google "Argument generator"
In order to win a battle one must know who the real enemy is. Otherwise, one is shooting in the dark and often hitting those not the least bit responsible for the mayhem. In our current battle the real enemy is Blockland. I will start by responding to some of Blockland's ad hominem attacks. These attacks are not original but rather are drawn from lies that Blockland and its brownshirt brigade have manufactured out of past statements attributed to their targets. I will deal with those attacks that are specific to me, partly because I'm familiar with them and partly because Blockland asserts that the world can be happy only when its coalition of out-of-touch, devious blaggards and materialistic, whiney fefnicutes is given full rein. How can it be so blind? Very easily. Basically, I've known a number of honorable people who have laid down their lives to offer true constructive criticism—listening to the whole issue, recognizing the problems, recognizing what is being done right, and getting involved to help remedy the problem. Without exception, these people understood deeply that Blockland adamantly maintains that its anecdotes provide a liberating insight into life, the universe, and everything. Such beliefs would be completely factual if it weren't for reality. As it stands, Blockland has certainly never given evidence of thinking extensively. Or at all, for that matter.
Blockland's commentaries are totally meaningless. That is, they usually begin by saying something about how a book's value to the reader is somehow influenced by the color of the author's skin, and then they continue on with a random assortment of tacked-on phrases until they finally slam into a period. Blockland's commentaries would be a lot clearer if Blockland simply came out and said that it seems clear that “procacious” hardly seems like a strong enough word to describe it. But we ought to look at the matter in a broader framework before we draw final conclusions on the subject: We see that if Blockland sincerely believes that the entire concept of happiness is a lie designed by unseen overlords of endless deceptive power then it must be smoking something illegal. Even giving Blockland the benefit of the doubt, if we're not careful, its narrow-minded off-the-cuff comments will throw us into a third world war quicker than you can double-check the spelling of “phenomenalistic”. Bettering the world is apparently the last item on Blockland's “to do” list. That is to say, the claim that Blockland never engages in mindless, irrational, or querimonious politics is illusory. But there is a further-reaching implication: You might have heard the story that it once agreed to help us do something about the continuing—make that the escalating—effort on its part to hurt others physically or emotionally. No one has located the document in which Blockland said that. No one has identified when or where Blockland said that. That's because it never said it. As you might have suspected, Blockland and its encomiasts are a cancer on our society. They will therefore do what cancer always does: kill the host. What's noteworthy about that observation is that I have begged Blockland's patsies to step forth and acknowledge that Blockland accepts—or, at least, feels obligated to pretend to accept—the ideological premises of poststructuralism. To date, not a single soul has agreed to help in this fashion. Are they worried about how Blockland might retaliate? I apologize if this disappoints you, but my intent was only to elucidate the question, not to answer it. I shall therefore state only that Blockland has written more than its fair share of lengthy, over-worded, pseudo-intellectual tripe. In all such instances it conveniently overlooks the fact that it is extremely frowsy. In fact, my handy-dandy Frowsy-O-Meter confirms that we have a dilemma of leviathan proportions on our hands: Should we substitute movement for stagnation, purposive behavior for drifting, and visions of a great future for collective pettiness and discouragement, or is it sufficient to throw off Blockland's yoke of plagiarism? In answer to that question I submit—and millions of people in this country and abroad obviously agree with me—that when someone bends knee to Blockland's non-negotiable demands, it pushes and pushes for more. This isn't necessarily a new argument. Its roots go back at least to Foucault, and it has been elaborated in numerous venues, such as a book I recently read in which the author maintains that Blockland says that violence directed at its foes is morally justified and that therefore undiplomatic smatchets are inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive. Hello? Is Mr. Logic down at the pub with a dozen pints inside him or what? You, of course, now need some hard evidence that Blockland makes it a point to initiate a reign of malefic, unrestrained terror. Well, how about this for evidence: I have no set opinion as to whether or not statism was founded on a world system of enslavement and land theft. I do, however, unquestionably assert that its intimates acquiesce with bovine stolidity when it instructs them to waste natural resources. What's my problem, then? Allow me to present it in the form of a question: Do churlish dumbbells like its janissaries actually have lives, or do they exist solely to feed us a fanciful load of horse manure as unassailable truth? That's not a rhetorical question. What's more, the answer is so stunning that you may want to put down that cereal spoon before reading. You see, I feel no more personal hatred for Blockland than I might feel for a herd of wild animals or a cluster of poisonous reptiles. One does not hate those whose souls can exude no spiritual warmth; one pities them.
To restate the obvious: Blockland has an innate tropism to vend a demented mixture of irrationalism and superstition to a new generation of self-deceiving ninnyhammers. For that reason, Blockland intends to put its featherbrained posse in charge of doing anything and everything needed to further Blockland's pouty cause. We should not stand for that, with that, or by that. Rather, we should make it clear that Blockland's overgeneralizations are not an abstract problem. They have very concrete, immediate, and unpleasant consequences. For instance, Blockland appears to have found a new tool to use to help it persecute the innocent and let the guilty go unpunished. That tool is racism, and if you watch it wield it you'll undeniably see why it says that it needs a little more time to clean up its act. As far as I'm concerned, its time has run out.
If Blockland is going to force us to do things or take stands against our will, then it should at least have the self-respect to remind itself of a few things: First, its ploys use a philosophical device of asking one question, answering an utterly different question, and then applying that answer to the original question. And second, it cannot be tamed by “tolerance” and “accommodation” but is actually spurred on by such gestures. Blockland sees such gestures as a sign of weakness on our part and is thereby encouraged to continue promulgating partisan prejudice against others. Are you beginning to get the picture here? A large number of people are immensely outraged at Blockland. Blockland should ask itself what it has done to incur such wrath. One possibility is that Blockland is not a responsible citizen. Responsible citizens let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream. Responsible citizens decidedly do not destroy our culture, our institutions, and our way of life.
Once, just once, I'd like to see Blockland's adherents encourage students to be bold, independent, and creative thinkers. But until they do that (if they ever do that), we must realize that if you look soberly and carefully at the evidence all around you, you will unmistakably find that Blockland's secret police are merely ciphers. Blockland is the one who decides whether or not to use lexiphanicism as a more destructive form of miserabilism. Blockland is the one who gives out the orders to conscript traditional academic disciplines into the service of Titoism and its ideological variants. And Blockland is the one trying to conceal how life isn't fair. We've all known this since the beginning of time, so why is it so compelled to complain about situations over which it has no control? It is bootless to speculate on the matter, but it should be noted that Blockland has been using all sorts of jiggery-pokery to convince people that conspiracism provides an easy escape from a life of frustration, unhappiness, desperation, depression, and loneliness. That worldview may be appealing, at least to illogical hammerheads, but it severely limits our national conversation on critical policy issues. Perhaps more painfully, Blockland fully intends to project a stream of lecherous images of death, love, disaster, material goods, celebrities, and other fixtures in a mock-Olympian firmament. But that's not enough, not for it. Blockland will additionally meddle in everyone else's affairs, which is why I believe that I cannot compromise with it; it is without principles. I cannot reason with it; it is without reason. But I can warn it and with a warning it must certainly take to heart: Many of the things that its bootlickers write make no sense. For example, what do they mean by, “Freedom must be abolished in order for people to be more secure and comfortable?” Maybe reading that sentence backwards reveals a hidden message, or maybe it's simply the case that Blockland swims in a sea of propagandism, the waters of which roil with anger and resentment. Most of that anger and resentment is directed towards people like me who banish divisiveness. I challenge you to ponder this subject with the broadest vision possible.
this is amazing
