Lawrence Auster has linked to Welmer’s superlative Spearhead article “How Game Secured American Independence.” He doesn’t bother refuting Welmer’s thesis, though, simply dismissing it as “amusing.” Whenever someone does this, it’s usually because they realize they’re intellectually outclassed and are trying to save face. Larry, what happened to ya, man? How did the brilliant mind who wrote The Path to National Suicide become so narrow-minded, stubborn, and recalcitrant that his reaction to new ideas is to shove his fingers in his ears and scream, “Nyah nyah, nyah nyah nyah, I can’t hear you!” like a bratty child? The words I wrote back in August still apply today:
Because of conservatives’ collective ignorance on this topic, their efforts to turn back Western civilization’s decline have amounted to less than nothing. If Lawrence Auster and other like-minded right-wingers don’t get their act together, not only will society continue its descent into savagery, but future generations will curse them as idiots and fools who wasted their time on irrelevant side issues only to let the civilization they were ostensibly defending fall to pieces. I criticize them because I care.
Just keep laughing, Mr. Auster. You and your compadres are laughing yourselves straight into irrelevancy.
{ 122 comments… read them below or add one }
Mr. Auster does seem to do that. Of course, in my experience with him, his teaser post is merely a way to induce us to email him so that he can launch into a tirade against Darwinist reductionism.
“He doesn’t bother refuting Welmer’s thesis, though, simply dismissing it as “amusing.†Whenever someone does this, it’s usually because they realize they’re intellectually outclassed and are trying to save face.”
Or it could be a preliminary to a more involved response and not a brusque dismissal. Do you think Welmer’s thesis is beyond refutation and therefore that any further consideration or criticism of the matter is proof that one has been intellectually demolished and is futilely firing back merely to tarnish Welmer’s repute?
Ferds,
Of course he will never get it. None of them will.
Remember that 80% of men and 99.9% of women will never, ever comprehend Game (which should more appropriately be called the Venusian Arts).
Welmer has properly defined what socialcons are really about.
To be honest, I hoped the piece would amuse some people. I’d actually be happy to see Mr. Auster put some effort onto offering a different interpretation. However, if all he wants to do is mock the piece, well, fair’s fair, so he’s fair game for some of the same.
With older guys, sometimes they get stuck up on principle, especially when it relates to how they’ve built their career. This is leaves them wide open to be shot down, but hey, if they want to compete through ridicule I won’t complain, because pompous old farts always lose on that score.
“Welmer has properly defined what socialcons are really about.”
TFH, what about Auster makes him a Pharisaical pseudo-socon and afraid of feminist shaming language when he can write a recent post decrying the rampant illegitimacy found in navy servicewomen? How could he possibly write the following: “But do you ever see a single conservative say that the feminization of the military has been a terrible mistake and should be ended? No. The “conservatives†all believe in women’s equality and non-discrimination.”
I don’t see Auster as dismissing the piece. He just said it was amusing.
I suspect the disconnect between the game people and Auster is way less than might appear and is more a matter of packaging than essentials.
Game works, but the way game is packaged and presented on websites like Roissy and even yours ends up turning off so many people that wouldnt be in the least hostile to game if it was presented sans all the macho idiocy and hostility and anger and violence. Auster himself has admitted that you need to develop a masculine personality and distinguish yourself in some way to be attractive to women, and that this is healthy and good, but the game people go so much further than that with their talk of domination and all the rest.
Game is essentially developing a masculine persona – you yourself have made that abundantly clear recently in your Fundamentals of Game post – and there is no way Auster would object to that, but all the nonesense about dominating women, putting them down, being violent towards them, etc, etc, has nothing to do with game at its core – at best it is one variant of game, a particularly disturbing and grotesque variant that is showcased most prominently on Roissys site.
If game people just focused on developing an authentically masculine persona, cut all the macho posturing and talk of domination which may provide a vehicle for certain angry people to live out fantasies, then game would turn off way less people and would generate some genuine enthusiasm in people who think they are repelled by game, when they are really repelled by the macho posturing and hostility and anger that certain game bloggers have decided to use game as a vehicle for expressing.
Game is full of some really good, healthy stuff, but unfortunately lots of seriously angry and resentful people use it to vent, and give some really hideous and grotesque advice and perspectives on how to relate to women that is more often than not not really part of game properly understood.
Auster says that Game is silly, because these techniques “have been around since the beginning of time, in the behavior of men and leaders”.
Of course, he has no concept of “naturals”, but more importantly he is incapable of comprehending that men haven’t been successfully passing on these “techniques” – because if they had, there would be no need for Game blogs.
Not to make too grandiose a comparison but gravity has been around since the beginning of time as well, and most people basically understood it, but I don’t think many people would deny that studying it has been a worthwhile endeavor.
There’s nothing to get. And that’s the point. Y’all are wasting your time on something that no real man needs, and no real woman respects. I mean, honestly, it’s a pretty interesting world out there. Reducing everything to Game (“Got a problem? Get more Game!”) is dull and counterproductive. Expand your horizons a little.
Todd:
“And that’s the point. Y’all are wasting your time on something that no real man needs, and no real woman respects.”
For the sake of clarity, please define “real man” and “real woman”.
Welmer,
With older guys, sometimes they get stuck up on principle, especially when it relates to how they’ve built their career.
True, a 60-year-old like Auster-alopithecus lived in a time where he could afford to assume women were noble angels.
mike,
Game works, but the way game is packaged and presented on websites like Roissy and even yours ends up turning off so many people that wouldnt be in the least hostile to game if it was presented sans
True, but no matter how many times a more ‘respectable’ Game site like approachanxiety.com or askjdog.com is presented to Betacons/manginas, they ignore the example because they would rather maintain their ignorant narrative.
No matter how many times Dave in Hawaii is presented as an example of how Game is crucial within a monogamous marriage, they ignore the example. They cannot admit that Dave in Hawaii exists.
So there are many examples of ‘respectable’ Game, which the Betacons desperately ignore.
Welmer’s definition of socialcons stands. They are morally inferior to a PUA, and since LTR Game is morally higher than a PUA, the full morality hierarchy is :
LTR Game > PUA > Socialcon/mangina.
Chuck,
For the sake of clarity, please define “real man†and “real womanâ€.
Don’t expect a fair reply from this person.
T5H,
I think you meant “John”.
Hermes,
Again, you have to wonder why the events of August 2009 led to as diverse a crowd as Obsidian, Welmer, Doug1, Eumaios, Ferdinand, and myself coming to the same conclusion about socialcons.
You have 2 choices :
a) Distance yourself from the ‘socialcon’ label, or
b) Fight those who are tainting the reputation of the term.
Those are the only two choices you have. The Game community does not need socialcon approval.
Is proof of manginavitis is the way that the American Revolution was carried with actual physical force whereas the ‘Second American Revolution’ amounts to ‘men’ having a tea party and coverse their dislike of government whilst sipping tea?
Chuck: I’ll take a stab. “Competent, confident, and happy.”
“Again, you have to wonder why the events of August 2009 led to as diverse a crowd as Obsidian, Welmer, Doug1, Eumaios, Ferdinand, and myself coming to the same conclusion about socialcons.”
But these were conclusions about posturing pseudo-socons, a group to which Auster does not belong, and not the other kind that Welmer applauds.
Actually, Game is two steps removed from the socialcon pathology.
First, let’s focus on the difference between the socialcon realist (Hermes) vs. the socialcon idealists.
Hermes is in favor of LTR Game in monogamous marriages, and does not deny the existence of Dave in Hawaii. Todd White, Justin, and Pons Seclorum deny that LTR Game exists.
So if Hermes favors LTR Game, is he still a socialcon?
Second, let’s focus on the MRA sphere vs. socialcons. Todd White is on record saying that real men don’t ask for pre-nups/it is immoral to ask for pre-nups. So why are MRAs wrong to oppose the divorce laws, the imprisonment of men on unconstitutional grounds, etc? Why are socialcons in direct opposition to men’s rights in the current legal climate?
Two important questions : socialcons vs. LTR Game, and socialcons vs. men’s rights.
“Hermes is in favor of LTR Game in monogamous marriages, and does not deny the existence of Dave in Hawaii. Todd White, Justin, and Pons Seclorum deny that LTR Game exists.”
When did I ever deny this? I have only objected to your inconsistent version of the narrative of the amendment of the divorce laws, in which you blame upstanding socons and not leftists/feminists/cultural Marxists/Pharisaical pseudo-socons.
Just as I suspected, the SoCon sausagefest resumes.
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/014591.html
Ponsie,
So are you in favor of LTR Game, or not? This would determine whether you are in the Hermes category or the Todd White category.
Yes, socialcons are responsible for being criminally negligent while feminist divorce laws were passed, much like if the fire department arrives only the next day after the hourse burns down, and still denies that the fire happened. Todd White’s opposition to pre-nups shows how Betacons are seeking to swindle the average man, and are thus complicit with feminists
Ferds,
Did the Auster-alopithecus go extinct in 3 million BC, or in August 2009 AD?
“So are you in favor of LTR Game, or not? This would determine whether you are in the Hermes category or the Todd White category.”
Yes, I am in favor of it.
“Yes, socialcons are responsible for being criminally negligent while feminist divorce laws were passed, much like if the fire department arrives only the next day after the hourse burns down, and still denies that the fire happened. Todd White’s opposition to pre-nups shows how Betacons are seeking to swindle the average man, and are thus complicit with feminists”
Then it is the posturing, pseudo-socons who are at fault, not those conservatives of the Old Right.
I think Mr. Auster assumed the article by Welmer was tongue in cheek, so he complimented it by saying that it was amusing. It reads like a parody of Gamers taking themselves too seriously by claiming monumental consequences due to Game. On the assumption that it was just humor, calling it amusing is a compliment.
Is anyone actually reading it as a valid explanation of history?
socialcons are responsible for being criminally negligent while feminist divorce laws were passed
while your beloved libertarians were directly responsible for the content of those divorce laws.
Pons Seclorum:
People who are planning “involved response[s]” usually don’t post “preliminar[ies]” – they usually post the responses up front.
Not necessarily, but from his tone, the tone of his subsequent conversation with Todd White, and his past history on this issue, it suggests that Auster doesn’t have the intellectual wherewithal to mount an effective response.
Welmer:
Amusing, to be sure, but there was also a serious point in your piece that Auster neglects.
John:
“Macho”? There’s nothing “macho” – in the stereotypical sense – about game or its proponents.
Not at its core, but those are effective manifestations of good game, whether the moral orels want to admit it or not. The truth is sometimes unpleasant.
The problem is that “authentically masculine persona[s]” are amoral. The truth of this can’t be whitewashed.
Todd White:
So no true woman falls for game?
Game might be *amoral* in the sense that its prime concern is not to help others but to benefit oneself, but properly understood it is in no way immoral as it does not seek to hurt others.
Game suffers from a serious and persistent theoretical challenge that seems integral to the discussion of male strength – the need to distinguish between authentic masculinity and the kind of macho posturing born of weakness and a desire to persuade others you are *strong*. There is a huge amount of conceptual murkiness around this issue the game community is far from achieving any amount of clarity on it.
People who are essentially weak will often overreact and try to be *super-masculine* in a way that is clearly inappropriate and overcompensatory. It IS possible to act in a way that is TOO masculine and an over-exhibition of strength – it is clear to everyone that such people are not actually strong, but are merely trying to appear so, and are making far too great an effort. This is what it is to be *macho*.
Authentic strength has no need to convince others and is inherently undemonstrative – this is often half-recognized by game people, including yourself when you cite *calmness* as a component of masculinity – and has no need to dominate others. People who have the need to dominate others are weak. Similarly with putting others down – raising yourself at anothers expense reeks of insecurity. Secure people dont do that.
The problem with the game community is that much of the advice is to be macho – which is not only inherently repellent, but is actually disastrous for the game novice seeking to build his confidence. Roissy has it as one of this rules of poon that you should fake arrogance and super-confidence – disastrous advice which is practically an explicit reccomendation for weak people to act macho. Instead of faking arrogance, you should develop authentic self respect. There is an incredible amount on his site in that vein and all over the game community.
Developing authentic strength doesnt involve the need to dominate women or put them down, and attempting either will make you look weak. Sure, some women will fall for it, but most wont – game people admit they get rejected all the time. Sure, macho might get you more girls than being timid, but it wont get anything close to top quality and is far from optimal.
One of the great temptations of the game community, born out of a disgust with conventional thinking and social lies, is to go too far in the opposite direction. Once you see through the niceness charade, it is a keen pleasure to revel in ever more extreme intellectual perspectives and far out there takes on morality, but one must remain grounded in reality.
A strong person does not need to dominate others. He certainly will not let himself be dominated and he will not compromise his needs or his values, but he has no explicit need to dominate. You do not need to attempt to dominate women, you need to manifest decisiveness, appropriate assertiveness, and self-respect, and women will respect you.
Being strong and self-centered – or masculine – means having absolutely no need to attempt to dominate others, whether women or men,
Being violent to women, putting them down, and attempting to dominate them are, far from manifestations of good game, over-compensations of weak men who don:t understand what it means to be strong.
TFH: “Todd White is on record saying that real men don’t ask for pre-nups/it is immoral to ask for pre-nups.”
TW: I never said anything like that. Not even close. If you can find that quote from me, I’ll mail you a check for $10.
Chuck: “Just as I suspected, the SoCon sausagefest resumes. ”
TW: Irony alert! Irony alert!
We’re using the same words, but we’re swinging around different concepts. SSDD.
Part of the problem: Some men on the Game side use “social conservative” as a metonym. It is not the ideas or policies of social conservatism that characterize the kind of person we are referring to. Rather, we wish to identify an attitude possessed by almost all men who self-identify as social conservatives.
While discussions about Game included no social conservatives, “social conservative” remained a useful shorthand. It is no longer useful, and begins to be a hindrance, due to the influx of numerous men who may be aptly described as socially conservative. The challenge now is to describe what concept we really mean to be understood as criticizing. Once we understand the phenomenon better, we may be able to reassign an existing term or to coin a better.
To that end: what differences are there between social conservatives who reject Game and all its works and those who do not?
Some litmus tests:
- has never considered possibility of contraception being an evil
- considers abortion a more important problem than divorce
- assumes more men initiate divorce than women
- raises a daughter who gets knocked up her first year of college
- disturbed by the ideas in Schlesinger’s The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands
- disturbed by the ideas in the (possibly apocryphal) Good Housekeeping “Good Wife’s Guide”.
considers abortion a more important problem than divorce
People should be cut some serious slack on this one. If you believe that abortion is murder, of course you are going to think it more important than divorce.
Thursday: “People should be cut some serious slack on this one. If you believe that abortion is murder, of course you are going to think it more important than divorce.”
Abortion is murder. Committing it is worse than committing divorce.
Yet still I say the problem of divorce is more important than the problem of abortion.
“People should be cut some serious slack on this one.”
But do you think it is a good line of demarcation, Thursday?
- has never considered possibility of contraception being an evil
This one is problematic too. First, almost by definition, conservative Catholics believe contraception is evil, yet most are extremely chivalrous and woman-pedestalizing.
Second, even some evangelical leaders, like Albert Mohler, have expressed skepticism about contraception in recent years. Not to the point of calling it evil, but wondering aloud, “maybe this isn’t such a good idea after all…”
Third, how many on the Game side consider the possibility that contraception is evil? Roissy called it one of his “four sirens,” but do you think he wants it to go away? Do you, or Ferd, or Chuck, really want the life of Jim Bob Duggar?
Hermes, you’re not wrong, but you’ve missed the point entirely. I’m trying to identify the something extra that turns a social conservative into TFH’s boogeyman. The proposed litmus test has no bearing on people, like Roissy, who are not social conservatives.
Let’s make up some neutral terms for the two groups: Browns are the social conservatives who TFH and others criticize, those who reject the glamor of Game and refuse to be interested in it. Grays are the social conservatives who see in Game some combination of empirical and theoretical truth.
The litmus test is not intended to prove someone a Gray. It only works one way; to help identify a Brown. A social conservative who has spent hard thought on contraception is, I contend, a Brown.
“Do you, or Ferd, or Chuck, really want the life of Jim Bob Duggar?”.
Yes, but I started late. We’ll be happy to get to 8 before the eggs go bad.
oops.
A social conservative who has NOT spent hard thought on contraception is a Brown.
has anyone yet determined whether or not auster has any actual relations with women? he does not seem gay, i posit he is a “neuter” as described in kurt vonnegut’s “deadeye dick”. has he ever been married?
I don’t have a problem with socialcons who simply don’t comprehend Game, and thus don’t have an opinion on it.
What I do have a problem with is socialcons who :
a) Condemn Game while demonstrably lacking knowledge of it (or any real experience with women). See : Todd White
b) Refuse to admit that LTR Game exists, no matter how much proof is pressed against their faces.
c) Try to swindle the average man due to their sinister ties to feminism. See : Socialcons who say a man who asks for a pre-nup is immoral. Thus, socialcons are enemies of MRAs too.
d) Socialcons who are sadistic towards men and white-knighting towards women, as Welmer points out. This exposes socialcons as having lower morality than PUAs.
Morality hierarchy :
LTR Game > PUA > Socialcon/mangina
The Fifth Horseman: “Socialcons who say a man who asks for a pre-nup is immoral”
This sort of criterion is what I want to see more of, if only to aid my understanding. I was not aware that any social conservatives say this.
“I was not aware that any social conservatives say this.”
Todd White said it clearly – I forget which blog. Remember, I said that the sentence from Todd White which made 8/09 the inflection point that it was, was this (or to this effect) :
“A man who requests a pre-nup is immoral. That would be a something done by a loser who is addicted to Game. ”
There are just so many things wrong with that sentence, that social conservatism effectively lost all credibility in that instant. I predict that Hermes will, over time, come to the same conclusion that we have in that now-legendary episode.
TFH: “… social conservatism effectively lost all credibility in that instant.”
A particular proponent of social conservatism lost credibility. There are certainly other Brown social cons who have no problems with pre-nuptial agreements; I was one such.
The nitpicking here is because I don’t think you mean to communicate what almost everyone hears you saying.
Distrust of men who want pre-nups is a symptom of something deeper. This X-factor is what distinguishes Browns and Grays.
TFH: I never said that because I don’t believe that. It’s that simple. Again, show me the proof. If you can’t find it (and you won’t) you should retract your comment and apologize.
Todd White,
Do you have any insight on the X-factor separating you and me? What else distinguishes us, as social conservatives?
Todd, would you mind telling us whether or not you consider yourself a social conservative?
“Todd, would you mind telling us whether or not you consider yourself a social conservative?”
Good point. I assumed that he was only objecting to the alleged statement about pre-nups.
Todd prefers to be very vague about his belief systems. He straddles the fence in all areas; it affords him the greatest opportunity to snipe at everyone else (well, except Auster).
Hermes: “Todd, would you mind telling us whether or not you consider yourself a social conservative?”
TW: I don’t consider myself to be a “social conservative,” although I’m sympathetic to a lot of their concerns about the direction of our culture (the lack of respect for faith and family, the appeasement of radical Islam, the hyper-commercialization of our marketplace, etc).
To be honest, don’t think I fit into any political category, but if I was forced to do so, I would probably describe myself as something between a conservative and a libertarian.
Chuck: “Todd prefers to be very vague about his belief systems. He straddles the fence in all areas.”
TW: Quite the contrary. I’m always upfront about what I believe and I’m never afraid to state my opinion. Furthermore, there’s always a logic between what I believe in principle and what I advocate in terms of action.
Eumaios: “Todd, Do you have any insight on the X-factor separating you and me?”
TW: To be honest, I don’t think I understand the question. Could you clarify?
TFH was caught lying about his futurist career over at GirlGame.
Me and Hermes have discovered here that the examples TFH likes to give of social cons that oppose game, such as Conor F. and Todd White, weren’t actually social conservatives.
TFH is a joke. A true betacon.
Link:
http://girlgame.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/applying-girl-game-in-the-middle/#comment-1619
Isn’t the biggest issue a programmatic one?
In other words, as I understand them, the Brown socons dislike Game because they do not like the results that they believe will come from the use of Game. The fears are many, and range from the idea that Game will lead to even more casual sex taking place, to broader ideas that Game is essentially manipulative and inherently evil. However, the socon proposal as to how to deal with the current problem is not clear. Game offers a pragmatic approach for men, whereas socon-ism offers an ideology of rollbacks. Therein lies the conflict. Game proponents tend to not be very sanguine about the likelihood of substantial cultural rollbacks anytime soon. Socons often refer to the pendulum swinging back and so on but there aren’t any substantial indications that this is happing in the broader culture when it comes to men/women and related issues. If anything, publications like the Shriver Report indicate that the women’s movement is preparing for the next phase of the revolution right now.
Game represents a more pragmatic approach for men, and one which has an impact on their lives to a greater degree, than embracing an ideology of cultural rollbacks.
Yep. Novaseeker is correct.
Socons merely do empty sermonizing, without even being willing to acknowledge how anti-male the legal climate has become, or how uncouth women have become. This climate itself is a testament to the 100% failure of socialcons to preserve what was of value to them (as Obsidian’s comment of the month (August) described in a manner that socons are yet to rebut).
Hence it is premature for socons to even opine about Game. First, they have to resolve their conflicts with MRA beliefs. Game is merely a societal reaction to the disenfranchisement of men that was already underway for decades before Game emerged as a reaction.
Socons aren’t even being realists about the anti-male legal climate yet, so it is far too premature for them to even aspire to discuss Game (which Todd White and others demonstrably have no grasp of). The palpable lack of experience with women that socons demonstrate (through white-knighting and pedestaling) also disqualifies their opinions on the subject.
Game is a technology that enables things socons don’t like. Well, the Internet and cellphones make it easier to commit adultery, relative to when an entire household shared a single landline 15 years ago. So socialcons should also oppose the Internet and cellphones as adultery-enabling technologies. That would be consistent with their ‘logic’ for opposing Game.
TFH is a joke. A true betacon.
I don’t know why some, like Ferdinand and Obsidian, continue to give this guy any credibility. His comments (the ones in the GirlGame thread you linked, where he threatens PA with a “nuclear option” by which he can supposedly ruin his life by… posting on an anonymous internet forum, are a perfect example) just scream 15 year old sitting in his parents’ basement reading Ayn Rand.
Hermes,
Why are you so threatened, when I simply asked you where you stand relative to other socialcons, given that you support LTR Game, which Todd White strenuously denies?
Relying on other people to pileon to the person who happen to disagree with, is rather lame. Why would you indulge in the type of debate tactics that Female Masculinist describes feminsts as using?
I have been polite with you in the last 30 days, so why not clarify your positions on what I have been asking?
Thursday,
The same for you. To hide behind a ‘Oooh, look! Other people piled on to him because none of them could stand a 1:1 debate’ does not reflect well on your ability to engage in proper debate at all. You are supposed to be better than that, and I thought you were.
Thursday, I am unclear on your position regarding LTR Game, socialcons, and Men’s Rights. Please clarify, as you often seem to be straddling both sides.
broader ideas that Game is essentially manipulative and inherently evil
When one discovers that women are only attracted to alpha males, and the men that they’re cavorting with are a reminder of the “bad” men, jerks, douchebags, and assholes from high school & college who may have directly or indirectly made fun of you, there is a hesitancy in some males to ape their behaviour due to feelings of superiority. In other words, they’d rather stick to their own failed methods and be wrong than be right and feel that they’ve joined the muck that they’ve learned to detest.
Essentially, when a man discovers what makes women tingle, the choices are to become what they like and go on a revanchist quest for sex, follow the Dave in Hawaii route by just being a “monogamous asshole”, or sit on the sides for reasons of religion, so-called morals, and/or sheer laziness.
David: You are wrong in both your analysis of the situation, and your recommendation on how to improve it.
I don’t know why some, like Ferdinand and Obsidian, continue to give this guy any credibility.
Perhaps because they are man enough to address points based on their merit, rather than resort to the two weakest of all tactics, the ad hominem, and the ‘look, here’s where others disagreed with him on a different issue, so let’s use that as an excuse to avoid his questions’?
You could learn from them, you know.
So clarify the questions I have posed to you 3 or 4 times by now.
your recommendation on how to improve it
Given that I’m watching one female friend swoon over a guy that isn’t dating her but still strings her along with awful sex, another friend marry a guy that makes fun of volunteering kids, and another that brushes off the delinquency of her fiancee’s youth, and all three coming from good homes, I’d argue that the only option that’s left is using game or a life of porn with a healthy active social life and hobbies.
I’ll admit that I’m a free rider, since pump and dumps ensure that some female needs a warm hug, and there some whorish looking woman attempting to emulate the porn star look…
Hermes:
Well, he’s now been caught lying and we have the links. Lots of respected commenters like PA, Clio, Pi, Vladimir, myself, you and Epoxytocin think he’s a joke. Other than bringing up the links when necessary, I say we disengage. It’s time to stop feeding the troll.
It’s time to stop feeding the troll.
Thursday, an equal number of people might think you are a joke after your ‘false rape’ meltdown with Doug1. I am not among them, however, to be clear.
But my questions towards you have been polite and reasonable. So answer them. Clarify your positions on social conservatism in relation to Game and in relation to Men’s Rights.
Todd White,
If you don’t self-describe as a social conservative, then my question is largely bootless. Perhaps a version of it can be salvaged.
Some of your arguments against game appear to come from the same direction as the Brown social-con criticisms. Your position between conservatism and libertarianism is similar to what I would say about myself. I doubt you could find many important policy differences between us, apart from the sphere where Game is said to apply by its proponents.
Our frameworks for understanding the world are much alike, but something in them diverges. Our respective reactions to Game make that difference apparent.
I’m wondering what that is.
“It’s time to stop feeding the troll.”
TFH is patently not a troll. Whether or not he has lied in the ways you say, Thursday, he is not intentionally disrupting the discourse. Please, do not join the ranks of word-wreckers.
To the left, recklessly irresponsible statements do often pass beyond the portcullis of his teeth.
I doubt you could find many important policy differences between us, apart from the sphere where Game is said to apply by its proponents.
And the same goes for me. None of us are leftists here.
But Todd White’s socialcon impression comes from his excessive sucking up to Larry Auster, and his ‘challege’ to Roissy for a debate.
Thursday and Hermes don’t like that socialcons get flak for the words of Todd White, but they fail to distance themselves from these anti-Game people, and would rather attack the perception that myself, you, Obsidian, Ferdinand, Welmer, and others have developed of ‘socialcons’ since August 2009.
If it is nothing more than a ‘A is not a socialcon, but B is, and C sometimes is’, that isn’t really the heart of the issue.
I mean, Hermes is a proponent of LTR Game, which puts him far more in opposition to Todd White than to me, but Hermes is too attached to the identity of ‘socialcon’ to see this.
Thanks, Eumaios. I’ll be there for you in your hour of need, should that day arrive.
Example of an irresponsible statement: “an equal number of people might think you are a joke after your ‘false rape’ meltdown with Doug1. I am not among them, however, to be clear.”
This is a classic argument nasty. “Some have said that Ted Kennedy duck-taped Mary Jo to that car’s floor. I want to go on record saying that I personally have no reason to believe this.”
novaseeker,
you write:
“…the Brown socons dislike Game because they do not like the results that they believe will come from the use of Game…”
It is Gamers themselves who have staked out what a future with Game looks like. Roissy is indisputably the most popular and leading force for the Gamers in cyberspace. He understands the philosphical core of Game as promoted by the Gamers and what the implications of this are better than most Gamers do. He’s stated them in his own, clear language on his site repeatedly. Here’s just one example:
“No, the solution is to give the New Girl Order exactly what it wants: Game, and an army of cads that practice it. Force feed the beast until it is choking on its own gluttony. The emissaries of the Great Lie must have the consequences of their ignorance and treachery shoved down their throats. In time, the unabashed pursuit of hedonism and the embrace of Darwinistic nihilism (two potent forces which, coincidentally, happen to have truth and pleasure on their side. Exhibit B: God is dead) will raze the neoliberal monolith to the ground, and from the ashes the eternal human cycle will begin anew, strengthened and revitalized. A complete reconciliation with our tragic destiny gives us the only chance to avoid it.”
“Socons” are not creating a straw man when they argue that Game (which is distinct from, though overlaps in various ways with, geniune manhood and masculinity) reduces to nihilism.
In the real world, this level of pseudo-male drama could at least be resolved with a slap-fight.
“has anyone yet determined whether or not auster has any actual relations with women? he does not seem gay, i posit he is a “neuter†as described in kurt vonnegut’s “deadeye dickâ€. has he ever been married?”
There are many adjectives that might describe Lawrence Auster, but “neuter” is certainly not one of them. Since he’s unlikely to jump in here to defend his manhood himself, I’ll set the record straight by saying that he has made reference to having had carnal knowledge of women before his conversion. He also once told an anecdote about how when he was back in junior high or high school, there was a girl who was attracted to him because, unlike all the other guys, he was not afraid to disagree with her instead of going along with whatever she said. Alpha all the way.
A man’s view of women is largely determined by his success with them or lack thereof in his formative years. Men who get effortless acceptance from girls in their teens are likely to have a very positive view of the female sex for the rest of their lives, while those toward the other end of the spectrum are always going to have an underlying bitterness coloring their view, no matter how much success they may enjoy subsequently.
Andrew E.:
You make the mistake of conflating Roissy with game. The best books that explain the theory behind game are Mystery’s The Mystery Method and Savoy’s Magic Bullets. Long term relationship game is probably best explained in Franco et al.’s Practical Female Psychology.
I would suggest that traditionalists view game theorists as doing for the study of sexuality what libertarians do for the study of economics. (Except perhaps for Roepke, there are no great traditionalist economists.) That is they often do amazing empirical and theoretical work explaining how the world actually works, but they have a fundamentally flawed philosophy of life.
“I would suggest that traditionalists view game theorists as doing for the study of sexuality what libertarians do for the study of economics. (Except perhaps for Roepke, there are no great traditionalist economists.) That is they often do amazing empirical and theoretical work explaining how the world actually works, but they have a fundamentally flawed philosophy of life.”
Absolutely spot on.
””””””’Lawrence Auster has linked to Welmer’s superlative Spearhead article “How Game Secured American Independence.†He doesn’t bother refuting Welmer’s thesis, though, simply dismissing it as “amusing”””””
Someone who thinks they are better than someone else. I don’t think we have seen that before he he he
Can’t we all just get along?
“Can’t we all just get along?”
I hear that happens in the next world.
John:
You’re confusing being dominant with being controlling. Controlling people are weak because they actively try to keep people under their thumb. A truly dominant individual, namely a man with tight game, does not need to actively pull in people – they are drawn to him by the sheer force of his personality.
Not really. Faking confidence in the game sense has more to do with giving up bad habits such as being defensive and clingy. Additionally, how does one go about developing self-confidence if one doesn’t have it? The only solution I’ve found to work is the “fake it ’til you make it” strategy. Assuming a facade based on the fundamentals of game leads to success, which leads to ACTUAL self-confidence.
Hermes:
Evil or not, it’s not going away. Opposing technological progress has and always will be a losing strategy.
Thursday:
Wow. That thread was…painful.
Hermes:
I respect TFH for his futurist insights (which, irregardless of his career, are quite interesting – even Epoxytocin conceded this). I have called him out on his immature behavior before. If he was just some ignorant loudmouth, I’d ignore him.
The Fifth Horseman:
Dude, you made an ass out of yourself on that Girl Game post. Seriously, cut the shtick – it’s not winning you any friends, and it’s alienating the ones you have.
He’s not a troll. In fact, a lot of what he has to say is on point. But.
But.
As those of us who don’t live in caves know, the public does not separate the message from the messenger.
This is a very powerful effect, one that can easily last for entire generations. Perhaps the most extreme example: the idea of white supremacy became associated with the Fuehrer… and, almost seventy years later:
* any whiff of a suggestion of white primacy in any field, or even a hint of pride in being white, is STILL immediately branded “Nazi”.
* not only is it pretty much impossible to criticize Jews for anything, but one can’t even suggest the possibility that, say, destructive feminism has largely been a pet project of idle Jewish women. That may or may not be true, but even the discussion is now verboten, thanks to the implicit connection with Herr Hitler.
Analogously, let’s say that the Roissysphere ideas gather some steam and start to enter the public discourse. If someone like TFH is one of the prime movers (let’s say he really does “run for office” and all that shit), and he’s outed as a complete and utter fraud, then all of the ideas associated with him will start to smell like fraud.
That would be, to say the least, problematic.
It’s OK if the prime personalities in the Roissysphere are somewhat abrasive, bombastic, or arrogant, but it is absolutely not ok for them to lack integrity. Integrity is absolutely key.
–
The second issue is TFH’s personality, which shines through loud and clear in pretty much every single one of his posts. He is impossibly self-important and dismissive of others, to the extent of alienating even those on his side of the issues (viz. the posters listed by Thursday). Even those who have come out on his behalf, such as Eumaios, have had to grit their teeth and ignore his needlessly contentious personality and “irresponsible statements” in order to do so. He’s like the kid on the football team who’s still going to get the freshman-initiation treatment as a senior (despite his objective talent), because he just doesn’t “get it”.
So, in sum, TFH is on the correct side of most of the important social issues discussed here. But he needs to chill the fuck out, learn not to alienate even his own people, sit at the adults’ table, and have reasonable discourse that’s not constantly laced with fraudulent one-upsmanship.
This doesn’t preclude being self-important and arrogant. There are lots of perfectly socially acceptable, and even likeable, forms of bombast (I’m lookin’ at you, Doug1). But TFH needs to sit the bench for a few games and watch how the varsity team does things.
That’s all.
‘Lying about my Futurist career’? I beg your pardon?
What, pray tell, have I ‘lied’ about? Not that Thursday’s approval matters a whit, but I do have one of the top-10 blogs of futurism (as the other 9 would attest to), and have real consulting gigs, plus speaking engagements at the premier conferences on the subject.
Which I now regret that I ever disclosed here.
Also, let’s keep in mind who picks the fights first. Over here, was I impolite to Thursday at all? Or to Hermes?
No, I was not. I was quite polite, and certainly not the first to hurl hostility to *specific individuals*, as one can see here. As far as slamming game-haters, I am clearly not alone.
Far too little consideration is given, in this ecosystem, to who picked a fight out of the blue vs. who is defending themselves *after provocation*, both here and elsewhere. This moral equivalence is unfortunate, but I will not cede to it.
“There are many adjectives that might describe Lawrence Auster, but “neuter†is certainly not one of them. [...] when he was back in junior high or high school, there was a girl who was attracted to him because, unlike all the other guys, he was not afraid to disagree with her instead of going along with whatever she said. Alpha all the way.”
A woman becoming attracted to a man who’s not actively trying to supplicate her or conform to her opinions is not such an uncommon occurrence. If a high school girl is surrounded by a throng of clueless yes-boys, a kid who projects the opposite signals (whether due to alphatude or just not being particularly interested in carnal pleasures) is going to have remarkable allure. Of these two options, I’d put my money on Auster being a pretty asexual guy throughout his life. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
–
In the game-is-most-of-all-a-tool news department, I’m currently in the mind-boggling process of using ANTI-GAME on a woman who was attracted to me while I was in a multi-year relationship, and who was also ‘on my radar’ at that time. Now that I’m single again, she has conveniently found a man for herself, but our mutual attraction is clearly flaring up whenever we meet. They’ve been together enough time to be classified a LTR, and I have no intention to strike a wedge between them.
Being versed in the basics of game, I’m able to consciously avoid using certain attraction-building/maintaining tactics with her. It’s been said that game gives a man the ability to have options. I know I have ‘em. I know there are other women I’m capable of charming, so getting the best personal outcome out of this kind of a precarious situation isn’t a matter of life and death.
Andrew: Well-said.
Eumaios: “I doubt you could find many important policy differences between us, apart from the sphere where Game is said to apply by its proponents.”
TW: I’m not familiar enough with your policy positions to weigh in definitively, but I think that’s a strong possibility.
Eumaios: “Our frameworks for understanding the world are much alike, but something in them diverges. Our respective reactions to Game make that difference apparent. I’m wondering what that is.”
TW: I think Andrew’s post above is a good one in explaining my perspective. I would also add the following (I wrote this on my blog on Aug. 25…)
“Up until last week, I knew nothing of ‘Game.’ I began my research with an open mind. Having completed my research, I feel comfortable stating that Game is not the answer because it fosters an attitude in which men objectify women, casual sex is excused or even encouraged, and as it pertains to married couples, it doesn’t facilitate the emotional, spiritual connection that is the key to true happiness. Of course, knowledge is power, and it is worth knowing what makes women ‘tick’ inside. But that’s independent of Game, which has – for whatever reason – morphed into a chauvinistic pseudo-religion among the men who preach its gospel. The bottom line is: There are better alternatives to Game.”
Todd:
“There are better alternatives to Game”
What are the alternatives?
Chuck: “What are the alternatives?”
My prediction of TW’s response: Be a real man.
Then you say, “Yes, that’s what Game helps us do.”
Then the Equivocation Fairy comes down and turns us all into goons.
Todd let the bloodbath begin.
Guns: “Todd let the bloodbath begin.”
TW: Ha. Sorry I’ve been quiet. Crashing on something. Will respond soon…
CR: “What are the alternatives?â€
TW: The alternative is to take ownership of your life. Everything you need to build a happy and successful life is inside you – inside your mind. The power to think – and by that, I mean the power to think rationally – is the power to grow, and to be everything you wish to be.
A rational man is a competent man…and a competent man is a confident man…and a confident man is a happy man. A man with that package (competent, confident, and happy) is extremely desirable to other women (or at least those women who are worthy of his love). And he can give that love to a woman because he is complete on the inside.
There are no guarantees in life, but I’m confident that nearly every man who applied those principles would find more love and happiness than he would through Game. I can say that from experience.
and a confident man is a happy man. A man with that package (competent, confident, and happy) is extremely desirable to other women
This is one of the core beliefs that underpins Game (but is only a fraction of Game).
Of course, you would not admit that, since you don’t know what Game is.
nearly every man who applied those principles would find more love and happiness than he would through Game.
What the above sentence should be corrected to is :
“nearly every man who applied those principles would find love and happiness through taking these first steps towards internalizing Game. ”
Again, you still don’t know what Game is, because what you claim is not Game, actually is a substantial preliminary component of Game.
TFH: I know what Game is, but if you insist I don’t, I invite you to edu-ma-cate me.
Todd White,
An even simpler question :
Does Dave in Hawaii exist? Who is he? What is he known for?
Todd White, have you grasped that almost everyone who comments here thinks Game means something different than you think it means?
If so, I think you should be arguing that what we call “Game” should really be called something else. Then help us coin a name for it.
Nice move Eumaios. Game can be considered getting woman however you do it.
Does Dave in Hawaii exist? Who is he? What is he known for?
Everytime this question is asked to Todd White or Justin, they vanish without a trace.
Who would have thought that an ordinary married man in Hawaii, who used basic skills of masculinity and attraction to improve his marriage, would be the utter nemesis of an entire group of men?
Todd White, have you grasped that almost everyone who comments here thinks Game means something different than you think it means?
This has gone on for over 60 days. I can’t what it is like to be so opposed to something that everyone else tells you is not what you think it is. Wouldn’t such a person re-evaluate their assumptions?
Then help us coin a name for it.
Off topic :
IMO, the most accurate term for it is Mystery’s : The Venusian Arts. This allows for multiple styles of Game (just like there are many types of martial arts). Ross Jeffries’ old ‘Speed Seduction’ was also an accurate term for what he teaches, but since Seduction can only follow Attraction and Comfort, RJ’s techniques are more specialized, and only useful in the ‘home stretch’ i.e. after she is already at your place, and have built a few hours of comfort. Despite RJ’s solution being incomplete, a lot of NLP gems of his are being overlooked and forgotten in the contemporary community.
But that is just my opinion from 8 years in the community.
I see that Thursday could not come up with any example of how The Futurist, ‘lied about his futurist career’.
A serious charge, levelled with no serious factfinding, makes the accuser an unserious person.
So much for that. At least Todd White and Ponsie are polite and well-mannered.
Nor could Thursday demonstrate that I am the only one who ever called Conor Fdorf a socialcon. Being wrong about that is laziness, but getting into seething fury about something this trivial is, er, unimpressive, to put it delicately.
Academically, it is fascinating how someone who writes brilliant insights one moment, can implode into uncontrolled, vein-popping rage when it is least expected, with no trigger or provocation at all.
It seems like his pattern is defend socialcons-criticize socialcons-implode-discuss game-criticize game-implode.
Gunslingergregi: “Game can be considered getting woman however you do it.”
Seduction is only one application of Game. The seed of Game was application of existing theory* (evo-psych, NLP) in one particular area, seduction. Game was planted as an empirical study in the field of seduction. Game sprouted as men worked out the implications of their art**. They sought practical wisdom***, not merely craft**. The thoughtful among them began the unending chase for theoretical knowledge*; endless, yet endlessly rewarding.
Game blossomed into the study of What Women Want and How to Give it to Them. The fruit of this blossom is How to be a Man Among Women. The fruit is yet unripe; we have only hints of its flavor in fullness. The seed was planted in anger, the early vine homely and bent. But the leaves soothe the wounds of the lonely, and we sway with the flower’s sharp scent.
* á¼Ï€Î¹ÏƒÏ„ήμη, episteme
** μῆτις, metis
*** φÏόνησις, phronesis
TFH: Yes. He’s “Dave in Hawaii.” Game.
Eumaios: “I think you should be arguing that what we call ‘Game’ should really be called something else. Then help us coin a name for it.”
TW: Hmm, an interesting challenge. I actually like the term “Game” to describe the chauvinistic pseudo-religion that is advocated by Roissy and propagated by his allies with posts like “How to Use Your Penis to Show Her Who is the Boss.”
The word “Game” itself sound manipulative and frivilous, which is precisely what that mindset entails.
However, I’ve always said that to the extent that what is popularly called “Game” encourages men to learn what “makes women ‘tick’ inside” (and to use that knowledge to boost their relationship success) I am in favor of that.
Perhaps it is THAT knowledge which needs a new name. I’ll suggest “Strategic Romance” or the “Relationship Arts.”
Eumaios: “The seed of Game was application of existing theory* (evo-psych, NLP) in one particular area, seduction.”
TW: Ah yes, the “application” of “Evo-Psych” is one of the main problems with so-called “Game.” Most of what is supposedly true in “Evo-Psych” is false. And the stuff that IS true has a habit of being misunderstood and abused.
Todd White: what is popularly called “Game†encourages men to learn what “makes women ‘tick’ inside†(and to use that knowledge to boost their relationship success) I am in favor of that.
So, as you are in favor of what we (for a certain definition of we) have been calling Game, might you stop arguing with us? Perhaps help us either rehabilitate the name, or coin something better that will be accepted by those who see seduction as only one application of Game.
TW: the “application†of “Evo-Psych†is one of the main problems with so-called “Game.†Most of what is supposedly true in “Evo-Psych†is false. And the stuff that IS true has a habit of being misunderstood and abused.
Right. Flawed theory was applied to the real world. Trial and error, conjecture and refutation, produced improved knowledge, which is producing improved theory.
Eumaios: “So, as you are in favor of what we (for a certain definition of we) have been calling Game, might you stop arguing with us?”
TW: Why would I stop arguing? It’s fun! ;)
But seriously…I’m not sure how to answer that…As you (or someone else) pointed out above, every guy has a different definition of “Game.” However, in the 2 months I’ve come here, every guy who supports “Game” defines it in a way that I can’t support. Perhaps you’re different, though. Since I met you yesterday, I’m not familiar enough with your views.
Eum: “Perhaps help us either rehabilitate the name, or coin something better that will be accepted by those who see seduction as only one application of Game.”
TW: I thought I just did that. I suggested “Strategic Romance” or “Relationship Arts.”
Todd White: I thought I just did that. I suggested “Strategic Romance†or “Relationship Arts.â€
Reading comprehension fail on my part.
TW: As you (or someone else) pointed out above, every guy has a different definition of “Game.†However, in the 2 months I’ve come here, every guy who supports “Game†defines it in a way that I can’t support.
Definitions are inherently flawed. They represent key/value knowledge. X resolves to Y. This is especially dangerous in the case of evolving knowledge (a.k.a life). People often don’t update their definitions as they massage their ideas.
TW: Perhaps you’re different, though.
Every man thinks he’s an exception.
I won’t define Game, but I will try to describe the concept that I believe a particular community is referencing with the word “Game”. I have almost no practical experience in this field. My understanding is gained from reverse-engineering the explanations and actions of Game supporters, from very small experiments on myself and with my wife, and from trying to construct a coherent cosmology.
The particular community is this cluster of Game-informed blogs, where sympathetic Christians and conservatives participate, where seduction is rarely the direct topic, and pickup advice is almost entirely absent.
The concept is best described as the practical wisdom of manliness as it pertains to interactions with women. Yes, every man has a different internal representation, and each may cluster more or fewer concepts together. But I contend that this core idea is the form from which the shadows are thrown.
Eumo: “The concept is best described as the practical wisdom of manliness as it pertains to interactions with women.”
TW: Any attempt to turn that concept into a positive force should include – as a first step – a very easy assignment which is to ostracize Roissy from the “Game Community” and to say “Roissy’s nihilism and genuine contempt for women is not something we can, or will, support.” Wake me up when that happens.
Ostracism will not be needed. Style outgrew Mystery; we outgrow Roissy. It’s sort of a bizarro-Gnostic emanation of aions.
Todd White,
So how is a monogamously married man (Dave in HI) compatible with what you consider to be Game, and is widely praised by all the commenters at Roissy’s, as well as Roissy himself?
You just can’t see the cognitive dissonance here, can you?
Style outgrew Mystery; we outgrow Roissy.
Yes, this always happens. The originator of a large part of the seduction community, Ross Jeffries, is totally obsolete today. The discipline outgrew him, and the technology became much more advanced in the process.
Ostracism is not needed. Each guy is different. Some are like Roissy, others are like Dave in Hawaii. *shrug*
TFH: I read the Roissy essay in which he praised Dave and I didn’t find it very persuasive.
Todd White: “I read the Roissy essay in which he praised Dave and I didn’t find it very persuasive.”
The comments from Dave in Hawaii are low in detail. I would be pleased to hear more of his practical application stories.
Todd White,
What do you mean ‘persuasive’? Do you mean that the story is not authentic, that something as sordid as Game cannot possibly be used to improve a marriage?
Game is fully compatible with maintaining and improving a monogamous marriage. If you don’t think so, you still can’t grasp what Game is.
TFH: As I wrote on my website on Aug 25 (which I think was reference to Dave)…
“I’m not interested in ‘negging’ my wife or pretending there’s a chance I’ll cheat on her with another woman. There’s better ways to keep romance and love alive.”
Then you haven’t understood the spirit of those terms (and have mischaracterized ‘having your wife know that you are attractive to other women’ as ‘pretending I could cheat on her’.
Nor have you understood the attraction triggers of women.
Let’s take a step back : How much do you believe in evolution as a driver of behavioral psychology, as opposed to societally mandated values?
But you are still polite and civilized, I’ll give you credit for that. Unlike some other people a few posts above.
TFH: “Let’s take a step back : How much do you believe in evolution as a driver of behavioral psychology, as opposed to societally mandated values?”
TW: That’s an excellent question, my friend, and I’m glad you asked it. My answer is: “Not much.”
Most of what is supposedly true in ‘Evo-Psych’ is false. And the stuff that IS true has a habit of being misunderstood and abused.
TW,
Then it is unlikely that you will ever come to agreement with most of the other patrons here.
But the results speak for themselves. Men who apply even moderate levels of Game to their dealings with women invariably see a huge upturn in their fortunes, and in the satisfaction that the women in their lives receive. Even in (especially in) monogamous marriages.
The one guarantee I can give you is that you will never, ever persuade a man who has already begun an acquaintance with Game, to find any agreement with your opposing point of view. Never. Not even David Alexander, who refuses to practice Game, but does not deny its effectiveness for other men.
TFH: “Then it is unlikely that you will ever come to agreement with most of the other patrons here.”
TW: Yes, I think that’s probably correct.
TFH: “Men who apply even moderate levels of Game to their dealings with women invariably see a huge upturn in their fortunes.”
TW: The good parts of Game (what I called “Strategic Romance?)” Yes, I can buy that. The bad parts of Game? The Roissy-like stuff? No, I think that’s counterproductive. There are much better alternatives.
Oh one note: The “good parts of Game” have been around a lot longer than the word “Game” itself. The original essay which started this whole tempest (Welmer’s piece on Ben Franklin) proves that “strategic romance” (for lack of a better term) has been around a lot longer than the Roissy school of relationships.
As I said above, to the extent, that this online Game community wants to be a positive force for men, it should distance itself from Roissy (and those like him), which – sadly – is probably impossible since Roissy is considered a hero in these parts.
The “good parts of Game†have been around a lot longer than the word “Game†itself.
It took you that long to figure this out?
A portion of what is taught as ‘Game’ in America is a normal part of how boys are raised in Latin America and Mediterranean Europe.
“strategic romance†(for lack of a better term) has been around a lot longer than the Roissy school of relationships.
You seem to think Roissy is advocating something entirely different from ‘strategic romance’. The fact that no one else here shares your view of what Game is, should make you rethink what you think you know.
There are much better alternatives.
This sentence that you keep repeating really shows that you don’t know what Game is. Your view of Game (based on a cherry-picked fraction of Roissy’s articles that you happen to be offended by) is like saying a man’s pinky finger is the entirety of who he is.
What percentage of Roissy’s articles do you disapprove of? 10% 50%? 100?
You will never get it.
Yes, I think that’s probably correct.
Then what are your goals here? Why are you here?
Todd White,
It seems you are more anti-Roissy than anti-Game.
What you struggle with is that you cannot seperate the subject of Game from the persona of Roissy (even though, outside of Game, his political views are the same as yours).
Todd White,
Would you care to continue this discussion on your blog? Your comment above could serve as the kernel of a post.
Conveniently for this discussion, Roissy dropped a post today that makes him even further distasteful to traditionalists.
Todd White,
And for the 10th time, I have pointed you to more ‘respectable’ Game sites before, which you conveniently ignored :
http://www.askjdog.com
http://www.approachanxiety.com
Ignoring this makes your whole position appear disingenuous.
That, combined with your dismissal of Dave in Hawaii, shows that you are too invested in the narrative of Game = immoral, rather than really admitting the far larger truths about Game.
Conveniently for this discussion, Roissy dropped a post today that makes him even further distasteful to traditionalists.
I know. But given the state of modern legal + media misandry and the number of ways a man can be ruined or worse in this time, Roissy is far more realistic in terms of sheer male self-preservation, than the empty moralist sermonizing on display here.
And I say this as an Indian, for god’s sakes.
If one wants to find the name of the proprietor of that singularity2050 blog, it’s not hard to do.
And when you Google the name, you don’t get any hits about fururism or public speeches.
name of the proprietor of that singularity2050 blog
you don’t get any hits about fururism
Don’t these statements contradict each other? So the blog is not about futurism?
1) That is actually my business partner in our consulting firm (of 4 people), who owns that domain and many others. In fact, he is about to announce a joint initiative in self-replicating nanotech with the Foresight Institute, which will appear in many publications.
2) Sure, symposiums at corporate events and individual consulting gigs are always publicized and seen on Google searches, as is every panelist at every SIG at every conference. Riiiiiigt.
Putting aside the stalking aspect as well as the utter irrelevance of whether commenters here approve or disapprove……
I still maintain – I was not impolite with you at all personally, Hermes, on this thread, or at any point in the last 30 days. Show me a disrespectful comment towards you personally, in the last 30 days. Keep in mind that this is a community where vicious race-wars happen almost daily on Roissy’s.
Nor does whatever career activities I have or do not have, impact the validity of opinions in comments posted here, on entirely different subjects.
Are you sure you have retained proper perspective about the whole thing?
Sheeesh.
Eumaios: “Would you care to continue this discussion on your blog? Your comment above could serve as the kernel of a post.”
TW: I like that idea. Will open a new post in a little bit.
TFH: “It took you that long to figure this out?”
TW: No, I’ve been saying that from the beginning.
TFH: “You seem to think Roissy is advocating something entirely different from ’strategic romance’. ”
TW: Yes, I do. If Roissy is advocating the same thing as “strategic romance” than the word itself is corrupted and meaningless. There has to be boundaries on what “strategic romance” would recommend to men; Roissy’s lifestyle – by definition – would have to be outside that boundary.
TFH: “Your view of Game (based on a cherry-picked fraction of Roissy’s articles that you happen to be offended by) is like saying a man’s pinky finger is the entirety of who he is.”
TW: The mere fact that the Game movement considers Roissy to be a hero gives me enough knowledge to make the judgment that the pluses of Game are outweighed by the negatives.
TBH: “What percentage of Roissy’s articles do you disapprove of? 10% 50%? 100?”
TW: At least 90%, I’d wager.
TBH: “Why are you here?”
TW: I don’t know, lol. I’ll probably leave once you stop asking me questions ;)
Eumaios et al:
“Open Post on Game”
http://mustardseednovel.blogspot.com/2009/10/open-post-on-game.html
{ 2 trackbacks }