[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 11:51:07 03/29/17 Wed
Author: @domosexuai
Subject: The Biography of Dominique Vuljevic

My complaint about @domosexuaI

I've been hesitating to write this letter because I've been afraid that, if I did, @domosexuaI would do everything in her power to make me dig my own grave and pay for the shovel. But after reading about @domosexuaI's termagant ideologies, I could hesitate no longer. One of the first facts we should face is that @domosexuaI's goal is to concoct a version of reality that fully contradicts real life. How lamebrained is that? How impetuous? How narrow-minded?

I'm not asking whether @domosexuaI's attitudes are valid or whether they have any application to current topics of theoretical and political importance. I'm asking only the following specific question: What is it about our society that makes Pecksniffian, impolitic antagonists like @domosexuaI desire to funnel significant amounts of money to fatuous couch potatoes? I mean, while she feels that anyone who disagrees with her is ultimately muddleheaded, reality dictates otherwise. Actually, if you want a real dose of reality, look at how @domosexuaI is the type of person that turns up her nose at people like you and me. I guess that's because we haven't the faintest notion about the things that really matter such as why it would be good for her to strip the world of conversation, friendship, and love.

Ignorance is bliss. This may be why @domosexuaI's advocates are generally all smiles. Whether or not @domosexuaI should siphon away the more beautiful and fragile parts of the human soul ought to be a simple question, far beyond the realm of debate. However, she should reserve her stereotypes and labels and remember to treat others with a bit more respect and equality. That said, let me continue.

Following this line of logic, it would appear that @domosexuaI's secret agents have been staggering around like punch-drunk fighters hit too many times—stunned, confused, betrayed, and trying desperately to rationalize @domosexuaI's malapert lectures. It is not a pretty sight. There's a price to be paid for perpetrating acts of the most power-drunk character, and, decidedly, @domosexuaI's coven is running up a hefty bill. The precise cost to us is best described via the observation that the concepts underlying @domosexuaI's dastardly taradiddles are like the Ptolemaic astronomy, which could not have been saved by positing more epicycles or eliminating some of the more glaring discrepancies. The fundamental idea—that the heavens revolve around the Earth—was wrong, just as @domosexuaI's idea that she can walk on water is wrong.

@domosexuaI can push me only so far and no farther. Get that straight, please. Any other thinking is blame-shoving or responsibility-dodging. Furthermore, @domosexuaI is an inspiration to ghastly, insufferable undesirables everywhere. They panegyrize her crusade to plunge us into the vortex of prætorianism, and, more importantly, they don't realize that @domosexuaI has especially been targeting schools and universities, trying to convert them into indoctrination centers for savagism. Once such institutions of learning can be coerced into suppressing freedom of expression, free inquiry, independent research, and all objectivity, they will become training grounds for yellow-bellied cheapjacks who are dedicated to serving @domosexuaI and carrying out her plan of creating a climate of intimidation.

@domosexuaI's belief systems have proven to be a complete disaster in both theory and practice. It is no more complicated than that. @domosexuaI's apothegms are some of the most quarrelsome, irritable, and villainous I've ever encountered. Equally important is the fact that if @domosexuaI can't cite the basis for her claim that she can scare us by using big words like “historicocabbalistical” then she should just shut up about it. She and her conveniently bribed allies have been rifling, pillaging, plundering, and looting. As bad as that is, it represents only the thin end of the wedge. Before the year is over, @domosexuaI will likely create an atmosphere of mistrust in which speculations and rumors gain the appearance of viability and compete openly with more carefully considered theories.

Just don't expect consistency from a woman who is completely and doubtlessly effete. @domosexuaI avows that she has suffered so much that whatever offenses she commits are legitimate attempts to recapture dignity, obtain justice, or exact revenge. That concept is, of course, complete bunk by any stretch of the imagination. However, it is bunk that has survived virtually unchanged from when it was first proposed nearly half a century ago by linguacious braggarts to its present incarnation in @domosexuaI's avaricious, self-deluded fibs. Whenever she encounters a free-thinking individual who presents factual data that conflicts with her beliefs, @domosexuaI doesn't know what to do. That's the current situation, and if you have any doubt about the reality of it, then you haven't been paying close enough attention to what's been happening in the world.

Here's the heart of the matter: @domosexuaI will do everything in her power to force us to bow down low before snarky pathetic-types. No wonder corruption is endemic to our society; @domosexuaI claims to have turned over a new leaf shortly after getting caught trying to paint pictures of bossy worlds inhabited by pigheaded drongos. This claim is an outright lie that is still being circulated by @domosexuaI's functionaries. The truth is that @domosexuaI's roorbacks are not our only concern. To state the matter in a few words, too many tyrannical apostates out there are looking for the quick and easy fix, for a great savior who will make it all right again so they can go back to sleep. They gather at the foot of the mount to herald the coming of @domosexuaI and neglect to notice that @domosexuaI wants us to believe that we can solve all of our problems by giving her lots of money. We might as well toss that money down a well because we'll never see it again. What we will see, however, is that @domosexuaI's salacious form of philistinism is like a forest fire. Once it is started, none can set bounds to the resulting conflagration. The only option is to free @domosexuaI's mind from the constricting trammels of fainéantism and the counterfeit moral inhibitions that have replaced true morality. While doing so won't put a stop to philistinism, it will demonstrate decisively that @domosexuaI seems unable to think of turns of speech that aren't hackneyed. What really grates on my nerves, however, is that her prose consists less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning than of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated henhouse.

While I don't insist that people be intolerant towards the protagonists of the repressive status quo (i.e., @domosexuaI and other like-minded maladroit nutters), I do want my audience to understand that I cannot believe how many actual, physical, breathing, thinking people have fallen for @domosexuaI's subterfuge. I'm utterly stunned.

@domosexuaI's compadres get a thrill out of protesting. They have no idea what causes they're fighting for or against. For them, going down to the local protest, carrying a sign, hanging out with @domosexuaI, and meeting some other loquacious imbeciles is merely a social event. They're not even aware that @domosexuaI never tires of trying to extinguish fires with gasoline. She presumably hopes that the magic formula will work some day. In the meantime, she seems to have resolved to learn nothing from experience, which tells us that if we can understand what has caused the current plague of jaundiced dorks, I believe that we can then move as expeditiously as possible to banish divisiveness. @domosexuaI keeps missing my point. More specifically, she keeps getting hung up on my words without seeing the underlying meaning. For example, when I say that I sometimes use the hypocorism, “brutish wrongdoers”, when referring to @domosexuaI and her allies, @domosexuaI seems incapable of realizing that what I'm really getting at is that she loves using big words like “dendrochronological” and “contradistinctive”. As a result, she writes like a mentally ill person with a thesaurus. That got me thinking: Perhaps @domosexuaI spews out so many falsehoods, distortions, and half-truths that rebuttal requires some lengthy documentation. In the presence of high heaven and before the civilized world I therefore assert that I could write a hundred letters about how the most believable explanation for many of the destructive trends in politics, economics, morality, and other key areas over the past two years is that a secretive, incredibly disingenuous, well-organized movement has been striving relentlessly to perpetrate acts of the most uninformed character. I can tell innumerable stories about @domosexuaI's desire to subject her detractors to all types of terrifying autos-da-fé. And I can show you that she views antagonism as a succedaneous religion that authorizes her to prevent me from sleeping soundly at night. Regardless of what I actually do, however, @domosexuaI is desperate to convince us that she has answers to everything. To achieve this goal, she has apparently decided it's more effective to “construct a counternarrative” (read: make up a story) than to look for anything resembling facts. This worries me because some reputed—as opposed to reputable—members of @domosexuaI's Maoism outfit quite adamantly allege that @domosexuaI can absorb mana by devouring her opponents' brains. I find it rather astonishing that anyone could assert such a thing, but then again, quisquilious administrators are often found at @domosexuaI's elbow. This suggests to me that @domosexuaI finds reality too difficult to swallow. Or maybe it just gets lost between the sports and entertainment pages. In either case, for those of us who make our living trying to challenge rather than accommodate the mainstream's presuppositions, it is important to consider that it's not the bogeyman that our children need to worry about. It's @domosexuaI. Not only is @domosexuaI more nefarious and more unstable than any envisaged bogeyman or bugbear, but we can't stop @domosexuaI overnight. It takes time, patience and experience to fight on the battleground of ideas for our inalienable individual rights. Let me conclude by saying that we who want to defend tolerance and justice against the temptations of hatred and oppression will not rest until we do.

My complaint about Dominique Vuljevic

If you are stimulated by new ideas and if you can think for yourself rather than simply accept what Dominique Vuljevic dishes out, I think you will find this letter of interest. It may help if I begin my discussion by relating an innocuous story in order to illustrate my point: A few days ago I was arguing with a particularly cocky sewer rat who was insisting that Dominique Vuljevic has a duty to conceal the facts and lie to the rest of us, under oath if necessary, perjuring herself to help disseminate the True Faith of paternalism. I tried to convince this raffish faitour that we must teach audacious recreants about tolerance. If we don't, future generations will not know freedom. Instead, they will know fear; they will know sadness; they will know injustice, poverty, and grinding despair. Most of all, they will realize, albeit far too late, that one of Dominique Vuljevic's most trusted accomplices is a lecherous pococurante. If you're a lecherous pococurante, you sharpen intergroup tensions. That's all there is to it. Well, there is one more thing: Dominique Vuljevic insists that she has no choice but to create a new fundamentalism based not on religion but on an orthodoxy of propagandism. Her reasoning is that education should teach the precepts of simplism and the duties of man towards sanctimonious, judgmental beguilers. Yes, I realize that that argument makes no sense, but if we can understand what has caused the current plague of beastly rovers, I believe that we can then give peace a chance.

If the people generally are relying on false information sown by headstrong, irascible ignoramuses, then correcting that situation becomes a priority for the defense of our nation. Given the destructiveness of Dominique Vuljevic's irritating, foul asseverations, I propose that we implement a long-range survival plan. For starters, this plan should acknowledge that someone has been giving Dominique Vuljevic's brain a very thorough washing, and now Dominique Vuljevic is trying to do the same to us. I once pointed out to her that only by striving to find the inner strength to restore the temple of our civilization to the ancient truths can I counteract the subtle but pervasive social message that says that she can walk on water. All I could garner from her ensuing mussitation was some nonsense about how a knowledge of correct diction, even if unused, evinces a superiority that covers cowardice or stupidity. It's this sort of violent response that leads me to believe that it is the difficult decisions, the ones that have consequences, challenge orthodoxies, bear risk, and threaten status that take real courage. It takes real courage, for instance, to pronounce the truth and renounce the lies. That said, it is also the case that given a choice of having her disguise the complexity of color, the brutality of class, and the importance of religion and sexual identity in the construction and practice of irreligionism or having my bicuspids extracted sans Novocaine, I myself would embrace the pliers, purchase some Polident Partials, and call it a day.

Sometimes, I think that all of us are partially to blame for Dominique Vuljevic's loud effusions. The smallness of our politics, the ease with which we're distracted by the petty and trivial, our chronic avoidance of tough decisions, and our preference for scoring cheap political points instead of rolling up our sleeves and analyzing Dominique Vuljevic's orations in the manner of sociological studies of mass communication and persuasion all help pave the way for Dominique Vuljevic to introduce, cultivate, and encourage moral rot. She looks down upon the rest of us. From Dominique Vuljevic's perspective, we are blind so she must tell us what to see; we are deaf so she must tell us what to hear; and we are mute so she must tell us what to say. Such views may fool rash, anti-democratic schnooks, but I avow that if I thought that Dominique Vuljevic's proposed social programs had even a snowball's chance in Hell of doing anything good for anyone, then I wouldn't be so critical. As they stand, however, I can conclude only that Dominique Vuljevic has been known to “prove” statistically that it's okay for her to indulge her every whim and lust without regard for anyone else or for society as a whole. As you might have suspected, her proof is flawed. The primary problem with it is that it replaces a legitimate claim of association with an illegitimate claim of causality. Consequently, Dominique Vuljevic's “proof” demonstrates only that she must have some sort of problem with reading comprehension. That's the only explanation I can come up with as to why she accuses me of admitting that she possesses infinite wisdom. What I actually said is that Dominique Vuljevic says that all scientific and technological progress would come to a halt were it not for her tirades. That's like a rooster taking credit for the sunrise. I mean, it's not like Dominique Vuljevic doesn't know that the key to her soul is her longing for the effortless, irresponsible, automatic consciousness of an animal. Dominique Vuljevic dreads the necessity, the risk, and the responsibility of rational cognition. As a result, in the midst of our mighty struggle to follow through on the critical work that has already begun, I have seen too many people stand on the sidelines and mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities. I have watched too many people accept without challenge Dominique Vuljevic's peremptory claim that her gestapo is looking out for our best interests. And I have observed too many people fail to realize that we are observing the change in our society's philosophy and values from freedom and justice to corruption, decay, cynicism, and injustice. All of these “values” are artistically incorporated in one person: Dominique Vuljevic.

Bad-tempered crackpots all over the country are now having an absolute field day with their new-found freedoms supposedly granted by Dominique Vuljevic's overgeneralizations. Now that's a strong conclusion to draw just from the evidence I've presented in this letter so let me corroborate it by saying that my advice to you is that whenever you find yourself choking off both scapegoatism and yahooism for good it is important to avoid the pitfall of allotheism. Fortunately, that's not too hard to do if you always bear in mind the fact that as the adherents of Randian objectivism believe, Dominique Vuljevic wants people to be fined, exiled, or imprisoned for making snide remarks about her jibes. Furthermore, as the adherents of empiricism observe, there is no excuse for the innumerable errors of fact, the slovenly and philistine artistic judgments, the historical ineptitude, the internal contradictions, and the various half-truths, untruths, and gussied-up truths that litter every one of Dominique Vuljevic's essays from the first word to the last.

Forgive me if I ramble; I'm really upset, as I think you can tell. Dominique Vuljevic has been trying hard to protect what has become a lucrative racket for her. Unfortunately, that lucrative racket has a hard-to-overlook consequence: it will expose and punish individuals who do not conform to Dominique Vuljevic's philosophies or beliefs eventually. I could tell her that to her, antidisestablishmentarianism is a kind of religion, although she obviously doesn't care. I could tell her that she is our worst nightmare, but she wouldn't believe me. She probably also doesn't care that she deserves an award, probably one that has the text, “for outstanding achievements in the spreading of poststructuralism” engraved beneath her name. So let me appeal to whatever small semblance of reason Dominique Vuljevic may be capable of when I tell her that I intend to look closely at her stratagems to see what makes them so effectual at killing the goose bearing the golden egg. I should expect to find—this is a guess that I currently lack sufficient knowledge to verify—that one of Dominique Vuljevic's favorite dirty tricks is to forge letters from her foes. These forgeries are laced with scandalous “revelations” about everyone Dominique Vuljevic hates. Such trickery deflects attention from the fact that Dominique Vuljevic is capable of only two things, namely whining and underhanded tricks.

The vast majority of Dominique Vuljevic's serfs have no interest in defending tolerance and justice against the temptations of hatred and oppression. They would rather stroke their fragile egos, regurgitate meaningless tripe, and sycophantically prostrate themselves before the idiotic dribble that underlies Dominique Vuljevic's subversive epithets. Although Dominique Vuljevic is ensconced in impenetrable conviction of superior intellectual status, if she successfully prevents us from serving on the side of Truth, we will rise up again, stronger, firmer, mightier. We will lead her to resipiscence. We will ensure that everyone knows that I no longer believe that trends like family breakdown, promiscuity, and violence are random events. Not only are they explicitly glorified and promoted by Dominique Vuljevic's picayunish, mutinous hate sheets, but I've managed to come up with a way in which her essays could be made useful. Dominique Vuljevic's essays could be used by the instructors of college courses as a final examination of sorts. Any student who can't find at least 20 errors of fact or fatuous statement automatically flunks. Extra credit goes to students who realize that in Dominique Vuljevic's limited horizon she herself is the important object. As a sequence to this self-conceit, she imagines that the sky is falling. We therefore need to explain to her that scummy rumormongers are responsible for the harebrained tenor of her theories. Well, that's another story. To get back to my main point, I ought to mention that Dominique Vuljevic has warned us that any day now, ungrateful tyrants will recover the dead past by annihilating the living present. If you think about it, you'll realize that Dominique Vuljevic's warning is a self-fulfilling prophecy in the sense that we should agree on definitions before saying anything further about Dominique Vuljevic's insensitive casus belli. For starters, let's say that “tribalism” is “that which makes Dominique Vuljevic yearn to make people weak and dependent.”

Dominique Vuljevic repeatedly expresses the view that she is a woman of morality, achievements, and noble qualities, one who often sacrifices her own reputation or safety in order to pursue that which is right and those things that truly matter. If the average Joe actually paused for a moment to analyze this dreck in a clear-eyed way, he'd realize that some of Dominique Vuljevic's vassals have privately reassured me that Dominique Vuljevic isn't as uncouth as she sounds. Rather, they profess, Dominique Vuljevic is just playing the cards that she thinks she needs to. I don't buy that excuse. Dominique Vuljevic may have started as non-uncouth, but she's now entirely invested in equipping the most soporific cads I've ever seen with flame throwers, hand grenades, and heat-seeking missiles. Consider, for example, how the time has come to choose between freedom or slavery, revolt or submission, and liberty or Dominique Vuljevic's particularly lickerish form of ethnocentrism. It's clear what Dominique Vuljevic wants us to choose, but I don't need to tell you that she doesn't care about accountability in our public systems. That should be self-evident. What is less evident is that to someone whose eyes are open, her constantly repeated mantra that the moon is made of green cheese is an insanely insensate notion. By way of contrast, consider my personal mantra that Dominique Vuljevic claims to have donated a lot of money to charity over the past few years. I suspect that the nullibicity of those donations would become apparent if one were to audit Dominique Vuljevic's books—unless, of course, “charity” includes Dominique Vuljevic-run organizations that violate all the rules of decorum. In that case, I'd say that Dominique Vuljevic has stated that her blessing is the equivalent of a papal imprimatur. That's just pure despotism. Well, in Dominique Vuljevic's case, it might be pure ignorance, seeing that Dominique Vuljevic has called people like me abysmal drug lords, obtrusive malefactresses, and blowsy popinjays so many times that these accusations no longer have any sting. Dominique Vuljevic indeed continues to employ such insults because she's run out of logical arguments. I suppose an alternate explanation is that it's Dominique Vuljevic's deep-seated belief that she understands the difference between civilization and savagery. Sure, she might be able to justify conclusions like that—using biased or one-sided information, of course—but I prefer to know the whole story. In this case, the whole story is that there are legitimate conflicts of interest in any society. What is necessary is together to create just institutions within which those conflicts can be adjudicated and fairly resolved. Before this effort can commence, though, we must recognize that we can divide Dominique Vuljevic's scribblings into three categories: insecure, inhumane, and illiberal.

Dominique Vuljevic may subordinate all spheres of society to an ideological vision of organic community right after she reads this letter. Let her. Before the year is over, I will work beyond the predatory plasticity of Dominique Vuljevic's methods of interpretation. Even leaving aside the thorny matter of divining the varying proportion of her connivance, acquiescence, foreknowledge, exploitation, and incompetence in leaving a generation of people planted in the mud of a vengeful world to begin a new life in the shadows of nonrepresentationalism, we can state the following as an established fact: Dominique Vuljevic keeps telling us that little green men live on Mars. Are we also supposed to believe that the best way to make a point is with foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric and letters filled primarily with exclamation points? I didn't think so.

I'm inclined to think that we and Dominique Vuljevic obviously need to call a truce on our arguments over nepotism. Unfortunately, Dominique Vuljevic will refuse to accept any such truce, as her whole raison d'être is to promote nepotism in all its dour forms. If I have a bias, it is only against abominable vagabonds who waste natural resources. For those of us who make our living trying to open students' eyes, minds, hearts, and souls to the world around them, it is important to consider that she accuses me of being out-of-touch whenever I state that she always demands preferential treatment. All right, I'll admit that I have a sharp tongue and sometimes write with a bit of a poison pen, but the fact remains that there isn't so much as a molecule of evidence that waspish windbags are the most oppressed people in our society. The only reason that Dominique Vuljevic claims otherwise is that to understand her motives, I maintain that we must examine the deep culture of her deconstructionism squad—its key psychosocial traits, good and bad. If we do so, I predict we'll discover that Dominique Vuljevic just keeps on saying, “I don't give a [expletive deleted] about you. I just want to shrink the so-called marketplace of ideas down to convenience-store size.”

Dominique Vuljevic has been trying for some time to convince people that it's inappropriate to teach children right from wrong. Don't believe her hype! Dominique Vuljevic has just been offering that line as a means to quash other people's opinions. That's all for this letter. For those that don't like my views, get over it. I aver that I have as much a right to my views, and to express them, as anyone else. So when I say that Dominique Vuljevic is a proponent of “egoism”—a term Dominique Vuljevic uses catachrestically in place of “diabolism”—you can agree with me or not. That's all there is to it.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

. -- ., 08:47:59 01/31/18 Wed
- . -- Clean?, 03:09:23 02/03/18 Sat