As I place my hands on the smooth oak surface of the desk, I lean forward within close proximity of the microphone. The unpleasant humming of the dead-air through my headphones reminds me that people are listening to nothing. This is my opportunity, and I’ve yet to speak. The question, so piercing and rhetorical in structure that up until my awkward moment of clarity, I had all but dismissed it. My comfort level quickly fading, I turned towards my familiar soundboard to start a new musical track, but no images were detected. The brightly-lit LED monitor was now dead; what remained was an inconvenient herald that I should no longer evade inquiry.
My chair swiveled in place, and I heard the echoing voice repeat its question. The accusatory tone of the faceless female brought red to my face as she delivered her query.
“What is wrong with you?”
I laugh it off nervously, and respond with a defensive form of sarcasm.
“A lot of things are wrong with me. I’m hungry, for one. I feel slightly sexually deprived, and I don’t have enough happy-thoughts in my life. Does that answer your question?”
I’m met only by the cold, isolating static from the opposite end of the call. Believing her to be annoyed, I crack a grin and return to the mic.
“Well, I guess that wasn’t what you were looking for, was it?” I ask smugly while spinning in my chair. I attempt to provoke a response from her.
“For asking such a broad question, you sure don’t sound as if you want it answered! I mean, come on. You want to know what is “wrong” with me? Well, assuming that your standards are as ridiculous as I think they are; I think I know exactly what is wrong with me, by your definition.
1) I use too much profanity.
2) I take a perspective that is a bit too realistic for your taste.
3) I undoubtedly speak on topics that offend you quite often.
Last but not least, I’m more than certain that you’re one of the self-righteous lunatics who thinks if people don’t live by your definition of morality, then they must fall under some lesser category of human. Did I get that right, sweetheart?”
I lean back against the black leather of my chair, and wait for the tears to flow. However, much to my surprise and dismay- I still have no audience. White noise feeds into the tiny pentagonal room, causing me a relative sense of uneasiness. My frustration mounting, I scoot forward in my chair, ever closer to cold silver of the studio microphone. I don’t feel like a wonderful personality anymore, though. The mic turns into a shiny metallic betrayal-receiver that awaits my every word and action. I’m not having a good time, and as much as I wish for her not to know that, I won’t be able to control my tone on the air as well as I should hope. I fold my left leg over the top of my right knee, and take a moment to steady my thoughts. Did she hang up? Is the communication so terrible, that she believes she is talking to me right now, and I just can’t hear her? Is she deliberately holding out for some type of profound answer that isn’t coming? Whatever the reason, it’s up to me to bring this silly charade to a close.
“Look, I don’t really know what sort of social-experiment you’re attempting to complete here, but I do know that I’ve answered your idiotic question to the best of my abilities. If you can’t handle that, then it’s not my problem. Besides, if you don’t like me then you shouldn’t be tuning into my station in the first place. You do realize you have the illusion of freedom at your disposal, don’t you? I highly recommend you try it sometime. The way it works is:
You don’t listen to my broadcast.
I don’t say things that make you call-in.
You don’t ask me stupid things.
We don’t get in this awkward position we’re in right now.
Now, isn’t that much faster than spending hours trying to think of something potentially intriguing to ask me? Now you can leave, and I can get back to what I was doing!”
Satisfied, I leaned onto the left armrest, resting my cheek inside my left palm. I didn’t want to hear her response. I just wanted the person screening my calls (whoever they were), to do their job and get rid of the little mouse. She had grown beyond the point of humorous; my patience was draining quickly and the only thing I could think of to give me some peace was the fact I still had the power to cut her off. It seemed though, that regardless of what I wanted to do, I would be forced to endure another long, dramatic pause. As if the static wasn’t bad enough, now I was having an internal revolution. The lady had brought this on herself. If she wanted an actual answer to her question, she was going to get it.
I quickly vaulted from the seat of the chair, and kicked it to the back wall. As I leaned forward, I could hear the thump as the rolling stopped suddenly against the soundproof wall. I clutched the base of the microphone, shifting it upwards so I wouldn’t have to be stuck in such an uncomfortable position while on my tirade. I gripped it like a vocalist at a heavy metal concert, wanting to vent all my rage out on my aggressor. As innocuous as the original question had been phrased, I now took it as a personal attack on my character. An anonymous ad hominem of astronomical proportions that I would not tolerate from some whiny, spineless female with a phone.
“Well, Ms. moral-compass…I don’t exactly know what is wrong with me. I can give you a handy list though, so that you can draw it up on a fine piece of paper, laminate it, and distribute it to the one friend you do fucking have! Let’s start here. I am stuck living in some twilight reality that I’ve gone and expunged all optimistic views I had about the world around me. I don’t like the people in it, because I view the majority of them as a swarming mass of pseudo-moral loving troglodytes who are pining away for some world of lore that only the mind of Huxley could’ve conjured. I don’t want to anesthetize myself to things around me, because it’s a lot more enjoyable to be depressed that most of the things I don’t like about my setting are obstacles I can’t change from my end. My only useful skill that I’ve used in the past five years has on some level made use of continuous self-loathing, and everything else I can do somehow never seems to quite live up to a standard I view as acceptable. I want to be social and the moment I step out to do it, I remember exactly why isolation was my only choice from the start. I can’t take any pertinent actions that I’m happy with, because if it has to do with something that matters I’m stuck in a suspended form of self-doubt, where I don’t want to take a risk if I know it could fail. Everything seems like a doomsday clock that is growing ever closer to a point where I break, but it never quite seems to get close enough to strike midnight.
…But you know what’s really wrong with me, lady? I don’t like you. I don’t like having to listen to the sound of my own voice, and I don’t like me. I’m done.”
I slid my headphones off, and shoved the microphone so hard the opposite direction the shock-stand vibrated in place. I put my back against the opposite wall, and edged down to have a seat. I put my head between my knees, and watched the studio lights dim as the static faded.
Then I woke up.
In our ever-changing world of social acceptance, we’ve come to see shifts in attitude towards everything from ethnicity, to sexuality.
While these issues were seemingly simple hurdles to conquer for a society built upon innovation and progress, our species has proven time, and time again that we lack the will and cooperation to change worldviews at a reasonable pace. The difficulties that come with being part of a minority are sobering, and the threat of being demonized by your peers can be a grim reality for those unlucky souls in the wrong community.
The minority I’m speaking of, however, has nothing to do with the color of your skin, or your sexual orientation. Today, I’m here to discuss the last notable group to be outnumbered, but not yet exhausted of their will to fight socioeconomic trends:
That’s right. The one group on the planet who should reasonably not be threatening to anyone, is evidently last on the list of people who can share their beliefs (or lack thereof), in public.
While I usually would tend to drift off into a rant regarding religion, that’s not my aim here. Today, I want to ask the faith-based people who represent the majority of our small planet to briefly consider the possibility that humans are perfectly capable of leading morally-acceptable lives without having a god to call their own. While I understand that this sentiment is usually met with stiff opposition, I implore my religious and spiritual readers to at least suppress their urge to close out this page for a few minutes.
We’re not that different.
How can I compare myself to you? It’s simple. We’re all atheists when it comes to Thor, (I hope) and we all grasp what a silly idea it is to believe in the god of thunder, even if he does make for an interesting story. I can go as far as to say that we’re both atheists on the majority of the gods on planet Earth today. If you don’t believe me, allow yourself a moment to consider how many religions there are in the world. Think of all the organized, well-known religious denominations, as well as the lesser known tribal religions. Many of these have countless numbers of followers, such as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism (although technically it’s not a religion). From the perspective of an atheist, I understand that all of these people can’t possibly be insane, and that it must have an internal value to believe in god’s existence. That means that there are some rational people who choose to believe in god because they feel it brings purpose, and meaning to their lives. From the viewpoint of a devoutly religious individual, however, they have the misfortune of being able to only see the purpose of existence through the pages of their sacred text. This is to be expected, as one raised with such a tradition would naturally be inclined to revere, cherish, and cling to what brings them peace and understanding of the world around them.
As an atheist, I don’t have a sacred book to guide my life. I don’t have lessons through scripture, or the looming threat of punishment in the afterlife. That doesn’t mean that I’m a bad person, immoral, worship Satan, or that I eat children. It means that I have to appropriately measure all of my decisions in life so that I cause the least amount of damage. I don’t go out and kill people, or cause them bodily harm for no reason. I don’t steal from other people, since I have no right to the property of others. I don’t rape women, because that is a cruel, sick, and vicious way to treat them or obtain sexual release. None of these fundamental rules require a background in religion. That’s because morality exists without it, and is a more than conventional way for someone to live their life.
I don’t require prayers to obtain things in life. If you’ve ever spent a long time accomplishing a goal, whether that be studying for a test, working towards a promotion at your job, or something as simple as writing a new post for your blog, you grasp how much discipline, and determination it takes to achieve such things. Atheists have those same goals, and accomplish them every single day without so much as a thought about a divine being. How can this be, if you are a creature of god and have been granted blessings in your life that a non-believer shouldn’t? This is because prayer, however useful and righteous it seems, does little in the real world to further any cause. Yes, it will grant you a fleeting sensation of contentment, but in the end the probability of your prayer being answered is the same as flipping a coin. It either will, or it won’t. It’s my experience that in this situation, if it comes true- many individuals tend to have a restored faith that their god is listening, and this is proof of it. However, if it doesn’t work in their favor, the same individuals will acquiesce to the idea that it was god’s plan for their wish to not come true. Atheists calculate things rather than pray, because we understand the probability, or the likeliness of something to occur is a more practical approach to understanding whether or not your wish will be granted. If you desire a promotion at work, you may add up the amount of hours you put in, as well as the quality of the work combined with how much the managers like you. You may also think that asking for god’s blessing is an asset to your cause. Atheists can’t do that. We try to see how a manager would effectively grade our work, as well as how our quality stacks up against competitors. There is no third-party to intervene, and if we receive such a position it would be through the gracious regard of our superiors, as well as the sweat we put into the daily grind itself.
I have a challenge to all believers. Before you shut me down, know that you won’t have to sacrifice a thing.
When you wake up tomorrow, I want you to do one simple thing:
Go on about your day.
That’s it. You don’t have to do anything else. Not a single thing. Tomorrow, do every single chore you would usually do. Go to work just like you would any other day. Eat breakfast, lunch, and dinner the same way. Take a shower or bath, in the same manner. Talk to your friends, family, or co-workers the same way. Live your life in the same peaceful, wonderful manner that you’re already used to.
Leave God out of it. Don’t stop to pray for things, and don’t ask for blessings. Don’t thank him for your food, or for any simple victories. Don’t worry about a threat of a bad place in the afterlife, and don’t get nervous over what god will think. Calculate the probability of things, and use logic and a constant scale of morality to solve your daily woes and issues. I think you’ll find it’s easy to do if you simply feel as if you’re taking a day off from faith. Do this for one day, and you can return to your life with God on your side. I do ask that you undergo this task with some manner of discipline though, because if you’re just going to flake halfway through the day, then your fear of the unknown is clearly affecting your life.
When you go back to your life with god however, I request that you review your day off from him. You might be surprised to discover that nothing has changed. The world didn’t end, you weren’t stricken by a disgusting illness, and no horrible tragedies befell you. Now ask yourself, could you do this for two days? Three? Even a week? Could you live your life like this? Were you slowed down one bit by not having to worry about god? I think you’ll find the answer is “no”, and through this you will be granted a knowledge that few faith-based people have the privilege of understanding:
It’s possible to live a good life without god.
For those of you out there who are hesitant to accept my challenge, undoubtedly because you’re unsure if there will be negative repercussions, I beg you to reconsider.
After all, if your faith is half as unshakable as you claim it is, then you’ve got nothing to lose by humoring me, and your connection with God might very well be strengthened.
Blissful, but not content.
Overjoyed with sentiment.
All the world is a place…
…for your mind to waste.
Deep in the bowels of the Twitterverse, there lurks a creature of ridiculous nature.
This poor soul is known simply as “Sacerdotus”, and is a self-proclaimed future priest/Twitter user. For those of us who know him, Sac has made himself known by a multitude of tweets and propaganda designed to demonize atheists. He has also made numerous claims that he is inclined to a civilized debate, but any and all attempts to organize one have been in vain. Though various offers for debate still stand for this “prepared contender”, Sacerdotus’ popularity ironically stems from his ability to avoid all requests made by atheists who challenge him.
This, along with his usual list of pre-made logical fallacies has earned him quite the reputation as a dishonest debate partner. Let’s take a deeper look into why no one should ever take Sacerdotus seriously, shall we?
Every time someone brings up the topic of his faith, he takes painstaking efforts to claim that he, himself was an atheist once. Ironically, his conversion story is as dull as it is implausible. Throughout the tale, Sac shows how clever one must be when weaving a tale of inspirational change. Peppered generously between the lines of the tale are popular, stereotypical atheist lines that are used only by the most incompetent of godless ranters. He then explains what brought him to Catholicism, exposing his past for what it actually was.
I read up on them, got a catechism and read it, etc. I loved how the Catechism is set up with citations and explanations of why Catholics believe.
With a quote like the one above, it’s amusing that anyone could buy such a shamelessly invented story. We’re supposed to believe that while he couldn’t see an iota of logic from any other religion on the planet, the one that dresses up in the most absurd clothing and participates in some of the silliest rituals in existence is the ideology that brought him in contact with “god”. Just thinking about how many times he had to repeat that to himself for it to sound reasonable, makes my head hurt. Had he ended this idiocy here, his credibility might have been salvageable. Unfortunately, his determination to make others believe he was actually an atheist led him to construct a final part to his transformation, which is a magical adventure for the whole family.
However, I never stepped foot in a Catholic building. This came way after when this random lady approached me and called me “father.” I was dressed like an urban youth from NYC and she called me “father” and asked me to pray for her daughter. This just sent chills through my spine. I did not know what to say only that I wasn’t a “father” but nonetheless went to the Church nearby with her and we prayed – or she did because I did not know the words she was using. But I did do something mentally and basically said, “Ok mister sky inter-dimensional entity, this is your chance, stop hiding.”
I felt this peace like the peace a child feels when he/she is in his/her mother’s arms – nothing matters anymore, no worries, no stresses, just this never ending peace that fills you inside and you literally feel like you’re glowing. That’s when I realized that there is something about this God stuff that is for real. I was not “stimulated” by emotions, music or a social gathering as with the Evangelicals. I was with this lady in a dark empty Catholic building, no music, just the random car horns from traffic outside echoing. God made the move.
To add to to the “chills,” the lady stepped to the vestibule to get “holy water” and I went after her a few seconds later to ask her name and observe this act and she was not there. I stepped outside and no one was around. Either she ran like Flash or was transported to the Enterprise because she just vanished. I know she did not leave because I would’ve seen the sunlight enter as the front door opened, but no such thing happened. Those doors were the only exit and entrance.
Well, that just settles it. Only a true, skeptical atheist would come up with a story as rational as this one. I can’t imagine how unsettling it must’ve been for Sac to find out that the old lady was actually Batman. He also takes the time to explain to the reader that, “I would’ve seen the sunlight enter as the front door opened“. Checkmate, atheists. His powers of observation are not to be questioned, nor shall you analyze whether or not any of this garbage happened at all.
It is funny though, that for being a former atheist, Sacerdotus seemingly comes up dry when talking to other atheists. Common sense would dictate that if he was such a strong disbeliever, it would take a mind as great as his in order to convince other atheists why his religion is the right way. Tragically, he seems to be just as clueless as any other theist on Twitter. If Sacerdotus was an actual atheist at one point, he would be more than capable of showing compassion towards the perspective of other atheists, not to mention be able to empathize with the views we hold, as he would’ve shared them originally. Ironically, he has only ever argued like an indoctrinated creationist, and therefore I’d have to say the notion that he was ever an atheist is hereby debunked.
As for him pining away for an honest debate, I’ve yet to see any proof of that. He has a wonderful track record of tactical evasion when it comes to debate requests. An ever growing list of excuses grows by the day as to why he won’t go anywhere but his own webpage. Worst of all, is that he is in denial about it. He wants everything to go his way, to prevent any incidents that might be out of his control from occurring. When asked repeatedly to select any other site than his own for a debate, he has refused every offer; immediately followed by a request of his own to go to his website out of some misguided notion that it’s not fair to him to speak anywhere else. Even when asked objectively to debate somewhere neutral to both parties, he deflects the question and tries to assert without knowledge that it would be unfair, such as when asked by this person:
As you can see, he has clearly evaded the point of the question itself. Even without knowing WHAT forum the person was talking about, he has already dismissed it as not neutral. Only a person who is afraid to tread outside their comfort zone could possibly be this paranoid about the setting of a debate before even being offered a place.
Even when he does engage someone with a point, Sacerdotus is not known for his willingness to accept facts. He’s not even willing to incorporate other people’s opinions, for that matter. Unfailingly, the overwhelming majority of URLs and “evidence” he has to provide are simply links back to his blog. Why? Because he wants hits, and the only way to accomplish this is to drag people to his page, in the hopes that they’ll see something there that makes some sense, and return. He has sunk to this trick so often now, that ALL of his links return to his pages, where he recycles the same posts incessantly. This charade is meant to promote the idea that he has done his homework, and prevent him from stumbling over his own arguments. If he doesn’t have to repeat a lie, he assumes he’ll never get caught in one. Unfortunately, if you have a webpage designed to tell people why others are “afraid to debate you”, you’ve already exposed yourself as spineless:
What have we learned from this? Well, you should probably not call yourself an avid debater if you’re so quick to deny an invitation to every fuckin’ debate you’re offered, especially if you’re given the choice of going anywhere except your own website. Secondly, claiming you once represented the demographic of the people you are debating is not an effective tool for argument if you only know how to argue from the side you “converted” to. As an atheist, I am insulted and disgusted by the way Sacerdotus throws out one-liners and catchphrases designed to make himself seem well-articulated when discussing atheism. All he has ever proven is that he sounds like a resentful single on the ChristianMingle dating site. Exhausted, defeated, and grasping at straws, he has made every conscious effort to point the finger at everyone else for not wanting to play by his rules. Quite possibly most embarrassing, is his inability to provide any evidence that he hasn’t already touched. Even the least skillful opponents of atheism know that you should at least include some sort of third-party source of information to back up their claims. Sacerdotus refuses to do this. All of his links are his, and he will take you to his site to show you his claims, and back them up using links to his website to show more claims, that link to other pages of his information. Seeing a pattern? This doesn’t make him a scholar, or a researcher.
This makes him an overt narcissist.
I don’t owe any respect to this cretin. He is the worst type of person to argue with, but more importantly he is the person least likely to give you any sort of sliver of useful knowledge. When he is recruiting, he is obnoxious and loud. When he is debating, he is dishonest and evasive. When he is defensive, he is malicious and a hypocrite. If you don’t know Sacerdotus, you’re fortunate. For the rest of us, he is a constant reminder that all it takes to garner support for religion is volume, belligerence, and repetition.
Since Sacerdotus will undoubtedly never admit to any of this, and will oppose any idea that comes his direction by showing you another link to his website, I encourage people to link him here. Repeatedly, in fact. Maybe for once, looking at a single webpage all the time will grant him some clarity, rather than feed into his constant vacuum of egoism.
When engaging with a conservative on a social media website, one expects to find what you would with any common debater:
- a series of easy-to-grasp talking points
- data to back up their assertions
- reliable sources of information, taken from independent parties
- a lack of logical fallacies
- ZERO shameless gimmicks that serve no purpose
Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth. While, admittedly there are many wonderful examples of well-versed modern conservatives who have a true grasp on current events, and have a talent for balancing various different topics including politics, the majority of them lack any clear direction with their arguments, which usually forces them to become belligerent and resort to defensive techniques. Instead of putting in an effort to add a bit of substance to their party-obsessed aggression, they avoid the conflict from the start by outlining a disgustingly useless wall of text that denotes their political affiliations, as well as various other keywords that prove their ‘purity’ and show what they believe to be online credibility to any offenders of their cause.
While it can be argued that a few well-placed words in one’s short profile header can be useful in distinguishing an individual’s attributes and stances, the same can not be said for the plethora of semi-competent sheep who recycle the same catchphrases, one-liners, and titles for themselves as if promoting themselves as an effigy of some right-swaying hero.
That brings me to where I keep my evidence, for my claim. These people, while undoubtedly functional citizens, haven’t the slightest clue how crippling their ignorance is when it comes to debating. The wound they inflict upon themselves comes when they choose to provide a wide list of terms that all make them easy to categorize, as well as dissect before a single word from them is uttered. While this tactic makes them the simplest of targets to shred in verbal combat, they hilariously believe it serves as protection; a showcase of patriotism and godliness that gives them limitless integrity in the eyes of their peers.
To show how tragically common this is, I have taken the top fourteen out of a total of thirty-nine that I was able to find on Twitter in a matter of minutes. Note the ridiculous similarities:
Now that you’ve witnessed the absurdity, have any patterns emerged from this mess? The most obvious regurgitations are assuredly the abuse of the word “Constitution”, as well as the usage of the title “Constitutionalist”. This is primarily used as a form of pseudo-patriotism to give the impression that the person has rigorously studied the text of the United States’ Constitution, and that by placing this tag in their bio they believe it demands a higher level of respect. This is nonsense, of course. This shroud is only meant to conceal a lack of reading into the document itself, as none of them who place this phrase have taken the time to memorize such a notable work, or they would not throw its name about with such pomp and disdain.
Noting that words such as “freedom”, and “liberty” also make numerous appearances, it would be a joke to state that they also take these words seriously, considering that the majority of the users who paste these patriotic words in with their name ironically belong to a party that constantly seeks to limit the freedom and liberty of women, minorities, and a multitude of other interest groups. While I’ve covered this issue many times in the past, I would like to reiterate that the right is a wing dedicated to the constant abuse of religious principles, creating a moral shield that allows them to believe that their actions are justified, when in reality they may be truly unethical and discriminatory.
Lastly, and possibly most humorous is the prospect of party-affiliation they have chosen to shift to in this brave new age of voting we’ve entered into. If you’ll take a quick glance back at the list, you may discover that all of them seem to hail from some offshoot of “Constitutional Conservatism”, or “Libertarianism”. Amusingly, many of these have also somehow come to identify themselves as “independent”, which is already neutralized by the idea of swerving to the far right in the first place. Forgive that statement for sounding too forward, but it is not a stretch to imagine by some of the quotes above that these people are far into the red to the point of no return.
Now, the question that no one has asked yet stabs at the loyalty of these people, to their respected parties. For such right-leaning individuals to suddenly pull themselves gently towards the center by bestowing the title of “Libertarian” to themselves, they absolutely don’t seem that inclined to follow that structure. In actuality, it would seem that the Libertarian party that has recently gained a significant boost in popularity due to the mild success of Congressmen Ron Paul, and Governor Gary Johnson, has created a new “safe-zone” for Conservatives who wish to evade the negative light their archaic party has brought upon them as of late.
While you can see a myriad of different terms and names plastered above, denoting all kinds of wonderful and noble causes these people are dedicated to, not ONE of them chooses to be affiliated with the Republican party that more accurately suits their demographic. Curiously, even the most radical of these neo-conservatives chooses to place their flag at the feet of the TEA party, rather than be seen with the Republicans, undoubtedly because of the horrific reputation they’ve earned as of the past decade.
Why does this crowd feel that they must shield themselves behind a wall of pseudo-nationalistic, incessantly repeated, vaguely-distinguished flags? This is not the way for them to prove they can talk politics. This isn’t even the right way for them to choose their party affiliation. This is one more gimmick for the right-wing to hide behind, simply because they refuse to detach themselves from the misguided ethics that they cherish.
How long until they stop being “Constitutionalists”, and start paying attention to what’s actually in the Constitution?
Today, I have come to share with all of you the secrets of something I have long since mastered. The art of trolling is an incredibly refined craft in which one must have patience, discipline, and the resolve to destroy any and all enemies. For years I have taken to various online games, chat services, social networking sites, and forum threads in order to do one thing:
correct any and all necessary errors that people have made, point out logical fallacies, and utterly disintegrate the value of an individual. I suppose that makes me a
fucking disgusting delightful person, but it’s wonderful fun. It’s also only fun if you target those who have already done it to others first. Those who have humiliated, abused, or thrown out personal attacks to others void themselves of the right to respect, and can be trolled at will. But, enough about “why”. I’m here today to clarify the “who” on this topic.
In any open forum, there can be only three types of trolls. While many traits of any one troll can fit well into more than one category, a few distinctive features regarding their persona, vocabulary, and methodology distinguish them from one another. We’ll begin with the most obvious:
“The Lennie”: The reason I’ve titled this troll category as such is simple. Every single trait they possess is derived from John Steinbeck’s famous character “Lennie Small”, of his literary classic Of Mice and Men. These trolls are known for their idiocy, and extreme strength through little effort. Without hardly knowing their abilities, they unleash the wrath of entire servers, and forum members alike. Within their arsenal lies a mixture of overtly nonsensical statements, ranging from oxymorons, easily-disprovable assertions, and anti-intellectual phrases designed merely to catch unsuspecting bystanders off-guard. Their blatantly unintelligent nature, while justly believable, is usually a facade crafted to trick those who are quick to snap at public imbeciles. The mockery at their expense is what they crave, and in order to maintain their grasp on the world’s attention they follow each stab at their uneducated demeanor with further one-liners, purposefully aimed at drawing the target further into their clutches. Throwing out fundamental typography lessons, as well as any form of etiquette that comes with informed debate, they strike; the results, a painful to dissect block of run-on sentences and fragments, carefully arranged to captivate their audience into a state of utter disbelief and amusement at this village idiot before them.
Some of their lines include such overused, and easy to detect catchphrases such as, but not limited to:
1) “Why do they call it an Xbox 360? Coz you turn 360 degrees and walk away”
2) “I h8 legend of zelda cuz zelda is a stupid boy name”
3) “(insert game here) sucks!!! COD is way better!!!!!!”
4) “you mad bro”
5) “nerd rage”
6) “get @ me”
While a “Lennie” undoubtedly seems like the quickest go-to archetype for your average troll, it couldn’t hurt to remember one thing:
Some people are just hilariously stupid.
Our second example is not only the most hated troll, they’re also the only one that I believe deserves the contempt they receive:
“The Derailer”: Appropriately titled after the device named for turning trains on their side in a wave of destruction, these trolls are all about the shock value of what they say. Anything, and everything can be used against their victims. Nothing is sacred, and all is fair so long as it achieves the desired effect: RAGE. They are well-known for their consistent use of profanity, and when the occasion calls for it, racist, sexist, and ageist remarks. While these may be an easily distinguishable aspect, one must also determine the level of insensitivity to their comments. A Derailer isn’t bound by the moral inhibitions that keep most people in PG-13 mode wherever they visit. They take any topic, regardless of how recent, or how tragic the occurrence was, and turn it into sadistic humor or a personal attack. This is commonly met with a reaction of absolutely inconsolable, incoherent malice, or bewilderment. The Derailer is incredibly effective, and usually the most difficult to contain troll because of their innate ability to turn an entire community into a riot. Certain remarks have been known to throw certain cliques, or groups into disarray; the reason being is that varying tolerance levels within groups cause a sort of schism to form between those who are entertained by the troll, and those who abhor them.
Many a time I’ve
instigated witnessed a conflict within a game, or on a YouTube comment section arise merely out of a single line that was both cruel, and oblivious to the fragile sensibilities of those who were watching. The result was a battleground, where well-articulated debaters turned on one another in a bloodbath of profanity-laden, racially-charged aggression formed effortlessly out of the insecurities of individuals who thought no one would ever tread where eagles dare. Their restraints lifted, these once-peaceful users viciously tore each other apart due to the clever, and devious manipulation of a Derailer. In a territory where anonymity is your most powerful ally, they prey on the hypersensitive, superstitious, and ignorant as they prove every day who should, and should not be socially involved on the internet.
Lastly, I have saved our final troll for the conclusion, as they don’t truly belong in this world. Their tactics, while some may believe to be inconsiderate, are also their greatest weapon:
“The Intellectual”: Unfortunately, this lovely group of bright human beings have made their way onto the list for one reason. No one likes a smart-ass. In the digital realm where whoever speaks the loudest wins, the person who wields the most cunning wit becomes a beacon. Ironically, that beacon is that of the gigantic red bulls-eye on their forehead, and these people are usually targeted as outsiders in the same way antibiotics hone in on a virus. The intellectual, in an effort to genuinely make a point, or correct the errors of others, is immediately ostracized by the community. Preemptively labeled as a villain, the intellectual is harassed before their stances are even heard, creating a frustrating wall between facts, and the argument they’re trying to improve. Countless times I’ve been on various social networking sites, games, or even amongst friends, when someone states something that others nod their head at, (usually out of a lack of concern) and a clever soul has stepped forth to provide contradicting evidence to their claim. This unfailingly triggers a defense mechanism in the first speaker, causing them to react with profound hostility towards the other person. They then begin to rant about being attacked, and why they believe the intellectual to be an aggressor. What they never seem to understand, is that this “troll” simply did not want their point to go unchallenged, especially if what they said could be proven to be false. Defeated, and desperate the first speaker lashes out repeatedly at the intellectual, attempting to discredit them through an assortment of fallacies and defamatory statements.
The intellectual, left with one of two options, must now choose how to end the debate;
they can either…
A) switch position to a Derailer, in which they condescend and ridicule the person in a ruthless fashion until they concede defeat by way of rage-quit, block/ignore, or public opinion swaying their direction,
or B) take the high-road by recognizing a lost cause, ending with a ‘final word’ statement and withdrawing from the forum, hoping the person will come to see the error(s) of their previous claim in time.
<There is also an option “C”, which would be fluidly carrying on the debate in a one-sided, Socratic fashion until the other party eventually turns neutral or gives into reason. This, however, is so rare I’ve only ever seen it accomplished by a handful of individuals, such as the notable user “Godless Spellchecker“, on Twitter. Most people don’t have the patience for this outcome>
With all of this new information, I sincerely hope you will be well-armed for your next encounter with a troll of the world wide web. They come in many shapes, and perform in various manners, so you should be wary of their tricks. However, if your better judgment tells you that you’re not dealing with a troll, but an intellectual, it’s probably best to make friends with them, for your sake.
It never ceases to amaze me, the rhetoric that comes out of neo-conservative circles.
Without a doubt they pump out some of the most terrifying drivel ever to disgrace the Earth. That’s why I’ve decided it’s only right that they be ridiculed publicly. If you have ever wondered where the greatest congregation of sheep, zombies, and lifeless husks go to talk politics and news, you can either go to a FOX news webpage, or Yahoo. Both of these sites, offer some of the most anti-intellectual, backwards theories known to man, that will shock and amaze you at the lack of progress in our society to educate and instruct.
Complete disregard for pedigree information, absolute carelessness to adhere to basic rules of logical debate, and a paradigm designed to empower the least educated people on the planet by teaching them to shut their eyes and ears, in favor of volume, and repetition. If Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Sarah Palin wanted to craft an army of hardly-functioning humans that receive a single lie and attach to it like leeches, they succeeded.
Unfortunately, I do have mail at Yahoo, and occasionally I go to this blatantly right-leaning website to check on news simply out of convenience. Regardless of how far right some of their stories seem, it’s never enough for the group of right-wing extremists who comb the comments section. Their initial reactions to a story they undoubtedly had difficulties reading in the first place, are overtly hostile personal attacks that combine nonsensical remarks with petty, uninventive stabs to try and formulate some snide rebuttal. Therefore, I feel no remorse in disclosing some of these winners to you, now.
This should be the first in an ongoing series of awesome posts dedicated to pointing out morons on popular websites, who say things that deserve to be exposed.
Let’s start out with the news:
The headline reads “Marine survey lists concerns on women in combat“. It’s a simple enough title that denotes that surveys were taken by armed-forces personnel, that produced results that were unfavorable to the groups that want equal treatment for the women now capable of joining combat roles on the front lines. It would appear from the results that many soldiers are not coping well with the changes, citing groundless claims that women can’t keep up with men when their lives are on the line. It’s arguably the same inaccurate, shameless tactic used to keep black males from joining combat roles prior to World War II. However, my point isn’t to focus on the story itself. If you’d like to read it, the link is below.
What I’ve come to do is take stabs at the morons who deserve it, so that’s what we’re gonna do! Up first, we’ve got this winner:
Notice, the first person speaking is me. Yes, I grow weary of reading these comments, so I took the time to add my own bit of wood to the pyre. As you can tell, it’s burning quite brightly now. They didn’t like my comment, evidently because I hit too close to home. It’s fairly easy to guess their argument, which is why I threw that plethora of ridiculous words together in order to create that monstrosity. It’s everything I’ve ever heard out of the whiny-right, and it would seem I struck a nerve. You can only push the neo-cons so far before they resort to idle threats. I’ve done just this. Forget the irony of this person’s username containing the word “intellectual”. He’s just like the rest of them; Angry, filled to the brim with hate for “lib’ruls”, and out for blood in the name of Saint Reagan.
This winner caught my eye first. Like I previously stated, he is stuck in a void of thinking that was supposed to die before the turn of the century. I can’t imagine why people wouldn’t take this guy seriously, with his immaculate knowledge of the female anatomy. Clearly we’re dealing with an OBGYN of unparalleled integrity. With quotes like “prissybutts”, who could deny that he knows what is best for our country? This mastermind of military strategy deserves an award, because he has not only managed to give us a clearly unbiased view of females in combat, but has provided us with a new catchphrase to use.
This next one is a double post, because only the coolest of the Yahoo! users can make this smooth transition from one post to the next. Right from the start, you can tell this guy is as qualified as the last to speak on the physical capabilities of women. He even cites his sources brilliantly, stating that the reason women can’t be placed on the front lines is ‘because they are inferior’. Checkmate, liberals. Then, he decides to abandon all better judgment in order to play the part of the whistle-blower. He informs us that the reason this is taking place, is because Obama is purposefully moving our armed forces towards extinction. That’s right. Only a psychological guru could understand the finer aspects of this internal revolution. It’s genius. Of course Barack Obama, the Commander-In-Chief is just trying to bring in women and gay people in order to make us softer! That way, when the Chinese invade us, they can just throw small spiders our direction, and our army will run away! Oh, that sneaky commie President and his secret agenda…
Back to our old friend, the ‘Sexual Intellectual’. This time, he is combining his data with that of ‘Maineloon’ in order to ensure that his hypothesis was correct. Of course, with infallible logic like his, who could even think of discrediting his theories? As you can tell, the sound logic that Russia and China are planning a coup d’état in order to take over the United States. Frankly, I’m surprised he is using Russia’s white-washed name, and not their underground, Illuminati codename: “The New World Order of Super-Awesome Communist Soviet Union Fascist Socialists Who Hate Freedom“. You know, because we’re still in the cold war, and the United Nations is just a cover-up organization to make us all get along for the sake of communist slavery.
…And to conclude our first round of hilarity:
Finally, we come to the truth behind the veil. The gub’ment has been working to ensure women can join combat, simply because their feeble minds are easier to control! I knew it all along! OF COURSE, the only way that they would be able to take full authoritarian control of our undeniably intelligent population, (http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/500/idiotho.jpg) is by placing those damn, easily manipulated women out in the open. At that point, all Obama would have to say is, “Please can we put you under martial law, and enslave you with our tyrannical government until you die”? They’re so weak, they would just throw down their guns right there, and go back to the kitchens and book clubs. That’s of course, going to happen anyways. The psychic medium ‘Dothemath’ has foretold of a looming gun ban, in which all firearms will be removed from the population of the United States. We should heed this warning now, lest we be torn asunder by the armies of darkness that President Blackenstein has brought to destroy the republic.
We could get a fuckin’ grip. It should be painfully evident now that the group who is opposed to women in combat, (or doing anything for that matter) is a swarm of illiterate, alpha-male, narcissistic, homophobic sycophants of the republican party who simply want the right to deny minorities, gay people, and women any rights they deem necessary when they think it threatens their identity. Of course, being stuck in a bible-belt mindset will create a generation of socially-inept neanderthals who honestly have convinced themselves that women are easy to brainwash, and that people contract homosexuality through being around gay people. Besides being a disgusting straw-man that won’t go away, it has led some of the more intellectually-challenged members of our society to treat right-wing extremism as a secondary religion. It’s a malicious faith, designed simply to create a purist society of arthritic, Caucasian males who pine for the days where they could hose down black people who stood up for themselves, or the days when you could smack a woman across the face for not having dinner ready on-time.
Hope you enjoyed this, and I hope this is the start of a glorious new series. If, however, you don’t believe the shit you’re reading now, I suggest you head over to Yahoo! Scroll down the comments, and see if I’m wrong. It’s the perfect right-wing news site that somehow even the right-wingers have found a way to paint as a ‘leftist’ community. Nothing has been altered or edited, and that should confuse and terrify you to a degree you can’t imagine.