« these are not the weapons you are looking for | Main | insert "fast times" joke here »

i think i just hate people in general

Remember when the 'Lackawanna Six' were first in the courthouse, and their buddies were outside supporting them and being rude to reporters? And remember how I blogged about, had a photoshop contest going, and then I started getting hate mail about how these people were probably innoncent and were just being railroaded by the corrupt U.S. government because they are Muslim?

You do? Good.

One of six suspected members of a terrorist sleeper cell admitted attending an Al Qaeda training camp before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, where he learned to fire weapons and heard Usama bin Laden talk of "a mission to attack America"

Railroaded. Mmmhmm.

I would make further comments to all the people that sent me hate mail that week, but none of them read this site anymore because I'm supposed to be a racist, hateful racial profiler.

Which leads me to my next thought.

Why do people insist on going to the sites of people with whom they disagree on almost every issue and leave juvenile comments? If you want to have a debate, that's great. Otherwise, just be on your merry way. I don't stalk the weblogs of liberals just so I can leave dumb comments on their posts. That's what I have my own blog for. I make my dumb comments here.

I just don't see the joy of going around spreading your stupidity and immaturity. If you don't have something constructive to say (and you can disagree in a constructive way) then you probably don't have anything worthwile coming out of your brain anyhow. Either go play in your own sandbox or stop kicking dirt around in mine.

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference i think i just hate people in general:

» Apparently I'm not the only one... from adam.gerstein.net
A Small Victory: i think i just hate people in general A long time ago, I saw something interesting in someone else's blog, so I posted it here: Yeah, smoking's not bad for you.... Since then, I've had a stream [Read More]

Comments

I must emphatically protest. I seriously doubt that they can disagree in a construcive manner.

[sorry for this 'troll'. It's irresistable.]

Is it politically correct to show support for the Government on this issue? I did and I got branded a racist and anti-muslim. But how can that be? I drive an SUV! I openly support terrorism.

AUTHOR: RHJunior
EMAIL: blue27a@ntelos.net
IP: 216.12.106.192
URL: http://home.ntelos.net/~blue27a
DATE: 01/11/2003 09:18:27 PM

It has been my experience that those who make an avocation of virulent denunciation of any who express viewpoints contrary to their own are suffering from a lack of faith in their own convictions. They have sworn an open allegiance to some ideal, movement, cause, etc and accept it as an obvious and uncontestable Truth (just a quick aside: always beware of those who couch philosophical terms in capital letters). Confronted with viewpoints at odds with the orthodoxy they have embraced they are faced with a conundrum: is it possible that a reasonable person, when confronted by the obvious Truth might still choose to adhere to some sort of heresy? The only conclusion they can come to which will support their own inflexible viewpoint is that the person(s) in question must be very dim, or simply evil. Either way, vitriolic attack becomes the default response.

Centuries ago they burned people at the stake, or hanged people, or tortured them until they admitted the error of their ways. Now they scrawl nastiness on web pages. All in all I would say the situation has improved measurably.

You give them too much credit, MD. I would just point out that there are many assholes in the world, and most of them seem to have computers.

Every so often I want to write an essay about the jerks who think it is their holy mission in life to go to websites they disagree with and post their disagreements loudly and stupidly, as well as sending the weblogger vitriolic email.

But then I realize, what's the point? The ones who need to get the point of the essay will not. They will merely leave more jeering emails. The ones who get the point of the essay already don't shit in their neighbors' living rooms.

We used to say on the BBSes about these people that you don't go over to someone's house and shit all over their living rooms.

Apparently, these worms do.

Come and get me, boys.

Oh, wait. You can't. I'm not leaving a website or email address for you to expend your childish tantrums on.

Wow, that must suck a lot for you, huh?

"vitriolic attack becomes the default response?"
How about: "vitriolic attack becomes the adult response."
Either way I dont see your point. Although your vocab and use of the Eglitch language is rad!

I think you suck. In fact you really suck. So there nyeah. But guess what? I suck more so there.
That wasn't constructive at all, but WTF? I think all the jackasses that insist on trolling blogs and sending hatemail should just grow up and get a life.

Oh and if you made it this far, you don't really suck, you Rock! I suck (so there!)

With regard to this observation:

-- Why do people insist on going to the sites of people with whom they disagree on almost every issue and leave juvenile comments? --

Perhaps that's all they can do. We know how far American education has fallen. If some can develop the skills for the acquisition of knowledge and its accurate, logical manipulation on their own, others cannot -- and those others are far more suceptible to the emotion-driven indoctrination campaigns of our time.

Methuselah's Daughter also made some good observations (nicely written blog, by the way, MD). But these would apply to persons with some cognitive skills -- people who know what they're doing, as senseless as it is, and who've decided to carry on anyway. They're defending something personal -- their reputations and their self-concepts, usually -- and they're using the only tools they have that are unaffected by logical refutation.

The only certainty is that we'll be suffering through a lot more of it.

Best Wishes for the New Year.

I purposely go to web sites and blogs that I don't agree with and try to discuss things. Its easy for me to find these sites because I disagree with just about everything.
Pick any position you want, I've seen just as many "you are just a redneck racist" comments as I have "you hate America you pansy" comments. And I've been accused of both (I must be doing something right).
But I've also found some people willing to discuss and try to understand opposing viewpoints. I'm not tied to my views, give me rational arguments backed up by facts and I can actually be swayed. Personal attacks and name calling make me laugh ... for its so ineffective ... its a bit ironic ... they use the words to launch their attacks, but their attacks with words are wasted when they are written without thought.

... which is why I don't have "live" comments on my site. Email only, so I can screen out the little college students with too much liberal attitude, too much Saturday-night Old Milwaukee, and not enough BRAIN.

Dave, there's a difference between wanting to discuss things with people who are of opposing viewpoints, and trashing those people and their viewpoints.

You don't strike me as the trolling type at all. For example, you didn't insult Michele once. ;-)

Many of the views presented here take too much issue with the language of disagreement, and not the honesty of disagreement.

For example, a person can make every other word a vile oath, and still debate rationally and honestly. Granted, demonizing one's opponent and rational debate don't always go together, but the 2 are not mutually exclusive.

On the other hand, a person can be exquisitely polite yet completly disrepectful and dishonest in debate. Consider that you can make your rhetoric squeaky clean in the following situations:

  • Repeated 'big lie' tactics.
  • Logical Rudeness
  • Google-troll behavior
    Troll: I disagree with x because y, and you cannot prove me wrong
    Fellow commentator: Ok... (looks it up) there, I've disproven Y.
    Troll: Well, you can't disprove z... (and the debate goes on until the commentator tires)

OR Troll: Well, your disproof of Y comes from the conservative media, I don't trust it. Find me a source I can accept. (Proceeds to reject all sources unfriendly to Y)

So namecalling or intentional obtuseness, which is the greater dishonesty? Which is the superficial rudeness, and which the calculated rudeness? We KNOW which is easier to spot... but which actually harms the process of debate more?