@Quentin&all. You make the classical confusion between ontology and epistemology.
On Wednesday 23 October 2024 at 09:57:43 UTC+3 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > 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/ee6e1790-2fc7-4eeb-91c5-49a151b2a00dn%40googlegroups.com.
