If you wish to claim it isn't an attempt at erasure, then it is certainly, at the very least, an attempt at dismissal.
If I'm not clicking "like" it's a matter of stubborn pride. Wouldn't that be like saying, "Congratulations! you saw the obvious!" in a context one can reasonably argue should not require you to actually come out and say it.
It's something I've never quite understood in all my time at discussion boards; there comes a point at which I need to identify and accommodate undeclared cognitive disruption, or else achieve some mysterious insight to the strange relationship between conceptual simplicity and not so much an attention
deficit as an
anti-span.
They are familiar elements, scorching simplistics and seemingly determined unawareness of one's own doing.
Consider how extraordinary it
seems:
• "... you are attempting to distill the desire for companionship and intimate relation down to "Well, you can get the same thing from your own hand, so why do you need a woman?"
Yes, you really said that; and yes, you really did have an occasion to make such a simple point as to recite the obvious.
But if we look at EF's posture—
And what question would that be? and what solution did I suggest? I suggested a lot of solutions there.
—it would seem he does not know the content of his own posts and is incapable of reading them. Furthermore, if you note the
post he responds to↑, a quote of EF notes him actually reciting the issue:
Empathy does not fix problems, be solution orientated. He said "I can't get a girlfriend or sex no matter what I do." I presented solutions not a "there there someone is out there waiting for you, [pat pat pat]"
The nickel's worth of question that remains has something to do with a sarcastic distinction 'twixt
sinister and
stupid; some days it's hard to tell the difference. That is, can he really not follow the discussion? Okay,
why not? For instance, is he ESL/ELL? That would explain a few occasions when he just doesn't seem to know what words mean, but that would also be really, really new information that would seem to contradict his posting history at Sciforums. Is he doing this deliberately? Okay, sure, but we arrive, then, at another intersection, and this one is more realistic; rather than sinister or stupid, we might simply ask if this is one of those things that is willful or simply beyond his control. And if this is beyond his control, are we looking at a cognitive spectrum, or an antisocial personality? Furthermore, somewhere around here in the paragraph is where I'm supposed to make some manner of point about how it would probably be easier if his posts could show some contiguity of awareness.
Because such as it is,
not knowing what is in his own posts↗ is neither unheard of in his history nor especially inconvenient to his supremacism. Like the idea that he never opened a thread about
identity politics↗ in order to denounce rejection of misogyny. Or
identified himself as an Appeaser↗ while refusing to answer the issue.
Nor is erasure of women unsual;
I noted in April↗ a post
erasing women↗.
But the thing is that neither does the idea that this really is a troll job absolutely indict; I might consider two applications of
incompetence↑ by which one requires the other but the other does not require the one. That is to say, even if sinister, it's a pretty stupid outcome, as such endeavors tend to be.
And as it happens, from time to time, there comes a point when what they really want is for people to give them a whole bunch of attention so that they can make a self-gratifying demonstration of pretending to ignore the effort. Seriously, what happens next? He complains of a straw man? Okay, we can go through and detail the last few years of his posting on generally related subjects, like his
de facto exclusion of women from humanity in an abortion discussion, or equality as anti-egalitarian before that. And we can go through the most recent threads, including this one. And we can pile up the quotes, and he will be gratified for the attention we give him before ignoring the evidence.
The point is to get people to waste their time giving him attention.