If Jonathan Krohn is not a hoax, then he has Chatterbox Syndrome

chatterboxkrohn1

Many of you have by now read the New York Times article about Jonathan Krohn. For his sting operation against the Republicans as a deep cover liberal, the timing couldn’t have been more perfect. Just after I (the first one!) break the story that he is a hoax, he gets a major credibility boost from the newspaper of record. I’m not too concerned, however; as Martin Eisenstadt has shown, official news organizations are not immune from being fooled in this manner.

The only arguments I’ve seen that he is not a hoax are extremely thin. For example, some lady named “Kate,” probably herself a fraud (her one identifying feature turns out to be false), thinks that because he is an actor, he must therefore not be a political hoax. Have you ever heard such an absurd argument? This Kate person thinks that being an actor makes it less likely that someone is acting. I’ve heard a lot of idiotic arguments (mostly in favor of Dark Matter), but this one might top them all. Kate, if you’re out there, the only thing maintaining my faith in humanity is my knowledge that you, like Mr. Krohn, are not being genuine.

To return to my major thesis: Jonathan Krohn’s rhetoric is vastly too empty for him to be legitimate. If he really was a “prodigy,” this would mean that his content would be above the level of a twelve year old, not just his speaking skills -his form, if you will. This makes me think of one thing: Chatterbox Syndrome, more technically called Williams’ Syndrome (to me the word “chatterbox”  sounds more technical than “William,” but since when has scientific nomenclature made any sense whatsoever?). Anyway, his words are virtually empty. They are rough, but slightly garbled, parrots of Limbaugh, Hannity, and the rest. Plus, this Krohn kid talks way too fast, is way too cheerful, and way too likable by the people he encounters. These are the exact symptoms of Chatterbox Syndrome. Look it up for yourself if you don’t believe me. It’s in the official dictionary of neuropsychology, under “cocktail party syndrome,” yet another one of its names.

Anyway, it’s really the complete utter lack of information in his words that clinches it for me. “Kate” said that his ideas are his own, but this begs the obvious question: What ideas? His ideas are non-existent, not to mention his factual knowledge. Of course this clincher comes with several lesser supports, such as they fact that he is an actor, and that his alleged book does not actually exist.

All I can say is, if he is not a hoax (unlikely), then his parents and other handlers should be ashamed of themselves for letting the poor boy continue to publicly humiliate himself with empty nonsense platitudes, as he does.

If he is serious, and does not have Chatterbox Syndrome, then I am at a loss. Perhaps he is the first known case of some other neurological disorder. What shall we call it? Krohn’s Disease.

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “If Jonathan Krohn is not a hoax, then he has Chatterbox Syndrome

  1. You are sad. He is to the staightforward and speaks of what is truly needed in this and every country. Ovbiously he is not influenced by the media nor has he been contaminated by the public school system. So he has been taught to think and not be led by the nose. There is hope for the future.

  2. I’ve read the articles, and watched the video. I have come to the conclusion that one day this fine young boy will grow up to have his own cult complete with KoolAid.

  3. Dear Notedscholar,
    I am amazed that a child’s three minute speech perturbed a “noted scholar” enough to instigate an article of this nature. He is, after all, only thirteen. The fact that you would take the time and effort required to compose an article to disparage his reputation is rather comical. Further humor is found in the “noted scholar’s” pathetic use of grammar and spelling in an article focused on criticizing a child’s speech which was spoken rather eloquently. Of course he lacks the life experience he needs to fully understand politics – he is a child. However, I find his simple understanding of the basics to be rather refreshing. It seems many seasoned politicians often forget the basic principles their party is supposedly built upon. If he simply spoke a memorized speech prepared by another, it will not be an easily continued charade and the truth will come out. Does the public really need your opinion on such a trivial matter?

  4. Dear “Amused Reader,”

    I hope you are amused by the circus that is Jonathan Krohn.

    Also, if something in the New York Times isn’t notable enough for you, I don’t know what is. Where would it have to be written for you to care? The Koran?

    Lastly, thanks but no thanks for your critique of my “grammar,” with zero evidence. I happen to have a copy of Strunk and Wagnall’s Elements of Grammar by me at my desk at all times. So I don’t think it’s you who should be lecturing me on grammar.

    So long.

    NS

  5. Dear Notedscholar,

    Thank you for your reply. I feel so privileged that a “noted scholar” (though remaining nameless) found my comments to be disconcerting enough to prompt a reply.

    It must be really pleasant to be in your company! Do you get angry and defensive over every comment that does not coincide with your beliefs? I hope you do not have children, for their sake. I cannot imagine how a child could possibly thrive in that type of environment. As for me, it just provides an additional chuckle.

    In regards to your comments about the subject being “notable,” I read the New York Times article and watched the video with its due interest. However, I do not believe that this is a matter worthy of so much attention when there are many other issues of greater importance going on in the world right now. This is especially true if that attention is merely to criticize. Isn’t there enough negativity over real issues?

    As for your grammar and spelling, hire a proof reader if you need your mistakes pointed out. I will simply find it amusing and you can worry about correcting it.

    As I have already spent more time on this matter than I would like and my time for games has run out, you may post comments without regard to a rebuttal. I have no more time to spare reading your narrow opinions or replying to them. But I wish you luck with your personal growth and understanding.

    Hoping you learn tolerance,
    Amused Reader

  6. As a documentary filmmaker who has spent a lot of time profiling the conservative movement, I’m fascinated by your proposition that Jonathan Krohn is a hoax. I am not convinced, though. I admit I have only watched the short speech have gave to CPAC, but I don’t see why he couldn’t be who he says he is.

    First of all, what would constitute a hoax? That he doesn’t believe what he is saying? I see no evidence of this.

    The fact that his arguments, as I’ve heard them, aren’t very complex or deep doesn’t suggest to me that he’s a parody – just that he’s a beginner.

    If you haven’t heard equally shallow left-wing rhetoric, then you haven’t spent much time at anti-war protests. No one has a monopoly on cliches.

  7. Dear Notedscholar and Amused Reader,

    I myself find it astonishing that the fact that he is only fourteen should automatically render him unable to be eloquent and learned in your eyes. Many children are more knowledgable than you give them credit for. Who are you to insinuate that just because he is a child that he lacks the life experience needed to understand politics? Numerous adults are uncapable to comprehend the basics of our own government. I’m sure you wouldn’t say they lack the life experience. And I’m dying to know, just what is the magic age where someone can develop a political opinion of their own?

  8. Is this article supposed to be a joke? I mean no disrespect, but seriously, is this a satire? If this isn’t a joke, then you should know that “The only arguments I’ve seen that he is not a hoax are extremely thin,” is a specious line of reasoning, because you– accusing him of being a hoax– have the burden of proof, so claiming that he is a hoax because you haven’t heard a good argument against that is along the lines of saying “Because no one has disproved that there is intelligent life on mars, there must be life there.”

    That his “rhetoric is vastly too empty for him to be legitimate” is also specious, because it rests on the assumption that politicians never use empty rhetoric… but if that statement were true, then Obama would also be a hoax because he also used empty rhetoric on several occasions.

    “What ideas? His ideas are non-existent, not to mention his factual knowledge” Have you actually READ any of his writings before you decided to accuse him of having no ideas and no factual knowledge??? I’d be curious to know what you have read…

    It’s pretty unfair for you to accuse someone of either being a hoax, having chatterbox syndrome, or having a neurological disorder for petty reasons such as the manner in which he speaks and the fact the fact that he’s conservative.

  9. Amused-But-Not-Really-Because-Actually-Seething Reader,

    Despite brandishing his copy of The Elements of Style in your face, Noted Scholar makes some slight stylistic errors (awkward wordings, we might call them) in this post which make his claim at ever having read anything by E.B. White rather dubious, and which I shall divulge (because I can) below:

    “I’m not too concerned, however; as Martin Eisenstadt has shown, official news organizations are not immune from being fooled in this manner.”
    The only problem here is that NS should have written “immune to.” Otherwise the sentence is perfect.

    “Jonathan Krohn’s rhetoric is vastly too empty for him to be legitimate.”
    NS means not that the rhetoric is both vastly empty and too empty, but rather that, vastly, or “on the whole,” it is too empty. Therefore, the only improvement here would be to say “is, vastly, too empty.” Even better would be “is, on the whole, empty.”

    The sentence “Plus, this Krohn kid talks way too fast, is way too cheerful, and way too likable by the people he encounters” is problematic, but again, its problem lies in its wording, not in its actual grammar. A correct and clear sentence would be “Plus, this Krohn kid talks way too fast (or “quickly,” but did you know that “too fast” is actually acceptable here!? Neither did I! Actually I did!), is way too cheerful, and IS way too WELL-LIKED by the people he encounters.”

    Finally, the bracketed corrections on this sentence are again stylistic, rather than grammatical (okay, I suppose “complete AND utter” is grammatical):
    “it’s really the complete [AND] utter lack of information in his words that clinches it for me. “Kate” said that his ideas are his own, but this begs the obvious question: What ideas? His ideas [, NOT TO MENTION HIS FACTUAL KNOWLEDGE,] are non-existent(X, not to mention his factual knowledgeX).

    It’s too bad that you refused to detail your grammatical complaints, because now I only have to guess at what they might have been. Is it that you think NS should say “If he really WERE a prodigy,” rather than “If he really WAS”? Interestingly, both are correct, and are only distinguished from one another according to STYLISTICS, which, I must admit, I suspect NS neglected because he’s actually the one (of the two of you, I mean) who had not enough “time to spare.” I vilify him for having more time for rebuttals than for style, but that’s not quite as bad as having more time for insults regarding parenting than for supporting one’s central (and, evidently, baseless) argument, is it?

  10. Pingback: Mission Accomplished: Jonathan Krohn is no longer a hoax « Science and Math Defeated

Type your comment(s) into the computer screen

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s