Essay talk:Christian Highschool Teacher Myth

Any suggestions? This is still an early draft, and I’m still open to changing it.
It's overly verbose, confusingly structured, and doesn't match the form of the original closely enough to read as a direct-match parody. Not sure I can provide constructive suggestions on how to improve that, other than "edit down wordy parts to half the size" ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:15, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you’re right... I really should trim it down... I was in a hurry when I initially published it, so I did kind of add a bunch of excess words that kind of ruin the flow. I’ll clean it up later. Thanks! B P "'''9 21:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: I have just updated this to Draft 2. I made it more like the original story (1. the "evil is the absence of God" argument is used and 2. I replaced the unnecessary paragraphs and replaced them with role-reversed versions of the same sentences from the original), but I also gave it that small touch of RationalWiki (1. the teacher's looks, largely defensive weapon of brain personality traits, and insights are inspired by those of Andrew Schlafly, and 2. the student's rebuttals to his arguments are inspired by our very own articles on counter-apologetics)


 * You should change America to United States. Notice that the "America" link doesn't lead to the country. That's just based on a single glance, so I'll get back to you if there are any outstanding issues. 03:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There are a few ways you could make this more concise. First, eliminate redundant wording like "small little highschool," or "You are the one who is making the positive claim, so it’s you who needs to prove your claim"
 * Next, eliminate unnecessary details such as the professor's physical appearance (I'll get back to this), or the girl's laugh, large chunks of the second paragraph, etc.
 * You also preface most of the professor's lines with some form of "this argument is very stupid." If it's so stupid, I the reader should be able to see that without the narrator telling me how to feel. I get that you're parodying the "atheist professor" thing, but most of the other versions don't do that, and it once again pads out the length. Remember, you're trying to emulate a shitty internet copypasta, not fucking Lovecraft.
 * Then I'd cut out the part about how a different student answers the professor's challenge. There's no reason to replace the first student.
 * Back to the professor's appearance, I get that you're going for an Assfly reference. However, I think a more informative way of doing that would be to use character/background information instead. Like this from a different parody:

A liberal Muslim homosexual ACLU lawyer professor and abortion doctor...
 * It's funnier and gives us a more vivid picture of who we're dealing with. It would also let you slip in a CP joke.
 * Moving on, I'd also cut down on the dialogue. This :

'''"What kind of a ridiculous answer is this?!", Mr. Smith said. "You're just shifting the burden of proof! You may as well deny that 2+2=4!", his stupid grin growing wider by the second.'''
 * Might look better as something like this:

'''Mr. Smith sneered. "Trying to shift the burden of proof, are we? You might as well deny that 2+2=4!"'''
 * For another example, I'd rewrite:

'''“Well the thing is, that’s not how burden of proof works. You are the one who is making the positive claim, so it’s you who needs to prove your claim- and I know that you may not like it, but so far, no religion in history has ever been able to do so- not even yours."'''
 * as:

'''“That’s not how burden of proof works. You're the one making a positive claim, so you need to prove it. And so far, no religion in history has done that. Not even yours."'''
 * I hope I've conveyed my essential point here: concise writing is not only important because you're emulating an online meme. It's also important because it just tends to flow better. This is most apparent when you try reading your dialogue out loud. 04:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The section below can probably be omitted. I feel it doesn't add much to the story aside from jabbing at sexism. 04:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with this, too. 04:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Those are some excellent suggestions. The reason why I added the other student failing to respond to the teacher's initial question was because in the original, the atheist professor does the exact same thing with the Christian who fails before the "smart" one ends up answering the professor's question. And also, you're right, I should find a better way to make that Assfly reference. I've been thinking of renaming this essay "Mr. Smith, a straight cisgender white male fundamentalist Christian Conservapedia-loving, trusworthy highschool teacher with a largely defensive weapon of brain...".

Also, yes I agree that changing Mr. Smith's rebuttal to Jane's "Rosalind Franklin"'s Burden of Proof argument to what you suggested would make him far more Schlafly-ish. :) B P "'''9 22:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)