Why do the wokies want to exterminate the normal white men ?
Cosmin Visan
John Clark
> 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 ?
Cosmin Visan
PGC
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.
Alan Grayson
Cosmin Visan
Jesse Mazer
--
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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/959af6d9-8767-4d14-b539-a2c41d167d75n%40googlegroups.com.
Cosmin Visan
Jesse Mazer
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a50901c6-e98d-4d98-9718-b5ca960fd719n%40googlegroups.com.
Cosmin Visan
Jesse Mazer
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4475dfcf-969b-4dd7-96c0-c3b077f93028n%40googlegroups.com.
Terren Suydam
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAPCWU3L3DCJRU%3DfTP9HeYRO8eCiqbvmV5PE%3DUMb_kzdpNWj3jg%40mail.gmail.com.
Cosmin Visan
Quentin Anciaux
@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 ?
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/685ac346-28f2-4684-b576-b17119d2502en%40googlegroups.com.
Cosmin Visan
Quentin Anciaux
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ee6e1790-2fc7-4eeb-91c5-49a151b2a00dn%40googlegroups.com.
Cosmin Visan
PGC
The original poster's reply, citing "extermination" and "woke regimes," reflects a misunderstanding/confusion of both progressive movements and how culture evolves. Invoking totalitarian comparisons, particularly with extermination, once again, distorts reality. Historically, totalitarian regimes engaged in violence, but to equate the diversification of media representation with such atrocities is an extreme leap, to put it mildly. No progressive movement is calling for the extermination of any group—this is a fabricated fear designed to stoke emotional reactions rather than foster genuine discourse. That this even has to mentioned is an indicator for how unsophisticated these discursive strategies are.
The claim that a “woke regime” is taking power and that its agenda will lead to extermination ignores the basic reality of democratic societies, where cultural change and shifts in representation reflect a broader range of voices. The idea that female heroes in media are part of a “war” that is repelling audiences also misrepresents the situation. While some media fail commercially, it's simplistic to blame this on diversity or female characters. Market trends are shaped by complex factors, not just representation. The success or failure of films and games isn't proof that "people don't want woke"; it’s often a reflection of deeper market dynamics, including storytelling quality, marketing, and audience engagement. Moreover, equating diversity in storytelling to biological “truth” grossly oversimplifies both media and biology.
When the original poster argues that "strong and independent women" in media "go against biology" and provoke "disgust," this reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of feminism and gender representation. Feminists aren't asking people to ignore biology or claim that women are physically stronger than men in ways that contradict reality. The feminist movement has been about achieving equal rights—voting, ownership, equal pay—not proving physical dominance over men. This argument confuses the point entirely, turning feminism into a straw man argument about physical superiority, which is not its focus. I don't ask for your belief: find one feminist author that equates a person's self-worth with how strong they are physically. There is a lot of literature of questionable quality but this is just junk, decadent, unreflected, and simplistic talk.
Furthermore, the original poster appears to misunderstand the concept of gender fluidity. Gender fluidity is about self-determination, the freedom for individuals to define themselves in ways that may not align with their assigned biological sex. For someone who claims to value the immaterial—believing in the primacy of the mind over the body—this principle should be intuitive. If the poster were denied the right to identify as male, he would likely see this as an infringement on personal freedom. So why should others be denied the right to define their own gender identity, as long as it pertains to their personal experience? This isn’t about imposing definitions on groups or rewriting biological realities but about respecting the autonomy of individuals.
The fixation on female representation in Star Wars and other fictional works, where characters wield lightsabers and possess superhuman abilities, also feels oddly inconsistent. These are fantastical worlds, far removed from the realities of biology, yet the poster seems to invest them with significant cultural and biological weight. If one's worldview prioritizes the immaterial or the mind, why should fictional representations of female characters carry such importance? The tension between the poster's supposed disdain for the physical world and his preoccupation with the appearance of gender in fictional narratives highlights a deeper contradiction.
Finally, the suggestion that feminist ideologues want society to believe men and women are biologically the same is a gross misinterpretation. Feminism isn't about denying biological differences but about ensuring equality of opportunity and rights. The fixation on physicality—who can carry heavier stones or lift more weight—is a reductionist view of what feminism seeks to address. History books, if truly examined, show countless contributions by women despite centuries of male oppression. The argument against women’s representation in media as an attack on biology ignores the real historical and ongoing fight for equal rights in areas like employment, politics, and society.
In conclusion, engaging with such provocations risks legitimizing them. The original poster’s reliance on extreme language and the moving of goalposts reflects a tactic used to overwhelm, rather than contribute to, meaningful discourse. Responding to this type of rhetoric often results in endless circular debates, feeding into the poster’s need for attention and validation rather than addressing any substantive issue. The true challenge lies in the rapid production of misinformation and emotionally charged distortions, which can be easily disseminated but require significant time and effort to refute.
Gender fluidity and feminism are about self-determination, not denying biology but recognizing that identity is more than the body one is born into. As more people become aware of these complexities, hopefully, discussions will shift toward a more informed and balanced understanding of these issues. Until then, we must be cautious about falling into the traps of bad-faith arguments designed to provoke rather than engage.
John Clark
Cosmin Visan
Brent Meeker
Brent
PGC
Cosmin Visan
Liz R
Cosmin Visan
PGC
@PGC excellent responses, although they seem like water off a duck's back.
Research in social psychology supports this connection between economic hardship and the appeal of authoritarianism. A study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology found that individuals experiencing economic threats are more likely to endorse authoritarian ideologies (Sales, 1973). The loss of status and control leads to frustration and aggression, often directed toward out-groups or perceived sources of change, such as women and minorities who are advancing in society. As if ownership of an inadequate penis entitles one to status.
This insecurity is further exacerbated by the success of women in adapting to new societal roles. As women gain more opportunities and assert their independence, some men perceive this as a threat to their traditional dominance and inadequate penises. Unable to articulate genuine arguments against this progression, they resort to insults and attacks, often - big surprise - of a sexual nature. This behavior is a projection of their own inadequacies and a defense mechanism against feelings of emasculation. The misogynistic rhetoric seen in political discourse is not even offensive to me anymore; it is simply indicative of deeper psychological trouble, which I even have compassion for. Size, muscle, weapons... are only a concession that one has no faith in one's arguments, position, status, or adequacy of one's penis.
Even if authoritarian figures like Donald Trump ascend to power, the fundamental inadequacies felt by these men will persist. Authoritarianism may offer the illusion of restored masculinity and control, but it does not address the root causes of economic and social disenfranchisement. In fact, such regimes often exacerbate inequalities, favoring the wealthy and well-connected while leaving the average person to grapple with harsher conditions.
Despite the emphasis on solidarity, this approach does not lead to tangible improvements in living standards, increased prestige/recognition, or greater economic prosperity for its adherents. The promised benefits of such unity—better homes, vehicles, and disposable income—remain largely unfulfilled. The friendliness and respect promoted within the group often come at the expense of openness and acceptance of others, particularly those who value freedom, scientific inquiry, and open exploration of ideas.
The use of ill-defined terms like "wokeness" serves as a tool for othering, creating straw man arguments that lack specificity and target a broad range of individuals and ideas. This practice fosters division and perpetuates an undercurrent of hostility toward those who do not conform to the group's norms. The resultant atmosphere is one where the cost of belonging is the acceptance of this exclusionary stance and the underlying animosity it entails.
Ultimately, the false sense of solidarity built on opposing others hinders genuine progress and undermines the principles of inclusivity and mutual respect that are essential for societal advancement. It prioritizes conformity over critical thinking and suppresses the diversity of thought necessary for innovation and growth. That "love" is called hate, ladies and gentlemen.
History shows that adaptability and resilience are key to overcoming periods of regression. Families who have endured the devastations of war, losing everything from wealth to homes, have managed to rebuild by embracing change rather than resisting it. They understand that progress cannot be halted and that survival depends on the willingness to dive into the waves of transformation. Those who adapt thrive, while those who cling to outdated notions of power and identity risk being swept away. Those of us who are immune to the teenage strength rhetoric, despite being persecuted and targeted for centuries, will always find a way back to prosperity and peace because we change and, when necessary, move and adapt.
The support of billionaires like Kenneth Griffin for authoritarian candidates is telling. Super wealthy individuals in the economic prediction forefront often thrive on volatility, as it presents opportunities for profit that stability does not. Griffin's substantial financial endorsement of Trump signals an economic landscape where the super rich stand to benefit, as will the "merely affluent" to a lesser degree, while the less affluent may face increased adversity. Under such administrations, policies are frequently enacted that favor the elite, widening the gap between the rich and the poor. I've embraced a Trump win for some time now, the resulting tax benefits of interests in the US, made appropriate plans, and seeing the new opportunities it would open up, even if it all is driven by the inadequate penis mindset. In many ways, such a mindset is easier to manipulate, take advantage of, and do business with. If these people want to "teach us dad's harsh lesson"; they will only find such a lesson self-administered over time.
Moreover, the regression into authoritarianism is fundamentally incompatible with progressive agendas, including transhumanism—the belief in using technology to enhance the human condition. Authoritarian regimes typically suppress innovation and dissent, stifling the very advancements that drive societal growth and science. Progress requires freedom of thought and expression, conditions that are antithetical to teenage insecurity whining.
In delving into the insecurities fueling this political shift, it becomes clear that a return to authoritarianism is not a solution but a symptom of deeper issues. Economic policies that genuinely address meaningful job scarcity and provide new opportunities are needed to alleviate the frustrations that lead to the embrace of strongman figures. I stress the "meaningful" part, as genuine self-confidence only grows accomplishments we deem meaningful (not that I claim the ability to define this for somebody else). Education and open dialogue can help dismantle the harmful stereotypes and fears that perpetuate misogyny and aggression. But sustained deep hatred and envy at some point become a matter for psychologists, eventually psychiatrists.
Ultimately, the march toward authoritarianism will not alleviate the insecurities of those who support it; instead, it will intensify them. It's a case where insecure men getting what they want is poisoned/cursed: they will get more of the same, and the frustration/anxieties/insecurities will merely grow, consistent with their dispositions. Societal progress depends on confronting these challenges head-on, promoting adaptability, and fostering environments where all individuals can find purpose and prosperity without resorting to destructive ideologies.
Footnote: It is a sobering reality that democratic systems can be vulnerable to their own undoing when they fail to protect against the rise of anti-democratic forces. Allowing those who undermine democratic principles to ascend to power is akin to trusting a wolf to shepherd the sheep or appointing a serial offender to manage a school. The checks and balances designed to safeguard democracy are rendered ineffective when the very mechanisms of democracy are used to dismantle it. History has shown the dangers of this pattern repeatedly, yet there remains a reluctance to implement safeguards that prevent self-destruction here. It is imperative to recognize and address this naivety to preserve the integrity and future of open societies.
Alan Grayson
PGC
."I've embraced a Trump win for some time now, the resulting tax benefits of interests in the US, made appropriate plans, and seeing the new opportunities it would open up, even if it all is driven by the inadequate penis mindset."In the final analysis, the author has capitulated to the Evil whose origin he describes so well. Utterly shameful and unforgivable. AG
Alan Grayson
PGC
So, just as any reasonable person adjusts their strategy based on the latest market data, I'm updating my own views in light of this new information. It's that easy, guys... To say: "I was wrong and correct myself." My testosterone levels will remain what they are.
Cosmin Visan
Alan Grayson
@PGC. All the clues point to the fact that you lack a woman in your life. That's where all your obsession with the extermination of men come from. You imagine that by remaining the only man alive, all women will come to you and you will have unlimited sex, thus taking revenge for your old age virginity.
Cosmin Visan
PGC
Cosmin Visan
Brent Meeker
Brent
--
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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4887a1b3-9996-4183-b28d-f668afae206bn%40googlegroups.com.
Cosmin Visan
Brent Meeker
Brent
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3effcd6e-c4ba-4430-934d-9a626e6fda12n%40googlegroups.com.
Alan Grayson
If this is failure I'll take it over your comical envy any day. Why do you keep projecting your own shortcomings onto everyone else?
Brent
Cosmin Visan
LizR
On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 at 21:03, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List
<everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> 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 ?
>
> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
Cosmin Visan
LizR
<everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> @Liz. Dear strong and independent person, how many children do you have ?
Cosmin Visan
LizR
in the attic...?
On Sat, 2 Nov 2024 at 23:35, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09wneKlYr2M
>
> On Friday 1 November 2024 at 00:22:02 UTC+2 LizR wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 at 02:42, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List
>> <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > @Liz. Dear strong and independent person, how many children do you have ?
>>
>> Two.
>
> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.