The Art Of (Internet) War
I was talking to anonymous famous blogger X just now, and I asked X whether anonymous not-so-famous blogger Y ever teased X about affair A. X said no, Y has never done that. I was of course outraged because Y teased me about A all the time. I said that perhaps I should be more aloof and act as if I were a petty man so that Y and Y's friend, Z, would get the fuck off my case. X then suggested that perhaps Y was afraid that X would scold Y in X's blog and thus Y refrained from teasing X. I agreed that perhaps that was the case.

If X flamed Y, no doubt a horde of idiots who read X's blog would descend upon Y's blog like rampaging vultures saying stupid shite like "Y, you are such a stupid cunt and bitch for dissing X ROTFL OMFG WTF!!!!!111" Also, another pack of morons who hate X's guts (but who read X's blog anyway) would then invade Y's blog saying dumb crap like "Y, I support you against that fucktard bitch X OMFG ROTFL WTF!!!!111" Not one member of these two groups of (usually anonymous) commentors would have the faintest idea in fuck what the goddamned quarrel was about in the first place, but that would not stop them from baying for the bloodletting to begin.

I have noticed this phenomenon quite a number of times before, and it is clear that parallels can be drawn between these modern trouble-sniffing hounds and the ancient Romans who loved watching gladiators slug it out to the death in arenas. Let's face it, we are a bloodthirsty race. I think that almost all of us love to see blood flow. I, for one, agree that a bloodbath is long overdue, but I think there's a very big problem with most of you. That is, most of you are too fucking chicken to actually risk having your own blood spilt in your relentless pursuit of blood.

In the past, the Romans went to gladiatorial arenas to see blood flow. In these (marginally) more enlightened times, you fuckers go online for your daily dosage of conflict that doesn't involve your puny wimpy selves. So, what is at stake here, since there is no actual bloodletting? Well, in the blogosphere, there is shame, embarrassment and prestige, of course. Although X is actually a pretty nice person who would not usually do such a thing, there is no doubt that if X actually dissed Y, the eventual winner of such a conflict would be X. What would happen would be that Y would have to endure wave after wave of gibbering retards hurling insulting comments until one finally hits a sensitive spot and Y actually is affected and says something stupid.

Then, everyone who has been following the hypothetical saga would conclude that Y is actually a blithering idiot and henceforth dismiss Y. Y would then commit blogicide out of shame or something, but the point is that no one would care about Y anymore. This would not have happened because X was right, because X was smarter than Y (although X actually is) or even because X was more popular than Y. This would have happened because Y felt shame or some other emotion first. So you see, as with most other pursuits in the modern world, the unfeeling always win. To be truly invincible on the net, you must be as callous and shameless as possible, so that nothing anyone says actually affects you.

My fellow bloggers, we are the gladiators of the new age. We have a sacred trust to provide the vultures of our generation with the excitement that would otherwise be lacking in their pathetic, sad little lives. So gear up. Put on your Armour O' Shamelessness. Pick up your Rapier O' Sarcastic Wit. Hold your Shield O' Emotionlessness. Drink a cup of ceremonial cyber-wine with your opponents before killing (or being killed by) them.

We who are about to die salute you.

p.s. Don't piss off anyone well-versed in the Lore though. They'll fuck up your computer and steal all your accounts. Warriors are never a match for Wizards.  ¶
Permalink

If you don't like what I say, why not subscribe me for some porn?