Typing is not Writing, my dear simplton

I just got in from a jog and hurt my knee jumping over a ditch. I blame karma.
Wait. no I don’t. cuz that’s bullshit.

Speaking of bullshit though, this happened earlier today and I don’t want to forget to post about it even though you’ll probably hate it. but it falls under that esoteric category of “human behavior that fascinates me while other people don’t care”. Just warning you that it’s one of those before you join me in the recap.

I usually find the phrase “you can’t make this stuff up” to be a glorification of low creativity because I almost always think I could have made [whatever it is] up just fine, but when it comes to dopey people trying and failing to exert dominance by bashing people on the internet – especially for stupid reasons, it’s true: I usually can’t make it up.

Here’s a fun exchange I just had a little bit ago on the comment thread of this abortion cartoon one of my friends posted:

I think my boy Hunter wins Best Caption by saying “Holy shit, dead babies read newspapers???”. haha.

Another person writes “Rather pathetic cartoon. Looks like those ugly Precious Moments dolls.” – ha, eya.

I fkking hate Precious Moments dolls…there’s something so pretentious and douchey to their exaggerated innocence that makes me want to murder them. They don’t have mouths, so that’s at least one positive the series has going for it – representing kids in an idealic fashion (I said that on the comment wall on facebook but I immediately felt guilt over it since it’s a total lie. everyone knows that kids that talk a lot don’t annoy me, but I had to go undercover for the sake of delivering the line). That aside though – it’s a scam to ad-hominem a political cartoon because you dont like the art used to deliver the message of course.

Anyway – the point in the toon is that aborted kiddies are chillaxing in heaven and lamenting the fact that they never even got ONE cake-&-candles day while the Supreme Court ruling that made killing them a Constitutional right is already nearing a mid-life crisis. Not a terrible premise, creatively speaking.

Some other commenters brought up karma and religion and anti-religion stuff, to which I said “there’s no such thing as karma and if there’s no god then all the more reason to not carelessly kill human life.” – going undercover for the sake of argument again since, we all obviously know I don’t actually care about “not taking human life” so much when its in the alien goop form, but that’s how the art of these things work. I was responding to someone saying that “you can’t outwit karma”, which appears to me to be the often used term of the word where people think that theres a cosmic tit-for-tat going on in the universe. There isn’t. Sorry if that upsets you. I clarified this elsewhere in the thread, and admitted that I totally use the word loosely too, just like most people and blah blah blah. This isn’t a post about the usage of karma or whether it exists in any sense or not. In any sense? Sure. maybe it’s there. I’ve got no reason to argue for or against it. Someone on the thread does though, and this is where the fun happened.

Wheeler, whom I dont think is a mutual friend with the person who posted this picture and must have just saw my comment on that Facebook live-ticker bullshit came in and commented “how can you say that karma doesn’t exist and then speak of the possibility of God? does karma not exist because you don’t believe it or because science as proven it too not exist.” I explained further what I was talking about, but the fun part is the addition of this Abbot Mabus person (whom I don’t know) who enters the fray with condescension that makes no sense:

The “are you on drugs?” response was extra weird considering that prior to this comment he had already responded to me by saying that my comment is “tantamount to saying there is no such thing as the internet. Both karma and God are articulated, thus both exist.” and I pointed out how that is tantamount to saying that there IS such thing as unicorns because people talk about them. Evidently (presumably due to drugs) he forgot all about that exchange and is now questioning what Wheeler is tripping on and asking “When did write [SIC] about karma not existing?”

So we’ve established that homeboy’s got short term memory and doesn’t know that articulation means talking (specifically: in a fluent and clarifying manner). Fine. no ones hassling him about it. But in the same comment he says that articulating something makes it factually real, he says:

My dispute had to with knowing what karma is versus accepting some popular culture idea about karma, similarly to how someone like you assumes that theology is about a guy on a cloud. While your ignorance is boundless, it still is no match for reality.

If you’re wondering if you missed the part where I said theology is about a guy on a cloud, don’t worry – so did everyone else since it didn’t happen.

So in trying to understand how peoples minds work, it appears we have here a guy who doesn’t know what “articulating” means and forgets the contents of comments he responded to just minutes ago is saying my ignorance is boundless because of something I never said. Which, if he was baiting me into having a reaction (the kids call it “trolling”) then it would have been perfect because those kinds of “this doesn’t logically follow that” moments set off my robot brain, grinding my gears.

So you can see where this is going… again – in my defense – Clearly this doofus is an easy target, but you have to remember that even self-illustrating dummies have to learn to not be bullies and/or rely on false versions of history to validate their arguments. So I totally bait him and say “Abbot is a fool for thinking that karma means that unicorns exist.” This is troll bait because he never said that, but its also not-trolling but rather a fair illustration because it is a mirror of just like how I never said anything about gods and clouds or theology at large that he responded to. So he totally takes it and asks “When did I write about unicorns?” to which he gets the punchline reply from me: “When did I write about God being a guy on a cloud?” (get it? herp derp).

But here is when it got weird…er. Instead of reacting like a human and realizing he made an error in making shizz up about me, only to realize it when I illustrated it by doing the same to him, he actually cited where he thinks I talked about God being a dude on a cloud…

That “poorly written sentence” he’s referring to?:

I admit to being slow enough to have to re-read it 3 times before I figured out that it was the capitalization and lack of apostrophe’s in the contractions that he’s referring to being poowly witten. Well shit. that hardly seems fair to enter as a rule for discourse on facebook this late in the game. I should have known that I was supposed to be checking these things like they matter instead of treating them logically in the contents of their substance, er wutever.

Here’s why I’m posting this for you, the viewer to learn from: The problem with coming up with logical fallacies like ad hominem attacks late in the game after you’re already losing on substance is that you at least have to make sure that if you’re going to submit such dumb rules, you need to have followed them yourself earlier in the thread. Cuz otherwise, you won’t just have made a silly point in an argument that doesn’t matter, but you’ll have opened yourself up for a sarcastic owl to tease you over it…

I usually don’t do much to these people when I see them tying their own nooses except to use improv rules of how to “yes, AND” them and keep things rolling till theres a sufficient comedic close. This one is tricky cuz if I just straight up point out that the dude is failing at reading and claiming a sentence says something it doesn’t then he has no where to go with a response, so instead I looked for further development on the grammar nazi fallacy he started relying on – cuz obviously at this point he is not concerned about the reality in any of the comments – he’s ego-tripping and freaking out cuz it would ruin his day to get pwned on Facebook and either admit it or ignore it, so thats all the “oh YA? well ur stupid!” responses are about. With that in mind I responded to his request that I re-read my sentence that didn’t say anything about God in clouds or theology at large by saying:

Richard
Dont need to, playa. I lived it. sorry you’re having so much trouble deciphering reality with your imagination. 🙁 get well soonz

Richard ?
(right now Abbot has no idea when that sentence ends cuz theres no period. id apologize for the confusion if it werent such a pathetic logical fallacy and lame attempt at obfuscating the fact that the dude is just making up dialog that only exists in his head)

Response couldn’t have been better…

He says:

Dialog is not writing, my dear simpleton.

Which is like… a perfect gift to the thread to make me look like a facebook-argument-hero (admittedly not the top brass of heroism, but if 9/11 Firefighters are somewhere around a 1.9, and “person who puts other peoples grocery carts back in the stalls for them” is a 10 – it’s gotta be at least around a 3.8, amirite?).

So I bring back the sarcastic owl, mash it with his simpleton slam and include the dictionary definition of what a dialogue is. Now, if I sound like a child who is more proud of themselves for doing some menial task than they have any right to be, you’re not wrong in your estimation, but loogit this masterpiece:

lol. Seems what he had in mind was: typing = writing, but conversing through type is not writing. A silly enough mistake/inconsistency if not for the fact that he’s attacking with the last-ditch-effort premise that not knowing something [that he happens to be wrong about] makes one a “simpleton”, which itself is the kind of put down we might have laughed at in the 90s in an episode of Fraisure, but not so much as a sick burn in 2012. double-lulz.

This is what I mean about not being able to write this stuff… Here I am just chillaxily saying shit about karma and Dude basically handed this post to me, giftwrapped. Luckily for you, i’m generous and pay forward my gifts of douchie bully-fails I receive and put them on display for you to enjoy.

I didn’t bother mentioning in the thread that by his standard of Facebook language use, “typing” isn’t “writing” cuz I had plenty to lulz over in this post already, so I went for a jog instead.

Also – I’m old. I forgot to include that part. He just reminded me cuz he commented on that thread that I should blame “my age” instead of karma but – before that he tried to hurt my feelingz with this slam:

Richard, you should blog about looking old and writing like a fat kid taking a creative writing class in the sixth grade.

LoL! It doesn’t make sense, but it doesn’t need to as the only thing for a good insult to contain is specificity to a detail you think your target is likely to be self conscious about.

I would like to visit the world where this exchange makes me the one of us who writes like a “fat kid taking a creative writing class in the sixth grade”. It sounds interesting and full of imagination. But that’s not new. people who think they’re smart and then fail miserably when trying to tear someone down have nothing else to say but projection of their failures, so that’s not so interesting. It’s the the age thing that is new. I better get ready for it though as the number of birthdays before 30 gets smaller and smaller – more and more gay guys that are bad at reading comprehension, memory, arguing, language, logic and not being a douche will only be slinging that one at me more as time goes on. It will be a whole new chapter of personal attack for when people want to fire at me when they can’t fire at my arguments. I can’t wait! 🙂