets are super religious and/or the type of people that try to act as though playing a video game is going to turn their child into a murdering psychopath.
|Your kid may grow up to really hate turtles and mushrooms|
But don't worry! It's ok! This is fun for the whole family, which means everything is tame and watered down. There are no risque jokes, the violence (if any) is so minimal and censored that it's in no way realistic, and the subject matter is absolutely nothing controversial. The good guys are always good, the bad guys are clear cut and always bad and they get punished in the end, and we've found a way to shelter you from the real world for a little while. That's what you're always after, right?
For example, I just saw a Lifetime or Hallmark (doesn't matter which, they're the same stupid thing) commercial advertising one of their TV movies that said it was fun for the whole family. Do you know what those movies are about? They're the most bland, uninteresting chick flicks available - and this is coming from a guy that WANTED to go see movies like Valentine's Day and The Time Traveler's Wife. There's no conflict at all. They revolve around being fantasies for a certain type of woman's idealized mindset: the woman that sees herself working in the city at a magazine or something and wishes they could meet a tall, dark and handsome guy who is charming and funny and just enough of a bad boy that they can change him while he fixes all the problems in their life in one easy step.
If this is fun for the whole family, do you really expect a 13 year old boy to like this? What about Dad in his 40s who would rather be watching football?
Are you a family like the one in 7th Heaven? Are you one of those weird families where nobody is allowed to eat sugar and the kids think lima beans are a treat? Are you so butthurt as an adult that you make wimps out of your kids? Fun for the whole family might be right up your alley, but I can guarantee you that your family is not fun for everyone else.
It's extremely rare to find something marketed as fun for the whole family that actually could be fun for everyone. As far as movies go, the previously mentioned Pixar has a good track record of pulling this off. Amusement parks are a good example of something that fits the bill. Miniature golf, similarly, seems to be fun for pretty much everyone if you're in the right mood. Swimming in a pool? See, there's a few, don't jump on me with hate just yet.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you should force-feed your toddlers smut. Discretion, people. I've said it time and time again, I wasn't even 5 years old and two of my favorite movies were Terminator and Batman. I turned out to be an extremely loving and caring person because my parents did a good job. I'm not desensitized to violence, but at the same time, I'm not SO utterly devastated when the littlest thing happens because it was hidden from me for my whole life and I lived in a fantasy world's secure little bubble.
When I have kids, I expect them to watch cartoons instead of American Psycho, but if I surround myself only with things that are "fun for the whole family", that will just be way too lame for me to be able to handle. Viewer discretion is advised. Parental guidance is suggested. Don't just completely neuter everything and shield yourselves because you can't handle it...learn to handle it. You'll enjoy many more things when you have more options.
Spoiler alert: Out on Limbs is not fun for the whole family ;)
|"Ow, my freakin' ears!"|
People call it "the homeless problem". That's because it IS a problem. In an ideal world, would there be homeless people? No. End of discussion. Now, I'm not saying you should bomb them off the planet - far from it. You should take them out of being 'homeless' and just make them normal citizens.
NOTE: I'm just spitballing here. Obviously, I am not an economics major or someone who is intensively looking at statistics or anything of the sort. If you're going to nitpick everything or get butt-hurt about this article, do both me and yourself a favor and skip it. If you're willing to listen to this as a normal conversation and bounce some ideas back and forth like intended, go right ahead.
There's 3 problems that contribute to homelessness: 1) laziness, 2) substance abuse, 3) bad luck. You can't really solve bad luck. Substance abuse and laziness would still contribute to being homeless but at least at that point, you've given people a chance at redemption and they've CHOSEN to remain homeless. At that point, good riddance, I hope you don't last the winter and our streets can be cleaner. Too harsh? No. You can't help those that don't want to help themselves and if someone is a burden and nothing more, they need to be removed from the system.
Why is it that immigration continues to exist? Because people are able to get jobs that allow them to stay here. Why are they getting these jobs? Because they work for little pay. Why are places employing them for such little pay? Because that way, THEY can make more money. The problem isn't that everyone is trying to cheat the system - the problem is that the system isn't allowing them an alternative to AVOID cheating the system. It's the argument that people bring up with downloading piracy problems. I don't want to spend $10 per movie, so I might either download it for free or watch a DVD I borrowed from my friend for free. Either way, you're losing money, but that's because you're being greedy. If you were charging me $5, maybe I would take the risk and see it at the movies rather than choose a free option. Maybe if these companies had legal methods to save money on employees that were willing to work cheaper than normal, they'd do it and not hire illegal immigrants to do the jobs.
Hire the homeless at the same relaxed, sub-minimum wage rates. You might be arguing that that means I'm saying they're less than human and not deserving of the minimum wage. I'm not saying that. But if you force them to hire them at minimum wage, you either have to LOWER the minimum wage rate for everyone (which won't work) or you have to accept the fact that it won't work as that is already in place and nobody does it. The ENTIRE point is that they aren't willing to hire people at that much money.
You might be thinking right now that this will cause a problem where employers will only hire homeless people to save money on their wages. That's why you put a limit on the number that they can hire. Put a cap on the number of employees that they can hire in this program. It's all about limitations and balance. Businesses want to make the most amount of money possible and they should be trying to do that. Just in the same regard, employees are trying to make the most amount of money possible - and they should.
So instead of having homeless people taken out of the equation, you give them an option. They can choose to do the job at a lower rate or they can choose to remain homeless. For each homeless person that opts to do this, the government will place them in a program that gives them some help (some food, shelter, clothing, etc). They pay income tax to help this out and they're able to keep some of their money for themselves. The companies that hire these homeless people are given some tax breaks -- incentive to do it. This will help people have a better chance at moving out on their own and NOT being homeless, wherein they can go find a different, better job and get their life back on track. That means less homeless people. Less homeless people means less crime, less money spent on the homeless people and on anything they become a burden to, etc. Public transportation is utilized to get them to the jobs. Other jobs open up as people are employed to oversee this program. Everyone wins out...except of course, illegal immigrants.
The illegal immigrants are suddenly being pushed out of their job positions because they can't find that work. Doing it illegally means the companies don't get those incentives, as they can't register them as working for them. America is still a country where we'll take you in and you can become a citizen but by doing so, you have to go through the proper system. Then, once you're a citizen, there's no "illegal immigration" problem in regards to you getting a job as you're entitled to any of them that you want. Less illegal immigrants in the country helps tone down crime as well as spending less money for programs about illegal immigration and so on.
In the end, we get a country with people that are citizens, we help our homeless problem, and everyone saves money. All it takes is people actually giving a shit to help each other out and not having our priorities out of order. Would it take time? Sure it would. Every kind of change takes time. Would it 100% solve both problems? Of course not. There would still be homeless people and there would still be people illegally coming into the country - but there would be significantly less. Morale would go up. When morale is up, people accomplish more and they're more willing to give to each other and help each other out.
|Now, let's go watch the baseball match!|
People always say that if you don't have anything nice to say, you shouldn't say anything at all. As with most black and white phrases, I tend to disagree in certain circumstances. There's always a gray area where the saying is thrown out the window.
Now, don't get me wrong, I fully understand and support the notion that you shouldn't be mean for the sake of it or that you should try your hardest to be nice, courteous, and respectful. That even extends to keeping things to yourself because it would hurt someone's feelings or cause an argument and there wouldn't be much of a purpose behind you voicing your opinion.
However, there are those other times that people don't like to mention. Sometimes, you can't simply spare the rod - or rather, shouldn't. It might make you the bad guy to speak up and it might rub people the wrong way, but it's perfectly justified in my mind if it comes from a place of love rather than cruelty. That is what Out on Limbs is about, in essence - being a voice to the voiceless and shouting out the opinions that people may not want to hear but it would serve them right to hear it, all in the interest of improving society or specific individuals. Once in a while, it's fun to make a cruel joke or something of the sort, and used sparingly (and of course, not TOO cruel), it's ok, but you'll never see posts here that are simple hate-mongering or spreading a toxic mentality. I can be harsh, blunt, and oftentimes difficult to listen to, but the purpose is to enlighten and to entertain.
This is where some people get it wrong. You should be as honest as possible in the nicest way possible and the second half of that is where some people get it wrong. Freedom of speech doesn't necessarily mean you have the right as a human being to be hurtful to others. This is even worse off when what you're saying is either flat out wrong, completely uncalled for, or just rude.
|The racist words she would have said if it weren't for that tape...|
Sometimes, people need to be told their flaws. Companies ask for your opinion feedback not just because they want to hear only the positive things but also because they want to hear the negative so they can improve on it. If nobody says anything because it's not nice to complain or point out faults, then nothing will be fixed, correct? The entirety of this divide is based on the difference between constructive criticism and flat out bitching or spreading hatred and almost everyone even as a child can tell them apart. It's up to you to be an adult and to handle the situations that come in front of you. Do you keep things to yourself because that will be the best manageable outcome, do you speak your mind and hope to fix the problems in the most humane way possible, or do you foolishly spew filth for the sake of venting your frustrations? I think even if people don't necessarily want to admit it, they know deep down that you shouldn't always bottle things up because that isn't always the best route to go.
So I'm leaving you with two options here: 1) you agree with this article and leave your praise, or 2) if you disagree with it and have nothing nice to say about it, you can shut up. Have a nice day ;)
The words "waiter" and "waitress" are no longer used in restaurants. Instead, this job has transformed into the description of "server".
First thing's first...a while back, I wrote a post arguing that we should still use the term "secretary" as "administrative professional" just sounds ridiculous and nobody should be offended by it. This post is in similar fashion, but oddly enough, supportive.
There's two primary reasons why the word "server" makes more sense than keeping the waiter/waitress designations.
1) It condenses things to keep it gender neutral. Isn't it annoying to have to type "his or her" instead of "their"? The same applies to saying "waiters and waitresses" instead of "servers". Keeping things streamlined makes for more efficiency unilaterally.
2) It's more true to the job itself. They're not exactly waiting on you more than they are serving you, right?
|There's a "servicing you by doing a job" joke here somewhere|
Essentially, that's the end of this discussion as far as I'm concerned. It's a tiny post, sure, but nothing more needs to be said. If you want to argue about tipping, I'd send you here. If you want to bring up some other topics, leave your comments below and we'll open up a dialogue. Here at Out on Limbs, there's always room for more opinions.
I'm a picky eater and one of the discussions I have all the time is about how I don't like soda. It's an unpopular opinion, I know, but it is what it is. The same applies for ketchup, mustard, mayonnaise, pickles, so on and so forth. By far the biggest of the bunch, though, is the soda issue.
You'd be surprised how often not liking soda can become bothersome. As a child, there were incalculable amount of times where I would have to opt to drink nothing with a meal because nothing other than soda was available to me. This has become more relaxed over the years with the bottled water insanity going around, but there was a time where a situation like another kid's birthday party consisted of no alternatives. What kids aren't sucking down bottles of soda left and right?
This brings up another point: the wide range of sodas. Everyone has their favorite. They might be a Coca-Cola loyalist or they might take the Pepsi Challenge. Do you like Sierra Mist or do you like Sprite? Where does Dr. Pepper come into play? For someone like myself who doesn't like ANY type of soda, when you bring that point up to other people, they undoubtedly run down the list and ask you if you like any different brands. This guy couldn't possibly dislike every single carbonated drink out there...could he?
|Not a winner in the bunch|
But I do. It's also even one of the reasons I don't drink liquor (though the inebriation and peer pressure aspects far outweigh the taste problem). To me, the carbonation is just too overpowering. Every sip of every single soda drink I have ever tried has just tasted like it burned my tongue and mouth. It never quenches my thirst in the slightest bit and I don't even have the tolerance to taste the artificial flavoring added to it because the burning sensation pushes that in the background.
Whether it's caffeine free soda, zero calorie diet soda, any kind of flavorings, or even flat to compensate for the carbonation, I've quite literally never had a single sip of soda that I've ever enjoyed in the slightest bit. In a way, it's a good thing. Soda is incredibly unhealthy for you, as we've all been told, and this has given me the ability to avoid that problem. Granted, I've counteracted it by eating a piss poor diet and not exercising or getting much sleep, so I'm not any better off than the rest of you if I'm not in fact unhealthier for those other reasons. In the end, it's just another one of those things that seems to separate me from the majority, for better or worse, which causes some awkwardness but also some interesting things to think about. I fully expect nearly everyone to disagree with me on this issue, though, so commence the arguing.
The old adage is that if you touch a hot stove, you'll learn your lesson and not do it again in the future. The next time, you'll protect yourself. Nowadays, instead of letting natural selection take its course to weed out the morons in the world, society seems to be struggling to accommodate them. We should be leaving them in the dust, but we're stopping to turn around and hold their hand and push them along at the expense of ourselves. Perhaps there's no better way of illustrating this than the absolutely ridiculous warning labels being printed on products lately.
Obviously, warning labels are a necessity. Some things can legitimately be complicated or there could be some weird side effects that seem completely illogical. But the problem isn't that warning labels exist, it's that they need to warn people about the most ridiculous things. It's perfectly reasonable to have a warning for which medicines you can take and to what quantity. It's another thing to have to warn people not to grab hold of the sharp end of a chainsaw.
|Nah, c'mon, do it. Then you won't be able to type a bitchy comment below|
That's not an isolated incident. Hell, these two prove that there are morons out there that not only don't know not to eat an iPod Shuffle, but they also aren't smart enough to realize that peanuts contain peanuts!
If you're stupid enough for these things to cause you any kind of danger, then I'm sorry, but your lack of intelligence is at such an extreme level that you're beyond saving. You obviously should not be trusted in any kind of job or to properly drive a car or anything else that affects the rest of the people in the world, so you might as well just kill yourself - which you probably will do sometime when you put yourself in a washing machine.
|Showers tend to work better|
You can't blame the companies that print these warning labels as they're just covering their asses in case someone tries to sue them for their own stupidity. That's why we see warnings that you shouldn't suffocate yourself with a plastic bag or spill hot coffee on yourself or God forbid STRANGLE YOURSELF in your window blinds.
I submit to you an idea. How about, instead of printing these labels for the benefit of idiots, we print warning labels on the foreheads of the stupid people in the world. That way, when you are approached by someone with the giant "MORON" stamp on their head, you'll know to ask for someone more qualified to deal with and not waste your time. Give me a warning ahead of time so I can try to avoid these people.
TELL US IN THE COMMENTS SO WE CAN LAUGH AT THAT IDIOT WITH YOU!
It's now December and you know what that means, it's the most wonderful time of the year - apocalypse time!
|Definitely looks like an Oreo. I can't unsee that.|
So what do I think is going to happen? Absolutely nothing. Now of course, I don't mean that literally. People will get up and go to work after having a cup of coffee. Some people will be rushing to get their Christmas shopping done. I'll be recording my latest episode of Smack Talk as I usually do on Friday nights. We'll see lots of news reports about how it's the end of the world, but we'll also see the typical news reports about murders, fires, and other scare tactics so that's not much of a surprise. [Side note: Seriously, how fucking depressing is the news when all they do is focus on that stuff? Ridiculous.]
|That whole January thing really puts a damper on this apocalypse, doesn't it?|
When all is said and done, the most significant thing about this day will end up being that nothing happened and yet another doomsday prophecy turned out to be nothing but paranoia. And hey, if I'm wrong (but I wasn't before), then I'll eat my words, cause in a post-apocalypse world food will be hard to come by, right?
|Except for Twinkies, unless Hostess really does go out of business|
Thanksgiving is coming up and for anyone who has followed this blog in the past, you know that I consider it one of the most hypocritical, stupid holidays out there. As I've previously pointed out, Thanksgiving is a holiday where people eat themselves into oblivion while claiming to be thankful for what they already have. I also ran down five reasons why I don't like Thanksgiving in general. Now, it's time to take a look at the holiday that is coupled with it: BLACK FRIDAY.
Black Friday is a day dedicated to shopping. I'm not the first to point it out, but it still needs to be said that it's contradictory to Thanksgiving itself. Again, be thankful for what you have, then a few hours later, go insane trying to grab as many possessions as you possibly can.
|Doors: The Black Friday Shopper's Worst Enemy|
Before I continue, let me get something out of the way. I'm not opposed to Black Friday's concept in general. Far too many stores charge you far too much for their products. Markup is absolutely ridiculous and any time that there's a sale, it makes sense to take advantage of it. Sometimes you can get some decent deals, although for the most part it seems like these "deals" are just ways to get rid of products that aren't selling because there are better alternatives. If I'm saving 50 bucks on a TV, that's awesome, but if that TV is already 300 bucks overpriced and there's a much better TV for around the same price, I'd rather pay a little more for the thing that doesn't suck. Take that, eMachines.
Black Friday's gotten out of hand, though. There's always fights that break out in the lines because some jackass doesn't realize that if he shows up late, he has less of a chance of getting that tablet or iPhone. How much do you want to bet that on Saturday, we'll be hearing in the news that someone was trampled half to death by the other customers just steamrolling over them?
|Lol you selfish mother fuckers|
It's a lot simpler nowadays to just do your Black Friday shopping online with companies like Amazon. Sure, you might not be able to find absolutely everything, but then again, how much of this shit do you really need? If this economy is in such shambles as it is and everyone is complaining about not making enough money or having a job, why are you so concerned with spending your money on another computer or a brand new video game system or some other luxury of the sort?
If you're deciding that instead of spending time with your family on Thanksgiving, you'll camp out in a line outside of a Walmart or Best Buy, I think your priorities are a bit off. In this economy, there are plenty of people that are camping out elsewhere because they have no choice. Take advantage of the sales, naturally, but it's not the end of the world if you have to pay extra for that completely unnecessary luxury item.
Now who wants to go pick me up a cheap external hard drive? ;)
One of the age-old arguments between men and women revolves around the proper etiquette of the toilet seat position. Women complain that men leave the toilet seat up, men forget to put the seat down (or consciously choose not to). Which one makes more sense out of the two options? The answer to the great debate is rather simple.
I shouldn't have to explain the methodology in which men and women use the toilet. If you don't understand that, then you're one of two things. Either you're either a child who shouldn't be reading this website in the first place [or better yet, read it more so you don't grow up to do the stupid things your parents do] or you've got performance confusion and should definitely not use a public restroom for common courtesy of those around you. Nobody wants to see you take a shit in a urinal [ok, that might be funny].
Very simply put, in the cleanest way possible [no pun intended] men have the ability to utilize the toilet for all three primary functions if the seat is down. Those primary functions are urination, defecation, and vomiting. You don't have to be a trick shot artist with marksmanship aim to pull off the first, the second is self-explanatory, and the third implies that your head is already hovering the area so there's not much more ground you can cover from that angle. For the sheer awkwardness that I can assume comes from squatting for women, compared against the versatility men have, it's hard to argue in favor of putting it up and needing to do that extra work.
|Unless you're Barney Stinson. That guy's awesome.|
Granted, that extra work is not that difficult at all. It takes one second to move a toilet seat. There usually aren't situations where there's an emergency and you not only don't have that extra second to adjust the seat according to your problem, but also that you're unable to look ahead of time. For the women that complain that they'll fall in if the seat is up, you should try glancing at where you're going to plant your ass before you start backing up and parking. Men have even less room to complain considering that we stare facing that direction the entire time.
When you rule out that both sides lose on the argument of cleanliness (as keeping the cover down on top of all of that makes for a less shitty looking [pun intended this time] bathroom), it really boils down to the points above. For those reasons, the women have won this round. Sorry guys, you'll just have to put up with it.....pun not intended but greatly appreciated.
|"Did you ever notice how men always leave the toilet seat up? That's the joke."|
We've discussed in the past that maturity doesn't come with age on its own and how it's more of an issue of someone's psychology rather than life span. There are mature teenagers and there are immature elderly people. To those children that act well beyond their age, I commend you. To those people that don't act their age, I hope you enjoy this multiple part entry. I'm trying something new here by splitting it up.
PREFACE: The older I get, the worse my perception of people older than me becomes. I can look at children 1/4 my age that know more than I did at their age with great pleasure (keep up the good work, guys and gals) and I can equally look at people that have been on this planet decades longer than I am and just shake my head at how appallingly dumb and stubborn they are. Too many people that call themselves adults have no right to call themselves that other than in terms of physiology. This applies to young adults, middle aged men and women, and even the old folks out there. The negative stigma of doing something "childish" would naturally make you think it's a child doing the act, but far more often than they'd like to admit, an adult is doing the same thing somewhere else. Let's take a look at some of those examples, shall we?
In part one of this series, we're going to take a look at HIGH SCHOOL DRAMA:
If you've never heard the term, it's supposed to reference the idea that teenagers blow things out of proportion, get stressed out over little things that won't matter later on in life, fight over stupid things with each other, gossip about one another, and so on. The phrase implies that the attitude is indicative of the age range. I'm curious, how many people reading this article right now that have graduated high school have eradicated this from their lives entirely since then? When you graduate, people don't just stop doing these things. The only difference is that you're no longer in the pressure cooker that is grade school where things are magnified and less easy to ignore. If you make an ass of yourself in school, people talk about it and it spreads quickly to your entire social microcosm. A kid being made fun of will be made fun of in front of everyone he/she knows in seconds. An adult out in "the real world" can go a very long time without realizing that people have little to no respect for them. Every office has their cliques, just like the tables in the cafeteria in school. It makes for good television when it's a high school and it does just the same for adults. Look at the CW network.
|This is the cool crowd that hangs out in the hallway before class|
People of all ages gossip about others, especially if they have nothing better to occupy their time with. If you don't agree with me on that, go ahead and talk to an elderly person for a good hour and see how many stories they have to tell you. Better yet, look at how much celebrity gossip is thrown at us everyday (because celebrities are apparently not human begins that deserve privacy for some reason). Kids will come home from school and talk about another student just the same as an adult will come home from work and talk about a coworker. Did you hear that Amanda failed her Geometry test? Did you hear that Amanda is getting fired? Talking about how Jim showed up late to Chemistry class is the same as talking about how Jim showed up late to work. The children at school complain that their teacher is mean and assigns too much work. The adults at their jobs complain that their boss is mean and assigns too much work. Prom King and Queen are the popular people just the same as the person with the promotion is oftentimes the person who has sucked up and made a lot of friends in the right places. The only differences when it comes to work and school are that you get paid instead of just a grade and you require that money to survive instead of just to continue moving on through school. The social aspects are still pretty much the same.
In part 2, we'll take a look at the childish things adults do when it comes to friendships and relationships.
Email has been around for a very long time now and yet we still haven't been able to get rid of spam. Pretty much the only way to make sure you don't get spam is to not have an email address, which in this day and age, is pretty much impossible. In fact, even if you don't have an email address, you still get junk mail from the postal service (which by the way, if you're interested in how pointless that is sometimes, click here). Thus, we're stuck with having to just delete our spam and hope it doesn't come back (knowing full well that it will).
Personally, I have too many email addresses to keep track of, since I have so many accounts on so many websites. However, I have three primary email addresses that I use: two for official things (such as the contact form above) and one that I use to sign up for any and all websites that look shady in the slightest bit. You never know what site is going to immediately sell your information out and overload your inbox with crap. Naturally, the latter of the three email addresses is just riddled with 50+ spam emails a day. Thankfully, the former two might get 10 a month between them. But no matter what the websites are that I've signed up for, no matter what protection (no pun intended) I use, it seems like there's one predominant subject in my spam emails: penis enlargement.
Sure, the second most likely spam I get is from some New Zealand millionaire trying to cut me in on his money or some FBI cash-in that I should take advantage of (cause you know the government, giving you money via email instead of taking it from you via...well, every possible way), but 75% of the time, it's a message informing me that I can make my penis bigger if I buy some Viagara or something.
This begs the question: why, out of all things, is penis-related emails the thing that people send out so often? Why not other topics? Is there some kind of connection between the concept of "electronic mail" and "small dick" that I don't understand?
And really, what's the success rate? The only people that would bother clicking for more information are the ones that fall into a cross section between "people that suffer from this condition" and "people that are too stupid to realize that it's a spam email". Is this such a huge number that it warrants the popularity of the spam?
Whatever happened to "target audience"? A porn website having ads for Viagara makes sense to me but I wouldn't expect to get this type of email from other sites. Thank you for signing up to Home and Garden. You know what else needs to grow? Your penis.
You would think that with spam email, the goals are to trick people into buying something, get their information and steal from them in some way, or putting their information into your system so you can send them even more spam for your advertisers (who would in turn hope that the people would see the ad and buy something from them). If that's the case, why is it not the "free iPad" and "free iPhone" and such type of ads that are more likely to pop up? Why target people with erectile dysfunction - especially when 1/3 of all infomercials are about this as well (the other two being dietary supplements or exercise equipment and kitchen utensils or gadgets).
Spam is annoying enough as it is, but this particular type of spam just boggles my mind.
Do you have any funny or frustrating spam email stories? Let us know in the comments.
By far one of the worst things in the history of the internet is the Captcha prompt. If you're unaware of what that is, it's the annoying picture of jumbled up letters that you're supposed to type out to prove that you're a human being and not some kind of a spam bot. You might recognize it as being that thing that continually tells you that you need to redo it, preventing you from submitting some kind of an email or signing up for a website or something.
In theory, the Captcha is great - and when it works well, it's awesome. Being able to prevent spam is something I'm sure we're all a big supporter of. Some of the Captcha software out there is actually not frustrating whatsoever. The problem comes in with the others. They attempt to hide the letters so well that it becomes a burden for even the real humans to read it! How are you expected to be able to read garbled up nonsense like this?
|Go ahead, try to figure this reCaptcha prompt out|
Ok, granted, I made that one up on Photoshop. But still, would you have known the difference if I didn't point it out to you? These eight following Captcha images, on the other hand, I didn't manipulate. They're just as I got them:
|Braille would be easier to read at this point.|
Is that pactsie? What's the definition of xemestt? Did you seriously need to darken the background of the word "has", one of the only real words? Am I supposed to type the "-[" part of "red"? What about the comma after 532 squared? Why are there so many math problems in this, like pi and 006? And are you kidding me with the literally cut in half word on the second one on the left column???
They offer you the option to play a recording of it to help you out, but that shit is even more confusing than the letters! It sounds like two Transformers having sex with Stephen Hawking...which I'm sure would create a real badass offspring but that's beside the point. They claim this is for the visually impaired. That's just mean, as they'll listen to that and assume they're going deaf as well.
It's a shame we don't have a better system in place to stop spam, or that this would stop spam entirely so we could at least consider it a necessary evil. Until it yields better results, or until it stops being a vomited black text mess with askew letters that I have to cycle through 30 times to be able to read, Captcha is going to be one of those things I wish would just become a relic of the past.
I'm a big fan of films and because of that, I follow the Oscars every year. This year, unfortunately, it was a pain in the ass, but nonetheless, next year I'll be doing the same, no doubt. Every year, though, I think about how so many people are getting robbed of their credit. With that being said, here are some Academy Awards that I think they should add to the ceremony but have been neglecting:
1. Best Action Sequence (aka Best Stuntwork/Choreography)
Stuntwork, choreography, working out the CGI and the other effects, proper safety...this is all extremely intricate work. How come after all these years, we have awards for most jobs in the film industry (save for the ones that really you can't get an award for, like being the guy that gets everyone their coffee) yet the stunts get no love? The only rationalization I can see for this not being included is to hope that people don't try to do incredibly dangerous things just to get the attention of the academy for an Oscar - but still, that'd be to their own discretion. Some do that anyway and don't even receive an award for their efforts.
2. Best Synthetic Performance
With the advancements in CGI, we've seen lots of characters that are nothing more than a guy in a motion capture suit combined with a voice actor and the animators. I might not be the biggest Lord of the Rings fan out there, but Gollum is a prime example of something that should have been rewarded. All those involved in that did such a good job that if it weren't for the fantasy element and knowing that you were seeing a movie, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between that and reality.
3. Best Film Trailer
There are so many movies that I've seen solely because the trailer was epic - even if I didn't necessarily think that the film would turn out as good. Battle: Los Angeles, for one, disappointed me for the film but the trailer is still fantastic. Other noteable examples (but better movies) are Inception, The Island, Garden State, etc. I think we can all agree that the trailer for Alien is fantastic, right?
4. Retroactive Awards
Sure, it would be tough, and take a ridiculous amount of time (therefore making this impossible to happen) but I think a lot of movies were screwed over because of categories not existing at the time that they were out. We all know that if Best Animated Film was around for The Lion King it would have won that. The same goes for Aladdin.
5. Best TV Film
If they can have an award for documentary, short film, animated film, the standard motion pictures, then why can't they acknowledge films that were broadcast on television instead of being distributed through movie theatres? Now, I would say that they should also create a category for online content, but I think that's premature. Several years from now, yes, but at the moment, it's too new for that. TV, however, is not new. If the Golden Globes can give an award to TV film/mini-series, the Academy Awards can give one to best television film.
Generally speaking, I'm in the middle ground when it comes to kids. I'm certainly not one of those people that instinctively hates every little kid they see and never wants to have them, but I'm far from the people that just adore little kids as if they're the best things possible in the universe 24/7. I'm sure when I have children of my own, I'm going to love them like I've loved nothing else in my entire life - but I'm still going to find the annoying things annoying, for sure. If I can be sure that my own children are not exempt from this, how do you think I feel when it comes to YOUR children? For each of you parents out there that want to waste your time promoting your kids to me, I submit to you this list of things about your kids that I could not give two shits about.
The "Cute" Things They Did
The amount of things children do that is legitimately cute is far outweighed by the things that adults market as being cute. The newer the parent (or older in regards to grandparents), the more likely they'll find something cute, to the point where damn near everything is being spoken of as the cutest thing ever. The baby coughed - so cute. The baby moved its mouth and I misinterpreted it as a smile - SO CUTE. The baby laughed - SO @%#$!* CUTE AHHRGUGHUGH!!! I know you think your baby is the most adorable thing in the world, but that's because it's your baby, so keep that in mind when expressing those feelings to other people. How many people that truly love their wives call them the most beautiful woman in the world? Now compare that to how many of them literally go around and show people pictures of their wives and say "isn't she the most beautiful woman in the world?" versus the amount of people that do that with their kids and how cute they are. On top of it, cuteness is an opinion. Some people think it's cute to see a kid dump pasta all over their head. I happen to think it's a perfectly good waste of spaghetti - something infinitely more awesome than a baby.
|Way to ruin dinner, idiot. The starving kids in Ethiopia don't think this is adorable.|
Yeah, ok, that might not have been CUTE, but you have to admit it was FUNNY. No, I don't. Most of the time when I laugh at something a kid did, I'm laughing at how undeveloped they are and how they did something flat out stupid. The same applies to my dog, a Yorkshire Terrier who is a complete moron that scratches my dishwasher for the sheer hell of it and is perfectly willing to eat sticks of chalk but refuses to eat the leafy part of Romain lettuce. I laugh at my dog's stupidity and if your kid does something stupid, I'll laugh too, but I'm not going to think it's a riot that your child made a silly noise in an attempt to be silly. Your little kid isn't a future stand-up comedian because they repeated a knock-knock joke they overheard on the Sprout Network...particularly if they butchered it and made it nonsensical. Little kids can't do observational humor - they haven't been alive long enough to observe anything. Slapstick humor is something I find dumb even when an adult does it, so no excuses there (sorry, Three Stooges, you bore the shit out of me and I find you horribly stupid). You probably shouldn't be encouraging your kid to pretend-fall anyway unless you're willing to put up with the tears afterward when they hurt themselves.
The Impressive Milestones They Hit
I'm glad your kid took its first steps. Really, I am. If God came and gave me full control over whether or not your kid could walk, I'd say yes, let the kid walk. I'm not cruel. But I honestly don't care beyond that unless there's something special to it. If the average time to say your first word is 16 months and your kid says "mom" in 15, congrats, but it's not the same as if your 2 year old changed the oil in your car. People are so quick to take credit and live vicariously through their children that they make a huge deal about little things and try to pass them off as major accomplishments beyond what normal children do. This leads us into the next category...
How Smart/Clever They Are
EVERYBODY just has the smartest kid in the world, don't they? Let's just look past how many of them are really going to be honor students, shall we? Your kid mumbles a bunch of nonsense and you attribute words to that jargon and suddenly your 1 year old is speaking fluent multiple languages. It's no grand feat if your kid is old enough to know something and they know it. So what if your 3 year old understands that flipping a light switch turns a light on and off? Again, it's not as if they built the damn thing. Once more, it would be a different story if you're talking legitimately abnormal cases. If you do in fact have a 2 year old that can do calculus with you, by all means, brag away and tell me more.
Your Predictions on their Future Job
Little Jimmy throws his football - he's going to be a quarterback some day! Sure he will. They're scouting young these days and maybe with a little training he can walk in a straight line without bumping into a wall. As with all of these, I'm lenient on this when it comes to certain things. If you notice that your 10 year old kid has tendencies to do certain things, I would definitely be trying to predict future job options for them. What I find stupid is when people take a kid too young to have any information about and blow things out of proportion and fill in the blanks. A toddler boy playing with a toy car doesn't mean they'll grow up to be a race car driver or a mechanic. A little girl playing house doesn't mean she'll grow up to be an interior designer or real estate agent. How many kids out there play 'doctor' and actually grow up to be a nurse or neurosurgeon or anything of the sort? When I was little, I used to like looking at bugs, I wanted to learn karate and be a Power Ranger, and I absolutely hated school. I've done nothing career-wise in my adult life in regards to animals or fitness/sports and instead, I've spent my time getting a teaching degree and writing. You can't guess these things.
Who They Look Like
You know who they look like? YOU. If they don't, you have a problem. If you're both Asian and your kid comes out looking like Morgan Freeman, I'm interested. If you're two Irish people with white freckled skin and red hair and you end up having an Irish kid that has white freckled skin and red hair, who gives a shit? I certainly don't want to sit there and pinpoint every little feature your kid has and compare them to the two of you and see which one matches up. Aw, look, little Jimmy has your nose, my eyes, and Dennis Franz's mustache!
|Who wants wallet sized portraits now?|
Infants and old people share the same 4 most dominated topics of discussion: how often they go to the bathroom, how often they sleep, what medical stuff they have going on right now, and what they've eaten recently. Your kid goes from formula/breast milk to baby food to eventual normal food, all the meanwhile coming across things they like and things they don't. There. I just saved you all the effort you ever need to talk about unless something weird comes up, like if your kid just can't satiate their craving for drywall or if they mistakenly ate cat food one day and would prefer that over chicken nuggets.
How Big They Are
This applies to both their size when they were born and whatever size they are now. I'm not interested unless your kid's a freak and I certainly don't hope that's the case, for their sake. If you somehow gave birth to a 250 lb 6'4 baby, good lord, you need to stop telling me and start telling the Guinness Book of World Records instead. Your kid is going to grow in height, so I don't care if the last time I saw them was 6 months ago and they've grown X amount of inches. It happens. If they shrank, that's worth talking about (as well as a premise of a movie and a bunch of sequels that were unwarranted). I certainly don't care about their weight, particularly if you're going to say they're a "big eater" and then start telling me about what they eat - we already went over that. Let me know when they're big enough in age to have a legitimate conversation and develop a personality so we can move past these pointless discussions of your kids.
Look, I'm not saying that you shouldn't be proud of your kids (unless they've done nothing to be proud of), nor am I saying that your kids shouldn't dominate your life. You're a parent, your kids are supposed to be the most important thing in the world to you. The trouble is when you forget that they're not equally the most important thing to everybody else.