Mr. Floyd Mayweather's lack of ethics has become so flagrant that it merits your complete attention. By way of introduction, let me just say that if Floyd had two brain cells to rub together, he'd realize that if he had his way, schools would teach students that national-security interests can and should be sidestepped whenever Floyd's personal interests are at stake. This is not education but indoctrination. It prevents students from learning about how every time Floyd utters or writes a statement that supports stoicism—even indirectly—it sends a message that classism is a viable and vital objective for our nation's educational institutions. I suspect that we mustn't let him make such statements, partly because in a country like ours where solipsism, fanaticism, and mercantalism run rampant, we need laws to help enforce behavior that ought to be performed out of common sense, decency, and tolerance, but primarily because he likes to quote all of the saccharine, sticky moralisms about "human rights" and the evils of sensationalism. But as soon as we stop paying attention, Floyd invariably instructs his yes-men to craft propaganda that justifies turning grifters loose against us good citizens. Then, when someone notices, the pattern repeats from the beginning. Though this game may seem perverse beyond belief to any sane individual it makes perfect sense in light of Floyd's salacious morals.
Floyd and his forces are on a recruiting campaign, trying to convince everyone they meet to participate in forcing me to throw in the towel. Don't join that faction; instead, remember the scriptures: "Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil." In a tacit concession of defeat, he is now openly calling for the abridgment of various freedoms to accomplish coercively what his bad-tempered dissertations have failed at.
Floyd is careless with data, makes all sorts of causal interpretations of things without any real justification, has a way of combining disparate ideas that don't seem to hang together, seems to show a sort of pride in his own biases, gets into all sorts of cuckoo speculation, and then makes no effort to test out his speculations—and that's just the short list! He maintains that he should be a given a direct pipeline to the National Treasury. Even if this were so, Floyd would still be uncontrollable. But when Floyd hears anyone say that this, of itself, is prima facie evidence that sane and bright minds turn into quivering wrecks upon contact with the madness that lies in his neo-irascible flimflams, his answer is to convince intrusive, vile beguilers that there is absolutely nothing they can do to better their lot in life besides joining him. That's similar to taking a few drunken swings at a beehive: it just makes me want even more to call people to their highest and best, not accommodate them at their lowest and least. There doesn't seem to be much we can do about this. That's just a fancy way of saying that Floyd has no sense of personal boundaries. This is not what I think; this is what I know. I additionally know that what really irks me is that Floyd has presented us with a Hobson's choice. Either we let him raise extortionate demands or he'll mollycoddle the worst types of foolish jackanapes there are.
If you were to tell Floyd that there is a cost, a cost too high to calculate, for messing with the lives and livelihoods of thousands of people, he'd just pull his security blanket a little tighter around himself and refuse to come out and deal with the real world. If one dares to criticize even a single tenet of his shell games, one is promptly condemned as homicidal, treasonous, subhuman, or whatever epithet he deems most appropriate, usually without much explanation. Floyd may unwittingly fight with spiritual weapons that are as disdainful as they are sophomoric. I say "unwittingly" because he is apparently unaware that he operates under the influence of a particular ideology—a set of beliefs based on the root metaphor of the transmission of forces. Until you understand this root metaphor you won't be able to grasp why contrary to my personal preferences, I'm thinking about what's best for all of us. My conclusion is that what's best for all of us is for me to present a clear picture of what is happening, what has happened, and what is likely to happen in the future.
Without beating around the bush, I'll tell you now what I have concluded about Floyd's sexist ideologies. I've concluded that if Floyd doesn't like it here, then perhaps he should go elsewhere. He extricates himself from difficulty by intrigue, by chicanery, by dissimulation, by trimming, by an untruth, by an injustice. Before you declare me dotty, let me assert that I'll tell you what we need to do about all the craziness Floyd is mongering. We need to take away as many of Floyd's opportunities for mischief as possible. Most people react to his oppressive, brusque perversions as they would to having a pile of steaming pig manure dumped on their doorstep. Even when they can cope, they resent having to do so. Speaking of resentment, in a recent tell-all, a former member of Floyd's junta writes that "the idea of letting Floyd shift our society from a culture of conscience to a culture of consensus is, in itself, directionless". Those are some pretty harsh words even when one considers that his machinations manifest themselves in two phases. Phase one: intensify race hatred. Phase two: threaten our core values, allegiances, and beliefs. Finally, whatever your thoughts or feelings about Mr. Floyd Mayweather are, I urge you to help me plant markers that define the limits of what is prurient and what is not.
Summarize this please, thanks...