FACEBOOK, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube are all chock full of angry bellends raging about f**k all. Here are the most infuriating phrases you’ll see cropping up in tedious online ‘debates’.
‘You must be fun at parties’
This truly is the last refuge of the wanker. It’s lame because it says ‘I have no interest in perfectly legitimate things to discuss’. What else don’t you care about? Getting paid each month? Getting murdered? Shops not having any food? You’d happily take a punt on people who use this never being invited to parties themselves, because they’re boring, snide, smug little f**ks.
‘Tl;dr’
If you don’t know, old person, ‘tl;dr’ means ‘too long; didn’t read’. Imagine having an argument with someone in real life. You outline your beliefs, highlight evidence that supports your claims, and tie all your points together in an articulate, reasonable conclusion. Now imagine the other person just sort of shrugs at you in response. That’s the kind of proudly ignorant twat who uses ‘tl;dr’.
‘Simples’
Aleksandr Orlov has a lot to answer for – not least the popularity of the phrase ‘simples’ among the nation’s arseholes. Whenever someone spouts a load of unmitigated bollocks online, they wrongly think adding ‘simples’ automatically makes everything they just said true. Yep, that’s how the ancient Greek philosophers and Oxford academics conclude their arguments – by quoting a f**king CGI Russian meerkat.
‘That’s actually a logical fallacy’
Or you could just make your point without employing a meta-level of categorising statements. This is popular among basement-dwelling incel-types, who love important-sounding phrases like ‘logical fallacy’, ‘strawman argument’ and ‘appealing to authority’. There is, however, some hilarity to be had in the fact that half the time they get it wrong, eg. ‘Saying battery farming is cruel is a straw man argument.’
‘Snowflake’
This is a real cliche now, ie. completely fresh and exciting for the Daily Mail and Telegraph-reading dickwads who use it most. Caring about environmental disaster? Snowflake. Criticising the government? Snowflake. Displaying the slightest hint of compassion? Total snowflake. As well as being horribly unoriginal it really is the twat’s ultimate shortcut to ‘winning’ an argument.
‘What about…’
When angry pricks on the web have had all their arguments picked apart, there’s only one thing left to do – start arguing about something else entirely. The hope is that others won’t notice the daring switcheroo. Unfortunately, this strategy tends to be employed by idiots so it’s incredibly obvious they’re randomly changing the subject, eg. ‘I didn’t mean ALL women are bitches, just most of them! Anyway, who remembers Space Raiders?’
Mentioning Adolf Hitler plus Godwin
As is well-known, Godwin’s Law tells us that, the longer an online debate rumbles on, the more likely it is some dipshit will compare something to Hitler. Thus an argument about speed cameras descends into comparisons with Nazi atrocities. What a time to be alive. However, simply by saying ‘At risk of invoking Godwin…’ does not make tasteless Nazi references okay. Who do you think you are, Heinrich Himmler?
