Thursday, January 16, 2020

The culture of chronic complainers

The decay of the Western society is mostly powered by the postmodern Left. All of us know the typical words associated with this growing, degenerated portion of the society – verbs that must be repeated more often than Allah is repeated by the Muslims. They're words like
discriminate, privilege, oppression, victim, microaggression, offended, diversity, outrage, cancel, racism, Islamophobia, sexism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, pedophilophobia
and many others. Clearly, some of these are associated with radicals who still represent at most 15% of the Western nations. But there is one "more civilian" verb that used to be rather normal but whose role in the society has transformed to dangerous proportions and it's the verb
to complain.
Each of us may sometimes complain, there may be good reasons for it but complaints may also be unjustified. My main point is that our societies have transformed to the worshipers of complainers.

Just a few years ago, it was generally appreciated that it was bad to be a chronic complainer. We could get various recommendations how to deal with chronic complainers. But it's different now, in early 2020. Chronic complainers have won. They are basically in charge of most nations that used to belong to the Western civilization. And the more pathological the chronic complainers are, the more power they seem to possess.

This new situation is no coincidence. The status quo has been carefully and intentionally built for many years. The media and schools are the two main institutional networks that have been extending and solidifying the cult of complainers for a long time. The media systematically present everyone who whines and complains as a hero while the targets of the complaints are automatically treated as villains.

Also, many designers of the curricula are openly bragging about their indoctrination of the kids who should become chronic complainers. We often hear the unbelievable assertion that it's not important for kids to learn what an equation, a transistor, or string theory is; it's more important for kids to learn how to discuss and deal with information. And the "right" way of discussing is to permanently complain and mindlessly side with others who complain.

We are bombarded with manifestations of this obvious tendency many times a day. The BBC has brought us a truly juicy example two days ago (via Paul Joseph Watson):
Sheffield students paid to tackle racist language on campus
Incredibly enough, twenty students are going to be hired and paid a very generous £9.34 per hour for being informers of the communist secret police who have to report "microaggressions". (If I found out that I am such a moral ruin as the students who accept this kind of a "job", I would instantly commit suicide.)

What are the thought crimes that these heroic English KGB agents are going to wrestle with? Helpfully enough, the BBC gave us a list of examples:
"Stop making everything a race issue"
"Why are you searching for things to be offended about?"
"Where are you really from?"
"I don't want to hear about your holiday to South Africa. It's nowhere near where I'm from"
"Being compared to black celebrities that I look nothing like"
It's quite a selection. You're not only forbidden from expressing the opinion that two people are lookalikes. You're also forbidden from being disinterested in some stupid vacations in a South African šithole – it's mandatory to be interested because the term "South Africa" includes "Africa". More generally, you can't even say that some people complain too much! If someone said it, he is going to be treated as a heretic or a criminal.

Again: it is unsafe for Sheffield students and scholars to say that there's too much complaining and being offended.

What does this policy imply? The policy means the absolute, total power by the chronic complainers. If it's not allowed to say that there's too much complaining and the complainers have too much power, then there's just one direction in which the power of complainers and frequency of complaints may evolve: up! The University of Sheffield has launched a new totalitarian regime. The leaders of that regime are neither the workers nor the Aryan men. Instead, the leaders with the total power are the chronic complainers! That's what's going on.

You know, complaining isn't always helpful or ethical and the more the society supports "complaining regardless of the facts", the higher percentage of the complaints will be unjustified whining, verbal sabotage, annoyance, or psychological torture of the psychologically healthy people who have to live with the chronic complainers.

Everyone who wasn't living in the cave knows lots of examples where this "cult of complaining" affects the discussions involving women, sexual minorities, and races, among a few related things. But sadly, this "cult of complaining" has spread to many other corners including physics (and other sciences). Late Jeffrey Epstein has fully funded a project that has imported this "culture of complaining" to the fringes of theoretical physics. The complainers – who haven't actually contributed anything meaningful to theoretical physics and who haven't even mastered the theories that underlie the field today but who are great at whining – must be treated on par with the good or best theoretical physicists, this movement has been telling us.

A medium-size example is the anti-quantum zeal. We may interpret the whole movement of the anti-quantum zealots as the "culture of complaining" applied to the foundations of quantum physics. They just don't feel well about the new foundations that physics has switched to almost a century ago. So they permanently complain and they think that even in the absence of any statements that make any sense, their complaining is very important. Many of them have also been shaped by the education system that worships complaining for the sake of it.

So the "Copenhagen Interpretation" is evil, oppressive, it must be destroyed and replaced with something. When it comes to any questions of the type "what is exactly inconsistent or empirically disproved" about the Copenhagen Interpretation, they have nothing to say. When they're asked about any details of the theories that are supposed to replace the Copenhagen Interpretation, it's just incoherent hogwash. But despite the fact that their alternative is self-evidently and unquestionably inferior or completely non-existent, they find themselves important. It's always great to be a complainer and the critics of quantum mechanics are complainers. So they're among the leaders of mankind today!

The foundations of quantum mechanics are firmly established but one may still call them rather philosophical or conceptual – and in this sense, perhaps a bit "ideological" – in character. However, the "cult of worshiping" is spreading even to other realms of physics that seem much more technical and non-philosophical. A few days ago, Pavel wrote at least two comments both of which have used the very verb "complain":
... AFAIK, the authors complain that the whole CMB dipole moment is attributed to Solar system motion without any direct evidence...

... The authors complain about methodology used for measuring supernovae redshift that is: ...
Under normal circumstances, the double appearance of the verb "complain" could be considered innocent. However, from the context – both the context of our discussion as well as the broader context in the society – I am pretty much certain that the verb "complain" isn't neutral at all. It's actually a major part of Pavel's would-be argument. I think that he is saying
What these authors do must be considered important or even right because these authors complain! Look how heroic and politically correct they are. They complain! They're so cool. ;-)
Meanwhile, rational people know that "complaining" doesn't make or shouldn't make one's position stronger because complaints may be justified or unjustified. In science, researchers must impartially deal with the competition between statements and between theories. The competition is e.g. between the statements
"the Solar System is moving with respect to a frame that is more natural for cosmological purposes" vs "the Solar System is at rest with respect..."
"the motion of the Solar System causes a Doppler shift" vs "the motion doesn't cause the Doppler shift".
And be sure that science – the body of viable theories and evidence that is available and that has survived the scrutiny – is overwhelmingly on the side of the first statement in both contests. As long as we are doing science, you cannot tilt these contests to the other side by saying that the other side "complains" which is so great.

The Solar System is undoubtedly moving, everything is moving in the Cosmos (Galileo's And yet it moves is a slogan that almost defines the fight of science against bigotry), the speed is comparable to hundreds of miles per second, and it is just plain stupid to deny this fact in 2020. In the same way, the motion causes the Doppler shift that is perfectly understood theoretically and directly and precisely verified experimentally, too.

There may be other effects that contribute to the shift of the frequencies but one can't deny the contribution due to the motion of the Solar System; and by Occam's razor, one shouldn't add a greater number of sources of the frequency shifts unless it is shown to be necessary. This is basically how the scientific reasoning works here.

Whoever denies the existence of the motion of celestial bodies or the Doppler shift in the papers loses his credibility among competent scientists. He has absolutely no basis for complaining and if he complains nevertheless, he becomes truly painful.

As you can see, the members of the "cult of complainers" want worse and less correct (or totally incorrect) statements to win (or at least be treated on par with the best and most carefully verified statements and theories); they generally want low-quality stuff to be presented as good because it's theirs while high-quality stuff must be spat upon because it's not theirs. They want to eliminate any fairness and meritocracy from science and from all contests outside science, too. In their world view, a greater amount of complaining may always compensate and overcompensate any difference in the quality and validity of the arguments (or products). And lots of institutional networks in the society seem to support them in their (devastatingly pathological) world view.

They want to be treated at least as a viable alternative even though it is very clear that they don't have any viable alternative. They don't have any viable alternative to capitalism, commercial banks, cautious immigration and asylum policies, conventional families and related laws, Copenhagen foundations of quantum mechanics, the standard Big Bang theory, string theory, or anything else that the chronic complainers love to complain about. These complainers are just emitting worthless garbage and for that reason, they are worthless as human beings.

Complaining isn't a good thing for its own sake. Complainers are a burden for their environment. If you were taught that it's great to complain at school, you were lied to. People who are trash were transforming you to their image, into another piece of trash. You should better realize this before it's too late and fix yourself because some sane people will eventually figure out that the trash has to be cleaned by the human species for rather existential reasons and you want to be on the side of the cleaners, not on the side of the trash.

And that's the memo.

No comments:

Post a Comment