How good are you at writing nonsense? That is, several paragraphs full of nothing...

How good are you at writing nonsense? That is, several paragraphs full of nothing. I just found an old middle school essay of mine that exemplifies this bullshit strategy:

>The careful analysis of the historical conditions, social realities and grievances leading up to the American Civil War - conflict that lasted from 1861 to 1865 - and what has been written about it present us both of with an opportunity to reflect upon the dialectics between discontent and massive social upheaval (and the dynamics therein), meanwhile informing us about the causes leading to the actuality of the American experience, what we are doing as a country and what could be done.

Any other examples of how much can be written without saying much at all?

they coerce you into learning this in highschool english

Who is this fluid druid?

It's true. I learned to inflate my character and word count.

You wrote that in middle school?

By itself, that is not nonsensical.

That's a pretty well structured thesis statement though.

I am EXTREMELY gifted at writing paragraphs of nonsense. I used to have a fake ask.fm account in which I pretended to be an intellectual girl (I took the pictures from some Tumblr chick) and everytime I answered the with pseudo-marxists bullshit and a lot of morons fell for it.

>top kek

That sounds delightful. Fuck, that sounds like it would make a good short story, or even a novella.

pretty good

>we
yikes

>go to high-school
>"always have an introductory paragraph and an interesting hook which tells the reader why the subject is important! finish with a concluding paragraph which restates everything in the intro and links the subject to larger philosophical themes and again tells the reader why it is important!"
>go to college
>professors make fun of these philosophical filler
>tell us to cut straight to the chase and not start off with "Humanity has thought of the medicinal properties of nutmeg throughout the aeons..."

what the fuck

highschools don't teach you shit, they're almost a negative desu

highschool "teachers" are basically still-warm corpses reading things off a list

I think a green text is in order.

Absolutely dreadful. The worst part about it is that we were encouraged to do it in English class for essays as all they cared about was that you met the "length qouta"

What's even worse is that the word count is usually something pathetic like 1,000 words, so you can barely write something that's of substance.

Really? I often had the opposite problem they would make the word count or number of paragraphs required too high and I'd have to find a way, to qoute my religion teacher "Open the slurry tank and spread it around"

>we can learn about the causes of the civil war from what happened before the civil war

yeah no so fucking bloated

Let's see:
The tenacity of the contemporary willow amounts to two polarities: the Hume-an and the human. The Hume-an willow considers that all colours are red but that red is not a colour, or that a colour is a mere relational construct and that instead we ought to think of colours as perhaps 'tone-symbols' or a memetic array of pixels, as is the way most observe colour today. The human shares the exact same opinion but fancies that colours are actually the historic accumulation of souls of the 56 billion animals slaughtered each year for the purpose of food production. The lighter colours are cows which quickly realized their fate and spent their brief time alive not resisting the affects of hormones, but instead, reaching Nirvana. In other words, lighter colours are not necessarily colours -- that is, souls of the great perpetual massacre of domesticated animals -- but rather, the absence of qualifiable soulitude. Dark colours, especially those approaching the Black, are the souls of those beasts who realized the futility of Life. After all, those hormones caused them to enter puberty early.

I propose that instead of following the willowian Hume-an/human divide, that we realize that perhaps souls are themselves symbols and that being is mathematical. Angels are mathematical. Appropriately, we must deal with being through a utilitarian calculus. Symbols are and are not! Pierce the symbol with our tangential spear! Does the willow truly weep, or is it Christ who weeps for us all? My friends, I postulate that this is not an issue of semantics, but of ecology: once we recognized the great Cow in the Sky, the first cow to reach Nirvana, whose milk shaped the Milky Way! Once we recognized the great Joel, whose batter formed the Chunky Way! Below us were our betters, the Giants, giving us authority over the land. Above us were the betters of the Beasts, who gave them authority over the sky. Upon the sky meeting the earth, they became inseparable -- welded at the hip! This primordial symbol is recreated with other beasts throughout England and the Middle East, who share a common ancestor. My friends! When the Sky above met the Earth below, a truce had to be settled! For, nothing could live if they stayed joined at the hip, yet if they did not hold on to each other, the Sky would fall and the Earth would rise. Here, the Accord of Thollkaza'aath was written and signed. It states that while on Earth, its wardens may consume those beasts who wandered down from the skies. But, the when Earth's wardens rise, as they do in material death, they will be eaten by the Wardens of the Sky. Yes! Celestial Cows consume your soul! The perpetual rising and falling, and the inescapable horror of life and death which results from the life of both beings of Earth and Sky being recycled ad infinitum, both keeps together the Earth and the Sky, and is something to be overcome! Mother Earth is a whore! Damn this lustful sky!

Fucking hell, is she about to Houellebecq? Lay off the cigs
>listen up fella, there's two types of ppl in dis world
dropped

still cute

I wish to convey something, but a question arises as to whether or not my ideas are equal to that which my words themselves sufficiently exist with the capacity to convey. Therefore, it appears unequivocally insufficient to label my terms as 'isms', as opposed to some more deregulatory manner of expression. In light of these complications, it remains my understanding that the individual members within a society involuntarily establish an underlying precedent for remaining simultaneously within and outside of these boundaries. Therein lies the problem of my expression: it remains outside of my capacity to exist on both of these states in a simultaneous manner.