To the dismay of American theists, a new study confirms that the emergence of bitterness and sarcasm towards people who send thoughts and prayers after a tragic event has proven an effective replacement for the passive “thoughts and prayers” movement it supplanted.
Crisis experts from Tranpower, a scientific think tank in San Bernardino, confirmed the findings of their 2-year social media study at a conference in Los Angeles on Friday. The study showed that complaining about people who send thoughts and prayers has an equal physical effect on “rectifying acts universally considered horrible by people of any political persuasion”.
“Physical results matter, and we found that the effect achieved by condemning people sending thoughts and prayers is not only equal to the physical effect of sending thoughts and prayers, but we also failed to find evidence supportive of the notion that such persistent condemnation has not always produced an equal effect,” reported Julia Stibber, a spokesperson from Tranpower.
“Instead of just feeling insulted like they were in the past, this new method of helping those in need offers particular feelings of pride and smarm to those who spread such condemnation, positive feelings that these people might never have felt before in similar situations.”
“It speaks to the powers of science — and to some extent pessimism — being the building block of society, not religion” Stibber concluded.
The conference room was abuzz after the Tranpower presentation.
“Nothing says you’re only thinking about yourself like sending thoughts and prayers,” said conference attendee Rosa Phillips, whose philanthropic ventures to date have been limited to posting continuous opinions online while garnering no considerable influence. “Just save it, they don’t need need or want to know that the community is offering love and strength during their time of need.”
“I just wish religious people realized how big of assholes they can be,” stated Bill Sederhill, a woman’s studies major from UCLA. “You have to be pretty stupid to think that thoughts and prayers are fixing anything, and I am more than glad to express my disgust with these people after a tragedy. Even if I haven’t personally heard anyone offer thoughts and prayers, you just know they’re out there, thinking, praying. It’s our shared responsibility to cut them off and to set up a partition wall between those imaginary thoughts and prayers and their target and meet them with some very real pessimism.”
Despite persisting flippant attitudes towards the practice, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicates that masturbation still ranks as the 5th leading cause of death in the US.
Studies compiled by the CDC from 2016 NCHS data indicate that “stroke”, a common name for masturbating, still claims the lives of nearly 150,000 Americans annually. While heart disease still claims nearly 5 times the toll, the data suggests that masturbation is still the hazard to human health it was considered to be in the 1950s.
“Deaths per 100,000 did drop significantly between the ’50s and today, maybe as much as 70% depending on which data to which you refer,” reported Clayton Beacon, a Christian Science professor at Culvert Community College. “The data indicates that widespread messaging campaigns made their mark, and obviously far fewer people are ‘stroking’ now than maybe ever before.”
“But, as always, there’s still room for improvement.”
Beacon blames social attitudes for the continuing prevalence of stroke-related deaths.
“People talk about it like it’s nothing, like it’s so cool. Pornography is rampant. I’ve heard doctors say there’s no danger, even though the data can’t be any more clear. But who can you trust? People still smoke because they think its cool, they eat gravy like it’s gravy, you know? I’ve seen people put jars in their butts on the internet for a few people to click ‘like’ for them. Instant gratification, maybe? The desire to be liked by their peers? I’d hate to pontificate on what other agendas may be at work.”
While nearly 40 out of every 100,000 Americans will die from stroke-related causes in 2018, Beacon contends that many of those can be prevented.
“There are plenty of great information resources right in your own neighborhood,” Beacon indicated. “Church groups and community outreaches, people you’ll find here are glad to warn you against the dangers of stroking. With the right messaging, maybe we can reach the others who are still engaged in this disgusting practice.”
With a majority of Americans in a unremitting hunt for a better Smartphone, reviews indicate that new Smartphone products announced for 2018 from Apple, Samsung, Sony, and others, are totally way better than the useless pieces of shit you bought from the same companies just six months ago.
A closer look at the new product lines suggests that the upcoming lines are almost exactly like those hunks of plastic crap you’ve recently indicated would be better purposed by lodging them in assorted body cavities of the jerks who sold them to you. However, regular Smartphone customers are not only safe to ignore that last tidbit, but also encouraged to forget it. Upcoming Smartphones are being promoted as big advances over existing products, and reports indicate that these phones will have the better cameras and more exploitable security features you’ve come to expect in a new device. In the spirit of perpetual phone-buying as the modern standard of success in America, one is certain to wholeheartedly agree with the vague advertising and plunk down another $800 on a new Smartphone — and possibly two — in 2018.
“Let’s face it, waiting until you sincerely need a new device or waiting around for actual advances is for poor people,” said Sylvia Sobel, who works in sales at the mobile electronics store in Clunge Valley. “Think of all the opportunities you’ll be afforded to post about your new phone on social media, to show off new apps to your friends, and to ultimately begin complaining about it in four months when promotions for the new lines start coming out of the woodworks. Everyone loves a victim, and in just four months, it’s you all over again! A new phone is certain to get you loads of attention. What could be more ideal?”
“We know at times it feels like the search for a new, quality status symbol and social media generator is endless, but so is our line of credit for new Smartphone buyers,” Sylvia reports.
“With all this availability, why would you even think to put yourself in a social surrounding where you’re forced to make excuses about your old phone while your friends think you’re just too poor to buy a new one?”
Melanochronologists who studied cross-sections from one of Lemmy Kilmister’s moles recently revealed that the legendary Motorhead bassist and vocalist was actually 74 years old at the time of his death in 2015, not 70 as previously believed.
Melanochronology is the study of mole rings, and it is a subcategory of the larger study of dermachronology, which determines age through studying skin and hair follicles.
“We clearly counted 74 distinctive growth rings,” reports British melanochronologist Patrick Bond, who was part of the forensic team who oversaw Kilmister’s autopsy and performed the mole removal.
Kilmister passed away on December 28, 2015 from prostate cancer, cardiac arrhythmia and congestive heart failure, a date believed to be 4 days after his 70th birthday, although that age is now contested. A series of facial moles, some of which he had removed via previous surgeries, were among his most recognizable features. One of those moles was removed and studied by Bond to determine age and other information.
“It’s probably not as fascinating as it sounds,” Bond admitted. “We lopped it off with a mustache scissor and counted the rings, just like a tree surgeon does. I’d be more interested in knowing why he chose to lie about his age, and what the estate plans to do with the mole now. Can you imagine how well it would do at a Christie’s auction?”
The age news is unlikely to rattle longtime fans, who admired the legendary frontman’s longevity, spirit, and will.
You have the afternoon off work. You’ve special glasses to protect your eyes. You’ve locked the kids inside. You’re all ready for the 2017 North American solar eclipse … but there’s still that one burning question.
Is it racist?
Certainly these are trying times, and the world is coming to grips with a lot of social issues, so it’s fair to wonder the racial implications of watching an eclipse.
The answer is not quite so easy.
An eclipse is a natural celestial occurrence, and lacking emotion, an eclipse cannot be racist, or even indirectly racial.
However, with one round object (the moon) moving in front of another round object (the sun) and blocking its light, washing the world beneath it in a momentary monochromatic display, eclipses have been celebrated for years by racial supremacists, segregationists, and separatists.
“It’s really beautiful to watch all the colors become one in the middle of day, when our light should be brightest,” said Phil Silbarr, a noted astronomer and occasional rally racist. “Generations of racists from all backgrounds have looked forward to eclipses as a momentary glimpse into the world as they’d like for it to be seen.”
“In total, or even near-total state, the prominence of the sun around the rim of the moon creates a halo effect. This really adds to the religious significance that many race-motivated groups are looking for. Everything is one color and there is a halo in the sky. It speaks to these people, tells them that this moment is preordained by God, which is just what they want to hear.”
Silbarr pointed to an eclipse over North America in the early 19th century. “Most of the people who watched that would have been generally racist, or at least holding a much different view than the modern world, or even myself, have about race.”
Asked if he believed that watching eclipses is racist, in practice, Philbarr replied, “The evidence says that it’s not necessarily so, but the odds are remarkably good that your desire to watch the eclipse is seeded from some deeply ingrained dislike or distrust of, you know … whomever you know to be inferior.”
“You’ll be watching this eclipse with racists. You’ll be supporting what they’re doing, which is essentially saying you condone it. I think it’s important that you know this. You’ll be participating in a silent ceremony that has been long heralded and held in ardor by everything from garden variety racists to all out separatists and supremacists. Celestial bodies aren’t racist, but — and the numbers back me up here — if you’ve gone to all the trouble, you’re probably a racist for watching the eclipse.”
A team of well-paid scientists working for Post Consumer Brands has released a study that states that they have found a direct link between Post Fruity Pebbles cereal and the eradication of several types of cancer cells.
According to the report, a treatment regiment that includes a daily breakfast of toast, juice, milk and delicious Post Fruity Pebbles, in conjunction with regularly scheduled visits to a clinic which provides chemotherapy or similar cancer-deterring treatments, was found to stop the growth of many types of cancer cells and in many cases to eradicate the cancerous cells, leading to remission and, in some cases, full recovery.
“If you’re looking to live a full and healthy life, and not be some loser with cancer, this definitely, uh, seems like the way to go,” said Howard Brinker, a spokesman who presented the study before a team of scientists before last week’s World Science Summit in Belgium.
American chemist Rocco Whetsel, who was met with uproarious applause a day earlier with his proposal to reduce long-term costs in aid to underdeveloped nations while eliminating asbestos abroad, presented the biggest challenge to Brinker’s claim, asking if other foods had been tested to provide credence to the claim that Post Fruity Pebbles was specifically responsible for the cancer findings.
Brinker took the question in stride, offering to “conduct similar experiments for other companies for a nominal fee after our work with Post has completed.”
“I feel like we were more in agreement after that,” Whetsel told Trigger Alert. “I mean, the study’s been done, the data is there and I have no reason to doubt the claims. And he offered to back it up. You wouldn’t do that if you were lying.”
“A near consensus of us here in the science community are ready to side with this report, pending funding,” Whetsel stated.