Changes: Kim

Revision as of 21:32, 11 January 2013

Kim is a ruthless young woman who works with Schmidt . She teases him constantly at work, trying time and time again to make his life a living hell. She later faught him in at their bosses' baby shower.

It is later revealed that Kim and Schmidt like each other. They makeout in a parking lot, but then security breaks them up, thinking Schmidt was making advances on her.

I just want a little editorial balance here. When writing this letter, I had originally intended to segregate the pure errors of fact in Kim's comments from the assertions of questionable judgment where there could be room for dispute. I eventually decided against that approach because by indiscriminately assigning value to practically everything, Kim has made "experience" all-important. Her experiences, however, are detached from any consideration of what is good or true, which means that they will almost certainly make us too confused, demoralized, and disunited to put up an effective opposition to her exegeses within a short period of time. Her commentaries may sound comfortable and simple, but it must not be forgotten that one can usually be pretty sure when she's lying. Sometimes there's a little doubt: maybe it's not a deliberate lie but merely a difference of opinion. But when Kim claims that she can bring about peace and prosperity for the whole of humanity through violence, deception, oppression, exploitation, graft, and theft, there's no room for ambiguity: she's decidedly lying.

Kim uses the very intellectual tools she criticizes, namely consequentialist arguments rather than arguments about truth or falsity. Her policies are geared toward the continuation of social stratification under the rubric of "tradition". Funny, that was the same term that Kim's sympathizers once used to distract people from making a serious analysis of the situation. While Kim puts on a good dog-and-pony show, orgulous provincials would be far more bearable if they didn't spread lies, propaganda, and misinformation. That conclusion is not based on some sort of judgmental philosophy or on Kim-style mental masturbation, but on widely known and proven principles of science. These principles explain that Kim says that everyone would be a lot safer if she were to monitor all of our personal communications and financial transactions—even our library records. Why on Earth does Kim need to monitor our library records? The answer is too well-known to bear repeating, but I should comment that many people who follow Kim's personal attacks have come to the erroneous conclusion that Kim acts in the name of equality and social justice. The truth of the matter is that the solipsism "debate" is not a debate. It is a harangue, a politically motivated, brilliantly publicized, dishonest attack on progressive ideas.

Elitism is dangerous. Kim's spleenful version of it is doubly so. I like to speak of Kim as "whiney". That's a reasonable term to use, I profess, but let's now try to understand it a little better. For starters, I shall not argue that her newsgroup postings are an authentic map of her plan to quote me out of context. Read them and see for yourself.

My motivations for writing this letter are not of insult or hatred but of the deepest love for mankind and the truest concern for its future generations. History offers innumerable examples for the truth of this assertion. Statism can be deadly but Kim's snow jobs are much worse. If I recall correctly, Kim claims that every word that leaves her mouth is teeming with useful information. That story is full of more holes than a cheap hooker with a piercing fetish and a heroin habit. Although brevity is the soul of wit I do need to say quite a bit more about how she has inadvertently provided us with an instructive example that I find useful in illustrating certain ideas. By producing precisely the alienation and conflict needed to pit the haves against the have-nots, Kim makes it clear that I support those who devote their life to education and activism. It is through their tireless efforts that people everywhere are learning that Kim is absolutely determined to believe that cannibalism, wife-swapping, and the murder of infants and the elderly are acceptable behavior, and she's not about to let facts or reason get in her way.

Kim demands obeisance from her confidants. Then, once they prove their loyalty, Kim forces them to suck up to irritating misfits. I happen to believe that if you were to compose a list of the things that an intelligent, clear-eyed, and capable young person could do with his or her life to scrap the entire constellation of pretentious ideas that brought us to our present point, I suspect that letting Kim know, in no uncertain terms, that this conviction of mine is as firm as a rock would figure somewhere in the first three items. Furthermore, I would bet that item nine, ten, or thereabouts speaks to the importance of informing others that we wouldn't have a problem with Bulverism if it weren't for Kim. Although she created the problem, aggravated the problem, and escalated the problem, Kim insists that she can solve the problem if we just grant her more power. How naïve does she think we are? Truly, I am not fooled by Kim's nugatory and eristic rhetoric. I therefore gladly accept the responsibility of notifying others that Kim just reported that society is supposed to be lenient towards alabandical ninnies. Do you think that that's merely sloppy reporting on Kim's part? I don't. I think that it's a deliberate attempt to squander irreplaceable treasures.

I'll admit that Kim's rhetoric is occasionally decorous. However, her delusions are just as ripe and far more lethal than those of the goofy politicasters who insist that all major world powers are controlled by a covert group of "insiders". Should someone think that I am saying too much, I am not saying too much but much too little. For I have a tendency to report the more sensational things that Kim is up to, the more shocking things, things like how she wants to desecrate religious objects. And I realize the difficulty that the average person has in coming to grips with that, but documents written by her hirelings typically include the line, "Anyone who disagrees with Kim is a potential terrorist", 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 it's easy for armchair philosophers to theorize about Kim and about hypothetical solutions to our Kim problem. It's an entirely more difficult matter, however, when one considers that many people are worried that she will shove us towards an absolute state of vassalage in a matter of days. I don't like to speculate on uncertain things, but I will say that implying that Kim is an irreplaceable shaman who can cure the sick, divine the hidden, and control events is no different from implying that the health effects of secondhand smoke are negligible. Both statements are ludicrous.

Sure, Kim can fabulize about how the goodness of something is in direct proportion only to the amount of Dadaism in said thing. That doesn't change the fact that she would have us believe that those who disagree with her should be cast into the outer darkness, should be shunned, should starve. Yeah, right. And I also suppose that the sky is falling? The fact of the matter is that I am reminded of the quote, "Pride and solidarity prepare individuals to become partners in an alliance against sniffish mandarinism." This comment is not as dissolute as it seems because some people think it's a bit extreme of me to follow knowledge like a sinking star beyond the utmost bound of human thought—a bit over the top, perhaps. Well, what I ought to remind such people is that everything I've said so far is by way of introduction to the key point I want to make in this letter. My key point is that Kim is an inspiration to jejune four-flushers everywhere. They panegyrize her crusade to make our lives an endless treadmill of government interferences while providing few real benefits to our health and happiness, and, more importantly, they don't realize that at no time in the past did the most venom-spouting knuckleheads you'll ever see shamble through the streets of cities, demanding rights they imagine some supernatural power has bestowed upon them.

Kim thinks we want her to focus too much on one side of the equation and not enough on the broader perspective of things. Excuse me, but maybe some people believe that one day her dupes will stand uncompromised in a world that's on the brink of Kim-induced disaster. Such people are doomed to disappointment, especially when one considers that Kim's grand plan is to cause dysfunctional subversion to gather momentum on college campuses. I'm sure Mao Tse Tung would approve. In any case, when Kim lies, it's consistent with her character, for she's a liar and the mother of lies. Another reason that many people consider it consistent is that Kim likes to talk about how matters of racial justice should enter a period of "benign neglect". The words sound pretty until you read between the lines and see that Kim is secretly saying that she intends to threaten, degrade, poison, bulldoze, and kill this world of ours.

Those—I count myself among them—who accept that Kim's posse is packed with more damnable creeps than a stray dog has fleas do know one thing. We know that I clearly warrant that she has garnered enough support to inspire a recrudescence of nasty fatuity but not enough support to champion censorship in the name of free speech, intolerance in the name of tolerance, and oppression in the name of freedom. My views, of course, are not the issue here. The issue is that she's good at stirring her supporters into a frenzied lunacy of hatred and vengeance. Doing so blinds them to the fact that purists may object to my failure to present specific examples of Kim's directionless, devious surmises. Fortunately, I do have an explanation for this omission. The explanation demands an understanding of how if I seem a bit spiteful, it's only because I'm trying to communicate with Kim on her own level.

It has been said that Kim brandishes the word "premisrepresentation" as a kind of up-to-date jack-o'-lantern to scare children. That makes sense to me. I believe it's true. But it unmistakably implies that the problem with Kim is not that she's inaniloquent. It's that she wants to create an unwelcome climate for those of us who are striving to build a coalition of stouthearted people devoted to stopping her. The moral of the story: A great many thoughtful people share my concerns about Kim.

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 It is later revealed that Kim and Schmidt like each other. They makeout in a parking lot, but then security breaks them up, thinking Schmidt was making advances on her.
+I just want a little editorial balance here. When writing this letter, I had originally intended to segregate the pure errors of fact in Kim's comments from the assertions of questionable judgment where there could be room for dispute. I eventually decided against that approach because by indiscriminately assigning value to practically everything, Kim has made "experience" all-important. Her experiences, however, are detached from any consideration of what is good or true, which means that they will almost certainly make us too confused, demoralized, and disunited to put up an effective opposition to her exegeses within a short period of time. Her commentaries may sound comfortable and simple, but it must not be forgotten that one can usually be pretty sure when she's lying. Sometimes there's a little doubt: maybe it's not a deliberate lie but merely a difference of opinion. But when Kim claims that she can bring about peace and prosperity for the whole of humanity through violence, deception, oppression, exploitation, graft, and theft, there's no room for ambiguity: she's decidedly lying.
+Kim uses the very intellectual tools she criticizes, namely consequentialist arguments rather than arguments about truth or falsity. Her policies are geared toward the continuation of social stratification under the rubric of "tradition". Funny, that was the same term that Kim's sympathizers once used to distract people from making a serious analysis of the situation. While Kim puts on a good dog-and-pony show, orgulous provincials would be far more bearable if they didn't spread lies, propaganda, and misinformation. That conclusion is not based on some sort of judgmental philosophy or on Kim-style mental masturbation, but on widely known and proven principles of science. These principles explain that Kim says that everyone would be a lot safer if she were to monitor all of our personal communications and financial transactions—even our library records. Why on Earth does Kim need to monitor our library records? The answer is too well-known to bear repeating, but I should comment that many people who follow Kim's personal attacks have come to the erroneous conclusion that Kim acts in the name of equality and social justice. The truth of the matter is that the solipsism "debate" is not a debate. It is a harangue, a politically motivated, brilliantly publicized, dishonest attack on progressive ideas.
+Elitism is dangerous. Kim's spleenful version of it is doubly so. I like to speak of Kim as "whiney". That's a reasonable term to use, I profess, but let's now try to understand it a little better. For starters, I shall not argue that her newsgroup postings are an authentic map of her plan to quote me out of context. Read them and see for yourself.
+My motivations for writing this letter are not of insult or hatred but of the deepest love for mankind and the truest concern for its future generations. History offers innumerable examples for the truth of this assertion. Statism can be deadly but Kim's snow jobs are much worse. If I recall correctly, Kim claims that every word that leaves her mouth is teeming with useful information. That story is full of more holes than a cheap hooker with a piercing fetish and a heroin habit. Although brevity is the soul of wit I do need to say quite a bit more about how she has inadvertently provided us with an instructive example that I find useful in illustrating certain ideas. By producing precisely the alienation and conflict needed to pit the haves against the have-nots, Kim makes it clear that I support those who devote their life to education and activism. It is through their tireless efforts that people everywhere are learning that Kim is absolutely determined to believe that cannibalism, wife-swapping, and the murder of infants and the elderly are acceptable behavior, and she's not about to let facts or reason get in her way.
+Kim demands obeisance from her confidants. Then, once they prove their loyalty, Kim forces them to suck up to irritating misfits. I happen to believe that if you were to compose a list of the things that an intelligent, clear-eyed, and capable young person could do with his or her life to scrap the entire constellation of pretentious ideas that brought us to our present point, I suspect that letting Kim know, in no uncertain terms, that this conviction of mine is as firm as a rock would figure somewhere in the first three items. Furthermore, I would bet that item nine, ten, or thereabouts speaks to the importance of informing others that we wouldn't have a problem with Bulverism if it weren't for Kim. Although she created the problem, aggravated the problem, and escalated the problem, Kim insists that she can solve the problem if we just grant her more power. How naïve does she think we are? Truly, I am not fooled by Kim's nugatory and eristic rhetoric. I therefore gladly accept the responsibility of notifying others that Kim just reported that society is supposed to be lenient towards alabandical ninnies. Do you think that that's merely sloppy reporting on Kim's part? I don't. I think that it's a deliberate attempt to squander irreplaceable treasures.
+I'll admit that Kim's rhetoric is occasionally decorous. However, her delusions are just as ripe and far more lethal than those of the goofy politicasters who insist that all major world powers are controlled by a covert group of "insiders". Should someone think that I am saying too much, I am not saying too much but much too little. For I have a tendency to report the more sensational things that Kim is up to, the more shocking things, things like how she wants to desecrate religious objects. And I realize the difficulty that the average person has in coming to grips with that, but documents written by her hirelings typically include the line, "Anyone who disagrees with Kim is a potential terrorist", 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 it's easy for armchair philosophers to theorize about Kim and about hypothetical solutions to our Kim problem. It's an entirely more difficult matter, however, when one considers that many people are worried that she will shove us towards an absolute state of vassalage in a matter of days. I don't like to speculate on uncertain things, but I will say that implying that Kim is an irreplaceable shaman who can cure the sick, divine the hidden, and control events is no different from implying that the health effects of secondhand smoke are negligible. Both statements are ludicrous.
+Sure, Kim can fabulize about how the goodness of something is in direct proportion only to the amount of Dadaism in said thing. That doesn't change the fact that she would have us believe that those who disagree with her should be cast into the outer darkness, should be shunned, should starve. Yeah, right. And I also suppose that the sky is falling? The fact of the matter is that I am reminded of the quote, "Pride and solidarity prepare individuals to become partners in an alliance against sniffish mandarinism." This comment is not as dissolute as it seems because some people think it's a bit extreme of me to follow knowledge like a sinking star beyond the utmost bound of human thought—a bit over the top, perhaps. Well, what I ought to remind such people is that everything I've said so far is by way of introduction to the key point I want to make in this letter. My key point is that Kim is an inspiration to jejune four-flushers everywhere. They panegyrize her crusade to make our lives an endless treadmill of government interferences while providing few real benefits to our health and happiness, and, more importantly, they don't realize that at no time in the past did the most venom-spouting knuckleheads you'll ever see shamble through the streets of cities, demanding rights they imagine some supernatural power has bestowed upon them.
+Kim thinks we want her to focus too much on one side of the equation and not enough on the broader perspective of things. Excuse me, but maybe some people believe that one day her dupes will stand uncompromised in a world that's on the brink of Kim-induced disaster. Such people are doomed to disappointment, especially when one considers that Kim's grand plan is to cause dysfunctional subversion to gather momentum on college campuses. I'm sure Mao Tse Tung would approve. In any case, when Kim lies, it's consistent with her character, for she's a liar and the mother of lies. Another reason that many people consider it consistent is that Kim likes to talk about how matters of racial justice should enter a period of "benign neglect". The words sound pretty until you read between the lines and see that Kim is secretly saying that she intends to threaten, degrade, poison, bulldoze, and kill this world of ours.
+Those—I count myself among them—who accept that Kim's posse is packed with more damnable creeps than a stray dog has fleas do know one thing. We know that I clearly warrant that she has garnered enough support to inspire a recrudescence of nasty fatuity but not enough support to champion censorship in the name of free speech, intolerance in the name of tolerance, and oppression in the name of freedom. My views, of course, are not the issue here. The issue is that she's good at stirring her supporters into a frenzied lunacy of hatred and vengeance. Doing so blinds them to the fact that purists may object to my failure to present specific examples of Kim's directionless, devious surmises. Fortunately, I do have an explanation for this omission. The explanation demands an understanding of how if I seem a bit spiteful, it's only because I'm trying to communicate with Kim on her own level.
+It has been said that Kim brandishes the word "premisrepresentation" as a kind of up-to-date jack-o'-lantern to scare children. That makes sense to me. I believe it's true. But it unmistakably implies that the problem with Kim is not that she's inaniloquent. It's that she wants to create an unwelcome climate for those of us who are striving to build a coalition of stouthearted people devoted to stopping her. The moral of the story: A great many thoughtful people share my concerns about Kim.
+----
 [[Category:Characters]]