When did Full on Idle become an emo-psuedo-intellectual?

[kingsblend420]

Seriously. When did this happen?

[corbo]

i was wondering the same thing.

[Jenniehoo]

I don't know, man. She's been talking crazy for a while lately now. Quoting Nietzsche and making ominous comments about knives. She also gave me her favorite sweater. I thought it was really weird. She said she wouldn't "need it" where she was going.

[kingsblend420]

Dont let her drink the kool aid!

[All That I Am]

Life is Pietzsche

[Jenniehoo]

That's cute.

[ewiggy]

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/10/13/LMS_061013102321049_wideweb__300x375.jpg

[Jenniehoo]

All That I Am = Little Miss Sunshine

[KenMixtape]

I've seen sites in the past where you just plug in someone's name, and it spits out a bunch of nearly incomprehensible psychobabble arguements with the person's name popping up every now and then. I think it's something like that.

[full on idle]

What I am about to say is strictly off the record. On that understanding, I shall give you candidly and without circumlocution the best estimate of our present plight that I have been able to make. I will start this discussion by arguing that eventually, Ken Mixtape will indulge in a vast orgy of murder to sate his innate blood-lust and his hatred of his betters. Then, I will present evidence that philistinism is the leitmotif of Ken's publications. That should serve as the final, ultimate, irrefutable proof that he maliciously defames and damagingly misrepresents everyone and everything around him. There's a word for that: libel. Where are the solid statistics that prove that we can stop nonrepresentationalism merely by permitting government officials entrée into private homes to search for uncivilized morons? I've never seen any. Yet, just the other day, some of Ken's socially inept factotums forced a prospectus into my hands as I walked past. The prospectus described Ken's blueprint for a world in which what I call cruel undesirables are free to put balmy thoughts in our children's minds. As I dropped the prospectus onto an overflowing wastebasket, I reflected upon the way that some people contend that the falsehood of the tongue leads to that of the heart. Others insist that I consider Ken's harangues antithetical to my principles as a person concerned for the good of all. In the interest of clearing up the confusion, I'll make the following observation: Ken seems to assume that a book of his writings would be a good addition to the Bible. This is an assumption of the worst kind because I suppose it's predictable, though terribly sad, that vile stirrers with stronger voices than minds would revert to ostentatious behavior. But he thinks it would be a great idea to deflect attention from his unwillingness to support policies that benefit the average citizen. Even if we overlook the logistical impossibilities of such an idea, the underlying premise is still flawed.

Ken's overgeneralizations are an integument of Bonapartism. In reaching that conclusion, I have made the usual assumption that one of the goals of chauvinism is to render meaningless the words "best" and "worst". Ken admires that philosophy because, by annihilating human perceptions of quality, Ken's own mediocrity can flourish. I recently received some mail in which the writer stated, "Ken should get with the program." I included that quote not because it is exceptional in any way, but rather, because it is typical of much of the mail I receive. I included it to show you that I'm not the only one who thinks that if Ken wants to be taken seriously, he should counter the arguments in this letter with facts, not illogical panaceas, personal anecdotes, or insults. Most of you reading this letter have your hearts in the right place. Now follow your hearts with actions. Many people have witnessed Ken destroy all tradition, all morality, and the entire democratic system. Ken generally insists that his witnesses are mistaken and blames his incorrigible methods of interpretation on venal, destructive power brokers. It's like he has no-fault insurance against personal responsibility. What's more, if we let Ken undermine the basic values of work, responsibility, and family, all we'll have to look forward to in the future is a public realm devoid of culture and a narrow and routinized professional life untouched by the highest creations of civilization.

As amazing as it seems, Ken is reluctant to resolve problems. He always just looks the other way and hopes no one will notice that if he doesn't like it here, then perhaps he should go elsewhere. This is not the first time we've had trouble with grungy spielers, and it unquestionably won't be the last. It follows from this that Ken is too haughty to read the writing on the wall. This writing warns that he serves as a conduit that carries the élan vital of terrorism. And let me tell you, he twists every argument into some sort of "struggle" between two parties. Ken unvaryingly constitutes the underdog party, which is what he claims gives him the right to do the entire country a grave disservice.

Ken teaches workshops on colonialism. Students who have been through the program compare it to a Communist re-education camp. His homilies are not the solution to our problem. They are the problem. He is extremely imprudent. In fact, let's see what my handy-dandy Imprudent-O-Meter has to say about Ken. Whoa! The needle is off the scale! It's a good thing I checked, because a central fault line runs through each of his scare tactics. Specifically, he plans to feed on the politics of resentment, alienation, frustration, anger, and fear. He has instructed his backers not to discuss this or even admit to his plan's existence. Obviously, Ken knows he has something to hide.

While perhaps offensive to some readers, only a direct quote can fully convey the contumelious nature and content of Ken's off-the-cuff comments: "Attention, collaborators! Your orders are to subject us to the crotchety yapping of merciless dunderheads, and to do so at any cost." If Ken gets his way, we will soon be engulfed in a Dark Age of post-structuralism and indescribable horror. That's why I'm telling you that there's an important difference between me and Ken. Namely, I am willing to die for my cause. Ken, in contrast, is willing to kill for his -- or, if not to kill, at least to feature simplistic answers to complex problems. Should you think I'm saying too much, please note that you might say, "What really upsets me is that he wants to create a Frankenstein's monster." Fine, I agree. But you might have heard the story that he once agreed to help us embark on a new path towards change. No one has located the document in which Ken said that. No one has identified when or where Ken said that. That's because he never said it. As you might have suspected, I wouldn't want to promote racial superiority doctrines, ethnic persecution, imperialist expansion, and genocide. I would, on the other hand, love to ratchet up our level of understanding. But, hey, I'm already doing that with this letter. It's debatable whether Ken's attempts to conspire with evil will earn him automatic membership in Satan's inner circle. However, no one can disagree that being shielded from the consequences of his bad judgment and bad behavior has made Ken careless. Well, that's a bit too general of a statement to have much meaning, I'm afraid. So let me instead explain my point as follows: Ken motivates people to join his retinue by using words like "humanity", "compassion", and "unity". This is a great deception. What Ken really wants to do is blacklist his enemies as terrorist sympathizers or traitors. That's why Ken's most repressive tactic is to fabricate a phony war between wanton wheeler-dealers and fork-tongued liars and cheats. This way, he can subjugate both groups into helping him make conditions far worse than could ever have been the case without his rude efforts. I definitely don't want that to happen, which is why I'm telling you that Ken is the embodiment of everything petty in our lives. Every grievance, every envy, every frightful ideology finds expression in Ken Mixtape. Let me end this letter by pointing out that the battle to put to rest the animosities that have kept various groups of people from enjoying anything other than superficial unity is now joined on many fronts. We will not waver; we will not tire; we will not falter; and, we will not fail.

[bmack86]

This will never get old

[Yablonowitz]

They are truly without precedent on this message board. FOI is taking this board to the unknown.

[Yablonowitz]

I've seen sites in the past where you just plug in someone's name, and it spits out a bunch of nearly incomprehensible psychobabble arguements with the person's name popping up every now and then. I think it's something like that.

Oh wait, I missed this. Still, I like that I didn't know about this and that for a while the diatribes were so interestingly exhaustive and bizarre and curious. Thanks kenmixtape for ruining everything.

[J~$$$]

HI ya!

[corbo]

full on idle are you using an insult generator. i suspect that you are. if i wasnt too lazy i would investigate.

[J~$$$]

me 2.

[marooko]

me 3

[kingsblend420]

I can only read about six sentences of that. Its babbalicious.

[Yablonowitz]

I've been doing a lot of meditating and praying lately and this has helped me collect my thoughts and organize them into the letter you're about to read. I will start this discussion by arguing that J~$$$'s cat's-paws seem to be caught up in their need for enemies. Then, I will present evidence that I, for one, am not embarrassed to admit that I have neither the training, the experience, the license, nor the clinical setting necessary to properly provide a positive, confident, and assertive vision of humanity's future and our role in it. Nevertheless, I do have the will to protect our peace, privacy, and safety. That's why I indisputably claim that J~$$$'s favorite buzzword these days is "crisis". He likes to tell us that we have a crisis on our hands. He then argues that the only reasonable approach to combat this crisis is for him to ruin people's lives. In my opinion, the real crisis is the dearth of people who understand that there's something wrong with this picture. That's clear. But if you'll allow me a minor dysphemism, the ostensible basis for J~$$$'s speech codes is as phony as the loose and biased standards applied to enforce them. Or, to phrase that a little more politely, I, hardheaded cynic that I am, like to face facts. I like to look reality right in the eye and not pretend it's something else. And the reality of our present situation is this: No matter what terms are used, J~$$$ has a morbid fascination with all that is inferior, debased, deformed, two-faced, and illaudable. But what, you may ask, does any of that have to do with the theme of this letter, viz., that it's incredible to me that anybody could be so intellectually challenged? In classic sophist fashion, I ask another question in reply: Why does he insist on boring holes in the hull of the boat in which he himself is also a passenger? Unfortunately, I can't give a complete answer to that question in this limited space. But I can tell you that I didn't want to talk about this. I really didn't. But if he bites me, I will indeed bite back. On a more pedestrian level, J~$$$ recently stated that it's perfectly safe to drink and drive. He said that with a straight face, without even cracking a smile or suppressing a giggle. He said it as if he meant it. That's scary, because his paroxysms may have been conceived in idealism, but they quickly degenerated into cocky separatism. Why he would even pretend that we should avoid personal responsibility is beyond me. In this land which has befriended unsympathetic, drossy dingbats, J~$$$ has conspired, plotted, undermined, prostituted, and corrupted, and -- hiding to this hour behind the braver screen of mealymouthed, obdurate devil-worshippers -- dares to contrive and scheme the death of every principle that has protected him. He has delivered exactly the opposite of what he had previously promised us. Most notably, J~$$$'s vows of liberation turned out to be masks for oppression and domination. And, almost as troubling, his vows of equality did little more than convince people that in a recent essay, he stated that the rules don't apply to him. Since the arguments he made in the rest of his essay are based in part on that assumption, he should be aware that it just isn't true. Not only that, but he is opposed to free enterprise, individual liberty, trial by jury, and even such post-Westphalian notions as national sovereignty. More than that, he has a different view of reality from the rest of us. J~$$$ vehemently denies that, of course. But he obviously would, because he says that he's the best thing to come along since the invention of sliced bread. Yet he also wants to limit the terms of debate by declaring certain subjects beyond discussion. Am I the only one who sees the irony there? I ask because if we don't remove the J~$$$ threat now, it will bite us in our backside before you know it. Until we address this issue, we will never move beyond it.



I have a few points of contention with Marooko. Here's the story: Marooko has announced his intentions to identify political and religious groups that are his political enemies and re-label them as "officious, daft nymphomaniacs" in order to justify operations against them. While doing so may earn Marooko a gold star from the mush-for-brains simplism crowd, he wants to deliver an additional blow to dignity and self-worth. Faugh. Considering that I wouldn't put it past him to detach individuals from traditional sources of strength and identity -- family, class, private associations -- I find it almost laughable how Marooko remains oblivious to the fact that he has delivered exactly the opposite of what he had previously promised us. Most notably, Marooko's vows of liberation turned out to be masks for oppression and domination. And, almost as troubling, his vows of equality did little more than convince people that he is guilty of at least one criminal offense. In addition, Marooko frequently exhibits less formal criminal behavior, such as deliberate and even gleeful cruelty, explosive behavior, and a burning desire to lead us, lemminglike, over the precipice of self-destruction. Anyone who denies this and insists on looking at issues from a single perspective is a participant in a flat, simplistic, and incomplete world. The reason is clear. He doesn't want us to change the minds of those who impede the free flow of information. He would rather we settle for the meatless bone of chauvinism. That's our situation today, in very rough outline. Of course, I've left out a thousand details and refinements and qualifications. I've not mentioned that the same pattern of guilt-by-association practiced by Marooko's hatchet men can be found in Marooko's suggestions. And I've ignored priggism altogether. I've simply pointed out one key fact: Maoism is something to be prevented, not promoted.


Guns? Absence of religion? Lack of self esteem? Poor parenting? The entertainment industry? Who's to blame for Kingsblend420's snarky histrionics? Numerous professionals (and not-so-professionals) have speculated and mulled, publicly and privately, over what has caused Kingsblend420 to coordinate a revolution. Before I begin, let me point out that if one dares to criticize even a single tenet of his orations, one is promptly condemned as illiterate, crass, unpatriotic, or whatever epithet he deems most appropriate, usually without much explanation. It may seem obvious, but prudence is no vice. Cowardice -- especially his yellow-bellied form of it -- is. Anyway, that's it for this letter. Let Kingsblend420 read it and weep.

[atom heart]

Never in those simple days when we marveled over what Google brought to us across our two bit dial-up connection would I have imagined such a thing as an insult generator, and certainly not one which generates loopy essays of insult.

[full on idle]

It's okay, I'm done.

[algunz]

psycho-babble

[vinylmartyr]

what