Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by petrus4
To be honest, you are doing it yourself with the myriad of threads you've started, appealing to the majority and thusly getting the kudos and back
pats you're after.
I understand, it's an ego thing.
While I'm entirely willing to acknowledge the fact that, yes, I am
a narcissist, appealing to the majority isn't my goal to the extent
that you perhaps think. If you look at my posting history, you'll find several threads which have been largely ignored; and truthfully, this thread
has actually had a much larger impact than I was expecting.
So no, I don't primarily post threads because I'm a star and flag whore. Recognition is nice, certainly, and I'm not going to deny that; but if my
focus was purely on playing to the crowd, then I wouldn't take the sort of stand on a number of issues that I do. Some of the threads I've had
which have made a splash, have actually done so primarily because of the number of people who've felt motivated to tell me that I'm wrong, that I'm
naive, that I'm an idiot, etc. Having a spine, in moral terms, is not
popular; because most people these days don't.
As another point; I personally believe that disempowerment, and the willingness to remain part of the "silent majority," is one of the main reasons
why humanity is currently faced with potential extinction. 90%+ of the contemporary human population view themselves as worthless, and are also
utterly terrified of expressing themselves. So I actually feel adamant that one of the most important things for me to do, is to make as much noise
as I can, and encourage anyone else to do likewise.
The people here who try and shut me up, are themselves generally either servants or (in very rare cases) direct members of the psychopathic/Service to
Self (informally referred to as "evil,") 4-7% of the population...and said 4-7% know exactly
who they are. The most vitriolic
responses I get, are generally from the lackeys of said demographic; they know how important it is to silence people like me.
You might think that's a delusion of grandeur; but again, the way I tell the difference between legitimate criticism and the above, is whether or not
the poster in question is actually trying to silence me.
Someone who disagrees with you in legitimate terms, will disagree; but they
won't use psychological warfare or engage in a vendetta spanning multiple threads, in an attempt to shut you up completely. There is a big
Now let me digress from that and onto this thread, specifically where you seem to have an issue with people asking for credible
A very large part of the problem, is the fact that the word "credible," generally has an entirely arbitrary, implicit, and unstated definition,
where sources are concerned. What does "credible," mean? Wikipedia includes the mainstream/corporate media as part of its' definition of
credibility; do we?
I think another chronic problem, is the fact that Wikipedia's policy itself, (at least from what I've seen) has started to become the online
standard of rational argument. This is a huge issue, since Wikipedia is a proverbial wretched hive of scientistic, materialistic, pro-establishment
shills; people who are fantastic at making themselves sound
like the living personification of logic, but who in reality are the
This isn't an act of cointelpro, or peseudo-rationalism or even rhetoric it is the mark of someone who wants to get to the truth.
Identifying someone who wants to get to the truth, as opposed to someone who simply wants to troll, is generally fairly simple. A good example of
someone wanting to get to the truth, was the moderator who replied to me earlier in this thread. He disagreed with me, but he made his case
extensively and in a civil manner.
The sort of person I am talking about with this thread, however, doesn't have legitimate disagreement as their goal; although they want the
other people watching to think that they do.
The real goal, however, is shaming or psychologically wounding their opponents into silence. They won't really read your arguments, and they don't
ask for sources because they've actually read them. They will ask for sources because what they're really seeking a potential source of, is
ridicule or an additional basis for attack. I've had people on other sites use my mention of this
site as a means of ridiculing me