Braak Remains Smarter, Funnier Than Detractors (TQP0107)

Posted: October 22, 2008 in Braak, Politics
Tags: , , ,

As some of you may know, I have a habit of making fun of idiots, both here and in reality. Ordinarily, I make fun of relevant idiots–or, like Stephen Baldwin, at least idiots that have busy schedules. Every once in a while, though, I end up picking a fight with an idiot that apparently has nothing better to do than rise to the implicit challenge that I offer: “Just how fucking stupid are you?”

And, oh my, the writer and readers of the fascinating study in political dumbfuckery that I linked to earlier, Rosetta the Racist, did not disappoint.

[UPDATE:  It’s been pointed out to me that some commenters lack the courage of their convictions, and would prefer to continue to lurk behind their masks of anonymity.  I have obligingly removed their e-mail addresses from this post, which were included due to oversight.]

I’ve pointed out before how Conservatives, in general, just aren’t really that funny, and I stand by that assertion.  For your amusement, an object lesson:  collected here are the numerous responses I’ve received to the arguably irrelevant post I wrote about this slippery monkey turd–along with why they’re stupid, and a few pieces of constructive criticism to help them be a little funnier.  As a tolerant, enlightened, extremely-good-looking liberal, it’s incumbent upon me to share my wisdom with the greater unwashed masses, floundering in the dark for a clever line or a snappy comeback, and I am pleased to do so.

Comments first!

Blackiswhite, Imperial Agent Provocateur

Moderating comments. How “enlightened”.

From Today, in Idiots (TQP0106):, 2008/10/20 at 9:38 PM

1.  Why it’s stupid:  moderated comments is the default setting on WordPress.  Blackiswhite obviously doesn’t know that, because he’s laboring in the Stone Age with Blogger.  Moderating comments is good, because many comments actually don’t raise the level of the discourse. Some of them are just pissy little complaints that don’t serve to do anything except make the complainer look, well, pissy, and so I’d actually be doing you a favor by deleting your comment.

2.  How it could be funnier: I’m not sure that this was really meant to be “funny,” per se, it just sounds kind of bitchy.  But if you’re going to do this, I think you should go all out.  Maybe attach a ferocious insult on the end, so it reads, “How enlightened, you drooling, smacked-ass troglodyte.”



From Today, in Idiots (TQP0106):, 2008/10/20 at 8:21 PM

1. Why it’s stupid: Well.  Look at it.

2.  How it could be funnier: If you’re going to make a string of exclamation points that includes a 1, you’ve got to let your reader know that it wasn’t just an accident precipitated by your being a complete fucking n00b.  An example of this might be, “ROSETTA CALLED YOU A BITCH!!!!1!!ONE!!”  Or, “RIGHT IN FRONT OF HER TITS!!1!  ZOMG! WTF! ROFL!”  This enables you to both get your reader to crack a smile, and sets up a pattern of self-deprecation that will make you less vulnerable to criticism.  You knuckle-dragging baboon.

Blackiswhite, Imperial Agent Provocateur

Well, fingers crossed. I know my mom will think it’s funny, so that’s something.

Well that certainly was telling, although not in a way that helps you much. Maybe O.W. Holmes did have it right in his decision in Buck v. Bell.

You might want to look that up.

From Today, in Idiots (TQP0106):, 2008/10/20 at 7:48 PM

1. Why it’s stupid: Firstly, it indicates a failure on the part of the commenter to recognize a joke when he sees one.  This failure is most commonly found in people that suffer from psychological social disorders such as Aspergers–the same people that Dr. Albert Sidney Priddy maybe would have seen sterilized for the benefit of society, were it not for the Supreme Court decision of Buck v. Bell.

Secondly, it’s dangerously foolish to refer to something that you assume that your opponent won’t know, because they might know it, and then you look like an ass.

Thirdly, it’s a transparent attempt to trick me into comparing him to a Nazi, which would provoke an invocation of Godwin’s Law, and render the entire discussion moot.  Not that this is the height of discourse, or anything, but certain forms must be observed.

2.  How it could be funnier:  Well, it’s important to remember that humor isn’t used as a weapon against your opponent–it’s used to gain the support of the audience.  That’s why he’s “fighting” with me in public, rather than in private.  So, while it turned out that I knew about Buck v. Bell, Blackiswhite couldn’t be sure that his audience would.  A helpful link to the Wikipedia entry would have served to make his point better.

Moreover, the nature of humor is excess, not plausibility–a link to an image of some poor retarded bastard, or a gibbon, or something, might have served to drive that knife in just a little deeper.  It might even have made me cry, while the handful of steadfast readers I retain would laugh and laugh.


A billion dollars a minute in Iraq?

Might want to reconsider who you call an idiot.

From Today, in Idiots (TQP0106):, 2008/10/20 at 4:28 PM

1. Why it’s stupid: Remember what I said about recognizing a joke when you see one?  Bmac here is a case in point.  The nature of humor is excess–saying “a billion dollars a minute,” in the third sentence of a throw-away paragraph is, contextually, clearly not meant to be taken seriously (in point of fact, the number is more like a billion dollars a day, which, practically speaking, doesn’t seem that much different).  Bmac is, however, correct in that I should reconsider who I call an idiot:  an idiot is, after all, someone so concerned with their own inner world that they do not recognize the nature of the world around them.  It comes from a Greek word, “idia” meaning “private.”  Someone like bmac, who was in such a hurry to take me to task for my hilarious exaggeration that he failed to notice the context clues that indicated it was a joke, would properly be called an idiot.

2.  How it could be funnier: Excess, excess, excess!  It should have been, “A billion dollars a minute!  One point four trillion dollars a day!  We are drowning in a see of debt so huge that ‘astronomical’ doesn’t even cover it!  EVERYONE, LET’S RAISE TAXES ON GROCERIES!  THAT WILL SOLVE THE PROBLEM!”  See, and that also includes a dig at my presumably liberal tendency to respond to any problem with increased taxes.  In addition, you have to cut the “reconsider who you call an idiot,” because it’s implicit in the joke–if you have to say it, it’s not funny.

Now, a link to something that I believe should prove illuminating:  One American Voice.  I like this guy, because he at least seems like he’s trying, you know?  His utter, abject, and humiliating failure should not detract from the “A” we give him for effort.

1. Why it’s stupid: Well, the painfully tortured syntaxes are a big problem.  Look at this one:  “An opportunity to showcase ignorance by a liberal engaged in an effort to point out ignorance in another and, in the end, committing ignorance herself.”  Actually, that’s not a complete sentence in the first place, but I’m not a prescriptivist, so, whatever.  Also, you can’t really “commit” ignorance–ignorance is a quality that a person, like the author of One American Voice, has, not something that a person does, and it’s probably important that you sort out the difference before you accuse someone of lacking reading comprehension skills.

The part that I think is most interesting is the fantastical little loop of meta-irony that One is trying to make here, the idea that it’s ironic for me to point out the irony of Rosetta complaining about intolerance while calling people names.  It’s not, of course, because pointing out the irony in something isn’t the same thing as complaining about something, and while Rosetta seems to be addressing a lack of tolerance as an essential character flaw, my concern is with internal consistency, which is not synonymous with “tolerance,” or “being nice.”  Irony, after all, exists independently of whether or not I point it out, but tolerance can only be found in one’s behavior towards others.  In his rush to make a joke at my expense, One has overlooked and conflated key elements of reality, lending credence to the theory that he is the one kind of person that I am admittedly especially intolerant of:  idiots.

Finally, there’s a telling little bit at the end, a part where One wants to point out how I don’t understand, or how I’m wrong, or how I’m stupid and then…abruptly…changes his mind.  He decides not to point out all the failures of my argument, and why not?  Well, I don’t know, but since he didn’t say why, I feel comfortable making the answer up:  he’s not really smart enough.  He probably spends a lot of time hanging around people who are pretty smart, and probably reads the books of a lot of people who are smart, and so has plenty of opinions and information that he can repeat like a trained parrot, but lacks the essential critical reading and thinking skills necessary to evaluate a position according to its merit.  Or, hey, maybe not.  Maybe he’s just a sissy.

2.  How it could be funnier:  Okay, have a look at this bit:

I’ll keep this simple, for the author of “Threat Quality Press”, as she seems to suffer comprehension problems: (*snicker* not sure where the “threat” or the “quality” kicks in, but what the hey. Delusions of grandeur seem to run in the Democratic party this year.)

You see how he wrote “*snicker*”?  That’s the worst kind of telegraphing.  It shows that you’re trying to let your audience know that you’re telling a joke, and that they’re supposed to laugh at it–and the only reason to do that is when the joke is demonstrably not funny.  Clearly, One is trying to point out that the name “Threat Quality Press” is more than simply nonsensical, but is actually indicative of some kind of self-importance on my part–but if you can’t make that funny using the basic qualities of English, you certainly can’t make it funny by saying HAHA IT’S A JOKE GET IT LAUGH!  Unless your audience is composed entirely of half-wit, mumbling sheep, that are used to regurgitating whatever tripe they’re fed.

Now…whew, this is getting kind of long.  I’ve still got one person left, Rosetta the Racist herself.  Why don’t I make another post out of that one, save your eyes a little bit.

  1. Erin says:

    Braak: you did not disappoint.

  2. Moff says:

    I would have laughed at this post, but there were no laughing instructions in it. Haha *chortle*

  3. MCPO Airdale says:

    Humorous, in a snarky, middle school kind of way. Grab selected comments, out of context, and make fun of them. Wow, that’s never been done! You still failed to respond to Rosetta’s rebuttal. You still fail to grasp the crux of the original article.

    I can only assume that either you suffer from a lack of reading comprehension or you know you’ve encountered an intellectual superior. Which is it?

  4. Rosetta the Racist says:

    Holy crap…what’s with the brevity, Castro?? Hahaha. Blah. No wonder you couldn’t get this done yesterday.

    I’m afraid we’re going to need to chop this up into pieces for rounds 3 and beyond. I will assume that you’re okay with that. Although you don’t have readers, I do and I don’t want to lose them by responding to your 3,000 word tome in a single post.

    This is an excellent effort however. You showed great improvement in your name-calling in this diary entry which increases the entertainment value for everyone.

    And thanks for giving me a lot to work with!

    By the way, do you have a name by which I can refer to your other than TQP? That’s not very fun. Let me know if there’s something else that you prefer or I can just make something up again.

    Have a great day, dreg of society. Enjoy your day Goddamning America and we’ll talk again soon!

  5. threatqualitypress says:

    @Rosetta, @MCPO Airdale: BACK, MONKEYS! To your hole with you! Root for grubs and pick fleas off your asses in the dark, where you can jack each other off in private!

    Somehow, Republicans have all become a bunch of crybabies, wailing about how they’ve been done wrong, and I will not have it here.

    Your Science is poor. You are dismissed.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s