Monday, November 21, 2005

Dear Internet Full of Cobags

I am declaring the internet and all its cobag denizens personae non gratae. The time to eat it cobags is nigh.

Nothing in the following post is a non sequitur. I blame you for the inability to follow my line of thought (hey, it's the blogosphere, we don't have rules, people like this are considered intellectual. And Pamela (Atlas Shrugs), I don't care what you look like on the outside, you're not very nice on the inside. But the inside inside you are probably OK, it's just a facade of hateful shrillness. We don't want to make you feel bad (seriously, we don't).

I have had it with:

Complete imbeciles that deny the holocaust.

Total poltroons that know less than nothing about science, evolution, disease, AIDS, climate, you know, anything, and they pontificate and use terms that they read on the internet, and their sociopathic little brains learn to ape or rat, as it were, like vermin in a cheese (should it be cheeto?)-maze.

Stupid, incompetent crap like "ad hominem" and talking about people's reading comprehension. Cookie Jesus, do you think my reading comprehension is lacking? Do you? Do you think that I am the munchwagon and not you? Consider for one second how laughable that is. You are the same people that talk about "beneath contempt" out of one side of your crooked, slavering mouth, while pouring the aforementioned contempt out of the other. I actually admit that you are not beneath contempt. I actually claim that you deserve scorn. I actually announce to you that I am being emotional right now, and my frustration is getting the better of me. I am allowing you, the douchewad, to claim that I am unhinged because of the abuse torrent flowing from my keyboard. I AM JUST BEING HONEST. So, I get points for style.

I can't even go on (oh, but I can). Nobody wants to even consider a rational debate, because you can't be rational about completely ridiculous bullshit, in fact how can you be rational, when the debate shouldn't even exist? When I say that Todd Zywicki at Volokh Conspiracy (if you want to have a crappy blog name, you can't beat Three Bulls!, but Volokh Cospiracy? STFU) is a cobag full of corn and peanuts, I'll just get slammed for slamming him. I'll ruin my rep as an Ivy League Ph.D. in Genetics, because he'll just wash away my accurate description of his loserhood, with the magic of ad hominem and then he'll unwrap his chestnut of Lysenkoism. See, he redefined what that word actually means (let's go to Crooked Timber for comments/backstory, and here is LGM on the subject). Also, from a bunch of stool samples that are "skeptical" about evolution, they sure do love evolutionary psychology.

Could it be that it allows you to use biology for your own purposes? Who is the biological ideologue? I can't even call you a Lysenkoist like you would me (nice surreptitious smear of the academic as Stalinist, too bad the new thing is Liberalism=Fascism, see here, here), because that is not what it means. LYSENKOISM means a subscriber to the pseudo-scientific ideas of Trofim Lysenko. Wikipedia allows for a definition to include ideological views of science and uses the example of Carl Sagan comparing creationists to Lysenkoists. I would like to stress the use of the GDMF word "compare". I would reject allowing this broader definition to be used to call ideologues Lysenkoists, because then the word loses it's meaning. See, Todd, we already have a word for that, it's called IDEOLOGUE. Fine, argue that women aren't as smart as men or can't do math. Your ideas are entirely unsupported. Yeah it could be possible, but big f***ing deal, lot's of things are possible, but completely unsupported by the data, that's why Larry Summers was completely and deservedly piled on. Nobody was stifling his speech, they were deriding its unscientific basis. I could propose a hypothesis for how millions of things happen in your tiny cells and your tiny brain, in fact things that you've probably never heard of, but guess the eff what? That doesn't make them true, and if they are completely unsupported speculation, they don't have place in a discussion of how those millions of things happen (millions of things that you will never understand). Just like Summers' comments really had no supportable place in a discussion about women in math and physics. If they are impossible to address given a laundry list of larger variables, please tell me what your stupid point is in defending his comments, given that he is the President of Harvard (should be more diplomatic) and uneducated on the subject upon which he was literally shitting?

Seriously, pseudo-legal, ad hoc, tu quoque, and the whole list of Latin terms for pseudo-intellectual chundermuff and "just so" cobaggery about any ol' topic, with just enough reasonableness so they can stick the shiv in when you relax and turn your back. If you hate gays (Eugene V.) just effing say it, don't be STAGMC about it making us some stupid, inane argument.

I have completely had it. COMPLETELY.

Dean Esmay? I support your right to your stupid opinion. That's what makes me a liberal. You don't support my right for my correct opinion. That makes you a cobag.

I can't wait to be disavowed for my lack of politesse. I'm done.