Emails regularly filter in from readers, informing me of things they liked, didn’t, or just wanted to discuss. Usually, the emails are from regular readers, so I have some idea who they are even if I don’t exactly “know” them. Some are heartwarming. Some are dumb.
On occasion, I send an email in response. On very rare occasion, it strikes me as worthy of a post. This is such a time.
From: David Surratt
Re: “Vitamins, A Field Test And Deputy Dolt”
I have no clue who David Suratt is. There are, unsurprisingly, a few around. Was he the lawyer in Dallas? Was he the Associate Dean of Students at Berekely? Was he some other David Surratt? Beats me, although there is something about his email that says “Berkeley” to me. Among other things.
As the subject line showed, he was writing about a recent post wherein a woman, Rebecca Shaw, spent five months in jail for possessing vitamins. This was one of those posts that not only raised issues of concern to criminal law, but would be of interest to the community of outrage-fashionistas. And, indeed, it brought the knowledgeable and moronic to SJ.
Important article, thanks for writing it. However, shortly into your article you wrote ” At this peculiar moment in time, the unduly passionate have taken notice of undocumented immigrants, a group that’s suffered outrageous treatment for decades and was utterly ignored.”
It begins with the very typical pedagogical nonsense that children and the intellectually stunted find valuable, preface what you have to say with praise, a spoonful of sugar to smooth the way for the pain that follows. As for what I wrote, I already knew it. You see, I wrote it.
What in the world prompts you to take a shot at people who feel strongly about an issue that you aren’t even writing about? Maybe you mean something different than what you actually wrote? If not, can you please explain why you think that those of us who feel strongly about the current treatment of undocumented immigrants are “unduly” passionate?
He’s got a point, as my digression into the hypocritical idiocy of people who have no clue what they’re talking about, no clue what the problems were and are, how we got there, how we fix it, how it had been happening for decades while they discovered how to count to 21 with their diapers off, and now how they miraculously discovered it when it suited their need to “feel strongly” about whatever self-righteous lies they were told by their tribe, was gratuitous.
I took the opportunity to make the point I wished to make, that these trend-followers are worthless scum whose real purpose is emoting for the benefit of acceptance by their friends. When hems go higher, they will follow. Lower, then too. Whatever is virtuous is what they’ll signal.
But am I being too harsh, as they have stepped forward for a good cause, even if they can’t be bothered to learn what they pretend to talk about, and compensate for the weakness of their knowledge with the strength of their passion. Shouldn’t they be welcomed to the cause?
Some believe they should. So what if they’re ignorant and insincere. For the moment, they’re useful idiots, and contribute voices for a beneficial outcome even if they have no real clue why. I do not. Their “answers” are childish, like Abolish ICE. They don’t know the issues, the problems or the solutions. Passion is good enough for platitudes. And they will be gone with the next breeze, when the latest Trump outrage diverts their attention. Did someone shout “squirrel”?
Surratt asks me to “please explain.” But he’s no less a liar here than he is in his self-righteous self-defense. He isn’t really seeking an explanation, as anyone who seeks an explanation does so in advance of deciding their position. After all, if your mind is made up, what difference does an explanation make? And so Surratt concludes:
You need to apologize, in writing, online where your readers will see it. Shame on you!
There are probably a great many things for which I owe my readers an apology. My strained prose. My typos. My occasional errors and misreadings. But does some random white knight get to demand I apologize for hurting the feelings of the unduly passionate idiots? Are you, my readers, the blithering idiots who comprise the sad group for whom this scold believes himself entitled to speak? And not merely apologize, but
- In writing.
- Where my readers will see it
Is he your spokesmodel, dear readers? I suspect not. He obviously believes that he is entitled to channel Miss Grundy, scolding me for violating his sad self-esteem and ordering me, upon pain of “shame on you!,” to do as demands.
Since David Surratt felt himself entitled to email me to chastise me for my failure to appreciate the passion, the wokeness, the feelings of his ilk that are so overwhelmingly important that it compelled him to make such a demand, I would be remiss in not replying: Bite me, asshole. Grow the fuck up.
And should he be the Surratt from Berekely, as seems most likely, I reiterate the warning, volenti non fit injuria.