Cynical Proverbs 3:28

Let your smile by your umbrella.

Unless you, you know, want to stay dry in which case you'll go inside like a normal person and laugh at the soaked grinning idiots.

When walking "in the middle of the road" gets you killed

As mentioned before one of my logical pet peeves is when "the center" of a position is treated as ultimately correct simply by manner of positioning. No more is this degree of lazy rhetoric evident then in the realm of politics, where every potential candidate is supposed to chase after the legendary "moderates" who, like the mythical Bigfoot, is always claimed into existence despite no one actually witnessing one. Nevertheless, if the political blather is any indication, these are the only voters anyone should hove notice to and this is the only political philosophy a candidate should follow, lest you appear partisan. Luckily, there are people far smarter than I who are breaking down why this line of thinking doesn't work. Take it away, Digby.

Particularly noteworthy is Digby's explanation of why this is a problem:

None of this is to say that the only voters with any sense are partisans who blindly follow the party line. That has its own problems. But the belief that there exists a majority of Real Americans who just want everyone to compromise and “get the job done” is a chimera. When voters say they want everyone to get along they mean they want everyone to agree with them.

But the use of the term “moderate” does have its uses and they are not good for the country. You have to wonder why if the moderates aren’t really moderate, what the point of valorizing the concept might be? The author of the study explains:

“When we say moderate what we really mean is what corporations want,” Broockman says. “Within both parties there is this tension between what the politicians who get more corporate money and tend to be part of the establishment want — that’s what we tend to call moderate — versus what the Tea Party and more liberal members want.”

I know that when people long for more "bipartisanship" they envision two parties coming together to the benefit of the people they serve. Instead what ends up happening is "bipartisanship" being a political code word for both sides teaming up to conspire against the American public. I would also add that another problem is the vast shift and reclassification of where the political "middle" is. Let me get all metaphorical on your assess and put it this way: I'm not a big follower of the sportsball or anything but I'm pretty sure that if that one game (the one with the pigskin big steroidy players) moved the goal of one of the endzones to the 40 yard line it would be more that a little disingenuous to claim the 50 yard line as the middle of they, wouldn't you say?

You're honor, I move that this case be dismissed under a writ of 'Boys Will Be Boys...

I hop you brought your appetites, dear readers, because have I got a word salad so rancid that it's guaranteed to ice you the runs. Did you know that taking pictures of naked unconscious women and posting them on your frat's (private so that makes it OK) page, is a bad thing? Oh you do know that because you're not a dudebro asshole who thinks women should be treated as consenting, autonomous human beings instead of playthings? Well then you are just an uptight, self-righteous prude who just can't understand satire, says one anonymous frat bro from the Kappa Delta Rho chapter that's accused of this who thinks all the humorless people who act like photographing naked unconscious chicks is some kind of crime (hint: it is) is need to lighten up! Gawd don't they know that this is the most biggest side-splitter since the one about the women on Guerrero Street:

It was a satirical group. It wasn’t malicious whatsoever. It wasn’t intended to hurt anyone. It wasn’t intended to demean anyone. It was an entirely satirical group and it was funny to some extent. Some of the stuff, yeah, it’s raunchy stuff, as you would expect from a bunch of college-aged guys. But, I mean, you could go on any one of hundreds and thousands of different sites to access the same kind of stuff and obviously a lot worse and a lot more explicit.

Now the second thing you're probably pondering (outside of "This guy is such a huge douche you could practically smell the summer rain coming from the screen") is " What exactly were these group of fools satirizing? What were they mining for humor? ("Well I wanted to impress the women with my Bill Cosby impression and...") Actually, much like a buffet,  the frat interview has so much rhetorical idiocy it's hard to know where to even begin. But let's stick with the notion that this was all "good clean fun."

Of course, this isn't the first time someone has tried to use the just joking rationale to avoid the consequences of their awful and offensive behavior. It's the preprogrammed response of the Rush Limbaughs and Ann Coulters (who are inexplicably taken seriously despite this justification)  of the world whenever they are called out over their verbal diarrhea. After all being unethical and vicious is better than being "humorless." So even though it's obvious the guy and his misuse of the word "satire" is total bullshit invoked to avoid suffering consequences, let's take it for granted, since that doesn't justify Kappa Delta Rho's actions at all. Otherwise the big "punchline" is "women are being violated! Ha ha ha? See, get it they aren't, like, human beings but bodies for our amusement. Tee hee!"

When the frat's actions are broken down like that, it's pretty fuckin hilarious, huh?

Cynical Proverbs 3:20

"When life gives you lemons, make lemonade."

But what if life gives you mushy, rotted, spoiled lemons that you can't do anything with? Dump them whole in some sludge water and charge 15 bucks a glass? I say the next time life gives you lemons you take 'em and squirt in right in life's eye until life learns to give you a sweeter fruit (or at least some damn salt and margarita mix.)

"I'm 'anti-PC' because I'm pro-asshole!"

This is taken from my reply toward a Wonkette story regarding some dumb-ass Idaho Legislator, state Senator Sheryl Nuxoll, who walked out of an invocation given by a Hindu clergyman, insulted a religion that has over one billion followers as "fake" (do I even have to point out the blowback there would be if a politician said this about Christianity?), and refused to apologize for any of it (well of course not! For Republican politicians nowadays, being an insensitive jerk and doubling-down on stupidity is an asset not a flaw) because of her Sincerely Held Religious Beliefs™ which naturally gives you the Constitutional right to discriminate against someone else. After all as Sen. Nuxoll states, it's a Christian nation based on Christian principles, proving that being g an avid follower of the Constitution doesn't mean you have to actually read it. 

Feeling that wasn't enough to deal with the inevitable outrage such statements would cause, Nuxoll hedged her bets on Common Defense #2 by proclaiming that this is just a result of her defending herself against a group of meanies wielding "political correctness." This is not the first time someone has tried go spin their being an offensive asshole as some kind of Bold Stance against the political correctness when people have the nerve to be offended by offensiveness, and it probably won't be the last. But this line of thinking always bothered me and the article inspired !e to vent about the reason why. So, in response to other post snarking on the"anti-PC" defense, here's my sidebar about the phrase:

Incidentally I loathe the term PC. Not simply because if gives people a false sense of rebellion when they act all put upon about giving a group of people some basic human consideration that have historically been denied them, but it also implies that the ONLY reason anyone would, say, treat gays or women with respect is simply because the "Gaystapo" or the "Femi-nazi" MADE them with their Whips of Social Coercion, because everyone on earth is apparently incapable of utilize basic human decency on their own without harsh enforcement or political expediency.

I mean even for cynical me, that's a pretty shitty assessment of your fellow man. In addition, this goes hand and hand with the supposed "deconstructing unreasonable arguments" purpose of this blog, since those "others" (sometimes with simply their acknowledged existence) can bring a new perspective to the mix that dares to question assumptions and challenges lazy thinking...like say that America is a Christian nation.

UPDATE (2-17-2016): Pardon the screechy feedback, folks, because Craig Ferguson just did a serious mic drop on the subject:

Not too long ago there was a lot of talk about what “political correctness” was doing to comedy. Is it a real problem? Is your ability to range across topics limited by political sensitivity?

No – it’s not. There’s a fair amount of waa-waa from comedians. If you say something contemptible and someone calls you a dick, then fuckin’ deal with it! OK? As long as the government doesn’t say, “You can’t say that,” then we’re OK.

If someone calls you out on something you said, it’s not them trying to restrict your free speech, it’s them exercising their free speech. That’s what free speech is! I don’t think free speech is consequence-free for your feelings. If you hurt their feelings by what you say, and that person lashes out and calls you on it, OK! That doesn’t seem unfair to me!

Dayum! And he is right on....oh, you're not done yet, Ferguson:

If you make a joke about a group of people who are tired of having jokes made at their expense, and they complain about that – good! Good! That’s good that they complain about it! It doesn’t mean that you can’t do the joke. Do the fuckin’ joke! And maybe you think, “I never thought of it like that, I’m not gonna do that joke anymore” — that’s fine!

UPDATE 2: Update squared (3-9-16): A reminder from Salon commentor indyotto (in response this this article about Missouri's at temp to draft "religious freedom" idiocy because a few bakers feel "funny down there" everytime they have to use the frosting gun to make gay wedding cakes or some tiresome bullshit like that) that people who whine about "pc behavior" are also lifetime members of the Hypocrisy League:

indyotto8 hours ago

It seems to me the people who scream the loudest about "political correctness" are also the first ones to run to their elected officials to enact laws to protect their "religious freedom." Of course, it's just a cheap ploy to avoid having to deal with people who offend them. Tell me again about how you hate political correctness, please.

Memo to religious bigots: you do not have the right to not be offended. 

"Missouri is a very Christian state." 

Who cares? Go f--k yourselves, bigots