Ridiculous Things You Read On Facebook

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Fri Sep 25, 2015 3:00 pm

So you take the pronoun "it" to mean "the pope" and not "the quote"?

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Fri Sep 25, 2015 3:04 pm

Watch how easy this is ...

[Howard posts an image on facebook of Martin Luther King with the quote "Playing horseshoes and pounding Corona Lights all day is my vision of utopia]

[J-Lo likes the image]

Mister D: "That's not a real MLK quote."

J-Lo: "I got you. I usually fact check first. But this strikes a chord. Whether he said it or not, it's a great outlook on leisure activities and beer."

Should the reader interpret that as an endorsement of Dr. King or of the quote, regardless of source?

howard · Post by **howard** » Fri Sep 25, 2015 3:18 pm

Leave me the fuck out of it.

My name is Paul; and this's between y'all

Jerloma · Post by **Jerloma** » Sat Sep 26, 2015 10:37 am

mister d wrote:Watch how easy this is ...

[Howard posts an image on facebook of Martin Luther King with the quote "Playing horseshoes and pounding Corona Lights all day is my vision of utopia]

[J-Lo likes the image]

Mister D: "That's not a real MLK quote."

J-Lo: "I got you. I usually fact check first. But this strikes a chord. Whether he said it or not, it's a great outlook on leisure activities and beer."

Should the reader interpret that as an endorsement of Dr. King or of the quote, regardless of source?

Under this scenario, I would have been the one posting the picture, not Howard, you intellectually dishonest twat.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Sat Sep 26, 2015 7:47 pm

You know you're being silly here.

Jerloma · Post by **Jerloma** » Sat Sep 26, 2015 10:06 pm

There is no scenario by which I'd post something attributing a quote to someone that didn't say it and upon being corrected just leave it there. Furthermore, if you were a Catholic, wouldn't you be a little pissed off if the Pope said that? You've dedicated your life to the complete submission and worship of this rather specific deity, spent countless hours being bored out of your mind in church, constantly being called a sheep and a depraved, unworthy sinner...reading that fuck-awful book, (okay, Catholics don't really read that fuck-awful book but you get the point) just for the chance of immortality or at least saving yourself from unimaginable, endless torture, and then the leader of your flock comes along one day and says, "Meh...doesn't really matter. Your god can be a zucchini for all I care."

Is it me, guys? Is it fucking, me?

I can't.

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Sat Sep 26, 2015 10:07 pm

You guys should jsut fuck and be done with it.

Jerloma · Post by **Jerloma** » Sat Sep 26, 2015 10:12 pm

A_B wrote:You guys should jsut fuck and be done with it.

You're both making the suck thread next week.

Brontoburglar · Post by **Brontoburglar** » Sat Sep 26, 2015 11:46 pm

Jerloma wrote:
A_B wrote:You guys should jsut fuck and be done with it.
You're both making the suck thread next week.

You did ask if it was fucking you.

DC47 · Post by **DC47** » Sun Sep 27, 2015 1:05 am

Mark Zuckerberg wrote:Facebook is a fountain of incorrectly attributed quotes, isn't it?

DC47 · Post by **DC47** » Sun Sep 27, 2015 1:10 am

Jerloma wrote:I .. fuck ... Catholics ... just for the chance of immortality. Your god can be fucking ... me.

bfj · Post by **bfj** » Sun Sep 27, 2015 3:05 am

DC47 wrote:
Jerloma wrote:I .. fuck ... Catholics ... just for the chance of immortality. Your god can be fucking ... me.

I am so proud of you.

Giff · Post by **Giff** » Mon Sep 28, 2015 10:11 am

That quote is worded better than the actual quote, but the message is very similar.

"The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! 'Father, the atheists?' Even the atheists. Everyone! And this Blood makes us children of God of the first class. We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all. And we all have a duty to do good. And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace. If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: We need that so much. We must meet one another doing good. 'But I don't believe, Father, I am an atheist!' But do good: We will meet one another there."

Jerloma · Post by **Jerloma** » Mon Sep 28, 2015 10:32 am

Giff, the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church saying that you don't have to believe in God is asinine. It's antithetical to his entire organization. The Pope would never espouse that this isn't a very specific deity we're talking about and that belief in that deity is meaningless. What he's saying there is that you don't have to believe in God to do good deeds. Well, no shit. It'd be suicide no to say that. There's too much evidence of apostates doing good deeds despite whether he authorizes it or not. These two things are only similar if you've stopped thinking about it.

Giff · Post by **Giff** » Mon Sep 28, 2015 12:16 pm

Jerloma wrote:Giff, the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church saying that you don't have to believe in God is asinine. It's antithetical to his entire organization. The Pope would never espouse that this isn't a very specific deity we're talking about and that belief in that deity is meaningless. What he's saying there is that you don't have to believe in God to do good deeds. Well, no shit. It'd be suicide no to say that. There's too much evidence of apostates doing good deeds despite whether he authorizes it or not. These two things are only similar if you've stopped thinking about it.

The point of the two quotes is that good deeds are confined to those who worship God. The Facebook quote is only worded different than what he actually said. He's not saying you don't have to believe in God to get to heaven, he's specifically referencing good deeds. I mean, I understand and agree with a lot of what you say about Catholicism and Christianity as a whole, but you can't just for one second appreciate someone like the Pope actually saying something nice about atheists?

Jerloma · Post by **Jerloma** » Mon Sep 28, 2015 12:41 pm

No, I can't and here is why. The Pope saying that I'm capable of doing good deeds is nothing. I think he is capable of doing good deeds too but nobody's going to spread memes like wildfire over that because it's really just stating the obvious. The Pope is an absolute master at making symbolic gestures that people eat up and the media fawns over but really are just nothing at the end of the day. Putting a smiley face on a morally bankrupt institution is hardly innocuous though.

It's disconcerting that nobody has figured out yet how dangerous it is to place this insane level of adulation upon someone and specifically someone who has been granted with moral authority over like a billion people. If you think the Pope has god-like powers, he may as well be above criticism and as we've seen so many times, when individuals and organizations become above criticism, nobody is likely to notice when they're doing something sadistic right in front of you. For example, systematically raping children all over the world.

This is why the atheist position is so important. The atheist says to the Pope, "Prove to me your god even exists. Until then...you don't get a seat at the grown-ups table. Only then do you get to tell me why two people that love each other can't get married, or women can't use birth control, or free speech has to stop at criticizing religion, or that Kim Davis is right, or why anyone in their right mind should trust you with their children." So when atheists themselves start paying deference to the Pope and over nothing, it becomes dangerous.

The way I talk about religion, Giff...I don't necessarily enjoy it. In fact, in most settings, I immediately pay a social penalty for it. I talk like that about religion because I feel that I have a moral responsibility (I realize that sounds hokey) to demystify it and make people see that it should be under the same level of scrutiny as everything else. So when I start seeing other skeptical people just lose it over all of these empty platitudes, it just really concerns me.

Giff · Post by **Giff** » Mon Sep 28, 2015 2:17 pm

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Mon Sep 28, 2015 2:32 pm

I'm still, half-honestly and half-antagonistically, trying to figure out how you reconcile being complete hard-line with religion while continually immersing yourself in a sport that mandates its intelligent fans engage in comical levels of cognitive dissonance.

Jerloma · Post by **Jerloma** » Mon Sep 28, 2015 2:50 pm

I don't know, man. I mean my immediate reaction would be that the NFL isn't a direct threat to free, civilized society but if you can maybe elaborate on this analogy a little, I'd be happy to put a little more thought into it as well.

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Mon Sep 28, 2015 3:11 pm

An old friend from high school posted this picture:

And seemed genuinely shocked when told it was shopped.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Mon Sep 28, 2015 3:32 pm

Jerloma wrote:I don't know, man. I mean my immediate reaction would be that the NFL isn't a direct threat to free, civilized society but if you can maybe elaborate on this analogy a little, I'd be happy to put a little more thought into it as well.

I don't know. I mean, I'm certainly willing to grant that organized religion has a far greater negative footprint than professional football, but I think we agree both create victims without any real offsetting positives. The whole black-and-white "how can you be complicit in promoting this madness when you could simply disassociate on the spot, you horrible fuck" just feels a bit contradictory from a big-time NFL fan.

Giff · Post by **Giff** » Mon Sep 28, 2015 3:45 pm

That waitress was lucky enough to be raped by Big Ben!

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Mon Sep 28, 2015 4:12 pm

I was talking more along the lines of "everyone either knows by now that the sport is killing its participants or is intentionally avoiding that confirmation".

(But yes, if you want to drill down, J-Lo fanatically roots for a franchise where, conservatively, a serial dog murderer is only the third worst person on the team.)

Jerloma · Post by **Jerloma** » Mon Sep 28, 2015 4:16 pm

mister d wrote:
Jerloma wrote:I don't know, man. I mean my immediate reaction would be that the NFL isn't a direct threat to free, civilized society but if you can maybe elaborate on this analogy a little, I'd be happy to put a little more thought into it as well.
I don't know. I mean, I'm certainly willing to grant that organized religion has a far greater negative footprint than professional football, but I think we agree both create victims without any real offsetting positives. The whole black-and-white "how can you be complicit in promoting this madness when you could simply disassociate on the spot, you horrible fuck" just feels a bit contradictory from a big-time NFL fan.

I don't know man...football is a real thing?

The whole black-and-white "how can you be complicit in promoting this madness when you could simply disassociate on the spot, you horrible fuck"

If I express this sentiment, sometimes it's very tongue in cheek but if I'm particularly fired up and mean it, well I'm just wrong. That's not fair. In fact I think most of it's victims are the believers themselves. I'm probably referring to those who I think clearly have the critical faculties to discern that it's bullshit but just like to reap the social advantages of being part of the majority. That really frustrates me. But when I see someone like Cos, whose clearly a smart person but somehow is incapable of accepting evolution as being true, I see him as the victim of a systematic effort to promote ignorance.

Back to your point. Religion is unique in that it's so closely tied to moral behavior that it can thrive despite the behavior of it's adherents. There's this dehumanizing aspect. It's never the idea...it's always the people. What do you think would happen to the NFL if they had a massive pederasty ring going on? They're not immune from secular authorities. If it turned out to be so powerful that it could cover up something like that, it would be taken down, right from the top. But the NFL also isn't an ideology. It's a game. They're not telling anyone how to live their lives. Has the NFL actually prevented any of it's criminals from being pursued by the police?

It's also important to note that I don't look to football players as moral authorities. I don't even have to like them to enjoy watching the game. I know damn well that I wouldn't want to hang out with like 90% of these guys.

Jerloma · Post by **Jerloma** » Mon Sep 28, 2015 4:19 pm

I was talking more along the lines of "everyone either knows by now that the sport is killing its participants or is intentionally avoiding that confirmation".

Ohhhh!!! I'm sorry. I was going with the other angle. Yeah, this hasn't really set me back too much. I need to think about whether or not that makes me a horrible person.

howard · Post by **howard** » Mon Sep 28, 2015 4:19 pm

Well, you're no Ben Carson

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Mon Sep 28, 2015 6:06 pm

Jerloma wrote:Ohhhh!!! I'm sorry. I was going with the other angle. Yeah, this hasn't really set me back too much. I need to think about whether or not that makes me a horrible person.

I think the rub is that applying your religious standards onto football fandom would have you on the far "horrible person" side of the spectrum.

Jerloma · Post by **Jerloma** » Mon Sep 28, 2015 8:15 pm

mister d wrote:
Jerloma wrote:Ohhhh!!! I'm sorry. I was going with the other angle. Yeah, this hasn't really set me back too much. I need to think about whether or not that makes me a horrible person.
I think the rub is that applying your religious standards onto football fandom would have you on the far "horrible person" side of the spectrum.

Word salad. That doesn't even make sense to you.

rass · Post by **rass** » Mon Sep 28, 2015 8:26 pm

mister d wrote:I...rub...your...gious.m...on the...r.ect.um...

Tossed salad?

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Mon Sep 28, 2015 8:58 pm

Jerloma wrote:
mister d wrote:I think the rub is that applying your religious standards onto football fandom would have you on the far "horrible person" side of the spectrum.
Word salad. That doesn't even make sense to you.

You stated that those who are cognizant of the negatives of organized religion but continue to follow upset you the most. You've acknowledged you're cognizant of the downsides of football. Therefore ...

Jerloma · Post by **Jerloma** » Mon Sep 28, 2015 9:01 pm

mister d wrote:
Jerloma wrote:
mister d wrote:I think the rub is that applying your religious standards onto football fandom would have you on the far "horrible person" side of the spectrum.
Word salad. That doesn't even make sense to you.
You stated that those who are cognizant of the negatives of organized religion but continue to follow upset you the most. You've acknowledged you're cognizant of the downsides of football. Therefore ...

Seriously...this analogy's going nowhere. You're embarrassing us.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Mon Sep 28, 2015 9:10 pm

I just double-checked and its actually you who's embarrassing us. Sorry : (

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Mon Sep 28, 2015 9:51 pm

Why the fuck do people still fall for that "you need to post psuedo-legal bullshit, or else FB will rape your uncle and steal your photos." This is at least the 5th time. Come on, people.

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Tue Sep 29, 2015 4:05 am

The Sybian wrote:Why the fuck do people still fall for that "you need to post psuedo-legal bullshit, or else FB will rape your uncle and steal your photos." This is at least the 5th time. Come on, people.

First one I saw this time doing it was my idiot Brother-In-Law (last night). Laughed about it with my wife - like who would be stupid enough to think this is real.

This morning, there are five others who have posted this nonsense (including my former agent, a yacht salesman and a stand up comedian. Oddly, none of my lawyer friends have done so...)

I don't care who it offends or makes to feel stupid, I just made this my status:

You can't be too sure.
As of September 29th 2015 at 4:52 am, I give permission for Facebook to send me weekly cheques in any amount that they deem fitting. By making this statement, I release Facebook from any liability they may have for injuries I incur while depositing said cheques into my bank account. I further invoke my rights based upon a statue I once saw in Rome that I will not use pictures, information or disclose the exact location of said Roman statue. It may have been in the Piazza Navonna, and it may have been near Stadio Olimpico, but I simply will not discuss this matter further. If you want to SHARE this information, feel free to do so. But remember, I posted this first, therefore, I get the Facebook money.

rass · Post by **rass** » Tue Sep 29, 2015 6:28 am

Johnny Carwash · Post by **Johnny Carwash** » Tue Sep 29, 2015 11:12 am

Oh shit. So a friend of a friend (who I don't know that well to begin with) shared a post about their family having a stillborn baby--which happened yesterday--accompanied by flowery language and complete with a photo (not graphic, but still, it's a baby that is not alive).

I thought I'd lost the ability to be surprised by people's capacity for oversharing and turning every aspect of their lives into a public spectacle, but this...this is just a whole other level. I know people deal with grief in different ways, but still...I just can't comprehend the mentality of someone who would share something like this in such a way. This is fucked up, right? Right?

rass · Post by **rass** » Tue Sep 29, 2015 11:18 am

Johnny Carwash wrote:Oh shit. So a friend of a friend (who I don't know that well to begin with) shared a post about their family having a stillborn baby--which happened yesterday--accompanied by flowery language and complete with a photo (not graphic, but still, it's a baby that is not alive).

I thought I'd lost the ability to be surprised by people's capacity for oversharing and turning every aspect of their lives into a public spectacle, but this...this is just a whole other level. I know people deal with grief in different ways, but still...I just can't comprehend the mentality of someone who would share something like this in such a way. This is fucked up, right? Right?

Yeah.

Check this out (I read SA daily at the time, and remember when this happened, and wow it was 11 years ago).

Jerloma · Post by **Jerloma** » Tue Sep 29, 2015 11:19 am

I try to take the "who knows how I'd react in that situation" approach to these things, especially when it involves something that emotional that I can't even comprehend, but on the surface I have to say yeah...that's fucked up.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Tue Sep 29, 2015 11:19 am

Yeah. I mean, I kinda get a facebook announcement because it lets you get it out there all at once and be done with it, but a picture and long narrative is weird as fuck.

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Tue Sep 29, 2015 12:46 pm

Johnny Carwash wrote:Oh shit. So a friend of a friend (who I don't know that well to begin with) shared a post about their family having a stillborn baby--which happened yesterday--accompanied by flowery language and complete with a photo (not graphic, but still, it's a baby that is not alive).

I thought I'd lost the ability to be surprised by people's capacity for oversharing and turning every aspect of their lives into a public spectacle, but this...this is just a whole other level. I know people deal with grief in different ways, but still...I just can't comprehend the mentality of someone who would share something like this in such a way. This is fucked up, right? Right?

Defriend Rick Santorum