Sunday, February 5, 2017

Really "Brain Trust" You Should All Chip In And Buy One Of Those Old Kits To Improve Reading Comprehension - Stupid Mail

My piece this morning was not about the corporate-consumer, American imperial state's high-holy day, Superbowl, the word "Superbowl" doesn't appear in it, no reference to that event appears in it and it isn't alluded to in the course of the piece.  I'm not even sure that when I wrote it at four in the morning I was aware that event happened today.  I'm not a fan, after all and live alone.  American football isn't even the subject of the piece, it is one of four or five examples given in the piece, the subject of which is identified in the piece, it wasn't even the topic which the objection I was answering in the piece mentioned.  

The clue for the stupid member in standing in Duncan's self-identified "brain trust" was this:

I bring that up as another example of Duncan Black's accusation against Christianity that it is guilty of giving "people a magical cloak to hide how horrible they are".   

The piece was motivated by someone who whined and complained about me saying in a piece, yesterday, 

Well, yeah, but what entity in human culture does all those things.  Ideology?  Political identity, orientation, party?  The Humanities, the so-called-social-sciences?   Science proper?  Drinking Liberally?  Which of those "NECESSARILY steers people away from horrible moral and political beliefs". 

The whiny response I got was whining that I'd been so impious as to include science in that list, which is why I included several examples of such science that obviously does not necessarily steer people away from horrible moral and political beliefs and which have, in fact, led people into them.  Eugenics of the past and such "ethics" as Peter Singers and his "ethicist" colleagues have been duly authorized by universities of the English speaking world taking up the same line of extreme eugenics the Nazis began their campaign of industrialized mass murder during the post-war period shows that advocacy for the most extremely horrific of moral and political beliefs will get you university professorships at some of the world's most prestigious academic institutions, onto a-list talk shows and published in influential journals published for both academic and popular audiences. 

My point WHICH WAS PLAINLY STATED is that entirely secular institutions abound with such entities and so does American and British secular piety about such things as sports.  

I know the TV addled class of college-educated Americans contains a large percentage of those whose reading comprehension has been damaged by lack of intellectual exercise but I can't constantly refrain from making points just because such idiots with degrees and the massive arrogance that isn't cured by our system of academic credentialing sells degrees to people who can't reason their way through a seven hundred word essay and understand what the explicitly stated topic of it is.  Or that something which doesn't appear in it is NOT the topic of the piece.

Update:  The mentally defective Brain Trusters are apparently repeating that the piece is about the Superbowl even after they've been made aware of this piece.  Really, Duncan, you've got the stupidest "brain trust" on the pseudo-left blogs. 


  1. You posted a piece about your deep loathing of American football on Superbowl Sunday. I'm sure that was just a coincidence.

    1. I know you are unique in the world in figuring every day is Supersimels day but I frequently write about my deep loathing of you with no coincidental event except your lying about me.

      I don't follow football anymore than I do crap TV and teeny-bopper music. You'd be shocked at how much you can ignore that stuff when you think about things that are important.

      Isn't it time for you to say something stupid about literature, it's been more than 24 hours since your last idiocy on the topic.

  2. I'm not even sure that when I wrote it at four in the morning I was aware that event happened today.

    So the piece was occasioned by drug or alcohol abuse? Sad, really.

    1. I don't drink since my first brother who died of alcoholism died of it so terribly, as I've written, asshole. I don't take drugs because I wouldn't voluntarily and temporarily be as mentally disabled as you are chronically.

      You're the one who couldn't read what the theme of the piece was, though it was stated, explicitly, not once but twice in the piece. You're also the one who thought the topic of it was something that appeared nowhere in it.

      You're also the one who continually gets caught pretending you've read things you obviously haven't. You didn't even know how baseball is played.