Pet Peeves and Overused Words and Phrases

I consider it the greatest loss in the history of the internet. More than old MySpace, geocities or Mega Upload. I love watching old movies and talking about them but unfortunately most of my peers, both now and thru school, didn't. So the IMDb forums were a godsend. For me, checking them out after watching something new was part of the filmgoing experience for me. It was the first website I ever actively visited on a near-daily basis and the first I made an account for. I remember being really active on the Pirates of the Caribbean boards and Clarissa Explains It All boards at various points. I remember fooling around on the TFA board on premiere night and telling everyone Leia died  

There's absolutely no place to go to for thoughtful discussion on specific movies anymore, especially not older films. 
 

In the analyses I wrote of debates and speeches, I made frequent mention of my "political pet peeves." Some of which included: 

"In XX months, America is going to make a choice..."

Talking about reforming the tax policy. EVERYONE does it and it never happens. 

"Family Values" (aka Anything that's not two hetero evangelical WASPs with 2.5 kids and a white picket fence can get fucked.)

Thanking the moderator at the beginning instead of answering the question, when you're just gonna thank them in the end anyway. 

Beginning the speech with these arduous, drawn out family shoutouts instead of just talking policy. It's obnoxious and makes it a lot harder to find the speech compelling. 

Selective enforcement of the roles by the moderator, including trying to insert themselves or their politics into it. The event is about the people learning about the candidates, it's not your big moment to play kingmaker. 

The entire debate format in general. It's an insufferable quiz show dynamic. "Tell me how to solve the Middle East crisis in less than a minute!!" / "what's your tax policy in 30 seconds!!" The candidates should be give AT LEAST 15 minutes, preferably 30+ minutes of unbroken speaking time. I've always said we should use the old Lincoln Douglas debate format as a guide, where the first guy got 60 minutes, the challenger got 90 minutes, and finally the first guy got 30 as a final rebuttal. Then each debate they switched the speaking order. This way you'd get a candidate's full position including all the context they need to rattle off so it makes sense. The way we do things now is stupid and insulting--it's not wonder a reality TV star dominated with such an asinine format.

Agreed, The Cap'n. There's more I could say, but I don't want to turn this thread solely political and invite directed attacks against specific parties or persons exclusively. But many aspects of our process are absolutely infuriating and it's weird nobody notices or cares enough to talk about it. 

Another general Pet Peeve that applies to almost everyone though is the same stupid cliches in speeches. I absolutely loathe stupid generic Washington/Lincoln/(rarely) Jefferson quotes thrown in as virtue signaling to that past glory. If quotes are used, they ought to be because the quote itself is priescient, witty and relevant to the situation at hand, not just because a universally revered President said it. I'd love to see quotes from lesser known President who still said something wise.

Similarly, I hate it when Presidential candidates feel the need to remind me about the Revolutionary War, Declaration of Independence and Constitution in their speech as if I didn't graduate elementary school. I'd love to see more modern, specific, relevant historical parallels. Like, maybe a left wing candidate could briefly call back to labor unions and the bullshit they put up with to get us rights we take for granted today, or FDR and the New Deal. I'd feel way more inspired hearing something like that, and affirmed in the conviction that this candidate wants to build on that legacy and those gains. America's founding tells me nothing except they're a generic and uninspired candidate trying to skate by on platitudes, forced sentiment and empty gestures.

We kept it completely non-partisan nor issue based, just talking about annoying phrases and format of the speeches/debates. But I agree, that's enough and I'll keep it to the political subforum going forward.

It's fine, don't worry about it.  

In any event, I think my edit worked this time.   Perhaps due to being on a PC instead of the mobile version.  

This is probably gonna seem judgmental and get me some bad press around here, but it's my honest opinion for better or worse. 

I hate the stereotype that blonds have more fun, are sexier, are more desirable, etc while brunettes are supposedly stuffy, bookish and dull. You see this idea reflected in a lot of media. Three's Company comes to mind, where the blond roommates were always treated as "the hot one" while Janet was mostly portrayed as frumpy and more of a stick in the mud at times. 

It's obviously their hair and they can do what they want with it--obviously. But I dislike it when women dye their hair blond for this reason. It always looks fake to me, and always felt like looking for attention. I hope anyone reading whom this applies to isn't offended, I just hate the stereotype and to me dying ones hair to look sexier and more exciting only reinforces it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blonde_stereotype#Blondes_versus_brunettes 

What’s worse—and this pet peeve is probably said enough that saying it should also count as a pet peeve—is when it’s used meaning figuratively or metaphorically.

“My brain literally exploded,” “my eyes literally popped out of my head.”

Interesting, I've preferred the periods over dashes in phone numbers. I also hate the older convention of putting the area code in parentheses. In both cases, I can't explain why. I think it's just cosmetic for me, not a functional preference.