Ah, that fateful combination: MUA and MUAers. Another one: money, lack of sense, and charlatans. And another: money, ignorance (possibly combined with laziness and/or stupidity), and credulence (and, again, smart savvy charlatans).
So here’s a third one in the series of failures to (a) read, (b) reason, (c) get the point. And nth in a row of Ginger failures. I should start adding “pls read” before the “ROP++” in subject-lines.
And no, I refuse to stop thinking, speaking, and writing in blocks of less than 500 words, let alone full paragraphs or complete sentences.
Which may well, of course, mean that the pattern continues and the aforementioned “n” continues to be a very large number.
Adding in comment, further to yesterday’s Thought For The Day about bottoms: euphemism of the day!
“It’s all relative” = “wrong / false / untrue”
EXPANSION WITH POSSIBLE RATIONALE:
- innocence and ignorance: the speaker genuinely pseudo-thinks (or, “believes”) that everything really is relative and that there are no such things as rights or wrongs
- speaker is too dense to understand such differences, and does not hear and understand when they are explained (using their own utterances as examples). They may or not also be blind, deaf, and generally insensitive: to what others say, to being in a conversation, to any learning experience and experience of change (which all communication is, or should be).
- the speaker cannot possible be wrong, as they are the only right entity in the universe, and otherwise the universe would implode, explode, or otherwise cease to exist. This may also be called the superstitious approach: not wishing to jinx the continuing existence of the universe (and oneself).
- spoiled pampered princess: cannot possibly be wrong, stupid, or foolish because centre of universe (see previous item). Alternative explanation: speaker has been told all their life that they’re a treasure and treasured, a special unique precious brilliant snowflake, and all their faults and flaws have been translated into positive attributes. Everything they say is right, true, and a gift to the rest of humanity: pearls dropping from their lips (and no jokes about alleged extra qualities of Demi Moore’s alleged latest squeeze). This is of course a fascinating kind of illusion and a psychological gem in its own right. But such people are not diamonds. They are delusional, and may even be dangerous.
- passive-aggressive self-defence: speaker knows what they said is in fact wrong, but they have not yet learned the crucial distinction between “what one says” and “oneself”, so they err in the view that they cannot say anything wrong as otherwise they would be wrong.
In many countries, this issue is addressed in kindergarten and is one of the items on the checklist for permitting a child to pass the last year of kindergarten and progress to Primary One.
In many countries (with some intersection with the previous category), there is also a deliberate re-blurring of the categories, accompanied by infantilization and regression and encouragement of monstrous egotism, in postgraduate study. Especially, irony of ironies, in the “humanities.” Blame Derrida and the religious cult constructed around him. OK, not just him: blame the place of theory in that end of academia.
OK. On which happy note of blaming Derrida (and his mis-translators, and idiot Dummy’s Guide / Spark Notes pseudo-digested versions, and second-hand drivvel based on sketchy skim-mis-reading, and the vagaries of foolish fashion)—on wards and upwards, to a quite delicious recent bout of MUAing. Putting the phenomenon that follows below in its historical context, this might be this year’s incarnation of The Spring Troll. It might, being flat-footed and practical, just / also be a foolish young creature. Hell, the web’s full of them these days, and they get younger and younger every year. But at least it’s always nice to see young people able to read and write. After a fashion…
As ever, some miscommunications and misunderstandings on both sides (this is something I find professionally fascinating. But I digress in geeky glee.). And, as ever, right and wrong on both sides. Let the good reader see and judge for herself: without further comment, or indeed further ado: Continue reading
2012-04-26: NOW WITH SHINY UPDATE AND EVEN MORE LOL!
A MakeupAlley Green Board LOL:
Mkay… Continue reading
[UPDATED: added links and screenshots from company site, and a little comment thereon.]
I’m as keen as the next chap/ess to buy local and support local companies. Unfortunately, “local” here is Vancouver, home of Lululemon, so all too often that means vacuous yogabunny purity-obsessed overpriced rare exclusive stuff and nonsense. Good old-fashioned ripoff quackery for good old-fashioned credulous fools. Or, as a very old proverb puts it: A fool and his money are soon parted. You know, this sort of thing that bugs me mightily and sets me off on particularly lengthy rants.
Éminence being one prime example of which.
And it’s been far too long—goodness gracious me, entire whole days—since I had a decent rant about something.
In the form of a collage copy-pasted from MUA Green Board commentary, here are the reasons for my dislike: Continue reading
or, a continuation of our adventures in the Mysterious and Marvellous Land of Feck… Continue reading
- Merriam-Webster: “containing or being poisonous material especially when capable of causing death or serious debilitation”
- The (um, authority on the English language) Oxford English Dictionary nails it down more succinctly to “poisonous” (see fuller details here).
- As does that authority on English-as-she-is-spoke, Chambers. That is: as the base root essential meaning. With other applications: ex. toxic assets, toxic brand.
- As ever: think before you speak/write/type. Combine that with that other great maxim for everyday life, Google is your friend: and this just shouldn’t be an issue.
But it is. For example, we get this sort of thing, over on the MakeupAlley Green Board (names have been changed to protect the innocent, especially the simple, naïve, and misfortunately uneducated through no fault of their own):
Julius: Is it safe to say that all ‘non natural’ perfumes are toxic? I still keep a few perfumes cause I like smelling them – I dont even spray them but should I just let them go??
Clement: Natural or not has nothing to do with toxicity.
Linus: I’m pretty sure any perfume you drink is going to make you sick.
Anacletus: Well, “fragrance” is a mystery ingredient and perfume is comprised almost entirely of that, so I guess I behave as if I assume they are toxic. I doubt they all are, but there’s no way to know.
Ginger [I think I'm Gelasius following the current pattern...]: 2nd, or eat: if you eat and drink enough of anything (alcoholic or otherwise), you may die. See also, for a practical demonstration of “toxic = capable of causing death or serious debilitation”—WARNING: NSF those of a sensitive disposition, currently eating or about to, lacking in humanity or a SOH, or who dislike and disdain wait-staff—
2.i) “Best all-natural skincare?“
→ I can’t and wouldn’t recommend a single line for everything, same as for “unnatural” stuff++
SERIOUS DIRE WARNINGS Continue reading