Group Think

Recent fun in a Facebook group after I asked this person – we’ll just call him “John”, since that’s his name – said:

John
John Annunziata Dems and Repub are two sides of the same coin….dems want to control your wealth ie your physical world while the Repubs want to control the spiritual realm…ie morals or social issues….The things they do not want to control are the things they do not care about

Causing this exchange:

Richard
Anyone peddling the “two sides of the same coin” trope is using plastic Playschool coins as their reference. ie: Not paying attention to reality. What major legislation have Republicans tried to “control the spiritual realm” with? (I mean BESIDES HR 666, also known as the Ghostbusters Bill). What judicial rulings have been handed off by conservative justices that parallel that of liberal ones? I can think of a lot of examples of Democrat law controlling my finances, but notsomuch on how Republicans are controlling my spirituality and morals through the law, though I will consider your examples with an open mind.

John
Richard, You are NOT paying attention to reality and not diving deeper enough into the philosophy of both parties.

The spiritual realm is morality..ie social issues which the Republicans love to control..ie marriage, drug use, individual rights….I am not peddling anything..I am speaking a truth which you are too ignorant and condescending to see..For now on I am not answering to anything you have to say about what I write…you try to come off as an intellectual but you are a psuedo-intellectual who has a mere understanding of philosophy and no understanding of how values and reality are connectedCarl is RIGHT…you sir are not only irrational and your thinking short sighted and stunted but you are arrogant…as these people tend to be….

Richard
I try to come off as an intellectual? lol. Did I miss something and Justin Bieber is the new Nietzsche? or is John just confusing his ignorance with my intellect being huge? (consequently: “Intellect” is what i named my junk, btw).

I asked for examples of legislation. Marriage, drug use and “individual rights” (ie: “I can’t think of a 3rd one”)? what marriage law has been proposed anywhere ever that wasnt a response to liberal control? what drug laws have republicans made or do republicans favor that the Democrat party doesnt? what “individual rights” is the republican party yanking away that have to do with morality and spirituality? -now i see why he ran away rather than have to answer to his own comments 😉

The next day, this was a new post (the Wes gentleman had previously been asked a challenging question like me and didn’t answer, so thats why he Liked the post):

I commented late in the day after 20 or more polite versions of “that’s really dumb” but I said:

Richard
translation: “I am leaving this group because Richard Bushnell asked me for examples of something I said where none exist. Since I would rather die than admit that I said something factually inaccurate on Facebook, I am running away from the point I raised and everyone in this group”. lol.

Farewell corrections:
-his last comment called me a pseudo intellectual, which is someone who tries too hard to use intellect and philosophy. this post says the literal opposite: that im “intellectually lazy” and “philosophically deficint [SIC]” (is there a supplement I can take for that?). So he knew he wanted to use those 2 words, but couldnt decide how. lol.
-idk what this nonsense is about the states or Fed forcing people to do anything. somehow he interpreted my comment saying that Republican exclusive morality controlling laws arent a thing with “the government should control everything”.

-waaaiit a minute… is today Opposite Day? omg you guys. i feel so silly. John meant to say that he is staying in the group because of me and bc i am so humble. It all makes sense now.

on that note: Wyatt is a skinny dwarf & I am not awesome.

Later, there was this post (Nick is one of those “homosexuals” and is satirically complaining about a post of some funny picture where something resembled a vagina or something):

Nick
I’m leaving this group

I do NOT expect to be confronted by images of vaginas or gingers or any form of sick and twisted deviant picture at 7am in the morning

Later still after I read both Nick & Johns posts back to back:

Richard
I am also leaving this group because of the comedicalllly lazy, arrogant and psychologically deficint Nick [redacted]….He is like a leftist in his tactics where if you disagree with him he name calls without facts (*note* that the sentence directly preceding this one where I just name called without facts doesn’t count, cuz I’m the one who said it and I can do whatever I want cuz I’m a princess. & besides: what kind of asshole follows his own standards of conduct he demands from others? the sucker-kind, obviously). I am comedically sound (and excellent at Frisbee) and do not sell out my standards of comedy for cheap “I’m leaving this group” parodies like Nick did. To support puns from any faction of comedy is irrational. I love and will miss most of you…Just not enough to continue interacting with you on any level in this group because I just can’t handle the outrageously outrageous conduct of 1 person in 1 instance in an exchange I initiated. God Bless….

[Richard readded himself to the group]

It’s fun to play along at home, so if you want to spot all the lulz yourself, don’t read any further. If you’re ready though, the answer-key is located below:

1) “comedicalllly” has 4 “L”s to match the 3 in the word “intelectuallly”

2.) Spelling of “deficient” is retained as “deficint” (and don’t mistake this for an implication that typos or even non-typo spelling or grammar errors matter one wit. Their presence is only for the lulz).

3.) “and excellent at Frisbee” spotlights the fact that this dramatic farewell isn’t just “you suck” but also a self reassurance that “*I* do not!” – you know: because announcing so in a speech like this is exactly the way to get that point across.

4.) The post is a parody of a parody of a serious “I’m leave this group” post. So the progress/inception goes: Real -> Parody -> parody of the Real AND of the Parody.

5.) “To support puns of any faction” parodies the fact that he cited something I never said. I didnt say anything about endorsing force by the government and Nick didnt say anything about puns.