Skip to content

russell westbrook tells off nerds and (gasp) uses a naughty word

 

Geez.  What. A. Bitch.  “He said ‘fuck’ to me and my wife!”

Grow a pair, please.

I’m on Team Russell, as every normal person should be.  If you aren’t, just do me a favor and do what Russell suggested: sit there with your wife and shut the fuck up.  I can’t remember who said it first so I’m going to credit PFTCommenter since I think I heard him say it once, but in sports there’s a clear line between fan and athlete.  If either party physically crosses that line, as in the Malice and the Palace, anything goes.  It’s like going fishing in a spot where bears are also fishing — anything that happens is on you, not the bear.  That’s just what you get for forcing yourself into their world.

So I have no problem with the Malice at the Palace either.  Fans crossed the line and got decked.  The same applies to words.  You yell at a player, you personally get his attention, you have to take whatever verbal punishment he comes back at you with.  If you don’t want that, please, for the love of God, sit there with your wife and shut the fuck up.

Remember when I said sports have too many fans?  Yup, that’s why the NBA fined Russ.  Have to appease all the sissies who discovered the NBA in the last 5 years so they don’t miss out on any revenue.  Now I’m sure the athletes who are getting paid millions more because of the increase in league popularity aren’t complaining too much, but it’s sure annoying for the rest of us.

When this pussy got on the horn to the NBA in order to whine like a bitch Adam Silver should have just pointed to Westbrook and said, “Yeah, what he said.”

los angeles is a dump: evidence presented in easy-to-read bullets!

I’ve said it before many times: LA is a piece of shit city that has a few nice spots and good weather that makes you trick yourself into thinking the whole place is nice.  But it isn’t and you’re just an idiot trying to convince yourself that you didn’t make poor life choices to end up in this god-forsaken desert of humanity.

Well, say this for me–say I always present both sides of an issue.

Pros

  • weather

  • culture
    • Lots of music, art, film, TV, comedy, theater, etc. is here.  I can’t deny it — there’s a lot to choose from.
  • women
    • Talk to friends from around the nation.  It’s not really in dispute that LA has some of the most beautiful women. (Stay tuned, though.  This one makes the cons list, too)

If you’re looking for “beach” on the list above, you’ll find it in the roughly half dozen other states that have better beaches than Los Angeles.  LA beaches are overcrowded, dirty, and have freezing water and zero parking.  I almost put it on the “con” list.

 

That’s right, kids, it’s not a long “pro” list.  Right before we do the cons, though, let’s do another quick list.

Things People Think are Pros but Actually Suck

  • beaches
  • “mountains” and “hiking”
    • In Los Angeles, “mountains” means dusty, barren, crowded hillsides with a view of something that might be pretty if there wasn’t so much smog in the way.  “Hiking” means walking up said hillside along a mild incline and taking a selfie at the top, the whole trip taking a total of 2 hours at most.
    • True, there are more reasonable mountains close enough to Los Angeles that I will talk about them here.  But, like the rest of LA, these too are run down and covered in garbage.
    • For those of you who are confused, this is what real mountains look like:  Click here and here and here and here and here and here and here.
  • sports
  • being better than everyone else because you live in a city that “matters”
    • OK, maybe this one should have been on the “pro” list
  • palm trees
    • As the current and eternal drought testifies, Los Angeles is in a naturally arid region.  So does it make sense to plant a bunch of non-native trees that require lots of water?  Maybe it does in LA logic, where perhaps the goal is to have plants as superficial as everything else.
  • the hollywood sign
    • Speaking of superficial, here we have the ultimate symbol of LA: a sign that is contrived, useless, and for some reason has everyone obsessed with it.

 

So to recap, except for “culture,” literally everything people think is good about living in LA either sucks or is better-enjoyed by leaving LA.  California on the whole has a lot to offer, but LA stinks.

 

With that, now we’re into the meat.

Cons

  • douchebags
    • LA is full of normal dudes but we also happen to have a higher share of douches than the rest of the country.

(whoops, those are just run-of-the-mill Dodger fans… actually… never mind)

  • women
    • A well-known fact about LA life is that whatever party or gathering you are at, if you are talking to a girl the amount of times she will look over your shoulder for a “better option” while pretending to listen to you is inversely proportional to 1) your looks, 2) your social status, 3) your money.  Yes, this is true everywhere, but it’s especially true here.
      • BTW, it works the same when it’s the other way around.  But since I’m not (always) flirting with guys, I don’t notice (as much).
    • Just look at the numbers and you know it sucks.  Los Angeles has one of the worst single man to woman ratios of any large city.  Here’s a map of places you should live instead.
  • overcrowding
    • More crowded than New York City in many parts.  But we live out west where there’s so much space, right?
  • infrastructure
    • Are water mains supposed to do this?

  • potholes
    • It used to blow my mind that there could be so many nice cars in a city so full of shit roads.  Like, didn’t the rich owners care that their cars are getting destroyed in the city of potholes?  Guess not. *

  • bums

  • graffiti
    • Look how they have to put barbed wire over the damn freeway signs to keep them from getting tagged.  Also, a nice shot of a private business having to do extra cleaning work just for the privilege of operating in this area (to add to the high cost of running a business due to the regulations, bureaucracy, and taxes).

  • garbage and litter
  • water
    • What water the city does have is terrible.  This reddit guy had it right regarding the tap water: you just get used to the “iridescent glow.”  Don’t worry, though, because it will all be gone in a year.  Wait, that story was written almost a year ago?  Son of a bitch.
      • Coming from the Pacific Northwest, the land of green, water, fertility… life, really, it boggles my mind that this many useless morons have moved to an arid region and decided it wasn’t arid but in fact a paradise.
  • corrupt politics
  • cost of living
    • Hmm, let me count the ways.  No one can afford a house and so the ones who want one are leaving.  This leaves LA with an interesting dynamic in which only the very rich are the new homeowners who maybe actually care about the city and the rest of the people are renters who are more likely to be apathetic (like me) towards anything that might improve the state of this place.
    • Instead of investing in houses, we invest in cars.  Don’t worry, though, there’s plenty of room for home improvements.  We pay an extra 2 1/2 g’s each year towards these wheeled money pits just because we live in Los Angeles.
    • Rapid fire: #8 in tax burden, #1 in highest poverty rates for a big city, and #8 nationwide in overall cost of living.  Now I’m sad.
  • hit-and-run accidents from all the godless citizens who drive here
  •  traffic
    • No need for lots of stats here, everyone knows this: shitty roads, too many cars, and insufficient efforts from our rulers to fix it.
    • It’s also most of the reason we’re #7 on the dirtiest cities list.
  •  parking
    • What’s better than having zero available parking in a city known for cars?  Having a government that uses gibberish laws to fund itself and screw the tax payers out of money for parking on the roads they pay for.  Plus, there’s a dickhead mayor who acts like he cares about the people and then does nothing to lower fees which fall disproportionately on poor people.
  • Lastly–and this is a minor complaint–these assholes are infuriating.  A restaurant that sells water.  No jokes necessary here because all of us are the joke.

 

I once thought of starting an Instagram account named, “LosAngelesOrTijuana” in which I would post pictures from news stories or a dumpy end of town or whatever and then play a game.  People would guess which city it was: one of the “coolest” cities in the most powerful nation in the world or a run-down border city in some random Third World country.  The winners would be everyone who didn’t live in either of these places and the losers are me and my depression.

I think the solution to all these problems with Los Angeles is something that really involves normal people.  A grassroots solution, if you will.  Something that would torch this place all the way down to the grass and its roots.

This is why when Day After Tomorrow came out, I’m pretty sure everyone in the theater saw the scene where LA gets destroyed by tornadoes and just went, “Ha. Good.”

 

 

 

* That’s because all the nice cars are owned by 3 types of people: 1) transplants who don’t plan on staying long term and thus don’t care, 2) poor people who “invest” in a car instead of a house because if you’re an American you better be overextending yourself and be in debt to some bank or you’re not doing it right, and 3) rich people who don’t care because they sell their really nice cars after a couple years to the first 2 groups and then buy a new one.

my return to the high horse to lecture women

An article someone sent me written at The Federalist by a mother-of-four author and columnist.

What Women Really Want Is The Patriarchy

Good article and God knows I agree with her premise and most of her points, but there’s a key understanding that’s missed (and most anti-feminists miss this), as shown in this concluding statement:

 

Women can have careers, be independent, strong, and happy, but if they want to do all this and attract the kind of man they really crave, they need to throw out the hallmarks of feminism that claim their male peers are domineering, stupid, misogynist authoritarians who will make their lives miserable.”

 

No they cannot. At least, the VAST majority of women cannot. Satisfaction in life, especially for women, never comes from their careers or anything they do outside of the home. This is true for men, as well, but I’m focusing on single people aged 25-35 or so.  At that age, men are naturally inclined to launch a career and make money–really, to lay a foundation to provide for a future family.  Women, entering their biological prime, are naturally inclined to have children and settle down.  But feminism has got them all out working, driving nice cars, and hanging out with loser guys.

I know many good, anti-feminist, traditionally-minded, conservative, single women who are all the things the article says they can be: independent, successful in their careers, strong, hard-working, attractive, and fun.  The girls I’m thinking of aren’t weirdo cat ladies and they’re not Miss Career Bitchness either.  They’re cool.  But… they are miserable.  They’ve found themselves getting into their 30’s and look around to see they don’t have a man or kids and they start doing things like freezing their eggs or dating beta bums.

 

Here’s the prototypical story:

  1. Woman gets educated.
  2. Woman works hard and succeeds at work.
  3. Woman enters early 30’s.
  4. Woman wants to settle down.
  5. Woman desires man who is slightly older, smarter, and richer (sorry but it’s true).

 

Here’s the problem with this situation: any man who even loosely qualifies for #5 is interested in the sweet 25-year-old who is more attractive and can still bear him children (or he already married said 25-year-old).  If he’s patient, he can also find one that doesn’t have the obsessive, nagging, “go-getter” attitude that advancing in the business world demands.*  Hate to break it to you, girls, but the masculine, traditional man that women want does not give a damn about your job or education.

 

Here’s conclusion of the story: the nice, non-feminist woman is still alone and miserable, despite all her career accolades, nice apartment, interesting hobbies, and international travel experience.

True, the article I linked to is right that feminism has done this to them.  However, it’s all women who are victimized by it, not just the ones who, as this article asserts, haven’t ditched the feminist ideology.

 

Here’s the solution:  There was a time (i.e., all of human history except the last 60 years) when a woman knew that the most important thing she could do during these years was to attract a good man.  This was spoken of honestly and openly.  And woman acted accordingly.  Time to bring that back.

Look, in regard to long-term happiness, finding a good spouse is the most important thing women and men can do.  As I said above, men should be spending this time working hard so they can provide for a future family.  And everyone talks all the time about the ways in which men can change and improve themselves in order to attract top-tier women.  This is a good thing.

So let’s do it for the girls, too.

 

* This is demanded of men, as well, although they wear it better.

face to face with ysa mormons and elder holland

Permit me a Mormon-centric post.  If you don’t know much about the Church, don’t worry about it, try to follow along or just skip this one.

The setup: On Monday, Elder Jeffrey Holland of the Quorum of the 12 Apostles (the chief governing body of the Church), gave essentially a Q&A to YSAs (young single adults) all over the world.  It was a worldwide broadcast but was supposed to be directed a this targeted group, giving us a much more intimate feel than the standard broadcasts targeted at the entire church.  As a note, YSAs are ages 18-31 and typically have their own congregations.  That’s about it as far as background goes.

This was a 2-hour broadcast and I cannot respond to everything.  In fact, the vast majority of the material was very nice but it won’t make for a great post if I just transcribe quotes and then give them a verbal thumbs-up.  As such, I will respond to the things that I thought were wrong, needed further development, or just could use my unique and self-absorbed perspective tacked onto the end.  Keep in mind, this is the perspective of someone who the broadcast was targeted at.  So I may be wrong in my opinions, but the opinion itself may be a useful indication of how young members of the Church are feeling.

So while the tone of this may seem like I didn’t like the broadcast and the leaders, that’s not true at all.  Almost everything talked about ranged from “fine” to “decently insightful.”  Nothing that was “OMG exceptional,” or life-changing, but it was still a nice, standard Church meeting.

 

On to the cherry-picking of quotes from the broadcast:

 

Question: “How can I be single in the Church and be happy at the same time?  It seems the older I get, the two can’t coexist.”

Sister Stephens response included this: “We aren’t defined by our marital status in the Church.”

But we are, Sister Stephens.  We are.  I can’t tell if this quote represents someone who is very out of touch or if they are just being too optimistic.  The Mormon Church has a culture of families.  Not just spouses, but families.  Speaking of the doctrine of families, Elder Holland said earlier in the meeting, “The only thing that we know, for a governing principle–and the governance of people in heaven, are families.  That’s all we’ve been taught and, so far as I know, that’s all that’s there.”

“We’re not going to stop talking about the ideal,” Elder Holland continued.  He’s right, of course, but the fact is, if you don’t have your own family, Mormonism is an uncomfortable community to be a part of and it’s one of the reasons I believe the YSA activity rates are in the toilet (sorry, don’t know if we’re supposed to mention that).

We all know the doctrine and its clear that the full blessings of the Gospel and the Church are not available to singles.  This doctrine trickles down from pure teachings and creates the day-to-day culture of Mormonism.  And the culture that we’ve got is dismissive to YSAs and often pays them nothing more than lip service.  I swear there’s an underlying opinion from the family “wards” (i.e., congregations) that we YSAs are second class members.  Elder Holland alluded to it later: “We just want to talk to you as adults… We see you as adults… We see you peer-to-peer and friend-to-friend.”  Well, it sure doesn’t seem that way.  I still think there’s often an underlying condescension when YSAs hear things from our leaders, as seen in Elder Holland jokingly reminding everyone in the room that we are God’s “little ones.”  While that is definitely true, it’s not something you hear directed towards other adults in the Church.  But who knows?  Maybe I’m just overly sensitive.

 

Question: [Something about women serving missions.]

Elder Holland: “We’re very grateful for those [sister missionaries] who go… We went from something like… 8 or 10 or 12 percent to 30 or 35% of the missionaries of the Church being young women and everybody knows that a sister is twice as effective as three elders.”

Well here’s the math on this this one:

1 sister = (3 elders) * 2

So one sister is 6 elders, I guess?

Explain to me why it’s acceptable for an Apostle to make jokes at the expense of male missionaries.  Just another example of modern culture creeping into the culture of the Church; that, of course, being the modern acceptance of people mocking men or implying we are half-wits in order to flatter women.  I love Elder Holland but that joke was bullshit and it’s too bad so many people laughed.  I was a missionary and I supervised the work of many male missionaries.  We are not worth 1/6 of a female missionary.  If anything, in my experience, the women on average were bigger headaches for the mission leadership.  It’s just the type of casual “men suck” jokes that are hacky, played out, and have no place in a Church meeting that’s supposed to be about encouraging YSAs.

 

Question: [Something regarding preparation for marriage]

Sister Stephens: “We reviewed a lot of questions and one of them was, ‘If we find out someone we’re dating or someone we’re serious about has an issue with pornography, should we continue to date them or should we run?’… [Answering this question:] Are you dating someone who has a good heart, who’s honest about it, who’s willing to work with you?… What’s the condition of his heart?  I think that’s where a lot of this decision will come [from]… You’re going to have to have the Spirit work really close with you… to be able to discern if this is going to work or not.  I think we don’t want to ever give up on anyone.”

Pretty good answer from Sister Stephens.  Church leaders don’t usually do so good when giving advice regarding dating and pornography.  I’ve even heard–from a very reliable source–rumors of at least one prominent leader telling girls at a fireside to refuse to marry a man who used to look at porn.  Be that as it may, I’m on board with this answer from the good sister.

A caveat to this is that for many women, this advice won’t matter.  They will just end the relationship.  They won’t care about this advice–and I’m not saying they should–that’s just how it is.  Mormon women are petrified of pornography and while I agree that it’s a blight on our modern world, it’s merely a symptom of a sick society and men who use it are merely self-treating for an unfulfilled emotional need.  It’s not about the porn.  (I will probably write more on this at a future date.)

 

Question: [Regarding the status of gay members and how hard it can be in the Church for them.]

Elder Holland: “Let me say this to begin a response: I think we have talked altogether too much about gender and altogether too little about chastity… We do not make a judgment about someone’s attraction… We don’t make any attempt to say why that happened or how that happened… What we do say is that we teach chastity… We just go with what the Lord has declared… It’s at least as much spiritual as physical.

Now, when that [homosexual] attraction exists, we ask exactly what we ask with heterosexual feelings…and that is be faithful.  Be clean.  Be chaste.  And for you, every blessing of this Church is available including the Sacraments, the ordinances, going to the Temple… whatever you need and whatever you desire and hope, those blessings are available to the chaste… It’s in the governing handbooks that are given to the Priesthood leaders of the Church.  Now if some members fall short in that, then shame on them.  And if I haven’t done well enough to teach that, then shame on me… We’re not making them [gays] second-class citizens… but there are commandments.”

“We would be the first to say that every person is welcome at the Church and in our circles and in our associations and in our friendship on the basis of everyone trying to keep the commandments.”

Wonderful answer from Elder Holland with a caveat.  He failed to address the idea of gays in the Church being second-class citizens from a cultural standpoint.  To Elder Holland’s point, the doctrine is very clear that there is no second-class citizenship in the Lord’s church.  But culturally?  It is weird.  It’s outside the norm, people often have a hard time accepting it, and I don’t see this changing very quickly.  My apologies to gays everywhere.

However, if you are gay and feeling strange and out of place, instead of coddling you, I’ll give you some real-world advice: move.  If you currently live your everyday life being uncomfortable and being treated weird by well-meaning but dorky members, just move.  Trust me.  If you’re a gay YSA in places like Los Angeles, New York, D.C., Austin–really, the more liberal places–no one cares, everyone’s used to it, and you’ll be fine.   You’re more likely to be comfortable, have friends, and fit in.  Again, trust me.

Elder Holland is right about the availability of blessings but, come on, we all know you can’t achieve the highest blessings if you’re gay.  Of course you can technically achieve all the blessing if you’re gay and you don’t act on it but instead get a wife and have kids, but guess what?  If you’re super gay (as opposed to leaning more bisexual or being comfortable switching to the standard team completely) that would probably be miserable for you.  So yeah–it sucks but I don’t know what else to tell you.  Seek help from others who’ve gone through the same thing.

 

Follow-up question: “A lot of people who struggle with homosexual attraction feel that happiness is not available for them because of whatever reason.  What words of hope do you have for them that there is happiness?”

Elder Holland: “In my professional life, I’ve only had two married secretaries… and all the others have been single.  And those women can just as justifiably ask the same question… ‘What is there for me?  What hope is there?’  I say there is hope for all of us.  I don’t know when–some blessings come now, some blessings come later, some blessings don’t come till heaven, but they come.  Every word that God has ever uttered will be honored and fulfilled.  Every word.”

Perfect answer from Holland and clarifies one of my points from above, although it doesn’t make being gay and Mormon any easier while you’re living your day-to-day life.  At least, I don’t think it does.  Ask a gay guy/girl for a real opinion here instead of my moronic one.

 

 

Conclusion:

It was a nice event and for a worldwide broadcast, I really did feel like Elder Holland and the other two were directly speaking to the YSAs of the Church.  However, in terms of content, there just wasn’t much that was any different than any other Church broadcast.  I understand that it’s hard to very candid in front of a global audience, even an audience that’s limited to YSAs, but I just wish Church leaders could occasionally speak with the frankness that I know they use in smaller meetings.

 

joel has brief encounter with male feminist

 

My comment on the video, responding to the female who ripped Frozen for having weak male characters and expressed her desire for strong, chivalrous, masculine men:

“Fair enough. And I want real women. Women who are feminine, skilled homemakers, and good mothers. Strong and confident women without the entitlement that Western culture teaches them.”

Response from the male “feminist” who posted the video in the first place as an example of Fox being big meanies regarding feminism:

“You’re not entitled to a world where women conform to your traditional standards of femininity.”

My response:

“I see a male in your picture, but are you really? No one said I was entitled. However, it did seem appropriate to advocate my preferences since the woman in the video was advocating her preference for traditional masculinity. Considering she is also supporting the traditional nuclear family and the type of men who can facilitate that, I wanted to state what type of women I thought best fit that description. But thanks for the feminist critique. Bro.”

 

He responded to this with jokes.  This is an example of what I was talking about a few weeks ago when I said that men get attacked for simply expressing what attributes they find desirable in women.  Male feminists are a funny bunch.  Modern feminism exists because it appeals to female vanity and beta males who can’t get laid.

 

This guy also posted this video because I guess he’s confused at why there aren’t more female movie heroes, a question I’ve answered rather thoroughly here and here.

 

The comments ripped him pretty well.

When you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.