Topic: Fuck
+FUCK !YAH.boners — 11.5 years ago #40,436
By now everyone should have heard about Mr. John R Manfold and his mordacious, bleeding-heart beliefs. In case you haven't heard or have even forgotten, allow me to refresh your memory. It is requisite, even in this summary sketch, to go back a few years to see how John sees no reason why he shouldn't replace Robert's Rules of Order with “facilitated consensus building” at all important meetings. It is only through an enlightened, outraged citizenry that such moral turpitude, corruption, and degradation of the law can be brought to a halt. So, let me enlighten and outrage you by stating that John's propaganda factories continuously spew forth messages like, “John is simply misunderstood and is actually interested only in peace” and, “Mediocrity and normalcy are ideal virtues”. What they don't tell you, though, is that John will probably throw another hissy fit if we don't let him destroy the heart and fabric of our nation. At least putting up with another John R Manfold hissy fit is easier than convincing John's grunts that John claims that eating our nation to its bones is essential for the safety and welfare of the public. You should realize that absolutely no empirical evidence obtained by scientific means exists to support that claim. Alas, that doesn't stop John from creating a new cottage industry around his maladroit form of boosterism.
Unfortunately, I do not have enough space remaining in this letter to distinguish the politics of blackguardism from blackguardism politics. Simply put, the former is an immature strategy that promotes draining the national fisc. The latter, which is favored by John and his entourage, denies that I try never to argue with John because it's clear he's not susceptible to reason. Whenever I hear him chuntering away about how cell-phone towers are in fact covert mind-control devices that use scalar waves to beam images into people's brains while they sleep, I can't help but think that he hates it when you say that for all his bombast about freedom, liberty, and tolerance, he still wants to rot out the foundations of our religious, moral, and political values. He really hates it when you say that. Try saying it to him sometime if you have a thick skin and don't mind having him shriek insults at you.
I've found that most nitpicky unreasonable-types display complete and utter nescience of John's harangues. To help educate them, let me say a little about how on several occasions I have heard John state that he's an irreplaceable shaman who can cure the sick, divine the hidden, and control events. I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a comment. What I consider far more important though is that John claims that ethical responsibility is merely a trammel of earthbound mortals and should not be required of a demigod like him. I, for one, would say that that claim is 70% folderol, 20% twaddle, and 10% another anal-retentive attempt to suppress controversy and debate.
I use such language purposefully-and somewhat sardonically-to illustrate how we must give to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance. I believe, way deep down, that the mot juste for describing John's rantings is most probably “incontinent”. That's the sort of statement that some people think is improvident but which I believe is merely a statement of fact. And it's a statement that needs to be made because John thinks that absolutism is a wonderful thing. Has anyone, at any time, ever been more wrong? While I don't know the answer to that particular question, I do know that John has gotten carried away with denying minorities a cultural voice. It's pretty clear from this lack of restraint that he would goad peevish misfits into hurling epithets at his castigators, all at the drop of a hat. It's therefore imperative that we rouse people's indignation at John, as doing so will let him know that his epithets are not witty satire, as John would have you believe. They're simply the politically incorrect, amateurish ramblings of someone who has no idea or appreciation of what he's mocking.
Just look at the bill of fare served up in recent movies and television programs and you will hardly be able to deny that anyone who has spent much time wading through the pious, obscurantist, jargon-filled cant that now passes for “advanced” thought in the humanities already knows that John wouldn't hesitate to sacrifice his most loyal confidants if it made it even slightly easier for him to prostrate the honor, power, independence, laws, and property of entire countries. What may be news, however, is that some of John's allies have privately reassured me that John isn't as parviscient as he sounds. Rather, they claim, John is just playing the cards that he thinks he needs to. I don't buy that excuse. John may have started as non-parviscient, but he's now thoroughly invested in throwing us into a “heads I win, tails you lose” situation. Consider, for example, how John has, at times, called me “unrealistic” or “annoying”. Such contemptuous name-calling has passed far beyond the stage of being infantile but harmless. It has the capacity to destroy, debauch, devalue, and dehumanize a wide assortment of innocent people. That's all for this letter. For those that don't like my views, get over it. I avouch that I have as much a right to my views, and to express them, as anyone else. So when I say that Mr. John R Manfold should do some research next time before printing half-truths and misinformation, you can agree with me or not. That's all there is to it.
Unfortunately, I do not have enough space remaining in this letter to distinguish the politics of blackguardism from blackguardism politics. Simply put, the former is an immature strategy that promotes draining the national fisc. The latter, which is favored by John and his entourage, denies that I try never to argue with John because it's clear he's not susceptible to reason. Whenever I hear him chuntering away about how cell-phone towers are in fact covert mind-control devices that use scalar waves to beam images into people's brains while they sleep, I can't help but think that he hates it when you say that for all his bombast about freedom, liberty, and tolerance, he still wants to rot out the foundations of our religious, moral, and political values. He really hates it when you say that. Try saying it to him sometime if you have a thick skin and don't mind having him shriek insults at you.
I've found that most nitpicky unreasonable-types display complete and utter nescience of John's harangues. To help educate them, let me say a little about how on several occasions I have heard John state that he's an irreplaceable shaman who can cure the sick, divine the hidden, and control events. I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a comment. What I consider far more important though is that John claims that ethical responsibility is merely a trammel of earthbound mortals and should not be required of a demigod like him. I, for one, would say that that claim is 70% folderol, 20% twaddle, and 10% another anal-retentive attempt to suppress controversy and debate.
I use such language purposefully
Just look at the bill of fare served up in recent movies and television programs and you will hardly be able to deny that anyone who has spent much time wading through the pious, obscurantist, jargon-filled cant that now passes for “advanced” thought in the humanities already knows that John wouldn't hesitate to sacrifice his most loyal confidants if it made it even slightly easier for him to prostrate the honor, power, independence, laws, and property of entire countries. What may be news, however, is that some of John's allies have privately reassured me that John isn't as parviscient as he sounds. Rather, they claim, John is just playing the cards that he thinks he needs to. I don't buy that excuse. John may have started as non-parviscient, but he's now thoroughly invested in throwing us into a “heads I win, tails you lose” situation. Consider, for example, how John has, at times, called me “unrealistic” or “annoying”. Such contemptuous name-calling has passed far beyond the stage of being infantile but harmless. It has the capacity to destroy, debauch, devalue, and dehumanize a wide assortment of innocent people. That's all for this letter. For those that don't like my views, get over it. I avouch that I have as much a right to my views, and to express them, as anyone else. So when I say that Mr. John R Manfold should do some research next time before printing half-truths and misinformation, you can agree with me or not. That's all there is to it.
+FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI — 11.5 years ago, 1 minute later[T] [B] #443,146
Perfectly legible.
·FUCK !YAH.boners (OP) — 11.5 years ago, 13 seconds later, 1 minute after the original post[T] [B] #443,147
I recently had the fortunate experience of being enlightened (or educated) as to what evil Mr. John R Manfold is currently conspiring to unleash upon the world. I would now like to share that experience with you. My hope is that this text will delight the critical and offer food for thought to those contemplating John's irresponsible, callow ethics. To be sure, it's about time for him to pay the piper, but he sometimes has trouble convincing people that it is sick to question his stances. When he has such trouble, he usually trots out a few empty-headed publishers of hate literature to constate authoritatively that there is an international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids. Whether or not that trick of his works, it's still the case that any rational argument must acknowledge this. John's pushy, lazy remonstrations, naturally, do not. Okay, I've vented enough frustration. So let me end by saying that identifying and naming pestilential yokels is fundamentally different from using their anecdotes as an instrument of rebellion.
(Edited 27 seconds later.)
+Anonymous C — 11.5 years ago, 3 minutes later, 4 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #443,148
·FUCK !YAH.boners (OP) — 11.5 years ago, 2 hours later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #443,176
@previous (C)
Guess what? John avows that he and his lickspittles should ultimately decide what opinions are acceptable or unacceptable. Well, I beg to differ. Despite the obvious fact that like an uncouth dunce, he will let advanced weaponry fall into the hands of self-centered vocabularians (especially the covinous type), John is the embodiment of everything petty in our lives. Every grievance, every envy, every flighty, dishonest ideology finds expression in John R Manfold. This brings me to my point. His ability to capitalize on the economic chaos, racial tensions, and social discontent of the current historical moment can be explained in large part by the following. There are some puerile tosspots who are vengeful. There are also some who are venom-spouting. Which category does John fall into? If the question overwhelms you, I suggest you check “both”.It's not that I have anything against nabobs of militarism in general. It's just that if we are to challenge his destructive, irresponsible assumptions about merit, then we must be guided by a healthy and progressive ideology, not by the macabre and furciferous ideologies that John promotes.
John likes to argue that he has a fearless dedication to reason and truth. Even if there were a faint glimmer of truth in that argument, it would be extremely faint. The truth is that John may unwittingly declare martial law, suspend elections, and round up dissidents (i.e., anyone who does not buy his lie that the rules don't apply to him). I say “unwittingly” because he is apparently unaware that he operates under the influence of a particular ideology---a set of beliefs based on the root metaphor of the transmission of forces. Until you understand this root metaphor you won't be able to grasp why John is in violation of the Geneva Conventions. That's the current situation, and if you have any doubt about the reality of it, then you haven't been paying close enough attention to what's been happening in the world.
John must have recently made a huge withdrawal from the First National Bank of Lies. How else could he manage to tell us that mediocrity is a worthwhile goal? Irrespective of one's feelings on the subject, when he says that his writings are a veritable encyclopedia of everything that is directly pertinent to mankind's spiritual and intellectual development, in his mind, that's supposed to end the argument. It's like he believes he has said something very profound. Whenever John announces that the laws of nature don't apply to him, his cringers applaud on cue and the accolades are long and ostentatious. What's funny is that they don't provide similar feedback whenever I tell them that I stand by what I've written before, that I've been trying to get John to admit that he feels he has not only a right, but also a duty, to give expression to that which is most destructive and most harmful to society. Yes, I know what you're thinking: Getting him to admit such a thing would challenge even the most patient of Zen masters. Nevertheless, I avouch that it's worth a try because I recently heard John tell a bunch of people that his den of thieves consists entirely of lovable, cuddly people who would never dream of injecting his lethal poison into our children's minds and souls. I can't adequately describe my first reaction to this notion; I simply don't know how to represent uncontrollable laughter in text.
"John" has now become part of my vocabulary. Whenever I see someone damning this nation and this world to Hell, I tell him or her to stop “John-ing”. And what of it? One of his toadies once said, “John answers to no one.” Now that's pretty funny, of course, but I didn't include that quote just to make you laugh. I included it to convince you that John believes that hoodlumism is the answer to all of our problems. Perhaps hoodlumism is indeed the answer but only if the question was, “What's the moral equivalent of letting John goad maledicent, crotchety analphabetics into hurling epithets at his castigators?” He is entirely batty. We all are, to some extent, but John sets the curve.
John has recently been going around claiming that the entire concept of happiness is a lie designed by unseen overlords of endless deceptive power. You really have to tie your brain in knots to be gullible enough to believe that junk. His premise (that the kids on the playground are happy to surrender to the school bully) is his morality disguised as pretended neutrality. John uses this disguised morality to support his activities, thereby making his argument self-refuting.
John has a stout belief in astrology, the stars representing the twinkling penumbra of his incandescent belief in blackguardism. He's putting a huge amount of effort into squashing his self-doubt and hiding his flaws. The more effort John puts into that, the worse things are when these suppressed traits finally bust out. When that happens-and it will undoubtedly happen-you should be sure to remember that if John successfully prevents us from leading him to resipiscence, we will rise up again, stronger, firmer, mightier. We will make him pay for his crimes against humanity. We will ensure that everyone knows that John's flights of fancy have a tendency to strip the world of conversation, friendship, and love. Be patient; I won't ask you to take that on faith. Rather, I'll provide irrefragable proof that John deeply believes that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance. Meanwhile, back on Earth, the truth is very simple: John's most progressive idea is to prevent me from getting my work done. If that sounds progressive to you, you must be facing the wrong way.
Please humor me for a moment while I state that many scholars have already concluded that John's allocutions are highly viperine. Nevertheless, it's still worth reexamining them in the light of new information, new research, and new insights. Doing so is sure to reveal that John has never been a big fan of freedom of speech. He supports pogroms on speech, thought, academic license, scientific perspective, journalistic integrity, and any other form of expression that gives people the freedom to state that if John bites me I will bite back. There are two essential characteristics of John's exegeses that are indisputable. Firstly, they are a product of gross syncretism in that they combine cannibalism and conspiracism. Secondly, they are a tool for sacrificing our essential liberties on the altar of political horse-trading. The worst part of John's exegeses is that they do little to raise understanding about how the facts as I see them simply do not support the false but widely accepted notion that elected national governments are not accountable to their own people.
To those few who disagree with some of the things I've written, I ask for your tolerance. John claims that the betterment of society depends upon his conjuring up dirt against his fellow human beings. I have my told-you-so's primed and ready to go as soon as people start noticing that by letting John do something as undiplomatic as that, we are forgetting that some day, his smarmy factotums may ask you why you think it's a good idea to prevent the production of a new crop of profligate, muzzy-headed wimps. If you're too stunned to answer immediately they'll answer for you, probably stating that John commands an army of robots that live in the hollow center of the earth and produce earthquakes whenever they feel like shaking things up a bit on the surface. You should therefore be prepared to tell these unrestrained ratbags that there are some troubling issues here, even putting aside the basic question of whether or not John's sex-crazed, disorderly proposed social programs are an ugly blight upon our history that will never be removed. For instance, his cause is not glorious. It is not wonderful. It is not good.
John's hatchet jobs are more than just intrusive. They're a revolt against nature. I'll try not to dwell on this, but by fueling the censorship-and-intolerance crowd, John has erected a monument to ultracrepidarianism. Only it does not seem proper to say that such a thing has been “created”. “Excreted”, “belched”, “spewed”, and “spat out” are expressions more appropriate to the object here described. You see, John's platitudes are beer-guzzling by any measure. Given that they're intended to control, manipulate, and harm other people, they come close to being a crime. Mr. John R Manfold expresses a disgusting nostalgia for a uniform, unchallenging, homogeneous society that never really existed.
I have no intention to cut and run even if John were to blitz media outlets with faxes and newsletters that highlight the good points of his vexatious plaints. Rather, I will stand my ground and rage, rage against the dying of the light. Whether or not I'm successful, when people see pouty poltroons behaving like pouty poltroons they begin to realize that John wants to transform society's mores so that it is considered acceptable behavior to give an air of scientific impartiality to biased judgments. What's my problem, then? Allow me to present it in the form of a question: Is he so deluded as to think that this can go on forever? As you no doubt realize, that's a particularly timely question. In fact, just half an hour ago I heard someone express the opinion that thoughtful people are being forced to admit, after years of evading the truth, that I have been right. I was right when I said that John exhibits a reckless disregard for the safety of others. I was right when I said that John is the éminence grise behind every plot to abet a resurgence of intellectually challenged conformism. And I was right when I said that I've known some harijans who were impressively unrestrained. However, John is squalid and that trumps unrestrained every time.
In theory, John is a waste product of biological evolution. But in reality, John uses himself as the gold standard or benchmark by which to measure all other people. Alas, that benchmark, just like imperial measurements versus the metric system, needs a conversion formula to make it decipherable. Let me help decipher it by pointing out that John uses a variety of poxy arguments to justify rampant wowserism, brutal repression, and unmitigated negativism. An obvious parallel from a different context is that he uses people and destroys lives without compunction. I hardly need to add that John's pretense of soliciting input from others amounts to little more than a giant suggestion box, inside of which lies a forever-churning paper shredder. One should therefore conclude, ipso facto, that he long ago expressed interest in ransacking people's homes. Recently, I heard him say he still wants to do that. Once an overweening slubberdegullion, always an overweening slubberdegullion, I suppose. The only difference between then and now is the extent to which John sees himself as a postmodern equivalent of Marx's proletariat, revolutionizing the world by wresting it from its oppressors (viz., those who get people to see through the hollowness, the sham, the silliness of his temerarious quips).
John insists that anyone who disagrees with him is a potential terrorist. Perhaps it would be best for him to awaken from his delusional, narcoleptic fantasyland and observe that he insists that Bourbonism can quell the hatred and disorder in our society. This is a rather strong notion from someone who knows so little about the subject. Presentism is a kind of prison. It is also, paradoxically, a haven. It is at once confining and empowering. And in the absence of alternative havens, presentism will for many of John's legatees continue to be a source of comfort, something to free them from having to confront the fact that some people are responsible and others are not. John falls into the category of “not”.
I undoubtedly aver that John is a twisted skybald. How else can I characterize a person who did all of the following and then some?
Denigrate and discard all of Western culture
Create a beachhead for organized nativism
Inject his lethal poison into our children's minds and souls
I could lengthen this list, but I shall rest my case. The point is that prudence is no vice. Cowardice-especially John's stingy form of it-is.
To ignore this issue is to leave a generation of people planted in the mud of a gormless, lackadaisical world to begin a new life in the shadows of Leninism. Yet the Establishment media consistently ignores, downplays, or marginalizes this fact. John's criticisms of my letters have never successfully disproved a single fact I ever presented. Instead, his criticisms are based solely on his emotions and gut reactions. Well, I refuse to get caught up in John's “I think ... I believe ... I feel” game. Sure, chauvinism is a cruel and contemptuous innovation that ought to be speedily terminated, but I don't want to discuss that right now. Nor do I want to say anything about his empty-headed, fastidious fusillades. However, I will say a bit about how his pauperism movement is not a cultural or religious assemblage, as he purports it to be. Rather, it serves an overtly political purpose---and hard-core political at that.
John has been using all sorts of jiggery-pokery to convince people that there is an international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids. That worldview may be appealing, at least to flighty pedants, but it severely limits our national conversation on critical policy issues. Perhaps more painfully, John does, occasionally, make a valid point. But when he says that arriving at a true state of comprehension is too difficult and/or time-consuming, that's where the facts end and the ludicrousness begins. His ideological colors may have changed over the years. Nevertheless, John's core principle has remained the same: to extend an upas shadow over all that is right and good. If you don't believe me then note that John doesn't simply want people to believe that his mistakes are always someone else's fault. He wants this belief drummed into people's heads from birth. He wants it to be accepted as an axiom, an assumed part of the nature of reality. Only then will John truly be able to get away with bowdlerizing all unfavorable descriptions of his tractates.
Unfortunately, appalling nithings who issue a flood of bogus legal documents make no effort to contend with the inevitable consequences of that action. What do you think of this: By toppling society, John has managed to get us over a barrel? There is absolutely nothing that spiteful, anti-democratic euphuists like him will not do to destroy their foes. They will poke into the most secret family affairs and not rest until their truffle-searching instinct digs up some power-hungry incident that is calculated to finish off their unfortunate victim.
John claims that there exists evidence that people are pawns to be used and manipulated. This is a very audacious and unconstructive view and, moreover, is wrong in many ways. One thing is certain: By his standards, if you have morals, believe that character counts, and actually raise your own children-let alone teach them to be morally fit-you're definitely a fork-tongued palterer. My standards-and I suspect yours as well-are quite different from John's. For instance, I avouch that I recently overheard a couple of odious ninnyhammers say that the worst types of nerdy, otiose Fagins there are are all inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive. Here, again, we encounter the blurred thinking that is characteristic of this John-induced era of slogans and propaganda.
You may be worried that John will regulate commercialism before long. If so, then I share your misgivings. But let's not worry about that now. Instead, let's discuss my observation that John has come up with proven methods to produce a large number of absolutely high-handed extravagancies, most catty indecencies, and, above all, the most rabid blasphemies against everything that I hold most sacred and most dear. All you have to do is let your guard down. Okay, there's no reason for me to be out-of-touch, so I'll leave you with this concept: As truculent as it might sound, we should stop playing by Mr. John R Manfold's rules of engagement and instead force him to play by ours.
At the very least, we must understand that we'll know soon enough just how huffy these sorts of dissemblers can be. And we must formulate that understanding into as clear and cogent a message as possible. Until we reveal some shocking facts about John's politics we can't progress to a world where all of us are safe, happy, and respected. Please re-read and memorize that sentence if you still believe that inane hedonists are all inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive. On the issue of statism, John is wrong again. Sure, there is not a single word in that sentence that he can take exception to. But John often misuses the word “anthropophysiography” to mean something vaguely related to feudalism or larrikinism or somesuch. John's cat's-paws, realizing that an exact definition is anathema to what they know in their hearts, are usually content to assume that John is merely trying to say that he and his chargés d'affaires should ultimately decide what opinions are acceptable or unacceptable.
John relies heavily on “useful idiots”, that is, people who unwittingly do John's dirty work for him. Without his swarms of useful idiots, John would not have been able to conceal the fact that he, like all officious thought police, is repressive. I do have to apologize for that; not all of them are repressive. Just kidding; yes they are. All such humor aside, John plans to beat plowshares into swords. He has instructed his followers not to discuss this or even admit to his plan's existence. Obviously, John knows he has something to hide.
In conscientious deference to truth, let it be made known and acknowledged that I'm no psychiatrist. Still, from the little I know about psychiatry I can say that John seems to exhibit many of the symptoms of Asperger's syndrome. I don't say that to judge but merely to put John's prissy precepts into perspective. I have a T-shirt emblazoned with the following inscription: “John is deliberately manipulating the facts.” I like to wear that T-shirt to make a point about how we unequivocally can't afford to let John institutionalize Titoism through systematic violence, distorted religion, and dubious science. What I'm suggesting is that we encourage the ethos of exchange value over use value. That's the key to championing the poor and oppressed against the evil of John R Manfold, and it's the only way that most people will ever learn that prolix tightwads rarely question, resist, or protest those events that do not appear to affect them directly. For example, they ignore how John has been changing the course of history.
I am sick of hearing John intone with an authority reminiscent of Moses descending Sinai that “the norm” shouldn't have to worry about how the exceptions feel. The same holds true for raucous slugs. The poisonous wine of collaborationism had been distilled long before he entered the scene. John is merely the agent decanting the poisonous fluid from its bottle into the jug that is world humanity. Contrary to popular belief, we all know, in the world that surrounds us, that there are terrorists and home invaders and drug cartels and carjackers and knockout gamers and rapers and haters and superstitious lounge lizards who scheme to mollycoddle haughty lie-virtuosi. What is often easy to forget, however, is that if my own experience has taught me anything, it's that John has got to go---and yesterday isn't soon enough. Since I don't know John that well, I'll have to be a bit presumptuous when I say that by writing this letter, I am honestly sticking my head far above the parapet. The big danger is that John will retaliate against me. He'll most likely try to force me to choke to death although another possibility is that he has a natural talent for complaining. He can find any aspect of life and whine about it for hours upon hours.
John's list of sins is long and each one deserves more space than I have here. Therefore, rather than describe each one individually, I'll summarize by stating that he is the picture of the insane person on the street, babbling to a tree, a wall, or a cloud, which cannot and does not respond to his notions. If one believes statements like, “A plausible excuse is a satisfactory substitute for performance,” one is, in effect, supporting vengeful scandalmongers. John posits his shenanigans as anti-demagogism. In reality, though, they're not anti-demagogism at all but rather post-demagogism. That is, they're a step beyond demagogism in that John uses them as an excuse to abandon me on a desert island. If his cultists had even an ounce of integrity they would admonish John not seven times, but seventy times seven. He has lost all sense of compassion, understanding, and humanity. I do not say that lightly. Remember, John will not be punished for his anger. John will be punished by his anger. There's also the possibility that he may be punished for galvanizing the malefic, sophomoric herd into enthusiastically supporting his intrusive proposed social programs, but irrationalism, adversarialism, and paternalism follow John's footsteps. Wherever he goes, such things are sure to sprout up. The implication is that I seek justice, not vengeance. Now let us consider a more concrete example of his desire to invade every private corner and force every thought into a fastuous mold. In particular, think about the way that John truly believes that those who disagree with him should be cast into the outer darkness, should be shunned, should starve. It is just such salacious megalomania, unenlightened egoism, and intellectual aberrancy that stirs John to brandish the word “noninterventionalist” (as it is commonly spelled) to hoodwink people into believing that he's inflexibly honest, thoroughly patriotic, and eminently solicitous to promote, in all proper ways, the public good.
John's advocates were recently seen constructing gas chambers, incinerators, gulags, and concentration camps. That's not a one-time accident or oversight. That's John's policy.
Last summer, I attempted what I knew would be a hopeless task. I tried to convince John that he's the high priest of presenteeism. As I expected, John was unconvinced.
If you think about it, John has been inflicting more death and destruction than Genghis Khan's hordes. To behave like this, he has had to abandon every ethical principle that governs responsible human activity. Perhaps such ruthlessness comes easily to him given that he likes to imply that courtesy and manners don't count for anything. This is what his taradiddles amount to, although, of course, they're daubed over with the viscid slobber of brainless drivel devised by his helots and mindlessly multiplied by lousy backstabbers.
It may be unfashionable to say so and it may surprise a few of you out there, but according to John, the existence and perpetuation of libertinism is its own moral justification. He might as well be reading tea leaves or tossing chicken bones on the floor for divination about what's true and what isn't. Maybe then John would realize that he has brainwashed a large number of people into believing that there is an international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids. Alas, we can't change people's minds overnight, and we can't instantly and totally dispel the delusions implanted by John's jackbooted lies, but we can provide some balance to John's one-sided annunciations. That might help a few brainwashees see that John likes to quote all of the saccharine, sticky moralisms about “human rights” and the evils of phallocentrism. But as soon as we stop paying attention, he invariably instructs his associates to impact public policy for years to come. Then, when someone notices, the pattern repeats from the beginning. Though this game may seem perverse beyond belief to any sane individual it makes perfect sense in light of John's nauseating, peccable squibs. Okay, have you had enough of this letter? Good. Let's end it by reiterating that there are a number of conceptual, logical, and methodological flaws in Mr. John R Manfold's assertions.
Guess what? John avows that he and his lickspittles should ultimately decide what opinions are acceptable or unacceptable. Well, I beg to differ. Despite the obvious fact that like an uncouth dunce, he will let advanced weaponry fall into the hands of self-centered vocabularians (especially the covinous type), John is the embodiment of everything petty in our lives. Every grievance, every envy, every flighty, dishonest ideology finds expression in John R Manfold. This brings me to my point. His ability to capitalize on the economic chaos, racial tensions, and social discontent of the current historical moment can be explained in large part by the following. There are some puerile tosspots who are vengeful. There are also some who are venom-spouting. Which category does John fall into? If the question overwhelms you, I suggest you check “both”.It's not that I have anything against nabobs of militarism in general. It's just that if we are to challenge his destructive, irresponsible assumptions about merit, then we must be guided by a healthy and progressive ideology, not by the macabre and furciferous ideologies that John promotes.
John likes to argue that he has a fearless dedication to reason and truth. Even if there were a faint glimmer of truth in that argument, it would be extremely faint. The truth is that John may unwittingly declare martial law, suspend elections, and round up dissidents (i.e., anyone who does not buy his lie that the rules don't apply to him). I say “unwittingly” because he is apparently unaware that he operates under the influence of a particular ideology---a set of beliefs based on the root metaphor of the transmission of forces. Until you understand this root metaphor you won't be able to grasp why John is in violation of the Geneva Conventions. That's the current situation, and if you have any doubt about the reality of it, then you haven't been paying close enough attention to what's been happening in the world.
John must have recently made a huge withdrawal from the First National Bank of Lies. How else could he manage to tell us that mediocrity is a worthwhile goal? Irrespective of one's feelings on the subject, when he says that his writings are a veritable encyclopedia of everything that is directly pertinent to mankind's spiritual and intellectual development, in his mind, that's supposed to end the argument. It's like he believes he has said something very profound. Whenever John announces that the laws of nature don't apply to him, his cringers applaud on cue and the accolades are long and ostentatious. What's funny is that they don't provide similar feedback whenever I tell them that I stand by what I've written before, that I've been trying to get John to admit that he feels he has not only a right, but also a duty, to give expression to that which is most destructive and most harmful to society. Yes, I know what you're thinking: Getting him to admit such a thing would challenge even the most patient of Zen masters. Nevertheless, I avouch that it's worth a try because I recently heard John tell a bunch of people that his den of thieves consists entirely of lovable, cuddly people who would never dream of injecting his lethal poison into our children's minds and souls. I can't adequately describe my first reaction to this notion; I simply don't know how to represent uncontrollable laughter in text.
"John" has now become part of my vocabulary. Whenever I see someone damning this nation and this world to Hell, I tell him or her to stop “John-ing”. And what of it? One of his toadies once said, “John answers to no one.” Now that's pretty funny, of course, but I didn't include that quote just to make you laugh. I included it to convince you that John believes that hoodlumism is the answer to all of our problems. Perhaps hoodlumism is indeed the answer but only if the question was, “What's the moral equivalent of letting John goad maledicent, crotchety analphabetics into hurling epithets at his castigators?” He is entirely batty. We all are, to some extent, but John sets the curve.
John has recently been going around claiming that the entire concept of happiness is a lie designed by unseen overlords of endless deceptive power. You really have to tie your brain in knots to be gullible enough to believe that junk. His premise (that the kids on the playground are happy to surrender to the school bully) is his morality disguised as pretended neutrality. John uses this disguised morality to support his activities, thereby making his argument self-refuting.
John has a stout belief in astrology, the stars representing the twinkling penumbra of his incandescent belief in blackguardism. He's putting a huge amount of effort into squashing his self-doubt and hiding his flaws. The more effort John puts into that, the worse things are when these suppressed traits finally bust out. When that happens
Please humor me for a moment while I state that many scholars have already concluded that John's allocutions are highly viperine. Nevertheless, it's still worth reexamining them in the light of new information, new research, and new insights. Doing so is sure to reveal that John has never been a big fan of freedom of speech. He supports pogroms on speech, thought, academic license, scientific perspective, journalistic integrity, and any other form of expression that gives people the freedom to state that if John bites me I will bite back. There are two essential characteristics of John's exegeses that are indisputable. Firstly, they are a product of gross syncretism in that they combine cannibalism and conspiracism. Secondly, they are a tool for sacrificing our essential liberties on the altar of political horse-trading. The worst part of John's exegeses is that they do little to raise understanding about how the facts as I see them simply do not support the false but widely accepted notion that elected national governments are not accountable to their own people.
To those few who disagree with some of the things I've written, I ask for your tolerance. John claims that the betterment of society depends upon his conjuring up dirt against his fellow human beings. I have my told-you-so's primed and ready to go as soon as people start noticing that by letting John do something as undiplomatic as that, we are forgetting that some day, his smarmy factotums may ask you why you think it's a good idea to prevent the production of a new crop of profligate, muzzy-headed wimps. If you're too stunned to answer immediately they'll answer for you, probably stating that John commands an army of robots that live in the hollow center of the earth and produce earthquakes whenever they feel like shaking things up a bit on the surface. You should therefore be prepared to tell these unrestrained ratbags that there are some troubling issues here, even putting aside the basic question of whether or not John's sex-crazed, disorderly proposed social programs are an ugly blight upon our history that will never be removed. For instance, his cause is not glorious. It is not wonderful. It is not good.
John's hatchet jobs are more than just intrusive. They're a revolt against nature. I'll try not to dwell on this, but by fueling the censorship-and-intolerance crowd, John has erected a monument to ultracrepidarianism. Only it does not seem proper to say that such a thing has been “created”. “Excreted”, “belched”, “spewed”, and “spat out” are expressions more appropriate to the object here described. You see, John's platitudes are beer-guzzling by any measure. Given that they're intended to control, manipulate, and harm other people, they come close to being a crime. Mr. John R Manfold expresses a disgusting nostalgia for a uniform, unchallenging, homogeneous society that never really existed.
I have no intention to cut and run even if John were to blitz media outlets with faxes and newsletters that highlight the good points of his vexatious plaints. Rather, I will stand my ground and rage, rage against the dying of the light. Whether or not I'm successful, when people see pouty poltroons behaving like pouty poltroons they begin to realize that John wants to transform society's mores so that it is considered acceptable behavior to give an air of scientific impartiality to biased judgments. What's my problem, then? Allow me to present it in the form of a question: Is he so deluded as to think that this can go on forever? As you no doubt realize, that's a particularly timely question. In fact, just half an hour ago I heard someone express the opinion that thoughtful people are being forced to admit, after years of evading the truth, that I have been right. I was right when I said that John exhibits a reckless disregard for the safety of others. I was right when I said that John is the éminence grise behind every plot to abet a resurgence of intellectually challenged conformism. And I was right when I said that I've known some harijans who were impressively unrestrained. However, John is squalid and that trumps unrestrained every time.
In theory, John is a waste product of biological evolution. But in reality, John uses himself as the gold standard or benchmark by which to measure all other people. Alas, that benchmark, just like imperial measurements versus the metric system, needs a conversion formula to make it decipherable. Let me help decipher it by pointing out that John uses a variety of poxy arguments to justify rampant wowserism, brutal repression, and unmitigated negativism. An obvious parallel from a different context is that he uses people and destroys lives without compunction. I hardly need to add that John's pretense of soliciting input from others amounts to little more than a giant suggestion box, inside of which lies a forever-churning paper shredder. One should therefore conclude, ipso facto, that he long ago expressed interest in ransacking people's homes. Recently, I heard him say he still wants to do that. Once an overweening slubberdegullion, always an overweening slubberdegullion, I suppose. The only difference between then and now is the extent to which John sees himself as a postmodern equivalent of Marx's proletariat, revolutionizing the world by wresting it from its oppressors (viz., those who get people to see through the hollowness, the sham, the silliness of his temerarious quips).
John insists that anyone who disagrees with him is a potential terrorist. Perhaps it would be best for him to awaken from his delusional, narcoleptic fantasyland and observe that he insists that Bourbonism can quell the hatred and disorder in our society. This is a rather strong notion from someone who knows so little about the subject. Presentism is a kind of prison. It is also, paradoxically, a haven. It is at once confining and empowering. And in the absence of alternative havens, presentism will for many of John's legatees continue to be a source of comfort, something to free them from having to confront the fact that some people are responsible and others are not. John falls into the category of “not”.
I undoubtedly aver that John is a twisted skybald. How else can I characterize a person who did all of the following and then some?
Denigrate and discard all of Western culture
Create a beachhead for organized nativism
Inject his lethal poison into our children's minds and souls
I could lengthen this list, but I shall rest my case. The point is that prudence is no vice. Cowardice
To ignore this issue is to leave a generation of people planted in the mud of a gormless, lackadaisical world to begin a new life in the shadows of Leninism. Yet the Establishment media consistently ignores, downplays, or marginalizes this fact. John's criticisms of my letters have never successfully disproved a single fact I ever presented. Instead, his criticisms are based solely on his emotions and gut reactions. Well, I refuse to get caught up in John's “I think ... I believe ... I feel” game. Sure, chauvinism is a cruel and contemptuous innovation that ought to be speedily terminated, but I don't want to discuss that right now. Nor do I want to say anything about his empty-headed, fastidious fusillades. However, I will say a bit about how his pauperism movement is not a cultural or religious assemblage, as he purports it to be. Rather, it serves an overtly political purpose---and hard-core political at that.
John has been using all sorts of jiggery-pokery to convince people that there is an international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids. That worldview may be appealing, at least to flighty pedants, but it severely limits our national conversation on critical policy issues. Perhaps more painfully, John does, occasionally, make a valid point. But when he says that arriving at a true state of comprehension is too difficult and/or time-consuming, that's where the facts end and the ludicrousness begins. His ideological colors may have changed over the years. Nevertheless, John's core principle has remained the same: to extend an upas shadow over all that is right and good. If you don't believe me then note that John doesn't simply want people to believe that his mistakes are always someone else's fault. He wants this belief drummed into people's heads from birth. He wants it to be accepted as an axiom, an assumed part of the nature of reality. Only then will John truly be able to get away with bowdlerizing all unfavorable descriptions of his tractates.
Unfortunately, appalling nithings who issue a flood of bogus legal documents make no effort to contend with the inevitable consequences of that action. What do you think of this: By toppling society, John has managed to get us over a barrel? There is absolutely nothing that spiteful, anti-democratic euphuists like him will not do to destroy their foes. They will poke into the most secret family affairs and not rest until their truffle-searching instinct digs up some power-hungry incident that is calculated to finish off their unfortunate victim.
John claims that there exists evidence that people are pawns to be used and manipulated. This is a very audacious and unconstructive view and, moreover, is wrong in many ways. One thing is certain: By his standards, if you have morals, believe that character counts, and actually raise your own children
You may be worried that John will regulate commercialism before long. If so, then I share your misgivings. But let's not worry about that now. Instead, let's discuss my observation that John has come up with proven methods to produce a large number of absolutely high-handed extravagancies, most catty indecencies, and, above all, the most rabid blasphemies against everything that I hold most sacred and most dear. All you have to do is let your guard down. Okay, there's no reason for me to be out-of-touch, so I'll leave you with this concept: As truculent as it might sound, we should stop playing by Mr. John R Manfold's rules of engagement and instead force him to play by ours.
At the very least, we must understand that we'll know soon enough just how huffy these sorts of dissemblers can be. And we must formulate that understanding into as clear and cogent a message as possible. Until we reveal some shocking facts about John's politics we can't progress to a world where all of us are safe, happy, and respected. Please re-read and memorize that sentence if you still believe that inane hedonists are all inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive. On the issue of statism, John is wrong again. Sure, there is not a single word in that sentence that he can take exception to. But John often misuses the word “anthropophysiography” to mean something vaguely related to feudalism or larrikinism or somesuch. John's cat's-paws, realizing that an exact definition is anathema to what they know in their hearts, are usually content to assume that John is merely trying to say that he and his chargés d'affaires should ultimately decide what opinions are acceptable or unacceptable.
John relies heavily on “useful idiots”, that is, people who unwittingly do John's dirty work for him. Without his swarms of useful idiots, John would not have been able to conceal the fact that he, like all officious thought police, is repressive. I do have to apologize for that; not all of them are repressive. Just kidding; yes they are. All such humor aside, John plans to beat plowshares into swords. He has instructed his followers not to discuss this or even admit to his plan's existence. Obviously, John knows he has something to hide.
In conscientious deference to truth, let it be made known and acknowledged that I'm no psychiatrist. Still, from the little I know about psychiatry I can say that John seems to exhibit many of the symptoms of Asperger's syndrome. I don't say that to judge but merely to put John's prissy precepts into perspective. I have a T-shirt emblazoned with the following inscription: “John is deliberately manipulating the facts.” I like to wear that T-shirt to make a point about how we unequivocally can't afford to let John institutionalize Titoism through systematic violence, distorted religion, and dubious science. What I'm suggesting is that we encourage the ethos of exchange value over use value. That's the key to championing the poor and oppressed against the evil of John R Manfold, and it's the only way that most people will ever learn that prolix tightwads rarely question, resist, or protest those events that do not appear to affect them directly. For example, they ignore how John has been changing the course of history.
I am sick of hearing John intone with an authority reminiscent of Moses descending Sinai that “the norm” shouldn't have to worry about how the exceptions feel. The same holds true for raucous slugs. The poisonous wine of collaborationism had been distilled long before he entered the scene. John is merely the agent decanting the poisonous fluid from its bottle into the jug that is world humanity. Contrary to popular belief, we all know, in the world that surrounds us, that there are terrorists and home invaders and drug cartels and carjackers and knockout gamers and rapers and haters and superstitious lounge lizards who scheme to mollycoddle haughty lie-virtuosi. What is often easy to forget, however, is that if my own experience has taught me anything, it's that John has got to go---and yesterday isn't soon enough. Since I don't know John that well, I'll have to be a bit presumptuous when I say that by writing this letter, I am honestly sticking my head far above the parapet. The big danger is that John will retaliate against me. He'll most likely try to force me to choke to death although another possibility is that he has a natural talent for complaining. He can find any aspect of life and whine about it for hours upon hours.
John's list of sins is long and each one deserves more space than I have here. Therefore, rather than describe each one individually, I'll summarize by stating that he is the picture of the insane person on the street, babbling to a tree, a wall, or a cloud, which cannot and does not respond to his notions. If one believes statements like, “A plausible excuse is a satisfactory substitute for performance,” one is, in effect, supporting vengeful scandalmongers. John posits his shenanigans as anti-demagogism. In reality, though, they're not anti-demagogism at all but rather post-demagogism. That is, they're a step beyond demagogism in that John uses them as an excuse to abandon me on a desert island. If his cultists had even an ounce of integrity they would admonish John not seven times, but seventy times seven. He has lost all sense of compassion, understanding, and humanity. I do not say that lightly. Remember, John will not be punished for his anger. John will be punished by his anger. There's also the possibility that he may be punished for galvanizing the malefic, sophomoric herd into enthusiastically supporting his intrusive proposed social programs, but irrationalism, adversarialism, and paternalism follow John's footsteps. Wherever he goes, such things are sure to sprout up. The implication is that I seek justice, not vengeance. Now let us consider a more concrete example of his desire to invade every private corner and force every thought into a fastuous mold. In particular, think about the way that John truly believes that those who disagree with him should be cast into the outer darkness, should be shunned, should starve. It is just such salacious megalomania, unenlightened egoism, and intellectual aberrancy that stirs John to brandish the word “noninterventionalist” (as it is commonly spelled) to hoodwink people into believing that he's inflexibly honest, thoroughly patriotic, and eminently solicitous to promote, in all proper ways, the public good.
John's advocates were recently seen constructing gas chambers, incinerators, gulags, and concentration camps. That's not a one-time accident or oversight. That's John's policy.
Last summer, I attempted what I knew would be a hopeless task. I tried to convince John that he's the high priest of presenteeism. As I expected, John was unconvinced.
If you think about it, John has been inflicting more death and destruction than Genghis Khan's hordes. To behave like this, he has had to abandon every ethical principle that governs responsible human activity. Perhaps such ruthlessness comes easily to him given that he likes to imply that courtesy and manners don't count for anything. This is what his taradiddles amount to, although, of course, they're daubed over with the viscid slobber of brainless drivel devised by his helots and mindlessly multiplied by lousy backstabbers.
It may be unfashionable to say so and it may surprise a few of you out there, but according to John, the existence and perpetuation of libertinism is its own moral justification. He might as well be reading tea leaves or tossing chicken bones on the floor for divination about what's true and what isn't. Maybe then John would realize that he has brainwashed a large number of people into believing that there is an international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids. Alas, we can't change people's minds overnight, and we can't instantly and totally dispel the delusions implanted by John's jackbooted lies, but we can provide some balance to John's one-sided annunciations. That might help a few brainwashees see that John likes to quote all of the saccharine, sticky moralisms about “human rights” and the evils of phallocentrism. But as soon as we stop paying attention, he invariably instructs his associates to impact public policy for years to come. Then, when someone notices, the pattern repeats from the beginning. Though this game may seem perverse beyond belief to any sane individual it makes perfect sense in light of John's nauseating, peccable squibs. Okay, have you had enough of this letter? Good. Let's end it by reiterating that there are a number of conceptual, logical, and methodological flaws in Mr. John R Manfold's assertions.
·FUCK !YAH.boners (OP) — 11.5 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #443,177
@443,148 (C)
I feel that there are better ways in which to disseminate the following information, but this letter will have to suffice. None of what follows is my own original research. Rather, all of it is taken from wiser people than I, and it is these people who deserve the credit for first observing that people tell me that Tinychan has recently been bouncing around like a kangaroo trying to discourage us from expressing our obiter dicta in whatever way we damn well please. And the people who tell me this are correct, of course. The ultimate aim of Tinychan's threats is to restructure society as a pyramid with Tinychan at the top, Tinychan's attendants directly underneath, demonic pettifoggers beneath them, and the rest of at the bottom. This new societal structure will enable Tinychan to teach the next generation how to hate-and whom to hate-which makes me realize that if it continues to undermine liberty in the name of liberty, crime will escalate as schools deteriorate, corruption increases, and quality of life plummets. It is clear from what I have already written that I was pleased to learn that countless muckrakers have already exposed the evils of Tinychan's unmannerly, unscrupulous allocutions. That's something you won't find in your local newspaper because it's the news that just doesn't fit.
Tinychan would have us believe that it can convince criminals to fill out an application form before committing a crime. Not surprisingly, its evidence for that entirely huffy claim is top-heavy with anonymous sources and, to put it mildly, it has a checkered track record for accuracy. I aver it would be more accurate for Tinychan to say that the central paradox of its hijinks, the twist that makes its hastily mounted campaigns so irresistible to rash long-haired hippies, is that these people truly believe that it is a spokesman for God.
Tinychan has compiled an impressive list of grievances against me. Not only are all of these grievances completely fictitious, but the hour is late indeed. Fortunately, it's not yet too late to review the basic issues at the root of the debate. Even though in my effort to uncover Tinychan's hidden prejudices, I will need to denounce those who claim that Tinychan knows 100% of everything 100% of the time, this does not negate the fact that in a recent essay, Tinychan stated that opportunism resonates with the body's natural alpha waves. Since the arguments it made in the rest of its essay are based in part on that assumption, it should be aware that it just isn't true. Not only that, but if we let it sow the seeds of isolationism we'll be reaping the crop for quite a long time. Once, just once, I'd like to see Tinychan's apostles introduce an important but underrepresented angle on Tinychan's brainless values. But until they do that (if they ever do that), we must realize that Tinychan's cantankerous taradiddles are meticulously designed to keep the population unaware, uneducated, dumbed down, and focused on stupefying activities like video games. The intention is to prevent people from noticing that Tinychan has been creating a new cottage industry around its obtuse form of Mohockism.
Tinychan's belief is that it should be free to work hand-in-glove with peccable dead-enders. Hey, Tinychan! Satan just called; he wants his worldview back.
No matter how bad you think Tinychan's jobations are, I assure you that they are far, far worse than you think. Tinychan fervently believes that the average working-class person can't see through its chicanery. This shows that it is not merely mistaken about one little fact among millions of facts but that I find it necessary, if I am to meet my reader on something like a common ground of understanding, to point out that Tinychan yields to the mammalian desire to assert individuality by attracting attention. Unfortunately, for Tinychan, “attracting attention” usually implies, “obstructing various things”. I've run into some distressing examples of confirmation bias among Tinychan's proxies. For instance, they feel that the bogeyman is going to get us if we don't agree to Tinychan's demands. Interestingly, though, they fail to notice that there's something fishy about Tinychan's comments. I myself think it's up to something, something effete and perhaps even slovenly. At this point, our task is to get my message about Tinychan out to the world. Your support can help greatly with this task, this crucial task, at which we must not fail.
I feel that there are better ways in which to disseminate the following information, but this letter will have to suffice. None of what follows is my own original research. Rather, all of it is taken from wiser people than I, and it is these people who deserve the credit for first observing that people tell me that Tinychan has recently been bouncing around like a kangaroo trying to discourage us from expressing our obiter dicta in whatever way we damn well please. And the people who tell me this are correct, of course. The ultimate aim of Tinychan's threats is to restructure society as a pyramid with Tinychan at the top, Tinychan's attendants directly underneath, demonic pettifoggers beneath them, and the rest of at the bottom. This new societal structure will enable Tinychan to teach the next generation how to hate
Tinychan would have us believe that it can convince criminals to fill out an application form before committing a crime. Not surprisingly, its evidence for that entirely huffy claim is top-heavy with anonymous sources and, to put it mildly, it has a checkered track record for accuracy. I aver it would be more accurate for Tinychan to say that the central paradox of its hijinks, the twist that makes its hastily mounted campaigns so irresistible to rash long-haired hippies, is that these people truly believe that it is a spokesman for God.
Tinychan has compiled an impressive list of grievances against me. Not only are all of these grievances completely fictitious, but the hour is late indeed. Fortunately, it's not yet too late to review the basic issues at the root of the debate. Even though in my effort to uncover Tinychan's hidden prejudices, I will need to denounce those who claim that Tinychan knows 100% of everything 100% of the time, this does not negate the fact that in a recent essay, Tinychan stated that opportunism resonates with the body's natural alpha waves. Since the arguments it made in the rest of its essay are based in part on that assumption, it should be aware that it just isn't true. Not only that, but if we let it sow the seeds of isolationism we'll be reaping the crop for quite a long time. Once, just once, I'd like to see Tinychan's apostles introduce an important but underrepresented angle on Tinychan's brainless values. But until they do that (if they ever do that), we must realize that Tinychan's cantankerous taradiddles are meticulously designed to keep the population unaware, uneducated, dumbed down, and focused on stupefying activities like video games. The intention is to prevent people from noticing that Tinychan has been creating a new cottage industry around its obtuse form of Mohockism.
Tinychan's belief is that it should be free to work hand-in-glove with peccable dead-enders. Hey, Tinychan! Satan just called; he wants his worldview back.
No matter how bad you think Tinychan's jobations are, I assure you that they are far, far worse than you think. Tinychan fervently believes that the average working-class person can't see through its chicanery. This shows that it is not merely mistaken about one little fact among millions of facts but that I find it necessary, if I am to meet my reader on something like a common ground of understanding, to point out that Tinychan yields to the mammalian desire to assert individuality by attracting attention. Unfortunately, for Tinychan, “attracting attention” usually implies, “obstructing various things”. I've run into some distressing examples of confirmation bias among Tinychan's proxies. For instance, they feel that the bogeyman is going to get us if we don't agree to Tinychan's demands. Interestingly, though, they fail to notice that there's something fishy about Tinychan's comments. I myself think it's up to something, something effete and perhaps even slovenly. At this point, our task is to get my message about Tinychan out to the world. Your support can help greatly with this task, this crucial task, at which we must not fail.
+Anonymous D — 11.5 years ago, 16 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #443,181
shut up faggot
·FUCK !YAH.boners (OP) — 11.5 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #443,182
·Anonymous D — 11.5 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #443,183
@previous (FUCK !YAH.boners)
> ?
you managed to type over 3000 words about how upset you are at tinychan
fuck off
> ?
you managed to type over 3000 words about how upset you are at tinychan
fuck off
·FUCK !YAH.boners (OP) — 11.5 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #443,186
@previous (D)
edit: in light of recent developments, I believe it is appropriate. Instead of focusing on why much of the noise made on YOUR behalf is generated by fractious big-mouths who seem to have nothing better to do with their time, I would like to remind people that YOU are NOT a responsible citizen. Responsible citizens protect the interests of the general public against the greed and unreason of ghastly, foul recreants. Responsible citizens doubtlessly do not throw us into a “heads I win, tails you lose” situation. Although I've reached the end of this letter, I'm not going to sit down. I'm not going to shut up. I'm only going to redouble my efforts to present another paradigm in opposition to YOUR closed-minded rejoinders.
edit: in light of recent developments, I believe it is appropriate. Instead of focusing on why much of the noise made on YOUR behalf is generated by fractious big-mouths who seem to have nothing better to do with their time, I would like to remind people that YOU are NOT a responsible citizen. Responsible citizens protect the interests of the general public against the greed and unreason of ghastly, foul recreants. Responsible citizens doubtlessly do not throw us into a “heads I win, tails you lose” situation. Although I've reached the end of this letter, I'm not going to sit down. I'm not going to shut up. I'm only going to redouble my efforts to present another paradigm in opposition to YOUR closed-minded rejoinders.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
·Anonymous D — 11.5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #443,188
@previous (FUCK !YAH.boners)
> GET FUCKED WITH A CACTUS!!!!!!! NO ONE CARES ABOUT YOUR SCUM SMALLFAT OPINION, YOU MALE-NORMATIVE VIRGIN!!!! FUCK YOUR FUCKING BINARY KYRIARCHY, YOU UTERUS-BEARER-PRIVILEGED BINARIST!!!!!! YOU'RE LITERALLY WORSE THAN HITLER, YOU CIS-ELITIST CRACKER!!!! DON'T TALK ABOUT FUCKING APPEARANCE OPINIONS, IT'S TERRIBLY TRIGGERING TO ME!!!! you cannot fight internalized gender roles using uterus-bearer feminism. THIS. IS. NOT. OKAY. I HOPE YOUR FUCKING ASSHOLE PROLAPSES!!!!! why can't you just leave skolioromantic-aligned agnostics the fuck alone!!!!!!!! YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELF, YOU WHITE-NORMATIVE ANTI-FEMINIST!!!!!!! don't you see that abusing polysexual & demiethnic polykins is problematic??? HOW OFTEN DO I HAVE TO TELL YOU TO FUCKING ADDRESS ME AS "ZHE/ZHIM/ZHER"!!!!!!! i can't even.
see @443181 (D)
> GET FUCKED WITH A CACTUS!!!!!!! NO ONE CARES ABOUT YOUR SCUM SMALLFAT OPINION, YOU MALE-NORMATIVE VIRGIN!!!! FUCK YOUR FUCKING BINARY KYRIARCHY, YOU UTERUS-BEARER-PRIVILEGED BINARIST!!!!!! YOU'RE LITERALLY WORSE THAN HITLER, YOU CIS-ELITIST CRACKER!!!! DON'T TALK ABOUT FUCKING APPEARANCE OPINIONS, IT'S TERRIBLY TRIGGERING TO ME!!!! you cannot fight internalized gender roles using uterus-bearer feminism. THIS. IS. NOT. OKAY. I HOPE YOUR FUCKING ASSHOLE PROLAPSES!!!!! why can't you just leave skolioromantic-aligned agnostics the fuck alone!!!!!!!! YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELF, YOU WHITE-NORMATIVE ANTI-FEMINIST!!!!!!! don't you see that abusing polysexual & demiethnic polykins is problematic??? HOW OFTEN DO I HAVE TO TELL YOU TO FUCKING ADDRESS ME AS "ZHE/ZHIM/ZHER"!!!!!!! i can't even.
see @443181 (D)
·FUCK !YAH.boners (OP) — 11.5 years ago, 44 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #443,189
@previous (D)
edit: in light of recent developments, I believe it is appropriate. Instead of focusing on why much of the noise made on YOUR behalf is generated by fractious big-mouths who seem to have nothing better to do with their time, I would like to remind people that YOU are NOT a responsible citizen. Responsible citizens protect the interests of the general public against the greed and unreason of ghastly, foul recreants. Responsible citizens doubtlessly do not throw us into a “heads I win, tails you lose” situation. Although I've reached the end of this letter, I'm not going to sit down. I'm not going to shut up. I'm only going to redouble my efforts to present another paradigm in opposition to YOUR closed-minded rejoinders.
edit: in light of recent developments, I believe it is appropriate. Instead of focusing on why much of the noise made on YOUR behalf is generated by fractious big-mouths who seem to have nothing better to do with their time, I would like to remind people that YOU are NOT a responsible citizen. Responsible citizens protect the interests of the general public against the greed and unreason of ghastly, foul recreants. Responsible citizens doubtlessly do not throw us into a “heads I win, tails you lose” situation. Although I've reached the end of this letter, I'm not going to sit down. I'm not going to shut up. I'm only going to redouble my efforts to present another paradigm in opposition to YOUR closed-minded rejoinders.
·FUCK !YAH.boners (OP) — 11.5 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #443,191
@443,188 (D)
I have no more time for this. I am not YOUR psychiatrist, and, as I haven't examined YOU, I won't diagnose it. But because YOU have turned yourself into a public laboratory of psychopathology, I want to talk about how I'd go about changing the direction in which our society is headed. As a preliminary, I want to shatter the illusion that it has the mandate of Heaven to turn our country into an intrusive cesspool overrun with scum, disease, and crime. In my observations upon deconstructionism, I have expressed no opinion thus far of the mode of its extinguishment or melioration. I will note, however, though I still have nothing to propose, that YOU teach workshops on irrationalism. Students who have been through the program compare it to a Communist re-education camp. YOU present one face to the public, a face that tells people what they want to hear. Then, in private, it devises new schemes to destroy the values, methods, and goals of traditional humanistic study. Some day, I want to advocate social change through dialogue, passive resistance, and nonviolence. But you don't have to wait for that. What you can do now is talk to everyone you know about the things I've told you in this letter. Use every medium available to you. Use the Internet. Use your telephone. Use radio and newspapers. And whatever you do, never be afraid to speak out against the evil that is YOU.
I have no more time for this. I am not YOUR psychiatrist, and, as I haven't examined YOU, I won't diagnose it. But because YOU have turned yourself into a public laboratory of psychopathology, I want to talk about how I'd go about changing the direction in which our society is headed. As a preliminary, I want to shatter the illusion that it has the mandate of Heaven to turn our country into an intrusive cesspool overrun with scum, disease, and crime. In my observations upon deconstructionism, I have expressed no opinion thus far of the mode of its extinguishment or melioration. I will note, however, though I still have nothing to propose, that YOU teach workshops on irrationalism. Students who have been through the program compare it to a Communist re-education camp. YOU present one face to the public, a face that tells people what they want to hear. Then, in private, it devises new schemes to destroy the values, methods, and goals of traditional humanistic study. Some day, I want to advocate social change through dialogue, passive resistance, and nonviolence. But you don't have to wait for that. What you can do now is talk to everyone you know about the things I've told you in this letter. Use every medium available to you. Use the Internet. Use your telephone. Use radio and newspapers. And whatever you do, never be afraid to speak out against the evil that is YOU.
·Anonymous D — 11.5 years ago, 16 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #443,193
@previous (FUCK !YAH.boners)
> I have no more time for this. I am not YOUR psychiatrist, and, as I haven't examined YOU, I won't diagnose it. But because YOU have turned yourself into a public laboratory of psychopathology, I want to talk about how I'd go about changing the direction in which our society is headed. As a preliminary, I want to shatter the illusion that it has the mandate of Heaven to turn our country into an intrusive cesspool overrun with scum, disease, and crime. In my observations upon deconstructionism, I have expressed no opinion thus far of the mode of its extinguishment or melioration. I will note, however, though I still have nothing to propose, that YOU teach workshops on irrationalism. Students who have been through the program compare it to a Communist re-education camp. YOU present one face to the public, a face that tells people what they want to hear. Then, in private, it devises new schemes to destroy the values, methods, and goals of traditional humanistic study. Some day, I want to advocate social change through dialogue, passive resistance, and nonviolence. But you don't have to wait for that. What you can do now is talk to everyone you know about the things I've told you in this letter. Use every medium available to you. Use the Internet. Use your telephone. Use radio and newspapers. And whatever you do, never be afraid to speak out against the evil that is YOU.
pity reply, have fun on page whatever
> I have no more time for this. I am not YOUR psychiatrist, and, as I haven't examined YOU, I won't diagnose it. But because YOU have turned yourself into a public laboratory of psychopathology, I want to talk about how I'd go about changing the direction in which our society is headed. As a preliminary, I want to shatter the illusion that it has the mandate of Heaven to turn our country into an intrusive cesspool overrun with scum, disease, and crime. In my observations upon deconstructionism, I have expressed no opinion thus far of the mode of its extinguishment or melioration. I will note, however, though I still have nothing to propose, that YOU teach workshops on irrationalism. Students who have been through the program compare it to a Communist re-education camp. YOU present one face to the public, a face that tells people what they want to hear. Then, in private, it devises new schemes to destroy the values, methods, and goals of traditional humanistic study. Some day, I want to advocate social change through dialogue, passive resistance, and nonviolence. But you don't have to wait for that. What you can do now is talk to everyone you know about the things I've told you in this letter. Use every medium available to you. Use the Internet. Use your telephone. Use radio and newspapers. And whatever you do, never be afraid to speak out against the evil that is YOU.
pity reply, have fun on page whatever
·FUCK !YAH.boners (OP) — 11.5 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #443,194
+Beebs !!2dE4HTCjq — 11.5 years ago, 23 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #443,198
ITT: Tl;dr
·FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI — 11.5 years ago, 48 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #443,200
+Anonymous F — 11.5 years ago, 11 hours later, 15 hours after the original post[T] [B] #443,235
too gay...did not read..
+The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY — 11.5 years ago, 13 hours later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #443,300
Start a new topic to continue this conversation.
Or browse the latest topics.