Monday, July 27, 2020

Anti-SJW "allies" who aren't real anti-SJW allies

While many Western (and especially Anglo-Saxon) countries are decaying and events from the U.S. and U.K. look increasingly surreal to everyone in countries like mine where people haven't gone nuts yet, lots of people tell me that they're allies. Sadly, they only tell it to me – and they mostly use anonymous nicknames, anyway. On top of that, I am often told things like the following:
I am against the SJWs. But: Shut up. The whole future belongs to the SJWs. The future under their leadership is unavoidable unless some miracle happens, or unless we introduce a full-blown fascist society.
Or:
George Soros may be shorting the stock market and paying the fake news journalists for bad news in order to bring the U.S. economy to the knees (and to hurt Donald Trump and everyone aligned with his fate along the way). Incidentally, I just shorted Dow Jones for the third time because it will surely go to 18,000. Isn't it exciting? I will earn XY dollars when it's at 18,000.
Cool.



First, it's just wrong that they need to use anonymous nicknames – this shows their cowardliness; and it deservedly lowers their influence. Second, we may ask: How do these people differ from the SJWs themselves? Or more specifically: How does the effect of these people's proclamations differ from the effect of the SJWs' proclamations?

The first assertion about the future is exactly isomorphic to the claims by the SJWs themselves who bully everyone who isn't as brain-dead as they are and who paint themselves as the progress, the future, the correct side of the history, and so on. If you are bullying me in the same way as they are, in what sense you are not an SJW? How can I distinguish you from them at all?



The second quote is about the shortselling. Once again, this guy (this is a real example, not one that I invented) hates George Soros for his positions on the stock market combined with his propaganda-related activities. People like Soros (or the warming alarmists – these sets of people are almost identical, anyway) have the plan of ruining the whole economy (or whole crucial industries of the economy) and make a much tinier profit for themselves at the same moment. But in what sense does the self-described anti-Soros warrior differ from Soros himself? Like the previous one, he is spreading the – totally unjustified – idea that the likes of Soros must be the ultimate winners who will bring the economy to the knees and ruin the Western civilization completely.

I just don't see any material difference here. I sincerely hope that all the people who want to create some runaway collapse of the U.S. or global stock market (which is what is needed for their substantial profits, so it's clear that they want to cooperate on this scenario) will lose their bets. I hope that such people will be miserable and suicidal. If some of them also tell me that they are actually agreeing with me, it just doesn't make a sufficient difference from my viewpoint. I see no reason to invent an exception for them. I would really find it immoral to maintain such an exception. So I want them to lose everything and be miserable, too. And yes, I think it is more likely that they will lose.

Another question is "who is responsible for the distortion of news and propaganda". So there is no doubt that e.g. Google manipulates the searches (of news and generic websites) in the direction to make the far left-wing lies more visible; and to make the truth and conservative opinions less visible or invisible. That's surely evil and lots of people in that company unquestionably deserve death penalty. The same comment applies to many similar companies in Silicon Valley.

But there's also the other side of these mechanisms: the consumers. The people who can be manipulated in this simple way are cowardly sheep and gullible morons and they are perhaps a more important part of the problem than the far left terrorists who are working against both shareholders and users and who are undermining the integrity of Google's algorithms. A sensible person verifies a sufficient fraction of the information he is getting so he will notice that some searches have collectively become biased or manipulative. In most cases, he will be able to localize the individual manipulative texts, too.

So the real point is that it is probably more important to walk the walk and not just talk the talk. Especially if you only "talk the talk" in a private conversation – and even that is often under anonymous nicknames – it is simply not enough; you are not an ally. What I find insulting is when these would-be anti-SJW warriors treat people like me as if we were equal to the SJWs (if not less than them!). I am sorry but it is not the case. The life of a person with integrity (and knowledge) matters much more than the life of many SJWs or other people without integrity (and knowledge). Why don't you just ignore the dishonest people such as the SJWs? Why do you cooperate on spreading the lie that their lives or even their opinions matter? If you keep on doing these things, you won't be a victim of the destruction of the Western system in your country; you will be an accomplice.

Self-fulfilling prophesies are a part of the picture. It may happen in some cases that events occur because people have believed that they would occur which caused them to behave in a way that brings the events closer. But every human being has free will – the ability to decide whether he wants to participate in a self-fulfilling prophesy. If someone promotes the idea of a self-fulfilling prophesy, the idea that others should consider a very bad future to be nearly unavoidable, then they are helping to establish this bad future.

I must also mention that some of these fake allies join the bad people in spreading distorted or downright untrue interpretations of events in the past. For example, some of them incorrectly say that XY was convicted of UV (even though he was convincted of something else or nothing at all). Sometimes, they even add that XY should be careful now because of these (distorted or non-existent events) – which simply means that fully join the SJWs in the intimidation of XY. I could give you lots of examples that I have experienced. Another example is that self-described anti-SJWs often parrot the insulting lie that Viktor Orbán nurtures "illiberalism" when he removes Women's Studies from university-worthy subjects or when he demands transparent funding of NGOs. There is nothing "illiberal" about these things at all.

These countries are decaying not because the SJWs are strong or powerful or clever – they are neither – but because those who market themselves as the advocates of the actual values that have passed the test of time are so weak, cowardly, incoherent, and hypocritical.

No comments:

Post a Comment