Things you just "don't get"?

beejee

Deleted User wrote: »

I don’t ‘get’ how this thread differs from the TA thread

It's all about understanding.

It's understanding the annoyance of a bird shytting on your head.

Versus

Its confusing as to why some people like birds shytting on their head.

One "you get", the other you "don't get".

bonzodog2

I don't 'get' religions

s7ryf3925pivug

Better Than Christ wrote: »

It shouldn't be banned, but I don't see anything wrong with radio stations bleeping that word, especially considering the song's ubiquity at this time of the year. If someone (for whatever totally not-homophobic reason) desperately wants to hear that word, it'll still be available on Spotify or whatever.

There are aspects of that song that I really love. The piano introduction, for example. Or Kirsty MacColl's voice - especially the way she sang the lines "the boys of the NYPD choir were singing Galway Bay..." and "well, so could anyone". No other female vocalist can do the song justice. And it's a long time since Shane MacGowan has been able to either.

Just substitute the word laggot for it. Changes the meaning substantially, but no longer offensive.

Better Than Christ

Bryant Poor Arch wrote: »

Just substitute the word laggot for it. Changes the meaning substantially, but no longer offensive.

How about...

"You scumbag, you runt, you cheap lousy person"

(Sorry, couldn't think of a word that rhymes with 'runt')

Neames

I'm all for doing a day's work for a day's pay.

But I don't get people banging on about such a person is great because they work 90 hours a week and never take a break.

Take a break ffs...before you keel over.

Wibbs

Neames wrote: »

I'm all for doing a day's work for a day's pay.

But I don't get people banging on about such a person is great because they work 90 hours a week and never take a break.

Take a break ffs...before you keep over.

+1. Fine, even mostly necessary if you're working for yourself and/or have a direct share in the profits of your labour, but working for someone else? Fcuk that.

Lirange

Oysters.

After all these years I finally tried one under duress. Every bit as disgusting as I imagined.

Paddy Cow

Tammy! wrote: »

Cranberry sauce on Turkey

I went out for lunch with some friends and a turkey wrap looked delicious, except it had cranberry mayo on it. I asked if I could get it with just regular mayo but apparently they were already made up so I had to get something else. What the hell is even cranberry mayo? Do they literally mix cranberry sauce with mayonnaise? Has anyone else had that and is it the abomination it sounds like?

Paddy Cow

Wibbs wrote: »

+1. Fine, even mostly necessary if you're working for yourself and/or have a direct share in the profits of your labour, but working for someone else? Fcuk that.

I only found out recently that Americans are lucky if they get 10 paid days off per year and a lot of jobs don't do paid holidays at all :eek: The land of the free my ar$e!

Lirange

Lirange wrote: »

Oysters.

After all these years I finally tried one under duress. Every bit as disgusting as I imagined.

They're nice when cooked nicely. Don't like them raw.

Shady Grady

I don't get women in their 60's and 70's dye their hair a flaming red.Come on we all know your past that point.

Better Than Christ

Shady Grady wrote: »

I don't get women in their 60's and 70's dye their hair a flaming red.Come on we all know your past that point.

Paddy Cow

Shady Grady wrote: »

I don't get women in their 60's and 70's dye their hair a flaming red.Come on we all know your past that point.

I am going to be one of those older ladies with bright hair. I always wanted to dye my hair bright colours but I learned pretty quickly that dark hair doesn't take colour well. Youtube videos taught me that if I want bright colours, I am first going to have to bleach the crap out of my hair, which will damage it beyond repair. When I am old and have white hair I can colour it however I want.

I'm at an age where the greys are showing up enough that I've had to start dying them and it sucks. I wouldn't mind having white hair but it's the ten to fifteen years of transition that is a pain in the ar$e. Why can't I just go white overnight?

Junkyard Tom

The popularity of the drag act thing - what's all that about?

Seamai

[Deleted User] wrote: »

They're nice when cooked nicely. Don't like them raw.

Raw and unadorned, oysters are like a sea flavoured lump of phlegm.

Wibbs

Seamai wrote: »

Raw and unadorned, oysters are like a sea flavoured lump of phlegm.

You Sir, win the interwebs tonight.

Seamai

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

The popularity of the drag act thing - what's all that about?

I know, I was waiting for someone the other day and saw the covers of Cosmopolitan which had a guy in a flouncy dress and Vanity Fair had Ru Paul on it. FFS I'm a shirt lifter (knuckle rap from mods for homophobic language) and I have zero interest in drag.

Wibbs

Shady Grady wrote: »

I don't get women in their 60's and 70's dye their hair a flaming red.Come on we all know your past that point.

I figure SG if you make it mostly intact to your seventies, go nuts and fcuk the world. Dye your hair whatever colour, get tattoos, nipple rings, maybe a dirty great labret through your lower lip, take up headbanging to speed metal, or gardening, or both, at the same time.

Better Than Christ

Wibbs wrote: »

I figure SG if you make it mostly intact to your seventies, go nuts and fcuk the world. Dye your hair whatever colour, get tattoos, nipple rings, maybe a dirty great labret through your lower lip, take up headbanging to speed metal, or gardening, or both, at the same time.

Planning on developing a heroin habit myself.

iamwhoiam

Shady Grady wrote: »

I don't get women in their 60's and 70's dye their hair a flaming red.Come on we all know your past that point.

We all know you know we are past that point ( whatever that point is ) But we dye our hair because we can and because we feel like it

LirW

LirW wrote: »

-
- Parading your children all over various social media accounts. People are so oblivious about various issues this can bring. .

Such as? Sounds a bit paranoid.

Tammy!

Better Than Christ wrote: »

It shouldn't be banned, but I don't see anything wrong with radio stations bleeping that word, especially considering the song's ubiquity at this time of the year. If someone (for whatever totally not-homophobic reason) desperately wants to hear that word, it'll still be available on Spotify or whatever.

There are aspects of that song that I really love. The piano introduction, for example. Or Kirsty MacColl's voice - especially the way she sang the lines "the boys of the NYPD choir were singing Galway Bay..." and "well, so could anyone". No other female vocalist can do the song justice. And it's a long time since Shane MacGowan has been able to either.

Tbh I don't see why it should be banned or removed at all. I read something where Shane MacGowan himself was saying that they are just characters in a song and she wasn't supposed to be nice, she was supposed to be authentic. We can only have so many Islands in the Stream!

Anyway he called her a slut first :P anyone complaining about that???

The J Stands for Jay

Rex Scary Tendinitis wrote: »

Such as? Sounds a bit paranoid.

I don't get people who are paranoid about pictures of children. Do they think that a picture of their kid appearing on Facebook will cause the ghost of Jimmy Saville to materialise in their bedroom?

B0jangles

McGaggs wrote: »

I don't get people who are paranoid about pictures of children. Do they think that a picture of their kid appearing on Facebook will cause the ghost of Jimmy Saville to materialise in their bedroom?

I can kind of understand it - all my baby/childhood photos were... physical photos. They are all in boxes or drawers or albums belonging to my family. Any pictures of me as a child that are online are probably the one or two I've chosen to put up there in adulthood.


Kids these days can expect to have their entire childhood and early adolescence displayed online - every awkward stage on show whether they like it or not, and once it goes up there, it can never be taken down again.
A physical photo can be passed on to another person - in the past, people might have made a handful of copies for families and that'd be just for photos of special occasions, but many people now seem to share everything without thinking much about it, and once an image is online it's completely public forever.

The J Stands for Jay

B0jangles wrote: »

I can kind of understand it - all my baby/childhood photos were... physical photos. They are all in boxes or drawers or albums belonging to my family. Any pictures of me as a child that are online are probably the one or two I've chosen to put up there in adulthood.


Kids these days can expect to have their entire childhood and early adolescence displayed online - every awkward stage on show whether they like it or not, and once it goes up there, it can never be taken down again.
A physical photo can be passed on to another person - in the past, people might have made a handful of copies for families and that'd be just for photos of special occasions, but many people now seem to share everything without thinking much about it, and once an image is online it's completely public forever.

I totally get that, I only have two pictures of my kids online. But the whole paedo panic thing I just don't get.

SeaFields

Celebrating the new year. My head just can't get around why even since I was s child. I once posted on my social media account the same thing (on new year's eve) and was inundated with PM's asking me was I ok, was I depressed, did I need to talk.

For me a better barometer for personal change would be your birthday as you have ownership over that date as such.

So all in all, I just don't get new years!

Tammy!

SeaFields wrote: »

So all in all, I just don't get new years!

You ok Hun? Xx

SeaFields

Tammy! wrote: »

You ok Hun? Xx

Feck off!

whisky_galore

The Muppet Show and Muppet Movies.

Rarely found them all that funny.

LirW

Rex Scary Tendinitis wrote: »

Such as? Sounds a bit paranoid.

As an example: Family/community wars. People aren't aware that a lot of things can be put into the wrong context and this could potentially used against you and cause your family hassle.
I've seen a neighbourhood war first hand where both parties were using the children's pictures for ridiculous claims such as: yer wan is stalking my child. Her child looks neglected. That boy is obviously malnourished.
I wouldn't fancy that for my two and I felt really sorry for the involved kids.

I also have no interest to have my children's photos stolen and repurposed without my consent.
Child identity theft is a real thing and as a parent I see it as my duty to protect my children's privacy until they're able to make their own decisions about it. I really don't care if anyone thinks I'm paranoid in that regard, I prefer to operate a "better safe than sorry" approach when it comes to my children's digital footprint.