A random complaint

From the Automatic Complaint generator.
===========================

My complaint about Mr. Dungeon Denizen
This letter represents a long-overdue rebuke to a contemptible and argumentative Mr. Dungeon Denizen. Here's how this letter works: I'll offer ideas and a theory to explain things. You bring your own experiences to bear on the matter of Dungeon Denizen's miserable criticisms, supplementing them where necessary with information from this letter. Together we will present a clear picture of what is happening, what has happened, and what is likely to happen in the future. If he got his way, he'd be able to exploit public sympathy in order to bolster support for his damnable claims. Brrrr! It sends chills down my spine just thinking about that.

In my view, everyone should be aware of the history of Dungeon Denizen's gang. Although his gang began as a splinter faction of his Pecksniffian flock, it rapidly morphed into Dungeon Denizen's primary mechanism for interfering with the most important principles of democracy. The significance of this transformation is that any rational argument must acknowledge this. Dungeon Denizen's self-deluded capilotades, naturally, do not. Dungeon Denizen exhibits a moderately severe character defect manifested by well-documented ideation with a venal flavor and a contumacious character. There are different ways of reconciling oneself to this unpleasant, yet truly prissy, fact. Some people see nothing at all, or rather, want to see nothing. Others are perfectly well aware of the imprudent consequences which this plague must and will some day induce, but only shrug their shoulders, convinced that nothing can be done, so the only thing to do is to leave things alone.

Some of Dungeon Denizen's censurers accuse Dungeon Denizen of hastening society's quiescence to moral pluralism and epistemological uncertainty. Dungeon Denizen's pals, on the other hand, accuse Dungeon Denizen's censurers of unfairly attacking Dungeon Denizen. In this case, Dungeon Denizen's censurers inarguably have the better argument. Not only that, but Dungeon Denizen has been trying to trick people into believing that his opinions represent the opinions of the majority—or even a plurality. Apparently, he has succeeded beyond his wildest dreams with narcissistic fearmongers; they're now fully convinced that Dungeon Denizen can achieve his goals by friendly and moral conduct. He's seeking approval to defuse or undermine incisive critiques of his antihumanist behavior by turning them into procedural arguments about mechanisms of institutional restraint. We must not give in, in particular because I was once screamed at by a complete stranger who insisted that everything Dungeon Denizen says is completely and utterly true. That's one sure tip-off to the fact that you're being assaulted by one of Dungeon Denizen's gofers: the incredible amount of bombast; the heroic, utopian grandiloquence; the boastfulness; and the complete lack of reality. I find it depressing that so many anti-democratic thugs buy that sort of thing. Perhaps it's because they're unaware that we all know, in the world that surrounds us, that there are terrorists and home invaders and drug cartels and carjackers and knockout gamers and rapers and haters and muddleheaded dips who scheme to mold the mind of virtually every citizen—young or old, rich or poor, simple or sophisticated. What is often easy to forget, however, is that ever since Dungeon Denizen decided to tip the scales in his favor, his consistent, unvarying line has been that he has been robbed of all he does not possess.

Dungeon Denizen and his lieutenants 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 Dungeon Denizen maintains that might makes right. As you can no doubt determine from comments like that, facts and Dungeon Denizen are like oil and water. Do his partisans contain the pungent stench of general immorality and depravity emanating from his ruffianism movement? No, that would be the correct and logical thing to do. Instead, they snuff out the last embers of courageousness burning within us.

Dungeon Denizen's invectives are based on hate. Hate, egotism, and an intolerance of another viewpoint, another way of life. If Dungeon Denizen were as bright as he thinks he is, he'd know that the main dissensus between me and him is that I assert that Dungeon Denizen's position that the rigors that his victims have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement is based upon a specious argument without any substantive basis. He, on the other hand, avouches that serfdom and slavery do not represent oppression unless the serfs or the slaves themselves “articulate” that oppression. Regardless of the theoretical beauty of the notion that I sympathize with those who have lost loved ones at the hands of Dungeon Denizen, there is the opposing fact that when his beer-guzzling utterances are translated into plain, words-mean-things English, Dungeon Denizen appears to be saying that he 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. For me, this covetous moonshine serves only to emphasize how Dungeon Denizen's baleful declamations form an “ideology” in Marx's sense. That is, they represent a system of ideas designed to cloak, rationalize, and defend an unjust set of relationships. For instance, Dungeon Denizen's ideology denies that inasmuch as I disagree with Dungeon Denizen's accusations and find his ad hominem attacks offensive, I am happy to meet Dungeon Denizen's speech with more speech and, if necessary, continue this discussion until the truth shines. Now that you've reached the end of this letter, let me leave you with the key take-away message: Mr. Dungeon Denizen's memoranda aim for the clear and pronounced transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.

 

TL/DR. Still waiting for you to explain the multi genders that you said exist.

 

Before I can focus on the ignorance that abounds in John Q Whinemaster V's treacheries, I must qualify John's character, his sources, and even his personal frame of mind towards me. To begin with an illustrative case, John frequently comments about how tendentious buttinskies are the most oppressed people in our society. This fabricated mythology inculcates in virulent, small-minded backstabbers the belief that John has the moral authority to dictate how other people should conduct themselves in private. In sooth, what they should be learning is that John frequently accuses his denigrators of causing an increase in disease, adversarialism, crime, and vice. This is yet another example of the growing lack of civility in our civil discourse that ranges from the malefic to the daft and even procacious. In a more proper debate, one would instead politely point out that when I hear John say that the cure for evil is more evil, I have to wonder about him. Is he entirely saturnine? Is he simply being invidious? Or is he merely embracing a delusion in which he must believe in order to continue believing in himself? Before you reply, ask yourself a simple, stupid question: Which of the seven deadly sins—pride, envy, anger, sadness, avarice, gluttony, and lust—does John not commit on a daily basis? If I'm not mistaken, there's a painfully simple answer. It regards the way that the caricature that often passes today for a critique of John's complaints assumes that John's claque consists entirely of lovable, cuddly people who would never dream of giving rise to wily, goofy perverts. This caricature has been proven wrong historically. The reality is that I am truly at a loss for words when John asserts that his writings are a veritable encyclopedia of everything that is directly pertinent to mankind's spiritual and intellectual development. He can't possibly be serious. I, speaking as someone who is not an ungracious crypto-fascist, suspect that the real story here is that we can disagree with John without being disagreeable. For instance, I would like to politely disagree with some of his criticisms by pointing out that I've found that most repressive, treasonous fast-talkers display complete and utter nescience of John's sentiments. To help educate them, let me say a little about how John apparently believes that he has a fearless dedication to reason and truth. You and I know better than that. You and I know that John's inficete spokesmen continually demonstrate their blatant love of philistinism. As those same spokesmen like to say, “John is renowned for his racial and cultural sensitivity.” That's a verbatim quote that doesn't parse too well but does indicate that engaging John in intelligent debate is far from easy. The last time I saw someone try, furious hatred, frenzied personal attacks, emotionalism, and defiance of reason and fact were all on display in spades, and they were all directed at this one, poor, frightened person. I wish John would more calmly accept the fact that I myself want to give people more information about John, help them digest and assimilate and understand that information, and help them draw responsible conclusions from it. Here's one conclusion I inarguably hope people draw: John's practices are a zero-sum game. That is, what helps John and his terrorist organization inevitably harms us. What benefits us must hurt them. The logical conclusion to draw is that we are starting to see the horrors that John's aggrandizement of fascism has wrought. In particular, we are seeing a generation of young adults that cannot handle criticism, that is positively allergic to divergent views, and that thinks nothing of trying to wreck the lives of anyone who dares to tell them honestly that John has been taking what few remaining kernels of traditionalist thought remain and eviscerating them with the convoluted hogwash of authoritarianism, Comstockism, and recidivism. How can he perpetrate such an outrage against public propriety and decency? I claim that that's not my question to answer. I will say, however, that John's remonstrations are like an enormous sesquipedalianism-spewing machine. We must begin dismantling that structure. We must put a monkey wrench in its gears. And we must bring meaning, direction, and purpose into our lives because John's idea of masochism is not, as you might expect, a mild paraphrase for bombarding me with insults. It is something else entirely: an ossified doctrine of antipathy towards those who keep the faith. As evidence, consider that people are looking for answers, not ideology. That's probably obvious to a blind man on a galloping horse. Nevertheless, I suspect that few people reading this letter are aware that I strive to be consistent in my arguments. I can't say that I'm 100% true to this, but John's frequent vacillating leads me to believe that all of his swampers are thieves—idle, envious, and ready to plunder and enslave their weaker neighbors. It's therefore not surprising that John relies heavily on “useful idiots”, that is, people who unwittingly do John's dirty work for him. Without his swarms of useful idiots, John would not have been able to conceal the fact that I can't let him batten on the credulity of the ignorant. Even so, I have a soft spot for criminally inclined stuporous egotists: a bog not too far from here.

John's intimations have merged with extremism in several interesting ways. Both spring from the same kind of reality-denying mentality. Both promote promiscuity and obscene language. And both take the focus off the real issues.

Irrespective of one's feelings on the subject, a number of nefarious sots have been found keeping essential documents hidden from the public until they become politically moot. Is is vital that there be a thorough, credible investigation into John's excuses in order to clarify and bring about possible accountability in these cases. I want to address the legitimate anger, fear, and alienation of people who have been mobilized by John because they saw no other options for change. But first, let me pose an abstract question. What will be the next object of attack from John's imperium? This isn't such an easy question to answer, but let me take a stab at it: Experience shows that talking about John in the highly charged vortex of nihilism is always burdened with agitation and diversion. To pretend otherwise is nothing but hypocrisy and unwillingness to face the more unpleasant realities of life. Let me leave you with one last thought: I am skeptical of efforts to produce an obdurate definition of “phytosociological”.

 

It was kind of interesting ooooo squirrel...

 

Before I take the time to read and process all of this, @beac83 and @R Acree , is this something you copied and pasted or something original?

 

I'll never tell.

 

Hoooooly hell thats alot of typing.............broome signed in as beac?

 

Some folks around here seem to lack deductive skills.
Anyway...

I double-dog dare you.

 

How do you find this crap?
Fuck biology. It’s all about “proper” word definitions.

I’m a rocketship.

 

Well, I read The Economist, for one...

Not up to par with the Santa Monica Observer, but one has to get by.

 

Does that mean you are blasting off for Mars?

 

How many supposed genders are there now anyway? I’ve lost count. 10? 20? 100?
Let’s go ahead and make up a bunch of other stuff too, while we’re at it.
I’m now a piece of parsley. I sure hope I used the correct use of the definition of parsley.
#biologyisfake
#sexisasocialconstraint

 

And education is lacking in the US.

 

small phone screen while driving or pieces of parsley can’t type so well.

 

Well, let's start.

Biology gives us a number of sexes based on genetics:
XY
XX
XXY
YYX
Broken Y variants
And more genetic variances I haven't remembered.

Gender is how a person expresses their biological sexual genetics. I expect that this is, like heterosexual to homosexual, a continuum of behaviors. So I don't know how many genders there are. It's probably an infinite number.

 

I have no idea what this is all about. I don't know what contumacious means. Nice graph.

 

People overestimate their competency with data and scientific inference. Not that anyone here would do that.

Now, who was texting while driving?

 

This makes my head hurt........and I didn't even read it, just skimmed through. Have you got a one sentence Cliff Notes version........ah, forget it, not really that interested