—————
[Eisel Mazard:]
No, Gump, that's the problem: nothing you say is interesting.
None of your criticism quotes my work: it isn't based on things I've actually said or written or done whereas my criticism of others is precisely that: I quote my sources and show that I've done the work (that I've done the reading, etc.). That is the sense in which you're just in a war against a fantasy of your own creation: you're never going to produce a critique of Eisel Mazard equivalent to Eisel Mazard's critique of Unnatural Vegan, or James Aspey, or Cosmic Skeptic.
You're not holding up a mirror: you're holding up a crayon drawing of your own creation and indicating how furious you are at this imaginary character, again and again.
—————
[BunnedGump:]
Games of the narcissistic mind.
Your overwhelming urge to silence me, the critic of you, your behaviour, your fantasies. Must be a thorn. You can always become a 50 year old bouncer.
What you consistently do is try to out-intellectualize" your way out of a character critique. You've convinced yourself that if you can prove you're the better researcher, you are automatically the better person. Non.
Have you ever acknowledged a single point I've made? Noh!
All you do is pivot back to your "credentials" and "work"?
I think you live in a fantasy world of coulda, shoulda, woulda.
You definitely need help.
—————
[Eisel Mazard:]
Dude, I'm not mad at you: I just find what you have to say stupid and pointless.
Re: "Have you ever acknowledged a single point I've made? Noh!"
You've never made a single point: you don't quote my work, you don't actually criticize anything I've said or done. You don't criticize facts: your ranting is not addressed to specific passages of text or specific portions of videos (whereas my criticism of other authors and youtubers is precisely that: it's based on what they've said and done, and I provide quotations, etc.).
Re: "All you do is pivot back to your "credentials" and "work"?"
That's not true either: I'm simply enjoying my life. Sometimes I make a youtube video talking about a book I've read or reviewing a food product I've eaten, etc. — I don't have any of the preoccupations (or obsessions) you're fabricating out of thin air here.
[One additional example added here: I would say the same about my intermittent returns to making political satire videos, such as the comedic song about the conflict between Somalian immigrants and Donald Trump. This is simply an aspect of "enjoying my life".]
Re: "What you consistently do is try to out-intellectualize" your way out of a character critique."
Dude, your critique is simply too idiotic and too reliant upon fictions of your own invention to be worth addressing: you're amusing yourself but absolutely nobody else. You're not capable of criticizing me the same way I criticized James Aspey, Unnatural Vegan, Gary Yourofsky, etc. —and an important part of that work was indeed "a character critique", in your terms.
You're never going to write a book that anyone will want to read, you're never going to record an autobiographical monologue that anyone will want to listen to: you, Gump, could become a 50 year old bouncer, but it's quite obvious what it is that you resent and envy about me.
—————
[From a separate thread, below, this picks up from his reply to my final comment in the short conversation shared earlier under the title, Youtube is just a website on the internet: whether you use it to become wiser or more foolish is up to you.]
[Eisel Mazard:]
[…] I've never seen you offer a substantive criticism of my work under any heading.
It's not as if I can say, "The guy's insulting, but he really had an intelligent perspective on climate change" —nor any other topic (out of thousands) that I've covered in my videos, podcasts and books.
You get to choose if you're sharpening your mind or blunting it, here on the internet: you're making the wrong choice, again and again, and on some level, you know it.
You know you'd be better off reading the Tragedies of Seneca and uploading your thoughts and feelings about the text (as I've recently done) or even making comedy videos, etc.
You know you'd be better off imitating my hobbies rather than insulting me for having them.
And keep in mind: all of this stuff you're criticizing is just a hobby for me.
Youtube is just a website on the internet. Uploading my thoughts about Seneca or Cicero or Stendhal is really just a hobby for me. And you do nothing like this in your spare time —and you know you'd be better off if you did.
[BunnedGump:]
If I didn't work for a living, have a family and friends. Plus, if I lacked a moral compass and emotionally manipulated my mother into supporting me for my entire life.
If I lacked drive, ambition, curiosity, empathy, I could try to be like you and find hobbies to waste my time and others income on. Read Cicero, Seneca? I'm currently working my way through the Harry Potter series. Do you know how thick those books are, number of pages, how heavy a kindle is?
I waste my time on Reddit, says the YouTuber with a roomful of mirrors.
As for imitation, you'd be better off imitating me. Take care of yourself, not expect or demand others provide for you. Be a man, not a pretentious little boy.
—————
[Eisel Mazard:]
This is all you ever have to say for yourself, Gump: that you're proud of earning money. Can you really imagine how pathetic that is from my perspective? You're never going to read Seneca or Cicero, but it's not because you're busy earning money, is it? It's not because you live in such extreme poverty that reading these books would be impossible for you to do, is it?
[I notice that he makes no effort to convince me that I am the one lacking "a moral compass" in this conversation. 🦓 Just imagine if someone were to think it were the other way around!]
[The image of the uroboros in the title is linked to this problem of internet criticism that feeds upon the fabrications and delusions of the critic: imagine if I had simply made up what I imagined to be the political beliefs of my opponents, instead of working from the historical record (text, audio recordings, videos, etc.) of what they had actually said and done. People like Gump seem to be genuinely unaware of the extent to which they're interrogating a fictional character of their own creation —and, indeed, the literature he has created condemning me is so utterly boring (and detached from reality) that nobody would bother to debunk it. I realize that many people find it difficult to believe that (e.g.) Gary Yourofsky, Unnatural Vegan, Cosmic Skeptic and Peter Singer actually said the things I've criticized them for saying, but that is why I work from the historical record, and quote my sources in the process of criticizing them.]
