I've seen various users mention that it is dangerous to even mention the
to normies, because they would label you as "crazy" and either socially exclude you or get law enforcement to keep tabs on you.Really the
is not a unique concept in itself. It is a categorical model for skeptical thought, and its a model of thought that can be applied outside of the world of sex / dating. A person who is distrustful and skeptical of people (or the ideas expressed by people) would be practically , regardless of whether or not they actually know about the concept of the itself. Because the core aspect of the is basically a sense of doubt that the individual person would hold, either about people as individuals, people as a society, or about the universally accepted ideas in human society.The funny thing is that skepticism, as a core aspect of the
- It goes against the status quo and it can offend the normie population, because it challenges the establishment of inter-societally accepted notions that most normies live in compliance with and allow their worldviews to be directed by. However skepticism has many times resulted in new scientific "inventions" and "discoveries" about the nature of the universe. If people in human history were not willing to challenge or oppose the beliefs that were previously widespread, universally accepted by normies and strongly rooted in the status quo, certain "discoveries" and "inventions" would otherwise have never been made by humanity.The
may not be a popular theory that people are willing to accept, and others may throw shade on you or socially reject you for expressing it. BUT if no one in the previous eras of human existence ever had a sense of skepticism about the status quo (considering that skepticism is an essential facet of the ), humanity as a whole would have never evolved, innovated and advanced to the stage that it has reached today.A skeptical person would likely become a social reject or become
if they were to share their ideas with other people, because their ideas would probably challenge the status quo, and normies dislike it when the status quo is challenged for reasons already stated. Historically, skeptical people have been rebuffed, ostracized and sometimes killed by normies for sharing their unpopular ideas, even when their ideas were later verified to be true after the person was socially rejected or killed. But if skeptical people never existed in human society, humanity would almost certainly have never advanced in scientific technology and intelligence. Its like that saying about the 'mad scientist', "A genius was only a crazy person until their ideas were proven right".https://www.boredpanda.com/crazy-hi...oogle&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic
https://www.medicaldaily.com/mad-sc...crazy-only-be-proven-right-years-later-362010
If you go to the webpages in the links above, check out the people mentioned in the list (Ignore all the 'mad scientists' who made allegations about 'sexual abuse' by high status people. Focus on the other 'mad scientists' on the list). Unsurprisingly most of the people that appear on this list were men. Nonetheless, many of the 'mad scientists' were ostracized, harassed or labelled as "insane" or "crazy" by normies who preferred to abide by the status quo at the time. Also some of them were driven to suicide or executed by normies, despite the fact their ideas were eventually proven to be true after their death.
Normies hate it when the status quo is challenged, because it scares them. They are afraid of having to accept new ideas that would force them to revise and rectify the long-held beliefs they were accustomed to. If necessary, normies in society would go as far to carry out a defamation campaign or lynch a person for trying to spread unpopular ideas. The common population prefer to abide by to the status quo, even when their universally accepted ideas are flawed, and when their way of doing things are not optimally effective. When you as a skeptic, challenge the status quo with unpopular ideas, you will face major risk of backlash, defamation, judgement of bad character, harassment, social rejection and possible execution / assassination by normie people, even if your unpopular ideas are actually true or close to the truth.
The thought process of a 'mad scientist' would correlate with mindset of a
person, because both are heavily dependent on skeptical views about universally accepted notions or the customary way of doing things in human society. Both types of people are willing to challenge or go against the status quo, knowing that the normie population will not easily agree with them for doing this and may shame them, demonize them, judge them, ostracize them or react with aggression to them because of it. The 'mad scientists' derived their inventions through becoming skeptical of the ideas that were already established and universally accepted in the social milieu, and tried to challenge the universally accepted ideas their own new ideas. Many 'mad scientists' were ostracized, negatively portrayed because of this, and some of the 'mad scientists' died by suicide or by the hand of normies before their ideas were later confirmed to be true. Despite the treatment 'mad scientists' have been historically subject to by normies in society, their ideas eventually established the building blocks for certain scientific models and medical procedures that are used and valued by humans of the present-day.Its funny how normies seem to oppose the
and effectively silence and socially reject any man who mentions it, even though the is a categorical model of the skeptical mindset. If humans really wish to become more advanced in scientific intelligence, they should encourage skepticism rather than demonize and ostracize people for it. If normies want humanity to become more intelligent as a species, why do they like to keep skeptical people down by harassing them, shaming them and ostracizing them for their unpopular ideas? Perhaps there are some kinds of knowledge that would place human society in danger if they were to become universally known and accepted by the majority. Also there may be some wackos in the human world with ideas that are just plain crazy and not based on logical consistency. But if you filter through all the crazy shit that skeptical people come up with, you could discover a skeptical person who actually has coherent ideas that have never before been proposed in human history.TL;DR. The
is a categorical model of the skeptical mindset. The intellectual advancement of humanity was pretty much fueled by skeptical people who were willing to challenge and oppose the status quo with their ideas, despite the backlash, defamation, social exclusion, harassment and sometimes lynching they received for it. Therefore its an acceptable argument that the can be a useful concept in regard to the advancement of scientific intelligence in humanity. The ideas of skeptical people are likely to be unpopular and not easily accepted by the normie population when proposed for the first time, hence the treatment that 'mad scientists' have been subject to throughout human history. There may be skeptics with plain silly ideas, but there may also be skeptics with really coherent ideas. Considering the fact that the is an explicit model of skeptical thought, the whole of humanity would still be in the stone age without the intellectual contributions that were made by people who were skeptical about the status quo throughout the ages in human history.
Last edited:
