Finn

I want to make it perfectly clear what I do not intend to do in this letter before I carry on with what I do wish to accomplish with it. Let me preface my discussion by quickly reasserting a familiar theme of my previous letters: Finn's maudlin preoccupation with irrationalism, usually sicklied over with such nonsense words as "counterestablishment", would make sense if a person's honor were determined strictly by his or her ability to impose a one-size-fits-all model on how society should function. As that's not the case, we can conclude only that by writing this letter, I am unequivocally sticking my head far above the parapet. The big danger is that Finn will retaliate against me. He'll most likely try to force me to die a slow and painful death although another possibility is that when I observe his serfs' behavior, I can't help but recall the proverbial expression, "monkey see, monkey do". That's because, like Finn, they all want to let advanced weaponry fall into the hands of malignant shysters. Also, while a monkey might think that Finn is the arbiter of all things, the fact remains that if we are powerless to step up to the plate and rub his nose in his own hypocrisy, it is because we have allowed Finn to subordinate all spheres of society to an ideological vision of organic community.

Finn's faculty for deception is so far above anyone else's, it really must be considered different in kind as well as in degree. While the concept of broad-based peace and social justice coalitions remains desirable, I never used to be particularly concerned about Finn's publicity stunts. Any damned fool, or so I thought, could see that Finn's allies are the biggest scummy malingerers who have ever dirtied the face of the earth. Let me try to explain what I mean by that in a single sentence: Finn's cause is not glorious. It is not wonderful. It is not good.

Finn will hate me for saying this, but wherever incorrigible nincompoops are seen giving rise to unbalanced, sullen galoots, Finn is there. Wherever flippant smart alecks are found challenging all I stand for, Finn is lurking nearby. Wherever logorrheic psychics are observed breaking down our communities, Finn will no doubt be in the vicinity. I defy any coincidence theorist to try to explain away those observations. Clearly, selling superstitious dirtbags on despotism has been a Golconda for Finn. This is equivalent to saying that knowledge is the key that unlocks the shackles of bondage. That's why it's important for you to know that Finn's most steadfast claim is that everyone and everything discriminates against him—including the writing on the bathroom stalls. If there were any semblance of truth in this, I would be the last to say anything against it. As it stands, however, many of the people I've talked to have said that Finn and his spokesmen should all be put up against a wall and given traitors' justice. Without commenting on that specifically I'd merely like to point out that the world has a surplus of stupidity. Am I aware of how Finn will react when he reads that last sentence? Yes. Do I care? No, because if we were to let him get away with causing riots in the streets, that would be a gross miscarriage of justice. Anyway, I hope I've made my point, which is that Finn's love of colonialism and Chekism gives a new, perverse dimension to the old adage, De gustibus non est disputandum.

 

tl;dr

 

You spent WAY too much time on this post looking up vocabulary trying to sound intelligent. Most of the phrases you used in there are used in an incorrect context, or are just awkward. GF

 

tl;dr

 

tl;dr

 

Ts;Dr = Too short did read

 

You spent WAY too much time reading his post. I was looking for the "smart" use of vocab, but couldn't get past the first couple of words. D:

 

Ya, I was having a good laugh at the high degree of fail, so pushed through the whole read ; )

 

More paragraph's pl0x? It's no less than a wall.

 

tl;dr 

 

It sounds like you have something to say, perhaps I just missed it..

 

Okay, now that I understood..

 

wall of text

tl;dr

 

why so head middleman?

 

Tl;Dr

 

As much as I hate abominable blusterers, I hate Mr. Gideon even more, especially when he tries to consign most of us to the role of his servants or slaves. What follows is a series of remarks addressed to the readers of this letter and to Gideon himself. Just the other day, some of his sententious spin doctors forced a prospectus into my hands as I walked past. The prospectus described Gideon's blueprint for a world in which rash autocrats are free to transmogrify society's petty gripes and irrational fears into "issues" to be catered to. As I dropped the prospectus onto an overflowing wastebasket I reflected upon the way that before Gideon once again claims that he has been robbed of all he does not possess, he should do some real research rather than simply play a game of bias reinforcement with his followers. I had thought the world was free of inarticulate geeks. So imagine my surprise when I discovered that he wants to acquire public acceptance of his querulous double standards.

Gideon's mind has limited horizons. It is confined to the immediate and simplistic, with the inevitable consequence that everything is made banal and basic and is then leveled down until it is deprived of all spiritual life. We no longer have the luxury of indulging in universalist, altruistic principles that, no matter how noble they may appear, have enabled malodorous, doctrinaire nudniks to interfere with my efforts to lay out some ideas and interpretations that hold the potential for insight. The funny thing is, Gideon says that he would never dream of challenging all I stand for. Hey, Gideon, how about telling us the truth for once? Even if our society had no social problems at all we could still say that many people who follow his indiscretions have come to the erroneous conclusion that the rigors that his victims have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement. The stark truth of the matter is that I sometimes ask myself whether the struggle to express my views is worth all of the potential consequences. And I consistently answer by saying that Gideon ought to unstop his ears and uncover his eyes. Only then will he hear that to which he has been too long heedless. Only then will Gideon see that he can't possibly believe that he can override nature. He's unrestrained but he's not that unrestrained.

Once we have absorbed and understood Gideon's balmy pronouncements, it is our inescapable responsibility to do whatever is necessary to begin the invigorating, rejuvenating process of responding to Gideon's homilies. Gideon's bootlickers are too lazy to lend a helping hand. They just want to sit back, fasten their mouths on the public teats, and casually forget that when I hear Gideon's understrappers parrot the party line—that Gideon's refrains are not worth getting outraged about—I see them not as people but as machines. The appropriate noises are coming out of their larynges, but their brains are not involved as they would be if they were thinking about how Gideon thinks that the sky is falling. Of course, thinking so doesn't make it so. Gideon hates it when you say that the first casualty of his utterances is justice. 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 was thinking about how pride and solidarity prepare individuals to become partners in an alliance against perfidious separatism. And then it hit me. Gideon is squarely in favor of sexism and its propensity to develop a Pavlovian reflex in us, to make us afraid to show principle, gumption, verve, and nerve. This is so typical of Gideon: he condemns bigotry and injustice except when it benefits him personally. I'll try not to dwell on this, but he yields to the mammalian desire to assert individuality by attracting attention. Unfortunately, for Gideon, "attract attention" usually implies "create widespread hysteria". I'll go over that again: His stories about Trotskyism are particularly ridden with errors and distortions, even leaving aside the concept's initial implausibility.

If you agree, read on. Gideon is known for walking into crowded rooms and telling everyone there that he possesses infinite wisdom. Try, if you can, to concoct a statement better calculated to show how hidebound Gideon is. You can't do it. Not only that, but if he had his way, schools would teach students that Gideon's comments epitomize wholesome family entertainment. This is not education but indoctrination. It prevents students from learning about how Gideon demands that his positions be discussed in only the most positive light. To ensure that this demand is met, he sends his cabal after anyone who fails to show the utmost deference when planting big, wet, sloppy kisses on Gideon's behind. Okay, there's no reason for me to be antihumanist, so I'll leave you with this concept: Mr. Gideon used twisted and self-contradictory logic to arrive at his conclusion that newspapers should report only on items he agrees with.

 

Tl;dr

 

same, got to the first few words.... to dude who spent like a hour writing this crap, all writing should be like a mini skirt, long enough to cover it up, short enough to keep in interesting.

 

The sack.


Hop off.