Toxic stupidity and self-censorship.
In the post on self-censorship I did not list all the reasons that push common sense people to stay away from the Cagnara Project. It is clear that all the fuss about feminicide serves to cover the fact that the EU has rejected the financial law by threatening infringement proceedings. But the problem is the SIMPs and the slobs who are taking turns in the newspapers to write bullshit.
As I always do when the masses look for useless symbolic scapegoats, the first thing to do is say Marilyn Manson's name seven times.
Marilyn Manson.
Marilyn Manson.
Marilyn Manson.
Marilyn Manson.
Marilyn Manson.
Marilyn Manson.
Marilyn Manson.
Done.
Let's start with the important things. The theory of Patriarchy as a social and global cause of feminicides makes no sense. It is very true that feminicide has reached an alarming proportion and that it is a huge tragedy, but if we accuse "patriarchy" of having caused it, it means that we are building a global social theory based on 100/200 cases out of a population of 60 million .
Is it possible to use such a sample for an estimate? Of course: as long as we accept a confidence close to zero and an error larger than the measurement. That is, to obtain numbers at random.
Such a theory is not scientifically possible, with a model that covers the entire society, using a sample of 100/200 feminicides. Point.
And it is the "point" that ultimately leads me to self-censorship: if you want to discuss a world where you come up with a general rule for 30 million males using a sample of 100/200, chosen from among those who have behavior that differs from others, I abandon the arena due to excess of stupidity.
Things reach a level of toxic stupidity when I read things like what
The reasoning behind this post is: since most criminals are male, it follows that I can somehow associate any man, or all of them, with crime.
Not only is the reasoning flawed by a questionable sample of people, but it is also wrong in a logical sense. If I take prostitutes as a sample of women, and say that 93% of prostitutes are women, I cannot deduce that all women can be associated with prostitution. It would be like saying "there are sluts, but like women, none".
On the contrary, such a stupid and wrong reasoning (it contains at least two logical catastrophes) seems very reasonable to Monica Ricci Sargentini, despite being so stupid that I would not enter into the discussion for fear of contaminating my mind with such toxic stupidity.
And I shouldn't be here to explain that the fact that prostitution is mainly done by women does not allow me to project prostitution onto all women.
If it weren't for the fact that the Italian press, to cover the news of the rejection of the financial law, is repeatedly filling the newspapers with this murder, which would also be credible if the articles weren't a photocopy of one another.
And it's not a strange case. You may have heard that the proof that women are disadvantaged at work is that only 2% of companies in the S&P500, or the top one hundred companies in the world, have a female CEO.
In practice, a statement is made about the entire world of work, using a representative sample which is the S&P500, or the top one hundred richest CEOs. I'm sorry, but as a sample of all society or the world of work, the top hundred multinationals in the world know about CherryPicking, at least.
It seems that those who produce these "statistics" have some allergy towards the concept of "sample of an estimate". Or that he has no idea what he's doing.
That's what this lady here does:
who takes the "positions of power", a sample that although undefined is rather microscopic, and says "if there is a distortion there, then there is a problem throughout society".
In practice, he uses the problem he is investigating as a solution to the problem, rather than looking for real evidence of what is happening.
Too stupid to even argue.
But if we go back to patriarchy, the few times I've had discussions about this, it's been enough for me to ask questions, and ask for a clear definition. How does this faction work? Who's the Boss? How exactly do you enlist? How does it work inside?
Because it is clear that something that pursues political and social goals in a coherent manner in many nations must have an organization, a hierarchy, a mind that creates the strategies to be applied, someone to order to do something or not do something, to achieve a global purpose.
Anyone who has organized a picnic knows how difficult it is to organize something with more than 5 people, if you put billions of them into it, well, you need a robust and capable organization. So, who's the boss? Who are the officers? How is it organised?
But above all, who founded it? When? Who founded the patriarchy? What year was he born? Where he was born?
When you ask these questions they look at you as if you were asking for the moon, and in general they will tell you that you enter when you have certain ideas, therefore it is an organization that reads minds, that the hierarchy does not exist even if the patriarchy goes crazy for hierarchy, that strategies are not defined anywhere even if they seem perfect, that he was not born at a specific time and that he was not born in a place, and that he was not founded by anyone.
But “it exists”.
However, you must recognize that the definition of Santa Claus has more connections with reality than "The Patriarchy": we know who he is, what he looks like, where he lives, how he works, when he works and what he does. Such a precise and practical description of patriarchy does not exist.
It is also very interesting how the Italian battle is Anglo-Saxon. Apparently women are killed because somewhere you have catcalled a woman, except that in Italy catcalling has never been used, because generally things were shouted, while catcalling is typical of Anglo-Saxon countries and Saudi Arabia.
Likewise, thinking that feminicides exist because someone makes a joke about a flamboyant woman is hilarious. It's very similar to Lorenz's idea when he discovered chaos theory, but honestly saying that if I make a joke with friends someone else will kill a woman is, on a scientific level, at least bizarre.
I doubt that anyone has ever calculated a correlation to confirm such a theory, and there are no cases of femicides who have justified themselves in court by saying "but in Cremona two guys commented on Biasi's breasts, and when it happens I hear a voice that he says -kill her!- “.
Let's say it's such an idiotic idea that I shouldn't have to explain why it's idiotic, but long before a debate reaches these levels of stupidity, I walk out of the arena.
Political conspiracy theories, then, would be funny if they weren't worrying.
Look at this idiot:
This guy doesn't seem to understand one thing. If we were on a bus at night, and a gay man went to put his hands, let's say on the ass, of a standing straight man, we know what would happen. An immediate and very violent clash.
Because for males when the enemy gets to the skin it's already time for extreme defense, it's too close, and therefore you fight for your life. For this reason many ask girls why they didn't defend themselves: in the male world, if you are hostile and have gotten under my skin, you fight to survive. And it doesn't matter if the attacker is stronger, the fight starts immediately.
With an argument like that, including judges who apparently don't want to address the issue because they would all agree to the grand harassment conspiracy, how does it help us? We don't know, since all the dynamics are being painted in terms of force.
But if we want to go back to this example, I happened to find myself in gay clubs, and even in gay saunas: when someone made advances towards me I just had to say no, or remove my hand from there. However, if I had reported it, the judge would have asked me "but what were you doing in a gay sauna?".
Does this mean the judge agrees with the gay lobby, or does it mean I can go into the dark room and expect no one to touch me?
But the absurd thing is that this video is absolutely sexist: to make men become "prey", he absolutely chooses as predators… other men? Why not women? So he assumed that these gay predators were much stronger, so why not assume that female predators become stronger? Obvious answer: first of all, he finds it difficult to imagine physically stronger women, and secondly, he knows very well that it wouldn't be a problem for men.
(perhaps we should consider that male and female sexuality are different, but it would be too much for such a stupid debate).
I'm sorry to say it, but the debate has descended to such low, ridiculous and intellectually miserable levels that at a certain point it becomes necessary to self-censor, if not for the reason that descending to those levels is harmful to mental health.
And it corrodes the sense of the ridiculous.