Saturday, 18 December 2010


So here's our hero, he's meant to be studying law but he's not. He's twatting about worrying about all the people that are spiralling out of control and all the things which are the wrong temperature entirely. He decides to divert himself and is idly flicking through youtube (a popular video sharing website on the internet), when he comes across the greatest example of inanity he's witnessed in some time.

Perez Hilton asks Miss California whether or not she thinks every state ought to legalise gay marriage. After a few mangled sentences which were presumably  intended to demonstrate an open-mindedness she says one of the most offensive, idiotic and poorly argued things he's ever heard.

This is what what she said verbatim:
"Well, I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other."
Which sounds like a principled and whole-hearted support of gay marriage, a statement which was unfortunately followed by this:
"We live in a land where you can choose same sex marriage or opposite marriage," which sounds just stupid. and rather begs the question "What is an opposite marriage?" Isn't it a divorce? Okay, fair enough everyone knows that she meant heterosexual marriage but due to her having the intellectual capacity of a lobotomised tortoise was unable to find the appropriate words. Again she sounds largely in favour of gay marriage albeit in a horrifically inarticulate manner. The problem is that she went on to say:
"You know what in my country and in my family I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman," which is a massive and startlingly rapid contradiction akin to the pope getting halfway through some mass or other and saying "Actually, you know what, this is a load of delusional bullshit, isn't it? Let's go back to mine and have some protected sex before performing an abortion or two." She goes on:
"No offence to anyone out there but that's how I was raised and that's how I think it should be, between a man and a woman thank you," This is literally the worst argument anyone's ever made. When asked what you think it is necessary to think before answering the question. This is an open admission of not having thought. There is no reason, logic, argument or intellect there, just a blank statement of belief which is utterly, utterly meaningless. I can say "In my family we believe the planet Jupiter to be made of pineapple, goblin tears and carelessness, no offence to anyone, that's just how I was raised," and it is precisely as meaningful as Miss California's statement. Also don't preface your statement with "No offence to anyone" if you're about to say something offensive, it takes none of the sting out of what you're about to say. If someone walks up to your grandmother and says "No offence but you're a malodorous, ugly, fat, syphilitic, promiscuous slapper," the impact is not lessened by the presence of the first three words.

It's doubtful whether or not Miss California has any fixed opinion on gay marriage. If she does then it's massively duplicitous of her to say that she thinks it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other before saying that she thinks that marriage should be an exclusively heterosexual concept. Truth be told, I think she very much wanted to win and was trying to avoid offending anyone, she just did it very badly because she's so fucking stupid that she makes Sarah Palin look like Simone De Beauvoir.

It's not actually her that annoys me though, it's the way she argued or failed to argue. This notion that a blank statement of principle or belief is an adequate substitute for an argument. If you are unable to justify or explain your opinions when they are scrutinised then you have to abandon them, this is how the world operates. If you are a scientist and you say "I know this theory doesn't make as much sense as the other one but I was raised to believe in it, so there you go," then you're probably not going to be massively successful. This line of thought is the line of the pre-enlightenment, it's the line of the fundamentalist, it's the line of the fucking idiot.

I don't suggest that everything someone says has to be well considered, I only suggest that if they attempt to argue in favour of it and cannot offer anything more than "It's just what I believe," or "It's just how I was raised," then they are to be treated as mentally sub-normal and confined to an institution where they are to be detained and subjected to regular jolts of healing electricity until they've read and fully understood A. J. Ayer's "Language, Truth And Logic."

To quote Perez Hilton: "She lost not because she doesn't believe in gay marriage, she lost because she's a dumb bitch."

Sunday, 7 November 2010


Which of the following statements best surmises your approach to the world?
(a.) When contemplating the appropriacy of my behaviour it is my a priori assumption that I am right and I then search for justification of the rectitude of my position.
(b.) When contemplating the appropriacy of my behaviour I look at things rationally and objectively, examining my actions and those of others before impartially weighing them and attempting to reach a conclusion.
(c.) When contemplating the appropriacy of my behaviour it is my a priori assumption that I am wrong and I then search for justification of the rectitude of the other person's position.

It occurs to me that my approach tends to swing wildly depending on whom I'm talking to. If I am talking to someone with a less forceful personality than mine I'll be a "Type A" person. This was evidenced on Friday when in a moment of staggering bluntness I told someone that I had found them boring on first meeting them.  This is not a nice thing to say. Okay, it's marginally better than saying "Wow! You're a fat, ugly, malodorous, alcoholic disgrace to humanity," or "Guess what I did last night! I'll give you a hint, it involves the words YOUR, VAGINA, MOTHER'S and FISTED." Nevertheless it's not only the hyper-sensitive who'd be upset by such an accusation. In the cold light of retrospect I can see that I was wrong and should not have said it, or at least should have apologised my tits off having said it. I didn't however as I was relatively confident that the person in question needed my friendship more than I needed theirs. Had this not been the case then perhaps I'd have behaved with more grace - but if I've learnt anything then it's that power seldom breeds grace.

I can also be a snivelling coward apologising for things I haven't done. There are times when in order to avoid a fight I know I'm not going to win I'll simply back down even though it is retina-searingly obvious that I am completely and totally right in every imaginable regard. And why do I do this? I do this because I can't bring myself to risk having a fight with someone I care about. It's ridiculous really. I don't know what I think I'm going to lose. If I had an argument with someone where I politely and sweetly explained my point of view then they'd be something of a 24-carat evil-ton if they then abused me. It's not this though. I don't want to lose those who are dear to me. It's an insecurity. If there's another thing that I've learnt then it's that insecurity is seldom attractive or worthwhile.

So resolution for the day: be less insecure and be less arrogant.

Let's see how that works out.

Wednesday, 3 November 2010


So, I'm speaking to someone and the subject of politics comes up and they, in the misguided belief that they're being iconoclastically cynical, say "Oh, that's the thing with politicians, they're all the fucking same, aren't they?" I am a loving and gentle soul who would like to see the various peoples of the world holding hands in amity, singing in harmony and dry humping rainbows in unity, nevertheless, in a moment of fury, I say "Really? So Idi Amin, the former dictator of Uganda and Ed Vazey, Minister For Culture, Media and Sport are essentially identical in your book, are they?" 
There is a point here. Firstly this conversation never actually happened and I need to be more accurate in distinguishing between Real Things Which Actually Happened and Clever Things I Wish I Had Said. Secondly that when people say cod-cynical things like "Politicians are all the same," they are being stupid and careless to the point of harming the world where I live. 
What they actually mean when they say things like this is "I don't really know very much about politics because I've always been more interested in watching The Bill, masturbating or learning to cook Moroccan food than I have in taking the time to pay attention to the big newspapers." They feel ashamed of saying this though. There's a slight, embittered part of me that thinks that they are being ridiculously sensitive, I mean, for fuck's sake, I don't know a lot about knitting and yet somehow I avoid saying "Yeah, that's the thing about cardigans, they're all the fucking same," whenever the relative merits of King Charles Brocade and Inverness Diamonds are under discussion.
This part, however, is petty and has little regard for the derivation of people's idiocies. Why is it that no one is embarrassed to be ignorant of knitting and yet there are huge swathes of people who feel belittled by their political ignorance? I think it's because they are told to feel this way. People involved in and interested in politics tend to argue that politics are important and affect all of our lives. To an extent this is true. We are all affected by politics, however, in a liberal, multi-party, centrist democracy the effect is often peripheral and people can get by ignoring politics, in much the same way as I get by ignoring my bank statements. In honesty, politics are often little more than a gossip-y diversion built into a totem of intellectual worthiness. People are made to feel small for knowing fuck all about them when it should be perfectly acceptable for someone to say "Sorry, I know fuck all about politics,the whole subject bores the tits off me." 

Saturday, 16 October 2010


A maxim: there is nothing worthwhile at all in the world that was ever done by more than thirty people. As soon as there are thirty people gathered together for any given purpose you have a Nazi party rally. That's not literally true. It's what I believe is termed a hyperbole. People sitting on stickily beer-splattered floors pretending to row a boat whilst singing tunelessly along to Rod Stewart's "Sailing"; people raising tatooed arms in unity whilst bellowing "Who are ya?" repeatedly; people line dancing, these are the things that are done when people assemble en masse.