04 September 2008

Esquire (again) proves that it rocks

What the Hell is Wrong with Blog Commentors?
Professor of Communications Paul Levinson and comedian Mike Birbiglia weigh in on why babygrl212 and mccainh8r think they have the right to be so goddamned stupid online.

Major Human Flaw: Posting inane comments online.

Response No. 1, by Paul Levinson, professor of communications at Fordham University and author of the upcoming book New New Media: Everyone has a ratio of satisfaction and frustration. What makes the Internet different is that it's so easy to express this frustration. Sometimes, people are too cowardly to assert themselves in person. They don't want to be shouted down, or they may know that what they're saying is absurd. But for those kinds of people, the anonymous empowerment of the Internet is like a drug. They're not just expressing anger, but authority.

Response No. 2, by Mike Birbiglia, stand-up comedian whose DVD, What I Should Have Said Was Nothing!, is out now: Comments sections offer this great opportunity for morons to show the world they don't know the difference between their,there, and they're. It's as if Brian Williams finished every segment by saying, "That's all I got. Now, does anybody have any batshit-zany e-mails they'd like me to read out loud?" The worst part is, I'll start to second-guess myself: Huh. I thought his name was spelled "Barack Obama," but according to squidbaby44, "Barak HUSSEIN Osama is a secret mooslim!"
 /\
//\\
 ||
 ||
This is from the latest issue of Esquire, one of two* magazines I read cover-to-cover. So go ahead with the comments. Hurt me, babygrl212!!!
-----
*The other is Wired.

1 comment:

Maggie&Bandit said...

We suppose you have a point. We get a lot of garbage from people who think dogs shouldn't blog. After we engage them in conversation, we find most of them prove to be boorish and ignorant.
You aren't one of those.