When you don't know your ass from your elbows

Hm, I wonder what these people sell...

***********************************

 

 

 

You would expect, wouldn't you, to find me ranting about this and that periodically.  What?  Chunski the extremely mild-mannered teddy bear ranting?  No!  But true, I do when I've had a bit too much coffee (as in ten cups before noon).  These Covid days seem to exacerbate matters, as you can imagine. What with the monotony of how everyday seems like Groundhog Day.  Oh well.

Today I'd like to share with you a couple more of my beefs.  No surprises there.  First, the Oxford comma, or its disappearance.

Why the fuck do people not use the Oxford comma?  Seriously?  A recent headline goes: "Microsoft, Zwilling and Nike among the best deals."  The story itself is unimportant.  But why not have a comma after Zwilling?  After all (and that's TWO words!), it's not as though Zwilling and Nike form one brand name!  You do it out of what?  Space-saving desires?  Bullshit.  You don't think, that's why.

Oh, this is just chicken shit, you think?

Take for example this sentence:  We invited the strippers, JFK, and Stalin.  What does it mean?  You invited JFK, Stalin, as well as the strippers.  But what happens if you don't use the Oxford comma?  It reads:  We invited the strippers, JFK and Stalin.  Its (right, and it is NOT it's) meaning?  The strippers are called JFK and Stalin.

Maybe that's what you meant.  I doubt it.

The Oxford comma saves all this confusion.  Most people who don't use it don't consciously exclude the comma.  They just don't think about it.  Well, they should use their brains sometimes then.

**************************

Here's a second beef.  People like soundbites.  They don't think about what they are saying.  Just that it sounds good.  They are morons.

The misuse of marketing to mean advertising has always bugged me, as many of you well know.  That's just plain stupidity on the part of the speaker.  But there's another similarly insidious misrepresentation of meaning.

Recent headline: "This government is only concerned about its brand."

Meaning what, exactly?  Aren't we all actually concerned about our branding?  Isn't it why people who see themselves as environmental warriors buy electric vehicles (or they bike, or better yet, they walk) and bring their own shopping bags to grocery stores?  At the same time they go to Starbucks and use their throwaway coffee cups.  Or buy plastic garbage bags and use them since no one actually sees them doing it.  And of course, no problem buying fast fashion and add to the landfill every couple of weeks.  Their brand is the environment.  And they want to sustain that.

Or take someone whose brand is a successful executive type.  Oh, gotta have the wardrobe, eh?  And the bimmer.  And if I can't afford one, I'd get a 1-series.  So long as it's a bimmer.  Or something equivalent.

That's what we do!  So a government that is concerned about its branding is simply being human.  And besides, maybe it's better.  Because we want a consistent self-image, so that government would actually pursue policies that are consistent.  Instead of some random shit.  Is that not a good thing?

But of course people who use the term don't mean that!  They actually mean the government just want to sway with the wind, and change course however public opinion changes.  THAT is not branding.  THAT is bullshit stupidity.  Like a liberal arts college that says, let's get rid of our theatre program.

********************************

Is there a theme here?  I hope so though I'm not sure what it is!  Seriously, the theme is it is important to understand what we are saying before we say it.  Otherwise, we'd just be idiots pissing in the wind.  And that, my friends, is a stinky business.