I love it when readers comment on the blog. It happens so rarely, that I when I do receive a comment notification, after giggling like a schoolgirl for five minutes straight, I immediately comment back. I like it when something from of my own brain compels--dare I suggest, inspires?--someone to take a few moments to share their own opinions.Like I said, I love comments, but I'm not a huge fan of anonymous comments. I'll take them, mind you, but there's a certain amount of cowardice behind anonymously commenting on the internet. If you have something to say, say it. Own it. Here at GEP, you are allowed to speak/type your mind, in fact, I invite it. If I disagree with your opinion, I have no qualms about poking your argument full of holes, but I will always be nice about it, because I'm all about gathering more and more regular readers, cultivating an audience of people who share my love/hate relationship with all realms of pop culture.
So, there it is, I love comments, both signed and unsigned. What chaffs my hide--that's a thing nobody says, right?--are individuals who swing by the blog and comment on something without any knowledge of what I'm trying to do here. I'm not sure if you realize this, but Giant Electric Penguin is primarily a comedy blog, at least, I like to think it is. I like to believe I know my way around a joke, pun, or clever turn of phrase. I think my snarky take on Melrose Place has a place on the internet. I'm not trying to change the world, I'm just here to bang out ha-has on my keyboard and shoot them off into the ether. I'm rarely serious here, unless I'm attacking religion or posting videos of songs I despise. I'm fairly certain most people understand this site if they spend any significant amount of time here, which research shows most people do not. Every once in awhile though, I get a comment from someone, anonymous or not, who just doesn't get it. Like this one, on a piece I wrote about a yearbook staff refusing to include a girl's "racy" senior picture in their 2012 edition:
"Award-winning yearbook? What the hell kind of weird organization hands out awards to high school yearbooks?" If you had done any research, you would have found such organizations. Check out, Columbia Scholastic Press Association,held by Columbia University and the administrator of the Pulitzer Prize. There are nominations, standards, and voting. Whether you believe it or not, yearbook is a journalistic endeavor, and the yearbook staff was right for refusing to print Spies, near porn photo.
Before I proceed to tell this dimwit...I'm sorry...valued reader to kindly STFU today, here's how I responded at the time:
You got me. I did the least amount of research required.
I do not, however, believe a yearbook is a journalistic endeavor, but I'm glad you are passionate about something. People need to find things they love and do them. Like me and writing humorous articles about dumb stories like this with the minimum amount of research required.
Also: you're not suggesting that the Columbia Scholastic Press Association award is anything akin to the Pulitzer Prize, are you?
Not too mean, right? I stated my opinion, but also validated this anonymous individual's love of yearbooking. The truth is, I did do a little bit of research, but, admittedly, not enough...FOR A REPUTABLE NEWS WEBSITE! I run a dinky little Blogspot blog here, madam or sir. If you are getting your news from GEP, um, you're super dumb? Not doing the proper amount of research and not knowing about the Columbia Scholastic Blah Blah Thing worked to my advantage, because my intention was to poke fun at yearbook staff nerds--and I did time on a yearbook staff, so I know of what I speak--not write a dissertation on the proud history of yearbook awards.
Also: If you think Ms. Spies photo is "near porn," you have obviously never seen porn. And neither have I, Mom. I swear.
Here's another clueless comment from another STFU post about a weird atheist Christmas display on a courthouse lawn in Virginia, this time from an actual person, named Brian Westley, whose own blog, pacifistundeadpriest.blogspot.com, I admittedly don't really understand:
No. [I assume this is because Mr. Westley is an atheist and he refuses to STFU. Fair enough.]
Too damn bad for you, eh?
Love that first amendment.
My response:
I feel like you've only read this post and none of the other posts on this site. I invite you to read more. We're just a bunch of jokesters over here. You'll get it.
I too love the first amendment. That should be pretty obvious.
Thanks for reading!
My goal in writing this piece was to point out how stupid the atheist Christmas display was, not to say they shouldn't have done it. I mean, they shouldn't have done it, but only because it was unfocused, nonsensical, and totally hackneyed, all at the same time. The religious, the non-religious, and the anti-religious can put up whatever dumb display they want on whatever dumb lawn they want. And if I find out about it and do, in fact, decide that it is super lame, I will tell those people to, simply, STFU. In this case, my STFU should be read as "try harder." A skeletal Santa Claus hanging on a cross means nothing. Less than nothing. It is simply Christian-baiting and, therefore, not in any way helpful to whatever your cause is. But Westley's right, people do have the first amendment right to act like dumb assholes. Maybe I should just shut the eff up.
Look, keep (or start) commenting everybody, but try to understand what I'm trying to do over here a little first. OK? Can we all agree to do that. Let me give you an example of the kind of comments I'm looking for. Here's one from my 2009 review of Disney's The Little Mermaid that someone posted earlier this week:
Viagra said...
This is such a wonderful movie!
See? It's just that simple. A nice, non-anonymous comment from a brand I trust. Now that's good commentin'!
