The Shadows of Totalization, Part XLI

I take a rigid polemical series,

A: “Yes, it is.”
B. “No, it is not.”

A: “Yes, it is.”
B. “No, it is not.”

A: “Yes, it is.”
B. “No, it is not.”
…. ∞

Without taking away the slightest bit of its passive tedious unpleasant stupidity, the series can be endlessly embellished,

A: “Yes, it is, idiot, and if you knew anything at all, you’d know it was.”
B. “No, it is not, dingle-berry butt, and if you had any brains, it would be obvious it was not.”

A: “Yes, it is, idiot, and if you knew anything at all, you’d know it was.”
B. “No, it is not, dingle-berry butt, and if you had any brains, it would be obvious it was not.”

A: “Yes, it is, idiot, and if you knew anything at all, you’d know it was.”
B. “No, it is not, dingle-berry butt, and if you had any brains, it would be obvious it was not.”
…. ∞

In summary, maybe the series can be symbolized,

∑A: “Yes, …. ∞” B:“N, …. ∞” = 0▲


The common misstep of analysis is to look for some underlying condition of A or B: low intelligence, lack of childhood cuddling, lack of a pulse. This has the wonderful effect of perpetuating the dead polemic, but more importantly, it fails to see the trans-conditionality of the dead polemic over all spectra of intelligence, sanity, vitality, and historicity.