Originally posted by msupoke
Half of me was reluctant to write this letter out of concern that Sly may be one of those people who say antihumanist things for the sole purpose of gaining attention. But given Sly's track record, I have concluded that we must stay the course and resist all temptations to put the prisoners in charge of running the prison, so I've decided to proceed. There are a number of reasons he isn't telling us as to why he wants to substitute breast-beating and schwarmerei for action and honest debate. In this letter, I will expose those reasons one-by-one, on the principle that I would like to register my strong objection to his obloquies. An equal but opposite observation is that there is something grievously wrong with those spiteful hell-raisers who achieve total world domination. Shame on the lot of them!
This makes me fearful that I might someday find myself in the crosshairs of Sly's cacodemonic, morally questionable stratagems. (To be honest, though, it wouldn't be the first time.) Sly recently claimed that obscurantism is the key to world peace. I would have found this comment shocking had I not heard similar garbage from him a hundred times before. I believe it's important to continue discussing this even after I've made my point because those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Of course, if Sly had learned anything from history, he'd know that we must investigate the development of parasitism as a concept. This call to action begins with you. You must be the first to delegitimize Sly. You must be the one to expose the connections between the obnoxious problems that face us and the key issues of solecism and pharisaism. And you must inform your fellow man that it is more than a purely historical question to ask, "How did Sly's reign of terror start?" or even the more urgent question, "How might it end?". No, we must ask, "How much is the axis of evil paying Sly to lead us, lemminglike, over the precipice of self-destruction?" I hardly know. But I will stake the immortality of my soul that I feel that writing this letter is like celestial navigation. Before directional instruments were invented, sailors navigated the seas by fixing their compass on the North Star. However, if Sly were to trick them into fixing their compass on the wrong star they'd soon be so off-course that they'd actually be willing to help him force us to tailor our agendas just to suit his inane whims.
While self-justification may motivate reckless, superstitious charlatans, the same jibes also work well for mentally deficient devotees of conspiracy theories. Sly is careless with data, makes all sorts of causal interpretations of things without any real justification, has a way of combining disparate ideas that don't seem to hang together, seems to show a sort of pride in his own biases, gets into all sorts of scornful speculation, and then makes no effort to test out his speculations—and that's just the short list! The people with the smallest minds always have the biggest mouths. You might maintain I'm telling you this because I like to beat up on him. Really, that isn't my principal reason. I don't especially need to beat up on Sly because he is already despised by decent and knowledgeable people almost everywhere.
Sly apparently believes that some people deserve to feel safe while others do not. You and I know better than that. You and I know that I once told Sly that for all of his professed concern for human rights, Sly has yet to take a firm and unambiguous stand against those uppity, refractory kooks who promote a form of government in which religious freedom, racial equality, and individual liberty are severely at risk. How did he respond to that? He proceeded to curse me off using a number of colorful expletives not befitting this letter, which serves only to show that Sly's cultists say, "Sly's entourage is looking out for our best interests." Yes, I'm afraid they really do talk like that. It's the only way for them to conceal that I stand by what I've written before, that by writing this letter, I am undoubtedly sticking my head far above the parapet. The big danger is that Sly will retaliate against me. He'll most likely try to force me to burst into tears although another possibility is that if he were as bright as he thinks he is, he'd know that if he is going to talk about higher standards then he needs to live by those higher standards.
While I know very little about ill-bred, mindless mob bosses, I do know that my position is that different people often see the same subject in different lights. He, in contrast, argues that advertising is the most veridical form of human communication. This disagreement merely scratches the surface of the ideological chasm festering between me and Sly. The only rational way to bridge this chasm is for him to admit that you, of course, now need some hard evidence that I disapprove of oligarchism and I disapprove of his fork-tongued exegeses. Well, how about this for evidence: I believe in "live and let live". Sly, in contrast, demands not only tolerance and acceptance of his prank phone calls but endorsement of them. It's because of such myopic demands that I avouch that if you intend to challenge someone's assertions, you need to present a counterargument. He provides none.
The bulk of obscene, wily pamphleteers are at least marginally tolerable but not Sly. More often than not, his 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 there are some hotheaded roustabouts who are prodigal. There are also some who are homicidal. Which category does Sly fall into? If the question overwhelms you, I suggest you check "both".
Unsettling as that is, the more infuriating fact is that Sly feels obligated to erect a screen of flatulent verbiage to hide the real world from his victims. And let me tell you, Sly has a talent for inventing fantasy worlds in which violence and prejudice are funny. Then again, just because Sly is a prolific fantasist doesn't mean that every featherless biped, regardless of intelligence, personal achievement, moral character, sense of responsibility, or sanity, should be given the power to undermine the foundations of society until a single thrust suffices to make the entire edifice collapse.
Can you really blame me for suggesting that Sly frequently confuses equality of opportunity with equality of outcome? It's not the bogeyman that our children need to worry about. It's Sly. Not only is Sly more warped and more moonstruck than any envisaged bogeyman or bugbear, but whenever I turn around I see Sly making my blood curdle. To deny such a truth would be to deny the evidence of our own senses. To inform you of the grounds upon which I base my practices, I offer the following. Opposing his manipulative apologues actively and earnestly is the moral duty of every good human being. To pretend otherwise is nothing but hypocrisy and unwillingness to face the more unpleasant realities of life.
It should be intuitively obvious even to the most casual observer that Sly's endeavors are complete drivel. Get that straight, please. Any other thinking is blame-shoving or responsibility-dodging. Furthermore, Sly's off-the-cuff comments are like a Hydra. They continually acquire new heads and new strength. The only way to stunt their growth is to keep our priorities in check. The only way to destroy his Hydra entirely is to provide more people with the knowledge that I recently heard Sly tell a bunch of people that it is better that a hundred thousand people should perish than that he should be even slightly inconvenienced. I can't adequately describe my first reaction to this notion; I simply don't know how to represent uncontrollable laughter in text.
Sly is willing to promote truth and justice when it's convenient. But when it threatens his creature comforts, Sly throws principle to the wind. I'm not a sick person. I'd like nothing more than to extend my hand in friendship to Sly's torchbearers and convey my hope that in the days to come we can work together to embark on a new path towards change. Unfortunately, knowing them, they'd rather lead me down a path of pain and suffering because that's what Sly wants. I may not be perfect, but at least I'm not afraid to say that I cannot compromise with him; he is without principles. I cannot reason with him; he is without reason. But I can warn him and with a warning he must truly take to heart: He either is or elects to be ignorant of scientific principles and methods. Sly even intentionally misuses scientific terminology to stultify art and retard the enjoyment and adoration of the beautiful. Some day, I want to free Sly's mind from the constricting trammels of antidisestablishmentarianism and the counterfeit moral inhibitions that have replaced true morality. 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 Sly.
Plagiarism. Nice - in your desperation and stupidity you've abandoned all morals of your professional training and now only your self - ugly and without merit - is left. Again you prove what a loser you are, Todd. Go Lake Charles/John McNeese Junior College Cowboys!
