Last week, I wrote about how dumbasses like to complain about paying taxes without even thinking about all the cool shit taxes pay for. It got me thinking about some of the other stupid shit dumbasses say to pretend they're smart. Like what, you ask? Well, like...
"(Insert holiday here other than Thanksgiving, Christmas, Easter, Halloween) is just a Hallmark holiday."
I talked about this one at Valentine's Day and how people who aren't getting laid say this to make themselves feel better about not getting laid, but it isn't just Valentine's Day. Sweetest Day, Mother's Day, Father's Day, and pretty much all holidays exist only to provide people with an excuse for a day off work and an obligation to buy greeting cards or presents. And you know what? We all know that. Yet somehow every time one of the "other" holidays roll around some dumbass has to give the speech they've worked on so hard about how they don't celebrate it because it's just a Hallmark holiday. Or maybe they babble incoherently about commercialism or our culture's greed, or any other amount of verbal diarrhea designed to make themselves look a lot smarter than they really are. Then, when they've finished with their painstakingly prepared tirade, all the other dumbasses chime with "That's true," to try and feel like they're contributing to the conversation. Yeah, we all know they're Hallmark holidays. No need to tell us about it every God damn time one rolls around.
"Dating is like prostitution, only you don't always get what you pay for."
I can't believe I'm about to make a blanket apology to women on behalf of the entire male half of the population, but that's exactly what I'm going to do. I am genuinely sorry that so many men think like this and are such outrageously ignorant jackasses. Every time some shit-brained asshole says this I just want to punch them. Prostitution is a business arrangement in which two people with no romantic interest agree to sexual relations and the hookee agrees to pay the hooker an afore-agreed-upon amount in exchange for sexual services rendered. Dating is a social (not business) relationship in which two people who are romantically attracted to each other spend time together with the intent of having fun and learning about yourself and the other person and how you relate.
When you call a prostitute, you don't take her out to Denny's first. You don't talk about your shitty day. You don't go see a movie together. That's because the goal is not to have a good time and get to know each other. The only goal is to have an orgasm and go your separate ways, so a business transaction is negotiated. You give a hooker money, she gives you a hole to put it in.
Likewise, when you're dating, you aren't paying the woman for her time. The assumption is that you both want to spend time with each other and no compensation is needed. This kind of relationship is NOT a business transaction. Neither person is obligated to do anything they don't want to do. Hence, both parties should enter into the relationship with the ultimate goal of having a good time and getting to know the other person. If you go on a date with someone, and you get pissed off because you don't get laid, then you should be calling a prostitute, not someone to go on a date with. Sex is great, but if you can't have fun with your clothes on, there's something the hell wrong with you, and you're entirely too immature to even think about dating. Call her back when you grow up. Nobody owes it to you to have sex with you just because you paid for a cheap dinner and an 8 dollar movie ticket.
Even if dating was a form of prostitution, just what do you think you could get for the money you spend on a cheap date? You spend 15-20 bucks on your date and think you're entitled to sex? Where the hell have you been? I wish prostitutes were that cheap. Anyone who will have sex with you for twenty bucks probably has missing body parts, herpes, or a penis.
Finally, if dating was really prostitution, and going on a date entitled you to sex, then you would have no problem explaining your expectations at the beginning of your date. The second your date steps into the car you should be able to say "Okay, I'm going to be paying for a dinner at Olive Garden and a ticket to see the new romantic comedy with you, as well as the money for this rose I bought you. In return I expect sexual intercourse, up to and including orgasm, rights to fondle your breasts at any time the mood strikes me, as well as your agreement not to tell anyone about my tiny crooked penis. Do we have a deal?" What? You mean you don't say that to dates when you pick them up? Why not? Because they would get out of the car and never talk to you again? Gee, maybe that's because DATING ISN'T A FUCKING BUSINESS AGREEMENT. If you think it is, I suggest you get used to masturbating, because you'll be doing it for quite some time.
"My idea of a balanced diet is a beer in each hand."
This one makes me want to put a footprint on each of their butt cheeks. It's not so much that people are trying to show how smart they are, just how clever and witty. Guess what asshole, heard this a thousand times. It isn't clever, it isn't witty, it isn't even mildly amusing. It just makes you look like an unoriginal jackass who can't come up with any of his own material. Besides, this makes you sound like a alcoholic, gun-toting, Confederate flag-waving, cousin-loving hillbilly.
"I don't believe in organized religion."
In this instance, I'm talking about the stoners who generally mean that they have a more personal religious experience in which they believe as they wish and practice as they wish. In other words, they smoke a lot of pot. Did you people ever think about just how religions go from being personal beliefs or cults to being organized religions? It's because a lot of people happen to believe it. So in essence, you're totally discrediting an entire belief system simply because a lot of people believe it. Don't you see how stupid that is? People like to talk about how religions become corrupted by people with power in the religion, and discredit the entire belief structure because of the abuses of power by a small few. How does that somehow make the religion less credible than what pops into your head one night when you're stoned out of your fucking gourd and think you hear something on a Led Zeppelin song played backwards? Taking religion as a personal pursuit is fine, there's nothing wrong with it, but insisting that everyone else is wrong because they happen to have common beliefs is shortsighted and incredibly stupid. Either that or they don't really have any beliefs of their own, but don't want to admit it so they use this as a copout.
"I'm a really complex person."
Most people aren't any deeper than the clothes they're wearing, and this is what they say to try and convince you (and themselves) otherwise. If a person is really deep and complex, they don't have to tell you. When people say this, what they really mean is "There's nothing more to me than a fake smile and a bunch of regurgitated opinions I adopted from other people."
"Our government/education system/class structure/economic system is flawed/inefficient/ineffective."
Yeah, no shit dumbass. This is another instance where we all know this before you say it, so telling people this wholly unoriginal opinion just makes you look like a parrot. It wouldn't be so bad if people ever had any suggestions on how they would make it better, but of course they never do. They just stand there rambling about how everything sucks, and then when you ask them what they would do differently, they give you a blank stare. You see, when I complain about how something is wrong with society, I offer a solution to correct it.
For example, stupid people mingling with the rest of society isn't optimal. It causes problems and pisses people off. Most dipshits who pretend they aren't dipshits would just say something totally thoughtless and unoriginal like "We should kill all the stupid people." However, we need stupid people. After all, if there were no stupid people, who would make my chalupa when I go to Taco Bell at 3 in the morning? If we killed off all the stupid people, then suddenly we'd be in a position where you'd need a four-year degree just to get a job cleaning shit off the wall. So here's what I suggest; dumbass ghettos. We have separate sections of cities set apart from the rest of us where we ship all the stupid people to live. They are only permitted to come out of their ghettos to work at their menial jobs which provide benefits for those of us who aren't retarded. Also, these ghettos should be somewhat small by design, to discourage over-breeding. You see, if a dumbass couple only has four rooms in their home, maybe they'll have one kid instead of thirteen. This helps to curb the dipshit population. You see how this works? Rather than just bitch about a perceived problem, I come up with a well-thought-out and practical solution to the problem.
Another thing that's kind of a subset of this is the people who get all somber and pretend they're intelligent by pointing out how inefficient the government is, and then pat themselves on their back for being so observant. Guess what fucktard? It's inefficient by design. Believe it or not, our government's framers weren't stupid. You ever notice how lots of other countries in the world have relatively frequent or drastic changes of government, large economic inflation or instability, or vastly different governmental regimes with polar opposite ideas from generation to generation? Now compare that to this country, with our relative economic stability and regular, peaceful leadership changes that don't really change the way the country runs and don't drastically alter the lives of its citizens.
Undoubtedly a few of you said, "OH MY GOD RANDY! YOU'RE COMPLETELY WRONG! THE GOVERNMENT IS SOOOOO DIFFERENT WHEN A DEMOCRAT IS PRESIDENT THAN WHEN A REPUBLICAN IS PRESIDENT!" Will those of you please kindly slap yourself in the face for being so stupid, take a high school government class, and then get back with me when you've figured out that Democrats and Republicans are practically the same thing compared with Communists, Socialists, Labor Party, hippies-I mean the Green Party, Fascists, Marxists, Monarchies, dictatorships, and democracy. And by that I mean real democracy that is only possible when governing a very small amount of people, not our loose representative democracy.
Anyway, the reason for the miniscule amount of change and instability of this country isn't an accident. The government was designed to be inefficient so that no one person or group could come in and make drastic, sweeping changes in a short amount of time. Change is designed to be slow, well-debated, and approved by several sectors of the government before it actually becomes official. If you don't believe me, call your senator and suggest a Constitutional amendment. Even a law, no matter how good an idea, can takes years to pass. Think about it, we have been operating with the same basic governmental structure for over 200 years now. How many countries in the world can say that? Sure, we have fluctuations between which of the three branches is the most powerful, usually depending upon any strong, dynamic leaders in any of the branches, but even those fluctuations are very small. Other countries in the last 200 years have played around with a lot of different kinds of governments, yet somehow we keep the same basic structure. And it's all thanks to our slow, plodding, inefficient government.