Thursday, August 13, 2009

Arguing about morons

Here begins the newest, most amazing musing from The Loudest Fan. Bow appropriately:

Recently, I have taken up the habit of perusing bulletin boards of awesome similar to my own. Most recently, Rachel of culture.spawn has caught my ever-brilliant eye with this post: READ THIS.

While her other posts are devoted to the archaic (read: useless) medium of literature, this one touches on my area of expertise: morons of the interwebs (read: you). Her rant essentially suggests that otherwise decent human beings abuse the gift of anonymity provided by the interwebs, thus dis-entitling them on a moral level to the privileges of privacy and protection from retaliation.

To this, I have a rebuttal: we are not dealing with otherwise decent human beings, and this is nothing new or specific to the internet. Who hasn't experienced bathroom-stall graffiti? Even better, how many of us have never contributed? My point is that those who have a proclivity for abusing anonymity are the ones who do so. I don't imagine that everyone who visits a bathroom is a closet white-supremacist, itching to scrawl swastikas and "Fuk the Joos and Blax" everywhere, but any space surveyed would certainly suggest so. The internet is simply the flame that such moths are drawn to (just insert "lolz" in front of the messages you'd find in a restroom, and you'd be surprised how similar it is to any given comment thread), and it also happens to have other redeeming qualities that draw the rest of us, allowing a different kind of interaction than the bathroom stall example (in that people largely ignore bathroom stall communication).

The only solution (one which I support 100%) to the abuse of anonymity is a plutocratic exclusion of access to the internet of everybody whom I choose is unworthy.

P.S. Rachel specifically mentions the abuse of gossiping anonymously: "If I'm out with my friends, they will not tease me in front of strangers about scandalous things." I think I'll turn the tables on that one. For some juicy scoop on the sordid life of Rachel, click here: JUICY GOSSIP.

Sunday, August 9, 2009

I tell you what to think, Volume I

Here begins the newest, most amazing musing from The Loudest Fan. Bow appropriately:

Every once in a while, people find me on the street and approach me, saying, "Hey, The Loudest Fan, I am a giant ignoramus, and thus need you to give me an opinion on [insert social issue here]. Could you help me out, O Wise One?" To queries like these, my usual response is something to the effect of, "Get your hands off of me, you cretin!" That being said, I think it time to define the correct social views of our time.

Today's topic:
Gay marriage

For starters, let me point out that this debate will be pointless in a matter of years. By that time, gay marriage will be fully legal across the country, and recognized on a federal level. How do I know that? It's a simple matter of social evolution.

To put things in perspective, interracial marriage has gone through the same process as gay marriage is now. The very same arguments (the sanctity of marriage, God's law, state's rights in governing marriage, etc) were levied against your now-legal ability to purchase a mail-order bride from China, just as they are currently used against preventing two human beings from participating in the ultimate expression of genuine, mutual love for each other in this progressive day and age.

OK, there are some camps that shun gay rights due to the "ookiness" factor. They feel discomfort in seeing homosexual physical contact, and they believe we all feel that with them. These are the people who make commercials asking if you'd be OK with YOUR KIDS being exposed to such "icky" behavior, and taught its acceptability in school. First off, I just want to say that I want every child of mine to be taught from a very early age that lesbianism is the most beautiful thing on the planet. But that's just me. Secondly, heterosexual physicality is just as icky. Who among us hasn't ever wished those two sacks of hormones in the corner would stop sucking face and would either get a room or commit dual suicide? Do the names Spencer Pratt and Heidi Montag mean anything to you? If your issue with homosexuality comes down to simple discomfort, why don't you petition for federal bans on all PDA, you fascist hypocrite?

Now, we come to the camps who throw the Bible around, saying that God forbids these people He has lovingly made homosexual to join each other in the sacrament of companionship He developed. Considering that the Big Man and I communicate on a daily basis (given how important I am, He visits me in person, often asking for advice and the like. I usually oblige him), I can just tell you that He says you've got it all wrong, and leave it at that. My status as veritable Prophet should be enough. If you want more rhetorical proof instead, I can provide that as well. Actually, the argument is worded best by Sam Greenspan over at [someone else being almost as brilliant as me]
Well done, Sam. Me and the Big Man dig your style. In a non-gay way.

Beyond these, arguments against gay marriage come down to legal, constitutional semantics, and will ultimately be decided by a voting public or the supreme court in favor of protecting same-sex marriage via the process of social evolution I mentioned before. There are many blogs and articles (like this one: another person whose existence I permit) out in the tubes of the internet that demonstrate a statistical trend of the youth of America becoming more and more acceptable of homosexuality and LGBT rights. It's only a matter of time before the crotchety, old conservatives die out. In fact, in my talks with the Big Man, I've voiced my impatience in wanting these people out of the picture. His response: "I'll see what I can do..."