/lit/ - Literature

>>18859555
The following letter is inspired by a quote from Thomas Paine: “He who dares not offend cannot be honest.” Full disclosure: I’m one of those people who firmly believes that the best way to schematize the stupidity of frogposters’s ideological and factual crimes is to initiate meaningful change. Would the stupidity of frogposters like it if I were repulsive and unethical, too? I don’t think so. Is the stupidity of frogposters ultimately responsible for all of the simple-minded, ridiculous hucksters who pervert the course of justice? The evidence is inconclusive. Right off the bat, we see that even if the stupidity of frogposters’s writings were thoroughly successful in making a few people feel better, they would still be demeaning to everyone else. However, on the other side of the ledger, it is clear that some people think it’s a bit extreme of me to lead the stupidity of frogposters to resipiscence—a bit over the top, perhaps. Well, what I ought to remind such people is that where there’s no name for a problem, you can’t see a problem, and when you can’t see a problem, you pretty much can’t solve it. The name of our problem is the stupidity of frogposters, and I maintain that the solution is to produce a compelling model of a society worth struggling for. In the absence of such a model, ethically bankrupt, puerile tightwads typically retreat into specific cultural and ideological identity groups that make rights, status, and privilege claims on the basis of a victimized identity. If you think that the stupidity of frogposters isn’t planning on exploiting such identity groups, then consider that I’ve repeatedly pointed out to it that I reject, with immeasurable scorn and indignation, the imputation that I have any sympathies or purposes in common with bookish, abominable evildoers. That apparently didn’t register with it, though. Oh, well; I guess the important point here isn’t the stupidity of frogposters’s double standards. It’s that if my memory serves me correctly, it has committed a number of heinous acts against society. Its most piacular offense, however, is perhaps its pigeonholing people into predetermined categories. As unconscionable as such behavior doubtlessly is, unlike the stupidity of frogposters, when I make a mistake I’m willing to admit it. Consequently, if—and I’m bending over backwards to maintain the illusion of “innocent until proven guilty”—it were not actually responsible for trying to reinforce the concept of collective guilt that is the root of all prejudice, then I’d stop saying that morally questionable priggers are so fascinated by the stupidity of frogposters’s humorless, unforgiving squibs that they fail to notice how it represents an existential threat to our safety, security, and well-being