Wednesday, January 25, 2017

owning, demolishing, destroying, obliterating etc.

Explain something to me, please.

I don't get this. And it's very annoying because it's published on every single site I have in favorites. And it's boring besides.

Deadspin writer antagonizes on Twitter that "perpetual" losing candidate for office of president Cruz claims to have been a basketball player and demands proof.

She's wrong right off the bat. Cruz ran for president once so she's mischaracterized him sorrowfully.

Cruz presents a photo of Allen Grayson in basketball clothes on basketball court and holding a basketball, who resembles an idealized youthful Cruz.

The entire rightwing media avers Cruz "owned" Deadspin writer.

By producing a photo of somebody else!

That is the point where the right insists that Cruz owned Deadspin writer.

But there is no pwnage there, just an absurd photo substitution. "Here, have this guy who vaguely looks like me except a whole lot younger and better looking."

It went downhill from there. The writer admits she was "owned" but then went on to call Ted Cruz an asshole. And now the right is having a field day and claiming annoyingly this is evidence of Cruz's brilliance.

I feel the same way as the Deadspin writer. Cruz is an asshole and so is everyone else involved with this false ownage.

The same holds true for Tucker Carlson. Everyday I see posts of Carlson destroying his interlocutor, invited purposefully for their ridiculous intellectually unsustainable positions. But when I bother to view them, there's no actual destruction. The guest has their entire say. The guest is successful in promulgating their nonsense. Tucker challenges them and most viewers agree with Tucker but nobody leaves destroyed, devastated, or obliterated. In fact, they then go on to Twitter and other social media and persist with their nonsense satisfied their positions found wider audience with their own followers still in agreement. It's a good show, but it's never demolition. Never. Yet it's continuously advertised as such. I stopped watching them because they never hold up to the claim.

Break it down for me. Like I'm a visiting alien confused by your strange American ways. Where am  I wrong?

8 comments:

Trooper York said...

It's a game Chip. Like soccer. They run up and down the field but nothing happens. And everyone cheers.

edutcher said...

I doubt the One True Ted owned anybody in his whole life.

He may have thought so, but that's it.

Synova said...

Almost always "owning" is stupid. I think he did do better though, simply because he seemed to be responding with humor and the other person not-so-much.

Anger is exhausting. Eventually people need to get over it.

Leland said...

I don't follow in the same circles, so can't help.

Methadras said...

Pwnage or ownage is just a game of gotcha. You have to see it for what it is. A game.

AprilApple said...

Demolition is needed.

XRay said...

Definitions have devolved. Destruction is now the design, well, has been for a hundred years. Its Babel now. Just make it up.

Leland said...

Ok, AoS put it up and I read all about it there. I think they are clear about this being a silly game, while also noting just how badly it went for Gawker, and I admit I enjoyed the laugh, because people managed to manipulate Wikipedia (which seems to be the only thing Wikipedia is for these days) to trumpet the ownage. This makes the whole thing awesome in slamming Gawker, Deadspin, and Wikipedia as anything but legitimate.