Sunday, July 20, 2008

My Top 10 Problems With Digg

First off, I love digg.com...
Being about a month new to digg though;
I do feel the need to vent my frustration with it.

MY TOP TEN PROBLEMS WITH DIGG

10. Blatant advertising
I get a lot of shouts. Whoop-dee-do. Some of these shouts have to do with buying real estate though; and I don't mean of the "real estate ain't doin so hot" rhetoric. I'm talking about blatant "Need a new $150,000 home? Look no further, because I've dugg up a real estate website JUST FOR YOU!" advertisements. Come on now. Even the automated shouts from autobots are less subtle than that.

I can simply delete those people that shout me blatant ads though, which is why "blatant advertising" is #10.


9. Stupid crap; kinda like this blog
Honestly, if the submission doesn't entertain me, challenge me (gasp), or inform me - then my time was wasted; and I'd rather waste it on rearranging my sock drawer. Surely we can all agree that not a lot of people are interested in seeing my family portrait-like pictures from vacation, right? I don't think a few of my own personal friends would even care to see those pictures...

Such content we can all agree is "stupid crap" and the person responsible for submitting it cared not to stop and think "Am I even interested in what I'm digging?". An occasional "stupid crap" submission is forgivable though; so long as it doesn't happen very often.


8. Top Ten Lists (as opposed to much bigger lists, i.e. cooler)
The other day I saw "90 Greatest Rap Albums of the 90's" Now there's a guy that has actually put some WORK into his list. Ten really isn't enough for me personally, so you see it's quite obvious that I like digg a lot since I can only think of ten problems that I have with it. I don't wanna see the Top Ten mugshots of celebrities, I wanna see the top 50 mugshots of Gary Busey!

Give me a HUGE list that I have to sort through and study, not something that I'll just glance through briefly and digg up for the hell of it. Top Ten lists are forgivable if they're at least as long as say, my top ten list. Yeah sure, I'm an exception.


7. Sarcasm Disclaimers
I've accepted it, I always have to put *sarcasm* tags at the end whenever I leave a sarcastic statement. Recently I saw the trailer for "Religulous" which was a duplicate of another submission that had previously gone pop; I think it's a sign from God *sarcasm*. For the record, I am a spiritual Christian who welcomes the downfall of close-minded religious institutions that have implemented bigotry for so long - which is the sentiment that I share with agnostics/atheists. I left a comment that was both sarcastic and ironic about how Atheists are religious too and that they pray to Gore & Bush (however I was too tired to elaborate). Now this sarcastic comment I'll admit was weaker than other comments that gained me over 400+ diggs...

But here's the catch: we all know atheists aren't "religious" and it's just as looney to think that political leaders can hear our every word (or is it? wiretap ahem), but people of the "I'm not necessarily human" descent didn't catch on, or maybe it was the fact that I mentioned Bush in a neutral way - which leads me to #7.


6. "F*** George Bush"
Don't single him out, you'll just look like an embecile. Don't say "F*** Bush" either, you just look stupid. Bush has chronies that are in on it too - and he also has spineless democrats in Congress who don't stand up to him much other than complain to the media. A lot of people contribute to the joke that is Bush Jr's legacy. Had his name been "George Smith" he would've never had a chance at the office. Bush should have become a drug dealer - he would've made much less of a negative impact.

Who would've known he would've become such a Neo-Conservative In-Chief? I could go ON AND ON AND ON about why I dislike his actions as President....which is the point: I don't wanna hear about this guy anymore. I need some sort of break from him; if only when I'm on the internet. Him and Jimmy Carter are a nightmare-come-true.


5. "Which side are you on?"
There is a lot of proof that Al Gore's movie is basically a slide show with only a little bit of manipulated information to offer. Those who dispute that statement are ignorant. There is also a lot of proof that scientists who say "Big oil isn't really that bad" are funded by (gasp!) BIG OIL COMPANIES! Dispute that too and you're ignorant. However, because I say this: extreme leftists immediately assume that I enjoy watching Fox News and that I love George Bush. Take it easy there my "Marx-is-a-god" comrades, I hate Nike as much as you do (assuming you have a heart) even though we're all amazed by Tiger Woods.

So let's end human trafficking and cultural genocide before we go green eh? Earth's going through a cooling period right now anyway. Those who dispute that fact have an agenda or are misinformed by those with an agenda. Which side am I on? I'm shocked that the vast majority of people don't see how the two major political parties are simply trading power every 8 years while hardly accomplishing anything (other than taking baby steps in re-writing the constitution to basically say "Yeah, we were just kidding 'bout the whole freedom thing.").

4. Politics
I already hate my top 10 list because I felt obligated to address politics. I swear man, some times
I just wanna go watch MTV even though it's not music television. Thank God for "stupid crap", if only to make me laugh for the wrong reasons while I have to reluctantly see what Bush has done today, or why Democrats "are retarded"...I think I'd rather eat lent from a hobo's toenails than have to discuss politics - life is too short, maybe ignorance isn't so bad afterall.

I think I'm going to start only digging one political submission a month. Maybe every other month. If I'm already THIS sick of politics on digg , then I'm sure there's other people who have reached the point where they login and immediately vomit on their keyboard from all the political shouts they see.


3. Cyber-Toughness
What's the digg demographic? Nothing but 12 year olds? What's with the name-calling? Would you really say that to my face? It seems like most kids on digg think "If your opinion is different than mine, you are Adolf Hitler reincarnated." But even an outlandish statement like that would make me laugh, kids these days are less creative with their insults - and often the insults just confuse me or obligate me to educate the child: "No no, just because I don't buy the opinion of a scientist who gets grants from Gore doesn't mean that I'm a republican propagandist. It doesn't mean I'm republican either."

I don't know about most of you digg peeps, but if you want to be a pretentious pseudo intellectual type, it doesn't mix with the tough-guy persona that you try to convey as well - and you've GOT to improve your vocabulary and your logic. The other day I saw a guy making an argument against Ben Stein of all people. He's basically offended that Ben Stein believes something different than he does (in this free country). Now this guy made every liberal look bad by simply going "Greetings and salutations everyone - F*** BEN STEIN!" His intellect spiraled downward even further as the video dragged on..and on. It was the first time I saw staunch atheists and deists united for a cause - to let this kid know that he's a complete idiot (and that he worships at the alter of Big Mac)...and that he's not that tough.

2. Elitism
This is different than cyber-toughness. I can sympathize with losers that try to feel tough, sure.
You got picked on in school? You wanna take it out on people that don't know where you live? Fine, but don't think you're special just because you know Nickelback sucks (like I do too). Nary a more terrible band has come upon the American Conscience than this band - but I refuse to think that the 8 million people who bought the latest Nickelback shite-of-an-album are inferior to me...they're just casual music listeners. Yeah, that's it.

Such is the pyshce of an elitist, if you don't agree with the elitist - it must mean you're not enlightened. It must mean you're a "troll" for some magical reason. If the elitist thinks there should be higher taxes on "rich people" yet everyone disagrees; he/she thinks everyone is an idiot for thinking so. Hey elitist, if a rich guy buys a $100,000 car and pays a 6% sales tax, he's already paying more money in taxes than some one like you who pays 6% on a $15,000 car. The elitist can't seem to understand this concept; therefore the elitist implies that he is better than you and that he can't reason with some one who's "inferior".
In his/her mind, the elitist is always right. If the sky is obviously blue and the elitist disagrees, you have no hope of correcting the elitist, because elitists are apparently never wrong.

1. Collaborationists
Collaborationists are ALL OVER DIGG and they're the most irrational people on the face of the earth. *Blog has been updated since yesterday since some of you digg nuts can't match the pseudo intellectualism that you feign, so here's 7 easy steps on why collaborationists are the plague of digg*

The following is how a collaborationist thinks as opposed to a sane liberal/conservative:

1. George Bush is more evil than radical terrorists who want to kill all non-muslims.

2. George Bush is more of a threat to me than the brainwashed minions of the terrorists.

3. The United States is one of the worst countries to ever live in

4. Communism works; it's worked every time.

5. Al Gore speaks nothing but the truth, all non-Gore followers don't.

6. My submissions on digg are changing the world

7. I'm accomplishing a lot by complaining about the country on the internet
as opposed to congress. *Not to be confused w/ complaining to congress via internet*

*Side note for potential haters: Just b/c I think Gore is a liar doesn't mean I'm opposed
to alternative energy. I fully support getting rid of foreign dependency on oil.*

WHAT ELSE SHOULD I HAVE ADDED TO MY TOP TEN LIST OF PROBLEMS WITH
DIGG? WHAT ELSE SUCKS ABOUT IT BESIDES ME? FEEL FREE TO COMMENT BELOW!


Thank you for reading (even if you disagree with me completely and wish to cut my inferior throat open).

; )

10 comments:

ko said...

You had me until you went off the deep end with your "collaborationists" conspiracy theory. Have you not noticed all the evil crap that has went down over the past 7.5 years!!!?? And I don't think anyone disagrees that they are fortunate to be born in this country. I think you are confusing 2 different topic here.

hmd1987 said...

"KO", i appreciate your honest response.

I hate what the current administration has done.
But the fact of the matter is this:
Worse things happen every day in countries
that have either a dictatorship or no form of government at all.

All this talk about how evil our soldiers are, that they're only good at killing....Look at what radical insurgents do to our 19 year old children who happen to be fighting the war for us.

You have been sucked into the great fallacy
that consists of the collaborationist logic:
"George Bush is the most evil man on the planet."

Sure, he's evil and dumb, but he ain't number one.

Rizoh said...

"The other day I saw "Top 99 Hip-Hop Albums of the 90's." Now there's a guy that has actually put some WORK into his list."
------------------------------------
Thanks for complimenting the list. It was actually 90, not 99. 99 sounds catchier though. :)

Rizoh said...

Oh, one more thing. I see where you're going with that NO.1 point and I agree with most of the issues you raised, but I have to say I'm confused by the "collaborationists" label.

hmd1987 said...

rizoh, i have corrected my mistakes in regards to your digg submission.
when i say "collaborationist" i'm referring to people within our own country who are pretty much indirectly taking sides with radical terrorists.

"collaborationists" are the ones who would welcome Osama by throwing flowers in the streets. They hate our US Troops for taking lives yet they do not question the manner in which radical insurgents take our troops' lives.

They hate George Bush yet don't acknowledge the fact that there's about 100 Mugabe and Hitler wannabes out there who are literally 3 times worse.

They're against the wiretaps primarily b/c they're afraid it'll lead to them getting busted with cocaine; not so much that they care about catching people who are ordering parts to a homemade nuke.
(Still, the wiretaps make me uneasy too)

Collaborationists are people who collaborate with the enemy! I mean that half-jokingly some what though, but they ARE the people who don't acknowledge that there are far more evil forces at work than Bush.

☮~alapoet~☠ said...

I don't get your "collaborationist" rant, either.

Saying that George Bush has wrecked the Constitution and is the worst president in history (both of which are true, IMO) is NOT saying that there aren't worse leaders in other countries.

It has nothing to do with leaders of other countries, or whether George Bush is "#1" or not.

It's just the fact that he's president of the country in which most of us LIVE. Of COURSE he's the one we're worried about. The Constitution he's trashing is the one which protects our freedoms!

It seems pretty damn natural to me that we'd be concerned about that.

And it seems tortured logic to equate that concern -- that outrage, even -- with somehow being a "collaborationist" or saying we're on the terrorists' side. That's just faulty logic. A no-go.

Having said all that, I'll say this: For someone who's concerned with all the juvenile name-calling on Digg, you're a little too quick to call people "ignorant" when they disagree with you. Oh, and "collaborationist," too. Those are insulting and belittling names, just as much as any of the ones who claim to dislike.

Throwing those insults out there like that will likely get this post buried on Digg. That doesn't mean it should be. But that's how Digg rolls. Piss enough people off = get buried.

hmd1987 said...

okay alapoet...guess i'll copy/paste too.
thanks for commenting on the blog itself!

you don't get the collaborationist rant?
hmmm, let's review everything you've said....

"we are the ones defending freedom"
yes, you're doing a lot of good on your computer.
you're defending it real well. you've accomplished so much
for us all by complaining about what Bush has done. thank you.
thank you for your years of service. you prevented Bush from
accomplishing all the wrong that he's done. thank you.
uh oh ---> *sarcasm*

you people want peace at any cost, you are willing to talk to...or excuse me... *collaborate* with anyone, regardless of whether or not they are known terrorists - in order to maintain (alleged) peace.
kinda like how Pelosi and Carter went to go talk to the terrorists.
of course I'm sure a lot of you diggers made those stories to the front page eh? Wow. Defiance, wow.
it's no different than when the British PM came back from talking with Hitler assuring the world that there'd be peace...accomplished nothing and made no difference.

the only time i used the word "ignorant" was for those
who IGNORE the fact that there's worse things going on in the world than global warming such as cultural genocide, there's more evil people in the world than Bush, and there's people who blindly believe anything that Gore says just b/c he's not Bush yet he's just another puppet. it's simple: if you disagree with that, you are ignorant.

"collaborationist" is hardly juvenile terminology. it's quite an intelligent observation, and I was mainly arguing the point that the name-calling needs to improve. my name-calling is just the type of weapons you people need to use! hijack the word if you have to, damnit. improve your vocabulary skills and comprehension!

besides, the people of digg have spoken so far...you can't accentuate their own hatred for OUR country as opposed to identifying who the real enemy is - the people that want to cut the throats of you and I.

Russet Shadows said...

Pretty interesting post. The non-thinking leftist responders are why I got tired of blogging, though. The comment sections always went like this:

Me: Logical point A, B, C.
Liberal: *emotional hissy fit, profanity, Bush is Satan, A is wrong!*

They don't read; if they do read, they don't comprehend; and as a result, they can't argue; and as your post demonstrates, they really, truly, do not understand what words mean. It's frankly both sad and scary.

hmd1987 said...

"Russet Shadows" thank you and you are completely right. It is always hilarious to see the non-thinker collaborationists reveal themselves by either attacking the person who brings up the truth, or attacking the way in which the truth is phrased - they don't prove anything wrong mind you. They just throw a fit as you so righteously pointed out.

See "alapoets" comment for example.
It's quite hilarious, he thinks he's defending our freedom by complaining on a computer to other people who have no power. He goes on to bash Bush but fails to acknowledge the point that I made about how the democrats were too spineless to stand up to him.

Let's stop making generalizations about "libs" and "conservatives" though; it really comes down to whether one is an idiot or one is informed.

☮~alapoet~☠ said...

hmd1987, what you obviously fail to realize is that I've been a political activist, i.e., doing more than "putting words on a computer," and "complaining to powerless people" for a long time -- 30 years, as a matter of fact.

For you to assume in your ignorance that all I've done is to complain online merely highlights your cluelessness.

In 1996, yes, I added the online element to what was already a 20-year record of political activism. It's one channel of many that I use to make my own humble contribution to promoting progressive causes.

But again, it's just one channel. Others include contacting Congressmen and Senators and establishing a dialogue with them, influencing the mainstream media (I've written, and been the subject of, a few stories over the years), and participating in direct actions such as marches and protests.

Have you done these things to back up what you believe in? Or are you just complaining online to "powerless people," as you seem to want to characterize them?

BTW, It's very ironic that you use the example of "democrats too spineless to stand up to bush" as one of my supposed failings, when in fact that has been one of the main thrusts of my recent actions and blog posts (including one that got 2,200 diggs).

If you'd bother to get out a little, if you thought that maybe you could stand to learn some new facts and perspectives, if you'd in fact just get adventurous enough to look at my blog, you'd already know some of this. But seemingly you'd prefer to spout off uninformed, clueless nonsense without even attempting to inform yourself. That's the very definition of hubris.

It's quite dangerous to make the jump from "I don't know what all you've done" to assuming that means "you haven't done anything except what I know about." Well, dangerous unless you don't mind looking like an uninformed blowhard. Because that's pretty much where you are, right now.