by Klopek007 July 09, 2006
Get the full figured mug.A fake news show on Comedy Central that was once really quite funny, similar to Weekend Update on SNL. However, it steadily became less and less about general news and on-location segments with crazy people, and instead became more and more about just politics, until it was little more than left wing propaganda and frankly not even remotely funny. This change was largely due to the application of the Jon Stewart formula.
Man1: Do you remember when The Daily Show used to be funny?
Man2: Just barely. I have some very foggy memories in the back of my head of what The Daily Show was like before it started sucking bigtime.
Man2: Just barely. I have some very foggy memories in the back of my head of what The Daily Show was like before it started sucking bigtime.
by klopek007 March 06, 2010
Get the The Daily Show mug.An attempt by atheists to mock anyone that disagrees with them. The basic concept is a response to the logical statement: "it is impossible to prove the non-existence of a deity or deities." Essentially, supporters of the FSM concept state that it's also impossible to prove the non-existence of something completely arbitrary and ridiculous, such as a flying spaghetti monster, and thus there's no reason to believe in the FSM just for that reason alone.
Obviously the argument is extremely weak and doesn't really hold water. But what's disturbing is the utter contempt, disrespect, and intolerance (and in some cases, hatred) these people have for anyone that disagrees with them. They refuse to go by the principles of live-and-let-live and do-unto-others. They will counter this assertion by arguing that religious people never live-and-let-live and are always forcing religion onto people. This is of course false, and only applies to a very small minority of religious people (such as the nutjobs at the WBC) and thus is a prime example of smearing people with a vastly over-generalized statement.
Most won't admit it, but they resent the fact that most modern nations allow freedom of religion for all. Ultimately, they would like to see this right taken away someday.
Obviously the argument is extremely weak and doesn't really hold water. But what's disturbing is the utter contempt, disrespect, and intolerance (and in some cases, hatred) these people have for anyone that disagrees with them. They refuse to go by the principles of live-and-let-live and do-unto-others. They will counter this assertion by arguing that religious people never live-and-let-live and are always forcing religion onto people. This is of course false, and only applies to a very small minority of religious people (such as the nutjobs at the WBC) and thus is a prime example of smearing people with a vastly over-generalized statement.
Most won't admit it, but they resent the fact that most modern nations allow freedom of religion for all. Ultimately, they would like to see this right taken away someday.
The flying spaghetti monster concept is just one of very many examples of the hateful mockery that some (but certainly not all) atheists direct at religious people, which has become rampant in our society in recent decades. This frightening level of contempt, intolerance, and hatred is eerily similar to the attitudes in Germany towards Jews in the decades leading up to the Holocaust. Of course, your average German citizen would never have believed you if you told them what was eventually going to happen.
by klopek007 January 27, 2010
Get the Flying Spaghetti Monster mug.A condition that affects some atheists, though certainly not all; primarily the ones who are intolerant of religion. Essentially, they take the activities of the westboro baptist church (or WBC) and try to apply them to all Christians, or even to all religious people. The WBC is an extemist hate group, and it is very important to note that they reject, and are rejected by, all other Christian denominations.
This condition may be unintentional, and therefore born out of ignorance; or it may be intentional, and therefore born out of malice.
This condition may be unintentional, and therefore born out of ignorance; or it may be intentional, and therefore born out of malice.
Stupid person: I hate Christians! All Christians protest all the time with signs that say "God hates fags", and they always disrupt funerals and tell everyone that they're going to hell!
Smart person: No, moron, that's only the westboro baptist church, and no other Christians. You're clearly suffering from WBC-itis.
Stupid person: What? I don't understand!
Smart person: I know you don't.
Smart person: No, moron, that's only the westboro baptist church, and no other Christians. You're clearly suffering from WBC-itis.
Stupid person: What? I don't understand!
Smart person: I know you don't.
by klopek007 February 22, 2010
Get the WBC-itis mug.It's your standard garden variety "lesbian gay bi transgender" but minus the transgender.
A small but savvy minority of LGB people recognize that LGB causes are not the same as transgender causes. The former has to do with sexual orientation, the latter has to go with gender identity regardless of sexual orientation. People who support this view do not think that transgendered people should have no rights, but simply that they have nothing to do with LGB rights, and therefore oppose the use of the term LGBT and the countless other variants with all sorts of different letter combinations on the end.
The most outspoken proponent of this view is John Aravosis. He has pointed out that LGB activists have been trying to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) for 30+ years, and just when it actually had a chance of finally passing in 2007, they tacked on the T to make LGBT, and then it had no chance of passing. Thus, the initialism LGBT (and any other unnecessarily long variant) has actually held back LGB rights.
A small but savvy minority of LGB people recognize that LGB causes are not the same as transgender causes. The former has to do with sexual orientation, the latter has to go with gender identity regardless of sexual orientation. People who support this view do not think that transgendered people should have no rights, but simply that they have nothing to do with LGB rights, and therefore oppose the use of the term LGBT and the countless other variants with all sorts of different letter combinations on the end.
The most outspoken proponent of this view is John Aravosis. He has pointed out that LGB activists have been trying to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) for 30+ years, and just when it actually had a chance of finally passing in 2007, they tacked on the T to make LGBT, and then it had no chance of passing. Thus, the initialism LGBT (and any other unnecessarily long variant) has actually held back LGB rights.
by klopek007 March 24, 2010
Get the LGBT minus T mug.A unit of measure for fecal matter. One Katie Couric is equal to approximately two and a half pounds of excrement. (From South Park season 11, episode 9.)
1. Randy Marsh took a crap weighing 8.6 courics, beating the previous world record of 7.5 courics.
2. Oh man, I feel so much better now, that crap felt like it was 2 or 3 courics!
2. Oh man, I feel so much better now, that crap felt like it was 2 or 3 courics!
by klopek007 October 29, 2007
Get the Couric mug.An example of political correctness run amok. The idea is to replace the terms BC and AD (Before Christ and Anno Domini) with the secular terms BCE and CE (Before Common Era and Common Era). Common Era may also be referred to as Christian Era or Current Era.
The change is completely pointless, except to placate the politically correct crowd. The numbering of years is kept the same, but the terms are changed to avoid association with Christianity, and evidentily pretend like the numbering of years started arbitrarily. The numbering comes from the estimated birth of Jesus. For the sake of ease and convenience, the entire world has adopted the Christian calender, regardless of what religion or non-religion we all are, so why pretend otherwise?
If the politically correct crowd really wants to make a completely secular calender, then we'd also have to do away with the names of the months (Roman Paganism), having seven days a week (Judaism), and re-number the years by placing year 1 somewhere different than it is now (Christianity).
The change is completely pointless, except to placate the politically correct crowd. The numbering of years is kept the same, but the terms are changed to avoid association with Christianity, and evidentily pretend like the numbering of years started arbitrarily. The numbering comes from the estimated birth of Jesus. For the sake of ease and convenience, the entire world has adopted the Christian calender, regardless of what religion or non-religion we all are, so why pretend otherwise?
If the politically correct crowd really wants to make a completely secular calender, then we'd also have to do away with the names of the months (Roman Paganism), having seven days a week (Judaism), and re-number the years by placing year 1 somewhere different than it is now (Christianity).
Don't try to tell me to use that BCE and CE crap. It's BC and AD, regardless of what you believe or disbelieve. If you don't like it, then feel free to persuade the entire population of the world to adopt a brand new, completely overhauled calender.
by klopek007 March 02, 2010
Get the BCE and CE mug.