|
DIAF
Apr 8, 2009 16:30:42 GMT -5
Post by Undecided on Apr 8, 2009 16:30:42 GMT -5
I was reading through old quotes and I was astonished at the number of times this four-letter initialism was used. I have used it several times myself. However, stating that a fundie who wants nonbelievers to die should die in a fire now seems to me far too ironic. From a rhetorical perspective, it is not very useful.
As such, I pledge that I will not use the phrase "die in a fire" or any of its variants on the internet again.
As an alternative, I propose the more apt phrase "NO U" and its variants, specifically towards fundies who wish nonbelievers would disappear somehow, to illustrate how ridiculous it is to hope for one's enemies to simply vanish.
|
|
|
DIAF
Apr 8, 2009 17:03:27 GMT -5
Post by antichrist on Apr 8, 2009 17:03:27 GMT -5
How about Fuck off and die Get bent Jump off a cliff
I don't know, sometimes that's about as much intelligence as I want to expend on the person.
|
|
|
DIAF
Apr 8, 2009 17:33:02 GMT -5
Post by peanutfan on Apr 8, 2009 17:33:02 GMT -5
Could someone explain to me what "get bent" actually means? I mean, I've seen some interesting sexual positions that involve a lot of bending, and I wouldn't want to wish for these people to get laid anytime soon.
Actually, scratch that, it might loosen them up some (ba-DUM-bum). But my original question remains.
|
|
|
DIAF
Apr 8, 2009 17:57:08 GMT -5
Post by devilschaplain2 on Apr 8, 2009 17:57:08 GMT -5
How about:
Eviscerate Yourself with a Steak Knife (EYWASK)
Get Raped by an Angry Rhinoceros (GRBAAR)
Become Infected with a Deadly Virus and Void Your Bowels Before Dying (BIWADVAVYBBD)
I Hope Your Mother Has a Post-Birth Abortion (IHYMHAPBA)
|
|
ouabache
Junior Member
Official Pope
Posts: 73
|
DIAF
Apr 8, 2009 22:32:30 GMT -5
Post by ouabache on Apr 8, 2009 22:32:30 GMT -5
KYSFTB
|
|
|
DIAF
Apr 9, 2009 0:48:44 GMT -5
Post by wmdkitty on Apr 9, 2009 0:48:44 GMT -5
Just Shoot/Kill Yourself Now... (JKYN or JSYN)
|
|
|
DIAF
Apr 9, 2009 1:12:39 GMT -5
Post by Vene on Apr 9, 2009 1:12:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
DIAF
Apr 9, 2009 1:48:05 GMT -5
Post by Napoleon the Clown on Apr 9, 2009 1:48:05 GMT -5
Personally, when a well thought-out rebuttal is pointless or unnecessary, I much prefer "Fuck off." or some variant thereof.
|
|
|
DIAF
Apr 9, 2009 2:58:02 GMT -5
Post by mistermuncher on Apr 9, 2009 2:58:02 GMT -5
^^Sometimes it's fun, though. It often proves that they haven't actually got a point/a clue/ any conception that thoughts exist outside their own heads.
I used to think DIAF was unnecessarily harsh and brutal. Then I thought about how many times I've been told I was going to hell. The comparison gave a slightly different perspective. Still don't use it much, right enough.
|
|
|
DIAF
Apr 9, 2009 4:53:58 GMT -5
Post by Redhunter on Apr 9, 2009 4:53:58 GMT -5
It is overused, to be sure. But what in the english language isn't? EXTREME! AWESOME! BRUTAL! ULTIMATE!
Those are supposed to mean something but when they are used all the time and applied to every and any stupid bit of shit because the folks saying it don't have any more imagination to come up with anything but hyperbole to the nth degree they become all but a shell of what they once were and in worse cases something different than what was originally intended.
What I mean is people are lazy and they suck and they should be able to be more imaginative so that in the instances when Die In A Fire IS appropriate, it carries some weight. In short, this is exactly why we can't have nice things.
|
|
|
DIAF
Apr 9, 2009 9:43:25 GMT -5
Post by caretaker on Apr 9, 2009 9:43:25 GMT -5
Lol @ this-is-why-we-can't-have-nice-things XD
I never use DIAF for the reason above. Also, I'm more likely to facepalm, possibly because I'm a softie.
That said, I think "take a long walk off a short cliff" is quite poetic.
|
|
|
DIAF
Apr 9, 2009 9:56:52 GMT -5
Post by Sleepy on Apr 9, 2009 9:56:52 GMT -5
It is overused, to be sure. But what in the english language isn't? EXTREME! AWESOME! BRUTAL! ULTIMATE!
Those are supposed to mean something but when they are used all the time and applied to every and any stupid bit of shit because the folks saying it don't have any more imagination to come up with anything but hyperbole to the nth degree they become all but a shell of what they once were and in worse cases something different than what was originally intended.
What I mean is people are lazy and they suck and they should be able to be more imaginative so that in the instances when Die In A Fire IS appropriate, it carries some weight. In short, this is exactly why we can't have nice things. This reminds me of that South Park episode where the word "shit" is spoken on television, and after that the word becomes overused to the point where no one really cares about it. It's very true. Certain words are meant to be used at the appropriate time and occasion, and when they're used elsewhere, meaning can fade very gradually.
|
|
|
DIAF
Apr 9, 2009 10:58:02 GMT -5
Post by szaleniec on Apr 9, 2009 10:58:02 GMT -5
It is overused, to be sure. But what in the english language isn't? EXTREME! AWESOME! BRUTAL! ULTIMATE!
Those are supposed to mean something but when they are used all the time and applied to every and any stupid bit of shit because the folks saying it don't have any more imagination to come up with anything but hyperbole to the nth degree they become all but a shell of what they once were and in worse cases something different than what was originally intended. I think the media has to take a share of the blame there. It wouldn't surprise me if I saw a newspaper use "horror" to refer to someone dinging his car on a gatepost. And this is why I do only use DIAF for the most far out there cases.
|
|
|
DIAF
Apr 9, 2009 17:33:23 GMT -5
Post by Undecided on Apr 9, 2009 17:33:23 GMT -5
My issue is that that type of person is indirectly advocating the non-existence of people they disagree with, and so asking them to die in a fire would make me no better than them, even though the internet is not really very serious business. And yet, there has to be a way to succintly and concisely voice my frustration which is not cliché or overly violent.
What's looking to be expressed is something like: "Your ideas are stale, undeveloped, inconsistent with reliable evidence, and incompatible with the fundamental tenets of analysis and criticism which are universal across all fields of knowledge. Under normal circumstances, we would ask you to recuse yourself from the argument until you can support your position with evidence that the proper authorities would understand to be valid, but you seem to show no legitimate desire to improve your understanding of the universe. Furthermore, the areas of study which are relevant to your flawed idea are progressing quite rapidly, and have no need for the technically unsound opinions of those who lack the necessary qualifications, i.e., you. Please, then, do not feel obligated to make such a feeble attempt to contribute to the aforementioned fields: we can wholeheartedly assure you that your intellectual presence is neither required nor desired."
Or
"The solution you propose is unethical, anti-social, uncaring, egocentric and ethnocentric, and merely serves to illustrate your ignorance of the diversity of our society today. If you were to attempt to implement this solution, you can be certain that we and many like-minded people would stop you."
...
I just like being verbose. "DIAF" is too blunt.
|
|
|
DIAF
Apr 10, 2009 0:53:00 GMT -5
Post by Thejebusfire on Apr 10, 2009 0:53:00 GMT -5
I prefer the good old fashioned "go fuck yourself".
|
|