The mysticism of many cultures throughout history has assigned a power to knowing, saying and writing a demon’s true name. The earliest example of this I can think of is from the Ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead, the obscure god Medjed, “The Smiter” whose physical appearance can’t be known so when he’s depicted in heiroglyphs, he’s drawn as a bedsheet ghost with eyes and feet..
I know that concept, but I believe it is more about unambiguity and transparency: I know who and what you are. There is no disguise or deflection to hide behind.
In that vein, I also believe that there is power in intentionally corrupted mockeries of those names, so long as those twists preserve clear lineage to their originals and are somewhat apt to the creature being described. They not only identify their subject, but also taunt it, essentially boasting the power that the subject has no recourse to your mockery.
“Micropenis” is a generic schoolyard insult that could just as well mean a certain president or a buddy you’re looking to tease.
“Microsoft” is the true name.
“Microslop” is clearly related to that name, so you know who I’m talking about, while also calling out the sloppy character of their work and taunting its executives who object to describing the digital offal they peddle as the slop it is.
I should note that there is no need to use either term exclusively. I think both have their uses and places, depending on the formality of the occasion or the context, and obviously anyone is free to use whichever they see fit to.
Just don’t use Micropenis. That’s juvenile, generic, hardly applicable to a company and liable to cause collateral damage: People born with a small member don’t deserve being equated to a company that, by all accounts, is being a giant dick.
I’d also endorse calling them Microslop, half because their software seems to be rapidly ensloppifying and half because it pisses off their CEO
The mysticism of many cultures throughout history has assigned a power to knowing, saying and writing a demon’s true name. The earliest example of this I can think of is from the Ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead, the obscure god Medjed, “The Smiter” whose physical appearance can’t be known so when he’s depicted in heiroglyphs, he’s drawn as a bedsheet ghost with eyes and feet..
Call evil by its true name.
I know that concept, but I believe it is more about unambiguity and transparency: I know who and what you are. There is no disguise or deflection to hide behind.
In that vein, I also believe that there is power in intentionally corrupted mockeries of those names, so long as those twists preserve clear lineage to their originals and are somewhat apt to the creature being described. They not only identify their subject, but also taunt it, essentially boasting the power that the subject has no recourse to your mockery.
“Micropenis” is a generic schoolyard insult that could just as well mean a certain president or a buddy you’re looking to tease.
“Microsoft” is the true name.
“Microslop” is clearly related to that name, so you know who I’m talking about, while also calling out the sloppy character of their work and taunting its executives who object to describing the digital offal they peddle as the slop it is.
Motion passes 👩🏻⚖️ microslop it is. I’m adjusting my autocorrect library to match this new convention
I should note that there is no need to use either term exclusively. I think both have their uses and places, depending on the formality of the occasion or the context, and obviously anyone is free to use whichever they see fit to.
Just don’t use Micropenis. That’s juvenile, generic, hardly applicable to a company and liable to cause collateral damage: People born with a small member don’t deserve being equated to a company that, by all accounts, is being a giant dick.
Voldesoft, get 'em Harry!