Tag: Ugly People

I’m Special

Two-Minute Hate

If there’s anything that’s guaranteed to piss me off (other than all legislation proposed by socialists), it’s when some asswipe thinks that rules don’t apply to them because, well… because.

I’m not talking about regulations or laws, by the way;  I’m talking about rules of an establishment, or of a gathering:  that sort.  Nothing pisses me off much more than when a restaurant has a dress code, and some dickhead arrives in a t-short and shorts demanding to be seated — and nothing cheers me more than when he is told by said restaurant’s management to fuck off (politely or, preferably, rudely).

Here’s a case in point:

A bride was faced with the awkward task of asking guests to leave her wedding after they brought their children along — even though she had explicitly warned that it was a child-free event in the invitation.
The anonymous woman posted her story on Reddit this week, recalling the drama that unfolded when a family friend and her husband brought their unwelcome toddler and infant to her big day.
Though she tried to handle it tactfully, the exchange soon grew heated and she asked the couple to leave — a decision that thousands of Redditors have now defended, telling her she was well within her rights.

Of course she was.  I wonder what makes someone think, when they see on the invitation that children are not welcome, that “Oh well… I’m going to take my kids anyway!”

What did they think would happen?

And then, when asked to leave, “the exchange soon grew heated” ?  So now you get all aggro when confronted about your appalling lack of manners?

Here’s another one:

A mother has come under scrutiny after a video of her raging at a dog handler for not allowing her daughter to pet a service dog went viral.
In the altercation filmed on December 19, Megan Stoff was with a golden retriever, Nala, in a busy Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania shopping mall, when a mother and her young daughter approached them.
Asking if her daughter could pet the working pooch, Megan and a co-worker told the mother ‘no’, as petting a service dog can interfere with its training.
Allegedly, just minutes later, after walking away the woman returned in a rage and began shouting at Megan and her co-workers.
The mother says: ‘That was definitely very rude how she talked to me.
‘Firstly you should have a sign [saying not to touch the dog], and secondly she should not have said “no”, she could’ve said “sorry the dog is in training”, that would’ve been nicer.’
Megan tells the woman to walk away, and points out Nala’s vest has the words ‘Please do not pet me I’m working’ written on both sides of it, along with ‘Do not touch’ and ‘Do not pet’.
She adds that it’s illegal to ‘harass a service dog’.
Expressing her contempt at the manner in which she was told ‘no’, the mother soon realizes she’s being filmed and tensions escalate further when she threatens to call her lawyer.

Once again:  despite a clearly-posted rule, some asshole decides that the rules don’t apply to her — and then, when the transgression (and lack of manners) is pointed out to her, she loses her shit.

All because her lickle itty-bitty kiddie wasn’t allowed to pet a dog.  And don’t get me started on the calling-in-the-lawyers part.  Were I the dog trainer and been threatened with lawyers, I’d have called in the cops and had the bitch arrested — and pressed charges — because, duh, it’s illegal to interfere with a service dog, and the silly woman should be called on her idiocy and lack of manners.

There was a custom back in my favorite era (VIctorian / Edwardian times) when a lack of manners would occasion being thrashed with a riding-crop or cane, in public, by the person being offended.  Along with so many other institutions of the time, I want to see this one brought back.

No Shit, She-Lock

Grooming, Mocking Furriners, Modernism

You have to be utterly self-absorbed and narcissistic to post something like this:

Apparently some things are too much, even for the French, and I can see why.  Fucking hell, I’ve seen more demure clothing on the midnight shift during Fleet Week.  From now on, every new edition of the dictionary will feature this woman’s picture under “Trashy”, and rightly so.

And of course, every bloody barracks-room lawyer is going to whine that the Louvre’s rules (note the capitalization, idiot) technically allow any outfits, even one like hers inside the building.  Yeah, fine, and I’m quite aware that the museum isn’t a church too.

But:  let’s hear it for the Louvre guard who didn’t want the priceless works of art inside his building sullied by this whore I mean “influencer”.  (Oh yeah, she has X thousand “followers” and groupies, so that excuses everything.  Not.)

Of course, she is Australian so it’s understandable that she would have no class, manners or sense of decorum, but that just makes me all the more satisfied that someone would actually step up and say, “Non!”

There should be more of that.  A lot more.

Here We Go Again

Men & Women, Politics

We’ve come across this foul bitch before.  Fresh from her “triumph” of having a conservative guy ejected from a gym, Georgetown professor Christine “Anything But” Fair is back in the news, unfortunately:

A professor at Georgetown University known for making incendiary comments against supporters of President Donald Trump said white men deserve “miserable deaths” for supporting Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
C. Christine Fair, an associate professor at Georgetown in the School of Foreign Service, tweeted Saturday, saying white Republican men should die and an added bonus would be if women “castrate their corpses and feed them to swine.”

This folks, is what happens when you’re so ugly you can’t even get a pityfuck at a drunken frat kegger.

 

 

 

 

And her Ugly isn’t just on the surface;  it permeates her entire being.

Yet she’s still employed at Georgetown, which used to be a reasonably-prestigious university.  Now it seems that the place is as fucked-up, rancid and poxy as this example of its academia.  Maybe they’re proud of her, which makes a sick kind of sense, I guess.

VDH Explains The Insanity

Politics

Not for the first time, Victor Davis Hanson explains why the Left have become so totally fucking unhinged:

The National Security Council was weaponized and thus unmasked the names of surveilled Americans and leaked their names to the press to undermine the Trump campaign. The Department of Justice was weaponized to ensure Hillary Clinton was exonerated for her misdeeds concerning her email server and quid pro quo collusion with a variety of foreign and domestic influence peddlers and buyers. The FBI and CIA were weaponized to subvert the Trump campaign, by peddling an unverified smear dossier, paid for by Hillary Clinton, by implanting informants into the Trump campaign, and by undermining a FISA court through dishonest presentations of evidence for warrants to spy on American citizens.
All such behavior was assumed to ensure the landslide Clinton victory and thus would be seen as sacrifice beyond the call of duty to be rewarded by a President Clinton not as illegal behavior to be punished during a Trump administration. And as a result, the more culpability that was exposed, the more the culpable went on the offensive—on the theory that constant attack is the best defense against their own criminal liability.

And they lost, and now they’re going to get investigated and people are (I hope) going to go to jail or face massive fines and criminal records or lose their pensions, or all the above (which I hope even more).  As Conrad Black puts it:

Now they must remove him, or he will try to imprison them, and in fact, they have almost no chance of removing him. We are doomed to a fierce battle that will end quickly if the Republicans hold the House of Representatives and Trump can get rid of Sessions and Rosenstein and indict his enemies, who have certainly asked for it.

It’s no less than the pricks deserve, and here’s a warning note to AG Sessions:  you’d better get it done, or you’ll be lumped in with them for failing to do your duty.

Hate Speech

Culture, Modernism

…or as it used to be called in the Gude Ole Daze, invective, seems to have been cowed by Political Correctness because Feewings are more important than truth, or even humor.  Take this little passage from Taki’s Magazine, for instance, in describing the travails of CanuckiPM Zoolander:

As the telegenic fist-puppet of the global elite, Justin Trudeau does everything his string-pullers tell him to do: He pretends that Muslims are human, that trannies are women, that white people need to be eliminated, and that women never lie about rape.
Earlier this year, Trudeau threw his support behind the castration-crazy witch hunt known as #MeToo, a vanity project in which women receive love, cash, interview requests, and the sweet taste of revenge by boasting that they were sexually assaulted by powerful men. He called it “a movement whose time has come”:

“Sexual harassment is a systemic problem. It is unacceptable. When women speak up, it is our duty to listen to them and to believe them.”

Yeah, that’s going to be problematic for the boyish man whom many suspect is the bastard love child of Fidel Castro and Trudeau’s schlong-gobbling whore of a mother.

There’s so much fine invective here, it’s difficult to know where to start:  hell, the “telegenic fist-puppet” quip alone is worth the price of admission.  But it’s the description of Margaret Trudeau where the Invective Parade gets the brass band going, and I howled with laughter when I read it.

Lest anyone think that part’s libelous, I should point out that La Margaret’s lack of morals was not only well-known but documented, having had affairs with, by her own admission, more than one of the Rolling Stones during one of their tours of The Great White Space, as well as with other famous people.  And the affection towards Commie politicians shown by Her Groupieness makes the “love child” barb not only possible, but highly likely.  And let’s be honest:  she “let it all hang out” (literally) on more than one occasion:

Read more

Big Picture

Lies and Untruths

I’m always amazed that people can sometimes get hoodwinked by statistics, but then I spent probably half my life working with the damn things, so I’m more or less immune to the problem. Here’s one which could affect me personally:

More than 120 Uber and Lyft drivers have reportedly sexually assaulted their passengers, according to a report by CNN.
After analyzing police reports, federal court records and county court databases across the US, the cable news channel found that over the last four years, at least 103 Uber drivers and 18 Lyft drivers have allegedly raped, forcibly touched or kidnapped passengers, among other crimes.

Whoever wrote this scare story needs to get a kick in the ass. Here’s the first part: the appearance up front of the total number — which is alarming, I’ll admit.

I’ll ignore the Lyft number for the moment, because I’m an Uber driver.

Granted, the hundred-odd incidences (rounding down to a manageable number) involving Uber drivers is too high — hell, one is too many — but we’re dealing with human beings here, and any human activity is prone to abuse.

At least the number of years was disclosed — four — which averages about 25 per annum. Still too many, but not as scary as the magic 100. But the killer statistic is really the one which CNN buries much later in the “report”, which is, 100 out of how many total Uber trips or events over four years did these attacks take place.

That number is, according to Uber, is 2.4 billion. In other words, the chances of anyone getting molested by an Uber driver are 1 in 24 million.

Even allowing (let’s say) that only unaccompanied women are going to get molested, and they account for about half of all Uber trips — which is roughly my experience — that’s still only 1 in 12 million.

Now factor in geography — i.e. places where the Uber driver population is skewed towards men most likely to commit these crimes — and the stats, just looking at the last names of people who are accused of such crimes, tend to support the hypothesis that these criminals fall into the Middle-Eastern and African  demographic, and many, especially in large urban metropolises, are fairly-recent immigrants — and the picture becomes especially clear.

What’s disturbing about all this is that Uber does screen potential drivers before enlisting them, which begs the question as to whether their screening process — or at least the proficiency of the company that Uber uses to do the screening — should not be more comprehensive or thorough. And you can be sure that Uber will do just that — because they too say that even one such incidence is too many.

Still, ladies: it looks like you’re safer taking an Uber trip* than walking (or even driving) to your destination, especially in a strange locale.

That’s the conclusion to be taken from the CNN report, even if that’s not necessarily the one that CNN wanted you to.

*You’re even safer, of course, if you have me as your Uber driver — unless of course I forgot to take my “special” pill that morning… [exit, drooling]