[SEA PR JUNE 2017] 2027 Draft Look Back Look Back Look Back

Please find my enclosed review of Colin's review of Chase's review of Colin's draft pick:

Pick 10 - Kansas City Kings: SP César Galván, age 20- Plymouth scouting sees his control far less than OSA. Plus he shares a birthday with an ex of mine who also lacked control so I am going to trust my brain on this one as I should have been then too. Galvan just looks like he was a good college pitcher and nothing more. He gives up hits, home runs and walks by the bunches. Good luck with this one.

 

Review of Review of Pick 10: Sold syntax, excellent word control, and a great reoccurring ‘crazy girlfriend’ trope.  However, does this mean Chase dated someone born February 22^nd, 2007? 

(F if Chase accidentally confessed to being a sex offender, A otherwise) 

Review of Review of Review of Pick 10: What's the onomatopoeia for the sound a metaphor makes when it falls flat? Imagine that reverberating within my head as I read Colin's take on Chase's analysis. Although easily overlooked as the penultimate compliment in his litany, Colin's use of the phrase "excellent word control" is intended to convey the mental image of Chase as a master of written language, establishing the foundation from which he concludes that the initial review deserves an A. However, this construct of Chase as in "control" has deeply concerning connotations in our post-modernist society. 

The concept of control is fraught with dangerous allusions to patriarchal-structuralism. Taken to its natural conclusion, if Chase controls the words, he therefore must be their, to use an offensive and outdated term, owner. This pre-post-patriarchal mindset is further reinforced by the misogynistic stereotype of a "crazy girlfriend." Colin employees quotations as an appeal to authority and to convey to the reader that it is Chase and not he that would perpetuate the rape culture inherent in his words. However, careful review of the source document reveals no reference to any individual with impaired intellectual or adaptive functioning. Chase does mention, to accurately quote the text, "an ex of mine who also lacked control," but any assumption that the deficiency in control is indicative of one's general behavior health is Colin's fallacy and his alone. 

Such reckless and destructive hegemonically male assumptions are ubiquitous in Colin's review. Not only does he ascribe impaired mental health to Chase's ex, but once he has done so, he assigns the ex with the biological female gender. Nowhere in the source document did Chase reveal his ex's gender nor would it be appropriate had he done so. It is Colin's toxic hypermasculinity amplified through the prism of neocapitalist materialism that commits gender genocide on an oft-maligned and subjugated class. Gender identify is one's personal experience of one's own gender, which may or may not correlated with assigned sex at birth. However, in a transparent, although intriguing, display of textual assault, Colin has used the baseless stereotype of "crazy girlfriend" to assign gender. This patriarchialist determationism is consistent with the destructive semiotic discourse identified in Dr. Jacques Buxton's seminal work, "Precultural Discourses: Baudrillardist hyperreality, feminism and modern theory."

At this point, Colin abandons his thesis to pursue a discursive and divisive query into the age of Chase's ex. Although we applaud Colin's willingness to confront society's conceptual notions of age, he ultimately proves himself aligned to the patriarchal paradigms that contribute to agism by assigning an "F" rating to the original review if Chase had indeed challenged normative cultural theory.

Assuming the reader could tolerate Colin's blatant machismo braggadocio and somehow get past the final affirmative conclusion from a negative premise, she, he or it would still encounter an aphorism too short to reveal any truths.
(No Grade - ratings suggest a hierarchy)