Tuesday, 16 April 2013
Freaks and Geeks
Taking a wee stroll through The Cathedral with a can in hand, fag in mouth, grass in view, see the leaves ken, they're dying again, see the sun ken, gibbous moon en aw, see the sexless, androgynous stalks with heads and bodies, tweed shirts on pigeon chests, harder for a wee cunt to discern what be a lad and what be a lassie in our cruel, cigendered monosex world.
You've noticed this bollocks, hocus pocus shit ken as of late. The use of certain trigger words which set off alarm bells in the head. One of the interesting things about at language as a whole is that, through language, one gives reality to something, be it a concept or an idea, it exists now, it is in your reality. It is a powerful thing yes, but limited and prone to sloppiness, a devastating weapon in the wrong hands of the wrong cunts. These trigger words yous are wondering about? Well, once upon a time, the whole concept of gender being separate from sex was a pretty foreign idea to all peoples involved. Hell, even the word homosexual is only a hundred or so years old, the whole idea of being sexually attracted to men didn't exist for most of history in the way we now believe it to. So, why are all these ridiculous words like cigendered, hetero-normative, transphobic, gender is a social construct (Simon Baron Cohen and his studies on babies only hours old beg to differ, fuck you Judith Butler) blahblahblah, why are these kind of words becoming more and more common, especially amongst the fomicating eviscerated Cathedral drones? If you're fucking a tranny, you're still having sex with a guy but with a lot of shit added, bottles of hormones and plastic surgery and all that jazz? Not that complicated ken honest to shite.
There are I believe, two big reasons for this senseless obfuscation of language. First, let's take a look at some of femcunt Judith Butler's writings. This one is from a preface of hers to something or other:
I think that style is a complicated terrain and not one that we unilaterally choose or control with the purposes we consciously intend. Fredric Jameson made this clear in his early book on Sartre. (2) Certainly, one can practice styles, but the styles that become available to you are not entirely a matter of choice. Moreover, neither grammar nor style are politically neutral. Learning the rules that govern intelligible speech is an inculcation into normalized language, where the price of not conforming is the loss of intelligibility itself. (3) As Drucilla Cornell, in the tradition of Adorno, reminds me: there is nothing radical about common sense. (4) It would be a mistake to think that received grammar is the best vehicle for expressing radical views, given the constraints that grammar imposes upon thought, indeed upon the thinkable itself. (5) But formulations that twist grammar or that implicitly call into question the subject-verb requirements of propositional sense are clearly irritating for some. (6) They produce more work for their readers, and sometimes their readers are offended by such demands. Are those who are offended making a legitimate request for “plain speaking” or does their complaint emerge from a consumer expectation of intellectual life? Is there, perhaps a value to be derived from such experiences of linguistic difficulty? (7) If gender itself is naturalized through grammatical norms, as Monique Wittig has argues, then the alteration of gender at the most fundamental epistemic level will be conducted, in part, through contesting the grammar in which gender is given. (8)
The demand for lucidity forgets the ruses that motor the ostensibly “clear” view. Avital Ronell recalls the moment in which Nixon looked into the eyes of the nation and said, “let me make one thing perfectly clear” and then proceeded to lie. (9) What travels under the sign of “clarity” and what would be the price of failing to deploy a certain critical suspicion when the arrival of lucidity is announced? (10) Who devises the protocols of “clarity” and whose interests do they serve? (11) What is foreclosed by the insistence on parochial standards of transparency as requisite for all communication? (12) What does “transparency” keep obscure?
Anyone, anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
What, in the bloody fuck is this wrinkly prune faced crone talking about here? What terrible, stupid, ugly, cunty language from the maw of de cunt, is it not? "When the arrival of lucidity is announced?" Shit ken! Lucidity is here with a few cans en aw! Get the couch up! Free gaf! Lucidity is doing lines with fucking coke off the buttocks of a stripper in de club keeeeeeennnnn.
Done scratching the noggin en aw, still trying to decipher the ramblings of a pyknic twat, what the bloody fuck she's trying to say? Good. I believe one of the big reasons for using words like cigender and hetronormative, despite the metaphorical rubbing your beans to it all, and writing in this needlessly confounding style is as of follows. If you write like this, cunt comes along and thinks this cunt, eyo cunt, is a person of considerable intellect, scintillating opinions, capable of engaging in most sagacious discourse, but here's the kick up the whole ken, you will never ever be able to understand it.
So you keep your pretty mouth shut, lest you are one of the stupid ones. In The Pale King, David Foster Wallace makes an excellent observation that if you don't want people to find out about something important, whether it is corruption at a higher level or whatever, no matter how useful or interesting, you make it as dull as fucking shit. Economy is going to crap ken? QuantitativeeasingandabitofderivatesandseniorbondholdersandTARGET2andexpansionaryfiscalpolicyand
Where's my tv remote ken?
Same thing here. You hide your bullshitty little points within a garbage dump of stupid language and people, afraid of being called out for being fucking quacks, will keep their mouths shut.
That be reason one, and it goes hand in hand with reason two.
The second big reason is offensiveness.
The following link is the blog of one of these Marxist, cigenderfunkfest lassies or lad or whatever, I'm offending said and sad person by using the pronoun she? Perhaps I'll use some Irish slang instead? Cork? Limerick? Skank? Beure? Dublin 4 HO? Ah, yes! Pure horrorshow! I'll go with beure. Always liked that one. So, to carry on, this beure writes an article about how horribly offended that this other lassie said all this shitetalk about he/she/her/it/doggy because she rightly talks about the needless sloppiness of language, complaining that god forbid, fucken LGBTFAGGOT has too many letters in it. God forbid ken! The article is mostly rubbish, but it feeds back into my previous point, and a couple of others I've made in Smithy's past.
I wrote a post a while back about a gay mate of mine and his hate of all things faggot. I've lived in Ireland for most of my life. I've talked to some of these lads for a bit, and believe it or not folks, most people really don't give two shits if you're gay. Irish people are easy going in that regard. Go to Dublin, Cork, Galway, and you'll get a similar response. Ye like man bum! Ehsure, fair enough! But where would the left be without their little of conflict to drive their inane course? Back to my gay mate. According to him, the LGBT fellows are quite the narcissists ken. So what do you do to completely over-blow the in reality, very small amount of conflict and aggression between heterosexuals and homosexuals, to exacerbate proceedings even more?
Simple. You make the language as vague as possible.
Example: Such and such a person says something about someone. You make the simple observation say, that transsexual men are men with hormone treatment, and you back up your point with the fact that a huge proportion of these men have suffered and come from broken homes and have a ton of baggage in the closet. The vagueness of this language means you can make up something to be offended by. You and your cigender privilege! Thus, Cultural Marxism and language disintegrate into a series of increasingly illegible meanings, feelings, and tautologies are rampant, cold, shouting love into the heart of the world is suddenly broken down by the lack of concrete words, the fear of offending a cunt, and the strengthening of moral relativism.
They're like flies in the soup ken, dem tautologies. Every fucken tom dick and harry will want one, and then soon, sloppy slogans. What is equality? What is rape? What is love baby? You know, that thing that we peoples, all peoples used too dos before we all came apart like silt from the sea?