50.7% of the US population, based on 2004 election results.
Girl #1: What's the word for when there's just a voice and a harmony?
Girl #2: I think that's called "homophobic."
Girl #1: Really, homophobic?
Girl #3: Actually it's "homophonic."
Girl #2: Oh.
Girl #1: Then what does homophobic mean?
-- Music History, Talbot College, overheard by Claire
Girl #2: I think that's called "homophobic."
Girl #1: Really, homophobic?
Girl #3: Actually it's "homophonic."
Girl #2: Oh.
Girl #1: Then what does homophobic mean?
-- Music History, Talbot College, overheard by Claire
posted by Overheard at Western at 4:39 PM
54 Comments:
subtle
GOLD.
LAME
best. title. evar.
So anyone who isn't a leftist liberal douchebag is automatically homophobic. Gotcha. Shitbag.
This site is for jokes, dude. Lighten up.
1:59
Anyone who isn't a leftist liberal is automatically a homophobic douchebag...
You see what I did? I moved the word "douchebag", I'm talented 'cause I go to Western.
*sigh* only 2 more years, I hope *crosses every crossable appendage*
Then 8 years of Jeb Bush. If only Rummy or Cheney were running, that would be something to look forward to.
Dick Cheney is dreamy
i miss bob dole
3:13,
commas and periods go INSIDE of " " marks... semi colons and colons go outside of them
"douchebag,"
"homophobic."
"burn in hell";
"conservative asshole":
But I guess your talent is still in progress, since you currently go there
is anyone areound here smart enough to realize that these two are talking about "harmony" in the musical sense, rather than the "leftist liberal douchebag" sense?
ps: ^around
11:28:
Clearly. They're just choosing not to notice.
10:58:
In Australia, the period can go outside a phrase like the one to which you referred. In other words, shut up.
1:59:
Yes, because gay marriage was a key issue in the 2004 election. Weren't you paying attention to all the references to values voters? Also, shut up.
They don't know what homophobic means? That is so gay.
commas and periods go INSIDE of " " marks... semi colons and colons go outside of them
It actually depends on whether you use the British or American system. You are referring to the American system. I prefer the British because it makes more sense.
11:06,
Yes, because gay marriage was a key issue in the 2004 election.
OK, fine. But many people who are strongly right wing, including myself, don't give a flying fuck about gay marriage, and to insinuate that all conservatives think precisely the same way on every issue is to make a broad, unfounded, and pointless generalization. Unfortunately, liberals tend to be very fond of that, as they lack anything remotely resembling human intelligence.
Also, shut up.
Thank you for proving my above point for me.
You don't give a "flying fuck" about gay marriage? And liberals "lack anything remotely resembling human intelligence" because they care about minority issues? Well, I don't give a flying fuck about your conservatist opinions.
does "conservatist" mean the same thing as "conservative"? If so, then why are you using a made-up word?
Laaaaaaaaaaame.
2:13
"conservatist" is the correct spelling of conservative in australia.
One time.... in Australia... we spelt Laaaaaaaaaaame as "Lame"
So, I don't get it, are all people on this site gay or liberal or conservative douchebags? Or all three for bonus points.
i'm pretty sure i'm in canada...right?
You don't give a "flying fuck" about gay marriage?
Yes, I don't give a damn one way or the other; I'm belong to the fairly small group which is both strongly conservative AND non-Christian (in fact, I tend to blame Christianity for much or all of the decline of the west). In fact, I think they should be allowed to marry just so I won't have to listen to the moronic debates about the issue in the MSM anymore.
And liberals "lack anything remotely resembling human intelligence" because they care about minority issues?
They lack intelligence because they subscript to a moronic, impractical ideology.
So, I don't get it, are all people on this site gay or liberal or conservative douchebags? Or all three for bonus points.
All three? That would one fucked up individual...
You're a moron.
You're a moron.
What insight. You have no idea.
I was going to start typing out a whole comparison of conservative vs liberal ideologies, then I thought that was stupid because everyone knows the differences and each sides strengths and weaknesses, it's just the asshole factor, which both sides have a stranglehold on, which gets in the way of one recognizing the limitations of their own belief system.
Or, to put it another way, if you completely reject all aspects of the liberal or conservative models, you're a pigheaded idiot, because both have done a lot for our society and many others over many, many years.
Or, to put it another way, if you completely reject all aspects of the liberal or conservative models, you're a pigheaded idiot, because both have done a lot for our society and many others over many, many years.
For our society? No, though I must admit that liberal ideology has absolutely done much to our society. The liberal fellow travellers have succeeded in subverting our society, corrupting the time-honored values and ideals of western European culture, and weakening us in the face of the world Communist movement.
^ Thank you, Senator McCarthy.....
^ Thank you, Senator McCarthy.....
And it remains as true today as it was then; unfortunately, most people in the West have fallen for the great Perestroika Deception.
Wow.
S upporting
o ligarchy,
c lass warfare,
i nsurrections,
a thiesm (forced),
l and seizures and
i rredentism
s ince
t he 1920s.
s uper!
10:20, so what's so bad about that?
Who said there was anything bad about it? I wasn't complaining; I was bragging...
10:20, so what's so bad about that?
Who said there was anything bad about it? I wasn't complaining; I was bragging...
Meet the fifth column of Western society, and the downfall of civilization, folks...
Meet the fifth column of Western society, and the downfall of civilization, folks...
Hello, downfall of civilization, you are a sexy bitch!
You people are confusing socialism, communism, and dictatorships. And no, they're not all the same thing.
5:58, Socialism is he Road to Serfdom.
Hayek said it best.
You people are confusing socialism, communism, and dictatorships. And no, they're not all the same thing.
Absolutely. Socialism and/or Communism as envisioned by Marx, Engels, et al. is simply an excuse for dictatorship. Personally, my problem is with socialist/Communist ideology; dictatorship is far less distasteful than that nonsense.
8:18 AM
Have you actually read any Marx and Engels? That is not what they envisioned communism as being. Marx merely saw that the labour of the workers were being exploited by the capitalists, and that under communism they would recieved the full value of their labour rather than having part of it exploited for profit. Marx's ideal society would be far more pleasant than any capitalist wet dream. Read more before you bash!
8:18 AM
Have you actually read any Marx and Engels? That is not what they envisioned communism as being. Marx merely saw that the labour of the workers were being exploited by the capitalists, and that under communism they would recieved the full value of their labour rather than having part of it exploited for profit. Marx's ideal society would be far more pleasant than any capitalist wet dream. Read more before you bash!
Have you actually read any Marx and Engels? That is not what they envisioned communism as being. Marx merely saw that the labour of the workers were being exploited by the capitalists, and that under communism they would recieved the full value of their labour rather than having part of it exploited for profit. Marx's ideal society would be far more pleasant than any capitalist wet dream. Read more before you bash!
This is 8:18. I have read Marx, Engels, and especially Lenin, who I actually prefer to the other two, oddly enough. Of course none of these (well, maybe Lenin) envisioned Communism as an excuse for the totalitarian systems that have been responsible for more murders than any other ideology of last several centuries. My point was simply that, to date, every significant state which has ever claimed itself to be Communist/socialist, has simply been using that ideology as an excuse. This is not directly the fault of Marx and Engels, certainly, but of their questionably motivated "revolutionary" interpretters. Of course, I still have a strong distaste for the basic ideology of Marx, even absent such misrepresentation...
Marx's ideal society would be far more pleasant than any capitalist wet dream.
Just to clarify, I am not exactly in the capitalist camp either. I am a Third Positionalist.
Third positionalist? You mean on doze knees, the better to lick deeez nuts?
/It's halfway between being a free man and a slave.
Third positionalist? You mean on doze knees, the better to lick deeez nuts?
That is incredibly ignorant and distasteful. The third position is an ideology seperate from both traditional capitalist and Communist position, and is represented by parties such as England First and the National Democratic Party of Germany, and by the associated European National Front. It is founded substantially on the theories of Gregor and Otto Strasser.
Yes it it. It's a respectable position. Nevertheless all societies ascribe some ideological foundation. The United States and the West follow the economic system of capitalis, while I would argue that early capitalist theorists, Smith, Ricardo, Hume, would be horrified at the way it is practiced. Honestly, has the United States, or Britain been less violent under the guise of free markets than the USSR? It's not an issue of one country being morally superior, or one philosophy being better. Merely, that in the world of realpolitik, ideology takes a backseat to the national interest. I've aways been more of a fan of Gramsci myself.
I would argue that early capitalist theorists, Smith, Ricardo, Hume, would be horrified at the way it is practiced.
No doubt.
Honestly, has the United States, or Britain been less violent under the guise of free markets than the USSR?
Britain and the US do not routinely purge and/or starve millions of their own citizens. They do not completely deny freedom to their people, or attempt to obliterate their traditions in order to established some new, ill-concieved social order. I would say yes.
I've aways been more of a fan of Gramsci myself.
The "cultural Communist"? Please don't take this the wrong way, as I do not mean it to be an insult to you, but I find Gramsci more repugnant than Marx, Engels, Lenin Stalin, Brezhnev, Mao, Pol Pot, Great Leader, and Dear Leader Taken together...
Britain and the US do not routinely purge and/or starve millions of their own citizens.
Well I suppose it depends on what you mean by "purge" or "starve" and who you consider a citizen. The United States has routinely backed governments around the world that purge their citizenry. While this does not take place domestically anymore, I think you need to look at labour history to see mass starvation or massacres. Admittedly it wasn't as systematic at in the USSR or China, but a massacre is a massacre.
As for Gramsci, I've always liked his concept of hegemony and found the idea of a passive revolution a very insightful critique of contemporary capitalism. You forgot Darth Vader on that list too. What author's would you recommend as more insightful to the world?
-12:15
The United States has routinely backed governments around the world that purge their citizenry.
Undoubtedly true. I'm not really pro-American by any stretch (or more properly, not pro-American-government); I just point out that they have not done violence to their own citizens on the order of what the USSR or PRC or DPRK have done. The US has allowed "multiculturalism" and miscegenation to become second nature, and in my view is therefore as responsible as any state for the assault on the race and culture of the peoples of northwestern Europe over the last 50 years or so, so I certainly am not going to make any excuses for their government.
As for Gramsci, I've always liked his concept of hegemony and found the idea of a passive revolution a very insightful critique of contemporary capitalism.
He is an intelligent man, no question. However, his idea or breaking the "cultural hegemony" of the capitalists seems to me like an edict fr those following his thought to subvert traditional Western values and culture. Obviously, this is something I opposed vehemently. Also, a large part of my dislike for the man comes from the fact that I realize that his tactics for achieving a Communist society are more likely to actually work than the old Leninist line of the party vanguard seizing power by force.
The US has allowed "multiculturalism" and miscegenation to become second nature, and in my view is therefore as responsible as any state for the assault on the race and culture of the peoples of northwestern Europe over the last 50 years or so, so I certainly am not going to make any excuses for their government.
I'm a little unclear about why you think multiculturalism has denegraded what you seem to identify as the culture of the "west". Ignoring the historical atrocities towards the natives for a second, my critique would be that the United States intervenes too much in the Middle East and South America, and by this supports humanitarian crimes. While the American people are not directly to blame, don't you think their indoctrination in the American dream, or their complacency on the acts of their government, shows exactly what Gramsci critiqued?
However, his idea or breaking the "cultural hegemony" of the capitalists seems to me like an edict fr those following his thought to subvert traditional Western values and culture.
I would argue, so what? I think you need to claify what you mean by "Western values", Gramsci doesn't argue directly against democracy (well, not within the party), nor against individual rights, he is arguing against capitalism and the values associated with it: selfishness, consumerism, etc. Also, I think I agree with your assessment of his tactics in comparison with Lenin, Trotsky, or other Eastern Marxists, Gramsci's analysis is so poignant because it does offer a legitimate way to counter the hegemony of the capitalist system (which I obviously view as a good, and soon to be necessary, thing).
so... how many of the above posters actually knew what homophonic meant? YEAH MUSIC. that is all.
Communists Unite!
Post a Comment
<< Home