We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Could this be the most epic imprecation ever?

“Tap dancing titty-sprinkle rhubarb Christ”

Harmful Opinions

13 comments to Could this be the most epic imprecation ever?

  • Is that a reference to a bird?

  • Paul Marks

    As many have already said.

    This whole thing is a sickening mixture of commercial cowardice (“the Occupy mob might hurt us” and “we must please Mr Obama or the IRS and SEC and …… might ……..”) and, of course, P.C. “education”

  • Mr Ed

    Perhaps in a garage in Texas, this very evening, the next Steves Jobs and Wozniak are beavering away, putting their customers wishes first, as Apple enjoys the California sun, earthquakes, taxes, crime, regulation and sanctiomy, until it burns through its cash pile…

  • Simon Just

    Perhaps in a garage in Texas

    These days it might be a garage in Warsaw or Riga.

  • Laird

    I don’t know, but I’m rather fond of this one.

  • How about…

    “Couldn’t get a fuck in a monkey whore-huse with a truck load of bananas”?

  • Joseph Siddall

    NickM, wonderful. Now need a really good reason to warrant using it. Thank you.

  • Julie near Chicago


    Also, “Go along to get along.”

    Also, what Paul said.

    Also, there is always a line between what is acceptable (even though we may deplore it) when private parties do it but unacceptable when The Gov or one of its many tentacles (or “arms”) does it.

    Negotiating this line (as we think and talk about it, and act on where we think it is, I mean) is a balancing act, just like physically walking a tangible line of some sort.

    I’m not entirely on-board with the discussion on the video, which seems to me to go back and forth between the sensible and the not-so; but then again, the video itself–the material that it presents–is part of the balancing act, as is arguing with it.

    Apple’s initial withdrawal of symbols of the Confederacy is part of our joint and ongoing balancing act, and so are our varying opinions and the statements of them; and so is Apple’s rethinking to the extent of returning at least some of the merchandise to the floor.

    The problem is that the gent in the vid takes Apple to task for its “censorship” based on its motivation. What it comes to is that for him, censorship is unacceptable, and that censorship is defined by motivation. What then? The treatment suggested by some is to boycott Apple (and I’m fine with boycotts, provided they serve purposes I approve of); but it seems to me that they would have to concede that this represents an attempt to “censor” Apple for having motivations he disagrees with.

    And if he, or anyone else, wants to do that, he has the right. And Apple’s management has the moral right to sell or not sell whatever it pleases on whatever grounds it pleases.

    (But right-thinking people everywhere will boycott any company that sells, for example, Che T-shirts. Making a buck by promoting and glamourizing a mass-murderer is absolutely not acceptable. I have spoken. Any company that does this, yet yawps about the rotten effects on the culture, on society, of dealing in Confederate paraphernalia, must be suspected of being ethically challenged.)

    It is, of course, perfectly acceptable to deplore Apple’s motivation as quoted in the video. One must acknowledge that. But what does one think of the stated reasons for the deploring? This is a question that merits examination.

    Actually, What Paul Said all over again.

  • By removing the Confederate flag from visual reference of the Civil War, what remains is the Union army attacking otherwise unaffiliated southerners thus furthering the “War Of Northern Aggression” meme put forward by the sore losers in that fight.

    As I recall, it was the Confederacy who fired first.

  • Laird

    Billll, South Carolina (not “the Confederacy”, which didn’t yet exist) did indeed fire first. But it was in response to Lincoln’s provocation, when he resupplied Fort Sumter after promising that he wouldn’t. The first actual act of aggression was by the north.

  • This is just big companies being big companies. Somebody at the top as some crackpot idea and everyone has to go along with it at first… then the moment passes and things start getting back to normal (some products returning to the floor?) as whatever-it-was is hurting business and everybody’s sales targets.

  • Julie near Chicago

    whOOps, agree. It’s the balancing act again. “some guy at the top” goes overboard (overbalances) and in due course the squawk from (a)customers (b) other personnel, possibly even high-level execs (c) the bean counters counterbalance, and things return to what we laughingly call “normality.”

    And our squawking here is part of the process of recovery.

    And your bottom line IS the bottom line.

    Just the same, you’re not going to see me selling Che T-shirts anytime soon. Now a T-shirt showing a 1964 metallic silver-blue is another matter entirely….

  • Fred the Fourth

    Julie, I can’t tell if I should boycott you until you explain “1964 metallic silver-blue”.
    What? A Mustang car? A retriever dog? What? Don’t leave us hanging here!