I haven’t taken New Media Douchebag Anil Dash to task here yet, but I ran across a blog post by Anil that I couldn’t pass up. Not necessarily because the article was particularly bad (although it is) but because it’s emblematic of something that I see constantly amongst the New Media Douchebag collective. In fact, this trait may well be one of the core defining aspects of the quintessential New Media Douchebag. Specifically, it’s the utter and complete inability of the New Media Douchebag to realize that they are pontificating about a subject that the are woefully ill-prepared to discuss.
We’ve seen this time and again. It seems that New Media Douchebags are willing to play pundit on any subject ranging from economics, to politics, to race relations — usually with hilariously horrific results. I’ve thought long and hard on this phenomenon, and I’ve come to the conclusion that it results from a unique combination of the innate narcissism that fuels the average New Media Douchebag coupled with a specific form of the Dunning–Kruger effect. For the unaware, the Dunning-Kruger effect is the state where a person doesn’t possess the skill-set to make a good decision, and also doesn’t possess the ability to recognize that they lack that skill. Basically, the more incompetent someone is, the more likely they are to believe that they are more competent than the average person.
I say that New Media Douchebags exhibit a specific form of the Dunning-Kruger effect because I don’t think that the standard definition applies here. In most cases New Media Douchebags have been somewhat successful at something in their careers. Whether it be the invention of XML, the mass adoption of RSS, or whatever the fuck Scoble’s claim to fame is; most New Media Douchebags have done something right at least once in their life.
Unfortunately, in the case of New Media Douchebags, it seems that this singular success combines with their innate narcissism to cause them to think that they are equally astute in all areas of thought. Perhaps it’s the binary folly that many engineers and software developers are prone to. Whatever the reason, it has led to a spate of fucktards who have had one good idea in their life feeling confident dispensing advice in areas far outside their core competency.
Which leads us, inexorably, to Anil Dash’s blog post that triggered this one. In The “Yes, And…” Culture Anil attempts to solve the world’s problems with the magic of improvisational theater.
Let’s start off with the first few paragraphs of Mr. Dash’s missive:
In improvisational theater and comedy, one of the first rules of participation is allowing co-creation. Basically, instead of saying “No, wait!” you respond to your collaborators with “Yes, and…” to continue the conversation and start to create something great together.
That principle of collaborative and cumulative creation is a fundamental aspect of modern culture in general. Remixing, rebooting, remaking and re-imagining culture require a “Yes, and…” aesthetic. When a moment of online inspiration blossoms into a full-fledged meme, communities from 4Chan to YouTube are demonstrating their embrace of improvisational culture.
But this doesn’t just apply to goofy web memes. This could be an interesting, even important aspect of how society and policy evolve as well.
Here we go, right off the bat we have the inappropriate application of a specific discipline to the world in general. And as a bonus it’s chock-a-block full of hipster douchebag condescension. “You see, in improvisational theater we…” Blah, I can hear the italics from here. But let’s wait and see the specific examples that Anil has in mind:
Take, for example, the recent Citizens United case at the Supreme Court. The ruling states, in effect, that companies can now spend an unlimited amount of their funds on political campaign ads for various candidates. People who prefer humans to corporations are, naturally, concerned about the pending completion of the corporate takeover of elections.
Yes, let’s look at Citizens United an egregious case of the Supreme Court giving away the rights of real people in favor of fictitious corporate “persons.” What does Anil suggest we do to reclaim our rights as citizens? Does he suggest that we speak out in protest. Does he suggest that we join the various movements in the United States aimed at revoking “corporate personhood.”
Oh hell no. We who would roll back the excesses of the Roberts Court are getting “…into the usual long, expensive, unproductive cultural-battle-masquerading-as-political-battle that makes so many of us get turned off by politics.” Well forgive fucking me Anil. I’m sorry that my desire to protect our rights is “turning you off.”
So, what does Anil propose?
What could it look like in a “Yes, and….” culture, though? What if, while acknowledging that spending is not speech, we decide to forgo trying to roll back the law, and instead roll it forward? Yes, corporations can buy political advertisements, but what if any employee of the corporation could submit the content of the advertisement? The last video in before a TV station’s programming deadline would be the one that went on the air, privileging those who are nimble with media, instead of just corporate officers.
Lords of Kobol is Anil serious? Yes, we the people will overpower the financial might of the corporation by being the advertising version of eBay snipers! Like most nerds, Anil seems completely oblivious to the fact that mathematical laws have poor record of mapping to human behavior. A=B and B=C therefore A=C may work in a proof. But when the equation is megacorp = person and Joe Fucktard = person the answer sure as fuck isn’t megacorp = Joe Fucktard.
Does Anil seriously believe that any corporation that was going to bother financing a political advertisement would take the slightest chance that some random cunt like me would get a chance at the microphone. It’s ludicrous.
Moreover, Anil displays the usual Silly Valley narcissistic callousness toward the average worker. Anil may be able to say whatever he wants with impunity, but some of us work in places where the price of agitation is a quick trip to the bread line.
But Anil doesn’t stop there.
Or if we struggle with Arizona’s new law which allows police to detain suspected undocumented immigrants, instead of merely fighting to repeal the policy, we should extend it. Any legal resident or citizen of the United States who is wrongly detained by the police should get a free gun, perhaps one of those confiscated by the police. In that way, when we abridge the Fourth Amendment rights of someone, we make it up to them by supporting their Second Amendment rights. You want to protect the rights of Americans? Yes, and… we do too.
God’s balls! Even if you assume that Anil is being facetious here these are still some of the stupidest words committed to digital storage.
The bottom line is that Anil Dash displays an utter and complete lack of understanding of the issues that he’s babbling about. His solutions are facile at best, and dangerous at the worst. The most obnoxious thing is that there are people who think that this clod is insightful.
I think he just starts tripping balls before he writes anything. It's the only way it makes sense.
There's also my backup theory that he's just a fucking idiot. Maybe we can propose the Lines-Welch effect. “The masses of the Internet are too stupid to tell that their idols are fucking retarded.”
Well, look, I'm not sure if this was really worth your time as the post you're talking about is a rhetorical mish-mash of the first order. It's like a word salad that has been chopped. So, overall, you're right, he's an idiot, and the conclusions he draws don't make any sense; so, we're dealing with an average blogger here.
P.S. Please continue with the critique of the New Media Douchebag. I love it.
Being angry is always worth my time. Besides, New Media needs to have their idols torn down from time to time.
Re-reading his post a second time, I agree that the anger is well justified. So my follow-up question: who takes him seriously?
I realize that since you've built a whole blog around it this is probably pissing in the wind, but falling in love with your own anger is really the worst way to write. Turn your passion for whatever it is you're trying to say into direct statements and let that do the heavy lifting. It's infinitely more concise, readable, and persuasive.
Basically, writing in this manner may work in some poetry or songs, but when you're writing persuasive prose like you are, it just comes off a bit self-impressed and wanky. It's clear you have some comprehensive thoughts you're trying to express, so it's unfortunate to just let them languish under a bunch of repetitive pejoratives and hand-wavy OMGs.
Jesus fucking Christ on a God damned pogo stick. I stopped reading that asshat because of his tenuous grasp of reality. Now I get to read him second hand? Ok first hand, I couldn't help myself. As I posted to Mr. Welch on Twitter, I think the NMD are living in the echo chamber of a septic tank. After all their shit doesn't stink.
(Ok I expanded on the twitter line and fixed a typo.)
Oh and because I can't login using Twitter I'm doing this as a guest. Dammit. Phuul on Twitter BTW
Do you get a free pony with an English degree on your planet, or is it the full unicorn?
I don't know, would you like me to ask someone who has one?
Huzzah! The concern trolls are here! Here's some lyrical prose for you: Fuck off and die.
I don't think concern trolling means what you think it means. I'm not involved in the discussion, I didn't agree with Anil's theory when he first posted it, I think your response is histrionic, and I think your writing style is somewhere between fledgling and stunted, and I'm hoping it's the latter. I was being polite to you with constructive feedback, I was not siding with you.
Lame attempts at Princess Bride quotes are also a pointless waste of my time. Get a clue you witless fuck. No one cares about your “constructive feedback”. You're just another one of the endless streams of mentally constipated tools who feel the need to correct people's “tone” on the intertubes. You're the internet equivalent of the shrinking little old lady scolding random people on the street for their manners. In short you're the most pathetic excuse for a troll imaginable.
I know this comes as a shock, but no one cares what your opinion is about anything. Go piss off back to your teas room and leave the adults alone.
The problem here is that I'm not trolling you, I'm telling you that your approach to Saying Things With Words is empty because you substitute trite invective that sounds like you took a Louis Black routine to heart for real discourse. If you want to know how to be angry and still get a point across go read Matt Taibbi, or Glenn Greenwald.
No matter how much you tell me (or yourself) you've seen all of this breed of “trolling” before, Knowing The Score doesn't do you an ounce of good if you don't also Get The Point. Based on your unwillingness to engage at a level above flailing tirade and hasty strawman, I'm not confident you do.
Think about it.
You keep slapping your fingers against the keys, and yet you still can't manage to make a point.
When you manage to muster up enough conviction to actually say something other than that you don't appreciate my tone, well, then you'll be on the first step to an actual personality.
Here's the thing you fucking simp. I have a rich, rewarding, fully actualized life and I don't need the approval of random twits on the internet. You should try that, it's actually pretty neat. I eagerly await your next missive.
See, I know you won't be able to resist.
Quick question, who asked you? Seriously who did? Did Messer Angry Drunk ask for a critique on his writing style? You have stated repeatedly that you are not commenting on, or about, the subject matter but the manner of his writing. If someone did not ask for your opinion then the comparison to a “shrinking little old lady scolding random people on the street for their manners” is not a hasty strawman. In addition the “flailing tirade” is fully justified when self righteous and self appointed arbiters of “saying things with words” start trying to dictate how people should say things. Apparently discourse means some idealized version of the Algonquin Round Table to you. Of course if you know anything about those discussions you are aware that “trite invective” was par for the course. The only one that is coming across as “a bit self-impressed and wanky” is you.
Think about it.
I'm not of a mind to care whether I'm explicitly asked for feedback on a blog. You don't publish something then shrink away when people have something to say about it, even if the thing they're talking about isn't what you want to hear.
So you're just a douchebag. Got it.
I'm interested in how I'm “shrinking away” when I've taken valuable time out of my porn watching schedule to fuck with you. But then again, you still haven't managed to make an actual point other than that you are apparently the High Arbiter of Internet Manners.
Look, Princess, I suspect that you wandered in here to read this single post and don't know of my works, so let me play New Media Douchebag myself for a bit:
There are something like 400 posts on this waste of time and effort, which isn't as much as the Mighty Mr. Dash I know, but it's a good statistical population. On those 400 some odd posts there are something like 1800 comments. Do you really think that you're the first dipshit to come barging in, red pencil in hand, to take me to task for my bad attitude and florid prose. I'm sorry to burst you're bubble, but you ain't.
Even more horrifying is the fact that an unseemly number of people seem to like this schtick. Hell, there are even five otherwise respectable companies who pay to have myself, the inestimable Mr Welch, and another angry cock-sucker record this raving and force it upon the unsuspecting masses. There's even been a live version.
The point to this otherwise pointless e-peen stroking? You're a fucking mayfly.
Believe me, I welcome the day that Cthulhu wipes the fucktards from the very face of the internet. But until then, I shall rant according to my nature.
p.s. I knew you couldn't resist responding. You won't be able to resist responding again.
To use your own words, “Knowing The Score doesn't do you an ounce of good if you don't also Get The Point.” You have obviously missed it by leagues. The point isn't that you shouldn't give your opinion, it's that why should anyone care what your opinion is? Your tone comes across as pretentious and condescending. From the way you write you are the final arbiter on what actual discourse is.
To be blunt that is a complete crock of shit. The best “discourses” I have had, and learned the most from, involved a lot of hand waving and language that would make a sailer pale. Did I hate the people I did that with? No. Did we go out for lunch later and laugh? Yes. It's something I like to call passion. Oh you need reason in there too, but if someone isn't willing to go to the mat to defend their position then they really don't have anything to say.
My question to you, convince me you have anything worth saying. Why should I care what you think about this blog or any other? Why should I allow you to dictate to me what I can say and the way I should say it?
Step up to the plate bitch.
See what I did there?
you'd be amazed. by that I mean, “you'd uncontrollably vomit if you knew how many people take this idiot seriously”
Ah, look, it's a fucking writing troll. I love you loons, I really do, because you are so preciously stupid, so blind to that stupidity, and so convinced that you're doing someone a public favor. When in fact, what you are is the internet equivalent of some old diarrhetic fat guy in the middle of diaper play suddenly lecturing others on the importance of proper dress.
You sit there, lecturing on writing style, and yet you say nothing. In fact, the whole point of your screed(s) can be boiled down to “you should write more like these other two guys who write for completely different venues and on different subjects, and so have to have completely different writing styles.” You're bitching at a flamethrower for not being a flower vase. Can you even begin to grasp just how gobsmackingly stupid that really is? Especially coming from someone who demonstrates such shit writing skills?
Bless my heart, of course you can't. You're an idiot.
You seem to think that everyone in the world writes on the web purely to get hit counts and win popularity polls. But as we've established, you're an acephalic lackwit with delusions of importance, so it's not like you're going to think overmuch, much less correctly. Run along sonny, this here blog's for the grownups.
This shit's been going on for ages. It used to be called “Editorials.” And those self-important, self-appointed “Experts on Everything” didn't know what they were talking about, either.
Here's what it boils down to: you're on the personal blog of a man who knows who he is, what he wants to say and how he wants to say it. You coming in here and not only ignoring the article entirely, but also commenting on the Angry Drunk's “tone” and writing style, says something about you.
It says that you love to hear yourself spout inane, uninformed crap. You have the undeserved arrogance of a grad student who just bought a $1 cup of coffee with a credit card while simultaneously rocking out to the White Stripes on his Sansa.
What you've done is the equivalent of walking into a police station and telling all the detectives in the room how to look for clues. Or calling up Larry King on his show and telling him how to interview his next guest. Your comments are unwarranted, unwanted and, to be honest, completely stupid.
People like you remind us why people like John Gruber don't allow comments on their blogs – because your words are useless and take away from the conversation.
In response to the article itself – Anil Dash has some cockeyed optimistic view of the world and the Web. Some of his latest tweets are surreal, like asking MG Siegler why he lets TC's comments degrade into name-calling and trolling. I don't think Anil has a firm grasp on how the TechCrunch or the Web work…or reality for that matter.
1- Either I am failing to recognize the irony on this post, or the author is failing to recognize the irony on the post he criticizes;
2- It is a shame anyway, since it means someone got to adult age without being able to recognize irony;
3- I don't think Old Media Douchebags are any better. I would say they are even more prone (if that is possible) to suffer from Dunning-Kruger.
Ah, my favorite excuse for shitty thinking, “you just don't understand the subtle humor here.” No, I'm fairly certain that Anil is a whackaloon with no discernible understanding of the way that the world works. Either that or he's just a massively shitty writer. But that can't be the case, he's written millions and millions of words on the internet.
In summary, piss off.
Pro Tip: Telling you you're full of shit isn't shrinking away. It's disagreeing with you in an blunt, explicit manner.
However, it's nice that you have a whopping case of Highlanderitis, and think that the only 'correct' response to your pitiful attempts at raconteury is agreement. I bet you got a whole gob of that new age-y shit about self-esteem, and how it's everyone else's responsibility to ensure you feel good about yourself. Guess what princess, that's as much a pile of bullshit as the stuff that comes out from your keyboard flailing. You bitch at people for “shrinking away” from your criticism, yet you show yourself to be utterly unable to deal with any aimed at you.
You spent a lot of time hiding behind your mother's skirts, didn't. you. Probably flipping off all the kids who wanted to beat your ass as you did so. You strike me as that special kind of passive-agreesive cunt.
I think you've got an interesting idea on this whole agreement/disagreement dichotomy. Histrionic wailing about a bunch of irrelevant nonsense (“My blog is very important! People pay me to say things!”, “You're an old lady!”, “You're just a passive-aggressive cunt!”) is neither agreement nor disagreement. It's somewhere between projecting insecurity and rhetorical chest-puffing.
The short of it is that I gave feedback that, while obviously unwelcome (gosh I wonder why), was completely valid. It's fine if the blog's shtick is to just have a big grumpy groupthink about everything, and to try to turn this little corner of the internet into your safe haven to just be mad and angry about any little thing you want, but when someone comes along and says “I think maybe this isn't the most effective way to get your opinion across to the internet at large” then the only objectively sound response is to say “Yup and we like it that way”. Acting like it's my fault for seeing the obvious flaw is charming but I'm not sure how you can frame it as anything other than the base tribalism that it is.
“Run along sonny, this here blog's for the grownups. “
Wait, when did THAT start?
You can call me whatever names you want, for as long as you want, and it's not going to change anything. If you're hung up on who I am, rather than what I said, then you've kinda proven my point – all this fetishization of “angry” rhetoric has hindered your ability to think clearly.
Okay, I'm a mayfly. If a mayfly comes up to me and gives me a suggestion on how to improve something, I'll probably start by being amazed that a mayfly can talk, and follow that up by talking to it on the same level it's talking to me, which is to say if the criticism is constructive, then not to take offense. Granted, since your writing is so important that you had to tell me how important it is, maybe you feel a bit invested in doing things the way you do, but that doesn't change the fact that your hostility is a reflection on you, not me.
You're just completely full of shit, aren't you.
I know that you're obsessed with having the last word here, but you do realize that you're in my house don't you. I mean, you've abundantly proven that your rude enough to think that you can dictate the terms of discussion here, but you can't possibly think that you're going to “win.”
Oh bullshit. You gave an asinine opinion on ettiquette while being rude yourself, and then when you weren't immediately agreed with, accused people of “shrinking away” from your criticism.
Again, Darby, me, and the third Angry Mac Bastard actually get paid to do this. So someone thinks we have something of value to say. So obviously, our method of getting our point across is pretty damned effective.
Who fucking asked for your “feedback”?
I have no idea what I would be “winning”. You'll have to explain what it would mean to win, first, and then I'll tell you how I feel about my chances. You can then respond to that with disdain or bemusement or whatever and I won't respond so that way you can have the last word on your own blog because I guess the alternative would seem rude or something?
I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about. Or what I'm talking about, for that matter.
Who asked for yours?
Since you obviously need some manner of intervention, I'm now going to translate all of your responses so that they better represent what they look like to sane people.
What they all said, but I'll just point out its Lewis Black, not Louis. He's Jewish, not French. And while Black won't be willing any political offices anytime soon, he makes damned good points, and does so in a way that makes people laugh (meaning they're more likely to remember them, pending they are smart enough to understand them in the first fucking place). But when you're so far up your own tight ass, I can see where you might feel the need to gut check everybody around you and make sure they are just as mentally fucked as you are.
I don't view being compared with Lewis Black as any sort of insult. He's one of my role models.
Likewise. But the fucking idiot could have at least spelled his name right if he's going to wield it as some kind of ill-concieved insult.
When you can actually respond to any of the points I have made you might have earned the right to decide who can think clearly. Until then you just are the latest self entitled blow hard proving that a million monkeys with keyboards really do describe the internet.
Your critique boils down to “You plebeians are not conducting what I define as a civil discourse. Desist in your shenanigans or you will face my scorn!” What you fail to realize is that, for those of us who actually live in the real world, “'angry' rhetoric” is just as valid as vapid rhetoric. No you may not like it, but just because you don't like it doesn't make it invalid.
To address another of your points, which to be pedantic you have yet to do to any of my arguments, I have not “kinda proven [your] point.” You have pushed your editorial opinions into this discussion. Who you are is a perfectly valid question. I have yet to see any argument from you that validates your rather puerile idea of discussion. Until you bring that to the table and actually address the points raised against you, then you really have nothing to say that isn't circle jerk sophistry better suited to coffee houses and literary grad students.
Thank you for your nice reply.
Now it is clear where the Dunning-Kruger effect is working its way.
Oh, I'm sorry, did I fail to immediately capitulate to you pointless and unsolicited feedback? That must be so horrible for you.
Actually, I haven't called anyone a plebeian, I'm not defining standards for civil discourse, and I never threatened my scorn upon anyone who disagreed. Why would I? What would anyone here care about my scorn? I think you need to re-read what you're paraphrasing. The short of it is that by cutting out a lot of the rhetorical fluff, you can write in a much more pointed fashion (and I've provided examples of people who successfully use anger as the locus for much of their writing) that gets the point across a lot more effectively. There's no threat of scorn, and there's nothing in there about 'civil discourse'. The original post is still there where I left it, so you can still go back and read it if you need a refresher.
No, please! Rest assured that you did not deviate from my expectations at all!
Wait, wait, wait.
Let me get this straight. You came to this website, read the entire article, and the only comment you have is about the writing style, and how it's apparently making him less clear and/or persuasive (as evidenced by the last sentence)?
So, I have to ask: how many Zimas did you have do drink to get to the point where Darby wasn't clear? The way I figure it, you had to be in a seriously altered state of consciousness to lose the point that was being made, and given the tone of your responses, as well as the content, I can't see you being able to drink anything harder than Zima, so it had to be a metric assload of Zimas.
The only “Self-impressed and wanky” writer here is you. Go find some comprehensive thoughts.
Good Gods you're a pathetic little twat aren't you? You've posted gods know how many comments here and all you've managed to say is that you don't like how I write.
Well, la-ti-fucking-da. Seriously, what do you think is the end-game here. Do you think that, after you writing the same twaddle enough times that I'm going to see the error of my ways, repent and promise that I will sin no more.
Honestly the only reason I haven't banned you just to get you out of my hair is that the rest of these assholes are begging me not to so they can continue to fuck with you. Seriously, either get psychological help, get laid, or get drunk. I don't particularly care which, but you need some serious help.
And yet you keep replying, as if you expect a different outcome. There's a diagnosis for that condition.
I'd pay those gentlemen to say stuff, should they ever decide to tour Germany.
Just FYI.