Related to last post. Which person is more deranged?

The person who is genuinely a semi-sociopath (what I would call a genuine douchebag) or someone who claims, only, to be acting that way?

Seems mostly like a rhetorical question to me as if you walk the walk and talk the talk, you are it (leastwise, according to Aristotle, that quote I posted last week.)

Now there is a total exception: actors. If you are portraying a heinous character, in furtherance of the Thespian Arts, you are exempted.

Then, there is the murky territory. There are those people who are not really working off a script but are in the public earning a living by presenting themselves to the public as douchebags; AM radio talk show hosts, acidic pundits, politicians.

Personally, I do not give them any slack. I hold them to the Aristotelian standard of you are how you act. Or to say it otherwise, I am not impressed if I hear it said that they shower their spouse with love, and treat their pets kindly, and call their momma every week. All that really matters to me is whether they are human (in a good way) to me or whether they act like a douche around me.


Oh, and there are the amateurs; people who act like douches to amuse themselves, primarily, and secondarily, to amuse anyone vulgar enough to find that shit entertaining.

They get no wiggle room at all. And here is why that is the case.

Now it is one thing when you see someone either singing badly or dancing badly, or basically proving that NO they DO NOT have talent.

To those people, the following old joke line applies: "Don't give up your day job."

However, for an amateur caustic commentator? For a person who chooses to portray the part of La Douche, when not performing in character via a script, or even other wise for money as a paid professional? Here is the line for them:

"There is a pill for that, and many psychotherapeutic options to choose from."