EPTFor you see, the more effort, value, relevance and purpose the targeted post has, the more of a rush a --insert-- gets upon pressing 'Post' and awaiting its consequences within the safe confines of his or her overflatulated dwelling; psychologically speaking.
--insert--s who are going to make a new account and post the insult with that are funny because they're at least putting in the extra effort, and therefore cannot be --insert--, more on that later. A --insert-- is going to try to first and foremost foster a history of pseudo-usefulness to the community that amounts in what others ought to perceive as a buffer of untouchability. The more seemingly standard-abiding posts a --insert-- accumulates the more impact he/she preemptively imbues his/her --insert-- post with. That's why you see them commenting on the most mundane stuff saying shit just to seem helpful or, and this is the crux of this paragraph, integrated, as if to gather caliber for their opinion; carrying weight; representing; acting like they're at the forefront of this established army of freethinking and/but like-minded in their rejection spectrum people. The people who form the elite authorities on what is what.
A false paradox would be to assume that this is a way of making an effort. It's pre-target-post effort, and has no purpose other than to roll the persona snowball onward, until it's big enough to be thrown at someone's face, preferably someone engaged in doing something more useful than the --insert-- could ever hope to have imagined him- or herself doing. Looking susceptible to sabotage hopefully he/she can reduce him or her to the --insert--'s level by making him or her want to return the favor, and abandon his or her constructive undertaking, so the he/she --insert-- won't feel so alone. So he/she doesn't need to rethink his or her values either, upon having witnessed someone raising the bar far beyond his or her reach.
And that is why passing judgement as to whether it is in fact --insert--ing, and determining its extent of gravity and calamity to the OP, are inseparable from the target post and the context of the medium, with all its dimensions like the --insert--'s history on the site. Each post should therefore be scrutinized in establishing the true mentality of the --insert-- -- whether it's anchored in something genuinely substance-laden or a superficial disguise from where to strike from whenever he or she thinks he or she can get away with it, being left romanticizing his or her involvement in the psyche of everyone who read his or her --insert-- post.. alas having achieved permanence -- for whatever the builder was building there there is thus incontestable proof of the --insert-- having been involved in it, even if it's just a bit of delay.
The worst that can come from misunderstanding what constitutes --insert--ing is the putting on a pedestal -- reserved for those who are genuinely building circuits of awesomeness for all to benefit from -- of people who are unable to however slowly, slightly advance towards, or even turn towards a direction remotely resembling that of the trajectory of awesomeness, because then people who don't know how to create value gain the ability to represent it and reap its primary perk: authority.
If there ever was such a thing as the perfect quantifiable reward for having caused something good or elegant to happen as a result of having done effort, or to a lesser degree at least attempting that finality, then it's the orgasm: the universal currency of base-level maximum joy. Whether we are conscious of it or not, every time we see someone do something awesome, and we're left enjoying the resulting empathy, we are imagining that we are giving out orgasms. A finite and valuable commodity we could have kept for our selves. At one time or another one has to recognize that someone abode by a high standard or even raised it, and every time that happens someone who is part of the solution, not the problem, will go through this mental process of donating a gasm.
It is best to believe that there is an objective way of telling what is valuable -- as in deserving of being rewarded with a gasm, henceforward called +, and, to a further extent, of the beautification of the circumstances of achieving it -- and to entask one's natural curiosity to mapping out that objectivity, and to profit from conforming and excelling at supplying it in a way that is accessible to the specific demand in an ever-changing environment. --insert--s either honestly fail to harmonize at this
- by tuning their online or real life endeavors to serve selfish and infantile goals
- falling short on dedicating effort to generate value with a noble purpose & achieve a delivery with superlative relevance to the receivers or even themselves before clicking Post
- or they fail willfully, by confining their intentions to a malicious spectrum ranging from sheer unwillingness to treat a singular post with the according respect to being a --insert--ing fanatic
In the case of the former, the --insert-- has himself or herself to blame, but a society is to blame if it happens on a regular basis, for it is surely the misallocation of authority's intervention and/or its uninspired application that left room for the perversion of being convinced to deserve a + for posts like [reserved]this[/reserved] one. Whether effort, noble purpose, relevance and value are tuned according to objective awesomeness evaluation or not can only be said for certain once a post has been emulated to be perceived the way the poster perceived it. To strawman a goal for the target post, by subjecting it to misrepresentation at the mercy of the --insert--'s imagination and insinuating it failed to get achieved, or to call the poster annoying, useless or insane is more often than not a declaration of refusal to do so, no matter how polite, apparently well-meant or honest the --insert-- sets it out to appear.
The constellation of these 4 cardinal elements that warrant a post being posted can be obscure, and builders might find joy in taking readers on a ride to explore its extent, easing into it at first, but the time spent exploring is time spent doing something other than asserting dominance or superiority, or in the most perverse cases parading having supposedly righteously decided, for everyone who might see the target post and be influenced by it, that it's not worth their time, and genuinely believing to have done a service to oneself and the hive mind by signaling it as such.
If a --insert-- has all of the above negative characteristics, and doesn't mind not attempting to redeem oneself -- by giving +, or if broke making it so as to replenish the stash thereof and then giving some to those who build instead of those who can't, potentially eliminating the risk of devaluing his/her brand with only him- or herself (and to a lesser extent society) to blame (for making it too hard to pursue objective awesomeness research) -- and change trajectory away from being part of the problem, the next step in unloading the --insert--'s arsenal of --insert--yness is to exercise subtlety and brevity. The former to extend longevity of haphazard masturbating at the expense of the universal value of a +, and the latter to insinuate common sense, the twisting to suit-the---insert--s-agenda of which is the most effective method to +block someone, i.e. to not only abstain from rightfully donating a + to someone who deserves it but also skewing or contesting the applicability of jurisdiction of the sound logic governing + distribution for the case in question AND furthermore claim it to be a measure rooted in common sense, meaning it would be silly to beg to differ. Ultimately this can truly achieve to sabotage +[/green][/green] income, resulting in a lackluster yield of +s and destabilization of post value (effort, purpose and relevance) to + ratio.
If the --insert-- succeeds, his or her deeds remain unpunished, is left to rave unhinged while +s are unaccounted for, why would anyone make quality posts? Given enough time people will even lose a sense of what a quality post is, and then suddenly a --insert-- can get away with deluding him- or herself that his or her posts truly deserve +s, and pretty soon the only ones on the site are those who ceaselessly have to belittle others to stand strong in this belief.
If you ignore the --insert--, the --insert-- will win. If you ignore the builder because you got your values mixed up, and you somehow were left under the impression that a builder is a --insert--, the --insert--s of the past have already won, and the builders of the future will be too frustrated to do what they do best -- deliver quality posts -- because it feels like carrying the collective weight of a thousand --insert--s' inadequacy upon having posted an adequate, not to mention excelling one, and instead of basking in morally awesome-abiding righteously handed out +s one perceives the poverty of + hyperinflation and misappropriation, and it's them who are sad, the --insert-- not so much.
The assumption develops that --insert--s exist in a separate value continuum. Their dwelling needs little ventilation, yet they refuse to do it. Perhaps it's because if they insinuate that the grandiose and glorious posting endeavors of their fellow forumites have an unpleasant odor to them, and bring it closer to resemble the way their fart cushion of an accommodation reeks like, they can tap into and level with the value continuum of builders, and stand as their equal, with little to no effort spent, which has to mean they are superior by natural law, because in their mind project magnitude, content hierarchy, difficulty and elegance do not compute.
Natural law states that for equal amount of success, the individual who invested less resources and energy to generate the same amount of assets that are relevant for quantification as the other, is the victor. As an extension of this people like to think that if they had spent the same time and energy someone else has they would've achieved superior results, and therefore like to make excuses, which is a sure way of not adding additional value to one's post, and belittling that of others, and ultimately silly common-sense-wise.
As a side note, the object of forums cannot be to inflate the capacity and substance of a post to a degree one would otherwise not have achieved without referring to RL. As a valid extension of this logic it should be reproachable when someone makes unwarranted assumptions of a supposed insufficiency inherent in the post, pertaining to an alleged RL mental condition that should make it so as to disqualify the value remuneration of the post. Whether the alleged information is the truth or a lie, there is no sensible argument in favor of publishing the supposition -- whether it's worded as a question or not -- more so, as I've clearly stated, if the target post is one that could potentially harbor legitimacy for the effort brought about in its creation, if the effort shouldn't suffice to stand as a clear deterrent for making malicious assumptions all by itself.
Generally, further interaction between the proprietor of the target post and the person suspected of --insert--ing him or her with his/her post in question is to be desired in order to weed out any possible misunderstanding, however, as stated, that may not be what the drive-by oneliner --insert-- perceives as his /her best interest, and he/she has all the defenses that lack of collective intelligence, unfit reprisal from civilization's authorities -- i.e. failure to amalgamate value production and authority, and society's negligence -- leave at his disposal. Tools which he/she'll use by basically not doing anything, automatically upholding the problem, more so leaving it in a state in which it can potentially aggravate itself.
And what do you call what I call "builder"?
TL;DR: What do you call someone whose post amounts exclusively to obstruction of people to feel good about themselves when they produced something that may deserve being dished out rewards for.
