|
|
Currently no members online:)
You are an anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here |
We have 62 guests online !
|
|
|
 |
 |
| Articles: Attack of the virtual clones. |
Posted by
Psychopixi on Saturday, June 29, 2002 - 11:12 AM PST
I'm going to scream. I swear I am. I'm sitting at my computer randomly drifting through self-titled 'gothic' pages and just feeling bored out of my skull. There seems to be so little online now that's new or different. I'm sitting here thinking "I've read this all before and I was unimpressed the first time". Maybe my site isn't any different. Perhaps I'm just contributing to the growing pile of bullshit that's cluttering up the net. For every genuinely interesting site I find I'll have to trawl through a hundred pointless, Mansonitic, mind-numbing, crowd-following, illiterate, boring, unoriginal, and just generally crappy 'gothik' or, dare I say it 'vampyre' ::shudders:: sites.
Haven't you people heard of a spell checker? Don't even talk to me about your kEwLiEz 5ty1e of writing. It pisses me off. Okay, so perhaps I'm guilty of a few sins, aren't we all? I'll admit to having used the words 'boi' and 'kewl' at some point in my dark, mysterious past ::cue goth-as-fuck music:: but I'd like to understand what I'm reading, Please, for the sake of my sanity!
Then, of course, you get pages such as the Reality
Check or Goth Wanker of the Week which are just designed to criticize all the sites which they think are no good. Okay, so the sites featured really, really deserve to get the piss taken out of them. They suck, and in no small sense of the word. It just gets to me a bit, sometimes their criticism just comes off as pretension. "I'm so much gother than thou." I recognize that this makes this whole rant I'm now writing sound like nothing more than hypocritical, pretentious drivel. Maybe that's all this is - a conceited farce.
Am I really any better than all the other people whose sites I've been surfing? I speak from my heart. I write what I think. I like to think that I'm fair - that I don't act like I know better or *am* better than anyone else. But I *am* better Godamnit. When I've just spent a goodly amount of time reading 'Mystryss of the Nyght's site where she pours out her 'heart and sole' (sic) then I sincerely hope that I am better than that. That I don't seem shallow and vapid. That I act for me, do what I want and don't just follow a pre-conceived notion of 'cool' or the stereotypical perception of 'goth'. That I'm not a fake or a poseur. If you think I am then fine, just think for a minute, are you really so much better than me?
I'm just sick of it all. I'm thoroughly disillusioned with the 'gothic' and 'pagan' sites that the net has to offer. Do you really expect me to load up your site and go 'Oh, wow! Look at that cool spinning ankh.gif that I've only seen on every other bloody site in existence.'? Another major gripe - 'meet me' pages. I like them. I like knowing about whose site I'm reading. I know they're somewhat of an exercise in virtual egotism but I can't help it. I like finding out about people. Just the pages which read along the lines of "My name is Mystress of all things Dark and sp00ky and I am a 213 year old vampyre" irk me somewhat. You aren't a vampire. Get it through your head, into that vacuous space that your brain ought to occupy (had you not killed it through excessive bleaching in your 'trendy' phase). If I read a 'Meet Me' page it's going to be because I want to learn about the author of the site, not because I want to help the author indulge in their own little fantasy of 'I am vampyre, hear me roar.'. While I'm pissed off and bitching I suppose I ought to include this as well; I don't give a damn how good your content is if I can't read the bloody writing. If it's written like this or is dark brown on a black background (insert other difficult to view combination here) then I'm not going to want to know.
So, am I the most hypocritical moron you have had the misfortune to happen across, or do you think I actually have a valid point?
*At least I don't write bad poetry.*
|
| |
| |
|
|
Average Rating : 4.0
Total ratings : 1
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Attack of the virtual clones. | Login/Create an account | 33 Comments |
|
| | Comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
Re: Attack of the virtual clones.
by Poison on Jun 29, 2002 - 12:16 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://www.poisson.8k.com
|
|
You have a point, but fuck, "live and let live". I don't like those sites anymore than you do, but you can easely close the browser. Maybe eventually those people will come to notice what shit they put up. Growing up changes your opinions and views. They'll wake up, sooner or later... hopefully.
|
Re: Attack of the virtual clones.
by bettie_x (strangersangel@hotmail.com)
on Jun 29, 2002 - 01:12 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://bettie_x.tripod.com/strangeasangels/
|
Yeah, but you have to admit that it's like telling roger rabbit not to push the big red button...he knows an anvil is going to fall on his head, but he can't NOT push it.
I do understand your point, and there have been several points where I've just said "fuck it" and closed the browser because I couldnt' take it anymore. But some, dear, are JUST SO BAD IT'S GOOOOD. You can't NOT read....Can't NOT continue to cilck. Hell, anyone that's been to Cryptie's site will understand. Who can resist a 30+ year old guy with a frizzy mullett, pancake whiteface makeup and a headband wearing frederick's of hollywood *shreik* in a cemetary?
Or resist clicking on the picture of him at work which features so said potbellied frizzy man on a forklift in whiteface, a ratt t shirt with the arms and neck cut out, making devil horns at the camera with hands clad in black puffy ski gloves with the fingers cut off? I know I can't.
Sure, live and let live and all that jazz, but as long as you aren't singling them out and harassing them with email and making them miserable, it's not harmful to just having a nice, anonymous laugh at their expense.
The only people I have a problem with that do that are those that can't have a good laugh at themselves. Once you can laugh at yourself, you can laugh at the world all you want. Most people take themselves way too seriously, which is what i find has the most ticklish effect on my funnybone.
Bring us your weak, bring us your poor, bring us your poorly done eyeliner and bat poetry 'cause everyone hates us too.....bah. The last thing I want is to be part of some kid's teen angst club...but you have to admit when they take the time to put it onto the net, they're expecting a reaction. At least he's not a cliff yablonski...
|
Re: Re: Attack of the virtual clones.
by Psychopixi on Jun 29, 2002 - 04:08 PM
(User info | Send a Message) http://psychopixi.com | | *Grinz* I know what you mean - I could, ever so easily just shut the computer down, but damnit I *like* Roger Rabbit - I need to push the button, even when it does say 'My Theory on Vampyres.' Like you said, it's just so bad, it's good. It's just begging to be read, mocked and complained about, but heaven forbid that I actually don't read it! I know that I'm making as much sense as a fish on helium, forgive me! I just had a rant in me, dying to come out. That ^ was it. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Attack of the virtual clones.
by IamSquid (AAA@sockmonkeys.net)
on Jun 29, 2002 - 05:14 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://
|
|
The vampire thing is the worst. Sure vampires are cooler and sexier than yoo are but yoo won't be cooler or sexier trying to convince everyone else yoo are one. If there's one thing I can't stand --especially on the internet-- it's people trying to convince everyone they're something they're not...........what?
|
Re: Re: Attack of the virtual clones.
by Ironboots on Jun 29, 2002 - 07:44 PM
(User info | Send a Message) http://ranger.vr9.com/Flash.html | *gives strong glances at squid*
*then walks up to some crowd*
I really am a boot... I really am... So bow down!
*meek people bow down*
That's better... ;) |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Re: Re: Attack of the virtual clones.
by IamSquid (AAA@sockmonkeys.net) on Jun 30, 2002 - 10:43 AM
(User info | Send a Message) http:// | | why do yoo think I added the ".....what?" That's funny, get it? |
[ No anonymous comments ]
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Attack of the virtual clones.
by ravinsaend (-)
on Jun 29, 2002 - 05:33 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://
|
People need ctisicism to realise they are being imbeciles, or that no, the world can't read black on black writing.(I have seen someone do an entire page in black type on a black background and actualy thought I would be able to read it)
Even if that criticism is a rant somewhere they'll never seen. eventually someone soemwhere who know someone and so on will inform them on their stupiity because someone that knows someone they know or some crap like that at some point actually read said rant and passed it on somehow.(You know how it works, that thing so called normal people call entworking which i really ust a way to make it seemm like they're more popular than they are.)
And now my incredibly hyper elf will hut up beofre i write a book here.
|
God apparently doesn't flush.
by Anonymous-Coward on Jun 29, 2002 - 10:46 PM | Criticism almost never helps an imbecile to see the light. I have witnessed countless occasions in which a person's most base nature is graphically demonstrated to them. The idiot in question will immediately do one of two things: namely, attack the source of the disparaging remark or spout non sequiters. Both of these responses are roughly the equivalent of clamping one's hands over one's own ears and chanting "LA LA LA! I'M NOT LISTENING!"
It's extremely interesting to see how the abysmally stupid can go to extreme lengths to keep themselves from either recognising their own inadequacies or adjusting their behaviour so that their deficiencies aren't quite so glaring. They seem to do everything humanly possible in order that everyone in the world but themselves can see what profound fuckheads they are. If they spent a tenth of the energy trying to improve themselves as they have spent in their alarmingly sophisticated techniques to prevent the first iota of self-awareness from creeping in, we would be living in a Utopia instead of a planetary tabloid television show.
"The planet that we live on is an oblate spheroid hurtling through space, entirely unaware that it is infested with imbeciles."
-Something I Must Have Read On A T-Shirt Somewhere. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Well said, Coward!
by Monolycus on Jun 29, 2002 - 10:52 PM
(User info | Send a Message) | And, if the computer had not done some weird damned thing while I was writing it, it would have been my name on that entry and not the evil Anonymous Coward who tried to take the credit for it. I am, I was, I will be
your friendly neighbourhood
~Monolycus. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: God apparently doesn't flush.
by ravinsaend (-) on Jul 03, 2002 - 04:17 AM
(User info | Send a Message) http:// | Criticism doesn't mean "You're not right, I am, and this is what you have to do to be right."
Criticism for me is the exact same thing as CONSTRUCTIVE criticism. If you think about the best way to put it before you try to show someone how to better themselves or a project of theirs, you'll find that they're much more apt to listen than you think. Of course, such takes patience and one who so obviously has absolutely no faith in people isn't likely to have the necessary patience. Patience requires faith. Good criticism requires patience. Betterment requires good criticism. Are we seeing a pattern? I hope so, because I've a tendency to confuse people. Nobody is going to liten to somoene that doesn't have the faith in them to be patient enough to constructively explain their thoughts to them in a way they can understand what you mean. Everyone is different and thus understands things differently. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Oh, yeah? So's your maternal parental unit!
by Monolycus on Jul 03, 2002 - 02:18 PM
(User info | Send a Message) | | Looks like we're going to have differing opinions. I would have agreed to disagree about things until you went ad hominem on me. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Oh, yeah? So's your maternal parental unit!
by ravinsaend (-) on Jul 09, 2002 - 09:15 AM
(User info | Send a Message) http:// | | I'm not entirely sure of the meaning of "ad hominem", perhaps you could enlighten me? |
[ No anonymous comments ]
To sum up.
by Anonymous-Coward on Jul 10, 2002 - 06:06 PM | An ad hominem argument is one that is directed towards the person who has put forward an idea rather than discussing the merits of the idea itself. Your observation that I "obviously have no faith in people and would therefore not have the patience required" should not enter into the debate. To begin with, it remains to be demonstrated that I have no faith people... and secondly, it is incumbent upon you (as you have taken a contrary position to mine) to illustrate why I should have faith in people in the first place.
My argument is about the general unwillingness of idiots to listen to or act upon criticism. Any specific presentation of that criticism is encompassed by the foregoing statement. My observation is based upon years of experience with idiots and non-idiots (in which I have exercised extraordinary amounts of patience, thank you) and is illustrated by the thread that began this line of discussion in the first place.
Need I be more specific? Why, if people will respond positively if you sugar coat your message, are people still sending poetry to this site? Devin has asked nicely, joked, yelled, begged, and cajoled people about not sending poetry to this site. Each of these approaches have been met with the same response (viz. Idiots submit bad poetry to this site). This is because one of the common qualities of idiothood is to think that you are so clever that anything you say is brilliant and has to be shared. This leads to site after site after site of the same crap (the observation that sparked all of this). My argument remains that no amount of criticism (constructive or destructive) will deter this from occuring.
|
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: To sum up.
by ravinsaend on Jul 23, 2002 - 09:00 PM
(User info | Send a Message) http:// | | Yes..I understood your viewpoint..I was just rather annoyed when I wrote that reply. Terribly sorry for taking it out on you like that. It just sparked my interest enough to let my unhappy brain formulate a bit of nastiness into the reply. I actually intended that bit to come out differently and non-personally. As I said, I was rather annoyed, so my brain transformed it into a release of said annoyance. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Damn it!
by Monolycus on Jul 10, 2002 - 06:12 PM
(User info | Send a Message) | Yes, I wrote the above. Sometime between beginning and ending that post, the site decided that I was not logged in. I think it is that damned Anonymous Coward trying to steal the credit for my material. I am, I was, I will be,
~Monolycus. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Re: Attack of the virtual clones.
by nocta on Jul 05, 2002 - 11:18 PM
(User info | Send a Message) | | I think it's all in how you present your criticism. Most people present their criticism in a degrading manner, which (unsurprisingly) other people don't tend to listen to. You can almost see their minds slam shut. But if you say what you have to say in a nonthreatening, thought-out way, I've found that people are more likely to listen to you. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Quaker Instant Bitch
by Monolycus on Jul 06, 2002 - 04:47 PM
(User info | Send a Message) | It has been my experience that they are more likely to pretend to listen to you if you sugar coat your messages. You can even get them to nod and look concerned and say things like "Gee, you're right" if you are saccharine enough in your approach. If lip service is the degree of improvement you were aiming for, being polite is definitely the way to go. Ultimately, however, they are unwilling to change themselves in any substantive way unless the rest of the herd pressures them to do so. If they have no degree of self awareness in the first place, you will have better luck obedience training algae.
I have tried to being polite, appeals to reason, peer pressure, gentle prodding, not-so-gentle prodding, lambasting, positive and/or negative reinforcement, operant conditioning, mesmerism, telempathy, chloral hydrate, and countless other approaches to trying to communicate with the majority and it has become painfully clear to me that they stand upright simply to fool you. For the overwhelming majority, experience is merely the repetition of the same mistakes. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Attack of the virtual clones.
by Anya (-)
on Jul 01, 2002 - 06:20 AM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://
|
I like vampires, but I see where you're coming from. The only bitch I have about that stuff is a lot of people think it's cool to pretend to be one (roleplaying as one is different, but literally irl thinking you are one means you need to grow hair on your balls heh). Yeah, I'm an anti-stereotype fan as well. I may generalize things (like calling things stupid "adorable") but eh.
I like paganism and vampirism stuff, so I don't have much to talk in that area. My biggest bitch there is the people thinking they're hot shit for being one (dominantly thinking it's cool to be Satanic, I personally don't swing there, but one to their own).
As for the improper grammar, I agree. Maybe quoting something now and then, but excessive 1 4/\/\ k3\/\/1 f0r /\/\4# \/\/r1t1/\/g gets old (yeah that didn't make sense but neither does their writing rofl). Am I making sense here?
|
Re: Re: Attack of the virtual clones.
by Psychopixi on Jul 01, 2002 - 09:33 AM
(User info | Send a Message) http://psychopixi.com | Yeah, I'm Pagan - Wiccan in fact and I am interested in the mythology surrounding vampires, I just get pissed off with people who think they actually *are* vampires, that's all.
As far as the Satanism stuff goes they just go on about reverse-Christianity, not actual Satanism. It's just like someone saying that they're goth because they like Marilyn Manson and thinking that saying that will make them cool. It doesn't.
My grammar sure as hell isn't perfect, but at least what I read is understandable by the people reading. 1337 is practically impossible to decipher and alternating caps is a pain in the arse.
And, yes - you did make sense! |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Alack a day.
by Monolycus on Jul 01, 2002 - 02:08 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
|
I think a very large part of the problem can be explained by the "90%-of-everything-is-crap" theory. When you have a greater amount of material that people are producing, you assume that you will find more "genuises" in the bunch. Very, very rarely has this ever happened. In practice, the converse seems to be true, that is, crap reproduces itself at a much faster rate than genius does. Just because a greater number of people are able to express themselves does not imply that a greater amount of worthwhile expression is going to happen. That is why you see the same cliches and stereotypes reproduced ad nauseum.
Genius apparently needs to be fostered and nurtured by a society. This is why there were more apparent geniuses during the Italian Renaissance than immediately before or afterwards. It is not that chance caused all of these geniuses to be born contemporary to one another... it is that their culture fostered genius and eschewed the trite and hackneyed. Today, we foster the trite and hackneyed and then wonder why we are up to our armpits in it.
|
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Re: Alack a day.
by Monolycus on Jul 01, 2002 - 04:39 PM
(User info | Send a Message) | | I don't think that was trite at all... but I rarely see any fault with comments that are in agreement with something that I have said. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Alack a day.
by Shade (Shade@Gothcult.com) on Jul 04, 2002 - 11:50 AM
(User info | Send a Message) http://www.hotelshade.com | --snip--
...the 90% of everything is crap theory...
--snip--
Juast as an interesting thought, remember the standing theory is that only 10 percent of the brain's capacity is used for day to day usefull activity, the other 90 percent is an unknown hole in our heads. Just because we can see 100 percent of the brain that is the internet doesn't mean the ratio doesn't hold true...
Just my random 2 cents |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Of Crap and Men
by Monolycus on Jul 04, 2002 - 05:47 PM
(User info | Send a Message) | Actually, the "90%-of-everything-is-crap" theory is something of a misnomer. It does not imply that there is 10% that is worthwhile, it was just called that to indicate that the overwhelming majority of what is produced by people is not worthwhile. Also, one often hears that Homo sapiens use only one tenth of their brains, but that is actually more folklore than science. There has never been an accurate measure of what per centage of their brains the average person uses, but I think ten per cent might be a pretty liberal estimate. You will always have professional athletes throwing that curve.
Still, there might be something to the idea that the internet represents a cross section of Western culture... and that the crap one finds on it is roughly equivalent to the crap buzzing through the brain pan of the modal individual (curse him/her!) If this is so, following the thread that sparked this digression, the ratio is much, much smaller than 1/9.
|
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Alack a day.
by bettie_x (strangersangel@hotmail.com) on Jul 04, 2002 - 05:32 PM
(User info | Send a Message) http://bettie_x.tripod.com/strangeasangels/ | ~crap reproduces itself at a much faster rate than genius does. ~
Could this finally be the theory why trailer parks get larger year after year? Like rabbits! Rabbits, I say...with el caminos on cinderblocks in the front yard.... |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Devolution
by Monolycus on Jul 04, 2002 - 05:53 PM
(User info | Send a Message) | | The Darwinian answer would be that trailer parks are more ecologically viable than anything else and stationary El Caminos can even outcompete dandelions for custody of the niche. Nobody saw Jerry Springer coming down the pike when they started crowing proudly about "Survival of the Fittest". |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Re: Alack a day.
by Dolorosa on Jul 09, 2002 - 03:33 PM
(User info | Send a Message) | | Oh christ...I'm not the only one... |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Attack of the virtual clones.
by MorteAscendo on Jul 03, 2002 - 11:54 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://
|
|
The internet says i'm cool, sexy, a ladies man and smart.....so it HAS to be right...right? Isnt the internet telling the truth!! Please say yes....
|
Re: Re: Attack of the virtual clones.
by Psychopixi on Jul 04, 2002 - 12:01 PM
(User info | Send a Message) http://psychopixi.com | ::Acquiesces to plea:: Yes, tis true. The pathological liar that is the www has found redemption in the form of shmeng.com.
It is entirely possible, however, that I am spouting rubbish due to being very bored.
Either way I reckon you're cool. ;) |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Attack of the virtual clones.
by Abbadon on Jun 10, 2003 - 12:18 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://
|
|
To hate something you must understand it. Keep trawling and going to church so you can experience stupidity first hand. I love your site btw!!!
|
Re: Attack of the virtual clones.
by darkistdreamer on Jun 10, 2003 - 05:47 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://http://
|
|
valid point, definitly. as for bad poetry, has anyone else noticed that inflicting a person with enough *worse* poetry can sometimes sicken them enough that they come to their senses?
|
|
|
