Nonsense Quotes

Deleted member 16771 said:
maxresdefault.jpg
Click to expand...
Daustus said:
Not yet. But soon.
Click to expand...

Pervert
 
Deleted member 16771 said:
:flushed:

Get the fuck outta here with your incredible jokes.

Serious question, Cornerstone: do you have a favourite stand up?
Click to expand...

I reckon probably Louis CK. Anyone who can make mini Weetabix come out my nose is alright by me and, so far, he's the only one.
 
Deleted member 16771 said:
Good choice, yeah I thought that would be around your ballpark.

I wondered if you might've said Stewart Lee, or someone like that.

You've often got a cerebral edge.
Click to expand...

He would've been my choice in the past. I almost linked you his Braveheart bit when you changed avatars. Have you seen that btw?
 
Cornerstone said:
He would've been my choice in the past. I almost linked you his Braveheart bit when you changed avatars. Have you seen that btw?
Click to expand...
I would've said Lee in the past, too. I'm less enamoured by that highly crafted cerebral style nowadays, though.

Braveheart bit? I don't think so, if it's from a show more recent than... the one with the DVDs all over the stage.
 
Deleted member 16771 said:
I would've said Lee in the past, too. I'm less enamoured by that highly crafted cerebral style nowadays, though.

Braveheart bit? I don't think so, if it's from a show more recent than... the one with the DVDs all over the stage.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I know what you mean. The structure of Lee's shows becomes very predictable after seeing a couple of them. Louis CK said how he knows his material and timings word for word and beat for beat but he makes it sound organic and almost improvised. His series like 'Louie' get into some pretty deep territory too whilst being really funny too.

I appreciate the comments though. I really just say things that make me laugh. It's better online because I can laugh at my own jokes and no-one can see.
 
Cornerstone said:

Yeah, I know what you mean. The structure of Lee's shows becomes very predictable after seeing a couple of them. Louis CK said how he knows his material and timings word for word and beat for beat but he makes it sound organic and almost improvised. His series like 'Louie' get into some pretty deep territory too whilst being really funny too.

I appreciate the comments though. I really just say things that make me laugh. It's better online because I can laugh at my own jokes and no-one can see.
Click to expand...
My inner 23 year old smart ass is loving it.

I still love Lee's delivery.


Yeah I've seen that bit. I have all the shows, though I only went to one live one.
 
"The in-choate in-fans ab-original para-subject cannot be theorised as functionally completely frozen in a world where teleology is schematised into geo-graphy."

—Gayatri Spivak, A Critique of Postcolonial Reason

I really recommend checking out this hilarious (but also substantial) critique of the book by literary critic Terry Eagleton here.

PS. @Deleted member 16771 You might not be surprised to hear she has translated some of Derrida's works :D
 
Ren said:
"The in-choate in-fans ab-original para-subject cannot be theorised as functionally completely frozen in a world where teleology is schematised into geo-graphy."

—Gayatri Spivak, A Critique of Postcolonial Reason

I really recommend checking out this hilarious (but also substantial) critique of the book by literary critic Terry Eagleton here.

PS. @Deleted member 16771 You might not be surprised to hear she has translated some of Derrida's works :D
Click to expand...
LMFAO
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ren
“If what happens does not feel good, ‘like fresh air,’ then it isn’t really therapy that is happening.” -Eugene T. Gendlin
:sweatsmile: Sure.
 
I don't think it's a specific quote as such, but I hate when people, presented with something related to the scale or vastness of outer space, feel the need to point out how 'insignificant' we are when we consider the size of the universe. Often with the air of having just realised something profound and original. I cringe every time.

Significance is subjective. So who or what determines what is more or less important than something else?

I'm sure great pandemics like Covid-19 began at a microscopic scale. There are roughly as many neurons in the human brain as stars in the milky way. Significance is not determined solely by physical mass. As such your observation does not demonstrate any perception or insight beyond the obvious. But no. There's always someone. Every time.
 
"Why are women...so much more interesting to men than men are to women?" - Virginia Woolf

I'm not sure if this quote is supposed to be deliberately hurtful or provocative, but it is a good example of how an otherwise poor quote can be elevated because of the status of the person it is attributed to.
 
Last edited:
More of a pet peeve than a legitimate gripe, but I hate when someone tries to explain a certain phenomenon as a combination of percentages, as in, "Success is 95% preparation and 5% luck" or "Intelligence is 5% genetics, 10% charisma, and 85% hard work" or whatever. The problem with these kinds of statements is that they treat the object on the left side of the equation like smoothie, where all you do it stir in the right ingredients and then it becomes what it is. But this isn't how real life works, forming linear combinations of raw materials—this isn't even how cooking works! It's like, if I baked a cake, and you asked me "What percentage of this cake is flour, and what percentage is baking it in the oven?" Baking is a process that requires an interaction of inputs.

The thing is, this kind of false reasoning can lead people to genuine, and harmful, misconceptions. For example, a lot of people are under the impression that the "nature vs. nurture" debate in biology boils down to identifying which traits are genetic and which ones aren't, and that you can calculate a statistic called "heritability" whose complement is the extent to which a trait is determined by the environment. But this just isn't the case. The relationship between genes and the environment is like the relationship between the ingredients of the cake and the oven: Both of them are 100% important to the outcome.

There is a famous comic (which I can't find atm) that portrays this as a boy and a girl filling a bucket with water. In the first pane, the boy fills the bucket halfway, then the girl fills it halfway, and it makes sense to say that each one contributed 50%. In the second pane, the boy turns on the faucet while the girl holds the hose and they fill the bucket up all the way together. In this situation, it doesn't make any sense to assign percentages—without either of their roles, the bucket wouldn't have been filled at all! Genetics and the environment are like that.
 
ultrauber said:
More of a pet peeve than a legitimate gripe, but I hate when someone tries to explain a certain phenomenon as a combination of percentages, as in, "Success is 95% preparation and 5% luck" or "Intelligence is 5% genetics, 10% charisma, and 85% hard work" or whatever. The problem with these kinds of statements is that they treat the object on the left side of the equation like smoothie, where all you do it stir in the right ingredients and then it becomes what it is. But this isn't how real life works, forming linear combinations of raw materials—this isn't even how cooking works! It's like, if I baked a cake, and you asked me "What percentage of this cake is flour, and what percentage is baking it in the oven?" Baking is a process that requires an interaction of inputs.

The thing is, this kind of false reasoning can lead people to genuine, and harmful, misconceptions. For example, a lot of people are under the impression that the "nature vs. nurture" debate in biology boils down to identifying which traits are genetic and which ones aren't, and that you can calculate a statistic called "heritability" whose complement is the extent to which a trait is determined by the environment. But this just isn't the case. The relationship between genes and the environment is like the relationship between the ingredients of the cake and the oven: Both of them are 100% important to the outcome.

There is a famous comic (which I can't find atm) that portrays this as a boy and a girl filling a bucket with water. In the first pane, the boy fills the bucket halfway, then the girl fills it halfway, and it makes sense to say that each one contributed 50%. In the second pane, the boy turns on the faucet while the girl holds the hose and they fill the bucket up all the way together. In this situation, it doesn't make any sense to assign percentages—without either of their roles, the bucket wouldn't have been filled at all! Genetics and the environment are like that.
Click to expand...

I agree. I interpret these types of quotes as someone saying, "What worked for me is _______." It's self-flattery.

Another quote pet peeve I have is "_______ is a sign of intelligence." "Swearing is a sign of intelligence" is a popular one. Some intelligent people swear often, but so do idiots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top