—————
[BunnedGump:]
No malice. It's called push back. Give unto others... You really do need help. I hope you can recognize that, at some point. Let me try to get this through to you. I don't think you should be giving advice to others about anything because you've not achieved anything that gives you that gravitas. I truely believe you have an NPD, this also makes your advice giving suspect.
I'm not trying to prove moral superiority, nor intellectual, nor physical superiority. These are irrelevant. You troll, satirize, belittle, wage mini campaigns against anyone you like, on-line, yet you very quickly cry foul when you're the focus.
Attack me all you like, meme me, troll me. Go for it.
My boredom with you will set in when you finally seek professional help and try to address these things that have held back your life.
—————
[And I reply:]
Look, Gump, I'm willing to deal with the substance of anything you say that's substantive, and you've given me an occasion to prove it.
Re: "I don't think you should be giving advice to others about anything because you've not achieved anything that gives you that gravitas."
Okay, let's treat this as a well-intentioned objection on your part (and not as a mere insult). Let's treat this as a matter of substance.
My most recent livestream replies to questions from a young man that I really can answer, and he's asking about things that I have a great deal of experience with.
That's the livestream titled, The Rejection of Philosophy Becomes a Philosophy Unto Itself: Plato, Buddhism, Nihilism. You can also find that as a podcast, as a video, etc.
Your term gravitas is vague, but in that correspondence he's talking about the effect that reading Plato had on him as a young man, and I reply by talking about my own experience with reading Plato. He's asking about studying the ancient language Pali, and I'm replying by talking about my own experience with the study of Pali (and Buddhist philosophy, etc.). I do not lack any "gravitas" to discuss these things, and what I accomplished in that field is well-documented.
You say that I shouldn't give advice about anything: in that livestream I'm certainly working within the remit of giving advice about things I'm "qualified" to give advice about. Obviously, the young man had written to me before and after that one message: he wants and appreciates the advice I've given him.
I'm not offering advice on the history and politics of Jamaica. I'm not offering advice on how to learn Haitian Creole. I'm not talking about books of philosophy I haven't read. I'm not talking about areas of history or politics that I'm ignorant of.
I think another useful example here would be the video (and podcast) titled, Pretendian Politics: Thomas King v Jesse Wente. I don't pretend to be the world's greatest expert on this issue, but I do have years (YEARS!) of demonstrated interest in it and experience with it, obviously linked to my brief but intense period of studying Cree. So, yes, with my "credentials" being demonstrated within that video itself, I think it's fair to say that I can offer advice on that issue, in response to those news stories, and so on.
I would encourage you to criticize me: you can watch that video and then post some tremendously profound critique on Reddit about whatever you think is wrong with my (political) perspective on the issue. Perhaps you feel that you do not have "the gravitas" to do so yourself, I can't say.
Re: "You troll, satirize, belittle, wage mini campaigns against anyone you like, on-line, yet you very quickly cry foul when you're the focus."
No, that's not true at all: throughout my entire career I've encouraged my critics including the few who satirized me. In many cases, I took videos that were directed against me and re-uploaded them on my channel without adding any commentary or objection (I can remember three examples of that pattern at this moment, there probably were a few others over the years that I'm not remembering now). And, of course, many people who've criticized me I responded to warmly, in videos and livestreams and other formats —many more privately.
Many, many satirical videos were made about me by "Joe Vegan". Those videos have now disappeared without a trace. He generally portrayed me as a former CIA operative: he would wear "a bald wig" and attempt to imitate my accent (i.e., despite his own British accent). It was quite a production. I spoke to him warmly and encouraged him at the time: I invited him to appear in an interview on my channel and so on.
He did, also, criticize me "seriously" at a few points, and I criticized him "seriously" as well: my videos about him are now among the few traces remaining of his meteoric career.
I do not appreciate stupid and pointless criticism, but anything of substance I'm happy to deal with. I do not complain when people criticize or satirize me, but I will naturally complain if I think the criticism or satire is stupid —perhaps too stupid to merit a reply.
I've never pretended to be infallible, and I've never exaggerated or misrepresented my expertise: certainly, when I first started talking about veganism, I expected more disputes of real substance (more "push back", to use your phrase) from other vegans. Obviously, my expectations of my fellow vegans are now very low, after many years of experience, but disagreements of real substance have always been welcome.
I would not have any objection to others criticizing and satirizing me to the same extent that I've criticized and satirized Vegan Gains and Unnatural Vegan, for example. However, my criticism of those two contains a great deal of real substance, reflecting real concerns and good intentions on my part. Obviously, real substance is preferable to blithering idiocy, whereas real concerns and good intentions are preferable to self-indulgent malice.
James Aspey is another good example: Gump, you've seen my critique of James Aspey, and you're welcome to criticize me in much the same way. In your imagination, apparently, I have a great deal in common with James Aspey, so this might be a useful comparison.
