Let’s Talk About Common Courtesy

Hello everyone.

Today I’d like to have a snarktastic brief discussion about common courtesy. Specifically I’ll be discussing common courtesy in the sharing of things people say on Facebook for reasons that will become apparent in but a moment. Now for some exposition:

The other day I was looking down my Facebook News Feed and I saw something so mind-numbing and douche-baggy that I had to go back and look it over two or three more times before I could fully grasp the full extent of this post’s douche-baggery. This post, I immediately realized, stemmed back to a discussion on this person’s Facebook the previous day. So, this person was involved in an argument (over the internet, mind you) and was so miffed about it that they let it stew for a full day before posting this very-douchy post. You’ll find the post below, albeit with some modifications for the purpose of our discussion on common courtesies in the sharing of Facebook posts:

Hope they brought a jacket up to the moral high-ground

This is what the moral high-ground looks like, folks.

Welp, there it is. Now that we’re done appreciating the humorous and appropriate caption I put up there let’s talk about the numbers all over the image.

1. Where the number “1” appears in this picture, a person’s Facebook profile picture used to be. I explicitly used the phrase “used to be” because, being the half-way decent person I am, I removed the profile pictures from this picture. They are gone. Why? Commonly people will do this on the off-chance that someone who knows this person will see the profile picture, go “hey I know this person” and, if they are a bit douchey also, will share the person’s name. So, removing the person’s picture removes the risk of that person’s identity being compromises. It’s the same reason that when people post checks from restaurants on the internet they remove the signatures from the picture (generally); though it’s not much to work off, given that most people’s signatures are some bastardized chicken-scratch, the internet is much like nature in the Jurassic Park series: It will find a way. Because of this fact about the internet, removing pictures from Facebook posts is a common courtesy.

2. Where the number “2” appears in the picture, a person’s name used to be. Once again I’ve adopted the turn-of-phrase “used to be” because the names in this picture have been removed. All of them. The original poster’s name, the person being ridiculed’s name, and the OP’s (original poster’s) two friends’ names. Why did I do this? Well, generally the internet is a cold and unforgiving place and when people share images of other people being huge douchebags online the internet community tends to harass these people. Sometimes they might (read, not that often) deserve it but more times than not, they don’t; they were just talking a big, butt-hurt game from behind the safety of a computer screen, not pelting bibles and pictures of aborted fetuses at teenagers walking out of Planned Parenthood. So, names are generally removed as a, you guessed it, common courtesy.

3. Now, the number “3” is a bit more tricky in this case. Where you see a number three, a time-stamp used to be. This could tell a person when the person being ridiculed made their comment. This isn’t really all that big of a deal and generally isn’t removed from pictures but it’s no big deal whether or not it’s included so I decided to remove it. Wanna know why? Common courtesy.

I’d like to take a moment to discuss the content of the above image. Specifically, I’ll be discussing the language of the OP’s comment on his image. The image the OP shared was of a liberal-minded individual speaking out (read, sharing an opinion) against what must have been something hilarious and crazy at the same time. OP responds by taking a screen-cap of this person’s post, sharing it on their Facebook without showing even the vaguest amount of common courtesy, and does the following three things: 1) claims the person that their opinion is somehow invalid, 2) claims that this person should seek help for a mental disorder from which they are suffering, and 3) invokes Godwin’s Law of Nazi Analogies in the start of his online conversation. Also, speaking of “talking out of both sides of one’s mouth” this person spends the majority of a different other post claiming that America is in huge trouble but also has no problem belittling another’s expression of free (non-clear-and-present-danger-inducing) speech. If that is not the definition of the pot calling the kettle black then I have no idea what is. Additionally, OP took the quote on “controlling everything” completely out of context in order to, as he puts it, “use other people’s words against them” which is a stunning display of the caliber of argument this person must be able to construct.

That being said, I’d like to take a moment to discuss some more of this individual’s rhetoric in an attempt to further demonstrate the difficult to grasp concept of Common Courtesy:

Common Courtesy 101

Exhibit A

Some best-of’s in this post include the repetition of the phrase “nah nee nah nee boo boo” and characterizing an entire ideology as “soul-less” and “childish.” At this point, I’d like to state for the record (read, anyone small-minded and ignorant enough to believe that I’m all about the Communism, y0) that I don’t even like the idea of Communism; the only thing I like less is the thought of someone using the worst possible words in the (vast) English language to characterize it. Is Communism foolish? Yes. Is Communism a pipe-dream? Absolutely. Is Communism an ill-conceived detriment to the functioning of a society? Again, absolutely. But for some reason that I cannot begin to understand, “soul-less” and “childish” are the words used by a person who in the above-post claims to “love using people’s words against them” to describe Communism. You’d think that a person who “loves using people’s words against them” would know a few better words than “soul-less” and “childish” to describe Communism, but I’m being nit-picky right now. 

Moreover, this person seems to imply that anyone with a left-leaning opinion must be a newborn baby unwise to the cold, unfeeling world they inhabit. Quick news-flash, age does not correlate to wisdom. I promise you, my kind readers, there are just as many belligerently fucking stupid people in their forties and older as there are in their teens and twenties.  They may be different kinds of stupid, but, and I cannot stress this enough, just because you somehow manages to work your way out of your (awkward) teen years does not make you the motherfucking Dalai Lama(and if you do not know who the Dalai Lama is then I cannot help you any further). Bear in mind that whenever your argument amounts to “I’ve got x-many-more-years worth of wisdom than you so listen to me” all you’re doing is proving to the (presumably younger) opposing party that your position in the debate is so pathetic and weak that all of the skewed facts in the world couldn’t help you out of the hole you’ve dug for yourself. This comment, by the way, was posted as a retort to the comment included in the picture preceding this one. So, that individual in that post wrote a moderately well-constructed idea and the best retort that this individual could muster was “nah nee nah nee boo boo” squared and “soul-less, childish Communism.” Well said, indeed.

Common Courtesy 102

Exhibit B

So in this picture, we the audience once again find that this person has a morbid fascination with Hitler and his Nazi party. Now bear in mind that I am pretty much not saying that this person honestly believes that all liberal-minded individuals have a clear and prevalent interest in seeing the deaths of six million Jews but judging from the rhetoric this person has chosen to spew it kind of feels like that’s exactly what they’re saying. Moreover, this person seems to be loosely implying that the people who want to see six million jews die liberally-minded individuals are all soul-less. Every one of them. And given that the whole lack-of-soul thing, all people with even the slightest left-lean would be best off sinning it up; go ahead and say “fuck” a bunch of times because there is no way you’re going to make into heaven. Baptized as a child, attend church every Sunday, pray every night, and refuse to use four-letter-words (read, Fuck or Shit or Damn or Piss and the like) even when you stub your toe but voted for Obama? Here’s a message from this person’s vision of God:

Seriously, FUCK YOU

FUCK YOU

Well, that feels like enough sacrilege for one day. Bear in mind, by the way, that the above comment by this individual was met with intelligent, well-composed, debate. The response? Resounding silence.

Common Courtesy 103

Exhibit C

This post, in my opinion, is both the most irritating and the most telling of the caliber of person the individual who shared this post is. This person is, simply put, absolutely terrified of any opinion that conflicts in the slightest with their own. If this post is to be believed, and is not a very elaborate satire that I’m missing completely, this cover to TIME magazine featuring Marco Rubio was all that it took for this person to once again accept the integrity of the magazine as a whole. Think about how suuuuper fucked up that is for a minute. This person who is terrified for the future of America was, up until this post was shared, so very pissy about the fact that TIME magazine was upholding its freedom of the press by publishing articles by its writers that he chose to “boycott” the magazine (which is a bullshit word to use in the first place; I highly doubt that this person used to be a devout TIME reader and then boycotted it one day) until they decided to promote an article that they could agree with on the cover of their magazine and that is a huge load of horse shit. It’s horse shit that this individual is entitled to, but horse shit that I am entitled to make fun of for giggles and grins. Is Marco Rubio “The Republican Savior” as TIME claims? Probably not. I can understand how one could come to believe as much, but he will inevitably fall and go away much in the same way Herman Cain did in the 2012 primaries. And that is the best case scenario.

When looking at the ranting and raving this individual spouts, it becomes apparent that this person is a) Misinformed, b) Ignorant, and c) Absolutely terrified of the fact that the world around them is changing at a pace that they are not even vaguely comfortable with. “Childish” is certainly an ironic word for this person to choose to use in their arguments.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, in conclusion please do take a moment to note that any instance of a name was removed from the image in some way (mostly black marks) along with any picture of the accompanying individual. The incredibly high-tech software used to complete such a herculean task? Windows Paint.

-Common Courtesy is simple stuff, indeed-

Mark Piltz Jr.

Advertisements

About Mark Piltz Jr.

Mark is an Actor/Singer/Writer who enjoys writing (bad) poetry and prose, playing the guitar and piano, and occasionally writing (bad) songs. Mark also enjoys referring to himself in the third person when writing in the "about you" section of his profile when he's not too busy leaving glaring grammatical errors in the same section.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Let’s Talk About Common Courtesy

  1. Very well written and a blog post that should be perused by anyone with a modicum of intelligence who may be looking for common courtesy in to days world. That is something we encounter all to seldom.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s