« At least TRY to do some research | Main | People are fucking stupid, proof #245234523452 »

Tired of the "Web 2.0 Entitlement Jackasses"? Tired of a roomful of blogassholes fucking everything up because you didn't fellate them as a reward for attending your conference? Sick to death of their rude, whiny bullshit because you didn't read their minds? Wishing you could, just once, get them to use the manners that the rest of us learned in Kindergarten?

Of course you are. $DEITY$ knows, we are too.

That's why I'm offering a new service: The Bynkii.com Smackin' Hand.

When you hire one of our trained TBSH experts, you are guaranteed a baseline level of manners that allows for vigorous, even passionate debate, yet with the modicum of manners we all expect in a society that has evolved beyond random poop - flinging.

Here's how it works. When you know you have a potential problem room, say one that involves "blogging", "Social Media", or anything else that Scobleites and Web 2.0 celebrity wannabes might attend, you call the TBSH professional that you have on retainer, and they will station themselves in the room in an unobtrusive manner. If the crowd starts pulling some kind of shit like the Zuckerberg SXSW debacle, your TBSH professional will quickly remind the crowd of their manners. For example, this bit from the aforementioned Zuckerberg interview:

That was the tipping point, as represented by one attendee who asked, "Other than rough interviews, what are some of the biggest challenges Facebook faces?"

"Has this been a rough interview?" Lacy asked Zuckerberg.

"I wasn't asking you, I was asking Mark," the attendee sniped.

Now, as we all know, this behavior went unpunished. The results were just stellar, weren't they. Now, let's see that same incident as it would have been handled by a trained TBSH professional:

That was the tipping point, as represented by one attendee who asked, "Other than rough interviews, what are some of the biggest challenges Facebook faces?"

"Has this been a rough interview?" Lacy asked Zuckerberg.

"I wasn't asking you, I was asking Mark," the attendee sniped.

TBSH: "Excuse me sir?"

jackass: "Who are you?"

TBSH: <SMACK!> I'm the (guy/woman) who's here to fucking remind you that when you're out in public, you don't act like a fucking monkey, that's who I am. Now, you can either treat everyone in the room with the same 'respect' you think you deserve, or Ima smack you so fucking hard upside that big empty skull that you'll be shittin' ears!

newly-reformed jackass: "I'm terribly sorry Lacy, don't know what came over me. However, if you could allow Mark to answer my question with regard to the challenges facing his company, I'd be simply delighted to hear his opinion of this interview as well. Again, please accept my humble apologies for my earlier outburst.

See how easy it is? Don't worry about our professionals fitting in. Here at TBSH, we have a wide range of well-trained and highly motivated people who have dedicated themselves to taking on the awesome responsibility of smacking manners back into the rude little blogdorkosphere fuckers.

We even have a money-back guarantee! If TBSH doesn't turn a crowd of gibbering blogmonkeys into a collection of polite, well-behaved individuals in five minutes or less, you get your money back. (Honestly, the money's not as important as the chance to slap a blogmonkey around until the learn their manners. You'd be AMAZED at the donations we get for this service. Our fee is highly negotiable.)

So when you want a well-mannered conference, relax. TBSH is here, and ready to go.

Technorati Tags:
Blogosphere = Dorkosphere, Blogosphere = Stupid, Blogtards, Sometimes, a little violence can help

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.bynkii.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/801

Comments

Sign me up.

Posted by: Angry Drunk | March 12, 2008 10:09 AM

Unlike most of the people commenting on the debacle, I was actually in the room and listening. No, the TBSH would not have smacked the questioner—at that point, the TBSH would have been seeking workman's comp for having been repeatedly slapping Lacy for the last 30 minutes.

She was waaay over the line, and the crowd just gave her back a tiny percent of the disrespect she showed them first.

[Why didn't I leave? I wanted to see Kathy Sierra (who was following right after) and I had a great seat by a power outlet.]

Posted by: Dori | March 12, 2008 10:12 AM

But there are better ways to show that you think an interviewer sucked, and none of them involve being a PITA during the session. A consistent stream of people leaving the room? Not only acceptable, but an immediate way to show the people on the stage that hey, they ain't doing so hot. A ton of polite, yet firm complaints to the show organizers? Again, not only acceptable but encouraged.

But that kind of bullshit, even if reasonably justified is wrong, because it *encourages* that kind of behavior *any* time someone is not completely overjoyed by a session.

I absolutely admit to not being TEH SOOPER PRESENTER every time. I've given some sessions that were kind of stinkoramas. But in every case, the crowd was, at least in the room, polite. They savaged me in the eval comments, which is the appropriate place to do so.

There were ways to show disapproval both in the room and out, but none of them involve just being out and out rude.

Posted by: John C. Welch | March 12, 2008 10:29 AM

The problem was that people wanted to hear from him, and she was barely letting him get a word in edgewise. There are real ongoing issues with FB that the audience was curious about but those questions weren't getting asked.

Leaving the room wouldn't have gotten those questions asked, nor would rude evals. SxSW didn't hire her to speak (FB did) and as last I heard she doesn't acknowledge that she screwed up, evals and walkouts wouldn't have made a difference.

She was supposed to be the interviewer. Instead, she came off more like the asshole in the front row whose incessant heckling keeps the audience from hearing the speaker. When the interviewee himself made a comment about how she was asking lousy "questions," it was time for her to shut up and let him talk.

Posted by: Dori | March 12, 2008 10:57 AM

Doesn't matter. Standing up and being rude to the speakers and the rest of the room is not something I can even begin to conceive of, (barring extreme edge cases), because besides rude, it's presumptuous. Barring absolute empirical knowledge that every single person in the room feels exactly as you do, standing up and being rude like that means you're claiming the "speaks for the audience" mantle. I highly doubt that the people getting up in her face canvassed every individual in the room on that level.

As well, what about the next time, when this is used as justification? (you know it will happen, it's da intarweb.) Getting people who are good speakers, (as opposed to attention whores and marketers) is not easy, and now you want them to go into a situation where they know if they're not perfectly satisfying the audience, it's a feeding frenzy?

Hell, even if it's only SXSW, why the hell would anyone speak there now? Who specifically requested her is immaterial in this case. Why would anyone sane want to walk into an environment where it is okay to start acting like upset monkeys at feeding time if you don't like the speaker? Because that's what SXSW's, and the dorkosphere's approval of those actions are saying:

"Don't like a speaker? No need to "be polite" or "leave" or "fill out an eval". Hell no, just stand up and rail at them, because that's how we're now allowed to behave at conferences. Screw the speakers, if they counted, they'd not be upsetting you."

Barring extreme cases, there are rules, unwritten or no, that are critical to making sure that a vocal minority, or vocal majority for that manner, are not allowed to impose their will on everyone in the room, and if SXSW, or any other conference can't be bothered to encourage and enforce them, then why the hell should anyone go? Monkeys are cool, but you don't climb in the cage.

Posted by: John C. Welch | March 12, 2008 12:08 PM

Personally, I blame Fox News; if you see it on cable, on a forum that's dressed up to LOOK like journalism, it must be OK. Ever since they started, they've had a standard methodology. If they have anyone halfway sane on there, they make sure there are three or four of their brainless Yahoos to shout them down like Immanuel Goldstein at a Hate Session. The victim is just supposed to sit there like a deer caught in someone's headlights, going: "But, but, but...." If by some cosmic fluke, they DO manage to get a word in edgewise, they put that in an endlessly repeating loop and run it all the next day, labeled "So-and-so's Rant." Of course, if they DON'T get a word in edgewise, then they brag for weeks about how they had no arguments that could stand up against their trumpeting of meaningless buzzwords. So what do you expect from internet bloggers? It works for Rupert Murdoch's Right-Wing Disinformation Channel, so why wouldn't they copy it? Monkey see, Monkey do!

Posted by: Gatesbasher | March 12, 2008 1:44 PM

I'm the guy that actually asked the question at the keynote and thought I did it with well-reserved notions. We (obviously not your broke ass) paid a lot of money to be at that conference and to have the keynote be completely ruined by Lacy while we quietly sat there was utterly painful. Not a single person in that room didn't share in the almost reflexive urge to go up there and do what they do on 'Live from the Apollo' and have the horn signal and guy come out to remove the train wreck (Lacy) off the stage.

John, you're wrong. Your commenter's agree with me. Listen to them. You'll be surprised that they actually might start returning to your site.

Posted by: Mike | March 12, 2008 1:48 PM

And if anything...freedom of speech motherfucker.

Posted by: Mike | March 12, 2008 1:49 PM

Mike, mike, mike:

Do you always make yourself feel better with lamer attempts at penis envy? Or is it not conceivable in your world that there are those of us who really don't think that social media is important enough to spend more than bandwidth on. I'm guessing both, based on your blogmonkey attempt to somehow attack me because I'm "too broke to go to SXSW". Whatever. But thanks for confirming my opinion of you.

If you really think what you did was right, then please, do enlighten me as to your next public speaking gig, because it MIGHT be worth my while to see if you take as good as you dish out. Considering what you've demonstrated, somehow, i don't think you'll handle being the center of a shitstorm any better than Lacy did.

So you paid to go to a conference. Big fucking deal. Contrary to popular belief, that doesn't give you a bye on manners, and basic public decorum. But hey, you spent money, you're *entitled* to have everything you want. Why, I'm surprised you didn't go scream at the SXSW people for daring to not make your world perfect.

Of course, you're too cowardly of a blogmonkey to even have a link to your site, if you have one. Love the incredibly mature link in your typekey account: "whydoineedanaccount". Oh mike, your wit, it is truly a knee-slapper. I bet you slay the jr. high crowd. You are indeed a master of "hur hur hur". Come on mike. Give us a link. You went through the trouble to come here and set up a typekey account. Why are you denying the rest of us the chance to return the favor, and go to YOUR site and criticize everything YOU post? Assuming of course you don't just delete comments you don't like or that don't agree with you or don't kiss your ass properly. You appear to be the kind of prat that only allows obsequious commentary.

As well, out of 4 unique commenters who aren't me, two agree with me, two do not. Adding in my vote, right now, there's a majority that agree with me. Even without it, it's a split. So my commenters (oh, the plural of commenter has no apostrophe), are thus far evenly split. You seem to have a real problem counting, and judging majority before you pop off to people. A basic course in arithmetic and percentages could be of use here.

As far as "agree with me or I won't come back", here's my reply: "There are certainly web sites that will bend over backwards to agree with everything the commenters say. This is not one of them. Suck it up, princess".

Oh, and freedom of speech only covers your right to not be persecuted for criticizing the government. It doesn't give you immunity from being called out for being a little gibbering blogmonkey with entitlement issues.

Constitutional Law: U R Doin' It Rong

Maybe you should try reading something besides techmeme.

Posted by: John C. Welch | March 12, 2008 2:39 PM

Waitaminute Mike, you're calling ME broke ass when you're commenting from some fucking COMCAST connection in what looks to be Maryland?

Oh for fuck's sake, come back when you have some fucking real connection that you didn't get on a bargain plan. You hypocritical shined-up tin-wearing pretending it's platinum scrub motherfucker.

Posted by: John C. Welch | March 12, 2008 2:46 PM

So, I agree with you on this point John - there is simply no excuse for anyone in that audience to have been so rude.

Oh, and Mike, you really didn't pay a lot of money to go to the conference. What was your total cost for attending? A thousand dollars? Two? How much was the conference ticket itself - a few hundred dollars? None of that qualifies as a lot of money. And even if it had been a lot of money, that doesn't entitle you to be rude.

But hey, don't take my word for it. Mark Zuckerberg thinks that Sarah Lacy is smart. He thought Sarah Lacy's questions were pretty good. He likes Sarah Lacy. He hangs out with Sarah Lacy socially. He would be happy to be interviewed by Sarah Lacy again. And... he doesn't think the way the audience treated Sarah Lacy was reasonable.

Perhaps if enough people tell people like you that you need to learn how to behave properly in public, it might start to sink in...

Posted by: Simon Brocklehurst | March 12, 2008 3:12 PM

Yep. I get that a lot of people didn't like the interview. However, there were people that did, including the subject, and i think that his opinion has merit. Was SXSW perhaps the right venue for a business-oriented interview? Probably not, but that's not Mark's nor Lacy's fault, that's SXSW's for not reading the audience well.

Either way, silently leaving, or complaining afterwards is how grownups handle such things.

Posted by: John C. Welch | March 12, 2008 3:48 PM

There are even ways of expressing your displeasure about the way a session is being handled in a polite, reasonable way. People should try it - amazing how well people respond to basic common courtesy.

Posted by: Fred | March 13, 2008 3:10 AM

I wasn't at SXSW, but saw a video of this interview. Seems to me that Zuckerberg gave his usual repetitious, bland non-answers to most of the questions put to him, and that Lacy caught abuse mostly for trying to pitch the interview as a casual, gossipy talk-show.

Posted by: Moeskido | March 13, 2008 1:15 PM

*raises hand* OO OOH! Can you sign me up? I didn't go to SXSW, but I have watched the video. Lacy was bad and Zuckerburg was wooden, but let's try to act like the adults we all are.

Oh and Mike, I'm sure John does this blog because he enjoys it, not to get "teh most" traffic hits in a month. You're just promoting the image that John is talking about in this post; Entitled New Media Douchebags (trademark John C Welch) who think they're the bomb.

Posted by: space cowgirl | March 13, 2008 8:48 PM

One point: I did not invent the phrase "New Media Douchebag". That actually comes from Cinammon Pants.com

Posted by: John C. Welch | March 15, 2008 1:29 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: