Who sucks the most?

I just read an interview in which a woman from a child organisation said that Germany is not a child-friendly country.

My usual reaction when it's about racism or other negative things about my fellow countrymen would be: "at least it's not me who has this attitude". But in this case, I will proudly declare myself a childhater. Yes, I hate them and I am proud to be part of the childhater movement.

But why?

I could mention a thousand things. Maybe I don't hate children for what they are but for what they have become. And of course there are always exceptions, but you don't wanna hear the boring part, right? Okay, so I will skip this part.

I hate that children are trained to become annoying by the cartoons.
I hate that the parents don't know what the source of this annoying behaviour is.
I hate that laws are made to put different types of child noise into the same category.

A while ago, when the smurfs were on TV and spongebob was not even invented, nobody sued against kindergartens or playgrounds being too noisy. More children were born than today, or at least as many as today. But still something is different today.

Let's talk about child noise in detail:

There is a "happy" child noise. You could compare it to birds singing. It can be annoying and you want to shoot the birds, but somehow there is something natural to it, so you are saying to yourself: "well, that's the way it is and there is nothing too irritating about it".

Then there is the other noise. You can compare it to the persistent, penetrating bitching that occurs when a group of birds feels disturbed by a cat. You know this sound, right? It sounds like a bird that thinks of itself as an automatic gun. But now I'm going too deep into comparisons.

Just one more comparison. This child noise... I think it sounds like the sound a child would make if you put a wooden stick up his ... okay... you get the idea.

Here is the important part: Some children are happy and playful in the kindergarten or playground, and then it sounds rather bearable. But sometimes you hear a high-pitched scream that will burst glass, or a scream that sounds like someone is dying. Or a scream that sounds like someone is arguing in the worst way. This is not natural. This is unnatural. This is where the above mentioned bird would be psychotic. You would shoot the bird out of mercy.

So is Germany not child-friendly? I guess so, yeah. But the hate is directed towards those who put children into this world and don't know a thing about child education. They are careless and think that the society is going to catch their fall. Both their financial fall and their fall into a need for protection. They think: I'm the parent, I deserve this and that. But they don't see the duties connected with being a parent.

And the media? Well, they must make money. You can't ask for anything that can't be measured in money. You can't. Don't expect them to make changes. Today you can't keep a child interested in a smurfs episode for more than 10 seconds. It's not the child's fault. The smurfs are too adapted, too average, too polite (sounds like me). You need a spongebob in your face or some other cartoon hero that can explode or knot his eyes that come popping out of his head.

Another thing I want to complain about: When married persons are forced by their families to produce children. In some societies it's absolutely normal that two people get married and come up with a child within 12 months from the wedding date.
The families cause a lot of pressure. They use all kinds of arguments for the married couple to make a child. Including these:

-Don't make it hard for us. Our relatives are all asking for a baby
-Just do what every generation has been doing
-You need the child to care for you when you're old
-You insult GOD if you don't make a child

Yeah, so without a financial foundation and without any experience as a married couple, you must make a child now! And just forget about the child's needs or the divorce rate.

This is what needs to become better:

-Only make a child when YOU want one
-Ask yourself if you are already confident enough to have a child in your relationship
-Learn how to raise a child and how children use manipulation techniques against you (yes, against you!)
-Learn how influences from the outside stimulate or overstimulate your child!
-Teach your child the skills to become a bearable, not an unbearable part of this society
-Take responsibility for your child and its actions and don't make excuses like "I didn't want a child, my partner/family wanted a child"

If everyone acted accordingly, we would not have a problem. I am sure of that. I won't lie to you though: I know it's hard to be a perfect mother or father. And child education is not easily realised from a theory book. But that is exactly the reason why I don't want a child.

And just so you know: I'm aware of a couple of good things about having children: The sense of humour they develop, the happy days when you sit together at a table eating, talking or playing board games, the happy moments when they learn to ride a bike, when they get married and so on... I know, I know, I know.

In case anyone wants to use the Darwin argument: No, don't. First of all: I won't be able to make everyone think like me. And even if everyone in your country, my country and 10 other countries would stop making children, humanity would not go extinct. Survival of humanity is NOT an argument for having a child nowadays.

Final question to EVERY person who might be reading: Who do you think sucks most in this whole childhood shit?


Children?
Parents?
Relatives?
Media?
The author of this blog?


please comment.

When doctors are helpless

I had to see a doctor today because of my weird medical condition. I had an infection some weeks ago. Throat pain, coughing, headache, pain in my ear. Some of them took several days, others only one day. The pain in my ear only lasted one day, but after that, the pressure on my ear didn't go away completely and my hearing is impaired. I can generally hear in 3D (so to speak) and I can hear certain sound waves on both ears, but some things don't work so well. It also sounds like I'm talking to myself when I speak, and it only affects one ear. If I put a finger into my left ear, both ears hear almost the same sound when I speak.

So I clearly have some kind of problem. It's been going on for over a week. It troubles me to know that I feel healthy apart from that, so there should not be a problem at all!
I went to see a specialist, only to find out that this specialist is clueless about my condition. They did a couple of tests and found out that I can hear most of the stuff. He found out that the outer ear canal is free, so nothing obvious blocking my ear that could be removed from the outside.

So he threw a couple of medical terms at me, one of which translates to "ear problem without a known cause" but still sounds fancy and serious at the same time. Well... it's nice to know that nothing is known about the source and possible healing of my problem. It could go away, and no one knows whether it will or where it came from.

On the other hand, I read somewhere that this time of problem can't be what the doctor said because pain is never part of that particular problem, and I had pain once.

When I left the doctor's place, I had the feeling he had been trying to convince me that I actually don't have a problem, or that most of what my problem consists of is a subjective matter. Well... I only know I'm not making this up, and I know that I can feel what's going on inside my body. Most of all, I can feel that there is something in the inner or middle ear, at least not something that can be removed. But something that blocks my ear from the inside and sometimes increases or decreases the pressure.

I have to do my own healing and hope that it works. It feels strange and I feel disappointed that I have a hearing problem at the age of not even 30. I feel self-conscious in conversations, not very confident, I feel like I have to turn my head to hear with one ear only, or that I have to read lips. So sad.

When I listen to music, it doesn't sound so strange, but when I talk or listen to things in a room, it sounds a little one-sided. And I hate talking to myself more than talking to others when I try to talk to others.

I hope this will go away. I will use an infrared lamp, spray, pills, sleeping on the other side, and so on.

If nothing changes, I can call myself disabled without being officially recognised as disabled. But to be honest, I don't like the idea of one day having to work in a call center (phone service) and having this hearing problem.

My only hope is my knowledge (what appears to be disputed by the doctor) that there is a physical object or fluid that blocks my ear, changes shape, causes a cracking sound once in a while, and that my ear has a different hearing ability at different times of the day. When I wake up, it's different compared to later, or when I shower. When I blow my nose, the pressure becomes very strong and I have to be careful.

What is this problem?

The doctor doesn't know. I either have to live with it or hope for a miracle or self-healing. Science doesn't seem to help me this time.

And this is the year 2012. Not 1899.

Top 6 egoistic and selfless child education attitudes

A lot of negative and positive ideas came to my mind when I think about the reasons, and sometimes, methods, people have or use when they decide to have children. Many times, an egoistic attitude causes a disadvantage in the child’s life. Other times, an egoistic attitude has a positive outcome, but for the wrong reasons. And in some cases, good intentions make everything wrong. But sometimes, good things happen, not for the sake of the parent, but for the sake of the child. I will list here what I mean:

Negative attitudes:

1. “Let’s make a baby” sex

Quoting T-online.de here:

Hardly any other moment in a relationship is as meaningful as the one in which you decide to have a child together. For years, you have been trying to prevent pregnancy with condoms and pills, and all of a sudden you are going for the exact opposite. The mutual wish for a child is also a declaration of love towards one another, because it means that both partners are ready to commit themselves to each other and that they are longing for a visible product of this love and a miniature version of that partner. This is why the “let’s make a baby” sex is incredibly emotional, intimate and romantic.

 My opinion: The article already spoke for itself in a negative way. Pushing aside all the sentimental rubbish, what’s really left? A product and a miniature version of my own partner. When I think of these words, it sounds like things I would be proud of (product  - something I produced) or that I would want for myself (a little toy version of my partner). None of these implicate anything that would show any kind of awareness that there is actually a new being involved. A human being that wants to be acknowledged for its own sake… not to be the new object to make a relationship interesting. Do you also notice that they talk about commitment towards each other but not the new family member?

The “Let’s make a baby” sex is a half-romantic, half-sexual idea that reduces creating a new life to a sentimental and biological concept. It says nothing about responsibility.

2. “I want a child – no matter what”

I’m sure everyone knows a woman who has expressed this idea. Some women are so obsessed over having a child that the idea itself transforms into a static image associated with feelings. The woman does not see the child as a human being that is going to grow, change, and become independent. The only image that is seen is the image of a mother holding her baby – including a lot of pride, self-fulfillment and “mother godess”-ness. The figure of the mother is in the highest position here, and the child is only a means to an end. Therefore, the well-being of the child is not really of any concern, apart from the time when it is a baby and needs to be taken care of the way the mother wants to take care of it. No thought is invested into the idea that this baby in need will also be a toddler in need, a teenager in need, and an adult waiting to move out of the house (or not). The reasons for this attitude are biological aspects, the projection of happiness into the object “baby” and the thought that a woman on her own (with or without a partner) can’t possible become happy.

3. “The state/country will support me” or “my partner will support me”

I’m not sure in how many countries this is the case, but where I live, a pregnant woman will be protected by the country in financial ways if there is no partner around. That itself is not a problem, as well as the possibility that the male partner will financially secure the mother to be. Where it becomes problematic is when the woman decides to “settle down” in this attitude and become lazy.

As an employee in the employment market sector, I know all about it. Many women with big bellies walk in and apply for unemployment benefits – knowing nobody can force them to work once the pregnancy has reached a certain level. Even years after the child was born, the mother will still be able to receive benefits while not being forced to do anything in return. No other person is able to easily receive benefits like that.

Not only the attitude towards the country is a problem, because you could argue that the mother already serves her country by providing a new generation. The real problem is when the mother just throws away everything in this situation. Many of these women I am talking about never graduated from school, nor do they have a job training under their belt (no pun intended). Becoming pregnant and being left by the male partner is nothing to be blamed for, it can happen and it’s not a good behaviour from the man’s part. But slipping into a “victim” constellation by not doing anything to protect oneself, that is stupid.

In the long run, the child suffers. Not only is the mother permanently crippled by her own inability to find a job and the fact that she is bound by her child, the child will always have to live from the state-financed benefits. Clothes won’t be good enough to compete with class mates. Food won’t be healthy enough. Field trips will become a financial risk. The disadvantages will be felt along the way. And who is poor, usually stays poor.

The “my partner will support me” mindset can backfire, too. If a woman depends totally on the partner and then that partner runs off, the woman who was too naïve will be left with a crying baby and no qualification to improve her situation.

4. Self-sacrifice attitude

Every mentally sane mother has some kind of sacrifice instinct, which means she will sacrifice herself in favour of the child if that is necessary. Sometimes, though, it goes much too far. There is an irrational type of self-sacrifice. It is egoistic because it puts one’s desire to improve the child’s situation before anything else, even if more suffering is created than spared. It sounds complicated, so I will give you a simple example.

There is an episode of Dr. House where a pregnant woman has some kind of medical problem. It is not certain whether the baby will live, but for the sake of the woman, the birth of the child must be triggered immediately. There is a good chance that both will survive, but as for the baby, there is no absolute certainty. The pregnant woman completely rejects this approach and insists that she will carry the baby in herself for as long as she can. The husband is totally devastated and can’t believe she is sacrificing her own life, because not having an operation immediately will cause the woman to die soon. The baby’s chance of survival increases by only 5 to 10 per cent (or something like that). Note that the man will have to raise the child alone. Good luck.

5. Living your life through your child

Many parents live with regrets. They are much older and wiser now, so they wish they could go back and “seize the day” to achieve all the things they never had the courage, chance or ability to do. This wish is perverted when parents try to re-live their lives through their children. Suddenly, the child has to become the musician or race driver that the parents never managed to become. I myself remember a situation when my dad literally kicked my ass into a go-cart violently so that I would drive it and become the next Michael Schumacher. From one second to the next, what was first and offer I was not sure to accept became an order I was forced to follow. I didn’t enjoy the ride and felt humiliated and angry.

6. Indoctrination

Indoctrination can ruin a child’s life more than any other attitude listed here. The indoctrination doesn’t just end when the child has become an adult. Most people are not able to free themselves from the religious ideas they were taught. Like a child that was never told that Santa Claus isn’t real, they keep believing the exact same things their parents taught them.

I am not totally against religion in general. It’s a personal thing. But you should be honest: Most parents who are religious don’t give their children a realistic choice of finding out what they themselves want to believe. What to believe and what not to believe is basically predetermined from the craddle.

I don’t mind if people put positive implications into their children’s heads, like the “love everyone” aspect of christianity or the “desire hurts” aspect of buddhism, but many times I notice that religion is used to put pressure on people. Then it’s always about not being good enough, not praying enough, not following the rules enough, or going to hell. It creates enemies, builds walls between people, and spreads hate that can affect nations. Indoctrination is often egoistic, especially when people believe they must pass on religion to their children in order to make it to heaven. And even if the intentions are good, you are putting chains on your children if you threaten them with hell and the judgement of our angry, full-of-rage heavenly Father who is at the same time so lovely and forgiving.

To see Thee more clearly, to feel Thee more nearly….

Positive attitudes

1. Mental and physical health from day one

I recently read that the obesity (or lack thereof) of a pregnant mother determines the number of fat cells a baby will have. And once the fat cells are there, you can’t change their number.

Vice versa, caring about the health of a child is one of the least egoistic things you can do. As a parent, you don’t directly benefit from it. You won’t necessarily see the health. You won’t be able to live long enough to see how old the child can get. And it will also not be so convenient protecting your child from all the sugar and fat that all the other children get from their parents. This little peace of mind you get in return doesn’t make up for the efforts you have to go through. But that’s what makes it so good. Finally, you get to do something that does not feed your ego or bring you an advantage, but the child. There are enough books about healthy living, and it’s best to start early. Who do you think is responsible for what happens at the dentist’s?

2. Passing on wealth

You could argue that a “low motive” is present here: The survival of your offspring. Of course the generation after you has a better chance of survival if you have some money to give to them before you bite the dust. On the other hand, spending that money all for yourself would be even more egoistic. Therefore, passing on wealth is more of a selfless behaviour. Note: Paying for education is absolutely useful.

3. Equality of siblings

There is always some instinct that tells you to treat this or that child better than the other child. When there are three children, the eldest and youngest will have different advantages and disadvantages while the middle one will usually feel ignored.

It takes a lot of effort to treat your children equally. But it’s important to be fair. Otherwise you will raise children who always want to be right, hold a grudge against society or feel overly privileged. Just be fair. It’s for the sake of the children.

4. Supporting the improvement of abilities

Not just a musical instrument or a new language, also the basic abilities are important. Even nowadays, it is still expected of a man to be handy and of a woman to be a good cook. We can’t kill these expectations, but it doesn’t hurt to prepare children for all these things. When they are young, they can learn so easily and with fun. I don’t know why, but my dad never told me that we’re going to repair something, and I was never good at handiness. I learned a couple of things, but could have learned a lot more, without having my childhood taken away from me. Again, it would be so much easier for parents to just sit back and relax, don’t pay for classes and courses and never show children anything new… but yeah… get off your ass and do something.

5. Making the child a tolerable part of society

It doesn’t help our society, nor does it help the parents or the child if the child grows up without any rules, or if the child is dominated into submission with tons of rules. On both extremes of the spectrum, you see behaviour that the society will have to carry on its shoulders later. On one end, you see a rebel grown up that just can’t get used to getting up in the morning and following orders from his boss, on the other end you see an insecure creature that can’t make his own decisions. Not only are these products of education a pain in the ass for everyone who was raised well enough, they also cost us money and we have to bear with them… knowing we can’t act the same way or we will go back to the stone age.

You can but don’t have to put in all the effort, but it certainly helps everyone else.

6. Conveying true values

As opposed to indoctrination, there are some values you can teach a child which will have a positive effect on the later life of that person. This is not about threatening or intimidating. It’s about enhancing the value of life. There are many ways to do this. Teach connectedness with nature, appreciate the goods that our modern age offers, display gratitude for all the food that is available, show the child how other people in this world live (Africa). The goal is to give your child something it can always go back to before it gets too spoilt. It won’t always have to strive for more and it won’t become so annoyed easily. Of course, you don’t have to show your child the true meaning of humility, and you can’t buy anything for it. But just do something non-egoistic once in a while. Please. If you have kids.

Recent losers

Or you could call this post "victims of RSS (Ralf Schumacher Syndrome)".

Remember my posts about this disease? Oh well, let's dive right into it. Let's talk about the most recent cases of sports personalities thinking they are better off than they actually are.

Victim #1: Nick Heidfeld

Nick Heidfeld (pictured here with what appears to be a half-mast "Heil Hitler" greeting) was so convinced he would be back in a racing seat at the top level in motorsport. Yeah... but he never made it back to Formula One. So what is his big comeback after being thrown out of F1? A new F1 team? No. Nascar? No. Champ Car? No. German Touring Cars? No. It's the FIA World Endurance Championship. Never heard of? Well, that's because it's a new series.
Not only did he not come back into a racing car as quickly as he made everyone think he would, he is also basically gone. Vanished. I won't be watching any of his races because I don't even know if any tv channel televises this stuff.

Victim #2: Adrian Sutil

In some way, you can't call him a loser. In another way, you can. He finished in 9th position in the overall championship standings in the F1 season of 2011. But his contract was still not extended, instead he was replaced by Nico Hülkenberg. He then showed first symptoms of RSS, one of them being complacency and overconfidence. Another symptom was "overchoosiness"... I know that's not a real word. What I'm trying to say is, he was in contract negotiations all the time, but nothing seemed to have come out of it. There were even rumours about a possible contract with the legendary Ferrari team, either as a test driver with a future chance of becoming a permanent race driver there, or already becoming the #2 driver behind Alonso if Massa was to be sacked. Well, none of that happened.
On top of that, he was charged for physical assault on a F1 team CEO and was found guilty, receiving a suspended prison sentence and a 200,000 euros fine. Not a good entry in his CV, I think. And probably, that cost him his future in F1. In the end, all the seats in F1 for 2012 were filled, and he was out. There were less talented people who got a place in F1 instead.
In the picture above, you see a happy Sutil who signals how many years in prison he expected but didn't get. Lucky man.

Victim #3: Michael Skibbe

Frowning heavily about being in such a suck-ass company, we see Michael Skibbe, a football coach. He suffers, or rather suffered, from RSS for a short period of time. He was announced as the new coach for the Hertha BSC Berlin football club on December 22nd, 2011. Only 5 matches later, on February 12th 2012, he was sacked after losing all the matches. Before he was sacked, he said that he was going to make things better and that he would "still have a looooong future at this club". Yeah. You see the patterns of RSS? I call this overconfidence and a lack of sense of reality.
I knew from the start this wouldn't go well. I have had this guy on my loser radar for a long time, because he was also unsuccessful in other teams. All he is good at is frown. Yeah, he is a real champion at that.
At least in one way, he is not a loser. And that is in a financial way. It appears that the club bosses were even bigger idiots than he is. For his contract termination, he received a compensation of fucking 500,000 euros, as well as the 150,000 euros he had already earned during his short work in Berlin. In total, that equals 15,000 euros for every single day that he was under contract. Respect... this man must be really worth his money if that's how much he earns.

Health sucks

My colleagues at work show interesting attitudes towards health. Some always need to be right and make others wrong (not prove wrong, just make wrong), others always spread their doubts everywhere and at the same time are very fatalistic about health - saying it's all in the genes and that everything is or can be unhealthy, so you might as well smoke.

It's funny. When I say that I take a lot of vitamins, they try to make me stop it because they heard bad things about vitamins. But at the same time, these are the people who eat unhealthy food at McDonald's and drink alcohol almost every weekend until they get silly. Who talks about those health risks?

At some point I got reminded of my grandmother when one colleague said:"Too much vitamin consumption causes soft bones". Okay... that is the argument killer there. Once you hear such a sentence, you can basically walk away because nothing is going to stop the other one from thinking what they want to think. It's not like you can say "okay, who said that and what's your source?".
And why does it remind me of my grandmother? Because my grandmother also had her "wisdom words" ready all the time. You got a headache? That means you must eat (and nothing else). Oh yeah... I'm not surprised actually that most people in my family are overweight... or wait, isn't that just the genes' "fault"?

These are the things I noticed when it comes to potentially healthy things in a society that is the fattest in the whole of Europe:

-it's always important to voice concerns about changes, even if people's health deteriorates year after year


-you must always come up with something to prove the other person wrong to boost your ego and bring the other person down to the ground to your own level, especially if the other person is reporting improvements with his/her way of doing things.


-you must always believe the media while proving your point even though you know they have reasons for what they say and are not seeking the truth necessarily.

When I weighed 15 kilos more than I do now, I made all the typical mistakes I was taught to make by this society. I did the jogging and drank a glass of grape juice right after that. I ate the whole grain noodles because they are soooo healthy and all the famous sportsmen eat them (or don't they?). Yeah, and of course I never lost weight because all I ran off my body came back to me in the form of sugars. And furthermore, my parents never protected me from bad food when I was a kid.

Here are some questions to consider:

-Why would I not consume extra vitamins in a country that fails at health science?


-What makes factory-produced noodles better or "safer" than the stuff that is in fruits?


-Why is the recommended vitamin intake so drastically different from one country to another?


-Why does the mythical creature called eskimo never die of "carbohydrate insufficiency (sugar deficiency)" although they only eat meat and fish, and why does that eskimo not know heart diseases?


-Why is it always dangerous in the media to consume vitamins and lose weight fast, but it's never dangerous to eat fast food, smoke or drink?


-Why do we as a species even exist today if our ancestors in the stone age had 20-30 times the amount of  (dangerous!!!!) vitamin intake that we have today?And how could they survive without flour, noodles, processed rice and potatoes in most areas?

By the way, there are stories of success that I read about online. Like the story of a female doctor with multiple sclerosis who came back from the wheelchair and was able to ride a bike again. All because of healthy living.
But of course, only good stories are not enough, otherwise every religion would claim to be right... oh wait, they already do that. No... there are also scientific results that document the health benefits of vitamins. Lots of them. But of course, if you only use the ones where things went wrong and not analyse what went wrong and why, then of course you could say that vitamins are dangerous.

And to put things right, some vitamins can be dangerous. On Wikipedia, I read about a guy who drank himself to death with several litres/gallons of carot juice every day. Or some polar expedition guys who ate polar bear liver. Yeah, they actually died and it was the vitamins' "fault"...so shame on me and my satanistic attempts to convince you otherwise.

What it always comes down to is that every single person or company in this world always has a reason besides the truth to say something.

-Ego boost


-profit


-fears of an industry getting extinct

Such industries might be: Sugar industry, flour industry, pharmaceutical industry.

Now sit down somewhere and think about who writes the news stories and how it's all connected. And one more thing: Think about who funds whose campaigns, what those campaigns might be and who these people are who need campaigns... it has something to do with democracy, to give you a hint.

Stating the obvious

Food is the best source of calcium. Oh really? So what?
Eating shit is the best source of shit.
Walking is the best source of using your feet.
How else am I going to consume calcium? By injecting it into my arm?
Yeah, I know, they try to say that it's better to eat calcium in natural food than by using supplements. But you also put that stuff into your mouth. Is there no other way to explain their point in the english language?

Food is always the best source of whatever for humans. Unless we are talking about oxygene. Or perhaps Vitamin D. Yeah, but it's still pretty stupid to say that something that requires eating is best taken from... well... food.

"I don't care" in songs

I don't usually listen to the radio so much. But when I share a car with other people and I'm not driving, it happens that I have to listen to what other people like to listen to on the radio (or listen to their illegally downloaded mp3 files).

When radio stations only play very recent songs, it brings my piss to a boil sometimes. Not only do they repeat what feels to be five songs maybe, the songs also suck. I am already used to pointless lyrics, but sometimes, the "artists" really overdo it with their lack of ideas. And other times, some words are just used to fill an empty space or to rhyme.

The most striking phrase I can think of here is "I don't care", or anything that has the same meaning. You can also say "I don't mind" or "I don't give a shit". I'll explain this in context:

Maroon 5 feat. Christina Aguilera - Moves like Jagger

"You say I'm a kid
My ego is big
I don't give a shit"

Well, while it does make sense in a context, because it describes the personality of whoever, it's still annoying. Especially when you take into consideration that the shit is cut to "sh..." when being played on the radio. Yeah. How badass... Now it doesn't even rhyme any more. On top of that, why is it censored? Well, I guess that's because it was censored from the start as a radio edit. Here in Germany, where I live, nobody cares about lyrics and I think 90 per cent of the people won't even notice what's happening.

David Guetta feat. Kid Cudi - Memories

"It's gettin' late but I don't mind
It's gettin' late but I don't mind 
It's gettin' late but I don't mind 
It's gettin' late but I don't mind
It's gettin' late but I don't mind 
It's gettin' late but I don't mind 
It's gettin' late but I don't mind"

The song also has the line "All the crazy shit I did tonight" in its lyrics. I'm sure Shakespeare is rotating in his grave with jealousy. Everyone who wonders why our youth gets more and more stupid with every generation, look no further.

Rihanna - S&M

"Sex in the air, I don't care, I love the smell of it"

You don't care about what? That sex is in the air? But when you already say that you like it, then why do you have to say that you don't care? So it's just a filler.
This is my biggest complaint regarding all songs that carelessly use "I don't care": If you don't care, don't sing about it! Why is there so much "I don't care" and "I don't give a damn" in songs if whatever people don't care about is still bothering them enough to bring it into the lyrics.

And here is the bomb:"I don't care what people say". You will have heard this somewhere somewhere. Usually it's uttered by people who act like they are strong and independent (Pink), but deep inside you know they are just hostages of an evil money-making machine that DOES care what people think.

I won't go into further detail about lyrics I hate. I will mention though that I also hate this "ey yo yo" stuff that isn't even words but just "party vocabulary". The one I hate the most is Sean Paul. This guy isn't even singing any more, he is just using his voice in an annoying way. When I hear his voice I have to think of a monkey in a jungle, and that's not a compliment (sorry to all monkeys who read this (yes, I am implying that monkeys become more intelligent while humans evolve backwards)).

"It's a new generation.... of party people"
Fuck yeah...well, I don't care any more.