Idiocy and the internet

The internet can be a dangerous, sad and sometimes daunting place.  I've been on websites for various of my interests and almost on every one of them, I've encountered what I've learned are known as internet trolls.  These trolls use the virtual courage that the ether bestows on them to push their own agenda, taunt and humiliate those who dare to disagree with them and, in some instances, meddle in the other persons' lives.  I've known people who have suffered horribly at these trolls' hands, and there's little to do about the internet bullying.  On the one hand, you have an actionable tort, but on the other, you have the assumption of risk.  Furthermore, some people may be too humiliated to make their sufferings public.  Not everyone can be as brave or naive as Mantei Te'o.

I'm sure some of these trolls feel their vigor is justified.  Some of them are simply delusional, others are sanctimonious to an extreme.  There are those who would say that some of my positions on issues, such as England, are extreme, and I would have to agree.  But as Charles Barkley's said (or quoted, I don't remember), opinions are like buttholes and everyone's got one.

I don't begrudge anyone his or her opinion even if it differs with mine.  I enjoy the frank exchange of ideas, especially if I stand to learn something in the process.

My complaint about some of these trolls, however, has little to do with their vitriol, their invasiveness, their sometimes unreasoned idiocy.  No, it has to do with their grammar.

Assuming, for a second, that something posted online isn't dripping with venom, I generally appreciate a well-reasoned if argumentative position.  Online, those can be few and far between.  But what irks me more than anything is sloppy spelling, misuse of words and other rhetorical miscues (logical inconsistencies, historical inaccuracies, outright lying).

For today, I'm going to focus on the grammar and the misuse of words.  Before we get into the meat of the matter, let's stipulate this:  Everyone makes mistakes.  Typos happen to me all the time.  I don't proofread what I type here and Karen will tell me later of mistakes that I never saw.  So I'm not expecting perfection by any means.  To paraphrase, stuff happens. 

Yet it becomes evident after reading a couple of lines or a couple of posts that someone is either functionally illiterate, hopelessly stupid or using English as his or her second language.  At least the person in the last category has an excuse; the first two don't.

I admit that I have trouble with certain verbal constructions; lay and lie confuddle me whenever I need to go to the preterite.  But I do know how to access the internet, I know how to use a dictionary.  Some people either don't know how to use those tools to fix their grammar problems or don't care.

Past and passed are not synonyms.  Their, they're and there mean three distinct things.  If someone is going to be so condescending as to use one of these terms, the least he can do is use them properly.  Using them incorrectly not only detracts from the message but points out that what little thought was put into the original thought didn't cost the person much.

Use of apostrophes is hit or miss.  Sometimes people omit them altogether; I guess this is an outgrowth of the texting craze, something that passed me by.  It's and its are hilariously mistaken often, and the test to make sure one is using is the correct form is, ironically, quite simple.  But to expect someone so loaded up with hatred to take the time to check his work is simply asking too much.

There is and there are are almost becoming interchangeable.  Heck, if news anchors can't even use them correctly, why should some amped up tool?

Perhaps my fondest mistake of all time was this self-proclaimed druid who liked to harken back to the good ole days and talk of his drinking meade.  Karen thinks I'm the only one who would get this, but every time he'd use meade instead of mead, I'd post this:

That, ladies and gentlemen, is the victorious general at the battle of Gettysburg, George Meade.  Unlike his predecessor Joseph Hooker and his successor U.S. Grant, George Meade drank in moderation, if at all, and almost certainly never drank mead.

Of course, by pointing these simple mistakes out, I run the risk of being labeled snooty.  To some extent perhaps I am.  But when someone attacks me and misuses language so horribly as to distract and detract from his essential message, what's the point of continuing the argument?  Someone who so woefully uses the language with which he wants to fight me is like fencing against someone using a wet noodle.


(c) 2013 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles