Sometimes I don’t get it

Just a short one this time…

Sometimes I don’t understand how this works. Why do some (bad) posts get so many views while the good ones don’t? My last post was shit; I think one of my worst ever. Yet it received many views. Why?

Maybe it was the title? Whatever… I wrote it rather than writing the difficult one that’s been cooking in my mind for a couple of days, but isn’t done yet. Also, I was in a really good mood, having caught a girl “perving” over me – someone who is well past being perve material in my view. So it was soaked in serotonin, almost accidently arrogant, and not so well written. I’ll try to do better next time. Maybe the next post that I want to write will be ready soon, but for whatever reason, the words haven’t quite managed to arrange themselves in my head yet. Hopefully soon…

Update: Maybe it’s worth mentioning that my next post will feature two topics, one of which is clickbait. It will start with a mock-clickbait title, and then tackle the second topic after begging the question of why we are inclined to click links to those sorts of titles. So “To all the girls I’ve perved before” was also a dry run for a clickbaity title. (Interesting aside: I’m updating this post with the online editor in Firefox. This stupid spell-checker wants to correct mock-clickbait to rock-climbing.)

2 thoughts on “Sometimes I don’t get it

  1. I haven’t had any time to write here lately. Last night was the first time in the week that my son slept over, since I recently bought him a bed. It went very well. But it also meant that I spent every waking minute with him, and no time writing. Maybe tonight or tomorrow I will have time to write.

    I think my next post will be pretty good, and is mostly ready to be written – all I need is time.

    I’m going to write about my plan here for once, because I’m curious how close the real thing will be to the plan I have in my head…

    The title will be “Porn star finds Jesus; takes Him to porn shoot. You won’t care what happens next!”. (It’s a play on words mocking clickbait titles that include “You won’t believe what happens next”.) That followed by introductory paragraph on the subject of clickbait. Why do so many of us click those links? We do so even though we know the articles will disappoint. What is it about clickbait that baits us to follow those links, and share them with others even though they disappoint? Some of them can be even more presumptuous, promising videos on Facebook, but presenting you with only a page that you have to “like” and share before being permitted to see the video. In other words, the links you see were in those cases shared by people who haven’t even seen the video they’re sharing. That’s just wrong. This is only a topic for the intro; it begs the question but makes no attempt to answer it. (Because I don’t know the answer. I can, or used to, get sucked into reading these annoying articles because of titles promising something sexually suggestive, or psychologically interesting, or emotionally charged, or something… Then get pissed off because the article never delivers on its promise. But that click alone generates revenue for some idiot somewhere. So the intention is to leave the reader with something to think about, and maybe not click those links in future. If everybody stopped clicking them, the world would be a better place.)

    Cue main topic. Brittni Ruiz, former porn star known as Jenna Presley, who now ministers to other porn stars. Find link to article that praises her and include picture of bimbo for my own mock clickbait link preview.

    Onto main argument. This woman claims to have cut all ties to the porn industry, but has she really? She is selling Jesus now. She’s taking advantage of being a former porn star to make money now. She tried to leave the industry once before and didn’t get it right.

    Add reference to my theory that all porn stars are addicts, and that addiction is the one thing in the world that motivates selling yourself. Question her sincerity but leave it open-ended. The point is to emphasize that she has found an “out” from the industry but is manipulating her status as being a former porn star to make a living. Jesus is a cash cow as much as porn was. It’s unclear if this is just about maintaining her lifestyle (and whether or not she is an addict is irrelevant but interesting – Undecided whether to include this bit in post).

    Cue final argument… Tu Quoque fallacy – “you too” could be applied to me making this argument, because I identify as an ex-addict and speak out about the harm of addiction. Except the difference is that I am not making money doing this. Explain the difference, explain how this fallacy works and that it is a special kind of ad hominem. Maybe include another paragraph explaining the relevance of this logical fallacy to the all too common criticism of atheists by the religious, who like to frame atheism as an ideology or belief system. Explain how illogical this fallacy is, and why it is not a valid argument and should never be used. (Even when such an argument makes apparently valid points, they are irrelevant as they simply shift the argument from the topic at hand to a personal attack against an individual making an argument.)

    That’s the plan anyway. Let’s see how close the actual post is.


    1. Mmm. Methinks nobody is reading these comments anyway. The post came out pretty close to the plan. I won’t make a habit of writing about the unfinished posts in my head though, in case anybody does start reading these comments…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s