Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes!

[GreNME]

I assure you, ED acknowledges it. They just don't care.

You see, ED has only two priorities:

1) Lulz
2) Pissing people off

When people get mad at them, they perceive that as a victory. Have you seen their article about the Virginia Tech Massacre?

So, what you're actually saying is that yes, it's basically an attempt (by ED) to be a-holes? Okay, thanks for the verification.

Just for clarification, trolls also tend to have two priorities:
1) Lulz
2) Pissing people off

What a coincidence.

One more time, slowpokes:

ED IS A COLLABORATIVE WIKI
ED IS A COLLABORATIVE WIKI
ED IS A COLLABORATIVE WIKI
ED IS A COLLABORATIVE WIKI
ED IS A COLLABORATIVE WIKI
ED IS A COLLABORATIVE WIKI
ED IS A COLLABORATIVE WIKI
ED IS A COLLABORATIVE WIKI

What part of that is everyone having such a hard time understanding?

Here, let me help you:

ED didn't post that article here
ED didn't post that article here
ED didn't post that article here
ED didn't post that article here
ED didn't post that article here
ED didn't post that article here
ED didn't post that article here

I don't think anyone has been claiming that any of us should be policing the internets. Instead, the complaints I've been making (and that others seem to be repeating) is that the ED article holds absolutely zero usefulness or contributory relevance to this forum, and only serves the purpose of flame-baiting. It's nearly completely lacking in comedic value, and any comedy that may have been present is overwhelmingly strangled by the moronic cruelty that's about the equivalent of watching a child squash a hamster under his feet.

1337m4n, if it's no big deal and it's someone else's work why bother getting so worked up about it when people call it crap? There's nothing to be defensive about. Some of us find it to be unfunny and juvenile, and others find it funny enough to excuse any possible bad parts. You're not going to convince anyone who doesn't think it's funny that it is by posting patronizing images or assuming that we don't get it. We get it, we just think it's stupid.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Sage

 

[RLJ]

Hello

I am the author of most of the subject encyclopedia dramatica article and just wanted to note that most of the issues raised about the article relate to not understanding encyclopedia dramatica. You have to read a lot of articles on ED to really understand what the site is all about.

Also if anyone else has specific questions I'd be glad to answer any I could. I wrote the article because ED didn't have one and I felt this bit of internet-related nonsense had to be dealt with.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I am the author of most of the subject encyclopedia dramatica article and just wanted to note that most of the issues raised about the article relate to not understanding encyclopedia dramatica. You have to read a lot of articles on ED to really understand what the site is all about.

Also if anyone else has specific questions I'd be glad to answer any I could. I wrote the article because ED didn't have one and I felt this bit of internet-related nonsense had to be dealt with.

As I said to 1337m4n, we get what ED is about. As he noted, you don't care that using 'fag' in the course of your humor is problematic. He seems to think that because you don't care, it's ok. I think it's wrong to normalize the usage of slurs to insult a group, no matter how worthy that group is of insulting, as it reinforces the concept of gay/fag as something negative.

Yes I get you're doing it as a joke. Yes I get it's a theme. Yes I realize you don't give a ****. What I don't understand is why people here who aren't of the AOlTeen****wit stripe think that matters.

eta: I also take issue with the idea that if someone points out what you're doing is wrong, it means that someone is pissed off and therefore handing you a victory. I rather think the people who link to you on unrelated forums with titles like "Yes! Yes! Yes!" and spam silly pictures fit that description much better.

 

[Everything]

ITT: Randifags whining.

 

[T.A.M.]

Good Lt:
Love the picture.

Anyone:
For an ancient 37 year old, can someone please explain what LULZ and DESU mean?

Thanks

TAM

 

[Myriad]

I am the author of most of the subject encyclopedia dramatica article and just wanted to note that most of the issues raised about the article relate to not understanding encyclopedia dramatica. You have to read a lot of articles on ED to really understand what the site is all about.

Also if anyone else has specific questions I'd be glad to answer any I could. I wrote the article because ED didn't have one and I felt this bit of internet-related nonsense had to be dealt with.

ITT: Randifags whining.

Whining? Not me.

I am, however, amused at the mental image of either of you about to get fired or lose your most profitable clients because you called someone a fag, and learning just how far the "to me and my peers it has a private meaning that you just don't understand" excuse goes in the real world.

And T.A.M.:

LULZ = "The enjoyment of causing discomfort to others."

For example: "I think indoor temperatures just above freezing are perfectly OK, and I think everyone should be like me. So I shut down my apartment building's heating system for three days in January. LULZ!"

Another example: "I think calling people 'fags' is perfectly OK, and I think everyone should be like me. So I posted in this thread and called everyone fags. LULZ!"

See how it works?

DESU = "I know an obscure Internet meme." The original derivation is irrelevant; to the extent it has any actual meaning it can be translated directly as "Yeah," a similar form of content-free but slightly approving emphasis with a similar pattern of gratuitous repetition. (The Beatles: "She loves you, DESU, DESU, DESU." Except the more usual usage for DESU would repeat it many more times.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[T.A.M.]

so the LULZ is not an abbreviation or mnemonic? Odd then.

TAM

 

[Myriad]

I was focusing on its meaning in actual usage, not its derivation. It's a misspelled plural form of LOL, which of course is an abbreviation of "laughing out loud." There's no particular reason for the modification, but since "LOL" is a verb and "LULZ" is a noun, it makes a certain amount of sense for differentiated spelling and pronunciation to arise.

DESU is simply a Japanese word, not an abbreviation. In Japanese it's a form of the copula, used in formal speech. In Japanese its unnecessary use has a comical effect, leading to (leaving out most of the details) its current usage.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[RLJ]

I think the best way to describe it is to call it transgressive humor and metaphor. Like I said if you havn't read at least 100 articles on ED you're unlikely to get the point of it. And if you don't like ED then obviously it isn't the website for you.

 

[T.A.M.]

ahhh...

so LULZ is another moronic bastardization of an internet shorthand, similar to PWNED.

dear lord the gene pool continues to dilute.

TAM

 

[1337m4n]

So, what you're actually saying is that yes, it's basically an attempt (by ED) to be a-holes? Okay, thanks for the verification.

Just for clarification, trolls also tend to have two priorities:
1) Lulz
2) Pissing people off

What a coincidence.

No [rule10], Sherlock. ED is written by Anonymous, who are trolls. You must be some kind of bloody genius to have figured that out. GRATS GRATS GRATS.

Here, let me help you:

ED didn't post that article here
ED didn't post that article here
ED didn't post that article here
ED didn't post that article here
ED didn't post that article here
ED didn't post that article here
ED didn't post that article here

Aside from the fact that this is completely off from the point I was responding to...

No they didn't.

What are you trying to say, and why don't you just come right out and say it, pal? I tire of this cowardice.

I don't think anyone has been claiming that any of us should be policing the internets. Instead, the complaints I've been making (and that others seem to be repeating) is that the ED article holds absolutely zero usefulness or contributory relevance to this forum, and only serves the purpose of flame-baiting. It's nearly completely lacking in comedic value, and any comedy that may have been present is overwhelmingly strangled by the moronic cruelty that's about the equivalent of watching a child squash a hamster under his feet.

Maybe you should have SAID THAT TO BEGIN WITH. It's kind of hard for me to understand the point you're trying to make when you don't ACTUALLY make that point at first, and wait until the thread is 2 pages in to clarify what the hell you meant. It would be better for all of us if the first reply had said this. But it didn't. It just nitpicked the use of the suffix "-fag" as a subtle accusation that I was some kind of homophobe. I challenge you to quote where in this thread someone has said something even remotely similar to what you just said.

"I think calling people 'fags' is perfectly OK, and I think everyone should be like me.

The hypocrisy in this single sentence is astounding. Do you not see it?





Why don't all of you hypocritical twitheads re-read the OP and quote me specifically:

1) Where I endorse homophobia, and
2) Where I do anything that hasn't already been done a dozen times on this forum without receiving so much as a tenth of the criticism that I am receiving now, and
3) Where I state that EVERYONE SHOULD FIND IT FUNNY OR ELSE?

Nobody bitches about the damn Stundies, but honestly, what purpose do they serve?

 

[Good Lt]

So LULZ is another moronic bastardization of an internet shorthand, similar to PWNED

In a word, yes, except for that pwned and owned mean the same thing.

LULZ and LOL have different meanings.

Ex. I just knocked that three year old off of his bike. LULZ.
I just knocked that three year old off his bike. LOL.

LULZ is more like laughing with a twinge of schedenferud at the misfortunes of others (among other usage).

LOL is just laughing.

You see how complicated this is? And important?

 

[Myriad]

The hypocrisy in this single sentence is astounding. Do you not see it?

Sure do. It's a good thing I didn't write just a single sentence.

Another example: "I think calling people 'fags' is perfectly OK, and I think everyone should be like me. So I posted in this thread and called everyone fags. LULZ!"

I have no problem with what people say on their own websites. I didn't notice you posting in this thread and calling everyone fags, so perhaps I was referring to someone else's post. Specifically, the example that Everything so generously provided.

There's nothing particularly wrong or unusual, by the way, in thinking others should be more like oneself. There are numerous religious fundamentalists, for example, whom I wish would adopt more humanistic values. When I get into discussion with them here, I tell them so. But I don't go post on their boards and try to offend them for lulz, as the post I was referring to did. (And yes, I do wish others would be more like me in that regard.)

In context, the specific meaning of "more like me" in what I posted before is clear. "I am not bothered by X, I don't think others should be bothered by X, so I will subject them to X and if this causes them discomfort, it's their just punishment for disagreeing with me about X." That's what lulz are usually about. This was my answer to "what is LULZ," and was not an accusation of ED itself, or of your calling attention to it in this thread.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[T.A.M.]

In a word, yes, except for that pwned and owned mean the same thing.

LULZ and LOL have different meanings.

Ex. I just knocked that three year old off of his bike. LULZ.
I just knocked that three year old off his bike. LOL.

LULZ is more like laughing with a twinge of schedenferud at the misfortunes of others (among other usage).

LOL is just laughing.

You see how complicated this is? And important?

As important as what I had for lunch...but thanks for the clarification.

TAM

 

[Good Lt]

As important as what I had for lunch...but thanks for the clarification.

TAM

You know the funniest part of this thread?

It devolved from discussion of an intentionally tasteless yuck-yuck at the expense of Troofers to a discussion on the definition of LULZ.

That, in essence, is lulz.

LOL.

 

[GreNME]

I am the author of most of the subject encyclopedia dramatica article and just wanted to note that most of the issues raised about the article relate to not understanding encyclopedia dramatica. You have to read a lot of articles on ED to really understand what the site is all about.

I think the best way to describe it is to call it transgressive humor and metaphor. Like I said if you havn't read at least 100 articles on ED you're unlikely to get the point of it. And if you don't like ED then obviously it isn't the website for you.

Please, that's as lame as Brittany Spears saying that people who don't like her trash just don't understand her depth of message.

No [rule10], Sherlock. ED is written by Anonymous, who are trolls. You must be some kind of bloody genius to have figured that out. GRATS GRATS GRATS.

ED is written by a bunch of children who feed off each other's stupidity to create a site that's goofier than the sum of its parts. Oddly enough some of it (like the GW Bush entry) even have some funny parts to it. However, "fag fag homo fag lulz" isn't funny, it's the bottom of the barrel.

I don't know how to explain to you the difference between "not getting it" and "thinking it's stupid," though it's typical nowadays to respond to any criticism with "you don't know me, man!" attitude in a typical Jerry Springer-esque manner. When Jerry Springer is the epitome of the humor level, the product pretty much reaps what it sows: a panorama of neo-nazi-watching, homophobic, gangsta-wannabe, cousin-****ing trailer trash.

Like I said, it ain't that I don't get it, it's that I've cleaned funnier stuff off the bottom of my shoe.

 

[RLJ]

Please, that's as lame as Brittany Spears saying that people who don't like her trash just don't understand her depth of message.

Like I said, it's not for everybody. You're entitled to your opinion, we're entitled to ours.

 

[GreNME]

Like I said, it's not for everybody. You're entitled to your opinion, we're entitled to ours.

I'm cool with that. Just keep in mind that not everyone who doesn't appreciate it is doing so from misunderstanding.

And besides, it's not Teh Funnay I've even got a problem with in this case. It's the notion that it is relevant to this forum. Perhaps the humor subforum is a more appropriate location, because I can see no positive contribution to this forum with this thread here.

 

[Good Lt]

I'm cool with that. Just keep in mind that not everyone who doesn't appreciate it is doing so from misunderstanding.

And besides, it's not Teh Funnay I've even got a problem with in this case. It's the notion that it is relevant to this forum. Perhaps the humor subforum is a more appropriate location, because I can see no positive contribution to this forum with this thread here.

By that standard, most of what JHarrow posts here should be in the humor section as well.

I kid, I kid.