Since I’m sick o’ political bickering, I’ll focus on the much mo’ important issue o’ programming language wars.

The most interesting thing ’bout programming languages is how their quality is inversely related to the quality o’ the people who use them. While I’ve found nobody who defends PHP beyond “it’s faster” & “it’s convenient”, & it’s design is so laughably inept, one wonders if ’twas an intentional joke, PHP developers tend to be much better people to be round, since they focus mo’ on actually accomplishing things than whining & scribbling rants ’bout conspiracies gainst the public caring mo’ ’bout practicality o’er their language. Languages like Ruby & Lisp¹, meanwhile, were quite elegantly designed, but is filled with some o’ the most socially inept douche bags e’er who have this amusing tendency to try demanding things o’ people o’er whom they have no authority. “¡Just quit whining ’bout [ insert flaw in language ] & just use it!” while whining ’bout flaws o’ some other language. The logic is that if you can’t deal with some absurdity in their language, you’re just too dumb, e’en though the fact that one can remember the quirk ’nough to complain ’bout it should be proof that one can understand it; but if they can’t handle some absurdity in some other language, it’s ’cause it sucks.

To be fair, the 1 exception is the guy who made Ruby himself, Yukihiro Matsumoto, who sounds like a very nice person who seemed to make Ruby for incredibly unpretentious reasons, & e’en said, “I tried to make Ruby perfect for me, but maybe it’s not perfect for you. The perfect language for GuidoVanRossum is probably Python”, which is the inspiration for all my Matsumoto / Rossum slash fics.

I almost get the sense that Google hits get mo’ from attention-grabbing, contentious posts than those that are actually useful. While I’d like to get some useful info on Ruby, ’stead I get some incoherent rant, & now the rest o’ you get to suffer for it. ¿Curious, right? Wink, wink. ( Fuck you. )

{ // Braces, just to further rile Rubyists ( e’en though Rubyists do use braces for hashes — shhh ).

’Nother fun idiotic debate ’mong Rubyists & other people:

“Man, Ruby & Rails have no good documentation. Just this drugged-out shit. Face it, programming is ruined”;

“There’s plenty o’ documentation. Get off your ass & look”

“¿Could you provide some evidence?”;

“Find it yourself. Do something yourself for once”

Nothing better than expecting people to prove a negative.

I can, however, prove that the official Rails guide is so shitty that it actually caused me errors ’cause o’ a dumbass typo:

¡Looks like your prettyful Apple computer couldn’t help you now, DHH, whom I know totally wrote this guide! ( ¡Stop whining & just get off your ass & pay thousands o’ $ on o’erpriced garbage hardware already or I won’t hire you for my shitty company! )

}

This writer, whose job description is apparently “Converting beer to code since 2004” ( ¡& now he’s converting writing to beer for me! ¡How nice! ) wrote an article called “10 reasons not to use Ruby”, which sounds like a drunken rant ’bout how lame Ruby is, man, but is actually a drunken rant gainst people who make ’scuses for not using Ruby, man.

1. Ruby isn’t as mature as Java or PHP

My grandmother has also been around longer than Ruby, but I don’t go about using her to build Web apps every other day.

Maturity == age.

Speaking o’ maturity, that’s an argument a fucking child would make — c’mon. “If PHP’s so great, ¿why don’t you use it to drive to work?, huh”.

2. Ruby isn’t as performant as .NET or Java

That’s true, & is ’specially a problem in web programs, where people are particularly impatient, already have to deal with loading resources ( essentially downloading software as they’re trying to use it ), & likely to be on much slower architecture than the o’erpaid web developer who should probably be doing mo’ to deserve their high pay than worrying ’bout whether their language is fun to use. ( ¡Stop whining ’bout my slow website & just use it, customers! God, ¿why do I e’en let you idiots give me money? )² Considering how bewilderingly slow websites still are e’en with modern technology, this should be a big issue.

You’re right. Ruby is also slower than Erlang, Lua and C++ but you don’t go about writing Erlang or C++ code every day, do you?

Um, yes, plenty o’ people do.

It’s good to see that we’re still sticking to the sullen technique o’ twisting reasonable arguments to extreme non sequitors. This argument is essentially, “Nothing’s perfect, so any depths o’ quality is acceptable”. Awesome.

Web development isn’t all about code performance.

It’s 1 o’ the most objective ( note, I said “most”, for e’en benchmarks are questionable ) criteria — certainly mo’ than “fun to use” & quickness o’ development.

Your new shiny Web app doesn’t have a million users a day for day one. You need to code it, test it, release it, rinse and repeat, and you need to do that quickly.

Keep in mind that this person is telling you you should experiment with new programming languages — ’cause nothing is quicker than learning new things.

Hiding behind the “performance” argument is not only cowardly, it’s plain wrong, because instead of focusing on releasing your app as quickly as possible, you’re focusing on the unknown promise that one day you might have to worry about scale.

Fucking performance pussies, man.

So, it’s wrong ’cause it’s not important in this writer’s opinion — ’cause nothing’s worse than wasting your time preparing for the future. It’s much mo’ professional to only focus on spewing out shitty software as quickly as possible.

¿Aren’t Ruby programmers s’posed to be smart? & I must say, it’s probably mo’ “cowardly” to change topics to development speed to avoid actually addressing the issue.

3. Well, Ruby apps scale as well as .NET or Java apps.

“I say so, therefore it’s true”.

We all end up there, clench our teeth and handle it like adults.

So that’s how you optimize Ruby. You can’t really blame detractors for not understanding such an obscure — & I must say unorthodox — method.

“Handl[ing] it like adults” apparently means bitching ’bout imaginary critics online & making appeals to extremes.

We might do it differently, but we do it all the same and usually begin at the DB level rather than the application level. Curious, right?

You’ll have to show a bit mo’ cleavage 1st, Sir.

4. Ruby doesn’t work well on Windows

¿It doesn’t? Worked fine for me. Not sure what magic allowed Compass to work all those years I used to have Windows.

Instead of banging your head against the wall, complaining that you’re used to Windows and all that jazz, just take a deep breath, install Linux and get on with life. Technology is about learning new things, not staying in your comfort zone forever.

“Just quit whining & setup a whole ’nother operating system just so you can fulfill my language fetish”.

I have a better idea: how ’bout you guys quit whining & make Ruby work well with Windows.

’Cept Ruby works fine for Windows, so maybe you should just stop arguing with idiots — worse, strawman idiots you made up in your schizophrenic head. I can imagine all the ghostly voices dragging him down to his knees — echo 'use $PHP…'; echo 'use $PHP…'; puts you.leave_alone! me

5. Ruby isn’t as popular or commonly used as PHP

Perhaps a less stupidly-circular argument based on true concerns is Ruby’s lack o’ easy compatibility with existing services, such as MySQL or common hosts. For example, my host doesn’t have Ruby installed, so using Ruby would be an absolute no for any o’ my websites ( a’least for distribution — in development, all bets are off³ ), as much “funner” it is to use than lame ol’ PHP & it’s dumbass error-handling or “echo” function. Rubyists would tell me that I need to change my entire host & go with some obscure, o’erpriced alternative, ’cause shared hosts are, like, a “ghetto”, or something.

( Or maybe that’s Rails — all ’cause Shaw hates a bunch o’ people he had to work with & ’cause dumbass DHH had to restart his server a lot, I guess. )

Technology isn’t a popularity contest, otherwise we would all be developing Websites in Javascript (currently the most popular language on Github).

Um, we are all making websites in JavaScript ( well, we’re making lowercase websites in camel-case JavaScript, a’least ). For instance, Rails, which I’m sure this guy uses, uses JavaScript, e’en if it has to compile a superfluous cheap knockoff into it 1st for no good reason. That’s ’cause JavaScript is the defacto language o’ browsers.

Technology is means to an end.

That end being feeling cuddly when one types code rather than ensuring compatibility ’tween their code & their architecture or not spending days trying to get a compatible architecture running.

Popularity is a warped factor that tries to measure adoption rate and community activity to help people gauge production-readiness, code stability and support level.

¡Those fiends!

Here’s a novel idea for you then – Try checking production-readiness, code stability and support level on a per-technology basis, rather than throwing popularity figures into the thinning air.

That’s quite hard, considering “per-technology” is vague. “Technology” is anything related to computers. ¿Does he mean software? ¿Hardware? ¿Types o’ software one is making or types o’ software in which one is working? Considering the points ’bout Ruby being slower than PHP & its ilk & the problems o’ compatibility, one could still make good arguments gainst Ruby.

6. The Ruby community is condescending and snobbish

No… That couldn’t be.

Well, yeah, and the Java community is stubborn, the .NET community is closed-minded, the Perl community is quirky and the C++ community is a bunch of middle-aged, pipe-smoking elves.

Though I have nothing to do with the community, he is right that I’m an elf who likes to take a Tolkien toke on the leaf now & then.

Since Ruby is relatively young, and tends towards early adoption of many technologies, Rubyists have a relatively easy life when it comes to trivial stuff like tests, deployment, integrations with 3rd parties and so on. So when a Rubyist is “boasting” that things are easier in the Ruby world, they’re not looking down at you, but merely suggesting there’s a simpler, more pragmatic way of doing things.

See, here’s where we hit the true problem. Languages usually have advantages & disadvantages. Nobody can seriously argue that C isn’t faster than most other languages; they just try to argue that that factor isn’t important. & there’s something to be said ’bout the universality o’, say, JavaScript. Meanwhile, C++’s balance o’ efficiency & high-level abstraction, with a focus on things, makes it great for video games & heavy GUI programs, but probably obnoxious for anything else.

Ruby is I guess a nice-looking language, & it can certainly be used to make well-working software just like other languages. But when Rubyists say that the Ruby “life” o’ deployment & integrations for web development are easy, they’re just straight-up wrong. It’s an ol’ joke that in order to get Ruby frameworks working, you have to jump through a billion hoops — mainly ’cause, as he mentions, they love using obscure tools with li’l compatibility. ¿Why use JavaScript, which works right out o’ the browser, when you could use CoffeeScript, just so you could compile it back into JavaScript? You’d have to be a cave-dweller to not be able to make a program in JavaScript when 10-year-ol’s all o’er the world have been making “¿Which DBZ character are you?” quizzes for years; but that’s not sexy, so let’s add extra complexity ’cause we’re bored. Ruby prefers PostgreSQL e’en though apparently nobody on the internet knows how to use it ’cause all o’ the info I find online is just flat-out wrong ’bout what it’s e’en called in Linux’s terminal, all ’cause MySQL has some obscure imperfections that are immensely rare; web hosts prefer MySQL. & that’s not e’en getting into how you actually get your project off your local computer & onto an actual online host. Apparently you’re just s’posed to use Heroku, which is a lame limitation. It’s so bad that e’en the official Rails guide ne’er bothers to teach you how to put your Rails project online, as if a newbie should be satisfied being able to look @ their shiny Rails project on just their localhost. Ironically, preferring Unix was the 1 thing Ruby did right.

In fact, it’s strange that they make fun o’ PHP for being simple-minded, but also somehow too much o’ a fuss, e’en though on most hosts it works right out o’ the box. Literally all you have to do to get PHP working on a Linux computer is go to the software center & install Apache & PHP & put your files in /var/www/html. To get it working on any host, just upload PHP files to the file system & it works. When one complains ’bout PHP’s language design being half-assed, they’re probably right, as subjective as that may be; but to claim that Ruby is easier to deploy than PHP is nonsense.

In fact, sometimes Rubyists criticize PHP for being too simple — ¡e’en though that’s what Ruby’s s’posed to be good @ in the 1st place! “True developers” apparently don’t just upload files to a file system, e’en if using FTPS, — which doesn’t e’en exist, fingers; keep it up & it’s off to the grill — but [ insert 1 o’ many convoluted, unintuitive methods that hardly anyone uses & is surely incompatible with the vast majority o’ web hosts ]. They claim that performance isn’t an issue for start-ups ( ’cause all programming is for start-ups, & start-ups that are likely to fail are a great source o’ stable, profitable careers ), ’cause hardly anyone visits, ¿but you do need to worry ’bout 1 o’ those nobodies hacking you as you upload files? Rubyists can’t e’en decide what they like ’bout Ruby.

Strangely, this writer ne’er brings up the issue o’ security, which may be the 1 objective advantage Ruby might have o’er PHP. O, wait, maybe it’s a good idea not to bring up security with Ruby.

It’s funny, ’cause there’s so many arguments this guy could make that he doesn’t. There are entire websites dedicated to showing how shitty PHP is. It’s creator has a delightful nonchalance & seems to agree that PHP was just some hack garbage he puked out on 1 drunken evening & looks like he stumbled out o’ 18th-century Britain. It’s like this blog poster is an attorney for a victim o’ Charles Manson & is losing.

7. Ruby is too opinionated and takes away my freedom to do things my way

All languages do this. That’s like complaining ’bout English demanding you to use punctuation. Communication is based on consistent info. This applies just as well ’tween computers & people as ’mong people.

My only problem is the whitespace requirements, which are terrible, & is why I still prefer C-style braces & semicolons — though I think Ruby would work fine with just line-ending punctuation, since block-starters & “end” are just as specific as braces. I hate it ’cause I oft want to break up long lines o’ code & it’s much harder to do than in, say, C++, which lets you break code however you want & will always know where the line ends thanks to the semicolon, & thus saves its ugliness for stds & HTML-tag container templates.

¿Wanna know how an associative array o’ #s looks in C++?

std::unordered_map<std::string, int> gorgeous_list_;

¡What beauty!

( Yes, I know I can use “using std”. If I like namespace poisoning — ¡you revolting savage! )

Then ’gain, maybe Ruby’s better @ breaking up lines, since it does seem to be able to break up ’tween commas. I remember I had trouble breaking up lines in Python once & the solution was apparently to put some god-awful “\” or something & I’m like, ¿isn’t this s’posed to be better-looking than C++?

Let me ask you this – How many ways are there to write an HTTP routing component for a Web app or an image manipulation library?

I ne’er did it without biting: ask Mr. Owl.

Convention over configuration, best practices and clear codings standards don’t take freedom away from developers.

See, this is something I’d agree with, but Ruby doesn’t actually succeed well. For instance, Ruby has a radically different syntax from the C-style convention, including their bizarre use o’ “def” for “function” & “elsif” ( which is the stupidest bastardization o’ English since “RESTful” ) & having object members have a “@” in front o’ them & having static class members have 2 “@”s in front o’ them — ’cause that makes sense. Granted, PHP has those dumbass “$”s. ¿What the fuck is wrong with you people? ¿What e’er happened to the idea that code’s s’posed to be as comprehensible as feasible? ¿What made anyone think that $s & @s aided understanding in any way whatsoe’er?

The truth is that JavaScript’s better than all o’ them, ’cause they call variables “var” & functions “function”. ’Cause that’s what they fucking are. Then they fuck up block scoping & lose all their points.⁴ Good job.

& though I’m not exactly an expert in programming, despite my smugly pretending like I do throughout this post, I do know a lot ’bout web design standards, & know that Rails violates it in the most ridiculous ways possible. ¿Why didn’t they use that convention o’er configuration idea when deciding to make post, article, whatever entries use the primary key ’stead o’ an automatically-generated slug in the URL & not force me to use some hack that’s apparently been deprecated, but is, as far as I could find out, the only way to do so, & is e’en the way done by the most popular plugins? ’Cause, duh, ¿what’s SEO? ¿Why would anyone want to have the primary key in the URL? The user shouldn’t e’er e’en know ’bout the primary key — it’s there purely for the computer. This is a case where it’d be perfectly safe for Rails to automatically change this & it’d be the best for everyone. ¿Where’s that convention?

Rails also loads a bunch o’ empty JavaScript files for every Controller, e’en if they’re empty, which is a hilariously waste o’ server requests. This is in contrast to the common web-design convention o’ combining common files to minimize the # o’ server requests.

Yeah, I know I can fix these problems. But that’s my point: it’s configuration. Whenever anyone says, “¡But it gets rid o’ tedious configuration!” it always turns out to be bullshit, ’cause as it turns out, the software maker didn’t actually know what I wanted — definitely not ugly #s in my URL or empty JavaScript files clogging my pages’ headers, Rails.

Ruby’s opinionated and convention-driven approach helps developers not only to become more productive, but also to adhere to community-driven standards that aim to reduce boilerplate code to a minimum. Many people can chant the “KISS & DRY” paradigms, yet not as many adhere to it.

It fails. Ruby code has boilerplate code, just like any other language. Read any Rails tutorial & see all the code you’re s’posed to copy & paste. As we’ll both talk ’bout later, Ruby makes you do manual type-checking, which comes automatically in Java & C++ compilers. Also, e’en if you’re not making code everyone else has already made, there’s a good chance you’ll probably need to take just as much time looking up the code to understand how it works, which is why “reinventing the wheel” is actually useful in programming as a learning experience.

The funny thing is that Ruby is one of the only languages I know that lets you change absolutely anything, anytime, anywhere.

Your ignorance o’ Lisp isn’t that funny, nor something to be proud o’.

To be fair, this is the 1 good point Ruby has ’bove PHP. Not JavaScript, though, which also lets you change just ’bout everything… which shows how bewilderingly ignorant he is ’bout JavaScript.

Yet, people seem to be happy to adhere to its standards and conventions because it makes them more productive, without compromising their ability to innovate and be creative.

“Ruby’s best advantage is that it has a feature that nobody uses”. So we see ’gain: Ruby’s great, it’s programmers aren’t.

Curious, right?

Stop trying to get into my pants, you smarmy bastard.

8. Ruby isn’t as reliable as Java and .NET

¿Java & .NET are reliable?

Windows isn’t as secure as NetBSD. Oh No!!! I should dump my shiny new Windows for a NetBSD installation.

You just said earlier that I should dump Windows for Linux. Great. Now apparently I’m an idiot for doing so & have to waste ’nother afternoon deleting Linux from my hard drive. You’re truly making me mo’ productive.

While static languages offer a performance boost in relation to dynamic languages, due to their compiled nature, and a strict mechanism to ensure private and public APIs are adhered to, lets be blunt – How many bugs, in your history as a programmer, were the direct result of a wrongly-typed variable?

You’d be surprised.

I know a lot o’ bugs can be caused by functions getting bad parameters, ’specially when dealing with user input online, which is why JavaScript’s lack o’ type-safety is annoying. It’s just a way for me to have to manually check parameters to ensure they’re valid strings or #s rather than have the compiler do it for me, like in C++.

Ensuring a method can only accept variables of predetermined types doesn’t ensure sound and bug-free code.

It sure helps.

If anything, it adds noise to an otherwise clean code in case you do have to cast variables or read compiler complaints about wrong types.

The former is rare, & can be handled rather cleanly with generics ( in C++, a’least; don’t know ’bout Java or .NET ); the latter wouldn’t happen till you fix the problem ’cause the compiler would refuse to compile till you fixed it.

Ruby’s way of solving this conundrum is to promote testing as a culture. In other words, your code is as reliable as your tests, not as reliable as your method signatures.

Ruby’s solution is to make you do extra tedious work that compilers do automatically. But it’s much mo’ convenient, DRY, & enjoyable to work with — not to mention how much cleaner your code is with all those tests. ’Cause nothing’s mo’ enjoyable than writing tests.

8. Ruby lacks entreprise-level support

¿Is this a fancy way o’ saying “not a lot o’ rich people are paying people for this kind o’ programming”?

Sure, if you’re an enterprising ant working for a bunch of bureaucrats who consider COBOL to be cutting edge stuff.

Yeah, maybe if you’re 1 o’ those fucking conformists working for the man, ¿am I right? True radicals smash capitalism by using unpopular programming languages. That’s what Emma Goldman would do.

Ever heard of Engine Yard? No? But they offer fantastic enterprise-level Ruby support.

“Just take my word for it”.

I’m going to admit, I have no idea what argument’s going on in this point. He goes on to rant ’bout how big corporations’ll try to hide security flaws in their code out o’ greed, which is possible, I guess, — I wouldn’t put it past them — & then mocks developers for being so “incapable that the mere threat of being left alone ‘unsupported’ deters you from choosing a piece of tech”. That sounds mo’ like love advice ( ¿Curious, right? Wink, wink ), if anything else ( ¿or should that be “elsif anything”? ).

In an era where technological innovation goes hand-in-hand (and is often driven by) open source code, choosing a closed-source, monopolised, technology for the sake of support is choosing to stay one step behind everyone else. Just take a look at companies like Basho, RedHat, Canonical, 10gen, Cloudera and Engine Yard, who all offer open-source technologies as well as enterprise-level paid support.

I literally have no idea who any o’ those people are, ’cept that Basho is the god o’ haiku ( though I prefer Issa ). Hilariously, the link to Basho is broken, so clearly these companies aren’t doing that well.

9. Ruby doesn’t scale well

This is just a repeat o’ “¡But Ruby’s slow!”

Man, I’m noticing mo’ & mo’ that this writer would make a shitty lawyer. He acknowledges Twitter’s scaling problems due to using Rails, but uses that to praise Ruby for an irrelevant subject he already talked ’bout, & then goes on to talk ’bout other technologies that don’t use Ruby — 1 being C++, which he implied earlier was a ridiculous choice for web development. I guess he’s saying that lots o’ people use obscure ( well, for web development, if we’re including C++ ) programming languages to make web programs, so you should use Ruby, ’cause… ¿it’s a special not-all-that-obscure language?

He then says this:

Since no two Web apps are exactly alike, one should learn from battle-hardened experience of successful Web apps, rather than proclaim one technology is superiorly scalable than another.

But it seems that the “battle-hardened experience” indicates that some languages do scale better than others & that one should learn from the mistakes o’ Twitter & think ’bout scaling issues before it becomes a problem.

10. It’s a lot harder to find experienced Ruby developers in today’s market

“¡There’s fewer workers to exploit!”

¿Aren’t these programmers talking? ¿Why would a programmer complain ’bout a smaller supply? ¿Are they that ignorant o’ economics? “¡I’ll have fewer people to compete with! ¡That’s awful!”

That’s actually true, depending on where you are in the world. In Israel, for example, where .NET and PHP are more widely used, finding good Ruby developers is harder.

The true source o’ all the strife ’tween Israel & Palestine is that Israelis are ASP-fanatics, but Palestinians are hard-core Pythonistas.

I’m quite sure PHP & .NET are the most widely used all o’er the world. Ruby isn’t e’en close. That’s ’cause PHP comes embedded in Apache, the standard for Unix servers, & .NET is Microsoft’s pet, & we always need to leave room for their useless shit.

But, you know what? It’s also harder to find experienced Javascript developers.

( Laughs. ) ¿What? You literally know nothing ’bout JavaScript, ¿do you?

For fuck’s sake, you can’t e’en spell its name correctly.

In my mind, that’s a clear indicator that a certain segment of the market is in demand, and is on the rise, which is definitely a good thing.

This literally means nothing: “To me, that means some vague this is doing well. The fact that some things are doing well is certainly good”.

He then basically tries to say that there are mo’ experienced Ruby developers ’cause they’re smarter than PHP developers, which I doubt, but OK. If anything, developers would need to be smarter to work through PHP’s nonsense. But calling PHP’s documentation “fragmented” is ironic, since it’s commonly known that Ruby’s documentation is terrible & that documentation is the 1 thing PHP did well. E’en fans o’ Ruby admit it.

So, instead of shying away from a good thing because it’s hard, why not train Ruby developers yourself? I mean, if you agree it’s the right technology to use, why not invest in it?

¡But you’ve yet to prove that Ruby is a good thing! If this were a debate class, you’d fail terribly.

¿& weren’t you saying that Ruby is easier than PHP? ¡Gah! ¡Logic! ¡BOOM!

So… the take’way is that Ruby’s advantage is that it’s faster & easier for programmers, e’en if it’s less efficient, computer-wise… but there’s a good chance I’ll need to invest extra money & time into learning it, & is actually hard, but a good thing.

Pretty long article to just say, “Well, I like Ruby, so fuck you”.

I don’t know why we’re having all these debates. Everyone knows the best programming languages are C & Lisp, & that everything else is crap. But we still have to use C’s dipshit nephew, C++; C++’s douchie brother, Java; Java’s ultra-douchie younger cousin Ruby; idiot-savant JavaScript; & that alcohol-fetal-syndrome victim, PHP, ’cause we’re too stupid to understand C, & Lisp isn’t useful for making anything actually productive, ’cept for academics & shitty Yahoo e-stores. Better to be bitching ’bout not being able to use Ruby or Haskell or Brainfuck or whatever in 50-100K-a-year jobs than worrying ’bout losing a finger on the cutting machine used to make 1K a year.

’Sides, languages are ne’er based on logic, but just arbitrary history & popularity. ¿Will this guy try telling me that English is the most common language in the world — & the lingua franca o’ the programming world — ’cause ’twas well-made? ( ¡Just stop bitching & learn Esparanto already! )

Also, ¿don’t you hate those pushy listicles with titles that say something ’long the lines o’, “Why you need to do this thing right now”. Fuck you. I’d trust my plumber to teach me anything, e’en technological, ’fore I’d trust some idiot who writes listicles.

Strange Fun Fact ’bout Ruby

In 1 o’ my many waking comas where I’d just think ’bout random subjects for hours without e’en realizing it ’stead o’ doing anything productive I came up with this bizarre idea o’ a C++ / Ruby lovechild called “Crystal”, which would purportedly have the elegance o’ Ruby & the efficiency o’ C++.

Then I happened to notice “Crystal” in the list o’ languages in my notepad program & looked it up the find out, not only does it exist, but it pretty much fits my C++ / Ruby idea, as well.

They were right when they said people were spying on me…

Comprehensive Beginner Guide to Choosing a Web Host

O, fun. I can already guess what I’m going to get from this: those luscious affiliate links. Since every host review on the planet has affiliate links—e’en those that criticize corrupt web host reviews, ironically—I can only imagine that a website as corrupt as 1st Web Designer’s jumping into the money bag, too. Well, let’s dive in like Scrooge…

In fact, I’m just going to skim ’head, just to… Wait, ¿What?

Things You should NOT Consider when Choosing a Web Host

Phh, “Listen to 1st Web Designer,” ¿amirite?

No. That’s not a word. I’m sick o’ your linguistic blasphemy.

Read Reviews Online Using Google Search

¿Huh? Mmm… Well, on 1 hand, it’s a bit hypocritical, considering how many times I see 1st Web Designer litter my Google searches. But, it’s not bad advice.

Yes, all of those links are affiliates, wherein each sale pays a small fee to the recommending site. Drupal.org is just one example – all across the internet, hosting reviews are all about affiliate links. This is why certain firms score well in hosting reviews (owing to heavy affiliate commission), but fare badly in overall user service.

…

Huh. Well, I can only wait breathlessly for the ironic—

Yes, that’s right. While the allure of earning big bucks by getting others to click on links is tempting, we have ensured that this article is totally unbiased – this article does not contain affiliate links because we know and appreciate the importance of a proper web host.

…

(Scours page for hours. Can’t find any affiliate links.)

All right, 1st Web Designer: you’ve got me. After your vaguely corrupt recommendation for “CONVERTING” websites, wherein one just cobbles together whatever free shit one can find online when “making” sites for clients, rather than actually doing your job, you’re the only site that talks ’bout web host recommendations that doesn’t take affiliate links.

&, ¿what the fuck? I just noticed: this article not only talks ’bout what the title promises, it starts talking ’bout the topic immediately & doesn’t stray into irrelevant topics for mo’ than half o’ the article.

There’s only 1 explanation: 1st Web Designer made this article just to screw with me. They know I’m making fun o’ their articles & wrote a competent article just to make me look stupid. Get out o’ my monitor.

O well, I’m sure their advice is dumb, anyway.

Everyone knows what shared hosting is, VPS, and reseller hosting packages.

If this article weren’t given the same mysterious author o’ “Editorial Team” as all the other articles, I’d insist that this article must be written by somebody other than the person who thought Photoshop was a programming language. Nope. That’s some knowledge dissonance.

E’en mo’ hilarious, I looked up that link & found that it goes to a completely different page—1 with a title that actually indicates what they’re talking ’bout, & which is, in general, actually competent. Granted, its info is rather vague, & it still has dumb images, including some dumb meme pic; but compared to the original, this is like Sonichu to Gunnerkrigg Court. Way to ruin my fun.

On the other hand, a’least some o’ the info they gave was rather insightful: I had no idea till now that US Speaker o’ the House moonlighted as 1 o’ Marketslide’s (¡Wheeee!) founders. ¿Or is that Paul Xavier? Either that guy’s worried that he might hurt his company by being linked to whatever controversy might be involved in political issues or he just likes to consider himself to be a renegade angel. That’s OK, their company name can’t seem to make up its mind, either: while most o’ the site calls it “Marketslide,” (¡Wheeee!) the title bar @ the top says “Market Slide.”

Speaking o’ which, I can’t tell what they’re selling, since I’m only Level 2 in my Buzzwordese classes, I can only assume by their header @ the top that they sell gorgeous sunset mountains.

Just in case you don’t, simply do a Google search!

O, yeah, we were reviewing an article.

I do have to bicker ’bout this, though: in the time it took you to type that, you could’ve quickly found some links to Wikipedia & put them there. I find it hard to believe that someone could find this article, but not figure out how to search for something on Google, ’specially since Google is most likely how they found this article in the 1st place. (1st Web Designer certainly seems to be aiming its content toward SEO.)

(Yawn.) In general, this article has competent info: it talks ’bout the gotchas you need to watch out for, such as “unlimited” bandwidth & disk space; it talks ’bout the importance o’ what one plans to do with one’s website, such as how big it’ll be, & how that affects what choice is best; & talks ’bout CDNs.

Also, ¿what’s up with “v/s” used when talking ’bout bandwidth & disk space? ¿What was wrong with “vs.”? ¿What kind o’ weirdo just randomly spells words ’nother way & uses strange punctuation like that?

Ugh. Low-hanging fruit. Like making fun o’ The Room or the “Realist Left.” Let’s get this o’er with.

& what do you know, my 2 favorite writers ’bout writers are @ the top o’ Google’s shitty search:

Fucking fun.

SmartBlogger’s 27 Ways to Lose Your Dignity

O, fuck. Ne’er mind. I’m thinking o’ Problogger, not CamelFuckingCaseAsIfIt’sAFuckingJavaClass SmartBlogger. Sorry. They’re such memorable names that stand out so well, I have no idea how I made the mistake. This is ‘specially tragic after they took the time to change it from its ol’ name (as they bizarrely proudly proclaim under their bland logo), “boostblogtraffic.com”–presumably when they realized they could make mo’ money selling it to a domain scalper than off the blog itself.

Anyway, they’re the 1st article, & it’s truly “outside the box,” as you unhip kids say today. It doesn’t teach you how to cure writer’s block, but to “crush” it, with Math.floor( Math.random() * 100 ) + 1 techniques. & to demonstrate this so well, the article has a painting o’ a fist punching the fuck out o’ a stack o’ keyboards. Oops. Now you’re truly writer’s blocked, bud, since now you can’t write shit ’cause you stupidly destroyed all your means o’ typing, jackass. Maybe you’ll think o’ something on your drive to the local PC store to buy a new keyboard.

Let me guess…

You’re staring at the blank screen. Your brain is fried. You can feel a headache coming on.

Everything here’s right but the “staring at a blank screen” part, since I’m obviously reading your text–though I s’pose you could call it blank in essence.

Anyway, the techniques they give are basically all, “Act like a jackass,” in various ways. It’s the 2.0 version o’ those list books full o’ whatever random shit the authors came up with that Seanbaby made fun o’ (ironically, on a website full o’ list articles…):

1. Develop Schizophrenia

2. Do what I’m doing in this article.

Also, I question their claim that “you can correct mistakes in a passionate piece of writing, but you can’t add emotions to a flat post. So let it rip.” Flatulent blog posts are the rudest.

3. Distract yourself dicking round with computer programs–the opposite o’ what most advisors say.

4. “¿How about a drinky poo?” (Ziggy saying)

& that doens’t e’–

Wait, wrong article.

4. Ah, here we go: take up space on public transit for no reason.

5. Drink coffee, e’en though it’s apparently bad for you, but you should take it, anyway. Good, I like this: punishment is the best tool.

6. The 6th advice is to stop writing something… which they aren’t doing, anyway, since they have writer’s block. ¿Did you forget the point o’ your article already?

7. Stop pl–¿Who the fuck writes outlines for a blog post? ¿& how would that be any different from the article itself, since they’re almost all just #’d lists, anyway?

8. “Surprise Yourself” 😉 I was sure surprised by the big white space where an image that didn’t load was s’posed to go. Maybe you should add, “Distract yourself by actually learning how to use your blog software ‘stead o’ using it like an orangutan bashing its fists on the keyboard–¡damn it, you broke it ‘gain! ¡Back to Re-PC!” onto the list.

9. I love this 1: if you find you can’t use your alloted time to write anything useful, do it ‘nother time. But this presumes that the person doesn’t have infinite time, & thus is limited in this case. Otherwise, writer’s block wouldn’t be much o’ a problem: just wait & have patience. This “advice” is a round’bout way o’ avoiding the problem in total.

Actually, that’s all o’ this advice, truly.

10. Nope. Fuck you, you lost me. This is the same as “Take up space on public transit for no reason,” but with different words.

¿Couldn’t e’en make it to 10? You’ll ne’er make it on Letterman’s retired show. You’ll ne’er make it on Neglected Mario Characters’s equally-reputable top-10 lists.

Goins To Sell You Begged Questions for Paper

Goins wins an award for pissing me off so early on his shitpile o’ ads, with some vapid editorial text sprinkled on. The whole site is 1st covered by an ad for some free guide, which is clearly just a ‘scuse to get me email to sell to advertisers. I also love the vagueness–totally not intentional–involved in “100K readers in 18 months?” ¿Does he mean getting 100,000 readers in 18 months, or just 5,555 per month?

After withstanding that ad, we have mo’. 1st we get some spyware-seeming “notification” from PushCr–¡damn it, there’s ‘nother! I just looked back & saw ‘nother had popped up. This is almost self-parody by this point.

All right, after clicking “NO” a billion times, we finally get to the actual conte–I’m kidding: the slush.

A’least he didn’t bother with some obnoxiously zany title, but kept it to the simple, albeit redundant, “14 Tricks that Work.” I’d sure fucking hope they work if you bothered to write ’bout them; though I admit that writing a list o’ solutions to a problem that one acknowledges up-front don’t work would be creative.

But then we’re talking ’bout Goins™®©, so that’s out the chute.

My favorite part o’ his “tricks” is that some o’ them contradict others. In 1 he says one should “avoid distractions,” but then he advises you to play with LEGOS–truly an important step in the writing process, right up there with prewriting & roughing.

¿& why does this racist think I don’t listen to classical or jazz music already–that I need to mix it up? I don’t need to mix any shit up, punk. As the wise Lord Keynes said, “So please just f*ck off if all you can do is insult me like this, because I am not going to be slandered by anybody.” Get your voice out o’ this text, you witch–¡Out!

He follows this trite list with an equally-trite list o’ how not to. This includes the nonsense entry, “watching TV.” So I can get inspiration from reading books & playing fucking LEGOS, ¿but getting ideas from… TV? ¡Phhh! ¿Who e’er learned good writing from such shoddy tripe as Breaking Bad or The Twilight Zone (Look, I’m a bad defender for TV, since I lost mine years ago when I broke it trying to jump into it, all right) when you could read inspirational quotes?

O, but he’s saved the “fail-proof solution” for last–the 1 you don’t want to hear, man, ’cause it’s too fucking radical for you squares. Well, I’m not ‘fraid Goins. ¡Let’s smash the capitalism o’ writer’s block once & for all & uphold the dictatorship o’ the literati once & for all!

You overcome writer’s block by writing.

All the balloons pop.

In the spirit o’ these articles, let me offer 3 reasons why nobody wants to hear this advice:

1. Everyone’s already heard it a million times.

2. It’s begging the question–the true definition.

3. It doesn’t fucking work.

When people have writer’s block, they’re not barred from writing anything. Anyone can write “poop scoop” a thousand times. The point is that they have a goal, they have standards—a foreign word to Goins. They realize that writing whatever garbage comes to their mind is just as useless as not writing–e’en moreso, actually, since it distracts attention from other ways o’ getting ideas & gives one finger cramps.

¿You know what these lists ne’er have as an answer? (Admittedly it’s not a great answer, either; but it’s better than all these) “Stop writing & start thinking for once.” But then, I don’t think there’s much thinking going on ‘hind any o’ these articles. Too busy playing with LEGOS & riding buses like you’re god damn Wesley Willis–& you’re not god damn Wesley Willis, so just knock if off right now.

But don’t worry: Goins admits there’s a tiny flaw with his advice & adds a “caveat”:

(One caveat: This technique only works if you’re truly blocked and not “empty,” which is an entirely different matter altogether.)

Nowhere does he specify how I might discern whether I’m “blocked” or “empty”–& the fact that he puts scare quotes round that 2nd word himself shows that he probably doesn’t e’en know, either. This fucker’s probably laughing it up the ass as he posts these, knowing it’ll pollute the Google stream like soda-can connectors–& I’m just standing here with a tear slowly falling down my face. No dignity.

Top 10 Things Jay Does When He Gets Writers [sic–O, ¿Who am I kidding? It’s NC; we’ll be here all day] Block While Trying to Update NC

Hey, wait a minute: this wasn’t in Google’s search.

Well, it should’ve been.

In all its misspelled glory:

10. Has imaginary conversations with Luigi (Luigi: No you don’t. Jay: Sure I do. All the time. Don’t deny it. Luigi:(sigh) What a loser.)
9. Plays Super Mario Bros. 3
8. Mows the lawn and waits for a jolt of inspiration.
7. Stares blankly at the computer screen until he realizes that its a week later, in which case he becomes in more trouble.
6. Throws something together at the last minute. (I’ll put a new picture up. It looks like I updated.)
5. Skims through old NP magazines for ideas. Tip: This never works.
4. Decides to give up NC and start a new life without the internet. Sucsess rate: O%.
3. Goes through e-mail consisting of threats such as “Update NC now, you idiot!” or “Pokemon rules, you moron!”
2. Puts some of the spotlight on Kyle, who NEVER updates.
1. Doesn’t update NC.

10: Here we see that the venerable Jay Resop/Resup/Reesop/Respo came up with the schizophrenia idea long before that plagiarist SmartBlogger.

6: & thus “NC Shorts” was born.

4: In hindsight, this was much mo’ “sucsessful” than he thought.

3: Ugh. I agree entirely with his disdain. When I get threatening email ’bout Pokémon I expect them not to be gauche ‘nough to leave out the accented E.

2: Yeah, ¿what the fuck, Kyle? You haven’t written anything since November 11 this year. That was ages ago.

1. This is legitimately the best solution to writer’s block–¡guaranteed success!

Honorable Mentions:

World of Psychology

Glad to see that this is as important a psychological problem as schizophrenia–probably ’cause it induced it in the idiots who took SmartBlogger’s advice.

Then ‘gain, this website also seems to have “quizzes,” so I doubt it’s particularly reputable. Either way, just to be sure, I did take their advice to buy their Pelennor Dust to snort, which apparently cures my self-hurt fetishes (if this article wasn’t already evidence to that).

Purdue OWL

¿What? ¿Aren’t you guys, like… prominent? That’s like Strunk & White offering writer’s block advice.

It’s the same advice as everyone else, but with less stupidity. Just read this in like a minute & ne’er waste your time on these articles e’er ‘gain.

& just to contradict myself…

J. J. W. Mezun’s Patented Writer’s Block Cure

1. Masturbate to anime porn.
2. Smash your face onto your desk. If you don’t have a desk, buy 1, & then do this step.
3. Make bad blog posts ’bout bad blog posts ’bout writing, economics, video games, suicide, web design, & yuppie tripe.
4. Do drugs.
5. Whine ’bout your problems to everyone on the internet.
6. Masturbate to GAP catalogues.
7. Get a fucking job, you slob.
8. Have a personal trauma happen so that your writer’s block problems pale in comparison.
9. Masturbate to Walt Whitman poetry.
10. Suicide.
11. Make imaginary Wikipedia pages for imaginary political classes.
12. Play Super Mario Bros. 3.
13. Masturbate out o’ sheer frustration.
14. & last, but not least: smash capitalism. If you can’t get interesting ideas for what to write ’bout from experiencing a good ol’ communist revolution, then you’re creatively hopeless.*

*Caveat: this trick doesn’t work if you end up getting killed in said communist revolution or purged by the succeeding regime.

¿Do you have any tricks you use to help you through writer’s block? Yeah, well not everything’s ’bout you, you know.

The problem with feel-good ideas is that there’s usually a lack o’ standards applied to them, which encourages mindlessness like lead poisoning. This is ‘specially the case with a raw issue like suicide, a complex issue that has no easy rational answers, & yet has extreme consequences.

It’s quite easy to puke out irrational answers, but I doubt it’s easy to actually help someone with them, e’en if you put the pound sign before some mess o’ words mashed together to noncomprehensibility (I love how the internet is making us go backward in terms o’ linguistic development by making us forget how to use spaces). I already mentioned in a previous article wherein I seriously discuss this issue by making fun o’ a teenager’s 1st poem that proves the inherent badness o’ suicide with the famed “Missed Sunset Theory,” wherein I question the effectiveness o’ telling someone thinking o’ suicide, “Duh, don’t do it. Life’s sunny” & passing the buck to suicide prevention hotlines (which was the most effective, actually) & argued that talking ’bout suicide as a single issue was probably futile & only fed this abstraction to the point o’ mindlessness that makes anti-suicide rhetoric so useless.

¡But look @ how my prayers have been answered! Some shadowy figure named YOU’RE NOT FINISHED–whose name sounds mo’ threatening than calming: “DON’T YOU DARE COMMIT SUICIDE. YOU’RE NOT FINISHED. YOU GET RIGHT BACK HERE YOU SON O’ A BITCH”–offers a mathematically-tight proof that suicide is no good, man, in an article full o’ too many insipid Twitter hashtags for me to type here without needing to commit suicide myself in consummate shame:

I have heard (more than I ever want to) from some that suicide is freedom. Suicide is death, so that means if suicide is freedom, death is freedom (according to the math).

Actually, that’s a logical fallacy. Based on that same logic, we can prove that Stevie Wonder is god by showing the Stevie Wonder is blind, & love is blind, & God is love; therefore, blind is God, & thus Stevie Wonder is god.

I could also point out that to call this “math” stretches the definition o’ “math,” which is only 1 definition mangled here. Clearly YOU’RE NOT FINISHED is assuming that “is” means “equals,” & not “is 1 o’ potentially many examples o’,” as it’s clearly used here. It’s also true that murder is death, but no one would call that freedom. When people call suicide “freedom,” they’re focusing on the choice o’ death, the part that distinguishes suicide from other types o’ death. Hence why they say “suicide is freedom” rather than simply “death is freedom.”

Let’s unpack that for a second. To make sure I got this right I looked up the definition of freedom, knowing that word is objective. It can be interpreted to mean so many things to so many people. Three definitions stood out to me most:

Well, you failed there, unfortunately, before you e’en got to this point, & hereafter. Your “knowledge” that the word “freedom” “is objective,” for instance, is quite wrong. Anyone who knows anything ’bout language knows that it’s all, by nature, made up & therefore has no objectivity. “Objectivity” comes from concrete nature, not from people’s minds. That’s why it’s called objectivity–the focus is that it is a concrete object that can be sensed.

Notably, too, YOU’RE NOT FINISHED finished this paragraph wherein they claimed to look up the definition o’ “freedom” without bothering to provide a source, & then admits that the definitions they chose were simply those that “stood out” (can be used to back up the conclusion they already want to decide).

1) the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or physical restraint
2) exemption from external control
3) personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery

Note that these definitions are so vague (& to some extent simply repeats the word in a different way) that it could apply to any possible existence, making true freedom impossible. Only the 3rd entry is concrete ‘nough to be meaningful & it’s, tellingly, quite an open definition: pretty much every modern person in the western world would fall under that definition.

But that’s digression. Let’s look @ YOU’RE NOT FINISHED’s brilliant “math” theory:

When you die, you are confined to a coffin.. [sic] […]

Actually, your body is. By definition, if one’s dead, one doesn’t exist.

[…] subjected to people’s perception of you… […]

That’s true o’ being ‘live, too. Mo’ importantly, nowhere in the aforementioned definitions o’ freedom is there anything ’bout controlling other people’s perceptions o’ oneself. That would, ironically, be a violation o’ their freedom o’ thought.

[..] not at liberty to change and better your circumstances or live out your purpose.

Uh O: they’re breaking out into poem. I can already see the sunsets coming.

I don’t think I’d consider “better your circumstances” or “live out your purpose” to be precise ‘nough to be useful for a “mathematical” theory. Also, the rhetoric they use, putting the word “at liberty to” before it, could be used for anything. Indeed, that’s what that word-salad poem I made fun o’ before did:

• You’re not @ liberty to pick what song to play on the radio,
• you’re not @ liberty to pick your nose clean o’ snot,
• you’re not @ liberty to clean out your garage,
• you’re not @ liberty to kill yourself

(Note: that last 1 is actually a serious point–that “suicide is freedom” is self-contradictory, since suicide, ironically, eliminates one’s ability to commit suicide. [Granted, such logic would eliminate almost all freedoms, given the inevitable permanence o’ one’s actions, leading me back to my belief that nothing’s “free”] ‘Course, YOU’RE NOT FINISHED doesn’t bother with such technical nonsense, ’cause it’s clear that they don’t understand basic logic & would rather puke out flowery cliches ‘stead.)

[…] Not free to love and be loved. […]

Like these. Note that the freedom “to be loved” hinges on someone else, & thus the only way to ensure it is to eliminate someone else’s freedom.

[…] You’re gone. […]

(Laughs.) & ‘gain we see someone momentarily hitting a ’bout o’ self-awareness & admitting that their nonsense is helping no one, & thus anyone suicidal ‘nough to need to read this is probably doomed, anyway. Mo’ like YOU ARE FINISHED, ¿amirite?

All of those definitions, even the other two I did not list, […]

Wait, wait, wait: hold on. ¿What other 2? ¿Why aren’t you listing them? ¿Why bring up something that you refuse to e’en tell us? ¿Are you Fermat? ¿Did you prove the Theory o’ Suicide’s Badness, but ran out o’ room in the margin o’ your blog post to type it out?

[…] imply that you have to be alive to experience freedom which means that death could not possibly equal freedom in any circumstance, no matter who you are.

Literally the only example YOU’RE NOT FINISHED–god that’s a stupid name; it’s e’en dumber than “Careerealism” & “Post-Keynesianism”–that is relevant to the listed definitions is the 1st 1 ’bout being stuck in a coffin, which relies on the assumption that someone who choses to leave any consciousness or awareness o’ their body cares what happens to their body afterward, which is doubtful.

& now that I think ’bout it, you could just choose to have your body cremated or e’en frozen. So e’en the assumption that suicidal people have no control o’er their body after they die is obviously false.

This is like the “neoclassicalism” o’ suicidology–& just as useless for curing depression.

Before you read

Warning: The next paragraph is a trigger warning. If you are an anti-SJW who is offended by the intolerable political correctness imbued in trigger warnings, you should avoid reading the next paragraph.

Trigger Warning: as the title indicates, this article makes quite a few dark jokes ’bout suicide, some o’ which sarcastically treat suicide in a lighter manner than normal society might, exploiting said incongruence for comedic sake. If you are depressed or suicidal & might be pushed off the edge o’ despair @ the shamefulness o’ some internet jagoff wasting time scrutinizing some poem nobody e’en cares ’bout ‘stead o’ doing anything productive, or just have good taste & don’t want to read it, anyway, you might want to not read it & play Wario Land 3 ‘stead, ’cause it’s great. If you’re depressed or suicidal & find jokes ’bout suicide hilarious, please enjoy.

& as for you fucking normies–you can read, but I’ve got my eye on you. Watch yourself.

Read

It’s good to see that modern humans haven’t developed the self-awareness to not make the kind o’ poetic chicken slop for the insipid soul we thought we threw ‘way in the 19th century.

M. Norman @ some Garbage Bin 2.0 called “Odyssey”, who warns you that she’ll tell you the things you don’t want to hear, man writes a poem that doubles as a #-less list article ’bout what you’ll miss if you drink that kool-aid given to you by that nice but scruffy-bearded man leading the Healing Center you always look forward to on Thursday afternoons in the back alley.

Everything You Will Miss If You Commit Suicide

If this isn’t false advertisement, then I expect this to be the longest epic since, well, the true Odyssey–& just as redundant & banal.

But things fall apart right on the 1st line:

The world needs you.

Already we’re going gainst the theme o’ our poem. “The world needs you” is not a thing @ all, much less something that could be missed if one committed suicide. & if it could be missed, that would be a benefit: ¿who wants to be bossed round by some needy world?

You won’t see the sunrise or have your favorite breakfast in the morning.

But after that she finally gets to the things readers will miss if they do decide to dunk themselves in the Pacific with an anvil tied round their waists & for some reason look to random blogs for last confirmation–which presumably succeeded, since it only reminds readers that the only good thing they have in life is watching the same shit that happens every morn & eating diabetes-inducing sugar shards every day.

Instead, your family will mourn the sunrise because it means another day without you.

I picture in my head a whole family grouped together outside, shaking their fist @ the faceless sun falling ‘hind the horizon. “¡It’s all your fault, sun!”

I must confess, this poem did surprise me for once: I’ve ne’er heard o’ people becoming traumatized by the sun ’cause someone they loved ate their favorite breakfast, handgun bullets. There should be a million other tenuous connections they could make. After all, the moon’s appearance means ‘nother night without them; ¿why doesn’t the moon share any blame?

You will never stay up late talking to your friends or have a bonfire on a summer night.

Then we find a reader who has no friends & ne’er did anything nearly as exciting as setting fire in the middle o’ wildlife on summer nights who is only further reminded o’ the pathetic waste that is their dreary life. Great going, Norman.

You won’t laugh until you cry again, or dance around and be silly.

She tried but misses her mark here. See, she sees that the demographic @ which she’s aiming are oft mentally ill, but fails to realize that these are the things that they want to stop doing. If she truly wanted to sell this “not suicide” thing, she ought to threaten them with such emotional & muscle spasms 20 fold if they guzzle down that whole bottle o’ sleeping pills.

You won’t go on another adventure. You won’t drive around under the moonlight and stars.

¿Are these aimed @ real humans or video game characters? See, ’cause most adult humans don’t do these things ’cause they have these things called responsibilities. Yeah, I can see that it’s much easier to love life when one has ‘nough money from the money fairy or inheritance, apparently, to screw round wasting climate-ruining gas just to watch the night sky.

Man, fuck saving the life o’ this hypothetical reader, the wasteful dipshit. Hey, there’s this li’l thing called walking, asshole. ‘Less you’re an amputee or have severe obesity, you have no ‘scuse. & e’en then, you could just take a single step outside. It’s not like the stars are only in 1 specific place in town.

They’ll miss you. They’ll cry.

(Glances in all directions.) ¿Who’s they? ¿Why are they paying me so much notice?

You won’t fight with your siblings only to make up minutes later and laugh about it.

I won’t either way ’cause the siblings I might’ve had all died in still-birth. Thanks for opening that wound, asshole.

You won’t get to interrogate your sisters [emphasis mine] fiancé, when the time comes.

¡You won’t get to live out your incest/bondage/polygamy fetish!

You won’t be there to wipe away your mother’s tears when she finds out that you’re gone.

¡& now you’re reminding me that my mother died o’ cancer just last year! You just won’t stop till all my triggers are pulled.

You won’t be able to hug the ones that love you while they’re waiting to wake up from the nightmare that had become their reality.

Wait, so the suicidal person’s loved ones can have shitty lives, ¿but not that suicidal person themselves?

Hey, doc: I’m the one with the rope round my neck, not them. ¿Can I get some o’ the hugs for once maybe? ¿No? Well, I guess that just further shows how the world regards me… ¡SNAP! ¡PLYK!

You won’t be at your grandparents funeral, speaking about the good things they did in their life.

Well that’s no laugh. Nobody e’er wants to go to those boring things anyway–& certainly not with the stress o’ trying to write a speech that whitewashes Grampa Ben’s white supremacy & pedophilia ‘way without being too conspicuous.

Instead, they will be at yours.

Awesome. ¡Ha, ha! ¡Sucks to be you, suckers! ¡Have fun in your boring funeral while I’m all chillin’ in the void with Kurt Cobain!

You won’t find your purpose in life, the love of your life, get married or raise a family.

Under that there should be small print that says, “*Discovering purpose &/or love o’ life &/or acquiring marriage &/or family sometime during natural lifetime not guaranteed.”

I love how this poem assumes married people with kids ne’er commit suicide. “I already found my `soul mate’ & family; ¡now I just need to ‘scape those damn jackals! ¡Ahhh!”

You won’t celebrate another Christmas, Easter or birthday.

Maybe that’s ’cause I’m Jewish & I was born on Hitler’s birthday, asshole.

You won’t turn another year older.

Now that’s a good advertisement: O no, you won’t become saggy & weaker. ‘Cause we all know how much people love getting older.

You will never see the places you’ve always dreamed of seeing.

Um, ¿didn’t I already establish the awesome empty void o’ the underworld?

You will not allow yourself the opportunity to get help.

Hey, I don’t need your help: I can reach the bleach bottle all by myself, thanks. I’m not a li’l kid anymo’, mom.

This will be the last sunset you see.

(Laughs.) @ this point the poet gave up. “Fuck it, I already know I’m too stupid to e’en convince people not to destroy themselves. They’re pretty much already dead.”

You’ll never see the sky change from a bright blue to purples, pinks, oranges and yellows meshing together over the landscape again.

O, ¿you mean that li’l think called a “sunset”? Yeah, I think we already established that in the last line, Reverend Lionel Fantharp. ¿You hit your word goal yet so we can end this padding already?

If the light has left your eyes and all you see is the darkness, know that it can get better. Let yourself get better.

Wait, ¡but I’m already dead!

“Don’t worry: you still have 2 mo’ lives.”

This is what you will miss if you leave the world today.

I’m glad to see that this poem is written like an elementary-school book report, ending with a clunky restatement o’ the thesis.

This is who will care about you when you are gone.

“Yes, I totally, like, care ’bout you complete stranger–so much that I didn’t e’en bother to proofread this so as not to accidentally accuse you o’ incest.”

You can change lives. But I hope it’s not at the expense of yours.

“I hope you’re not like 1 o’ those dumb brave doctors who risk their lives in dangerous territories to help others’ lives. Let’s remember numero uno, after all.”

We care. People care.

¿Who’s “we”? ¿What people? ¡I’ll find you cappie spies!

Don’t let today be the end.

I agree: you should take a’least 3 days to plan your suicide so you do it right. Don’t be 1 o’ those lazy slobs who just blast a gun @ their face & just make themselves self-soiling vegetables.

You don’t have to live forever sad. You can be happy. It’s not wrong to ask for help.

Yes, I think we already established an alternative to living sad fore’er. I thought that was what we were trying to avoid.

¿Has any suicidal person e’er been convinced by this shit? “Woah, wait: ¿I can be happy?” Well, if random nobody posting grammatically-incorrect poems for free on content spewing blogs says so, it must be true. ¡All my problems have been solved now that I’ve been told that I can be happy & can get help without any evidence to back it up or explanation for how that might be done! ‘Course, whether anyone will or can help said suicidal person is up in the air–¡but details!

Thank you for staying. Thank you for fighting.

¿What kind o’ fucking poem ends by thanking the reader like it’s a god damn late-night talk show? Granted, ’twas kind o’ a struggle to read through this o’erly long sputter, so maybe you do owe me something.

& then we get this long info dump, full o’ cliches everyone’s already heard:

Suicide is a real problem that no one wants to talk about.

Yeah, it’s right up there with government corruption, liberal bias in the media, & how to not get blacklisted from jobs fore’er for having a smelly physical appearance.

I’m sure you’re no different.

¡Libel! As you can see, I have no problem discussing the subject o’ suicide with as much seriousness as this poet–not @ all.

There is no difference between being suicidal and committing suicide.

Other mind-blowing facts nobody’s talking ’bout: 2 + 2 = 4.

If someone tells you they want to kill themselves, do not think they won’t do it.

“Don’t trust those bastards for a second.”

Do not just tell them, “Oh you’ll be fine.” Because when they aren’t, you will wonder what you could have done to help.

“& won’t you feel like a complete shitheel–maybe e’en shitty ‘nough that you might deserve to put those trembling fingers o’ yours on those razor blades &–wait a minute…”

Sit with them however long you need to and tell them it will get better.

“Pester them & show you don’t truly care ’bout them by giving them the kind o’ insultingly inane happy talk you’d give a 3-year-ol’–presumably so that they become so uncomfortable that they’ll want to speed up the process & no longer burden you with their whining.”

Talk to them about their problems and tell them there is help. Be the help. Get them assistance.

“Insult their intelligence.”

Remind them of all the things they will miss in life.

“Guilt-trip them.”

Holy fuck it’s ’bout time this damn poem ended.

My favorite part: it’s a bunch o’ random happy bullshit, ala 1 o’ those shitty #’d list books, like Chicken Soup for the Soul, but it didn’t e’en rhyme or have meter or any thought put into style, cadence, assonance, or anything that makes a poem a fucking poem. This isn’t a poem: it’s lazy propaganda split into verse lines & called a poem.

Also, she ne’er mentioned not being able to play Wario Land 3, & she did say this was everything, so I’m going to assume I’ll still be able to play it in the afterlife void. That’s relieving.

Seriously, fuck this tripe. It’s not just that it’s inane; it’s clearly insincere. If this narcissistic asshole actually cared, she would’ve put a modicum o’ effort or detail. ‘Stead she just regurgitates cliches like a robot. This is ’bout as deserving o’ praise–which the poet clearly truly desires–as some ditsy celebrity sputtering, “Seriously, somebody’s gotta end poverty & shit. ¿Why isn’t anyone else caring?” & not actually doing jack shit or e’en devising concrete solutions.

I ask ‘gain: ¿how likely is it that someone is suicidal, but can be cured o’ that simply by saying without any evidence, “Things can get better”?

But then, the problem with all anti-suicide messages is that they’re too broad to be useful. It’s rare–possibly e’en nonexistent–for someone to just kill themselves purely for the sake o’ killing themselves. There’s virtually always ‘nother problem lurking ‘neath–problems too varied to answer in 1 li’l poem. & telling someone, “¡But you’ll lose that sexy sunrise!” is not the answer to any o’ them.

In a way, considering all suicides to be a single issue is a bit fallacious. After all, ¿do we truly want to lump together Nazi generals killing themselves to ‘scape war-crime trials with teens bullied in school? ¿What ’bout people in constant physical pain who will die o’ an incurable disease in a year, anyway? If 1 o’ these topics were chosen for a poem, & the problem was treated, seriously–not “Forget all that: think ’bout how cool the stars look, man”–then one might find a poem that isn’t completely devoid o’ intellectual content.

Addendum: ¿What is Odyssey?

¡Phhhh! Read this pretentious schlock:

Odyssey is a social discovery platform committed to democratizing content creation while personalizing discovery.

I love how they emphasize “democratizing content creation,” e’en though they do that no mo’ than any other blog system (&, since the website, as well as those other websites, is still privately owned, it doesn’t e’en truly do that). Quite the opposite, this website offers less control o’er the design & format o’ the blog than, say, WordPress, so it’s not e’en good @ that or “personalizing discovery.”

Honestly, just replace “Odyssey” with “the internet in general” & you have an equally accurate statement.

Launched in June 2014, Odyssey was founded to democratize the media business and elevate engagement […]

I’ve ne’er heard a mo’ milquetoast way o’ describing a communist revolution.

[…] by magnifying broader perspectives and facilitating deeper conversations in and about the world.

So, what they do is not block people outside the US from submitting content. That’s quite an accomplishment that most systems do automatically.

Distributing more than 50,000 pieces of content per month […]

#quantityoverquality.

Odyssey is built to capture the ideas of many and organically amplify those viewpoints to users around the world

OK, this literally makes no sense. ¿You “organically amplify” viewpoints to readers? ¿So you make viewpoints louder by making them fit together as a whole? ¿How does that work? It seems that absorbing viewpoints should make them stand out less, as the whole o’ them is emphasized ‘stead. By definition, if the whole is emphasized, then the pieces are not.

[…] using a hybrid model that incorporates the best aspects of social networking and publishing.

This has filler words: there’s no use in specifying that it’s “hybrid” when you later state that it’s a mix o’ 2 things; a mix o’ 2 things, by definition, is a hybrid.

Enabled by their proprietary technology, Odyssey’s “relevance engine” matches users with content they want to see […]

Translation: Odyssey has a search function.

allowing them to lead conversations and drive engagement for a highly authentic experience.

(Laughs) Yes, “driving engagement” through the “proprietary technology” o’ “relevance engines” does, indeed, doesn’t sound artificial @ all.

Our technology platform expands upon the traditional content model by fostering the creation, editing, distribution and consumption of world voices, while simultaneously amplifying them through organic social sharing.

Your “technology platform” expands upon the traditional model by doing exactly what they do. The only innovation is apparently that you allow people to eat other people’s voices, which is admittedly impressive & intriguing. I always wanted to know the taste o’ a raspy Scandinavian voice.

Marrying precise context with dynamic relevance […]

Here’s that liberal media going too far in their war on conservative values. Gay marriage wasn’t ‘nough; now they’re trying to push legalizing the marriage ‘tween abstract concepts. ¡The whole world is falling apart!

Odyssey is the only platform that allows people to seamlessly see and engage with different viewpoints on topics of interest to them from thousands of creators, all in one place.

Bullshit.

It’s clear that the writer o’ this has almost no knowledge o’ how the internet works. Every social media site or forum does this, stupid. You haven’t invented flying cars here, bud.

By providing its users with a 360° view of their interests […]

¡Ha, ha, ha! ¿So you offer viewpoints that are in the same position o’ their interests, but went in a pointless circle before reaching that point? So, ¿for a liberal would that be someone who starts to consider conservatism, but then by the end decide, nah, it’s stupid, liberalism is the smart viewpoint?

Odyssey expands their vantage point, fostering thoughtful conversation through its highly social and engaged community.

Well, I’m relived that this community is “highly social.” I hope Odyssey offers other such innovations–like wet water or round circles.

We reach more than 30M monthly users and growing, with more than 14,000 selectively chosen creators contributing to the platform.

Yeah, you didn’t selectively choose 14,000 people. Bullshit.

&, hey, I thought you were “democratized.” A tiny group o’ rich people selectively appointing people doesn’t sound like “democracy” to me.

O, ¿who am I kidding? That’s pretty much what “democracy” means in most countries, anyway.

We go down further, & then… ¡Ah!

Advertise With Us

Odyssey specializes in engaging display, native content, and video through our platform. We help brands to understand and engage with our audience at a national level, or with targeted location or topical reach. Because of our vast community of 12,000+ millennial influencers and content creators, we are able to help brands generate and access focus groups and insights from the very target audience they’re marketing to. The same power that a crowdsourcing platform enables in reflecting a diversity of perspectives and views can also be applied to generating a variety of native content and ideas to help your brand resonate with millennials.

Ah, now we see its true mission statement: fool a bunch o’ gullible people to make free content for them to profit off through ads, without giving said gullible people a slice o’ that money, despite doing all the work–also known as “exploitation.” Why one would want to go through the trouble o’ being “selectively chosen” so they can have the right to make things for someone else to profit off & get nothing for oneself when one could just as easily create one’s own blog & keep all the ad profits for oneself is a mystery for the millennium–but my prime hypothesis is that such people are idiots.

Still, I can’t doubt their skills in providing “focus groups and insights from the very target audience [brands are] marketing to.” I know ditzes posting mindless list poems ’bout why one shouldn’t commit suicide says a lot ’bout whether or not millennials like Coca-Cola. Maybe the marketers o’ cyanide pills will add sunset pictures to the packaging, thinking that sunsets are highly liked by the suicidal market.

Also, I wouldn’t be proud o’ being called “The Most Exciting Company […] Seen Since BuzzFeed.” ‘Cause nothing’s mo’ exciting than a website that posts lists o’ random shit someone came up with in a second.

Also, Ad Exchanger’s article, “How To Monetize Relevant And Engaging Content? Reward Creators,” might be mo’ relevant if you actually rewarded your creators in any way–other than telling them with a smile that they’re great.

AlleyWatch: “This NYC Start-Up Just Raised $25 To Do This For Millennials.” Thanks to NYC Start-Up’s parents for graciously offering them their monthly allowance to “do this” for millennials–& by millenials, they mean the NYC Start-Up’s stockholders, which consists o’ 1 guy, his siblings, & their cat. Also, ¿what’s this have to do with alleys, AlleyWatch?

You just need to look @ the name: 5 Writing Books That Have Made Me a Better, More Creative Writer.

Clearly they didn’t do a good job.

Unsurprising, ‘cept for King’s On Writing & Strunk & White’s Elements of Style, which everyone already knows ’bout, they’re vapid inspirational books–cheap forms o’ therapy for the ditsy middle class. I’m so glad I can buy a book that tells me it’s OK to write; I know when someone tells me, “Don’t let self-doubt stop you,” I immediately stop letting my self-doubt stop me, ’cause I’m a robot with no independent thought.

Ugh. Mo’ #’d lists. But this 1’s hilarious–‘cept for those god-awfully trite zany images–in that it completely lacks self-awareness.

Let’s hurry past the glaring but trite acknowledgement that this site’s name, “Rebel Circus,” is trying to hard to be random humor & lacks the self-awareness to use the word “rebel” to describe 1 o’ the million manufactured Buzzfeed wannabes pumped full o’ tacky ads ’bout weight loss. But let’s do please laugh @ the hubris in the line in the typical spam invite @ the bottom offering to send you “the stories everyone is talking about” (e’en though you can clearly get them without signing up)–& Not just ’cause this phrase is cliche to the point o’ meaning nothing to most people.

Anyway, let’s see this writer show us what they think is “socially retarded”:

1. You always hold the door open for people when there’s an awkward distance between you and them.

As opposed to meticulously measuring the distance ‘tween you & the other person to ensure that it precisely fits some imagined interval o’ proper distance–what all the normal people do, ‘course.

Nothing’s funnier than stick figures copied straight from The Oatmeal making exaggerated facial expressions that just make them look like they’re having aneurysms. That ne’er gets ol’–¡nope!

2. You hum along to elevator music that doesn’t exist when you’re in an elevator with a stranger.

It exists now, motherfucker, ¡I’m making it!

That’s not “socially retarded”; that’s just annoying, & something quite a lot o’ people do (e’en though it’s annoying). That’s like calling littering “socially retarded.”

3. You never know if you should handshake or fist pound, and you usually switch it up right in the middle. Thus, ruining everything.

Nobody does this. No one this socially incapacitated would e’en think to fist bump, so I think there’s clearly some research failures going on in this scientific treatise.

That said, I do sincerely like the high drama o’ the line, “Thus, ruining everything.” It’s the comma that makes it special–like a line out o’ the Bible.

4. You will think about something in your mind for a few minutes, then randomly burst out with your final thought. “That’s why I can’t stand TiVo!”

That’s also something nobody does, & is also something mo’ annoying than truly debilitating. I can’t see how this impairs someone so much that they truly have trouble surviving in the social world.

I love how the animated GIF that looks like it was made with the same technology from which Donkey Kong Country got its graphics (& wisely traded those silly extra colors that actual reality uses so they can show the character’s mouth move up & down a li’l–¡which is o’ utmost importance!) initially had its vitally important text covered by an ad–’cause there weren’t ‘nough o’ those. Honestly, considering how bad this content is, I don’t know why the whole site isn’t just ads. I can’t see how’d be any less entertaining, & it couldn’t hurt ad revenue, ‘least, & might e’en improve it. I’ve intentionally watched ads before. & honestly, that ad showing a picture that looks like it came from some Victorian softcore porn trying to entice me into reading info ’bout old-fashioned hygiene tactics that are “gross” interests me mo’, simply from bile fascination.

5. When you order food, you’re too embarrassed to ask them to repeat your order, and you just eat whatever you get.

Eh, fair ‘nough.

6. When you see someone you don’t know from far away, you practice your greeting about 14 times before you two meet. Only to say “hey what’s up!”

That must get mentally exhausting in crowded cities. OK, I can see this significantly hindering one’s ability to function in society.

‘Course, I’m skeptical o’ a socially debilitated person not, you know, just not interacting with someone they don’t know as much as possible–almost to the point that I think the writer just made this shit up in their head without e’en considering how it might actual work in reality… But nitpicks.

What’s much mo’ socially problematic is this SNES-quality animated GIF showing this bug-eyed woman glancing back & forth @ this mohawked guy giving somebody offscreen a blowjob. ¡Give some people privacy, Madame!

7. You trip over things, and begin to examine the culprit as if it was done on purpose.

I’m not e’en sure what that’s s’posed to mean. ¿You mean these people trip on a bottle o’ booze left on the curb & then stop & waggle their finger @ it, saying, “Naughty, naught, beer bottle.” That’s not socially inept–that’s just plain inept. I wouldn’t trust that person ‘lone with a can opener, much less in public.

It’s good to see that their best example was Rafari from The Lion King, in what was clearly a deleted scene from an earlier version wherein Simba’s the one who dies. Whether this would become a comedy o’ the problems Rafari’s social ineptness causes or a tragedy o’ the struggles o’ social ineptness, we’ll ne’er know.

8. Either that, or you laugh before anyone else does.

I actually took a break while this 1 loaded, so when I 1st read it I was confused. It seemed mo’ like the writer was the nutjob.

The irony is that most people who actually have social awareness know that the majority don’t give that many shits ’bout what other people do, whether they laugh a few seconds before others or anything else, ’cause we’re all narcissists who think mostly ’bout how we’re doing. It is, ironically, the people who focus so much on whether they laughed too early or too late that are probably the less socially adjusted.

I mean, ¿why talk ’bout that when you could talk ’bout this crazy fucker who just gets enraged by long brown hair taking up half his camera space?

¿Whence come these fucked up images, anyway? I’m mo’ interested in trying to imagine the process by which these videos were taken than these trite lines pooped out in seconds. ¿Was there a director somewhere offscreen telling this guy, “OK, now I need you to imagine your bowels suddenly imploded on themselves.”? ¿Or was there some convoluted logic that ‘scapes me that led this man to believe that expression he made emoted any kind o’ useful body language @ all?

9. Your Facebook statuses are literally never funny to anybody but you.

We can clearly see that this writer has a low bar for “socially inept to the extent o’ having serious trouble surviving in the social world.” That’s like calling the average person bad @ math regular ol’ “retarded.”

¿& why after all those crazy pictures before do we have this average person with a normal, if albeit plastic, smile with no text? ¿What’s socially inept ’bout this?

10. When you make eye contact with someone, and they catch you, you pretend like they’re eye sight is bad and they actually saw nothing.

I don’t know much ’bout social ineptitude, but I can say that 1 sign o’ regular ol’ ineptitude is writing shit that’s so grammatically bunch-fucked that it’s not e’en sensical. I think you’ve actually gone beyond “socially retarded” when you start pretending that other people are bad eyesights; those motherfuckers are just headlight-headed crazy.

11…

No… ¿What’s wrong with just 10? If it’s good ‘nough for Letterman, it’s good ‘nough for you uppedy bastards.

I think you’ve made your point quite well, brain-damaged Jerry Seinfeld: if you do anything slightly off… Well, let’s list it somewhere, ’cause we have filler to fill–¡Fill! ¡Fill! ¡Fill!

¿How do I keep stumbling on all this useless shit?

O, yeah: Google. Fuck you, Google. Maybe you should retire that whole web search thing you’re not very good @ anymo’ & focus mo’ on self-driving cars or other zany shit that I can’t e’en find by searching ’cause Google’s search sucks so much that it gives me websites that take fore’er to load & fill my browser with tacky pop-ups & chopped up into a million pages that take fore’er to load &, O god, just stop sucking websites, please.

I’m not e’en going to bother revising this article. If none o’ you idiots–I blame all o’ you, everyone collectively, like a good communist–can be bothered to make your websites halfway readable without the need for headache medicine, I don’t need to bother ensuring I didn’t make a typo on any o’ the HTML code for those zany upside down ?s or !s I used. You’re just going to have to figure out what “&iquestl” means.

Addendum:

Sorry, 1 last tangent to the list o’ many: check out Reddit’s patented triteness that somehow still stays amusing (I ought to do a bunch o’ articles on Reddit–it’d be much mo’ interesting than these filler farms). Summary: somebody narcissistically tells the whole world he thinks he’s socially inept for slight problems–which is, to be fair, quite socially inept in itself, since most people don’t go round advertising their personal problems to the public. The 1st reply diagnoses him with autism, ’cause that’s just what everyone has, I guess. No self-awareness from any.

I ‘specially loved this line from someone else:

Being socially retarded is understandable, these creatures behavior is quite the conundrum.

Beware o’ creatures behavior, everyone.

Due to the success¹ o’ my recent review o’ a review, I decided to do ‘nother o’ an e’en mo’ ridiculous review I read a while ago.

I read ’bout this book by a guy whose name, Moviebob, is vaguely familiar to me—I guess he’s ‘nother 1 o’ those video reviewers &/or Let’s Players—that is described in some places as being like a “Let’s Play” in written form—which, now that I think ’bout it, is actually Let’s Play in its original form, if one actually knows the history o’ its development @ Something Awful…

But this seemed to be a mo’ in-depth, descriptive version, which interested me. I actually experimented with the idea o’ creating haiku or poems or stories that try to depict video game levels in words. However, sites like Fangamer, where it’s sold, & Good Reads seem to rate the book rather lowly, which makes me wary to pay $8, ’cause I’m cheap.

I thought I’d try stand-‘lone reviews, since I for some reason thought they’d be mo’… I dunno, ¿high quality? I can’t imagine why, considering my low satisfaction with reviews from high-profile gaming websites, whether it be Jeremy Parish @ 1up showing the world he thinks Donkey Kong Country demands you to collect every banana to get 100% or some creep @ Destructoid dedicating an entire review o’ Shantae & the Pirate’s Curse to telling the whole world how much he likes to masturbate to a pixelated middle-eastern stereotype dance & li’l ’bout the actual game’s gameplay.

But this review makes those look like they were written by Roger Ebert… or, a’least a Roger Ebert that actually liked video games & respected them as art.

I don’t know whether I should’ve been tipped off 1st when I realized this website was named “Reaxxion” (Tip: if you want to look badass, don’t take techniques from Linkin Park) or the fact that the page opened with 1 o’ those o’erused popups that pretends its not a popup asking me to sign up to receive their junk mail—I mean, find out the ¡3 ways I’m being lied to by the lamestream media, man! & this truly is the “lamestream” media, ’cause only the most bored fucks in the world would give a shit ’bout media surrounding electronic toys (which is why I’m dedicating an article to it). Maybe it should’ve been the fact that the reviewer’s image is a hand holding a gun & a personal description, “Just a man who isn’t sure if he wants to save the Princess or watch the Kingdom burn.” I hope you’re strapped up for some ¡edgy shit, yo!

O, but lets get into the review itself:

In much the same way a T-bone steak can be hard to properly grill, this is a hard book to review.

(Laughs). There are a list o’ trite ways to open a review that make me instantly groan, & a simile or metaphor is right up there with a famous quote.

Just as a T-bone steak is really two smaller steaks, this book is really two smaller books in one.

I think the way to make this immensely arduous task o’ reviewing a book that is truly 2 smaller books would be to review the book like one would review 2 smaller books. I’d hate to see this guy try reviewing Super Mario All-Stars: “¡I don’t get it! It’s just 1 game, but then it’s got many games in it. ¡What insanity!”

But apparently his solution is to start with good ol’ ad hominem attacks. & this is where the review, for me, veered from the tedious sloppiness o’ most o’ the web to “¿What the fuck’s this reviewer’s problem?” ¿You know what I want to know most before I read a book ’bout Super Mario Bros. 3? “¿What’s the writer’s political views? ¿Are they idiotic?” (Note: reviewer doesn’t elaborate on how Moviebob’s political views are “idiotic”) “¿What’s their views on some random woman who made some videos ’bout video games & some random people who obsessively hate her?”

Nowhere does this reviewer e’er state that Moviebob’s political/feminist views play a large part in this book ’bout a video game in which an Italian plumber hops on turtles in a fungal realm with sapient hills & clouds, nor do any other reviewers. ¡I’m almost o’ the belief that they hardly show up @ all!² Which makes me wonder why this reviewer brought up the subject @ all.

But let’s give this reviewer credit: he didn’t let vaguely idiotic political views or vaguely shitty behavior toward people who don’t agree with them hurt his professionalism, so he admits that he liked “some of [Moviebob’s] videos.” Which videos, he doesn’t say, ‘course. The point is that he wants to emphasize how much he doesn’t let Moviebob’s unrelated political views affect how much he likes or dislikes a book ’bout Mario, which is, ‘course, why he brings it up constantly. ‘Cause logic.

All right, so we’re 3 paragraphs in, & no relevant info has been given. If this were 1 o’ those corrupt lamestream websites ’bout video games with those corrupt editors, they might ask the reviewer to cut out such filler. But let’s give this review a chance: e’en The Grapes of Wrath takes a while to get good.

In the first main part Bob goes through a rather short history of Mario. It’s decent but forgettable as it’s nothing a Mario fan, even a casual one, isn’t likely to know.

All right, so we have actual relevant analysis. Granted, it’s not a crime that’s bad ‘nough to be “disappointing,” since pretty much any book o’ this type would probably have something like this for completion’s sake.

& then it veers back into ad hominem. He calls it “cringe worthy [sic]” that Moviebob as a teen refused to accept that the Super Mario Bros. movie was shitty & that he was disappointed ’bout Yoshi’s Island establishing Mario & Luigi being born in The Mushroom Kingdom ‘stead o’ Brooklyn. Considering there are adults that still obsess o’er these things, I think Moviebob looks good in comparison.

The rest of this section really doesn’t have that much to do with Mario. He goes on to basically give a short life story. I for one didn’t care for this bait and switch on Bob’s part. Just because no one in their right mind would pay to read your autobiography doesn’t mean you need to sneak that crap into a book on Mario 3.

(Laughs.) Well, I, for 1, don’t care for your bait-&-switch: just ’cause no one in their right mind would e’en load the page for free to see you rant ’bout wimpy feminist dorks doesn’t mean you need to sneak that crap into a review ’bout a book on Mario 3.

I’m sorry: Moviebob’s “idiotic” political views do push themselves in, apparently, when he mentions being punished for badly reviewing The Passion of Christ. This discussion takes up ’bout a page—less than 1% o’ the book.

The reviewer says we should assume that ’twas Moviebob’s fault due to “shitty behavior” that still goes unexplained, but we shouldn’t assume that the people who received this “shitty behavior” from Moviebob that this reviewer elides to didn’t do something to deserve it.

I mean, if we wanted to get into ad hominem attacks, this is the worst website to do it on, considering how controversial its owner is. ¿Why shouldn’t I assume these people aren’t making up these stories o’ “shitty behavior” & aren’t just writing this as a hit piece gainst someone with a different ideology? Nothing like Big Rigs calling Sonic 2006 shit.

The problem is, unlike this review, Moviebob ne’er hides this “bait-&-switch”: the Fangamer description clearly states, “A history of the Super Mario franchise, and of the author’s own history growing up alongside the legendary series [emphasis mine].” & that’s exactly what he does: most o’ it is him (admittedly babbling tritely) ’bout his experiences growing up with Mario. It also only takes up ’bout a 4th o’ the book, while taking up the majority o’ this review.

I actually had mixed views ’bout the way Moviebob handled this book. I actually prefer the personal aspects, since they weren’t just an inferior version o’ the Mario Wiki. After all, the only thing that makes this book different from the millions o’ other works ’bout Super Mario Bros. 3 is the fact that it’s written by him. On the other hand… yeah, it does get a li’l self-pitying—though, ironically, for the opposite reason this reviewer gives. The truth is, looking @ Moviebob’s description o’ his life… he seems perfectly ordinary. His worst problems growing up were apparently having ADD, getting mediocre grades, & being looked @ as uncool as a kid. So, he’s basically like a million other middle class white nerds. ¡The scandal!

This reviewer, meanwhile, has the opposite view: he praises the bland encyclopedic parts, while expressing his disgust @ the fact that Moviebob mentions anything ’bout things that actual adults deal with, like dying grandparents or buying a house… which ironically makes Moviebob look like the normal adult & this reviewer look like the weird 1… ‘cept he’s the one calling the other weird. So, he’s not only stupidly reviewing a book ’cause he doesn’t like people who mention having dying grandparents, he’s also doing so with no self-awareness.

& then we have this:

What sort of mental state leaves a person so afraid of having a little downtime?

One that isn’t a lazy bum.

I’m reminded of that line from a song by Pink: “The quiet scares me cause it screams the truth.”

(Laughs). So deep.

& then we get the conclusion, where he states that the book’s only problem apparently is that Moviebob is a “self-righteous socialist asshole,” unlike a self-righteous MRA asshole, like him. I want you to keep this point in mind for the next few parts.

The key point:

When he’s actually on topic it’s a decent read, but when he’s describing the hot mess that is his life it’s terrible. And why wouldn’t his life be a mess? He’s a social justice warrior. The whole social justice philosophy is all about embracing loserhood.

¿Did I read the same book this reviewer did? ‘Cause if so, this reviewer is apparently so privileged that middle-class-raised media reviewers who have family members who die & who got mediocre grades & were looked down @ as “uncool” in school are “hot messes.” Man, if that’s what he thinks a “hot mess” is, he should meet some o’ the people I’ve known—& they don’t e’en whine as much ’bout their problems.

I’m sorry, but I can’t imagine an MRA, or anyone, writing a book ’bout Super Mario Bros. 3 & not look like a loser. If he wants to read ’bout badasses with guns for dicks who ride hearses made o’ $ million bills, Fangamer isn’t the place to look, bud.

I would almost, and I stress ALMOST, recommend this book to all my fellow nerds. It could inspire you. Inspire you to hit the gym, ask that cute girl you know out, go in for that promotion at work.

OK, ¿now what relevance does this have to Super Mario Bros. 3? You were complaining ’bout how this is a bad book ’bout Super Mario Bros. 3, ¿but recommend that he work out? That’s sort o’ like how I become better @ reviewing rock music by entering hot-dog-eating contests. Maybe if this reviewer spent less time “hitting the gym,” as he claims, & returned to high school to learn how to construct coherent ideas he could write a better review.

I want to remind you that this reviewer criticized Moviebob for being “self-righteous” while anal-retentively scrutinizing him for not sharing specific personal interests that are completely irrelevant to the book he’s reviewing—¡’cause that’s totally tolerant & e’en-minded! That’s kind o’ like how I only read books written by people who have Black Sabbath on their MP3 playlist.

After all, you don’t want to end up like Movie Bob do you?

Wait, ¿is the crux o’ his review that this book is bad ’cause Moviebob’s fat? ¿Is that why he needs to “hit the gym”? ¿So the reviewer doesn’t have to imagine a fat guy tapping fingers on a keyboard whenever he reads this? Man, I’d hate to see his review o’ The Game o’ Thrones.

So, after… that, I was so intrigued by what a peculiar mess this review was & looked up this site & saw that it’s pretty much a half-assed “moral substitute” to the evil “liberal-biased” video game media that claims to be “fair-&-balanced,” while being e’en mo’ biased & worse than the mainstream. ¿Rememeber when Kotaku dedicated an entire review o’ a video game to how terrible ’twas ’cause its creator had a penis? ¿Remember when 1up panned a game ’cause its developers went bowling on Sundays.

But we’re not done laughing: this website has a set o’ community commandments that members o’ the cult must chant if they want to be allowed to write for such a prestigious establishment. I can only imagine that the writers here then go on to bitch ’bout violations o’ “freedom o’ speech” when other websites ban them from other places for infringing those places’ community rules.

1. Men do not become more violent, sexist, or racist because they play video games.

They’ll have to add the exception, “’less they’re drunk,” since I have an unquestionable counter example in that case.

I can’t be surprised that people who can’t spell “reaction” properly can’t understand the thinnest slice o’ subtlety & can’t tell the difference ‘tween a video game having bigoted content & magically making people bigoted. Based on that logic then, the fact that there are people who read Mein Kampf & didn’t transform into antisemites proves that Mein Kampf isn’t bigoted @ all.

Gamers should not be shamed for a hobby that does not cause harm to others.

Well, ‘less it makes them fat or have dying grandparents, or they like that hobby so much that they care ’bout the origin stories o’ them. Then they should be shamed immensely.

2. Video games are a form of entertainment that should be free of heavy-handed propaganda or ideology.

Well, damn, I guess I can’t like any World War II game or just ’bout any JRPG. ¡Damn Square & their attempts to brainwash our kids into believing in hope in a post-apocalyptic world!

3. Video game journalism should not use its influence to change or manipulate the nature of games against the wishes of the gaming public.

“Game reviews should not review games.” That’s kind o’ like that corrupt asshole, Roger Ebert, always pushing his biased opinion ’bout what movies I should watch. Um, ¿how do we objectively determine the wishes o’ the vague abstract concept known as the “gaming public”?

Um, ¿what ’bout when you said that “Parasite in City is a Great H-Game that is Full of Rape”? (Please don’t go to that link; you’ll regret it.) ¿Am I to believe that your telling me this game is great (that’s a relief: I always hate playing hentai games full o’ rape that have slippery controls) isn’t influencing the nature o’ gaming by encouraging people to buy it, & thus through the market encouraging companies to make it? ¿Or are great hentai games full o’ rape part o’ the wishes o’ the “gaming public”? ‘Cause I do know that rape is a subject that the public looks fondly on.

4. A clear line must be drawn between advertising and editorial content (read our ethics policy).

That’s a nice way to ‘splain ‘way the fact that nobody wanted to advertise on your site.

¿What ’bout site-runner, “Roosh” (the raddest names are those that are just sounds children make when riding a rollercoaster) whorishly splaying links to his off-site content in the footer, meshed together with the on-site links?

Site content must be free of bias or moneyed interests.

(Laughs.) As we saw earlier, this site is definitely free from bias.

5. Gamers share a collection of values and beliefs that denote an identity which should be treated with respectful consideration.

What those “values” & “beliefs” are that they s’posedly share isn’t delineated, nor is there any evidence given that all people who play video games have uploaded their minds into a single mind borg. I’m quite certain I’ve played games quite a few times, & I sure as fuck don’t share your used values, you filthy commies–Sorry, I should use the PC term: you self-righteous socialist assholes.

Gaming sites should serve gamers by providing them with the type of content they want to read (send us your comments).

Which no gaming site does, hence why no gaming site has comments sections, & hence why every gaming site has gone out o’ business from a lack o’ ad views.

Then ‘gain, if gamers tolerate hours o’ grinding in the 270th RPG, maybe they’ll tolerate reading articles they hate.

Heterosexual men should not be shamed for enjoying things designed to appeal to heterosexual men.

But transgenders should be shamed as much as possible. (Note: if you read that link, you’ll see that it has nothing to do with video games & is all political, including specific attacks ‘gainst “leftists” & “Democrats.” Ne’ertheless, Reaxxion is super fair-&-balanced & doesn’t indulge in biased propaganda @ all.)

There is non-harmful entertainment value in traditional story lines involving masculine men and feminine women.

But content that’s different is harmful, ’cause MRAs are spoiled babies who cry avalanches if a single book is written by a guy who doesn’t work out much or if a single game has a gay option, ’cause they don’t comprehend such things as “niche interests.” E’en worse, companies will continue to ignore this tenet ’cause they’re smart ‘nough to realize these evil other people still have money & that the only way to get these evil other people’s money is to give them what they want, not what MRAs, who already spent all their money on all the Dead or Alive & Tomb Raider games, want.

¿So how’s Reaxxion doing now, anyway? Well, it’s done updating. Apparently this site that was totally done for the passion o’ gaming & doing manly things wasn’t making ‘nough money, so fuck it, pull the plug. ¡Good to see that moneyed interests aren’t affecting things @ all! This is shocking coming from someone who admitted they hadn’t played video games since 2000.

Also, what’s this horseshit:

Reaxxion will not try to jam ideology down your throat like the existing gaming sites. We won’t tell you to go to the gym [emphasis mine]…

You had 1 promise, & you fucked up & let it slip through this review. I guess e’en Roosh didn’t read that review before publishing it. Can’t blame him (well, I can blame him publishing it, though).

So… We have a site that portrays itself as the… ¿Fox News o’ gaming sites? ¿& it’s run by a guy who doesn’t e’en play video games? ¿& he pretty much admits that he’s just exploiting video games as a propaganda device to push a certain agenda?:

I aim to protect the interests of heterosexual Western males, a category I’m in. [Excised large chunk o’ conspiracy rants gainst the vagina borg to prevent readers from falling asleep.] So while I don’t play video games, the idea of starting a pro-#gamergate site is compatible with my overall mission.

Note: I love how in that “a category I’m in” he outright admits that he only supports the political ideology he does ’cause it serves himself.

It’s like this “Roosh” guy predicted I’d start a blog that, for some reason I don’t e’en know, has both articles making fun o’ right-wing politics & making fun o’ bad video game content & created this whole site just so I’d have the perfect subject to mock—¡2 articles for the price o’ 1, baby!

---

Footnotes:

I was going to write an article ’bout ditzy “anti-PC liberals” like Jonathan Chait & what hypocritical whiners they are, but I found 2 articles by some hippies called Student Activism.net that are almost perfect descriptions¹:

• “Jonathan Chait Doesn’t Care About Free Speech People”
• “Jonathan Chait Demands to be Liked”
• & as a bonus, here’s Christian commie Matt Bruenig mocking Chait for hypocrisy regarding “civil” speech (publishing works based on research by white supremacists is civil, but apathy toward a magazine only Chait & a few other people care ’bout is merely a petty “beef,” as you black peoples like to say. See, you cannot deny that Chait is veritably “down with the sickness.”)

Man, writing articles is so much easier when you let other bloggers do it for you. Now I can spend my time on mo’ striking issues, like which generation o’ Pokémon is better. After all, I need to keep ‘head o’ serious institutes like Forbes & their hard-hitting financial wisdom known as “What’s the Difference Between Pokemon X and Y?” (to bad [edit: too bad I was too fucking baked to e’en bother to proof-read this article] they weren’t hard-hitting ‘nough to remember the accent o’er the E’s, the fucking plebeians).

Footnotes:

[1] ‘Cept for the missing comma in 1 title–‘less they’re talking ’bout Chait’s hatred o’ the people literally made out o’ free speech, which is something in which I’d have to agree with Chait, since that sounds horrifically eldritch.

The uncapitalized “be” in the 2nd title I have no problem with, however; Engelsists always hate all forms o’ capital, including the alphabetical kind. Don’t need your bourgeoisie big B’s, thanks; simple, honest proletarian small b’s work just fine.