Another one ; the word "apologist", as it applies to political causes or historical regimes. It's such a smug, self-righteous cunt of a word that implies that whoever disagrees with you already knows how wrong they are, and I've never seen anybody call anybody out on using it. But they should. Every single time somebody says something like "liberal apologist" (or any other X-apologist), somebody should point out that people who support liberal beliefs don't feel the need to apologise for liberalism. Otherwise they wouldn't be liberals in the first place, would they?
And before anyone points it out, yes, I know that etymology of the word means rationally defending a viewpoint, not apologising for it. I'm even willing to concede that some, or even most people who use the word also know that. But it still carries a very, very strong implication that anyone who disagrees with you secretly believes that you're right. And that makes me immediately think of bighead.
And that's terrible.
I've got to agree with that one. Whenever someone throws out the apologist label they really do convey a sense that they think the person knows they are wrong, deep down. Like a person offering excuses to defend doing/believing something they know is wrong.
I find the term gets thrown around a lot by the breed of insane conservatives who watch Fox News. I also believe many of them truly think that deep down we all know they are right. It seems to matter to them. I suspect that if they actually allowed themselves to believe some people might disagree with them (rather than simply appearing to disagree because they work for satan) then they would have to consider that they could actually be wrong, and there is no place in their world for doubt.
Oh and here's something else: when people find an article on Yahoo or another common news source, but they have to trace it back to its original source before sharing it on social media because they're embarrassed to admit to visiting such pedestrian websites. "Oh, you got this from a New Zealand news outlet? You must keep up with a well-rounded variety of current events."
I used to do that. Partly, though, it can just be a concern that nobody will take the article seriously unless you present it as coming from a more high-brow source.
Then I realized that anybody who doubts the validity of something I'm sharing can simply research it themselves. And if they can't be bothered with that it's really not my problem.
I tend to really enjoy Yahoo News. I can skim a lot of stories very quickly just to keep a general idea of what is going on and then if something really grabs my interest I'll google it. The only thing that drives me nuts, which I've complained about before, is the near-total lack of editing standards in online journalism in general but particularly, I find, in Yahoo articles.
when people recycle only marginally funny stand up routines and tweak them to be their own original masterpieces, and they add so many unfunny-person buffers that it's fucking unbearable.
ie: "SO WHAT'S THE DEAL with women? NONONONO SERIOUSLY IT'S LIKE if a GUY is quiet- he's just being FUCKING QUIET! if a GIRL is quiet, I'm like, 'OH SHIT SHE'S FUCKING PISSED!' SERIOUSLY, WHAT'S WITH THAT? WOMEN ARE CRAZY. woooooommmmmen!! RIGHT?"
When you are talking to someone and they say..."I am just trying to pre-warn you."
OK...what in the fuck is a pre-warning? Are ya trying to prepare me for the next warning? This never made sense to me.
Pre-heating is another one like that, and commonly used.
Bikes on the Copenhagen Rail System. They take up too much space, slow everyone getting on/off. Its only because people don't want to walk for more than 5 min at a time. I hate it. Also because they are clearly over-valuing their time.
Also this just depresses me, but I'm pretty tired of the resolution in the constitution that requires one large military action per presidential term, we should really look into changing it. This pattern is tedious.
Two more things I hate:
Facebook statuses to dead people. Thats entirely for show.
Facebook statuses about dead people on a rainy day where the status includes a variation of "even the sky is crying."
I've seen this more than once, and more than once is proof enough of how tacky that is.
Any monument or tribute to the dead is entirely for show, is it not?
Originally Posted by wheelchairman