Virginia Postrel's recent column suggesting Detroit sell off its art in order to a.) help the city regain its financial footing, and b.) allow more people to enjoy the art in question was thought-provoking and well-written. I'm not entirely sure I agree—like Tyler Cowen, I worry what effect this will have on similar institutions—but there's no doubt that Postrel uses logic and evidence to build a case.
Postrel's excellence is nothing new. I'm writing because her column prompted what I think we can all agree is pretty much the platonic ideal of a comment on the Internet. Here it is. Maureen A. Sullivan's brief thoughts are stunning in their perfection. It is like the Internet distilled every asinine comment ever left on any blog into one handy location. Let's break Sullivan's comment down line by line, shall we?
You are a moron.
Promising start, non?
Plain and simple. A total moron.
These are literally the first three "sentences." Really, these are the first three clauses that end with a period; only one is a sentence in the technical, grammatical sense. Regardless, they do a good job of setting the tone.
I lived in the Detroit area for most of my life and am acutely aware of the corruption, mismanagement and destruction that has been happening in Detroit for as long as I've been alive.
Here the commenter does two things: She not only makes an irrational appeal to authority ("I lived in Detroit so I know more than you do!") but also reveals herself to be part of the problem (it's not as if Detroit's maladies sprang from the head of Kwame Kilpatrick fully born; the jokers who have ruined the city were voted in by someone).
I won't argue that the DIA's treasures need to be sold off to satisfy the city's debts.
So...so, you agree with Postrel? Who is not only "a moron" but also "a total moron"?
It's a painful reality, but this day has been coming for a long time.
I just, I don't...I don't understand. Does the commenter understand? Does she see the problem she has created here?
Having said that, your column is arrogant, ridiculous, factually incorrect and idiotic.
I suppose it goes without saying, but Sullivan provides no evidence for any of these claims. She quotes no lines dripping with arrogance; she fails to demonstrate why the policy Postrel pursues (and with which Sullivan claims to agree!) is "ridiculous"; and she cites no factual inaccuracies. It's really quite stunning.
Next time, please write something about which you are more knowledgeable so you don't sound so stupid.
Sullivan closes with a textbook case of projection. Bravo, madame. Bravo.
Like I said: perfection. I defy you to find a more ideal comment anywhere on the Internet. Aside from YouTube, of course. Those guys are masters of the form.