How about earning a living playing the slots?
January 8, 2014 § 89 Comments
More confirmation (language/content warning) that according to the “pros” themselves, “Game” is basically a placebo.
Keep in mind that a placebo is, in fact, better than doing nothing at all: there is quantifiable benefit, in general, in just putting in an effort.
Zippy Catholic 
Are you claiming improving personality does not actually help success with women?
“Game” is a wonderfully equivocal term: here it means nothing more specific than “improving personality”.
That is my definition. The word may be repulsive to some. The word charisma serves the same purpose without the baggage.
But since you’re making the argument that your definition of “game” is no better than a placebo, I’d like to know what “game” you are referring to exactly. Negging, DHVing and wearing fuzzy hats? I like you, ZC, and I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt that you have not read more of game than what gets presented in the media. Most of the mainstream view of game is stuff that died in 2005.
Game/Charisma means essentially there are things a man can do and say to make a woman to make her more attracted to him. You may debate what those things are, but to deny that basic concept is a bit silly.
In the post you linked I was referring to an average looking man who is 38 years old and approached beautiful women over ten years younger than himself, getting their phone numbers 25% of the time. Certainly better than any slot machine.
That is outstanding.
He did this over years of discovering what works and adjusting his “game”.
If all he has is a placebo, it’s a prescription most men would gladly take to their local pharmacy.
laidnyc:
Most talk of “Game” is delightfully nonspecific, in a rather postmodern way.
I think “do something rather than nothing, and adjust as you learn” is good advice in almost any practical matter. As is “learn to be charismatic”. But that advice is also more than a little nonspecific, and placebo in general – just persistently taking any action at all – can be quite effective when we are measuring effectiveness the way you fellas measure it.
However, I think men taking advice from society’s sexual garbage collectors on how to be manly is like women going to hookers for advice about how to be feminine. I certainly wouldn’t take a hooker’s ‘notch count’ or ‘conversion rate’ (from approach to paid transaction, i.e., to successfully extracted resources) or whatever as a good indicator of her femininity.
” men taking advice from society’s sexual garbage collectors on how to be manly is like women going to hookers for advice about how to be feminine”
They are garbage collectors insofar as the typical woman is garbage.
And speaking of the typical woman and wife, a talented hooker would have a lot to teach her – principally how to stay attractive and how to satisfy a man. A hooker must compete for male attention in a way that most women don’t, or will never bother to try. She is forced to refine her skills to remain competitive.
You wouldn’t ask a rabbi about how to be a good Catholic, and you wouldn’t expect a hooker to have the skills need for a good marriage.
Emmanuel Goldstein:
They are garbage collectors insofar as the [sluts they actually bed are] garbage.
Fixed it for you. Watch what you catch in your filters.
(Noting, again, that based on the “pro” PUAs’ own quantitative claims, this represents a highly filtered slice of the population in general).
Fascinating. I was already ignoring “game” as just the passive-aggressive male’s answer to feminism. But a top ‘player’ claims ‘success rates’ of 10%? And that guy was defending a ‘success rate’ of 2.7%?
Really?
My goodness! When I think back to when I was single and unbaptized….
So not only is “game” a nebulously-worded, fuzzy-minded attempt to emulate immoral men in the pursuit of immoral ends – it doesn’t work very well?
I’m working on another post on Game which was/is going to address the “placebo effect” and what I think it really is. I had a different name for it, but I like yours better Zippy.
@ Aquinas Dad
That is an interesting take on “Game.” Not sure I agree, but I can see a possible argument.
As for the low “conversion rate”, keep in mind that most PUAs use “fast Game”, which enables them to get in a lot of approaches in a short period of time. A 5% success rate is no problem when you can approach 20 women in an hour. Of course, as Zippy and others have pointed out, the sample they are drawing from is questionable.
Donal,
I am making a broad, sweeping generalization, of course. While passive-aggressive men may be a majority of PUA types, I am sure there are more in the mix. I think it may well have ‘originated’ with such, though.
And, again, based upon my misspent youth I am far from impressed.
It points, perhaps, to something, however. First, the divisions (‘alpha’, ‘beta’, etc.) are all weird and wrong making these guys emulate the broken and immoral. They are thereby violating not just their own nature but God’s law – Aristotle tells us what happens when you violate natural law! And considering their targets – I assume that if anyone were to talk to 20 women in any club at least one would agree to immoral activity, regardless of any overarching theory of feminine nature! So you have men acting immorally and emulating the broken interacting with the broken and oft immoral – and yet they see the rather infrequent resulting immorality as some sort of vindication!
I will need to think about this
BTW, as my father liked to say “Everyone who makes a broad, sweeping generalization is an idiot”
donalgraeme
Of course, as Zippy and others have pointed out, the sample they are drawing from is questionable.
Precisely. So we are dealing with a 2.7% ‘success’ rate drawing from a (questionable) preselected pool.
I don’t know what the size of the pool is (vs ‘all women’) — it can basically be defined as “the subset of women who are the target of PUAs using Game”. But the ‘success’ rate only tells us, even statistically speaking, about the behavior of that pool. If one woman out of ten is in the pool of PUA targets we can’t assume a ‘success’ rate for Game greater than 0.27% for women in general, for example. For statistics to work properly the sample has to be representative, and a preselected pool of women is only representative of women like themselves, not women in general.
Scale according to your own personal assumptions and define according to whatever terms suit your analysis. But whatever the case, preselection reduces our confidence in Game’s (for whatever value of ‘Game’) success (for whatever value of ‘success’) rate by whatever fraction applies to the preselection.
PUAs have a ‘total available market’ for what they offer, just as prostitutes have a total available market for what they offer; and it is a risible conceit of the ‘community’ that all women are in the market for PUAs.
Zippy,
Indeed – I believe what amuses me the most is when proponents of game repeat ‘NAWALT’ as a *dismissal* as if an acronym is a counter argument.
The short of game is that women will bang a man who superficially appears high status, and game is about superficially appearing to be high status.
There are a bunch of videos showing hordes of women going hog wild for some guy who successfully carries off this bluff:
and my commentary on such behavior
http://blog.jim.com/culture/on-what-used-to-be-called-marriage.html
The sample set in this case was beautiful women ten years or more younger than a 38 year old man. They were approached sober, on the street. The success rate will surely be lower for this sample than for the general population of women because hot, young girls can and do demand higher standards than other girls.
:”The sample set in this case was beautiful women ten years or more younger than a 38 year old man.”
And? beyond being largely self-reported so what? As a guy in his mid-40’s I can tell you that I had a lot more unsolicited flirting from woem in their 20’s when I was 35-40 than when I was in my late 20’s.
I told you the “so what” in the part of the comment you cut off.
laidnyc:
The sample set in this case was beautiful women ten years or more younger than a 38 year old man. They were approached sober, on the street.
Coming up with other nontrivial preselection filters which may apply is left as an exercise.
Zippy said: “I think men taking advice from society’s sexual garbage collectors on how to be manly is like women going to hookers for advice about how to be feminine. I certainly wouldn’t take a hooker’s ‘notch count’ or ‘conversion rate’ (from approach to paid transaction, i.e., to successfully extracted resources) or whatever as a good indicator of her femininity.”
-and-
“PUAs have a ‘total available market’ for what they offer, just as prostitutes have a total available market for what they offer; and it is a risible conceit of the ‘community’ that all women are in the market for PUAs.”
This makes sense and you’ve said what I’ve often wondered about. Presumably these men aren’t approaching women who are obviously committed (those wearing wedding rings). So basically this “success rate” is the number of women who are up for one night stands or otherwise completely casual encounters. If a woman is that “open” to a man approaching her like that on the street for sex, then she’s mostly likely simply “open” in general. Meaning it wouldn’t take extraordinary measures to get to sex anyway. Isn’t that the whole meaning of “easy”? It just doesn’t take that much work if the one you’re dealing with is already predisposed to that behavior. All they seem to be doing is approaching with a high enough frequency to find the small proportion of women who are just that “open.” Much like a prostitute who approaches enough men/makes her services known to enough men that she has a consistent stream of Johns.
laidnyc seems to make a connection between how beautiful a woman is and how open she is to casual sex. But there is nothing to connect a woman’s level of attractiveness with how receptive she will be to random sexual encounters. An average woman being able to attract and hold less attractive men than the modelesque woman does not suddenly mean that her expectations for *when* sex will occur change. At the least, there’s nothing in what was posted to support that.
laidnyc,
Let me rephrase my earlier statement:
Your comment added no useful information, therefore my initial evaluation remains unchanged.
My general suspicions.
Beyond that, I’ve wondered why some conservative types freak(ed) out about Game so much (and few, it seems, understand much about it). I recall a post by a Catholic blogger warning women never to reveal virginity status lest some man with Game take it from her (as though said women had no control over their actions whatsoever). Just like PUAs, conservatives think Game has magical properties. It doesn’t.
Game, I think, revealed concerns amongst conservatives deep down that nice, demure women actually are interested in sex – that does not fit their narrative. Women have waited until marriage not because they were really intent to, but because they didn’t meet the right kind of person to fornicate with earlier. In other words, men and women aren’t really different in sexual interest.
Anyhow, my theory of associative mating on socio-sexual orientation seems to fit.
—-
@Aquinas Dad,
It seems that you are new to this section of the Internet. Am I correct in that guess?
The reason I ask is because your comments and tone are not unusual for conservatives first learning of Game (e.g. cognitive biases, etc).
The traditional, pre 1820, view of women is that they have little control over their own actions. This view is confirmed by game, and also confirmed by the frequent female alibi for stupid and self destructive sexual choices “It just happened”
Women need supervision and male authority. A woman without male authority in her life is apt to get into trouble.
@MarcusD,
I have no settled view on the merits of the tactic, but avoiding near occasion to sin is a very Catholic thing to do, and preventing oneself from being a target (if indeed virgins were being targeted) would seem a very prudent thing to do in order to keep ones distance from sin. Game doesn’t have to have magical qualities in order to be a source of temptation.
I guess the starting place is here for discovering that: http://www.humanbiologicaldiversity.com/
I have no settled view on the merits of the tactic, but avoiding near occasion to sin is a very Catholic thing to do, and preventing oneself from being a target (if indeed virgins were being targeted) would seem a very prudent thing to do in order to keep ones distance from sin.
I suppose it depends on interpretation, but I doubt such a tactic would actually make anything more than a negligible difference in overall “occasion to sin.”
Anyhow, I doubt they are or were being targeted, except for the odd nut. In fact, based on who said it, I would wager that it’s something of a “bogeyman” (“Don’t tell anyone lest the bogeyman come and get you”).
Out of curiosity, what is your stance on the “modesty debate”?
Game doesn’t have to have magical qualities in order to be a source of temptation.
Game doesn’t have to exist for there to be temptation for women. It’s basically another opportunity for relinquishing responsibility (and sometimes a tool for inspiring fear).
It also seems to be another example of confirmation bias for the “women are more moral than men; men are deranged sex-maniacs” notion that gets passed around.
Proverbs 14:23
In all toil there is profit, but mere talk tends only to poverty.
If game is nothing more than telling you to get off your butt, do something, and stop talking…then I can see how it would be like a placebo.
The manosphere’s forensic analysis of the rotting corpse of Western civilization is right on even if we do not or cannot buy all of the prescriptions, as fornication is a mortal sin. If memory serves, Roissy once said something to the effect that Pope Paul VI was right about the destructiveness of artificial contraception, even though Roissy is personally enjoying its consequences.
“Don’t be a sissy beta” sounds like common sense, but that’s how many men are formed by the world. The Red Pill is an apt way to describe the mental dislocation it is for most people when they realize that liberalism is false and inhuman.
Beefy Levinson:
The manosphere’s forensic analysis of the rotting corpse of Western civilization is right on even if we do not or cannot buy all of the prescriptions…
It is partially right. (“It” is also not necessarily univocal).
There is a tendency for example in some commentary to invent regimes of discrimination (e.g. “the feminine imperative”) against which the realandfortrue understanding of political freedom should set itself. This manifests itself in the sometime delusion that the feminist flavor of liberalism isn’t really committed to freedom and equality.
But of course feminism actually is really committed to freedom and equality — and that is the source of the problem.
James A. Donald:
At the risk of sounding more egalitarian than my racist sexist homophobic authoritarian views warrant, I would suggest that the vast majority of men also require adult supervision.
One can observe female response to such tactics on video.
When a woman has foolish sex with disastrous consequences, she will tell you “it just happened”, and that is exactly accurate.
No they are not. Consider the issue of child support. If women should have the right to choose, so should men.
Conversely, if one opposes abortion, one should support shotgun marriage – which, incidentally is the biblical position.
Men and women, being different and intimate, cannot be equal. One must be the master. And the feminist position is, necessarily, that the woman should be the master. Equality between people that are different requires distance and fences. Thus, in practice, the women are wonderful position. If women are under represented in boardrooms, it is because of an evil male conspiracy, but if men are under represented in universities, it is because women are wonderful and absolutely nothing to do with a systematic open and official system of persecution and discrimination against men that makes it dangerous and unpleasant for a man to attend university.
@James A. Donald
I would need to see sources, rather than anecdotes.
—
If women should have the right to choose, so should men.
Some feminists have realized their hypocrisy on the matter, and are moving to change that.
—
Conversely, if one opposes abortion, one should support shotgun marriage
Shotgun marriage need not be supported. I think that’s a false choice fallacy.
—
Men and women, being different and intimate, cannot be equal. One must be the master.
Equal or same? Cf. Complementarianism.
—
And the feminist position is, necessarily, that the woman should be the master.
Feminists seem to have a wide range of changing positions. You’d have to define the one you are going by and show that it’s held by a group of feminists.
—
If women are under represented in boardrooms, it is because of an evil male conspiracy, but if men are under represented in universities, it is because women are wonderful and absolutely nothing to do with a systematic open and official system of persecution and discrimination against men that makes it dangerous and unpleasant for a man to attend university.
Yes, there’s a fair amount of hypocrisy there. ‘Persecution’ is a strong word (in the non-hyperbolically-inclined world [e.g. non-Marxist]) – discrimination via affirmative action, though… I don’t if that’s persecution. Persecution, by definition, is inter-group mistreatment, rather than intra-group mistreatment. What group is persecuting men? (With the understanding that men can be feminists.)
Also, how does it make it dangerous for men to attend university?
Yes, he did write about that, much to my surprise. Since it fits into his viewpoint, however, it shouldn’t surprise me, but alas. Still, rather amusing…
Here’s the link: http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2012/12/02/pope-paul-vi-on-birth-control-externalities/
If women are under represented in boardrooms, it is because of an evil male conspiracy, but if men are under represented in universities, it is because women are wonderful and absolutely nothing to do with a systematic open and official system of persecution and discrimination against men that makes it dangerous and unpleasant for a man to attend university.
Clarification: What group is persecuting men in this particular scenario?
When you say “official” do you refer to affirmative action, or something more?
The risk of false rape charges, affirmative action against males, the feminizing of subjects, making study topics about emotions and feelings instead of accomplishment and excellence, the general policy of treating male characteristics and male behavior as sick, evil and pathological, treating maleness as a discipline problem, and that white heterosexual males are subjected to humiliating and degrading struggle sessions in which they are required to demonize themselves, their race, their gender, and their sexual preference.
James A. Donald:
Not to pick on you, but your commentary demonstrates exactly the point I made to Beefy Levinson. You’ve accepted the false manosphere idea that feminist belief in equal freedom is insincere; you cite the liberal war against the oppressor-untermensch (feminism is simply liberalism with emphasis on men as representative of tyrannical essentialist nature and tradition) as evidence of that supposed insincerity.
But liberalism’s war on tyrannical essentialist nature and tradition is not evidence of insincerity. There is nothing more deadly sincere in its core beliefs than liberalism, and that includes liberalism with feminist emphasis, a.k.a. feminism.
Zippy,
I don’t think it’s accurate to call it the placebo effect per se when you consider that what the core contributors to the idea of Game suggest can be reasonably considered equivalent to a doctor’s advice on how to change one’s behavior to become healthier. That may be a crude parallel, but the point is that I see little difference here between the advice of Roissy, Roosh, Athol Kay and VD and the advice one gets from a dietician and doctor about how to systematically change one’s lifestyle to be fitter and healthier. Either way, the ideas are fairly concrete in the form of following specific suggestions** that do have a much higher rate of success than the alternative (one could also observe that genetics may thwart even the most medically sound lifestyle advice from medical professionals).
Though I do think one could say that it does induce something akin to the placebo effect in that men with more information are more likely to get out and try and feel better when they do. A guy starting out as a total loser, but who tries a few approaches now that he thinks he’s onto something may gain more confidence because he thinks “wow, 6 months ago I’d never have had the guts to try that and it wasn’t so bad” even if he has a 100% failure rate. Why? Because he feels like a newb now, not a tried and true loser. He can shift the feeling of powerlessness from something innate to him to just his past ignorance with optimism for the future.
** Their critics often fail to note that these guys have often written very specific, almost how-to guides on different aspects of “manning up” that are sufficient for even men with room temperature IQs to process. Stand like this, talk like that, consciously control your reactions to challenges/shit tests. Things of that nature not “be teh psycho and duh bitchez be luvin ya lolz” like most critics make it out to be.
But liberalism’s war on tyrannical essentialist nature and tradition is not evidence of insincerity. There is nothing more deadly sincere in its core beliefs than liberalism, and that includes liberalism with feminist emphasis, a.k.a. feminism.
Agreed. That liberalism is fundamentally error ridden isn’t even up for debate, but what also shouldn’t be doubted is liberals true belief in the falsehood. Heck, without the sincerity liberalism wouldn’t have nearly the destructive power it does.
Mike T:
I don’t think it’s accurate to call it the placebo effect per se …
The point is that whatever the mechanism may be, the effectiveness of Game, even for its ‘top’ practitioners as self-reported, is approximately equivalent to the effectiveness of placebo in treating illnesses like cancer.
The point is not about the nature of the mechanism — the nature of the mechanism for the great majority of medical interventions is unknown, despite the grand veneer of ‘scientific’ marketing with which they are served up. Their ‘effectiveness’ is measured in terms of statistical significance.
And in those terms, Game is — as claimed quantitatively by its most prominent practitioners — in the same ballpark as placebo.
Marcus D,
I am usually careful to research something before I form an opinion.
My favorite thing about your comments is how you try to lump ‘conservatives’ under a broad banner, speculate about their inner motives, and then mention the cognitive bias of others. Here’s a hint – not only do I fail to think “game” has magical powers I am pretty sure “game” is, in the end, nothing but a series of errors leading to the self-justification of bad actions. And while I do not claim to speak for all conservatives in my corner of the conservative world we are very well aware that people are sexual, thank you. And ‘near occasion of sin’ is a theological term.
The core error of the manosphere (yes, that is a rather broad, sweeping generalization but I am discussing an overarching idea, not pointing to a specific person) is to recognize some symptoms (growing promiscuity; delayed or absent marriage; decisions based on low desires rather than virtue; etc.) mistake some of the other symptoms for causes (sex-positive feminism; ‘churchianity’ [and I do love that term]) and conclude that the proper response is to emulate *another symptom* (vicious men, and I use the term ‘vicious’ in its philosophical/theological meaning)! Not only is this corrosive to those doing the emulating (how many of these men transition from lust to a full loss of charity?) but it make the various issues/symptoms worse.
The underlying cause is the combination of a rejection of legitimate authority and rejection of virtue. Until both legitimate authority and virtue are again core concepts then all the rest will remain the same or get worse.
Mike T., Zippy,
While thinking this over last night over a whiskey and a cigar I am almost convinced that it *is* the placebo effect, very literally. Or, “game” is ‘The Magic Feather’.
When I first started reading about “game” what struck me was the similarity of a lot of the background stories of the men promoting it. Not all, but a huge number of them spoke of having difficulty/not being able to talk to women, being terribly shy and socially awkward, being deeply hurt by any rejection, etc. But with “game” they can approach strangers; speak with women; deal with other men; handle rejection; etc. These men -rightly- speak of this as ‘changing their lives’. If they are telling the truth (and I have no reason to doubt that they are) is *has* changed their lives.Not for the better, but changed.
But these ‘conversion rates’ really told the rest of the story for me – all they have really done is clutched that feather in their hand chanting “I can fly, I can fly, I can fly’ and *actually talked to girls*. It wasn’t the feather, it was the courage to leave their previous lifestyle and paradigm.
Unfortunately, far too many of them think it was the damn feather and are buying into the pseudo-intellectual claptrap some of the first feather-promoters hand out with their left hands.
Just my opinion, naturally
In practice the good/salvageable aspects of game are just the kinds of conventional wisdom that fathers used to pass on to their sons, either directly or by modeling healthy interactions with women via their children’s mothers. In that aspect the “good” of game is stuff that game has no unique claim to; it is in the position of the Catholic Church after the fall of Rome, preserving accumulated knowledge which wider society can no longer preserve on its own. Strictly speaking I don’t need “game” to do what men always did, i.e., to refuse to put up with my wife’s occasional nonsense, to gently tease her, etc.
Unfortunately game is also bound up with a lot of ideological garbage (nihilism, an obscene and exploitative ethics, etc.) which is not in any way a logical necessity of the “good” of game, and which either has the effect of corrupting that good and thus its practitioners or else turning people off to it who might otherwise benefit from it (i.e., wimpish men with absent fathers).
@Aquinas Dad:
Speaking of “Churchianity,” the Catholic Church celebrated the feast of the Holy Family a few weeks ago. It’s painful to watch priests twist themselves into soggy pretzels trying to explain away St. Paul’s letter urging wives to submit to their husbands. It’s no wonder lectors have the option to omit that part all together.
I’m not saying the Church should be teaching young men how to game hot chicks. But given that American Catholics have moral and social mores mostly indistinguishable from the heathen population at large, Holy Mother Church should probably reconsider her current pastoral tactics.
Beefy,
‘Americanism’ is a heresy. Yes, many a Catholic pastor tries to dodge that bullet but thankfully more and more aren’t and some never did.
It helps that the catechism is still clear.
You are using feminist jargon. Translating to English: Men are evil hateful oppressors, and are getting what they deserve.
“Essentialism” is in practice, the fact that group X is inherently superior in some way. This difference is deemed evidence of evil and sin. If we punish group X sufficiently, this difference will go away.
Strangely, despite severe punishment, group X remains superior. The difference does not go away. This is deemed proof that the punishment is insufficient, and has to be escalated.
Applying your standard to the Hutu genocidaires, they were also aiming at equality. The trouble was that Tutus kept being superior, so the only solution was to kill them.
If I laid 2.5% of the females that I see on the beach, in coffee shops, etc, I would reasonably think I was hot stuff. That works out to one [redacted] every couple of weeks. Tiger woods did not have it so good.
James,
The number is 2.7% of women actively hit on’ not ‘seen’; big difference.
James:
Applying your standard to the Hutu genocidaires, they were also aiming at equality.
You might want to slow down and re-think things just a bit. Possibly even attempt to comprehend what has been said to you. Unless the most important thing to you is to maintain frame.
But player hits on every good looking woman. If he only hit on women that made it easy for him to approach, his rate would be eighty percent or so, rather than 2.5% or so.
So, a success rate of 2.5% of good looking women is going to keep him mighty busy most nights.
You are probably thinking that scoring 2.5% of women who are flirtatious and do not [fitness] test is mighty unimpressive, and it is, but considerably less than 2.5% of women are flirtatious without first being opened, and all them [fitness] test.
But player hits on every good looking woman.
Every single one, with no preselection filters whatsoever. Because that makes the low postselection “success” numbers look as good as they can possibly look, which is the important thing.
A player typically hits on seven new women a day. If his conversion rate is 2.7%, he bangs a fresh woman ever six days, for seventy new women a year.
James:
A player typically hits on seven new women a day. If his conversion rate is 2.7%, he bangs a fresh woman ever six days, for seventy new women a year.
If you actually understood the criticism, you’d understand that that is already stipulated.
(Note for example that a given hooker gets paid by a large number of johns per year).
Translating from newspeak into oldspeak.
Feminists are opposed to equality in the here and now. In the here and now they want to crush and subjugate men, to destroy men.
But, after men have been destroyed, after maleness is is punished with sufficient savagery, then men not be all dead, but, magically, will become the same as women, and, being the same, in that hypothetical future world, then in that theoretical future utopian world, feminists would favor equality.
The Hutu had a very similar program for the Tutsi. They also, favored equality in this sense.
James:
Feminists are opposed to equality in the here and now. In the here and now they want to crush and subjugate men, to destroy men.
You’ve made the assumption that equality and destroying the oppressor are at cross-purposes; therefore feminists are “opposed to equality”.
All liberalism (including libertarianism, classical liberalism, etc) is “opposed to equality” in this sense. Liberalism is incoherent, as I have explained many times and do not need to explain yet again.
But you can’t infer from the fact of liberalism’s incoherence as a set of ideas that its human adherents are insincere. They are most certainly sincere. If liberals (of all stripes, including feminists) weren’t sincere in their beliefs, liberalism would not dominate all respectable opinion. But it does dominate all respectable opinion, in part because those beliefs are sincerely held.
As for the Beavis and Butthead “every genocide is ‘therefore’ a pursuit of equality, so gotcha” crack, it frankly isn’t worthy of an answer. Junior high school is down the hall and to the left.
“Essentialism”, in the context of feminism, is the evil hateful idea that there are inherent differences between men and women – that men are physically stronger, braver, have longer time orientation, can operate relationships in large groups more effectively, and so on and so forth.
Therefore, since “essentialism” is evil, any observed differences are men being evil and hateful, for which they deserve, and shall receive, punishment. If the differences persist, the punishment must be escalated. And yet somehow, strangely, the differences continue to persist. So the punishment must be further escalated.
This theory is profoundly unequal, is violently opposed to equality in the actually existent world, since it is men that are at fault for the strangely stubborn persistence of difference, not women.
James:
It isn’t the theory that is ‘unequal’. It is reality that is unequal (on this we agree).
But liberals, including feminists, really actually do sincerely believe in equality. Liberals really actually do sincerely hold liberal beliefs, generally speaking. If you don’t understand that you don’t understand feminism.
If sincere, would be open to the idea that the strangely stubborn persistence of differences between men and women might be the fault of women, rather than men, and that if anyone needed to be punished, crushed, degraded, and humiliated for the strange continuation of those differences, it is women, rather than men.
Liberals are pharisees. “I am holier than thou, therefore you should obey me” Jesus’ critique of pharisees is that the phraisees were not sincere. And of course they were not, and are not.
James:
If sincere, [liberals] would be open to the idea [that liberalism is false].
I actually think you are sincere in what you are expressing here, even though you are wrong and do not appear even slightly open to the possibility that you are wrong.
Liberal beliefs are self serving. “I am holier than thou, therefor you should obey me”. Holier than thou beliefs are very rarely sincere, as Jesus pointed out vehemently and at considerable length.
This shows up in the highly unequal belief that any persistence of differences is the fault of men, not women. Point to any area where, due to massive hostile state intervention against men, men are doing badly, for example under representation in the education system, and the response is that women are wonderful, a perfectly flat, direct, and open rejection of their supposed belief in equality.
James:
Liberal beliefs are self serving.
Ok James. Have a nice day.
Zippy paraphrases me.
Not what I said, not what I meant, not a reasonable reinterpretation of what I said.
What I said, rephrased, is that the fact that liberal beliefs are internally inconsistent, are grossly and openly internally inconsistent, are inconsistent in self serving ways, is proof that these beliefs are not sincerely held, that they will say whatever serves their purpose, even when the words that serve their purpose in one situation are directly opposed to the words that serve their purpose in a different situation.
If that is true then what of reactionary former liberals who have now rejected liberalism, but report that they really did sincerely support political freedom and equality back when they held liberal beliefs? Are they lying when they say that their former liberal beliefs were sincerely held?
Just to be clear:
Under the James A Donald theory of liberalism, there actually are no liberals whatsoever. There are only people who pretend to hold liberal beliefs for insincere self-serving reasons.
Does that accurately reflect your position?
If a good player hits on seven new women a day, and bangs seventy new women a year, I would say that game is working great for him.
The largest part of game is simply telling men to act confident, and teaching them how to act confident, (“fake it till you make it”) and in this sense it is indeed merely a magic feather. But, of course, most women will promptly open their legs to any man who superficially appears to be high status, and appearing confident is a large part of superficially appearing to be high status, so in this sense, the feather really is magic.
James:
most women will …
The data from the “best of the best” players doesn’t support that statement. (Even if the statement were true, it isn’t supported by the actual data — unless by “most” we mean “2.7% of some preselected subset of women”).
If I have failed to understand what you are saying, this may be because you were talking newspeak. You should offer your own translation from newspeak to oldspeak if you don’t like my translation.
Assume you are talking to a time traveller from 1810. How would you express your proposition in language that he would understand?
[…] of their success in collecting four leaf clovers these men go around pronouncing that most clovers have four leaves. For some reason lots of other men – men who, rather ironically, especially pride […]
My favorite thing about your comments
Kind of odd, but okay.
—
is how you try to lump ‘conservatives’ under a broad banner
You’ll notice that I used the term “some conservative types” and from there shortened it to “conservatives”. You will note, also, that I, and others in the manosphere, self-indentify as conservatives while still maintaining knowledge of (though not necessarily support of) Game (and while not maintaining any other views that I mentioned).
—
speculate about their inner motives,
Could you be more specific as to where I’m doing this?
—
then mention the cognitive bias of others.
Did that get under your skin? And why do you mention that?
—
nothing but a series of errors leading to the self-justification of bad actions
Can you expand on that?
—
And while I do not claim to speak for all conservatives in my corner of the conservative world we are very well aware that people are sexual, thank you.
I didn’t claim otherwise.
—
And ‘near occasion of sin’ is a theological term.
I’m aware of that, thanks. Why do you mention the above?
—
yes, that is a rather broad, sweeping generalization but I am discussing an overarching idea, not pointing to a specific person
Mhmm…
—
The core error of the manosphere is to recognize some symptoms (growing promiscuity; delayed or absent marriage; decisions based on low desires rather than virtue; etc.) mistake some of the other symptoms for causes (sex-positive feminism; ‘churchianity’ [and I do love that term]) and conclude that the proper response is to emulate *another symptom* (vicious men, and I use the term ‘vicious’ in its philosophical/theological meaning)! Not only is this corrosive to those doing the emulating (how many of these men transition from lust to a full loss of charity?) but it make the various issues/symptoms worse.
The underlying cause is the combination of a rejection of legitimate authority and rejection of virtue. Until both legitimate authority and virtue are again core concepts then all the rest will remain the same or get worse.
Well, it’s clear you’re new here. And yes, that is “a rather broad, sweeping generalization” (I guess it’s better if you note it explicitly?). I’m short on time, so you’re best bet is to post the latter part of your comment on a more widely read manosphere blog or forum to get a response.
Liberal hypocrisy in general, and feminist hypocrisy in particular, is evident in that their belief in equality turns on and off like a light switch as convenient.
In complaining that women are under-represented in the boardroom and science, they assume that women are precisely equal to men in ability and ambition on average.
In excusing female over-representation in the education system, they assume that women are much superior to men.
In seeking female representation in masculine fields like the military and firefighting, they demand equal honors and advancement for unequal physical performance, skill performance and danger. Females, they tell us, should have military careers without being expected to expose themselves to danger in the military or when fighting fires, should not be exposed to equally severe training regimens, and should become naval pilots without actually having to land naval planes on a carrier, should not be expected to show equal performance in flying naval planes. They argue that women should be given equal advancement and honors while also being given the special accommodations normally given to cripples, children, the mentally ill, and the mentally retarded.
In one breath, a liberal will argue that women are equal, are superior, and should be treated like small vicious over indulged mentally disturbed children.
Read up liberals on the genocide of the Tutsi. They are for it, in the sense that if someone said he was against the German Holocaust of the Jews, and condemned the Jews for causing it, we would conclude he was for the German holocaust of the Jews.
For example, in reporting the continuing crimes against Tutsis by the army of the Congo, such as the mass murder of Tutsi women by vaginally impaling them with large objects, they will not mention who is committing these crimes, and who is on the receiving end.
In reporting the genocide in Rwanda, they theoretically oppose the genocide while telling us it was all the fault of those horrid Tutsis for being superior to Hutus. This is not only the Hutu line. It is the New York Times and Wikipedia line. There is continual condemnation of the Tutsis for not doing enough to reconcile with the Hutus, even as the Hutus continue to murder and torture Tutsis using progressive supplied weapons and organized in progressive funded armies.
If they really, sincerely believed in equality, why “the women are superior rhetoric” whenever female privileged is pointed out, as for example female over-representation in the education system, and “the women are pitiful mentally retarded crippled children” rhetoric whenever someone asks that women be expected to deliver equal performance, as in the military.
Should we also apply this argument to the communist who poured petrol of over the peasant’s children and set them on fire to force the mother to reveal where the seed corn was buried?
No? You think that is a bit of stretch?
OK then. Should we also apply this argument to the academic who when reporting the Ukraine famine draws a gentle veil over such incidents, and refers to the “violence” without being very clear who was doing violence to whom or what the violence consisted of?
No? You think that is a bit of stretch?
OK then. Should we also apply this argument to the news reporter who when reporting that large numbers of women are being vaginally impaled with very large objects finds it difficult to mention that the people who are doing the impaling is the Congo government army which we are funding and arming, and the people being impaled are Tutsis.
No? You think that is a bit of stretch?
But we have now excluded all academics and all news reporters, including all supposedly conservative and libertarian academics and news reporters.
James:
So you do or do not agree with my provisional characterization of your view?
You would agree, I think, that all liberals endorse Alinsky’s “rules for radicals”
Alinsky’s rules are manipulative, intended for use by clever people to deceive and manipulate large numbers of stupid people. They express the overclass underclass alliance
When Alinsky depicts his his rules being used in concrete examples, the person manipulating just happens to be a white male, while the people manipulated tend to be female, black, and poor – which implies he views the females as dumb sluts, the blacks as lazy niggers, and the poor as shiftless and greedy.
So, I would say that the smart leadership hold these beliefs for insincere self serving reasons, and the followers hold these beliefs because they are dumb sluts etc. The overclass are liberals because conmen, the underclass are liberals because conned.
This recaps the criticism of the universal franchise. If you let inferior people vote, their votes will wind up being controlled by someone else, and they will vote for that person’s interest rather than their own, which is of course exactly what happened.
James:
A yes or no answer will work.
I answered your question. Now you answer my question.
Have you stopped beating your wife?
I have given you a full, clear, and unambiguous answer at least twice, and short answer several times.
How about you start answering my questions.
James:
I have given you a full, clear, and unambiguous answer at least twice, and short answer several times.
If you say so. You are very wordy, all over the map and inconsistent, as best as I can tell. You are flat out wrong on the most important points, e.g. you seem to believe that liberals are not ever genuinely committed to liberalism (though you dance like a ballerina to avoid saying anything so plainly) – so actual liberals don’t really exist. (In a sense it is true of all false ideas that ‘true believers’ are dupes; but not in a sense that helps your case).
In short, you’ve demonstrated with stubborn though loquatious clarity exactly the problem I mentioned to Beefy Levinson way up in the thread.
You also seem to think that a single youtube clip that doesn’t even show what you think it shows about the actual women in the clip is some sort of trump card that you can throw down to declare victory over … over the quantitative reports of the ‘pro’ PUA’s themselves. If women are ‘solipsistic’ in their obsession with their own narrow perspective you are ten times more ‘solipsistic’ in your obsession with that youtube clip and your own narrow perspective on it.
I was just trying to figure out if it was worth the effort to try to talk to you on the two subjects banging about in this thread. Clearly it isn’t.
As I said, over and over again: No ruling class liberal sincerely believes in liberalism, they are all hypocrites, every single one, and one of the many items of evidence demonstrating this is that in the same breath as they say a group is equal, they will say that group is unequal, for example the “women are superior” rhetoric whenever female privileged is pointed out, as for example female over-representation in the education system, and the “women are pitiful mentally retarded crippled children who need a pat on their heads and reassurance that everyone is a winner” rhetoric whenever someone asks that women be expected to deliver equal performance, as in the military.
However dumb sluts and the like no doubt sincerly believe in the liberalism that pays them money every time the money comes in.
A pro PUA pretending to be high status, on his own in a coffee shop, is nowhere near as convincing as someone with a fake entourage pretending to be high status. The fake entourage clearly gives returns way higher than 2.7%, approaching 100%
James:
As I said, over and over again: No ruling class liberal sincerely believes in liberalism.
Yes, you’ve said that over and over again. It seems very, very important to you to understand the world as a place in which there are no actual liberals (powerful people with sincere loyalty to liberalism).
The problem is, all of us who have ever experienced sincere loyalty to liberalism at some point – however apostate we may be now – know with absolute certainty that you are wrong. The “everyone who disagrees with me is either a cynical manipulator or too stupid to zip up his own fly” position is something that well adjusted people leave behind in adolescence.
But you were not ruling class, so you cannot not know that I am wrong.
[…] of their success in collecting four leaf clovers these men go around pronouncing that most clovers have four leaves. For some reason lots of other men – men who, rather ironically, especially pride themselves on […]
[…] (understood as the pickup artist’s toolkit specifically) is actually pretty lousy in terms of effectiveness, right on par with placebo. Doing something […]
[…] disagree with many of the conclusions of the anti-gamers. There is probably a lot of the placebo effect to “game”. Although, there is also evidence that dark triad traits, which game attempts […]
[…] been assuming game works. There was a lot of discussion on other sites about a pick up artist named Krauser who apparently posted some of his stats and it […]
[…] the “Game renaissance” on the web. And Game must be something empowering: even if, according to its best practitioners, it only works as well as a placebo, men would still see results from adopting […]