Started By
Message
re: Texass Tech is the tallest ... small person
Posted on 12/8/25 at 11:00 am to FootballFrenzy
Posted on 12/8/25 at 11:00 am to FootballFrenzy
quote:
I hope we get to play them. Not only would that mean we had a deep run, but it’d be a fun week of smack talk.
They'd kill ya half to death.
Not that Tech will get the chance because Miami is going to kill you half to death.
Poor AGGIES
0
Posted on 12/8/25 at 11:08 am to TulsaSooner78
quote:
Maybe we'll get to find out for sure rather than just everyone and their dog having an opinion.
On behalf of everyone and their dog. OU will have their hands full and likely lose.
Sorry Sooner I've gotta always go with the Texas team not ending in Mechanics n AgriCULTure.
Guns up
Posted on 12/8/25 at 11:10 am to TulsaSooner78
I don't get why that could be offensive, so I asked my favorite Russian AI .
Moderators, please don't punish me for providing this valuable service. These are not my words
"The phrase "the tallest small person" (or sometimes "the world's tallest midget") is a very old, politically incorrect joke/meme that plays on a deliberate logical absurdity and offensiveness.
It's referencing the slur "midget" (which is now widely considered a derogatory term for people with dwarfism).
The "joke" is:
If you take the category of "midgets" (short people with dwarfism) and ask who is the tallest one in that group, that person is simultaneously
the tallest midget (so still a midget, still very short by normal standards)
but also the shortest person who is NOT a midget (because anyone taller than them would no longer be classified as a midget/dwarf).
So they occupy this weird, meaningless boundary where they are both the tallest "small person" and the shortest "normal-sized person" at the exact same height. It's a paradox that's only funny if you're willing to use the outdated/offensive term and category in the first place.
That's why the original poster wrote "I'm trying hard not to offend" in the text — they know the joke relies on a term that is now seen as a slur, but they're posting it anyway for the dark/edgy humor. The people laughing in the replies recognize the reference immediately and find it funny exactly because it's low-key offensive and "wrong."
In short: it's an old-school, politically incorrect dwarfism-related joke that hinges on the offensive word "midget" and the arbitrary medical/social cutoff height for dwarfism. That's the reference you were missing."
That's some offensive stuff right there, myself being a 5'7" person
Moderators, please don't punish me for providing this valuable service. These are not my words
"The phrase "the tallest small person" (or sometimes "the world's tallest midget") is a very old, politically incorrect joke/meme that plays on a deliberate logical absurdity and offensiveness.
It's referencing the slur "midget" (which is now widely considered a derogatory term for people with dwarfism).
The "joke" is:
If you take the category of "midgets" (short people with dwarfism) and ask who is the tallest one in that group, that person is simultaneously
the tallest midget (so still a midget, still very short by normal standards)
but also the shortest person who is NOT a midget (because anyone taller than them would no longer be classified as a midget/dwarf).
So they occupy this weird, meaningless boundary where they are both the tallest "small person" and the shortest "normal-sized person" at the exact same height. It's a paradox that's only funny if you're willing to use the outdated/offensive term and category in the first place.
That's why the original poster wrote "I'm trying hard not to offend" in the text — they know the joke relies on a term that is now seen as a slur, but they're posting it anyway for the dark/edgy humor. The people laughing in the replies recognize the reference immediately and find it funny exactly because it's low-key offensive and "wrong."
In short: it's an old-school, politically incorrect dwarfism-related joke that hinges on the offensive word "midget" and the arbitrary medical/social cutoff height for dwarfism. That's the reference you were missing."
That's some offensive stuff right there, myself being a 5'7" person
This post was edited on 12/8/25 at 11:16 am
Posted on 12/8/25 at 11:35 am to TulsaSooner78
Tech would smoke OU or Alabama.
Posted on 12/8/25 at 11:37 am to TulsaSooner78
I think Tech is a talented and dangerous team but it's still impossible to know how good they are. BYU and Utah are not good. I think they both would be lucky to win 3 games in the SEC and maybe not that. They just don't have the horses.
Tech does have some legit talent and cohesion. Still when I look at stuff like the ASU loss (I watched that game) it gives me a lot of pause about them. They tend to feast on turnovers from teams who are under pressure because they are overmatched on the OL trying to force things and on offense playing teams that really have no ability to cover anyone or block. Lots of untouched long TD runs and throws to wide open receivers. That's great but it doesn't happen against good teams that can match them physically and have equal or better talent to keep up with them
Tech reminds me a lot of when A&M was dominating the SWC in the post Arkansas years. It was great and all but then when you hit someone with real athletes the team had a lot of trouble adjusting. It wasn't even that they didn't have athletes to match up but it's hard to prepare for. With Tech they also don't have a lot of depth so it's not like in practice the 1s and getting pushed hard by the 2's.
Maybe Tech goes on a run but it wouldn't surprise me if they are one and done. I also just can't get over their schedule for next season. The B12 already sucks hard and somehow they don't even have to play Utah or BYU and of course they play no one OOC.
Tech does have some legit talent and cohesion. Still when I look at stuff like the ASU loss (I watched that game) it gives me a lot of pause about them. They tend to feast on turnovers from teams who are under pressure because they are overmatched on the OL trying to force things and on offense playing teams that really have no ability to cover anyone or block. Lots of untouched long TD runs and throws to wide open receivers. That's great but it doesn't happen against good teams that can match them physically and have equal or better talent to keep up with them
Tech reminds me a lot of when A&M was dominating the SWC in the post Arkansas years. It was great and all but then when you hit someone with real athletes the team had a lot of trouble adjusting. It wasn't even that they didn't have athletes to match up but it's hard to prepare for. With Tech they also don't have a lot of depth so it's not like in practice the 1s and getting pushed hard by the 2's.
Maybe Tech goes on a run but it wouldn't surprise me if they are one and done. I also just can't get over their schedule for next season. The B12 already sucks hard and somehow they don't even have to play Utah or BYU and of course they play no one OOC.
Posted on 12/8/25 at 11:38 am to aggressor
Texas Tech is legit but yes the Big 12 was bad this year. The team that beat Texas Tech lost to the 2nd worst SEC team.
Posted on 12/8/25 at 11:41 am to TulsaSooner78
Didn't take you long to learn to talk like you're part of the SEC. I think y'all might just be alright if you keep this attitude. 
Posted on 12/8/25 at 11:46 am to Swamp Angel
OU will beat ba and Indiana
Tech OU would be interesting. OU has more talent but would tech move the ball on their D?
Tech OU would be interesting. OU has more talent but would tech move the ball on their D?
Posted on 12/8/25 at 12:05 pm to slobhorn
quote:
Not sure why people keep underestimating Tech. Yes - the Big 12 is down this year and post-Texas/OU exits it is even farther below the SEC/Big 10 than it was. But Tech is an exceptionally well coached team (their defense in particular), and it’s not just that they spent money in the portal it’s how they spent it/matched players to their system. If Morton plays well (not a guarantee), I’m not so sure I wouldn’t put their odds behind only UGA/OSU. I hope Indiana wins due to family ties, but despite their record don’t think they will.
TT has looked good against Arkansas Pine Bluff, Kent State, Oregon State, Utah, Houston, Kansas, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, BYU, UCF and West Virginia. I left Arizona State off the list because they beat Texas Tech. Texas Tech has played a slightly, and only slightly, more difficult schedule than James Madison and Tulane. They may be fantastic but no one knows because they have played no one that would provide any measure. There best win is Utah and BYU twice who has also not played anyone. Vandy, Missouri and Texas could navigate that record and be 12-1 this morning. LSU and Auburn would probably be 9-3 against that schedule and the rest of the SEC would have a winning record. Ole Miss, UGA, Alabama, ATM and Oklahoma would be undefeated against that schedule. Again, Texas Tech may be very good...they certainly ought to be very healthy considering they have been playing high performing south Georgia High School programs...but there is no indication that they are going to be able to stand toe to toe with Oregon, Ohio State, Indiana or anyone of the SEC teams. They may very well do so but there is nothing they have done between September and now which would indicate they have. IN comparison UGA is 2-1 against CFP teams. Indiana is 2-0 against CFP teams....this years CFP. TT has played nobody of note.
Posted on 12/8/25 at 12:06 pm to TulsaSooner78
Oregon filled that role int the PAC and did very little in the playoffs. I'm not sure what your point is
Posted on 12/8/25 at 12:14 pm to TulsaSooner78
They hv tons of money though which is why they are finally relevant!
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News