Who do you think are the prominent players in "the woke regime"? Do you think Obama and Biden were *not* part of the woke regime, and if they are, what's your explanation for why they didn't try to exterminate their political enemies? If they're not part of it, do you think Kamala Harris is any more likely to be, and if so why?
On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 1:03 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < [email protected]> wrote: > @PGC. "By invoking extreme language like "exterminate," the original > poster distorts reality" > So you never opened a history book in your life to see how totalitarian > regimes exterminated millions of people ? Do you think that when the woke > regime will take the power you will be spared ? You are right there in > their list. Together with Alan Grayson and other white knights that believe > they will get cookie points for being good dogies for the regime. > > On Tuesday 22 October 2024 at 18:56:01 UTC+3 Alan Grayson wrote: > >> 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/959af6d9-8767-4d14-b539-a2c41d167d75n%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/959af6d9-8767-4d14-b539-a2c41d167d75n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- 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/CAPCWU3JjY2zKrV3EHb5tsDGsT81YjqnGfPX7Hb6qo_wK%3DdnGKA%40mail.gmail.com.
