Assholery


Homeless People Now Illegal in Denver

I don’t usually write about political stuff here, but the latest development in Denver has me so steaming mad I have to today. First of all, the civil unions bill was killed last night, which is gross. But what I want to talk about now is the fact that Denver pretty much made homeless people illegal.

I apologize in advance for how long this is going to be. In an effort to keep things as short as possible, here are some links where you can get more information about what’s going on, including a link to a pdf of the draft ordinance:

Here is the draft version of the ordinance:

Sec. 38-86.1. – Unauthorized camping on public or private property prohibited.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to camp upon any private property without the express written consent of the property owner or the owner’s agent, and only in such locations where camping may be conducted in accordance with any other applicable city law.
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person to camp upon any public property except in any location where camping has been expressly allowed by the officer or agency having the control, management and supervision of the public property in question.
(c) No law enforcement officer shall issue a citation, make an arrest or otherwise enforce this section against any person unless:
(1) The officer orally requests or orders the person to refrain from the alleged violation of this section and, if the person fails to comply after receiving the oral request or order, the officer tenders a written request or order to the person warning that if the person fails to comply the person may be cited or arrested for a violation of this section; and
(2) The officer attempts to ascertain whether the person is in need of medical or human services assistance, including but not limited to mental health treatment, drug or alcohol rehabilitation, or homeless services assistance. If the officer determines that the person may be in need of medical or human services assistance, the officer shall make reasonable efforts to contact and obtain the assistance of a designated human service outreach worker, who in turn shall assess the needs of the person and, if warranted, direct the person to an appropriate provider of medical or human services assistance in lieu of the person being cited or arrested for a violation of this section. If the officer is unable to obtain the assistance of a human services outreach worker, if the human services outreach worker determines that the person is not in need of medical or human services assistance, or if the person refuses to cooperate with the direction of the human services outreach worker, the officer may proceed to cite or arrest the person for a violation of this section so long as the warnings required by paragraph (1) of this subsection have been previously given.
(d) For purposes of this section:
(1) “Camp” means to reside or dwell temporarily in a place, with shelter, and conduct activities of daily living such as eating, sleeping or the storage of personal possessions in such place. The term “shelter” includes, without limitation, any tent, tarpaulin, lean-to, sleeping bag, bedroll, blankets, or any form of cover or protection from the elements other than clothing.
(2) “Designated human service outreach worker” shall mean any person designated in writing by the manager of the Denver Department of Human Services to assist law enforcement officers as provided in subsection (c), regardless of whether the person is an employee of the department of human services.
(3) “Public property” means, by way of illustration, any street, alley, sidewalk, pedestrian or transit mall, bike path, greenway, or any other structure or area encompassed within the public right-of-way; any park, parkway, mountain park, or other recreation facility; or any other grounds, buildings, or other facilities owned or leased by the City or by any other public owner, regardless of whether such public property is vacant or occupied and actively used for any public purpose.

My main problem here is that the law, as it currently stands (with no additional resources added to the Denver community as a result of the law) does nothing to solve the problem of homelessness. It just says Denver doesn’t want to deal with homeless people other than to allow for their arrest if the police feel like it.

A Hypothetical

The law is also, if I can be blunt (and I can), a stupid law. Let’s say a police officer finds a homeless guy (we’ll call him Ralph) sleeping on the 16th Street Mall at 2:00 a.m. Here’s what the ordinance says should happen. First, the officer orally tells Ralph to stop being homeless on the 16th Street Mall. I suppose Ralph could comply in one of two ways — he could magically obtain a home on the spot, or he could leave the 16th Street Mall and go be homeless somewhere else. Option 1 is impossible and option 2 doesn’t solve the problem because Ralph is still homeless. If he fails to comply, the officer gives him something in writing telling him that if he fails to comply, he may be cited or arrested. This is great because we totally need to use more paper, and if someone didn’t magically obtain a home on the spot or go be homeless somewhere else when verbally requested to do so, I’m sure receiving the same request in written form will make all the difference.

Then the real fun begins. The officer gets to “attempt[] to ascertain whether the person is in need of medical or human services assistance, including but not limited to mental health treatment, drug or alcohol rehabilitation, or homeless services assistance.” Before continuing with our hypothetical, I have some questions. Why does the officer just have to attempt? Shouldn’t she have to actually ascertain? What standards does she use when attempting to ascertain whether Ralph needs medical or human services assistance? Why doesn’t the ordinance provide these standards? Will there be standards (If so, who makes them?), or does an officer just get to use her own judgment? By the way, I hope serious crimes aren’t happening while this attempt to ascertain business is going on, because this ordinance doesn’t provide extra funding to the police to help with the extra work they’re going to have.

So, let’s say the officer determines that Ralph may be in need of human services assistance. Now she “shall make reasonable efforts to contact and obtain the assistance of a designated human service outreach worker.” What are reasonable efforts? Assuming she, through reasonable efforts, contacts a designated human service outreach worker, that worker “shall assess the needs of the person and, if warranted, direct the person to an appropriate provider of medical or human services assistance in lieu of the person being cited or arrested for a violation of this section.” How, exactly, does that work? Let’s call our designated human service outreach worker Bob, because that’s fewer letters. Does Bob make this assessment based only on what the officer tells him? Does the cop say, hey, Ralph, come use my phone so you can talk to Bob so Bob can assess your needs? Does the cop take Ralph to wherever Bob works so Ralph can stand in line with all the other homeless people who have been rounded up that night? How much time does this take? If Bob determines that Ralph needs human service assistance and directs him to an appropriate provider of human service assistance, does Ralph have to go right then even though the provider probably isn’t open in the middle of the night? While waiting at the door, will Ralph be approached by police and told to stop being homeless again, or does Ralph get a free pass for the rest of that night?

Now, let’s say our officer is unable to obtain the assistance of Bob or any other human service outreach workers. (How many human service outreach workers are working in the middle of the night in Denver every day? I assume [just kidding, I don’t really] there are several, because this ordinance does not provide for additional human service outreach workers.) Let’s say Bob is in the bathroom and doesn’t answer his phone, and any other human service outreach workers are busy with other homeless people. In that case, the officer is free to arrest Ralph. Yay, Ralph goes to jail. This is great because Denver is rolling in extra tax dollars and jail space. If Bob determines that Ralph is not in need of medical or human service assistance, or Ralph refuses to cooperate with what Bob tells him to do, Ralph can be arrested. This is great for the reasons listed above.

I think it’s fair to interpret this ordinance as making homeless people illegal in Denver (compliance requires one to stop being homeless or leave the city or, I suppose if you want to get technical, sleeping outside with no shelter other than the clothes you’re wearing and no possessions you couldn’t store on your body, which would be dangerous in the winter and pretty much impossible), which I think is completely disgusting. I also think it’s unfair to require homeless people to sleep in shelters. And it’s ridiculous to have this law on the books while there is not nearly enough shelter space for the homeless people of Denver and there are not nearly enough resources to deal with homelessness. The right way to do things would’ve been to set up the resources and then, if necessary, start talking about making a law.

Support for the Anti-Homeless Law

As a side note, every comment I’ve seen on the internet that’s in favor of the law has been something like this:

  • I own a business and sometimes homeless people sleep by it. (This is especially rich coming from restaurant owners who opened restaurants in areas where many homeless people have been sleeping for years.) This makes me and my customers uncomfortable.
  • I see homeless people on the street. Sometimes they talk to me and ask me for money. This makes me uncomfortable.

Holy crap. You know what I do when a homeless person asks me for money? I generally decline to give him or her any money because I don’t have any. Then I go on my way. If it’s an especially egregious interaction, I might complain to Ben when I get home or write a blog post bitching about it. Because here’s the thing. Unlike the people who support this law because homeless people make them uncomfortable, I don’t believe I’m entitled to live in a world where nothing ever makes me feel uncomfortable. Hell, if I got to make things that make me uncomfortable declared illegal, people who support this ordinance would be illegal.

Let’s Talk About Albus Brooks

Here’s a fun (to me) tangent. To try to get an understanding of where he was coming from when drafting and sponsoring this ordinance, I spent some time on my City Councilman Albus Brooks’s Facebook page. I ended up becoming even more disgusted. The most recent post was this:

Tonight was not about winners or losers, it was about beginning a long process of providing smart services to individuals that need it the most. Time and patient application, not rhetoric, will reveal the true nature of this ordinance. Now it’s time to begin working on securing support for the next step-a 24 hour resource center.

I have so many questions. Shouldn’t the true nature of this ordinance have been revealed before it was passed? Shouldn’t Albus Brooks have begun working on securing support for the next step, a 24-hour resource center, before working to get this law passed? Shouldn’t he maybe have not only secured support but also built/established this center before working to get this law passed?

Here’s an exchange from the comments under the above entry:

Rachel: When I spoke at East High the day after you did, a girl said that you made the bill seem like a “bowl full of cherries” and she was dead on. Sketchy politicking, a lack of knowledge about the population this will affect, and a lack of humility in really listening to those who work with them. Bringing diverse communities together? When you have folks like Charlie Brown backing you on issues such as this, you know you have lost your roots.

Albus: Rachel, that was one girl, how about the whole class. You only get half the story, your view is flawed. To be apart of transformation you need to see the whole picture. Sad that we can’t work together because of pride. Smh

First of all, it’s a part. Second, I have more questions. Why does he think she only has half the story? Why hasn’t he told the other half? Why does he assume her view is flawed because she disagrees with him? How does Albus Brooks expect anyone to see the whole picture when he doesn’t even seem to know what it is? To what pride is he referring? How did he determine that they can’t work together? It sounds to me like he’s making a personal attack on Rachel. Also, I can’t take you seriously if you use “Smh” in a professional capacity. But hey, because Albus Brooks thinks personal attacks are cool, I think Albus Brooks is a dismissive, patronizing, smug elitist who doesn’t know what he’s doing.

Scrolling through earlier entries on his Facebook page (which he lists on Twitter as his website, so I assume it functions as an official site), I discovered that when people left respectful comments that are critical of what was then the proposed law, he gave responses like this (extra assholery bolded):

I am disappointed you did not call our office and seek to understand what was being offered before you jump to conclusions. 1. When this bill is released it will be accompanied with 300-350 bed(please call me so I can give you detail…s 7203378888) 2. New services to the top 200 district court offenders ( which are all homeless) 3. We are currently in talks with the Mayors office to develop a 24 hr shelter through a public private partnership run by a non profit the first 24 hour resource center for homeless in this city. Lastly, I had businesses support me, but a GROUNDSWELL of D8 community support, would be happy to show you :).
_______
I am surprised at you, I thought you would at least call or email me to find out the facts before you jump to conclusions like everyone else. First i want to know what are you doing as an engaged residents is doing to get people off of the streets? It will take a the community but the community has not been engaged in what is actually going on there are only few advocates actually working on solutions and MANY naysayers throwing daggers. This is what I am doing with this bill 1. We opened up a church in our district house women who are homeless nightly 2. Waivers to increase shelter space in two specific shelters. 3. Working in conjunction with the Mayors office to develop a 24 hour resource center for homeless individuals.

The way he responds to concerned citizens is completely unacceptable. It’s not their job to call his office to hear his explanation. It’s his job to get his explanation out there. He sounds defensive and, frankly, a little creepy. The smiley face doesn’t help. His plans are vague and there is no evidence that any actual work has been completed. Where are the 300-350 beds (I added that “s” for him)? What are the new services to the top 200 offenders? Being “currently in talks” means nothing has actually happened. Having the support of businesses and a GROUNDSWELL of D8 community support does not negate the fact that some people disagree with this law or do anything to substantively address the issues. Some of the people who oppose this law, like me, live in D8. Also, asking a concerned citizen what he’s doing to get people off the streets is unacceptable and makes Albus Brooks look defensive. It also makes me think that if I ever contact Albus Brooks with a concern, he’ll just ask me what I’ve done to solve the problem, which is not really what I’m looking for from my Councilman. If the community has not been engaged, why hasn’t he been trying to get them engaged?

Finally, I respectfully suggest that he hire a professional editor.

I considered sending my concerns to Albus Brooks directly, but I don’t see the point of giving him the chance to say that he’s disappointed in me for forming an opinion based on the information he’s put out there or to virtually shake his head at me. Albus, you’re welcome to contact me should you like to discuss my concerns further.

All that said, maybe there is good news for the homeless people of Denver. I’m working on finding out his address (as you may have guessed, he did not return to the thread to post it) so I can let everyone know they’re invited to stay at Albus Brooks’s place.

 


I would prefer to have no Klout, thanks.

Can I tell you guys about something that’s been pissing me off?

Klout. Klout pisses me right off.

Look. I never signed up for Klout but somehow, there I was on the site with my score and a “score analysis” and a list of people I influence (which um, hi, I don’t even influence my dogs, so whatever that’s dumb).

Here’s the thing. I’m a raging hippie (that doesn’t make sense) and I hate shit like this. I hate scores and honestly, if you’re the kind of person who goes around talking about how you have Klout (sadly, these people exist), I’d kind of like to punch you in the face. While we’re at it, I hate websites with their lists of top blogs and the like. First of all, the blogs listed on lists of top blogs are never very good and, anyway, who in the hell who isn’t in, like, middle school gives a shit about this crap? It’s all babble and bullshit if you ask me.

I also hate Klout because it makes people spam my Twitter feed. I’m always seeing shit about how somebody gave someone +K about being a spammy asshole on the internet or whatever. Today, there were like 900 tweets about some stupid Spotify shit, which you can access if you have Klout (which, as I soon will reveal, you have if you have a public Twitter account).

Because I was on Klout against my will, I ended up linking my Twitter account so I could at least exert some control over what information about me was presented on the site. I thought maybe I could just delete my Klout profile and be done with it. Well, no. If you have a public Twitter account, you’re going to be on Klout, your desire to not be on Klout be damned. I don’t want to make my Twitter private and deprive my legions of fans who don’t actually follow me of the awesome things I say about an under-appreciated baseball team when I’m drunk, so that’s not a good option.

So. What do you do when you have a profile you don’t want on a website you think is dumb and you can’t delete it? If you’re me, you try to get banned.

How do you get banned from Klout? I have no idea. I googled it and came up with this, which is hilarious and illustrates the complete stupidity of Klout but doesn’t actually tell you how to get banned.

 

So, I figure I’ll start with the basics and do what I do best — using terrible, inappropriate language. You can see the result on my stupid-ass Klout page, which I can only hope is currently updating my True Assholery number. I’ll let you know how this goes. In the meantime, if you want to give me +K on “being an asshole on the internet,” I’ll take it.

Update: In a new effort to get my account deleted, I searched Klout help and found this:

If you would like to delete your registration, please email contact@klout.com and we will process your request within 5 business days. All personal information that you submitted to Klout during registration will be completely deleted from our database within 30 days.

I emailed and I’ll let you know what happens!

Update: Some person named Lan “deleted my Klout account” for me. All this means is that it appears that I never signed up for Klout. Unfortunately, as a result, my “Fucking shit Klout is dumb” name and position as Brand Ambassador of Your Ass no longer appear when you view my profile. My picture and Klout score are still on the site, against my will I might add. Clearly, Lan and I have a different understanding about what “delete” means.

Fucking shit Klout is dumb.

Update: As of November 1, 2011, you can delete your Klout profile. (You can see a screenshot of the page here.) If you don’t have an active Klout account, to access the “opt out” page you have to sign into Klout with Twitter. Then go to profile settings. It appears to work — I just tried it and my profile seems to no longer exist. Sweet!


Blunt honesy on the internet: a case study

‘Sup, internet?

So, Ozzie Guillen’s son Oney is on Twitter. He posts awesome tweets:

Get ur own life on track then try and run others. Hater

I hope the dorks aren’t running the organization or else were fucked. 3 geeks who never played baseball a day in there life telling expe …

I love it how people are monitoring my tweets like I’m someone important. Everyone is entitled to there own opinion

@cst_sox and a pic of u in vegas. Would be u and jay m canoddling behind a craps table. Both with ur pasty white culos

I love how cubs fans get excited about beating us in march there so lame it hurts

@cst_sox I disagree I’m not Ben whatever his name is. I act like I have been out before unlikes him

@cst_sox well I’m glad to be a proud member of the cowley fam. But I refuse to watch steelers game and be naked

@cst_sox as long as I’m not from minnesota or steel city I’m fine talk about shitholes

@oguillenjr we run the bases like ass that’s why.

The Guillen family just got screwed over or fucked… but dont worry we have our own way of handling this

My dad just said I belong on sesame street

Dinner for the anniversary time to get drunk and talk about everyone that’s doing Guillens wrong lookout

I just farted and I cleared the house

What’s worst the mexican mariachis? How fucking annoying wow

Great workout today everything was really smooth….why does joey cora insist on working out while wearing what seems to be a latex body sut

I m not only going to kick your ass, but I will give you a hug after

He’s honest, blunt, and hilarious. These are the kinds of tweets I like to read. I like to hear what people really think, rather some over-sanitized PR shit masquerading as substance. In a world where, more and more often, people are afraid to say anything that matters, the kind of stuff Oney posts is refreshing and just plain awesome.

Oney used to work for the White Sox doing video/scouting stuff. Until yesterday when, as Joe Cowley put it, he got “called into the principal’s office because of his Twitter account.” Sox GM Ken Williams, who has been less than thrilled about anyone associated with the team using Twitter, wanted Oney to stop tweeting or tone it down. Oney said (well, I don’t know what he said because I wasn’t there, so I’m just guessing) something like, fuck no, bitches, and resigned. He continues to tweet.

I like face to face conversation or man to man way better than behind your back.

What I hate is people talking about me. Making a big deal. Taking away from how good the Sox can be

Bruce levine is wrong again. About what he wrote on espn.com. Get ur fact straigh buddy I like u. All false his comments

Why do people give a shit about me. I’m not famous at all. Its not important or relevant

Well, people give a shit about you now because you just showed your cojones to the entire internet. You’ve become important and relevant because, when your bosses told you to shut up, you said “no.” That’s pretty bad ass, if you ask me. Talking shit on Twitter isn’t the most important work in the world or anything, but I appreciate someone standing up for himself like this. As someone who likes to talk shit on Twitter and the internet in general, I appreciate you fighting the good fight like this. (Seriously.)

I’m starting to realize that there are two types of people on the internet: (1) those who want to say what they want to say, everybody else’s opinions be damned; and (2) those who want nothing but safe, complimentary asskissery.

I’ve always believed in saying what I think (on the internet and in life) and I like other people who feel the same way and act accordingly. I believe in people saying what they think about me, too — I’d rather have 100 people call me an asshole than 10 people compliment me and suck up when I don’t deserve it or because they want something from me or from being associated with me. And I strongly believe that, if you can’t handle other people’s real, honest thoughts and opinions, you shouldn’t even be on the internet, because the internet doesn’t exist to feed your ego or your agenda.

One of Oney’s most recent tweets:

I appreciate stones

So do I, Oney. So do I.


Knock knock! It’s Mr. Burglar.

According to an article I read online somewhere, the modus operandi of some local burglars involves pounding on doors and then breaking a window to get in the house if nobody answers. If somebody does answer, they’ll pretend to be looking for work or donations for some bogus charity. (Note: when I was in college, I had a quasi-boyfriend who worked for one of those left-wing charitable organizations where they actually go door-to-door looking for donations, but then he quit and still went door-to-door looking for donations — classy!)

I’m going to assume that this is what happened before some dude broke a window; climbed over the kitchen sink; went through almost every one of my drawers; threw most of my clothes and lots of random crap all over the floor; terrified the hell out of four of five cats (the elderly deaf one was unfazed); filled his pockets (I assume) with earrings and rings (he cleaned me out of gold earrings, including a pair that was my grandmother’s, and took several rings, but somehow left the really good stuff); disconnected and lovingly wrapped our flatscreen LCD TV in a blanket and set it by the back gate; and filled a Vera Bradley (in Nantucket Red, which is the hot pattern for all the felons these days) with my laptop, assorted cords (including the charging base for a Palm Pilot I used almost 10 years ago), a couple cameras, an old cell phone, an empty iPod Shuffle case, the TV manual (but not the remote), a combination lock with no combination (I don’t even know what it is), and a neatly folded Jon Garland Chicago White Sox t-shirt.

(more…)


The Asshole’s Guide to Insulting Women

I don’t know any (openly) sexist asshole men in real life. Really. So I’m always amazed when I encounter asshole men on the Internet.

The thing about sports is that it, well, tends to be an old-boys’ club. The sports world is full of sexist shit that pisses me off if I think about it too much (and, honestly, I’m not often prone to do that, because I don’t always want to be addressing Big Issues in the context of something I enjoy just for the hell of it, which I suppose is lazy of me). Commercials aired during sporting events or programs often are sexist. There are sexist athletes and sexist columnists, and I hate it all, but I try not to hold it against sports as a whole. That would be like being a Cubs fan, but hating the Cubs because of Cubs fans.

That said, there’s one place where the sports assholes come out in droves and it drives me batshit insane every freaking time I see it. It’s a land where you’ll see Asshole Stupidus in its natural environment, taking a gigantic dump on women and human decency.

It’s the land of the Deadspin commenters.

Let’s consider some examples, shall we? These are just from the past two days.

Here we have a post that includes a picture of a Patriots cheerleader. She’s young and you can get a personalized, autographed picture of her. Okay, fine, what’s the big deal?

Comments on this post include [my comments are in brackets and italics]:

  • Sarah Jessica Parker’s got some stiff competition for Horse of the Year. [Haha she’s ugly and so is a rich and famous woman who has nothing to do with this post!]
  • I remember this story from last year and clearly recall this chick was somewhat attractive. What the hell happened? [Haha she’s ugly!]
  • Rebecca, Thanks a lot for causing my testicles to ascend back into my body. I really appreciate it. [Thanks for telling us about your testicles!]
  • Looks like she got beat up by her Masshole boyfriend. [Comment that refers to her as ugly and abuse victim. Hilarious!]
  • Meh. (still would though) [This from someone with the username KazMatsuisAnalFissure.]
  • I don’t think she even qualifies as an attractive Arena Football cheerleader. Maybe AFL2. [Haha she’s ugly!]
  • Dance 10, looks 3. [Comment 1, looks ???]
  • I’ll pass. Seriously, I we need to start establishing some boundaries on what’s a “yes” around here. [Apparently without boundaries and guidelines, we are not intelligent enough to determine who is too ugly for us to be sexin’.]
  • Oh, like you don’t think she belongs in the Butterface All-Stars? [Obligatory Butter Face reference? Check!]

Then we have a post about the backlash against Erin Andrews. I thought the post was well-written and interesting, and agreed that the dress Erin was wearing was appropriate for the situation. Mike Nadel, who wrote the column being discussed, looked like an asshole. The Cubs players discussed in the column looked like immature boys who can’t function like normal adults around an attractive, intelligent woman wearing a summer dress.

But wait until you get to the comments:

  • Am I the only one here who would rather nail Linda Cohn than Erin Andrews? [Are you the only one here who gives a rat’s ass whom you’d like to nail? I thought so.]
  • This is exactly why she looked like a bimbo. If you want to be taken seriously you dress for the job. That dress is intended to be worn while going out to pick up men, not to be taken seriously as a journalist. When she interviewed Theriot post game, he couldn’t even make eye contact with her. [If Theriot couldn’t make eye contact with her, isn’t that HIS problem rather than hers?]
  • Butter-Face [Haha! No really! That’s the whole comment! So original! So funny!]
  • Jesus, bringing up Linda Cohn just completely killed my hard on. She’s all teeth. [Thanks for telling us about your penis. Is this the most action it has seen since the Cubs won the World Series?]
  • Erin Andrews reminds me of the drunk chick at parties who overtly flirts with every guy she can in the shortest amount of time except for me. Her whole act is just too forced, and she comes off like a fucking idiot sometimes. [Fixed that for you!]
  • EA would get sideline interviews no matter what she wears, so why set yourself up for this kind of criticism by wearing something that’s obviously unnecessarily casual? [Why fall into the trap of criticizing a woman for the behavior of those who will criticize her?]
  • as she bent over to shake Aramia Ramirez’ hand, she said: “Good for you…these are gOoOoOoOod for you”…as she shakes her goods for Ram Ram… [???]
  • A well tailored pants suit doesn’t look dowdy or dykey. [Token lesbian insult.]
  • You know what would be awesome? Having sex with Erin Andrews. [You know what would be awesome? For you, I’d guess, having sex with another human. For me, it would be living in a world where assholes stop objectifying women like this.]
  • She has to do more and be better than other journalists in order to attain credibility, otherwise there are people like me who say she got where she is because she’s pretty. If she wants to be taken seriously as a journalist, then she needs to tone down the wardrobe. [Actually, I think the problem is “people like” you who say she got where she is because she’s pretty. She’s not responsible for your issues or judgment of her.]
  • I’d do her.
  • Look, Erin Andrews isn’t a “journalist.” She’s just the token bimbo that ESPN trots out there to ask softball questions during baseball games, so she dresses like one. And she is an average-looking blonde. [Are you the token asshole?]
  • if she wants to be taken seriously, she has to err on the side of dressing conservatively. [Really? According to you? You’re too stupid to take a woman seriously because she dresses less conservatively than you think she should? How sad for you.]

From these examples and more, I’ve learned from Deadspin commenters that, if you’re an asshole and you want to assert your superiority and power over a woman who has the misfortune of encountering you, either in person or on the internet, it’s as easy as following these three steps:

1. Insult a woman for being ugly or fat.

This is by far the best option and should always be your default position. There’s no need to be original here. A two-word comment of “Butter Face” will suffice because really, that one hasn’t been used enough. Obviously, a woman who is ugly and/or fat is completely irrelevant, so commenting on a woman’s ugliness lets everyone know that she is of no importance whatsoever. Don’t be afraid of this option if you’re a woman! Nothing says “I’m one of the guys” like insulting a poor, innocent cheerleader’s appearance.

2. Insult a woman for being a slut.

Unfortunately, not all women are ugly. In fact, some women are hot. Also, there are some instances, especially on the internet, where you have no idea what a particular woman looks like. Fortunately, you can protect yourself from the hot woman or a woman of unknown attractiveness by calling her a slut or a whore. Being a slut is the next best thing to being ugly. You can’t take seriously anything a slut says or does, and a slut is automatically reduced to nothing but boobs and a dissipating vapor of sex appeal that will never amount to anything of substance. Even women who are unwilling to call another woman ugly or fat will use the slut label in the right circumstances.

3. Insult a woman for being a bitch.

You might not know what a woman looks like or anything about her sexual behavior or preferences. In these limited instances, you always can resort to the fall-back position of calling a woman a bitch. The bitch insult is always appropriate and can be used in conjunction with ugly and/or slut. “Bitch” is a very common insult; therefore, some innovation may be necessary. Innovative ways of saying “bitch” include: uptight, needs to get laid, harpy, dyke, killjoy, and one who takes things (especially the internet) too seriously.

So there you go. Hopefully, one day this kind of shit will die out. Until then, I guess I’ll just have to make fun of it.