Remember When Smarty Said The UN Was Worthless?

[01d55]

The commie was right! (http://www.iglhrc.org/cgi-bin/iowa/article/pressroom/pressrelease/1257.html)

The removed reference was originally contained in a non-exhaustive list in the resolution highlighting the many groups of people that are particularly targeted by killings - including persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities, persons acting as human rights defenders (such as lawyers, journalists or demonstrators) as well as street children and members of indigenous communities. Mentioning sexual orientation as a basis on which people are targeted for killing highlights a situation in which particular vigilance is required in order for all people to be afforded equal protection.

The amendment removing the reference to sexual orientation was sponsored by Benin on behalf of the African Group in the UN General Assembly and was adopted with 79 votes in favor, 70 against, 17 abstentions and 26 absent.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

They still trying to live up to their glory days of supporting the Khmer Rouge even after they had lost all their power. This is a good effort but lacks the systematic slaughter by number to really reach the true greatness of their past.

[A Zarkin' Frood]

http://i54.tinypic.com/23hlqnq.jpg

If I lived outside the green my Disney anarchist tendencies would reach critical mass.

[Kim]

I think I'm the most pissed off at Russia and China because they have the most land mass, which isn't really a solid basis for quantity of anger, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

[Marc v4.0]

I think I'm the most pissed off at Russia and China because they have the most land mass, which isn't really a solid basis for quantity of anger, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.


I am glad that I am not the only one

[BigGator5]

Meh, conservatives have been saying the UN has been worthless for a number of years. The UN can't even defind "terrorism" for goodness shake!

[Kim]

Conservatives and liberals differ greatly on why the UN sucks, however. Example: Most conservatives would be happy with this particular UN decision, one thinks.

[BigGator5]

Conservatives and liberals differ greatly on why the UN sucks, however. Example: Most conservatives would be happy with this particular UN decision, one thinks.
Maybe, but they would be more happy to shove this in liberals face and say:

"See! This only proves that the UN is ineffective and not worth our hard earned money!"

[Kim]

Maybe, but they would be more happy to shove this in liberals face and say:

"See! This only proves that the UN is ineffective and not worth our hard earned money!"

Hypocrisy is nothing new to conservative ideology. They will do both these things.

[BigGator5]

Hypocrisy is nothing new to conservative ideology. They will do both these things.
I would not argue with you on that point.

The UN is ineffective and worthless, for what reasons are debatable.

[Ryanderman]

Conservatives and liberals differ greatly on why the UN sucks, however. Example: Most conservatives would be happy with this particular UN decision, one thinks.

I think most conservatives, at least in the United States, would not be happy with the UN, in essence, condoning the murder of homosexuals.

Hypocrisy is nothing new to conservative ideology. They will do both these things.
I seem to recall being chastised recently for declaring what someone would do on the Internet. How is this different?

[Aerozord]

Meh, conservatives have been saying the UN has been worthless for a number of years. The UN can't even defind "terrorism" for goodness shake!

part of the problem is, as I understand it, their current definition would also describe US soldiers during the American Revolution

[Professor Smarmiarty]

We're pretty much all terrorists. It's a pretty meaningless buzzword.

E: this message brought to you by trainovision.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

part of the problem is, as I understand it, their current definition would also describe US soldiers during the American Revolution

The thing there is that the only difference between terrorists, revolutionaries and rebels is who wins.

[Kim]

I think most conservatives, at least in the United States, would not be happy with the UN, in essence, condoning the murder of homosexuals.

But they won't frame it that way. If this got the media attention to reach the vast majority of conservatives, something very not likely because it would be harder than normal to make the position they'd take look the way they'd want it to, it will be framed in such a way as to make it more accessible to Republicans and to make Obama out to be the bad guy. The most likely route is to say that Obama is endorsing homosexuality and having it come from Fox News' more rabidly anti-gay pundits. The whole "murder" part of this mess will be downplayed as much as possible, reducing it to a single-or-two sentence bit in as "neutral" wording as possible. When liberals confront conservatives on exactly what this is, conservatives will cite Fox News and tell them that their version is just liberal spin.

You really seem to be underestimating just how much conservative news outlets spin their news stories to accomplish this sort of thing. (http://i.imgur.com/779Vw.jpg)

Besides, there'd be plenty of conservatives who'd be okay with it without the conservative spin. Maybe not most of them, but a lot. The spin is just so they have something to make their position socially acceptable.

I seem to recall being chastised recently for declaring what someone would do on the Internet. How is this different?I could explain exactly how it is different, but I doubt that you actually want me to explain how it is different. Your entire position in situations like this comes off as "You should be nicer to conservatives *wags finger*" and apart from that just not being an argument I want to have right now, it's a fairly off-topic one.

[Ryanderman]

Besides, there'd be plenty of conservatives who'd be okay with it without the conservative spin. Maybe not most of them, but a lot. The spin is just so they have something to make their position socially acceptable.
There are plenty of liberals who'd be okay with Islamic countries murdering Christians without the liberal spin. Maybe not most of them, but a lot. The spin is just so they have something to make their position socially acceptable.


I could explain exactly how it is different, but I doubt that you actually want me to explain how it is different. Your entire position in situations like this comes off as "You should be nicer to conservatives *wags finger*" and apart from that just not being an argument I want to have right now, it's a fairly off-topic one.
Mostly it's about how your blanket hatred often leads you to ridiculous conclusions and statements, when you should be saving your anger for the myriad situations that actually warrant it.

Also, hypocrisy.

[Kim]

Anyone else want to respond to Ryanderman's post? I don't want to get banned again, and I really can't come up with a nice way to explain just how stupid it is.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Anyone else want to respond to Ryanderman's post? I don't want to get banned again, and I really can't come up with a nice way to explain just how stupid it is.

A good place to start might be to leave the word stupid out of your posts when you're talking to or about others.

[Ryanderman]

Anyone else want to respond to Ryanderman's post? I don't want to get banned again, and I really can't come up with a nice way to explain just how stupid it is.
Which part? The one where I showed how ridiculous a statement saying that conservatives support the state sponsored murder of homosexuals is, or the part where I said my issue is that you say stuff like the aforementioned ridiculous statement?

A good place to start might be to leave the word stupid out of your posts when you're talking to or about others.
I'm calling what he said ridiculous. I don't mind him calling what I said stupid.

[McTahr]

Ryanderman: Equating spinning Obama as unpatriotic because he gave mad props to Sitting Bull does not equal (DNE, =/=, etc.) saying that a rough 40-50% of the American population is A-Okay with the murder of their fellow man on a regular basis purely because of media spin.

The two are wildly different situations, and at best, the second is overreaching and forced hyperbole.

Noncon: Directly insulting someone and indirectly doing so are roughly the same in the rules. Fight the issue, not the person.

[Ryanderman]

Ryanderman: Equating spinning Obama as unpatriotic because he gave mad props to Sitting Bull does not equal (DNE, =/=, etc.) saying that a rough 40-50% of the American population is A-Okay with the murder of their fellow man on a regular basis purely because of media spin.

The two are wildly different situations, and at best, the second is overreaching and forced hyperbole.
I wasn't equating them. I was refering to Noncon's statement, that conservatives would be ok with the UN's ruling to remove language condemning the execution of homosexuals for being homosexual from the resolution. A removal that is being decried here and elsewhere as the UN tacitly condoning such state sponsored murders.

I made the conclusion, therefore, that Noncon was saying that many conservatives are ok with the state sponsored murder of homosexuals, as he claimed many would be ok with it without any spin to make it seem less evil. If anything was a reach, that was, but I don't think it was. If it was an erroneous conclusion, I apologize.

But I definitely wasn't comparing the spin on Obama's book.

[Kim]

The one where I showed how ridiculous a statement saying that conservatives support the state sponsored execution of homosexuals is

Didn't say most, just a lot. Arguably, my bias in what I think conservatives would actually believe is influenced by what conservatives I am exposed to, but that doesn't mean that the crazy whatthefucks aren't a part of the conservative movement and pretending they don't exist helps nobody. Additionally, your arguments to defend conservatives from my "blanket hatred" are more likely than not based in attempts to defend the "totally nice conservatives" in your own life, so we're both failing for the same reason: Relying too heavily on personal experience. I believe certain things about conservatives because that is how they always are in my day to day interactions online and offline. You believe certain things about them because of your interactions online and offline. Though I've never encountered any liberal, online or offline, who thought Christians being killed by Islamic countries, spin or not, would be okay, as something like that would run wholly contrary to liberal ideals.

However, that link I used was to serve a point. Fox News loves to put ridiculous spin on anything about liberals whenever it gets an opportunity, and while I conceded that most conservatives probably wouldn't be okay with the death penalty for gays (though that is something that happens in other countries), were Fox to put its inevitable spin on this these same conservatives would eat it up because Fox News told them to. The enduring popularity of Fox News and the current power of the Tea Party attest to that, and there's actually a better example of how what-the-fuck Fox News spin has been of late, but I don't have the time to sift through my Twitter feed until I find it again. When I say that conservatives will say or do a certain thing, it is based on my knowledge that Fox News will put that spin on it, if it reports it, and that statistically speaking the majority of conservatives will buy it because that is what always happens.

[McTahr]

I wasn't equating them. I was refering to Noncon's statement, that conservatives would be ok with the UN's ruling to remove language condemning the execution of homosexuals for being homosexual from the resolution. A removal that is being decried here and elsewhere as the UN tacitly condoning such state sponsored murders.

I made the conclusion, therefore, that Noncon was saying that many conservatives are ok with the state sponsored murder of homosexuals, as he claimed many would be ok with it without any spin to make it seem less evil. If anything was a reach, that was, but I don't think it was. If it was an erroneous conclusion, I apologize.

But I definitely wasn't comparing the spin on Obama's book.

Actually, still, the difference lies in the basis of the parties and the issues involved (Liberals aren't known for hating Christians.), but given this comparison it's still a sweeping generalization of both parties and inherently flawed as an argument to begin with. Not all Conservatives would eat dog shit if Fox told'em to, and not all Liberals would give Jon Stewart a handy if he asked. (Okay, maybe almost all. But Jon's got that charisma.) Both comments are ridiculous.

Also: Re Noncon: Aye, point. Anecdotal evidence never equals evidence. Probably beneficial for a different line of thought to be taken up, built more around implications and such than assumptions and generalizations.

[Ryanderman]

On the one hand, you're claming you're only refering to crazy extreme conservatives. On the other hand, you're saying "a lot." Denying that the crazies are conservatives is pointless, yes, but statements like "Maybe not most of them, but a lot." are no more than half hearted lipservice toward not equating most conservatives with the crazies.

Also, yes, Fox loves to put spin on things to serve their narrative agenda. But this is state sponsored murder, not support of a constroversial historical figure or whatever other examples you have. You're taking a few related specifics, drawing huge generalizations, then comeing to crazy specific conclusions based on those generalizations in an entirely separate situation.

State sponsored murder! You can't assume Fox is going to spin that, without first seeing any evidence! It doesn't compare to the Obama book spin. And beyond that, you claimed "maybe not most of them, but a lot" would be happy with state sponsored murder without any spin.

I don't see how that isn't ridiculous.


Actually, still, the difference lies in the basis of the parties and the issues involved (Liberals aren't known for hating Christians.), but given this comparison it's still a sweeping generalization of both parties and inherently flawed as an argument to begin with. Not all Conservatives would eat dog shit if Fox told'em to, and not all Liberals would give Jon Stewart a handy if he asked. (Okay, maybe almost all. But Jon's got that charisma.) Both comments are ridiculous.
My point.

[Kim]

Not all Conservatives would eat dog shit if Fox told'em to, and not all Liberals would give Jon Stewart a handy if he asked. (Okay, maybe almost all. But Jon's got that charisma.) Both comments are ridiculous.

I'd say most would in both examples, though I've been on a "giving Jon Stewart the middle finger" kick as of late, I will admit.

Also, yes, Fox loves to put crazy spin on things to serve their narrative agenda. But this is state sponsored murder, not support of a constroversial historical figure or whatever other examples you have. You're taking a few related specifics, drawing huge generalizations, then comeing to crazy specific conclusions based on those generalizations in an entirely separate situation.Fine, I'll go look up the other article to prove that Fox News actually does not have any shame whatsoever and pretending that they do is lying to yourself.

statements like "Maybe not most of them, but a lot." are no more than half hearted lipservice toward not equating all conservatives as the crazies.I say what I mean. I'm too much of an asshole to do otherwise.

[McTahr]

We're dealing with a majority system. "A lot" effectively means "all" of the political force. Though I do apologize for continuing to use "all" when I know you said "most, not all" purely because I can't brain today.

[Marc v4.0]

To highlight a particular point, and this is really an issue with my region more then anything, but a good majority of "conservative" population in my area are also KKK.

From just this point of view of the world I have where I live, a lot of people support state-sponsored murder as long as it's jews, homosexuals, blacks, mexicans, asians, people with a funny accent. Without spin. Without spin from a news source, they home-spin their own crazy on special looms down here.

Of course that isn't telling of the population as a whole, but it's most of what I really seem to encounter so of course it colors my perceptions a bit.

[Ryanderman]

Fine, I'll go look up the other article to prove that Fox News actually does not have any shame whatsoever and pretending that they do is lying to yourself.

That'll be an interesting to read if you can find it. But it'll do nothing to address my main problem, which is that:
Besides, there'd be plenty of conservatives who'd be okay with it without the conservative spin. Maybe not most of them, but a lot. The spin is just so they have something to make their position socially acceptable.
Is a ridiculous, horrible statement.

[Fifthfiend]

I think most conservatives, at least in the United States, would not be happy with the UN, in essence, condoning the murder of homosexuals.

Conservatives opposed the US legislative equivalent of this for years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard_and_James_Byrd,_Jr._Hate_Crimes_Pr evention_Act).

EDIT: Misread OP which is in regard to state-sponsored killings rather than killings in general. Nonetheless, US conservatives have a pretty much horrendous record on pretty much every gay-rights-related issue.

[McTahr]

Anecdotal evidence only clouds the argument and makes smart people say silly things. I've met plenty of perfectly nice, reasonable, non-hypocritical, live-by-the-bible-and-not-the-one-that-hates-gays-and-colored-folk-and-science, happy christian conservatives, but that doesn't make me dislike the actions of their party any less.

Nor should it.

[Kim]

We're dealing with a majority system. "A lot" effectively means "all" of the political force. Though I do apologize for continuing to use "all" when I know you said "most, not all" purely because I can't brain today.

I view "a lot" as sheer numbers, whereas something like "most" or "all" is more percentage I want to say? Like, you can have tens of thousands who say, think, believe, whatever something, and that would be a lot, but it wouldn't be close to most or all, dig? As for the "a lot" effectively means "all" I actually agree on that for the most part, so long as we keep the emphasis on effectively and switch out "a lot" for "most." That effectively is where a lot of my anti-conservative anger comes from, because although I'm sure that Ryanderman's grandma (I know nothing about his grandma I just chose a random relative) who bakes awesome cookies and totally doesn't hate Mexicans or whatever is a totally nice conservative and an exception to the rule, the truth is that most conservatives are examples of the worse things said about them, because that's how democracy works. When I say conservatives are a certain way, it's not because I think all of them are, just most. I could go into all my gripes with the groups I affiliate with, but the ignorant naivety of Log Cabin Republicans or when liberals totally fuck up being feminist allies is rarely relevant a topic of discussion.

I'm running on just under two hours of sleep. I can't brain well either.

[Marc v4.0]

Anecdotal evidence only clouds the argument and makes smart people say silly things. I've met plenty of perfectly nice, reasonable, non-hypocritical, live-by-the-bible-and-not-the-one-that-hates-gays-and-colored-folk-and-science, happy christian conservatives, but that doesn't make me dislike the actions of their party any less.

Nor should it.

If that was directed at me, I didn't want to come off as damning the whole group because of circumstances of local population. I know plenty of completely reasonable people of the same recipe you do, it's just for every 1 of them I know 5 more of the other and it is hard to ignore that figure.


edit: Derp, apparently no one can brain today

[Fifthfiend]

There are plenty of liberals who'd be okay with Islamic countries murdering Christians without the liberal spin. Maybe not most of them, but a lot. The spin is just so they have something to make their position socially acceptable.

It's False Equivalence Friday!!

Next up: Is Rachel Maddow just like Rush Limbaugh, or only exactly like Glenn Beck?

[Kim]

Derp, apparently no one can brain today

It's cuz of the fluoride Obama put in the water!

[Marc v4.0]

I thought Clinton did that?

[Kim]

Liberal conspiracy!

[Ryanderman]

It's False Equivalence Friday!!

How is the statement that "plenty of conservatives" support the state sponsored murder of homosexuals not equivalent to the statement that plenty of liberals support the state sponsored murder of Christians? It can't be because no liberal on the face of the planet supports the state sponosred murder of Christians, judging from the number of times I've seen people say "well, they shouldn't have been there," or "they knew the risks in being openly Christian, they brought it on themselves" whenever we get another news story.

[Kim]

It can't be because no liberal on the face of the planet supports the state sponosred murder of Christians, judging from the number of times I've seen people say "well, they shouldn't have been there," or "they knew the risks in being openly Christian, they brought it on themselves" whenever we get another news story.

So now you're trying to prove me right? Huh.

Or: I have never seen either of those statements, but if you're going to try and justify your claim's basis in reality I hope you know you're further justifying mine as well, though neither of yours are as bad as outright saying "Christians should be murdered" which is something that is actually said about gay people so I guess I still win.

[Fenris]

Both of you stop replying to this thread for a day or so.

[Fifthfiend]

How is the statement that "plenty of conservatives" support the state sponsored murder of homosexuals not equivalent to the statement that plenty of liberals support the state sponsored murder of Christians?

Because of the extensive history of conservatives supporting violence and discrimination against homosexuals, and the lack of any remotely equivalent history of liberals supporting violence and discrimination against Christians.

EDIT: Sometimes liberals do support restrictions on Christians' right to discriminate against other people, which is like discriminating against Christians, I guess.

[Fenris]

Seriously, I think this whole situation can be explained if we all just acknowledge that Ryanderman confused "liberals" with "stupid people."

Which is, admittedly, a pretty easy mistake to make.

[Fifthfiend]

Seriously, I think this whole situation can be explained if we all just acknowledge that Ryanderman confused "liberals" with "stupid people."

Which is, admittedly, a pretty easy mistake to make.

Not really, no.

[Fenris]

Not really, no.

I suppose we could just repeat the same stuff over and over again in increasingly abrasive manners until I get fed up of babysitting and send the offending parties to time-out.

That would be so much easier than moving on.

[Kim]

I suppose we could just repeat the same stuff over and over again in increasingly abrasive manners until I get fed up of babysitting and send the offending parties to time-out.

That would be so much easier than moving on.

I think Fifth's problem with your handling of the situation is that your resolution of the situation is "haha liberals they so dumb" and even sarcastically I fail to see how that comes close to a reasonable way of solving things, especially when you could have left it at Ryanderman and myself being told to take a break from the thread. In fact, the only reason I didn't listen to you and posted in this thread was so I could explain this to you so yeah.

[Fifthfiend]

I suppose we could just repeat the same stuff over and over again in increasingly abrasive manners until I get fed up of babysitting and send the offending parties to time-out.

That would be so much easier than moving on.

I honestly don't know what that has to do with your nonsensical statement about liberals, or for that matter, anything at all.

[Fenris]

I think Fifth's problem with your handling of the situation is that your resolution of the situation is "haha liberals they so dumb" and even sarcastically I fail to see how that comes close to a reasonable way of solving things, especially when you could have left it at Ryanderman and myself being told to take a break from the thread. In fact, the only reason I didn't listen to you and posted in this thread was so I could explain this to you so yeah.

See, I'm also a liberal, so no, I'm not going "haha liberals they so dumb".

Mostly what I'm getting at is that pretty much every group has a vocal minority of stupid people. Ryanderman confused the stupid liberals with the rest of the liberals, just as you confused the stupid conservatives with the rest of the conservatives.

Even if you intellectually know the difference between them, your words don't reflect this distinction much of the time. This applies to p. much all of you.

This wasn't very well (or at all) explained in my above post so yeah, that's my bad.

[POS Industries]

I would say that derailing this thread to the topic of what homophobic Americans think of this resolution, while certainly a pressing issue, isn't really pertinent to the utter bullshit at hand, which is namely fuck the countries who are responsible for this and good for us for not being one of them this time.

I mean, Russia? Really? Their greatest national exports are Tchaikovsky and male ballet dancers!

One wonders if Russia, China, and Cuba's yes votes came from actual homophobia or just a desperate attempt to hang on to someone for the state to murder. We know how those guys love their state-sponsored killing, after all.

[Krylo]

I'm a little disappointed in Russia. I kind of expected better from the Ruskies.

China... not so much.

[Kim]

Actually, I don't think I'm really surprised by any of the countries who fucked up. Pissed off? Yeah. Disappointed? Not really. It all seems pretty much in line with what I figured countries would vote.

[Fifthfiend]

I would say that derailing this thread to the topic of what homophobic Americans think of this resolution, while certainly a pressing issue, isn't really pertinent to the utter bullshit at hand, which is namely fuck the countries who are responsible for this and good for us for not being one of them this time.

Given the horrendous record of the US regarding these things it actually is kind of nice.

[Fifthfiend]

Mostly what I'm getting at is that pretty much every group has a vocal minority of stupid people. Ryanderman confused the stupid liberals with the rest of the liberals, just as you confused the stupid conservatives with the rest of the conservatives.

Except that it's actually majorities of conservatives who, per this thread, continue to support discrimination and violence against gays, as demonstrated by their support of legislators, initiatives, and court officers which enshrine discrimination into the law and oppose measures which address the issue of violence.

All Noncon did was say that some unknown percentage of that majority is going to be openly hateful towards gays instead of the various pretexts in which other conservatives couch their hostility towards gay rights.

Ryander responded to this positing an equivalent scenario where some given percentage of liberals would be openly hostile towards Christians in the same manner, which is ridiculous, since there is no remotely equivalent tendency of liberal legislative/judicial antipathy towards Christianity for anyone to even spend time wondering about anyone's reasons for doing so.

It doesn't make sense to talk about about "stupid" liberals in this context as though they are equivalent to "stupid" conservatives since "stupid" conservatives in this context are a subset of a politically empowered majority whereas the purported "stupid" liberals are a subset of a group of liberals which, itself, does not exist in any politically meaningful context.

[Archbio]

Didn't we just have this same argument but with "crazy" taking the place of "stupid" in the false equivalency?

Wait, Turkey was absent at the time of the vote?

Nice try, jackasses.

[Kim]

whereas the purported "stupid" liberals are a subset of a group of liberals which, itself, does not exist in any politically meaningful context.

Actually, I would argue that there are a lot of stupid liberals making up the majority of the liberal movement, or at least enough that I'd believe they're the majority, but that they are far less stupid and mal-intending (is that a word or did I just make it up?) than the stupid conservatives. I mean, there is probably a meaningful conversation to be had about sexism/racism/transphobia/homophobia and the ways in which is still exists in progressive movements and all that jazz, maybe with a dash of discussion about mistreatment of marginalized groups within marginalized groups just to spice things up.

The problem with conservatives being the bad group and liberals being the not nearly as bad but still full of a fair amount of bad group is that, unless you start a discussion specifically to talk about these ,there's really very little place to bring it up. Any time you have groups doing something to inspire such a discussion, conservatives are generally at the forefront, and bringing up the role liberal groups play comes off as an attempt at derailing and distracting from the primary offenders. To be perfectly honest, it usually is just that.

[Ryanderman]

Though it got lost in the heat of trying not to be proved wrong, I don't actually disagree that the comparisons are not equivalent. My stance is, regardless of other attitudes/legislation/discrimination etc in regards to homosexuals vs christians, saying that a large number-ok-maybe-not-most-but-still-a-lot of conservatives support killing homosexuals crosses the same line of false/offensive/ridiculous as does saying that a lot of liberals support killing christians. They're not equivalent, there's context surrounding it that makes that clear, but they both cross the same line.

My point wasn't even that. Just that the former crosses a line, and was trying to use the latter to illustrate it.

Anyway, not trying to stirr up things again, so will shut up again.

[POS Industries]

Ryan's method of responding to it didn't exactly crown him King of Logical Arguments, but I can understand his reaction when the topic derails into "Republicans are so stupid" within the first handful of posts when they honestly didn't even do anything this time.

[Kim]

I blame Gator.

[Marc v4.0]

they honestly didn't even do anything this time.

Can we be so sure?

[POS Industries]

Can we be so sure?
Look, I know, you spend so much time fighting Skeletor, it just seems so easy to assume it's Skeletor's fault every time something bad happens. Because, you know, it usually is.

But this time Skeletor's just sitting there in Snake Mountain like, "Dude, I took the day off, okay? I've got my stories recorded on DVR, I made popcorn, and I have my robe and bunny slippers on. I seriously haven't been out of the house all day!"

[Marc v4.0]

This is funny to me because I can do a dead-on original series Skeletor voice, and I just said all of that out loud.