El Jim's excellent advice to Church of Entropy and his explanation of why people triggered by her outrageous views keep wanting to put her right on her more eccentric views and demanding return matches:
3:50:57 "We want to like you!" Aww. Anyone who says Claire is a bad person is off their rocker. She might not be a particularly pleasant person to some sensitive souls, but rotten to the core? I think not. I think it says something about a person's fundamental ability for compassion and loyalty when they can strongly disagree with or even dislike a person and still find a little bit of goodwill towards them.
She's also right, imo. I think in general most people in this sphere are very open minded and want to like Jen and Gandalf and the likes, but her attitude is extremely anti-intellectual and manipulative and when she says stupid nonsense like for example repeating a false meme at 2:28:55 (very briefly: free speech is a constitutional right in number of countries, for example Germany and Sweden, with legalese that in some cases are older than the US itself. Adjustments for espionage, calls for violence, patents, copyrights, slander, defamation, etc exists in all freedom of speech laws. Hate speech laws doesn't do what these people think they do since you have to be very specifically unspecific, ie "person x smells bad because muslim and I hate it", and broadcast your speech publically so it incites action or a threat, for example spraying "go home x!" on a place of worship. Plus there are much harsher free speech restrictions in the US like obscenity laws and vigilante type self-policing etc. Yada yada...), then it's a natural desire to replace bad information with good information. Or if someone makes an unsupported, extraordinary claim ("I am the Messiah, you should follow me.") they will naturally want to interrogate the claimant or at the very least explore the claim with some reason. And my "brief" autistic rant above is a good example as to why this is a frustrating exercise. Jen floods you with so much bullshit with such a stubborn fasade of fake confidence, that any actual attempts at taking her serious would require pages upon pages of debunking and at the end of it she would simply ignore and dismiss it off hand because "Dayananda Saraswati" or whatever. It is similar to when flat earthers asks you debunk them, you're like, "I don't even know where to begin? Like, there are pictures? I can use a telescope to observe the movement of other celestial objects?", and the response will predictably be akin to, "Tsk, tsk. Yeah right. Big Telepharma, la-di-da." We are talking about a woman who outright dismissed archaeology, genetics and huge parts of recorded history as instruments of jewish propaganda because they went against her anti-Semitic conspiracy theories while professing herself "the greatest scientist that ever lived". You'd have to be an absolute beta cuck moron not to be a little bit triggered or at the very least a bit critical. And you'd have to be an outright idiot to be the purveyor of such muppetry without sensing even a slightest bit of responsibility towards the reactions thereof.
And this is ultimately Jen's biggest failure as a human being. It would be so easy for her to reclaim control of her life by laughing at herself and lowering her defenses with a, "Sigh, I'm acting crazy again, aren't I? Lol!", or a, "Ok, I'm open to this idea but I prefer mine." The only reason she feels that "we" (as in, "the internet") are attacking her ego is because there is an ego to attack in the first place. She opts to launch a violent frontal assault against her supposed attackers rather than using quiet diplomacy on herself. And that is a poor decision. What she is launching an attack against is the flow of information itself. She seeks success where multi-billion corporations and every tyrant throughout history has only found failure.
The undeniable truth is that none of us forced her to broadcast her conspiratorial message for review. None of us forced her to use speculative and many times even outright false information and announce herself as the authoritative gatekeeper of said information. None of us forced any of this; no more than than the ocean forces a surfer to step on a surfboard, pick the biggest wave, proceed to fall off, and get cut up by sharp corals. The ocean, like the internet, merely exists and it follows its own flow. If we find ourselves spending all our time fighting it, we've clearly picked the wrong wave. We are out of our element and we're drowning because of the decisions we've made.
And despite Jen's objections I consider myself, Con Ops, Jay, Brundle, Claire, etc pretty decent people. Personally, I respect seniority in people older, more educated, more successful, more moral and more kind than me. And while I do critique and critique harshly, I don't mind being on the receiving end so it's not a double-standard and I do try to add a bit of silliness so it's not too harsh and can be reciprocated in kind without confrontation. And most of all, I don't use all my weapons. Not even close. When it became known that these people had assembled a research team to dox me, I could've easily published Jen's face on every cow board on the internet and tripled her audience with an influx of pure sociopaths that would've gotten her doxed, swatted, deplatformed and put on every hate watch list in existence. I could've bought some Chinese clicks and downvoted and report-bombed all of their shit. I could've flooded her chat with alts and defended her with one group and attacked her with another until the cancerous seeds of division made her so paranoid that she couldn't trust any new viewer. I could've done tons of unmentionable evil shit. I know how to do evil shit. It was my choice not to do so. And I easily could've. Easily. If you don't think I could then look at the memetics of my lame chat plebbing efforts and apply a focused attempt in a troll group. I am not at war with Jen and this is evidenced by the fact that her autistic army isn't a smoldering pile of ashes on the apocalyptic internet landscape.
So she's also not affording us the same baseline benevolence that we and most of all Claire is affording her. If my attitude towards her was the same as her's towards me, her life would've been ruined now. And that is her second greatest failure as a human being. She confuses kindness with weakness and ruthlessness with strength. That is her energy and it is the energy people respond to. If all you respect is ruthlessness, you shouldn't be surprised if people are ruthless to gain your respect. But if you respect kindness... then obviously... this is how people will try to gain your respect...
And Karma-Jen should know these things. They are the core basics of how to project your character onto the world and attract the type of people you want to surround yourself with. If you don't want to be surrounded by shallow liars, then don't be a shallow fucking liar. If you want to attract honorable people, then act honorably. It's basic stuff. Jen thinks she's exempt from it because she is a chosen swami with godlike powers or whatever, but she is not. She's an autistic, narcissistic, childless child that only respects ruthlessness and feeds on ignorance and attention, and subsequently this is what she attracts. She has cursed herself into being surrounded by autistic, narcissistic, childless children that feeds into her ignorance and screaming desire for attention. She has doomed herself to pigdom by acting like a pig and wallowing in the mud with other pigs.
So if she really wants to talk about streaming standards, these are the standards she should be concerned about because they relate to her and her output and are fixable. It is the only thing she can control. Not me. Not Con Ops. Not Claire. Not Jay. Not Brundle. Not Domingo. Not OV. And certainly not the internet. Not anyone, other than herself...
There's a quote by Epictetus that applies to Jen's situation. Well, actually quite a few since he's like Jen's good non-autistic-Manson-Nazi twin, but I particularly like this one because it summarizes his stoic framework. It goes:
"Happiness and freedom begin with a clear understanding of one principle: Some things are within our control, and some things are not. It is only after you have faced up to this fundamental rule and learned to distinguish between what you can and can't control, that inner tranquility and outer effectiveness become possible."
MY GREATEST FEAR
Thank you for your acute insights into the endlessly fascinating Jen Scharf whom it seems to me to be an archetype of Western Woman in so many ways. But that is what I fear: that the wayward Jen is really the archetype of Western Woman and her partner in crime Jay is really the archetype of Western Man neither of whom understand the difference between a valid and a sound argument and now jointly refuse to discuss it.
My greatest fear is that their immunity to Truth, Logic and Reason will doom the West for they sadly represent the immunity to reason of the majority of both the educated and uneducated Weterner, male and female.
I really think that if I could entice her into being my streaming partner I could save her from herself and, perhaps, ultimately, Western civilisation. Is this really such a forlorn and foolish hope?
No comments:
Post a Comment