things that puff my jigglies [master list]

NOTE: this is ordered by when I thought of them, not by intensity of puffed jigglies. the first entry was ,added to simplenote on January 23, 2019. (https://imgur.com/a/zUnAasj). the most recent update is date-signed, and I am not timestamping further because excessively precise timestamps are a thing that...

refer to the title.

NOTE2: this is an EGEG, so it will always be updated and never "done"; this post will end when I am able to stop being irritated by things, which is never, so it will end when I die - which could be as early as now and as late as 2085. the last entry will always be blank to emphasize this point.

NOTE3: while I do obviously think I am Justified And Correct for many of these, I make no guarantees that they are rational, e.g. (5).

—

1. people who paraphrase something poorly and end with "got it"

(cf.: much of reddit dot com)

2. the feeling of needing to fart and never actually farting / fart-purgatory

3. able-bodied people who put their items super slow on to the checkout lane with one hand and only one hand, as opposed to two-handing items like a courteous person

4. people who make jokes like "haha you know it's just all the meth I do" where it's supposed to be funny because they're so innocent and/or composed normally, see also: sheltered white chicks and jokes about chocolate and wine

5. women named "Becca". yes, specifically becca. not rebecca. becca.

6. people who attribute intentions and thoughts to their kids in some "oh aren't they quirky and knowing more beyond their years" way ("my daughter said chaos is in the box of crayons and she's not wrong!") no they're fucking kids. everyone's been one. it's not special.

7. people who make ultimatums or demands in a cute voice (or with emojis or whatever) like they actually think making it in this cute flavor makes it less dicky

8. dudes at gym who do their dumbell shit right in front of the rack instead of stepping back a whole two feet — I'll even settle for 50 centimeters

9. dudes in bathroom who see three open urinals and pick the middle one

10. dudes at gym who walk around, or work out with, audio that's not playing from headphones (i.e. a boombox / working out with some external speaker)

11. people who, while walking, sing/rap their song out loud when only they can hear the actual song. sometimes listening to no beat, just schizo-rapping into the abyss. (some people have told me they've never experienced this. if you've lived in an urban city with a population >500,000 for more than five years you definitely have experienced Schizo Rapping Guy.)

12. on dating apps or websites with "about me" profiles, listing insignificant shit about yourself like "i have a bunny named Ollie" or "i'm a whiskey girl" when you're introducing yourself because I guess you're scared to present who you really are

13. vague feels-metaphors when describing reasons for past decisions -- "we were in very different places at the time and going in different directions" and you're just supposed to nod and go "mmmm" like this isn't horseshit (see also: "barcucked", where you are forced to manifest agreeableness in a bar to move a conversation along or otherwise ruin the vibe)

14. guys who, when expressing fondness for metal music but think they are being edgy or transgressive or counterculture, say "METAL" in this exaggerated deep-ish, british-ish accent with an emphasized "T" sound as if vegeta's saying it and they clearly think this is badass and not linguistically skeuomorphic (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeuomorph) in the sense that it's an antiquated form of edginess that no one actually finds edgy anymore (yes this is highly specific, but it's absolutely a person in the 25-40 age range as of 2019)

15. personification of pets/animals beyond the clearly joking (e.g. joe rogan), myth that dogs have "unconditional love", etc.

16. parents who attribute general specialness to ordinary abilities of children. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2018/04/24/children-have-energy-levels-greater-endurance-athletes-scientists/?fbclid=IwAR3raSDrk6gVxlc1E4UzDMRG-KZGq7UyuYF8oMc5nqjPTESC8lvbefR5CiA "Perhaps, if you've spent time around today's youth, you've watched with a mixture of horror and fascination as a teen snaps dozens of selfies before publishing the most flattering one to Instagram, only to pull it down if it doesn't accumulate enough likes within the first hour. It’s another example of proof of work, or at least vigorous market research." https://www.eugenewei.com/blog/2019/2/19/status-as-a-service

17. statements where I'm obviously going to have to ask a followup question about what they mean but the person making the statement does not anticipate this or give me any leeway about it and makes my life generally more difficult. ("the fifth season of (tv show) addressed this question" "ok how" "by doing (thing)" as opposed to just saying "the fifth season of (tv show) addressed this question by (doing thing)" -- anticipating responses and integrating them into your initial statement is the best, fam.)

18. air dryers - want to dry something other than your hands? fuck you. taller than 5'7"? power stance or hunchback.

19. when people reply to a criticism by repeating the by-definition function of a thing.
e.g. (1) statement: "tipping is stupid." response: "tipping is a payment for someone's service." (yes, and that is stupid.)
e.g. (2) statement: "hedging is stupid." response: "hedging is acting in anticipation of negative consequences." (yes, and that is stupid.)

20. "deffo" -- longer than saying "def", with an unnecessary and bougie sounding syllable.

20-2. as you may suspect, I also dislike "doggo". intensely, and have since I first heard it. most words that are made cute/affectionate in english have an "-ie" or "-y" suffix, like "cutie" / "kitty" / "poopie" / "meanie" / etc, so "doggie" is what people would naturally say. however, words with an "o" suffix that aren't imported from other languages tend to connote casual, if not intended distance from the thing -- "bucko", "weirdo", "kiddo", "sicko", "nutso", "wacko" and so forth. (I've always found this category of word annoying as-is.)

"doggo" to me is along these lines, and registers as (1) inauthentic and (2) a forced attempt at affectionate language, like "sammich" (sandwich) or "'nanners" (bananas). pithily, it comes off as fake.

21. saying some cocky "lmao" online when I know you're not laughing whatsoever and would be passive aggressive irl

22. people who take their dogs/babies to places where they clearly don't belong (restaurants, the fucking weight room) and think it's okay because their own piece of shit is special to them, irrespective of noise or dog allergies or whatever

23. people who unnecessarily default to refilling their water bottles at the tall water fountain so that I have to power stance and/or hunch over to use the oompa loompa fountain

24. commenting about someone in third person who is obviously part of the same comment chain

25. the word "booze". (like I said, I make no guarantees about the epistemic rationality of every item here.) two things stick out here: (1) I associate the term "booze" with a disgracefully cheery homeless-adjacent bum; like the father from the TV show shameless who, eponymously, should be a lot less cheery and a lot more ashamed than he is. (2) the term "booze" is in my experience used like "my meds" - it can be an embracement of the dysfunctional and sometimes scummy role society has given them, rather than using a term like "alcohol" which allows people to talk about the thing with neutrality and precision (3) there's an odd affection to the term that betrays the seriousness of the thing in a way that suggests intentional blindness to the reality of what the thing can do, or the amount that they should engage the thing, or just to methodicalness in general — like someone calling their shotgun a "shottie" or a police officer calling his taser a "sparkyboi"

26. people who have clearly gimmick personalities ("that celebrity is cool duuuude he saved my taquitoes, right on") -- that's not your real personality it's a fucking party trick

27. people who put a quirky spin on a word for no other reason than to use a different version of the word ("in the adam" / "in the eve" instead of just "in am / in pm")

28. cheap neologisms like "-ocracy" creations. dude there're so many powerpoints on word formation by professors teaching introductory linguistics how are you this unoriginal http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~kemmer/Words/wordtypes.html

29. people who encounter a standard or way of being evaluated or judged they're not used to (e.g. the judgment implied by the word "pleonasm") and immediately look for some superficial hypocrisy to show the standard can't be followed, so that they can feel they've avoided being held to it ("see, pleonasm is itself a pleonasm! I don't have to care!")

30. stretches of your vocation to relate to other people, which distorts essential distinctions that make the activity what it is. "in a sense we're both artists, coding is art" this is a cute thing people say to relate to each other at parties when they're too drunk to care about details enough to correct them. similar things include "but isn't music a language?" (no, music is not a language; it does not have semantics or many essential features of languages.) it's not a thing that, upon serious reflection, any rational person can consider true.

31. people who associate disgust terms with morality (i.e. "you're gross")

32. words like "micro$uck" where a person isn't confident in tone to convey disapproval and/or can't be fucked to just say the normal goddamn word, especially "obungo" / "obunga", "madcow" instead of "maddow", etc; not only do I not know what they're talking about if I don't get their reference, this instantly lowers my opinion of a person

33. "society isn't always meritocratic" like this isn't immensely fucking obvious, as if degrees of meritocracy don't exist. clearly if we can say one society is more democratic than another, we can say one society is more meritocratic than another even if no society is purely democratic or purely meritocratic.

34. when people repeat themselves within a sentence of time in conversation "that cranberry drink's really good for you, that cranberry."

35. when people are interrupted and they respond by repeating the current line of what they're saying incessantly as opposed to just finishing their sentence

36. narrating "oh my gosh, work please" as someone uses their computer out loud in some misguided effort to prevent me from getting mad at them

37. on talk shows, when someone is interrupted by an audience clapping and they keep repeating themselves in this futile way to talk over the audience, when the sane thing to do is to wait until the audience is done clapping. ("and as I was saying..." *CLAPPING* "and as I was saying..." *CLAPPING* "and as I was saying ...")

38. being deliberately difficult in a conversation, such that time is repeatedly wasted on meta-shit to resolve the difficulty this person created, then saying "this conversation has gone on long enough."

39. when people assume universality of nice/jerk/mean/asshole/kind/etc in their "don't be a jerk" mantra

40. "treat me like a person" (for most of human history, people treated others in ways that would be by today's standards brutal or amoral. most of the ways that people today conceptualize "being human" on social media is a recent idea; it's certainly unique to the time period after the industrial revolution, which led to advances in technology that could ensure human rights. when someone says "treat me like a person" this is closer to "treat me like a citizen in a 21st-century 1st-world country", which is far less sexy to say. I hate the abuse of "human" to use whatever people want it to mean; it's dishonest.)

41. the conflict from (1) knowing that the appropriate spelling of "bougie" is obviously "bourgie" (from "bourgeois"), but (2) knowing that if you spell it "bourgie" no one will know what you mean, and (3) knowing that there's no other word that so concisely conveys the manner, attitude, behaviors and mentalities of a certain kind of person, so (4) because this word is the best option, you're forced to choose between being comprehensible and looking etymologically illiterate, and since being comprehensible is more important, you will look illiterate and deal with it.

42. people who delete comments with any vibes on their posts that do not maintain the desired vibe. (e.g. lady posts yoga pic in the middle of the desert. most comments are along the lines of "ooh how spiritual." one comment is along the lines of "what in the world are you doing lol" and it's deleted because it does not maintain the "ooh" vibe.)

43. when someone starts setting up a picture in public without asking you and expects you to move out of the way and generally adjust to their photo or else you're being an asshole or something

44. when someone's defensiveness over word choice is motivated more by "don't u dare edit my shit"ism than any sort of concern for accuracy. for example:

A: you can't say that someone is 'slutty' in a positive way, it's an insult, the insult is baked into the meaning
B: the word 'nice' used to mean 'stupid', words change. it doesn't have to be inherently insulting
A: uh I said the insult was BAKED INTO THE MEANING not that it was 'inherently insulting' please get my words right
B: 'inherently insulting' is closer to what you're getting at, also, I'm named after a letter and filling out forms is either easy or infuriating

45. when superhero movies do this whole "haha, even they do normie thing! haha! their problems are just like mine! I'm basically them!"

46. condescending poly couples who act like monogamy is for dipshits. also, the overuse of 'jealous' to be "every possible emotion that puts a wrench in an open relationship or polyamorous scenario"

47. people who are obstinate about pronouncing foreign words outside of the most blunt features of their accent. for example, you've probably heard people say "pokeeman" or "gayng-nam style". you've no doubt heard these word pronounced as they should be, multiple times in your life. there is a person who (1) has heard e.g. "gangnam" pronounced as "gongnam" (2) knows this doesn't involve a foreign sound in english like a trilled R (3) knows it is supposed to be pronounced more like "gongnam" than "gayngnam" (4) still, in the face of all of this, imposes their odd vowels on the word and says "gayngnam" anyway, like a person who must be dragged kicking and screaming to make the most minor behavioral modification.

48. narrowing your view on something to such a degree that your opinion is completely uncontroversial and easymode, yet acting ballsy about it as if you're taking a hard stance on something, e.g. "if you support anally raping puppies we can't be friends" and variations of this

49. putting your conversational fuckups (e.g. excess of "like" or "um" as filler) in written communication like this is cute ("I went to go to the store but like it was closed LMAO")

50. this slow-ass text video shit that gives me half of a sentence at a time. fuck you. https://www.facebook.com/100004710765185/posts/1205568389610175/

51. writing like this:

"But what most money-worshiping, billionaire idolizing, “I wannabe like Buffett!” fanboys don’t understand is that first and foremost, Mr. Buffett is a SALESMAN.

Yes, a salesman!

As in “Oh shucks, golly gee whiz, I just live in the same house I bought when I first got married and only drink Cherry Coke and eat Egg McMuffins and play the ukulele but I’m a multi billionaire because I work hard and I’m pretty darn good with numbers.”"

this sort of thing is the prose equivalent of clickbait -- when the writer will answer an imaginary question in their head, or give reassurances that are superfluous. it tells me they have a very specific expectation of how they think they're going to be read.

52. this is more cringe than puff, but: "we are this group" or "haha this is us" kind of shit, like the "what is love" meme. essentially you're getting off to group self-insert.

53. women who listen to shit men say as if the goal is to convince the man he's interesting

54. people walking diagonally forward

55. people who walk in the center of a walk space

56. people who get on the highway at 45mph

57. malls - this could be several items

58. the fact that blaring loud music on your speakers isn't as stigmatized as on the spectrum of catcalling or some other kind of harassment-adjacent street behavior

59. playing music on max volume through a phone in public, expecting everyone else to tolerate it

60. the phrase "[insert activity] fun" (e.g. "arcade fun", "summer fun", "football fun")

61. people who speed up behind you only to turn in the next lane at the last second; they make merging extremely awkward for you just by doing that, and they could have turned into a lane where they can go faster sooner, but they insist on speeding up behind you because they're so resistant to the idea of changing lanes in the first place. it's like they're simultaneously aggressive and lethargic. pick one or I'm honking at you.

62. people who walk into a crowded area that they can obviously tell is crowded while having their head completely turned toward someone else they're talking to

63. multiple people: how nice to have quiet, a thing that can be broken by one person making unnecessary sounds
one person: this is a great time for me to assume you all want to hear my music right now!!!

64. people who do something blatantly self-absorbed and impeding to other people but who try to pass it off as quirky awkwardness. see: people at the toronto airport trying to spin cutting in line as "haha I'm so silly this is nuts right XD"

no

get the fuck back in line

65. this hierarchy-avoidant thing where someone paints universally good traits as quirks of your personality, because if your good traits are quirks of your personality then they're things specific to you and other people don't suck for not having them

e.g. "we all know how much susan likes being early!" as if this is just her quirky preference and not something employers universally appreciate

66. schrodinger's joke: "if my observation is accepted then I'll own up to the intention and say it's funny because it's true, but if it doesn't work then I'm just joking and it's not that deep man"

67. some accents that pronounce end-of-word 'd' sounds as 't' sounds, e.g. "boyfriend" as "boyfrient". example: https://youtu.be/GSjlxbxAymM?t=31

68. presumptuous use of definite articles ("the"). these have an extremely annoying 1950s "everyone else must be like me or everyone I know" air to them. for example: "you can use this back at the office" presumes you have an office job; "you can use this at an office" doesn't carry this presumptuousness.

69. when you cannot avoid verbalizing your sense of pattern-matching, i.e. yes this is #69, no you do not have to point it out, and this applies with #420, #1337, #666, #888, #3000, >#9000, and any other "my brain recognized the pattern" number. pattern recognition is not in and of itself significant.

70. frivolous use of "take" for developed opinions, as in "your take on ____", to describe a position or belief. take was originally used to describe whimsical opinions, e.g. "hot take." this usage makes beliefs and positions seem more frivolous than they are, as if the things you think are true are just some stunt. unless what I'm talking about really is trivial I won't acknowledge anything I say as a take.

71. "on brand" to describe being typical of a person. brands are related to advertising, and "your brand" suggests that people conduct themselves in ways similar to advertisements. in other words, this suggests thinking of yourself in the same fake, dishonest and corporate way that you would if you were advertising. any person who gives a shit about being truthful, sincere and honest should reject this right out the gate.

72. in the vein of #67, accents that omit end-of-word "t" sounds, e.g. "government" as "governmenhhhh" -- this has annoyed me as far back as high school because the tic clearly originates from mouth-laziness.

73. people who make 1984 references who are unwilling to say they haven't read 1984

there's a type of annoying, smug centrist who will quote the popular lines like "war is peace freedom is slavery ignorance is strength" or make references to "wrongthink" without understanding, conceptually, what wrongthink is and I can tell, right away, if someone hasn't read the book or did sloppily and forgot most of it. this is done when I make an analogy to some thing in the book they would have known about had they read it, without specifying this is about 1984. ("it was like room 101 for me" *dead eyes* "like in 1984?" *scrambles to save face*)

the correct response to being saved from having a false idea of 'wrongthink' is "I didn't know that, thank you" but instead, people will struggle to maintain this facade that they have in fact read the book and few things make me lose respect for a person faster than someone who can't admit that they haven't read something but insists that they have anyway, because instead of being just lazy-yet-honest this is lazy *and* dishonest *and* more concerned with status than the truth, which ironically puts you instantly in shit-tier as far as I'm concerned.

74. when I use a term that has negative stigma such as 'how dumb" to stress understanding of the negative rather than positive factors of something and someone thinks I am calling that thing the baseline word for that adjective, such as "how dumb was einstein anyway" --> "einstein was dumb"

75. loophole-goblining every time someone asks a poll that depends on a hypothetical. this is evasion of the discomfort of responding to the core of the issue, and it has made me add to every poll "apply the standard principle of "no loophole-searching / getting-around-the-question hacking / actually addressing some side-concern in answering the question""

76. whynotboth-ing a question that is clearly asking you which should be prioritized when you cannot choose both. time is not infinite and neither is attention.

77. people who have no "this no doubt has been done/thought by a ton of people before" sense.

at some point I thought of a detective making a joke about the "fresh prints of bel air". immediately after that I had the sense of "okay, this joke is too obvious - and not only has the joke certainly been done to death, I'm actually annoyed that I know in advance that so many people have run this obvious joke into the ground."

78. "mmm" is the same onomatopoeia we use for enjoying satisfying things and also thinking on something, so in text there are incorrectable ambiguities that can arise if you want to express moderate enjoyment-mmming

79. any objection along the lines of "I don't want to see that" or "this disgusts me" or "that's gross" or "I am disturbed by x" is an aesthetic objection. all aesthetic objections are arbitrary, because there is nothing to make your aesthetic objection take priority over mine. you're disgusted by, say, public nudity? well, there are a lot of ways people present themselves in public that I want to outlaw, so why does your disgust take priority over mine? likewise with "disturbed" or anything else. there is no methodology to establish which aesthetic preference takes priority in a non-arbitrary way, ie you might as well flip a coin. because of this, either all aesthetic objections are valid or none of them are - and we can't have all of them, so the correct position is obvious here.

80. but speaking of preferences, an infuriating fallacy that's way too common is preferentializing / preference-norm distinction denialism -- another way of framing this is "haters" (as opposed to "critics"). a claim of "x is wrong" is rephrased as "you don't like x", a person who is a critic of x is called a "hater" to frame the criticism in terms of emotion. replies along the lines of "don't like x? don't use x" or "views you don't like" (rather than "think x is backward?" or "views you think are wrong") are distortions. they are distortions because it's inaccurate to say someone "doesn't like" violence or theft or arson in the way they "dislike" the flavor of bananas. it's egregiously misleading to say I "don't like" someone mocking a victim of revenge porn in the way that I "don't like" emo music. it's heinously wrong to say I "don't like" fruitcake in the way that someone will say I "don't like" the ISIS practices of forced sex slavery and videotaped beheading performed by twelve year olds. don't be obtuse either; we can continue example-generation like this until I find one you agree is absurd. yet people persist with this framing because they know it's rhetorically powerful. they don't actually believe these things are equally preferential and they know deep down it's a glib and false comparison but "views you don't like" is a dialogic Old Reliable. it has a punch to it; a truthiness. nonetheless, advancing this framing in lieu of knowing this is dishonest. there are bad reasons to continue using it and better reasons to discontinue it. (for whatever reason, this rhetorical tactic is annoyingly common among people with libertarian-adjacent politics.)

81. using a temporal epistemology when it doesn't apply. the most common example of this is on a website like facebook where edit histories are available, and a person will make an essentially cosmetic/grammatical correction that does not affect the thesis or substance of the argument, and someone will (in an argument, where else) say "oh, you edited your post" as if arguments work like some kind of trivia golf where the objective is to say as few wrong things as possible rather than to substantiate a claim. other irritations of this kind are people who think a claim's truth is time-bound — "lol that argument was two days ago" might apply to a discussion about ongoing legislation, such as if a law was overturned, but obviously does not matter in an argument about, say, the science of weight loss. one more category of this is people who focus on excessively precise timestamps, as if updates not specifying the hour are dishonest or as if you are attempting to hide something by otherwise not having a "finalized" version; that is not how knowledge works, most published scholarship cites only the *year* and revisions happen and are happening constantly.

82. per #69, SayTheLining — "One thing,"

if your brain starts to say "I don't know why, it doesn't even matter how (etc)", good for you, so does everyone else's who knows this song. choosing to vocalize this this is SayTheLine-ism, which is just vocalizing that your brain has functional pattern recognition. this is a thing people can do to believe they're interacting with others when in fact they're saying nothing; they're not actually having a conversation.

to put this into context, you could say "hey, did you know I really like dried prunes?" and this would be infinitely more information than if you completed a lyric pattern -- and I mean literally infinite, because the amount I have learned from knowing your brain can complete patterns is zero (everyone's can) but the amount I've learned from knowing you enjoy dried prunes tells me that you like prunes as a category, and also are open to dried fruit, and might have other uncommon food preferences as prunes are not a typical fruit choice.

(your brain, maybe: "but I do this a lot and like doing it" — you have the choice to not do this; some people have tics they can't control and wish they had your level of choice. but yes, there are lots of bad conversational habits people have that they insist on doing until they die. you can choose to never develop yourself if you insist. this is one of several deep ADHD habits I used to do that I don't anymore. other habits include interrupting people / cutting people off in conversation and having no standards of conversational relevance. there are probably more, but those come up immediately. you are not entitled to be excused from this because you have ADHD. many of us with ADHD undo these behaviors; they are not inevitabilities.)

83. interrupting people / cutting people off in conversation and having no standards of conversational relevance.

84. the belief that someone needs complete certainty or proof beyond any doubt to make judgments of others. this requires denial of major social realities and handicaps your ability to understand others.

there is a certain kind of person, and you either know them or don't, who will respond to social and pragmatic inferences about them with a sentence like "you're making a lot of assumptions right now." (note that this is never "you're wrong", and note that in an employment context, far more judgments are made about prospective employees with much less information and this seems fine.)

there are many scenarios where you can make social inferences with high accuracy, including about the motives of people, and you can even deny their lived experience. when I was growing up, it was common to hear a certain kind of nerd say "yeah I swear in japanese when I'm angry lol". a white teenage girl, who never spoke a word of japanese in her life and has only learned phrases from anime, does not "swear in japanese when she gets angry." I don't care what she says; this is not a real habit. you may not be able to know a person's motivations with certainty, but courts of law manage well enough, and more to the point it's much easier to know when someone's motives are false.

this applies to sizing up people in various ways, too. unless they're ESL or below 24, a person who asks "what does salient mean" doesn't know a lot of things I know because if they cared about the things I care about they'd know what it means. a person who does not look at all like they can bench 500lb will, 9 times out of 10, not be able to bench 500lb. a judgment made on extremely high probability is not an "assumption", it's an inference, and we (yes, we) do it all the time.

85. wish I could give extrajudicial punishment to people who summarize their experience with people/places in a city as if talking to a singular person, e.g. "you were the best, Berlin"

this is deliberately distorting royal-weing bullshit propagated by rich kids and/or influencers who think it's posh to characterize a limited number of individuals as a geographic entity. stop using falsely collectivist language. I immediately want to 1990s nickelodeon slime anyone who talks this way.

86. the kind of weasely corporatespeak that royal-we's something directed at you as a group action, e.g. "let's make sure we're taking care of that" instead of "make sure you're taking care of that." there is no group involvement here. this is deliberately indirect. speak directly. (example: https://www.instagram.com/reel/ChSsywSpyik/)

87. *gen z mocks millennials for something, like 'adulting' or 'doggo'*

some millennial is inevitably like "oh god, I'm cringe and old, the kids saw through me"

the reality: other millennials have been shitting on this person for the same thing for years and they didn't listen because they could rationalize it away when it was from their peer group, but now that it's from a younger generation they feel sufficiently distanced to accept the truth of a cultural criticism they've ignored for the better part of the decade

88. this construction that's oddly popular among... a certain kind of person — let's say weebs and theater nerds — where you refer to someone with an indefinite article, as if they're a Pokémon or a kind of species. e.g. "it's an Alfred!"

the first-impression loss of face someone does not know they realize they've suffered from doing this around me is comparable to someone saying "did you know that 'rawr' is 'hello' in dinosaur? XD" or, if that too is unfamiliar to you, everything in this video: https://youtu.be/85y-N5GJa9g

89. salads that are 98% autopilot-chompable with 2% some unpitted thing you can't swallow, e.g. an olive with the seed in it.

this is like food with a yield sign and playing marco polo with your tongue, because unlike boned food with a predictable structure the seed-containing ingredient could be anywhere, it is a mystery. in addition this exercise requires me to find a location to put the seed I just covered with spit and mushed up other food. it is such a distorted effort:reward ratio when a food is perfectly good 98% of the time save a mouth-landmine I need to watch out for. surprise-seed salads are like the internet in 1999 but with food.

90. any food item that has an ® or ™️ next to it

91. the term “opsec” when used to mean “how much you let people know about you”, which is covered by the everyday words “transparency” and “opacity” and is the intellectual equivalent of navy seal LARPing. there is no 'operation' to 'secure’, you are performing zero operations, you have never performed an operation in your life. an operation is the coordination of actions by an organizational body, usually a military group but at minimum a group. there is no such thing as a single-person operation; even if an operation were performed by a single person it would still be delegated by another person. you, as Just A Person, do not have "operations", you have tasks. this is neglecting the fact that people use the term "operational security" interchangeably with "informational security", where the latter of which is usually what they’re talking about, because operational security requires there to be... operations... that are performed... and you aren’t doing that.

92. Procedurally Oblivious People. this is a kind-of-person who, as the name suggests, are oblivious to when something is a standard procedure and think every action is a deliberate bespoke choice. so, for example, I've seen SO MANY PATIENTS at hospitals get mad at nurses for doing what is obviously a routine procedure that they are not allowed to vary from.

this, of course, applies to any industry, and when I worked customer support and had to read from a script I would say out loud "and I'm sorry but I'm required to read from a script here" to make it known to the customer that these procedures can't be exempted. the number of customers this placated was outrageous; it should not have been as effective as it was. but it was.

procedurally oblivious people are an enigma to me. my kneejerk reaction is to categorize them as hierarchically lower human beings, but I occasionally wonder if there's something more than that going on in their brains. (only occasionally though, they're definitely dumb.)

93. tailgate procrastinators. people who get mad that you're going the speed limit in one lane, wait until they're basically rear ending you to make the decision to lane switch, then lane switch at the last second and blast forward at 10-20mph (16-32 kph). if you knew I was statically going the speed limit this whole time, why did you wait until you were JUST behind me to use some Mario Kart speedup move? and if you have the initiative to so aggressively blast ahead of me, you could have noticed I was going the speed limit and switched lanes and started blasting way sooner, so why did you procrastinate? this puffs my jigglies.

94. HARD PUFF: when you make a distinction (or ask for a distinction) that is extremely important if not essential in one domain and this is casually handwaved as "pedantic" by someone unaware that this distinction is a major issue in years if not decades of scholarly exchange, so you're forced to either (1) spend the labor 101ing the lore of this field to them to convince them that, yes, this is actually something their brain needs to think about for a few god damn minutes, or (2) dismiss them as an unrigorous epistemic thot

95. puffed jiggly when you ask for a definition and someone defines the word in terms of another word that needs defining ("e.g. Q: what is hobnugget? A: it is a form of voidringer Q: what is a voidringer A: it is a person who nyarmangs")

96. even puffier jiggly: when you ask for a definition and someone defines the term by analogy or metaphor. ("Q: what is political extremism A: it's letting politics be the mind killer." correct answer: an ideology that is considered to be far outside the mainstream attitudes of society)

97. When people act as if a belief is something you have for fun, like when someone will say "it must feel sad to think like that" or "well you're a party pooper aren't you" — this isn't a contextual issue either, i.e. like a person bringing up the history of auschwitz at a rave. Some people sincerely think beliefs are just things that you choose to have to make you feel a certain way, as opposed to unignorable truths about the world you can't not-think.

Yes, some people are so capable of deluding themselves that they can pick and choose if water is wet — these people are either actors, woo practitioners, the type of people who go to Burning Man, or just insane. Society should not tolerate even the implication of casual belief-picking like you're just shopping for beliefs at a grocery store. Your relationship with the truth should be such that you have no choice BUT TO believe it.

98.

- September, 2023.
—
directory of writings: http://simp.ly/p/fCShc3
contact information https://app.simplenote.com/p/Nm3pD7
discord: https://discord.gg/K5KXhgQtD8