On Friday evening, December 1st, I had a visit from very educated friends and, as usual, the recent inappropriateness of the media came to light. Tiit Hennoste’s article on the new Sirbi was unanimously praised. Hennoste wrote there how (scientific) terms describing rather extreme phenomena (fascism, genocide, trauma, etc.) are used more and more lightly. It seemed that way to us too.
A friend, a woman with a doctorate, added with a twinkle in her eye: “And look how he still talks! I was at his anniversary recently, he turned 70, but he has more vivacity, wit and sharpness than all the men. ” in my faculty put together!” Then he added in a low voice: “They are really tender, no one is suitable for dad, they are such strictly and convulsively cute girls.” The speaker is approaching forty and has no children because he has not found a man worthy of a father and is a little bitter and tends to classify his male colleagues as “consensual dildos” and “gallant castrati”.However, middle-aged bitterness has emerged as a topic.
“But, Kunnus, what did you do to make Aimar Ventsel so angry?” came the question. “He hits you in a completely confusing way. He says that you have declared yourself an unconditional fan of Jüri Liiva’s book. And that you hate vegans. Even though, as far as I know, you have written several articles praising veganism. .” It’s an embarrassing story, I’ve been forced to admit, but there is anthropological value here.
A friend with deep psychological interests immediately began to analyze from his point of view: “The fact that he does this publicly, mentioning you by name and using your name, is archetypically masculine. He is trying to signal publicly that he is positioned superior to you in a value system. It is archetypically masculine. Which uses damage to reputation to the point of defamation (reputational damage) is an archetypal form of female aggression, Nicki Crick wrote about it well. In the age of superficiality, this trick works especially well. No one checks her statements, least of all those who get on your nerves, those who desire your public discredit.”
We nodded prosocially. This text is also interesting up to the attempt to erase Jüri Liiva’s book. With this, Ventsel ranks among those who put incredible effort into writing this book in such a way that no one would read it. He is characterized by the fact that he does not add examples to the accusations.
I will give examples. For example, Ventsel writes: “He claims that vegans are a form of greenwashing. Liiv further demonstrates his ignorance by placing vegetarians and gays in the same category as vegans, claiming that because being gay is youthful and pop these days, many vegans give up “. veganism to become gay.”
Which passage from Liiva’s book is Ventsel referring to here? The only possibility is the beginning of the chapter “Water”, where Liiv shows that promoters of vegetarian nutrition inflate the water consumption of meat products to include the rain that falls on the fodder field. And so it can be demonstrated that meat has a crazy water consumption.
It presents a table on how veganism is losing popularity in Finland, which has been considered one of the strongholds of veganism. And there’s an (!) irrelevant sentence here and there: “Apparently a large part of the potential vegetarians has moved into the scissors community, which is currently more pop and youth oriented.” One sentence and that’s it. Point. And look what Ventsel thinks: “arguing that because being gay is fashionable nowadays, many vegans are abandoning veganism to become gay.” This “reference” is downright slander.
It is also significant that there is a scissors instead of an quaver, it shows that Liiv has not bothered to delve into this world at all. And he isn’t. And he isn’t mentioned in the book any more than in this unfortunate sentence.
At the same time, Ventsel makes an effort to leave the impression that Liiv is primarily a culture warrior and a grumpy old straight man. And then Ventsel writes again: “I searched a bit and found three or four articles that could be considered reviews of the “Big Greenwashing Handbook”. All commendable, some of the authors have higher education, all the reviews are written by men middle-aged, and none of them mention vegans, gays, mockery and trampling of leftists, Muslims and everyone else in Liiva’s book. From which it can be concluded that these men, if they do not agree with the annihilation said to the aforementioned groups, it didn’t particularly bother them either.”
Really really. Because these authors, unlike Ventsel, have sufficient intellectual honesty and sense of proportion not to mention the book of things that constitute a completely insignificant and extraneous part of it (even in “Eyewitness”, where this book was dissected, it was not it’s a topic, right).
While in my review I even mention this aspect proactively: “The so-called culture war is not at all the topic of the book. However, it can be assumed that the book will have an irritating effect on the participants, regardless of the front line. That is, in passing – only in passing – those who think that cutting down forests is a sensible activity and that Donald Trump is an enlightened head of state, as well as those who think that veganism and abandoning fossil fuels are a magic wand. I repeat, this is not by no means the main theme of the book, but a superficial layer of subjective secondary images.”
To damage the reputation, Ventsel piles a series of false accusations on Liiva’s shoulders (he can reasonably count on the belief that no one will check) and then associates her with the writer, starting the next paragraph like this: “Mihkel Kunnus, who declared himself a unconditional fan of Liiva’s book, /… /”.
Ahh. With this neat trick of demagogy, all the false accusations are directed at me too, right? Liiv is guilty of this and that and Kunnus is her unconditional fan. What can we conclude here, right? Of course, here too there is no reference or example. My review of Liiva’s book is not only harmful, but also affects the entire “fandom” (fanming such a book would be more or less like advertising Wikipedia). I will list a number of shortcomings of the book, but I confirm, like the critics of natural scientists, that the book is worth reading and that everything about the physico-chemical aspects, etc. is worth reading. it is absolutely correct and explained in a textbook manner in the best sense.
However, Aimar Ventsel’s invective, bitter to the point of slander and lies, is so toxic that even this pedagogical work inevitably leaves a bad taste in the mouth (at such levels do I have to argue and demonstrate!?).
I discussed with my scientist and academic friends where this Ventsel bitterness might come from in a broader, culturally psychological sense.
“Some men feel like the ground has been pulled from under them, they have no strategy to deal with the situation. And then they get stigmatized. It’s not nice when people say bad things about you or, like you, Kunnus, you did – they publicly demonstrate that Ventsel is a relentless slanderer,” thought my third educated friend and continued: “Some of these men try to adapt in such a way that they smell the wind and try to howl with the wolves. That’s how you see it in the media , we say of the vehemians who curse the vehemians. They seek recognition from those who consider the times new for a voice. Because they do not have much hope in any conventional status hierarchy. In this sense, they are like people of mediocre culture who once ran with the communists. If it is not possible to move up the hierarchy of competences, it is better to praise and perpetuate the alternative “hierarchy of progressivity”, because there are better possibilities.”
“Yeah, I guess so. You could say it’s an internalized feminism, a projection of a piece of shit,” nodded another friend, “because, let’s be clear, the most violent pieces of shit are middle-aged men who are mediocre in every sense, and, sensing the latter, they began to court the so-called progressives. Those who have been able to realize themselves, regardless of their gender, never cheat. Be it Kersti Kaljulaid or Marju Lauristin, even Marju Lepajõe or Viivi Luik, Aveliina Helm or Tuul Sepp. The most hardcore cheaters have always been mediocre straight men, this is the rage of mediocrity and bitterness.”
“The lawyer believes that when justice is achieved, peace will also come. But this will not be the case.”
For my part, I added that the psychology of anger is a blind spot for lawyers. A jurist believes that when justice is achieved, peace will also be achieved. But it doesn’t arrive. Because realizing that you feel bad because society has treated you unfairly is very nice, as well as realizing that you feel bad precisely because society has treated you fairly, that you’re just a mediocre slob. Oh, then there will be no more peace of mind, but a venomous fury, ready to lift the whole world.
Another friend (PhD in philosophy) added: “And this total lack of sense of reflection and nuance. Look at how Ventsel has the world in black and white, there are only good and bad people, us and them, bitter half-whites middle-aged, or those who refuse to be completely black fake authors, be it Jüri Liiv or Jordan Peterson, and then them, noble and in step with the times. Even in retrospect, I remember that when the Peterson phenomenon slowly began to in here , Aro Velmet from Vikerkaare and Henri Kõiv from Mürilehe also promised more balanced and appreciative words to them, but no, that time is now gone. The world is black and white. An embittered middle-aged man is pure negativity. Jüri Liiv is unreserved negativity, Jordan Peterson is unreserved negativity, and shame on the unfortunates who dare to find something positive in their message, they too are tainted by it.”
So this deeply psychologically educated friend discovered that Carl Gustav Jung’s concept of the shadow is explanatory here: “In my opinion, he projects his shadow quite clearly, furiously reads towards the Other his defects, which he perceives only unconsciously and in manner repugnant in itself”. (The other).”
The first friend raised his index finger again and demanded attention: “Indeed, bitter and black and white. But I think it is also quite interesting how Ventsel mentions his educated friends in this writing. Interesting trick. Nobody knows who are these friends and if they even exist yes, but with this way of writing you can pretend to have greater social authority and at the same time free yourself from responsibilities. You see, someone thinks like that, it is perfectly possible to say and think like that, but it’s not like that me . I’m just mediating.”
“Mnjah, I can’t say right away whether he’s more cunning, mean, or cowardly,” I had to admit.
2023-12-03 08:52:00
mihkel-kunnus-vehma-howling-with-virgin-wolves-opinion