Thread: It isn’t easy being me!

Well actually it’s a piece of piss, for the most part anyway, but there’s been something that’s been grinding my gears for a while now.

I mentioned a while ago that I started a new job. It’s the interminable, insidious courses that they’re making me take. I just need to scream at someone and the rant sub-forum here just seems like the perfect outlet.

These are mostly online courses – a half hour here, 45 minutes there. Not a problem, but it’s the content. It’s ALL about being politically correct, ALL woke shit.

I’ve only been employed here for a few months and already I’ve had to endure about ten of these courses and there are many more to come.

And the worst thing isn’t what they’re trying to get at is wrong, not at all, it’s the way they phrase the questions, the part you have to pass to get the cert. to continue in your employment.

An example:

Should you refer to someone in a wheelchair as a “disabled person” or a “person that is disabled”!

I mean, just what’s the fucking difference?

(They, the obsequious THEY, prefer the latter by the way)

And so I work my way through these courses saying to myself “This is absolute mind-controlling hogwash. This is what they want to hear so this is what I’ll give them.”

And so, I click here and I type there. I get their bullshit piece of paper that says “I’ve been exposed to your bullshit and I agree.” Whilst all the time thinking:

Every single one of your screwed-up, misrepresented, mind-controlling courses can be summed up with one question:

Treat others as you would like to be treated. Do you agree: Yes/No.

It would save me countless hours of having to read/listen to/watch your banal postulations.

But that isn’t enough for THEM. THEY have to control your every thought on every subject, and by forcing us to endure the same shit over and over they hope that the sheer repetitiveness of it combined with the forcing you to agree with their bullshit, even if only in a “do it for the sake of my job”, form will eventually change your perspective.

The sad thing is they’re probably right when it comes to your average blue-pilled sap.

See thorough their manipulative crap. If, like me you’re forced to endure this torture, weigh up every word and every statement. Pay particular attention to how the questions are phrased: make a choice, but only from the choices we give you.

Give them the answers they seek and you will fly under the radar, tell them the truth and you’re fucked!

For now I’m toeing the line, but if this shit goes on much longer I see myself back on welfare.

Can you imagine what I’d have to say to my employers if I was really to let loose? By the way they’re mostly, erm, how do I say this politically correctly? WYMMINZ!

I keep telling myself MGTOW is mainly about self-preservation, but sometimes the desire to push back is almost overwhelming.

doublethink from the Ministry of Truth bro. You know, back in the early 2000s when I was in highschool, we were forced to read books Junior and Senior year, and then write our final paper. We read books like Fahrenheit 451 and A Brave New World. We read 1984 and I guarantee you, the idea behind exposing Millennials to this kind of content was to pave the way for the stuff we're seeing now. Those books written in the early 20th century are being used to as a blueprint. They want to rewrite history, erode critical thinking, destroy typical breeding/nurturing, surveil everything and create the exact totalitarian regimes we read about. There is no 'reservation' to retreat to because the soma pills make you feel so good. There is no abandoned room where the black screens cant monitor you. Male sexual needs are shunned and youre meant to service that base instinct by way of black screen device. Only certain spermies are invited to precreate by way of dating app algorhythms. .

Back in the day, there were topics that were considered rude to talk about in public and the workplace. Money, Religion and Politics. Politics has become so invasive now. It is everywhere, especially at work.

The courses are such a load of crap as well. In Australia there is a big thing about Aboriginals and we had one online course about that. Usually you can skip through the videos and just do the easy quiz and that's it. Not so with that one! So we just let it run in the background, muted while we did our normal duties and when it was over we did the quiz and selected the answers we disagreed with because we knew they would be the "right ones".

On the bright side there was a course that taught us that unless someone asks for help we shouldn't offer as it is condescending! That became interesting when they sent a heavily pregnant Maintenance Woman up to our office to change a light globe. Our office doesn't have an elevator so she had to walk up the stairs with a ladder. We all just watched, wondering WTF?! Our manager actually put in a complaint.

Anyway, our training states we are not to offer assistance so we all did the right thing and I think that is what matters!

Should you refer to someone in a wheelchair as a “disabled person” or a “person that is disabled”!

I mean, just what’s the fucking difference?

(They, the obsequious THEY, prefer the latter by the way)

Arguably, their choice should be "person who is disabled". It's who, not that. A person is a who, not a thing.

Actually, both are accepted usage, but since they want to cultivate uber-sensitive thinking, they should get uber-sensitive themselves. As usual, liberals only go as far as to operate others. So shallow. LOL.

I try to use who.

Originally Posted by Unboxxed

Arguably, their choice should be "person who is disabled". It's who, not that. A person is a who, not a thing.

Actually, both are accepted usage, but since they want to cultivate uber-sensitive thinking, they should get uber-sensitive themselves. As usual, liberals only go as far as to operate others. So shallow. LOL.

I try to use who.

Who/subjective, whom/objective, "a person whom is disabled" grammar Watson, grammar...

Originally Posted by mgtower

Who/subjective, whom/objective, "a person whom is disabled" grammar Watson, grammar...

Hmm... I wonder why the several grammarist sites I consulted for "who/that" didn't ever mention "whom".

I've dealt with who/whom in other sentence structures based on this:

Whom should be used to refer to the object of a verb or preposition. When in doubt, try this simple trick: If you can replace the word with “he”’ or “’she,” use who. If you can replace it with “him” or “her,” use whom.

Who should be used to refer to the subject of a sentence.
Whom should be used to refer to the object of a verb or preposition.

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/who-v...ou-might-think

Their replacement trick:

"him is disabled" would make no sense, so whom is incorrect.
"he is disabled" would make sense, so who is correct.


Another explanation of how to replace:

If you’re still unsure about which form to use in a sentence, try this test: Restate the sentence with a personal pronoun, or, if it is a question, answer the question with one word. If the personal pronoun in the restatement or response is he or she, who is correct. If it’s him or her, whom is correct.


Statement: “I have a friend who can help.”
Restatement: “He can help.” (Who is correct.)

https://www.dailywritingtips.com/how...e-who-or-whom/

Again, if I'm doing this right, who would be correct, they say.


I think we have dueling websites!

Thanks.

Originally Posted by Unboxxed

Hmm... I wonder why the grammarist sites I consulted for "who/that" didn't ever mention "whom".

I've dealt with who/whom in other sentence structures based on this:

Whom should be used to refer to the object of a verb or preposition. When in doubt, try this simple trick: If you can replace the word with “he”’ or “’she,” use who. If you can replace it with “him” or “her,” use whom.

Who should be used to refer to the subject of a sentence.
Whom should be used to refer to the object of a verb or preposition.

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/who-v...ou-might-think

Their replacement trick doesn't seem to make sense to me, either one.


How about this explanation of how to replace:

If you’re still unsure about which form to use in a sentence, try this test: Restate the sentence with a personal pronoun, or, if it is a question, answer the question with one word. If the personal pronoun in the restatement or response is he or she, who is correct. If it’s him or her, whom is correct.


Statement: “I have a friend who can help.”
Restatement: “He can help.” (Who is correct.)

https://www.dailywritingtips.com/how...e-who-or-whom/



Ok, here, who would be correct and your website's example of "The man whom I saw at the theater" would replace to be "Him I saw at the theater".

I think we have dueling websites!

Thanks.

Mix in a little poetry and you can go from ordinary Grammar Police to full blown Language Nazi!

I love it when a thread takes a turn. Never did I expect this to turn into a debate about grammar, and they wish to portray us as uneducated? Huh!

One of my own personal peeves is when someone tries to correct my grammar on the use of the word “me” instead of “I”.

An example:

“You and me went for a walk” is obviously grammatically incorrect. If you remove the words “You and” you would never say “Me went for a walk”. (or maybe you would, but grammatically it’s incorrect.)

But what about the phrase: “John gave the money to you and me.”

I’ve been picked up on this type of phraseology a number of times: “It’s you and I, not you and me.”

But, if you remove the words “you and” would you consider it correct to say “John gave the money to I.”

I don’t know the grammatical rules that govern this, but to use a cart-blanche rule saying it’s ALWAYS “you and I” is obviously incorrect.

By the way, John is a rich idiot that's always giving away his dosh!

Originally Posted by Jackoff

I love it when a thread takes a turn. Never did I expect this to turn into a debate about grammar, and they wish to portray us as uneducated? Huh!

One of my own personal peeves is when someone tries to correct my grammar on the use of the word “me” instead of “I”.

An example:

“You and me went for a walk” is obviously grammatically incorrect. If you remove the words “You and” you would never say “Me went for a walk”. (or maybe you would, but grammatically it’s incorrect.)

But what about the phrase: “John gave the money to you and me.”

I’ve been picked up on this type of phraseology a number of times: “It’s you and I, not you and me.”

But, if you remove the words “you and” would you consider it correct to say “John gave the money to I.”

I don’t know the grammatical rules that govern this, but to use a cart-blanche rule saying it’s ALWAYS “you and I” is obviously incorrect.

Yeah, the way I do it is to remove the "you and" and then see how it reads. So, it's "I" at the beginning of the sentence and "me" at the end of the sentence.

Me self and I agree because you can't say I self and me agree, not to be confused with me, myself, and I.

Originally Posted by Unboxxed

Hmm... I wonder why the several grammarist sites I consulted for "who/that" didn't ever mention "whom".

I've dealt with who/whom in other sentence structures based on this:

Whom should be used to refer to the object of a verb or preposition. When in doubt, try this simple trick: If you can replace the word with “he”’ or “’she,” use who. If you can replace it with “him” or “her,” use whom.

Who should be used to refer to the subject of a sentence.
Whom should be used to refer to the object of a verb or preposition.

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/who-v...ou-might-think

Their replacement trick:

"him is disabled" would make no sense, so whom is incorrect.
"he is disabled" would make sense, so who is correct.


Another explanation of how to replace:

If you’re still unsure about which form to use in a sentence, try this test: Restate the sentence with a personal pronoun, or, if it is a question, answer the question with one word. If the personal pronoun in the restatement or response is he or she, who is correct. If it’s him or her, whom is correct.


Statement: “I have a friend who can help.”
Restatement: “He can help.” (Who is correct.)

https://www.dailywritingtips.com/how...e-who-or-whom/

Again, if I'm doing this right, who would be correct, they say.


I think we have dueling websites!

Thanks.

Keep paddling, I hear banjos!

Originally Posted by Jackoff

Should you refer to someone in a wheelchair as a “disabled person” or a “person that is disabled”!
I mean, just what’s the fucking difference?

Puts me in mind of a quote:

Originally Posted by Theodore Dalrymple

Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better.

Evryone knows that it's bullshit. Everyone. Your teeth-grinding ineffectual rage is exactly the entire point. This:

Originally Posted by Jackoff

And so, I click here and I type there. I get their bullshit piece of paper that says “I’ve been exposed to your bullshit and I agree.” Whilst all the time thinking:

is exactly what they are trying to accomplish. They are not trying to mind-control you, they are doing something far worse: forcing you to comply. Forcing you to be dishonest. The rest of that quote is:

Originally Posted by Theodore Dalrymple

When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.

You know it's bullshit. Everyone knows its bullshit. You'll say and do nothing about it. Of course you will. We all do. That's the entire point.

Originally Posted by Mr Wombat

They are not trying to mind-control you, they are doing something far worse: forcing you to comply. Forcing you to be dishonest.

I agree, and yet forcing you to be dishonest is in itself a form of mind-control – do it once or twice and you’re outraged. After a while though you risk falling into apathy about the whole thing and just “go with the flow”; exactly, as you say, the very thing they’re aiming for.

When I was younger I used to call this shit out all the time IRL and lost friends and jobs over it. Nowadays I come here to vent because I realised that they hold all the practical cards but they will never touch my thinking. And yet I must admit to being forced into compliance.

I tell myself that it is on my terms, I'm just feeding their own shit right back to them, but is it really?

"'Political Correctness' is fascism, plain and simple. If it is political, it is debatable, therefore inconclusive". - The Captain.

I'm an old soul and refused to go along with this ordure 50+ years ago. You can't lie to me and expect me to bow, scrape and disavow my faith and liberty just to make you feel comfortable. I have lived too long, seen to much, and buried too many loved ones to buy into that bull.

You can use your 'Political Correctness' as an uncomfortable (and over-sized) suppository!