Going along to get along

[Ethel]

I watched the video below in the last 24 hours and by the end of it, was angrily aware of a very particular form of manipulation which is highly prevalent in the majority of the population. This "comedian" is talking about how the media like to divide people. Nothing wrong with that, you might think, but wait! There's more. I will now break down this sly narrative for you below, so that in future you will see this and will know it, will know why it is happening and where it is headed if more people don't start challenging it. Here goes:

 

The guy, whose eyes are far too close together - never a good sign, begins by pointing out that the media like to "stir up division over anything", which sounds absolutely fine, and is also absolutely true. Examples are given; the usual subjects, of course: race, gender, climate change. The everyman with hypotelorism then gives a series of headlines which are designed to further prove his point about how the media are enhancing the division between "left" and "right" in society. The headlines are ostensibly of the ilk that they make leftists look silly, reactionary or just plain insane, which the guy then goes on to explain is simply not true, using a series of clips of (presumably) conservative types using the word "woke" in a critical way before going on to say "it's such nonsense". This is fairly manipulative, since at first, he has drawn you in by pointing out that the media like to play people off against each other, but then fails to honestly acknowledge the weaponisation of leftist politics and the legitimate attack on freedom of speech occurring in Western society. This is a common tactic among leftists when faced with accusations of liberal fascism; they play the "that's so silly" card, in an effort to silence critics of any aspect of leftist ideology by trying to make the criticism appear childlike or insubstantial.

 

He then plays the "everyman" card, using a colorful analogy in which he describes the "culture" war as being little more than "five arseholes on the right, five arseholes on the left, and us (the masses, the majority) in the middle, dealing with their shit, like a festival toilet". The message here is that the "majority" of people are essentially reasonable, balanced people who just want peace and happiness; the kind of people who took the Convid vaccine in order to return society to it's previous state - which was already a piece of garbage if people had but realized it.

 

After a crass swipe at religion (because atheism is cool, don't y'know), the "comedian" then goes on to provide an everyman level explanation of how social media companies keep "us" hooked, before inferring that journalists fundamentally just want to care about truth and justice, but are forced to be "rage farmers" because that's what motivates people. Even on this level, mr. everyman is wrong; what actually drives social media addiction and media consumption is dopamine but never mind. He claims that many journalists create news stories from social media content, which may or may not be true, but the best is yet to come in this seven minute exercise in manipulation. He gives an example (presumably fictional) : "woke snowflakes want to ban jaffa cakes" but once again, if he is arguing that the media are endeavouring to create division, how come all of the "examples" he is using are the ones that make leftists look bad? Where are the headlines, fictional or otherwise, which demean and denigrate anyone who disagrees with any aspect of leftist ideology? Hilariously, he then describes the overall situation as a bunch of "manipulative bullshit" which is astonishing given the insidiously subtle level of manipulation at work in this video.

 

Next, and whilst displaying an alarming case of being unable to talk without waving his arms around wildly, everyman then brings his wisdom to it's conclusion by summarizing that "most people don't care about aggressive full stops... or what curry gavin or stacey eat... they'll happily call anyone by the pronoun they want because they don't want their pronoun to be prick. There is no culture war. It's ten fucking people and a dying media who are trying to keep us divided. That is all it is." At this point the audience clap enthusiastically.

 

The crux here is the everyman's assertion that the "majority" of people will use the preffered pronouns of a transgender person because they aren't "pricks" and that it is essentially motivated by decency and goodness and empathy. This is the crux of the whole video for me because it is essentially the key to the entire message. He is trying to infer that the everyman/everywoman types like him don't rock the boat and take the line of least resistance because of some inherent goodness and I am telling you as an absolute fact that it isn't the case. I have been around these types my whole life, and have worked amongst the so-called normies. I can read them like an open book. Their co-operation with the pronoun issue, or any other zeitgeist is motivated by survival alone, i.e. "going along to get along". In a smaller number of cases, probably not very many, it may be motivated by genuinely not wanting to hurt people's feelings, which in this case would actually be projection, but in the vast majority of cases the person is unconsciously attuning to the practice of using "preferred pronouns" because they know that if they don't, there will be severe consequences, i.e. being threatened, bullied, mobbed, intimidated or shamed. 

 

Now, I should point out here, I don't inherently care about the pronoun issue. If someone wants to use a trangender person's preferred pronouns, fine. If they don't, fine. I will let people make their own decisions in life and face the consequences of those decisions for themselves. Likewise I have my own particular way of approaching this issue.

 

What I have issue with, where Mr. everyman is concerned, are his sly attempts to manipulate narratives and manufacture false consensuses; trying to infer that normies accomodate transgender people out of inherent goodness rather than out of nothing more than self-preservation. These types are more than happy to compromise their own integrity, honesty and authenticity in order to receive social rewards, favours, in-group rewards, acceptance and conditional positive regard. These types are more than happy to say "she" even when their mind is saying "he" because they know that in certain instances, they will be mobbed otherwise. Then, they will happily lie through their teeth and say that they were thinking she even when they were thinking he. They have a million selves, they're like gollum on steroids. They are the people whom enabled the convid scam, and are now whining like little bitches in the face of the damage done. These people are unwilling to face discomfort in order to be their authentic selves, and also demonize people whose authentic selves contradict the content of the zeitgeist. Everyman bitches like this guy are why I ain't a people person. I give more of a fuck about these people's freedom than they do - mainly because they don't possess enough insight to realize they have none.

 

This is not about whether you say he or she, I don't give a fuck about who does or doesn't do that. But if you are going to accomodate someone, what I do give a fuck about is that you are honest enough to admit why. If someone is doing it because they just don't want to "hurt someones feelings" (projection) then admit it. Likewise, if you are doing it because you are essentially a gutless coward who goes along with manufactured zeitgeist and social conditioning because you're too much of a pussy to do otherwise, then fucking admit to that, too!

 

 

 

Edited December 3, 2022 by Ethel

[EnigmaticWorld]

Watched that too. He should leave this topic alone, he is out of his depth.

 

"It's a bunch of manipulative bullshit"

 

Meanwhile...

 

 

 

[Ethel]

8 minutes ago, EnigmaticWorld said:

Watched that too. He should leave this topic alone, he is out of his depth.

 

"It's a bunch of manipulative bullshit"

 

Meanwhile...

 

 

 

 

Out of his depth - yep, that just about sums it up. But the thing about these types is, knowing fuck all about something doesn't necessarily stop them from voicing an opinion on it. He has a platform, millions of people listening to him, but very little insight to back it up with. He is the normie everyman type which I dislike so much; think they know something when in actual fact they don't know shit about shit. Their entire lives are lived playing for safety and protection from the in-group - which they resolutely do not deserve. They attain money, resources and connection through being fake as fuck, dishonest, two dimensional cardboard cutouts and I dislike them intensely for it.

[Anti Facts Sir]

Oh christ, that guy is a twonk. He's been playing this schtick for about 15 years now. Embodies everything the BBC want from their "entertainers". How he got such a career in the first place, and still has one, is a mystery. Except of course it isn't really...if you say the right things and are prepared to shill for the corporation, you'll always be welcome.

 

[Mr Crabtree]

2 hours ago, Ethel said:

I watched the video below in the last 24 hours and by the end of it, was angrily aware of a very particular form of manipulation which is highly prevalent in the majority of the population. This "comedian" is talking about how the media like to divide people. Nothing wrong with that, you might think, but wait! There's more. I will now break down this sly narrative for you below, so that in future you will see this and will know it, will know why it is happening and where it is headed if more people don't start challenging it. Here goes:

 

The guy, whose eyes are far too close together - never a good sign, begins by pointing out that the media like to "stir up division over anything", which sounds absolutely fine, and is also absolutely true. Examples are given; the usual subjects, of course: race, gender, climate change. The everyman with hypotelorism then gives a series of headlines which are designed to further prove his point about how the media are enhancing the division between "left" and "right" in society. The headlines are ostensibly of the ilk that they make leftists look silly, reactionary or just plain insane, which the guy then goes on to explain is simply not true, using a series of clips of (presumably) conservative types using the word "woke" in a critical way before going on to say "it's such nonsense". This is fairly manipulative, since at first, he has drawn you in by pointing out that the media like to play people off against each other, but then fails to honestly acknowledge the weaponisation of leftist politics and the legitimate attack on freedom of speech occurring in Western society. This is a common tactic among leftists when faced with accusations of liberal fascism; they play the "that's so silly" card, in an effort to silence critics of any aspect of leftist ideology by trying to make the criticism appear childlike or insubstantial.

 

He then plays the "everyman" card, using a colorful analogy in which he describes the "culture" war as being little more than "five arseholes on the right, five arseholes on the left, and us (the masses, the majority) in the middle, dealing with their shit, like a festival toilet". The message here is that the "majority" of people are essentially reasonable, balanced people who just want peace and happiness; the kind of people who took the Convid vaccine in order to return society to it's previous state - which was already a piece of garbage if people had but realized it.

 

After a crass swipe at religion (because atheism is cool, don't y'know), the "comedian" then goes on to provide an everyman level explanation of how social media companies keep "us" hooked, before inferring that journalists fundamentally just want to care about truth and justice, but are forced to be "rage farmers" because that's what motivates people. Even on this level, mr. everyman is wrong; what actually drives social media addiction and media consumption is dopamine but never mind. He claims that many journalists create news stories from social media content, which may or may not be true, but the best is yet to come in this seven minute exercise in manipulation. He gives an example (presumably fictional) : "woke snowflakes want to ban jaffa cakes" but once again, if he is arguing that the media are endeavouring to create division, how come all of the "examples" he is using are the ones that make leftists look bad? Where are the headlines, fictional or otherwise, which demean and denigrate anyone who disagrees with any aspect of leftist ideology? Hilariously, he then describes the overall situation as a bunch of "manipulative bullshit" which is astonishing given the insidiously subtle level of manipulation at work in this video.

 

Next, and whilst displaying an alarming case of being unable to talk without waving his arms around wildly, everyman then brings his wisdom to it's conclusion by summarizing that "most people don't care about aggressive full stops... or what curry gavin or stacey eat... they'll happily call anyone by the pronoun they want because they don't want their pronoun to be prick. There is no culture war. It's ten fucking people and a dying media who are trying to keep us divided. That is all it is." At this point the audience clap enthusiastically.

 

The crux here is the everyman's assertion that the "majority" of people will use the preffered pronouns of a transgender person because they aren't "pricks" and that it is essentially motivated by decency and goodness and empathy. This is the crux of the whole video for me because it is essentially the key to the entire message. He is trying to infer that the everyman/everywoman types like him don't rock the boat and take the line of least resistance because of some inherent goodness and I am telling you as an absolute fact that it isn't the case. I have been around these types my whole life, and have worked amongst the so-called normies. I can read them like an open book. Their co-operation with the pronoun issue, or any other zeitgeist is motivated by survival alone, i.e. "going along to get along". In a smaller number of cases, probably not very many, it may be motivated by genuinely not wanting to hurt people's feelings, which in this case would actually be projection, but in the vast majority of cases the person is unconsciously attuning to the practice of using "preferred pronouns" because they know that if they don't, there will be severe consequences, i.e. being threatened, bullied, mobbed, intimidated or shamed. 

 

Now, I should point out here, I don't inherently care about the pronoun issue. If someone wants to use a trangender person's preferred pronouns, fine. If they don't, fine. I will let people make their own decisions in life and face the consequences of those decisions for themselves. Likewise I have my own particular way of approaching this issue.

 

What I have issue with, where Mr. everyman is concerned, are his sly attempts to manipulate narratives and manufacture false consensuses; trying to infer that normies accomodate transgender people out of inherent goodness rather than out of nothing more than self-preservation. These types are more than happy to compromise their own integrity, honesty and authenticity in order to receive social rewards, favours, in-group rewards, acceptance and conditional positive regard. These types are more than happy to say "she" even when their mind is saying "he" because they know that in certain instances, they will be mobbed otherwise. Then, they will happily lie through their teeth and say that they were thinking she even when they were thinking he. They have a million selves, they're like gollum on steroids. They are the people whom enabled the convid scam, and are now whining like little bitches in the face of the damage done. These people are unwilling to face discomfort in order to be their authentic selves, and also demonize people whose authentic selves contradict the content of the zeitgeist. Everyman bitches like this guy are why I ain't a people person. I give more of a fuck about these people's freedom than they do - mainly because they don't possess enough insight to realize they have none.

 

This is not about whether you say he or she, I don't give a fuck about who does or doesn't do that. But if you are going to accomodate someone, what I do give a fuck about is that you are honest enough to admit why. If someone is doing it because they just don't want to "hurt someones feelings" (projection) then admit it. Likewise, if you are doing it because you are essentially a gutless coward who goes along with manufactured zeitgeist and social conditioning because you're too much of a pussy to do otherwise, then fucking admit to that, too!

 

 

 

Him and Jimmy Carr are manipulators, but having said that, so are almost all of the so called 'celebs'! Soaps, comedy series, reality shows, all tarred with the same brush, the brush of misdirection A.K.A. =Bullshit Baffles Brains!

[Saved]

On 12/3/2022 at 11:05 PM, Ethel said:

I watched the video below in the last 24 hours and by the end of it, was angrily aware of a very particular form of manipulation which is highly prevalent in the majority of the population. This "comedian" is talking about how the media like to divide people. Nothing wrong with that, you might think, but wait! There's more. I will now break down this sly narrative for you below, so that in future you will see this and will know it, will know why it is happening and where it is headed if more people don't start challenging it. Here goes:

 

The guy, whose eyes are far too close together - never a good sign, begins by pointing out that the media like to "stir up division over anything", which sounds absolutely fine, and is also absolutely true. Examples are given; the usual subjects, of course: race, gender, climate change. The everyman with hypotelorism then gives a series of headlines which are designed to further prove his point about how the media are enhancing the division between "left" and "right" in society. The headlines are ostensibly of the ilk that they make leftists look silly, reactionary or just plain insane, which the guy then goes on to explain is simply not true, using a series of clips of (presumably) conservative types using the word "woke" in a critical way before going on to say "it's such nonsense". This is fairly manipulative, since at first, he has drawn you in by pointing out that the media like to play people off against each other, but then fails to honestly acknowledge the weaponisation of leftist politics and the legitimate attack on freedom of speech occurring in Western society. This is a common tactic among leftists when faced with accusations of liberal fascism; they play the "that's so silly" card, in an effort to silence critics of any aspect of leftist ideology by trying to make the criticism appear childlike or insubstantial.

 

He then plays the "everyman" card, using a colorful analogy in which he describes the "culture" war as being little more than "five arseholes on the right, five arseholes on the left, and us (the masses, the majority) in the middle, dealing with their shit, like a festival toilet". The message here is that the "majority" of people are essentially reasonable, balanced people who just want peace and happiness; the kind of people who took the Convid vaccine in order to return society to it's previous state - which was already a piece of garbage if people had but realized it.

 

After a crass swipe at religion (because atheism is cool, don't y'know), the "comedian" then goes on to provide an everyman level explanation of how social media companies keep "us" hooked, before inferring that journalists fundamentally just want to care about truth and justice, but are forced to be "rage farmers" because that's what motivates people. Even on this level, mr. everyman is wrong; what actually drives social media addiction and media consumption is dopamine but never mind. He claims that many journalists create news stories from social media content, which may or may not be true, but the best is yet to come in this seven minute exercise in manipulation. He gives an example (presumably fictional) : "woke snowflakes want to ban jaffa cakes" but once again, if he is arguing that the media are endeavouring to create division, how come all of the "examples" he is using are the ones that make leftists look bad? Where are the headlines, fictional or otherwise, which demean and denigrate anyone who disagrees with any aspect of leftist ideology? Hilariously, he then describes the overall situation as a bunch of "manipulative bullshit" which is astonishing given the insidiously subtle level of manipulation at work in this video.

 

Next, and whilst displaying an alarming case of being unable to talk without waving his arms around wildly, everyman then brings his wisdom to it's conclusion by summarizing that "most people don't care about aggressive full stops... or what curry gavin or stacey eat... they'll happily call anyone by the pronoun they want because they don't want their pronoun to be prick. There is no culture war. It's ten fucking people and a dying media who are trying to keep us divided. That is all it is." At this point the audience clap enthusiastically.

 

The crux here is the everyman's assertion that the "majority" of people will use the preffered pronouns of a transgender person because they aren't "pricks" and that it is essentially motivated by decency and goodness and empathy. This is the crux of the whole video for me because it is essentially the key to the entire message. He is trying to infer that the everyman/everywoman types like him don't rock the boat and take the line of least resistance because of some inherent goodness and I am telling you as an absolute fact that it isn't the case. I have been around these types my whole life, and have worked amongst the so-called normies. I can read them like an open book. Their co-operation with the pronoun issue, or any other zeitgeist is motivated by survival alone, i.e. "going along to get along". In a smaller number of cases, probably not very many, it may be motivated by genuinely not wanting to hurt people's feelings, which in this case would actually be projection, but in the vast majority of cases the person is unconsciously attuning to the practice of using "preferred pronouns" because they know that if they don't, there will be severe consequences, i.e. being threatened, bullied, mobbed, intimidated or shamed. 

 

Now, I should point out here, I don't inherently care about the pronoun issue. If someone wants to use a trangender person's preferred pronouns, fine. If they don't, fine. I will let people make their own decisions in life and face the consequences of those decisions for themselves. Likewise I have my own particular way of approaching this issue.

 

What I have issue with, where Mr. everyman is concerned, are his sly attempts to manipulate narratives and manufacture false consensuses; trying to infer that normies accomodate transgender people out of inherent goodness rather than out of nothing more than self-preservation. These types are more than happy to compromise their own integrity, honesty and authenticity in order to receive social rewards, favours, in-group rewards, acceptance and conditional positive regard. These types are more than happy to say "she" even when their mind is saying "he" because they know that in certain instances, they will be mobbed otherwise. Then, they will happily lie through their teeth and say that they were thinking she even when they were thinking he. They have a million selves, they're like gollum on steroids. They are the people whom enabled the convid scam, and are now whining like little bitches in the face of the damage done. These people are unwilling to face discomfort in order to be their authentic selves, and also demonize people whose authentic selves contradict the content of the zeitgeist. Everyman bitches like this guy are why I ain't a people person. I give more of a fuck about these people's freedom than they do - mainly because they don't possess enough insight to realize they have none.

 

This is not about whether you say he or she, I don't give a fuck about who does or doesn't do that. But if you are going to accomodate someone, what I do give a fuck about is that you are honest enough to admit why. If someone is doing it because they just don't want to "hurt someones feelings" (projection) then admit it. Likewise, if you are doing it because you are essentially a gutless coward who goes along with manufactured zeitgeist and social conditioning because you're too much of a pussy to do otherwise, then fucking admit to that, too!

 

 

 

His eyes are too close together because of years of reading teleprompters. I'd love to see somebody debate him just on this video alone.

 

Being a coward, he'd never do such a thing. He hasn't an original thought or conviction in his entire being.