That's fucking stupid

Author Archive

Says Papal spokesman Father Federico Lombardi:

“The Pope wants to have a direct, pastoral relationship with people where you can touch children…”

Says it all, really

So the drugs watchdogs have released their latest figures on drug deaths, and once more those unable to connect the dots read and repeat what is essentially a load of bollocks.

For instance, let’s take some stats from a recent copy of the Metro (27.08.09):

“As many as 1 million people… are said to take cocaine.”

Now, that’s a lot of people, no denying that. Yet in the same article comes this little fact:

“There were 235 deaths involving the class A drug in 2008.”

Do the maths on that one and you’ll come up with the result that 0.0235% of those who use cocaine die.

Now, that is not so great a number. Less than 1%. In fact, less than a quarter of a percent of people died from cocaine use in 2008.

To what, then, do we attribute these deaths? Well, for a start, cocaine that you would buy on the street is mixed with other substances, including but not limited to the following:

• sugar
• baking soda
• talcum powder
• caffeine
• ketamine
• cornstarch
• flour

Observant readers will notice that none of the things mentioned above are designed to be shoved up your nose and directly into your system. It’s not exactly a stretch to work out that if you’re going to snort this kind of stuff, it’s going to fuck you up something rotten. I can’t say that all cocaine deaths are because of the shit that it gets cut with, but I’d be willing to bet money on it being the larger portion of those 235 deaths back in 2008.

The process of adding to cocaine is called cutting, and it’s done to make the cocaine go further, in turn increasing profits for the dealer without having to spend so much on product.

Here’s a state-the-obvious: dealers don’t give a flying fuck what you’re putting up your nose or into your system, as long as they keep making money from you and others like you.

Because people who use cocaine often don’t know the exact purity and strength of the drug they’re taking, dealers will cut, and add, and improvise, until what you’re getting from them is to cocaine what shop’s own brand beans are to Heinz. It’s like cocaine-flavoured shit (the cocaine, not the beans…).

The reason you can’t get hold of pure cocaine on the street is because it’s prohibitively expensive, and would probably make your nose explode anyway. I’m not denying that cocaine is a dangerous drug; but so is opium, from which we get morphine and codeine, which are ubiquitous today in the medical world. They can be researched, harnessed and controlled for the benefit of others. No government has seriously tried this with cocaine; why the hell not? It’s been done effectively with opium and we are starting to see results from studies involving cannabis, which California recently approved for medical use.

Part of what makes a drug dangerous is its content; the other thing that makes a drug dangerous is people’s attitudes towards it. The noisiest anti-drugs crowd are those that yell from the rooftops that if we legalise or otherwise control drug distribution (like cocaine, cannabis, etc) then we’ll be drowned in a wave of people all lighting up and running through the streets.

I repeat: bollocks.

Those that take cocaine already are going to continue their habits regardless of Government stance, seeing as how it’s readily available already in the UK. Those that don’t take it at all most likely will continue not to take it. And those that are addicted can be spotted more easily and helped as much as possible; but only if some authority like the Government or independent body controls the supply.

All this fannying around classifying drugs up and down various letters of the alphabet is getting the drug debate nowhere. The Government can be seen to be doing something – anything – whilst sitting about on their jacksies and not doing anything at all. They are happy for people to whip themselves up into a froth-mouthed panic about it because if people are doing that. They are too busy to notice that the Government themselves hasn’t reached any form of workable solution and doesn’t plan to.

[Unidentified woman on Obama]:

“This government is out of control. We are in debt up to our eyeballs,” one questioner declared, her voice rising in anger. “What are you going to do to restore trust and faith in the American people that you know what you’re doing?”

Oh, yes, that’s right, it was Obama that got us into all this trouble!
And there was me thinking it was Bush.

Shows how much I know about US politics, eh?

We at TFS always like to hear the opposite side of the story from ours. We love to read other people’s opinions and well thought out ripostes.

But what we love even more than that are stupid people. People who have mastered the art of the hysterical keyboard mash, and who invariably fall into one of two categories:

1. Those who use the words “100%” in their posts, despite being an uneducated mouth-breather who will spout any form of quasi-reasonable sounding drivel as long as it comes from someone similarly white, middle class and boundlessly stupid. Daily Heil types, you know who they are.

2. Those who assume ironic, pseudo-pretentious poses and are utterly, utterly convinced that this impresses people with how clever he is, when in fact we openly attempt to bait him so that he will carry on churning out his own auto-back-patting postings with the aid of a thesaurus and a jar of Ribena.

We shall call them Trolls.

The Troll is a curious beast. It may lurk around in dark corners of the internet, avoiding sunlight, showers and nutritional food, and only delurking when suitably riled. These types are blessedly easy targets – it’s kind of like waving a steak at a pissed-off pitbull. You just know it’s gonna bite and bark and jump about like its arse is on fire, yet you do it anyway, don’t you?

This type will snap at the first provocation and will undoubtedly believe that TIPING THIGNS IN CAPS MAEKS THEM TRUE, I KNOW 100% THIS IS FACT!!!1.

They are the intellectual equivalent of the Youtube commentor. They haven’t really got much past the evolutionary equivalent of the “OMFG U’R SO GHEY” argument. These people are impossible to reason with; would you reason with a dog that shits on your rug then looks at you, proud of the steaming pile of turd he has produced?  No. You slap it down and banish it back to the dark corner whence it came.

Typical Internet Troll

Such Trolls as fall into category 1. have a propensity to use percentages to demonstrate FACT(TM). A prime example would be “i may not be medically trained but i am not stupid…i am the mother of a boy with acquired autism and i know 100% it was the MMR which caused the autism”.

It’s important to emphasise that Trolls like this are immune to reason (despite being against vaccinations, ironically enough) and do not let a plethora of studies and scientific evidence sway them from the path of FACT(TM). They are the only person in the debate in possession of FACT(TM), despite being a hysterical keyboard-basher jumping on an already-dismissed panicwagon created from an unholy mix of conviction that the authorities are conspiring against them and plain old middle class TEH FEAR. Of what? Who knows; maybe daylight, or other people, or rational, reasoned dialogue (most likely).

Trolls like this can be relied upon to descend in to badly spelled CAPSLOK RIDDEN HISTERIA at any point, which is always a really, really good indicator of your intellectual credibility.

They genuinely, really and truly believe that they alone are the maverick free-thinker among the sheeple masses. This makes them ripe for a bit of delusional paranoia – a really good Troll won’t let something lie until they have demonstrated their conviction that some government agency somewhere is watching them / withholding vital evidence that will prove the Troll right beyond all doubt, and that the lack of evidence to support their paranoid delusion is “pretty CONVENEINT, eh???!1”

Whilst fun to play with, having a set-to with someone like this is the rough equivalent of bear-baiting. Sure, it’s fun to see them shuffling and grunting and flailing whilst you repeatedly poke them, but it gets old pretty quickly.

The fun starts when one of the other types of Troll shambles onto the scene. The ones that are just about intelligent enough to believe they’re a wit, when in fact they’re only half a one.*

Such types will often come across in their posts as making painful yet hilarious attempts to sound supercilious and aloof, usually through the misuse of sarcasm. Phrases such as “Yes, splendid idea! let’s all do what you say, because obviously you know better than anyone else!” feature quite heavily in the blatherings of this particular Troll variant. Note that this Troll has picked up on the fact that the CAPS LOCK SARCASM approach does not work, and instead treads dangerously close to irony through reckless use of the Italics command.

Tragically, both of our pets have dropped off the radar. No doubt Bulldog has retreated to his kennel; no doubt  FrMaRiRoLu is busy creating more tinfoil hats to tide her through the summer.

So, we’re hiring. We need another pet Troll at whom we can poke much fun, wind up and who preferably contains just enough intelligence to make what they mash out in a sweaty, hysterical frenzy the type of stuff that makes people want to point and mock and laugh.

Any takers?

*Thank you Terry Pratchett for that line; you are a flying spaghetti monster among men.

Oh noes! The American gay movement doesn’t like new Sacha Baron Cohen film Brüno because they claim it enforces gay stereotypes and will actually confirm and entrench the prejudices of those who think gays ought to die a fiery death morally object to man-love (because let’s face it, it’s never the lesbians people have problems with, is it?).

Maybe. But then what do you think these people do?

Scary Mary!

And these people:

Holy Homo, Batman!

And these people:

I don't even fucking know.

Why?

Quite frankly (and yes, for those of you who are interested, I am queer), they’re fookin’ wierd looking. Now, I’m a veteran of a fair few British Pride events; I’ve marshalled at a few, been in the parades of a few, and run a fetish stall at most. So I’m pretty broad minded and can appreciate, even embrace, the variety of the queer identity.  I love the identity in all its forms. But others don’t and no amount of wishful thinking is going to change that.

It isn’t films like Brüno that reinforce the stereotypes and prejudices of the homophobes out there; it isn’t even the sheer aggressiveness of the bolder elements of the queer identity; it’s the fact that this aggressive and colourful edge of homosexuality is the one that is most visible to society.  It’s the only slice of queer life that the homophobes see, because everyday, workaday gay couples living a life together in quiet harmony just isn’t exciting enough to be celebrated, apparently.

If all a born-again homophobe sees of the gay culture are examples such as the pictures above, is it any wonder they back away in horror? The only time they come into even remote contact with the queer lifestyle, they’re having sex, S&M and transvestism pushed in their faces.

Now I like all 3 of those things, but that doesn’t mean I want it (metaphorically) shoved down my throat. Brüno not only sends up the prejudices and outright nasty attitudes of homophobes in America, but also the prevailing attitudes of the queer community. We can be camp, gauche, shallow, effeminate, and obsess over our hair and nails. There are gay people out there who embody the character that Brüno mocks.

When Kathy Burke as Waynetta Slob declared that she wanted a brown baby just like all the other mums on the estate, was anyone up in arms at the implications of someone wanting a brown baby? No. Why? Because it was funny; it played off against the stereotypes of “broken” families with absent black fathers. It sent up the women idiotic enough to say “I want a brown baby”. It mocked the serious underlying political situation as much as it did the people causing it. That’s what satire is, people; at least try and remember that.

True, we’re not all like Brüno; but some of us are, and we’re fucking hilarious, quite frankly.

Oh, and see this site for genuine gayby accessories.  Brüno didn’t make it up – the gay community did, and Baron Cohen is sending us up.

Brüno just plays off an already-existing culture and vocabulary. So don’t blame a satire for poking fun at a culture already notorious for its camp, flamboyant, effeminate, gauche, appearance-obsessed members.

If you think that such stereotyping is harming the gay agenda (which as everyone knows is 1. be allowed to marry and 2. have fabulous hair), then take a good long look at the people in the queer community who are propagating such an image.

Blaming a film for an already existing culture is cowardly and pointless. Just because gays are in the news for gay marriage and gay adoption and general gay rights doesn’t give us automatic privilege to be offended just because someone makes a joke involving our lifestyle.

Relax, fellow gays – be fabulous.