When you see something that might lead to a problem and don't say anything you're complicit. I will usually point it out to remain guiltless.
Ezekiel 3:18
18 When I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life, that same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand. 19 Yet, if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered your soul.
Anyone who has ever been thru some sort of adversity with a group of men understands that vocalizing negativity merits a punch in the mouth or worse under certain circumstances. If you're being forced to run and lift heavy stuff and someone wants to whine and state the obvious - "This situation sucks!" - is not to be tolerated.
It's been said before, this type of guy would benefit greatly from a couple of punches to the mouth. Before Bill Burr became a completely cucked turd person he told a wonderful story about doing roofing in Boston and when anyone would begin to bitch or complain someone else on the job site would let out a corrective, "WAH!" and that would signal to the crew that you were acting like a bitch and needed to shut up and power-thru the task at hand.
I believe people generally don’t remember the specifics of an interaction or even a series of interactions. They remember how people make them feel.
If the gamma criticism makes them feel like the gamma thinks they’re an idiot, or even feel like they are an idiot, they’ll takeaway the feeling and not want to interact again.
The gamma leaves the interaction feeling smart, and his narcissism blinds him to others not leaving with a positive disposition toward him.
This is also part of why intelligence isn’t attractive. People only like your intelligence if you use it to make others feel good- like delivering a valuable skill set to your family or community.
As a gamma, my perspective is that 'debate' or matters of intellect are the only possible way gammas have to compete with higher status men. It doesn't work.
Conversly, my life and social standing have improved significantly since trying to be more positive.
In my opinion this is because gammas are secret kings.
They think of themselves as smarter and/or cooler than other people and they crave that people think that of them too.
How does a gamma demonstrate that? They offer information when it is not solicited to show how smart they are. They don't see it as nit picking and being negative, they see it as being correct and smart and thinking of things you didn't think of.
They can also be transgressive. They are special and society's norms and rules do not apply to them. Manners and etiquette are for other people.
Finally, if their potential outcomes come to pass then, they get to tell you "I told you so".
I think genuine positivity is just annoying to the negative. Not talking about it or anything, just not being as negative as them sets them off. What they'll usually do is take little jabs at you to determine if attacking you is acceptable. If you don't shut them down, which you should absolutely do, they'll proceed to declaring how the way you look at things is stupid or some such. I think it has something to do with sabotaging status, since bickering with gammas is just embarrassing.
Negativity looks like a way to avoid doing things. If it will fail, why go with it? In contrast the high status habitually do things they are absolutely 100% sure will end in failure. Coach's motto is failure is the price of success. Also right time is always now.
There's a pattern that married women can't stand divorced women. Divorce is contagious, and married women either get rid of their men or their divorced friends. Marriage is sacred and holy in one group, and it's blasphemy and slavery in the latter. And marriage isn't sacred if the married women tolerate the feminists' hatred of good men.
In rhetoric, the present tense is about morality. And if you want to be positive, you can't tolerate the negativity. Even if setbacks are demotivating, if work doesn't produce results, encouragement and action have to be made holier than cynicism and hopelessness.
I believe that perspective-taking is key, or at least a significant reason, for social inadequacy.
My oldest was diagnosed on the spectrum and was in speech therapy. In speech therapy, he was identified as lacking perspective-taking, which was my first introduction to the concept. Essentially, perspective-taking is the ability to predict someone else’s lived experience.
My son complained of being bullied at school, but he didn’t have the awareness that his behaviors were annoying. He didn’t observe appropriate personal space. He would talk too loudly. He engaged in behaviors that were irritating. However, because of his inability to engage in perspective-taking and understand that another person was irritated by his behavior, he didn’t pick up on those subtle cues. I call them yellow warning flags or yellow lights in social communication and nonverbal signaling.
Adults will often give children those signs so they can course-correct their behavior. Other children are still developing that capacity and therefore do not yet have the tolerance for inappropriate behaviors. Thus, they would respond by yelling at him, pushing him, or engaging in some other aggressive behavior. From my son’s lived experience, he truly did not understand how his behavior was tied to those negative responses or that he had the agency to substantially change how people responded to him. He did not understand that so many of the negative experiences he had were tied back to things that were within his own power.
So we put him in speech therapy to help him learn these dynamics, because speech therapy doesn’t just teach the mechanics of sound and forming speech. It also teaches the foundational template for communication.
I took him to therapy for one hour every week for over three years to develop the skill of understanding and considering what other people may be thinking. In the beginning, he had no ability to mentally theorize someone else’s mind. Toward the end, with practice, he was able to understand, or at least hypothesize, how someone might interpret or receive his behavior or message.
Now that he’s older, I would argue that he has almost leapfrogged over his peers because he has the template for what a successful interaction looks like and what leads to that success. He is able not only to assess his own behavior and interactions, but to analyze others, see what is missing, and then fill in that gap.
He was always a sweet, lovely child, but his humor was weird and off-putting. Now his humor has aged like fine wine. He is so funny. He is so charming. He can make an entire retail store of strangers laugh. It has substantially changed the way the world interacts with him.
And that change came through developing his ability for perspective-taking.
Great job, truly. It's a marathon run, but so worthwhile.
For parents, vet speech therapists HARD. They have all the professional defects of modern psychologists, and will be in a position to install beliefs that may include gender etc. A good one is valuable. A bad one can be catastrophic. You probably just want to be present for sessions, and weed out those who won't agree. Sell it as helping you extend the lessons into the home. This will be true.
At home, if you have a small child, animal puppets can help.
Have a lion puppet that asks what was for lunch, and despairs when bread is mentioned. It can't believe anyone would eat crushed grass that they threw in a fire, and despairs of humanity! Don't even get it started on eating nightshades (tomato sauce) and theobromine (chocolate). He can eventually decide that cooking meat is OK, if it removes parasites, but still thinks "setting your food on fire" is just really, really weird.
Have a chef lobster that always encourages eating beef and chicken, because it wants them to avoid seafood. A snow leopard that wants to hear Mongolian music. Any animal that's horrified when the child "changes your fur" (clothes). ZOMG, doesn't that hurt?!? Be wacky, without encouraging behaviors that will be troublesome. So dramatic and wacky that the wildly different but natural POV of the puppet is the main feature of the funny interactions. Once they see the huge neon signs of perspective taking, the smaller stuff has a framework to attach to.
Your child will probably enjoy freaking the puppets out. Let them. Be vocal about why the puppet thinks X is weird. Begin encouraging the child to comfort it if it seems too upset.
Bad news: Perspective-taking will always be an issue. Your kid will always have to work at it. The gaps just get more subtle.
Good news: As with Kathryn's, they can get to a point where being in public and talking to people are comfortable activities. Given the social retardation that's the norm in the iPad cohort, they can even have a couple areas where they're above parity with their peers.
Licensed therapists are good. They vary in approach and effectiveness, so you'll probably have to meet a few.
AND, there is also no substitute for training time and repetition in anything. For about the price of a Castalia History book, you can get started now, and add training time later... https://slp.everydayspeech.com/
My biggest recommendation is to find a licensed speech-language pathologist (SLP) who specializes in social communication or pragmatic language and get into therapy. Perspective-taking is not a framework you can simply intellectualize. It is something you need to practice. It was only through practice and highly curated exercises with multiple trained SLPs over the years that my son was able to develop the skill.
For instance, in the beginning, there was one exercise where they had a button on the table. The whole exercise was focused on developing turn-taking. The constraints of the conversation required him to revolve around and pick back up on topics of interest to the therapist. When he would either interrupt or veer the topic toward something of personal interest to him, the button would be pushed.
So again, he understood frameworks, but it was only through practice that he was truly able to put these skills into use. I use that one exercise as an example because in the beginning, the button was being pushed constantly. Toward the end, however, he was able to have a truly natural back-and-forth dialogue with the therapists. He could pick up on a statement or comment they had made and build upon what they shared with him.
In the beginning, he had no ability to theorize someone else’s mind, how they might perceive, receive, feel, or even think about something he said or did. It took a great deal of work for him to even begin developing awareness. The first layer was helping him understand what emotion another person might be experiencing. From there, he could start to predict that someone might feel embarrassed by a statement, or get mad, or feel sad. But he still couldn’t predict or theorize what the underlying thought might be.
So again, this process is layered. It builds gradually. That is why I want to reiterate and reinforce that this is a skill that needs structured, guided practice with a credentialed professional trained in social communication development. It is not something most people can reliably self-correct without that scaffolding.
However, I want to also reiterate and reinforce that this is a skill that people can develop, it just takes intentional practice. Best of luck to you!
"It was only through practice and highly curated exercises with multiple trained SLPs over the years that my son was able to develop the skill."
That is awesome, and I'm very glad these exercises exist.
Since this is a game blog, I'll say that this reminds me of two of the pickup workshops I took back in the peak days of pickup workshops. The best one was "DiCarlo Drills" (by the pseudonymous teacher Vin DiCarlo), in which we spent a weekend practicing pickup skills, both verbal and (crucially) nonverbal, on the other participants. By "Drills," he means physically practicing skills repeatedly. It was extremely helpful to me for learning how to touch women (although the participants were men) in nonthreatening but flirtatious ways. Although the DiCarlo Drills manual was not sold publicly and was given only to workshop participants, there's a PDF scan of it floating around the internet somewhere, and I think it's worth its weight in gold.
Lance Mason's "Pickup 101" company's "Art of Attraction" workshops also drilled some of these skills, though it wasn't the sole focus. One particular idea I learned there that I still use today, on both women and men, is to use the back of your hand to lightly tap someone's shoulder to get their attention (and get women comfortable with being touched by you). I don't know why it never occurred to me to use the back of one's hand rather than the palm of one's hand to do that, but as soon as I learned the idea, my touching of people became much less awkward for me. It's funny how these tiny adjustments can sometimes make you so much smoother.
Interesting distinction that Vox is making between how one behaves with people and how one treats people. That one made me think. The key is being conscious of and regarding how other people are affected by what you say and do.
There is a recurring behavior among debate lords of being unwarrantedly nasty and unpleasant when disagreeing with you. That's what the gamma ''lol'' is about, for example. The goal is to wear down your patience until you drop the conversation, which they'll write down as a victory by virtue of getting in the last word. One can liken it to those guys who show up to card game tournaments without showering, so the bad smell would distract his opponent. Or to the gamma lawyers mentioned on SG, who are full of bullshit accusations.
Obviously, ''winning arguments'' like this is the vegan meat of social status. I've interacted with enough gamma neckbeards to know they genuinely think they're le alpha sigma gigachad if they annoy you into quitting. When high-status men win discussions, they're civil and amicable, and they stick to points that are of actual practical consequence, so they don't waste any time and stamina, and you come out with information that affects your behavior in some way.
Yep. what Gammas also love to do is to constantly provoke and ankle bite, until you lose your cool and insult them. At which point they declare victory.
That's when they brag about ''making you upset'', or point out that you're still ''talking to them''. The first doesn't work because pissing someone off doesn't make you superior - it puts you on the same level as a fly or a telemarketer. The latter doesn't work because only a complete loser would be so amazed that someone is talking to him that he thinks it warrants being pointed out.
Here's how to take them down, which I discovered about a year ago.
"This is why, if you were in a situation in which your life was in immediate danger, not a single one of your so-called friends would come to your rescue, if doing so would expose any of them to the risk of suffering a hangnail."
It's amazing how many of these ankle-biters immediately abandon the conversation.
The beauty is that it doesn't challenge the perception of his having friends, it goes to the heart of how little those "friends" actually value his existence vs suffering a minor boo-boo.
There is a substance called the contrarian which is entirely conformed to the opinions of the establishment left. Unlike this substack which is truly contrarian puncturing routinely the narratives of the institutional left.
The left always pretends to be the underdog outsiders, even when they control the entire media sphere and at times, the government.... In fact, they pretend to be so MORE when their side controls all of the visible social and government power.... because most of them are cowards.
Another annoying trait is they interject opinions on subjects where they clearly have zero knowledge of, or stake in the matter being discussed. They just simply can’t stay quiet or if asked can’t say, not my area, have no opinion either way. Carry on without me. They simply can’t be a non participant. It’s distracting and wasteful. If possible, make sure they are not invited to meeting. There is a reason for staff meetings followed by extended staff meeting. Staff meetings are serious, the extended tend to have the noisy useless “contributors.”
As for What vs Why. When cops stop a fight the Why isn’t considered until the What has been stopped. Only then is the Why of interest. The Why determines who is going to jail.
Not that there haven't been mouthy know-it-alls throughout history, but today's environment of unbridled credentialism certainly seems to have bred them like cockroaches in a ghetto flat. As a small example, there was a photo of me in Iraq where the extra capstan-style tourniquet I carried was visible. A friend of a friend of a friend who was a nurse emailed me to chide me for even thinking of using something so dangerous and she knew what she was talking about because she was a nurse! I pointed out to her that a battlefield casualty might not see a medevac for hours. Her reply was simply a rehash that she had taken a first aid course that had strictly forbidden tourniquets. No point continuing the discussion after that. No doubt she thought she had counted double coup: Telling a nasty, stupid military man what was what and getting in the final word. Good for her.
"I, and every other soldier in Iraq & Afghanistan were issued these tourniquets with our equipment issue and were required to have them in our gear at all times, per MEDCOM. If you think that's wrong, I suggest you take it up with the doctor who is a 3-star General and runs Medical Command. Also, take a combat lifesaver course, and discover the difference between a traffic accident in a peaceful country and battle wounds in a firefight during a war. Lots of men died needlessly in Vietnam because they WEREN'T carrying tourniquets like these. Because it can very well require several hours or even over a day to get a casualty to a hospital that's a mere 5 miles away."
"Negativity, contrarianism, and correcting others are three of the most reliable low-status... behavior"
This is also how most women behave as well. I am not sure why any man would want to be seen acting the same as women. Maybe they have an unhealthy relationship with their mother, or They just always want to be right in every conversation, or maybe others' positivity is insulting to them. Those are my theories.
When you see something that might lead to a problem and don't say anything you're complicit. I will usually point it out to remain guiltless.
Ezekiel 3:18
18 When I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life, that same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand. 19 Yet, if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered your soul.
Anyone who has ever been thru some sort of adversity with a group of men understands that vocalizing negativity merits a punch in the mouth or worse under certain circumstances. If you're being forced to run and lift heavy stuff and someone wants to whine and state the obvious - "This situation sucks!" - is not to be tolerated.
It's been said before, this type of guy would benefit greatly from a couple of punches to the mouth. Before Bill Burr became a completely cucked turd person he told a wonderful story about doing roofing in Boston and when anyone would begin to bitch or complain someone else on the job site would let out a corrective, "WAH!" and that would signal to the crew that you were acting like a bitch and needed to shut up and power-thru the task at hand.
I believe people generally don’t remember the specifics of an interaction or even a series of interactions. They remember how people make them feel.
If the gamma criticism makes them feel like the gamma thinks they’re an idiot, or even feel like they are an idiot, they’ll takeaway the feeling and not want to interact again.
The gamma leaves the interaction feeling smart, and his narcissism blinds him to others not leaving with a positive disposition toward him.
This is also part of why intelligence isn’t attractive. People only like your intelligence if you use it to make others feel good- like delivering a valuable skill set to your family or community.
I wish I could post the “that’s bait” gif from Mad Max about that last paragraph LOL.
As a gamma, my perspective is that 'debate' or matters of intellect are the only possible way gammas have to compete with higher status men. It doesn't work.
Conversly, my life and social standing have improved significantly since trying to be more positive.
In my opinion this is because gammas are secret kings.
They think of themselves as smarter and/or cooler than other people and they crave that people think that of them too.
How does a gamma demonstrate that? They offer information when it is not solicited to show how smart they are. They don't see it as nit picking and being negative, they see it as being correct and smart and thinking of things you didn't think of.
They can also be transgressive. They are special and society's norms and rules do not apply to them. Manners and etiquette are for other people.
Finally, if their potential outcomes come to pass then, they get to tell you "I told you so".
I don't really care about the why unless it helps us resolve the what.
they think talking down puts you above
I think genuine positivity is just annoying to the negative. Not talking about it or anything, just not being as negative as them sets them off. What they'll usually do is take little jabs at you to determine if attacking you is acceptable. If you don't shut them down, which you should absolutely do, they'll proceed to declaring how the way you look at things is stupid or some such. I think it has something to do with sabotaging status, since bickering with gammas is just embarrassing.
Negativity looks like a way to avoid doing things. If it will fail, why go with it? In contrast the high status habitually do things they are absolutely 100% sure will end in failure. Coach's motto is failure is the price of success. Also right time is always now.
There's a pattern that married women can't stand divorced women. Divorce is contagious, and married women either get rid of their men or their divorced friends. Marriage is sacred and holy in one group, and it's blasphemy and slavery in the latter. And marriage isn't sacred if the married women tolerate the feminists' hatred of good men.
In rhetoric, the present tense is about morality. And if you want to be positive, you can't tolerate the negativity. Even if setbacks are demotivating, if work doesn't produce results, encouragement and action have to be made holier than cynicism and hopelessness.
I believe that perspective-taking is key, or at least a significant reason, for social inadequacy.
My oldest was diagnosed on the spectrum and was in speech therapy. In speech therapy, he was identified as lacking perspective-taking, which was my first introduction to the concept. Essentially, perspective-taking is the ability to predict someone else’s lived experience.
My son complained of being bullied at school, but he didn’t have the awareness that his behaviors were annoying. He didn’t observe appropriate personal space. He would talk too loudly. He engaged in behaviors that were irritating. However, because of his inability to engage in perspective-taking and understand that another person was irritated by his behavior, he didn’t pick up on those subtle cues. I call them yellow warning flags or yellow lights in social communication and nonverbal signaling.
Adults will often give children those signs so they can course-correct their behavior. Other children are still developing that capacity and therefore do not yet have the tolerance for inappropriate behaviors. Thus, they would respond by yelling at him, pushing him, or engaging in some other aggressive behavior. From my son’s lived experience, he truly did not understand how his behavior was tied to those negative responses or that he had the agency to substantially change how people responded to him. He did not understand that so many of the negative experiences he had were tied back to things that were within his own power.
So we put him in speech therapy to help him learn these dynamics, because speech therapy doesn’t just teach the mechanics of sound and forming speech. It also teaches the foundational template for communication.
I took him to therapy for one hour every week for over three years to develop the skill of understanding and considering what other people may be thinking. In the beginning, he had no ability to mentally theorize someone else’s mind. Toward the end, with practice, he was able to understand, or at least hypothesize, how someone might interpret or receive his behavior or message.
Now that he’s older, I would argue that he has almost leapfrogged over his peers because he has the template for what a successful interaction looks like and what leads to that success. He is able not only to assess his own behavior and interactions, but to analyze others, see what is missing, and then fill in that gap.
He was always a sweet, lovely child, but his humor was weird and off-putting. Now his humor has aged like fine wine. He is so funny. He is so charming. He can make an entire retail store of strangers laugh. It has substantially changed the way the world interacts with him.
And that change came through developing his ability for perspective-taking.
Great job, truly. It's a marathon run, but so worthwhile.
For parents, vet speech therapists HARD. They have all the professional defects of modern psychologists, and will be in a position to install beliefs that may include gender etc. A good one is valuable. A bad one can be catastrophic. You probably just want to be present for sessions, and weed out those who won't agree. Sell it as helping you extend the lessons into the home. This will be true.
At home, if you have a small child, animal puppets can help.
Have a lion puppet that asks what was for lunch, and despairs when bread is mentioned. It can't believe anyone would eat crushed grass that they threw in a fire, and despairs of humanity! Don't even get it started on eating nightshades (tomato sauce) and theobromine (chocolate). He can eventually decide that cooking meat is OK, if it removes parasites, but still thinks "setting your food on fire" is just really, really weird.
Have a chef lobster that always encourages eating beef and chicken, because it wants them to avoid seafood. A snow leopard that wants to hear Mongolian music. Any animal that's horrified when the child "changes your fur" (clothes). ZOMG, doesn't that hurt?!? Be wacky, without encouraging behaviors that will be troublesome. So dramatic and wacky that the wildly different but natural POV of the puppet is the main feature of the funny interactions. Once they see the huge neon signs of perspective taking, the smaller stuff has a framework to attach to.
Your child will probably enjoy freaking the puppets out. Let them. Be vocal about why the puppet thinks X is weird. Begin encouraging the child to comfort it if it seems too upset.
Bad news: Perspective-taking will always be an issue. Your kid will always have to work at it. The gaps just get more subtle.
Good news: As with Kathryn's, they can get to a point where being in public and talking to people are comfortable activities. Given the social retardation that's the norm in the iPad cohort, they can even have a couple areas where they're above parity with their peers.
That sounds like something I need. Where would you recommended looking for resources on the communication framework aspects of speech therapy?
Licensed therapists are good. They vary in approach and effectiveness, so you'll probably have to meet a few.
AND, there is also no substitute for training time and repetition in anything. For about the price of a Castalia History book, you can get started now, and add training time later... https://slp.everydayspeech.com/
My biggest recommendation is to find a licensed speech-language pathologist (SLP) who specializes in social communication or pragmatic language and get into therapy. Perspective-taking is not a framework you can simply intellectualize. It is something you need to practice. It was only through practice and highly curated exercises with multiple trained SLPs over the years that my son was able to develop the skill.
For instance, in the beginning, there was one exercise where they had a button on the table. The whole exercise was focused on developing turn-taking. The constraints of the conversation required him to revolve around and pick back up on topics of interest to the therapist. When he would either interrupt or veer the topic toward something of personal interest to him, the button would be pushed.
So again, he understood frameworks, but it was only through practice that he was truly able to put these skills into use. I use that one exercise as an example because in the beginning, the button was being pushed constantly. Toward the end, however, he was able to have a truly natural back-and-forth dialogue with the therapists. He could pick up on a statement or comment they had made and build upon what they shared with him.
In the beginning, he had no ability to theorize someone else’s mind, how they might perceive, receive, feel, or even think about something he said or did. It took a great deal of work for him to even begin developing awareness. The first layer was helping him understand what emotion another person might be experiencing. From there, he could start to predict that someone might feel embarrassed by a statement, or get mad, or feel sad. But he still couldn’t predict or theorize what the underlying thought might be.
So again, this process is layered. It builds gradually. That is why I want to reiterate and reinforce that this is a skill that needs structured, guided practice with a credentialed professional trained in social communication development. It is not something most people can reliably self-correct without that scaffolding.
However, I want to also reiterate and reinforce that this is a skill that people can develop, it just takes intentional practice. Best of luck to you!
"It was only through practice and highly curated exercises with multiple trained SLPs over the years that my son was able to develop the skill."
That is awesome, and I'm very glad these exercises exist.
Since this is a game blog, I'll say that this reminds me of two of the pickup workshops I took back in the peak days of pickup workshops. The best one was "DiCarlo Drills" (by the pseudonymous teacher Vin DiCarlo), in which we spent a weekend practicing pickup skills, both verbal and (crucially) nonverbal, on the other participants. By "Drills," he means physically practicing skills repeatedly. It was extremely helpful to me for learning how to touch women (although the participants were men) in nonthreatening but flirtatious ways. Although the DiCarlo Drills manual was not sold publicly and was given only to workshop participants, there's a PDF scan of it floating around the internet somewhere, and I think it's worth its weight in gold.
Lance Mason's "Pickup 101" company's "Art of Attraction" workshops also drilled some of these skills, though it wasn't the sole focus. One particular idea I learned there that I still use today, on both women and men, is to use the back of your hand to lightly tap someone's shoulder to get their attention (and get women comfortable with being touched by you). I don't know why it never occurred to me to use the back of one's hand rather than the palm of one's hand to do that, but as soon as I learned the idea, my touching of people became much less awkward for me. It's funny how these tiny adjustments can sometimes make you so much smoother.
Such a sweet and inspiring story. Godspeed to your kid.
Thank you!! 😊
Interesting distinction that Vox is making between how one behaves with people and how one treats people. That one made me think. The key is being conscious of and regarding how other people are affected by what you say and do.
How we treat others is what we are most judged by. In other words, *delivery.*
No one will remember what you told them. They won't forget how you made them feel.
There is a recurring behavior among debate lords of being unwarrantedly nasty and unpleasant when disagreeing with you. That's what the gamma ''lol'' is about, for example. The goal is to wear down your patience until you drop the conversation, which they'll write down as a victory by virtue of getting in the last word. One can liken it to those guys who show up to card game tournaments without showering, so the bad smell would distract his opponent. Or to the gamma lawyers mentioned on SG, who are full of bullshit accusations.
Obviously, ''winning arguments'' like this is the vegan meat of social status. I've interacted with enough gamma neckbeards to know they genuinely think they're le alpha sigma gigachad if they annoy you into quitting. When high-status men win discussions, they're civil and amicable, and they stick to points that are of actual practical consequence, so they don't waste any time and stamina, and you come out with information that affects your behavior in some way.
Yep. what Gammas also love to do is to constantly provoke and ankle bite, until you lose your cool and insult them. At which point they declare victory.
That's when they brag about ''making you upset'', or point out that you're still ''talking to them''. The first doesn't work because pissing someone off doesn't make you superior - it puts you on the same level as a fly or a telemarketer. The latter doesn't work because only a complete loser would be so amazed that someone is talking to him that he thinks it warrants being pointed out.
Here's how to take them down, which I discovered about a year ago.
"This is why, if you were in a situation in which your life was in immediate danger, not a single one of your so-called friends would come to your rescue, if doing so would expose any of them to the risk of suffering a hangnail."
It's amazing how many of these ankle-biters immediately abandon the conversation.
The beauty is that it doesn't challenge the perception of his having friends, it goes to the heart of how little those "friends" actually value his existence vs suffering a minor boo-boo.
There is a substance called the contrarian which is entirely conformed to the opinions of the establishment left. Unlike this substack which is truly contrarian puncturing routinely the narratives of the institutional left.
The left always pretends to be the underdog outsiders, even when they control the entire media sphere and at times, the government.... In fact, they pretend to be so MORE when their side controls all of the visible social and government power.... because most of them are cowards.
Substance equals Substack. Autocorrect strikes again.
Another annoying trait is they interject opinions on subjects where they clearly have zero knowledge of, or stake in the matter being discussed. They just simply can’t stay quiet or if asked can’t say, not my area, have no opinion either way. Carry on without me. They simply can’t be a non participant. It’s distracting and wasteful. If possible, make sure they are not invited to meeting. There is a reason for staff meetings followed by extended staff meeting. Staff meetings are serious, the extended tend to have the noisy useless “contributors.”
As for What vs Why. When cops stop a fight the Why isn’t considered until the What has been stopped. Only then is the Why of interest. The Why determines who is going to jail.
Not that there haven't been mouthy know-it-alls throughout history, but today's environment of unbridled credentialism certainly seems to have bred them like cockroaches in a ghetto flat. As a small example, there was a photo of me in Iraq where the extra capstan-style tourniquet I carried was visible. A friend of a friend of a friend who was a nurse emailed me to chide me for even thinking of using something so dangerous and she knew what she was talking about because she was a nurse! I pointed out to her that a battlefield casualty might not see a medevac for hours. Her reply was simply a rehash that she had taken a first aid course that had strictly forbidden tourniquets. No point continuing the discussion after that. No doubt she thought she had counted double coup: Telling a nasty, stupid military man what was what and getting in the final word. Good for her.
"she knew what she was talking about because she was a nurse! ...she had taken a first aid course that had strictly forbidden tourniquets"
__________
"Ride with us, chick."
Here's a reply for such harpies:
"I, and every other soldier in Iraq & Afghanistan were issued these tourniquets with our equipment issue and were required to have them in our gear at all times, per MEDCOM. If you think that's wrong, I suggest you take it up with the doctor who is a 3-star General and runs Medical Command. Also, take a combat lifesaver course, and discover the difference between a traffic accident in a peaceful country and battle wounds in a firefight during a war. Lots of men died needlessly in Vietnam because they WEREN'T carrying tourniquets like these. Because it can very well require several hours or even over a day to get a casualty to a hospital that's a mere 5 miles away."
"Negativity, contrarianism, and correcting others are three of the most reliable low-status... behavior"
This is also how most women behave as well. I am not sure why any man would want to be seen acting the same as women. Maybe they have an unhealthy relationship with their mother, or They just always want to be right in every conversation, or maybe others' positivity is insulting to them. Those are my theories.