The Odd Blog

And when our cubs grow / We'll show you what war is good for

Posts Tagged ‘douchebag’

Zandar nails it…

Posted by That Other Mike on 30/03/2012

The question also arises, which nobody will ever ask because our media are in the pocket of the Goober party: Even though you claim it’s being taken out of context, what possible word could you have been saying, Frothy? What possible word could you have been going to use to refer to the President which started with “nig-” which wasn’t going to be “nigger”?

Posted in Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

A New Low for Lambert Strether

Posted by That Other Mike on 29/04/2011

And, yes, I realise that Lambchop has already plumbed the depths more than a few times. This, however, is pretty shitty – a post on CorrenteWire headed Obama macht frei. Yes, that’s right, kids, Lambert has just made a post comparing the President to a Nazi.

But, Mike! I hear you cry, Right-wing nutjobs call Obama a Nazi all the time! What’s so bad about this?

For a start, Imaginary Crying Out Person, we expect that kind of thing from the RWNJs; they’re politically un-astute, stupid and hysterical in equal measure. What we don’t exect is for so-called Lefties to do the same; the claim has been for a while that the Left might have its crazies, but they don’t stoop to the same lows as the RWNJs. Lambert seems to be on a one-man crusade to change that.

Furthermore, Nazi comparisons are only OK when you’re comparing like for like. For those completely dim and uninformed, the slogan above several of the death camps run by the Nazis was Arbeit macht frei, most notably Auschwitz, which can be translated as “Work will set you free”. Its intended meaning is disputed, but there is no disputing that it is to this day a chillingly ironic statement, given that the prisoners at Auschwitz slaved and suffered and then were murdered en masse.

Under Bush, the camps at Guantanamo Bay were an abhorrent slap in the face to anyone with even the slightest concern for human rights and the rule of law, and while the situation has improved under Obama, it continues to be a sore on the body politic. However, to call this Obama’s fault, to attempt to cast the situation as his creation alone as Lambert does, is rather sickening; Congress and public opinion have stood squarely in the way of reform or closure of Guantanamo Bay’s detention facilities, with Congress going so far as to explicitly deny any funding for prisoners to be transferred elsewhere. Furthermore, Obama did not open Camp X-Ray or Camp Delta for prisoners accused of terrorism; Bush did, and Obama inherited the mess. This is not to give Obama a pass on this, but to point out that looking at the history and context, Obama is being severely hampered in any attempt to close the facility; it’s a damned if you, damned if you don’t scenario, and childish posts like Lambert’s serve only to cloud the issue.

And to return to the central point, Guantanamo Bay is not comparable to Auschwitz. To act as if it is makes the person claiming it look stupid and foolish, and trivialises the actual suffering that took place under the Nazis, all simply to take a cheap shot against the President.

So, well done, Lambert. You’ve successfully made yourself look like a very petty, unpleasant man.

ETA: Apparently we can add passive-aggressive and shrill to that description:

Rather than addressing the issues at hand (that is, that he is trivialising suffering to score cheap political points and using specious comparisons), Lambert’s response is… what, exactly? How does one adequately characterise this kind of thing? I think the closest equivalent is Nyah nyah nyah! It’s certainly noting substantive, anyway.

Add to that unable to perceive irony:

Someone needs to tell Lambert that Greenwald is really not the best person to reference when talking about pearl clutching, being a world class master of fauxtrage himself; similarly, Lambchop, it’s only pearl clutching when there is no controversy or if it’s overblown for the purposes of creating controversy. Comparing the actions of President Obama to the Nazis, in serious vein, and then trying to wriggle out of it or make light of it is a dick move, more appropriate to Republicans. If you have substantial criticisms to offer, do so, but as yet, all you’ve offered is the blog equivalent to the yellow press.

Not to mention that Greenwald is not exactly pure as the driven snow on Nazi comparisons, having once compared a Jewish supporter of Obama to Leni Riefenstahl; I can see why you’d link to him. Stay classy, Lambert.

Posted in Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Anti-Carnival!

Posted by That Other Mike on 01/06/2008

Well, thanks for waiting. The Anti-Carnival of Douchebags and Arseholes, alternatively known as the dancing festival of wankbags, is finally here. You were all waiting, right?

Anyway, it’s divided into the two categories, with linkage and short explanations for why said person is being put there. After the fold is NSFW, unless you live in an exceptionally weird office.
Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Odds and Sods | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

A small rant about an unfiltered douchebag…

Posted by That Other Mike on 26/05/2008

This guy really is some kind of wankbag.

I say this guy, despite the claim of there being more than one author, for one simple reason: it’s one guy. There is no difference in style or attitude between any of the personalities writing – it is identically bad throughout.

I can’t claim to have found this guy, though; that honour, such as it is, belongs to Lottie, who recently stabbed him in the eye with her post called Speaking for All Men; she is also the one who first noticed the rather obvious lack of difference between the so-called writers’ arrogant, misogynistic little screeds.

This guy is brimming with hatred for women as autonomous individuals outside of the confines of what he deems attractive; they appear not only as objectified individuals with diminished agency as is common in a lot of misogynistic thinking, but as non-individuals. They are not only objectified – they are objects, sterile things with no more value than a car, and no more chance of being seen as human.

This is not to say that the pictures of women are what do this. The guy could be posting pictures of scantily-clad women all over the place, and I wouldn’t necessarily object – so long as they were acknowledged as being people. Sexual pictures of people are not a bad thing per se and don’t cause anyone to do anything, whether good or bad, the rather spurious and desperate connections claimed by some notwithstanding.

However, that’s a tangent. What I really want to discuss is the disgusting pile of hatred recently vomited up by Mr Thoughtful, as he calls himself in this particular incarnation, on the subject of marriage and prostitution.

This is pretty revealing stuff – Mr Thoughtful seems to be under the impression that all women are scheming and manipulative whores who want to trick men out of their rightful inheritance of free and unbridled sex with no consequences while trapping them in marriage1.

The post in question, regarding the supposed superiority of prostitution over marriage (at least, I think that was his point; coherency doesn’t really figure high on this guy’s list) deals heavily in this topic. Leaving aside the rightness of legalised prostitution, this is pretty sickening stuff; I’ll be addressing Mr Thoughtful himself throughout, because, well, he needs shouting at.

I guess that I need to throw my two cents on the Eliot Spitzer affair (pun intended).

I think you’ve materially overestimated what your opinion is worth here, and the pun sucks.

I’ve never been a big fan of marriage.

I’m sure women everywhere will be hurt beyond all belief by this news, given what a catch you are.

In fact, I’m convinced that it is nothing more than male slavery (more on that in a later post).

This is just… stupid. You might have a point, if men were socially disadvantaged by marriage or rendered unable to do what they desired by law or the usual circumstances of marriage; they are not, however. Calling marriage as we in the West know it a form of slavery is the ridiculous kind of thing I expect to see from Radical Feminists2 and misogynists, and you certainly don’t disappoint on that front. Men only rarely suffer any kind if disadvantage from being married; statistically speaking, what happens is that a lot of guys get an unpaid maid who works incredibly hard for not much in the way of reward, whether in terms of gratitude or monetary compensation. Marriage all too often condemns women to a life of domestic drudgery; and even if they later re-enter the workforce, their chances of achieving well-paid or fulfilling jobs are often miniscule because they’ve been out of the workforce for an enormous length of time. So, please, don’t even dare call it male slavery, not when this situation persists, when some people still insist that the home-marking partner contributes nothing to the success of the marriage.

But look at it from poor Eliot’s side. He wakes up every morning next to that same plain looking block of wood also known as his wife.

First thing is that this is a deeply unpleasant thing to say about Mrs Spitzer in and of itself; she is not a piece of wood, and your attempt to dehumanise her and turn her into an unfeeling object undeserving of human consideration is duly noted, you scumfuck.

The second is that if he were that unhappy with his wife, there were options; there’s marriage guidance counselling, or even divorce, and while New York State admittedly doesn’t have no-fault divorce, it’s not exactly a difficult thing to obtain, either. Seriously, stop making excuses for him.

You might have seen her standing next to Eliot looking like a hurt puppy while he apologizes for his misdeeds. But think about it for a minute. Could you really see her as someone who straps her freak on in the bedroom?

So… Wait a minute, let me get this straight: because she doesn’t fit what you call attractive, she has no right to be hurt because her husband broke his marriage vows and betrayed her? Wow. I’m just so glad that you’re not in charge of anything more significant than your own underwear drawer. This goes back to the dehumanisation I mentioned earlier – she doesn’t fit his template of what’s attractive, so she’s not even human anymore.

Didn’t think so. So Eliot wants a little excitement in his life. He’s tired of looking at the same ragged dishtowel that used to be the hot young babe he fell in love with so long ago.

Maybe he ought to tell his wife, first? Maybe, if he’s got any pretensions towards being an adult human being, he ought to actually discuss that he’s not happy with her? And frankly, if his love falls away because she got older, he never loved her or deserved her in the first place.

You know that ploy that women use to trap men into marriage. Long, flowing hair. Make up that is perfectly applied. A body that is slender and athletic looking. Wild monkey sex on numerous occasions throughout the week.

Right, because women are just queuing up to marry guys who are selfish, looks-obsessed and fixated solely on sex. They’re just lined up around the block to trap you into a sexless marriage where they steal from you and get fat. Because, as we all know, women hate sex and are just after money. And they get fat. Right?

Ugh. Just reading this guy makes me feel ill. Not only is he deeply and obviously offensive towards women –we’ve already established that one- but he’s also pretty fucking offensive to me as a man.


Hair that is short and easy to manage (when she decides to do something with it). Little or no make up which exposes the imperfections, creases, winkles, etc. Ten to fifteen pounds that gets strapped to her ass and thighs every year.

Hey, asshole. Real people get older and mature. That’s something that adults realise and accept as part of life, and some of us even embrace it. Wrinkles are a badge of pride, a sign that you’ve been through life; they’re often formed by laughter or frowns, they can be a sign of character. I’ll give you a minute to go and look it up, chief.

And sex?

Maybe on your birthday.

When she’s in the mood.

News for you, son. You don’t have a right to demand sex from anyone, even from your wife. Hell, especially not from your wife – this is someone to whom you have supposedly made a loving commitment. Demanding sex doesn’t fall under that heading.

Poor Eliot didn’t have a choice. His wife pushed him off that cliff.

You’ve got to be fucking kidding me. Talk about your archetypal victim blaming! “My wife nagged me until I couldn’t help but kill her, Your Honour.” “She was asking for it.”

Eliot Spitzer was an irresponsible jackass who couldn’t keep it in his pants. Quit blaming his wife, shithead. She’s not accountable for his lack of self-control.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m convinced that most married men will cheat on their wives if there is absolutely no chance that they’ll get caught.

Speak for yourself. I love my wife.

We can’t help it. It is our divine right to plant our seed in fertile ground. We must have sex otherwise our heads will implode. This basic concept is part of our DNA. Who are you to argue with the evolutionary process?

Agh! The stupid, it burns! These goggles, they do nothing! Ack!

This is just more of the same crap we see from other rape apologists – men are lustful beasts who can’t control themselves, and so shouldn’t be held to blame when they stick it anywhere they please. Fuck off, you shit. If we’re all such evil brutes who can’t control ourselves, we shouldn’t be held to blame for rape, right? If they didn’t want to be raped, they shouldn’t have inflamed our uncontrollable passions.

Fuck you, you fucking fuck. What the hell is wrong with you? You’ve just dehumanised the entire species; women are just sperm vessels and men are raping animals.

Eliot did what any normal man (with a shitload of money) would have done under the same circumstances. He just got caught. And every single guy across this country had the exact same thought about Kristin…

…damn she’s hot.

Except the guys who love their wives and girlfriends. And the gay ones. And the asexual ones. And the ones who wouldn’t visit prostitutes. And the ones who don’t find her attractive. I’m sure that even you might be getting the picture at this point. You don’t get to just erase the majority of male humanity by claiming that only rapists-in-waiting like you get to be men. We are better than you, and you don’t get to push us out of the picture, you creep.

Go and play in traffic, you shitty excuse for a human being. You disgust me.

1 That seems to be a theme, by the way: witness the post in which he agrees wholeheartedly with an article by the moronic Tad Safran which compares grown women to two year-olds, the post wherein he wholeheartedly agrees with the concept of divorce on grounds of “declining” physical appearance and the disgusting post he makes concerning “vagina envy”.
2 I’m referring to the self-identified current of feminism here rather than any radicalised grouping or current, particularly the kind that seems to rely on warmed-over Marxism and Freudianism as theoretical bases.

Posted in Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments »


Posted by That Other Mike on 20/05/2008

So I see these blog carnivals being advertised all over the place, all of the time. The first time I saw one being touted, I had a big old WTF moment, which I think is fair enough – I don’t see how a bunch of big old link-farm-ish posts equate to a carnival, even metaphorically. It doesn’t, unless you only have the slimmest grasp of figurative speech. Yeah, sure, there’s a big bunch of crap moving from place to place in sequence. So? Why aren’t you calling it nomad blogging or something? Or, I don’t know, blog-herding?

But, whatever; it’s called a carnival rather than anything else, and we’ll all just have to live with that, won’t we?

You may have gathered from all this that I’m not totally fond of the concept, and you’d be right. It’s basically a way for people to make nice with each other while they reuse ancient pages for things besides chip papers. It’s one thing to do link round-ups of stuff you’ve found interesting, but carnivals seem just an excuse to recycle old material. While doing air kisses. Mwah. Mwah.

To register my disdain for blog carnivals, I’ve decided to start the first* anti-carnival. It will be dedicated to one particular theme, as are carnivals, but with one important distinction – instead of heaping praise and friendship and mutual linking, it will be a cavalcade of abuse and scorn and disdain raining down upon the arseholes of the internet, of which there are uncountable numbers.

Which, coincidentally, is the theme; the full title will be the Anti-Carnival of Arseholes and Douchebags, with a strapline of Fuck You, Internet.

I will be taking applications from now until this time next week, with the aim of publishing the anti-carnival a week from Friday; all are welcome to sneer at whoever deserves it, although there is already a little list sitting on my desk. Figuratively speaking.

Nothing is off-limits – pick anyone you want. The only stipulation is that said person must be obviously and provably an arsehole or douchebag.

Go get ’em.

* That I know of, anyway. If someone else has done it first, well done, thanks, and let’s meet for lunch sometime to plot the destruction of humanity or something.

Posted in Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »