So, I value objectivity. I think it’s important. But I’m human. It’s hard to be objective and human. So I try to make it obvious when I’m being subjective.

It’s not really enough to say “everything is subjective” because that’s like saying society is futile, right? If there’s no objective truth that we can agree upon, then there’s no basis for communication.

Everyone is guilty of bending the subjective into the objective. It’s the human condition. We’re all fundamentally trapped within the experiential limits of self.

But there comes a point that your “subjective objectivity” becomes delusional. When an idea is so true in one’s mind, that non-existent patterns emerge. But if it’s a shared delusion, someone else can uncover these patterns and show them to you, present them as evidence for a reality quite different from the one most people experience.

What I mean by all this is boy there are some CRAZY FUCKS out there on the internet. And not crazy like “woo! Look at me, I’m wearing a shoe on my head I’M KEH-RAZY!” More like a kind of crazy based on a misappropriation of logic and reason. A crazy that believes that you can prove a conclusion by a process of collecting specific evidence that asserts that same conclusion. A crazy that always assumes there is one great malevolent purpose behind the curtain of all events that ever occur.

As selfishly amusing as it can be to engage them in this for a spell, you’re just going to end up going round in circles until you feel like throwing up. But it is on occasion hilarious.

3 thoughts on “Nothing

    1. Well, hilarious is sort of a transient word. It’s hilarious at the time, but later it just seems awful.

      It’s sort of funny when this happens [commentary added to explain humour – always a good sign]:

      ME [addressing a birther on youtube in the manner of his own unique style of argument, and mocking a bunch of specific points he had raised]: “But didn’t you know dumocrats [which he uses repeatedly instead of democrats] is the real name of the party? Don’t you know about the 18 supreme court case rulings [referring to apparently four supreme court rulings he had read about on a blog, that supported his point]? Don’t you know about HR 2330 and HR 203032? and HR 3332323 [again using a blog’s research to list bills that pointed to a subtly different conspiracy to his premise]? Don’t you know that in 1821 [using the same blog-based sources, citing a historical context] the German philosopher Karl Karlheinz [earlier he cited a French philosopher, fourth-hand no less, and without any context] said “Demokraten? Ähnliche dumocrats habe ich recht?” Why do you ignore the evidence/facts (same thing [referring to his misuse of both terms])? End on a question [usually his questions provided two equally-ridiculous options to choose from, but I ran out of space]: Or are you high on Obama bath salts [his continual use of the image of Obama Kool-Aid]?”

      HIM: “An ethnocentric [he also used that word in a response to another guy, because he clearly just found out about it] idiot that is too dumb should know the difference between evidence & a fact [which was a mistake he had made and I had, I thought quite clearly, pointed out in my comment]. Evidence is a fact [holy fucking shit, he actually said it in the NEXT SENTENCE] or situation that suggests something might be true [something meaning a specific premise, I assume?]. Proof [because he’s actually arguing about proof and evidence, not fact and evidence] is a fact or situation that removes all doubt [as to the truth of a given premise?]. Sometimes more than one evidence can add up to proof [proof is SOMETIMES made up of multiple EVIDENCES?]. Fingerprints are proof that a person touched something [okay, I mean, not necessarily, but okay]. If 1 finds your jacket in a car, it is evidence that you were there [circumstantial evidence at best], but not proof because any1 else can also have that jacket [or “any1 else” can also have moved your jacket to the car], Being an untrained litigant [guilty as charged], u? wouldn’t know! [ironic]”

      ME: “Leaving aside the FACT that those are the shoddiest explanations of evidence, proof and fact I’ve probably ever seen [bit of hyperbole], I’m now in the position of having to explain what satire is?
      Or alternatively: break the circle.?”

      Like, I say, it’s sort of funny. And then this happens:

      HIM: “Leaving aside that fact Paul, that you live in Canada, you were born in Scotland [information freely available on my blog here] and anyone that watched even 2 of the trash you call videos [top videos being videos I made of Buddha Machines in several different environments] would know you have fried your brain on drugs repeatedly [assertion 1: I am on drugs]. You wouldn’t know a Constitution if it was slapping you in the face [assertion 2: only Americans can “know a Constitution”]. U belong in Canada with those homophilic losers [assertion 3: being pro-gay rights is bad and I should feel bad]. Your not in a position to explain anything. You can’t explain what you did 5 minutes ago [assertion 4: short-term memory loss?]. You are so far from anybody’s society [assertion 5: ironically in the context of the Ethnocentricity he’s accused me of, I don’t belong to any society that he understands], they will probably name a sub-culture after you [not sure how that’s an insult]. SCUM! [assertion 6: I am scum]”

      And there’s just no good response to that. He went to my youtube page, followed the link to this blog, read the “about me” in the sidebar and changed the tone of his attack to a personal one. There’s no way back from that because for the rest of the argument it would amount to “what do you know, you live in Canada?!” As much as it reveals about the kind of a person this guy is, it also highlights the futility of such an argument.

      So that’s why I didn’t include any examples. You have to have been there. Afterwards I have to explain why it was funny, only to realise it wasn’t.


  1. Okay, in actual fact, this particular argument today turned FUCKING HILARIOUS.

    After a while of being all “I won’t respond to you because you’re not a citizen” his rhetoric became a little bit toned down, but still super-dumb. Then he suddenly became kind of friendly and playful for a few posts and then announced he had to go to bed because his mom told him it was time for bed. And then actually vanished.

    That’s either the neatest punchline to a sustained trolling effort I have ever seen, or he genuinely is so young that his mother told him to go to bed at 10:15PM. Both wonderful outcomes.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.