Things that confuse/annoy you

  • Thread starter Thread starter UnkaD
  • 2,195 comments
  • 153,695 views
d3f.jpg

This. This annoys me.
 
My country's police. They let people off the hook with just about anything short of murder or rape, yet they'd arrest you for something you probably didn't even do

Da heck?
 
When in YouTube comments and someone asks What's this song? or something similar and there's ALWAYS a comment that says Darude - Sandstorm. Do people really still find that funny? After seeing it so many times it's lost whatever humor it had before. That and Rick Astley redirects/links.

Maybe I'm getting old idk.
 
Lameonade
When in YouTube comments and someone asks What's this song? or something similar and there's ALWAYS a comment that says Darude - Sandstorm. Do people really still find that funny? After seeing it so many times it's lost whatever humor it had before. That and Rick Astley redirects/links.

Maybe I'm getting old idk.
Click to expand...
Amen to this! I don't see the Rick Astley redirects much, but I tend to see those "Darude - Sandstorm" comments and I honestly never understood what was so funny about them. If I was to ever create a new Youtube channel, i'd blacklist those words in no time.
 
What really annoys me is the current wave of artists thinking they have to step in and show colors, politically. From their lofty ivory towers and alien lifestyles they rarely are connected with the troubles and every day problems of the 99% that are not as blessed and insulated as them.

If you are an artist stick to what you are good at and don't abuse your fame and influence over people to spread your agendas which, ironically, will mostly affect not your life but those of ''normal'' people, and that in ways you can hardly fathom anymore.

I think its the duty of an artist to stay neutral and cut the polemic BS - unless the artist is REALLY going down and dirty fighting at the very roots of the problems first hand.
 
Last edited:
kikie
It annoys me that I don't get it. :O


:D
Click to expand...

Ever been to the Walmart self check out? You scan your item and the machine will tell you to put your item in the bag. The machine weighs the item in the bag to ensure you aren't stealing or scanning a low price item (ie carrots, but then putting a large expensive item in the bag instead)

The machines often screw up however so after scanning an item, it will say to put it in the bag. Once you do, it often screws up and says "unexpected item in bagging area" which is quite annoying.

TenEightyOne
The phrase is one used by self-checkouts when the scales think the weight of your bag doesn't match the time you've scanned. The bit I don't understand is all the pictures of the gull.
Click to expand...

It's a meme... https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/inhaling-seagull
 
I personally can't stand the express lane at Wal-Mart. I always use the self check out. Get to skip the coupon bull crap and waiting for someone to sift through their purse to find that crucial dime or nickel so they can get the perfect change back.

I hate texting to make plans. I'd rather call than go through several paragraphs worth of texts.

I will gladly revoke my Italianhood for this comment. Hawaiian pizza done right is delicious.
 
Alpha Cipher
My country's police. They let people off the hook with just about anything short of murder or rape, yet they'd arrest you for something you probably didn't even do

Da heck?
Click to expand...

I feel the same about the traffic police here. While I still have some respect for them I refuse to take the law seriously until they do.

They ignore blatant violations of traffic rules and regulations by just looking the other way and when they need some beer money they set up a road block to stop motorcycles and fine people for not wearing helmets or having licences (requirements of law) but are happy to turn a blind eye to it any other time when they know it’ll make them no money.

Only recently I got caught by the check point without my licence on me and was asked to give a bribe, to which I refused, even though it would have been half the price of the fine that I did receive.

Any other time they will happily sit in a group of motorists all causally disregarding all kinds of road rules and do anbsolutly nothing, in fact, they’re often some of the worse drivers on the road thinking that they’re above everyone else so they don’t need to signal, use the correct lane and will often cut up other motorists because who are we going to complain to? They are the friggin police!
 
Michael88
What really annoys me is the current wave of artists thinking they have to step in and show colors, politically. From their lofty ivory towers and alien lifestyles they rarely are connected with the troubles and every day problems of the 99% that are not as blessed and insulated as them.

If you are an artist stick to what you are good at and don't abuse your fame and influence over people to spread your agendas which, ironically, will mostly affect not your life but those of ''normal'' people, and that in ways you can hardly fathom anymore.
Click to expand...
I'm curious...what separates artists (and presumably athletes) from politicians in this regard? Politicians build themselves up in a way not terribly dissimilar to people known for their art, ability or even ill-deserved fame for the sake of fame (I'm looking at you, Kardashians), and use their acquired position to affect change. Furthermore, what of your political dynasties--your Kennedys, your Bushes--with subsequent members capitalizing on little more than their predecessors' political notoriety? They rarely possess the connection with their constituents that allows them to know what's needed.

Really...why should anyone shy away from trying to make a difference, particularly when they find themselves in a position to do so? Aside from how it may affect their careers, of course (see The Dixie Chicks).

Michael88
I think its the duty of an artist to stay neutral and cut the polemic BS - unless the artist is REALLY going down and dirty fighting at the very roots of the problems first hand.
Click to expand...
What constitutes "REALLY going down and dirty fighting at the roots of the problems first hand"? Charlie Chaplin didn't serve in the military (and drew criticism because of that fact), rather he utilized his fame and talents when he wrote, directed, produced and starred in The Great Dictator, in which he satirized Adolf Hitler...in 1940*.

019-the-great-dictator-theredlist.jpg


Was that sufficiently "down and dirty"? And regardless of the answer, let us say for a moment that it was not; was it wrong of him to do so?

Mind you, The Great Dictator has since [in 1997] been selected by the Library of Congress for preservation in the United States National Film Registry as being "culturally, historically or aesthetically significant".**

Really, I have to wonder if you truly feel this way when it comes to individuals acting/speaking in this manner to affect change that you actually want to see, because it comes off [to me] like Laura Ingraham telling LeBron to "shut up and dribble" in response to comments he made.

*At a point when the United States (where the film was made and originally released) hadn't yet engaged Nazi Germany.

**https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Dictator
 
The problem is not so much about the artists but about unqualified, influential people in general trying to steer the fate of millions of other people through political agendas despite not being on the receiving end of their decisions/ideas nor having a clear picture of what is going on, through their lifestyles and being severely sheltered.

But why artists you say? Simply because its currently the wave I'm talking about, many artists that have tried to stay out of this are now getting involved, some feel the peer pressure, others use it to increase their own fame, some simply because they think they have an obligation. Either way, this annoys me greatly.

Yes, its always hard to draw an exact line where ''unqualified'' starts especially if you are not a professional in the field yourself, it depends on the individual to judge, but lately a lot of artists have started to get political despite being clearly highly oblivious. Judging by the interviews, it's especially artists who have a hard time making logical conclusions and getting a somewhat accurate picture of the situation, being secured by a wall to keep the rabble out, having a bank account worth millions and being more emotional based than logical due to their line of work surely makes them less qualified than a lot of people to get politically active - and it takes away any real survival pressure which does separate them from the reality and the consequences of political decisions the 99% have to face, which drastically alters the way you think and dulls the sense of severity of your decisions.

Also as I said, many artists are very emotional which is often required in their line of work, but as we all know emotions are one of the worst ways to do politics. In my humble opinion, artists are among the worst people to become politically active due to the reasons I mentioned above. Highly influential while being severely handicapped in their political abilities.

Also about getting down and dirty, there are several artists who have, for example, traveled to the third world and have helped poor people there first hand, they have seen and dealt with the things others are merely guessing about, they are much more qualified to get politically active in this area.

That is what annoys me and that is my opinion.

About Charlie Chaplins Dictator, that is US Government directed Anti-Hitler propaganda, propaganda is its very own thing.
 
Last edited:
Michael88
The problem is not so much about the artists but about unqualified, influential people in general trying to steer the fate of millions of other people through political agendas despite not being on the receiving end of their decisions/ideas nor having a clear picture of what is going on, through their lifestyles and being severely sheltered.

But why artists you say? Simply because its currently the wave I'm talking about, many artists that have tried to stay out of this are now getting involved, some feel the peer pressure, others use it to increase their own fame, some simply because they think they have an obligation. Either way, this annoys me greatly.

Yes, its always hard to draw an exact line where ''unqualified'' starts especially if you are not a professional in the field yourself, it depends on the individual to judge, but lately a lot of artists have started to get political despite being clearly highly oblivious. Judging by the interviews, it's especially artists who have a hard time making logical conclusions and getting a somewhat accurate picture of the situation, being secured by a wall to keep the rabble out, having a bank account worth millions and being more emotional based than logical due to their line of work surely makes them less qualified than a lot of people to get politically active - and it takes away any real survival pressure which does separate them from the reality and the consequences of political decisions the 99% have to face, which drastically alters the way you think and dulls the sense of severity of your decisions.

Also as I said, many artists are very emotional which is often required in their line of work, but as we all know emotions are one of the worst ways to do politics. In my humble opinion, artists are among the worst people to become politically active due to the reasons I mentioned above. Highly influential while being severely handicapped in their political abilities.

Also about getting down and dirty, there are several artists who have, for example, traveled to the third world and have helped poor people there first hand, they have seen and dealt with the things others are merely guessing about, they are much more qualified to get politically active in this area.

That is what annoys me and that is my opinion.

About Charlie Chaplins Dictator, that is US Government directed Anti-Hitler propaganda, propaganda is its very own thing.
Click to expand...
Wanna get really annoyed? Artists that aren't only vocal about politics, but are within the field of politics. One of our senators (lowercase "s" I don't respect them as such) was once an actor and now a host for a noontime variety show. Another is a world champion boxer.

Don't get me wrong they're good in their respective fields but I'm pretty sure they shouldn't be senators. And no, they also didn't learn anything about politics. 0 background
 
Some serious childhood problems here...

I hate when TV advertisements and channels are already mentoining the beginning of the school and the end of the Summer break (the school starts 1st September), while there is actually 1 month left of the Summer break.


Also, something what confuses me:
The word 'overrated'. Isn't that means something what is liked by many people? For example, if somebody says: 'This game is overrated', he/she doesn't say that it's bad, just too many people like it. I had problems with this lately, and some get way too nervous when I say something is overrated.
 
Michael88
The problem is not so much about the artists but about unqualified, influential people in general trying to steer the fate of millions of other people through political agendas despite not being on the receiving end of their decisions/ideas nor having a clear picture of what is going on, through their lifestyles and being severely sheltered.
Click to expand...
Yeah, like politicians...

Michael88
About Charlie Chaplins Dictator, that is US Government directed Anti-Hitler propaganda, propaganda is its very own thing.
Click to expand...
Can you offer anything to confirm this assertion? I've read a great deal about The Great Dictator, and while the notion that it was government-backed has been presented*, the notion has never been presented with the slightest bit of basis.

Sure, it seems like that's what it ought to be, but at the time the film was released, it'd be more than a year before the United States would join the war effort proper, that is with actual armed forces rather than mere support to allies.

In fact, the film drew criticism from politicians in the US, particularly Sen. Gerald Nye (R-ND), who, as a supporter of the America First Committee, was opposed to the United States joining the conflict even in a supportive role, and who saw the film as it was--an incitement to action directed at the government through its people rather than the reverse that propaganda typically is.

Financial backers for the film nearly withdrew their support when it became clear it would be banned in Germany, because such a move represented a loss of profit, and Chaplin himself nearly pulled the plug after discovering what atrocities the Nazis were actually responsible for in Europe, deeming satire an inappropriate response (which was later echoed by social critics upon its release).

*Added in an edit.
 
Last edited:
TexRex
Yeah, like politicians...
Click to expand...

Yes I know and its true, but just as I said, it especially irks me with the artists because they are not obligated to play their part in the political theater nor do they have any background that qualifies them to (try to) manipulate the fates of millions of people, yet suddenly now nearly all of them feel like the need to do so. Artists are among the least qualified people to deal with politics yet they have the power and influence to do so. (There are exceptions) In my opinion if you use your power over people to push your ill thought-through agendas that belong to areas you have little experience in you are abusing said power and you are a bad person.

In fact, right now I'm boycotting several artists because they started to ''activate their political interests'' and its just awkward, really ill informed polemic BS that makes my eyes roll hard. But they are serious about it. It does not even matter on whose side they are on, pro Trump, pro Hillary, pro Immigration pro War, whatever - its just inappropriate for their position. I loved their stuff and followed them for years but thats just a total deal breaker for me.

Also there is only so much space in here to post about stuff that annoys me, I wanted to keep it interesting and not rant about politicians this time. :p

TexRex
Can you offer anything to confirm this assertion? I've read a great deal about The Great Dictator, and while the notion that it was government-backed, the notion has never been presented with the slightest bit of basis.
Click to expand...
I can and will provide the sources, but I am really busy right now. (And thats not an excuse, I'm critically ill right now, the time I can spend in the Internet is severely limited due to my health condition)

Also, to get a little back on topic I have to say what really annoys me is people who write in colored fonts, your post I just quoted turned into a code nightmare. :crazy:
 
Last edited:
Michael88
Yes I know and its true, but just as I said, it especially irks me with the artists because they are not obligated to play their part in the political theater nor do they have any background that qualifies them to (try to) manipulate the fates of millions of people, yet suddenly now nearly all of them feel like the need to do so. Artists are among the least qualified people to deal with politics yet they have the power and influence to do so. (There are exceptions) In my opinion if you use your power over people to push your ill thought-through agendas that belong to areas you have little experience in you are abusing said power and you are a bad person.
Click to expand...
Again, what separates artists from politicians in this regard? Politicians are under no obligation to enter politics, and yet they do, often while lacking background that qualifies them to do so. Let's face it, there are even those who have proven to be blithering idiots. What's more, they often surround themselves--through nepotism and/or cronyism--with individuals just as inept as they themselves are.

The worst part of this is we as citizens are, for all intents and purposes, forced to pay for these individuals to occupy office.

Michael88
I can and will provide the sources, but I am really busy right now. (And thats not an excuse, I'm critically ill right now, the time I can spend in the Internet is severely limited due to my health condition)
Click to expand...
I can appreciate that, though priorities may need to be straightened out. Of course that isn't to say one ought not post, but that one ought to exercise better judgement when deciding to post regarding political matters, which is invariably going to incite a response.

Michael88
Also, to get a little back on topic I have to say what really annoys me is people who write in colored fonts, your post I just quoted turned into a code nightmare. :crazy:
Click to expand...
I do it for me, and it can be a hassle on my end. Sure, it makes my posts stand out, but I'm not self-important to the point that I'm compelled to make my posts stand out. I merely have pride in my alma mater and wish to convey that pride in the manner that I have chosen.

I appreciate your wishing to retain text formatting and all that that entails, but you are under no obligation to do so. I do my best to make my remarks readable to the point that I utilize clear breaks in text to differentiate subjects, so should you quote a post in its entirety and respond to points with similar breaks in text, there should be no difficulty in communicating.

I wouldn't even object to portions being edited out much like portions not being quoted with others, I'd just ask that the general theme be retained and not be edited in such a way that what's being said is changed. Acknowledging such an edit (even by simply employing an ellipsis in place of the removed text) would also be greatly appreciated.

All that said, the multiquote function should be capable of transferring all formatting if portions of text are highlighted and added to it.
 
Lameonade
When in YouTube comments and someone asks What's this song? or something similar and there's ALWAYS a comment that says Darude - Sandstorm. Do people really still find that funny? After seeing it so many times it's lost whatever humor it had before. That and Rick Astley redirects/links.

Maybe I'm getting old idk.
Click to expand...
Sonygamer455
Amen to this! I don't see the Rick Astley redirects much, but I tend to see those "Darude - Sandstorm" comments and I honestly never understood what was so funny about them. If I was to ever create a new Youtube channel, i'd blacklist those words in no time.
Click to expand...
Maybe it's the type of people watching the type of videos you like to watch. I always look in comments on videos and haven't seen this joke since 2012. Or comments are secretly filtered.
 
kikie
Confusion, I'd.
Click to expand...
Nobody want to help me with my confusion. :grumpy: That annoys me a lot.:mad:

You see what I did there? A confusion and an annoyance in one sentence.


To end this post I'm going to use these smilies to be sure that this post is not going to be taken the wrong way.

:D :cheers: :crazy: :dopey: :dunce: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :O :sly: :sly: :p :p :p :p

:gtpflag::gtpflag::gtpflag::gtpflag::gtpflag::gtpflag:
 
Team THRT Drift
Short form; I would, I had, I should. Context will help you recognize which form is used. They are seldom used in formal writing, though.
Click to expand...
👍


That is what makes it confusing for me, sometimes, finding the correct context. Not when I write it but when I read somebody elses post.
 
Michael88
What really annoys me is the current wave of artists thinking they have to step in and show colors, politically. From their lofty ivory towers and alien lifestyles they rarely are connected with the troubles and every day problems of the 99% that are not as blessed and insulated as them.
Click to expand...

Yes, they can use it as clout to encourage many people, but they can live and die by that same sword by turning off others. At the same time, musicians, singers, artists, actors, models, photographers, designers, scientists, athletes, dancers, and celebrities are human, too. It's not fair to say their voice should be less important than yours or mine, just because you disagree. Where do the arbitrary lines of famous, almost-famous, not famous, and disgraced Z-list celebrity get drawn? For every star will use their voice to push an agenda, there's dozens more that don't. I'd rather live in a world where even the half-baked ideas of the so-called Internet Celebrity are given the same attempt to be meaningful as Average Joe Schmoe, even if I don't agree with them.

It's obnoxious, to some degree...if they have no idea who and what they're talking about. There's a difference between not seeing the wood from the trees and using their voice to spread ignorance or unchecked lies, and the differences from individuals calling a star an "idiot" because they're not 100% accurate about a situation. (For one, if governance was 80% effective, we'd be thrilled...it's all only as honest as a politician is willing to be, and to what degree a news source is willing to plasticize stories in the name of keeping the presses running.) But, they're humans after all...supporting other elected humans or causes that sometimes do good things in the name of public service but also the same ones who fumble things up from time to time. That's why it's all a bunch of folly.

Many famous people also have a lot of extra time (and/or possibly guilt, sponsor's contracts, or community service hours) on their hands, and in some ways they can use that for good, but also forget that others have limited time to devote their energies for the same purposes.

And yes, in the end...I'd like to appreciate the art of others without the answers and interpretation being forced upon me after liquefied in the blender. Otherwise, it's not art at all, and that is the ultimate insult you can inflict in return.
 
Last edited:
People that spell out "defiantly" when they mean "definitely" annoys the 🤬 out of me.

My grammar isn't perfect by any means, but mistakes like this are soooooooooooooooooooooooooo annoying to me. I also get annoyed when people mix up: there/their/they're, your/you're, and to/too. I can't believe how many people I went to high school with regularly get this wrong on facebook... Cringeworthy.

Edit: Spell check says cringeworthy is two words, but the dictionary says it is one...? :confused::confused::confused:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cringeworthy
 
Last edited:
TheGeologist
People that spell out "defiantly" when they mean "definitely" annoys the 🤬 out of me.
Click to expand...
To be fair, you may already know this, but often times if I try to spell "definitely", it will auto correct it to "defiantly" instead and it's possible that may be what's happening with other people as well. I can understand how it's an annoyance though.
 

Latest Posts

Back