Bob Wallace is just trying to help. You fellows mean well, but you’ve no idea how ignorant your use of “solipsism” makes you look to people who really do know what it means. 3 страница

210. Cail Corishev says:

September 21, 2012 at 7:36 am

“It doesn’t matter what the labels or terms are. Churchians, like feminists, are quite averse to the content involved. The truths about female attraction are directly opposite Churchian teachings.”

Good point. I think that’s why the discussion of terms seems like such a red herring to me. We could forget about trying to name it and just call it “female nature” and move on to talking about the specific actions, and they’d react just as strongly. The reaction isn’t because “solipsism” or whatever word you want to choose isn’t accurate enough; it’s because it is accurate enough to help us understand the facts about how women really act and think, which are what can’t be admitted.

211. zippycatholic says:

September 21, 2012 at 7:47 am

@Cail Corishev:
Someone’s going to get past “mangina” and “cock carousel” and draw the line at “solipsism”?

Absolutely. When I read the former I hear invented vulgarities that make me laugh: like all good comedy it is funny because it is true, and it isn’t as if the terms have an established meaning which is being misunderstood and misapplied. When I read the latter as applied in these discussions it just makes me cringe, and makes the whole discussion appear ignorant.

Understand that I object to the use of the term because I think some important concepts are being explored and would prefer that they not be presented ignorantly. I don’t share Bob Wallace’s contempt for the “Lost Boys”, as he put it. The problems discussed by Dalrock are pervasive, and probably can’t even be completely avoided by the Amish.

I’ve noticed a tendency in Internet commentary to try to marginalize the manosphere as if it were a place for some small subset of bitter men who have been mistreated by women and the system, but not of much interest to “ordinary” people. Manospherians are like alcoholics or addicts or whatever, and the manosphere is a kind of twelve steps support group for the emotionally damaged. I don’t agree, and I see Dalrock’s work in particular as a counter to that. But the Christian manosphere does have some self-marginalizing tendencies, and in my own view it could do with a little evolution: with a bit more Christian (not cafeteria Churchianity but genuine robust Christianity) and a bit less PUA treehouse.

That’s just my own personal advice to Christians in the ‘sphere. You can take it or leave it, but either choice has consequences.

212. Cane Caldo says:

September 21, 2012 at 8:55 am

Or to put it another way: Churchians can’t handle the truth about women

Now we’re getting somewhere.

What is the truth about women? Are the collection of facts (as presented by Game proponents) the totality of the truth? I’m told repeatedly that Game is just a set of amoral tools–it does not pretend to answer questions like “truth”, and that the Christian man does not have to deal with the implications of Game–he can just pick and choose which tools he wants to use. So, he should abstain from the lock-picking tools, for example.

The most basic implication of lock-picking tools is that locks can be picked. Now, if a man’s lock on his woman is picked, who are we going to hold responsible? There are only three possible choices: The thief, the buyer of the lock, or the manufacturer of the lock. Game, in fact, blames all three, but takes pains to point out that at least the thief gets to enjoy the booty–as it were.

This toolset, then, can only show benefit insofar as its employer can enjoy ill-gotten gains. By necessity, this must be a short time. There’s always a better lock-pick, and lock-picker; so another truth has to be that it is stupid for a man to even try to lock something down. Further, there it is foolish, under such circumstances, to hold anyone accountable. The best strategy, then, is to just catch and release all women as sluts. So the truth of Game must be that Game can only condemn all men as worthless in whichever role we play, and is is of no long-term help. It is, nothing but cynical, and hope- less. We say such philosophies are nihilist.

So: Game implies a hopeless philosophy full of blame, but no accountability. Does this sound like Feminism to anyone else? This is antithetical to Christianity, which is a hopeful philosophy full accountability, but seeks justification.

To the extent that the Christian rejects the need for justification for all people–which we all recognize as the phenomenon of treating women as morally superior–then he is Christo-Feminist Churchian.

Therefore, the only fact or truth of Game that can be useful to the Christian man– in his pursuit of justification for himself and others, which is the primary and only truly important chore for the Christian –is to highlight the need for the justification of women; that they need to hear the Gospel, and repent just as men do.

213. Cail Corishev says:

September 21, 2012 at 9:25 am

“But the Christian manosphere does have some self-marginalizing tendencies, and in my own view it could do with a little evolution: with a bit more Christian (not cafeteria Churchianity but genuine robust Christianity) and a bit less PUA treehouse.”

I don’t disagree with that at all. But I think “cock carousel” is a lot more PUA treehouse than partial misuse of a philosophical term that’s hardly in everyday currency.

214. zippycatholic says:

September 21, 2012 at 9:42 am

I don’t disagree with that at all. But I think “cock carousel” is a lot more PUA treehouse than partial misuse of a philosophical term that’s hardly in everyday currency.

It is true that the vulgarities are off-putting to folks who are offended by vulgarity. But ignorant uses of established terms is off-putting to people who are interested in reducing ignorance, and a key mission of the Christian manosphere is putatively to reduce ignorance. The red pill and all that.

215. Anonymous Reader says:

September 21, 2012 at 10:34 am

Cane Caldo, the truth about women is too big for one reply. For this thread, one truth about women is that they are often so self centered they can’t really recognize men as human beings, but regard them as some sort of a robot, or beast of burden. Like hypergamy, it appears to be a feature of women. Also like hypergamy, it can be controlled and channeled in useful directions, or it can be uncontrolled and therefore dangerous to everyone concerned. The feminine imperative does not want to be controlled by any man, and so we see some of the usual suspects and some new ones attempting to derail the discussion. Because the idea the women are mysterious and cannot be fathomed is very, very important to the feminine imperative – the alternative is that women are not a mystery, and can be understood, and therefore can be controlled.

Cane Caldo
The most basic implication of lock-picking tools is that locks can be picked.

What is the most basic implication of a key?

Now, if a man’s lock on his woman is picked, who are we going to hold responsible? There are only three possible choices: The thief, the buyer of the lock, or the manufacturer of the lock. Game, in fact, blames all three, but takes pains to point out that at least the thief gets to enjoy the booty–as it were.

When a lock has become difficult to open due to various contaminations, such as sand, dried out lock oil, corrosion of the metal due to disuse, then the key won’t open it very quickly. The key might not even open it at all. Now, one could just throw that lock away and get another one. Or, one could use locksmithing techniques and tools to get that lock open, and then get it working again.

If you are locked out of your house, then one option is to call a locksmith, who will use lock picking tools to get the lock open, and then he will leave you to your business. The same tools used by a burglar to break into a house are used by the bonded and licensed locksmith to open your house back up to you, in order that you can enjoy all the benefits of being inside your house. He might even share some basic techniques that you can use to service that lock and keep it working properly…

To you, Cane Caldo, a locksmith is the same as a burglar. This appears to be a major category error on your part.

Bank robbers often use a car to drive away from their crime. Therefore, according to you, anyone who learns to drive is just taking the first step to becoming a wheelman for a bank robbery gang. Is that really what you mean to say? I can go on like this all day. Do I have to?

216. Dalrock says:

September 21, 2012 at 10:37 am

@zippycatholic

@Dalrock:
The desire to strip Game of the taint of PUAs comes from the desire to feel morally superior to them regarding sexual morality.

With all due respect, feelings don’t come into it. If any treehouse club ought to get that, it is the manosphere, which prides itself on the exercise of reason over feelings.

Not true. This is very much about feelings. Put aside your feelings for PUAs for the moment. Consider the standard narrative that Christians fought (and are fighting) the good fight, but the culture isn’t listening. It is pure nonsense. How many Christians are ready to come to terms with that? Very few, even in the manosphere.

217. Feminist Hater says:

September 21, 2012 at 10:43 am

Zippycatholic said:

What PUA’s do is in fact morally despicable. Christians ought to want to distance themselves from the actions and mindset of PUAs, because what PUAs do is morally wrong and stems from a morally evil mindset.

If only the Church had the guts to say this exact thing, but instead to the women in Church that are sluts, soon to be sluts or former sluts. Then there might actually be a Church worth saving. Too bad that they are all too quick to focus on the PUAs, Cads and ‘dead beat men’, whilst all too forgiving of the princesses.

218. Anonymous Reader says:

September 21, 2012 at 10:45 am

Cane Caldo
So: Game implies a hopeless philosophy full of blame, but no accountability.

Only to you. That’s part of your problem. Another part of your problem appears to stem from guilt regarding your own behavior. Apparently you are convinced that any married man who learns the least bit of Game is planning to cheat on his wife. I suggest that you are projecting your own errors onto other men. Like the reformed alcoholic who sees every glass of wine on a dinner table as the first step to the gutter, you see any man who intentionally sets out to learn to deal with shit tests more manfully as taking the first step towards running a harem in all the local night spots.

From my perspective, you are fully opposed to married people being happier. You want men to suffer more, not less. You want their wives to be less happy, not more. You want women to be more in rebellion, not less. You want men to be ineffective, hapless, unable to lead, perpetually supplicating and kneeling before the pedestal that they have placed their wives upon. There’s not enough divorces going on, you want more. There’s not enough boys growing up with no father, you want more. There’s not enough cultural decay, you want more.

Cane Caldo: a lock smith is not a burglar, even though both possess lock picks.
You need to stop projecting your own errors onto other men.

219. sunshinemary says:

September 21, 2012 at 11:05 am

@ AR
I find Cane’s comment about blame interesting in light of the fact that he banned me from his blog when we were discussing this exact same issue because one of my comments sounded like I was blaming him for something. In looking over my comment to him, I determined that I indeed sounded disrespectful, so I attempted three times to apologize humbly to him, including saying that he could publish my apology on his blog, but he refused to forgive me. Instead of searching the scriptures for verses to try to shame other men for gaming their discontented wives, perhaps searching the scriptures for verses on forgiveness would be a better use of his time.

220. zippycatholic says:

September 21, 2012 at 11:10 am

@Dalrock:
Not true. This is very much about feelings. Put aside your feelings for PUAs for the moment.

Not for me it isn’t, and I’m hardly alone. It is about objective right and wrong. You can insist that it is about feelings if you like, but your insistence and imputation of motives doesn’t change the reality. I agree with you that a one-sided condemnation of the relatively small number of PUAs accompanied by silence about the relatively large number of sluts is a serious problem. But I’m not proposing such a thing, and the things I do propose are not emotional reactions but objective evaluations of morality.

221. zippycatholic says:

September 21, 2012 at 11:12 am

@Feminist Hater:
Too bad that they are all too quick to focus on the PUAs, Cads and ‘dead beat men’, whilst all too forgiving of the princesses.

Agreed. The sort of one-sided “men are evil, women are virtuous” preaching which is prevalent – when there is preaching against sexual immorality at all, which itself tends to be rather scarce – is seriously wrong and needs to be corrected.

222. Dalrock says:

September 21, 2012 at 11:19 am

@Zippy

Not for me it isn’t, and I’m hardly alone.

Then what do you (or they) need game for? You live in a radical counter-cultural movement, which despite what 99% of other Christians are doing actually takes the parts of the Bible feminists disagree with seriously. No need to teach these folks game. It is the rest that I’m talking about, the other 99%.

223. zippycatholic says:

September 21, 2012 at 11:34 am

@Dalrock:
You live in a radical counter-cultural movement, …

That’s right.

It is the rest that I’m talking about, the other 99%.

And I’m not proposing a radical alteration for you. I am just proposing that you move your message closer to the truth: I am just proposing that you make it explicit that what cads are doing is in objective fact (like what the much larger number of sluts are doing) morally wicked, and that – as Cane Caldo among others has shown – Game as presently conceived is not separable from the moral wickedness of cads.

Again, you can follow my advice or not. But the choice has consequences.

224. Dalrock says:

September 21, 2012 at 11:49 am

@Zippy

I am just proposing that you make it explicit that what cads are doing is in objective fact (like what the much larger number of sluts are doing) morally wicked,

I’m saying take it up a level. The sin of the PUAs and the sluts is their own. But the reality is that Christians are culpable for blessing the creation of the environment both the sluts and the PUAs are in. The lie is that Christians in general and the church have fought the good fight. It isn’t true. This is extremely important because of the way Christians as a group have rationalized their eager complicity with feminism. They pretend that it is all the fault of the PUAs. The PUAs didn’t drive the cultural change, Christians and feminists did.

225. Cane Caldo says:

September 21, 2012 at 11:50 am

@AR

To you, Cane Caldo, a locksmith is the same as a burglar. This appears to be a major category error on your part.

Is that really what you mean to say? I can go on like this all day. Do I have to?

Is it your contention that PUAs are locksmiths, and not burglars? If so, you destroy Dalrock’s assertion that we Christians ought to be ashamed that the Christian owner has to resort to a burglar for information on how to get into his own treasure chest.

What is the most basic implication of a key?

The implication of a key is ownership; which is authority. Now, the way this is supposed to work is that the man who wishes to own the contents behind the lock asks the father of the lock to take the wealth and responsibility of the whole treasure chest, and for all that is locked within. There is a ceremony of some sort that signifies the transference of the key from the father to the husband. (In fact, this strike me as the heart of marriage, and the basic requirement for a Christian marriage: that the father of the bride give her away. His blessing is what is important; not the local church’s, and not the state’s. To the extent they are involved, it should only be as witnesses to the father’s blessing.)

What the Christo-Feminist Churchian fathers have done to pervert marriage is staggering, but here are several manifestations:

1) He leaves the treasure chest unguarded. Now, this one is animate, and it can choose to leave, so I do not say that every case is that the father is responsible. Nevertheless, the most common situation is that he is simply not around. He leaves it unattended at home. He leaves it unattended at college. He leaves it unattended at church. And he knows not what happens in his absence.

2) He foolishly trusts a lock after it has been compromised.

3) He lets the outward beauty of the treasure chest deceive him into thinking that the treasure within is still valuable. The overwhelming likelihood is that someone has either grossly defiled the contents; or made off with them entirely. (Suitors are guilty of this, as well. See: Ryan Reynolds)

4) He deceives the man seeking to husband this treasure by walking an empty vessel down the aisle; when he ought to be warning the man away: “Thar be no gold, nor rubies, here.”

When a lock has become difficult to open due to various contaminations, such as sand, dried out lock oil, corrosion of the metal due to disuse, then the key won’t open it very quickly. The key might not even open it at all. Now, one could just throw that lock away and get another one. Or, one could use locksmithing techniques and tools to get that lock open, and then get it working again.

If we admit (as a Christian must) that the Player (whether PUA or lucky chump) is a burglar (he is not authorized by transference of the key from the father), then the only possibly benevolent locksmith is Jesus Christ. What other person picks the lock to re-store it, and then presents the contents to another man? None.

In such a case, the chest must be wholly turned over to the Benevolent Locksmith for repair. While under restoration, she should not be tampered with by another man. For some chests this will take years; some a lifetime. Experience and scripture tell us that such intense restoration needs to take place in an environment that is best for the chest–her father’s home. If this is not possible (again, this chest can walk), the father must put her out of his mind until she returns for true restoration.

I do want to be careful though, and not be misunderstood as forwarding the idea of “re-virginizing” a woman. Whatever treasure the Benevolent Locksmith restores to the treasure chest is not the same as what was there from the beginning, and likely not as much of it. Until the treasure chest itself is utterly reformed through death, it will bear the scars–particularly around the lock.

I hope you do continue all day, AR.

226. Cane Caldo says:

September 21, 2012 at 11:53 am

@Sunshinemary

I banned you because you’re a woman, and you were on my jock–where you do not belong.

I banned you because you’re an emotional slut.

227. Anonymous Reader says:

September 21, 2012 at 12:04 pm

FWIW I must go on travel for a few days, so when I don’t reply for a while it isn’t that I’m ignoring anyone.

228. Dalrock says:

September 21, 2012 at 12:11 pm

@Cane Caldo

Is it your contention that PUAs are locksmiths, and not burglars? If so, you destroy Dalrock’s assertion that we Christians ought to be ashamed that the Christian owner has to resort to a burglar for information on how to get into his own treasure chest.

In the sense that you are using the metaphor, PUAs aren’t picking any locks. They are just learning how to move to the front of the line. They’ve figured out how to get a low number at the bakery.

Edit: What I’m saying to Christians is shut down the bakery, or at least repent from having run the bakery for so long.

229. zippycatholic says:

September 21, 2012 at 12:18 pm

@Dalrock:
But the reality is that Christians are culpable for blessing the creation of the environment both the sluts and the PUAs are in. The lie is that Christians in general and the church have fought the good fight. It isn’t true.

Oh, I agree with that. The only exception on Earth is the teaching Magisterium of the Catholic Church (not to be confused with the practices of local priests, bishops, and laity). The hard line still stands there, and there alone.

I recommend against softening the line. And I think it is too simplistic to state that the morals of sluts and PUAs are their own. Clearly they also have influence here, as the level of sympathy for PUAs shows. I’ve seen comments to the effect that PUAs are doing “Gods work”, for example. Now that may even be true in the same sense that Nebuchadnezzar was doing God’s work. But that doesn’t translate into a license for Christians to adopt Nebuchadnezzar’s methods.

230. Cane Caldo says:

September 21, 2012 at 12:57 pm

@Dalrock

Edit: What I’m saying to Christians is shut down the bakery, or at least repent from having run the bakery for so long.

Agreed, as you know.

In the sense that you are using the metaphor, PUAs aren’t picking any locks.

Precisely, and that is the illusion that I am destroying. The Player (again, not just PUAs, but any man who takes what does not rightfully belong to him) is a burglar. When he tells others he is a lock-smith, has lock-picks, or that he has the “Master Key” that opens many locks–he is generally lying. The Player sleeps with sluts–already open chests.

I’m glad Sunshinemary chimed in, because she is a textbook case of our modern Churchian situation; which is ironic since she agrees with Game, and I do not. In one of her several apologies to me she said something very close to: “I’ve never discussed my husband’s affairs before. I didn’t know I was going to react so emotionally. Please forgive me.”, among other tumbler clicks.

Here’s a couple snippets from emails that I sent out to readers at the time:

What’s worse is SSM is displaying the very characteristics that lead to trouble.

She says: I’m like her husband. I’m alpha. I need to do what her husband does for her. I need to be controlled in a manner that suits her.

Her desire should be for her husband, and he should rule over her–not me.

She’s worried about the TSA agent because it’s not someone like her. In fact, it’s women just like her who want to rescue me from a “bad marriage”. It’s starts like this, and it ends with them trying to swallow me with their thighs.

SSM has left a comment (in moderation, which I posted for 5 seconds) asking to email me her privately, and complaining that she can’t apologize if I’ve banned her.

“Submitted [by Sunshinemary] on 2012/08/23 at 1:44 pm
Listen, may I have your permission to email you directly? If you don’t want me to, that’s okay, but would you at least email me to let me know that you don’t want to discuss this further? And I can’t very well apologize to you if I’m blocked from commenting on your site.”

That is the sound of tumblers falling into place (as is her comment here, today). It is a defensive crouch at full drip, and I haven’t done a thing to pick that lock. You can read almost all of it on my TSA post; except for her last three comments that I did not let post because she was so obviously diddling her emotions while she wrote them.

I continually get maligned as trying to protect women from Players, but that’s not really my goal. If it were, I’d be on women’s blogs warning them of what to look out for. The real danger I want to warn against is Christian men marrying bad women, and that is to whom I speak. As I said in another email to a young Christian man:

This is the trouble that you’re up against: Sunshinemary portrays herself as this holy wife, and the minute some strange man on the Internet appears to have flirted with a TSA agent, she compares him to her husband, and then she works herself up and starts fitness testing me. The danger I see in Game is that a woman like this will seduce a man, as SSM is trying to do to me, and you won’t even know it–you’ll believe you’ve Gamed a good Christian woman. But you really can’t con an honest man, so concentrate on scripture.

231. sunshinemary says:

September 21, 2012 at 1:31 pm

Cane, everything you’ve written is completely untrue. We had one conversation that got too heavy. I attempted to apologize. When you wouldn’t accept, I dropped it and never mentioned it to anyone again until this post. You, apparently, spent a week gossiping about it via email. I earnestly apologized. All that was needed was for you to say, “I forgive you.” I didn’t want to continue any further conversations with you, but as a Christian I needed to apologize. As a Christian, one would expect you to forgive. Instead, you have written numerous gossipy emails about me and written nasty attacks on me which are entirely untrue. I bring this up so that men who are considering taking your advice will understand the depth of your Christian behavior.

But I’ll say it once more, and then I will not bring it up again. I apologize to you for the disrespectful tone I had with you during that conversation.

232. Some Guy says:

September 21, 2012 at 1:37 pm

That I was shocked to see a woman go round and round and always miss the point. It was very educational to see Deti handle the women that come through here… and then realize how many times my wife had used emotional and rhetorical tricks to manipulate me and deceive me…. Seeing women do the solipsism thing in almost any discussion… but every single time if the question was one of marriage, sex, divorce, law, and Christianity. It was disappointing to realize that women a merely very powerful, very spoiled children… and that people of our culture bend over backwards to cater to their illusions. I can forgive women for this, I suppose. (The bible certainly warned me of these things, and simpleton that I was… I did not regard them. How savvy I thought I was… how broad minded….)

Дата добавления: 2015-11-13