I don't even know who he is. It's stupid to argue about how famous he is, though. If he is important to you and he's going through some sort of struggle then good on you for showing support and sympathy. If you don't care, that's fine too; there's too many suffering people to care about all of them.
I would say Spoony is big enough to be considered Internet famous, since he reached having a fanbase huge enough to support his hobby into becoming a full-fledged job. Some people have reached that level on the internet that they can earn enough money from advertising and creating videos.
But it is disturbing that we are witnessing a breakdown of a man who is clinically depressed and broadcasting it all through a public forum like twitter. I imagine it cuts really deep and you just don't want to see this happen to people.
I will just say that Spoony has over 27,000 Twitter followers. Say what you will about other people being more popular, that's true. But in my mind, that equates being an internet celebrity more than anything else.
I will just say that Spoony has over 27,000 Twitter followers. Say what you will about other people being more popular, that's true. But in my mind, that equates being an internet celebrity more than anything else.
Spoony has just over one percent of Wil Wheaton's followers, which falls at 2,025,235. If we are measuring celebrity by number of fans, even within the realm of the internet (which Twitter is most certainly a part of) Spoony has a small fraction of the fame compared to someone who is generally considered an "internet celebrity". Your argument fails on a basic level.
What does that word mean, anyway? Let's ask internets.
Internets says:
1 : the state of being celebrated : fame 2 : a famous or celebrated person
Celebrated is defined as:
: widely known and often referred to
There are no other definitions of Celebrated. So, Luke, when you say:
The way to work out who is famous isn't by asking "How many people know who this person is?" but "How many people think this person is famous?"
You are full of shit, or speaking a version of English that Merriam and Webster don't understand. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as an English person.
If you annoying fucks are going to keep arguing over semantics all day, fucking do it properly. And I swear to god, if one of you marks this goddamn post up with red text to point out every long ass-sentence and grammatical mistake I've made so far, I will strangle my mic stand to death. That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about, however hilariously hypocritical it may be.
Forgive us for being indifferent to the plight of someone who jokes about raping his colleagues. I've said a great many things due to depression that I remain pretty guilty about, but the statement Spoony made is in a dark territory I can honestly say I never thought to cross into.
I've never condoned what he said. I'm upset that he went that far. I'm upset that someone that I used to respect and find funny is now an amoral jackass.
It is indeed a shame that people suck. Dave Sim used to be a brilliant comic book creator, and then he became a misogynistic piece of shit. There's seven billion other people to consider, the earth keeps on turning. I guess I don't see value in wasting time dwelling on what people might have been.
I would argue I didn't really waste all that much time on it, at least not a significant time. Nothing particularly important could've been accomplished in the time I spent being upset about it. And while it's a waste of time to dwell on it, it does affect me personally. These reviews have shaped a part of my upper teenage years, and have affected who I am. Watching those same people be unable to mature is, well, disheartening. I also find myself having some similarities to Spoony, and that's...Distressing, since I wish to avoid falling into a self-destructive state as he has.
I would argue I didn't really waste all that much time on it, at least not a significant time. Nothing particularly important could've been accomplished in the time I spent being upset about it.
I also find myself having some similarities to Spoony, and that's...Distressing, since I wish to avoid falling into a self-destructive state as he has.
Dwelling on disheartening shit is an excellent way to get acquainted with the notion of self-destruction. Trust me on this.
I would argue I didn't really waste all that much time on it, at least not a significant time. Nothing particularly important could've been accomplished in the time I spent being upset about it.
Bullshit! That's fundamentally defeatist. Even the smallest things are important. The way we dress, the things we write, the little habits we have are important elements of what eventually build to our grand successes. Don't make sitting here moping about shit like this a habit; write a blog post about why you're mad! Or make something from wood or food, or write a small program.
C'mon, man. Time is no good measure of importance.
I'm...Confused, honestly. I was sorta planning on not continuing to talk about this anywhere, because it accomplishes nothing. It made me sad, but several people on here don't even know who Spoony is, so in the end I should accept that it's not really a world-changing thing, just another part of my life that changes. I don't like change, but it happens anyway.
In the end, I just posted this here initially because it's where stuff like this gets posted. I didn't intend to get into a bunch of mini-arguments over semantics with you guys, but...I guess I'm really good at that...
I'm...Confused, honestly. I was sorta planning on not continuing to talk about this anywhere, because it accomplishes nothing. It made me sad, but several people on here don't even know who Spoony is, so in the end I should accept that it's not really a world-changing thing, just another part of my life that changes. I don't like change, but it happens anyway.
In the end, I just posted this here initially because it's where stuff like this gets posted. I didn't intend to get into a bunch of mini-arguments over semantics with you guys, but...I guess I'm really good at that...
Please stop talking about things you don't want to talk to us about!
Okay! That's what I tried to do earlier and then you guys were angry at my "Meh" post!
I haven't been angry at all, I'm just trying to get you to argue with me. Have you noticed how Scott doesn't respond to a lot of posts? I like that. He's only talking when he wants to. You don't need to defend yourself. Speak your mind when you want, and be prepared to discuss what's on it when you do.
Okay! That's what I tried to do earlier and then you guys were angry at my "Meh" post!
I wasn't angry. I just wanted to elucidate the fact that famous or not, Spoony has become an ignorant piece of shit, and I have no time or sympathy for anyone like that.
The way to work out who is famous isn't by asking "How many people know who this person is?" but "How many people think this person is famous?"
You are full of shit, or speaking a version of English that Merriam and Webster don't understand. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as an English person.
If you annoying fucks are going to keep arguing over semantics all day, fucking do it properly. And I swear to god, if one of you marks this goddamn post up with red text to point out every long ass-sentence and grammatical mistake I've made so far, I will strangle my mic stand to death. That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about, however hilariously hypocritical it may be.
This has fuck all to do with semantics, but practicality. Everyone who reads this thread now knows that someone called Spoony exists. If we use the same sample (readers of this thread) to determine the relative fame of Spoony and Michael Jackson, they are equally famous. I'm not talking about levels of celebrity or even internet celebrity, but just being known, and by extension being famous.
If we do a random survey, the fact that we have ask the question "Do you know of the internet celebrity called Spoony?" means that now, yes, they do know of that internet celebrity. Does that make Spoony more famous? Yes. The survey spreads his fame.
By asking "Do you think this person is famous?" the person answering can decide yes or no, based on their previous knowledge of the person in question.
The very rough survey on this thread shows that even now when people know who he is, and in that way Spoony is objectively "more famous" than before this thread included him, shows that very few people here consider him to be famous even on the internet. Unfortunately for Axel, bringing up his twitter follower count only makes me think he is even less famous than before I knew it. I presumed he would have hundreds of thousands of followers, not under 30,000.
Okay! That's what I tried to do earlier and then you guys were angry at my "Meh" post!
I haven't been angry at all, I'm just trying to get you to argue with me. Have you noticed how Scott doesn't respond to a lot of posts? I like that. He's only talking when he wants to. You don't need to defend yourself. Speak your mind when you want, and be prepared to discuss what's on it when you do.
I disagree. Scrym respond to posts when they have some small part of it they can take out and argue against. In every argument I've ever had with them, they always respond to a SINGLE sentence or two, or a single paragraph out of like, four or five. They ignore the bulk of the argument and try to focus on what small part they can fight against. I'm not perfect, so there are always flawed parts of my argument. But they ignore any relevant parts and stick to pointing out the parts that make me look stupid. If I haven't posted anything that he can disagree with (or when he just doesn't care), Scott doesn't bother responding. It's his choice, I just don't find it "admirable." It's just what he does. Not positive or negative. It's just how he argues.
That's kind of how arguments work. You attack the weakest assertion someone has made. If you post stuff that sounds stupid, even if you post it with another thing that is less so, people are going to focus on that. It's also usually relevant, although it may not be the full post.
Also, I don't know who Spoony is, but I suppose if he is in your internet circle, you must be sad that he suddenly turned into a complete jerk-face.
I understand you attack the weakest point, but I feel like legitimate points are sometimes ignored. Like, if I say something they can't argue with, they don't legitimately accept that, they just attack the stupid/wrong thing I said.
And yes, that's pretty much how the deal with Spoony is. He and the other TGWTG reviewers have been my heroes for a few years now, but he has descended into stupidity.
More like in an overall argument, they won't address my smart points or use it as any backing to argument, simply being like "This one thing you said is stupid. We're going to make you look bad now to make our argument look better, and stop people from actually thinking about any legitimate points you made." That's the way it's always felt, anyways.
Personally I think you should always attack the strongest point someone made in their argument. If you knock that, or if you are able to knock that, the weakest points just fall away.
This is the FSM Argument case, of course, where if you attack the root of the position, the rest is pointless. I have absolutely no interest in debating people about religion or the Bible, not because I don't think I can "win" or be classed as "right", but because to knock out the strongest point on the other side invariably takes more time than I am willing to invest, and the smaller points just aren't worth any time at all.
Comments
But it is disturbing that we are witnessing a breakdown of a man who is clinically depressed and broadcasting it all through a public forum like twitter. I imagine it cuts really deep and you just don't want to see this happen to people.
Say what you will about other people being more popular, that's true.
But in my mind, that equates being an internet celebrity more than anything else.
What does that word mean, anyway? Let's ask internets.
Internets says:
1 : the state of being celebrated : fame
2 : a famous or celebrated person
Celebrated is defined as:
: widely known and often referred to
There are no other definitions of Celebrated. So, Luke, when you say: You are full of shit, or speaking a version of English that Merriam and Webster don't understand. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as an English person.
If you annoying fucks are going to keep arguing over semantics all day, fucking do it properly. And I swear to god, if one of you marks this goddamn post up with red text to point out every long ass-sentence and grammatical mistake I've made so far, I will strangle my mic stand to death. That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about, however hilariously hypocritical it may be.
And while it's a waste of time to dwell on it, it does affect me personally. These reviews have shaped a part of my upper teenage years, and have affected who I am. Watching those same people be unable to mature is, well, disheartening.
I also find myself having some similarities to Spoony, and that's...Distressing, since I wish to avoid falling into a self-destructive state as he has.
C'mon, man. Time is no good measure of importance.
In the end, I just posted this here initially because it's where stuff like this gets posted. I didn't intend to get into a bunch of mini-arguments over semantics with you guys, but...I guess I'm really good at that...
If we do a random survey, the fact that we have ask the question "Do you know of the internet celebrity called Spoony?" means that now, yes, they do know of that internet celebrity. Does that make Spoony more famous? Yes. The survey spreads his fame.
By asking "Do you think this person is famous?" the person answering can decide yes or no, based on their previous knowledge of the person in question.
The very rough survey on this thread shows that even now when people know who he is, and in that way Spoony is objectively "more famous" than before this thread included him, shows that very few people here consider him to be famous even on the internet. Unfortunately for Axel, bringing up his twitter follower count only makes me think he is even less famous than before I knew it. I presumed he would have hundreds of thousands of followers, not under 30,000.
In every argument I've ever had with them, they always respond to a SINGLE sentence or two, or a single paragraph out of like, four or five. They ignore the bulk of the argument and try to focus on what small part they can fight against. I'm not perfect, so there are always flawed parts of my argument. But they ignore any relevant parts and stick to pointing out the parts that make me look stupid.
If I haven't posted anything that he can disagree with (or when he just doesn't care), Scott doesn't bother responding. It's his choice, I just don't find it "admirable." It's just what he does. Not positive or negative. It's just how he argues.
Also, I don't know who Spoony is, but I suppose if he is in your internet circle, you must be sad that he suddenly turned into a complete jerk-face.
And yes, that's pretty much how the deal with Spoony is. He and the other TGWTG reviewers have been my heroes for a few years now, but he has descended into stupidity.
This is the FSM Argument case, of course, where if you attack the root of the position, the rest is pointless. I have absolutely no interest in debating people about religion or the Bible, not because I don't think I can "win" or be classed as "right", but because to knock out the strongest point on the other side invariably takes more time than I am willing to invest, and the smaller points just aren't worth any time at all.