Maddox And I: The Grand Unified Theory Of D*** S***
Sooner or later, every blog or blog-like website that has the temerity to have an arrogant tone gets accused of being a
Maddox ripoff/wannabe. For those of you who have been living on Mars the last couple of years, Maddox is some American guy who has a website which he presents in a more or less blog-like format. Of course, he's more than that. He's what is called an "Internet phenomenon". As I understand it, an Internet phenomenon is more or less something that became immensely popular without any form of advertising other than the Internet. The Evil American said that my blog is a Maddox wannabe. Originally, I did not feel the need to defend myself, but because I'm now in the office and bored, I shall make a half-assed attempt at a defence. On a side note, I am now doing my internship at a major telco in Singapore that shall not be named (come on, how many telcos are there in Singapore?). It's pretty much what I wanted and expected for my internship. A nice little hacking project in Unix, and almost total indifference from the staff. Note that I said "indifference" and not "hostility". The natives are friendly, but they seldom talk to me because I almost always have my earphones on and blasting eardrums-destroying music into my ears while coding. Just about the only complaint I have is that I do not have an Internet connection so I can't really spend hours doing jackshit. Anyway, here's my defense, more or less.
Recently, the Evil American said that my blog is a Maddox wannabe. Because I'm such a sensitive, new age guy, this really hurt me deeply. I knew it to be untrue, because I had no desire to imitate Maddox. So I tossed and turned in bed sleeplessly last night, trying to find the differences between Maddox and I. Finally, I have them. Firstly, I don't have a hairy back. My back is as smooth as silk, with slabs of steel underneath. Stainless steel. Secondly, my balls are big, but nowhere near the
astronomical scale that must be used to describe Maddox's monstrous, catastrophic cojones. Awesome alliterations aside, the most significant difference is that I have a bigger dick than Maddox, who claims to have a small one. My dick has, when I was three, been mistaken for a prop in Anaconda, and, when I was six, Godzilla. I have to make sure I'm not erect when I enter a building, because I will fucking take the roof off. My condom is a fucking windsock. I don't even need to sit down anymore, because I am a fucking tripod. All I need to do when my legs are tired is lean forward. I have to be careful when I turn around in the house, because my dick tends to knock stuff over.
I can't even piss without standing on a chair anymore, because otherwise my dick will be touching the floor it's pissing on, and who wants piss all over their dick? Just the other day, I was lying around on the beach when a fishing boat docked on my dick. I flexed my dick muscles a bit and wrecked the boat.
So, you see, Matt, that's the difference between Maddox and I. He has huge balls, and I have a huge dick. Yes, I realise that this "defence" is a ripoff of the page Maddox wrote about his nuts. If you didn't realise that the parody was deliberate or you couldn't see why I did it, piss off. You're not smart enough to be my friend. Anyway, it's related to the next part of my post.
Yesterday, the Evil Canadian and I were having one of those discussions that will have earth-shaking consequences the day one of us takes over the world. No, we're not planning to do it together. That's what ruling the world means. You have to be the only one in control. Why, then, the discerning reader might ask, are you guys friends? The simple answer is, of course, that we're not. We're arch-enemies keeping tabs on each other. In the end, there can be only one. I must say that when the time finally comes for me to dispose of you, Pieter, I will probably shed a tear and wish you a fond farewell. You've been my most entertaining adversary. Well, you've been my only one so far. I'll probably miss you too. For like 5 seconds.
I digressed from my digression. Back to the main digression now. So yesterday, I was explaining to the Evil Canadian about the most recent confirmation I've received that I am, in fact, God. Needless to say, the deluded megalomaniac begged to differ, claiming the title of I Am for himself. So I told him to prove it by making a square circle, and the false deity went googling for some complex, non-elegant solution to it. Then I explained to him that a cylinder with a height equivalent to its circumference is, in fact, the mythical square circle. I'd already posted this on
Agagooga's blog, but some hack made a smartass remark that went something like this.
"A square circle is an impossibility. The cylinder trick is as satisfying as a hotdog with no dog."
The Evil Canadian, having apparently lost about 500 IQ points yesterday, found this funny. I can come up with an equally smartass remark in like 1 second, such as this.
"So you're either telling me that you find all hotdogs unsatisfying or that you find the cylinder trick satisfying, since hotdogs *cough*
have no dogs."
Actually, I've already posted that on Balderdash (Agagooga's blog). The Evil Canadian accused me of basing my argument on semantics, but I begged to differ. My reply wasn't an "argument", it was a smartass reply to a smartass remark. Actually, I think that there isn't a need to argue about it. The question atheists usually ask is this. "Can God make a square circle?" As opposed to this. "Can God make a circle that's also a square on a two-dimensional plane?" I'm being pedantic, yes, but seriously, atheists, these paradox arguments (another example would be "can God make a rock so heavy He can't lift it?") work precisely
because you're being pedantic about the definitions of "omnipotence" and "omniscience", mostly the former. To illustrate, here's a more or less typical argument between an atheist and a theist.
A: So, God is omnipotent, yes?
T: Yes.
A: That means He can accomplish anything His mind can conceive, right?
T: Yes.
A: So can He make a square circle?
T: No, because a square circle is an object with contradictory characteristics.
A: Aha! But God can accomplish anything He can conceive of, not just anything He can conceive of that also happens to be logically consistent.
T: . . .
Either that, or the theist will say that God can do it and then the atheist will brand the word "idiot" on his forehead and dismiss him out of hand. The point here is that pedantry is the very soul of, if not atheist mentality, then at least atheist arguments with theists. So why make it easier for the other camp by being vague with your questions, atheists? Make sure they have no room in which to wiggle out of your meticulously constructed paradoxes and then enjoy watching them squirm. Back to the main point, which is that an object that is both a square and a circle can exist. You just need more dimensions. The wag on Balderdash called it a "trick", but it is only a trick insofar as the superstring theory, which uses more dimensions (10, 11 or 26, depending on how you work it) to explain how everything is both a particle and a wave is a trick to explain the wavicle "paradox". You might just as well say that particles cannot be waves and waves cannot be particles and that the superstring "trick" is as satisfying as a hotdog with no hot. Actually, that idiot would probably say that anyway. Fucking fundy fuckwads.
All right, end of digression. As I was saying, the Evil Canadian and I were discussing what makes a blog or personal website popular. Some popular websites I know are:
Adri's blog (Singaporean). Contemplative at times, geeky at times, humorous at times, sapphic all the time. Something for everybody (even straight men, since every straight man I know think lesbians are
smokin') except fundies (GHEYS MUZ DIEEEEE CUZ GOD SEZ SO). She writes good prose that borders on the poetic.
Mr Brown (Singaporean). I don't really read it regularly, but that's not so much a criticism as a matter of taste. I think he writes well, but I just do not have much interest in his topics.
Balderdash (Singaporean). Contrary to what the title suggests, this blog is not, in fact, full of crap. This guy can read, like, 300 times faster than me, judging by the number of links he posts. I am assuming, of course, that he reads all the links he posts and that he does not post links to every site he reads. Does the man not sleep? Either that or he has two heads. Or maybe his brain is hyperthreading so input from both eyes are processed separately. Anyway, he's in Arts but, judging by his posts, is way smarter than the rest of his peers, who are mostly primary sources of
bogons and himbos concerned solely with being "cool". Furthermore, he was in RI. I tend to despise RI boys. This guy defies all my previously held stereotypes. Respect. The reason I'm sucking up to him is because he scares me. He's about 83% as intelligent as I am. Maybe even more (83.025%, but that's pushing it). Hence if we ever found ourselves in adverserial positions, he might possibly be able to prevent me from inflicting a humiliating defeat on him, and I'd hate for that to happen, so I'd better stay on his good side.
Then there is, as far as I know, the most widely-read blog by a Singaporean,
Xiaxue. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's not good and I'm not dissing her. When I first came across her blog, I thought it was hilarious. However, the gags do seem to get a little repetitive after a while, so I've stopped reading her regularly. It's still good for a chuckle occasionally for me, but that's about it. I'm not really interested in the daily goings-on in her life. Anyway, my opinion is that in terms of language or content, it pales in comparison to, say, Balderdash or Popagandhi.
Other popular blogs/sites not by Singaporeans. (Note: I'm not being patriotic. I'm being egocentric. There is a difference.)
Maddox. Cruel. Language is crude, not word-perfect, but pretty good, considering that 90% of the blogs around use horrible language. Personally, I find it hilarious.
Tucker Max. The deeds of an asshole. A little too arrogant for my taste. I don't like that in others. I think Tucker Max is probably an asshole in real life too, but I suspect Maddox of actually being a pretty nice guy in real life.
HULK'S DIARY THAT IS ON THE INTERNET. Exactly what it says, in exactly the same tone as I have just said it.
So what do the wildly popular blogs/sites all have in common, as discovered by Pieter and I? Dumb shit. Yes, you heard me. Dumb shit is the elusive X-factor that propels a blog from having a modest reader base to having its link posted in internet forums by all the various misfits inhabiting cyberspace and blasting it from anonymity into prominence. Yes, dumb shit. Maddox has it. Tucker Max has it. Xiaxue has it. Incredible Hulk has it in spades. Why does it work? Because most people in the world are dumbfucks who like dumb shit. Before you start your own quest to create a world-famous or even a nation-famous blog, however, remember this. Dumbfucks usually have some smartass they look up to and follow around like fucking puppies. If, for example, dumbfuck shows smartass some site and smartass says it's just full of dumb shit, dumbfuck will most probably stop visiting that site. So in order for your blog to be famous, it has to appeal to both smartass and dumbfuck. It has to be just complex enough to make smartass feel like a, well, smartass, for being able to "catch the joke", and simple enough so dumbfuck can slap his thighs and go "HAW HAW HAW" after staring at it for like 2 hours.
So, there you have it, my Grand Unified Theory (GUT) of Dumb Shit. Good luck in your conquest of the blogging world, and if you
do make it, I expect you to contribute to my beer fund. Run along.
P.S. Matt, in case you're too dumb to catch it, I parodied Maddox to show you what a wannabe Maddox site done by me would
really be like.
