This blog deals with a vast array of topical issues that almost always have an intellectual perspective. Most of the content touches on hot button issues, largely from my viewpoint based on any facts I happen to have on hand.

The general idea is to engage as many as would have it in intellectual discourse. Unfortunately, as it is exposed to the internet and thus to a wide array of audiences, it is inescapable that there will be a select set of people who will be completely inept at such. Apparently, empty barrels do make the most noise.

Now, as it would seem, there appears to be a direct correlation between intelligence and the propensity to make oneself heard – so to speak. The trouble is that the people who are often compelled to do so are primarily incapable of doing so without making some common mistakes.

With that said, there are some plainly, blatantly obvious things that need to be highlighted in the interest of not repeating the same talking points over and over again instead of getting to the meat of the debate. Think of this as a kind of crash course for internet trolls with something to say.

If you’ve thought of saying any of the following lines, pin that thought and read:

That’s a Generalization/Stereotype! Not all [insert subject matter here] exhibits [insert behaviour or characteristic here]

Generalizations describe a pattern that is true for most elements of the target demographic. The term “generalization” therefore automatically assumes a certain degree error. This means that while the described pattern is true for most, the description is obviously not true for some.

I use generalizations quite a bit on this blog. I can do this because human behaviour (like every other animal behaviour) is predictably pattern driven. The specifics of those behaviours (while unique at an individual level) are completely irrelevant at a macroscopic scale.

If I meant to describe individual personalities, I would have. If I meant to address specific people, I would have. However, if a collective of individuals demonstrate a pattern of behaviour, the collective idiosyncrasies of these individuals are rendered effectively meaningless in the big picture.

Furthermore, as there are six billion people on the planet, patterns in behaviour are a far more efficient way of describing cultural propensities. If these consistencies didn’t exist, then we would never have seen these patterns in the first place. So telling me to get to know individuals is stupid.

What’s interesting is that the people who these descriptions do not specifically address are conspicuously silent. Why is it that if a generalization is made about one demographic, those who do not belong to that demographic are unresponsive? That is the hypocritical nature of such responses.

…and consequently why I never take such remarks seriously.

Humans have a remarkably over valued sense of individuality. That is why they find these descriptions offensive – it reduces them to herds of mindless automatons. Well, that’s exactly why these generalizations are used. There is enough herd logic going on to generalize within certain degrees of accuracy.

Genetically speaking, people aren’t very different from each other. So unless you’ve somehow managed to distinguish yourself from the vast lot of ubiquitous similitude that infects the mass mediocrity of humanity’s gene pool, your individuality is meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

Get over it.

But that doesn’t happen in [Kathmandu\Szechuan Province\Kandahar\[insert exotic location here]! Therefore, it’s not true!

Unless otherwise stated, where the content of this blog addresses people, it is only relevant to developed and quasi-developed societies in western and northern European civilizations. While I am painfully aware of this, the layman in many readers may not, and think that they may have a point to raise.

If this is what’s on your mind, please, be quiet. There’s very little point to mentioning people in China, Afghanistan and other countries where the obvious subject demographic of said post is either clearly non existent or constitute a negligible percentage of the population. Your point is thus irrelevant.

Your point would also be rendered irrelevant if the description obviously applies to cultures manifested by the socio-economic conditions that only exist in certain areas of the world. Criticizing the description by applying it somewhere where it does not is the same thing as grasping at straws.

Speaking of straw;

You know that technique where people take something you said and simulate it to something that is clearly unrelated in order to make a rebuttal? That’s a form of intellectual dishonesty called a “Straw Man Argument”.

While some were obviously unintentional. But main offenders are obviously verbally challenged …if you know what I mean.

But I know [insert personally known individual here] that doesn’t exhibit [insert quoted generalized characteristics here]

Your personal experience does not constitute a valid rebuttal against a general case that affects a much vaster population. If I said that “women are emotional creatures“, mentioning your mom, your sister, your boss (or yourself) is like pointing out a single black sheep in a herd of white ones.

As mentioned before, generalizations automatically assume a certain degree of error. Therefore if your mom, sister, boss (or yourself) does not apply to the generalization, then congratulations – you freak of nature. Yours is a lone voice in the vast quietness of everyone else to whom it applies.

People frequently make this kind of faulty rebuttal just to validate themselves (or someone they know). However, the validation is pointless, because the scales being compared are incompatible. If I use a generalization, I’m not trying to describe one person. Thus your rebuttal fails for exactly that reason.

You’re a [racist / misogynist / atheist / creationist / sexist / chauvenist / democrat / republican / insert favourite description here]

If you find yourself thinking any of the above or similar things, chances are you have either completely misread, misunderstood or misinterpreted the content of any of the material you’re reading. I rarely take sides on any issue I discuss here. Therefore, to avoid looking stupid, ask questions.

Ask me what I meant when I said this or that. Invite me to clarify something to you instead of making off on a long rant on something completely irrelevant or unrelated. If your first response is more than 3 sentences long, then chances are you’re making an assumption that is probably wrong.

The only exception are a few long time regulars to this blog who “get it” and are not likely to make those mistakes. However, if you’re responding for the first time and you think you’ve been offended, then please, spare yourself the embarassment – ask for clarification.

I will make an example of you – and I’ve become quite exceedingly efficient at it.

[You / Your blog] sucks!

So why are you here? If this blog really sucked, why were you compelled to respond? You’re obviously too stupid to realise that you’re too hooked to keep yourself away in the first place. Your declaration thus says something truly profound about your needless existence:

You’re a troll.

You’re a prime example of an utter waste of DNA. You’re proof positive that there are definitely too many people in the world with an internet connection. The sole purpose of your existence is to show up your incompetence by trying to discourage others who are obviously better than you.

GTFO my internet and get a life (preferably one with a money back guarantee). Moron.

Who the hell do you think you are?

Some guy with a 182 IQ and an internet connection. There’s only one thing in that sentence that differentiates me from you (and 80% of this planet’s population coincidentally). Can you figure out what that is? I tell you what, I’ll give you three tries. Get it right, and I’ll send you a cookie.

Where the hell are you from anyways?

People have a remarkable talent for using inconsequential demographic data to certify the validity of an argument. If that were logically consistent, then I guess we could reject Einstein’s theory of relativity because he has German blood. Nonsense right? Exactly.

While I do concur that environments shape minds, not all minds are environmentally inextricable. Since this phenomenon is extremely rare, it becomes incredulously difficult to facilitate discourse with someone who thinks this is has any relevance in a debate.

When you come to this blog, if you have any interest in engaging in debate, leave the speaker out of it. State the facts, use references where applicable and bring your logical A-Game. Failure to do so will only incur a flame war, and trust me, you will loose.

Why do you use a pen name?

If you were black and a white man said to you that black people have serious self esteem issues, do you think you’d treat this with the same level of aloofness that a white person would? If I was American and I said that Americans are greedy, would you feel offended if you were Canadian?

Did you hear what judge Sotomayor said about her being a wise latina judge and white men? How do you think white people felt about that remark? Do you think topics are touchy because of what was said, how it was said or when it was said? In the context of touchy topics, none of that is relevant.

People colour code words based on who said it. Nothing more.

I’ve learned (the hard way) of a critical flaw in the psychology of the common man (i.e. you and your sub 110 IQ kin) The message is never as important as the person that said it. You people (yes, you people) are not sophisticated enough to appreciate a message in and of itself.

If I were to take on any kind of demographic affiliation, people would stupidly (and predictably) pre-empt anything I say because of where I’m from, my racial affiliation, my gender, my educational background and anything else about me they can use as ammo, except what I said.

Most people are naturally simple-minded like that.

If you actually believe that a person and their opinions are one in the same, then you’ve just proven my point. A person’s genetic characteristics or their political or social affiliation may have no bearing whatsoever on their opinions. They may be co-relational, but not necessarily co-dependent.

Since this is a concept that is apparently too complex to teach to most people (too many thick skulls on this planet, and I have a girlfriend to satisfy, so…) I’d rather take out the one thing that would automatically produce these silly opinions and thus keep the conversation on track.

If you still don’t understand, then don’t worry about it. Either way, it won’t make a difference in the price of rice in Japan. Oops! I just gave away a hint about my identity! Dang!

I am right, and you are wrong! Waah!

Please don’t comment here with that kind of attitude – unless you’re willing to provide proof. I have found that people seem to care more about their opinions than the facts. If you’re going to write me a long winded comment about why I’m wrong, you’d best be damn sure to provide proof.

If however your sole purpose is to come on here to sound off for cathartic purposes, then there are professional shrinks available with whom you can do that. As I am not a professional shrink, none of that nonsense is welcome here. I tend to know better than to argue with a pathological idiot.

…although, to be honest, I have been wrong about that in the past.

I do not care about your opinion!

If that is true, then you do not need comment. Doing so only exposes your ineptitude as it will be deleted. That’s why such comments will never appear anywhere on here. If I wanted to entertain a conversation with children, I would have made that explicitly clear in the post.

In fact, any kind of comment that does not necessarily forward the discussion or contribute some meaningful opinion will be deleted. If I feel our discussion has lost its usefulness, then I will discontinue. If afterward you continue to spam the site even after it’s obvious I’ve discontinued, you will be banned.

There shall be no exceptions.

F@#K YOU and the horse you rode in on!

What was that? Did you say something naughty? Chances are I won’t get the chance to read it. WordPress’ Akismet spam blocking engine has been upgraded with a nifty little plugin that parses text for improper language. It’s not just dirty words that’re caught. General unacceptable behaviour is killed as well.

…automatically.

Rest assured that if you say something naughty, it’ll be deleted long before I get the chance to read it. So if you’ve written yourself a nice long response to anything I’ve written here and thought to throw in a nice word or two towards the end, your efforts will all be in vain. Therefore, you:

So if you have a potty mouth, an attitude problem, a 4×2 plank up your ass, sand in your vagina or all of the above, don’t waste your time commenting on this blog. Even if the software isn’t completely idiot proof, I certainly am not. I have an extremely low tolerance level for stupidity.

Awww… did I hurt your feelings? I’ll send you a memo as soon as I care.

For everyone else, the true GEMs out there:

I’m interested in debate – intellectual discourse on hot button issues. I’m more interested in real meaningful discussion that teaches me something new. I don’t think I’m always right. My opinion may be wrong and I will conceed defeat if your point can be adequately proven to my satisfaction.

However, don’t be fooled. Bring your A-game to the debate, because I don’t let go of my position lightly, even if I think you have a point. So long as you keep the discussion civil and avoid ad hominem remarks, I can guarantee you that we will have a fun and enjoyable discussion.

This I can promise you with great certitude.

Correct me if I’m wrong but…

Don’t be afraid to point out any grammar or spelling errors. While I always aim for perfection, even with the best software tools at one’s disposal, a little too much exuberance on my part sometimes causes me to miss one or two baddies in the body of work. So call ‘em as you see ‘em.

HTML Tips:

When you’re replying to a comment, you can embrace your words with the following tags to produce the following effect:

1. <strong> </strong> tags make your text appear bold

2. <em> </em> tags to make it italicised

3. Embrace web addresses in <a href=”http://www.website.com”>URL Tags</a> so that it appears like this: Visit Google to do web search. If you post the raw URL in your comments, you run the risk of having it spammed.

4. Use <blockquote> </blockquote> tags around quotes to give a blocked quote effect like this:

“The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.”

When responding to comments, the block quotes are incredibly useful. You could use a combination of the above tags and quote someone’s comments in your response by typing exactly as follows:

<blockquote><strong>Who said it:</strong> “<em>What they said.</em>”</blockquote>

to give this effect:

Who said it: “What they said.“

When debates get THICK with LONG responses, it would make it a lot easier to read the large blocks of text if they were HTML coded like that in the comments box.

FireFox for the win.
Cheers,
Xen