Tag Archives: Bat Shit Crazy

Peeing Into The Digital Wind

I’m beginning to think that the internet, especially the social media aspect of it, is probably the most intricate and fascinating social experiment in the history of the world. There’s an old saying that goes, “Opinions are like assholes. Everybody’s got one and everyone thinks everyone else’s stinks.” This is what the internet has become. Hundreds of millions of people with their own special opinion on EVERYTHING and a whole bunch of them chomping at the bit to point out what’s wrong with everyone else’s, especially yours.

I get it. I really do. It’s so hard to resist. You know you’re right. You are right! You must let all the people know you’re right. I’ve been there a thousand times. Hell, I’ve been there as recently as this weekend. Try as I might, I would not bite my tongue and had to chime in on something that, had I left well enough alone, would have left me in a perfectly calm state. As it was, I was left frustrated and disappointed and all I accomplished was completely wasting half an hour of an otherwise wonderful day.

http://www.reactiongifs.com/

That’s all fine and dandy when it’s average folk arguing with each other over average things. What really makes my head turn is when there’s a company + customer dust up. When I see this happen the first thing I try to do is determine which party is batshit crazy, then I typically root for the other one. If both parties involved are off their rockers then that’s even better. Without a horse in the race, I can just sit back and enjoy the show.

I am left wondering what the ever loving hell is there to be gained – on either side – by engaging in these shenanigans? In many cases, it’s the company that ends up looking the fool. The old adage, “The customer is always right,” seems to ring true, at least in the court of public opinion (even though it’s really bullshit). Occasionally, though, a company will come out on top and boy-oh-boy is that fun to watch. There is something thoroughly satisfying about watching an internet asshat get their just desserts.

For an example of this, we need to look no further than The White Moose Café in Ireland. Café owner/manager, Paul Stenson, took exception one day to some vegans who frequented his café and slagged him in a review. For the record, Paul had no problem with vegans frequenting his restaurant but expected a little heads up beforehand. Instead, their expectation was that he would be able to cater to their very specific dietary needs on a whim. What Paul did next was nothing short of genius.

He fought back and he fought back hard.

Have you ever heard of the joke “The Aristocrats”? It’s a go-to amongst comedians, often told in the company of other comedians. The whole point of it is to take it as far as you can in terms of obscenity and offensiveness. Gilbert Gottfried is renowned for using this joke to turn around a crowd of comedians that were gathered for a roast of Hugh Hefner shortly after 9/11. Gilbert told an offside joke that could be easily categorized as being “too soon”. He got boos. He got heads shaking. He got finger wags of shame. Then he busted into The Aristocrats. By the time he was done all was (mostly) right with the room again. More people were laughing compared to the moments before he took the mic so it’s safe to say he pulled off one of the greatest comedic recoveries ever.

Well, our friend Paul, the owner/manager of The White Moose Café in Ireland, after getting his crappy review from the angry vegans, he launched into his very own rendition of The Aristocrats. He went full-blown five-alarm batshit crazy with his responses at one point [sarcastically] posting, “Any vegans attempting to enter our café will be shot dead at point blank range.” Buzzfeed chronicles the whole sordid affair and it is pure gold.

The end result? The White Moose Café is now one the busiest establishments in Ireland, likely giving the Blarney Stone a run for its money. If I ever go to Ireland I’m stopping by to give Paul some business. I just hope I can get a table and don’t have to step over too many dead vegans while standing in line.

Used with permission from The White Moose Café

On the other side of the coin, we have M. R. (Michael Robb) Mathias and the website Fantasy Faction. It should be a really simple relationship. The writer writes and publishes (in this case self-publishes) and the readers read, review, and discuss the writer’s work (utilizing the comments section on sites like Amazon and Barnes & Noble as well as the handy dandy Fantasy Faction forum).

Now, I once had the good fortune of meeting Chuck Wendig at a writer’s workshop and the writer/reader relationship was briefly discussed. In a nutshell, once that book leaves the writer’s hands, it’s no longer about them. Reviews are for readers, not writers. At no point should a writer inject themselves into a conversation about their work – at least not in a public forum like a review site or forum and certainly not unless they were invited. Full stop.

It would appear that Michael wasn’t in attendance that day because he took his own “Aristocrats” approach and it failed miserably. Michael posts some self-promoting thing to a forum. Forum moderators move it to the self-published and small press section. Michael takes exception to this and, in the public forum, unleashes an egotistic rant that will go down in infamy as “Mathias’s Meltdown”.

You can read a summary of the meltdown here, or you can take a gander at the original forum discussion or peruse what twitter was saying in real time. I have read them all end-to-end and all I can say is, wow! Of course, to a certain extent “any press is good press” applies here (I’m sure he got a few sales out of the whole exchange) but when forum posters (not just the mods) are calling you out for being a twatwaffle, the right play here is not to double down on being a twatwaffle. There were at least half a dozen ways Michael could have navigated those waters and not drowned. As it is, he has the distinction of out batshit crazying Anne Rice.

Image released to the public domain by Anne Rice

All things considered, if Google search results are any indication and you have an online presence as a company (or brand or content creator etc…) you are more than likely going to end up like M.R. Mathias and not Paul Stenson from the White Moose Café.

In summary, be careful out there. Online engagements are a lot like peeing into the wind. It may provide you with some measure of relief but all you really do is end up smelling foul and having to explain to everyone why you’re such an idiot.

~ Andrew

#LoveWins

You may have heard, the Supreme Court of the United States made a landmark decision on Friday. Just like that [snaps fingers] same-sex marriage became legal in all 50 states. Suffice it to say that America and a good part of the rest of the world went completely nuts (mostly in a good way).

#LoveWins was immediately trending on Twitter and if you use the hashtag they will throw in a little rainbow coloured heart just for kicks.

Rainbow themed profile pictures cropped up on Facebook and started multiplying like Gremlins after a nice long bath. I used the Facebook rainbow profile pic generator and at 7:05 pm on Friday, June 26, I changed my profile picture to this:

By 10:00 am the next morning I counted 57 of my 443 Facebook friends with a rainbow or otherwise equality themed profile picture.

By 2:15 pm the day following the decision I counted 80.

By 8:45 pm the number was up to 97 (my friends list was also down to 440 – more on that later).

When I woke up this morning the number was 108!

A good number of other people had also made comments about not changing their profile pic but in full support of it. I hope they never change them back. I love the look of my news feed now. Nothing goes better with pictures of cats than pictures of rainbows.

The White House was even lit like a rainbow that night – and it was absolutely gorgeous. Scores of corporations changed their avatars or sent out product-themed equality messages. This one is my favourites:

You should take a look at this article which listed 35 of the most notable

I like the above image for a couple of reasons. First, I think the way they used their products to create a rainbow was quite clever. “Look at how diverse our brands are!” Second, the message that “Labels are for Products. Not People.” is bang on. Lastly, I like that P&G did this because they are a BIG company. They’re not the biggest company to come out in support of equality, but they have more brands and products than I can name, and for them to show this kind of support with such an on-point message, in such a creative way, deserves a tip of the cap.

Now, in case it wasn’t clear: this decision is a big deal. This is on par with Roe v. Wade and is one hell of an equality bombshell of a decision.

It’s not all bubblegum and rainbows though and as expected, not everyone was on board. Just like the abortion debate, it will continue to rage. Just like equal rights for women, there is still much work to do. Just like systemic and institutionalized racism, hatred still runs rampant.

There is a list of companies that are against it and have been for a while. Some you may have heard of and some may surprise you (it’s an 18-month-old list so apologies in advance if times have changed for any of these. From what I can tell, they haven’t):

There are also scores of politicians, pundits, and prognosticators in the U.S. that have gone completely bat shit crazy (even one of the dissenting voters from SCOTUS flew off the handle). I can’t imagine Vladimir Putin has any nice things to say about Barack Obama either (not that he ever does anyway). Even in Canada, where as of tomorrow (June 29) same-sex marriage will celebrate 10 years of being federally enshrined, our Prime Minister has been mysteriously silent. Nary a tweet of congratulations from the leader of a nation that prides itself on equality.

Let’s not forget that in several states a person can still be discriminated against and lose their job for simply being gay. The Center for American Progress has a great infographic that outlines how far the U.S. still has to go on this issue.

But all is not lost. There are more than a hundred people among my Facebook friends alone that will support this fight, and there are literally millions more out there. Some of the biggest corporations in America are even on board and that’s going to make a big difference. because in the good ole U-S-of-A money talks, baby!

So keep marching forward gays and allies. For the future; there is hope, and today; love wins.

~ Andrew

Crushing Dreams of Candy

Oh Internet, you’ve been providing us with ridiculousness for quite some time. I remember back when it was a really big deal to check on the hockey scores without having to wait for the top of the hour on the radio or the highlights on TV. We have apps for that now (thank goodness).

I remember back when, if you had to research something, you had to get up off your butt and go all the way to the library to look it up and then come all the way back home (uphill, again!) to type it up. How the local transit system and Liquid Paper are still in use is beyond me. Keep citing your sources though, and make sure they’re not all Wikipedia.

I remember when you were out at the bar and an argument broke out the result was often hours of yelling and debate sometimes followed by someone getting punched in the face. Those arguments seem to have tapered off with cries of “TO THE INTERNETS!” replacing violence. I think face punching still occurs, but it’s probably for old fashioned violations like hitting on someone’s girl or getting mind blowingly wasted.

Finally, I remember when the Internet was pure, and innocent, and wasn’t the easiest way for money sucking lawyers to bulk up on billable hours. Yesterday’s ambulance chasers are today’s trademark miners – and the Internet is the reason it’s so much easier than hopping in your car and hanging out near the busiest intersection in town waiting for the latest saga about the car that gets crushed in front of the candy store.

See what I did there?

Yes? Very good! Please keep reading.
No? It’s okay, it was subtle. Please keep reading.

As a content provider I am more in tune with copyright and intellectual property than I every thought I would be. Honestly, had I known I would be a photographer, blogger, and writer back in my youth I probably would not have spent so much time staring at my classmates test papers and assignments. In spite of those transgressions I do have a healthy respect for the creators of content and for the most part it’s a black-and-white discussion. I also understand that in some cases there are at least fifty shades of grey.

I’d like to think that the insanity started with Facebook and it’s ultimate desire to own every piece of information on the Internet. The day they filed for a trademark on the word “like” was a dark day for the Internet and a field day for lawyers. I’m sure other companies have marked singular, common words found in dictionaries everywhere but Facebook went the extra mile and added “face” and “book” to the list as well.

You know, I get it. I really do. Facebook doesn’t want people taking advantage of their popularity or sullying the brand, but to what extent do they have to go to ensure this doesn’t happen?

The answer to that apparently lies with the company King.com Limited, who on February 6, 2013 filed a trademark application for the word “candy”. Special thanks to the CBC for bringing this to our attention and digging up the application status (that would have been a chore for a person much more patient than me). In case you didn’t know, King.com makes the wildly popular app “Candy Crush Saga”.

If you read the filing you’ll see a laundry list of goods and services to which the trademark applies. To say that King.com Limited has cast a wide net would be the understatement of the year.

Some highlights:

  • “Calculating machines, Data processing equipment, namely, couplers”
  • “Microphones; Baby monitors; Battery performance monitors”
  • “Clothing… tights, trousers, under garments, underpants, underwear…”

And my personal favourite:

  • “Non-downloadable electronic publications in the nature of websites, e-books, online magazines, online newspapers, electronic journals, blogs, podcasts and mobile applications in the field of computer and video games” [emphasis mine]

What I can’t figure out is whether or not the bit “in the field of computer and video games” only applies to podcasts and mobile applications or if it applies to everything in that sentence. I suppose one way to find out is to just leave this post up and wait for my cease and desist letter to arrive in the mail. 

The good news is that while the application was approved on January 22 competitors still have until February 25 to oppose the trademark. Here’s hoping someone tips off the members of the 60’s band The Strangeloves before things get out of hand.
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiiD8KeAFew]

~ Andrew

Equality Means Equal

Clearly the arguments pertaining to the separation of church and state as it pertains to the United States Constitution are nuanced and complex, as most arguments involving legal documents tend to be. Legal experts all the way up to the Supreme Court can debate, and many have, from here to tomorrow and still be no further along than they were yesterday. So it should not come as a surprise that when it comes to the general populous this debate rages furiously (and in circles) time and time again.

One observation I have is that there seems to be an over-abundance of people who refuse to see the bigger picture and acknowledge that as it pertains to matters of federal law it is a multi-layered and remarkably complex web in which it is all to easy to get tangled. I am certainly guilty of this, or have been on occasion, but also firmly believe that regardless of how the interpretation of law unfolds that there should be one indisputable characteristic: that the law is applied equally to everyone.

http://humanrightscampaign.tumblr.com/

Another observation I have is that there are always people who will selectively interpret highly complex documents in order to further an agenda or attempt to force specific belief on others. There’s a certain irony to this when the U.S. Constitution is involved, seeing as parts of that document and it’s amendments were specifically written to allow everyone the freedom to believe whatever the hell they want even if you disagree and especially if you disagree.

A final observation, it’s really just different instance of the observation I just made, would be that there are a rather large number of Americans who apply this notion of selective interpretation to the Bible in an effort to tell another large number of Americans how they can or cannot live their lives.

This completely boggles my mind.

My friend Gordon over at Skeptophilia posits that, based on a recent survey done in the U.S., as many as 34% of Americans would support a theocracy. Granted, the question asked wasn’t, “Would you support a theocracy?” but still, the fact that so many people supported the idea of adopting Christianity as a state (34%) and/or federal (32%) religion is absolutely insane.

What’s really interesting about this is there wasn’t a mention of which denomination it would be or how it would be chosen. This actually makes me laugh, and it should, because it’s just that ridiculous. I am quite certain that it would be a remarkably difficult task to pin it down to one but if anyone’s taking bets put me down for a stack of Benjamins on Baptist. I am also quite certain that when it comes to specific interpretation of any version of the Bible that achieving consensus on everything in it would be damn near impossible.

So, to bring all of this together, what it all boils down to is that there are people who for one reason or another will fight tooth and nail defending the right for people to be able to believe what they choose and in the same breath use those very beliefs to attempt to dictate what other people – the ones who disagree with them – can and cannot believe themselves.

But this is a post about equality, so of course I’m going to point to the 2013 decision by the Supreme Court of the United States to uphold the rights of all legally married couples – regardless of the gender makeup of the marriage. That’s right, if you are married, then the U.S. Federal Government will grant you all the benefits that this entails. It doesn’t matter if you’re gay, straight, gay pretending to be straight, or straight pretending to be gay (does that happen?); if you’re married, that’s good enough for the Feds.

Naturally, when the decision came down, a good number of people (see above observations) went completely batshit crazy. The more recent decision in the summer of 2015 even more people went batshit crazy (or maybe it was the same people and they were just louder, I’m not sure). Regardless, this made me angry. Really angry. I happen to be in the (barely) majority opinion that everyone should be treated equally. It’s not a new concept. In fact, almost a couple thousand years ago some guy named Mark told a nice story about some guy named Jesus who said, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” [Mark 12-31] That’s a pretty cool concept if you think about it, and you can find it in all kinds of religions all over the place. They even gave it an awesome name: The Golden Rule.

Bernard d’Agesci (1757-1828), La justice, musée de Niort.

The funny thing is, as far as marriage is concerned, the U.S. Government has declared that it’s none of their business. Marriage is marriage as far as the laws are concerned. They’ll mark down your Social Security Numbers and the marriage certificate number and make the appropriate changes to their files. It’s actually quite a nice showing of equality, and if you’ll permit me one grandiose expletive, it’s about fucking time.

Remember:
Equality means equal.
There is no version of equality.
There is no sort of equal.
There is no equal, but…

Equality is an absolute, and on that there is no room for interpretation.

~ Andrew