Friday, March 18, 2016

if you're crispy, it's because you were burned

Mr Sartwell's dilemma gives me deja vu when I look at the saga of GRH v UNSF/Caidagh as portrayed in the links to the right ---->

...meaning, those under the heading

pay-PAH! git yo' pay-PAH!

One might say there was a good reason I worked up that yarn-ball. Like, uh, it was an actual direction our society was taking, not just something a stupid reactionary idiot such as myself imagined because he's paranoid about the stupidity of SJW/SWPL "progress" mandates and bright lines extant in our society today.

Foolish, functionally blind progressives, leftists, Democrats, liberals:  you all have been cheering for this sort of crap.


Maybe the most insipid thing in the Sartwell case as it's developing is the mental illness accusation, but I have to say it's consistent with SJW/progressive/liberal/leftist tactics as I've experienced them both in-person and in the ethereal internet/cloud environment.

You might even say that's one of the driving forces behind this blog:  mockery of that absurd mental illness of solipsistic narcissism which drives the narcissistic solipsist to accuse anyone who isn't Politically Correct and label them with the "mentally ill" tag.

If you want to know why people are "inexplicably" rushing to support The Donald, here's your reason in large part.  Right here.  Meaning, what's happening to Mr Sartwell.

Meanwhile, good leftist/progressive/liberal Democrats, congratulations on intolerance.  Well done.


Chet Redweld said...

Enlisting the support of a pompous blowhard like David Graeber is only going to hurt Mr Sartwell's case, but I wish him luck anyway. "Him" there being Sartwell; Graeber can go pound broken glass with his pathetic wordiness and pompous self-righteousness.

Chet Redweld said...

One thing I'd offer to Mr Sartwell for free: when describing your situation, lay off the adjectives and adverbs.

That's how plaintiffs' personal injury lawyers argue things, and PPI attys are not well respected in the circles where legal process and legal rights are at issue. Though I'd bet Graeber has some strange ideological reason for thinking that's the best path, given his left-anarchist pose hiding progressive values.

Chet Redweld said...

Freebie No. 2:

When you self-identify as an anarchist (to any degree, of any stripe) then you begin at a distinct disadvantage. Self-identity as anarchy-empathetic and you get demerits from the start since most think anarchism literally means all females will be raped then murdered, all males will be murdered or enslaved, all children meet worse fates -- all at the hands of "anarchists."

This is why alignment with Graeber is, to be blunt, STUPID. Not only does he double-down on "anarchist" negative impression at the opposite side of the bargaining table, he's got a style that is distinctly unplayful in contrast to your own.

You need a lawyer who is prim-n-proper enough to have the ear of the Dick-in-Son College board, faculty, parents-of-students, etc., as well as laudable in the eyes of Pennsylvania's state and federal judiciaries.

David Graeber ain't that man, and wouldn't be even if he did have a JD to his name.

Your defense should not be premised upon or related to self-description as "anarchist," unless you want to lose the game before it starts.

Chet Redweld said...

Said differently:

To a leftist-progressive-liberal-Democrat (and maybe including -Marxist), "anarchist" means the same thing as

Caesar's Legion

means to people in the in-game world of Fallout-New Vegas.

See here:'s_Legion

Chet Redweld said...

And naturally, to 97%+ of the rightist-conservative-neocon-tradcon-paleocon-Republicans, "anarchist" means the same.

The reserved 3% is wishful and presumes some of the "libertarian" people may empathize. May.

Good luck having any of them on the other side of the bargaining table. Much more likely the people opposite you are in a position to disavow the wisdom of ever hiring someone who self-IDs as anarchist-empathetic or -leaning. Lets them walk away clean-handed, in their minds/projected personae, if they can do that.

The general historical demographic of Dickinson is showing itself through the college's handling of this matter.

On your side of the table, strength in the point that Dickinson admin was deficient in its awareness of a faculty member's publication (written and blogging) activity. By not telling OK professor and OK LE that you're a jokily provocative sort (hey, look at the HISTORY of his blog's post, ferpetesake) and thus nothing to worry about when OK prof over-reacts like a good Social Justice Warrior/permanently oppressed thin-skinned eggshell-ego'd pre-teen, Dickinson admin looks foolish, as if it was caught by surprise at the Miranda Lambert video and the OK prof's absurd reaction to its existence on your blog.

Paul Behrer said...

Absolutely, Chet. My quote (which Chuck urged for placement on the right margin, thanks Chuck!) pings that absurdity:

The world spins on an axis, right? So what's the axis? It's not mechanical. There isn't a physical axle running North Pole to South Pole. No, the axis is absurdity. And you know what shows this? Your belief that you can know someone else's mind and plumb someone else's heart simply by reading a post on the internet.

Charles F. Oxtrot said...

Wisdom often appears at curious times, from unlikely sources. You're welcome, Pablo. Least I could do after discharging myself from regular duties here.