Capital, it fails us now. Comrades, let us seize the time!
It has come to my attention that my general method of dealing with things that are Bad and Wrong is to shout and froth and threaten to beat people to death with woodland animals, and that this is perhaps not as effective as reasoned argument would be. However, I honestly believe that people who perpetrate this shit really should know exactly how repulsive their nasty little views are. And so I have registered a second email address. My current email address (my username@gmail.com) is to be used for rationally debating and querying hateful things, and my secondary address (reuben.tremelan@googlemail.com) for injecting the unrighteous with BILE. BILE FROM MY BLACK, BLACK HEART AHAHA.
Therefore:
Original Article
TO: Tom Mountain (tmount117@hotmail.com)
FROM: Withiel's Gmail Address.
Dear Mr. Mountain,
Having read your article on the appointment of queer principals in Newton, I have a number of queries, the first of which relates to your understanding of statistics. Specifically, your article places no motives upon Mr. Young's choice of employee other than his sexuality, and you assert that his selection of two queer principals seems to indicate a bias towards gay teachers. Firstly, given that a proportion of between five to ten percent of the population is in fact queer, it is in fact perfectly statistically likely, and not at all automatically indicative of foul play, that a gay man should happen to appoint two people who happen to be gay. Moreover, your statement that "Newton is the first city in the nation to hire gay principals for both of its high schools" implies that most other cities have at least one straight principal for any given number of high schools. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that in almost all situations where a superintendant hires a principal, they will both be straight, given the statistics involved (If 10% of people are gay, say, 90% of the population is straight &c). However, you don't seem to think that one straight person employing another suggests bias or corruption. I'd be very interested in hearing how this conception of statistics is logically consistent, and how it might apply to, say, one African-American employing another. You have also omitted any evidence whatsoever that the sexuality of either applicant was discussed when they were interviewed: you imply that Mr. Young was aware that these two teachers were in fact gay at the time of application without providing any proof that this is in fact the case. It seems somewhat odd behaviour for a journalist to make implications about a person's possible corruptness without backing it up in any way. Equally out of character is the attempt at science-fiction in the first paragraph: What, exactly, would be the significance of the appointment of a trans principal? Given the tone of your article, it seems that this is intended to be a shocking vision of the future, presciently warning the masses of Newton of what will happen if this pernicious business of tolerance and diversity is allowed to continue, but I fail to see what would be particularly frightening about a transgendered person having a post as an educator. Furthermore, this makes even less sense when taken into context with the following article: considering that being transgender and being gay are very different things (and that incidentally, being trans comes under "gender" rather than "sexual orientation") it is not entirely clear why it would be that a hypothetical future Jeffrey Young would be biased towards transgender employees. This is even more confusing given that Jeffrey Young is gay, and there are both straight and queer transpeople. Any clarification on these points would be greatly appreciated, as I really don't see how they hang together. I'd also like to question your use of assertions such as "Parents, students and teachers across the city readily agree that gay teachers are becoming so numerous in the school system it's almost a given that retiring teachers are replaced with gay teachers.". Considering the magnitude of this statement, to not back it up with some sort of evidence would seem to make it look like a ridiculous exaggeration. Also, I'd be very interested to hear how one obtains statistics on the "migration of gays", given that I don't believe the State requires the statement of one's sexuality on any sort of official form. I'd really appreciate it if you could address some of my queries about your article, because, as you can see, it contains a number of elements I simply don't understand.
Yours, a concerned fellow journalist hoping for a response,
W. Black, Esq
TO: Tom Mountain (tmount117@hotmail.com)
FROM: reuben.tremelean@googlemail.com
Mr Mountain.
You are a worthless excuse for a human being.
In fact, that's too generous. There is no excuse for your monumental twattery. You are a LIVING SHIT who has managed to produce an article so repulsively inflamatory and, to be perfectly honest, really fucking badly written that I am surprised your hateful little fingers didn't catch fire writing it. Also, you're a bloody AWFUL sci-fi writer. So, according to you, gay people have an "agenda", do they? And part of this "agenda" is making, er, kids think it's alright to be gay? And they sometimes employ other gay people? MY GOD IT'S A CONSPIRACY WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE. Let's talk about your agenda, shall we Mr. Mountain? I'm not going to call it a "straight agenda", because, after all, some of my best friends are straight. I will call it the Bunch of Fuckwits Who Insist on Oppressing Everyone Who Isn't Just Like Them Agenda, or BFOEWJLTA. Which, appropriately, is almost exactly a phonetic representation of what it sounded like when I vomited with rage and uncontrollable hate after reading your article. It looks like the BFOEWJLTA involves teaching "our children" that anyone who's different from them is, in fact, to be scared of, and definitely not to be allowed to have jobs and things. It looks like your fucking agenda is based on assuming that everyone is as basically as shitwitted as yourself, and that, my goodness, if some queer people get appointed to a post it must OBVIOUSLY mean that it's because of some sort of a "gay agenda" rather than THEIR ACTUALLY BEING QUALIFIED FOR THE JOB. It's patently fucking ridiculous to harp on about "bias" against those poor, straight, white males when the WHOLE SHITTING WORLD IS DESIGNED FOR AND RUN BY THEM. Not only that, but in the article you quote, one candidate's only qualifications are "local boy" and "worked in some local school", and is clearly fairly old from the times quoted, and the other HAS A FUCKING HARVARD DEGREE. Do you, Mister Mountain, have a degree from Harvard? Given the blatant illiteracy, homophobia, misogyny and transphobia in your bloody stool of an article, I sincerely doubt that you do. Your attempts to stir up hatred and panic would be risible, were I not so convinced that there are enough of your CRETIN KIND that some people might be genuinely intimidated by the idea of a transgender person becoming a school principal. You, sir, are a hate-filled moron, and deserve to be STAMPED FLAT by all right-thinking human beings and the USED AS A LITTER TRAY by a large and incontinent BADGER.
Certainly not yours, but with the utmost sincerity,
Reuben Tremelean
PS: Just in case your puny brains have difficulty comprehending some of the difficult words I've used above, here's a short precis: "You're a cretinous shit of a man, and I really, really hate you."
You see? You can have your cake and beat a bigot around the head and neck with it.
ALSO:
"The opinions of the 'Pro Test' group are absolutely disgusting. The torture and murder of innocent animals to save humans, is totally wrong. Who gave us the right to live above animals??! If we want to develop human vaccines etc, then they should be tested on humans. The prisons are full of evil people, we should be testing on them.
Anne Clark, London"
I love BBC Talkback.