You know why I can decide there are Intellectual Omegas? Because I can, that's why. I can make up my own definitions. Whose to say I can't? And if they don't conform to reality and don't work, then they will disappear.
I used to write for a well-known site which I won't name. But I got a lot of emails, including a few hundred hatemails. Those were the Intellectual Omegas.
Here's how to recognize an Intellectual Omega.
One: they only know three fallacies, and they always get them wrong. Ad hominem, strawman, and non sequitur. The funniest is when they claim something is a strawman. In reality when their beliefs are attacked they can only point-and-sputter: "Strawman!"
It's how they rationalize their beliefs, no matter how retarded, against attack.
The second characteristic is that they never understand the article I wrote. At first I thought I wasn't being clear in what I wrote, but decided that wasn't the case. Ninety-nine percent of the people who write me understand what I write, even if they don't agree.
One percent – the hate emailers – not only don't understand the article, the conclusion they come to is the exact opposite of what I wrote.
I once wrote an anti-drug-use article, and one fellow wrote me saying there were 14 references in the article supporting drug use. Such a writer merely isn't ignorant; he's a perfect example of the old saying, "Stupid can't be fixed."
I've decided hate emailers suffer from Intellectual Omega Flamer Personality Disorder. Since I wondered if anyone else had used the term, I once typed Flamer Personality Disorder into Google, and here's what I got:
Here are some more characteristics of those who write hate mail, as identified by W. Beaty.
1) Name-callers. (This is the real Ad Hominem attack.)
This is true. Nearly everyone who has written me hate mail has called me names. This days, since I write a lot about the Manosphere, I get called a Beta, a Mangina, an Omega, and a Gamma. It's actually funny because they don't know what they are doing: putting me down to make themselves seem smart.
2) Competitive/argumentative.
Yep. When people write me hate mail, I sometimes respond and tell them to bother writing back, because I will delete their email unread. Which I do. But nearly all the time they still write, because they have to get the last word, which means "I win!!!" And I always delete their emails without reading them. Sometimes they even put something into the subject line, to make sure I read it.
3) Amoral.
This also is true. They seem to think they are fully justified in viciously attacking people who write articles they don't even understand. Yet if anyone attacks them, they are shocked.
4) Vengeful.
While in their minds it is perfectly acceptable for them to insult people, if it's returned they will continually write emails to avenge the insult. This is why even though I tell them I delete their emails unread, they continue to write.
5) Self-blind.
They don't have a clue anything is wrong with them. In their minds, I'm sure they think those they flame are the ones with the problems.
6) Egocentric.
Oh, yes. They have a very high opinion of themselves (even though they have no basis for that opinion, not when they can't even understand an article) and a low opinion of those they flame.
Here is a hate mail I received some years ago, which illustrates all the characteristics Beaty described.
The subject of the hate mail contained one word: "arrogance."
Here is the body of the hate mail:
"Do you stand for anything? You have taken pot shots at everybody on both sides of the political aisle. Your writing is narcissistic ramblings. Do you imagine it to be humorous? Insightful? Weird. I know you imagine yourself to be an intellectual. Does your stuff sell? Are you published? Do you stand for anything?"
Probably the funniest thing about hate-mailers is that all of them think they are unique individuals, while in fact they are all the same. It's as if all of them are stamped from the same "I'm Stupid-and-Ignorant" cookie-cutter.
I still get hatemail and hate comments on my blog. And I always will.
I will end with this anonymous comment:
"Internet trolls have been described as 'sad people, living their lonely lives vicariously through those they see as 'strong and successful'. They typically possess a poorly developed set of social skills and have difficulty viewing their actions from the perspectives of their victims. They may be callous to the fact that they are harming real people, instead viewing Internet users as 'digital abstractions.' They may thus feel no remorse for harm they cause, and in fact may judge their own level of success by the amount of that harm. Most are impervious to rationale, mature arguments against their wares, and will protest that their right to free speech is being curtailed if ever there is an attempt to call them on their trolling."
No comments:
Post a Comment