Mad Goblin's Rants and Raves '12
I got a nasty li'l comment against me recently. Not so much profane and vulgar ladden as it was unbearibly stupid. It wasn't the first of its kind, and I doubt it will be the last. I censor my opinions little. I don't go out, seek, and cram my thoughts down people's throats in any way, but on my turf and on my sites, I give my opinions, an act which I don't think has any problem with it. That's what all this is, afterall -- a giant archive of my angry inclinations.
So I insulted emo folk some years ago (but what haven't I insulted) during that brief year or two stint it hit the mainstream hard, and someone felt, long after the fact, the need to drain the world of brain cells, ie: leave a comment. I don't believe there is any truer example of the mental decay in society than the dregs that comb through and leave comments on the internet. And, I do not refer to the positive, "I like it" ones, although that's a little lacking in the luster department.
I do not mind when people disagree with me. Conflict is what makes life. If humans never had to strive for anything or face adversity, we'd just stand around like trees and do nothing but sustain ourselves. Intellectual discourse can be a deeply rewarding interaction between two individuals, even when not on the same side, as it allows a deeper probing and understanding to the opposition as well as your views. Note, I said that it can be. This is far from the norm.
The reason I tend to avoid human interaction is due to the rarity of instances in which I have been in the company of a real person. Most are just hollow shells of sheep that mindlessly bleat the notions that have been stuffed in there by others. They don't consider, they don't process, they just vomit back what was put in there. I guess that makes ideas like a virus -- thoughtless, invasive, self replicating, and dangerous.
I've gone on this far without even touching on what exactly was said. That's because the words are so insignificant, so meaningless, the notion is what drives me into a furor. People are as terrible at defending their case as they are at attacking another's. Baseless, ungrounded accussations are tossed about, and more often than not profanity and increased volume accompany the witless words. It's no wonder competitions can be made to display no other skill than debate. It really isn't something most people can execute properly.
When I make a declaration, I tend to back it up. Even now, the reader is amidst an essay of exposition that lends credeance and understanding to the why of my intended point. My reason is far from "just 'cuz", but for others to realize such, they would have to read. Not my words, in specific, just at all. I truly think they are incapable of that simple feat.
More often than not, I've set a predetermined stopping point in a debate. I've made my initial statement, usually towering and verbose with little left to be clarified. I'll still provide a follow-up when challenged, regardless of how vapid the brought forth claim against me may be. This, however, is where I put the brakes. The first challenge is normally dumb, and counter-follow-up tends to be less sound and more emotional than the first. It's typically pointless to even address the challenger in the first place, but curtousy and defending my platform outweight saving myself from a headache. After that, screw it.
Needless to say, if it's a well thought out response and learned opponent, the volleys could sling to and fro for a long time. None of this spiel applies to competence. But, then again, what one of us goes on a tirade about how good things are? Flaws are what boil blood and incite such as this.
There are two projected reasons that I utterly despise. The first, which was the one delivered to me to spawn this ungodly behemoth, is "You're only saying that to be cool." Me, caring about being cool. Obviously, none of these individuals know the first thing about me. "Cool" just simply isn't under by scope of concern. My hair is often greasy and unkempt when not shaved bald (and I do not pull off that look), I commonly wear worn flannel shirts even in warmer weather, I haven't owned a pair of jeans in a decade, and many suspect I have a debilitating medical problem or a drug addition due to my ghastly frame. Even if this were the 1990's, I wouldn't be considered in style.
I'm that creepy guy you remember from high school who never spoke to anyone, had no friends, and was feared to one day smuggle a gun into the building for a bloody spree. Wore coke-bottle glasses, got straight A's, never missed a day, didn't play sports, did play Dungeons & Dragons. That guy, kiddies, is not concerned with being cool. The delusion of obtaining such status was long since cast off and buried in the same secret locale where many suspect I'm hidin' bodies. And that's all it is, potential jurors for my pending trial, a suspecion.
The illusion of being "cool" is something hipster do, something for those who want to impress their friends or clash against their collective views. They do such in suit with other douche friends of theirs, 'cuz they couldn't do anything that was unique. That'd make them stand out too much. Their reasoning for or against whatever it may be is often just a scoff or flighty nonsense.
Look at this pillar of text. Most people will never write this much in their lifetime. I have good reason behind my views, and none of them have a lick to do with a bolstered sense of social acceptance. This agrument is like saying that my grandparents hated hippies to be cool. Or, they didn't get why a lack of bathing and hacky sack became a fad. They neither understood nor liked this new fangle dangle. Neither do I. I do not monitor social trends and select one to express bias against. I don't even monitor them to begin with, and my dislike is all encompassing.
Ultimately, the flaw with such an accusation is the directionalless application. If I'm only stating a view to be cool, then you're doing the opposite by the same logic. Actually, if you amassed the evidence, I'm sure I'd rank more probability to sway a court that my stance was more ernest (refer to Word Mountain) than another's (see scribbles on a cocktail napkin). This hollow claim is playing with fire, and flames can spread quickly, trap you in a room, and burn you to a dead cinder. So, be careful.
The other irksome statment is "he who protests the loudest". Just because there have been a handful of cases where someone who is against X secretly revelled in it, those insignificant numbers completely outweigh the countless whose actions speak for them.
Just like the prior statment, it's holed more than Swiss cheese. If I'm opposed to something feverently because I'm secretly and shamefully for it, then you could just be pro the same because, in your circle, being anti-that is shameful. It's baseless, unfound, and can be flipped like a flapjack. When an actual devised, considerate case is brought forth, the "No, that's you" method is not applicable. The criteria vanish since, yes, they are based on something factual and real, not just wild whims and fantasies. Try it next time, dummies. Or, suicide. Give that girl a whirl.
Lastly, I'm not even going to touch on the Hilter name-calling. Really? He's viewed as history's greatest monster, and you draw up this comparison because I -- well, unless the words that follow are "incite genocide", then you really have no basis for the mention. Just slice off that lead tongue of yours and give the world some peace.
Written - April 30th, 2012