(no subject)
Think of something. Anything. A cat, a box, a yeti, Lake Titikaka, anything. Right, now you've thought of it, what do you think of it? DO you like it? Hate it? Does it make you smile? Frown? Queasy? Whatever it is you thought of, form an opinion on it.
Done that? Good. Now forget it, you fucking thick mong.
It is my firm belief, and I'm playing the odds here, that your opinion is utterly wrong. It's ill-informed, self-serving, poorly expressed and as far from being correct as Earth is from the edge of the Universe. YOU. ARE. WRONG.
I think this way thanks to the Internet. I also think the Pope cause 9/11 because of the internet but that's another story. When everyone started going online a few years ago various cultural commentators (how exactly do you get into that line of work?) eulogised how democratic the whole thing was. Suddenly, anyone who thought anything about anything could now write about it to their heart's content for all the world (or, more accurately, their friends who they could just say it to anyway) to see. Everyone's opinion could be made to matter.
Big mistake.
Democracy, you see, doesn't work. While we in the Western world like to gaze pityingly upon various countries under the yoke of mental tinpot dictators, all of whom seem to have Steveie Wonder's dress sense, we get to choose our leaders in the polling booth and, frankly, a fat lot of good it's done us. By being allowed a say in who runs our nations we've ended up with a drink-driving cowboy in control of the most tooled-up army on the planet, a British PM with a wonky mouth and no depth perception, a frankly bizarre French president who looks like his own Spitting Image puppet and an Iranian leader who looks like a geography teacher who just happens to have chosen to devlelop a nuclear arsenal.
Let just anyone have a say in deciding anything and you're asking for trouble. Think about reality TV- all the ones that the populous can vote on by mashing their greasy mits on their telephone keypads are all joyless marionette parades of varying immorality while the only one of those shows where the public don't get any say whatsoever, The Apprentice, is easily the most beguiling British television show of the last 5 years.
Giving credence to any two-bit half-witted thought that flickers through the smog of a person's mind first became popular on radio stations that couldn't be arsed forking out for a PBS licence to broadcast music. Even today it's impossible to listen to Jeremy Vine's show on Radio 2 or Six-O-Six on Five Live without praying on bended knees that President Armadhinajad could pull himself away from teaching people about ox-bow lakes for two seconds, enrich some uranium and send it over here on a cruise missile post haste.
After radio, TV got in on the act and suddenly George Alagiyah was interrupting the Six 'O' Clock News to ask the viewing millions, most of whom think Eastenders is the pinnacle of human achievement, to send in their views on the intricacies of the Kyoto Agreement. Now it's impossible to go to any once-reputable news site on the internet that doesn't ask for readers' comments at the bottom of every story- usually followed by post after post of clump-headed pontificating that rapidly descends into a the philsophical equivalent of a hair-pulling contest. With worse grammar.
Even worse are the people who put comments at the bottom of colunists pages about how utterly wrong everything said columnist has ever said is wrong and how, instead of writing about how they see the world, they may wish to take up rotting in hell as an occupation instead. They're the equivalent of those people who scour the TV schedules for something to be offended by and complain about, rather than actually trying to find something they might find pleasing, entertaining or enlightening. For these people, the process of actually creating something people might enjoy is much less noble than dredging the planet for stuff to snipe at. They're the people who write to Points of View thinking that, despite the fact the BBC is funded by 30 million licence fees which makes it unique and still a world-leader in innovative and quality television, it should tailor it's entire output to them and them alone. A bit like Hitler, without the get-up-and-go attitude.
People like this should be rounded up and shot. Twice. They should be forced to sit in a tiny, windowless room for eternity looking at a television transmitting nothing but eye-bleeding static for eternity. Everything that offends them should be metered upon their person a thousandfold. They don't deserve the gift of being alive.
Mind you, they're just my thoughts. What do you think? Feel free to comment below.
Done that? Good. Now forget it, you fucking thick mong.
It is my firm belief, and I'm playing the odds here, that your opinion is utterly wrong. It's ill-informed, self-serving, poorly expressed and as far from being correct as Earth is from the edge of the Universe. YOU. ARE. WRONG.
I think this way thanks to the Internet. I also think the Pope cause 9/11 because of the internet but that's another story. When everyone started going online a few years ago various cultural commentators (how exactly do you get into that line of work?) eulogised how democratic the whole thing was. Suddenly, anyone who thought anything about anything could now write about it to their heart's content for all the world (or, more accurately, their friends who they could just say it to anyway) to see. Everyone's opinion could be made to matter.
Big mistake.
Democracy, you see, doesn't work. While we in the Western world like to gaze pityingly upon various countries under the yoke of mental tinpot dictators, all of whom seem to have Steveie Wonder's dress sense, we get to choose our leaders in the polling booth and, frankly, a fat lot of good it's done us. By being allowed a say in who runs our nations we've ended up with a drink-driving cowboy in control of the most tooled-up army on the planet, a British PM with a wonky mouth and no depth perception, a frankly bizarre French president who looks like his own Spitting Image puppet and an Iranian leader who looks like a geography teacher who just happens to have chosen to devlelop a nuclear arsenal.
Let just anyone have a say in deciding anything and you're asking for trouble. Think about reality TV- all the ones that the populous can vote on by mashing their greasy mits on their telephone keypads are all joyless marionette parades of varying immorality while the only one of those shows where the public don't get any say whatsoever, The Apprentice, is easily the most beguiling British television show of the last 5 years.
Giving credence to any two-bit half-witted thought that flickers through the smog of a person's mind first became popular on radio stations that couldn't be arsed forking out for a PBS licence to broadcast music. Even today it's impossible to listen to Jeremy Vine's show on Radio 2 or Six-O-Six on Five Live without praying on bended knees that President Armadhinajad could pull himself away from teaching people about ox-bow lakes for two seconds, enrich some uranium and send it over here on a cruise missile post haste.
After radio, TV got in on the act and suddenly George Alagiyah was interrupting the Six 'O' Clock News to ask the viewing millions, most of whom think Eastenders is the pinnacle of human achievement, to send in their views on the intricacies of the Kyoto Agreement. Now it's impossible to go to any once-reputable news site on the internet that doesn't ask for readers' comments at the bottom of every story- usually followed by post after post of clump-headed pontificating that rapidly descends into a the philsophical equivalent of a hair-pulling contest. With worse grammar.
Even worse are the people who put comments at the bottom of colunists pages about how utterly wrong everything said columnist has ever said is wrong and how, instead of writing about how they see the world, they may wish to take up rotting in hell as an occupation instead. They're the equivalent of those people who scour the TV schedules for something to be offended by and complain about, rather than actually trying to find something they might find pleasing, entertaining or enlightening. For these people, the process of actually creating something people might enjoy is much less noble than dredging the planet for stuff to snipe at. They're the people who write to Points of View thinking that, despite the fact the BBC is funded by 30 million licence fees which makes it unique and still a world-leader in innovative and quality television, it should tailor it's entire output to them and them alone. A bit like Hitler, without the get-up-and-go attitude.
People like this should be rounded up and shot. Twice. They should be forced to sit in a tiny, windowless room for eternity looking at a television transmitting nothing but eye-bleeding static for eternity. Everything that offends them should be metered upon their person a thousandfold. They don't deserve the gift of being alive.
Mind you, they're just my thoughts. What do you think? Feel free to comment below.