Inspired both by Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech’s additions to the Catalog and the discussion on this post at Dennis Mangan’s blog, I’ve defined a new type of shaming language.
Charge of Moral Degeneracy (Code Scarlet)
Discussion: Â The target is accused of being morally or spiritually deficient. Examples:
- You’re a sexual degenerate.
- You’re an evil, destructive nihilist.
- Your immoral behavior makes you an enemy of Western civilization.
Response: In dismissing the target on moral grounds, the accuser is making an appeal to morality -Â a logical fallacy. The moral goodness of an individual or lack thereof has no bearing on the truthfulness of what they espouse. Indeed, many “degenerate” people have contributed to advances in philosophy, science and art. The accuser is substituting blind, reflexive condemnation for rational analysis of the target’s arguments.
…
Reading the responses to Dennis’ post, I’ve noticed that all the alt-right, HBDist and white nationalist opponents of game use the same arguments over and over. Beyond ample use of Code Scarlet shaming language (more on the WN side then the HBD side), they claim we’re generalizing the behavior of urban liberal women to ALL women, they consistently confuse description with prescription and they always, and I mean ALWAYS, split hairs over the definitions of ‘alpha’ and ‘beta.’ It wouldn’t be hard for someone to devise a variant on Fembot Bingo based on the babblings of the commenters at Mangan’s, Occidental Dissent, Majority Rights and other such sites.
It’s all quite hilarious considering game appears to be the “alt-right” idea that’s gaining traction the fastest in the mainstream media. Get with the game or get left behind, my friends – it’s your choice.
UPDATE: In response to Dennis Mangan pointing out a non sequitur in my original post, I’ve updated the Response section of the definition slightly.
{ 39 comments… read them below or add one }
Logic has no place in this debate. It transcends logic.
[Without logic, there is no debate. We might as well be trying to stab each other to death. - ed.]
Either you care about your tribal extended family and the welfare of future generations or you don’t. It’s not logical or a logical fallacy to believe one way or another.
[It IS a logical fallacy to argue for it solely on the basis that "that's the way it's always been." There are legitimate, pragmatic reasons to care about the tribe. That is what you should be emphasizing.]
In a traditional and patriarchal worldview, the lifestyle typically advocated within the pick-up community is degenerate. Since you don’t share that worldview, our insults and attacks mean nothing to you. It’s as relevant to you as a Muslim calling me an infidel is to me.
[I'm not and never have been trying to argue the morality of the PUA lifestyle. What I HAVE been arguing is that there is a real reason why it exists, and why it is a bad idea to dismiss what they say out of hand.]
It’s a classic DOES NOT COMPUTE moment that happens when people with different first principles start arguing. The fact that both camps tend to acknowledge human biodiversity is hardly sufficient to group the two populations together in any meaningful way.
Men who embrace tradition and take ownership of the fate of their communities aren’t “illogical”, as there’s nothing illogical about appealing to tradition, presuming the other person embraces the same tradition. Likewise, gamers aren’t necessarily losers, since contracting venereal disease and dying alone is FTW in their worldview.
[LOL.]
game appears to be the “alt-right†idea that’s gaining traction the fastest in the mainstream media.
There’s been exactly one article on the convergence of the theory of game and conservative social analysis.
[And there's been approximately zip on everything else. Something tells me the white nationalists aren't going to get a feature article in NR anytime soon. - ed.]
Note that supposed logical fallacies are not always fallacious.
E.g.:
A: I am selling this awesome book on how to kill people and rape their corpses.
B: That book advocates an immoral practice because my moral tradition says that sex with corpses is immoral.
A: Haha! Your comment is fallacious because it is an appeal to tradition!
No, A. B’s comment is not fallacious. A is missing the point. Within B’s premises, corpse-rapine really is immoral. Within A’s premises, corpse-rapine is moral. The two interlocutors are arguing from such different contexts that no common ground is possible for debate.
How dare you expose the code scarlet shaming language.
You must be a closet corpse rapist.
How perfectly circular(and mindless)
Ironic you would get a code scarlet strawman argument on your topic.Good 4 lulz
P.S.
Good work, you have them up in arms already ;)
You need to tell us how to RESPOND to all of these charges. This is what we are really deprived of, a good ammo clip to fire back. For example,
CHARGE: You have a small penis
RESPOND: i’m sorry ma’am. it’s a little difficult to understand you with that cock in your mouth. lol but keep trying little bitch :)
This is the kind of boiler plate template we need, for quality pre-made RESPONSES to every shaming tactic.
3dpd, a corpse is an inanimate object, like a doorknob or a pizza pie. ‘A’ wins the morality argument hands down, it is not immoral to fuck a corpse.
This post and the Maltese cunts one show the utter predictability of Feminazis, Western Wimmins and Manginas. There’s no need to fear them.
@Ferdinand
This is off-topic, but I have a quick question for you.
A while back you posted an article on “How to create a successful blog”. Do you have a link for it?
I’m probably just not using the right search terms and will feel sheepish when I see the title.
["How to Get a Million Hits on Your Blog in Less Than a Year" by Robert Stacy McCain
"Blogging Tips for Beginners: Getting Traffic and Other Advice" by OneSTDV - ed.]
The ad hominem arguement is pretty much the only tool leftists have, and since the “paleocons” or “old right” or “far right” resemble them pretty closely, it doesn’t surprise me to see them using the same tool.
But why are these two things mutually exclusive? Screw everything you can when you’re young. Having established your alpha credentials you can then get a hot, sweet woman who will worship you and consider it her duty to be a good wife and mother.
@ Ferdinand
Thanks a lot.
The objection isn’t even over the ‘PUA lifestyle’. It’s about protecting the poor dears that are simply being taken advantage of. There is simply no room for righteous anger for anyone without a penis.
The feelings of affection extending to ones more distant Folk are entirely disenguous. There is no end to the white people that are castigated by WNs. The litmus test obviously isn’t being white that gains the favor of WNs; unless said party is female then she can be an admitted enemy of your entire Race and still be given the benefit of the doubt.
Even the “mudsharks”; who of course are only laying under the dark man because there are no decent white men willing to pay any attention to her. All women are no doubt manipulated by Jews in some way into being sluts, while the men she sleeps with are degenerates and defective by singular, unencumbered free will and whose charms are irresistable (unless these men are black, in which case it is again the fault of the white man for not seducing these women first; which would make them degenerates.)
So too are the appeals to tradition. At least the tradition being adhered to isn’t the one being appealed to. You either have a Folkway or you don’t. Of course what happens is you pick and choose when it is convenient and it is inconvenient to be traditional except in cases where it is White Knighting or claiming edgy reactionary beliefs that you don’t actually believe.
Here, let me lay out traditional sexual mores. A woman who sleeps with a man out of wedlock is a whore, will always be a whore. All she is good for is being a whore. Her bastards have whore’s blood running through their veins and should be trusted even less than their mothers. Any man who stays with a whore, and raises her bastards is nothing but a whoremonger who is barely better than a bastard himself.
What WNs actually cleave to a partriarchical paradigm that actually has anything to do with moderating the behavior of women? Women, for the most part control sexual access. Historically, a successful model for a non-degenerate society has been the social stigmatization of promiscuity among women.
If you actually want to claim the term ‘patriarchy’ like so many WNs and reactionaries do, there it is for you. These beliefs existed for a reason. Good luck slut-shaming men though, and sticking up for their whores and whorespawn and wallowing in their peasant ethics too.
Ferd,
To some extent, you are correct with that first statement that “Without logic, there is no debate.” There isn’t one. What I value you and what you value are different things. The core consideration exists outside the realm of logic and empirical research.
K(yle),
Patriarchy doesn’t necessitate spewing rabid hatred and venom like a tweaker crashing after a week-long binge on bathtub crank. It’s about encouraging both men and women to return to traditional gender roles. The word “whore spawn” needn’t enter the picture.
approximately zip on everything else
Uh, there have been numerous books and articles on things like immigration, currency reform, a return to monarchy, racial differences in intelligence etc. And all you can come up with on game is one article. I stand by my point.
[Okay fine, you win. - ed.]
That last comment was me.
Quote: [Without logic, there is no debate. We might as well be trying to stab each other to death. - ed.]
Quote:
Don’t play by their rules of discourse [...]but go low and fast and hit them where it hurts.
————————-
One of these does not compliment the other.
[Different rules for fools. - ed.]
Moreover, this “code” just seems to be a straw man without any context. The opinions of feminists (or what have you) of one’s morals indeed is not relevant and if such relevance is argued, either implicitly or overtly, yes you could say it’s fallacious. However, implying that this “code of charges” and their corresponding fallacies is attributable a group of people rather than an argumentation is itself misrepresenting one side of the debate, because indeed I have seen these same fallacies used on BOTH sides of the debate, not just one.
Addendum
Quote:
Indeed, many “degenerate†people have contributed to advances in philosophy, science and art.
This probably doesn’t belong in there. It’s not relevant to addressing the fallaciousness of one’s moral opinion debating facts (the issue).
Have “degenerate” people contributed to society? Probably. Have they contributed against it? Probably.
Have non-degenerate people contributed to society? Probably. Have they contributed against it? Probably.
Does any of that in any way change that arguing morals is not applicable to arguing facts? No.
It’s all quite hilarious considering game appears to be the “alt-right†idea that’s gaining traction the fastest in the mainstream media.
Is game really an alt-right idea or something portions of the alt-right have latched onto? I’d consider most of the founders of PUA theory to be largely apolitical. While a hardcore feminist mangina would find game offensive, I’ve seen moderate liberals be quite comfortable with game theory and tactics.
[Game is an apolitical idea. However, its most effective proponents are identified with the alt-right. I remarked to Jake Turner a while back that proponents of PUA theory and men's rights will always tend to be conservative/libertarian because their opponents - feminists - are largely identified with the left. - ed.]
Quote:
[Different rules for fools. - ed.]
————————————–
That’s fairly ambiguous.
Who’s the fool? The ones using fallacious arguments or the person whom you use fallacious arguments against?
If the former, you’re the fool when arguing the latter. If the latter, you’re a hypocrite when arguing the former.
[The fools are trolls, idiots, ideological enemies and people arguing in bad faith. For everyone else, you maintain a standard of discourse. The latter you respect and try to convert to your point of view, the former you crush without mercy. - ed.]
“The word “whore spawn†needn’t enter the picture.”
Yes it does. Shaming works for keeping women from running amok.
Oh, and those are two words.
“Who’s the fool? The ones using fallacious arguments or the person whom you use fallacious arguments against?”
Wow. This is the kind of searching question one can only expect from such a master of wisdom as Obi Wan Kenobi.
[Game is an apolitical idea. However, its most effective proponents are identified with the alt-right. I remarked to Jake Turner a while back that proponents of PUA theory and men's rights will always tend to be conservative/libertarian because their opponents - feminists - are largely identified with the left. - ed.]
Which proponents would you be referring to? In looking at Alternative Right, most of their writers fetishize the past and I would guess that most would prefer a society of “Kinder, Küche, Kirche” to one where men are able to have casual, no-strings-attached sexual relationships. The PUA branch is much more libertarian in it’s general demeanor and attitude.
[Roissy and the bloggers and other folks who cluster around him - the "Roissysphere." While many of the alt-right folks are opposed to the libertine excesses of the PUA lifestyle, folks like Dennis Mangan, Richard Spencer, and John Derbyshire have a fascination with game and Roissyism. While I agree that the mainstream seduction community has little in common with the alternative right, it's not them but Roissy and his acolytes who are making waves in the public discourse because the latter combine game with far right politics. The seduction community only cares about getting laid - the Roissysphere is concerned with the greater picture. - ed.]
Snark,
I believe this can be worked out without viciously attacking the innocent “whore spawn” victims of whoring.
Warning: Shameless blog pimping to follow!
You need to tell us how to RESPOND to all of these charges.
Assuming they are arguing morality from a religious perspective, your response should be: Does your church measure divorce?
The argument against sexual immorality collapses when the moral authorities turn the other way as the institution of marriage is outright gutted. I’ve put out the call twice on my blog for Christians to name their church along with its low divorce rate. So far, crickets…
The original English term was ‘whoreson’, but I thought I would be more egalitarian with a gender neutral ‘whorespawn’ (although apparently even bastard girls were ‘whoresons’ for some reason.)
Innocence also has nothing to do with it. The idea of patriarchy is that society is simply an extension of the family structure into a broader, heirarchical political structure. The person immediately below you in status is your subordinate as would be your youngest sibling be subordinate to you. Or the person above you is your eldest Brother, or Father. Everyone in the same tier as you is effectively your twin sibling.
When a women begets a bastard she is deliberately placing herself outside of the social heirarchy, or above it. She has displaced the man who would have otherwise had his heirs with her. She has cuckolded someone, even if she hasn’t yet wed him. The treatment of these bastards should be commensurate with your own societal status. If this scenario played out with your neighbor then they should be treated as if they were the offspring of your own wife’s affair, or at the very least of your brother’s wife’s affair.
Now most men today would probably willingly take in their wifes spawn by another man, and absolutely no one outside of the situation would dare treat a bastard as what he is, or for that matter treat their whore mothers for what they are. Their ‘deadbeat dads’ however?
Bastardy is a complete subversion of the social order in a patriarchical system. Everyone is someone to someone else, and foisting the rightful duty of one onto another is corruption, and not only personal but political and societal. It’s akin to brigandry, or assassination; taking what isn’t yours by rights and living off the fat of the land in an opportunistic fashion.
Treating sluts like the poor dears who shouldn’t be blamed because they are in many ways victims of circumstance, and treating their bastards like the innocent babes that they are completely misses the point. Justice isn’t punishing the guilty. Justice is establishing order. One can be an innocent usurper of justice and corrupter of the land by virtue of what they represent. I would think a supporter of an ethnostate would be familiar with the concept. Blacks certainly aren’t guilty of being born that way.
That is the most galling thing about the White Knight Nationalists. Absolutely no argument they endorse on the behalf of women does not just as easily work on behalf of ethnic minorities. That is because their feministic modern worldview is drawn from the same cultural cesspool in which racial equality does. They have cast off one only to live a gaping maw in their minds that gets filled in with extra portions of the other.
[Okay fine, you win. - ed.]
Well, the point wasn’t to win. It’s easy to overestimate the impact the little internet mutual admiration society that is the Roissysphere really has. I don’t mean by that remark to disparage the quality of many of the writers. (I would particularly single out you, T. (Ricky Raw), F. Roger Devlin and Roissy himself). But let’s be honest about the impact it has had on the outside world.
I tend to think that even in the future the Roissysphere will on the whole have always have a very limited effect on the world of practical politics. Game is not something that can create a large enough constituency to roll back any aspects of liberalism. The only hope for that is religion, and the truly religious are going to do their thing regardless of the insights of the Roissysphere, just as they do their own thing regardless of the insights of Darwinism. They have their traditions and that is enough for them.
I’d also point out that, for most conservatives, game will forever going to be tainted by its origins among louche seducers like Mystery and Tyler Durden. It will never completely live that down. You can make all the (logically correct) arguments you want about how the origins of game do not negate its insights, but your protests aren’t going to override the primal disgust most conservatives will feel at the men who gave these ideas their birth. The fact that Darwinism has provided strong confirmation of many social conservative ideas has not made it more popular among that constituency.
[Sigh...I can always count on you for a sober view of things. Thanks. - ed.]
‘a corpse is an inanimate object, like a doorknob or a pizza pie. ‘A’ wins the morality argument hands down, it is not immoral to fuck a corpse.’
I’m sure that makes sense in *your* explanation of the world, but there is not enough common ground between us to debate this.
And if you and I ever meet, I doubt we will be friends.
The fools are trolls, idiots, ideological enemies and people arguing in bad faith.
So these fools who argue in bad faith … do any of them have blogs called “In Mala Fide”?
[The name of the blog was intended as a joke. See here. - ed.]
@Parrott:
The core consideration exists outside the realm of logic and empirical research.
I think you are referring to the axiomatic basis of logic.
One cannot justify essential axioms in terms of proofs from those axioms.
Hence axioms can be called “outside the realm of logic” even though logic proceeds from them.
I always say at this juncture that men should NOT marry sluts. That a man who marries a non-virgin (other than a widow) is cuckolding himself, in a sense. Men who are cuckold fetishists know this – they often gloat over the number of men who had sex with their wives before as well as after they married them.
As for game and religion. I am very religious and I use game. I think they go together very well indeed. A traditional patriarchal husband needs game.
Game + religion could be a powerful mainstream influence.
It is hard for some people to admit that the contemplative degenerate might know the state of degeneracy better than an upstanding citizen who takes great pains to remove that from his life. Of course, that’s only logical since the latter would, by his or her very nature, be removing the opportunities for personal experience which would enable them to more accurately gauge the subject.
[Roissy and the bloggers and other folks who cluster around him - the "Roissysphere." While many of the alt-right folks are opposed to the libertine excesses of the PUA lifestyle, folks like Dennis Mangan, Richard Spencer, and John Derbyshire have a fascination with game and Roissyism. While I agree that the mainstream seduction community has little in common with the alternative right, it's not them but Roissy and his acolytes who are making waves in the public discourse because the latter combine game with far right politics. The seduction community only cares about getting laid - the Roissysphere is concerned with the greater picture. - ed.]
Thursday made some good points above, except I think religion as a cultural saving force is even less viable than game. The best hope would be a more sophisticated version of the ideology of Roissy, Adam Carolla and Geert Wilders. Secular, libertarian-ish, but tough on immigration and defense issues.
The reason why Mangan, Spencer and Derbyshire are fascinated by Roissy is that they’re desperate for a figure who makes their ideology look cool and sexy. They lead a movement that is dominated by crotchety, old men. Spencer is good looking enough and I thought he might have a decent asshole-style game, but R.S. McCain has ribbed him several times for a lack of pick-up ability. Knowing Stacy though, I’m willing to chalk this up to chidding among friends.
religion as a cultural saving force is even less viable than game.
http://takimag.com/article/religious_extremists_will_inherit_the_earth
Respectfully, I disagree with Thursday. Game is not a mainstream phenomena but its quite a significant internet phenomena, and not just on the right. Enduring things are not fly by night, they establish themselves firstly through grass roots and then become social movements. The fact that it is not in the media is irrelevant, the media is the last to see, or more importantly, the last to want to see. There are many benefits to it being an “under the radar” phenomena.
Most of the “respected” pundits of the Right leave a lot to be desired. Their personal habits–Limbaugh, for example, being married four times–shows that they have a peculiar view of what “constitutes” the right. When challenged with novelties,am lot of the “older guys’ are simply rehashing older arguments which weren’t listened to in the first place.
As I’ve said before, the conservative movement does not want to self examine where it went wrong and why the Left gained so much traction. Many conservative attribute malice or stupidity to the left–admittedly there is plenty of it–but some of the transformative ideas they bought to society were valid. The conservative “rehashing of old ideas” meant that they didn’t intellectually challenge the left and were unable to moderate radical proposals to legitimate social concerns.
Roissy is a classic example of this. The old farts on the right shudder at his hedonism, immediately disqualifying anything he says, yet the “game” phenomena is the first grass roots movement that is actually beginning to hit back at feminism in a practical way. More importantly, it explains female behaviour far better than official “psychological science”. A smart man on the Right would say, “Hmmm, how can this be incorporated with our ideology, keep the good bits, reject the bad”. How to get laid, how to keep the woman happy, how to have a stable family are all fundamental questions dealing with the human condition, something that the Right should be vitally concerned about. Perhaps the reason so many women institute divorce is because their husbands are pussies. Game practically teaches men to man up. Perhaps someone looking at methods of improving family stability might want to look at subject but that would imply a brain. The problem is, that there aren’t many smart men on the Right and their inability to distinguish between the shit and the clay shows just how shallow their intellectual analysis is.
To me at least, Mangan et al always have a scent of Aryanism, not that that means that they are crypto-Nazi’s its just their version of western civilisation has more of a Mussolini type of flavour, whereas my version is more the Belle Epoque.
Which leads to my final point. Whatever Western Civilisation was, the concept of God was intricately tied into it. The rot only really started once the atheist crowd took control. And by atheists, I mean people who didn’t practically practice it. I know I’ll take a lot of heat for this comment but fuck it. Facts are facts.
Any hope of restoring Western Civilisation is fucked until men start bending their knee to the Christian God. Sure, we mightn’t have a collapse but without a God, the civilisation we do get won’t be Western.
I recently became aware of a study commissioned by the Communist controlled Chinese Academy of Sciences, done in 2002. Their brief was to find out why the West kicked arse all over the world. Their, after looking at all the options, was………Christianity.
Mangan’s crowd weren’t in the race.
A smart man on the Right would say, “Hmmm, how can this be incorporated with our ideology, keep the good bits, reject the badâ€. How to get laid, how to keep the woman happy, how to have a stable family are all fundamental questions dealing with the human condition, something that the Right should be vitally concerned about. Perhaps the reason so many women institute divorce is because their husbands are pussies.
As annoying as PUAs and wannabes can be, THIS is what I’ve been saying all along when explaining Game to obtuse conservatives.
Not to single out Mangan whose blog I visit very rarely, but there is a whiff of despair about rightie WN blogs that needs to be confronted. One reason I visit Mangan so rarely (and Gates of Vienna, and AmRen) is because of the defeatism and tone of hopelessness fostered there. One thing about Roissy’s blog, in some of its better race threads, is the sense of vitality one gets there.
how to have a stable family are all fundamental questions dealing with the human condition
Unlike PA, I’ve found that traditionalists and others seem to be obtuse to the fact that one of the reasons that some of us have no interest in family stability is because it’s effectively a transfer of my resources to other people with little in return. In other words, why work hard to support a wife and child when there’s an XBOX with a new Madden and FIFA game every year along with fresh porn, and plenty of hobbies to keep any man occupied. The traditional reasons for having a woman around are useless given modern conveniences, and sex with a expensive depreciating asset with high penalty costs makes no business sense. Once you realize the truth about women, one slowly realizes that there can never be any real satisfactory or ideal relationship that makes the entire endevour enjoyable for both parties.
Ooops My Dyslexia.
Their, after looking at all the options, was………Christianity.
should be,
Their answer, after looking at all the options was………Christianity.
David Alexander
You will remember me from Cecilia’s blog.
Would you mind answering a couple of questions? I am curious. Do you pay for the porn you use? Do you download it and save it on your hard drive? Or do you receive DVDs?
Do you pay using a credit card?
Please excuse my genuine curiosity. I am not au fait with the latest advances in this regard.
I pay for some of my porn with my credit card while the rest is sourced via file sharing networks. Since my free downloads tend to come mostly from one studio, I suspect that at some point, I’ll buy some porn to make up for sizable quantity that I’ve downloaded from their library. The stuff that I pay for is streamed to my computer since there’s no way that I’d realistically be able to hold that much material even with today’s largest hard drives.
BTW, I miss Cecilia especially since I returned from Germany roughly a month ago, and she was one of the few people online that I could have a conversation about Germany…
Cecilia (as Alte) is still around. She posts comments at The Spearhead. As do I.
Thanks for the reply on the porn. I only realised recently how far technology had advanced. I am fond of telling my wife and anybody who will listen that when I was a boy the only way to get anything at all specialised in the porn area was in really crummy looking books from the back of one newsagency in this town. Technology has really made a difference in this area.
I think if I were you, I would like to have something permanent for my money, but I tend to be like that. A bit obsessive. A collector.
But I don’t want to encourage you!
I hope you are OK, and life is treating you well.
{ 4 trackbacks }