Every once in a while, I stray from legal topics into subject that bring in readers unfamiliar with Simple Justice. Inexplicably, these readers, usually non-lawyers, feel compelled to explain to me at great length their thoughts and feelings on what appears here. One such reader, Andrew, who is in the business of selling test preparation, left a comment which included the following:
My existence isn’t predicated on enhancing your emotional well-being. I couldn’t care less. That’s not why I’m here, this blog is here, anything I write is here. Your emotional well-being is your problem, not mine. And if you don’t like it, get lost.
You see, Andrew, the flaw in your understanding is that not everyone employs social media to sell something. I know, I know, it’s beyond your wildest imagination. After all, you’re busy trying to sell parents on buying whatever it is your selling so that little Johnny can get into college despite his straight “C” average, and that requires you to stroke them and make them like you, as if you truly care about Johnny’s, and Mommy’s, well-being. You carefully craft a social media persona, create the appearance of deep empathy for the travails of others, knowing that if people like you, they will be more inclined to write you a check. I understand.
The problem, Andrew, is that your understanding of the use of social media is myopic and dense. You are the very person against whom I rail, because you are what reduced every advancement in technology to its most base component, crass commercialism. Because this is your purpose, you project it onto everyone else. Whether that’s a sign of ignorance or psychosis is a matter for highly trained professionals, but the point is that your purpose is not universal. Some people express opinions for purpose other than to get into Mommy’s pockets.
You’re confused now, I realize. Why? Why would anyone do anything if not to make a buck? It must be terribly hard for you to understand that there is a world out there consisting of people whose purpose differs from yours. After all, if you are the center of the universe, what could possibly justify the existence of these outliers who don’t share your motivations?
The answer is really quite simple. There is a marketplace of ideas that must, by definition, be disconnected from the marketplace of goods and services where you dwell. Once ideas become subsumed in one’s marketing efforts, they are reduced to nonsense. If one expresses a thought that is unpopular, that might turn a potential customer off, and then the carefully crafted persona of empathy crashes and burns. A shill can’t allow that to happen, and so ideas must be suppressed in the name of business.
Simple Justice is deliberately impolite. Discussions of ideas can offend people. Discussions of ideas can turn off potential customers and clients. I take that risk willingly, because without it there can be no worthwhile discussion of ideas. There are plenty of places on the internet where no one is offended, no customer is turned off. This isn’t one of them.
To tell you the truth, you aren’t exactly the sort of person who should be reading Simple Justice. Nor is that marketer, Doug Greathouse, who made the incredibly foolish mistake of thinking he could puff his marketing business in the comments here with impunity. He offers nothing to the conversation. You offer nothing to the conversation. You don’t belong at a blog the isn’t dedicated to respecting your desire to market. And at Simple Justice, the desire to market is not respected. If anything, it is ridiculed.
I urge you, and anyone who thinks like you, to go elsewhere to find a warm and fuzzy place where others appreciate your goal of trying to sell whatever it is you sell to mommies. There is no room for someone like you on a blog that cares nothing for your emotional well-being. And in case I wasn’t clear, I care nothing for your emotional well-being. And I surely didn’t ask for your thoughts on any subject.
And I apologize for writing a post that you felt compelled to read. I apologize for my post being twitted, such that you saw it and stopped by. I apologize for writing something that made you feel the need to comment. I apologize if I’ve offended you. But please don’t follow me on twitter. Please don’t read anything here at Simple Justice. No one here is going to buy anything from you, so there’s no purpose in your ever returning. Besides, coming here can be harmful to your emotional well-being, and I certainly don’t want to be responsible for that.
And that goes for anyone else who feels that I have callously harmed their emotional well being.
Lastly, swearing and berating those who care enough to spend their invaluable time starting a conversation with you is a great way to publicly demonstrate to others that you have no regard for the emotional well-being of others. If you would exhibit this attitude on Twitter and Facebook, then I definitely recommend you NOT use these social mediums EVER.My first inclination was to politely explain to the commenter that he was a moron. My second inclination was not to be so polite. But in an effort to assist Andrew’s emotional well-being, I’ve decided to try to clarify matters in a calm, comforting manner.
My existence isn’t predicated on enhancing your emotional well-being. I couldn’t care less. That’s not why I’m here, this blog is here, anything I write is here. Your emotional well-being is your problem, not mine. And if you don’t like it, get lost.
You see, Andrew, the flaw in your understanding is that not everyone employs social media to sell something. I know, I know, it’s beyond your wildest imagination. After all, you’re busy trying to sell parents on buying whatever it is your selling so that little Johnny can get into college despite his straight “C” average, and that requires you to stroke them and make them like you, as if you truly care about Johnny’s, and Mommy’s, well-being. You carefully craft a social media persona, create the appearance of deep empathy for the travails of others, knowing that if people like you, they will be more inclined to write you a check. I understand.
The problem, Andrew, is that your understanding of the use of social media is myopic and dense. You are the very person against whom I rail, because you are what reduced every advancement in technology to its most base component, crass commercialism. Because this is your purpose, you project it onto everyone else. Whether that’s a sign of ignorance or psychosis is a matter for highly trained professionals, but the point is that your purpose is not universal. Some people express opinions for purpose other than to get into Mommy’s pockets.
You’re confused now, I realize. Why? Why would anyone do anything if not to make a buck? It must be terribly hard for you to understand that there is a world out there consisting of people whose purpose differs from yours. After all, if you are the center of the universe, what could possibly justify the existence of these outliers who don’t share your motivations?
The answer is really quite simple. There is a marketplace of ideas that must, by definition, be disconnected from the marketplace of goods and services where you dwell. Once ideas become subsumed in one’s marketing efforts, they are reduced to nonsense. If one expresses a thought that is unpopular, that might turn a potential customer off, and then the carefully crafted persona of empathy crashes and burns. A shill can’t allow that to happen, and so ideas must be suppressed in the name of business.
Simple Justice is deliberately impolite. Discussions of ideas can offend people. Discussions of ideas can turn off potential customers and clients. I take that risk willingly, because without it there can be no worthwhile discussion of ideas. There are plenty of places on the internet where no one is offended, no customer is turned off. This isn’t one of them.
To tell you the truth, you aren’t exactly the sort of person who should be reading Simple Justice. Nor is that marketer, Doug Greathouse, who made the incredibly foolish mistake of thinking he could puff his marketing business in the comments here with impunity. He offers nothing to the conversation. You offer nothing to the conversation. You don’t belong at a blog the isn’t dedicated to respecting your desire to market. And at Simple Justice, the desire to market is not respected. If anything, it is ridiculed.
I urge you, and anyone who thinks like you, to go elsewhere to find a warm and fuzzy place where others appreciate your goal of trying to sell whatever it is you sell to mommies. There is no room for someone like you on a blog that cares nothing for your emotional well-being. And in case I wasn’t clear, I care nothing for your emotional well-being. And I surely didn’t ask for your thoughts on any subject.
And I apologize for writing a post that you felt compelled to read. I apologize for my post being twitted, such that you saw it and stopped by. I apologize for writing something that made you feel the need to comment. I apologize if I’ve offended you. But please don’t follow me on twitter. Please don’t read anything here at Simple Justice. No one here is going to buy anything from you, so there’s no purpose in your ever returning. Besides, coming here can be harmful to your emotional well-being, and I certainly don’t want to be responsible for that.
And that goes for anyone else who feels that I have callously harmed their emotional well being.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Between this and the “meeping”, you are freaking cracking me up today.
Thank you Murray. I had seriously considered writing about the word “Gaaah!” instead, but I now feel confident that I made the right choice.
Greetings.
Interesting points.
When I make a comment in a blawg, which I do every now & then, I certainly know that there may be responses to my comment that are antithetical to its premise. What I am interested in is the data with which they respond to my comment, & more importantly, how that data is supported.
Not infrequently, some emotionally-charged goop is thrown in as well. To be truthful, I don’t particularly like that part & it can make reading their response difficult. However, I remain quite interested in ferreting out that core of substantiated fact, if, indeed, it is there.
If it is not, then the responder is a boor, & I go on with my life. If s/he mixes up some decent, substantiated bases for the response, & has chosen to describe me by a variety of inter-species names, then I will deal with the latter, separately, which essentially means that I discard it. It’s a bit of a price to pay to be challenged on my beliefs, which may be mired in error.
Occasionally, I have received blistering responses to some of my more idiotic comments, which have served as a wake up call that I had proffered an emotional argument, or other drivel, yet declared it to be fact. The excoriating replies certainly sting, but are worth every scorching adjective.
It is true that these attacks, whereas justified, are not required to be particularly pleasant, but decorum & courtesy can accompany them, if the writer either has that skill, or inclination. Yet I am responsible for my own sensibilities & internal infrastructure. This remains an integral quality of being an adult. Perhaps rare, but integral, nonetheless.
‘Cheers.
I’ll share a little secret from this side of the keyboard. Consider the breadth of people who show up here, comment from time to time and either want or demand conformity with their sensibilities. It’s a royal pain in the neck. Some are smart and interesting. Some are idiotic. Some are just plain nuts. Some have an idea of how they want you to be, nicer, sweeter, kinder, more empathetic, particularly to those things they hold dear. It wears thin very quickly. Aside from the comments you see, which can range from 10 to 100 per day, there are the ones you never see, within the same range.
Eventually, one tired of trying to deal with, if not appease, the various folks who want/demand your attention.
That sounds really cruddy. You have considered abandoning the entire blawg & innumerable number of times, as a result, I shouldn’t wonder. What–what on earth?–do folks gain in taking satisfaction that they gave someone a piece of their mind, in such a setting as this?
There is a place for that, but in general, it remains in either a very personal relationship, or in the workplace, where a limit absolutely needs to be set.
But the Cloud? Does the offender carry around his smugness with him throughout the day, basking in his bloated sense of self? There is not even a face upon whom he can recall an expression of shock, disgust, or anything else.
It’s simply too remote & useless.
My own personal wiring demands decorum 99% of the time (I actually work to reduce this percentage, but that is my own issue). Civility has been lacking for millennia; this is nothing new. Yet the online world does appear to marinate in an unsettling sense of sort-of anonymity. So little restraint. Such a pathological degree of megalomania.
Kudos for sticking it out, Scott. A good chunk of people look forward to, & digest deeply, your products of erudite labor in finesse. The ones with any class, that is.
‘Cheers.
Thanks Doc. All things said, I gain far more from the comments than I give. So many truly thoughtful things come out that putting up with the daily annoyance hardly seems like much of a problem. I should still be more tolerant, but I’ve got a reputation around here of being a bit prickly, and I kinda like it.
‘No sweat. My wife knows that her husband considers her least-pleasant character element to be exactly the same one as yours, i.e., prickly. Ugh.
However, the flip side of this, is that one knows where one stands with the woman (or her whole family, for that matter). This is in contradistinction to the family into which she married, where it can be YEARS before anyone has a sense of where someone else is coming from, if ever!
Perhaps our daughters will strike a balance. Doubtful, of course, but there’s always hope.
‘Cheers.
I am offended by your crass cynicism. I will most definitely have to continue my subscription.