by blehblah » Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:33 pm
blehblah Posted: Apr 14 2013, 05:33 PM
I think meta is people in the comments trying to push the line, roughly, 'ATB wrote this article to create horrible comments so that Wong can kill the comments'.
People with agendas break a social contract to jump on comedians who tell offensive jokes (funny or not). The joke is then used as evidence to support an opinion that the comedian dared imply disagreement with (i.e., he's a racist/bigot/picks his nose/whatever/doesn't share my values) and therefore should be used to tar and feather the comedian (heckle, tweet, blog, riot, but never just ignore) and by extension, anyone who doesn't adhere to the opinion. So, it's not just a joke, it's evidence that that supports the agenda of the person hearing the joke. It's about the audience, not the joke, and not the comedian.
The parallel is that there are commenters who have decided that ATB supports the removal of the comments section because ATB wrote an article to deliberately induce extreme reactions in the heckler, sorry, comments section. So, ATB wasn't just saying that it's dumb to heckle a comedian for telling an offensive joke, he was providing evidence that he's out to destroy the comments section. Once again, it's about the audience, not the joke, and not the comedian who wrote the joke.
My opinion is that if ATB is a social magician of this magnitude, he's going to be running my campaign for Master of the Universe and Wunderbar in chief right after he manipulates the masses into holding such an election.
Sorry if it's a bit convoluted, and I hope it makes some sense. I just popped out of the comments to the article while shaking my head in wonder (not good wonder, if you're wondering).
I'll shaddup now... ;-)
A quantum state of signature may or may not be here... you just ruined it.