As some of you may know, I have been questioned on my article by a number of people, from both UPLB and outside sources, and I wish I could elaborate further on the replies of others without stirring up a rather large argument, however, I fear that if I do not I will bring about a world of trouble for my article’s credibility. I’d rather not cause a riot, but here goes: (*Before I begin: Please do not take this personally, again this is my view, and this is for the Dog Feed. In no way do I wish to harm reputations or cause a stir, I just want to show my point. Thanks.)
The point that I made earlier still stands even though there are those who are supposed to be good at heart. With the shit that I said in my last article, I am entirely aware that not everyone is the same. I am not stupid, but take a look around, the public isn’t either. They know that I generalized and they know in their hearts that there are more than “1 in 3 candidates” (quoted from a current standing official in the UPLB Student Council) who actually want to do something, but what they do is what counts. However, again, if you look at it through public eyes, the interest that the voting population would sustain would probably be just until they finish the free food given to them. They don’t really care that you say you are different. You can fuck with their wordplay until they bleed letters from their ears, but it won’t really matter. They care that you show your point, not just stand and verbally defend. If you wanted to do so, prove me wrong with your actions while you still can. That’s what people care about. They care if they see you go outside and take a piss on someone’s deserving face, but they do not care if you talk and talk for hours on a podium. For a shitload, actions speak louder than words. (Not that I care, I’m just writing the Dog Feed for fun.) The problem is: every one of these people there who try to defend themselves against a vague article on student politics that was directed at the candidates, are generally candidates. With just that, you’ve already sold yourself to the branding machine.
Now to further elaborate on why my point still stands; even those that are good at heart try to shield themselves from the inevitable questioning that will ravage their image like a starving tiger seeing a lonely antelope on a vast plain. Now, by defending yourselves, you’re just proving my point. You guys didn’t have to come out and say that you were innocents to the fuckery that was said in the other article. If you didn’t then you knew yourselves that you were innocent and that you did a pretty damn good job. However, since you did, it just shows that you guys are trying to protect your image, without me actually accusing you of the fuckery in particular. You try to defend your comrades as well, hence shoving my point twice as far up reality’s ass. If you wanted, you could’ve sent the same message to me alone, but instead, you guys wished to come out and say it here in the open. It’s the image that counts in politics. See? Comparing this to a playground situation, let’s say that one asshole kid wants to be leader, and then towards the end of the day in the playground, one of the other kids decides to try and shove a mental dildo up his cocky ass by saying that all the kids who have been leaders are the same. Note that he does not fuck about by saying that the leader as of now is the redundant bastard. So now this leader kid replies that no, I am different and nicer, which is generally what the other bastard leaders did. See the point? To put it plain: Defending yourselves verbally ain’t gonna do shit. Prove me wrong by acting on it, and then the public will get at you. I’m giving you a free pass to use my article to boost your image, and yet you guys choose to tank me on this instead of making the public see you for yourself.
I am just here to speak and speak and speak. I’ve built an image so that people around the internet forums respect my ideas and such. Now I’ve given you the chance to use my article as a springing step. Hell, I even cursed a lot in the article, making this shit almost like trash. You could’ve bought yourself an eternity of worship by proving me wrong with this and that. Instead, you tried to attack a more simplistic concept, the concept that everyone is different and that you yourselves are innocent to the accused topic (which was pointed at the general direction of the candidates [not naming names] and not the current running officials). This just proves my point that the campaign in about image, and that majority of the people wouldn’t care or even read this goddamn reply. Good day.
(c) Anachrony “The Dog Feed 2012”