It's a good thing I tried to catch up to the internet news lately. Doubtless you have heard this story, or a story like it, plenty of times: noxious blog post is posted, public gets upset, author is a remedial celebrity and spin doctor, spin doesn't take, offense is broadcast – everyone chuckles in the end, because it's kind of funny.
Even Scott Adams knows there are some kinds of shit you don't touch. Not even as a blogger. Not even satirically. I blog anonymous and I wouldn't get in anyone's face or talk lightly about retardation or gender or any stupid thing. I prefer the borderlands of insensitivity and general curmugeonliness. There is one stinking turd that is so bloated with gas that even looking at it wrong can set it off. Even looking at an opposing turd the wrong way can set it off. You don't even look at this turd, let alone blog about it on your smug, high-class, oft-visited blog (which is solely buoyed by celebrity and little-more-than-average writing skills).
Anyways, the poor fellow took the nebulous, cringe-worthy subject of 'Men's Rights' to task in the most circumlocutory style possible: in short he pissed off everybody but his most dedicated fans, and even those have put at least one Dilbert mug at the back of cupboard. The irony of Men's Rights does not need to be brought up, and the ire of feminists has been alluded to by other sources covering the story and how it has been covered. It's been covered to death, and the best part is it makes me realize I am out of the loop. How do I generate controversy, gain blog hits, and become infamous?
Some are wondering, no doubt, why this even matters. Chauvinists or feminists or anybody in between can tell you: it's kind of funny how the author of a super-bland cartoon can piss off two opposing teams while making terrible analogies about inculcated sexism and what life is really like for a man. Life for anyone sucks, and it's time we acknowledge this, but more importantly, life sucks less when you're syndicated – until you fuck up a blog post, pull a Sarah Palin and delete it, and then come back with a fiery, smug counterpoint. (Thanks to Something Awful for the excellent 'troll context' reporting which was hard to find anywhere else on the internet).
Reading comprehension is down, globally, because of stupid cartoons (and TV shows, movies, and even internet sites) that reuse the same simple five-word-max jokes. When humor is simplified, comprehension does not need to compensate, and when humor comes in grey-colored, easy-to-digest blocks from the humor mill people don't even need to comprehend anything: they just need to chuckle enough to keep thoughts of suicide at bay. Then they sip their coffee, stroke their goatee, and get back to checking keylogs from everyone in the office.
The point of the matter is this: clearly Scott Adams was right. He said Men's Rights campaigners were a bunch of pussies who should shut up. Popular opinion sides with him on this point. Then he kept talking, but that's not his fault: he's a man. Men are humans, and humans are relatively stupid, complex animals. Men make mistakes, as the old saying goes. Then they back themselves into corners. It happens to me at least once every week, and I treat women with respect and cook a vast majority of my own meals.
The worst part is, with all the outrage, Scott Adams is proving that there may be a point. Misogyny vs. misandry is like fighting an oil spill by ensuring a majority of it doesn't come under public scrutiny: the ugliest stuff remains out of sight. Why? Because we're all a bunch of crybaby wankers who are incapable of meeting an issue head-on unless there's warfare, sports, or entertainment media involved. Instead we form passive-aggressive groups and watch the waters, secretly hoping that nothing surfaces so we can continue to ignore our growing sense of disaster.
No comments:
Post a Comment