This sentence contains a provocative statement that attracts the readers’ attention, but really only has very little to do with the topic of the blog post. This sentence claims to follow logically from the first sentence, though the connection is actually rather tenuous. This sentence claims that very few people are willing to admit the obvious inference of the last two sentences, with an implication that the reader is not one of those very few people. This sentence expresses the unwillingness of the writer to be silenced despite going against the popular wisdom. This sentence is a sort of drum roll, preparing the reader for the shocking truth to be contained in the next sentence.
This sentence contains the thesis of the blog post, a trite and obvious statement cast as a dazzling and controversial insight.
This sentence claims that there are many people who do not agree with the thesis of the blog post as expressed in the previous sentence. This sentence speculates as to the mental and ethical character of the people mentioned in the previous sentence. This sentence contains a link to the most egregiously ill-argued, intemperate, hateful and ridiculous example of such people the author could find. This sentence is a three-word refutation of the post linked in the previous sentence, the first of which three words is “Um.” This sentence implies that the linked post is in fact typical of those who disagree with the thesis of the blog post. This sentence contains expressions of outrage and disbelief largely expressed in Internet acronyms. This sentence contains a link to an Internet video featuring a cat playing a piano.
This sentence implies that everyone reading has certainly seen the folly of those who disagree with the thesis of the blog post. This sentence reminds the reader that there are a few others who agree. This sentence contains one-word links to other blogs with whom the author seeks to curry favor, offered as examples of those others.
This sentence returns to the people who disagree with the thesis of the blog post. This sentence makes an improbably tenuous connection between those people and a current or former major political figure. This sentence links those people and that political figure to a broad, ill-defined sociodemographic class sharing allegedly similar belief systems. This sentence contains a reference to the teachings of Jesus; its intent may be either ironic or sincere.
This sentence refers to a different historic period, and implies that conditions relevant to the thesis of the blog post were either different or the same. This sentence states that the implications of the previous sentence are a damned shame. This sentence says that the next sentence will explain the previous sentence. This sentence contains a slight rewording of the thesis of the blog post, a trite and obvious statement cast as a dazzling and controversial insight.
This sentence contains an apparent non-sequitur phrased as if it follows logically from the reworded thesis of the blog post. This sentence is a wildly overgeneralized condemnation of one or more entire classes of people phrased in as incendiary a fashion as possible which claims to be an obvious corollary to the thesis and non-sequitur.
This sentence proposes that anyone who might disagree with the wildly overgeneralized condemnation is, by so disagreeing, actually proving the author’s point. This sentence explains that such people disagree primarily because of the author’s courageous and iconoclastic approach. This sentence mentions the additional possibilities that readers who express disagreement with the wildly overgeneralized condemnation are merely following political fashion or trying to ingratiate themselves with interest groups. This sentence is a somewhat-related assertion based in thoughtless privilege and stated as dispassionate objective truth. This sentence explains that if the scales would merely fall from those dissenting readers’ eyes, they would see the wisdom and necessity of the author’s statements.
This sentence invites readers to respond freely and without constraint as long as those responses fall within certain parameters. This sentence consists of an Internet in-joke that doesn’t quite fit the topic.
[This parenthetical sentence was appended some time after posting as an expression of gratitude for the post’s many visitors and an apology that server overload has prompted the owner’s closing of comments, at least for the time being.]
This comment points out that anyone who wants to do anything about the issue described in the above blog post is, paradoxically, a hypocrite, because, for this issue, the laws of unintended consequences work in such strangely ironic ways that, in fact, the best thing we can possibly do about this issue is to do nothing at all.
This comment is posted by a troll who is well known, and utterly hated, by those readers who frequent this blog. The troll comments on every post on this blog.
This comment is made by a regular reader of the blog who hates the troll who just posted the previous comment. The regular reader now begs the owner of this blog to permanently ban the troll forever. The regular reader appeals to the others who post comments on this blog to agree that the troll never contributes anything useful to any conversation on this blog.
This comment expresses outrage that the author of the blog post should be writing about this particular issue, when, in fact, the author of the blog post has never written about the suffering of the people of East Timor, which is clearly a much larger and more important issue, effecting many more people. The poster of this comment suggests that no one will ever take the author seriously, until the author has written about all of those other issues, of which East Timor is only an example, which are clearly more important than the issue raised here.
This comment parses the words of the original post, and parses them again and again and again, using clever rhetorical tricks to falsely “prove” that the words mean something very different than what they first appear to mean. This comment then urges reader not to fall for the innocent, naive impression they may have been left with after first reading the blog post, but rather, to see deeper, and thus understand the hideous, monstrous, secret aims of the author of the blog post.
THIS COMMENT IS WRITTEN IN ALL CAPS AND CONTAINS AN EXHORTATION TO “WAKE UP.” IT CONTAINS A REFERENCE TO ABORTION, NO MATTER WHAT THE TOPIC OF THE THREAD IS.
This comment is written by a hardened veteran of blog comment flame wars but who, hoping to gain the credibility of an objective innocent, claims “This is my very time posting a comment to a blog.” They then disagree with the blog post and point out that they know of absolutely no one, anywhere, who would agree with the blog post.
...This comment inserts an IMG link to a unicorn chaser embed.
This comment is written by someone who clearly arrived on this site after having searched on Google for a term that just happens to appear in the title of the blog post. They then ask “Where can I buy incendiaries?”