Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - fizz

Pages: [1]
General Comments / fanatics
« on: March 26, 2020, 12:51:57 PM »
I was reading a post in an Italian blog I follow, and i thought that the subject would be useful in this forum.
So, i opened google translate and fed the post to it. Here is the result, with minimal corrections where I thought it was needed (I apologize in advance for any bad grammar and funny word usage).


Fanatics are by far the worst people in the world because they spoil everything they touch. It's amazing how people tend to become fanatical about anything, not just about football and religion, but also about food, movies or operating systems. Why? I don't know, but I know how to recognize these people. For example, the fanatic says "we" instead of "me" and "you" [meaning "your kind", "you, people"] instead of "you" [meaning "you, person"], expresses himself according to the vocabulary in use in his sect and, above all, has a certain tendency to divide the world into good and villains, like in comics. But if these clues are not enough, I know three infallible tests to recognize a fanatic and thus immediately adopt the only sensible behavior with such a person: smile of courtesy, absolute silence and many small steps in the direction of Pluto, because starting arguing with a fanatic is the worst idea that can come to mind, it is like brushing your teeth with a soup cube: useless, disgusting and addictive.

Test 1
The main characteristic of the fanatic is his total identification with the object of his fanaticism. No matter how spatially, temporally, chemically or even ontologically the two are separated, the fanatic can identify with anything: even with the mozzarella from his village. When the fanatic thinks of his idol he thinks of himself, indeed he thinks of an idealized version of himself, a pure and perfect entity as only he himself could be if only reality stopped him by not bowing to his desires. So when one is praising X, it doesn't matter that X is God, his soccer team or a supermarket chain, to understand if he is a fanatic, just say "X is *censored*". Like that, point-blank. If the subject opens his eyes wide, becomes purple and begins to secrete a strange foam from the mouth, either he's a fanatic or has a stroke. It is sometimes very difficult to distinguish between the two.

Test 2
For the same reason, the fanatic is also unable to find defects in what he loves, which must immediately cause some suspicion about his objectivity, since there is nothing in the universe where something wrong cannot be found. Even Bach, and I'm saying Bach not Lucio Dalla, had some flaws: some cantatas seem to be made with the stencil, apart from his music he was a verbose simpleton and a bit of a foot-licker and, let's face it, from a physical point of view, he was not exactly the maximum. So to expose an X fanatic just ask him to say three things about X that he doesn't like. Not one. Not two. Three. Three things you don't like you should always be able to say about anyone, even about yourself. And it's not worth saying things like "it's too much [positive adjective]" or "did [negative thing] but for a good purpose". Of course, the fanatic will not just keep quiet, but he will start mumbling half sentences with great spilling of saliva. Remember: a polite smile, silence, Pluto.

Test 3
Finally, the safest unmasking test of all. For an X fanatic, it is inconceivable that someone could have anything to say about his beloved and beloved X. We must not forget that the fanatic lives in a world where X is objectively perfect, for him it is an obvious thing in itself that does not need arguments, so anyone who says bad things about X does not say that because he really thinks it, it is not possible, it would be like thinking that the sky is green or the sea hairy, he says it because he is a fanatic of the opposite faction. For the fanatic everyone is fanatic. So his reaction will inevitably be something like "always better than Y".
Then, as there are usually more than one opposing factions, interesting situations can also arise.

Grillo is a charlatan.

Always better than Renzi.

Renzi is a liar.

Always better than Berlusconi.

Berlusconi is a criminal.

Always better than Grillo.

Pages: [1]