Internet kiddies such as myself spend ludicrous hours of their days conversing with people. I try to maintain quality over quantity, and I only speak personally with a very few, but often one comes across new people and a test of character has to be made within a few messages. Socialising with people over the internet, or getting into contact (not “meeting”) with people for the first time can be an interesting experience. Lastnight included one of these experiences.
I won’t speak of the man’s name, but he’s a Swede who follows me on Tumblr (a pseudo-blogging-platform-turned-social-network). After a brief exchange we moved the dialogue onto a web-based chat client called “Telegram” at his request. Thereupon he told me that he was Swedish. I commented that Scandinavians seem quite “Bee-like”; conformist, organised, efficient; mathematical, etc. His response was to tell me that, because I was commenting on his nationality, that there was too much difference in our personalities and we should cease speaking.
“How odd” I thought. Why would such a general and friendly comment — if not such an ordinary conversation point, i.e. one’s nationality — deem the conversation seemingly untouchable and uncomfortable to this man? I assumed he was some effete Marxist-type, afraid instinctively of anything resembling even the softest tribalism. Nonetheless, I responded by — sort of in a tongue-in-cheek way — telling him that spinelessness is another apparent trait of contemporary Scandinavians. In my defence I didn’t mean anything ultraserious by it — I’m English for Heaven’s sake, everything’s a joke to me by nature — but I was rather irritated by his seeming backing-out of the conversation, and for what? Me mentioning nationality as a conversation point?
He then said that he didn’t want to talk to anyone who’d call him a spineless conformist, to which I responded with, quote; “Hahaha — challenge me!” Afterwhich the conversation died away with him reluctantly agreeing to talk another time after I told him that I wasn’t personally attacking him.
What a soft-skinned little bitch. It’s hilarious how, at the accusation — even in a jokey way — of being a pussy, he just confirmed it. In fact such matters genuinely irritate me. How can a man be so weak and feeble as to be repelled by an anonymous conversation in which he is very generally, indirectly jested about? A product of our effeminate, pampered age, it seems. And, if you’re reading this, Swedish chap, know that it’s still nothing personal. I just think you’re a little bit of a girl, to be honest — and I say that in the unprogressive, semichauvinist, working-class sense. You’ll just have to deal with that if you think it’s “icky” or something (and if you do, you need a good punch in the face — grow up).
In other news, I’m unwell again. I swear I get a cold of sorts every fortnight. I don’t know what it is with my immune system — it’s always been awful — but no matter how healthily I live I always end up, if I’ve been out in the rain for like ten minutes, coming down with a bad cold. I had to postpone The Plebeian Podcast — again (sorry to the guys, once more) — as well as further recording both of the Revolt Analysis and the Analysis of Glubb’s “Search for Survival.” What a bastard! I’ll be alright by next week, however.
What else was there..? Just repainting things at the grandparent’s house — granddad is back on his feet, which is nice. Things are calm right now aside from the multiple projects. There’ve been more people contacting me in the southwest, which is interesting — exciting, yet I’m not a people-person in any sense, so I’d rather not make too many commitments to just “hang out” or whatever. Besides, making friends solely over politics seems awfully shallow and inorganic.