But will woman 1 let you do her laundry for her?
You sound like the kind of person Woman 2 wants to punch.
PRECIS Actually, PRECIS eb, PRECIS I PRECIS believe PRECIS that PRECIS a PRECIS punching PRECIS has PRECIS as PRECIS its PRECIS precondition PRECIS that PRECIS one PRECIS has PRECIS already PRECIS met, PRECIS or PRECIS at PRECIS least PRECIS encountered, PRECIS the PRECIS punched PRECIS person.
I'm fucking working on the fucking precis now, w-lfs-n.
No need to yell. And you can punch someone you haven't met - a random stranger passing by, for example. But afterwards you can't really claim not to have met whoever it was.
In any case, to want to punch is to want to meet.
Well, you can flail your fist out into the crowd, sure enough. But you can't punch someone without having first encountered that person as an object to be punched.
It seems to me that for A to punch B, they have to have met, though they don't need to have been formally inteoduced.
Though maybe in some societies, perhaps the one described by Jane Austen, it is unheard of to punch someone without a proper introduction.
BTW, y'all wouldn't believe how hard it was to procrastinate singlehandedly, while y'all were off having lives. It takes a village, you know.
I hope y'all got sunburned and shit.
I am now envisioning a scene in which a young man tries to call upon a family of some thousands of pounds per year and, having been turned because he had no card to present, punches the butler in the face.
It is, of course, a truth sporadically acknowledged that a single a man who rolls his eyes in the wrong situation must be in want of a good punch.
If you don't end up taking Woman 2, I'll take her, because frankly, I think that everyone who's ever done that "Okaaaaaay" thing should fucking die.
I hear you Adam, which is why IoT's comment shocks the conscience.
Sometimes "that 'Okaaaaaaay' thing" is actually the correct response.
I say this as someone whose off-the-wall bona fides should be beyond reproach.
Sometimes the reaction it names may be justified, but the "Okaaay thing" itself is never appropriate.
In fact, is not the truth closer to the following?: sometimes the reaction it names may be justified, and sometimes the "Okaaaaay" thing itself is appropriate, but—it is never the case that the reaction is justified and the "Okaaaaay" thing itself is appropriate.
Sometimes we wish to invoke the reaction, and we do so by means of the "Okaaaaay" thing. How do we know it's an invocation, and not an instance, of the reaction? Because in the latter case, we would not use the "Okaaaaay" thing.
What is wrong with the "Okaaay" thing?
A man of good breeding, even if he lacked a proper visiting card, would just look coldly at the butler and say, "My good man, if I knew who you were, I would punch you."
You can't be introduced to butlers per se; any introduction they get they just forward -- that's their function. So you can't punch them.
But Emma! -- you could punch Emma, under certain conditions.
Ben, our culture is not far enough removed from the non-ironic use of the Okaaay thing (see eg comment 20) for it to be used, even with ironic intent, without it being a hurtful reminder of those times when we are not among our people.
Timbot, oh Timbot, the Okaaay thing has been used since time immemorial by the dull and uninteresting to marginalize the clever and original, and thereby maintain the social hierarchy that gives us GW as president. It means, "I don't get it, so you must be weird."
Perhaps you could work eyerolls and getting-punched into the foreplay. Maybe that is the subtext.
By the way, is your objection that two people should have a similar sense of humor, but not the same (or very same), or that two people should have different senses altogether?
I worry about the possible amplification effect that two similar senses of humor might have on one another.
Similiar sense of humor. Lots of punching. Mmmm.
John, you're having a bit of a weird day.
Dear god—the constructive interference alone could bring Vancouver to a grinding, bloody-nosed halt!
Vancouver WA is a cut-rate double-wide exurb. That should answer it for you.
Vancouver, TX.
All hail (the new?) John Emerson!
is it weird that until a few seconds i though the "okaaaayy" 'thing' was actually someone doing an impression of dave chappelle's impression of lil' jon?
cause that would actually be a pretty funny thing to do in response to a joke.
assuming that it hasn't been used in conversation with that particular individual in, say, at least the previous 2 weeks.
the Okaaay thing has been used since time immemorial by the dull and uninteresting to marginalize the clever and original, and thereby maintain the social hierarchy that gives us GW as president. It means, "I don't get it, so you must be weird."
But this analysis leaves out all context. For example, suppose you're in a neighborhood well-stocked with crazy people (crazier, for example, than Emerson). Someone randomly comes up to you and a friend, steps up to your face, starts shrieking gibberish at you, and then suddenly turns around and quietly leaves. You then say, "Okaaay," to your friend. That seems appropriate. Even if it does marginalize the freak.
Or let's say your hanging out with your friends at a bohemian coffeeshop attending a poetry reading, and then some ultra-squaresville jock in starched shirt comes in and makes scoffing noises, then leaves in a huff. Surely an "Okaaaay" is licensed?
Or your boss invites you into his office, talks about his high-school football glories and tells you about his baboon-red ass for half an hour. When you recount this later, can you not add that you "were all like" "Okaaaaaay"?
The proper response to the situation SCMT just described is to act as if it was perfectly normal and your friend is a freak for thinking it out of the ordinary.
Also, sometimes one wants to discourage the "wacky" or "off the wall", because sometimes those people just suck at it.
Agreed with #37. Many of the "wacky" people are not so much "wacky" as "stock character no. 5 from every sitcom ever." Your mom telling you that you are "clever and original" does not in fact make you "the clever and original."
Perhaps I haven't made myself clear. The Okaaay sentiment is sometimes acceptable, but when you choose to express that sentiment with "Okaaaaay," you run the risk of seeming like the hierarchy-maintaining tool. Be original! Find some other way to marginalize those that need to be marginalized.
Find some other way to marginalize those that need to be marginalized.
"Hey! I made you a blog."
Thought process:
1. The rightness/wrongness of "Okaaay" depends upon context. SCMT and Ben agree!
2. No matter the context, "okaaaay" is stupid. Ogged has pwnd! SCMT and Ben!
3. Regardless that "okaaay" is stupid, in the right context it is not that bad, and probably shouldn't elicit violent desires. Girl #2 is superficial. Ergo, I pwn! you all.
but when you choose to express that sentiment with "Okaaaaay," you run the risk of seeming like the hierarchy-maintaining tool.
When you give in to this reasoning, have you not confirmed yourself as a hierarchy-maintaining tool? Do you not do more to subvert the hierarchy by ruining the efficacy of those tools (so to speak) it uses to sort out who's who in the hierarchy than by allowing yourself to be bound by those very rules?
Only if you intend to maintain your outsidedness.
The best way to dull the tools of oppression is through frequent use? I've never been a big fan of those "things have to get worse before they better" theories.
I take Ben's point; there are words and phrases that are reappropriated in order to rob them of their harmful effects. But whereas when a black person uses the word "nigger," the obvious and immediate assumption is that he's not using it in the way to which we've become accustomed (the immediacy and obviousness of that difference being what gives the black person's use of the word its subversive power), saying "Okaaaaay" isn't the same kind of phenomenon. In fact, in the examples above, it's being used with precisely the same meaning, but with the proviso that when we use it, it's appropriate, because our bona fides are "beyond reproach."
So the only solution is to say something even more off the wall.
When you meet Woman 2 you should immediately roll your eyes and try the "Okaaaaay"; it'll fire up the blood, which is what you want in a woman. 2.
I hear you Adam, which is why IoT's comment shocks the conscience.
This also fires up the blood, which is what you want in an ogged.
I see firey ogged as more of a pouty purse-swingy type. He's so cute like that.
Well, I am cute (but also note "bad motherfucking superhero").
Yeah, but "heat ray vision" superhero or "talks to fish" superhero? I thought so. Animal Man's friends humor him, too.
What about saying "well allrighty then" or "ANYhoooooo..." ?
I'm with Ben in #43. Long-time kewl kid ogged is marginalizing others in #39 because their marginalization skills aren't up to snuff.
We've already discussed the fact that women cannot be trusted to make fine-grained discriminations of physical attractiveness. That PG said ogged is cute only means he wasn't obviously gaseous.
The frequency with which I say, "I agree with w-lfs-n," is beginning to creep me out.
When you folks start denying basic facts like my cuteness and the awesomeness of talking to fish, I've clearly won the argument.
When you meet Woman 2 you should immediately roll your eyes and try the "Okaaaaay"; it'll fire up the blood, which is what you want in a woman. 2.
In fact, immediately rolling your eyes and saying "Okaaaay" would be an example of something Woman 2 ought to appreciate.
in the examples above, it's being used with precisely the same meaning,
Really? Is it true? Is it true? Does the Pope shit in the woods? What I'm saying here is, when your boss describes his baboon-red ass to you, the appropriate retrospective response is incredulity, but not because you didn't "get it" and are trying therefore to marginalize him.
Anyhoo.... have some more lemonade ... it will not cause in you ...
But Ben, how do I know that I didn't not get it?