I'm dirty Suzanna
I've got problems with grammar

So boy where's your manners
Come buy me a slammer

She said how you doing
Welcome to Canning Town
I ain't got much money
And I talk real funny
Now let me in the back of your van

Now then I've had a couple of drinks
But you look a bit of alright
and I put your bands sticker on me Primark knickers
and I think that might have broken the ice

And she told me her brother was a thief
A dead cockney for knocking out coppers teeth
Her mum stayed home washing all the pots and pans
And when her old man came home he knocked her round
And she told me her mother was on meph
Her daddy used to run with the ICF
I like getting out now then to catch a breath and meet a bloke or two
And that's when she said

I'm dirty Suzanna
I've got problems with grammar
Some say it's my stammer
But it's not not my fault
So boy where's your manners
Come buy me a slammer
And you'll get laid
And I will call you Dave
Yeah I will call you Dave
Even though your name is Steve

She said that her last fella
He was a proper upmarket guy
Said he took her to the races
And all the nice places like Nandos and TGI

She reached for her sambuca
As I notice her tattoo
It was a love heart with Steve
It was written down her sleeve
Yeah my last bloke was called Dave too

She told me she struggled with her speech
And ducked a lot of school to go hang out on the street
She tried so hard even *spoke of therapy*
No matter what she tried said it never worked for me
She told me she never had no friends
I've made a few acquaintances by opening her legs
I think it were me we could probably go the length and have a sprog or two
And that's when she said

I'm dirty Suzanna
I've got problems with grammar
Some say it's my stammer
But it's not not my fault
So boy where's your manners
Come buy me a slammer
And you'll get laid
And I will call you Dave
Yeah I will call you Dave
Even though your name is Steve

She said lets go out
Lets go out to the cinema
There's a Vue in Beckton or Dagenham
And it really ain't that far
You can bring the big van
I'll bring the condoms and we can
Fuck all through the night
That's why they call me dirty Suzanne
And if I should have a baby
We'll get a council flat
Or maybe get a council house
Nah, you need three kids for that
You can take me shopping to Lakeside if we're flash
And we'll have all we need
Child Benefits and that

I'm dirty Suzanna
I've got problems with grammar
Some say it's my stammer
But it's not not my fault

I'm dirty Suzanna
I've got problems with grammar
Some say it's my stammer
But it's not not my fault
So boy where's your manners
Come buy me a slammer
And you'll get laid
And I will call you Dave I'm dirty Suzanna
I've got problems with grammar

Oh FFS. Look, I'll explain it to you one more time, and I'll use small words.

No, you don't have the right not to be offended.
Yes, you have the right to be offended by something, and even to call someone out for their "offensive" behaviour.

The difference between us is that while I find your views distasteful, I'm not calling for you to "keep it in your bedroom and to yourself".


Once again, you are entitled to your opinion, and once you voice that opinion, I'm entitled to call you a homophobic asshole because of it. Yay, freedom of speech!

Zeus: Why you keep calling me Jesus? I look Puerto Rican
to you!?

John: That guy back there called you Jesus.

Zeus: He didn't call me Jesus, he said, "Hey, Zeus."
My name, is 'Zeus!'

John: Zeus?

Zeus: Yeah, Zeus! As in father of Apollo?.... Mount Olympus!?
Don't fuck with me or I'll shove a lightning-bolt up your ass!? Zeus! You got
a problem with that?!

John: No!??

Hey! I never said he didn't have the right to be a troll. This is America, and you have the right to hate whoever the f*ck you want! You also have the right to be as stupidly or disingenuously wrong and to intentionally create untenable situations to milk in your favor (at someone else's expense). I have the right to say so and call you an asshat if I think you are one(especially if I have evidence to back me up).
My racist horse is fairly short.
I found his ranting hilarious and only slightly offending...does that somehow mean I can't call it race baiting if that's what I think it is? Perhaps it was unintentional, but I still say it was Samuel that jumped to racism, not the 'reporter' that said something racist.
SAMUEL DID 2 SUPERBOWL COMMERCIALS that he 'forgot' about...for Marvel. It was his answer "What commercial" that threw the host. He should have simply answered that question instead of looking stupidly offstage, but there was an obvious answer. Terrible host+terrible guest=ridiculous race baiting clip.
If I have the opportunity to crap on an obvious (to me) race baiter, why shouldn't I? To make race baiters feel better? Fuck them dude! ;-)
Bwaaahaahaahaa! Mainstream bullshitter! I may be a bullshitter, but buddy I'm so far from main stream I'm in the desert. ;-}
If you have to create the racism you're complaining about, you're the racist and a problem, funny or not, white or black, even if you're doing it for 'entertainment' or by mistake. That's all.

It's called shaming. Look it up. And yes, it does work. Matter of fact, psychologically, it's one of the surest ways to endure behavior. Unfortunately, we've lost that in America with teachers barred from using red ink, giving bad grades and every little league athlete getting an award.

When 90% of the worlds population is making fun of you, you begin to rethink your stance. And conversely, it's the same tactic bullies use but only in a negative way. As you said, "human nature" is to conform with a little room for individualism. People want to fit into the crowd, and when you're the only one gay-bashing, you stand out in a very negative way when everyone is either ignoring you or calling you an idiot.

(Not to mention, ads like this cause those of us who support gay rights to cheer louder thus making it harder for those beating up LGBT's to get away with their acts feeling like they did the whim of society. It's called Mob Behavior. It's also very human . . .)

It's not too complicated as enoch explained, I'm not too hard to figure out-If I'm as damaged as some accuse me of may I remind those who feel I have singled them out for destruction: I often offer the mirror and admit my own inability or unwillingness to process information beyond my own filters-I try to imagine what it would be like to be on the receiving-end of the same 'vitriol', newtboy, and it's not long before I find myself there when I engage in these projects of using the same derogatory sentiments and language used to present these types of editorials.

It's simple. Someone starts from a position of disgust and outrage at some christian-type, some rightist political type, and I shit on that very exercise using what I understand to be the same devices, with a view to exposing the hypocrisy. It gets taken personally by a few of the more angry campers, then the mob.

I will always detest the titles and tone of atheists pointing-out the obvious to a room full of choir members, as well as people's political views when they come from a position of ,'my-side-of the-two-sided-fence is-better-than-another.' Both sides of any polar opposite appear exactly the same to me. God=Satan, Black=white, republican=democrat, etc.

'Newt, I'm ashamed to admit that beyond our recent exchange, I can't recall any discourse we've had in private beyond my calling-you out on your overall tone and timbre with your public comments that may have rubbed me raw now and again, perhaps I could do better to remember instances that may have affected you in some profound way-I know I've taken care to recant past actions or unsolicited frustration with some here offended by myself, extended olive branches, etc., some have been accepted as sincere (which it most assuredly is when I am truly penitent) some has been ignored or remains forever unforgiven. I have no regrets nor am I responsible for anyone's emotional state at any given time.

Admit my own egocentricity at times and I have had my fair share of battles with some real pieces of work here on this site, but I always return, more patient and forgiving and that much more of an asshole when asshole is dealt me.

...and then there's the resident beat-cop chicchorea, *quality
Thanks enoch, thanks newt, radx and VoodooV and Chaos Engine, for making the place fun...Never a dull moment.

Obamas' a fucking tool, Atheists have their heads up the same ass as Christians, television is poison, life is fair and ultimately painful, enjoy the ride.

I never claimed you were responsible for my emotional state, nor did I even comment on it...it's you who's whining that the sift is ganging up on you (for bullying others with ranting diatribes I might add). Once again you've set up a straw man to deflect from your own argument's inadequacies. When you've taken the time to read and understand my positions, you've often come to agree with me and also agreed that it's YOU that caused the upset on both sides by (in your words) 'going off cocked' after making huge leaps of logic and assumption to find something to rail against angrily. You also admit that you post with a design to upset, often not believing what you write (devils advocacy) but writing it simply to get a reaction, all so you can deride the responder with walls of pre-pubescent quasi-intellectual text.
So, you tire of atheists because they have repeatedly made their point?...then how do you think the sift feels about you and your position 'everyone and everything sucks slimy donkey balls but me and the little that I find proper' that you spout in your 'schoolgirl with a thesaurus' manner numerous times daily? Then why do you lurk here on a site where a large vocal atheist contingent resides? Then why do you fill the comment section of posts about atheists with your angry post walls knowing it will garner response? I'm beginning to feel it's because negative attention is better than none, and that's all you can seem to get from others.
I must commend you on writing in a 'normal' fashion in your last post, it was the most intelligible post of yours I can recall, and a refreshing change.
...and I think you are incorrect that the religious have slunk into a corner here on the sift, I see them here near daily spouting intolerance and derision or claiming superiority, it's true though, they often get shut down quickly.
If calling you out on your behavior that you yourself has admitted is improper and designed to inflame and anger is bullying, I'm a bully. Sure.

My ego and other posters don't enter into it, it's about correcting BS information or calling out asshattery, which is nearly ALL you do. I've done it on my own uncountable times.
You don't 'care about the community as a whole here'...that's the biggest load of crap I've heard recently. You care about intentionally being an annoying little fucker, attacking others, and complaining that things aren't 100% the way you want them. That has always been your MO, I and others have your number. That, and 'fucking with other people's shit' in the most disrespectful manner you can come up with.You've admitted this numerous times, and you've admitted that much of what you write is simply 'devils advocacy' done to get a rise out of others, or just feed your own ego with your rants and the replies they garner. That's why no one takes you seriously (or at least no one should), you are simply trying to live up to your chosen name...and often succeeding. You ARE the smarmy talking dingle berry hanging off a cockroach buddy. This is public knowledge around here. It's also obvious from your handle, which means something like annoying little piece of shit or little fucking thing in one culture and big failure in others...appropriate...and your choice.
Again, no buddies. I'm calling you out on your constant intentionally inflammatory BS all on my own, with or without others. I'm glad to see it's getting under your skin. I'll keep going on the same angle, thanks for the feed back.
Coming from the local permanent troll, I'll take the last as a compliment. How's my ass looking?

@A10anis
while i do truly appreciate your change of tone,you fail to address that your original comment was smug and condescending.
which is what i was addressing.

and the word "ALL" is most certainly a blanket statement.

there are 4500 known religions (many defunct at present).
so maybe you can understand why i criticized your commentary as being overly generalized.

and i would also like to clarify a few things.
1.i find you to be an intelligent and insightful sifter.which is why i called you out.NOT to be an ass or to be confrontational but rather because i think you are a person who is better than your original comment.there are many i wouldnt have wasted my time on.

2.i am not a huge fan of organized religion.i have some serious issues with those highly influential institutions.

3.i actually agree with your basic premise:religion is control by use of fear.
so my issue with your original comment was not your basic premise but in its delivery.

4.dont be too quick to judge ALL religions solely based on doctrine and dogma.at its core religions are just human kind trying to make sense of reality and their place in it.religion is the beginnings of philosophy,and while it can be steeped in superstition and magic thinking,it has also offered some incredibly profound insights and understandings.
socrates,aristotle,plato..these were the beginnings of secular philosophy but before that? it was religion that tackled the big questions.

5.you really should watch the video.the book of enoch is...well..a bizarre apocryphal book.

anyways.i always enjoy your commentary and i hope you take my response with the humanity it was intended.

Hey man-I have seen absurd levels of this stereotype played-out in real life by a few 25-year-old females I know personally who have no problems with taking it to about 3 levels beyond that of the actresses in this video.

Tell me it's not some cruel joke of the cosmos and I'll call you after you've woken up and had breakfast.

(I also posted this reply on his profile not realising in case that causes any confusion)

My 1st post in that thread was intended purely to inform. Most people I meet who own dogs are painfully unaware of what I was describing and consequently foster futile behaviour and negative emotional outbursts around things their dogs do (the idea that everyone in that thread already knows about this is laughable). This is far from the biggest ill in the world but it's there and I saw an opportunity to present an alternative view of events in the hope that perhaps someone somewhere might learn something (or at least consider an idea rather than just mindlessly following social tradition). Where I learned that idea is irrelevant, it stands or falls on its own merits.

Your response garnered hostility because it was indistinguishable from saying "your spoiling our fun by trying to suggest that the animal might actually be terrified and confused and our fun is more important than someone/thing suffering". You didn't try to challenge what I said, you simply indicated some level of disdain for the fact I was even trying to say something intelligent, or because I didn't mindlessly jump on the "look at the terrified dog" bandwaggon like the rest.

Your damm right it was an emotional response, the attitude you displayed from my POV causes untold suffering throughout the world (and I don't just mean dogs which in the grand scheme of things is relatively harmless). If you read my reply again you'll see that at no point did I suggest you were disagreeing with me, I was insulting you precisely because you didn't even try, you just tried to indite me for trying to raise the level of the conversation. It was that and that alone that garnered my hostility, I'm happy to be proven wrong or even for people to switch off and ignore me but to give me flack just for trying I have little patience for.

You have clearly misunderstood my whole argument against you, if I were to take my own advice then I would either challenge your point (which I did) or accept that I didn't understand enough to try and counter intelligently.

What you did was insult me for just trying to make an intelligent argument. That is where the " little gem of "Fuck You"" came from.

Also it's no good getting on a high horse about me being "over sensitive" when you took the time to jump onto my profile and unleash a boatload of bile yourself. That argument would only have worked if you said it to yourself and got on with your life. But you didn't, you felt you had to give me a piece of your mind just like I did.
I'm not going to call you over sensitive, I'm just going to call you human because that's what you are, just like me ;-).

Edit: for the record that Bill Hicks quote refers to precisely the kind of anti-intellectualism I'm accusing you of. It was because an audience member objected to Bill trying to raise an idea above the trivial self interested level that they felt had been threatened. Or to put it another way Bill had spoiled their fun by trying to make an intelligent point rather than just wallowing in their own unconsidered ignorance. As far as I'm concerned it was entirely appropriate.

Had to google Poes Law to see what it means.
Now I have to call you out tho fo,r what it seems to me, be miss-using the term.

Wikipedia: "Poe's law, named after its author Nathan Poe, is an Internet adage reflecting the idea that without a clear indication of the author's intent, it is difficult or impossible to tell the difference between an expression of sincere extremism and a parody of extremism"

Now, this guy is clearly serious. Stephen is interviewing a guy who is anti-gay clearly has an intent. See: "without a clear indication of the author's intent," So this isn't Poe's Law at all, just plain ignorance!

Neither it's "broader" meaning has any usage here.
It's not about comedy, parody or sarcasm in this clip. No-one is trying to be funny, so there's nothing to be mistaken for seriousness when in fact it's comedy.

OnT: Gonna try watch the whole series, unsure I can stand the human stupidity tho

Yeah, I've changed my mind now too, and I'm sorry to have called you in

Have to call you out on a bad read of the situation here. The bikers are entirely at fault for this incident.

@kevingrr
you are engaging in a false polemic defense.
and it is unnecessary.

i did not call you out specifically so there is no need to defend your actions nor those who you know personally.

and just because i point out one truth does not negate the other.
example:

"the soldier who oversaw the gas chambers during world war 2 was a fantastic father and husband"

1.the soldier was a fantastic father and husband=true
2.he oversaw and fascillitated the deaths of thousands of jews=true

as for my "america is circling the drain" assertion,let me rephrase to make it a more succinct statement:
"the american empire is circling the drain"
see:rome (and pretty much every empire known to human history)