Nominations Invited

I have wanted to this for long, but his recent post has forced the issue. Please send in your nominations for the weirdest Dilip D’Souza post. By weird, I mean just plain weird. I don’t mean a post you disagree strongly with. I mean a post that is so weird that… ok screw it. Let me explain with an example:

My own nomination is this post. Read the post and read the reports he links to. A 16-year old boy has allegedly murdered a younger boy. Dilip wants to know why there was a need to mention that the alleged killer was adopted.

Now, in the reports he has linked to, you will learn that the boy had learnt only recently that he had been adopted and had been depressed ever since. The police had mentioned this fact as a possible motive for the murder, and newspapers had reported what the police had said. Dilip reads the reports and asks.. “Why?”

This is the kind of weirdness I am looking for. Not posts with faulty reasoning or risible conclusions, but ones where the reasoning is so out there that it stuns the sane reader.

The immediate impetus to the contest is of course this post.

8 thoughts on “Nominations Invited

  1. 1.Weird post:

    Seem to remember one long ago that started out empathizing with Indian soldiers killed in some cross-border attack, and somehow gravitated across to Pak soldiers ‘merely obeying orders’, and how tough life was for them too. Cant find the link but struck me as very weird, looked to me then time like he condoled the death and also consoled the killer, and in immediate context.

    I think what appalled me was the cheek-by-jowliness of the two, with some separation I could even understand some constraints of the Paki soldier following orders.

    If I can find the link, it’d also be relevant on the thread abt dissent and objection to war. Need a re-read anyway to firm up on these recollections.

    2. Dilip occasionally uses labels himself, like the Corolla piloted by Alistair Pereira in that BOM hit and run case probably likely wouldnt have figured if it had been an autorickshaw (“Bajaj T1xx”)

    But I like the label-challenging thing since I almost unconsciously do it myself. So maybe he oversteps occasionally, but I benefit overall.


  2. No no no! This is not what I am looking for! The things you guys are pointing out have an internal logic to them, which will be clear once you understand his biases. Just because his biases are different from ours it does not mean that they are weird. I am looking for posts that are so weird that they leave you stunned. In the adoption example, it is quite clear that he wants natural born and adopted children to be treated equally. That is a bias, an understandable bias. But I and you cannot, in a million years, extend the argument to say that a boy’s adoption should never ever be mentioned in a news article, regardless of whether the fact is relevant or not. That is Dilip D’Souza’s domain.

  3. my nomination is definately this post on blabbertarianism. what he meant in this thing i dont know.

    If you cannot click, pleas see full article underneath.

    Today, I shall do you all a big favour. I am going to explain the blubbertarian position on ingest to you. I realize you didn’t ask, I also realize you don’t care. But I know I have this knowledge, and I have to give it to you, and so I am doing just that. (Giving it to you).

    Let’s first define what we mean by ingest. There are two possible meanings.

    First, it means doing something for fun. Like for example: “Kanakadurga told me I was an idiot ingest.” Meaning, Kanakadurga was only joking when she told me I was an idiot. (The real joke is, of course, on her. Because I really am an idiot).

    Second, it means eating something. For example, fashionable modern mothers say it to their kids all the time. “Ingest up, ingest up,” they’ll say, “ingest up, dammit! Or I’ll call the police!”

    What’s that? Now come on, do understand, they say it ingest. They don’t really mean to call the police, don’t worry! So ingest away. (They’re also saying it to their kids, so why you took it personally is beyond me).

    So now that you’ve got the hang of that, let me explain a little bit about blubbertarians. We blubbertarians believe, above all, in the individual freedom to cry. To the blubbertarian, three words in that phrase (“individual freedom to cry”) are important: “individual”, “freedom”, and “cry.” (Well, “to” is pretty important to).

    The individual is supreme, his freedom is supremer, and his crying is beyond supreme.

    In fact, the way blubbertarians cry is a proud example to mankind. We learn the method from a book called The Fountain Said, by the famous German writer Eine Grand. (Note: It’s a pseudonym. She called herself that because that’s how much money, in pfennigs, she made from writing the book). In the title, the most important words are “The” and “Fountain”. (Well, “Said” is pretty important too). That’s a reference to how the tears should flow when we blubbertarians cry: like a fountain.

    So we really are super-league world-champion cry-babies, we blubbertarians. Which is why we call ourselves “blubbertarians”. “Blubber”, or “cry”. Get it? “Blubber”, meaning “cry”, get it?.

    Anyway, to blubbertarians it is very important that you have the freedom to blubber — whenever you want, wherever you are, and the more the better. We believe mankind has suffered enormously wherever this freedom has been curtailed. In fact, we get so upset by this suffering that we cry some more.

    And now about ingest. The thing about ingest is, which meaning are we blubbertarians taking a position on?

    You’ll cry copiously — and so be well on your way to becoming a blubbertarian — when I tell you the answer: both!

    Yes sir. So on the fun bit, we blubbertarians say: no way! We believe nobody should have fun, because then they’ll tend to blubber less. The more people develop a sense of humour, the harder it will be for blubbertarianism to spread. So blubbertarians have developed a unique response for when anyone says something ingest. Whatever it is, we simply sit down and cry, willing our trained tears to erupt from our eyes like fountains. We have also worked hard to kill off our individual senses of humour, and we believe it’s vital to kill off everyone else’s as well.

    On the eating bit, blubbertarians say: yes, go ahead and ingest, but with plenty of raw onion. Brings on the tears, see. (The onion).

    So there you are. That’s the blubbertarian position on ingest.

    Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to go blubber out today’s quota of tears. That’s what The Fountain Said.

  4. SlaveEmp,

    1. I found the post funny by itself, esp. “Eine Grand”. It doesnt appear to want to go anywhere, so there is no reasoning I could discern, logical or otherwise.

    2. The subject line resembles something somebody asked on this blog lonng ago:
    what is the libertarian position on incest?
    but for the life of me, I cant relate anything else in that post to the post(s) by Ravikiran.

    He doesnt seem to have 2 defns for incest there, or take 2 positions on it, or cry or laugh or whatever.
    Some parts of the rambling comment thread also touch on something abt Ravikiran (taking 2 months to come up with laws need to achieve something?)
    (BTW the discussion on comment thread at Ravi’s post there was superb).

  5. Of course it was superb ! I asked the damn question.
    And in return I am called baiter. Seriously, I get no respect 🙂

Comments are closed.