FloresDelMal wrote:i think Skoffin is scum, what with the skimreading already and whatnot, why does she always look scummy, anyway i always think Skoffin is scum therefore unvote vote Skoff
I have to agree.
To those people who are outraged at Skoffin's atrabilious criticisms, this letter will be of interest. People who are well-meaning yet misinformed might also profit by proceeding. For the remainder who are indifferent, faint of heart, or content to let Skoffin stigmatize any and all attempts to transform our culture of war and violence into a culture of peace and nonviolence, I regret that there is little reason to read further. Let us note first of all that an insidious form of gnosticism has taken root in our society. This form of gnosticism is distinguished by its complete denial of the fact that Skoffin criticizes me for spreading awareness of the inarticulate nature of her plans for the future. If she wants to play critic, she should possess real and substantial knowledge about whatever it is she's criticizing. She shouldn't simply assume that she possesses an innate, fixed, pure, and essential identity that makes her superior to the rest of us. She may find it inconceivable that the world is suffering from her lack of faith in a transcendental truth, but she'll come to her senses quicker than you can double-check the spelling of āestablishmentarianismā.
I don't know what Skoffin's problem is, but she indubitably believes that she's simply misunderstood and is actually interested only in peace. She has apparently constructed a large superstructure of justifications for this a priori conclusion. I guess that shouldn't be too surprising given that one of Skoffin's most trusted forces is a huffy foppotee. If you're a huffy foppotee, you compose paeans to solecism. That's all there is to it. Well, there is one more thing: Skoffin maintains that men are spare parts in the social repertoireāmere optional extras. That's not just a lie but is actually the exact opposite of the truthāand Skoffin knows it. Why is Skoffin deliberately turning the truth on its head like that? Well, I'm sure Skoffin would rather mold your mind and have you see the world not as it is but as she wants you to see it than answer that particular question.
It's really not bloody-mindedness that compels me to search for solutions that are more creative and constructive than the typically destructive ones championed by baleful flimflammers. It's my sense of responsibility to you, the reader. In a similar vein, what I find frightening is that some academics actually believe Skoffin's line that a plausible excuse is a satisfactory substitute for performance. In this case, āacademicsā refers to a stratum of the residual intelligentsia surviving the recession of its demotic base, not to those seekers of truth who understand that mankind needs to do more to build a society in which people have a sense of permanence and stability, not chaos and uncertainty. Understand, I am not condemning mankind for not doing enough; I am merely stating that Skoffin has a glib proficiency with words and very sensitive nostrils. She can smell money in your pocket from a block away. Once that delicious aroma reaches Skoffin's nostrils, she'll start talking about the joy of hoodlumism and how we can trust her not to dress up her profit motive in the cloak of selfless altruism. As you listen to Skoffin's sing-song, chances are you won't even notice her hand as it goes into your pocket. Only later, after you realize you've been robbed, will you truly understand that she knows that performing an occasional act of charity will make some people forgiveāor at least overlookāall of her tyrannical excesses. My take on the matter is that Skoffin is firmly convinced that no one is smart enough to see through her transparent lies. Her belief is controverted, however, by the weight of the evidence indicating that the voices of Skoffin's victims have not historically been chronicled. They have gone largely unnoticed and undocumented. What can we do about that? I suggest we start by holding out the prospect of societal peace, prosperity, and a return to sane values and certainties. Doing so will demonstrate to the world that if I try really, really hard, I can almost see why Skoffin would want to level filth and slime at everyone opposed to her scribblings.
Skoffin justifies her vagarious pleas with fallacious logical arguments based on argumentum ad baculum. In case you're unfamiliar with the term, it means that if we don't accept Skoffin's claim that there is an international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids then she will abet ethnic genocide, dictatorships, and morally crippled lounge lizards. In a way, I'm glad I've experienced firsthand just how uncompanionable she can be. It's one thing to read about Skoffin's tossing quaint concepts like decency, fairness, and rational debate out the window, but it's quite another to be subjected personally to her attempts to make me throw in the towel. What does Skoffin have to say about all of this? The answer, as expected, is nothing. Just look at the bill of fare served up in recent movies and television programs and you will hardly be able to deny that what we have been imparting to herāor what she has been eliciting from usāis a half-submerged, barely intended logic, contaminated by wishes and tendencies we prefer not to acknowledge.
To quote the prophet Isaiah, āWoe to ye who create a climate of intimidationā. The unalterable law of biology has a corollary that is generally overlooked. Specifically, we were put on this planet to be active, to struggle, and to oppose our human vices wherever they may be foundāarrogance, hatred, jealousy, unfaithfulness, avarice, and so on. We were not put here to propound ideas that are widely perceived as representing outright conformism, as Skoffin might claim. She is not as chthonic or impudent as you might think. She's more so.
I intend to reveal the truth about Skoffin's personal attacks. That's the path that I have chosen. It's unquestionably not an easy path, but then again, Skoffin would have you believe that you and I are inferior to hidebound lummoxes. I have already, for the present at least, sufficiently answered the climatic part of this proposition and have only to add that I am worried about a new physiognomy of servitude, a compliant citizenry relieved of its burdens by a ācompassionateā Skoffin. It's hard to spot the compassion when you notice that we ought to free Skoffin's mind from the constricting trammels of presenteeism and the counterfeit moral inhibitions that have replaced true morality. That'll make Skoffin think onceāI would have said ātwiceā, but I don't see any indication that she has previously given any thought to the matterābefore arresting and detaining her rivals indefinitely without charge, without trial, and without access to legal counsel.
Unlike Skoffin, when I make a mistake I'm willing to admit it. Consequently, ifāand I'm bending over backwards to maintain the illusion of āinnocent until proven guiltyāāshe were not actually responsible for trying to pit people against each other, then I'd stop saying that disaffected wiseacres are born, not made. That dictum is as unimpeachable as the āpoeta nascitur, non fitā that it echoes and as irreproachable as the brocard that Skoffin is a social liability. In this case, one cannot help but recall that if we fail in our task of getting the facts out in the hope that somebody else will do something to solve the problem, then Skoffin will establish a world government complete with a world army, a world parliament, a world court, and numerous other agencies that subject us to the impertinent yapping of conniving recidivists.
Thanks to Skoffin's asinine bruta fulmina, only vitriolic vigilantes now get to drive the bus, and they're driving it right off the cliff. Before we hit bottom, we should ponder how I seek justice, not vengeance. So let Skoffin call me feckless; I call her snappish. I want you to know that it looks like she always tries to shift blame from herself to inficete nihilarians. Knowing, as they say, is half the battle. What remains is to debunk the nonsense spouted by Skoffin's adulators. If one accepts the framework I've laid out here, it follows logically that Skoffin keeps repeating over and over again that she acts in the public interest. This verbigeration is symptomatic of an excessive love of academicism and indicates to me that Skoffin's Ponzi schemes are a mere cavil, a mere scarecrow, one of the last shifts of a desperate and dying cause.
As reluctant as I am to admit it, inasmuch as I disagree with Skoffin's accusations and find her ad hominem attacks offensive, I am happy to meet Skoffin's speech with more speech and, if necessary, continue this discussion until the truth shines. I predict that sooner or later, people will generally agree that Skoffin should show some class. This is a prediction that will not be true in all cases, but it is expected to become more common as time passes. If she wants to be taken seriously, she should counter the arguments in this letter with facts, not illogical panaceas, personal anecdotes, or insults.
I'll go over that again: Sometime in the future Skoffin will draw unsuspecting quiddlers into the orbit of oleaginous crackpots. Fortunately, that hasn't happenedā¦yet. But it will sincerely happen if we don't build an inclusive, nondiscriminatory movement for social and political change. Let me close by reminding you that the statements I made about Skoffin in this letter are in earnest. I will not equivocate. I will not excuse. I will not retreat a single inch. And I will be heard.
All that being said, I therefore have to
unvote vote kwan