UPDATE: 11:55 pm EST: A spokesperson for MTV has put out response to Madison’s tweet, saying “the opinions Ira expresses on Twitter are his own and do not reflect the views of MTV News.”
I cut nightly. If you want to go for style points, you go horizontal. Plus, if you're a huge faggot like I am with sensitive skin, going vertically is ticklish.
You need the CBC in your life. It'll change everything. I used to be an alt-right Trumpette living with my parents (not the basement, my room is upstairs!) but now I live in a communal living collective of artists and activists called The Crust Hole
if anything i would think the CBC would turn you into an insufferable middle-class suburban baby boomer who thinks libraries and "heritage buildings" are defining social issues of our time
Lol his tweets are protected. What a loser. Don't start shit if you can't handle the blowback. Maybe a better motto is: Don't be such a sack of shit in the first place.
Even if you said it more artfully than Madison did, I think it's nearly always a bad idea to use a politician's minor children or grandchildren as the basis of critique. He might not be wrong on principle, but there's no way to look good making that point.
Yeah, it's too easy to turn it round and be like "why do you hate that child?".
It's one of those things that doesn't really need pointed out either, people who wanna see it will see it immediately and people who don't wanna see it are never gonna see it.
At a certain point you have to wonder: are they really there to make political commentary? Or at a certain level, have they come to enjoy the ass ripping?
/u/Velvet_Llama isn't wrong. But any idiot should know that in today's political correctness gone mad world actually pointing that out in a large public forum is the height of idiocy ;)
I don't. The guy spent the 70s and early 80s as a US attorney suing school districts to push desegregation and prosecuted members of the KKK. The only reason anyone thinks he's a racist is because Reagan nominated him for seat on the federal bench in the 80s. If you're old enough to remember the 80s, the democrats in the senate were absolutely apeshit crazy over the fact that they had to entertain any of Reagan's appointee selections and did everything they could to torpedo them. Look up the origins of the term "Bork." They did the same thing to Sessions they tried to do to Clarence Thomas: they found a friendly third-party to accuse him of fabricated bullshit. It didn't stick with Clarence Thomas because no one bought Anita Hill's silly sob story. It only worked with Sessions because they brought out more than one useful idiot to smear him and his hearings didn't get the same attention that the Thomas hearings did.
Fuck prescriptivist grammar bullshit. Do you know how those rules started? Dumb as shit humanities students in Oxbridge in the 18th century graduated to find that they had no employable skills and there was no patreon for them to whine at for cash. So they jumped on the education bandwagon and started writing 'Books of Grammar'. They made up all these bullshit little rules that small-minded parrots still vomit up today. Don't end a sentence with a preposition. No split infinitives. Don't start a sentence with a conjunction. Don't use the passive voice.
These rules and many, many others were written down in books for the sole purpose of having people buy those books because the authors had the skills of your average general arts tumblrina.
Actually, the "no preposition at the end of the sentence" is a carry-over from Latin. It was adopted to English by the scholarly because Latin was a huge part of an advanced education pre-20th Century. The rule really has no place in English, which is a bastardized Germanic language, but since English borrows from so many Romance languages it happened.
It was deliberately imported from Latin by Robert Lowth in "A Short Introduction to English Grammar", which is precisely the sort of prescriptivist rules-for-the-sake-of-rules bullshit I'm talking about. He pulls in a whole bunch of Latin rules into English in that book, even though he is aware it's bullshit - he talks about other Grammar Pedants doing the same
This comes of forcing the English under the rules of a foreign Language with which it has little concern
Those grammar books didn't really "make up" the rules, they just codified already existing norms of aristocratic and upper class speech and writing. It is simplistic and reductive to conceive of that sort of prescriptivism as merely a kind of cynical cash grab. It also doesn't explain why those books were widely read or why large segments of the literate public were interested in those books in the first place.
This is actually a very interesting subject and far more complicated than the usual treatment of it would suggest. Usage dictionaries and Victorian era guides of manners and decorum were very popular at the time (and arguably still are, in the form of men's and women's magazines like GQ, Esquire, Cosmopolitan, etc.). They represented an attempt to naturalize the cultural norms and social practices of a particular class, i.e., to portray those customs as the only correct or proper way of doing things, and to this extent they obviously reflected the cultural and material dominance of that class and served to protect its hegemony. And yet by explicitly stating those rules, which had until then only ever been expressed implicitly in the actual social practice of bourgeois and aristocratic individuals, those cultural norms were (at least theoretically) made intelligible to any literate person willing to learn. No doubt those books were of great use not only to the newly-moneyed bourgeoisie, but also to working class individuals looking to gain social and material capital.
The reason the books were popular was due to the explosion of the new middle class - people who were raised up by money rather than noble birth were desperate to prove themselves better than the 'peasants' their families were a very short time ago, and the defining differences were seen in money, education and outward appearance. Those who had the money therefore spent it heavily on things like these grammar books so as to (in their minds, as planted there by the people selling the books and by peer pressure) keep up with 'language fashion' in exactly the same way as they kept up with clothing and hairstyle fashion.
Half the books if not their entirety are spent whining about how so-and-so did it wrong, from Shakespeare to Chaucer to Milton, not to mention the infighting and politicking between themselves, one-upping and nitpicking each others' work. I wasn't making an idle observation when I mentioned tumblrinas, they exhibit the exact same holier-than-thou pedantry competition.
Its a slimeball thing to say but I'm always put out by politicians using their kids as props and they all tend to do that.
If the girl was like 12 she might learn something about how fucked up the government is, and thats a good thing, but at that age no reason to be there.
You know it's not uncommon at all for children and grandchildren to sit with them during a session right? I agree she's not going to get a lot out of it (not even a memory), but it's not uncommon and there isn't anything diabolical about it.
I don't think its diabolical but I do think its just for show. See here is my family, and in Sessions case, See here is my not 100% white child.
I don't think its evil, I just find it a bit pointless. I want Sessions confirmed, and I think the claims against him are just grandstanding, but they again all do this.
I don't know if it's "just grandstanding", if I was being going in front of Congress on my route to becoming AG I'd love to have my kids/grandkids in attendance.
A spokesperson for MTV has put out response to Madison’s tweet, saying “the opinions Ira expresses on Twitter are his own and do not reflect the views of MTV News.”
COMING NEXT WEEK TO THE MTV YOUTUBE CHANNEL "10 Reasons Why White People Should Jump Into A Vat Of Acid"
I'm more liberal than most liberals you'll meet and hate Sessions with a burning passion, but you don't go after kids. Family members in my view are off limits unless they've committed criminal acts or have buisness interests that could create conflicts of interest with the person in question. Adorable Asian children are neither criminals nor partnered with corporations seeking to gain influence.
97 comments
n/a SnapshillBot 2017-01-10
Here's the thing. You said a "trilby is a fedora."
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
n/a The_Reason_Trump_Won 2017-01-10
n/a MG87 2017-01-10
Yeah, basically.
n/a a_jill_sandwich 2017-01-10
Someone's getting fired...
n/a icyhat 2017-01-10
No, that would require MTV to have balls and you know damn sure any SJW doesn't.
n/a Velvet_Llama 2017-01-10
MTV cares about money.
n/a icyhat 2017-01-10
I'm taking that as an agreement. SJWs are all about spending mommy and daddies cash on stupid bullshit.
n/a OrcaGlass 2017-01-10
https://mobile.twitter.com/med11n/status/818664082836516865
n/a CucksLoveTrump 2017-01-10
I would bend that little fuck doll over and fuck her so hard in the ass her taint would rip
n/a Mournhold 2017-01-10
attempted murder if tru
n/a CucksLoveTrump 2017-01-10
Don't tell me you've never ripped that little piece of connective tissue on the underside of the penis after a night of unlubed ass fucking
Or am I the only one? The blood makes a good lube if you can power thru the pain/drunk enough
n/a Velvet_Llama 2017-01-10
Sounds pretty standard.
n/a CucksLoveTrump 2017-01-10
Typical Friday night when I was 30. Unfortunately I can't stand the blood loss any more
n/a Mournhold 2017-01-10
I actually had something similar happen to my wife's boyfriend. We were all very concerned.
n/a CucksLoveTrump 2017-01-10
Meh. Nothing to be concerned about. It'll heal. It just bleeds like a motherfucker and you need to maintain pressure on that for like 20-30 mins
n/a Velvet_Llama 2017-01-10
Pussy.
n/a CucksLoveTrump 2017-01-10
At my age any injury == blood clot == stroke == death
n/a Velvet_Llama 2017-01-10
Old pussy.
n/a CucksLoveTrump 2017-01-10
Tru I'm big
n/a MG87 2017-01-10
Blood is too sticky and coagulates quickly so it would make shitty lube.
n/a DornishRedViper 2017-01-10
do you have a soundproofed room for that in your basement?
n/a CucksLoveTrump 2017-01-10
Naw I just live in the country
n/a jackthebutholeripper 2017-01-10
\
n/a Time_to_Drink 2017-01-10
How you gonna do that with your sad little micro penis?
n/a CucksLoveTrump 2017-01-10
I'll pm you my thick cock just ask
It's a dad Dick son
n/a Time_to_Drink 2017-01-10
Why am I still waiting for it?
n/a CucksLoveTrump 2017-01-10
You never asked duh
n/a Time_to_Drink 2017-01-10
Some things should just be given out of human decency
n/a CucksLoveTrump 2017-01-10
I'll give you my wife for the taking if you come to north Texas/Oklahoma
n/a Time_to_Drink 2017-01-10
Wife? There goes the fantasy. Sigh...still waiting for this picture...
n/a CucksLoveTrump 2017-01-10
2 mins
n/a CucksLoveTrump 2017-01-10
Old pic http://m.imgur.com/RaXxCZr?r
n/a Time_to_Drink 2017-01-10
That could be any old dick
Take a fresh one, and make it hold up today's newspaper (anything but WaPo)
n/a Akilroth234 2017-01-10
Might need to pop some viagra to get it up first, grandpa.
n/a CucksLoveTrump 2017-01-10
I've been on two at least and I use cialis tyvm
n/a icyhat 2017-01-10
Fucking lol.
n/a neutralvoter 2017-01-10
MTV's pinnacle of broadcasting was the dear white guys video. It changed my life. I'm not a white male cutter.
n/a CucksLoveTrump 2017-01-10
Remember: if you aren't a pussy, it's down the street, not across the road
n/a Vakieh 2017-01-10
Go deep enough and it doesn't matter which direction you want to fuck yourself up with.
n/a CucksLoveTrump 2017-01-10
All I'm hearing is "cut your arm off fam"
n/a Vakieh 2017-01-10
Which would be across the street.
n/a atakeonhooper 2017-01-10
jesus christ it feels like it's 2004 with all the cutting jokes around here.
or maybe it's because that's when I was in high school
n/a MG87 2017-01-10
Do it pussy.
n/a Springheeljac 2017-01-10
It's not down the street or across the road. It's across the throat.
n/a uptotwentycharacters 2017-01-10
edgy
n/a Cephaliarch 2017-01-10
I cut nightly. If you want to go for style points, you go horizontal. Plus, if you're a huge faggot like I am with sensitive skin, going vertically is ticklish.
n/a FreeRobotFrost 2017-01-10
You need the CBC in your life. It'll change everything. I used to be an alt-right Trumpette living with my parents (not the basement, my room is upstairs!) but now I live in a communal living collective of artists and activists called The Crust Hole
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wb55teb1gJ0
n/a EvanHarper 2017-01-10
if anything i would think the CBC would turn you into an insufferable middle-class suburban baby boomer who thinks libraries and "heritage buildings" are defining social issues of our time
n/a HULK_HOGAN_FASCISM 2017-01-10
Delete this and delete yourself.
n/a SithisTheDreadFather 2017-01-10
Lol his tweets are protected. What a loser. Don't start shit if you can't handle the blowback. Maybe a better motto is: Don't be such a sack of shit in the first place.
n/a CucksLoveTrump 2017-01-10
You wanna talk shit, expect to get hit
Then you start hitting back and if you're on the right side of the political fence you complain to the admins and get the other guy banned
Then you win
n/a willfe42 2017-01-10
SJWs wouldn't even be a thing if more people understood this.
n/a Velvet_Llama 2017-01-10
You have to be pretty fucking dense to not realize he was using that kid as a prop. Pretty standard political image management tbh.
n/a pm_me_pics_of_ur_nan 2017-01-10
Even if you said it more artfully than Madison did, I think it's nearly always a bad idea to use a politician's minor children or grandchildren as the basis of critique. He might not be wrong on principle, but there's no way to look good making that point.
n/a serialflamingo 2017-01-10
Yeah, it's too easy to turn it round and be like "why do you hate that child?".
It's one of those things that doesn't really need pointed out either, people who wanna see it will see it immediately and people who don't wanna see it are never gonna see it.
n/a ChaoticEvil 2017-01-10
Tru, but why do you hate that child, flamingo?
n/a serialflamingo 2017-01-10
Children remind me of heterosexual sex.
n/a ChaoticEvil 2017-01-10
Sounds like something /u/wac_the_white would say
n/a Velvet_Llama 2017-01-10
Oh yeah, don't get me wrong, MTV guy is a dumb fuck for that tweet.
n/a pm_me_pics_of_ur_nan 2017-01-10
Yeah I had a hunch I misinterpreted your comment.
n/a LSeww 2017-01-10
It's a fucking joke ffs.
n/a autistitron 2017-01-10
MTV guy is part of a whole culture about pretending jokes are serious statements so they can pretend to be offended.
Live by the fake outrage, die by the fake outrage, basically.
n/a LSeww 2017-01-10
So he's a swj and that's why he made that statement and it's not a joke? And he is offended by that guy having asian kid with him?
n/a autistitron 2017-01-10
Don't think he's legitimately angry so much as he saw an opportunity to call someone racist but had to reach a bit for it.
n/a LSU_Coonass 2017-01-10
every politician has their kids and grandkids with them at public appearances, I recall people ripping romney over his black grandchild too.
n/a anotheraccount323 2017-01-10
I remember them getting their asses handed to them over it, too.
n/a wolfdreams01 2017-01-10
At a certain point you have to wonder: are they really there to make political commentary? Or at a certain level, have they come to enjoy the ass ripping?
n/a anotheraccount323 2017-01-10
All clicks are good clicks. Clicks are money, clicks are life.
n/a OnlyRacistOnReddit 2017-01-10
Romney was with his whole family in that picture. Including his son and daughter-in-law who had adopted the black baby he was holding.
n/a lol-da-mar-s-cool 2017-01-10
I can never tell if you are being serious or just trying to stir the pot.
n/a Velvet_Llama 2017-01-10
I mean, there should be nothing pot stirring about that comment. Everything politicians do in public is calculated. It's all in the game baby.
n/a Dolphin_Gokkun 2017-01-10
/u/The_Reason_Trump_Won
n/a The_Reason_Trump_Won 2017-01-10
/u/Velvet_Llama isn't wrong. But any idiot should know that in today's political correctness gone mad world actually pointing that out in a large public forum is the height of idiocy ;)
n/a presidenttrump_2016 2017-01-10
He was invited to bring his family there.
n/a snurpss 2017-01-10
this is 'murica, and chil'ren are the futah!
n/a lol-da-mar-s-cool 2017-01-10
What a fucking moron, reminds me of this
n/a Kuonji 2017-01-10
there were a million better ways to say that than how she said it.
n/a wwyzzerdd 2017-01-10
ROSIE PEREZ CLEANS MY TOILET!
n/a Medibee 2017-01-10
If we kick out the mexicans then whose organs will we harvest?
n/a CucksLoveTrump 2017-01-10
HAHAHAHA
She's lucky her dad is so cool tbh
n/a bfbj 2017-01-10
I look forward to what better insults they come up with when unemployed.
But really, should've just had some anonymous account for banter
n/a oinkorencu 2017-01-10
I think Jeff Sessions is likely racist, that doesn't mean he doesn't love his granddaughter. That tweet was just stupid.
n/a jubbergun 2017-01-10
I don't. The guy spent the 70s and early 80s as a US attorney suing school districts to push desegregation and prosecuted members of the KKK. The only reason anyone thinks he's a racist is because Reagan nominated him for seat on the federal bench in the 80s. If you're old enough to remember the 80s, the democrats in the senate were absolutely apeshit crazy over the fact that they had to entertain any of Reagan's appointee selections and did everything they could to torpedo them. Look up the origins of the term "Bork." They did the same thing to Sessions they tried to do to Clarence Thomas: they found a friendly third-party to accuse him of fabricated bullshit. It didn't stick with Clarence Thomas because no one bought Anita Hill's silly sob story. It only worked with Sessions because they brought out more than one useful idiot to smear him and his hearings didn't get the same attention that the Thomas hearings did.
n/a DornishRedViper 2017-01-10
I would love to learn more about this, do you have any links or anything?
n/a jubbergun 2017-01-10
Sure: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/10/does-sen-jeff-sessions-have-a-strong-record-on-civil-rights-enforcement/?utm_term=.64d463b40493
n/a DornishRedViper 2017-01-10
thank you!
n/a pm_me_pics_of_ur_nan 2017-01-10
Since nobody else apparently wants to take the initiative, this "journalist" should be fired for ending a tweet with a preposition.
"The Toys 'R' us from which you stole her" wouldn't have caused quite the uproar tbh.
n/a Vakieh 2017-01-10
Fuck prescriptivist grammar bullshit. Do you know how those rules started? Dumb as shit humanities students in Oxbridge in the 18th century graduated to find that they had no employable skills and there was no patreon for them to whine at for cash. So they jumped on the education bandwagon and started writing 'Books of Grammar'. They made up all these bullshit little rules that small-minded parrots still vomit up today. Don't end a sentence with a preposition. No split infinitives. Don't start a sentence with a conjunction. Don't use the passive voice.
These rules and many, many others were written down in books for the sole purpose of having people buy those books because the authors had the skills of your average general arts tumblrina.
n/a jubbergun 2017-01-10
Actually, the "no preposition at the end of the sentence" is a carry-over from Latin. It was adopted to English by the scholarly because Latin was a huge part of an advanced education pre-20th Century. The rule really has no place in English, which is a bastardized Germanic language, but since English borrows from so many Romance languages it happened.
n/a Vakieh 2017-01-10
It was deliberately imported from Latin by Robert Lowth in "A Short Introduction to English Grammar", which is precisely the sort of prescriptivist rules-for-the-sake-of-rules bullshit I'm talking about. He pulls in a whole bunch of Latin rules into English in that book, even though he is aware it's bullshit - he talks about other Grammar Pedants doing the same
n/a pm_me_pics_of_ur_nan 2017-01-10
You're not wrong.
n/a Ylajali_2002 2017-01-10
Those grammar books didn't really "make up" the rules, they just codified already existing norms of aristocratic and upper class speech and writing. It is simplistic and reductive to conceive of that sort of prescriptivism as merely a kind of cynical cash grab. It also doesn't explain why those books were widely read or why large segments of the literate public were interested in those books in the first place.
This is actually a very interesting subject and far more complicated than the usual treatment of it would suggest. Usage dictionaries and Victorian era guides of manners and decorum were very popular at the time (and arguably still are, in the form of men's and women's magazines like GQ, Esquire, Cosmopolitan, etc.). They represented an attempt to naturalize the cultural norms and social practices of a particular class, i.e., to portray those customs as the only correct or proper way of doing things, and to this extent they obviously reflected the cultural and material dominance of that class and served to protect its hegemony. And yet by explicitly stating those rules, which had until then only ever been expressed implicitly in the actual social practice of bourgeois and aristocratic individuals, those cultural norms were (at least theoretically) made intelligible to any literate person willing to learn. No doubt those books were of great use not only to the newly-moneyed bourgeoisie, but also to working class individuals looking to gain social and material capital.
n/a Vakieh 2017-01-10
The reason the books were popular was due to the explosion of the new middle class - people who were raised up by money rather than noble birth were desperate to prove themselves better than the 'peasants' their families were a very short time ago, and the defining differences were seen in money, education and outward appearance. Those who had the money therefore spent it heavily on things like these grammar books so as to (in their minds, as planted there by the people selling the books and by peer pressure) keep up with 'language fashion' in exactly the same way as they kept up with clothing and hairstyle fashion.
Half the books if not their entirety are spent whining about how so-and-so did it wrong, from Shakespeare to Chaucer to Milton, not to mention the infighting and politicking between themselves, one-upping and nitpicking each others' work. I wasn't making an idle observation when I mentioned tumblrinas, they exhibit the exact same holier-than-thou pedantry competition.
n/a wwyzzerdd 2017-01-10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4XCZfkGF8k
n/a DistortedLines 2017-01-10
Yeah because its super unusual for politicians to appear with their family members.
n/a Chicup 2017-01-10
Its a slimeball thing to say but I'm always put out by politicians using their kids as props and they all tend to do that.
If the girl was like 12 she might learn something about how fucked up the government is, and thats a good thing, but at that age no reason to be there.
n/a OnlyRacistOnReddit 2017-01-10
You know it's not uncommon at all for children and grandchildren to sit with them during a session right? I agree she's not going to get a lot out of it (not even a memory), but it's not uncommon and there isn't anything diabolical about it.
n/a Chicup 2017-01-10
Well I did say they all do it.
I don't think its diabolical but I do think its just for show. See here is my family, and in Sessions case, See here is my not 100% white child.
I don't think its evil, I just find it a bit pointless. I want Sessions confirmed, and I think the claims against him are just grandstanding, but they again all do this.
n/a OnlyRacistOnReddit 2017-01-10
I don't know if it's "just grandstanding", if I was being going in front of Congress on my route to becoming AG I'd love to have my kids/grandkids in attendance.
n/a lvl99SkrubRekker 2017-01-10
COMING NEXT WEEK TO THE MTV YOUTUBE CHANNEL "10 Reasons Why White People Should Jump Into A Vat Of Acid"
n/a EmpressofMars 2017-01-10
I'm more liberal than most liberals you'll meet and hate Sessions with a burning passion, but you don't go after kids. Family members in my view are off limits unless they've committed criminal acts or have buisness interests that could create conflicts of interest with the person in question. Adorable Asian children are neither criminals nor partnered with corporations seeking to gain influence.
n/a heartfullofhatred 2017-01-10
relavant
n/a OnlyRacistOnReddit 2017-01-10
So Bill Clinton's brother?
n/a MG87 2017-01-10
Goddamn cant we leave kids out of this political shitstorm?
n/a double-happiness 2017-01-10
Good job it's Jeff Sessions not Woody Allen, amirite
n/a tehcraz 2017-01-10
Man if he wasn't dead ass serious, this would be a funny roast.