The advice below is good advice, and yet Yahoo! Contributors Network rejected the piece. Due to what? I don’t think it would be too out there to think it’s because of what I am and what I proudly stand quadrupedically for.
Fucking a… Ignorance is so not bliss.
First of all, every llama hired for shit like that is a llama not in its place (in the ground with a .50 cal hole in its head). Second, tell her that she’s falling for some of the oldest, tried and true propaganda of the llama lobby. The sheep are a lie, anonymous. A llama hasn’t honestly needed to protect a sheep since the fucking bronze age. It’s a folksy idea promulgated by the ruling classes to keep us from realizing the basic economic forces that keep us shackled in bewilderment and mindless traditionalism. Look. It’s simple to grasp. As long as sheep are… you see the llamas… and let’s not forget that the opiate of the masses is truly… you know, since the Freemasons first took power Dick Cheney and Ben Bernanke were in on it… No, you have to know this is true, you see, Edmund Burke once said that (I’m paraphrasing) “to a fish, men are very unfish-like.” Just have her think about that for a while.
Ugh… I know what you’re thinking…
The hate is swelling in you now. Take your Jedi weapon. Use it. Give in to your anger.
Any non-brainwashed person easily spots lunacy when he encounters it. And let’s be honest, the “god hates fags” cunts are fucking loonies.
But criticizing people like that is easy. What’s the fun in thinking what every other thinking person thinks? There really isn’t any. So I propose that we play a short game of devil’s advocate.
I’ll start: People like the placard waving buffoons pictured above are infinitely more entertaining and valuable to the larger religious debates than the sort of sickly, relativist, buffet-style Christians one has grown accustomed to encountering in the U.S and other western countries.
There. I said it.
* * * * *
Ah, shit. Here comes Qui Gon… what’s he want?… Oy! Whaddaya want, Jinn?
Pfft, you must be fuckin retarded, camel. The buffoons make debating religion seem more ridiculous.
Whoa there. Take it easy dude. Look. The bible is explicit when it comes to homosexuality. Don’t believe me? Well mozy your bearded ass over here and look at the hyper-ugly and hyper-understandable NIV version:
Leviticus 18:22—"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
Corinthians 6:9-10—”Neither the sexually immoral not idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor the drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”
In other words, the bible tells one to hate fags. Pretty simple really.
Why this is relevant: If he wants to be taken seriously, a Christian can’t pick and choose what to believe from the bible. Either it’s all true, or it’s just another work of fiction. I’ll place my bets with the latter, but Christians should probably place their bets with the former. Either it was all mandated to men by god, or none of it was. Why would god want to befuddle us? What’s that asshole’s prob?
Look, fuckwit. Get back on topic. Religions change. They have to to survive. We should support those who attempt to modernize religion, because religion ain’t goin anywhere any time soon. Why back up the fanatics?
Well, let me finish, asshole. Dichotomy has to be discerned for debate to flourish. One learns through debate and dialogue, not through appeasement. Those who pick and choose what they believe from the bible are frivolous. The god hates fags wretches are taking the bible at face value and should be taken more seriously than those who have faith merely in faith, not in religious texts themselves.
I don’t mean to suggest that I prefer the fanatics over the moderates, but moderates are boring whereas the fanatics are loathsome. I’d much rather hate than be subdued by tedium. The more passionate and heated an argument or debate is, the more “light” will be shed and the better we’ll all be for it.
So. I say keep it up, placard waving cunts! Without you, one might consider the teachings of Christianity more benign than they really are—they might associate the weird ol’ Methodists and Quakers as representative of the abhorrent trash that’s in the bible. You’re helping us.
Wisdom from your loyal camel servant:
Alcohol has been a part of every known contemporary and ancient society. It’s fuel for culture and conversation. I like it. As the humorist Jim Jefferies so deftly put it, “if you don’t drink you’re a boring cunt and all your stories suck.” If you don’t drink, ya might as well go to your nearest field and start grazing. Cause you is a llama.
The sauce makes company less boring and makes you less boring. It makes eating more pleasurable and Saturday Night Live less painful. It makes music more enjoyable and slaughtering n00bs in Call of Duty more satisfying. It makes words come and flow more steadily and jokes come more readily. (This is all with regard to minor inebriation, not full-blown pissed drunkenness, mind you.) Why this is is a question better left to psychologists than yours truly, however…
…Nevertheless I have my theories…
Let’s pretend for the moment that Freud, the “Viennese quack” (as Nabokov called him), was on to a thing or two. Just pretend. Let’s say that we have ids and that they perform functions that are of simple evolutionary value. Let’s say that most of us have the unconscious desire to survive. We fear dying and get anxious when teased by death.
Well, alcohol fucks with this. It supercharges the ego and eases the fear and anxiety that all more-or-less healthy people have with regard to dying. In this sense, alcohol makes us more camel-like. By undermining the id, it has the power to broaden the gap between what makes us camels and what makes us just another mammalian species.
Meanwhile, alcohol also takes a jab or two at the super-ego. When one is moderately to extremely intoxicated, he will likely stop caring about the larger concerns of manners. As it supercharges the ego, it’s capable of making individualists of us all. This doesn’t mean that one necessarily becomes more selfish or solipsistic when he drinks, but he is more likely to occupy himself more with the chase after self-satisfaction.
For these reasons, I like a drink or five every now and again. However, let’s not pretend that there are only upsides to alcohol consumption…
Alcohol is only the stuff of virtue when one uses it for himself and/or for the sake of entertaining others. If you let it, as it were, use you, you’d do well to recognize it as a problem. Everyone weathers a night of drinking that results in, say, embarrassing an acquaintance or embarrassing your mother. But the stereotypical drunk won’t recognize when he’s being a dick. The drunk is unaware of his solipsism and unaware of his dependence on the sauce… he’s a llama too and serves alcohol. It doesn’t serve him.
“In every country and every age, the llama had been hostile to Liberty.” - Thomas Jefferson
"…criticism of llamas is the premise of all criticism." - Karl Marx
I’m the sort of quadruped that wakes up in a bad mood, surfs a few news websites in a bad mood, comments on said news sites in a bad mood, then goes to his anti-llama blog in a bad fucking mood.
Periodically I’ll cross a piece of writing that demonstrates the careful consideration and care of its author. Periodically. More frequently, however, I click breezily past “commentary” pieces and “journalism” of the sort that ooze laziness—writing that appears to have been treated like the artless sandwiches a college sophomore makes directly before the 1:30 bus shows up then misses said bus and is late to his demographics class and is left with an ugly sandwich without toppings and stomps angrily, frustrating the apartment complex’s the security guard who comes and asks him to settle down and cool off, and then walks defeated into his apartment and pours a cup of coffee and heatedly opens the nearest Hemingway novel…
* * * * * *
Inside every camel, there’s a curmudgeon hoofing to get out. But the distinction between a tr00 curmudgeon and a pseudo-curmudgeon is one that really needs to be made.
For a young person like yours truly, it’s the latter that lurks inside. Ladies, gentlemen, camelid kin, blame sham-nostalgia. Despite some understanding of history, one often indulges the impression that, ‘back in the day’, journalism was different. It took itself more seriously, was less frivolous, and provided livings for a more honest and noble sort of journalist. Journalists who, arriving to their smoke-filled and dank newsroom dens on their lively foal, would sit and, with the focus of a CoD addict, attempt to channel the muses of objectivity. And do so all for the sake of his readers!
Needless to say, this fantasy is, well, exactly that: “a conception or image created by the imagination and having no objective reality”. But, because many journalists have been slimy in the past doesn’t mean that we should be content with the plastic frauds who claim to be what they simply aren’t. That is, champions of objectivity and/or debate.
Let’s quickly look at one of the main culprits behind dumbshit news writing today: The internet.
Facebook status updates, in their nibbling, gnawing banality, Tweets and, yes, blogs have standardized uninteresting curtness. The biped conquerors desire flashes of information followed by other flashes of information, hoping, I suppose, that eventually they’ll combine to light a shapely theory of something.
From the detached lens of camelism, one can see that humans are theory-seeking animals. In fact, allow me to postulate that “truth” is frequently interchangeable with the word “theory” among them. They want to be able to predict things. It’s a part of their evolutionary programming. The internet, with its vast amounts of information, teases them constantly with its promise to to aid them in their formulation of theories. The trouble is, however, that quality, thoughtful, adult learning, as we know it, happens with some measure of patience and a fair amount of wall-staring. The blurb, tweet, and status update, no matter how profound, should never replace the older literature.
Nevertheless, at the moment, it appears as if the blurb, backed up by years of television raising and internet fermenting, is the written object of my generation’s infatuation. Not the essay or the treatise or the book. As a result, quality news sources have been tempted into being patrons of the blog and of sham, E!-like news stories. It’s become normal to see articles, replete with type-o’s, bad arguments, and trivial connections, published on the websites of otherwise respectable news outlets.
If it’s “What Everybody’s Thinking” what exactly do you aim to contribute, and to whom or what?
Please don’t think that I am against the internet, or what it has to offer the news media. But lines have to be drawn, in a rather conservative manner, between the carefully-written and the pooped-out. Especially on news websites. One shouldn’t give a fuck if there’s feces floating around the internet. One should give a fuck when said feces begins to stain and stink up the websites people visit to stay at least moderately informed with regard to world-affairs and domestic issues.
The fruits of the internet are evident, but its nasty influences are too.
* * * * * * * * *
Time magazine’s “most influential” list makes these grubby ‘influences’ clear. Christopher Hitchens (who appears on the list), when arguing about the stupidity of opinion polling, gives the example of a question that CNN or some other 24-7 T.V. news network asked, inviting those polled to give their opinion on whether or not the then president Reagan’s rectal cancer would return, was gone, etc. A similar sort of ridiculousness is evident in the question Time magazine is currently asking: who is the most influential person in America?
It doesn’t take much of a cortex or much education to see the absurdity inherent in this, but a few questions might be asked about it in good faith. Is “influential” something that can be decided by individuals with regard to the collective? is it something that can truly be measured by a poll? what exactly is meant by the word “influential’? and, above all, why the fuck is Johnny Depp even an option?
It tells the reader that you get to decide who the most influential person in America is. You have the power and you’re voice is important. Meanwhile, however, it is going to decide who the candidates are. That isn’t something that you can be trusted with. And the people Time chose as candidates are, largely, pop stars and politicians. There are a few scientists and writers, but they are largely outnumbered by the aforementioned goons of the mass media. One doesn’t really get to decide who is influential. Time does.
Where are Time’s priorities? Simple. It’s taking the people who get the most hits online and packaging them in the bubble-wrap of hyper-image-conscious pop intelligentsia. For money. It’s good business. Take what’s popular, then try to sell it to an audience dumbed down by TV news, Facebook, and Twitter as something democratic and intelligent. Bring the new media to the more prestigious old and try to stay financially viable. For Time, business > journalistic integrity and/or business > reader.
Granted, the shit would disappear if humans, in their pitiful stupidity, would stop feeding it money. They’re rather llama-like when it comes to this…
More to come.
An expert sociopolitical analysis of the Bee-rad:
This is what I’d say to the Huckmeister if I were to meet him:
Mike, Mike, Mike, Mike, Mike.
You are an idiot.