Cool Story Bro discussion
Random Complaint Generator
date
newest »
newest »
For example, a "complaint" on President George Bush generated by said generator:"I may be risking my life by telling you this, but Pres. George H.W. Bush's vicegerents remain a small isolated minority except during times of economic or social stress, when a mass following develops to blame what I call raving suborners of perjury for the problems besetting society. Before I launch into my main topic, I want to make a few matters crystal-clear: (1) When someone bends knee to Pres. Bush's non-negotiable demands, he pushes and pushes for more, and (2) as a result of that, he wouldn't know a new idea if it hit him over the head. Now that you know where I stand on those issues, I can safely say that his whinges have a devastating effect on the poor, the sick, and the elderly. Now I could go off on that point alone, but I respect the English language and believe in the use of words as a means of communication. Annoying lobcocks like him, however, consider spoken communication as merely a set of noises uttered to excite emotions in loathsome-to-the-core rabble-rousers in order to convince them to stifle the free inquiry of science and the application of its discoveries towards bettering the lot of mankind.
"Diabolism is dangerous. Pres. Bush's garrulous version of it is doubly so. It is reasonable to infer that over time, Pres. Bush's values have progressed from being merely heartless to being superheartless, hyperheartless, and recently ultraheartless. In fact, I'd say that now they're even megaheartless.
"We don't need to demonize Pres. Bush; he is already a demon, and furthermore, he likes magic-bullet explanations that promote racial superiority doctrines, ethnic persecution, imperialist expansion, and genocide. Could there be a conflict of interest there? If you were to ask me, I'd say that when I was younger I wanted to free his mind from the constricting trammels of larrikinism and the counterfeit moral inhibitions that have replaced true morality. I still want to do that, but now I realize that the point at which you discover that just because you can do something does not mean it's okay to do it is not only a moment of disenchantment. It is a moment of resolve, a determination that we must work together to shield people from his distasteful and mendacious deceptions. What can you do to help? For starters, you might want to raise the quality of debate on issues surrounding Pres. Bush's pharisaical, frightful beliefs (as I would certainly not call them logically reasoned arguments). I personally derive great satisfaction in doing that sort of thing because if my memory serves me correctly, Pres. Bush wants to be the one who determines what information we have access to. Yet he is also a big proponent of a particularly sanctimonious form of heathenism. Do you see something wrong with that picture? What I see is that I don't care what others say about Pres. Bush. He's still asinine, subhuman, and he intends to outrage the very sensibilities of those who value freedom and fairness. I would like to close by saying that Pres. George H.W. Bush exhibits a reckless disregard for the safety of others."
Another "complaint" about someone who I do not personally like:"I have never aspired to become a speechwriter, politician, or mainstream political columnist. Nevertheless, if you can look beyond my pitiable writing style you'll certainly see that I have something important to tell you about Masood Karini. Wait! Before you dismiss me as rotten, hear me out. He does not play nice with others. This brings us to the harsh reality that must be faced: The longer we delay action, the harder it will be to provide information and inspiration to as many people as possible. If you don't believe me, see for yourself.
"We must reach out to people with the message that Masood's mind is so twisted, it's doubtful whether anyone can straighten him out. We must alert people of that. We must educate them. We must inspire them. And we must encourage them to identify, challenge, defy, disrupt, and, finally, destroy the institutions that put the foxes in charge of guarding the henhouse.
"Masood's squibs can be rightly understood only as what some foolish rantipoles have been brave enough to call them: a failure. Have you ever stopped to consider the enormous havoc and ruin that has been wrought in this world by Masood and his fans? I have. That's why I say that I once tried to explain to him that his opuscula will bribe the parasitic with the earnings of the productive. Rather than feel ashamed of himself, Masood got angry at me. What this says is that Masood finds it convenient to blame all of society's woes on prurient, prissy spalpeens. Doing so fits with the rest of his populist sloganeering and takes less intellectual effort than investigating the structural factors and material practices that may in fact be the true reason that I have some advice for Masood. He should keep his mouth shut until he stops being such a wicked bludger and starts being at least one of informative, agreeable, creative, or entertaining. Now that this letter has come to an end, I hope you walk away from it realizing that Masood Karini represents the most recent incarnation of the unique 20th-century phenomenon known as "lewd factionalism".
The theme of this letter is not "It is my opinion, as well as that of the courts, dozens of professional organizations, and numerous religious leaders, that it would be hard to find anyone who doesn't agree that this is the very source of the ethnocentrism of which I accuse Alderman Eric Tedick, Jr.—justly, as is now more clear than ever." By now, you've already heard countless arguments running in that vein and are probably pretty sick of them. The theme of this letter is "Eric derives sadistic pleasure in the misfortune of others." Whoa! Don't stampede for the exits! I promise I'll get to the main topic of this letter, Eric's bitter utterances, in just a few sentences. I simply feel it's important first to provide some additional context by mentioning that if one accepts the framework I've laid out here, it follows that Eric is just trying to pick a fight. That's why he says that drug money is being used to pay for the construction of huge underground cities intended to house both humans and aliens who serve a secret, transnational shadow government.Eric makes a living out of philistinism. I call this tactic of his "entrepreneurial philistinism". Eric and his winged monkeys have unquestionably raised entrepreneurial philistinism to a fine art by using it to bring widespread death and degradation to millions of human beings across the face of the Earth. His opinion is that space aliens are out to lay eggs in our innards or ooze their alien hell-slime all over us. Of course, opinions are like sphincters: we all have them. So let me tell you my opinion. My opinion is that I must seek liberty, equality, and fraternity if we are fully to appreciate the entire menace represented by yawping shirkers. But there is a further-reaching implication: He denies ever having tried to demonize and penalize people who find success on the road to happiness. I assume he's merely trying to cover his posterior, as the truth is that Eric welcomes public debate as long as all of the debaters agree with his personal ethos. Be patient; I won't ask you to take that on faith. Rather, I'll provide irrefragable proof that I've never bothered Eric. Yet Eric wants to peddle fake fears to the public. Whatever happened to "live and let live"?
If Eric can give us all a succinct and infallible argument proving that his decisions are based on reason, I will personally deliver his Nobel Prize for Quixotic Rhetoric. In the meantime, if Eric were to get his hands on the levers of power he'd immediately generate an epidemic of corruption and social unrest. If you don't believe me then consider that his intent is to prevent us from asking questions. Eric doesn't want the details checked. He doesn't want anyone looking for any facts other than the official facts he presents to us. I wonder if this is because most of his "facts" are false.
We must soon make one of the most momentous decisions in history. We must decide whether to let Eric subject human beings to indignities or, alternatively, whether we should bring meaning, direction, and purpose into our lives. Upon this decision rests the stability of society and the future peace of the world. My view on this decision is that you may find it instructive to contrast the things I like with the things that Eric likes. I like listening to music. Eric likes tearing down everything that can possibly be regarded as a support of cultural elevation. I like kittens and puppies. Eric likes trampling over the very freedoms and rights that he claims to support. I like spending time with friends. Eric likes threatening anyone who's bold enough to state that he has indicated that if we don't let him reduce history to an overdetermined, wireframe sketch of what are, in reality, complex, dynamic events then he'll be forced to make a fetish of the virtues of unprofessional totalism. That's like putting rabid attack dogs in silk suits. In other words, Eric has issued us a thinly veiled threat that's intended primarily to scare us away from the realization that I realize that some people may have trouble reading this letter. Granted, not everyone knows what "anthrohopobiological" means, but it's nevertheless easy to understand that it's debatable whether I urge you to join me in my quest to fight sniveling mooncalves. However, no one can disagree that I avouch that he's a nerdy, gin-swilling devil-worshipper. How else can I characterize a person who did all of the following and then some?
Dominate or intimidate others
Dig a grave in which to bury liberty and freedom
Concoct a version of reality that fully contradicts real life
I could lengthen this list, but I shall rest my case. The point is that every one of us has a role in saving this country from Eric's revolting Praetorian Guard. We all know that Eric has put our country in trouble. We may disagree on what to do about it, but we all know that our country is in trouble. May I suggest, therefore, that we champion the poor and oppressed against the evil of Eric Tedick? Doing so may help even pot-valiant rash-types see that I can easily see Eric performing the following unimaginative, stuporous acts. First, he will trivialize certain events that are particularly special to us all. Then, he will advertise "magical" diets and bogus weight-loss pills. I do not profess to know how likely is the eventuality I have outlined, but it is a distinct possibility to be kept in mind.
Documents written by Eric's hirelings typically include the line, "Eric is the one who will lead us to our great shining future", in large, 30-point type, as if the size of the font gives weight to the words. In reality, all that that fancy formatting really does is underscore the fact that someone has been giving Eric's brain a very thorough washing, and now Eric is trying to do the same to us. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to detect the subtext of this letter. But just in case it's too subliminal for some, let me thrust it into your face right here: He consumes, infests, and destroys. Eric lives off the death and destruction of others. For that reason alone we need to offer manumission to those who are held captive by his distasteful, oppressive excuses.
Eric's servitors don't want us to denounce those who claim that Eric is cunctipotent. That'd be too much of a threat to extremism, narcissism, and all of the other contemptuous things they worship. Clearly, they prefer suppressing those who would seek to learn the truth about Eric's oppugnant, short-sighted claims. I recently stated that he is unable to distinguish bona fide science from astrology, channeling, crystal healing, telekinesis, psychic surgery, and all the other New Age pseudoscientific drivel floating about. I had considered my comment to be fairly anodyne, but Eric went into quite a swivet over it. I guess if he found that sort of comment offensive, he should obviously cover his ears when I state that his maledicent grievances reduce principle to an expedient. Even so, I have a soft spot for obstinate self-promoters of one sort or another: a bog not too far from here.
It may seem difficult at first to make technical preparations for the achievement of freedom and human independence. It is. But he who pays the piper calls the tune. With that in mind, I did a little research to find where Eric gets his money. It turns out that it comes primarily from stubborn cavilers, unenlightened humanity-haters, and—you guessed it—deplorable, nocuous oniomaniacs. This explains why I am hurt, furious, and embarrassed. Why am I hurt? Because the dangerous, incontinent ragabashes that comprise Eric's little empire are as thick as thieves. If one of them is willing to call for ritualistic invocations of needlessly formal rules, then they all are. What's more, none of them is able to accept that Eric is utterly versipellous. When he's among plebeians, Eric warms the cockles of their hearts by remonstrating against egotism. But when Eric is safely surrounded by his functionaries, he instructs them to conceal information and, occasionally, blatantly lie. That type of cunning two-sidedness tells us that Nature is a wonderful teacher. For instance, the lesson that Nature teaches us from newly acephalous poultry is that you really don't need a brain to run around like a dang fool making a spectacle of yourself. Nature also teaches us that Eric can get away with lies (e.g., that people find his unrelenting, over-the-top hostility rather refreshing) because the average person cannot imagine anyone lying so brazenly. Not one person in a hundred will actually check out the facts for himself and discover that Eric is lying. Why am I furious? Because Eric has occasionally been successful at creating a mass psychology of fear about an imminent terrorist threat. Upon such points his natural character always exhibits itself most determinedly as he further strives to plant strife and chaos. And why am I embarrassed? Because he says that character development is not a matter of "strength through adversity" but rather, "entitlement through victimization" and that therefore power, politics, and privilege should prevail over the rule of law. Hello? Is Mr. Logic down at the pub with a dozen pints inside him or what? Eric has declared that he's staging a revolt against everyone who dares to prescribe a course of action. Eric is revolting all right; the very sight of him turns my stomach. All kidding aside, my opinion of him hasn't changed ever since, ages ago, I heard him say something about how he can be trusted to judge the rest of the world from a unique perch of pure wisdom. The point is that Eric talked nonsense then, and he talks nonsense now. The only thing that's changed is that my chief objective is to protect our peace, privacy, and safety. But there's the rub; if one dares to criticize even a single tenet of his scare tactics, one is promptly condemned as unpatriotic, philopolemical, abysmal, or whatever epithet he deems most appropriate, usually without much explanation.
I find that some of Eric's choices of words in his jokes would not have been mine. For example, I would have substituted "high-handed" for "antianthropomorphism" and "wicked" for "homeotransplantation." Eric has had some success in trading fundamental human rights for a cheap "guarantee" of safety and security. I find that horrifying and frightening, but we all should have seen it coming. We all knew that Eric intends to create a new social class. Muzzy-headed degenerates, uncongenial savages, and offensive monomaniacs will be given aristocratic status. The rest of us will be forced into serving as their cultists.
I am reminded of the quote, "These issues are actually political issues." This comment is not as censorious as it seems because Eric may impact public policy for years to come right after he reads this letter. Let him. Eventually, I will fight for what is right. So who's crazy? I, or all the brassbound, materialistic wastrels who assert that people prefer "cultural integrity" and "multicultural sensitivity" to health, food, safety, and the opportunity to choose their own course through life? Before you answer, let me point out that he is a detestable scofflaw. I use that label only when it's true. If you don't believe it is, then consider that I try never to argue with Eric because it's clear he's not susceptible to reason.
If Eric's rodomontades were intended as a joke, Eric forgot to include the punchline. When he made his puppy-dog jackals wag their little tails by promising to let them withhold information and disseminate half-truths and whole lies, I realized for the first time that it has been brought to my attention that Eric's semi-intelligible strictures are a sin against nature. While this is truly true, Eric wants me to stop trying to urge lawmakers to pass a nonbinding resolution affirming that he relies on grievance-driven, race-based identity politics to garner approval for casting dissent as treason and critic
This letter may be a bit overwhelming for those people who are still soundly asleep in a world of make-believe and television and who don't want to hear how it is a grave injustice for Drew Peacock to crush any semblance of opposition to his vindictive expedients. Let me start by stressing that I am not attempting to suppress anyone's opinions, nor do I intend to demean him personally for his beliefs or worldviews. But I do feel that I must take steps against the whole mentally deficient brotherhood of apolaustic schlubs.Drew has a vested interest in maintaining the myths that keep his junta loyal to him. His principal myth is that Comstockism is the key to world peace. The truth is that Drew is locked into his present course of destruction. He does not have the interest or the will to change his fundamentally shabby precepts.
It is therefore reasonable to infer that Drew pompously claims that drug money is being used to pay for the construction of huge underground cities intended to house both humans and aliens who serve a secret, transnational shadow government. That sort of nonsense impresses many people, unfortunately. Is it not positively the distinguishing feature of his objectives to gain a respectable foothold for his dangerous editorials? He doesn't want me to institute change. Well, I've never been a very obedient dog so I intend not only to do exactly that but also to appeal not to the contented and satisfied but embrace those tormented by suffering, those without peace, the unhappy and the discontented.
More concretely, Drew still labors under the outmoded pretense that he is a man of morality, achievements, and noble qualities, one who often sacrifices his own reputation or safety in order to pursue that which is right and those things that truly matter. As an interesting experiment, try to point this out to Drew. (You might want to don safety equipment first.) I think you'll find that he believes it's perfectly okay to reduce history to an overdetermined, wireframe sketch of what are, in reality, complex, dynamic events. More than anything else, such beliefs shed light on Drew's moral values and suggest incontrovertibly that he has tried intensifying or perpetuating antinomianism. He has also tried preventing the real problems from being solved. Why does Drew do such things? Before you answer, let me point out that Drew's methods are much subtler now than ever before. Drew is more adept at hidden mind control, and his techniques of social brainwash are much more appealingly streamlined and homogenized.
I never intend to offend anyone, Drew included. Alas, the following statement may upset a few people: A vivid realization of the caducity of life is what motivates me to encourage opportunity, responsibility, and community. Some people squirm a bit when they they read things like that, but such statements are the key to explaining why by refusing to act, by refusing to bring a fresh perspective and new ideas to the current debate, we are giving Drew the power to enslave us, suppress our freedom, regiment our lives, confiscate our property, and dictate our values. He bites the hand that feeds him. We can therefore extrapolate that I overheard one of his confidants say, "We have too much freedom." This quotation demonstrates the power of language as it epitomizes the "us/them" dichotomy within hegemonic discourse. As for me, I prefer to use language to denounce Drew's orations. Rigid adherence to dogmatic purity will lead only to disunity while we clearly need unity to get people to see through the hollowness, the sham, the silliness of Drew's ludibrious, obtrusive fibs.
Drew is extremely huffy. In fact, my handy-dandy Huffy-O-Meter confirms that I've never bothered Drew. Yet Drew wants to lay all of society open to the predations of organized criminality. Whatever happened to "live and let live"? While everybody believes in something, his simple faith in Chekism will threaten national security. Drew has never given expression to any thought or sentiment that could worthily elicit the praise, or even the favorable mention, of the better portion of mankind, and besides, Drew often remarks that we can trust him not to incite pogroms, purges, and other mayhem. That's one of those neat little subreptions that his libidinous hirelings employ to deceive themselves. The truth is that if Drew's plan to vandalize our neighborhoods is to be discouraged then the wisest course of action is to teach the worst kinds of rummy, destructive ergophobics I've ever seen about tolerance. Before we start down that road I ought to remind you that he wants to play on people's conscious and unconscious belief structures. Personally, I don't want that. Personally, I prefer freedom. If you also prefer freedom then you should be working with me to shelter initially unpopular truths from suppression, enabling them to ultimately win out through competition in the marketplace of ideas.
There are some shambolic Drew Peacock clones who are snotty. There are also some who are wishy-washy. Which category does Drew fall into? If the question overwhelms you, I suggest you check "both". I am annoyed by the impulsive and sometimes deluded manifestations of rebelliousness against an inherited civilization of which his tuft-hunters do not have the slightest understanding. If you doubt this, just ask around. If Drew continues to shout obscenities at passers-by, the result can be a tone-deafness, a cluelessness, on matters that are at the center of experience for vast segments of the population. Although I agree with those who claim that his weltanschauung is that we should avoid personal responsibility, nevertheless, I cannot agree with the subject matter and attitude that is woven into every one of his negligent pranks.
Drew's ruses deserve to be criticized because they rifle, pillage, plunder, and loot. What is happening between Drew's apologists and us is not a debate. It is not a friendly disagreement between enlightened people. It is an uppity, slatternly attack on our most cherished institutions. It's Drew's deep-seated belief that profits come before people. Sure, he 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 I correctly predicted that Drew would represent a threat to all the people in the area, indeed, possibly the world. Alas, I didn't think he'd do that so effectively—or so soon.
If I were elected Ruler of the World, my first act of business would be to take a no-nonsense approach to dealing with inaniloquent, egocentric blowhards. I would further use my position to inform certain segments of the Earth's population that Drew says that his frightful, temerarious coalition of self-deluded kleptomaniacs and bleeding-heart, antisocial gossipmongers is a respected civil-rights organization. Hey, Drew, how about telling us the truth for once?
You may be picking up on something here in all of my responses to Drew's malodorous beliefs. All of my responses presume that the only way for Drew to redeem himself is to stop being so pathetic. And let me tell you, I want to thank Drew for his expostulations. They give me an excellent opportunity to illustrate just how stolid Drew can be. According to him, anyone who points this out is guilty of spreading lies, smears, and statism. The destruction of the Tower of Babel, be it a literal truth, an allegory, or a mere story based upon cultural archetypes, illustrates this truth plainly. Although it's easy to sit in the press box and criticize, Drew and several groups of frowsy, improvident rakes are in cahoots to make a mockery of the term "transubstantiationalist". If you don't believe me, see for yourself. This letter has gone on far too long in my opinion and probably yours as well. So let me end it by saying merely that Drew Peacock has been cynically and deliberately violating his oath not to lead us into an age of shoddiness—shoddy goods, shoddy services, shoddy morals, and shoddy people.
Link:
http://www.pakin.org/complaint