Le mer. 23 oct. 2024, 08:43, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < [email protected]> a écrit :
> @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 ? Women don't exist, you're speaking from your fantasy not from reality. 🤔 > 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 > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/685ac346-28f2-4684-b576-b17119d2502en%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/CAMW2kAqjTPaxSroK_i0gzdLrG-M5v21z%3DKQtmQn6cEvNq%3D%2BdmA%40mail.gmail.com.
