Smithers wrote:Why did you decide to make it such a personal, some might even say childish attack?
As I just finished typing in another thread, at the end of the day everything we do is personal -- a human being, or any being whatever, is physically incapable of acting impersonally. The very phrase "impersonal act" is a
contradictio in adjecto.
As for my attack being childish -- what can I say? I am indeed a child. I keep forgetting how old I am, or how young I may yet become. I am more childish than anyone, and yet at the same time --
and because of it -- more serious than anyone else could be. Seriousness and childishness are far from opposites, you know. Common people think they are, but they are not. Etc. etc. I could keep going on about this for ages. The main point to take away is that, just as extreme happiness goes hand-in-hand with extreme sadness, so does extreme seriousness go hand-in-hand with extreme childishness.
Smithers wrote:Leigh Alexander is a tool, and fully deserves to get called out for the vapid, irritating nonsense that she writes, but the vitriol and sexual slurs weaken your argument
What argument? You don't really think there were actual arguments in there, do you? Arguments are things we need when faced with complex, difficult to judge situations. We don't need arguments to decide on whether the sun rises in the east, or on whether 1+1=2. All I did was copy-paste their babbling and surround it with lols -- no argument was necessary.
As for the sexual slurs, I actually looked up "slut" in the thesaurus and tried to use all similar words.
Smithers wrote:you're going down to her level, even though you know sex should be irrelevant.
I think I went far below her level, while still towering immeasurably above her. Ask yourself: how is that possible?
Smithers wrote:This isn't a criticism, I did really enjoy it
It is criticism. You just don't know what the word means.
Smithers wrote:just wondering what influenced that style decision.
Another thing I've already talked about here (in the "Icy's Genius" thread). Style is not a "decision". Only someone who has never created anything could think that it is. Style, as Schopenhauer somewhere explains, is a direct reflection of the author's character. And character is NEVER a decision. It is "an order of fate" as Baudrillard would put it. All I did was express myself as genuinely, as honestly, as directly as I could.
Man, it gets tiring having to clear up the same little misunderstandings for people again and again. I live on a planet with 6 billion people, all of whom operate under a number of unfathomably crude and simple-minded assumptions. What is education doing, eh? Still teaching people about "equal rights", "freedom", "justice", "proofs" and other such mythical beasts no doubt.