Posted by StygianRules at spider-wa063.proxy.aol.com on July 01, 2000 at 16:31:26:
In Reply to: A word to the wise posted by defender of the common good on July 01, 2000 at 16:26:40:
: What I offer here is an involved yet detached look at Kevin Smith's obiter dicta. Perhaps time, further study, and more reflection will either modify or enrich the analysis offered here, but we must shake off our torpor, ignore the siren songs of vandalism, and make plans and carry them out. For the sake of review, if Kevin had done his homework, he'd know that his premise (that censorship could benefit us) is his morality disguised as pretended neutrality. Kevin uses this disguised morality to support his announcements, thereby making his argument self-refuting. While these incidents may seem minor, you don't have to say anything specifically about him for him to start attacking you. All you have to do is dare to imply that I should champion the force of goodness against the greed of hypersensitive spoiled brats. While self-justification may motivate flippant twerps, the same imprecations also work well for mischievous bimbos. Today, we might have let Kevin rip apart causes that others feel strongly about. Tomorrow, we won't. Instead, we will argue about Kevin's activities.
: All in all, we can divide his viewpoints into three categories: egocentric, malign, and revolting. There are some whiney hate-filled menaces who are smarmy. There are also some who are filthy. Which category does Kevin fall into? If the question overwhelms you, I suggest you check "both". I can't predict the future, but I do know this: Many people who follow his ultimata have come to the erroneous conclusion that there's no difference between normal people like you and me and the worst sorts of viperine pinheads I've ever seen. The truth of the matter is that I didn't want to talk about this. I really didn't. But Kevin's impolitic diatribes leave the current power structure untouched while simultaneously killing countless children through starvation and disease. Are these children his enemies?
: That's a very important point; it's really not bloody-mindedness that compels me to operate on today's real -- not tomorrow's ideal -- political terrain. It's my sense of responsibility to you, the reader. I wouldn't want to incite an atmosphere of violence and endangerment toward the good men, women, and children of this state. I would, on the other hand, love to explain a few facets of this confusing world around us. But, hey, I'm already doing that with this letter. Not to belabor the point, but Kevin will dismantle the family unit because he possesses a hatred that defies all logic and understanding, that cannot be quantified or reasoned away, and that savagely possesses temperamental smart alecks with pestilential and uncontrollable rage. Unfortunately, I can already see the response to this letter. Someone, possibly Kevin Smith himself or one of his cronies, will write a teetotalism-prone piece about how foul-mouthed I am. If that's the case, then so be it. What I just wrote sorely needed to be written.