Downvoting

[Frosty]

What good debate?

 

Most of what he posts in the gender section has been interesting and helpful, it's sparked a good debate between just about everyone who contributes. Here and here for example. For the record I disagree with a lot of things he's said, but I find his opinion helpful and it makes me think harder about my own position and the reasons for it.

 

 

I would highly recommend that people do read the threads in question and see them in context. "I don't understand why X was down voted" is not really any kind of argument that it was unjustly down voted. Read it in context, and then maybe you will understand it.

 

People are being skeptical about why down voting is occurring and if it's occurring for reasonable reasons, I have looked through a lot of his posts and threads even where I've disagreed and found him under attack, I've seen multiple occurrences of his being accused of something, him asking for evidence to back the assertion and then people flat out deny to continue the discussion. It would be nice instead of asserting that down votes were done for things in a larger context that you actually describe what that is and give an example rather than merely suggesting we're unable to see such context.

 

I think a lot of people are taking what he says too personally, I read things he writes dispassionately and it's never been a problem for me, i get an awful hugbox/safespace feeling about some people like I do with SJWs who want to use PC language and mob rule to keep objectionable opinions or arguments at bay. What ever happened to just addressing the arguments logically, I do this with MMX all the time, so I don't get what the problem is.

[Ray H.]

Mike, it's already my favorite call ever.

[PatrickC]

 What do you think everybody, good idea?

 

If it will get to the nub of it. It would be very welcome.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

I would strip naked to hear that call.

 

.. Wait, that might actually prevent the call from ever happening

[MysterionMuffles]

I would strip naked to hear that call.

 

.. Wait, that might actually prevent the call from ever happening

 

or make it happen faster

[Matt D]

Hey MMX2010 - Would you be interested in calling into the show regarding your thoughts on ostracism? It would make for an interesting chat and I think the rest of the message board would enjoy the discussion as well.  What do you think everybody, good idea?

 

Ostracism and APA - I support that idea.

[MMX2010]

Quick question, when you get the ability to upvote or downvote, is there some sort of guide that you get on recommendations of what you should upvote or downvote? If there is, then i am willing to concede the voting system is done in good faith. Without such a "guide," you just leave people to decide on their whims what they like or dislike and vote accordingly. This may not necessarily be bad, but it may sometimes turns threads into a popularity contest.

 

 

No guide.  No instructions.  It's as simple as, "If you're at least a Bronze donator, you can upvote/downvote." 

Hey MMX2010 - Would you be interested in calling into the show regarding your thoughts on ostracism? It would make for an interesting chat and I think the rest of the message board would enjoy the discussion as well.  What do you think everybody, good idea?

 

 

Thanks for the invitation.    I agree that it's a good idea.  But I'm more interested in discussing Pick-Up Artistry and Stef's alpha male status. 

 

I don't want to discuss Pick-Up artistry until I've lived the life for a longer period of time.  For example, Roosh insists that a man must reach 100 approaches, keeping a journal of every approach, to learn what works for him.  I want to do that first and then answer questions about manipulation and fraud, based on my actual experience of PUA (rather than theorizing about it).   

 

----------

 

As far as Stefan's alpha male status, my question goes: "If attractive women between the ages of 19-25 definitely respond better to alpha male qualities, and if Stefan has always been an alpha male, then does Stefan's advice to Just Be Yourself really mean Just Be Alpha?  And, if so, is there an unfortunate and damaging misunderstanding when a non-alpha male follows Stefan's advice to Just Be Yourself?" 

 

I've spoken to about ten FDR members about Stefan's alpha male status, and most of them agreed with me.  (All of them found the argument interesting, and have been asking me to call-in for quite some time.) 

 

---------

 

As far as ostracism, give me a week to think about it. 

[J. D. Stembal]

As I offered earlier, it is possible that PUA and ostracism are related and part of the same call. One of the tenets of pick-up is that the artist shrug off female rejection and treat it as another test of their manhood.

 

Can we look at social ostracism as a form of shit test?

[MMX2010]

As I offered earlier, it is possible that PUA and ostracism are related and part of the same call. One of the tenets of pick-up is that the artist shrug off female rejection and treat it as another test of their manhood.

 

Can we look at social ostracism as a form of shit test?

 

Not at all.  (Or, not usually.) 

 

I had a Skype conversation with a guy who failed a shit test.  A girl he was interested in had placed her hands in her hair, just like Beyoncé is doing in the top left panel of the following photograph. 

 

 

 

 

That hand placement is a hyper-reliable signal of sexual arousal, and she magically expects you to Just Get It.  (Like how she magically expects you to Just Get Everything.) 

 

So he came over and asked her out, and she replied, "I can't, because I'm already talking to someone else."  And he failed the shit test by believing what she said, and leaving the conversation.   

 

I told him that a correct way to pass that shit test was: (1) *scrunch your face into an exaggerated form of skepticism and distrust, turn your head to the side, while looking at her*, (2) hold for two seconds, (3) revert back to normal face, (4) ask "What?", and (5) hold a gentle stare; do not flinch!

 

She will either say, "Nothing...", in which case you say, "Cool, so I'll pick you up tomorrow at 7."

 

Or she'll repeat herself, in which case you troll her by saying, "*slowly, with dramatic effect, and calmness of voice*  You can't go out with me because you're T-A-L-K-I-N-G to someone else?"  (spelled out word "talking" indicates extra slowness, not literally spelling the word aloud).  When she folds, tell her you'll pick her up tomorrow at 7.

 

The point of the shit test is: She really likes you, but she's scared that you'll take advantage of her for liking you, so she pretends not to like you, hoping that you'll succeed by cutting through her ruse.  

 

---------------------

 

Meanwhile, the social ostracism I receive in real-life and this message board feels completely different.  It begins as a dispute over some perceived moral-infraction I'm committing, such as having a Mistress, studying and implementing PUA, or claiming that there are correct and incorrect ways to see relationships. 

 

It escalates into an argument where I win, using either: (1) a combination of great argumentation and subtle trolling, or (2) great argumentation, period.  And the end result is either: (1) rarely - the other party admits that I have a point, that I'm right, and corrects the behavior in some way - whether apology, or instant implementation of the advice I'm giving (Example: See jpahmad in TheFuzz's thread, where he both defended himself against where I was wrong, accepted where I was right, and immediately apologized.) OR (2) usually - departing from the conversation at the precise moment when I've got the person "cornered", "bedazzled", or "amygdala frozen".

 

You would think - (as I have thought) - that the subtle trolling itself is the problem, but it isn't.  The percentages vary across both the non-trolling and trolling arguments.  Some people I can heavily troll and they'll instantly change. (or they'll calmly hold ground and counter-argue).  Some people I can refuse to troll at all, remaining calm and argument-focused instead, and they'll depart the conversation and gossip about me to others. 

 

If anything, the trolling itself is just a catalyst in both cases.  People who change their minds do so faster when I subtle troll, and people who want to depart the conversation do so faster when I subtle troll. 

 

So the point of social ostracism is that the person really dislikes you, and wants you to fail, and will use any means necessary - (including lying about you and/or misrepresenting themselves as the victim of an egregious moral infraction.) 

 

Shit test?  No, the opposite. 

[MMX2010]

I don't quite understand MMX2010 - what is there to really think about?  You are very confident in your theory/position based on your posts - why would you need a week to mull it over? What is there to really mull?

 

To see if I can weave together Ostracism with PUA and Stefan's alpha male status.  If I can weave them together, I'll speak about that.  But if I can't, I'll focus on the Ostracism alone. 

[WasatchMan]

So here is a great example MMX of what people are talking about regarding how interacting with you is a challenge and at times not enjoyable.

 

Hey MMX2010 - Would you be interested in calling into the show regarding your thoughts on ostracism? It would make for an interesting chat and I think the rest of the message board would enjoy the discussion as well.  What do you think everybody, good idea?

 

Thanks for the invitation.    I agree that it's a good idea.  But I'm more interested in discussing Pick-Up Artistry and Stef's alpha male status. 

---------

 

As far as ostracism, give me a week to think about it. 

 

As I offered earlier, it is possible that PUA and ostracism are related and part of the same call. One of the tenets of pick-up is that the artist shrug off female rejection and treat it as another test of their manhood.

 

Can we look at social ostracism as a form of shit test?

 

I don't quite understand MMX2010 - what is there to really think about?  You are very confident in your theory/position based on your posts - why would you need a week to mull it over? What is there to really mull?

 

To see if I can weave together Ostracism with PUA and Stefan's alpha male status.  If I can weave them together, I'll speak about that.  But if I can't, I'll focus on the Ostracism alone. 

 

Did your last response answer Mike's actual question? Do you think that Mike did not notice that J. D.'s suggestion about combing the two topics came after you said you would think for a week about the ostracism topic alone?  I am pretty sure he did, I know I saw it immediately.  It is hard to bring these things up in a forum because it is usually seems petty and is a derailment from the actual topic at hand.  This form of "subtle trolling" (as you call it) is obvious to people here (at least it is to me), and people resent it because (I believe) they want to have genuine dialogues with people.

[Matt D]

As far as Stefan's alpha male status, my question goes: "If attractive women between the ages of 19-25 definitely respond better to alpha male qualities, and if Stefan has always been an alpha male, then does Stefan's advice to Just Be Yourself really mean Just Be Alpha?  And, if so, is there an unfortunate and damaging misunderstanding when a non-alpha male follows Stefan's advice to Just Be Yourself?" 

 

 

I imagine that call going something like this:

 

[PatrickC]

Good call Matt.

[MMX2010]

So here is a great example MMX of what people are talking about regarding how interacting with you is a challenge and at times not enjoyable.

 

 

Is "not having challenges" and "always experiencing enjoyment" an Aesthetic Preferable Behavior?  (No, because many people prefer seeking challenges and trying new things that they don't enjoy, in order to strengthen their ability to handle non-enjoyment.) 

 

So, two things are true: (1) I am not obligated to care whether you find interacting with me "challenging" and "at times not enjoyable", and (2) You are wrong to either state or imply that "something must be wrong with MMX2010's' character, brain function, commitment to self-knowledge, or overall personality because he doesn't care that WastachMan is experiencing "challenge" and "non-enjoyment" whenever he posts with me. 

 

 

 

 

Did your last response answer Mike's actual question?

 

The simplest way to determine this would be to ask him directly.  (Did you ask him whether he felt that I didn't answer his question?  No.)   

 

The second simplest way would be to say, "MMX2010, I don't get the impression that you answered MMD's question.  How do you feel about my impression?"  (Did you use this ultra-simple format?  No.) 

 

What did you do?  You chose to state your presumption AND laced it with the personal accusation, "[/color=green]This form of "subtle trolling" (as you call it) is obvious to people here (at least it is to me), and people resent it because (I believe) they want to have genuine dialogues with people.[/color]"[/i]

 

---------------

 

It's ironic that you claim to want "a genuine dialogue with people", when you-yourself avoid the simplest possible ways to achieve that genuine dialogue. 

 

But I'm going to pretend that you asked me directly, because I like to model genuine dialogue when accused of not wanting to participate in it. 

 

The truth is this.  I've been a part of an FDR Meet-Up Group in NYC for more than two months.  I and three of its regularly-attending members have repeatedly discussed both our experiences with Pick-Up Artistry and our objections to Stefan's arguments against it.  And they have repeatedly asked, over at least four weeks, "When are you going to be ready for your call-in show?  I can't wait for you to discuss Pick-Up Artistry with him!" 

 

Furthermore, I regularly Skype with five FDR members, four of whom are interested in having me debate Stefan on Pick-Up Artistry. 

 

So when I answered MMD's question, I was speaking on behalf of eight FDR listeners, not just myself. 

 

Repeating myself, "If I can somehow weave Ostracism, Pick-Up Artistry, and Stefan's alpha male status into one call-in show, I'll do that; if not, I'll just focus on Ostracism instead."  (Missing implication, "I'm doing this because eight people, (that I know of!), are extremely interested in having me discuss Pick-Up Artistry with Stefan, and I want to consider their needs as well as the people in this topic." 

 

----------------------

 

Wasatchman, when you presume to know what other people are thinking, and then accuse them of "subtle trolling", you leave yourself vulnerable to being counter-argued.  Not only is my counter-argument valid and calmly stated, but it also strongly suggests that you were trolling me.  Your unwillingness to ask people what they're feeling, (whether it's myself or MMD), is trolling.  And the way your presumptions lead to false accusations is trolling. 

[MMX2010]

I imagine that call going something like this:

 

 

 

No doubt. 

 

But your imaginary conclusion is based on your non-examination of my readings on alpha male / non-alpha male behavior.  Objectively speaking, I can't make you be curious about what I know (and how I derived my argument).  But I can point out a perceived (and, in my opinion, obvious) lack of curiosity on your part. 

 

You're free to do what you want with my impression. 

[WasatchMan]

 

So when I answered MMD's question, I was speaking on behalf of eight FDR listeners, not just myself. 

 

Mike asked you a direct question speaking for himself, not on behalf of eight FDR listeners.  I could be totally off base, but my experience of your response was to weasel out of a direct answer.  Sorry if I missed something in communication. I am not trying to attack you, but you got to realize that you are ostracizing yourself from this community, and I am hoping that maybe some direct feedback of my experience would help stop this from happening.

[MysterionMuffles]

Mike asked you a direct question speaking for himself, not on behalf of eight FDR listeners.  I could be totally off base, but my experience of your response was to weasel out of a direct answer.  Sorry if I missed something in communication. I am not trying to attack you, but you got to realize that you are ostracizing yourself from this community, and I am hoping that maybe some direct feedback of my experience would help stop this from happening.

 

It's the typical MMX2010 response. Or non response to be precise. I've lost the ability to be surprised at this point. No matter what you say, there's always an imaginary more preferable way for how you should have responded. 

[MMX2010]

Mike asked you a direct question speaking for himself, not on behalf of eight FDR listeners.  I could be totally off base, but my experience of your response was to weasel out of a direct answer. 

 

I don't care what your experience of my answer was.  I care what MMD's experience of my answer is, because he asked the question.  And to this point, he hasn't voiced anything negative about my response. 

 

If you care so much about MMD's experience of my answer, then feel free to ask him what he felt about my answer. 

 

 

 

Sorry if I missed something in communication. I am not trying to attack you, but you got to realize that you are ostracizing yourself from this community, and I am hoping that maybe some direct feedback of my experience would help stop this from happening.

 

Please ask MMD whether he felt my answer "weaseled out of a direct answer", then leave me alone. 

[WasatchMan]

I don't care what your experience of my answer was. 

 

Ok, that is fair.  I will no longer offer you feedback of my experience.

[thebeardslastcall]

I'm not against down voting or the reputation in general, but I was wondering if the way it works is good? In that it seems to hide all posts ever made, even positively rated ones, by the person once they fall below a threshold. Would it not possibly be better to only start hiding their posts made during the period in which their reputation was below the threshold. The system could also possibly make exceptions both ways for specific posts that meet a certain threshold (+/- 5 or something like that), showing a well upped post from a poor rep member and vice versa. The current system could have someone doing well for years and then falling from grace and suddenly all the posts they've ever made are a bit hidden. Possibly some way for people to have more personal control over this stuff? If we're going to build an anarchistic society where reputation is extra important it seems like we should put extra work into a good reputation system and give individuals as much control as possible to help show how it can be effective and fair. Like if it's just one or two people who are being bothered by a specific person, but everyone else liked their posts, the system wouldn't be blind to that and could also potentially take the rater's reputation into consideration. Why have all votes be equal?

[cherapple]

For me personally, whenever I've hurt someone's feelings in the past, it bothers me.  Even when I didn't do anything wrong.  However, I get that some people need to be ostracized (which I understand can mean to either put pressure on someone to change his or her behavior, or exclude someone completely).

If you ostracize someone for repeated hurtful behavior, you do not hurt their feelings. They hurt their own feelings.

[BaylorPRSer]

If you ostracize someone for repeated hurtful behavior, you do not hurt their feelings. They hurt their own feelings.

I see what you're saying.  I ended a friendship recently with someone who traumatized me and I feel really conflicted.  That's likely informing my views at the moment.

[MysterionMuffles]

I see what you're saying.  I ended a friendship recently with someone who traumatized me and I feel really conflicted.  That's likely informing my views at the moment.

 

Sorry to hear that you've been traumatized by a friendship, but actually glad that you had to end it if there was no chance of that person making restitution with you. Although it's important to empathize with where they're coming from and as to why they would hurt you (because after all, only hurt people hurt people), whatever they're going through is no excuse for how they treat you. They make their choices. If this person chooses to hurt you due to their own hurt, that's a disservice to themselves because they're not addressing their own hurt in order to help mitigate spreading that pain to others in their vicinity.

[MMX2010]

I don't quite understand MMX2010 - what is there to really think about?  You are very confident in your theory/position based on your posts - why would you need a week to mull it over? What is there to really mull?

 

I am ready to call-in. 

 

Question: "On an FDR message board post, the caller wrote, 'Ostracizing someone for moral reasons doesn't harm the person doing the ostracism, but ostracizing someone for aesthetic reasons absolutely harms the person doing the ostracism.'  Does Stefan's refusal to endorse (or embrace) hypergamy and his encouragement to ostracize people who defend and/or engage in hypergamous behavior cause great harm to his audience?" 

 

-------------------

 

I will definitely define "hypergamy" as a woman's natural and permanent desire for all items listed in the diagram below.

 

 

 

 

I will definitely tell the story of the highly negative reactions that most male members at the FDR NYC Meeting had when I defended hypergamy, as well as the highly positive reactions that females have had to the same argument.  But I will not name any of the FDR members by either name, physical description, initials, nickname, or any other identifying characteristics.  Nor will I petition to be let back into the group.  Nor will I speculate on reasons why I was ostracized.  (In return for this, I ask that you take no future call-in shows from any members justifying why they ostracized me.  I think such shows are bad radio, and are much less important than my question to Stefan.) 

 

-----------------

 

I will probably discuss extramarital affairs, but I only may discuss my own experiences engaging in them.  (I'm going to make YouTube videos, and I want to protect her from being doxxed.) 

 

I may reference the movie The Fault In Our Stars.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuVjGbncgQE

 

 

I may discuss my experiences using Pick-Up Artistry to positively influence the first two months of my current five-month relationship with The Woman Who Loves Me. 

 

---------------

 

You can introduce my show as a "criticism show", referencing your policy to always let critics call in for debate and to place them at the front of the line.  Or you can treat my show as normal.  I've no preference. 

 

----------------

 

FDR members can also suggest which topics they want me to discuss.

[Lights]

Cool MMX I want to hear you talk about PUA with Steff

[_LiveFree_]

I am eagerly awaiting this show!

[NumberSix]

My main problem with the ostracism on this board and at Meetups is how this behavior makes this community look to outsiders.  Most people already believe that AnCaps and peaceful parenting advocates are nut jobs, and ostracizing people because you dislike their opinions confirms that belief.  In addition, I am sadden that a large group of Stef’s supporters are not capable of having a logical discussion where someone disagrees without throwing a hissey fit (I’ve seen it in person).  FDR has become a religion for certain people, and they adopt a dogmatic view.  Just like religious people who cherry pick religious beliefs that are to their liking (aesthetically) and ignore the rest, they only apply a subset of what Stef talks about.  You’re supposedly trying to make the world a better place here, but instead of providing an example of rational discourse to the world, you devolve into a bunch of buthurt children who must punish the nonbeliever.

[MMX2010]

Hey MMX2010 - Would you be interested in calling into the show regarding your thoughts on ostracism? It would make for an interesting chat and I think the rest of the message board would enjoy the discussion as well.  What do you think everybody, good idea?

 

I wanted to clarify something I said earlier.  When I said, "I'm going to make YouTube videos.", I meant that I'm going to be making YouTube videos about my unique business-related skillset NOT that I'm going to make YouTube videos in response to the call-in show.  I know that two former FDR members were banned because they made, "I challenge Stefan!" videos rather than calling in, and I promise not to do that. 

 

Secondly, I will probably discuss this picture: 

 

 

 

That picture comes from this article, which is one of the most important ones I've ever read: 

 

http://therationalmale.com/2012/06/04/final-exam-navigating-the-smp/

[J. D. Stembal]

Whoo-hoo! I'm peaking, baby!

[Kevin Beal]

I know that two former FDR members were banned because they made, "I challenge Stefan!" videos rather than calling in, and I promise not to do that. 

Who was banned for that?

[Kevin Beal]

Only person I can think of would be that unschooling guy last year - but the 821 complaints I had about him weighed in the decision as well.

Right. I remember that, but it wasn't because he made "I challenge Stef" videos, right?

 

The suggestion being that it was petty a thing to do, because it would suggest banning for having disagreements. It would be pretty weird to ban someone for that while regularly inviting people onto the show to discuss disagreements with positive incentives (i.e. getting in front of the line).

 

While it wasn't directly addressed to Stef or any particular argument he made, I made a video challenging his definition of "existence" and I wasn't banned. And I'm sure I wouldn't be banned if it was addressed directly at him.

[_LiveFree_]

Here's a good test to long term listeners of the show - ask them if they have been to therapy.  If the answer is no, then you know how seriously they take the ideas talked about on the show.

 

This!

[BaylorPRSer]

RJ,

 

Thanks for the kind words.  It reminded me of what a lot of people say after they break up: "the good was the good, but the bad was the bad."  It was tough because he came and saw both of my bands play multiple times.  I had no other friends that did that. 

 

As I observed myself while I was around him, I realized had a difficult time relaxing and enjoying myself.  I was constantly on guard for the next thing he'd say that would damage me emotionally.  I definitely hurt him and don't enjoy doing that. 

[thebeardslastcall]

Here's a good test to long term listeners of the show - ask them if they have been to therapy.  If the answer is no, then you know how seriously they take the ideas talked about on the show.

 

I'm a bit confused by this and would appreciate some clarification so I could understand what you mean better. Are you saying anyone who hasn't done professional therapy doesn't take the ideas of the show seriously? Exactly which ideas are you saying this precludes them from taking seriously and why do they need therapy to take these ideas seriously? How do you define "long term listener" and does this statement continue to be true of new "long time listeners" or just the original ones? Are you assuming both that every long time listener has been deeply abused and that they therefore must need therapy to be serious about the show's ideas? I'm not disagreeing some people could use therapy, I'm just curious for clarification on why you think this is a litmus test for all listeners to identify their 'seriousness', as you say it's a 'good test' (why not great?) and then seem to presume it's fairly definitive in its conclusion.

[cherapple]

RJ,

 

Thanks for the kind words.  It reminded me of what a lot of people say after they break up: "the good was the good, but the bad was the bad."  It was tough because he came and saw both of my bands play multiple times.  I had no other friends that did that. 

 

As I observed myself while I was around him, I realized had a difficult time relaxing and enjoying myself.  I was constantly on guard for the next thing he'd say that would damage me emotionally.  I definitely hurt him and don't enjoy doing that. 

 

The worst people are those who are inconsistent. They alternate between unusual kindness and unusual meanness -- compared to most people who exist in the limbo of the middle road, offering a lot of nothing. That's why when someone comes along and does something nice for you that no one has ever done before, it's naturally very attractive.

 

When you learn to recognize inconsistent behavior, none of the "good" a person offers (when they feel like it, or they think it will benefit them) can make up for how unsettled they make you feel by flip-flopping back and forth.

 

You say: "I was constantly on guard for the next thing he'd say that would damage me emotionally.  I definitely hurt him and don't enjoy doing that." Do you see how you're empathizing more with him than with yourself? In this instance, you couldn't express empathy for yourself without ending your post with empathy for him.

 

Empathy is a wonderful skill, and you have it. But save it for those who consistently earn it, rather than for those who act unpredictably to hurt you, and therefore haven't earned it.