Eugene Drivers Suck
We all know that Eugene drivers are pretty much the worst drivers in the entire world. They drive the exact speed limit, if not below – they're the people we vehemently call Speedlimiters. They take turns at about two miles per hour, while I'm sitting behind them being forced to shift into first gear so I can make it up a hill that I usually take in thrid gear. They drive their LAVs (Lesbian Assault Vehicles / Subaru Outbacks) like they're the coolest thing ever, with their outdated Kerry-Edwards bumper stickers that do nothing but scream "DEFEATED!!"
There's one Eugene-driver thing that ticks me off more than all of the others combined. Eugene drivers absolutely refuse to pull into the intersection when yielding to oncoming traffic in a left-turn lane. They don't understand that the intersection is there for a reason: for the first dude to pull out so the dude behind him can get his nose into the intersection, allowing at least two cars to get through while the light is green/yellow.
Allow me to illustrate.
There's this one intersection at Hilyard & 24th that can be especially annoying because there's a lot of traffic and it's hard to turn left in general. The kicker? On that corner is one of Eugene's most popular all-natural food stores. As a result, half the people using that particular left turn lane are burnt out hippies who lost at least half of their brain to weed and LSD in the 60's and 70's. They're not the brightest people in the world.
So yesterday, I was driving home from school and I pulled into the left turn lane just as the light was turning red, joyously thinking to myeslf, "Yesssss, there's only one car in front of me!" In time, the light turned green and, of course, the girl in front of me didn't pull out into the intersection. I was a little perturbed but hey, this is Eugene. So I sat patiently with my left foot slightly releasing the clutch so I could be fully prepared when the turning moment came. ...It didn't come. The light turned red and Airhead in front of me was still sitting there safely behind the crosswalk line as if we hadn't just sat through an entire light cycle.
We waited a few minutes, until our turn came around again. The car in front of me started inching forward and I thought to myself, "Woah, she's pulling out!!" But no. It was only a couple of inches. You can imagine what happened next, after she didn't pull out into the intersecton: the light turned red. Again. And again. By the fourth time, I was getting really pissed off and, trust me, she knew it. Mind you, this entire time there are cars piling up behind us so when the light turned green again, I started making huge motions for her to "PULL OUT" and guess what? She did. And guess what else? FOUR cars got through on that light after she finally moved her butt out into the intersection.
Needless to say, I didn't want to stare at her bumper for a second longer so I sped up and passed her. As I was passing her, I looked over at her with my best death glare only to find her boppin' along behind her steering wheel, probably thinking to herself, "Welp, that was fun!"
My general conclusion for the day: People are stupid. A person may (or may not) be smart but when you put 'em all together, people are just stupid. And Eugene drivers are the stupidest of them all.
posted by Smelly Melly @ 1:14 AM
6 comments
6 Comments:
wahahaha. you are priceless. i totally hear you there... im glad i'm not one of those goofy drivers, even though i'd probably put a kerry sticker on my car if I had one ;)
Oh man, I HATE Eugene drivers. Just be glad you didn't find yourself behind her at the intersection of Chambers and 11th, I think it is. That's the worst "Left turn yield on green" intersection in this town, that I know of.
Freakin' timid drivers. Freakin' Speedlimiters... I demand my +5 miles! It's my birthright!
I think it is amazing how fucking closed minded people such as yourself are. It makes me sick to think that there are people out there that have such a one track mind that they can not see past the fact that those people who are gay are still people too and for the most part probably a better person than you. They dont judge people for their feelings. Have you ever heard of discrimination? So do you hate black people and Mexicans. I would immagine that you would. You are no better than anyone else and stupid fucking people like yourself is why this world is still fucked up.
The first part of today's lesson is entitled "English Lessons for Anonymous Critics"
Lesson #1: Questions end with question marks.
Were you asking if she hated black people and Mexicans, Anonymous? (Notice how I have used the question mark to indicate that this is a question.) I didn't see a question mark, so I wasn't sure.
Lesson #2: Adjectives Describe Nouns
Let's get into the content of your comment, Anonymous (what little of it there actually is once all the bias, bitterness, hatred, discrimination, propaganda, and general frothing-at-the-mouth is filtered out). As far as I can tell, your rant seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to her comment regarding "LAVs" (that's just a guess—this comment is so far off topic that it's hard to really have any idea what really prompted it).
But let's look at the term Lesbian Assault Vehicle. Anyone with even half a clue as to how the English language works will see that the words "Lesbian" and "Assault" are clearly both adjectives, both of which are modifying the noun "Vehicle." That is, they are describing what type of "Vehicle" this particular vehicle is.
With even a rudimentary understanding of language, therefore, it becomes clear that the term "Lesbian Assault Vehicle" is actually refering to and describing the vehicle, and only the vehicle. The term says nothing about lesbians or assaults, as they are simply adjectives describing the vehicle. The subject being described here, therefore, is the Subaru Outback vehicle.
The only statement that term makes, therefore, that has anything at all to do with lesbians—or indeed, gay people in general—is that in the opinion of the author, and that of anyone else who uses the term, this car seems to be a favorite of lesbians.
The term "Lesbian Assault Vehicle" does not actually give any indication whatsoever as to how the author/user of the term actually feels or thinks about lesbians themselves, since lesbians are not what is being described by the use of this term.
And yet, despite the fact that there is nothing in this entire post—or indeed, even in the half dozen previous posts (I checked to make sure you weren't confused as to which post you should be attaching your misdirected rant to)—which gives any commentary whatsoever on lesbians, or gay people in general, you have seen fit to label the author as a discriminator against gay people and a hater of gay people, along with a number of other insinuated, judgmental, and altogether incorrect assumptions.
Allow me to illustrate this with a similar scenario. Let us assume that I decide to start referring to Mercedes, Rolls Royces, and Lamborghinis as "RPVs," short for "Rich Persons' Vehicles." I think that with this scenario, an analysis of language isn't even needed. Any idiot can see that it is not the "Rich Persons" who are being described by this term; rather, the term "Rich Persons' " simply describes what kind of person often drives this kind of car.
The important point to make is that this term says nothing of how I feel about rich people. Perhaps I hate them; perhaps I love them; perhaps I envy them; or perhaps I think them so despicable that I would never want to be one of them. Who knows? By the simple use of that term, it is impossible to tell how I feel or think about rich people. It only tells us how I feel or think about Mercedes, Rolls Royces, and Lamborghinis.
Likewise, the term "Lesbian Assault Vehicle" does not actually tell us anything about how the author feels about lesbians. It simply tells us how she feels about the vehicles in question, Subaru Outbacks—namely, that in her opinion (whether in all seriousness or in total jest), lesbians tend to favor them.
I see there as being only two possible reasons for your outburst: First, that your rant on discrimination against gays was in reaction to the use of the term "Lesbian Assault Vehicle"; or second, that there was nothing that directly prompted this reaction, in which case it can only be seen as being a reaction against the author as an openly declared conservative republican.
I say this because there is no other mention anywhere of gay people. Therefore, it must have been either related to the term "LAVs," or completely unrelated to anything in the post.
Now, if it is a reaction to the use of the term "LAVs," I can only conclude that you have a poor grasp on the English language in general, since clearly the statement did not make any commentary on gay people whatsoever. Your inability to properly punctuate an apparent question lends further plausibility to this possibility. I recommend taking an English class at your liberal college of preference.
However, if it is in fact not specifically in reaction to that statement at all—and therefore not in reaction to any statement made by the author—then we have a different situation altogether. If it is not a direct response to anything said by the author, it can only be that you have determined that she is a conservative republican and have arbitrarily assigned such characteristics and anti-values as discrimination and hatred to her based on a generalization of your own—namely, that all conservative republicans hate and discriminate against gays.
If that is the case, then you are guilty of the very thing for which you have condemned her: hatred, discrimination, generalization, and judgment.
All of which brings us to the second part of today's lesson.
The second part of today's lesson is entitled "Critical Hypocrisy"
We find ourselves in one of two possible scenarios:
Scenario 1: You have made the assumption, based on the author's use of the term "Lesbian Assault Vehicle," that the author discriminates against and hates gay people. You have then made the inference, based entirely on assumption and without any grounds whatsoever, that she also discriminates against and hates black people and Mexicans.
Scenario 2: You have made the assumption, based solely upon the author's political or social affiliations and/or leanings, that she is guilt of the same hatred and discrimination mentioned in Scenario 1.
Furthermore, in both of these scenarios, you have gone on to label the author as "closed minded," "one track mind[ed]," a worse person than any unspecified group of gay people, stupid, and the reason for which the world is "fucked up."
Lastly, you have also made the generalization that gay people don't judge people for their feelings, with the implication that in that way, they are also better than the author.
Choose your scenario; neither one bodes well for you. In either scenario, you have made unsupportable generalizations about the author.
Let us take Scenario 1, for example. You have said that she discriminates against and hates gay people because of the term "Lesbian Assault Vehicle." And yet, that term did not actually indicate how she felt about lesbians, only their vehicles. Therefore, you're making an unsupported—and therefore unjust—judgment about her. You then go on to assume that she discriminates against and hates black people and Mexicans, with even less ground than you had to accuse her of discriminating against and hating gay people. She hasn't said anything—good, bad, or neutral—about black people or Mexicans! Shame on you.
You have called her closed minded, one track minded, and stupid because of assumptions, generalizations, and discriminations that she never actually made—rather, you just arbitrarily ascribed them to her, without any basis whatsoever. And seriously, calling her stupid when you still haven't got a grasp on simple grade-school English is laughable, to say the least.
Finally, you have made the generalization—equally as groundless as all of the generalized accusations you've labeled her with—that gay people "don't judge people for their feelings." That is simply untrue. There is no general group of people in this entire world that can live up to that statement. But by making this generalization, you have made it clear where your bias lies—in favor of gay people, and more so than any one general group of people deserves.
Let's assume, however, that Scenario 2 is actually the scenario we find ourselves in. The only difference here is that you are guilty of even more generalization and discrimination! For here, all of the above is already still true. But in addition to all this, you've also made generalized assumptions about—and therefore discriminated against—conservative republicans. You have judged them based on generalizations and biases.
In either case, you have judged the author (at the least, and potentially all conservative republicans) based on unsupported generalizations. You have drawn conclusions about the entire content of her character based on one tiny little phrase in her writing, one that was only a comment in passing to begin with. Either that, or you have judged her based on her political/social affiliation/leaning.
You have also revealed your clear and blatant bias—in favor of gay people, and against conservative republicans, and pretty much anyone who does not think like you do. Ironically, bias against anyone who does not think like you do is essentially the definition of "closed mindedness"—which happens to be the very first unsupported accusation you made of the author. That is irony if I've ever known it.
In summary, you're a hypocrite. You've discriminated against the author at the least, and perhaps conservative republicans in general. You've judged her unfairly and without basis. You've proven yourself to be biased and closed minded.
All of these things are things that you accuse the author of.
So, essentially... you are exactly what you hate! As they say.... "Sucks to be you."
Oh, and one more thing: The word "imagine" is spelled with only one "m".
Yeah, what he said... that's what big brothers are for.
Nice. It's so easy to pick a fight when you are able to hide behind the shroud of "anonymous" You do not have to face any reprocussions or render any retort once your idiocy is pointed out to you. To you, Mr./Ms. Anonymous, I say, "die." Your life is obviously not worth living. You aparently have mental handicaps and turn a blog about drivers' inability to efficiently complete the task after which they are named into an attack on homosexuality. With your lack of mental prowess, you had better hope Darwin wasn't right, because in a world of survival of the fittest, you would be the prey......Fag
Post a Comment
<< Home