Moff's Law

[Dylar]

One of the more irritating aspects of interacting with people on the web is the constant bombardment of passive aggressive complaints and the stupid justifications people provide for watching television or listening to ARE YOU TALKIN TO ME?.  "Why can't you just accept _______ for what it is?"  "Why do you have to force your beliefs on people?"  "Stop overthinking things!"  I used to try and patiently explain the rationale behind my own thoughts and beliefs, but no more.  Now I just point them to Moff's Law and move on.

So when you go out of your way to suggest that people should be thinking less — that not  using one’s capacity for reason is an admirable position to take, and one that should be actively advocated — you are not saying anything particularly intelligent. And unless you live on a parallel version of Earth where too many people are thinking too deeply and critically about the world around them and what’s going on in their own heads, you’re not helping anything; on the contrary, you’re acting as an advocate for entropy.

And most annoyingly of all, you’re contributing to the fucking conversation yourselves when you make your stupid, stupid comments. You are basically saying, “I think people shouldn’t think so much and share their thoughts, that’s my thought that I have to share.” If you really think people should just enjoy the movie without thinking about it, then why the fuck did you (1) click on the post in the first place, and (2) bother to leave a comment? If it bugs you so much, GO WATCH A GODDAMN FUNNY CAT VIDEO.

[Dedrater]

And I know many people who prefer not to think about much of what they consume, and with them I have no argument. I also have no argument with people who disagree with another person’s thoughts about a work of art.

Ironically, this is just as silly as what the person in the post is getting bent out of shape over. Why is it only acceptable to have a problem with the vapidity of the average modern person when they force it upon others, and not when they're being passive aggressive about it, or simply "keeping it to themselves" altogether? So this guy has no qualms with those who willfully turn their brains off -- something only people who are afraid ever do, and fear is unproductive -- so long as they're not displaying their idiocy publicly?

He also takes the "Everyone has the right to an opinion" stance, which is disastrous in itself. Why wouldn't you "have an argument" with someone who disagrees? You can't both be right, and leaving everyone to their own, compromised "opinions" is a big part of what brings society down.

[Dylar]

People who keep their idiocy to themselves don't sabotage the discourse for everyone else.  Whether you cede the "right" to hold opinions to others or not, they're going to hold them nonetheless: you might as well try to piss out a volcano as attempt to restrict the holding of opinions to those you deem capable of having a valid one.  A dumb opinion stated baldly, however, beats the hell out of deliberate attempts to short circuit the discussion through passive aggression.

[Humanicide]

Good find. I'll be sure to make use of this in the future, right alongside Godwin's Law.

[Veritas]

yeah because obviously the internet is srs bsns. come on guys, stop taking things so seriously and listen to some opeht

[Conservationist]

You are basically saying, “I think people shouldn’t think so much and share their thoughts, that’s my thought that I have to share.”

Makes sense. People think only of themselves, and think the world should stop for them, in inverse proportion to their aristocratic sensibilities.

[beyond_godlike]

And I know many people who prefer not to think about much of what they consume, and with them I have no argument. I also have no argument with people who disagree with another person’s thoughts about a work of art.

Ironically, this is just as silly as what the person in the post is getting bent out of shape over. Why is it only acceptable to have a problem with the vapidity of the average modern person when they force it upon others, and not when they're being passive aggressive about it, or simply "keeping it to themselves" altogether? So this guy has no qualms with those who willfully turn their brains off -- something only people who are afraid ever do, and fear is unproductive -- so long as they're not displaying their idiocy publicly?

He also takes the "Everyone has the right to an opinion" stance, which is disastrous in itself. Why wouldn't you "have an argument" with someone who disagrees? You can't both be right, and leaving everyone to their own, compromised "opinions" is a big part of what brings society down.

I'm sure he has a problem with this but this was a comment on the internet and thus beyond it's scope. If he had more than just one premise it would have have detracted from its impact. Also, he likely predicted that any arguments opposing him would likely focus on the same thing you have, but inversely.

[Pielo Schette]

Why is it only acceptable to have a problem with the vapidity of the average modern person when they force it upon others, and not when they're being passive aggressive about it, or simply "keeping it to themselves" altogether? So this guy has no qualms with those who willfully turn their brains off -- something only people who are afraid ever do, and fear is unproductive -- so long as they're not displaying their idiocy publicly?

That's it. Because them doing it publicly inconveniences him, you see...