What’s On Oxygen At 11:30PM?
I was sent this question by Marco the Man.
I can’t think of a single late night female talk-show host. Why are most talk-show hosts men?
All late night talk-show hosts are men because people are trying to have sex during “late night”. There’s nothing that’s more unpleasant to hear during sex than a woman comedian laughing awkwardly at her own jokes, while a studio audience sits in silence, twiddling their funny-bones.
Sex is why Leno has higher ratings than Letterman. The presence of a black man in the bedroom (even on television) sends women into a frenetic sexual hysteria. Paul Schafer is not even a little bit black.
Letterman is so manly he even has “man” right there in his name.
If women hosted late night talk shows, every single joke in every single monologue would be followed by one woman monkey-shrieking with laughter: the host. Women laugh like pigs getting branded. And they orgasm just like they laugh. I don’t want to hear either of that shit coming from my television set after midnight. My neighbors might think I’m some sort of porn addict.
That’s bad because my neighbors watch a lot of Law and Order, and on that show, the porn addicts are always stashing bodies somewhere.
To judge the “goodness” of something, I find a reliable indicator is to gage how much women dislike that something.
For example: ass slapping. Women pretend like they hate getting slapped on the ass, but they love it. It’s a good thing. Also, hearing how much weight they’ve gained or how much they act like their mother. Ignoring a spare tire isn’t going to make it go away. Ignoring is bad. Honesty is good. Rewarding a woman for muttering to herself when she takes issue with something isn’t going to discourage that behavior. That’s like jerking off a dog because he won’t stop humping your leg. That’s sick and wrong.
Men are better than women.
Women dislike late night talk-shows. They would rather watch reruns of Everyone Loves Raymond because that way it would be completely fucking impossible for anyone to have sex with anyone – even themselves.
Late night talk-shows are commercial and promotional machines. If women were hosts, their attention mongering and greed would be the twenty-pound, greasy wrench that ruined the music, movie, and publishing industries.
It takes four women to host the View and that’s only possible because they all hate each other, and their audience is just slightly dumber than the group watching The Wiggles.
Women will never be late night talk-show hosts because a Jeep commercial and a musical interlude is not a perfect segue into a woman talking about her cheating husband. Maybe he cheated because she’s the kind of woman who would go on national television and talk about it. Maybe she preemptively deserved it?
No, that’s not true. That would mean some women don’t pre-emptively deserve it.
Related Articles:
August 17th, 2007 at 9:26 am - IP Man-Hash: 94b3b6aecd2aa
That’s Dick’s favorite kind of medicine - he loves that stuff.
I don’ t know. I actually don’t like it repeatedly. But a sudden stinging slap can sure get your mind sharply focussed on the moment.
Or it could be as simple as getting the blood flowing to the area.
August 17th, 2007 at 9:59 am - IP Man-Hash: 82017df8ad3f0
Do they like that with random strangers too… because that isnt a disease… its sluttiness at work. As for slapping their asses, women respect a man’s ability to treat them like…crap. One of Dick’s articles have stated this point, profoundly. Women know they are crap and full of shit. Its a man’s right to treat them as weak and inferior because we recognise them for who they are… so lets not be lil nice guys. They want to be treated badly.
August 17th, 2007 at 12:35 pm - IP Man-Hash: d79dbefdf9858
Simply put, women love Dicks. Dick, you must have scores of them waiting at your door.
This is a fucking fact. Mencia gave proof of that on one of his shows. He actually asked women “Can Men be too nice” to which all replied yes. He replies with “You fucking whores” and there you have it. He may not be a philosopher but he’s a man and that’s good enough for me. Nature dictates that the female is weaker and should recognize our brute manstrength over theirs since the beggining of time.
August 18th, 2007 at 12:49 am - IP Man-Hash: ae179e9967da1
True, however, jurors are selected from the locale of the accused. Personally, I believe that the Sheriff was pandering: deliberately trying to influence public opinion on the impending case, basically using Insinnia as political leverage to gain popularity rather than protecting Insinnia’s rights, which is written into the Sheriff’s actual job description.
A private individual is engaging a private corporation in a private contract. Therefore, in the absence of an actual victim, the only way Insinnia could be charged with any crime is if his privacy was violated. The 4th Amendment does not state that an individual is only entitled to privacy from government. It says that an individual is entitled to privacy, period.
If you took your computer in to be fixed, do you hold that the geek squad has the right to call your wife or mother and tell her what’s on your computer, such as your personal blog posts or other private information? Is that within the right of the corporation?
When you go out to dinner, do you want to have to sign a separate contract with your waiter stating that when he sees your credit card number, he does not have the right to take it and buy stuff, even though you willfully gave it to him as a necessary part of the transaction? If we grant the acceptance of privacy invasion in this way, transactions would come to a grinding halt.
Declaring something garbage is the abdication of ownership. If you don’t own it, you don’t have say over what happens to it. Insinnia did not give his laptop away, he took it in for maintenance.
Thank you. I know we disagree on some other socially-sensitive issues, but at least that doesn’t prevent us from scholarly political discourse.
There is something a little frightening about it. It means we are not individuals but rather a collective and resistance really is futile. The problem here is in defining the word “good” and “bad”. Right now, “good” is feminism and “bad” is racism. If people could have the security and self-confidence to resist the rewards for “good” behavior, and stand against the punishment of bad behavior (like blog slander ;) then people would actually be better off, with more rewards for everyone.
Sonyad, you’re the type of dutiful citizen the government would love to have on a jury.
Let’s see, for starters, you probably don’t share a laptop, however, if Insinnia had a shared laptop, there are multiple user accounts, with separate file structures that are all accessible at the administrator level, which the Geeks would have had access to. The images could have been on another user’s account, to which Insinnia never would have had access, or may have had access but never would have used.
Right… and when the cops plant pot in your car during a “search”, I suppose you think that makes you the twit.
That’s a good point about the timestamps. I guess there are other things to consider. Looks like you disproved your own statement from above.
Possible, I suppose. After all, 99% of America does believe in God. Or ET. Or the trinity. Or Jehovah. Or whatever they’re calling it these days…
God was sick enough to commit statutory rape on the Virgin Mary, so… by the same logic, putting divine kiddy porn on a laptop isn’t out of the question, considering the court has us all swear to God.
Everyday, people all over the world do things that are not quite reasonable propositions of the imagination
Your assumption of people’s aptitude for computers is endearing. However, there are many intelligent people who do not know a lot about computers, and Insinnia was using a shared computer.
But, oh, wait… that’s right, you didn’t read the article, so you wouldn’t know that.
I am a proud loony. What can I say? After all, I’m just a guy who reads articles before forming an opinion on them and then posting comments on a forum. After all, I would want to be accused of not having a fucking clue what I am talking about. That would not be an accusation I could handle.
Loony I don’t mind, though.
And since you brought it up, don’t read this article either. But if you do, you may one day come to realize there are many people who believe that in order for something to be considered a crime
there must actually be a victim (there is no victim in the Insinnia case), otherwise, it is merely crimethink (or “thought-crime”).
There is actually another side to the kiddy porn debate, if you care to read this article.
I read another article a long time ago that made an interesting case against the idea that child porn harms the “victims” when someone views the images. I can’t find the article, but the case goes like this. A perpetrator who makes a child porn video is caught and jailed. The tape then becomes the property of the victim. The victim decides to keep the tape and lock it away in the closet. Fast forward 15 years to when the victim is now an adult. The crime has already been committed and can not be undone, and the sentence was served for the perpetrator. however, the victim, being the legal owner of the tape, and having the sole means to destroy the tape, instead decides to sell the tape for profit.
Strange a scenario as it may be, the “viewing the kiddy porn is harming the child” argument obviously does not apply.
This is the problem with crimethink. Once just one exception can be made for criminalizing the private thinking of a horribly indecent act, it’s only a small leap to legally controlling your every thought and action - hence, feminism, since feminism thrives on thought-control (it certainly isn’t natural).
Thought-crime is an extension of feminism, or the basis of feminism, or both. It is the basis for the Christian Doctrine that makes up America’s laws. It is the opposite of the manly belief in personal responsibility for one’s own thoughts and actions.
I explain my arguments.
I have nothing against African Americans. Actually, most Africans and African Americans look down on Black American citizens for the very same reason as I do.
… Or maybe you are confused as to what an African American is.
August 18th, 2007 at 12:53 am - IP Man-Hash: fa7dc004e2bbd
Whahahahahaha!!!!
As usual you amuse me Mr. Masterson…
August 18th, 2007 at 11:35 am - IP Man-Hash: ae179e9967da1
What happened to my last post? It never appeared?
August 18th, 2007 at 1:22 pm - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
You’ve angered the resident wisps with your blatant racism, Ralohcs.
- Darude - Sandstorm
August 18th, 2007 at 1:24 pm - IP Man-Hash: ae179e9967da1
Dick, is this true?
Please explain to me how blatant racism is worse than blatant sexism?
August 18th, 2007 at 2:34 pm - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
You probably inserted more than one link in the post. It’s then automatically flagged as potential spam pending manual validation.
Am I right, Dick?
Either that or Dick is a wisp and doesn’t fancy racism.
- Fragma feat. Pulsedriver - Cambodia
August 18th, 2007 at 3:27 pm - IP Man-Hash: a13ba81333017
Both are bad, and this site promotes neither.
And Sony’s suggestion (after he played with you a bit) that you had two links in it is most likely correct. (That or it was very long).
-wolfe
August 18th, 2007 at 4:14 pm - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
Ah. Your post surfaced.
Shucks, Ralohcs. I’ll just pick my toys up and go to bed then…
- Gigi D`Augostino - L`amour toujours (vinyl l`amour mix)
August 18th, 2007 at 5:32 pm - IP Man-Hash: 9dc7b0f661cd7
@Catherine
Strange. You come to a guy complaining about Feminism to be a Feminist.
Oh wait, that’s right. Superimposing your values on everyone else is all part of the deal,isn’t it?
August 18th, 2007 at 6:07 pm - IP Man-Hash: ae179e9967da1
1. My link above on the word crimethink is NOT meant to be a promotion. Someone has just recently changed that image. It was not a “Ron Paul for President” image last night. It was an image of Winston, from the movie made of Orwell’s book 1984, writing in his secret diary.
2. Sonyad, I don’t mean to attack you personally.
3. I see nothing wrong with blatant sexism, by the way. It is as natural as the night is dark.
August 18th, 2007 at 11:54 pm - IP Man-Hash: acd0eedbf59f7
@ Ralohcs re: http://www.halexandria.org/dward267.htm
There is an old platonic view that suggests that the citizens of a nation do not know what is good for them. As far as anti-drug laws are concerned, I’m certain that legalization would encourage more people to experiment, become addicted, and thus become less useful human beings.
Certainly it is the responsibility of each individual to make his own choices where drugs are concerned, however, the fact remains that many people WILL inevitably make the decision to use drugs.
Is it not wise for a government to make decisions on behalf of its people to prevent the distribution of substances that will make them less useful?
August 19th, 2007 at 2:16 am - IP Man-Hash: ae179e9967da1
Alexander, that is a mantastic manservation, and an excellent question.
The “drugs” issue is usually the last holdout people have to converting to defenders of unfettered freedom. In fact, it was my own hold-out for about 5 years, before I read Larry Elder’s book, particularly, Chapter 9 (go ahead Sonyad and Wolfe, say it…).
After reading that chapter, I was convinced that drugs should be legalized, and I highly recommend the entire book to everybody. Then I did more investigation into the arguments for legalization, and I came to realize that drug prohibition is one of the most horrible things foisted upon our society. If I had to defend legalization, I’ll end up writing a 726-page post, so I’ll give a few bullet point conclusions:
- Just like alcohol Prohibition created Al Capone and the American mafia, drug prohibition created gangs.
- America is destroying lives in Columbia by continuously spraying poison over their forests, their crops, their homes, and the inhabitants’ skin.
- Since no one ever admits to doing drugs, the only way prosecution can be made is by infringement of one’s civil liberties
- The drug war is America’s longest running war, has no definable solution, and has taken the lives of more American citizens than any other American War.
- lazyboy also makes a good (and funny) case. As Chris Rock and Dick Masterson say, the entire nation is already on drugs (prozak, zoloft, fuckitall…)
-America was once a land free from drug laws, and during that time, America came to be the most prosperous, innovative, wealthy, strongest country on Earth.
Please read Elder’s book, as he makes the best case I have seen for legalizing drugs. Certainly a good primer, at least.
Plato’s student, Aristotle, took a contrary view towards Plato’s more authoritarian ideologies. Aristotle believed a state should have a constitution which should govern the citizens (not women and slaves). We have a Constitution. Prohibition isn’t in it. Our Constitution was not written to tell people what they were allowed to do. Our Constitution was written to tell governments what they could not do to it’s citizens. The original Amendments in our Bill of Rights are all prohibitions on government, not citizens.
I think both Plato and Aristotle would shit a brick if they knew we had 389,487,356,439,532,846 pages of laws on the books here in America.
Aristotle believed that a polity of the middle class was a good arrangement (democracy of a middle class). That is, all landowners would rule together. This was our original system intended by the founding fathers. Now we have a democracy, which Aristotle himself considers tyrannical.
Aristotle did believe in slaves, but only in the master-slave sense, not in the King-subject sense, as we have now with the drug war, where the DEA decides it should wage a war against it’s own citizens.
The question we must first ask is, what is the goal of the city-state? To protect individual rights, or to maximize economic output? If it is the former, the drug war, must, by definition, end, since ingesting drugs is a victimless crime (insomuch as you have ownership of your own body).
If it is the latter (maximize economic output), then also, I believe legalizing drugs would eliminate all of the “crime” associated with drugs, considering that the drug war itself is the cause of the crime associated with drug trafficking (just like alcohol and prostitution prohibition).
James Brown sat in Jail for a very long time, and that wasn’t very useful to anyone. Michael Jackson doesn’t do drugs, and I would dare say he’s useful - he even said himself it doesn’t matter if he’s Black or he’s White! Even Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds himself is still writing songs for Starbucks albums.
Bush was convicted for drugs and Cheny was convicted for drunk driving. They are the only two felons who have ever been elected to the executive branch. Boy do I wish Bush would chill the fuck out and smoke a fat blunt right about now. Maybe we wouldn’t be in this Iraq clusterfuck if drugs were legal.
I am certain that legalization would discourage people to experiment with drugs. So if you’re certain, and I’m certain, of the exact opposite thing, where does that leave us?
The price of freedom is that some people will invariably make the wrong decision, of which the consequence is their responsibility.
Fuck, I’ve done it again. Another long post :( Sorry.
August 19th, 2007 at 3:16 am - IP Man-Hash: acd0eedbf59f7
That is a bloody good point. It is undeniable that the people in jail for drug use would be more useful out of jail, on drugs or not. Nice. Well, that was my only objection, consider me converted.
If it’s all relevant, type till your fingers bleed.
Where is this from? My ancient greek governmental philosophy ended with The Republic , where lying to your citizens was encouraged.
August 19th, 2007 at 3:34 pm - IP Man-Hash: 94b3b6aecd2aa
I saw a bumper sticker today that said “Feminism is the radical idea that women are people”. I gave the driver the finger for you, Denrael.
Then I kicked a black man in the balls.
August 19th, 2007 at 3:38 pm - IP Man-Hash: 94b3b6aecd2aa
“Huh”, indeed! What the hell is this - a word scramble? Even Wolfe probably couldn’t diagram this sentence!
If I’m able to interpret this correctly (using my woman’s intuition), I think the following answer should suffice.
There is very little to learn from people who agree with you.
August 19th, 2007 at 5:13 pm - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
I concur fullheartedly.
Many varied and interesting things to learn about the pathology of those who do not accede to my views perfectly whatever the issue at hand may be.
- Atb vs. Gigi D’Agostino - Don’t Stop … Bla Bla Bla
August 19th, 2007 at 5:24 pm - IP Man-Hash: c72d3d7fa1251
No, you’re just a stupid cunt. And I know you’ve heard that before.