Perfect solution to crisis “totally misspelt, irrelevant, stupid” say Grammar Nazis

A well-thought-out and technically viable solution to the issues of socioeconomic inequality, access to education, and world hunger was declared “totally irrelevant and stupid” today, after Grammar Nazis found it lacked the spelling, grammar and punctuation that made it a suggestion they should even read, let alone take seriously.

Citing the potentially world-changing proposal’s several spelling errors and bad grammar, the organisation’s leaders described the online suggestion as “utterly worthy of scorn, contempt and derision.”

“As soon as I saw that his [Micheal Burnell’s] 2400-word, in-depth, well-researched plan to end world hunger and repair the flawed education system hadn’t used the Oxford comma and – worse yet – had spelled it ‘independance’, I just shut my laptop,” said professional commenter and English literature major, Erica Speltjek. “I mean, why would you read anything that contains a spelling error?”

“He talks about restructuring international debt and introducing more punitive regulation for banks, as well as reworking the capitalist system to favour increased spending on education initiatives, health care, and medical research, and then he uses a split infinitive,” explained Speltjek. “He’s obviously an idiot who should be ridiculed and derided with the utmost contempt. Who cares if his plan is feasible, or if English is his second language?”

“And let’s not even talk about his syntax,” she added. “It’s like I’m talking to Yoda.”

However, many international think tanks and policy groups have reacted in an apathetic manner to this reaction, saying that the post's lack of brevity warranted the disdainful turning of a blind eye.

“Too long,” they said in a joint statement this morning, “Did Not Read.”

Humans “misrepresented” by Hollywood Alien Invasion Movies

Outrage and protest have swept the movie-going community this morning, after fans who went to watch Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, Godzilla and Pacific Rim at the cinemas this weekend voiced strong opinions attacking Hollywood’s “totally unbelievable and completely unconvincing portrayal of humanity”.

“I know that these movies are just a work of fiction and that they require a bit of suspension of disbelief to really enjoy them,” said cinema goer Cameron Akshun, “but they’re so factually incorrect it’s not even funny. Humans would totally never roll over and die out when we’re invaded, come on!”

He explained in more depth.

“Movies paint us humans as a bunch of bumbling fools who would get totally destroyed by these invading aliens and then have to rely on one good-looking, dapper, muscled white protagonist to save us all and take back the planet,” he said, “but Jesus, have you ever read a history book? We would totally fuck them up.”

Military specialists and historical experts agree.

“Really, whether we are invaded by a hugely aggressive alien race hell-bent on stealing our planet’s resources and enslaving us, or giant radioactive lizard monsters trying to devastate our homes, or even huge anime battle creatures spawning one by one out of a space-time rift on the floor of the Pacific ocean, it’s safe to say that not only would we utterly obliterate them, we’d also indelibly etch a deep-seated abyssal fear of humankind into their souls,” said General Jenn Ousyde of the US Army.

“We have 2-tonne bombs that can penetrate a steel-reinforced concrete bunker sixty meters underground. We have chemical weapons that can melt your very flesh and bones in seconds. Hell, we invented Justin Bieber. Those invaders would get ravaged, and the few survivors we allow to return home would spread word of our endless wrath, permanently scarring their children with horror stories that would make Wes Craven look like Enid Blyton.”

Even modern foot soldiers agreed.

“If those aliens do attack, well, I hope they kill every last one of us,” said Lieutenant Schutz Toukil. “Because slowly but surely, one IED at a time, one unexpected guerrilla strike by one, we’d win the eventual war. We’d use it all: nuclear bombs, chemical gas, biological warfare, calculated precision strikes, weapons that maim and disable instead of outright kill… Slowly, just like Iraq and history has taught us, we’d turn public opinion on the alien homeworld against the war on Earth, and eventually they would withdraw their troops.

And humankind wouldn’t even stop there, he stressed.

“We would develop a whole new line of chemical and biological warfare to take the alien scum down. We’ll use targeted bunker buster missiles on their Achilles heels. We’ll use 1000-terawatt chemical lasers to roast their eyeballs in their skulls. And finally, we’d force our way through the invasion portal they can no longer close and then, when we’re sitting back and relaxing in the radioactive dust and ashes of their home planet, smoking a cigar made from the bones of their never-to-be-born children, they will realise the mistake they made coming to Earth.”

However, alien generals on Planet Kar-dal-uuk have strongly reiterated that “they have no intentions of invading or attacking [Earth] any time soon.”

“We’ve been watching you and reading your history books,” said Taal-san-jzak, Bloodlord and Commander of the Styazian Starcruiser fleet. “I mean, just look at what you humans do to other humans. We would hate to inflict that kind of murderous and mindless simplicity on our soldiers.”

However, a full-scale invasion, say military strategists, would be totally unnecessary.

“Really, just watching the news I think that if I were an alien general I would just let us all finish killing ourselves in pointless, arbitrary and horrific wars and then just move in to the empty, humanless dustbowl that remains,” USAF Wing Commander Jet Playns. “Why even waste your ships and soldiers killing humans when humans will do it all by themselves for nothing?”

pics: wikimedia commons. Except the first one. That's my photoshop #skillz yo.

Feminism "could be answer" to warring cultures, peoples - UN

Drawing on countless examples of religious intolerance, cultural misunderstandings and racial discrimination between countries, governments, and peoples across the world, scientists in a United Nations press conference this morning now say that feminism could be the answer to a more united world of people in solidarity.

“When you think about how many, many countries act – regardless of the majority demographic, be it colour, creed, race or religion,” said one scientist on the panel, “then certainly introducing feminism in all these countries will bring men everywhere together.”

Likening feminsism to “like, a Doctor Manhattan, you know?”, the panel said that the total unity the women's rights activism could bring between oppressive systems of patriarchal power could be the secret to world peace.

“Think about it – how many of us have been totally honest and supporting and caring and great listeners only to be cruelly put in the friendzone without even a handjob?” asked lead researcher for Men’s Rights International Emar Ay. “How many times have we been sick and tired of endless calls to introduce equal pay? How many times have we been battered by the same tired arguments that ‘videogames and advertising control, objectify and demean women?’ Like, all the flippen’ time, bro.”

He explained in more depth.

“Generally speaking, everyone becomes a slurring, hateful moron on the internet when we ‘discuss’ whether sexism exists, or whether the government should pay for women’s health. This is our uniting characteristic. We could be looking at the missing link for world peace. Feminism.”

“Bitches, man,” agreed another.

”Fuckin’ truth, bro,” added a third.

The global support has been astounding, even if fraught with errors of spelling, grammar, and punctuation.

“When you look at the factual basis of what they’re saying, they’re absolutely right,” said sociologist Noah Tallmehn. “I mean, America and extremist Muslim nations may seem utterly different, with their contrasting cultures, traditional rites, heritages, foods and religious leanings, but when we look at how a lot of people on both sides of the pond treat women like a sandwich-making dog you can stick your knob in, then really, we’re equals. We have so much in common, not least of all a controlling patriarchal society that dumbs down, attacks and tries to control the minds and bodies of women.”

Scientists now predict that even further unity and understanding between disparate cultures and peoples could be sown through a shared hatred for Justin Bieber.

“Really, hating Justin Bieber is just like hating a young girl anyway, but it gets even better than that because it’s like hating a young lesbian women – and we all know what a lot of us think about the gays,” said Tallmehn. “We could kill two birds with one stone.”

He added this was, of course, a only a figurative metaphorical comment until the bird sleeps with a man they’re not married to or makes a comment on bro culture or the gaming industry or female healthcare subsidies or even just the representation of women in films and pop culture.

“Then we’ll really be killing birds with stones, Old Testament-style.”

Peace, security would “cripple” South African economy

Economic and financial experts have today blasted various religious and political parties’ calls for “peace and non-violence between South Africans and an end to rampant theft, rape and murder rates”, saying that such an outcome would “utterly devastate” the South African economy.

“South Africa does have massive multi-million rand industries like agriculture and mining to buff up its GDP,” said Editor of The Financial Times magazine Ray Zintaxes, “but our biggest industry by far is the multi-billion-rand-a-year industry centred mostly on paranoid white people and combating crime. Without crime, our economy would fall to shambles.”

Many other experts and politicians have agreed with this assessment, saying that the calls for peace and safety for all in South Africa are “too rash, too hasty [and] totally short sighted.”

“If we look at projects like Nkandla, you can easily see how the economy would be affected,” said ANC spokesperson, Chi Fwip. “If Zuma didn’t fear for his life and safety, hundreds of security contractors, many of them my personal friends and family, would be homeless, broke, unemployed and destitute. We need crime now more than ever.”

Fwip added that without the constant fear of murder, rape, robbery, assault, farm killings, mugging, gang violence, grand theft auto and petty larceny, many thousands of South Africans would immediately lose their jobs as policemen, car guards, security guards, night-watchmen, private security company employees and security installation and maintenance professionals.

“It would decimate employment,” said Fwip. “And since ‘decimate’ means ‘to reduce by a tenth’ it would probably decimate it more than once.”

Fwip added that crime was the only source of income for many poor families and crack addicts in South Africa.

“Without crime, we’re taking away their only form of livelihood,” he said. “Every time a robber breaks into a house and stabs or shoots someone, he is creating employment and wealth not just for himself, but also for police officers, doctors, hospitals, funeral directors and grave diggers. You can see how such a call would create a domino-effect of havoc for our economy.”

This not the first bit of controversy to be raised about South African crime, however, as our Police Services, the SAPS, have been criticised and questioned time and time again, with theorists alternately saying South Africa would be a better place without them or defending the SAPS as “misrepresented by a biased, unfair media”.

Academics are now calling for more “thought and discourse” on the issue before making such rash calls.

“This whole problem is more complex than merely ‘oh, please stop raping and killing and stealing’,” said Securityologist at the Beijing University School of Security Studies, Shu Tsatukyl. “Without crime, there would be no police, and without Police around there would be no one left around to stop criminals. It would be hell. Like a South African Catch-22, but with fewer long words.”