I keep getting emails and pop-up ads warning me about computer viruses, and I’m sick of it. There ain’t no such thing, and all of this liberal nonsense-talk has got to stop!
First of all, back in my day we didn’t talk about fancy abstract notions of “viruses”. That’s just liberal Voodoo talk. We just called it being sick. “You sick?!” we’d ask. And if the answer were “yes” then we’d lock you in a room until you either got better, or died. Being sick… now that is a real thing. A biological thing. It’s objective. You can feel it. You can smell it. If you want to talk about “viruses”, it means stuff that makes a person sick. That’s just the reality of it.
Now, people want to go and change the traditional meaning of “virus” so it can mean all kinds of weird and wacky stuff. They talk about “computer viruses” … like that even makes sense. It doesn’t!
Computers aren’t living, breathing things! They don’t cough, and catch fever! You ain’t never got some computer gone hacked up a phlegm globber on your shirt. You ain’t never got a computer that said “Ouch it hurts when I pee.” That’s the physical, concrete objective truth of what a virus does. That’s reality.
Ain’t no such thing as no “I hurt when I pee” computer.
Look, I’m not a deep scholar or intellectual type, so instead of trying to explain it to you in my own words, I’m going to borrow some words from the noted scholar and deep-thinker, Kevin D. Williamson who writes for a website called the National Review. I’ll just adapt some insightful quotes from one of his recent articles to make my points.
1. A computer virus is not a virus. It just factually isn’t. That’s objective truth, because I know what the meaning of “virus” is and you can’t tell me otherwise.
2. Liberals have some fancy idea that just by using the word “virus” for something in a computer, that it makes is a real virus. That is stupid. It’s voodoo magic talk. It’s nothing more than “a mystical exercise in rearranging words to rearrange reality” (smart-sounding quote, huh?).
3. “A virus has a biological reality, that is not subordinate to subjective impressions.” That’s another good line from Williamson, ain’t it? What he means is that just because you feel like the program in the computer is in some way similar to a virus doesn’t make it a virus. Just because it acts sorta similar, in some kind of abstract analogy, to a real virus doesn’t mean it’s exactly the same as a virus SO STOP USING THAT WORD TO DESCRIBE IT. It ain’t allowed.
4. In fact, If you call that thing in your computer a “virus” your are LIVING IN A DELUSION THAT SEPARATES YOU FROM REALITY. Sorry, bub. You’re just living in a fantasy world if you use the word “virus” to apply to computer stuff.
In conclusion, if you buy into all of this namby-pamby “computer virus” talk, you are probably mentally ill. Get therapy for Christ’s sake.
Now, truth be told, Williamson’s article, which is titled Laverne Cox Is Not a Woman , is not about computer viruses. It’s about transgender people. But the arguments are exactly the same: Williamson knows about the objective reality of being a man or a woman; he is against people using the word “woman” in any way other than what he sees as the “objective” way that he uses it; anyone who uses the word differently than it was used hundreds of years ago is clearly wrong, delusional and probably mentally ill.
And the same goes for the word “virus”!
So like I said: it’s just a question of objective reality. I know what “virus” means, objectively. I know what a REAL virus is, and you can’t tell me now that somehow the meaning is different now, or has changed just because some people use it differently. I won’t stand for it!