I do, honestly I do. I don't like getting worked up and all silly about things. I'd much rather look at the dismal jimmies on websites with a calm, objective, serene air, carefully pulling apart what they say and exposing the truth. I'd love to be like the people at Medialens, careful and dignified, always trying to maintain compassion and an intelligent, benign approach even when questioning journalists about why they serve the interests of huge corporations and powerful men rather than their readers. They're so effective simply because they're so hard to dismiss - if they were a ranting angry nutcase, people would be able to say, well, that's just them isn't it, and roll their eyes, and carry on regardless.
But no, I'm not like that at all, I'm afraid. While I can admire others for their brilliantly analytical and never angry approach, that isn't me. I do tend to get rather angry. With idiots. With fools. With wilfully stupid bastards who seem to be put on this earth without a gram of empathy, and who are proud of the fact. Here are people who can't think about anything other than in terms of black and white, and celebrate it. These aren't the folk who write long considered letters to the Telegraph about what they think; they are the pondlife who patrol the BBC's Have Your (Reactionary) Say messageboards. They are scum, vile bitter scum, who will in a happy world be forced to drown in their own waste so that they can understand what they have inflicted on the rest of us through their inane comments and blithely illogical statements so thick and cretinous that it makes me want to cry for the world and our future.
In 'Every click is a good click' I hypothesised that websites like to set up debates on certain subjects to get rentamob foaming at the mouth: immigration's one of them, of course, that's pretty much the motherlode when you're talking about internet messageboard debates designed to bring out the loonies and ratchet up your page impressions; but global warming (or of course the lack of it lol rofl lmao?!?!?!?!) is another.
Viz this debate set up by the Beeb on springtime. You might think it's a purely harmless question, asking folk if it's springtime yet. You'd be mad. This is Springtime for Hitler. This is a call to arms for every anti-global warming Nazi you've ever seen to come lolloping out of their cave - where they spend evenings masturbating softly to Jon Gaunt on the radio while eating a tin of cold spaghetti hoops - to post some utter balls on the interweb. It doesn't matter what the question is, the answers are always the same.
Is this the start of spring you ask ?
Well considering that it is a few hours away from May and so nearly halfway through the year I would have though that was a bit obvious wouldn't you BBC?
Why do I get the sense from the loaded question that the BBC is trying to emply that "Climate Change" or "Global Warming" is somehow being attributed to something.
MMGW is a myth BBC
Stop trying to push your own agenda down peoples throats for five minutes, please.
It's world class. The most recommended comment is about someone claiming that the question is loaded in favour of global warming, and this nutjob leaps into action against the perceived leftie BBC bias, claiming they've got an agenda. And he hasn't? Man made global warming is a myth - why? No time for that, just time for simple shitty attempt at an aphorism that clearly made plenty of fellow numpties roar with delight. I'd like to imagine this is somehow someone trying to get the most recommended comment by writing something as stupid, tedious and irritatingly ignorant as possible, but I don't think so; I think they actually believe this shit.
I can see the global warming idea has well and truely fallen flat on its face, what a load of tosh, If your like me you don't believe the hype, especially when taxes are linked to the global warming idea.
What? How has it 'truely' fallen flat on its face? Because some hawthorns have come out early - but wouldn't that be evidence in the opposite direction - no? I really don't understand anything. This person is just determined to say global warming doesn't exist, and that's it. What do we learn from this media interaction? What have we gained? The knowledge that some people are thickos?
Spring: a little late = Global Warming
Snow: A little late = Global Warming
Wet Summer = Global Warming
Birds Flying Backwards = Global warming
The very way this HYS question was put implied a Global Warming agenda.
Read history: Vinyards in England during Roman times, Winters so cold in Victorian times you could walk on the Thames. Its all noncense and we have to pay through the nose for lies.
Let's look at this 'loaded question' again.
Hawthorn blossom has been seen across the country, which traditionally signals the beginning of summer. Has spring come to your area?
Conservationists at the Woodland Trust say that hawthorn blossom, which is often called "May" is already out this April, several weeks earlier than expected.
Despite the cold weather, there are signs of spring in the air and even bees and butterflies in some areas.
Can you see the signs of spring where you live? Is the spring starting earlier than it used to? What signals the start of spring for you?
I think they were looking for responses like:
I was out on my bike last night along the river side in Worcester and there were a fair few bumble bees out and about.
Like when there's snow, they ask for pictures. Just an 'internet community' kind of approach. But that's not how it's seen: every single thing ever must be a springboard for an attack on Jock McJudas, the EU, taxes and science. That's what always happens, without fail, in these discussions, no matter how gently they're set up by the moderators. It just attracts the ants.
That question seems quite ordinary and not really loaded at all. That doesn't matter: I knew it would get the mouth-breathing freakshows haring out of the traps to denounce something they have no intention of trying to understand. And yet, here comes an island of sanity amid all the madness:
If you disagree with the scientific arguments for MMGW, please submit your reappraisals to the appropriate scientific journals. Your arguments will be carefully and expertly peer-reviewed. Erroneous arguments or that do not properly cite references will be rejected. Do not expect to be taken seriously until you show, using accepted experimental and analytical techniques, that you have a credible explanation for the data on climate change. The world's scientific community awaits your response.
"That’s why Global Warming has been re-branded Climate Change. That way, when it’s a bit warm it’s climate change and equally, when it’s a tad chilly, it’s also climate change. Clever that – don’t you think ?"
Cyrus P Turntable, At The Races
It's a heck of a lot more clever than believing it's all a plot to get more taxes out of you. I do love anti-science: it proves people are stupid enough to massacre truth to make it fit their prejudices!
Superb. Well the voices of dissent do get through, that's something I suppose, but you have to notice that in every single debate about anything ever, the most reactionary, thick and dumbass comments get bumped to the top of the 'most recommended' pile by what I can only assume is a small army of witless buffoons who spend all day recommending only the comments which are the most inane.
Buy my book, it’s great
- Cheerio, cheerio, cheerio…
- Children died
- The letters you never get around to sending
- Applying again
- I just sent Robin round – 2
Most Commented On
- Iain on Applying again
- Roger on The letters you never get around to sending
- Dave Hodgkinson on The letters you never get around to sending
- droid on The letters you never get around to sending
- Rogue_Leader on The letters you never get around to sending
Hello. I'm a Bristol-based writer and soon-to-be-redundant journalist. You can read more about me and the Enemies site here, or follow me on Twitter. Email me if you like - antonvowl at live dot co dot uk
If you're struggling to read the site please use the drop down box below to increase the text size.