Leo's Blog Discussion Mega-Thread

[Xonas Pitfall]

I think what's needed is a good counter-term or rhetorical trap, similar in tone and function to leftsplaining. Something that calls out the mindset where people hide behind cynicism, blackpilling, status quo bias, TINA ("There Is No Alternative"), toxic or weaponized realism, hard-nosed pragmatism, or doomerism to justify inaction and block change.

The ideal term would expose this move for what it is: a way to shut down deeper vision, dodge responsibility, and defend broken systems by pretending to be “realistic.”

Examples:

• “People are just selfish and violent by nature, they need to be controlled - that’s why authoritarianism is the only thing that works.”
• “Most people are too stupid to vote correctly, so democracy is a joke. I want a strong, masculine dictator who will set real order!”
• “Racism will always exist - there’s no point trying to fix it.”
• “Most people can't grasp complex ideas, so why even bother with education reform? Just tell them what to think.”
• “Climate change solutions are a pipe dream - people will never sacrifice convenience.”
• "If people are too closed-minded to accept LGBTQ+ rights, then maybe the issue isn't even worth fighting for."

Cynisplaining, Defeatplaining? 

... is the rhetorical move where someone uses "harsh reality" as a weapon to dismiss effort, imagination, growth, or responsibility. It's a kind of realism-worship that blocks change, often disguised as wisdom or pragmatism. This mindset accepts the world as it is - flawed, dumb, unfair - and uses that acceptance as an excuse to avoid higher thought or ethical responsibility. Instead of acknowledging the need for a better system, the person doubles down on the broken one as “just the way things are.”

Another version of this is when someone selectively uses realism and harsh truths to push their agenda, but the moment their ego needs comfort or validation, they suddenly cling to softer, more hopeful, or lenient ideas.

Examples:

• "Look, poverty exists because some people are just lazy. You give them free money like UBI, and they'll just waste it. The rich? They worked hard, made smart moves, and took risks. They deserve what they have. We shouldn't be rewarding mediocrity."

  Later (when it touches their own life):
  "Man, ever since I got laid off, it's been tough. I've applied to like 20 places and still nothing. It's not that I don’t want to work, I just need a chance. Honestly, if there were some kind of program to help out with bills while people get back on their feet, that would change everything. Not like UBI exactly... but you know, something for people like me who actually try."

• "The truth is, most people are idiots. They can't think for themselves, they follow trends, they need someone strong to lead them and keep them in line. You give the average person freedom, they ruin everything. A strong hand is the only thing that works."

  Later (when it's about them):
  "I’m not gonna be anyone’s puppet. I make my own path. I don’t need some system or leader telling me what to do. I don’t fit in with the herd. I need to live free, on my terms. I hate when people try to box me in or act like they know what’s best for me."

• "Emotions have no place in politics. We need cold, rational decision-making. Leaders shouldn’t care about feelings - they should focus on results. That’s why soft, compassionate policies always fail. We need logic, not bleeding hearts."

  Later (defending their favorite leader):
  "No, you don’t understand. He gets it. When he speaks, I feel it. He’s not just about numbers, he understands the struggle. He’s passionate, he cares. That’s what makes him a real leader, not like those fake ones reading off scripts. He speaks to something deeper."

Edited May 29 by Xonas Pitfall

[Leo Gura]

Realsplaining

Hardsplaining

Truthbombing

Doomsplaining

Leosplaining

Edited May 29 by Leo Gura

[Xonas Pitfall]

NOOOOOO!!! Don't fall into such mousetraps, Mr. Leosplaining! 

[Leo Gura]

Let me Leosplain this to you...

 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

No, unless you're using art for status or as part of the pursuit of luxury.

Art as luxury would be buying a famous painting so you can show it off to your rich friends.

We are in agreement.

Art is a rather serious subject for me.

It has been the main theme and driving force throughout my life.

I see art in everything. 

But I respect most arts ability to marry function & beauty. Art is also a process & a product. 

Big topic.

[Leo Gura]

The creation of art is not luxury.

This should go without saying.

Edited May 30 by Leo Gura

[Natasha Tori Maru]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

The creation of art is not luxury.

This should go without saying.

Haha you would think so!

But some peoples definition of art is so busted - they reduce it to this very narrow specific thing.

For example - the thumbnails for your videos. Time has been spent, clearly (well it appears to me), in framing, selecting and ensuring there is a narrative fit to the content being presented.

But if you were to ask the local gallery owner I know - he would think a video thumbnail was garbage

[gengar]

4 hours ago, Nilsi said:

Think of it this way: you have all of eternity to contemplate the truth - to dwell in the stillness of the Platonic One, in the cool serenity of the eternal. But life? Life is utterly singular. Every instant is unrepeatable. Every moment vanishes as it arrives. If you blink, you miss it.

This is less a critique of you than of Plato - though I’m not sure how aligned you are with him. Plato saw the world of the senses, the particular, the fleeting, as a distortion - a shadow of the true, the good, and the beautiful, which dwell beyond time in the realm of unchanging forms. The task of philosophy, for him, was to renounce the sensory, the contingent, the perishable - and ascend.

But I say: yes, this world may be imperfect. It may be broken, mad, chaotic, base. And yet it is singular. Non-fungible. Charged with strangeness and beauty precisely because it does not last. My ethics begins there - not in renunciation, but in reverence for the ephemeral. In honoring the fact that I, too, have been and will be here for all of eternity, but only ever like this, right now, once.

So what’s the big deal with getting a little lost in the play? With letting the dream move through you? This world isn’t a prison - it’s a masquerade. And knowing that, I choose to dance.

I read this in Anthony Hopkins voice
 

[gengar]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Realsplaining

Hardsplaining

Truthbombing

Doomsplaining

Leosplaining

When you leosplain to us it hurts most of all.

[Extreme Z7]

@Leo Gura With all this talk about the ineffectiveness of Leftist Activism, what do you think of Gary Stevenson's work then? All he does is make videos, attend political rallies, and make public interviews and appearances. And if you know anything about what he talks about it's that the he can be quite direct and alarmist.

I guess what I want to ask from you is if you think he's doing Leftism "the correct way".
He's a multi-millionaire from trading but he probably got public fame from his book which I haven't read yet.

[Leo Gura]

7 minutes ago, Extreme Z7 said:

what do you think of Gary Stevenson's work then?

I like him, but realistically his message is not going to be effective. He wants people to focus on political activism as a means of improving their economic situation, which is not going to really work.

Government is not going to fix your economic situation. Although, yes, we should tax the rich more.

If you are a serious person you have to drop the notion that government is going to help you. Government only helps the mega donors in any meaningful way, which is corruption.

Gary sells the fantasy that government will help you. This is a dangerous notion for young people to believe in.

Edited May 30 by Leo Gura

[gengar]

@Leo Gura

With abandoning luxury, do you mean always opting for the frugal options like that mp3 player you posted instead of an iPod for example?

The only advantage of the iPod would be that it looks better and has a better UI. Would I have dirtied my soul a bit when going for the iPod for that reason according to you?

And going for a Macbook that is 4kUSD instead of a 1800USD laptop, even when the Macbook has actual use cases that make it better than the laptop, would that be luxury, since the price is so high, even when taking in account the use cases?

Also take into account that some people (like me) just like the idea of luxury items. Yes it's ego driven, but I don't really see how it hinders understanding reality, apart from the time lost trying to fund them or parade them.

I understand reality better than everyone I know IRL but it has nothing to do with the level of my ego.

[Leo Gura]

16 minutes ago, gengar said:

With abandoning luxury, do you mean always opting for the frugal options like that mp3 player you posted instead of an iPod for example?

No.

An iPod is not luxury.

You guys here are so poor that you don't even understand what luxury is.

When you spend $20,000 a month on fine wine, then let's talk.

Edited May 30 by Leo Gura

[gengar]

"Here's the cold truth that leftists don't want to look in the face: business is a much more powerful mechanism of social change than political activism."

Hard disagree. You're looking at this from an individualistic perspective. Socialists know that a few people doing activism won't do shit. The entire idea of socialist action is to rouse up all the working people and create a revolution. If 40% of working people organize and protest, the capitalist system gets overthrown in a day. 

I'm noticing more and more these liberal, individualist axioms and assumptions that Leo makes in his points, probably without realizing I'm suspecting this is because of his American culture-fed presumptions. The idea of "changing the world through a 100M business" is a silly idea. Not because it's not true that one individual doing that would have an astronomical impact on society compared to other individuals, clearly it does, but all individuals roused up make a 100M business look like nothing in comparison. 

It's also obvious that history backs up my claim, French Revolution, Russian Revolution, etc.

Now, I'm not saying such revolutions lead to better outcomes, not at all. And I do think that a 100M ethical biz is the best way forward right now and not some revolution. But the idea that social change is not caused by political activism is silly to me. We've just gotten accustomed to big capital and neoliberal hegemony basically making political activism dickless. In the 20th century, socialists like the Black Panthers and Fred Hampton posed a real threat to the US state.

[gengar]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

No.

An iPod is not luxury.

You guys here are so poor that you don't even understand what luxury is.

When you spend $20,000 a month on fine wine, then let's talk.

Leo dissing me by calling me poor is something I never knew I wanted, but now can't imagine my life without.

[Leo Gura]

1 minute ago, gengar said:

It's also obvious that history backs up my claim, French Revolution, Russian Revolution, etc.

History backs up that your revolutions end in misery and evil for all.

Yes, you can mobilize a mob of 100M morons. And they will destroy more than they create.

[Extreme Z7]

6 minutes ago, gengar said:

but all individuals roused up make a 100M business look like nothing in comparison.

Someone likes Pixar's A Bug's Life a bit too much 

 

Edited May 30 by Extreme Z7

[Leo Gura]

Felix Dennis has a great quote in his book. Something like: If you have $100M, you're barely scraping by.

If you have less than $10M in the bank you are poor.

Edited May 30 by Leo Gura

[Extreme Z7]

8 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Denis Felix has a great quote in his book. Something like: If you have $100M, you're barely scraping by.

Like mentioned before, I have a friend who has 100M dollars. And they were still weirdly financially-insecure with their behavior in the past. Actually still hoping to talk more to them about it in the future to help them out as a friend.

Edited May 30 by Extreme Z7

[gengar]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

History backs up that your revolutions end in misery and evil for all.

Yes, you can mobilize a mob of 100M morons. And they will destroy more than they create.

That doesn't mean "social change" is not possible.

Also, the French Revolution destroyed more than it created? Lol. It was basically the beginning of democracy and liberalism in the west.

Slave revolts are social activism as well. 

The general claim you made is just incorrect IMO.