Veeky Forums humour thread

...

>I choose whoever
>whoever

Dumb whore. "Whoever" is clearly the direct object of that sentence and it should therefore be "whomever". There is nothing worse than women who think they are intelligent.

...

I don't think she thought she was very intelligent user

Can someone make a funny meme image, something similar to the "i can be your best fantasy or worst nightmare" thing, but while juxtaposing Sam Hyde and DFW?

The liquid autism of the calibre on only expect from this board

*whom'st've're

Lost hard

...

That's from Hamlet, right?

Macbeth.

This was a really stupid post and I'm glad you deleted it. A great display of self-awareness, user.

>whomsoever
>h
>o
>m
>s
>o
>e
>v
>e
>r

it was stupid, but not wrong

I never suggested otherwise.

Someone please also photoshop an image of Ricky Berwick animorphing into Martin Shkreli who is then animorphing into Ben Shapiro. Thank you.

kek'd

touche

...

Nothing inherently gay about anal sex senpai.

then start pumping my arsehole with your manly rod while you call me "my pretty carli claire"

silly perscriptivism here, clearly

OC please rate

how can a nihilist say fascism is bad

the direct object is the clause "whomever types clearly"

lol @ men

Wrong, lad.

who cares?

They don't even have to

Look at that image. Nowhere does it say 'fascism is bad'

You just assumed it was in there because you believe fascism is bad.

REALLY TICKLES THOSE SYNAPSES

why would I care about letting him buttfuck if it's not bad to stop him?

Why don't you tell me

...

fuck me this was funny

this

fuck i lost

It's not even prescriptive. It serves a discernable function as an objective pronoun.

By your reasoning, "him gave a we a breadstick" is subjectively correct.

Whom/whomever can also be indirect.

I [subject] choose [verb] whomever [object]
Back2skool4u

Yes it is, he committed himself to linguistic prescriptivism without realizing it and has been duly exposed as a cretin.

>I [subject] choose [verb] whomever [object]
>[subject] is different from whomever
you wut lad?

...

Kek

you have no understanding of language. please watch literally one linguistics 101 lecture on youtube

It's okay, man, lots of people struggle with grammar.

I dont get it
I dont do that but it seems pretty reasonable

The joke is that someone would consider a Wordsworth Classic worth preserving.

LOL ITZ SUPPOSED TO BE SHAKEZPEER BUD INSTEAD ITZ ERROR MESSAGE!!!1!

OH WOW HE IS BEING SARCASTIC HAHA OH GOD HE DOESN'T REALLY MEAN WHAT HE IS SAYING LOL!

To be fair, some authorities forbid such usages, because it is somewhat ambiguous what form you ought to use. And to be fair, I think the Romans would have avoided using quisquis in that context, using eum qui instead (though "him who" also sounds wrong in English), and Latin is commonly taken (not always rightly) as the model for English grammar. But I'd tend to agree that "whoever" trumps "whomever" in that context.

HAHAHA HES POINTING OUT MY SARCASM BY BEING SARCASTIC HIMSELF OMG!

Love Harris but I laughed heartily at this.

Obvious difference would be that "hot" in that sense is an already accepted definition of the word whereas truth isn't, truth is one of those things that have a quite clear meaning and not a colloquial use like "hot".

fpbp

Subject instigates the verb, object recieves the verb.

That'd be a predicative expression (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicative_(adjectival_or_nominal)) which isn't the case in this sentence.

you're wrong

>I choose he who types clearly
>I choose him who types clearly

it's whoever

anyone got the pic of the comparison of 19th century atom scientists vs new age atheists discussing philosophy? i fucking love it but can't find it

...

thanks my dude

kek

This isn't funny. It made me sick to my stomach desu

The bill nye one isn't too bad. He's just stating his own philosophy, not talking shit about the field as a whole

this owns

...

...

...

fuck this makes me angry for some reason

CHILLER

this isnt funny, and he's not even that fat.

fuck off!

>I SAY NO!
he actually does this too... a ton.
Like he thinks that him disagreeing with something popularly agreed upon is worthy of people's attention

>implying that he's not talking about something worth talking about and it happens to be that he disagrees with it.

fuck off retard, you can't think.

Dawkins part isn't so bad: he compliments philosophy since common sense is a joke, and there's nothing wrong with his second quote (imagine a square circle, etc.).
Nye's quote isn't either: see materialism

Holy.....I want more.....

The doc is still up for anyone that wants to read it. Buyer beware, however. The prose is extremely revolting.

docs.google.com/document/d/1leM9cjIkaxEBTWIv4OC1C5PyaWcrTpmA3Lrpo3fvMwo/edit

Apparently, it's in the trash. I made a copy of it.

docs.google.com/document/d/1ABPzW0zVA2hjOp2gj_pDK8tFLQ1wgyov4NFJT5mLwrU/edit?copiedFromTrash

lmao. the casual integration of a Walter Benjamin quote really seals the deal for me in terms of authenticity. this is hilarious.

beat me to it

I imagine its because the plastic is probably more expensive than the book

...

...

That's why I call him Fuccboi Foucault

lmao

Are you really?

I can't believe Carli Claire is gone. Shame on anyone who tormented her kind soul

>Love Harris

...

the worst kind of stupid can't recognize itself.

"Whoever" is the subject of the relative clause "X types quickly," just as in the sentence "I choose he who isn't a goddamned smug idiot." You don't choose him who isn't a goddamned smug idiot, you choose he who isn't a goddamned smug idiot.

it's like you fucks never even learned latin or any other declined language and you pretend like you're well read

She was so cute rip

This and pic related are great, perfectly caricatures what each person is all about

I have done this to every book with stylized covers since like, when I was a teenager so that's 15 years.

I thought it was common thing, fuck.

god fucking damn

Dog gamnit Veeky Forums you did it again

The second Dawkins quote was originally from Chesterton and ironically enough it is meant to be an attack on atheism as in: "Lets be open minded and approach everything as equal and deserving of respect" and so on.