@Jesse. Probably you are still living in your parents basement and never touched a woman if you say that men are not more logical than women.
On Tuesday 22 October 2024 at 21:15:43 UTC+3 Jesse Mazer wrote: > What is the connection between female hero stories and genocide of men? > Would you analogously say that having more stories of non-white male heroes > can only be due to wokies who want to genocide white people, or do you > think there is something fundamentally different about the former? Either > way I don't see any consistent pattern of female hero stories being > rejected by the public, it seems to me to mostly depend on the quality of > the writing (or gaming or action depending on genre). > > Biology does mean women are statistically less physically strong and less > prone to certain kinds of aggression, but in the animal kingdom we do see > plenty of female violence even if not as associated with mating contests as > it is with males (for example females of predator species sometimes do more > hunting than males as with lions, many female animals engage in plenty of > territorial violence against others of their species, and in one of our > closest relatives the Bonobos, females form coalitions to fight back > against males who might otherwise use their greater strength to dominate > females: https://archive.ph/GEv46 ). My rule of thumb is that only those > claimed differences between men and women that would make just as much > sense when applied to other animals are plausibly strongly influenced by > biology, those that would seem implausible if applied to say lions or > bonobos (like the claim that men are more decisive or more logical than > women) are more likely a result of culture, unless there is good evidence > that goes beyond just observations of statistical differences in behavior > in the modern world. Good article here on the sex differences that tend to > be seen in other primates: > https://sites.pitt.edu/~bertsch/Lonsdorf-2016-Journal_of_Neuroscience_Research.pdf > > On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 1:31 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> @Jesse. The woke regime only increased its power in the last couple of >> years. I don't know if it will continue, I cannot predict the future. Maybe >> it will loose the war on the games and movies front and they it will slowly >> go away. Or maybe in spite of companies getting bankrupt, it will keep >> getting funded no matter the financial cost and then it will just go >> straight to extermination as the last measure to make sure they win the >> war. It remains to be seen what the outcome will be. One thing is clear, >> despite the regressive speech of PGC, people don't want woke. If they would >> have wanted, games and movies would have thrived. Instead, they keep >> failing. The "female hero story" is not just "another cultural thing", but >> it goes against biology. If you go against biology you only create >> repulsion in people. Sure, some desperate incels and simps will agree to >> anything in the hope that they will finally lose their virginity at 40 >> years old. But for normal people, "strong and independent woman" just >> creates a sense of disgust and repulsion because it goes against biology. >> As the saying goes: You can ignore reality, but you cannot ignore the >> effects of ignoring reality. >> >> On Tuesday 22 October 2024 at 20:18:13 UTC+3 Jesse Mazer wrote: >> >>> 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/a50901c6-e98d-4d98-9718-b5ca960fd719n%40googlegroups.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a50901c6-e98d-4d98-9718-b5ca960fd719n%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/4475dfcf-969b-4dd7-96c0-c3b077f93028n%40googlegroups.com.
