Why “The Big Bang Theory” Makes My Blood Boil

Enjoy this three-minute clip that encapsulates why I can’t be in the same room with people talking about this show without wanting to maim everyone!

 

Remember girls: You have no right to stand up to a man who is sexually harassing you! That makes you a bitch, and people will laugh at you! Men’s feelings are more important than yours, because women are sex objects, not people.

(Less obvious: anti-intellectualism, making fun of smart people is fine and also they deserve it, the main character is a sociopath and i mean literally in the clinical sense. I’m not going into it because it makes me froth at the mouth. Go watch this fucked-up shit yourself if you want to see.)

52 Comments

  1. Beattie Lesnick says:
    Your problem is that the main characters are sociopaths, and yet in Pokémon Revolution, you idolize a sociopathic character (Eon). Do I detect hypocrisy?
    1. actonthat says:
      Farla and I: Still different people, after all these years.
      1. Roarke says:
        I actually started bingeing through the older reviews and I’m currently in the middle of Wither, where I get to see you actually commenting as a guest! It’s so unreal.
        Also, what’s with the troll?
        1. actonthat says:
          I’m always glad this blog started after we were friends and not when I was like 13 writing terrible fanfic and whining about bad reviews. I’m old.
          1. Roarke says:
            Kind of weird to imagine this was once a one-woman show. You’re like, part of the furniture.
            1. actonthat says:
              Furniture status: that’s how you know you’ve made it.

              <3

              Reply
              1. Roarke says:
                That’s right. If anyone ever resents being called furniture, ask them to go without. They’ll stop taking that for granted right quick.
              2. PostguestivePostistPhase says:
                I am suddenly reminded of Umineko for absolutely no reason at all. I’m a bad commentor (commenter?).
              3. SpoonyViking says:
                I believe “commentOr” would be morphologically correct, but the main form in terms of usage (popularly, at least; I don’t think I’ve seen it in a proper dictionary yet) is “commentEr”.
              4. illhousen says:
                Farla = Spoiler confirmed.

                Also, how many years of suffering would you give her?

        2. Beattie Lesnick says:
          Maybe you should ask what’s with Farla, because she can only write ONE GODDAMN THING.
      2. SpoonyViking says:
        Actually, Act, it seems the move erased the video clip. I know this is a really old post, but do you think you could re-add it?
        1. actonthat says:
          Yeah, I’ll do that when I go through all the posts of mine that need fixing.
          1. SpoonyViking says:
            Thanks! And sorry for adding to your workload. :-)
    2. illhousen says:
      You know, upvoting your own posts is generally considered a bad tone.
    3. Farla says:
      No no no, I write an entirely different story JUST ABOUT a character who murders people for basically any reason. A whole story! You don’t have to contort yourself to argue another character murdering lots of people for a reason is a sociopath.

      Also yes you are completely right I wrote this and where Act claims otherwise that was also meeeeeeeeeeee everyone is me you are me we are all me.

      1. SpoonyViking says:
        Are you also the walrus, by any chance? :-P
        And oh, yeah, Lucki was a complete sociopath too, wasn’t she?
        1. Farla says:
          Lucki is probably closest, but I doubt she’s properly hatable by their standards. This kiddo, on the other hand, thinks even less of human life than Eon does. Such a better choice for arguing that I and all the other mes, walrus included, can never complain about characters being bad people ever again.
          1. Beattie Lesnick says:
            And where would the anti-human parts be in that fanfic? What IS Ice supposed to be anyway?
            1. Farla says:

              Ah, so the writing the characters complaint was a red herring, it’s the idea nonhumans can have any moral weight that was bugging you. Within the context of the fic, pokemon have the same kind of brains as humans – try looking at it as if it’s just two different groups of humans and come back with what complaints you have still apply.

              Ice, in contrast, is a thing that looks human but isn’t.

              Reply
            2. Axel Grease says:
              Well, then, what is she? A robot? An angel/demon (Which, BTW, where would those come from in Pokémon?) A MOTHERFUCKING ALIEN FROM THE CYGNUS-5 EXPANSE?
              Reply
            3. Farla says:

              She’s a different species. And not a closely related one. I write pokemon as similarly social animals to humans, but that doesn’t mean all animals work that way. She’s an attempt at writing something that functions very differently.

              Reply
      2. Beattie Lesnick says:
        Considering how anti-trainer things make up most of what you write, then I don’t think you have the right to say that.
      3. Beattie Lesnick says:
        Yeah, but I don’t always hate misanthropic characters. For example, Thetis/Tethys from Megaman ZX Advent. But I only like him because
        A. I love the ocean
        and
        B. I agree that people need to learn to stop mistreating it. Of course, I’m fine with keeping marine life in captivity. Fishing/pollution/coral bleaching/stuff that OBJECTIVELY damages the environment are the problems I have. Eon is operating off of her personal experience and SUBJECTIVE thoughts.
        1. Farla says:
          Oh hey, missed this one.

          Eon is operating off of her personal experience and SUBJECTIVE thoughts.

          Right! The point isn’t Eon is a perfect cinnamon bun and therefore she’s right. The point is that Eon’s personal experiences fucked her up enough that she thinks the only way to protect pokemon is to completely eliminate all humans, including the good ones she fully believes exist. (I mean, she’s also got some sunk cost going on, since she did kill her own beloved trainer, but that’s more a factor in her own self-loathing than her broader decisions.)

        2. Farla says:
          You know, let’s go back and try this one from a different angle.

          Of course, I’m fine with keeping marine life in captivity.

          Now, there’s one really interesting fact about killer whales:

          Those whales are the only killer whales known to have killed humans, and to often kill them in drawn-out, sadistic ways.

          The humans those whales killed were not the same ones who captured them, or built their enclosures, or took their children. But the fact those whales and only those whales repeatedly kill people is an indictment of the way humans treat captive killer whales.

          If humanity as a whole had treated the whales better, humans as individuals would never have been murdered by those whales.

          1. Beattie Lesnick says:
            So what you’re saying is that it’s our fault for their sadism, and nobody else’s ?
            1. Act says:

              …yes? What are the other options, that they had bad whale childhoods or something? edit: I can’t stop: Were they bullied by baby belugas? Did they see a lot of violent lobsters growing up?

              You’re the kind of person who has “outside dogs,” aren’t you?

              Reply
              1. Beattie Lesnick says:
                No. I just think that keeping animals in captivity doesn’t mean you’re a bad person.
              2. Act says:

                Keeping an animal in captivity when it is clearly miserable and suffering from captivity does, in fact, make you a bad person.

              3. Farla says:

                If you can’t keep it in captivity without harming it, it becomes wrong.

                Sometimes harm and suffering isn’t obvious – most people, looking at a fish, would have no idea if it was happy or not. Does that mean that when people kill their pet fish in slow, horrible ways, nothing bad has happened so long as they didn’t know it?

              4. Act says:

                I remember when I was younger and first tried to own guppies only to discover they were fragile as goddamn tissue paper thanks to inbreeding. I researched like crazy trying to figure out where they were dying and the whole experience was devastating because these little animals were dying and it was obviously my fault.

                After I lost like five of them I was like, you know what, maybe it’s possibly to keep these things alive but I clearly can’t do it. And so I stopped trying to own guppies and moved on to tetras, which I’m glad to say did just fine.

                The point being: if you can’t keep an animal happy and healthy, don’t keep the animal.

              5. Roarke says:

                @act I’m pretty sure guppies literally just dissolve in water while still alive at this point.

            2. Farla says:

              Well – who else’s could it be? If a bunch of stolen children locked in cages turn out to consistently kill people who come too close, whose fault is it?

              In general, when someone is lashing out to such a degree, there’s a cause. Whether or not they’re able to aim correctly or hit someone innocent varies, but it’s very rare that no one at all is to blame. You don’t look at the targets, you look at the common factor. If a society regularly produces murderers, there’s something wrong with that society – either everyone is directly participating, or a subset is doing it and everyone else is letting them.

              Reply
              1. Axel Grease says:
                You know what? How about we end ALL life and leave the earth to robots?
              2. Farla says:

                Or we could not believe that only perfect people are allowed to live. We could admit to mistakes and strive to do better.

                Denying you’ve made a mistake just means you keep making it and nothing ever gets better. And it’s the getting better that matters. Punishment in the present doesn’t undo anything that happened in the past.

      4. illhousen says:
        You know, I could never figure out the nature of our hierarchy.

        Be honest with me, Farla, are we a Primordial? Or an Unshaped?

        1. Farla says:
          Probably an Unshaped – we’re still participating in the larger roiling mass of unreality rather than going off to do our own thing, and also tiny things keep coming over to quest against us.
          1. illhousen says:
            Hm, makes sense. I call dibs on the Cup Emanation.
        2. SpoonyViking says:
          Exalted references, I assume? :-)
          1. illhousen says:
            Yep. Primordials are creators of the world who were later mutilated by exalted into demonic Yozi. Their existence is too vast to be encompassed by just two souls like that of humans, so instead each of them has 20+ souls (each of which also has seven subsouls). Each of these souls represents an aspect of the Primordial in addition to being a person in their own right, with personality, agenda and everything.

            The Unshaped Raksha are weirder since they’re bits of semi-sapient chaos floating in larger chaos and continuing to exist by perpetuating narratives about themselves that become true because Wyld is malleable like that.

            They, too, have individuals that encompass parts of their existence called Emanations. Their appearance and personality are much more fluid than that of demons since, as bits of chaos, they can change them at will, though their roles are actually pretty rigid: Heart, Sword, Cup, Staff, Ring and Way.

            Oh, and both Primordials and Unshaped are individuals as well as places. Cecelyne is the Endless Desert that can talk to you, Unshaped are wandering courts that can petrify you with a gaze.

            1. SpoonyViking says:
              Hm, I see. Thanks!
              To be honest, I much preferred the more “down-to-Earth” aspect of Exalted; you know, the empire of the Dragon-Blooded in great turmoil because of the disappearance of the Scarlet Empress, troubles between human villages and local spirits / minor gods, Sidereal machinations “for the greater good” (with the nagging doubt that maybe they really were for the greater good), and relatively mundane threats such as a bandit king here, a despotic satrap there, and so on and so forth.
              Reply
              1. Farla says:
                Well, that’s where most of the support is. Really, you’re not even supposed to interact with the yozi directly but individual souls that are more comprehensible, and even that’s supposed to be rare. The yozi are basically there to be a freakish things the enemy in a Conan story sends at you, not the main feature.
              2. illhousen says:
                Basically, what Farla said. Both Hell and Wyld are faraway exotic places. You may go on an adventure there, but they aren’t going to be the main dish. They’re comparable to, say, Astral plane in a standard D&D setting or something.

                Normally, you mostly encounter demons of the first circle (who aren’t even a part of the soul configuration, just races created by the demons of the second circle to serve the Yozi) because everyone who can summons them left and right due to them being dead useful.

                Demons of the second circle (subsouls of Yozi souls) can serve as major antagonists in their own right (say, you may investigate a conspiracy in dragonblooded court and discover that Mara is pulling the strings behind everything) or as Darth Vader type figures.

                Demons of the third circle (Yozi souls) are “oh shit we’re fucked” figures. Preventing their summon may very well serve as a culmination of a campaign, and if one of them is summoned already, dealing with the fallout can serve as a foundation for a campaign.

                When it comes to Raksha, you’re mostly dealing with shaped Raksha, who are much lesser than unshaped and much more comprehensible. They’re basically old-school dick fairies. Big on glamours and fake treasures, not much substance. Outside of the Wyld they’re not very powerful and can be handled even by heroic mortals, let alone exalted.

                Unshaped Raksha are distant figures. You may go on a quest against one, though you’re unlikely to interact with them directly since they’re a fucking flying castle and you’re not. As such, you’re going to deal with Emanations, who are close to shaped Raksha in behavior.

        3. Beattie Lesnick says:
          Translation, please?
          1. illhousen says:

            Provided in comments above.

            All is Farla, even you.

      5. Beattie Lesnick says:
        Says the person whose tagline is basically “violence solves everything
        1. Farla says:
          That’s the joke! Violence solves EVERYTHING. You name a problem and there’s some degree of violence that would render it irrelevant. Even traditional problems like world peace can be solved if you make sure to kill absolutely everybody.
          1. Beattie Lesnick says:
            Well, you could, but the point is to make sure there’s world peace WITH EVERYONE ALIVE.
            1. Farla says:
              Yes.

              Again: That’s the joke.

              “A solution to a problem” and “the best solution to a problem” do not have to be the same thing.

              Reply
      6. Axel Grease says:
        Even the people that hate you?
        1. Farla says:

          Well, of course. The people who appear to be opposing me are just fake names I use to make my opponents seem silly and/or myself look nobly persecuted.

          If we wait long enough someone will come by to yell about how I’m stawmanning with you, that’s totally not what my actual haters sound like.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Skip to toolbar