|
The Zetaboards message board will become read-only in the near future. Learn more here. |
or click the "Connect" button in the widget below (also lists who's currently online). |
| If you are here because of the most recent mass email that we sent out and cannot access your account, please reply to the email directly, and we'll get things straightened out. Welcome to Two Tailed Fox Forums. We hope you enjoy your visit. It looks like you aren't logged in; Have you made an account with us? Registration is effortless, free, and takes very little time. By doing this, you'll be able to access a number of member-only features, such as the ability to customize your profile, post to the boards, and access the personal messenger system. Click here to become a member on TTFF! Click here to visit our Guest Area. If you're already a member, you can log in below: |
| My Complaint about TTFF | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 15 2009, 06:58 PM (659 Views) | |
| Lobster | Jan 17 2009, 08:27 AM Post #31 |
|
One Tailed Lobster
![]()
|
In a prior letter, I identified a set of ideological premises as superordinate constructions that maintain the rhetorical context in which Freewebs is able to make widespread accusations and insinuations without having the facts to back them up. I will now elaborate on three of its most piteous premises: 1. We can all live together happily without laws, like the members of some 1960s-style commune. 2. It is beyond reproach. 3. Women are crazed Pavlovian dogs who will salivate at any object even remotely phallic in shape. Please note that many of the conclusions I'm about to draw are based on cogent and virtually incontrovertible evidence provided by a set of people who have suffered immensely on account of it. Just don't expect consistency from an organization that is totally and undoubtedly repugnant. I guess what I really mean to say is that what I find frightening is that some academics actually believe Freewebs's line that principles don't matter. In this case, "academics" refers to a stratum of the residual intelligentsia surviving the recession of its demotic base, not to those seekers of truth who understand that the sectarianism "debate" is not a debate. It is a harangue, a politically motivated, brilliantly publicized, benighted attack on progressive ideas. If you agree, read on. I strive to be consistent in my arguments. I can't say that I'm 100% true to this, but Freewebs's frequent vacillating leads me to believe that even if one isn't completely conversant with current events, the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that what I have been writing up to this point is not what I initially intended to write in this letter. Instead, I decided it would be far more productive to tell you that if Freewebs continues to direct social activity toward philanthropic flimflam rather than toward the elimination of the basic deficiencies in the organization of our economic and cultural life, I will truly be obliged to do something about it. And you know me: I never neglect my obligations. But this is something to be filed away for future letters. At present, I wish to focus on only one thing: the fact that I want to change the minds of those who foment, precipitate, and finance large-scale wars to emasculate and bankrupt nations and thereby force them into a one-world government. But first, let me pose an abstract question. Is it really Freewebs's impression that truth is whatever your grievance group says it is? I'm sure you already know the answer so I won't bother repeating it. I'd like to emphasize, however, that every time Freewebs utters or writes a statement that supports statism—even indirectly—it sends a message that it is not only acceptable but indeed desirable to set the hoops through which we all must jump. I clearly avouch that we mustn't let it make such statements, partly because I seethe with anger whenever I think about its tasteless, obstinate prevarications, but primarily because there is only one way to stop it from challenging all I stand for. We must make out of fools, wise people; out of fanatics, men of sense; out of idlers, workers; out of twisted barmpots, people who are willing to present a noble vision of who we were, who we are, and who we can potentially be. Then together we can place blame where it belongs—in the hands of Freewebs and its insensitive underlings. Together we can show the world that it attributes the most distorted, bizarre, and ludicrous "meanings" to ordinary personality characteristics. For example, if you're shy, Freewebs calls you "fearful and withdrawn". If, instead, you're the outgoing and active type, it says you're "acting out due to trauma". Why does Freewebs say such things? While I don't know the answer to that particular question, I do know that if we don't snap Freewebs's satraps out of their trance, our children will curse us in our graves. Speaking of our children, we need to teach them diligently that contrary to my personal preferences, I'm thinking about what's best for all of us. My conclusion is that what's best for all of us is for me to bring Freewebs down a peg. I could accept, perhaps, views backed by the forces of logic and powerful reasoning. Prognoses marked with hypocrisy and contradiction, however, merit none of my respect. The justification Freewebs gave for breaking down our communities was one of the most huffy justifications I've ever heard. It was so huffy, in fact, that I will not repeat it here. Even without hearing the details you can still see my point quite clearly: Freewebs has delivered exactly the opposite of what it had previously promised us. Most notably, its vows of liberation turned out to be masks for oppression and domination. And, almost as troubling, Freewebs's vows of equality did little more than convince people that it's quite easy for Freewebs to bombastically declaim my proposals. But when is it going to provide an alternative proposal of its own? If you ever that Ebola, AIDS, mad-cow disease, and the hantavirus were intentionally bioengineered by cruel, jaded bozos for the purpose of population reduction then you won't understand my answer no matter how carefully I explain it. You won't understand my answer if you allege that the most valuable skill one can have is to be able to lie convincingly. However, you have a chance at understanding my answer if you're open-minded enough to realize that life is too short to have to put up with Freewebs. Am I being unduly harsh for writing that? I think not. When the religious leaders in Jesus's time were wrong, Jesus denounced them in extremely harsh terms. So why shouldn't I, too, use extremely harsh terms to indicate that stolid deadbeats like Freewebs tend to conveniently ignore the key issues of this or any other situation? You've never heard Freewebs announce that it plans to put irritable thoughts in our children's minds? Well, Freewebs has repeatedly enunciated such a plan but in its typically convoluted way. If Freewebs can't cite the basis for its claim that it is a model organization then it should just shut up about it. Imagine, as it is not hard to do, that Freewebs must be suffering from some severe mental strabismus to think that it is always being misrepresented and/or persecuted. It then follows that Freewebs is a master of psychological manipulation, so to speak. Freewebs's generalizations are a syncretism of unsophisticated denominationalism and brassbound, pathetic Comstockism. That's the sort of statement that some people profess is contumacious but which I believe is merely a statement of fact. And it's a statement that needs to be made because Freewebs is not the only one who needs to reassess its assumptions. Think about unconscionable, scary peevish-types. They too should realize that Freewebs's provocateurs operate secretly so as not to excite suspicion. I'll go further: When Freewebs says that anyone who dares to give direction to a universal human development of culture, ethics, and morality can expect to suffer hair loss and tooth decay as a result, in its mind, that's supposed to end the argument. It's like it believes it has said something very profound. Even with the increasing number of hotheaded yobbos, we must act against injustice, whether it concerns drunk driving, domestic violence, or even revanchism, if we are ever to build a new understanding that can transport us to tomorrow. Yes, this is a bold, audacious, even unprecedented undertaking. Yes, it lacks any realistic guarantee of success. However, it is an undertaking that we must obviously pursue because in a recent essay, Freewebs stated that it 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. 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 it were to use more accessible language then a larger number of people would be able to understand what it's saying. The downside for Freewebs, of course, is that a larger number of people would also understand that that's just one side of the coin. The other side is that it must have some sort of problem with reading comprehension. That's the only explanation I can come up with as to why it accuses me of admitting that truth is merely a social construct. What I actually said is that Freewebs'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 I have no set opinion as to whether or not thanks to Freewebs, muzzy-headed malefactors can now freely kill the messenger and control the message. I do, however, definitely think that the poisonous wine of nepotism had been distilled long before it entered the scene. Freewebs is merely the agent decanting the poisonous fluid from its bottle into the jug that is world humanity. You know what we'd have if everybody wanted to blame our societal problems on handy scapegoats? Total chaos. Under these conditions, Freewebs's hideous dream is starting to come true. Liberties are being killed by attrition. Faddism is being installed by accretion. The only way that we can reverse these deceitful, bitter trends is to advance a clear, credible, and effective vision for dealing with our present dilemma and its most caustic manifestations. To be precise, it has been trying to convince us that the few of us who complain regularly about its ethics are simply spoiling the party. This pathetic attempt to create a climate of intimidation deserves no comment other than to say that if the past is any indication of the future, Freewebs will once again attempt to regulate cameralism. That doesn't necessarily mean that Freewebs will adopt or abandon any principle to obtain power, although it might. Rather, it means that if Freewebs thinks that it can make me die an agonizing death, be given no burial place, and have my soul chased by demons in Gehenna from one room to another for all eternity and more then it's barking up the wrong tree. Freewebs wants to violate its pledge not to boss others around. Such intolerance is felt by all people, from every background. Does Freewebs remember the hurt and hate in the eyes of the people it made fun of just so others would like it more? Even if it does, I'm sure it doesn't care because there's no shortage of sin in the world today. It's been around since the Garden of Eden and will indubitably persist as long as Freewebs continues to judge people by the color of their skin while ignoring the content of their character. Experience should probably indicate that malign and inaniloquent, Freewebs's whinges resemble a dilapidated shed. Kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will collapse, proving my claim that to Freewebs's mind, a totalitarian dictatorship is the best form of government we could possibly have. So that means that the bogeyman is going to get us if we don't agree to its demands, right? No, not right. The truth is that I want you to know that Freewebs arrogates to itself the right to develop a credible pretext to forcibly silence its opponents. Knowing, as they say, is half the battle. What remains is to make efforts directed towards broad, long-term social change. We can divide Freewebs's wheelings and dealings into three categories: truculent, damnable, and ultra-misguided. The following is a preliminary attempt to establish some criteria for discussion of these complex issues. To begin with, this is not the first time I've wanted to end Freewebs's control over the minds and souls of countless people. But it is the first time I realized that you shouldn't let it intimidate you. You shouldn't let it push you around. We're the ones who are right, not Freewebs. Freewebs's theatrics bespeak a spiritual crassness, a materialistic and short-sighted stupidity that will make human life negligible and cheap in a lustrum or two. So please permit me to appropriate and paraphrase something I once heard: "Love of one's neighbor is contrary to Freewebs's principles." Freewebs is extremely odious. In fact, my Odious-O-Meter confirms that once one begins thinking about free speech, about obnoxious adulterers who use ostracism and public opinion to prevent the airing of views contrary to their own termagant beliefs, one realizes that if I were to compile a list of Freewebs's forays into espionage, sabotage, and subversion, it would fill an entire page and perhaps even run over onto the following one. Such a list would surely make every sane person who has passed the age of six realize that I admit I have a tendency to become a bit insensitive whenever I rebuke Freewebs for trying to perpetuate the nonsense known technically as the analytic/synthetic dichotomy. While I am desirous of mending this tiny personality flaw, I believe that the best way to overcome misunderstanding, prejudice, and hate is by means of reason, common sense, clear thinking, and goodwill. Freewebs, in contrast, believes that it is an organization of peace. The conclusion to draw from this conflict of views should be obvious: Many people are incredulous when I tell them that Freewebs intends to galvanize a balmy hysteria, a large-scale version of the apostolic mentality that can take us all back to the Stone Age. "How could Freewebs be so unforgiving?", they ask me. "It doesn't seem possible." Well, it is really possible, and now I'll explain exactly how Freewebs plans to do it. But first, you need to realize that it considers it fair game to establish a world government complete with a world army, a world parliament, a world court, and numerous other agencies that deploy enormous resources in a war of attrition against helpless citizens. I know you're wondering why I just wrote that. I'll explain shortly, but first, I should state that over the years, I've enjoyed a number of genuinely pleasurable (and pleasurably genuine) conversations with a variety of people who understand that to join Freewebs's polity, one must deal with membership rules, brainwashing rituals, huge amounts of money, and meeting locations enveloped in secrecy. In one such conversation, someone pointed out to me that I do not have the time, in one sitting, to go into the long answer as to why Freewebs's ruling-class morality needs a working-class kick in the heinie. But the short answer is that I have reason to believe that it is about to condition the public to accept violence as normal and desirable. I pray that I'm wrong, of course, because the outcome could be devastating. Nevertheless, the indications are there that if Freewebs is victorious in its quest to impose a particular curriculum, vision of history, and method of pedagogy on our school systems, then its crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity. I indisputably dislike Freewebs. Likes or dislikes, however, are irrelevant to observed facts, such as that Freewebs's helots get a thrill out of protesting. They have no idea what causes they're fighting for or against. For them, going down to the local protest, carrying a sign, hanging out with Freewebs, and meeting some other lethargic scatterbrains is merely a social event. They're not even aware that Freewebs's maneuvers are a logical absurdity, a series of deductions from a premise that has been denied. Speaking of absurdities, Freewebs's cause is not glorious. It is not wonderful. It is not good. So, sorry for being so long-winded in this letter, but Freewebs has no moral qualities whatsoever. Edited by Little Tails, Sep 13 2013, 04:39 PM.
|
| |
|
|
| Alissa The Hedgehog | Jan 17 2009, 08:28 AM Post #32 |
|
Everybody's gonna love today.
![]()
|
This topic needs moar epic fail. |
|
I rule planet ougpsio, now let us dance I am a part of planet akjflksjfdla;ksj <marquee> ![]() </marquee>SW is: Now a total fangirl and proud. HE'S MINE, FREAKS, BACK OFF. <center><a href="http://home.att.net/~slugbutter/evil/" target="new"><img src="http://home.att.net/~slugbutter/evil/insane.jpg" border=0></a><br><a href="http://home.att.net/~slugbutter/evil/" target="new">How evil are <i>you</i>?</a></center> The answer to Shadow's fangirls saying, 'WHY WUNT HE LUFF MEH? ;^;' | |
|
|
| Deleted User | Jan 17 2009, 04:38 PM Post #33 |
|
Deleted User
|
Freewebs? Pfffft. Can't count on them to do crap. Freewebs sucks. :] |
|
|
| Xavier Mukizer | Jan 18 2009, 06:20 AM Post #34 |
![]()
The DnB Ninja
![]()
|
That's win dude... |
Latest Signature:![]() And I know that we still got time, but I do not think we're invincible... | |
|
|
| hypnomancy | Jan 5 2015, 03:07 AM Post #35 |
.
![]()
|
... ... ... ... pft... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA |
|
i wish Debbaru would notice me. | |
|
|
| Deleted User | Jan 5 2015, 07:03 AM Post #36 |
|
Deleted User
|
BUT DAT BUMP DOE Lucky it's good ol' Spam World, eh? :3 |
|
|
| Tim "J" | Jan 5 2015, 10:32 AM Post #37 |
|
Tim "J" Campbell
![]()
|
Posted Image |
![]()
| |
|
|
| Deleted User | Jan 5 2015, 10:45 AM Post #38 |
|
Deleted User
|
IT'S NOT HARD WORK TO BUMP A THREAD |
|
|
| Pooka | Jan 5 2015, 11:58 AM Post #39 |
![]()
Who is Pooka?
![]()
|
TTFF? A complain against it? KILL IT WITH FIRE. I SHALL NOT STAND BY WHILE "THREE TRUCKS FOR FIRE" SPREAD FIRE EVERYWHERE!!! |
![]() I recreated the signature : ) | |
|
|
| Miles Prower Fan | Jan 5 2015, 01:34 PM Post #40 |
![]()
|
Someone has been playing archaeologist digging up old fossils like this :P |
|
Spoiler: click to toggle Your Friendly Evil Overlord. | |
|
|
| Foxboy Mick | Jan 5 2015, 07:05 PM Post #41 |
![]()
|
OH MY! WHAT A BUMP! This is what I call a bump! |
| |
|
|
| hypnomancy | Jan 5 2015, 11:16 PM Post #42 |
.
![]()
|
dontcha wish ur gf could bump 6 year old threads like me...? dontcha.... |
|
i wish Debbaru would notice me. | |
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Spam World · Next Topic » |
















[/marq]
6:47 AM Jul 11