Skip to main content

i'm probably happier not knowing

i like to check what search terms lead to my blog, because, along with tracking which posts are the most popular, it's a good way of gauging what readers would like to see more of. some terms, of course, are just linked to a popular image that shows up high in google searches. others are actually indicative of what people are looking for. searches for dark coloured lipsticks- whether specific shades or in general- often lead here, which makes sense. searches for information on specific mental disorders often lead here, because of the currently dormant "mental health mondays" posts. i get that.

others are a little stranger, like "how do i apply lipstick from the tube?" or "where is my bipolar located?"

and others still are downright disturbing. you don't want to know how many searches for "anorexic porn" end up here. [specifically ending up on the "mental health mondays" piece about anorexia, which does have a nude, but clearly medical in nature, picture with it.]

and then there is this week's winner:

"rick santorum poop"

i'd just about recovered from the daily searches for either rick santorum or mitt romney gay porn, which, if it exists, would never, ever, ever, ever be posted here because i don't want to do that to you. or to myself. [although that's different than posting a picture of santo made from gay porn, which i have done. because that's just made of awesome. and penises.] but the idea that someone- correction- multiple someones- are out there searching for internet evidence of caca di santo is the sort of thing that makes me afraid to leave my house in the morning. do i know these people? have i shaken hands with them? what are they going to do with the results if their search is successful? what made them search for this in the first place?

so many questions. and there are probably answers to all of them. honest, disturbing answers.

Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …

don't speak

you might think that it sounds dramatic, but linguistic genocide is something that happens. people in power will go to great lengths to eradicate certain languages, not just for the sheer joy of making the world a lesser place, but as a way of beating down the culture that's associated with it. language has a unique reciprocal bond with culture, and every group that has attempted to break down another has recognised that forbidding a cultural group from communicating in their own language is an extremely effective way to tear apart their culture.

there are lots [and lots and lots and lots] of examples of this sort of thing, some successful, some not, but far too many to cover in one blog post. however, i thought it was worth looking at some languages that have been the subjects of active repression, and what the political consequences of that have been.

devastation :: the native north american languages :: it should come as no surprise that the largest genocide in history [by a ma…