okay, sorry. here is my complaint about brawl.
It has recently come to my attention that Brawl represents the most recent incarnation of the unique 20th-century phenomenon known as "mephitic chauvinism". It is requisite, even in this summary sketch, to go back a few years to see how Brawl's politics represent a backward step of hundreds of years, a backward step into a chasm with no bottom save the endless darkness of death. While I, not being one of the many nutty nabobs of heathenism of this world, know very little about mawkish hatemongers, I do know that I plan to shatter the illusion that Brawl can be trusted to judge the rest of the world from a unique perch of pure wisdom. This is a choice I have made; your choice is up to you. But let me remind you that Brawl often argues that its prevarications are all sweetness and light. A similar argument was first made over 1200 years ago by a well-known scrub and was quickly disproved. In those days, however, no one would have doubted that I have a problem with Brawl's use of the phrase, "We all know that...". With this phrase, it doesn't need to prove its claim that it is as innocent as a newborn lamb; it merely accepts it as fact. To put it another way, if it is going to justify, palliate, or excuse the evils of its heart, then it should at least have the self-respect to remind itself of a few things: First, I clearly don't want to have to hear its rambling streams of consciousness. And second, its representatives suspect that children should belong to the state. This is precisely the non-equation that Brawl is trying to patch together. What it's missing, as usual, is that it likes thinking thoughts that aren't burdensome and that feel good. That's why Brawl rarely tells its collaborators that it plans to blend together gnosticism and resistentialism in a train wreck of monumental proportions. But you knew that already. So let me add that I do not have the time, in one sitting, to go into the long answer as to why its outrage at complaints about it is indicative of its self-esteem and value system. But the short answer is that it parrots whatever ideas are fashionable at the moment. When the fashions change, its ideas will change instantly like a weathercock. Ignorant phallocentrism and Brawl's manifestos are one and the same. Since I don't have anything more to say on that subject, I'll politely get off my soapbox now.