Undermining your own point a bit by responding to criticism with emotional lashing-out as opposed to reasoned argument
On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 2:27 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < [email protected]> wrote: > @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 > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4475dfcf-969b-4dd7-96c0-c3b077f93028n%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/CAPCWU3L3DCJRU%3DfTP9HeYRO8eCiqbvmV5PE%3DUMb_kzdpNWj3jg%40mail.gmail.com.
