Faggot, Douche, Cunt, Pussie etc all have one thing in common - they all refer to what heterosexual males fear and detest the most:

weakness.

All of those terms in one way or another refer to aspects of the female persona, be it physical or psychological. Inherent to that notion is the knowledge that women are weaker than men and traditionally dependent on them for protection. To be physically or emotionally dependent on anyone is to be a failure in the psyche of the heterosexual male.

That seems to me to be a base instinct, and can only be overcome with rational thought and secular humanistic values.>> ^entr0py:

>> ^bmacs27:

What we need is a defacto, non-descriptive insult, which is not associated with a particular group. I think that word is douche.

Unless you count women. Men calling each other douche bag is exactly like men going around calling each other pussies. It's the association with vulgar womanliness that's supposed to be insulting. I could see both terms irritating women who want to be respected.
It really is hard to think a word that is a personal insult but doesn't insult a group. Not jerk either, masturbators don't deserve that sort of scorn, it's natural. Maybe ass? Even if the noble donkey does not get our meaning, doesn't that just make it more unfair and mean spirited? Poor stupid bastards.
I give up.

>> ^bmacs27:


What we need is a defacto, non-descriptive insult, which is not associated with a particular group. I think that word is douche.


Unless you count women. Men calling each other douche bag is exactly like men going around calling each other pussies. It's the association with vulgar womanliness that's supposed to be insulting. I could see both terms irritating women who want to be respected.

It really is hard to think a word that is a personal insult but doesn't insult a group. Not jerk either, masturbators don't deserve that sort of scorn, it's natural. Maybe ass? Even if the noble donkey does not get our meaning, doesn't that just make it more unfair and mean spirited? Poor stupid bastards.

I give up.

dude, the faces on leah remini and sharon osborne are priceless.

that was terrrrible.

for a second, i felt bad about saying she was terrrrrible. but i don't now. because i realize she is a small child and don't expect anything amazing. i don't tell people they're bad at making art, but i've decided this is not art.

i'm not sure if i think these things are abusive or not. do we know of any women who used to do pagents when they were kids? are they well adjusted? do they talk about it now? are they insane? i feel like it would make them insane and give them a weird idea of reality. more so than being a child star. like, edward furlong doesn't seem as fucked up as what i imagine this girls future to look like.

or is this kind of like the thing, where everyone secretly hates the prettiest girl in the room and tries to call it other things, "she's snobby" "she's stupid" "she's not good at ___" "she's a slut" "she wears too much make up"? are we jealous of her on some Freudian level?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
The horror, the horror: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERW33sBGJG0&feature=player_embedded

Yeah, it was the "asshole" that bugged me. Thanks for sticking up for both of us.

Jigga has been punished, though, don't you think? If his beef is with the phrase "just sayin"... I don't think that phrase has been used more times in such a short conversation.

I'm even sick of it.

In reply to this comment by Fusionaut:
Yes, your post is rather unnecessary. However, bareboards and I seem to have hit some sort of sore spot with you on this issue. I didn't mean any insult by my post and so far, you are the only person who has insulted another in this thread. There's nothing wrong with a heated discussion but insulting people only makes you seem unintelligent in that you may lack the capacity to form your ideas into words without the words coming out as insults and curses. Notice how genjikilpatrick pointed out a link to bareboards that shows that the vegetarian Hitler is a myth. Also notice bareboard's civilized and polite reply. Neither of them called the other names. Perhaps you would like to the same? >> ^JiggaJonson:

I'm about to write a post in reply to both bareboards2 and fusionaut.
@bareboards2 I was never confused about what you meant by mentioning the Hitler/veg/dog thing. The analogy isn't that hard to understand but I dont think you understood what I was getting at. It's trivial I know, but I find it a bit frustrating at times because you don't have to say "just sayin" when you said something. It's as stupid as "I'm about to say _____" right before you say something. It could be used for emphasis but now it's just cliched garbage in the language.
Also I think @Fusionaut may be confused sexually based on his post. Just sayin.
This has been my post in which I replied to both bareboards2 and fusionaut.
p.s. Which parts of this post are unnecessary?
p.p.s. All of it!

Yes, your post is rather unnecessary. However, bareboards and I seem to have hit some sort of sore spot with you on this issue. I didn't mean any insult by my post and so far, you are the only person who has insulted another in this thread. There's nothing wrong with a heated discussion but insulting people only makes you seem unintelligent in that you may lack the capacity to form your ideas into words without the words coming out as insults and curses. Notice how genjikilpatrick pointed out a link to bareboards that shows that the vegetarian Hitler is a myth. Also notice bareboard's civilized and polite reply. Neither of them called the other names. Perhaps you would like to the same? >> ^JiggaJonson:

I'm about to write a post in reply to both bareboards2 and fusionaut.
@bareboards2 I was never confused about what you meant by mentioning the Hitler/veg/dog thing. The analogy isn't that hard to understand but I dont think you understood what I was getting at. It's trivial I know, but I find it a bit frustrating at times because you don't have to say "just sayin" when you said something. It's as stupid as "I'm about to say _____" right before you say something. It could be used for emphasis but now it's just cliched garbage in the language.
Also I think @Fusionaut may be confused sexually based on his post. Just sayin.
This has been my post in which I replied to both bareboards2 and fusionaut.
p.s. Which parts of this post are unnecessary?
p.p.s. All of it!

>> ^dag:

Sorry it was a poor attempt at some filthy humour. >> ^NaMeCaF:
>> ^dag:
Big proponent of roundabouts. Here in Australia we call them "reach-arounds" Make sure if you come for a visit to ask about experiencing the famous Australian reach-arounds.

What part of Australia do you live in? I've never heard it called anything other than a "roundabout" and I've lived here for 28 years.



No, dag. The response you are looking for is "WHOOOSH!"

>> ^dag:

Sorry it was a poor attempt at some filthy humour. >> ^NaMeCaF:
>> ^dag:
Big proponent of roundabouts. Here in Australia we call them "reach-arounds" Make sure if you come for a visit to ask about experiencing the famous Australian reach-arounds.

What part of Australia do you live in? I've never heard it called anything other than a "roundabout" and I've lived here for 28 years.



I thought it was a pretty good attempt, personally. I honest lol'd.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Sorry it was a poor attempt at some filthy humour. >> ^NaMeCaF:

>> ^dag:
Big proponent of roundabouts. Here in Australia we call them "reach-arounds" Make sure if you come for a visit to ask about experiencing the famous Australian reach-arounds.

What part of Australia do you live in? I've never heard it called anything other than a "roundabout" and I've lived here for 28 years.

>> ^dag:

Big proponent of roundabouts. Here in Australia we call them "reach-arounds" Make sure if you come for a visit to ask about experiencing the famous Australian reach-arounds.


What part of Australia do you live in? I've never heard it called anything other than a "roundabout" and I've lived here for 28 years.

>> ^IronDwarf:
if you wanna just call each other names

The explanation was the rest of the comment.

>> ^COriolanus:

>> ^IronDwarf:
Can someone explain how one arrives at the title for this video from its content?

Have you ever seen a dead tree? Often you can see a dead tree still standing in a forest. Squirrels running up the tree, birds flying in and out etc.
But the tree is dead.
Much like the spirit that can produce a 1st Amendment; that spirit is dead amongst the analog class of Americans in modern times to the class of folks who gave us the 1st Amendment way back when.
The folks in charge now would not come up with a free republic if they had the opportunity to start from scratch today. We have the structural remnant of freedom, but the life force that animates that freedom is gone, at least among a certain class in America.
But you knew that, you were just being petulant, dick.


I'm the one being petulant? I was asking a serious question. But if you wanna just call each other names, I can do that too, cunt.

Apparently the facial motion capture technology is owned by a Sidney company called Depth Analysis. That's good, it means it might be licensed out to many developers and ported to other engines.

Also, it's a very minor thing but it's cool to see that Rockstar is letting one of their studios be called something other than Rockstar direction/city. The game looks promising, hopefully the gameplay will be as high quality as the acting.

No dude, she just told fox viewers they didn't understand it. I think a large part of their demographic refutes evolution so yeah... She may have been right.

Anyway, I'd be surprised if that decision was hers. I think that's more a production call.

In other news, has anyone ever seen Evolution starring David Duchovny? We can poison them with Selenium!!!!>> ^MarineGunrock:

Did she really just tell me I didn't understand it? Fuck you, bitch. This was not even basic chemistry. WTF? She even ADMITS that it's basic junior high stuff. AAAHHGGHHH!!!

Soon the white kids will be wearing fur, eating whale, and calling each other the E word.

>> ^AnimalsForCrackers:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Well, seems AnimalsForCrackers once again downvotes my comments for what? Not sure. But since you downvote every comment I make, I have a few theories... You must love to beat off to downvoting my comments... Or, as you sacrafice babies born to religious parents, with coat hangers through their eyes, you must be praying to the Atheist god of reason... No? Not there yet? Or perhaps I am a more understanding Atheist and that drives you to prove yourself?
All hyperbole aside... What I find funny Animals, is that your opinion (Blame religion for every human woe in the world,) is dying here on the sift. Why? Because it is extreme and holds no place in reason. Grow up and stop being the 13 year old you are acting like. I promise to do the same in kind. Because, just stooping to your level makes me feel dirty.

You impertinent, lying fuckstick. I downvoted because I disagreed with your use of post-modernist relativism and the whole freedom = bad mantra, I don't need to give a fucking explanation to downvote someone I disagree with. Downvotes must really piss you the fuck off to elicit such a response. "Wah wah! I was downvoted! I do declare I might be coming down with a case of the vapors!" They are a part of the site, and should be used more than they are when expressing disapproval of a comment, in my opinion. Learn to get over it, everyone else does.
What I don't see others doing is calling someone out for an individual downvote and then claiming the downvoter is the one who is acting like a child while lying and strawmanning in an attempt to prove it. Project on, my friend, project on! <IMG class=smiley src="http://static1.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/teeth.gif">
"Blame religion for every human woe"? I cannot even think of one person who wasn't a flyby troll who has done that here, let alone myself! Nice picture of the Sift that you're painting for us all. "Downvote your every [BOLDED FOR EMPHASIS, yours, mind you] comment"? Well then, if you went out of your way to bold that one word then it must mean you are like really super duper serious! Make a Sift Talk, thems grounds for bannination, we've seen many come and go for that offense. Unfortunately you are a liar, and this is easy for anyone to verify. If you could kindly quote where I have said that or show that I have downvoted anywhere approaching ALL(a few comments = all in Lawdeedaw world) of yours comments, that'd be great. Please get back to me on that, okay, cupcake? <IMG class=smiley src="http://static1.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/wink.gif">
Have any more words to put into my mouth? Fuck off with your dishonesty.


Touchy.

Your opinions are valid about revisionism, even if you can never prove them. They are yours, so keep them and try to explain them. I simply would rather have a debate of reason, something none can do while calling each other names, than a click of a down-arrow and you occasionally saying somehting like, "You are wrong Law, you take the pussy way out and do not blame religion at all."

I do not mind a downvote, in fact I have been downvoted by many and am fine-as-peach-wine with those downvotes---but when they grow to "Oh, another downvote by, I wonder who? Oh, its Animals again, surprise surprise," I stop finding it amusing.

I was not even offended by you at first, and took many of your downvotes casually.

Further, I only bolded "Every" because bold is a function on the sift and just like a "downvote," I think it should be used more often. Thanks for unintentionally pointing that out Animals! Learn to get over it please.

Oh, and I clearly stated that blaming religion for every woe was a dying horse on the Sift. I congradulated and congradulate the entire Sift again.

Addionally, I clearly stated that I was using hyperbole(I.E using hyperbole) when I was making the assertions about you "Downvoting ALL," my comments. That makes the statements satire, like the comedy Lewis Black uses... And since I stated they were blown outlandishly out of proportion, everyone knew they were intentionally ficticous. In short, I did not lie, nor did I insult you with a personal attack---I made a clear joke. Kind of like when you were joking (I assume) and called me an "impertinent, lying fuckstick." If you were not joking there, I am sorry I assumed you were; however, I would like you to prove that I am indeed a "fuckstick." And since fuckstick is a made up word, good luck with that.

Also, since we are speaking of Sift Talk and being 100% accurate, prove to me where I am actually a "cupcake" as you stated. The definition of cupcake follows;
"1. a small cake, the size of an individual portion, baked in a cup-shaped mold.
2. Older Slang .
a. a sexually attractive young woman.
b. a beloved girl or woman." (Dictionary Reference)

This is, by definition, the equivilent of calling me a transvestite (Although there is nothing wrong with being a transvesite, I am not a transvestite,) and I would like veryfiable evidence that I am indeed a woman in a man's body. Either that, or you were calling me a food product, which I doubt I am.

After all, since we want to be 100% correct in ALL statements, get back with me on that. Either that, or you lied, and never made it clear you were joking. Which makes them lies.

Threats aside (I find them amusing) it seems, with your diatribe, that you took far more offense to my comments than I to your downvote. Because I am so offense, I am stopping here. Lawdeedaw out.