@Jesse, yes, it is a rational argument that you never touched a woman. How do you expect to know how women are if you never touched one ? You're speaking from your fantasy, not from reality.
On Wednesday 23 October 2024 at 00:31:09 UTC+3 Terren Suydam wrote: > 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/685ac346-28f2-4684-b576-b17119d2502en%40googlegroups.com.
