On Being An Idiot
by John Walker on Apr.11, 2006, under Rants
Right, get your notebooks out everyone. It’s time for another lesson in being not an idiot.
Reading through this nonsensical thread over on EG, Stuart Campbell steps in to explain something that had been misunderstood from his own article and referenced inaccurately. Someone else doesn’t understand and pompously criticises, Stu mockingly points this out, and as per usual in all forum-style conversations, the entire thing descends into tiresome gibberish.
However, it reminds me of a couple of important things to note.
The first thing is: the difference between someone’s being an idiot and someone’s being unintelligent is an idiot has no idea he’s unintelligent. And this leads to all sorts of problems. The person being unintelligent hears something that contradicts their own incorrect understanding on a matter and either learns, or retreats. The idiot takes loud offense. This is problematic, as it means the person being an idiot will only ever shout angrily, no matter the debate.
Let’s create a hypothetical example. Let’s say someone is angrily stating that a well-received and award winning film is actually terrible, and everyone who likes it is wrong. Others reply saying, “I agree! It’s rubbish! Thank goodness you said that!”. I, thinking that the film is rather splendid, and having detailed reasons why, reply saying why I think it is good.
Now, the person hating the film has two choices. They can listen, and make arguments against to defend their position should they maintain it. Or they can make an irrelevant point that ignores anything that might challenge their position. The idiotic response is to choose the latter. So he says, “Everyone else thinks it’s rubbish. You’re the only one defending it. So that proves something, eh?”
Despite this being a frustrating nonsense, and certainly not addressing any of the points made, you have no choice but to respond to it. A simple solution would be, “Well, the most respected critics all defend it with their well-reasoned reviews. Now, can we get back to the points I made?”
“So now you’re saying only journalists are allowed opinions?”
There’s little hope in such a situation. The problem is, the person is refusing to listen, and refusing to accept the possibility that they’re being an idiot. So nevermind that their ‘point’ was succinctly proven wrong – instead they pretend that a totally different conversation took place, and respond angrily to that fiction. I am left in an ever-more confusing and frustrating position, as now if I wish to continue I have to defend the point – that I certainly don’t believe only employed film critics are allowed opinions, never have thought that, never would think it, wouldn’t say it, and perhaps most pertinently, didn’t say it. But the idiotic response has already won, as now I’m desperately defending myself against this most irrelevant of points, and any reasoned logic I once employed is lost in the bottom-wind.
The second thing is: no one seems to be able to recognise the difference between a particular behaviour described, and an assault on their entire character.
In the EG thread, Stu is impolite to some of the people who are rudely dismissing his words, ignoring what he’s saying, and instead pretending he’s making the arguments they want him to have said. They want those responses because those are the ones for which they have practised replies. They neatly fit into categories they recognise. So, as an example, it’s assumed that Stu is slagging off the game Geometry Wars 2. He’s not, and indeed he has very clearly stated that he likes the game. But now the above behaviour appears, and Stu is left having to defend himself against things he hasn’t said, and arguments he wasn’t making. And oddly enough, becomes frustrated and annoyed at having to do this. So he labels the behaviour – he calls it stupid, idiotic, childish, naive, etc. And here is the crux of this point: the idiotic response is to believe this is a description of their character.
Of course it’s a description of their current behaviour. This isn’t a difficult conclusion – it’s impossible for it to be anything else. Stu doesn’t know these people, has never spoken to them before. They write under nicknames, they are an anonymous blue name writing something stupid. However, “You are being a moron”, which is patently true in the above examples, is interpreted as “You are always, and have always been, a moron,” and the person indignantly hollers at this grotesque injustice. (For someone like Stu, who has a public profile, the idiot’s response goes a stage further as they attempt to exact revenge for their own imagined affront, and use the personal information they have on him to insult him personally. They become the perpetrators of the crime they so condemn, in what I shall now label the Idiot’s Irony).
And why? Because in both cases, the alternative is allowing the possibility of being wrong. And god forbid that we should ever be wrong! In fact, in a gross distortion of reality, it is being wrong that is understood as being idiotic by today’s arguing masses. This is such a horrendous mistake, and it breaks my heart. Recognising that one is wrong is so FAR from being idiotic. It’s the very opposite! It’s admitting that one has learned! Being wrong is a joy – it’s a time when you learned something new, gained knowledge, improved your intellect. And yet it’s so fiercely hated that both the above situations are the absolute norm. Idiotic behaviour with the inability to recognise itself. That way, you never have to be wrong. You never have to learn a new thing. You never have to think.
April 13th, 2006 on 14:20
Thanks not quite impartial observer. Do you think that any of that would get a single word of the article withdrawn? Me neither.
April 13th, 2006 on 14:22
I know how allegory works. But if a story is about a real event it is more of an example than an allegory. I mean you even linked to the “allegory” you used! Are we going to disagree about this too?
The paragraph I quoted is an exaple of the behavior you are describing. It is not an allegory for the bahavior.
April 13th, 2006 on 14:24
“Since I’ve not mentioned you, but only described behaviours you deny having exhibited, it cannot be about you. So I don’t understand why you feel the need to have a private blog entry removed at your behest.
If you’re admitting that you are indeed the perpetrator of the behaviours described, then on what grounds do you wish to have the descriptions removed? You are against free speech? You wish to tidy the internet of anything that accurately describes you in a negative light? But this is all irrelevant, since you did not do anything wrong, and so the entry can be in no way about you.
Nevermind that you’ve already stated that it doesn’t bother you.”
April 13th, 2006 on 14:25
“I mean you even linked to the “allegory” you used!”
THE EXAMPLE WAS AN ALLEGORY FOR SOMETHING ELSE!
Oh good grief.
April 13th, 2006 on 14:25
“Thanks not quite impartial observer.”
Trust me; he’s called me worse things than ‘idiot’ on a forum before. So no.
“Do you think that any of that would get a single word of the article withdrawn? Me neither.”
It would be the genesis of a mature debate, rather than…this. I dare you to do as I suggest.
April 13th, 2006 on 14:29
Because you used only one name you make it clear to the reader who is not at fault, while simultaneously implying who is (which the reader can easily discover by simply going to the link privided not a page previously). I know you know this.
You start the blog with “Reading through this nonsensical thread over on EG” and link to that page at the very same time. If that is not an extension to a specific item I don’t know what is.
Simply re-wording and removing the link would go a long way.
And I really am not meaning to offend in any way. I hope my comments are more con than de.
April 13th, 2006 on 14:30
“THE EXAMPLE WAS AN ALLEGORY FOR SOMETHING ELSE!”
For what?
April 13th, 2006 on 14:31
Gosh, let’s see…
“What’s most hilarious to me is that the entire essay is about the idiotic arguing on RAM Raider’s blog, and not the EG thread at all. But tgtt wants to be the centre of the universe, and have all things be about him.”
Nope, that was way too subtle.
April 13th, 2006 on 14:35
I don’t know what that is, sorry. But I’m not entirely sure still how an example of certain behavior is an allegory for another example of the same behavior?
April 13th, 2006 on 14:36
“Reading through this nonsensical thread over on EG, Stuart Campbell steps in to explain something that had been misunderstood from his own article and referenced inaccurately. Someone else doesn’t understand and pompously criticises, Stu mockingly points this out, and as per usual in all forum-style conversations, the entire thing descends into tiresome gibberish.
However, it reminds me of a couple of important things to note.”
And the link to and from. Hmm, mentions of RAM Raider’s blog in the essay – none. Subtle, indeed!
Oh and apologies for my “bounciness” ;)
April 13th, 2006 on 14:42
I think we’re way beyond the original point now, and bitching about minutiae really isn’t going to get us anywhere.
admin – you know why youo have written this, you know why you linked to the original and you know why you wrote in specifics about a certain case. (I noticed that the actual description of it goes well into the next paragraph). If you want to argue that it’s a allegory then go ahead – we may just be interpreting that word differently, but I think you know we know you know.
I’d rather make friends than enemies, so from now on I shall be more considered and careful about what I post to the internet – i.e. sorry Rev. (well, mostly ;)).
If you want to argue that it’s not about the EG forum at all go right ahead, but I think the last 50 posts on here probably serve as argument enough that we all know it isn’t.
Happy easter aeveryone! :)
April 13th, 2006 on 14:57
*weeps for John’s lovely little corner of the internet*
I thought it was safe here
“I don’t know what that is, sorry. But I’m not entirely sure still how an example of certain behavior is an allegory for another example of the same behavior?”
OED says
“Allegory
1. Description of a subject under the guise of some other subject of aptly suggestive resemblance.
2. An instance of such description; a figurative sentence, discourse, or narrative, in which properties and circumstances attributed to the apparent subject really refer to the subject they are meant to suggest; an extended or continued metaphor.”
April 13th, 2006 on 15:01
Yawn.
April 13th, 2006 on 15:08
Oh the language police are back.
And I didn’t know what RAM Raider’s blog is. Not an allegory. Thanks for the OED dictionary definition. It was fun :)
April 13th, 2006 on 15:12
Wow, things can’t be an allegorical reference unless you’ve heard of them!
April 13th, 2006 on 15:14
” An instance of such description; a figurative sentence, discourse, or narrative”
Figurative, you may find, means not literal, i.e. fictitious. The example was taken from real life.
April 13th, 2006 on 15:17
It’s difficult to know what you’re saying the thing is an allegory for, if you do not mention it in the original text, as I believe Nick has already said.
I think you want it to be an allegory of the behvior of some posters on the internet – no?
All I’m saying is that it isn’t an allegory as such, it’s a description of an example of such behior – like any of this MATTERS!
April 13th, 2006 on 15:24
Oh, and I Luurrve horses! (Just noticed that post!) ;)
April 13th, 2006 on 15:34
FFS!
Some people haven’t noticed that there are still HAM AND MUSTARD SANDWICHES in the world that [i]need to be eaten[/i]. And they aren’t being. You’re committing great evil.
April 13th, 2006 on 15:39
@SuperNashwan
“*weeps for John’s lovely little corner of the internet*
I thought it was safe here”
Nope, you might get called a complete turd. Are you a complete turd? I am.
@(sigh) admin
There is no montion anywhere in your article of RAM Raider (whoever he is) or his blog, even for you this is blatant goalpost moving. Unless you were cleverly referring to it, by not referring to it? Bet that’s it huh? Though I suppose there might be soon, as admin you have power of edit after all.
@Steve
The whole article, other than the hypothetical which constitutes part of the first issue, and about a quarter of the whole thing, is explicitly about Stuarts antagonist, me (yes and others but initially, and in all the events specifically referred to, me). No-one else is mentioned atall, least of all the possibly mythical RAM Raider. The intro is all about the EG thing, and some of the first issue (though its not entirely clear, beacuse the hypothetical starts half way down). However, if you can read the first paragraph of the first issue, and not link it to the intro, I not sure to what you would link it, as nothing else is mentioned.
The whole second issue begins from “In the EG thread, Stu is impolite to some of the people ….” and continues from there, never expressly leaving the specific of the EG issue, agan it reamins clear exactly who the idiots are. Pretty obvious all the way down, in the same high-handed tone.
Once penned, he then links to his article, in the ongoing argument in which he is taking part, using it to back up his theory that he and Stuart aren’t idiots, but everyone else is. He has written an article, alleging (for the most part) that those he is arguing with are idiots, and linked the article to the argument, so all who visit his blog can see who are idiots too. Repellant behaviour in a journalist? Probably worth a job on the Daily Mail
@Dad
Yes, what do you think?
@Grammar police
There is party being held for you next door on Snowbaord Kids
April 13th, 2006 on 15:44
Speaking as the wished-for casual observer proposed earlier in the debate, I would have to say that John is mostly right, certainly in his original thesis that tgtt misinterpreted Stuart’s initial words and then overreacted.
Most of John’s points are spot on. He is the clear winner, in that he sets out the debate, invites the debate and then despairs when the debate is ignored in favour of tangents and cheap scoring of points.
Where he loses a bit, and invites blows to be struck back at him, is in (understandably) losing his cool and trading insults. There *is* a difference between personal insults about someone’s public persona and general insults made in the moment attacking an idiot instance of behaviour, the chasm isn’t as large as he would like to be totally in the clear.
Thus, in calling tgtt a moron – and he is a moron, totally and utterly a stranger to reasoned debate in general and in the specific – he lets himself down, and opens himself up to being insulted back.
Let me clear something myself; in calling tgtt (and indeed the similarly odious nick) a moron, i do not invalidate my point. John is still right, and you *are* morons for not seeing that. I merely suggest that he surrenders somewhat his moral high-ground for pointing this out, instead of sticking purely to the argument at hand. But I can forgive him for this, as you lot have collectively the wits of a fuck, and a small one at that.
On a side note, whichever peabrains are debating the meanings of words are comiting logical fallacy. So what if he used allegory rightly or wrongly? You know what he means by it, and though there *may* be a better word for it, there may not be. This is a bit of a linguistic grey area, English is not a perfect tool, and to bring him up on pedantries only serves to further the descent of this stupid debate into spuriousness or spuricity or spurosis or whatever.
April 13th, 2006 on 15:44
If sandwiches could weep, they would.
April 13th, 2006 on 15:50
Mr Walker – can you not just prevent these irritating, odious little morons from posting here? Normally I’m fully in favour of free speech and all that, but there’s clearly nothing to be gained in the way of reasoned debate with them, and so all that remains is something rather unpleasant and squalid, which the world would be a lot better off without.
April 13th, 2006 on 15:58
I can, but I won’t. Oddly, my spam filter is supposed to allow comments through after their first approval, but for both Nick and tgtt, it keeps refusing. I have to hand-approve 80% of their responses.
Instead, I asked tgtt to stop posting, hoping he would have the tiniest amount of respect, and just go away. Sadly, he keeps posting, and so long as he does, I’ll keep approving them through.
April 13th, 2006 on 16:02
Goodness. Actually pre-approving a large number of posts that are frustrating and insulting you on your own blog? You’re a bigger man than I am. I’d have just blocked the whole lot.
April 13th, 2006 on 16:06
Bob, I missed you update earlier. I think. Anyway
““Is ‘On Being an Idiot’ a huge typo, it should been ‘On Being Idiotic’”
TGT – Surely the same. I can’t see you point here.”
I would say so, but it is John’s contention that you can repeatedly call someone any number of unpleasant things (John says Stuart does so ‘mockingly’, pretty generous regards someone had already used fuckwit, moron, twat and a few other by that stage. How any journalist can see that as mocking behavoiur, well, it’s almost as if he is friends with the guy, or scared of him. Or both)
““If I wanted to create an article about idiots and I linked any of your writing under ‘botherer’, wouldn’t it still be you?”
TGT – He didn’t specifically link to anything specifically about you. JW meant he didn’t know the exact names and identities of all involved, he just scanned content and posted his overall summary of the discussion. Whereas linking to Botherer Blog is a direct link to John. As it is, his article is open to interpretation a bit more.”
He was part of the discussion, and infact the only person agreeing with Stuart to any extent, he didn’t just scan the content. He was arguing with people (I’ve pointed out above how irrelevant names are), and whilst still arguing with them added a link to the argument, in which he used them as examples of idiots, idiocy, etc. YOu can see this isn’t quite the same as just disinterestedly coming across the discussion and deciding to write about it presuambly?
“TGT can you admit though, ignoring everything after it, that you misinterpreted Stu’s comment about how if you are reading this online article, 90% chance you have a fair PC for this not very demanding game (Why you think it’s demanding of performance I have no idea at all…), it would be better to download this free game and play it, than spend £X hundred and £4 on Geometry Wars and an Xbox360?
That is straightforward, no?”
Stuart said
“In itself that’d be passingly interesting – particularly for anyone who didn’t want to fork out £300 for a state-of-the-art, all-singing, all-dancing Xbox 360 in order to play a vector-graphics Robotron game”. All the 90% chance, fair PC etc stuff, you added. If he had said that, you would be absolutely right . But as I think should pretty clear, the initial row hasnt been the point for a long, just the nasty depths that John and Stuart are willing to sink to, pretty much immediately, when their work is criticised in any way. Once again, ironic behaviour for critics. I’m now sinking ever closer to their level, but John is so myopic where insults are concerned (dependent entirely on their direction) I have nowhere else to go :(
@admin
“I have to hand-approve 80% of their responses.”
LOL, I love that. The nastiest words I have used, anywhere on your blog, are ‘turd’ and ‘fuckwit’, quoting you and Stuart respectively. You are hand-approvng yourself, I imagine the sensation is familair.
Decided who RAM Raider is yet?
April 13th, 2006 on 16:12
Aaaaah – RAM Raider contributed this
“You’ve got a knack for getting into stuff like this, John. Glad you’re feeling better.”
So your article was about him then?
I’ve checked back pretty thotoughly, cant see a single oath from myself or Nick, other than where quoting yourself and Stuart. You are 80% very rude indeed.
April 13th, 2006 on 16:13
I think we’re all missing the real point here.
“Please stop banging on about who insulted who” should clearly end with “whom”.
Won’t somebody please think of the children?
April 13th, 2006 on 16:15
Mr Chris – do you write articles about idiots, using others as examples, then block them from responding? You said odious, I think.
April 13th, 2006 on 16:23
BLOCK THEM FROM RESPONDING!
How dare you, you spiteful wretch. As per usual, you’ve managed to completely fail to understand what I said before: your posts, no matter their content, are being kept back by my comment filter due to an error. Or some sort of futuristic AI with excellent taste being born in the code. And as such I have to go through the damn thing and tell it to publish your posts about 4/5 of the time.
And now I’m blocking you from responding? You really are a fool.
Oh, and please go through the EG thread and quote all those offensive things I wrote there. You keep refering to them, but weirdly, I remember barely being involved, and only stepping in when I saw the lowest behaviour from others.
April 13th, 2006 on 16:24
Good lord, I can see why admin is so frustrated with you. You are the literally living embodiment of everything he is saying when he talks about people missing the point by ignoring it.
April 13th, 2006 on 16:38
@admin
I didn’t say you had blocked me from responding. You havent. At all. Ever. So I didn’t say it. At all. Ever. I was responding to Mr Chris, which is why the post begins ‘Mr Chris-’. Of course ‘spiteful wretch’ is no doubt still fully justified?
I merely said, to you, that the hand-approvals that you so gleefully alluded to, are only necessary when quoting you, I have not sworn once myself this whole time, expect to quote you and Stuart. That really is pretty clear.
April 13th, 2006 on 16:53
Yes, and it still makes no sense, because it’s entirely untrue. Your posts require random approval, four out of five times, or thereabouts, no matter their content. I feel like I already said this, it’s weird. I don’t have a swear filter, and haven’t said I do. You’ve made that up, and then started building arguments around it, and making absolute statements based on it such as, “that the hand-approvals that you so gleefully alluded to, are only necessary when quoting you,” as if it were a fact. When it’s complete nonsense.
What a strangely familiar pattern.
And ha ha, good try on the “it was aimed at Mr Chris”. Why did you feel the need to accuse Mr Chris of being the type of person who would prevent your replying?
April 13th, 2006 on 16:57
“odious”?
“moron”?
/wipes tears of laughter from eyes.
@John – well respect that you’re hand posting opinions contrary to your own, however idiotic you consider them. Have a good Easter.
April 13th, 2006 on 16:58
Oh my God, it’s all happening again! I tried. I tried to warn them. But it all happened…just the way I remember it.
April 13th, 2006 on 17:33
“Mr Chris – do you write articles about idiots, using others as examples, then block them from responding? You said odious, I think.”
John, are you really suggesting that it is not clear who the above post is replying to? The name at the start isn’t a give away?
Your filter is refusing posts from myself and Nick, but nobody else, but not for langauge. OK John, I think perhaps you really are losing it now. Why is it rejecting our posts? Does is hightlight the text in question? Could you provide examples? Or are you making this up to divert attention for a dozen other posts, as with the article being about RAM Raider (still not addressed)? Maybe.
April 13th, 2006 on 19:38
Is this thread some kind of attempt for the world record in stupidity?
April 13th, 2006 on 19:40
OK thanks all, away on holiday for a bit now, back in a few days, perhaps catch up with you then. RAM Raider, I look forward to finding out all about your blog chats, certainly there’s not been a great deal of information so far :).
April 13th, 2006 on 19:41
You’re displaying the exact type of behaviour that the original post was about!
Any idiot (and I use the word advisedly) can see that your original comment, while directed at Mr Chris, contained the accusation that John was deliberately blocking your posts.
And you expect him not to respond to that, to leave it unchallenged? Especially when you subsequently deny doing this?
Then you’re not an idiot; you’re nothing but a pathetic troll and should be ignored accordingly.
April 13th, 2006 on 19:41
Oh hi Stu – let me guess, that would be entirely one sided stupidity, am I right?
April 13th, 2006 on 20:16
Is RAM Raider the guy who posted in this comments section, calling himself “RAM Raider” with a link to “http://ramraider.blogspot.com/” under his name?
Is that reaching too far?
April 13th, 2006 on 21:20
“Is this thread some kind of attempt for the world record in stupidity? ”
Could be. I suggest we assign everyone a idiocy percentage, based on the quantity, not quality of their contribution. The only fair way ;)
Guess I would have to say you’d score highly on any scale ttgt. Sorry – but you’ve definitely got the wrong end of the stick on more than a few occasions (e.g. above).
Not that it matters to me. My points have been my own, and I appreciate the comparatively civilised way you made yours – wrong though they sometimes were. Not surprising really as my point was about demeanour.
Seeing how it appears that 90% here like call people a “fucktard” when those people make a mistake, I can tell this argument won’t gain much currency. But it is the reason for my “bounciness”, because resulting to name-calling would invalidate my argument. Even when random jaded blogospherites swoop in to pronounce “odious moron” with no “reasoned debate”. (But it did make me laugh).
Haven’t seen a lot of that coming my way, actually. Don’t muddle my points (such as they were) with ttgt’s. If I learn something – I will be grateful, as per the essay. If I teach you something in return, well, I won’t post an allegory in return, or continue ripping shreds out of you when/if you back down. I would consider that being a bully.
“Is that reaching too far?”
Perhaps that shiny nugget of information was lost in the goldmine of wisdom surrounding it?
April 13th, 2006 on 21:25
“Your filter is refusing posts from myself and Nick, but nobody else, but not for langauge. OK John, I think perhaps you really are losing it now. Why is it rejecting our posts?”
It’s probably something to do with your IP, I would imagine. Goodness me, you really think I’d make this up? To what end? It does the same to a couple of other people, always has.
Do you see how you invented the swear filter thing, based your argument on it, stated it as fact, and then when you were told by the source of the information that it wasn’t true, you accused that person of lying!
And because you don’t understand the RR reference, you’ll maintain it’s not true. Fair enough then. If you cared in the least either way, you’d have Googled the name by now. But instead you think you’ve found some incredible weakness in my argument, and will keep hammering at it, no matter how idiotic it may be. RR and I have had vicious public fights, which we’ve apologised to each other for privately. But it’s not him I’m talking about – it was the very many people who post as “anonymous” on his blog, using personal information about public figures to score spiteful points in arguments, and deliberately respond to arguments that weren’t made… For instance, one such cowardly shit who decided that mocking me for being a Christian was an appropriate response to my defending a game he didn’t like. Shocking! What my essay was about! As if I wasn’t lying or making it up! Oops! All those accusations of my lying, and you were wrong every time. I look forward to your apology.
Frosty – you must be some sort of witch, figuring that out!
April 13th, 2006 on 21:34
Nick – I think I would prefer name calling than the passive-aggressive fake cheeriness. It’s a calculated move on your part, designed to be a sort of Trojan disarming, deliberately insiduous and artificial. I’d much rather you called me a shit, which is far more honest.
April 13th, 2006 on 21:36
143 posts! Gosh! ….er….. Is it just me?
April 13th, 2006 on 21:47
Hi dad – I think thegamesthething was very keen for you to reply to this:
“it is clear you are an utter coward, and it is clear I have no recourse whatsoever. Nice work, you dad must be very proud of the spineless wonder he has bred.”
April 13th, 2006 on 22:32
the crux of the ‘reasoned debate’, nick, was not that you were a moron. i said tgtt was a moron because he seems incapable of reasoned debate.
April 13th, 2006 on 23:14
John – excellent angle of attack, if I think cynically, but sorry generally trying to be a least a bit civil and not get too worked up. Sense of humour always important in life and all that, though guess I lost it at times, which I regret a little.
“the crux of the ‘reasoned debate’, nick, was not that you were a moron”
I agree with this. I didn’t see reasoned debate come anywhere near me when you called me an odious moron ;) My point about rudeness.
Surrounded a by regulars, and family, this is where it goes no further for me. Been a nice one…
April 14th, 2006 on 22:04
I conclude that “thegameisthething” is a stooge set up to illustrate the ironies cited in your opening premise.
There is no other rational explanation.
April 15th, 2006 on 21:11
… and for the record, I am immensely proud of my son.