(I added stuff after I first posted and updated it more May 2nd)

Below is the copy of what was a very symbolic debate with a liberal with a homosexuality agenda in a thread at the Patheos site (a very mixed quality site). Not because of this person’s political ideology per se though.

(“smrnda” is the commenter nick of this person, and she writes like  a woman – so I’ll refer to her as such).

What is interesting is smrnda’s incapacity to be rational and simultaneously have no self-awareness of her irrationality concerning certain of her postulates about me. I always find this funny and frightening at the same time in people (well, in more or less harmless cases, in any case).

Related to this is how smrnda determines who has knowledge (in her view, it’s her, of course, because she got a degree in psychology! ). And if anyone disagrees with her, they must not have knowledge or a degree, especially one in psychology (although she tries to kind of ascertain this and tries to categorize her opponent using a very childish method).

But as it became apparent, for smrnda, it’s not that other people know differently or know things she doesn’t know anything about – they must not know (!). There’s only one set of things to know and she knows it – end of discussion. By such attitudes and “reasonings,” my guess is she’s under 25, maybe still even in undergrad; I have to look if she says she has graduated – but it’s a guess.

As you will clearly see as the debate progresses, smrnda is incapable of thinking critically about anything she was taught in school. So she is more like an ideological pull-string doll. I’m sure that’s how she got her degree – by being a parrot. It’s frightening that such young people then go work as counselors or whatever, but there’s nothing special in that sense about smrnda, there’s a ton of such intellectually-challenged people with their little liberal school psychology degrees working.

Returning to the topic here, when confronted with questions about the flaws in her thinking – which clearly, she never had to confront in school – she does not respond rationally and usually completely ignores the flaw that is pointed out.

What she displays then is an attitude that says: “I am right. I am right because I was told at my school that what they say is right. I never questioned it and neither did them. So I can’t be wrong. Therefore, anyone questioning any of my beliefs must a) be wrong, b) have no knowledge.”

And it becomes ludicrous just how irrational she displays herself to be, being completely incapable of refuting glaring facts where she is wrong. Blatant cognitive dissonance – and this was a written debate!

So her political views on homosexuality are quite hum-drum and the typical liberal homosexuality agenda idiocy. But that’s not what I wanted to point out here. It’s the fact that she has a “fanatical” and completely out-of-touch-with-reality way to label and see me: “I have decided your knowledge (or the selective and distorted way I interpret what you write) is from 1900. So I know much better than you –  and so you cannot be right about anything, independently if you prove it or support it, and I don’t.”

No matter how much I point out how irrational she is both with the label and certain flaws in her arguments, she simply ignores it all. I will point out specifically where this happens below. And she always comes back to state: you cannot know, because I have determined that you must think a certain way, that is, I have branded you with a certain stereotype that cannot have valid knowledge. Then she devises a test (like three or four questions in psychology) to evaluate how she will more precisely categorize and stereotype me. For some reason, doubts linger. Although she never stated it, I can bet her evaluation of “the test” would go like this: I repeat 100% of what she thinks, result: I am “very knowledgeable” and pass “the test.” It’s funny.

Since I refused to take “the test,” smrnda could only take this refusal as proof that her initial stereotype that I must not have any knowledge must be true, even though she regrets that I did not answer her. Perhaps her regret was due to the fact that she wanted “scientific proof” – as provided by her very scientific test – that I must be the stereotype she has branded me with.

The most hillarious part was where smrnda affirms that no one “who knows anything about psychology (like her, btw)” believes that the mind has an “unconscious” anymore! I don’t know how much you, reader, know about psychology (or its history), but this is the equivalent of someone saying that “no one believes the human body contains a stomach or a brain – anymore!” It makes me laugh even now.

The unconscious apparently has been discarded in smrnda’s understanding and psychology curriculum – it got in the way of the homosexuality agenda, I suppose, so they just chucked it.

The last time smrnda heard of such a notion was related to Freud’s time, I imagine – which for her is probably like at Jesus’ time. And not only is Freud dead, but he’s been “discredited” as well! Conclusion: Freud didn’t know anything about anything either. That’s another favorite label of young “homosexuality agenda” liberals – “discredited.” Anything that a liberal professor declares as having been discredited is taken as Provenly So, therefore it must be dis-considered without further thought. Ask any such liberal student why has it been discredited and by whom and then watch the disaster unfold. They don’t know – usually. And they can’t prove it to you that it has been discredited, because they simply heard it and believed it. Now to smrnda’s credit, she does try to explain why certain types of psychoanalysis theories and practices were discredited. But she does this – and here comes the spoiler – while not realizing I was not particularly defending any of the ones she refers to, and not realizing that I was certainly not using them in my argumentation. Moreover she entirely skips addressing the types of  psychology mechanisms that I was specifically referring to. In other words, she insists – irrationally – that I must be talking about what she deludingly assumed I was, and then, with great certainty, she trumpets they have been “discredited.” Strawman, beautifully.

Ah, there’s a lot of material in this exchange. Anyone who wants to study how people irrationally stereotype and brand others, and how this acts a major filter for everything they then interpret coming from the other, here’s a nice little study subject: smrnda!

(what kind of a nick is that, btw? ; -)

Now I have to say, that right at the offset of the exchange, smrnda said something that almost made my chin drop. She said she wanted to explain something to me regarding her views, so she was going to the library to get a few of the articles that had it detailed.

When, in “exchanging” with anyone on the Wild Wild West of the Internet, has anyone ever said to you they would actually pick a book, much less physically go to the library and get some articles, instead of just cutting and pasting the first thing they find on google or wikipedia?

Now I thought: this is a once in a lifetime experience. I’m never going to see this again, this looks very nice. smrnda really wants to discuss some things in depth.

Ah, spoken too soon. As it turns out, smrnda’s intention was not to go to the library to get material to discuss, she wanted to get the articles that represent  her ideological Bible (of beliefs) to her. She wanted to come back and say: See? This is a peer-reviewed article, which for people under 35 apparently translates as the Truth and Nothing But – and it is therefore set in stone. The article (note: peer-reviewed!) states X. There is nothing further to discuss. You must believe (like I do).

Now smrnda is a product of a certain school system that has been rewarding her not to think and to just accept and believe what they are told. That is what the system usually conditions students to do. And the majority do it. If she had been in a much different system, starting with high school, she would be thinking a lot more than she is now.

……………………

I’m editing the whole text in Word, because it’s too big for WordPress to handle…

Stay tuned!

Also, in reviewing this exchange from 3 months ago, I realize there is so much to say about how she thinks – more than what she thinks- even though the latter is symbiotically related to the former.

It will take some time. I’m thinking about posting the text in divided segments.

If you are curious though, go here:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/2013/01/not-impressed-with-the-boy-scouts-of-america/

Advertisements