On Tuesday, October 22, 2024 at 8:53:12 AM UTC-6 PGC wrote:
Before proceeding with an informal analysis of "Why do the wokies want to
exterminate the normal white men ? Their parents neglected them when they
were kids ? Where does their hatred towards humanity come from ?", I want
to preface this response by clarifying that by appearing to reply to the
original post, *I am not engaging in what I believe to be a good faith
discussion*. The original poster's intentions are unclear when resorting to
discursive strategies like the one I just cited. Their motivations could
stem from a variety of factors: a cry for help, escapist behavior, a lack
of validation, lack of education, lack of exposure to rigorous arguments,
or other unfortunate circumstances. Rather than engage in a debate about
the specifics of the statement, which I have no interest in, I will instead
offer a bit of analysis to explain why such an attempt may be fruitless.
This is not merely a response to an isolated comment but a reflection on a
broader issue in online discourse, of which the cited statement is merely
one example. I believe this dynamic is worth bringing to the list's
attention, as it represents a significant problem in how discussions unfold
online.
The statement, "Why do the wokies want to exterminate the normal white men?
Their parents neglected them when they were kids? Where does their hatred
towards humanity come from?" is emblematic of reactionary rhetoric that
simplifies complex issues and creates a false binary between victimized
"normal white men" and the so-called "wokies." This phrasing dehumanizes
(inconsistent for someone who keeps mentioning "the god in everyone") and
mischaracterizes those who advocate for progressive causes, while
amplifying an exaggerated sense of victimhood for the speaker's own
demographic. By invoking extreme language like "exterminate," the original
poster distorts reality, casting themselves as a target of nonexistent
aggression because the streaming they consume, does not align with their
"values". Deep stuff that feeds the original poster's research, one is
inclined to guess. Such tactics are designed to stoke fear and deflect
attention from more substantive, nuanced discussions about race, gender,
social justice, and theories of everything.
Furthermore, the insinuation that progressives suffer from childhood
neglect ("Their parents neglected them when they were kids?") introduces an
ad hominem attack that serves no purpose other than to invalidate the
proponents of these causes. This rhetorical move deflects from any genuine
engagement with the issues at hand and instead reduces the debate to
personal insult, a common technique in bad-faith argumentation. The
emotional charge of this statement, combined with its lack of intellectual
substance, makes it clear that this is not an invitation to dialogue but
rather an attempt to provoke and polarize.
The original poster’s framing of this issue also reflects a broader
phenomenon in modern discourse, where progressive movements are demonized
as harboring a deep-seated "hatred towards humanity." This reflects an
inversion of reality, where efforts to expand rights and address inequality
are recast as hostile, destructive forces. In this way, the speaker avoids
confronting the merits of progressive arguments and instead presents a
distorted caricature, which provides a shield against critical engagement.
The original poster's belief that media (such as "The Acolyte" or Marvel)
is part of a woke conspiracy to undermine traditional values further
illustrates a paranoid response to cultural change. The presence of female
heroes is not evidence of a conspiracy, but rather part of a broader and
overdue shift towards diversity in storytelling. This paranoia reflects a
discomfort with modern cultural dynamics and a desire to retreat to an
imagined past where certain identities and roles were dominant. In this
way, the statement serves to entrench a worldview that resists change and
views any challenge to established norms as part of a sinister agenda.
Furthermore, the original poster's *view of academia as indoctrinated
churches* while simultaneously attempting to publish unverified research
without citations highlights a profound cognitive dissonance. This reflects
a common pattern in anti-intellectual populist rhetoric: a desire to gain
recognition from academic institutions while rejecting their methods and
standards. The speaker's disdain for citations—seeing them as unnecessary
for someone who believes they hold original insights—indicates a *lack of
engagement with intellectual rigor*. This is particularly telling given
that many of the ideas they hold may in fact originate from others, and
their refusal to cite these sources points to both intellectual dishonesty
and insecurity.
The original poster's *immaterialist beliefs*, viewed as literally proven
fact rather than as one metaphysical framework among many, reflect the
rigid, absolutist thinking typical of ideologues. By treating metaphysical
assumptions as incontrovertible, the speaker avoids engaging with the
diversity of thought in philosophy and science, preferring to present their
ideas as beyond reproach. This kind of *epistemic closure*—where one’s
worldview is sealed off from criticism—makes productive discourse nearly
impossible, as any challenge is dismissed as ignorance or error.
The tendency to *insult dissenters as sexually frustrated virgins* adds
another layer of psychological projection. This ad hominem attack aims to
belittle opponents by reducing their intellectual positions to personal
failings, specifically around sexuality, which the speaker likely views as
a central axis of human worth!? This insult betrays a *deep-seated
insecurity*, where the speaker’s own identity is bolstered by denigrating
the supposed sexual inadequacies of others. It’s a form of argumentation
that sidesteps real discussion and instead turns to *personal degradation*
as a distracting attack mechanism.
In examining this pattern of discourse, it is important to *recognize that
the continual engagement with such bad-faith statements often leads nowhere*.
The poster’s reliance on goalpost-shifting—changing the terms of the debate
when confronted with criticism—*is a known tactic designed to exhaust
interlocutors and avoid genuine resolution*. Well-meaning individuals who
attempt to reason with the original poster often fall into this trap,
giving the poster more opportunities to provoke further with each response.
This cycle underscores the difficulty of addressing misinformation and
ideological manipulation in online spaces, where time is scarce, and the
production of misinformation is both quick and easy.
In conclusion, the aim of this analysis is not to engage with the original
statement as if it were a genuine attempt at dialogue, nor to legitimize
the assumptions embedded in it. Rather, it is to illustrate a broader issue
with online discourse, where misinformation, distortion, and bad-faith
arguments proliferate. The time required to unpack flawed assumptions and
correct biases is far greater than the time it takes to produce these
provocations. *Even this analysis, in its attempt to dissect the issue,
risks legitimizing the original poster’s intent simply by acknowledging it*
.
Instead, I encourage people to be cautious in how we engage with such
statements and recognize when the effort to respond is counterproductive.
The science of misinformation is still young, and while there are no easy
solutions, it is crucial to remain aware of the dynamics at play. Loaded
questions and provocations are easy to produce, but contextualizing and
correcting them is cumbersome—a reality that highlights the challenges of
meaningful discourse in the digital age.
Hopefully, as more people are exposed to rigorous, evidence-based
discussions, they will become more adept at identifying these tactics and
will focus on fostering genuine dialogue rather than being drawn into
fruitless exchanges.
This imbalance creates the known dilemma for anyone attempting to engage
with bad-faith arguments. It's also an oversight in education, that
nowadays overemphasizes competence acquisition over critical thought (as
this is hard to measure and the testing industry relies on quantitative
results because economic ideology with performance orientation dominates
developing critical thought ability) as the many fruitless online
discussions that everybody has experienced can indicate: it is a
non-trivial problem as "do not feed the troll" can also be abused to
marginalize speakers etc. as well.
Predictably, the type of approach of the original poster will continue to
flood the list with similar statements and continue to misdirect attention
with provocations etc. I will neither reply to bad faith replies of the
original poster, nor will I concern myself with them for more than a few
seconds. But I can console the original poster: I do want my 30 minutes
back, and in this sense, the original poster is "victorious". He managed to
make me regret this waste of time. Apologies for having perhaps wasted any
reader's time in so doing but I do believe that the problem of
misinformation in the online world is larger/deeper than we give it credit.
*Excellently written and exactly correct on the substance. Thank you, AG*
On Tuesday, October 22, 2024 at 2:49:32 PM UTC+2 Cosmin Visan wrote:
You want to exterminate the normal white men ? They were the oppressors and
you were the oppressed and now you want to take revenge in the classical
marxist style ?
On Tuesday 22 October 2024 at 15:03:34 UTC+3 John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 4:03 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
[email protected]> wrote:
*> Why do the wokies want to exterminate the normal white men ?*
*Normal white men don't exist. *
*> Their parents neglected them*
*Parents don't exist. *
* > when they were kids ? *
*Kids don't exist. *
*> Where does their hatred towards humanity come from ?*
*Humanity doesn't exist. But unfortunately you do seem to exist. *
*John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis
<https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>*
ude
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4f5e4f34-2560-4ccc-bcb2-d2c1451e0dc7n%40googlegroups.com.
