The New and Improved Republican Glossaurus

Like a Glossaryⁱ and a Thesaurusⁱⁱ in one! See how this works ? Technically this'd be the 2nd edition, if you're keeping score.

• Pantsuit. A pantsuit is the politically active jwzⁱⁱⁱ. Generally lazy people are lazy enough to not be bothered to try and structure their laziness in any particular manner. Some get active enough to do so on occasion, and when that occurs it's invariably a litany of the same exact nonsense : it starts with "the golden rule"^iv and "why can't we just get along" and proceeds from there all the way to scientist religion and "just the facts" agitprop praxology. So named to commemorate the Pantsuited Hilarity's butchering at the hands of the Republic^v. RIP PH 2016.
• Nigger. Anyone who aspires to feed themselves out of "stone soup"^vi to which he's contributed the stone.
• Jew. Anyone involved in the mediatization of socialism, from Ben Stiller down. They happen to also mostly be jews in the obsolete meaning of the term, more or less coincidentally.
• Prostitextuate. Aspiring jew, but with significant personal issues^vii preventing it from going on cam. Will attempt to "do the same" through writing, because it heard at some point in the past white people not only could read, but actually cared to. As the name implies, a prostitextuate might well have found the butt of the pathetic tun.
• NEET. Traditionally an euphemistic mark of worthlessness, "not in education, employment or training" ; but these days simply denoting everyone born after the world went to shit, however you time that event.
• SUTO, abbreviation of Superficial UsTardian Onanism, that is to say the ersatz NEETs substitute for a thought process (much in the manner fatties use fatlogic, or stunted girlies use "feelings").
• SOPS, abbreviation of Statally Organised Pseudojustice System. Consider Hettinga, or the misadventure of Mr. Perry, or say The Crime of Being American, or for that matter

  asciilifeform meanwhile, in greatagains, http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mi-court-of-appeals/1878675.html
  asciilifeform 'The Restatement (Second) of Torts § 559 lists “membership in the Ku Klux Klan” as the quintessential illustration of a defamatory statement. In an opinion piece in The Detroit News, columnist Bankole Thompson asserted that radio show host James Edwards is a “leader” of the Ku Klux Klan. There is no record evidence to suggest that Edwards holds a formal leadership position in the Ku Klux Klan, nor is there any record evidence
  asciilifeform this lack of formal relationship, Edwards has espoused views consistent with those associated with the Klan and, equally as important, he has repeatedly and publicly embraced several individuals who are strongly associated with the Klan. Mindful of Aesop's lesson, “A man is known by the company he keeps,” 1 we hold that Edwards cannot make claims of defamation or invasion of privacy and affirm summary disposition in favor of defe
  asciilifeform '
  mircea_popescu that's some pretty great legal reasoning right there. "the factual accuracy of statements can now be derived from the company one keeps -- for isntance, a man can not be sued for practicing medicine without a license for as long as he does it within sight of actual doctors" where the fuck do they find these mental molluscs ? i wonder what laws of magic will be invoked to pretend that tort "ruling" is not precedent for de-licensing medicine.

  asciilifeform the reality of present-day usg is that precedent is precedent when they feel like it, and unprecedent when they unfeellikeit. the 1 law, where 'precedent is whatever we say it is'. sorta like 'in this germany, a jew is he who i say is a jew' in the earlier reich.

  Do you know that joke with the little girl ?

1. A glossary is a sorted list of items related to a particular item. Like said item's L1, see ? [↩]
2. A thesaurus is a list of synonymy rings.

   In the dark ages before the explicit emergence of the Republic, the "scholars" suibus generis active in those times naturally stumbled on a primitive concept of the WoT, but failing to understand its tree nature instead conceptualized it as a succession of equivalence rings. Language to these early thinkers was then not the structured Republic of words that it in fact is ; but rather appeared to them like an Empire formed of equalitarian gangs distinguished from each other.

   If this view reeks of naive socialism, do not suspect the troglodytes living in past ages of anything but stupidity. The two are both entirely the same one thing after all. Moreover, consider : on occasion they'd warn doctly that "no perfect synonymy exists" ; but then would proceed to act as if it existed nevertheless. Does that bring to mind the "computer experts" of today ? Guess what, someone's someday going to write this same footnote about them, too. Stupid never changes, after all.

   PS. That the "Oxford English dictionary" deems it so "long established" a "word" in English that it needn't be italicized in ordinary use is funny, considering sui is the singular dative of sus, and the plural (ie, "their" kind), which could be either subus or suibus, (and without getting into a lengthy discussion let's just say I prefer writing it with an i to distinguish it from the ablative plural) is not found anywhere on the English speaking internets. There's no suibus generis, there's no subus generis, there's just piles upon piles of useless fucktards who imagine they "know some Latin" on the grounds of parroting the "sui generis" they heard, with nary a clue there even was such a thing as Latin which even had such a thing as declension.

   I bother to point this out because we find here Americana entire, truthfully reflected in this tiny raindrop. This is exactly and completely what "the premiere country in the world" is all about : some bits and pieces of stolen hardware randomly placed here and there ; otherwise mucus, sputum and unidentifiable biomass qs.

   PPS. Apparently doctly (in the ways and manners of being doct) is entirely incomprehensible to native speakers ; and further apparently there's no such thing as doct (displaying the characteristics of common belief or popular understanding) in English either, because fuck it all, half the classical roots are "of course everyone knows, o yeah, totally" whereas the other half is complete dumbfounded incomprehension and wtf is this doxa, dokein thing. [↩]

3. So named to comemorate an actual event : a fellow by that initialism (Joel Spolsky) actually told me that he "doesn't give a flying fuck about the political bone I have to pick ; he just wants email to work". The speciffic idiocy here involved, composed of equal parts magic thinking, one half of which along the lines of "whether I am interested in war matters more than whether war is interested in me" and the other half along the lines of "if I really want something it has to happen" ended up summarized under the "i just want to" header in Republican conversation, or jwz for short.

   For the record, the position is not merely infantile and untenable, but actually quite reductive. This is to say that notwithstanding such a thing could never exist, if it were to exist the world would be poorer and sadder for its existence, not richer nor happier. There obviously exist those who equate "civilisation" with this sort of castration ; but they are a very sad lot indeed. [↩]

4. This is the proposition that "one shouldn't act ; but if one absolutely must act, then that one should act in such a way as to avoid his action having any possible meaning".

   It's never stated like that by the idiots, but usually in some version of "act so as to not disturb anyone's illusion of being the single player in the MMORPG of existence", such as for instance "all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them".

   Then they sit around and wonder why education can't possibly occur in a world of strictly bijective interactions, and stare incomprehendingly even as the gates fall. How could a gate fall when the falling wouldn't gate ?! [↩]

5. Ah, what a trek we've trekked since 2014. [↩]
6. You know that ancient story on "cooperation" whereby in a post-war village a soldier comes and proposes to make stone soup, and gets everyone to contribute a little something from their own stores to the great communal pot, resulting in delicious soup (he gets to divvy up) ?

   It usually crops up when the socialist encounters a "hostile" environment (which is to say one that's not entirely made up of idiots) as a low level, first contact propaganda effort. [↩]

7. The usual stuff blocking maturation in little girls, as discussed in Spies in Berlin, Femeia nesuferita and so forth. Here it is visually :

   [↩]