Wednesday 9 February 2022

You know, I have a playlist of videos titled, "Stop treating women like infants".

[You may well use your imagination as to what it is I'm replying to here.]

Please just re-read the emails I've already sent you.

Yes, I understand you may have been skimming them in haste (you may not be semi-literate or an imbecile)… but you seem to be genuinely unaware of the extent to which I've already answered the questions you're raising here.

Or, in light of the answers I've already given, you may be unaware of the extent to which your questions and arguments are utterly absurd.

And if you are, instead, insincerely pretending to be unaware of the answers I've already given, then my advice is the same: please just re-read the messages I've already sent you.

Re: "You have a questionable perception of what you feel people need. You don’t know what they need, because you aren’t them."

Yes, you know, I received similar messages from supporters of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders when I criticized them, too.  You can hardly imagine what an emotional wreck Donald Trump was after I put together that video about those allegations of statutory rape.

Do you see the absurdity of discussing these things with me as if I had ever agreed to be Erin Janus's therapist?

My role here is neither to be Erin's psychiatrist nor her nursemaid, not any more than I'm here to give succour to Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump.

I could now go back to the earlier messages and provide block quotations of all the things I said before, and all the things you ignored before, that stated this quite well.

———[Block quotation begins]———

I stated very clearly that I regard the critique of Erin Janus as important precisely because she's a public figure and an important leader in the vegan movement (JUST LIKE Paul Bashir, Gary Yourofsky and Durianrider).  The critique of Erin Janus is, in this sense, important.

You're trying to make this about psychology and obsession, because that's how YOU think about her, and that's how YOU see this situation.  I neither think of Erin Janus as a sexual pawn nor as a psychological plaything.  I talk to her as an adult, and I talk about her as an adult: I treat her with the dignity that any public figure who has taken on a leadership role in a political movement deserves —and I criticize her just as harshly as I've criticized Bernie Sanders…

Would you like to argue against this point?

Would you like to argue that the MORAL thing for me to do is engage in a conspiracy to cover up the reality of who Erin Janus is?

Perhaps you also think it would be MORE ETHICAL for me to conceal who Durianrider really is, who Paul Bashir really is, and who Gary Yourofsky really is?

Perhaps you think it would be emotionally healing for Gary Yourofsky if I were to delete the video clips I have of him talking about holding people at gunpoint (etc.)?

You see, you think you're helping, but you're not: you think you're doing something morally positive, but what you're actually doing here is evil.

And I mean that in the strictest sense of the term evil.

Daniel, think about it: it is genuinely evil for you to try to censor me in this way.  It is genuinely evil for you to try to entice me into joining in "a cover up".

And it would be for any other political figure in any other political movement, too.

And that's what Erin is: she's a public figure who is (or was) one of the most prominent (and well funded!) leaders the vegan movement ever had.

Just like Durianrider, Gary Yourofsky and Paul Bashir.

It is really important (REALLY) that people know the truth about Erin Janus.

It is really important (REALLY) that I don't delete those videos.

———[Block quotation ends]———

You're asking me to infantilize Erin Janus.

You're asking me to treat her as if she were a child, instead of an adult.

Do you suppose I get email of this kind in relation to any of the male youtubers (male leaders in the vegan movement, or male political figures unrelated to veganism) that I've criticized?  Some of them have been committed to mental institutions, too.  Do you suppose you'd feel ashamed of yourself if you were offering the same arguments on behalf of the hurt feelings of James Aspey, for example?

Perhaps this is worth thinking about for you, perhaps it isn't.

Really, the only thing you need to know is that you've long since lost this debate, and you're not making any progress with these maudlin and emotionally manipulative tactics.

Indeed, this next sentence I quote from you is another tragi-comic example of just that (maudlin and inept attempts at emotional manipulation, tut tut old chap).

Re: "Poor Eisel is more concerned about his channel and being censored than a persons life."

You say these things as if I'm motivated to have an olympian struggle with you, to establish who is the better person, of the two of us.  You say this with the assumption that I've been trying to "pull myself up" to the moral high ground.  On the contrary, I've been trying to drag your abstractions down to the earth, and show myself as being "grounded" here at the very bottom.

Indeed, it suits my purpose for you to believe I'm a tremendously evil and malevolent force in this world.

You really can't imagine what a terrible person I am, Daniel.

I'm really someone you should keep your distance from.  You seem to be unaware, for example, that I've already shared all of this correspondence publicly.*

* [This is untrue: I've arbitrarily chosen to respect his privacy, and have only shared my replies to his messages, disclosing very little of what he's said about himself and Erin (in part because I have no reason to believe that anything he's said is true!).  My purpose here is to get him to desist from his moral crusade against me, which is indeed pointless.  He'd have an easier time getting me to convert to Mormonism.]