Why I Don't Write Controversial Articles

OK, folks, I know that a lot of people like to use this site to publish their daring, cutting-edge, controversial articles, and then get into political and moral debates that can last for days or even weeks at a time.

Is abortion wrong? Should Hillary lose? Was Jesus Christ gay???

We spend hours at a time staring at computer screens, furiously typing away, and trying to come up with answers for those questions.

The fact of the matter is that a lot of us enjoy ticking others off, so we like to dis everything they stand for. Others are just so clever and witty that they feel compelled to bless the world with their incredible talents. Still, others only believe that they are clever and witty, so they post boring, infuriating rambles about their own personal - and usually incorrect - beliefs.

I do not engage in any of these practices; or rather, I do not actively engage in any of these practices. Every now and again, I read an article that is so ridiculous that I simply must give the author a quick lesson in morals or logic. But I do not take pleasure in writing long, controversial articles.

The reason for this is that there are two main types of people who will read those kinds of articles: those who agree, and those who do not agree. Let us take a closer look at the sheer pointlessness (yes, "pointlessness,") of writing to either of these two particular audiences.

First, there are those who agree with me. They are on the same level as I with their politics, religious beliefs, favorite kinds of pasta, or whatever the controversial article may be about. So you want to know, "David, who don't you pride yourself in writing long, time-consuming articles, for people who already agree with you?"

The truth is simply that these good and smart people - the ones who agree with me - do not need my help. They will continue to believe in all of these things even without my assistance. So what would they gain by my participation in the publishing of opinionated and often frustrating essays? Nothing.

Look you however, I do not mean to say that I do not discuss such things with my own friends; but as anyone with even half a life can tell you, real friends are somewhat different than internet acquaintances. The internet is for finding information, and for keeping in touch with real, live, genuine human beings: human beings whom you have met in the actual physical realm. It is not - or rather, should not be, - a means of finding and meeting other people who share your opinions and can back you up. If you need to be backed up, make some real friends. The kinds with actual bodies, as opposed to only screen names and photos of Brad Pitt with the tagline "this is one of my worse pictures."

The second group of people who may read my articles is the cluster of angry folks who disagree with everything I say. They do this for different reasons: some, simply because they're the argumentative type, and generally disagree simply for the sake of disagreeing. Others disagree because they have been brainwashed since age 5 when they were placed in public schools, straight on through till they turned 22 and graduated college; these sheep will side with the puppeteers, every time. Whatever the reason, this is the group who hates my guts, but will not come out and say that they hate my guts, because they do not want to appear to be as shallow as they truly are. And now you put the question to me, "Then, David, why don't you write controversial articles for this group of closed-minded and exceedinly arrogent people?"

The answer to this question should be even more obvious than the answer to its predecessor. I stand to gain nothing by using logic on the idiotic, or morals on the corrupt, just as a comedian could not hope to gain anything through the use of humor on an audience of deaf-and-dumb sloths. He can be a perfectly funny guy, yes, so in a sense he has already won the battle; but it's time for him to hang up the towel and be content with what he has, because those animals are never, ever going to laugh at him; just as the fools of the earth are never, ever going to appreciate wisdom.

Now that we have addressed the two groups of people who write, read, and comment on controversial articles, we will touch on one final group: the pacifists. A pacifist is someone who reads a controversial article, mildly disagrees, but is too afraid to cross the author; after all, those web-based, thick-skulled, pale-faced enemies can make your internet social life a living hell. The pacifists, interestingly, are often the ones who make the most sense of anyone; unfortunately, they are also often cowards, and I will give them no more space in this article except to say this: I do not write for the pacifists, because there is absolutely no skill, talent, integrity or courage needed to win over a sissy.

Now that I have opened your eyes to why I do not write controversial articles, I am going to go into my room and catch up on some sleep, before waking up and going to my job, and then enjoying some nice, computer-free time off. Meanwhile, many of you controversial-article-writers out there will waste away in front of white screens, muttering like senile old men, while spiders make webs in your hair, and your butt-cheeks slowly go numb.