Meaning that if you start your post with that, or something in the same vein, you'd have no business showing your face near these parts either. Or those parts. It is like the other side of smarm, not snark, but smugness that is tolerable in small degrees but not in the comments of every post. Maybe when I'm the sheriff of Gawker and the greater Kinja area I'll implement this rule. Link to my own comment.
You could argue that this attitude is inseparable from internet commenting. That may be partly true at the moment, but that doesn't mean it has to be, or that it is something worth preserving. In 50 years people might see our arguing over the internet like we look at Mr. Burns answering the phone with "ahoy-hoy" today. A girl can always dream*
I know I've been guilty of this crime on more than one occasion in the past, which is just another example of the usefulness of the Categorical Imperative in a great deal of situations. I am trying to reform my ways. Now if everyone would just start writing in an excessively course manner, while providing insufficient context for their statements and skipping from one idea to another, I'd soon be equipped to write The Great American Novel.
I'm sure if I delved into Google Scholar I could find a bunch of studies on why the adversarial attitude isn't good for you in any way: intellectually, socially, professionally (unless you are a charismatic political upstart with good connections and no scruples, in an undemocratic country), or health-wise. I read through a couple abstracts on this actually, but my new university, while otherwise much better funded, doesn't have the kind of access as my old one did with no limits to stuff related to what you are actually studying.
I think I'll just sign the petition myself, maybe add a few names of old pets to the list, and leave the clipboard by the door, for the next time I feel like being involuntarily committed into a local mental health establishment.**
*Which also happens to be the reason Timothy Olyphant was chosen to illustrate the sheriff and revolver metaphors, or other literary devices in this post.
**Although now I'm curious about how those things work there. Back home there was just one somatic hospital and one mental hospital, and the ambulances just had to drive you to the right one of those two. Here, I don't know if my free insurance, which so enrages the locals to see I have it, would cover something fancy and worth seeing, maybe with a pool. Probably not worth faking an acutely dangerous mental health condition though, or finding out if it is.
ETA: Unlike "Slow news day?", which was worn out some time before its first occurrence in the comments, Cues, which is the shorthand I made up, are not directed at the blogger, yet they encourage responses. They are basically the dream comments of thin-skinned bloggers; You get a bunch of replies with people arguing over something your post has very little to do with, and your person even less, but you do have a conversion going on there. It's probably not a very substantial one, but there it is, and unless your boss combs through all the responses to all your posts, they're excellent filler.
The paranoid among us might suggest that there are agitators at Jalopnik and Jezebel, at least. Kotaku is too much of a mess to respond to any extra agitation, and I don't follow all of the main blogs so I wouldn't know if was some schism so bloody between io9 and Lifehacker that my historical metaphors are all over the place.
And to finish off, here's a song for the night to get all that negativity out of our heads:
(If you're really feeling low, there's always Spacedog)