10 Unfortunate Facts of Life

[humanmachinery]

Sometimes it's hard to come up with a full-length, balls-to-the-wall rant, but a lot of "too long for Twitter, too short for a whole post" ideas float in and out of my head all the time. Here's 10 things every adult really ought to know, but a lot of people are apparently just too fucking stupid to figure out:

1. Having sex can cause pregnancy. This one seems too obvious to mention, but judging from the number of accidental children in the world, I thought it bore repeating. Nothing is 100% effective against pregnancy except abstinence, or the removal of your ovaries or testicles. [[Incidentally, abortion is still legal in the US and most of Europe, just in case.)

2. If you cover your face with piercing jewelry, you may not be able to find a job. This also goes for doing weird things to your hair, and getting tattoos in conspicuous places. And for fuck's sake, don't give me any bullshit about "freedom of expression", you little dumbass. You go right ahead and express yourself all you want, but body modification is not a constitutionally protected belief system. They can't not hire you for being a Jew, but they certainly can not hire you for looking like a fucking freak. [[caveat: I have both piercings and tattoos … nothing against tattoos, piercings or fucking freaks. Just don't whine about it when you're treated like one.)

3. It's 2008. Racism is seriously outdated. That means, yes Virginia, it is TOTALLY FUCKING UNACCEPTABLE to refer to that black guy on TV as a "junglebunny." Also, don't use the word "they" as though black folks are some separate species who all think and act the same way. They're "They" are humans, not dogs. And do I really need to remind you that "nigger" is a bad word?! Here's a nice rule of thumb for you, dearie: If you wouldn't say it to a black person's face, you probably shouldn't be saying it at all. [[For those of you who really don't get it, this also applies to spics, pakis, chinks, gooks, jews kikes, towelheads, gringos and anyone else you care to slander.)

4. Spontaneous anal sex often involves small amounts of feces. Yes, yes it does. This point is mainly aimed at straight guys, who seem to have a frighteningly widespread lack of understanding on this issue. If you want your backdoor action all nice and sanitary, you need to plan ahead. Buy a little something called an anal [[[[[[, and find a way to gracefully suggest she use it before bed if you want a little booty nookie. If you just swap holes in the middle of the action, without such careful forethought, things often get messy … because guys, it's a butt, and [big secret]there's poop in there[/big secret]. And as long as we're on the subject of anal …

5. Anal sex does not make you gay. Again, for the benefit of you straight boys. Even if you secretly want your girlfriend to bend you over with a strap on, it's OK. You're not gay. You know why? Because you want to be assfucked by a girl, not a boy. That's what the whole "gay" thing is about: Liking boys instead of girls. Anal sex is irrelevant. [added]I am a straight white female … and fwiw, I have never given it to anyone with a strap-on. I just also happen to NOT be an ignorant homophobic twat.[/added]

6. Marijuana is not a "gateway drug". Oh sure, maybe 99% of "hard" drug users also smoke pot. And maybe a lot of them smoked pot before they got into crack or heroin or whatever. But that's not because the pot made them do it, it's because damn near fucking everyone has smoked pot at some point.

7. Creationism is bullshit. Seriously. A big magic guy in the clouds did not wiggle his fingers and create the earth in 6 days. Didn't fucking happen. And I think anyone who professes to believe such a thing ought to be barred from political office. What if there was a religion claiming the world was flat, and the whole "round" thing was just an optical illusion created by God to test our faith? Would ANYONE be suggesting we teach it in schools? Would anyone vote for a politician who claimed to believe it? For fuck's sake, people. It's 2008. We have fossils. We have carbon dating. Get a clue!

8. You have no right to be proud, unless you did it yourself. That goes for anything from racial pride to patriotism. Your race, gender and nationality are fucking accidents of birth. Being proud of something you got stuck with when mamma squeezed you out is stupid. You have a right to be proud of your own personal accomplishments, and perhaps those of your children [[if you were actually a good parent, and your kids didn't succeed by sheer bloody-mindedness alone). That's it. Your parents fucked, Mom got knocked up, and ~9 months later, there you were. Race, gender and nationality handed to you out of some cosmic lottery machine. Fuck your white pride, black pride, national pride, and all the horseshit that goes along with it.

9. Police and Politicians have a lot in common. Maybe half of them go into their chosen careers wanting to genuinely do good. Save people, and make the world a better place and all that. The other half are greedy, power-hungry fucks. And the good half? After a few years on the job, most of them have become so corrupted and/or insulated from the real world, they become vicious, rotten twats too. You can't trust 90% of either of 'em.

10. America is not #1. Well, not unless you count military spending and handgun related deaths. We're shit at public education. Our health care system is both the most expensive and the least effective in the developed world. Literacy, infant mortality, per capita living below the poverty line and/or without any health insurance … etc., etc. We're kind of horrible at a whole lot of things, if you want to be honest about it. We're also, on average, fat as fuck.


http://f-ckingc-nts.com/ramble/10-th...t-should-know/

[ccbatson]

Some fair libertarian principles...not all 100 percent accurate, some downright wrong, but good fodder for thought.

[elganned]

I didn't know libertarians had such a detailed discourse on anal sex, CC.

I learn something new every day. God Bless America.

[humanmachinery]

Not for me, but hey, if it's between consenting adults who aren't related, and nobody gets seriously injured...

Whatever floats yer boat.

"The government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation."

Pierre Trudeau said that way back in 1967, when he nullified Canada's sodomy laws. People thought the man was crazy back then. Now his statement seems forehead-smackingly obvious.

[Ray1936]

"And do I really need to remind you that "nigger" is a bad word?!"

Don't need to tell me. I don't use it. But I wish someone would tell that to black folks.

[humanmachinery]

Meh, that word has a different meaning when black people use it on each other.

To quote Frank Sinatra "only Dino is allowed to call me 'dago,' because he remember what it was like to be an Italian in the bad old days. Anyone else uses that on me, and they get five fingers to the face."

[gnome]

Now that is the first time I've heard of Mr. Sinarta used as an enlightened example of how to veiw race in America. What book might you suggest next, The Manson Family Values? Couldn't you have been more obvious and co-opted a nice passage in the bible to suit your political objective.

In short, your list was a nice light read, but really, quoting Frank was a bit much; Ray1936 has a point that has been brought up by a number of folk. Dismissing his observation, and using Frank as proof of your p.o.v., is ....weak.

[alsodave]

How about #11:

Incessant swearing in order to appear hip and/or shocking does not make you hip, cool, shocking or cutting edge. You're just showing off your limited vocabulary.


By the thread title, I thought we were going to talk about the time Jo ran away, or when Natalie thought about "going all the way", or when George Clooney joined the cast...

[humanmachinery]

If I were to quote the Bible, I could very easily point out the parts where it says slavery and genocide are justifiable.

Frank Sinatra was not be an expert on intercultural communication or ethics, but at least he'd advanced beyond the thinking of a set of iron age pastoralists.

Now, as for why it is acceptable for members of a currently or previously maligned group to use normally disparaging slurs against each other, this is considered a form of self-deprecating and ironic humor.

It is similar to the effect of "playing the dozens." People from inside the downtrodden group hurl insults and slurs at each other that are intended to dehumanize and disparage them based on their affiliation with said group. They do this not because they believe in the truth of these hurtful words, but to soften the blow when others say them with truly hurtful intent.

And because it's an effective way to let off steam without sinking to the level of violence.

This is why my Grandfather knew all the Polish jokes, and would take pleasure in reciting them to other Poles. He didn't believe they were true, but he wanted to beat the ignorant types to the punch.

Of course, we all know that the "n-word" and jokes about black people carry a much greater stigma in this country than jokes about other ethnic or cultural groups. That's what hundreds of years of violent oppression will do for you.

Dirty words and jokes about Native Americans don't have quite that social recoil to them, but this country is only beginning to deal with the repercussions of its actions towards the indigenous peoples of the continent.

[ccbatson]

Really Elganned? Well be prepared to be enlightened and entertained...check out Penn and Teller, in particular their show/series entitled "Bullshit". Very Libertarian, and covering many many areas [[not excluding some of the more crass items as you appear to be interested in).

[humanmachinery]

Bullshit is cool when it tackles issues of ancient superstition and new age hokum.

It's lame when they insist upon unsubstantiated libertarian assertions as self-evident axioms.

And there's also a lot of gratuitous cussing. I'm even measuring this by my standard, where "fuck" is a verb, an adverb, an adjective, and an interjection.

[ccbatson]

Explain unsubstantiated...if anything, this is the most logically compelling part of the libertarian ideology.

[humanmachinery]

As I have said before, libertarianism assumes that all rights are dependent upon the rights of property ownership. The ability of a person to freely exercise their ownership of money, goods or services as they see fit is assumed to be the basis for all civilization.

Except this creates a conflict with peace and order.

Many libertarians [[including one who occasionally posts in this forum) call for the repeal of all zoning laws. They argue zoning laws are a restriction upon the freedom of real estate owners to exercise their property with the full freedom that is due to them.

Except putting a factory or a skyscraper in a residential neighborhood would not just be an exercise in the operation of property. It would be devaluing the properties of those who surround you, and likely creating health and traffic hazards for them. If you lived in a major metropolitan area, such a construction project could very well collapse subway tunnels, or interfere with air traffic patterns.

But these thoughts matter not to a robust objectivist. To a Randroid, money is power, and those who lack power need a *lesson* from the business end of capitalism.

Let's consider another example. Money grows faster than whales.

From a purely capitalist standpoint, hunting all the whales in a given stretch of ocean and then investing the profits elsewhere would generate more long-term income than carefully managing how many whales one kills off your shores year after year. The self-correcting mechanism in capitalism would impose a one-time drop in the price of whale products as you increased supply the year you killed all your local whales. But if you properly factored that into your business plan, your one-time large harvest earnings less the commodity price drop, the elimination of future costs of whale hunting, profits from selling off your unneeded equipment plus future returns on capital invested in other economic areas will still profit you more in later years than hunting 10% of the whales in your area year after year.

Capitalism can only assign monetary values to the factors it incorporates. It is not equipped to address "the tragedy of the commons" or other non-monetary phenomena.

This is where law, philosophy, art, culture, social polity and other human endeavors must be drawn into the mix. A civilization is not uni-dimensional.

Capitalism makes no distinction between the operations of a museum of natural history and the operations of a monster truck rally.

A civilization worth living in must.

I agree that a market-based economic system is the best underpinning for a society of humans. In no way should the government be telling people what they can and cannot do to earn a living, so long as their choice does not harm others. However, absolute freedom is not an acceptable choice either. The well-being of the many should not be sacrificed at the altar of the few.

Running frantically to Rand's utopian vision to solve our current crisis will create nothing more than an empire based on a second world dystopia.

[humanmachinery]

Here is another example: free speech must not be dependent upon or equatable to the expenditure of moneys.

This is an argument the United States Supreme Court has been debating for some years in campaign finance lawsuits.

You see, it doesn't matter if the justice system views all citizens equal under law, if all citizens do not have equal access to the machinery of law.

This peril was once skewered by the noted journalism critic A.J. Liebling, who said
"Freedom of the press belongs to the man who owns one."


Consider that if I committed some grievous offense against you, and everyone knew I was wrong, but I was worth $10 million and you were worth $100,000, the odds would still be in my favor.


I could hire the best fucking lawyer in town, and delay, and delay, and make counter motions, and file counter-suits, and appeal until you were bankrupt and had to *beg* me to settle.

In this manner the judge will agree to hear both our cases in principle, but I win because my ability to pay for that voice exceeds yours.


That is the justice system, but where is the justice in it?

[oladub]

humanmachinery, Your assessment of libertarianism is akin to those who lump all varities and expressions of socialism with communism. Libertarianism is about liberty rather than specifically capitalism or property. Libertarianism, for instance, affords communal lifestyles better than socialism. If you want to live in a communal religious sect like the Hutterites, a hippy commune, group marriage, or some such thing, go some place where there is liberty - not bureaucratic one size fits all mandates. Of course, libertarianism also allows individuals to be hopelessly square if that is their choice. I really don't understand why more people don't take advantage of the freedom still left in this country to set up employee owned businesses and share their wealth with like minded people. Why, for instance, doesn't the Democrat Party, or a shadow organization, buy some hospitals and provide affordable health care to its members? Show the rest of us how its done so we want to duplicate it.

Libertarians I've met hardly ever mention Rand. I think that is more your stereotype of libertarians. Jefferson, the Bill of Rights, and even Hayek are quoted more often. Thoreau was even more extreme than Jefferson. Thoreau was hardly a materialist.although he sure wanted the government to leave him alone.

If you want to talk about whales, Norway ,with all of its socialist welfare state credentials, is one of the top whaling nations. The US doesn't whale except for allowing some Alaskan Eskimos to whale. The socialist former USSR used to be the biggest whaler nation.

The opposite of libertarianism is authoritarianism if you are taking sides. Leftists tend to be social libertarians and economic authoritarians while right wingers tend to be socially authoritarians but more economically libertarian. Someone who scored 100% as both a social and economic libertarian would be an anarchist and not even recognize borders or government authority. As with socialism, there are degrees of libertarianism.

When you suggest that "law, philosophy, art, culture, social polity and other human endeavors must be drawn into the mix ", you only differ from libertarians by using the word 'must'.

[humanmachinery]

You forget that I am speaking to a Randroid. CCBatson understands much of libertarianism through the lens of Rand.

And he is not alone. I've heard Rand referred to by several as the "patron saint of Libertarianism." Rather ironic, since she would have chafed at the very word "saint." Reason Magazine, a prominent Libertarian publican [[though many Libertarians reject it as "overly statist") said this of Rand on her 100th birthday "Libertarianism, the movement most closely connected to Rand's ideas, is less an offspring than a rebel stepchild. In her insistence that political philosophy must be based on a proper epistemology, she rejected the libertarian movement, which embraced a wide variety of reasons for advocating free markets and free minds, as among her enemies."

I'll note Rand rejected nearly all artists and intellectuals who claimed her as an influence. She believed only "superior" beings were worthy to assume her mantle of exceptionalism. She later blamed herself for contracting cancer, because she believed the contraction of all diseases was the result of irrational behavior and a lack of personal responsibility.

Phew. Talk about an uncompromising demagogue.

I object to Hayek as well, but at least he had understanding of intricate mathematics.

And I reject his assertion that the Liberals of the enlightenment era were "really libertarians." A number of enlightenment thinkers called for public works projects, centralized governments, and limitations to be placed upon the operations of private business.

Alexander Hamilton was one such man, Adam Smith was another. They believed society had value, and that social justice ought to be encouraged. Hayek [[the first to claim laissez faire capitalis was the basis of classical Liberalism) believed social justice was a mirage and society an illusion. He argued all greater good was derived from the market, and that all social commerce depended upon monetary transactions.

Many Libertarians claim Jefferson as being closest to the Libertarian ideal, except he advocated tariffs, used federal moneys to buy large swaths of land, and fought a war upon which the nation's survival did not depend. If you believe the writings of Hayek, Friedman, and Von Mises, this violates several principles of Libertarianism.

Nowhere did I advocate the validity of Socialism or bureaucracy –within which capitalism and private enterprise still occur. Those are the pet foes of Libertarians, particularly those who view all public service as suspect acts of statism. I am not a Socialist, though I believe social democracy often contains useful ideas. Bureaucracy is also a necessary tool of any organization large enough to require division of labor, though like any aggregate body of ways and means, there is the tendency to subvert its intended purpose for the sake of self-preservation.

I recognize that like socialism, Libertarianism is not monolithic, but mainstream Libertarianism argues for the primacy of economic values over social values. If you want an example of this, ask yourself why Libertarians typically vote Republican. They vote with their wallets, and trying to ween them from the Conservative teat is like pulling Zebra Muscles from a submerged car. Good luck.

[gnome]

Frank Sinatra was not be an expert on intercultural communication or ethics, but at least he'd advanced beyond the thinking of a set of iron age pastoralists.

iron age: 1500 to 500 BC
pastoralists: nomadic livestock herders

WTF? Frank Sinatra has more advanced ethics than sheep herders of long ago? How so?

How is Frank more advanced than said folk? How are those folk not almost the textbook example of free marketeers envisioned by Libertarians? Self directed, in touch with environmental realities, border-less, stateless, in addition to being the direct spreaders of ethic diversity through established migration patterns....

So you are saying that using Frank Sinatra as an illustrative tool in ethnic and cultural relativism is a more advanced communicative tool than ancient stock herders, or are you saying that long dead examples of Libertarianism are not as PC as martini swillers from the hipster/gangster era?

Or are you saying that Ray and I are "a set of Iron Age pastoralists" and therefore not as enlightened as you and Frank? Or did you tie yourself up in linguistic gymnastics and cannot find a better way to get out of a trick bag of your own making?

oh, one last thing sweetie, don't meh Ray.

[elganned]

Gnome, get a glass of milk and settle down, dear. He wasn't trying to insult Ray.
And what's so bad about meh?

[East Detroit]

This is just a one-liner to up my post count, get attention and convey my wisdom upon the masses.

[elganned]

Taking classes at the Ccbatson School Of Drive-By Posting, are you?

[East Detroit]

Taking classes at the Ccbatson School Of Drive-By Posting, are you?

No personal attacks, or I am going to report you.

[ccbatson]

The reality is that any third party, unless it is revolutionarily successful, will only serve to weaken the party closest to it ideologically by splitting the votes.

[oladub]

humanmachinery, [[re your post #16)

I will just have to disagree with you about the Founders. They were 'classical liberals' or ' laissez-faire liberals' who, on the whole, promoting “the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, individual freedom from restraint, equality under the law, constitutional limitation of government, free markets, and a gold standard to facilitate global free trade and place fiscal constraints on government�. Compare that definition with today's neocon dominated Republicans, welfare state Democrats, or libertarians and the correlation with libertarians is strongest.


Your definition of 'libertarian' is, again, from an outside perspective overemphasizing Rand and a hypothetical anarcho-libertarianism. My experience of volunteering in the Paul campaign for two years and being around quite a few libertarians was a different Constitutional libertarianism that tolerated government, as necessary, particularly at the state and local level. They were both social and economic libertarians. Most wanted the federal government to get our of regulating marriage, drugs, and abortion while advocating Constitutional mandates for such things as Congress declaring wars, gold and silver money, and state supremacy in more things. Going back to the Hamilton/Jefferson, Federalist/Anti-Federalist debate, Hamilton's vision of a powerful commanding federal government has won out in both the Republican and Democrat parties. Jefferson certainly wasn't an anarcho-libertarian but, after all, he was the guy that wote that the sole reason for governments was to protect our Creator endowed liberty. I realize that everyone has different ideas on what government measures best accomplish that and how to fund those measures.


Your last question was why libertarians more often vote Republican than Democrat. I think they lean about two-thirds Republican when those are the only two choices but often vote for third party candidates when options are available. I would note that Ron Paul was not even allowed into the Republican Convention and many of his supporters did not vote for McCain. Some I know voted for Obama. I think that the reason that libertarians more often vote Republican than Democrat is that some Republicans offer a measure of liberty and fidelity to the Constitution. Democrats seldom do with some notable exceptions such as Dennis Kucinich, Alan Grayson, and Marcy Kaptur who have demonstrated leadership in taking on bankers and/or preserving some of our Constitutionally guaranteed civic rights. I have voted for Nader over Bush/Gore myself.

[exdetroiter]

"And do I really need to remind you that "nigger" is a bad word?!"

Don't need to tell me. I don't use it. But I wish someone would tell that to black folks.

Nigger means an ignorant person. [[of any race)

Nigga is a slang term used in the African American community, i.e. Nigga, dude, boy, brother, etc. etc.

[elganned]

A curious new etymology emerges...

Perhaps as you have heard it used it means that to you, exdetroiter, but I can assure you that it doesn't mean that to the vast majority of people.

"Nigger" is a slurring of "Negroe", taken from the Spanish negro meaning "black". This pronunciation is well-established from before the 19th Century, and was the dominant form of usage in the South where it began.

Originally it just meant blacks [[as in slaves), but quickly became a perjorative since most whites did [[and some still do) consider all Negroes to be lazy, stupid, and uncouth, it came by extension to mean those things, also. Calling another white person a nigger is saying, "You are as ignorant, stupid, lazy, and worthless as the lowest form of life I can think of."

"Nigga" is just a variation of the word. It's slang usage among blacks is well-established, and can be either complimentary [["You my nigga!") or perjorative [["Them ignorant niggas all up in here, causing shit!") though it rarely has the same level of visciously negative connotation attached to it as it was used previously by whites.

Neither term is complimentary, however, and all forms of the word should be dropped from usage by all people.