Smugness

Talk about igniting a heated stomp.

Buzz-er definitely had a lot of people’s garters all bunched up. The once-sedate cyberpoll is suddenly ablaze with people grinding their teeth and spewing eruptive magma of indignation. I try looking at the whole shebang with objective detachment and not let all the negativity inflame my already conceited, swollen ego. This is becoming hysterically comical by the minute.

Here’s the thing: despite all our presumed cleverness we still have cavernous room for misinterpretation. But for the sake of clarification let me state the following:

• 01. I am not saying that I am being accused by anyone of personally rigging the voting process. I am a pathetic technoretard and wouldn’t have a bleeping clue as to what proxies are and if I wanted a migraine I’d dip my hands on their complex technicalities. What I resent is the implication that the only way I can win a poll is if I rely on pumping proxies. (If you have been reading my past entries, winning or losing is irrelevant; finding inexhaustible supply of absurd things to write about is the great deal - it gives this blog an insane rush.) I can say with conviction that I haven't ask anyone to rig the poll in my favor nor will I encourage it. I am confident that the limited number of people actually reading this blog is sufficient to go on blogging than the validation of ten thousand mindless drones. I do not recycle forwarded jokes in my blog. I do not cut and paste other people’s entries. I’d certainly hammer my molars with a mallet than write a tepid entry on how my day went. (If I did/do kick me in the face to remind me.) Now, if it is still not apparent, this is why this blog is unpopular: I write in a certain way—five hundred percent cuteness-free which is quite radioactive for a lot of bloghoppers. My conceit also reigns supreme which is an effective filtering device to weed out cutey-pahootey dorks.

• 02. I do not deny anyone’s right to question the veracity of the voting process: that’s for the cyberpoll founder’s area to defend. However no one can deny that no matter how flawed the system, Filipino Blogger Of The Week provided everyone a convenient online clearing to pry upon each other's thoughts. Through that thriving site we marvel at the volume of mediocrity out there and delight on the occasional gems we stumble upon through its initiatives. So I do not appreciate the mocking manner of generalizing on everyone’s authenticity. I do not look at people to be shining paragons of niceness but there is this little thing called common courtesy. This is a civilization so courtesy is a major proof that we have shed our Neanderthal skins long ago. Or, have we?

• 03. I can handle smug retorts. Hell, I can be a bastard too. I make snide, sniggery, sexist remarks. That ostracizes me among touchy-feely gay people: I am viewed as a pretentious nutsack by proclaiming this muddy business of bisexuality. However, as this quasi-controversy progresses a little nugget of a statement makes me want to chuckle AND launch into channeling Hannibal Lecter: “for loudcloud and everyone else affected including other fags: i am not accusing anyone.” Fags? If that little shining word is used to compartmentalize people because of their personal life choices then I am grossly misinformed: The last time I checked Macho Homophobia was extinct two decades ago. Yes, I have used the word not to put people down but to amplify the absurdity of certain behaviors. I am ready to let the comment slide if that little word is meant to be a wink wink nudge nudge jab, but the more I reread that brilliant line the more it makes me want to giggle like a hormone-crazed schoolgirl. Before I lunge and peg a Mongol No.2 on anyone’s retinas.

Having said all that, I do not change my opinion on iampaperbag’s obvious blogging faculty. He has the gift, the flair, the aptitude. I do not believe in suppressing dissenting opinions. I encourage it as a matter of fact. It’s a democracy; and shedding valid questions is every Joe’s basic rights. What bugs me is when people make nasty, reckless, sweeping generalizations.

We strive to be individualistic, to proclaim to the blogosphere our distinctive self-proclaimed genius. And I do not buy this whole sordid notion that I am comparable to the next random blogger—to be a name filler in the succession of comas in The Great Pigeonholing Method to validate someone's self-satisfied suspicion on the foulness of a certain system.

We can be smart and drive a point without abandoning our manners.