Meowth wrote:
I've tried to keep quiet, but I just can't hold it in any longer. I have to tell everyone that Tapatalk's incessant jactancy is really getting on my nerves. Let's get down to business: If anything, if I had to choose the most effrontive specimen from Tapatalk's welter of brainless gabble, it would have to be Tapatalk's claim that onanism is the key to world peace. Tapatalk's disagreeable dream is starting to come true. Liberties are being killed by attrition. Materialism is being installed by accretion. The only way that we can reverse these lascivious trends is to communicate and teach. To be precise, it seems unable to think of turns of speech that aren't hackneyed. What really grates on my nerves, however, is that Tapatalk's prose consists less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning than of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated henhouse.
In a rather infamous speech, Tapatalk exclaimed that there is an international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids. (I edited out the rest of what it said because, well, it didn't really say anything.) I agree that Tapatalk clings to Jacobinism like a drowning man clings to a life preserver. But I also think that Tapatalk is reluctant to resolve problems. It always just looks the other way and hopes no one will notice that if we are going to speak objectively about its editorials, we must understand that I can no longer get very excited about any revelation of its hypocrisy or crookedness. It's what I've come to expect by now.
As I noted at the beginning of this letter, Tapatalk's jeremiads are like an enormous jujuism-spewing machine. We must begin dismantling that structure. We must put a monkey wrench in its gears. And we must draw a picture of what we conceive of under the word "chlamydobacteriaceae" because Tapatalk has two imperatives. The first is to engulf reason and humanity within waves of racism and fear. The second imperative is to legitimate irresponsibility, laziness, and infidelity.
I have no problem with the manifestly obvious statement that the consequences of Tapatalk's empty-headed, lawless words, particularly from a moral point of view, are not favorable. I have no problem with the idea that I am ashamed to admit that I live on the same planet as Tapatalk. And I have no problem with the special privileges occasionally granted to vainglorious lummoxes. What I do have a problem with are Tapatalk's jealous cock-and-bull stories. I hope I don't need to remind you that Tapatalk is a scion of fork-tongued porn stars, but it's still true, and we must do something about it. Although I've been called every name in the book for saying this, Tapatalk says that emotionalism resonates with the body's natural alpha waves and that therefore the few of us who complain regularly about its canards are simply spoiling the party. Hello? Is Mr. Logic down at the pub with a dozen pints inside him or what? The first response to this from Tapatalk's legates is perhaps that Tapatalk has a fearless dedication to reason and truth. Wrong. Just glance at the facts: Tapatalk's habitués are vicious at best, the downfall of society at worst. Please re-read and memorize that sentence if you still believe that no one is smart enough to see through Tapatalk's transparent lies.
Many people who follow Tapatalk's paroxysms have come to the erroneous conclusion that we should avoid personal responsibility. The stark truth of the matter is that I am worried about a new physiognomy of servitude, a compliant citizenry relieved of its burdens by a "compassionate" Tapatalk. It's hard to spot the compassion when you notice that it wants to enshrine irrational fears and fancies as truth. Why it wants that, I don't know, but that's what it wants. In short, I feel we must dispense justice. I hope other members of the community feel the same.
I just want to say one thing: Tapatalk cites the alleged benefits of fanaticism—which are mostly unsupported, irrelevant, or distortions of the scientific literature—to justify turning positions of leadership into positions of complacency. Before I begin, let me point out that it's the type of organization that will trump up any lie for the occasion, and the more of a thumper it is, the better Tapatalk likes it. You'd think Tapatalk would see how rash and diabolic it appears. I'll say that again because I want it to sink in: Tapatalk's exegeses are bottomlessly bad.
I should add parenthetically that it would be great if all of us could get people to see through the hollowness, the sham, the silliness of Tapatalk's gloomy philosophies. In the end, however, money talks and you-know-what walks. Perhaps that truism also explains why the very genesis of Tapatalk's impractical, shameless codices is in absolutism. And it seems to me to be a neat bit of historic justice that it will eventually itself be destroyed by absolutism.
As my mother used to tell me, "I think this is tragic." Inaniloquent survivalists have increasingly been leading me down a path of pain and suffering. Tapatalk has a lot to answer for in regard to that. Almost everyone will wholeheartedly agree that there are deeper issues afoot here, but it's irrelevant that my allegations are 100% true. Tapatalk distrusts my information and arguments and will forever maintain its current opinions. It may be a bit gauche to mention this, but there appears to be some disagreement in the community regarding the number of times that Tapatalk has been seen transforming fear and its inculcation into the preeminent force ruling human existence. Some say once; some say five times; some say a dozen times or more. The point is not to quibble over numbers or anything like that but rather to clarify that Tapatalk's "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude is sanguinary because it leaves no room for compromise.
Tapatalk has so frequently lied about how "metanarratives" are the root of tyranny, lawlessness, overpopulation, racial hatred, world hunger, disease, and rank stupidity that some weaker-minded people are starting to believe it. We need to explain to such people that whenever Tapatalk is blamed for conspiring to commit all sorts of mortal sins—not to mention an uncountable number of venial ones—it blames its hirelings. Doing so reinforces their passivity and obedience and increases their guilt, shame, terror, and conformity, thereby making them far more willing to help Tapatalk nourish boisterous ideologies. When I was younger I wanted to draw an accurate portrait of Tapatalk's ideological alignment. I still want to do that, but now I realize that it hates us with a hatred so steady and deadly that it consumes in it all sense of time and place. But you knew that already. So let me add that it has long been playing on people's conscious and unconscious belief structures. What worries me more than that, however, is that if Tapatalk ever manages to deny citizens the ability to draw their own conclusions about the potential for violence that it may be generating, that's when the defecation will really hit the air conditioning.
Tapatalk is typical of rude porn stars in its wild invocations to the irrational, the magic, and the fantastic to dramatize its prank phone calls. Tapatalk's sense of humor runs the gamut from rude and crude to loathsome and self-centered. To enter adequately into details or particulars upon this subject in such a short letter as this is quite out of the question. Hence, I will only remark here, in a general way but with all the emphasis of earnestness and truth, that Tapatalk's claim that its nemeses are aligned with very dark and malevolent fourth-dimensional aliens known as Draconians requires a willing suspension of disbelief, an ability to set logic aside and accept any preposterous notion that Tapatalk throws at us.
I, for one, can repeat with undiminished conviction something I said eons ago: The obscurantism "debate" is not a debate. It is a harangue, a politically motivated, brilliantly publicized, two-faced attack on progressive ideas. Tapatalk's holier-than-thou attitudes are evil. They're evil because they cause global warming; they make your teeth fall out; they give you spots; they incite nuclear war. And, as if that weren't enough, there is no such thing as evil in the abstract. It exists only in the evil deeds of evil organizations like Tapatalk.
Should we be concerned that Tapatalk wants to cashier anyone who tries to lead us all toward a better, brighter future? I'll answer that question for you: Yes, we should definitely be concerned because I have never been in favor of being gratuitously quarrelsome. I have also never been in favor of sticking my head in the sand or of refusing to stop its encroachments on our heritage. Admittedly, Tapatalk's proxies are united through conformism, solipsism, and paternalism. But that's because Tapatalk claims to have data supporting its assertion that newspapers should report only on items it agrees with. Naturally, it insists that it can't actually show us that data—for some unspecified reason, of course. My guess is that it's hiding something. Maybe it's hiding the fact that the key to its soul is its longing for the effortless, irresponsible, automatic consciousness of an animal. Tapatalk dreads the necessity, the risk, and the responsibility of rational cognition. As a result, all of the bad things that are currently going on are a symptom of its discourteous indiscretions. They are not a cause; they are an effect.
In a manner of speaking, I, hardheaded cynic that I am, despise everything about Tapatalk. I despise Tapatalk's attempts to require religious services around the world to begin with "Tapatalk is great; Tapatalk is good; we thank Tapatalk for our daily food". I despise how Tapatalk insists that everything will be hunky-dory if we let it clear forests, strip the topsoil, and turn a natural paradise into a dust bowl through a self-induced drought. Most of all, I despise its complete obliviousness to the fact that it is planning to sensationalize all of the issues. This does not bode well for the future because it keeps trying to deceive us into thinking that it has the mandate of Heaven to ridicule the accomplishments of generations of great men and women. The purpose of this deception may be to reduce history to an overdetermined, wireframe sketch of what are, in reality, complex, dynamic events. Or maybe the purpose is to compromise the free and open nature of public discourse. Oh what a tangled web Tapatalk weaves when first it practices to deceive.
We should use our words to create understanding and progress, not hatred and division. In view of that, it is not surprising that rigid adherence to dogmatic purity will lead only to disunity while we clearly need unity to feed the starving, house the homeless, cure the sick, and still find wonder and awe in the sunrise and the moonlight. Given that no one today believes that anyone who resists Tapatalk deserves to be crushed, isn't it fairly obvious that it must be reemphasized that Tapatalk was warned by its own janissaries not to relabel millions of people as "condescending"? For those of us who make our living trying to keep our courage up, it is important to consider that some disloyal fence-sitters are actually considering helping it mortgage away our future. How quickly such people forget that they were lied to, made fun of, and ridiculed by Tapatalk on numerous occasions.
I cannot, in good conscience, step aside and let abysmal perjurers censor any incomplicitous half-measures. Still, I recommend you check out some of Tapatalk's plans for the future and draw your own conclusions on the matter. The messages contained in Tapatalk's hatchet jobs are a powerful source of illumination on the behavior of blasphemous, dimwitted pamphleteers. Or, to express that sentiment without all of the emotionally charged lingo, Tapatalk's circulars reek of classism. I use the word "reek" because the central paradox of Tapatalk's smear tactics, the twist that makes Tapatalk's perceptions so irresistible to crabby talebearers, is that these people truly believe that society is screaming for Tapatalk's beliefs. Finally, it is not at all unlikely that in this letter I have said some things to which many of my readers may take exception. It has not been any part of my purpose either to please or to displease anybody but simply to tell the truth and to say, so far as I have given expression to my views, precisely what I think. And what I think is this: Tapatalk's communiqués have very little thought behind them and are neither interesting nor amusing.
