The fact that this whole conversation took place via text message cracks me up, as well as the fact that we bother to spend time and energy discussing Paul Constant's Slog posts. I cleaned up a few formatting things, but this is essentially verbatim.
Jon: I'm getting really tired of Paul Constant. All he does is whine about how nothing is good enough for him or even worthy of existence, and never gives any reason. Just because he says so.
Me: I like the why-this-book-sucks posts.
Jon: Except his reasons for the book sucking is that he doesn't like it. Especially the third one: "No one should like this book." Sorry I don't live up to your high standards, asshat. How about a "Useless Food Paul Constant Likes to Eat" column.
Me: I think you're being oversensitive.
Jon: No I'm not. He constantly belittles anyone that doesn't agree with him, yet never gives any good reason why I should [agree with him].
Me: Have you read any of those books? Do you have a differing opinion of them based on reading them yourself?
Jon: Why does that matter?
Me: Why are you saying his opinion of the book isn't valid when you have no basis for a differing opinion?
Jon: I didn't say it wasn't valid. It's the way he dismisses any idiots who (inexplicably) disagree.
Me: Why are you arguing about this with me instead of posting it on one of the posts? Paul Constant's audience is not people-who-would-like-those-books, it's people-who-like-to-discuss-the-death-of-the-printing-industry-as-evidenced-by-books-like-this. I think the dismissive attitude is appropriate for the medium and the content.
Jon: I'm not trying to argue. I'm sharing my feelings. You argued :)
Me: Well, my feelings are that you are wrong :)
Jon: I'm wrong that be belittles anyone that doesn't agree with him? I think that's plain to see.
Me: You're wrong that belittling crappy things is something to get upset about.
Jon: God, I don't care if he belittles crappy things. It's that he belittles anyone who might not think it's crappy (for example). He belittles large groups of people on a regular basis, and it's always because they like or are interested in something that he thinks is stupid.
Jon: And he generally has no reason to think it's stupid other than "like, duh"
Me: So you want him to be more respectful of things he thinks are stupid? Then we'd have another Jen Graves, aka snore city.
Jon: No, you're not listening. I want him to stop thinking every stupid opinion that he has is gospel, and that people that disagree aren't necessarily morons. "This book sucks" I don't care about. "No one should like this book" = unnecessary jackassery. I could get into his constant baseless barbs at "truthers" but I probably have more to say than this medium can handle.
Me: What isn't moronic about Truthers? While putting down their agenda, he also gives them press at all, which ultimately does them more good than harm.
Jon: Because he lumps them all into one giant wingnut category. There are perfectly reasonable truthers.
Me: Like who? What's reasonable about it?
That's all so far. Perhaps I will receive Jon's dissertation on the validity of the Truth movement later on. It's worth noting that Jon is not the only person in my life who likes to argue with me about Paul Constant's Opinions. Whatever, I like him. Hate away, Paul.
The conversation continued, but it wasn't crazy or interesting at all. I realize, in retrospect, that the conversation to this point also wasn't interesting, but oh well. It's worth noting that this is about as much as Jon and I ever fight - about something silly, via text. That's one reason I'm still madly in love with him (after a year and a half!).