The guy should have read the SSH fable that you posted, Vox. The Sigma raccoon is not only the first to die, he dies stupidly, albeit happily. At no point is the Sigma glorified as beyond morality or consequence. If I remember correctly, you said that the Sigma must find a way to tone down his indifference to things like morality and the wishes of his wife if he is to lead a good life. (I'm paraphrasing, but I think it was something like that.)
Except Sigmas are glorified on this blog as the cool guys who don't play by the ruled and yet still win.
In fact, the entire hierarchy is glorified and encouraged by Vox. Words like "high-status" and "low-status" are value judgement terms.
Vox was caught with his pants down as a supposed Christian. You cannot with a straight face argue for the superiority of Christianity and then simultaenously highlight and implicitly endorse immoral behaviour.
This is the crux of it. You can either implicitly endorse and constantly talk about the sexual escapades of high-status males or you can look towards God. But you can't have it both ways.
Roosh and the other manosphere types learned this the hard way when they realized caring about the approval of women and how many partners a man has is straight up degenerate and Satanic behavior. It is about time Vox learns the same.
I disagree. I don't think they're glorified at all. As I've mentioned, the big SSH fable already has the Sigma dying the dumbest death. That's not winning.
The hierarchy is the product of pattern recognition and observation, not deep moral reflection, and I have not seen it presented as a form of "value judgment" in the sense of an ultimate or even moral good. "High status" and "low status" are social categories that exist, and pointing these out in the pursuit of truth in no way places them on a moral spectrum. You only get this sense of "glorification" because you're applying metaphysical categories to mundane realities. Saying that "being high status", or being an "alpha male" is desirable is not that different from, say, good food being desirable, or being an athlete is desirable. Everybody wants good food, but eating good food neither makes you a good person or a bad person. Being athletic is something desirable, but being athletic is no indicator of your being a good person or not. Being an alpha may be something desirable, but I have not seen anything here to suggest that being alpha or sigma elevates anybody into sainthood. Sure, Sigmas can get away with a lot, but Vox talks about their downsides too. In fact, if you're so interested in the "unglorification" of certain categories of the SSH, why not keep asking about the downsides of these categories? Because I don't think Vox shies away from such questions.
And, yes, you can talk about both the sexual escapades of high status males AND look towards God, because the existence of the former does not negate the importance of the latter. Where has it been suggested that being sexually successful with women is a replacement for turning to God? If any, de-pedestalizing the pussy and the pursuit of it seems to be a core habit preached here. Or at least in the old Alpha Game blog that Vox used to run. On the Dalrock - Heartiste spectrum, Vox leans closer to the former than the latter. Or have you missed the multiple calls from here for men to stop being so nihilistic and take leaps of faith, even with flawed women?
When rules & consequences deter one's choices, choices are made... different lenses for different folks... no judgement... unless rules & consequences deter one's choices.
"My general attitude in such discussion is to egg them on, entice them into revealing their true character (it never fails.)"
Schoppenhauer said something exactly similar which strikes at the core of what gamma is. The gamma is, at heart, always seeking revenge--all else is ad-hoc. He also believes, as all liars do, that everyone is like him.
The alpha, in his eyes, is just faking his gregariousness. The bravo is faking his loyalty. The delta... isn't usually much of a threat to the gamma's delusion, so long as the delta keeps his head down--but the delta is just as lazy as him! And the omega is perfect to use as a stepping stool to demonstrate how savvy, cunning, and socially intelligent the gamma is.
The irony is that the sigma's detached, impersonal perspectives tend to make people fill in the blanks; the sigma, by not expending effort in playing the social game, is the one who coaxes out people's true nature. It is only by being nothing himself that he becomes a mirror.
Who IS Vox? What IS his motive? What is he REALLY trying to do here?
... who cares?
The SSH is an accurate description of human behavior. That's all that matters.
If you're not actually engaging in sexual intercourse with other men, you're not Lambda.
Gamma if you have a group, Omega if you don't.
Acting effeminate is low status. Develop your God-given masculine identity. Lift weights (physical and mental strength) and keep the stuff other people find weird to yourself (emotional/social hygiene).
Vox sometimes write posts where he simply observes reality without casting a moral judgment upon it, or at least delays the moral judgment until the phenomenon is adequately described. The original SSH post being a classic example. Those posts are a breath of fresh air to me, because most writers just can't do that.
And a lot of readers can't stand or even comprehend that--our gamma under discussion being an extreme example. You can tell by the way he writes that he hasn't taken even a moment to ponder whether what was written is an accurate taxonomy or not, nor whether he's understood it; he just rushes into a discussion (well, rant) about morality that nobody asked for.
Imagine if everybody were like that...humanity would never be able to establish the basic facts about anything at all.
He is not a gamma, he clearly states for himself. "my behavior as an Alpha or a Sigma justifies itself"
There has to be a triggering sentence or two to confirm a gamma during an interview. Like making fun of their idol(s) or getting them to say: what do you mean or source.
One incontrovertible negative of the internet is it gives Gammas an outlet for their endless butthurt. I mean, even the stinky guy on the bus isn't going sit still and listen when that Wall O' Text is delivered in person.
"Anyway, my initial comment was a provocation, insofar as I have never before referred to myself as a Sigma, and I knew it would piss him off and set off his gamma radar. Like I said, I was picking a fight. The commentariat did not disappoint."
Secret King strikes again. Apparently we all just fell into his trap.
Maybe I'm being a bit pedantic but I also don't like people referring to 'picking a fight' when they are saying mean things over the Internet. It comes across as subtly self-aggrandizing, by calling implying you are courageous when your biggest danger is carpel tunnel.
One thing I've found very useful is the way VD has occasionally referred to "physical cowards". That phrase has stuck in my mind. As I have read it, it's a distinction between physical cowardice and moral cowardice, implying that courage in one of those areas is unrelated to courage in the other.
I have always thought of myself as morally brave, and I still think I am... at least, given time and space to reflect and collect myself before acting. (Not very confident about how I would do in prison or a camp.) But thanks to this distinction, I've been able to also sustain the realization that I'm a physical coward.
Anyway, this just came to mind from the "picking a fight" stuff.
I don't mind people calling it a fight. Ideas can be fought over.
It's just sad when one side doesn't even understand what he's criticizing. A bit like a boastful fighter slipping on a banana peel and knocking himself out before any punches are thrown.
When I spoke with him and he failed to distinguish the description of a sigma from the prescription of 'Good and moral men do that', I lost my belief in him. If I had any in him, that is. It's as dangerous as mentioning that someone has an allergy to peanuts and confusing it with feeding them to the same person. He became a joke when he continued to look for respect after that.
No wonder men and women find gammas disgusting if they're intelligent yet that functionally retarded due to overblown pride.
This comment at William Hunter Duncan's wall of text by Amy Sukwan captures the general substance of midwittery on that substack: "I'm presuming if the title of your [WHD] blog is accurate then you are a sensitive cancer, which explains a lot about why this sigma thing would rub you the wrong way: there's a strong appeal to tradition and moral stances. For me I'm turned off by Vox's strong generalizations about women (he strikes me as a Sagitarrius, though I don't know). The pseudo pop psychology is a bit too masculine for my taste."
Do you think a Minnesänger like Neidhart von Reuenthal was a gamma? Men like this wrote many songs about pursuing women and getting rejected. Some of the minnelieds are said to be satirical, but apparently some of them addressed genuine feelings.
That guy's quote would fit perfectly into a Doof speech bubble
But how tiny would the letters be to fit everything in?
The guy should have read the SSH fable that you posted, Vox. The Sigma raccoon is not only the first to die, he dies stupidly, albeit happily. At no point is the Sigma glorified as beyond morality or consequence. If I remember correctly, you said that the Sigma must find a way to tone down his indifference to things like morality and the wishes of his wife if he is to lead a good life. (I'm paraphrasing, but I think it was something like that.)
Except Sigmas are glorified on this blog as the cool guys who don't play by the ruled and yet still win.
In fact, the entire hierarchy is glorified and encouraged by Vox. Words like "high-status" and "low-status" are value judgement terms.
Vox was caught with his pants down as a supposed Christian. You cannot with a straight face argue for the superiority of Christianity and then simultaenously highlight and implicitly endorse immoral behaviour.
This is the crux of it. You can either implicitly endorse and constantly talk about the sexual escapades of high-status males or you can look towards God. But you can't have it both ways.
Roosh and the other manosphere types learned this the hard way when they realized caring about the approval of women and how many partners a man has is straight up degenerate and Satanic behavior. It is about time Vox learns the same.
I disagree. I don't think they're glorified at all. As I've mentioned, the big SSH fable already has the Sigma dying the dumbest death. That's not winning.
The hierarchy is the product of pattern recognition and observation, not deep moral reflection, and I have not seen it presented as a form of "value judgment" in the sense of an ultimate or even moral good. "High status" and "low status" are social categories that exist, and pointing these out in the pursuit of truth in no way places them on a moral spectrum. You only get this sense of "glorification" because you're applying metaphysical categories to mundane realities. Saying that "being high status", or being an "alpha male" is desirable is not that different from, say, good food being desirable, or being an athlete is desirable. Everybody wants good food, but eating good food neither makes you a good person or a bad person. Being athletic is something desirable, but being athletic is no indicator of your being a good person or not. Being an alpha may be something desirable, but I have not seen anything here to suggest that being alpha or sigma elevates anybody into sainthood. Sure, Sigmas can get away with a lot, but Vox talks about their downsides too. In fact, if you're so interested in the "unglorification" of certain categories of the SSH, why not keep asking about the downsides of these categories? Because I don't think Vox shies away from such questions.
And, yes, you can talk about both the sexual escapades of high status males AND look towards God, because the existence of the former does not negate the importance of the latter. Where has it been suggested that being sexually successful with women is a replacement for turning to God? If any, de-pedestalizing the pussy and the pursuit of it seems to be a core habit preached here. Or at least in the old Alpha Game blog that Vox used to run. On the Dalrock - Heartiste spectrum, Vox leans closer to the former than the latter. Or have you missed the multiple calls from here for men to stop being so nihilistic and take leaps of faith, even with flawed women?
When rules & consequences deter one's choices, choices are made... different lenses for different folks... no judgement... unless rules & consequences deter one's choices.
Banned for both lying and stupidity.
We know the official stance of the commentariat. Now let us hear from the secretariat.
"My general attitude in such discussion is to egg them on, entice them into revealing their true character (it never fails.)"
Schoppenhauer said something exactly similar which strikes at the core of what gamma is. The gamma is, at heart, always seeking revenge--all else is ad-hoc. He also believes, as all liars do, that everyone is like him.
The alpha, in his eyes, is just faking his gregariousness. The bravo is faking his loyalty. The delta... isn't usually much of a threat to the gamma's delusion, so long as the delta keeps his head down--but the delta is just as lazy as him! And the omega is perfect to use as a stepping stool to demonstrate how savvy, cunning, and socially intelligent the gamma is.
The irony is that the sigma's detached, impersonal perspectives tend to make people fill in the blanks; the sigma, by not expending effort in playing the social game, is the one who coaxes out people's true nature. It is only by being nothing himself that he becomes a mirror.
Who IS Vox? What IS his motive? What is he REALLY trying to do here?
... who cares?
The SSH is an accurate description of human behavior. That's all that matters.
I had been unable to figure out where I was on the SSH for years now. I had given up trying.
However, an idea has recently occured to me, which seems frighteningly plausible: Despite being a straight man, I am a LAMBDA on the SSH.
I give many people a gay vibe, at least on first impressions, and my hobbies, neuroticism, and general bearing are pretty gay if I'm being objective.
No clue how to change it.
Is this ("straight lambda") a thing, or am I deluded?
If you're not actually engaging in sexual intercourse with other men, you're not Lambda.
Gamma if you have a group, Omega if you don't.
Acting effeminate is low status. Develop your God-given masculine identity. Lift weights (physical and mental strength) and keep the stuff other people find weird to yourself (emotional/social hygiene).
You're probably Gamma, possibly Omega.
Vox sometimes write posts where he simply observes reality without casting a moral judgment upon it, or at least delays the moral judgment until the phenomenon is adequately described. The original SSH post being a classic example. Those posts are a breath of fresh air to me, because most writers just can't do that.
And a lot of readers can't stand or even comprehend that--our gamma under discussion being an extreme example. You can tell by the way he writes that he hasn't taken even a moment to ponder whether what was written is an accurate taxonomy or not, nor whether he's understood it; he just rushes into a discussion (well, rant) about morality that nobody asked for.
Imagine if everybody were like that...humanity would never be able to establish the basic facts about anything at all.
He is not a gamma, he clearly states for himself. "my behavior as an Alpha or a Sigma justifies itself"
There has to be a triggering sentence or two to confirm a gamma during an interview. Like making fun of their idol(s) or getting them to say: what do you mean or source.
Wow, gammas just came out of the floorboards! Why are there so many??
But also, dear Gammas: yes, we see you. We see you as clearly as an empty cookie jar next to the toddler with cookie crumbs on their face.
One incontrovertible negative of the internet is it gives Gammas an outlet for their endless butthurt. I mean, even the stinky guy on the bus isn't going sit still and listen when that Wall O' Text is delivered in person.
I think the Internet creates more gammas or makes them worse.
It's good to receive the information they provide to build pattern recognition models.
"Anyway, my initial comment was a provocation, insofar as I have never before referred to myself as a Sigma, and I knew it would piss him off and set off his gamma radar. Like I said, I was picking a fight. The commentariat did not disappoint."
Secret King strikes again. Apparently we all just fell into his trap.
Maybe I'm being a bit pedantic but I also don't like people referring to 'picking a fight' when they are saying mean things over the Internet. It comes across as subtly self-aggrandizing, by calling implying you are courageous when your biggest danger is carpel tunnel.
One thing I've found very useful is the way VD has occasionally referred to "physical cowards". That phrase has stuck in my mind. As I have read it, it's a distinction between physical cowardice and moral cowardice, implying that courage in one of those areas is unrelated to courage in the other.
I have always thought of myself as morally brave, and I still think I am... at least, given time and space to reflect and collect myself before acting. (Not very confident about how I would do in prison or a camp.) But thanks to this distinction, I've been able to also sustain the realization that I'm a physical coward.
Anyway, this just came to mind from the "picking a fight" stuff.
I don't mind people calling it a fight. Ideas can be fought over.
It's just sad when one side doesn't even understand what he's criticizing. A bit like a boastful fighter slipping on a banana peel and knocking himself out before any punches are thrown.
When I spoke with him and he failed to distinguish the description of a sigma from the prescription of 'Good and moral men do that', I lost my belief in him. If I had any in him, that is. It's as dangerous as mentioning that someone has an allergy to peanuts and confusing it with feeding them to the same person. He became a joke when he continued to look for respect after that.
No wonder men and women find gammas disgusting if they're intelligent yet that functionally retarded due to overblown pride.
This comment at William Hunter Duncan's wall of text by Amy Sukwan captures the general substance of midwittery on that substack: "I'm presuming if the title of your [WHD] blog is accurate then you are a sensitive cancer, which explains a lot about why this sigma thing would rub you the wrong way: there's a strong appeal to tradition and moral stances. For me I'm turned off by Vox's strong generalizations about women (he strikes me as a Sagitarrius, though I don't know). The pseudo pop psychology is a bit too masculine for my taste."
I saw that clown's post and was hoping for a good Voxing, VD did not disappoint. SSH verified. Gamma neutralized. Period. End of story.
Do you think a Minnesänger like Neidhart von Reuenthal was a gamma? Men like this wrote many songs about pursuing women and getting rejected. Some of the minnelieds are said to be satirical, but apparently some of them addressed genuine feelings.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDIljrlYaVg
"Said to be satirical" is very close to "I was just joking"...
Off the cuff, I'm not convinced we'll find a complete answer due to the distance across time and Poe's Law.
That's a good point.
To steal a saying from the poker world, about not knowing who the sucker at the table is...
If You Don't Know Who The Gamma In The Room Is... You Are The Gamma.