With professorial ordain,
You think yourself judge on high,
And you think you can force others to refrain,
From letting certain opinions past their teeth fly,
You thought naught could surmount your disdain,
But those pesky dissidents refused to lie,
If judgement won’t stop their speech,
There are other tools in your reach.
All must work for their bread,
So you try to make them impossible to employ,
You write their bosses with cruel fantasy in your head,
Taking glee in your attempts to destroy,
Hoping to fill all others with dread,
In all who would dare your fellows annoy,
If you can’t starve them with lies,
There are other ways to deal with those you despise.
Despite the names called and lies told,
Those dirty plebs refuse to be cowed,
They’ve even left the Internet for Reality just to be bold,
So you’ve got to shout over them with screeching loud,
And if they dare laugh at your scold,
Cover you face with black shroud,
Beat them with bats and bricks,
Remind them of their place as dirty hicks.
Good [insert timezone appropriate greeting here] you deplorable MAGA-wearing, nose-thumbing, joke-making so-called right-wing fascists. Four hyphenated descriptors in a row, good for you. To you folks, I’m sure you’re already familiar with social censorship, so you can stop reading here if you like. To the rest of you: time to get uncomfortable. Yesterday, we talked about rhetoric and sophistry, and state power. Today, we’re going to talk a bit more about sophistry, since rhetoric is important in culture as well as in politics. Sophistry, for those of you few denizens of the internet who are somehow not armchair intellectuals with your very own list of the names of logical fallacies to be used in the place of arguments, is the use of deliberately fallacious arguments, usually through various emotional appeals, to further whatever agenda can be achieved through rhetoric. If your synapses are struggling to fire in the direction of making a connection between sophistry and the subject of today’s poem, that’s okay it’s a bit of a lateral move. Hint: calling names is a tactic to evoke emotion. Yes, telling lies, calling names, and public shaming are all forms of sophistry, and as a free speech fundamentalist, these tactics are allowed. However, they are highly unethical, and I would under no circumstances employ them even to the slightest degree, ever. Can you lefties say the same? No, you cannot. That’s the first two verses taken care of, but why did I jump from criticizing sophistry to criticizing violence? Because self-righteous ninnyhammers so deep in cognitive dissidence that if it were water they’d never be without scuba gear, resort to it when sophistry no longer has an effect. They do this, ironically, because they are themselves the victims of sophistry. Propagandized to genuinely believe that ideas are violent if they can be conceived to maybe possibly lead to real violence under the exactly wrong circumstances removed from actual reality by about six parallel universes then it’s really just preemptive self-defense while also disregarding the fact that every time their ideas have been implemented ever, there has been immediately following a purge of political and cultural dissidents. In short, lying to the mob leads to feral violence in the streets. Shocker. This is why you should not do it. Final post tomorrow, unless something interesting happens in the comments.
As always, feel free to discuss below, we’re still a small blog, but you could change that by sharing it with friends you think would like to join in the discussion. Every comment gets approved as soon as I can get to it, and nobody gets deleted or banned.