I feel I must assert my freedom to comment on an important public issue that Mr. Robin Langridge has thrust into the vortex of public comment. I realize that some of you may not know the particular background details of the events I'm referring to. I'm not going to go into those details here, but you can read up on them elsewhere. If we let him equip blasphemous cowards with flame throwers, hand grenades, and heat-seeking missiles, civilization itself will fall -- and Robin knows it.
I repeat: He wants to abandon the idea of universal principles and focus illegitimately on the particular. Such intolerance is felt by all people, from every background. It is easy to see faults in others. But it takes perseverance to take a proactive, rather than a reactive, stance. I challenge you to ponder this subject with the broadest vision possible.
I was so pleased by the response to my last letter that I decided to write another one. Don't worry; I have plenty of new stuff to say about Mr. Robin I Langridge and his foot soldiers. For most of the facts I'm about to present, I have provided documentation and urge you to confirm these facts for yourself if you're skeptical. Only the impartial and unimpassioned mind will even consider that if you are not smart enough to realize this, then you become the victim of your own ignorance. While the question of who is right and who is wrong in this case is an interesting one, it is also something that I cannot and will not comment on, and not just because when Robin was first found trying to numb the public to the fogyism and injustice in mainstream politics, I was scared. I was scared not only for my personal safety; I was scared for the people I love. And now that Robin is planning to extirpate the things I cherish, I'm sincerely terrified. My opinions are the obverse of his. That conclusion is not based on some sort of slovenly philosophy or on Robin-style mental masturbation, but on widely known and proven principles of science. These principles explain that if Robin were as bright as he thinks he is, he'd know that I undoubtedly feel that he has insulted everyone with even the slightest moral commitment. Robin obviously has none, or he wouldn't dismantle national civil rights organizations by driving a wedge between the leaders and the rank-and-file members. Robin's declamations epitomize despotism in its truest form. Natural law is therefore the fulcrum upon which rests the case that Robin's shock troops have learned their scripts well, and the rhetoric comes gushing forth with little provocation. Since most people oppose Robin's careless manuscripts, he has had to put irritable thoughts in our children's minds using every profligate means imaginable. This is particularly interesting when you consider that it is immature and stupid of Robin to trick our children into adopting unconventional, disapproved-of opinions and ways of life. It would be mature and intelligent, however, to make him answer for his wrongdoings, and that's why I say that it is easy to see faults in others. But it takes perseverance to get us out of the hammerlock that he is holding us in. In order to convince us that unfounded attacks on character, loads of hyperbole, and fallacious information are the best way to make a point, Robin often turns to the old propagandist trick of comparing results brought about by entirely dissimilar causes. You don't have to say anything specifically about him for him to start attacking you. All you have to do is dare to imply that I should shelter initially unpopular truths from suppression, enabling them to ultimately win out through competition in the marketplace of ideas. Yes, Virginia, I am making a pretty serious accusation here. I am accusing Robin of planning to promote mediocrity over merit. And I don't want anyone to think that I am basing my accusation only on the fact that if you've read any of the insufferable slop that he has concocted, you'll indubitably recall his description of his plan to represent a threat to all the people in the area, indeed, possibly the world. If you haven't read any of it, well, all you really need to know is that Robin's cause is not glorious.
It is not wonderful. It is not good. Unless snobbism is the only alternative to larrikinism, it is simply wrong to conclude that Robin's assertions won't be used for political retribution. One can examine this from another angle, and plainly see that it seems that no one else is telling you that the need Robin's compeers have for his juvenile smear tactics is especially strong as a means of transferring blame -- an outlet for the despair they face when normal channels of protest and change are closed. So, since the burden lies with me to tell you that, I suppose I should say a few words on the subject. To begin with, the objection may still be raised that you and I are morally inferior to loathsome moochers. At first glance, this sounds almost believable. Yet the following must be borne in mind: Robin claims that cannibalism, wife-swapping, and the murder of infants and the elderly are acceptable behavior. Well, I beg to differ. There is one final irony to my story. Mr. Robin I Langridge's hangers-on are currently in the streets, burning, robbing, and looting.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2002-03-22 02:46 am (UTC)I repeat: He wants to abandon the idea of universal principles and focus illegitimately on the particular. Such intolerance is felt by all people, from every background. It is easy to see faults in others. But it takes perseverance to take a proactive, rather than a reactive, stance. I challenge you to ponder this subject with the broadest vision possible.
I have a complaint about you
Robin's declamations epitomize despotism in its truest form. Natural law is therefore the fulcrum upon which rests the case that Robin's shock troops have learned their scripts well, and the rhetoric comes gushing forth with little provocation. Since most people oppose Robin's careless manuscripts, he has had to put irritable thoughts in our children's minds using every profligate means imaginable. This is particularly interesting when you consider that it is immature and stupid of Robin to trick our children into adopting unconventional, disapproved-of opinions and ways of life. It would be mature and intelligent, however, to make him answer for his wrongdoings, and that's why I say that it is easy to see faults in others. But it takes perseverance to get us out of the hammerlock that he is holding us in. In order to convince us that unfounded attacks on character, loads of hyperbole, and fallacious information are the best way to make a point, Robin often turns to the old propagandist trick of comparing results brought about by entirely dissimilar causes.
You don't have to say anything specifically about him for him to start attacking you. All you have to do is dare to imply that I should shelter initially unpopular truths from suppression, enabling them to ultimately win out through competition in the marketplace of ideas. Yes, Virginia, I am making a pretty serious accusation here. I am accusing Robin of planning to promote mediocrity over merit. And I don't want anyone to think that I am basing my accusation only on the fact that if you've read any of the insufferable slop that he has concocted, you'll indubitably recall his description of his plan to represent a threat to all the people in the area, indeed, possibly the world. If you haven't read any of it, well, all you really need to know is that Robin's cause is not glorious.
(continued)
Date: 2002-03-22 02:47 am (UTC)Re: I have a complaint about you
Date: 2002-03-22 03:03 am (UTC)Ewww!!
Re: I have a complaint about you
Date: 2002-03-22 04:08 am (UTC)I am now going to bookmark it so everytime I get a complaint I can generate a far mor interesting version
Kath
Regional Co-ordinator
Re: I have a complaint about you
no subject
Date: 2002-03-22 04:39 am (UTC)(yes, I do mean complaining)