Jesse, that was about as perfect of a reply to anyone as I've seen in a long time.
On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 3:11 PM Jesse Mazer <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAPCWU3L3DCJRU%3DfTP9HeYRO8eCiqbvmV5PE%3DUMb_kzdpNWj3jg%40mail.gmail.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/CAMy3ZA-_d8EtOOO7BdkGrYEO4xXECimBdM1GW1MYr0%3DE6DGwUg%40mail.gmail.com.
