This is the segment where I scour my favorite forums around the internet
and find some particularly interesting articles about current affairs
told in the words of my favorite human beings.
In this edition we have possibly the biggest moron yet, who genuinely thinks that giving every single woman compensation will cure today's inequalities. Just have a look at some of the bollocks she comes out with.
__________________________________________________________________________________
http://www.vice.com/read/give-your-money-to-women-its-simple-284
__________________________________________________________________________________
Well it's always nice to know that articles aren't going to be biased, and by the looks of this introduction I can clearly see there's absolutely no underlying agenda to this issue, and that this is just good, honest journalism. It's also nice to see the author getting mixed up between wages and earnings, and also providing sources from the same fucking website that this interview is posted on, which in an article that centers around the topic of equal pay isn't a particularly convincing start. I guess it says a lot about an author when they genuinely think equality can be created by giving preferential treatment to one gender. Yeah, I'm sure giving money to every single woman is going to solve gender based income disparities, and not at all make further issues out of a problem that doesn't exist in the first place. The reason for all this, well it's apparently 'emotional labor', which unlike the author states is not scientifically proven in any way. Your source is a piece written by professors in public administration, which as far as I'm concerned isn't a science. Interestingly my search on 'Web of Science' couldn't find that exact wording, and instead directed me to articles related to emotional stress after childbirth. Still, at least it's reassuring to know that this argument will be based on reliable and factual evidence.
My two primary issues with this argument are that not all women are in relationships with men, so giving them money wouldn't solve a damn thing. And secondly if this 'emotional labor' only occurs when women enter relationships with men, then surely the solution is to not enter relationships with men so you don't end up being paid for merely existing. Maybe instead of scrounging money off of hard working men who've earned it, you should try and do the same instead of sharing pointless hashtags like the selfish cow you really are. You say every single woman has to put up with a lot of bullshit, but then so do the men that have read this article; and trust me there's a lot of bullshit to get through here. So why isn't it me demanding money off of you? As you say 'any kind of labor' gets payed for. I'm not sure if you missed the history class on forced labor, but I must have missed the part where paying slaves would have instantly solved the problems. As for the science element, well here is some that's actually been proven: The reason that men go around commanding the attention of women like it's their natural due is because it's exactly as you say. For proof please refer to the mechanism of sexual selection. Or don't actually, there might be some facts in it.
Oh good, it's Lauren Chief Elk, who sounds like the shittest Native American chief in history. She probably owns a novelty casino in Blackpool in which she claims to be donating the profits to her clan of oppressed women. Even better news is that she's clinically insa- I mean a 'prison abolitionist'. What a fantastic idea abolishing prisons is apart from in every single way. I guess the only reason Chief Elk wants to get rid of prisons is so the rate of male murders goes up. That way basement dwelling males like myself get what's coming to them. As it happens I live in an apartment in Brighton without a basement, but I'll happily throw my fists in indignation, as like many rational people that's my response to moronic behaviour. Maybe if you don't want this sort of abuse then I suggest shutting up and stop poking the hornet's nest with a huge shitty stick. A recent UN report actually stated that the person most likely to receive internet abuse are 19 year old men, which include myself, so actually I should be the one getting angry and crying oppression at you. But you know why I don't? Because it's not a gender based issue, no matter how much vague bullshit you try and throw into the article.
Wow, what an unbelievable question that is; almost like being interviewed by David Frost or Jeremy Paxman. I'm sure a serious interviewer would love to hear how you're thinking of ways to bring justice for violence, although I suggest thinking a bit harder and reconsidering the life choices that got you into this interview. You might need an extra brain cell for that one, as the woman who believes that every man abuses every woman can't be very bright. That's not to say I don't abuse women, no I actively abuse women every second of the day with my fellow patriarchy, and so yes I should be giving tonnes of money to women who do fuck all, even though I'm unemployed and have a student loan. But then I don't because I'm such a horrible, horrible man. God, why was I born a man? Now this means I'll have to live my life knowing that because of a generalisation that doesn't reflect the reality of modern life I'm an absolute monster that should give away my hard earned cash to abused women I've never met.
Wait, I thought that feminism was about empowering the choices women make. Surely staying at home is a choice, so why would this need to be compensated by the population that actually do work for their earnings? In terms of economics you must surely be aware that this kind of policy is just suicidal, and even in terms of social changes the only difference will be more women being encouraged to stay at home, which is only going to further these wage disparities. It's a totally flawed policy that makes zero sense from a logical perspective. You just cannot compare the employment of individuals to simple household chores as the concept is entirely different. Maybe when I was ten I might have expected to be compensated for mowing the lawn, but now that I've matured I realise that there is a selfish purpose to doing household work. They're just individual tasks that need doing, so if you're getting emotional labor over them then that's your issue, and not one to penalise millions of men over. I'm unemployed and live on my own so I have to do the fucking chores by myself, but at no point does it ever occur to me that I should be being payed like it was a full time job. Surely you must realise that at least most of what you're saying is total bollocks.
'I'm on board' is a strange thing to say halfway through what I would suppose was a sophisticated interview, but then I guess I'm just a stupid man who would expect objective questions in a serious interview. Not that it matters anyway since the question wasn't even fucking answered, instead just some generic drivel about supposed inequality. Maybe the issue that giving money in no way rectifies inequality finally rang a bell in the vast empty chasms of the interviewee's brain. Saying somebody should be given cash because tragedy costs a lot of money is a ludicrous point. What next, everyone gets a state funded funeral? No, okay apparently that's 'reasonable' in your head.
'Women have to act as therapists to men'. What's your case study for this one, a fucking 'Ladybird' book from the 1950's? If it's really that difficult for women in relationships then why the fuck do so many do it? Surely if it was that bad then women just wouldn't; it's not as if it's mandatory. What you're essentially saying here is that women should be compensated for not using common sense. No, I can see absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Wait, this is the same fucking paragraph as before, only worded differently. When pressed over your logic you couldn't even give two reasons as to why your argument makes any sense. If the events you're describing really are that traumatic then surely you must be able to come up with at least two reasons. So far the only point you're giving me is that being a nice person is harmful; who would of thought that a statement as stupid or controversial as that would get a negative backlash? Maybe we should be compensating people like Martin Luther King or Gandhi for being controversial since we're giving away money to everyone. Oh no, of course they're men who it's been scientifically proven are immune from this 'emotional labor'. Still I implore you to take the same cure they tried and send a bullet through your skull as that might save a lot of people the emotional labor of hearing your dumb arguments. Speaking of suicide, there was absolutely no mention of how suicide rates are significantly higher in men throughout the article which would provide evidence that men cope with higher levels of stress. Not that there were any statistics used as they simply prove the inverse of this idiotic argument.
No to be fair I've lost track of the amount of times I've heard of women being fired for this 'emotional labor'. You make it sound like controlling this fictional construct is the key to any job, which since you still haven't provided any rational evidence as to why it even exists is something I find extremely unlikely. And let me tell you something else: The reason that women are told that they're inherent caregivers is because they are. You know that thing called evolution that drives all life on earth? Well over many years that process has selected human females to be the gender that is only limited by the number of resources in reproduction, hence why they're more evolved to play a more maternal role in any relationship. Although having said that this article is adequate evidence to doubt the theory of natural selection being as a person who makes theories as stupid as this is somehow still in existence.
Then we arrive at what must be the biggest and most ridiculous over-exaggeration of all time. Apparently 'empires will crumble' if women cut off this emotional labor. I don't know if this is the fictional empire in her head, but please enlighten me on how empires would crumble if women stopped playing the role of therapists to the men. You just can't make such a sweeping and overarching statement like that without backing it up, otherwise you sound like a massive idiot. Even then, why the fuck would you want empires to crumble? The reason you're in such a privileged position to be writing this article is because of the very existence of empires, so why the hell would you be campaigning to disrupt this system that has obviously succeeded for people such as yourself over the years? Maybe I'd be more understanding if you didn't come up with the bullshit that all men have the ability to drain women of knowledge. Funny that I never learnt that piece of obvious slander in science lessons, which according to you is a basis to start blackmailing men at the end of the paragraph. No wonder this woman doesn't want prisons, she's more barbaric than most of the inmates.
Yes, how could I forget that the service industry is famous for exclusively hiring women? I know if women are payed less then it would make sense for businesses to exclusively hire them, but in a multi-gendered workplace why should it be only women that are profiting from your fictional constructs? It's clear that this 'emotional labor' is just a ploy to hide your blatantly sexist attitudes towards men, and in this paragraph you even state that anyone who works at minimum wage is under this emotional stress, so why can't men profit from your system? I would call you a hypocrite, but really you've now just become an ignorant asshole. Further proof of that is from your distorted history of capitalism that fails to mention that the system was based around the trading of commodities rather than the simple desire to exploit indigenous people. I'm not denying that the system of capitalism and imperialism hasn't selfishly exploited certain classes in the past, but to chastise a system that you reap the benefits from in your everyday life is another example of your innate hypocrisy.
Your argument just keeps getting broader with every question, yet still fails to explain why women deserve this money you want to force out of hard working men. You also haven't explained how giving money to minorities cures inequality. When I give money to homeless people it doesn't instantly make them equal does it? Just like your plan it's a temporary fix that completely ignores the notion of meritocracy. Your ideas of reversing the direction of capital are plainly suicidal, believing that obtaining money is a random process that in no way got to where it is for a logical reason. Contrary to your belief it is possible for women to succeed in a capitalist world, and this fact shows the scale of your generalisation and ignorance towards the individual needs of individual women. In short your moronic solutions are an inherently flawed method to get across your gender based propaganda, which is something you can only back up with 100% pure bullshit.
I've always been a fan of the electric guitar. Over the years it's undoubtedly become an integral part of the greatest genre of music, always being a powerful inclusion for any rock band. Playing one though requires a certain talent that combines technical expertise with creative genius, meaning only a select few have the skill to pull off one of the more unique instruments. Here is a list of my top ten favorite guitar players of all time.
Honorable Mentions: Jeff Beck: A favorite of many insiders in the industry. His influence has certainly had an effect on the rock genre over the years. Stevie Ray Vaughan: Considered one of the greatest blues guitarists of all time despite having just a seven year career before his untimely death. Kirk Hammett: Yeah I'm a big fan of Metallica, so this man just had to get a mention. To be fair he's produced some of the greatest solos of all time throughout his lengthy career. Slash: The only positive to be found in a totally shit band. Slash now works on solo material with a confirmed status of a rock god.
#10 Angus Young (AC/DC) (1955-)
A Scottish born guitarist who many people can instantly recognise as being a large part of 'AC/DC', one of the biggest rock bands of all time. I'm not exactly a huge fan of 'AC/DC', but I can't fault their combined energy and raw charisma that they each bring to every single one of their performances. Young is the epitome of this ethos, giving his all to every performance, never once hesitating to pull off that iconic duck walk in his schoolboy uniform. This energy has become an integral part of the 'AC/DC' live routine, playing perfectly into the hands of charismatic individuals like Young who can be allowed to strut his stuff on some huge stages. Many estimates claim that the band have sold over 200 million units worldwide, and you have to ask yourself whether that would be the case if it wasn't for the iconic riffs of Angus Young.
When looking at the best of 'AC/DC' it becomes instantly clear that their success revolves around loud and powerful riffs in such great songs as 'Back in Black'. Young compliments this loud and brash sound with some solid work on the guitar that isn't what I'd call sophisticated or beautiful, but gets the sales going nonetheless. Under Young's natural ability is a showman at heart, making up for his lack of natural talent compared to the greats by running through the crowd or having a lengthy breakdown like the mentalist he truly is. Young can get the crowd involved in every second of his lengthy guitar solos, creating a vibrant energy to suit his erratic playing style on tracks such as 'Thunderstruck'. It maybe not technical perfection, but it's always fucking great watching him work.
#9 Keith Richards (The Rolling Stones) (1943-)
Keith Richards might have the modern day appearance of a meth addict, but back in the day he was one of the hottest and most talented guitarists to grace the earth. The reason he looks like a drug addict is because he was one, and a serious one at that, making it a mere miracle that he's still somehow alive. Richards is now an icon of a bygone era, still musically active despite years of toil; never trying to be flamboyant, but rather relying on raw skill to carry his guitar work. Many of the songs in 'The Rolling Stones' catalogue don't focus on big guitar solos making it hard for Richards to make his mark, but he's always there in the background as the integral cog that keeps 'The Rolling Stones' ticking.
Richards as a musician is often regarded as multi-talented, with his writing work possibly becoming more famous than some of his iconic riffs. Many of 'The Rolling Stones' hits have been penned by Richards, allowing many of the songs to operate around simple yet powerful riffs that Richards excels at executing. They might not be the most difficult riffs on this list, but in terms of pacing they're up there with the best of them. All you need to do is listen to great songs like 'Satisfaction', which interestingly came to Richards in his sleep, to get a taste of what classic rock and guitar is all about. Anything in 'Exile on Main Street' is Keith Richards gold. From there you can get a good idea of what Richard's riffs are all about, that unlike the man have not deteriorated over time.
#8 Tony Iommi (Black Sabbath) (1948-)
Tony Iommi is the legend humanity has to thank for heavy metal. This man's unique skill and talent pioneered a now leading genre in music, but just focusing on this aspect of Iommi's life would be detracting from the fact that this man was a seriously talented guitar player who knew how to mash a few chords together. The most interesting part is that Iommi achieved this incredible talent after having a few fingers sliced off on the last day of his job at a steel mill, making it remarkable that he can create a sound as impressive as he does. The deformity in his hand means that his style effectively detunes the guitar, creating a rawer and deeper sound that allowed the man to inadvertently stumble upon a revolutionary genre.
However Iommi was far more than a revolutionary. In his heyday he could riff with the best of them, and indeed some of the most iconic riffs in rock history have been created by this man; their influence still felt in the rock community to this very day in almost every single metal song released. There may have been other bands that got the powerful metal riffs to do more of the work, but Iommi is the man that laid the foundations in style. Nowadays he works on solo material and writes the occasional Eurovision song, which isn't very rock and roll, but I think you can forgive the man who for decades has been a loyal servant to the raucous 'Black Sabbath', who may just be the heaviest band of all time.
#7 David Gilmour (Pink Floyd) (1946-)
Starring in a prog rock band often means the skills of a guitar player get overlooked. Many people will only remember Gilmour for his multiple other roles in the highly regarded 'Pink Floyd', but on the off chance that they needed a cracking guitar solo then Gilmour was just the talent they required. Gilmour will always be a legendary frontman, but his impressive skills on the guitar were often the creative spark that led to 'Pink Floyd' being so highly regarded as one of the all time greats. When you analyse the man's playing style you begin to notice how skilled he is with the guitar, never seeking attention with pointless antics, instead letting the subtle yet powerful performance speak for itself. Over the years Gilmour has treated fans with adrenaline pumping solos that develop 'Pink Floyd' into so much more than just another prog rock band. Gilmour's inclusion allows songs to be paced to perfection, becoming a beautiful art form that doesn't require the guitar to tear the house down. I'll admit it's an acquired taste, but one that in terms of rock and roll is almost that of artistic perfection. Gilmour's precision and originality on the guitar allow 'Pink Floyd' to access these new territories in music, creating their own unique sound, and as a result scoring highly on this list.
#6 Duane Allman (The Allman Brothers) (1946-1971)
Undoubtedly the greatest session musician of all time, and also one of the leading pioneers of southern rock. Duane himself only had a brief stint in the limelight after his life was tragically cut short after an ill timed motorcycle accident in 1971, but in that time the man showed the world that he could do the most unbelievable things with a few simple chords. Had the man lived then we might be discussing the greatest guitarist of all time, but as it happens we can only discuss one of the finest natural talents in rock and roll history. His brief stint may have been forgettable to the general population, but just listen to a few of the man's riffs and you can easily understand why many consider this man the embodiment of a guitar playing legend.
'Skydog', as he was known, has just about worked with anyone notable in the business during his life; providing music for the likes of Aretha Franklin, Wilson Pickett and Percy Sledge. However his most famous collaboration came with Eric Clapton, and together they composed the iconic 'Layla' that would go on to define Clapton's career as a world famous guitarist. It was often said that at one stage of his life Duane would just show up to the studio at random times and record whatever was needed at that particular time. This makes it impossible for us to appreciate the grand scale of all this man's lifetime work, but even the songs that he has written credit for are almost always world class. Give Allman just a few minutes alone, or with any other musician for that matter, and he could produce something amazing with his trusty guitar. Iconic riffs such as 'Jessica' will live on in history as tribute to a world class guitarist that never got the legendary status he deserved.
#5 Eric Clapton (The Yardbirds/Cream) (1945-)
A legend on the guitar who holds the unique distinction of being the only man in history to be inducted into the 'Rock and Roll Hall of Fame' on three separate occasions; once with 'Cream', once with 'The Yardbirds', and a third time for his solo work. That fact alone indicates that this man might be something quite special on the guitar, and indeed the integral part of three great acts is considered one of the all time greats. Clapton is often referred to as 'Slowhand', which is one of those great ironic nicknames considering that this guy can riff like no other. Some would say the man is a god, and when you have eighteen Grammy awards and at one stage invited to join 'The Beatles' after George Harrison temporarily left, it's hard to think of him as anything short of special.
Clapton's music often varies in style, but he's at his brilliant best when playing the blues. Clapton may well be the greatest blues guitarist of all time, and iconic songs such as 'Sunshine of Your Love' or 'Crossroads' show just what a great guitar player the man is. It's hard to imagine but Clapton has suffered from drug addiction and the loss of his son over his extensive career, but these negative effects have only made the music more personal; the man has a genuine passion for music that's always great to see in any artist, but with Clapton this love for music is far more apparent. Clapton even passed out during his performance at the 'Concert for Bangladesh', showing just how dedicated this man is to his own music. Clapton's work is never about the commercial success, showing his own devotion to his personal work on a constant basis with that incredible talent to help him along.
#4 Randy Rhoads (Ozzy Osbourne) (1956-1982)
A criminally underrated talent that like many in the music business died far too young. Rhoads was the man that gave Ozzy Osbourne that iconic sound that reinvigorated his stalling career to levels that even surpassed that of his tenure with 'Black Sabbath'. As a big Ozzy Osbourne fan I can't thank Rhoads enough for his contributions towards heavy metal, but the truth is that this man's now iconic riffs have bought many rock fans many pleasurable evenings. Rhoads had the unique talent of being able to perfectly combine classic riffs and a heavier sound to produce some songs that didn't necessarily pioneer any genres, but just ended up sounding really fucking awesome. Rhoads may not have been the showman that many are on this list, but in terms of passion towards his music this man is far greater than anyone else.
Rhoads was also a unique personality, not conforming to the stereotypical rock and roll lifestyle, drinking very little and being an avid collector of toy trains. Instead of drinking himself to death Rhoads had a dedication to his guitar work and apparently preferred to train with classic guitar tutors rather than visit the pub for the evening or throw a television out of a hotel window. This dedication shows in the quality of Rhoads' work, not becoming the hellraising embodiment of charisma like Ozzy, but instead becoming a hugely respectable figure in the music industry. Rhoads unfortunately perished when he was a passenger in a plane that was trying to fly close to the tour bus, with Rhoads ending up being burnt beyond recognition in the fireball that followed that accident. A rock and roll way to die from one of the least rock and roll guitarists ever, but what a fucking impact this guy made over just that short period.
#3 Jimmy Page (Led Zeppelin) (1944-)
A key part of the four legends that I would consider the greatest band of all time. Page was undoubtedly the perfect talent that 'Led Zeppelin' needed to catapult them to stardom. Page is quite simply a phenomenal talent that has made his name both as a member of a revolutionary band and also as a revered session guitarist, giving his talent to songs such as 'Downtown', 'I Can't Explain', and even 'A Hard Day's Night'. As a two time 'Rock and Roll Hall of Fame' inductee there is no denying that Page has an immense talent, which is amazing considering that the majority of his ability is self taught. It's hard to believe that a man responsible for some of the most unique and inspiring guitar work of all time got their largely by himself, but that's just a testament to how talented this man truly is. Page's unique ability practically invented rock music as we know it today, and his influence has been directly responsible for the sale of over 300 million records.
I would consider Page my favorite guitarist simply because he can master every style of music there is too learn. I still hold that there is nobody else on the planet that could compose such bold and diverse riffs that we can see in songs that range from 'Communication Breakdown' to the much slower 'Dazed and Confused'. In the live versions of these songs Page would often go quite mental, playing the guitar with a violin bow and still managing to perfect some of the most technical solos in rock history. One moment Page could gently caress the guitar, and the next he could tear the fucking building down with some powerful work. Jimmy Page was not a conventional guitarist, instead he was a perfectionist that took rock music to entirely new and exiting places, turning the heads of music lovers everywhere in the process. Page's revolution was often loud and intense, but most of all it was an exhilarating look at the limits of guitar playing. Talk to anyone who knows anything about playing the guitar and you can discover that this man wasn't just another good guitar player, he was the guitar player that defined an era.
#2 Eddie Van Halen (Van Halen) (1955-)
In terms of guitar players with legendary statuses Eddie Van Halen cannot hope to compete with the likes of Jimmy Page and Eric Clapton, but in terms of raw ability this man might just be the greatest of all time. Just listening to the work of this man is enough to send shivers down your spine, and what's even more amazing is that the guy can't even read music. The fact that this guy wings all of his mesmerising performances is scarcely believable. 'Eruption' above is guitar playing at its most fast and furious, and so to think that Van Halen got there by simply jamming is crazy. Even the legend that is Jimmy Page admitted that Eddie was the first significant new kid on the block; and praise doesn't get much higher than that. Paige himself may have been the primary influence to Van Halen's work, but Eddie took guitar playing to the next level. Never before have I seen such unbelievable solos that no normal human being could ever replicate. Van Halen was the man that showed the world his god given talent to frantically tap that guitar, becoming a guitar playing god in the process.
#1 Jimi Hendrix (The Jimi Hendrix Experience) (1942-1970)
Just four years of LSD inspired rock was enough to give this performer an iconic status globally. What Hendrix was doing with guitars years before anyone else is just staggering. Nobody had any idea that the electric guitar could be used to produce complex and innovative sounds until Jimi came along, but when he did he managed to dictate a whole genre whilst making it sound fucking awesome at the same time. What people once thought were unpleasant and amateurish characteristics of music were now being turned into a revolutionary art form that combined individual pieces of perfection and transformed them into powerful noise that could so easily blow minds.
However Hendrix was far more than just another talented guitar player, as the man was also a pure performer at heart. Hendrix could turn himself into a vibrant and charismatic character on stage, never hesitating to pluck guitar strings with his teeth or even set the damn thing alight. His performances at Woodstock and Monterrey will go down in history as definitive moments in rock and roll history, and anyone who had seen the man perform live before his untimely death at 27 will reciprocate that this man was in a class of one. For the first time Hendrix actually let the guitar do the talking, in effect giving himself an extra voice to captivate the audience. It's a symbiotic relationship that I don't believe has ever been replicated to the same extent, and although many have tried to play the guitar like Jimi, nobody has ever quite looked so natural with a guitar in their arms.
This is the segment where I scour my favorite forums around the internet
and find some particularly interesting articles about current affairs
told in the words of my favorite human beings.
In this edition we have the author of a student newspaper who thinks issues that are simply trivial will cause an almighty scandal inside his own Student's Union, claiming it's their egos that prevent him from using the library for 24 hour periods. Oh no.
__________________________________________________________________________________
http://thetab.com/uk/soton/2015/10/19/susu-are-serving-their-own-egos-before-students-61896
__________________________________________________________________________________
Oh the humanity. Imagine not being allowed into a university library because it closes at determined hours every evening. I couldn't imagine such an atrocity since I chose to attend a university that has a 24 hour library system operating every weekday, although when it closes at a specified time at the weekend I'm often inundated with an outpouring of emotion from the poor souls who have been mentally tormented by such a barbaric policy. The people of course that are often in the library at stupid hours are the ones who couldn't fit their sexual love of reading Jeremy Paxman's latest tome on how Margaret Thatcher influenced the fish economy of South-East Namibian trade routes into the hours of the day, and so hope that returning at quieter hours will minimise the shame. Opening later just means that those students can masturbate over these books without a large number of students judging them for being pretty weird, and so for sane people like me I have to wonder what all this fuss is over. I get that a 24 hour library service is a benefit that a select few universities get, and if that was such a big issue then you should have chosen a university that had a 24 hour library service. That's the beauty of the UCAS application process, so honestly you can fuck off if you think you're an oppressed student solely because the library doesn't stay open for a few more hours.
Wait, are we now having a go at the Student's Union for doing essentially what their job is? Surely as representatives of the student population they have every right to get annoyed if a decision that directly affects student life is made without their consultation. I'm sure if the university decided to fund a statue of a homosexual being beaten to death by a cardboard cutout of Margaret Thatcher then you would have a go at them for not intervening, so whatever the scenario the Student's Union will always be the enemy in your eyes. I'd say this slander is very harsh considering they haven't done anything drastically wrong, only delaying a decision over your beloved library, which as far as I'm concerned has nothing to do with massaging their egos. Your article on the other hand does appear to be massaging your ego, and the result is a piece of so called journalism that makes you sound like an entitled bellend.
All through the article you moan at the Student's Union, when in reality they probably have a far better insight into the workings of the university than you ever will. Unlike you there may be other students that don't feel the need to extend the library opening hours as they understand that's a costly process that will divert money away from other vital areas of the university, diminishing it's status as a top university; which may I add is also debatable. It's evidently clear that the demand for work outside of examination periods does not exceed that of the costs required for the 24 hour operation, so why would the student union support a policy that only catered for the minority of students who feel it necessary to masturbate over historical papers at stupid hours? You can hide your lack of insight through weak satire all you want, and I'm sure that light whimsy greatly impressed the conservative population of Southampton who read ill informed shit in student newspapers, but the irony is that just like the Student's Union you keep moaning about, your argument fails to go into any detail either, showing you too have a lack of knowledge about the workings of a library.
Yeah if I was you I would of tactically forgotten about how Dominoes Pizza boxes were left in vast quantities around the library. I've often heard Southampton referred to as a place that stores a lot of rubbish, but if there was any evidence that opening the library for 24 hours would make a positive impact on the university then this isn't it. The issues about cleaning that you clearly stated were non-existent are obviously horseshit, as even by your own admission there were a 'countless' number of leftover pizza boxes that hadn't been cleaned away. If I had control over a prestigious library, which obviously wouldn't be the one in Southampton as it looks like a Victorian cotton mill, then I wouldn't like the idea of it being turned into a glorified seating area for a classless takeaway joint. For this reason I can understand why the university has an issue over this supposed 'lack of adequate food and drink facilities' because it's become apparent that the students of Southampton are vermin attracted to cheap pizza.
And now we finally hit the big issue, which of course is money. The 'Safety Bus', which sounds like something out of a children's TV show and not a university funded scheme, does indeed cost a lot of money to operate. I'd say that a large investment that directly affects students would be of a concern to the Student's Union, and their intervention should hardly be something to cry for attention about over the internet. I know the author of this article might be a bit insecure, but maybe they can cure that by posting constantly pointless selfies all over Facebook, or maybe going clubbing on their own. Just anything so I don't have to read them whinging about a Student's Union doing their bloody jobs. Maybe the Student's Union should readdress 'our' problem as just yours, although of course like the library nobody would vote on telling you to 'fuck off ' as nobody cares about your worthless opinion. It's just a referendum, so stop having a tantrum about not being allowed to vigorously masturbate over literature in the library for certain hours.
As a student you should be concerned about drinking and safe sex, not what time the fucking library is open. It's obvious that the Student's Union cannot cater to everyone, so why should it bother with costly processes that will benefit a select few? If this library issue really is so important then I'm sure the Student's Union will happily pass the proposal, but until then they should be telling workaholics like you to 'fuck off'. Stop crying about pointless issues in the local paper, as it makes you look like an internet twat.
