Ostracism is not the way to go

[Westmort]

Good day Stephen,

You mention in many of your video's to ostracize your circle of friends if they are liberal, or are okay with big governments/leftists etc. I say this is the wrong approach. I think the better approach is ridicule, when you are with a group of friends and someone even mentions something liberal it is better and easier to just make fun of them and their argument. If you are around people who cannot take an argument reasonably then ridicule is the next best thing, by making fun of them it will make them angry and when they are alone make them think. If you can make them angry and lash out you show yourself that you are the one with the better ideas within that group of people and that person will not be taken seriously any more.

When you leave that group of friends, you are telling your friends that their idea is the correct one and yours is not. When you say it is a battle of idea's it is just that, and the one who leaves first or lashes out first loses. Just like in a boxing ring, the one who does not show up or leaves mid way through loses. This is no different.

The only time I think ostracism is a good thing is when someone is hurting you. If someone is attacking your character all the time, or beating you or calling you names consistently then this is a different story and we are talking about harassment. If you enter a boxing match with your gloves and your opponent arrives with a sword then it is reasonable to leave, but only in that sort of situation.

Let me know what you think.

[shirgall]

People who advocate coercion used against you and are not willing to listen to you (let alone change) are hideous sinks of time and effort. How is that not akin to harm? Get them out of your lives.

[Westmort]

If you go to a family get together, and you know 20% of them are liberal are you not going to go because they are going to talk about bigger government? How about a group of friends where you  have a few liberal friends in there? Are you not going to go to work because you have some liberal co-workers? You are only going to isolate yourself if you blindly advocate to ostracize. If you ridicule them and piss them off, you will ostracize them and you will have convinced anyone who is on the side lines of your way of thought. If you leave that group of friends because of a percentage of liberals you have lost the fight and the argument. 

 

[A4E]

in these situations, how about trying to talk peacefully, and then if the 20% don't want to talk, but rather raise their voice, slander you,  get violent, threaten, etc, point out what they are doing, and then just ignore them? (Just my amateur question)

I'd imagine that others and the person involved would remember how he lost control in a peaceful discussion.

[ProRational]

A person engaged in a true argument is a interlocutor but if they respond with insults or slurs it is not an argument it is base and primal that is what ridicule will reduce your argument to. Man is a rational animal the only things keeping humans from becoming animals are his conscience (and a decent balance of rational thought with a hint of emotion) In order to convince someone of something a good way (such as presenting the party switch argument) is to counter the reinvention of history they state as facts by stating that the democratic-republican party in 1829 split. Democrats voted in majority against abolition, and a the end of the 19th century only one percent had really switched. Present facts contrary to their beliefs, if their bias towards an argument would keep them from doing research then it's up to you  if you bother to keep them or give them the boot. If they try to psycho-analyze you present Popper's argument that Psychology in itself is a pseudo-science because it does not try to prove it hypothesis incorrect but instead tries to (through it's own bias) prove itself correct. A supporting fact would be the countless overlapping diagnoses in the DSM-IV.

[ProRational]

Some advice on family, if they are liberal to the bone, best not to engage them. It will only cause problems.

[RichardY]

Kind of like the "Circle of Trust" from the movie "Meet the Parents." The ostracism thing only works in my experience along regional, tribal and cultural lines. The NAP supporters and Libertarians do not have much of a culture, the Identarians in Europe I guess have tried mostly in vain to establish/re-establish one, maybe they'll have success, but I doubt it.

[Westmort]

3 hours ago, A4E said:

in these situations, how about trying to talk peacefully, and then if the 20% don't want to talk, but rather raise their voice, slander you,  get violent, threaten, etc, point out what they are doing, and then just ignore them? (Just my amateur question)

I'd imagine that others and the person involved would remember how he lost control in a peaceful discussion.

Oh I agree, peaceful talk should ALWAYS be first and foremost. However, from dealing with liberals they will resort to small jabs here and there. And the best way to respond with that is small jabs back with humor and facts. If they get mad and start insulting you etc the best thing you can do is smile and laugh and make fun of them more. The more ridiculous you can make them look, the less likely they are to try any of their bullshit again.

I'll use the example of Milo, he gets his point through a factual argument. However when someone attempts to ridicule him he throws it back and wins and gets more popular because of it. 

If its a peaceful discussion AWESOME

If its jab for jab, aim to make them mad and enjoy it. Make sure you get a good laugh by the end of it. 

[Westmort]

3 hours ago, ProRational said:

A person engaged in a true argument is a interlocutor but if they respond with insults or slurs it is not an argument it is base and primal that is what ridicule will reduce your argument to. Man is a rational animal the only things keeping humans from becoming animals are his conscience (and a decent balance of rational thought with a hint of emotion) In order to convince someone of something a good way (such as presenting the party switch argument) is to counter the reinvention of history they state as facts by stating that the democratic-republican party in 1829 split. Democrats voted in majority against abolition, and a the end of the 19th century only one percent had really switched. Present facts contrary to their beliefs, if their bias towards an argument would keep them from doing research then it's up to you  if you bother to keep them or give them the boot. If they try to psycho-analyze you present Popper's argument that Psychology in itself is a pseudo-science because it does not try to prove it hypothesis incorrect but instead tries to (through it's own bias) prove itself correct. A supporting fact would be the countless overlapping diagnoses in the DSM-IV.

"A person engaged in a true argument is a interlocutor but if they respond with insults or slurs it is not an argument it is base and primal that is what ridicule will reduce your argument to." -Its about bringing the right weapon to the right fight. If the person brings an argument to the table, bring one back. If the person brings insults to the table understand it as such and use ridicule. You are in a war of idea's you want to win.

" Man is a rational animal the only things keeping humans from becoming animals are his conscience (and a decent balance of rational thought with a hint of emotion) " - Don't EVER assume man is a rational animal.....EVVVEEERRRR. If man was rational we would not be in the situation we are today, and this is a discussion all of its own separate from ostracism.

"In order to convince someone of something a good way (such as presenting the party switch argument) is to counter the reinvention of history they state as facts by stating that the democratic-republican party in 1829 split." - Sorry, but bring it to today and in simple context please.  We are not talking about the party switch argument or talking about democrats or republicans. The topic is about ostracism, that you should only use it when someone is harassing you or harming you and how ridicule is much better weapon especially in a family or friend setting.

"Present facts contrary to their beliefs, if their bias towards an argument would keep them from doing research then it's up to you  if you bother to keep them or give them the boot. If they try to psycho-analyze you present Popper's argument that Psychology in itself is a pseudo-science because it does not try to prove it hypothesis incorrect but instead tries to (through it's own bias) prove itself correct. A supporting fact would be the countless overlapping diagnoses in the DSM-IV." - I'm sorry but you need to simplify your statement. I don't know what DSM-IV is. And I don't want to comment on something I don't understand. Please keep things simple, the KISS model works well for me. (Keep it simple stupid)

[Westmort]

3 hours ago, ProRational said:

Some advice on family, if they are liberal to the bone, best not to engage them. It will only cause problems.

I love my liberal family, I love it even more when they start screaming and stomp off when they don't win their temper tantrum and we all have a laugh at it.

[Westmort]

3 hours ago, RichardY said:

Kind of like the "Circle of Trust" from the movie "Meet the Parents." The ostracism thing only works in my experience along regional, tribal and cultural lines. The NAP supporters and Libertarians do not have much of a culture, the Identarians in Europe I guess have tried mostly in vain to establish/re-establish one, maybe they'll have success, but I doubt it.

Fair statement when you say circle of trust. However, consider this. There is ALWAYS the alpha in the group and people tend to follow and believe whatever that alpha says. If you can shame the alpha then you are in the center of the circle of trust rather than a part of it. And will allow you to better control that circle of trust.

 

I also agree as a whole we do not have the numbers in many urban area's. And I think when you don't have the numbers, then you don't have the luxury of being able to kick people out of your group.

I want to repeat, that there are situations that you want to ostracize people, but it should not be your go to. Or you find yourself very lonely in this liberal world.

 

[Wuzzums]

Ostracism is the way to go.

You're under the impression that Stefan's threshold of when we should ostracize someone is very low. He never once said to ostracize people because they disagree with you.

[RichardY]

15 hours ago, Westmort said:

Fair statement when you say circle of trust. However, consider this. There is ALWAYS the alpha in the group and people tend to follow and believe whatever that alpha says. If you can shame the alpha then you are in the center of the circle of trust rather than a part of it. And will allow you to better control that circle of trust.

 

I also agree as a whole we do not have the numbers in many urban area's. And I think when you don't have the numbers, then you don't have the luxury of being able to kick people out of your group.

I want to repeat, that there are situations that you want to ostracize people, but it should not be your go to. Or you find yourself very lonely in this liberal world.

 

I wouldn't say shame the Alpha, I tend to think of a pride of lions, the Alpha often doesn't give a shit what his subordinates and females may think(higher serotonin), but when he has to defend the pride or help out other members, presumably he's there. Yeah within a group there is the Alpha or Alpha pair, but there is always a more Omega approach to group psychology, you could look at ways of planting/incepting an idea so that the Alpha thinks they came to a particular conclusion independently or become indispensable to a group. Perhaps there are other methods?

"The against me argument" used previously by Stefan. i.e You support the government and state, I don't, so do you support the use of force against me? I tried something like this in Spain where an English women was arguing that Turks should pay reparations for the Armenian Genocide, I said fair enough, but it should be those families who profited and not Turkish peasants. Anyway she didn't like this, got upset  and I couldn't really careless about some persecuted Armenian peasant or any other peasant or person unless I knew them directly.  

Maybe Stefan read your post just watched a video he did "Millionaire reduced to under $10 by divorce" mentioned ostracism not being effective in a democracy. Makes me think of the Paul McCartney and Heather Mills divorce remember her mentioning on TV that her daughter was only going to get £60,000 per year from the divorce.

 

[meetjoeblack]

On ‎10‎/‎17‎/‎2017 at 3:04 PM, Westmort said:

Good day Stephen,

You mention in many of your video's to ostracize your circle of friends if they are liberal, or are okay with big governments/leftists etc. I say this is the wrong approach. I think the better approach is ridicule, when you are with a group of friends and someone even mentions something liberal it is better and easier to just make fun of them and their argument. If you are around people who cannot take an argument reasonably then ridicule is the next best thing, by making fun of them it will make them angry and when they are alone make them think. If you can make them angry and lash out you show yourself that you are the one with the better ideas within that group of people and that person will not be taken seriously any more.

When you leave that group of friends, you are telling your friends that their idea is the correct one and yours is not. When you say it is a battle of idea's it is just that, and the one who leaves first or lashes out first loses. Just like in a boxing ring, the one who does not show up or leaves mid way through loses. This is no different.

The only time I think ostracism is a good thing is when someone is hurting you. If someone is attacking your character all the time, or beating you or calling you names consistently then this is a different story and we are talking about harassment. If you enter a boxing match with your gloves and your opponent arrives with a sword then it is reasonable to leave, but only in that sort of situation.

Let me know what you think.

That isn't working. Attempts to use rational though, debate, argument is screamed down by SJWs, liberals, feminists with screams of racist or misogyny. Its not an argument to steal Stefan's line. 

 

Lets shift this into relationships, dating, LTRs. You meet a woman who thinks skiing down cawk mountain, trashing her best years when young, and then, clinging to some cuck to raise her bastard children and or daddy government as an out before divorcing him and unleashing the dogs of the state to extract resources. You cannot reason with female insanity. How does a man combat this vile nonsense? You simply ostracize her. She will march off the cliff with or without you. You abandon ship. You cannot fix crazy. Even with mental health, medication and seeing a shrink is a step in the right direction though, it is not necessarily a fix. 

Unfortunately, as much as I enjoy Stefan's podcast, he doesn't really provide a solution. For instance, Truth on Sex portrays the dangers of female promiscuity and the high risk for divorce. Truth on Single moms depicts the milks gone bad and some cuck is suppose to dive on a grenade allocating his resources with a woman who couldn't pick a good man beforehand and has a child or two, maybe more out of wedlock. Waiting for the state to fail, for government resources to dry up, and for women to need men again is not an answer. Neither is waiting for WWIII god forbid. 

If someone puts their hands on you, you put them down PERIOD. I would do everything in my power to avoid the use of force however, if it comes down to me or an predator, they best wear a helmet. Ostracism is extremely effective tactic especially when combating female crazy. I noticed a lot of passive aggressive shit from single moms in the education/school systems. Guys being marked down. Women being put up and the boys being put down. The even more fucked up thing is that, this shit begins with little boys in the school system, and all that is boy/man/masculine is demonized. Little boys are being put on ADHD meds because the teachers don't want to deal with it. I never understood why but, my grade one teacher use to try and make me feel stupid at math. I struggled with math thereafter and it was always like a choir for me doing it. As time went on, I just spent more time at it, and took a different perspective but, people like this should not be around school, and deserve to be ostracized. It was effective in the tribal times. It can be now. If a woman is crazy or someone is a SJW, feminism, ostracism just seems to work. Out of sight. Out of mind.