Daffy F said:
If you have no ulterior motives, then why bother posting at all? Surely it would be better to not post and be grouped with the haters? If you post a disliking comment, then people are going to assume that you're being spiteful/lonely/hateful for no reason. If you genuinely don't give a fuck, then don't comment about it on the internet, just like the millions of other people who don't really give a fuck either.
Several reasons really:
- 1. Vague thread titles lure me in out of idle curiosity.
2. I find people complaining about things far more entertaining than whatever it is that they're complaining about.
3. I find cultural obsessions with things that don't strike me as even vaguely interesting to be itself fascinating in the same fashion that a horrible trainwreck attracts gawkers.
Those would be why I even bothered reading through enough of the thread to see your post in the first place. As for this "royal wedding" everyone is on about, I genuinely don't give a flying crap about it - I couldn't even
name the participants, and if it weren't for people complaining about it I probably wouldn't have even realized it happened. My interest in those proceedings begins and ends with the associated
discussions/rants/complaints/what have you that surround it, not the events themselves.
As for why I responded, that has everything to do with the false dichotomy you and everyone who tiresomely points out that "popular things are popular" present us with: Namely, that dissenting voices can either stay silent or they must be "posers".
See, I have a problem with that: Why the bloody hell should I care whether or not you or anyone else decides to "lump me in with the haters"? I state my reasons for my opinions when I offer them - if total strangers on the internet choose to believe I mean something other than what I say, then
they are wrong, end of story. If, for example, I tell the world that I think Justin Bieber produces naught but sonic drivel,
I actually mean that - I'm not trying to maintain some imaginary "internet street cred" or blithely following the consensus of my "peers" (a phrase I am very reticent to use to describe internet pundits), I mean that when I was picking up supplies at a local electronics store and they put a Bieber song on the muzak, I literally could not leave the store fast enough. That he is famous is entirely tangential to my
extreme dislike of his "music"; I don't hate things because they're popular and "hating popular stuff is the cool thing to do!", for the same reasons I don't blithely love things just because the teeming masses do - my opinion is my own damn opinion.
Willfully interpreting every dissenting voice as a poser does a disservice to those people who actually think what they tell you that they think, i.e.,
me - hence my earlier response. As for why I'm responding
now, let's just say that suggestions that I, in essence,
shut up don't generally tend to go over too well - your logic reads like the tired old adage "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all", and I'm bloody well not going to be following
that as my life's maxim. If a topic is broached and I have nothing particularly better to do, I'll damn well let it be known to disinterested strangers I am almost certainly never going to meet that I think something is a pointless waste of brain cells, if that is my opinion on the subject.
