Is the puppeteer's hand so far up your ass that you can't pause to discern the difference between expression to discover and promote the truth and expression to curry favor with certain purse-mouthed audiences? Are you only familiar with the latter because that is what motivates you? Get out of my sight, you prickly little lifeless urchin.Anyhow, because I am always happy to take on all comers in the interest of heterotopic discourse, I'm quite content to give Matt the opportunity to take me on concerning one of his apparent areas of disagreement with me. Looking at his voluminous comments on the most recent post, it appears the debate could concern any of the following:
- Precisely how far is my hand up various commenters' asses?
- Has my egomania driven other writers and dissenters away?
- Is my egomania cartoonish?
- Is Matt genuinely "Diogenes with a lamp, searching for good opposition"?
- Does Matt truly care not a whit for the esteem of combox warriors and self-regarding bloggers?
- Was Athor, in the very moment he wrote his comment, encouraging a "sensitivity-driven" discourse?
- Does Athor not understand that, in the very moment he wrote his comment, you were encouraging a "sensitivity-driven" discourse?
- Is any man who uses what "anyone else" thinks as an argument a man not engaged in the argument but rather its superficial side effects?
- Is this forum stale?
- Would no man of merit mention a group to which he belongs?
- Did I create an entire lexicon for purpose of dismissing dissent?
- Do people of no humility and utterly convinced of their automatic rectitude regard dissent as dangerous to their pristine (and preposterous) image?
- Would dissenters regularly comment here if I did not shut them down?
- If you aren't producing intelligent backlash does that prove you aren't producing an argument of any substance?
I invite Matt to select one of these important topics that he has so thoughtfully brought to our attention so that we can then engage in the very heterotopic discourse that he denies exists here concerning the matter. I'd also be interested in seeing what sort of dissent he believes should have been expected from the recent posts here.
Who among the readers, one wonders, did he expect to defend the literary merits of EL James's bestselling masterpieces of Mommy Porn? Who here is a prospective champion of female cognitive integrity or wishes to argue for the illegitimacy of the female perspective? Is there no one to assert that sexism is NOT a literary necessity in the historical and fantasy genres?
130 comments:
Rhetorical flourish is like Bilbo's Sting. When used in heterotopic discourse, it detects the presence rabbit people.
Nice post..Thanks for sharing...
Rabbit stew is delicious.
I pronounce Diogenes/Matt/Thumper as the daily rabbit victim.
"Would no man of merit mention a group to which he belongs?"
That's an interesting one. When you're dealing with credential-fetishizers, which a lot of the mushy-thinking Millenials are, and which creatures of the Left often are because they love the university system, fashionable liberalism, and feeling SWPL smart, it's a real stumbling block to their attack you when they have to come up with something beyond they're smarter so shut up and listen. That cognitive dissonance -- egads! a smart person with all the right pedigree disagrees with me! -- may actually engage them in thought.
I remember my dear old infantile PhD adviser, who was on marriage number three and couldn't really keep any practical aspect of his life in order, who broke down in one meeting screaming about how he was smarter than everybody, so he should just be able to force them to do what he wanted.
In his narrow subject, he was brilliant. That subject was pretty narrow.
I remember being attacked by an atheist directly in person (no Internet forum) for being a knuckle-dragging imbecile for doubting global warming or some other consensus fad of the day. He quickly brought out his credentials. They were reasonably good as far as education goes, if provincial. When I started dropping the names of graduate schools better than his, and degrees earned on whims, it was a real eye-opener.
So, two things that naming your credentials does that is constructive for debate:
1) It defangs the petty attack.
2) For some people who believe in the credential system, believe that only people who are important are those somebody else says are important, it opens them up more to listening.
So, two things that naming your credentials does that is constructive for debate:
1) It defangs the petty attack.
2) For some people who believe in the credential system, believe that only people who are important are those somebody else says are important, it opens them up more to listening.
Except in two scenarios:
1) the liberals who don't think that intelligence (specifically, IQ) is an innate trait, and thus view anyone who mentions IQ as some sort of white nationalist/hbd racist/etc. Or they start blabbing about how IQ isn't predictive of whatever, or EQ is more important than IQ, or different learning styles. Or they accuse you of saying that people with low intelligence are worthless (classic leftist projection, that one).
2) the conservatives who view your credentials as confirmation that you really are a liberal academic elitist because you went to a top tier school.
I don’t think he could really grasp why I and others use the internet
Porn. Duh.
Help! Help! I'm being repressed?
DD
Rabbit people.....the idea brings to mind that scene in the Two Towers movie where Gollum comes crashing into camp all self satisfied with a pair of dead conies in his teeth
Just one? You're stifling dissent by only allowing one! Let him do the whole list. After the list has been gone through and there is a tome equivalent in size to Throne of Bones written by King A alone, we can move on to discussion on weight ratios, swallows and coconuts.
"Has my egomania driven other writers and dissenters away?"
At the request of a commenter, I'm working on a post listing the reasons we pulled our son from public school. I wasn't sure of the date you had posted "Mailvox: a public school experiment" which was from the first comment I had made on VP that listed several of the reasons. I've spent the last hour searching for it. Glad I found it because I'd forgotten a couple things.
I had Matt's comments in mind as I read the titles of post after post from back when I was appalled by much of what you wrote (when I could understand what you were talking about). As I was going through them I reflected: "oh, I hated this one," "this one prompted quite an argument between RLB and me," etc.
The answer to the question is no, quite the contrary, once I was pissed off enough, reading VP was like a moth to a flame. If you asked why I'd read it if it made me so angry, I'd tell you "because RLB agrees with the son of a bitch and there's got to be something in here I can prove him wrong about." Bane's blog gave me an even more visceral reaction. May he rest in peace. I regret I never got to thank him.
I only got one thing to say to Matt.
You say you're agonizing your way toward the truth yet you admit to purposeful trolling. Trolling is not seeking the truth it is done to provoke an emotional response and only that.
Which means you're a liar.
we can move on to discussion on weight ratios, swallows and coconuts.
Now you're the one stifling dissent by not also including discussion of newts, witches, ducks, and watery tarts with swords.
Vox,
Of course it stifles dissent. I will use myself as an example. When I run across something I disagree with and start to research just why I disagree, it gets hard real fast and I'm too fracking lazy to get to the logical conclusion with references. I am covered with shame and go hide. Thus, my dissent is stifled. How could you not see this? Do I get a cookie?
Does anyone know what Matt's point is?
Mr. Green Man,
John C. Wright's recent post might interest you. It explains a progressive's psychology (call it a deconstruction) and why they tend to become more and more intellectually lazy over time.
Josh,
He's trying to impress Tad, of course. They have similar SMVs, so I wish them a long and happy relationship.
I can picture them now in each other's arms by the fireplace.
Matt: Why won't they like me? I've tried showing them how smart and provocative and special I am and all they do is make fun of the really, really insightful stuff I say!
Tad: My pretty, you must have said something truly courageous for them to hate you so (strokes hair, Matt catches his breath). Tell me the ingenious insights you made.
Matt: Well, I said it already basically. I said they hate me and anyone else who's smart and special.
Tad: There's no pleasing them. I say one thing, and that makes me an idiot, so I say the opposite thing, and according to them I'm still an idiot! Of course you can see that's logically inconsistent of them.
Matt: You're the only one who understands what I'm trying to tell the world.
Tad: Actually, I really don't.
(Kissing.)
Josh,
How dare you omit breakfast cereals, great apes, sheeps bladders and cherries? Next you're going to tell us how the earth is banana shaped.
This spectacularly sourpuss reaction amounts to a Scalzian, "Really? REALLY!?! Umm, wow. Just ... wow." That your commenters are generally inured to it, or even applaud it, speaks ill of the quality of audience you attract.
If you were fishing for a genuine response, you would have recapitulated my argument faithfully. But you are not in that business. You seek to characterize your opposition in the worst possible light to dismiss the possibility of their worthiness. This is typical, but -- as I'm trying to say -- it is very bad for the integrity of your forum.
Your project has devolved into ginning-up a mass ego-stroke by collecting a group of pliant supporters. You are more interested in promoting your reputation as an undefeated rhetorical champion, the plausibility of such a claim be damned, than you are in seeking truth. You've studied the ancients, right? Then you should recognize this as sophistry of an uncommonly pure, classical variety. Or "wisdomism." Science : scientism :: wisdom : wisdomism.
You hoard the accouterments of wisdom without making a serious effort at substance. A serious effort would require asking questions more than declaring answers, encouraging naïve inquiries (e.g., the child's observation in "The Emperor's New Clothes"), and treating dissent with patience and respect rather than automatic incredulity, no matter what the quality of criticism.
This does not mean all opposition and dissent should be treated equally. But you should regard the appearance of smart contrarians as a sign of health rather than one more rogue element to be shouted down by peons and snark. (You demonstrate some awareness of the utility of this practice by featuring my criticism, albeit bowdlerized, in a new separate post.) This was the point of Alistair's discourse on rhetoric. It does not suffice to simply label me stupid like a Jezebel blogger and move on. That calls into question your own judgment of what constitutes "stupid." That is, if you allowed that sort of critical examination to penetrate your forum or your consciousness.
Eventually, if you're lucky, someone comes along with the patience required to disabuse you of your dogmatism, someone you cannot axiomatically dismiss as stupid or insane or "absurd" for disagreeing with you. But instead of fully acknowledging your luck this time, you just regard me as one more H8R who "quite literally argue[s] like a woman." I shrug.
Humility is an essential component to philosophy, and you are only practiced at humiliation. But even this practice becomes decadent and toothless when you so alienate peers/superiors that they stop bothering to test you. The blog post above is an example of your deteriorated skills. If you think that is a "call[ing] out," you need to sharpen up your game. I demand it from my opponents.
I am sure the automatons in your audience know what "Rabbit People" are, and so they titter. But if you had any intention to encourage or engage the opposition, you would make your terms clear without demanding an initiation into twee, extreme-insider jargon. This is the proof of your intent. You are paranoid of the possibility of someone wiser than you calling bullshit on your whole ramshackle architecture, held precariously together by self-aggrandizement. So you created a culture to automatically dispatch antibodies (the commenters who are spineless enough to put up with your idiosyncrasies and defensive emotionalism) around the first sign of threat.
I have a C.V. as long as your arm, if I cared to compile it. But people like me do not care to compile such secondary markers just to "defang[]" others' "ability to call [us] stupid" or "destroy[] ... debate tactics." We want to preserve others' ability to call us stupid! We want to encourage debate and refine it through debating.
We are not offended or put off our game by nigglers and haters. We see them as opportunities for persuasion, or at very least, free radicals that create the possibility for unplanned counterpoint. We let our work speak for itself, confident that a fair-minded observer will locate its virtue without the flashing neon signs which scream, Genius Present! Genius Present! This deferential approach has the advantage of encouraging naïve opposition, which, while being annoying and ad-hominem more often than constructive, keeps us honest. And that is a medicine you could use a huge dose of.
Matt
Tl; dr
the popcorn's ready!!!
Movie's over. Aeoli Pera scripted it above!
That was perfect.
SarahsDaughter wrote: "As I was going through them I reflected: 'oh, I hated this one,' 'this one prompted quite an argument between RLB and me,' etc. The answer to the question is no, quite the contrary, once I was pissed off enough, reading VP was like a moth to a flame."
I'm glad for your journey to enlightenment, but you have to understand that your trajectory is not mine, nor is it the standard against which to judge criticism of this site. That unintentionally assumes the "Vox Dei" revelation defines wisdom, and all dissent from it is ipso-facto invalid. That makes sense from someone emerging from a state of near-complete ignorance, but for the rest of us: we've seen this movie before.
That's not to say all of his mortal pronouncements are in error. Indeed, your progress is proof that they are not. But real apprenticeship eventually allows the protégé the possibility of exceeding his mentor, rather than keeping his charges in subjugation and intellectual servility out of the fear of becoming inferior.
But you know as well as I that pointed dissent from the dogma laid out here makes you persona non grata. So you tread carefully. Others who don't owe their philosophical development to a series of blog posts reserve our prerogative to stomp heedlessly. We don't stomp in anger, as you perceive it. We walk from A to B with indifference.
Matt
King, are you auditioning for the role of Polonius?
You've got to be a shoo-in. I for one am pulling for you.
Thanks, Aeoli Pera -- very interesting indeed!
Matt, you just aren't as smart as you think you are. You assume SD and those of us that agree with much of the posting here had no previous enlightenment. I have seen your movie before. It's a whole lot of chin scratching and very little in the intelligence department. There is plenty of dissent here. It is mostly is the area of fine tuning, not major differences. You may not see it because you can't tell the difference. You are viewed with disdain because you and your chin scratching kind have been dealt with in an intellectual manner several times in the past.
Josh, Toby, Daniel, Dasher, Donner, and Blitzen: Do you have any self-respect? Is public dignity a concern of yours?
"Man was born free and everywhere is in chains." I doubt that. Most human beings seek security over freedom, a benevolent dominus over the possibility of risk or loss. And when push comes to shove, the "benevolent" part can go too. Anything to avoid initiative, boldness, and responsibility for one's judgment.
You are spontaneously organizing, self-debasing flunkies without the slightest clue how you instinctively dishonor yourselves. Indeed so instinctively and such dishonor that men can hardly bear your company. You are reminders of abject cravenness which tempt even the best of us.
Suck a little more sloppy cock, you freaks.
Matt
Such intellectual genius. I stand in awe.
Hey, Matt?
http://tinyurl.com/cjvhhsy
I have a C.V. as long as your arm, if I cared to compile it. But people like me do not care to compile such secondary markers just to "defang[]" others' "ability to call [us] stupid" or "destroy[] ... debate tactics." We want to preserve others' ability to call us stupid! We want to encourage debate and refine it through debating.
So you claim . And yet, I just gave you the opportunity to engage in the very heterotopic discourse you claim you seek, the very discourse you profess does not exist here... and you simply vomited forth a torrent of more Rabbit People talk.
Pick a topic. Bring it on. The topic doesn't have to be one of the list I compiled from your various dissents. Or hop away, little rabbit, waving your little white tail in surrender.
"Humility is an essential component to philosophy..." Says the guy who keeps insisting he's smarter than everyone else...at least everyone here...including the astro-physicist.
Do you actually have evidence to back up your claims, other than telling us how much smarter than us you are or hand waving & claiming your right because everybody smart knows you're right?
For that matter, do you even have a point other than you're smarter & righter than we are?
DD
redlegben wrote: "Matt, you just aren't as smart as you think you are."
I'm open to that, particularly because I don't think I'm very smart at all in the relative scheme of things. I am a dying ember in the sun of the God of wisdom.
But stop filling in the blanks and thinking a your rebuttal against your own guesses constitutes a criticism. I do not "assume SD and those of us that agree with much of the posting here had no previous enlightenment"; I took SarahsDaughter's word for it, and I was responding specifically to her. She is the only one who offered a bone of contention with any meat on it. The rest are conjuring Lord of the Rings references, making googly faces, and tickling each other with insider-speak.
"I have seen your movie before. It's a whole lot of chin scratching and very little in the intelligence department."
Hey, man, if that's the best you can do, godspeed with it. I've had enough independent confirmation of that "department" of mine to not be deterred by a stranger's snap-judgment. Even so, I'll take it under advisement.
But I was hoping for something better, to tell you the truth. I don't need theories from a distance about why I'm such a disagreeable prick. I'd rather be shown why my disagreeableness here is not conducive to the pursuit of wisdom. Showering Vox Day with plaudits and repeating rumors of his undemonstrated incisiveness only goes so far with me.
I've scanned his blogs. They are always interesting from an editorial standpoint, i.e., they address provocative subjects. But the quality of address (and the subsequent commentary) is a different story. It just doesn't impress me the way it impresses you and other loyal fans. I was being gentle and assuming this was because of our different trajectories, but keep promoting certain non-sequiturs and I'll (unhappily) be forced to assume otherwise.
Matt
Uh...that thing he's doing with his tail is not surrender, man. Not the military kind, at least.
You are spontaneously organizing, self-debasing flunkies without the slightest clue how you instinctively dishonor yourselves. Indeed so instinctively and such dishonor that men can hardly bear your company. You are reminders of abject cravenness which tempt even the best of us.Suck a little more sloppy cock, you freaks.
Projection?
Stop crying, get up, and engage the questions, Matt.
Or don't, because you can't, and prove yourself to be nothing more than another Jerry Lundegard. Just because you've been caught lying about the inventory doesn't mean you can't go out and count the cars, after all.
Who knows, maybe you won't end up in your boxers, face down on a bed with handcuffs on, sobbing at the top of your lungs when the law carries you off to your insignificant ember of doom.
Wow, clueless troll is clueless.
As a lurker who actually doesn't see eye-to-eye with our host on everything, I'd like to say that I find Matthew King amazingly vacuous, self-important and silly.
I disagree with VP on religion, but that's a topic where internet arguments are almost never productive. I can recite the standard theist arguments easily enough if I want to hear them, and I'm sure VP knows all the arguments for atheism just as well. So why would I want to clutter up one of the more intellectual Game blogs with a pointless argument that isn't going to go anywhere?
Similarly, I think VP overestimates the odds that the collapse of socialism and the rise of Game could lead to a restoration of traditional values, rather than some new social pathology no one has thought of yet. But I don't have a specific alternative theory to propose, and there's not much point in starting an empty "you're too optimistic / you're too pessimistic" debate.
As far as everything the blog is actually about, VP tends to do a great job of following the evidence wherever it leads. If MK thinks there should be more debate, perhaps he should spend his time looking for an intellectually defensible alternative theory instead of writing incoherent ad hominem rants?
SD said nothing of the sort. You're disagreeable because you say nothing but that you disagree. Try taking VD's challenge.
"Pick a topic. Bring it on. The topic doesn't have to be one of the list I compiled from your various dissents."
I have picked a topic. And the topic is the quality of discourse beneath your flashy claims of excellence.
Hint: the eager groundlings in your comboxes, who appear to have half the IQ you claim for yourself, are doing you no favors with the substance-free reflexiveness of their howling and pointing and eye-rolling. If you can't bring yourself to chastising them, you're more aware of the Soviet-era structural defects of your forum than I thought, and even more afraid of exposing your Potemkin village than I generously assumed.
Matt
Matt,
Brevity is the wit of the soul.
Your calibration is off. Disuse? abuse?
Physician, heal thyself.
But don't you see, Billy, Matt answered Vox's question. He answered the darned... He's cooperatin' here!
Daniel asked: "Do you actually have evidence to back up your claims [of the necessity of humility]..."
Not evidence, because the foundations of inquiry yield no answers in the form of repeatable evidence. In its necessary stead, I will treat you to the founding assumption of all philosophy and scientia that built the evident wonders of Western civilization:
ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα
Matt
And the topic is the quality of discourse beneath your flashy claims of excellence.
You must think "comment length" means "quality"
Not evidence, because the foundations of inquiry yield no answers in the form of repeatable evidence. In its necessary stead, I will treat you to the founding assumption of all philosophy and scientia that built the evident wonders of Western civilization:
Shorter version: no.
Since you seem to be a fan of Greek philosophy, have you meet W. Lindsay Wheeler? I think the two of you would get along splendidly.
Until Tad found out
I have picked a topic. And the topic is the quality of discourse beneath your flashy claims of excellence.
And what you have presented amounts to the totality of your case? Or are you waiting for my approval to begin presenting it?
Matt "who appear to have half the IQ you claim for yourself"
So now we are supposed to tell you our IQ's and standing with organizations in order to qualify as worthy commenters. Yet,
Matt "No man of merit would, unsolicited, advertise his association with a group that declares virtue along a single, dubious metric"
See why we disregard you?
So the proposed topic turns out to be "the quality of the discourse"? And the basic point of contention is whether this site and the other are sufficiently tolerant of dissent to meet Matt's standard of Heterotopic?
It took an awful lot of words to get to arrive at an un-interesting place.
"Not evidence, because the foundations of inquiry yield no answers in the form of repeatable evidence. In its necessary stead, I will treat you to the founding assumption of all philosophy and scientia that built the evident wonders of Western civilization..."
For quality of reasoning this rivals Mussolini's explanation of why Italy had no need for a political opposition: he, the Duce, already embodied all the necessary contradictions within himself!
Matt is an idiot.
Now that this is out of the way, I would note that dissent is very tough in this forum, but a lot of that means just developing a thick skin.
It is also a matter of not wasting your time too much. I comment when I have something to say that I think is at all relevant, though few normally seem to agree. That is irrelevant though since this is not my forum anyway.
Generally some interesting things here, but Matt's posts are almost all tl; dr. Nothing of substance there, just lots of rambling.
VD is egotistical, so? It is his blog. Plenty of reasonable conversation here either way.
Matt,
Only God can create ex nihilo.
Radical skepticism is no foundation for anything except hanging separately.
A mind is like a parachute - if it's open all the time, it's a real drag.
Matt,
A direct question.
Why are you commenting here? To what purpose?
People named Matthew are usually more cogent than this. I don't know what went wrong with this one, but on behalf of all Matthews, I apologize for his abject failure.
Matt said: "In its necessary stead, I will treat you to the founding assumption of all philosophy and scientia that built the evident wonders of Western civilization"
Matt, you're clearly an intelligent guy. Highly intelligent. Everyone here can tell that you're very smart. You may have something valuable to contribute to the discourse.
But your writing is affected and prolix. You talk like an ass, and you reek of vanity. I suspect you've read Karl Popper, but you obviously haven't learned anything from him about the value of clear and direct communication.
Stop playing the word games and you will have a much better chance of getting attention directed to your ideas, rather than your persona.
Assuming that is what you want.
"Has my egomania driven other writers and dissenters away?" ...
Actually, your egomania is what keeps me reading. Lots of dolts have huge egos. Boring. Egomaniacs that can back it up, pure fun. But then again I'm a bit of a sadist. The only thing more fun than poking a bear at the zoo with a stick is watching someone else do it.
Now that this is out of the way, I would note that dissent is very tough in this forum, but a lot of that means just developing a thick skin.
I don't understand this comment, how is it tough?
I would describe dissent as very easy and at the ready, for what it is worth. I came here years ago and found it to be a breath of fresh air, and very hospitable place for real dissent and argument on substantial things.
I'm really just looking for you to expand on this question: how is dissent tough here?
I'm glad for your journey to enlightenment, but you have to understand that your trajectory is not mine, nor is it the standard against which to judge criticism of this site.
Of course it's not, it's an anecdote. One that answered a question that was posed.
That unintentionally assumes the "Vox Dei" revelation defines wisdom, and all dissent from it is ipso-facto invalid.
No, it assumes my husband's Biblical understanding was confirmed by a blog host and commenters. Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Do you mock the manner in which a husband leads his wife to Biblical truth? It was the women who comment on VP (both dissenters and those in agreement with my husband) who were the most pivotal in my progress.
But you know as well as I that pointed dissent from the dogma laid out here makes you persona non grata. So you tread carefully.
False. But in order for you to know that, you'd have to have read every post I've commented on with dissent.
But real apprenticeship eventually allows the protégé the possibility of exceeding his mentor
Prove that I have not.
Others who don't owe their philosophical development to a series of blog posts reserve our prerogative to stomp heedlessly.
You've said nothing of where your philosophical development originates. Are you like facepalm in that you believe you posses original thought?
My philosophical development originates with having met RLB at age 19 and his guidance on what to read to deepen it.
@Alpha,
no need to get all bitchy. Just share your need line up of dissenters.
Vox wishes he had haters,
but he's left with just fellators.
Bitch, please. I think it was actually beneath the OP to even post this - but you're not a dissenter. A dissenter would have an actual argument.
Have to laugh at the premise of this post. Vox's classic defense: someone points something out, that anyone with a brain can see, and Vox demands that he argues for it's truth!
As Weininger once asked, when fools refused to acknowledge what he was attempting to point out, "How could I possibly prove facts. Facts can only be indicated."
You guys are like those idiots. If someone points something out you don't like, well, let him demonstrate it! Demonstrate what! If you can't see that the emperor has no clothes on with your own eyes just go drown yourself.
Vox might as well start "calling out" the authors of every aphorism ever uttered, since, well, they weren't proved!
Vox's classic defense: someone points something out, that anyone with a brain can see, and Vox demands that he argues for it's truth!
If any one with a brain can see, it shouldn't be difficult to show that it is true.
Are you seriously trying to say that it is unnecessary to be able to back up what you assert?
"Matthew King (King A) said...
...
I have picked a topic. And the topic is the quality of discourse beneath your flashy claims of excellence.
...
Matt
December 12, 2012 8:47 AM "
Oh that's rich, I was wondering when you were going to state it plainly. A debate over the quality of the debate before you showed up, or in other words debate over an intrinsically subjective topic, with yourself as final judge of said quality no doubt.
If anything, Vox has been getting soft lately. I haven't seen much of the razor wit or incisive logic he used to use, which got me into reading his works in the first place.
But if he's right about one thing, it's that Matthew is a Rabbit Person. Nothing of substance in his posts here. Nothing, whatsoever. He just resorts to ad hominem and appeals to credentials ("I have a C.V. as long as your arm").
The reason so many commenters here agree with Vox in general is because [b]he's right[/b] about a lot of things, and these commenters realize that. An echo chamber is only an echo chamber when it actively belittles and bans people for the simple offense of disagreeing. In other words, Matthew, if this were an echo chamber, you wouldn't even be here today posting in this thread.
Instead, Vox challenges you to something amounting to a debate. He's giving you a chance to fight, to defend yourself. How is that an echo chamber? And because you're obviously a Rabbit Person on which rhetorical questions are lost, I'll answer the question. It's not an echo chamber.
facepalm, Weininger asked that in the response to Freud's self-serving undermining of his research, when Freud told him that the world wanted evidence, not thoughts. Of course, Freud was just blowing smoke, trying to get Weininger to hold off on publishing his competing book.
In other words, Weininger's quote is an attack on fools of no substance who are doing their earnest best to get brainlessly in the way.
What do you want, a participation ribbon?
My oh my, Vox, you try to dismiss King A by the adroitness of dissing him in the contradictoriness of a specific post.
Matt...
Allow me to explain echo chambers to you. It starts as always with basic human preferences.
People like to read things they agree with. They gravitate to authors that they already know they agree with... so they can have their opinions reinforced. People like to hear how right they are.
So you see... no one needs to enforce the concept of an echo chamber. Echo chambers are natural phenomena. They occur on their own as a construct of the human preference. People that favor big government go read at the daily kos. Red Team Republicans hang out at Red State.
This notion that quality brings decent is laughable in the extreme. I mean we can talk about gravity all day long. Who shall argue against gravity? Does that mean that the theory is a poor one? Does it mean physicists are stupid for not being able to come up with a strong counter argument? Does it mean that the pro gravity faction has created an echo chamber when those that disagree with them are silenced?
You're more than a little out of your depth mate. Do run along.
He can't run along. Someone nailed his foot to the floor and now we get to watch him run in circles.
On the other hand, gravity doesn't exist...
Nice one Nate, you just said Vox's contentions are as trivial and worthless as declaring the existence of gravity, hundreds of years after Newton. You just backhanded your boyfriend trying to attack someone else.
Daniel: cool story bro, but the context doesn't change the meaning. And why are you always among the first to come out and snarl and growl whenever a critic appears, are you looking for a doggy bone, or Vox's bone, or what?
OT:
You can summarize the entirety of game thusly:
An alpha and a gamma male can say the exact same thing to a woman, and the alpha gets a number, a kiss, or a bj, and the gamma gets a drink thrown at him, a security escort out, or a restraining order.
The end.
Thoughts?
"Nice one Nate, you just said Vox's contentions are as trivial and worthless as declaring the existence of gravity, hundreds of years after Newton. "
Every bridge needs one you know...
Matt: "Daniel asked: "Do you actually have evidence to back up your claims [of the necessity of humility]...""
Uhm, actually, that was me. I should have been more clear.
Point 1: You claim humility is "essential" to good philosophy, all the while bragging about how much smarter than everyone you are. That's not humility. Therefore, your thinking is at least as damaged as Vox's or anyone else's because your foundation, that by your own words is ESSENTIAL to correct thinking, is faulty.
Point 2: Its quite easy to drive by, fire a few "You all are beneath me!" shots and move on. You make the assertion that discourse here is "stifled". Your assertion is that dissenters are driven off, like a suspected witch from the tribe. You also make the claim that Vox is incorrect in his assertions, not only on this thread but on the blog in general.
What I asked for is what evidence do you have that dissenters are driven off? I have clashed with a number of the Ilk on VP. (I consider myself one of the Ilk.) I have even had a run in or two with Vox. I'm still here. Why? Because I can make a coherent argument. I can also admit when I'm wrong. People who just troll get banned or lose interest and wander off. Those who present evidence for their assertions do not, even when they conflict with everyone else's.
So, if dissenters are banished, tell us the examples you have seen of such behavior.
If Vox, myself, or anyone else, has made FACTUALLY INCORRECT statements, demonstrate that they are wrong by showing the correct facts. Simply stating over and over again that X is wrong does not, in fact, make it wrong.
If X is incorrect, show where it is incorrect (ie different scientific studies, different numbers, interviews etc). If X simply makes you feel bad, that's not really our problem.
DD
"An alpha and a gamma male can say the exact same thing to a woman, and the alpha gets a number, a kiss, or a bj, and the gamma gets a drink thrown at him, a security escort out, or a restraining order."
An alpha and a gamma cannot say the exact same thing to a woman.
An alpha and a gamma cannot say the exact same thing to a woman.
As far as a script? Why not?
Communication is more than words. Even if they same the same exact line, they will convey a different message, from body language to composture to tonality to intention to emotional range to etc. The rank trumps the script.
*even if they [say] the same exact line
That's exactly my point, Yohami.
I have a C.V. as long as your arm, if I cared to compile it. But people like me do not care to compile such secondary markers just to "defang[]" others' "ability to call [us] stupid" or "destroy[] ... debate tactics." We want to preserve others' ability to call us stupid! We want to encourage debate and refine it through debating.
Hurrah for you. It probably would be an interesting game to see you compile it and then we can play whose is bigger -- maybe get the whole gang in on it.
I like sometimes to convince others and change their minds, including the rabbit people I encounter in the real world. I'm pretty sure that was an absolute statement about it being wrong to offer credentials, and I provided an example where the credentials accomplished the changing of minds by establishing sufficient credibility with the audience which allowed for a logical discussion. It seems an odd thing to say it would be so easy, yet not do it, which leads one to question the veracity of the claim.
It is enjoyable to watch contortions, though. As one of the casual drinkers at this cantina (who can quit whenever he wants!) I like a good fight, whether Greedo gets Han or Han gets Greedo.
Where is that bartender with my refill?
I growl, and I snarl, facepalm, because my omega crawlspace is full of bones, and I'm a courteous man.
I give fair warning.
And you don't even understand that even your dead heroes were critiquing twitchy little people like you.
Oh boy Daniel, you're such a tough internet dog, dawg. Go nuzzle up in Vox's crotch, this is boring.
I'd be curious for an example of Vox "losing" an argument and/or adjusting his take on something due to new evidence/a strong counter-argument.
Absence of evidence not being evidence of absence.
It should be noted that... just as the nature of political sites reduces decent (by the preference explained earlier) the nature of game sites also reduces the probability of debate... since those interested in learning about game are going to be the majority of the folks reading and commenting on game blogs.
The enemies of game will likely be commenting on feminist blogs where those laments will be met with a more welcome ear... or eye... as it were.
The simple fact is... Matt's premise is poorly thought out.
"I'd be curious for an example of Vox "losing" an argument and/or adjusting his take on something due to new evidence/a strong counter-argument."
Vox changed his mind on free trade. Which is a huge thing for an arm chair economist... much less a published author of books used as textbooks by universities.
Vox has commented in the past that there are regular commenters who, simply by voicing their dissent... can cause him to totally re-evaluate his position.. just based on the mere disagreement itself... not any argument at all.
Anyone that's been around long enough has seen Vox's own nose bloodied... as well as everyone else's.
VP is a fight club. It was designed from the begining to be a fight club where Vox could sharpen his knives and test his own thinking and his own arguments. The fact is.. you don't recognize it as such... which reflects poorly on you. Not Vox.
There is a passage from a popular novel... The Truth knocks on a man's door... and he opens it. The he says, "oh its you. I'm sorry... I was looking for The Truth." Then promptly shuts the door.
"The fact is.. you don't recognize it as such... which reflects poorly on you. Not Vox."
You have assumed a fact not in evidence there, as I specifically stipulated in the prior comment.
If you can't bring yourself to chastising them, you're more aware of the Soviet-era structural defects of your forum than I thought, and even more afraid of exposing your Potemkin village than I generously assumed.
Horrible mixed metaphor, smart guy. Potemkin = 1700s, Soviet era = 1917-91.
Should be chastise, not chastising, too.
I'm a long time lurker over at CH, and I can definitely guarantee that Matt came over here because he either got bored or Heartiste had enough.
In before the accusation I'm somehow a sycophant of both VD and Heartiste, I most certainly am not. I just know better than to swing back on issues of race and politics without coming in with information I can use instead of pulling the typical "outraged liberal" style of argumentation, something I'm deeply opposed to as a conservative. I'm not cool with whiny protestations and ad hominems.
Maybe a competent debater would like to make Matt's case for him as an intellectual exercise. The question at hand is this, or nearly: "Is it difficult to dissent at VP or AG?"
I was considering it earlier today, but I couldn't come up with a good argument. There's the argument that dissenters don't often last longer than a month (with exceptions), but that's dismissed pretty easily. There's the case that a certain percentage of commenters per post who agree with VD on the topic at hand. Again, easily defeated.
Any takers?
There's the argument that dissenters don't often last longer than a month
Hmm, poor choice of wording there. That's the sort of thing that oughta get my ass kicked, but there aren't a lot of people here who challenge me directly. Which is too bad, because I'm usually itching for a scrap.
Anyway, it's better to categorize the types of dissenters according to archetypes. Replace "dissenters" with "liberals", "cranky old-timey contrarians", "trolls", "neocons", "Randians" and the statement above changes its truth value.
That's a better restatement. I don't agree with Vox on several issues. I've been reading his stuff for years. I will admit as it pertains to AG, I have very little difference with him if any. It isn't like stating gravity hundreds of years after the fact either. This message needs to be expressed in as many ways as possible due to the rampant feminism of our culture. This forum is one mode of accomplishing that. The forums are supposed to be a method of refining your abilities to defeat the enemy. The feminists vs. game theorists debates happen in real time every day. It happens when you are at work. It happens when you talk with your female relatives. It happens when you confront your young children with their wrong thinking due to cultural influence or your own engrained thinking. This is practice. Life is real. If you are looking for your Diogenes' moment here, you aren't getting things done in real life.
Josh said...
Matt,
A direct question.
Why are you commenting here? To what purpose?
A direct answer to this direct question is in order Matt.
Oh man! This is good! Best movie in this blog so far.
And this blog also prove my claim that Matt err too much cause he assumes too much.
Sadly, this thread is a nothing compared to the Vox vs Dominic debate when one of the judges had a meltdown....
For a movement to become mainstream there must be first a radical vanguard; an echo chamber is necessary for critical mass necessary for the adoption of neologisms because meaning derives from the common usage of a community. New terms, which in themselves carry ideological meaning, must be used and reused in a small community before it can be exported to the larger community; vocabulary trickles down.
It's a good thing that the manosphere is, in some sense, an echo chamber where terms like female solipsism, smv, hypergamy, misandrist, etc, are repeated over and over and over.
"Normal" discourse is merely the echo chamber of the dominant ideology. All the mainstream media outlets are feminist echo chambers, from the most sophisticated to the most vulgar.
Matt wants to be a Rebel Leader, but he's just Rebel Without a Clue.
" You have assumed a fact not in evidence there, as I specifically stipulated in the prior comment."
I assume nothing. I participated in those debates. Now the fact of the matter is the comments for most of the posts at VP were lost. Epic debates... some with literally hundreds of comments.. I believe we broke the 1000 comment mark at least a couple times. That stuff is gone. Vox used haloscan... and then co-comment... and both literally up and disappeared.
But yes... there is evidence. Its first hand witness testimonial evidence.
I thought to give you all an early Christmas present, so I hunted around on the Internet for a picture of "Matthew".
Many of them were far too cute, and some too savage, meaning that he has had a lot of his portraits photoshopped. But at last, I found one that seems to be accurate.
If you happen to feel moved by gratitude to kneel, by all means, do so.
"Nate said...
...
I assume nothing. I participated in those debates. Now the fact of the matter is the comments for most of the posts at VP were lost. Epic debates... some with literally hundreds of comments.. I believe we broke the 1000 comment mark at least a couple times. That stuff is gone. Vox used haloscan... and then co-comment... and both literally up and disappeared.
But yes... there is evidence. Its first hand witness testimonial evidence.
December 13, 2012 5:14 AM "
I was there as well.
To give some perspective, there is rarely a topic that hasn't been gone over multiple times at Vox Popoli. So many times in fact that the longest term regulars don't come out and debate on many of those subjects anymore. They leave it to the younger commenters, younger by commenting history not chronological age. I'm thinking the free will versus determinism debate is the perennial king of long winding comment threads. It can consistently go over 200 comments even today.
There are subjects which have been beat on so thoroughly that to even mention it in passing will generate groans of weariness in those that participated. Can I get a groan for Japanese naval logistical capabilities in the Pacific just before and during WWII? I know the horse is dead but beating on the pulp is always a little fun. Right Me-So-Michelle? . . . No? . . . Ok.
There are whole generations of commenters that have come and gone over there. The phenomena that I find most interesting are those that start as vocal dissenters that turn into self-identifying Ilk over time. "We are the Borg, you will be assimilated." Kidding. In truth they find that we aren't pulling their chain or hiding information, we are trying our best to get at the truth and that becomes obvious as they keep reading.
Here's a comment I saved because it exemplifies what I'm talking about in regards to the quality of argument.
"foxmarks 12/22/09 1:04 PM
Y’all are probably going to turn me into a Christian. I write this sincerely.
I am neither atheist nor agnostic, so perhaps the trip isn’t so far. It is delightful to find that there are better arguments about Christ and faith than those I heard way back in high school.
I’m already a classical anarchist (libertarianoid) and an Austrian. And I enjoy the quality snark. Come for the economics, stay for the Jesus! "
The last sentence still cracks me up.
Alpha Game Plan is merely a subject subset of what VP has dealt with over the years. It's too new to have generated the same history.
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/sycophant.htm
This one looks familiar...
If you happen to feel moved by gratitude to kneel, by all means, do so.
High five? Finger guns?
Scalzied!
Q.E.D.
As I understand it, all this bickering started when King A criticized Alpha Game's socio-sexual heirarchy. Maybe we could get back to that, because I'm still not sure exactly what King's problem with it was. The heirarchy seems valid enough to me.
High five?
I prefer not to be touched. I express this preference, typically, by snapping off an offending hand at the wrist. It is up to you, however, how much you enjoy having two hands.
Finger guns?
Only if from your knees.
Scalzied!
You have not been banned. Nor has Scalzi as far as I know.
You've been called out. And you are demonstrating that you are a chickenshit. Where are your balls? Make your case Nancy.
As I understand it, all this bickering started when King A criticized Alpha Game's socio-sexual heirarchy. Maybe we could get back to that, because I'm still not sure exactly what King's problem with it was. The heirarchy seems valid enough to me.
Maybe Matt had an epiphany about his place in the hierarchy and got butthurt about it.
I think Josh is on to something. The view from the bottom must be disheartening.
When Matt writes, "I have a C.V. as long as your arm", I got the uncomfortable impression he's trying to compensate for something that's shorter.
facepalm, what internet tough guy lives in a crawl space? I'm beginning to think you mistook your remedial reading teacher for cheeto and ate him.
I'm making fun of you for mistaking discourse for "snarling and growling" and you reply with "stop snarling and growling!"
Are you that afraid of dogs? Maybe you should see someone. Not all of them are the dingoes that ate your intellectual baby.
Nate,
The fact I was referring to was whatever you imagine "reflected poorly" on me. I asked a question. I did not make a statement one way or the other.
While it is surely of some use to Matt to help him calibrate his new AMOG skills, doing so exclusively does run the risk of confirming to him and anyone inclined to agree with him that he is generally correct in his critique of the blog.
There is in fact some truth to the claim that this blog, and to a lesser extent VP, is not particularly heterotopic, but I see little evidence to support Matt's explanation for why that is the case.
The likelihood that that explanation arises from his own issues is what has led the thread to bear an unfortunate resemblance to the syncophantic sniping that characterizes sensitivity-dominated discourse.
" the eager groundlings in your comboxes... are doing you no favors with the substance-free reflexiveness of their howling and pointing and eye-rolling."
Call it Pavlovian, but I think most folks will point, howl, laugh, etc. the moment anyone shows up and moans about rectitude on a soapbox while simultaneously having a verbal touch session with themselves in public.
Giraffe wrote: "You have not been banned. Nor has Scalzi as far as I know."
Scalzi's problem isn't merely his habit of banning dissenters. Censorship is a lagging indicator of homotropic discourse, necessary when the antibodies in the comment section fail to act in concert enough to neutralize the alien adequately: yes, "Whatever's" quality of discourse is so degenerate that they don't just employ but worship censorship. As it happens, I chimed in on Scalzi's site after he banned Vox Day, later in that thread.
No, the problem with Scalzi is that he enforces a homotropic atmosphere not with the blunt instrument of banning so much as making his blog ethos a repulsive place for anyone of a mind for variance. This site isn't that far gone, nor did I claim it to be. But it is Scalzi-lite. Most blogs are! And that's great. But then, most don't make the preposterous claims about themselves as this one does.
It's not the ridicule that keeps me from regularly returning and engaging the Whatever twits (or the twits here). It's the stink of loserdom that drives critics and self-respecting people away in disgust. It's the association with such a bland, self-serving, and repetitive audience of mimics and lickspittles that makes people like me say, "I presented my case, they shit all over themselves for it, now get me out of this gymnasium of spastics."
It would have sufficed to see more than one commenter, the redoubtable Facepalm, rise in favor of encouraging criticism per se. I'm not searching for agreement among the toadies so much as a vague notion that you should keep open a space for stupid and shallow and transparently resentful criticism like mine, on the chance that it can be rhetorically useful at worst and positively contrapuntal at best. Dialectic: thesis + antithesis = synthesis. That is the mark of a heterotropic exchange. And as expected, you failed to produce it.
Instead we heard raspberries, summary dismissals, and unclever inside-baseball taunts which are meant to belittle, intimidate, insult, or wave unpleasantness away.
One cheer for Desiderius while I'm at it. He seemed to hint at understanding where I'm coming from, if remaining timid/equivocal about advocating full engagement.
Matt
Allow me to preempt the naggers and nigglers: -tropic should be -topic
King A,
For crying out loud, we understand your point. I even restated it for you far more concisely.
We're making fun of you because you fail to back up your assertion. (And because you've spent >3,000 words explaining a very simple idea.)
It's not the ridicule that keeps me from regularly returning and engaging the Whatever twits (or the twits here). It's the stink of loserdom that drives critics and self-respecting people away in disgust. It's the association with such a bland, self-serving, and repetitive audience of mimics and lickspittles that makes people like me say, "I presented my case, they shit all over themselves for it, now get me out of this gymnasium of spastics."
First, it is obviously untrue that you are kept from returning here. You keep doing so despite the fact that you are a tedious bore who brings absolutely nothing of interest to the discussion; your only apparent interest is to either tear me down or elevate yourself.
This is of no interest to me or the vast majority of the readers here.
Second, where is your evidence of any critics or self-respecting people who used to comment here and no longer do so? Who are these commenters, what are their names? You have made the claim, now either back it up with evidence or retract it.
I note that one year ago, VP+AG had 280k visitors. This year, they had 320k, 40,000 more. Comments have increased even faster than that 14% growth. Is the echo chamber growing larger or is your claim that critics and self-respecting people are leaving simply false?
And third, you didn't present any coherent case. You simply nattered on and on, mostly about yourself. It's fine that you are so interested in yourself, I simply don't understand why you think anyone else is. You keep claiming that you don't care what anyone else thinks, so surely you are therefore capable of understanding that neither I, nor most of the readers here, happen to care what you think.
Can you produce even a single piece of evidence? Can you make an argument that is not a restatement of your thesis?
Out of the kindness of my heart, and because I really do understand your point, I offer to do either of those things for you; all you have to do is ask.
Is the echo chamber growing larger or is your claim that critics and self-respecting people are leaving simply false?
Those commenters weren't true Scotsmen, obviously.
"I presented my case, they shit all over themselves for it, now get me out of this gymnasium of spastics."
What was your original case? Something about Vox's socio-sexual hierarchy, right? I ask because it's surely more interesting than the circle jerk it devolved into.
Maybe we could get back to that, because I'm still not sure exactly what King's problem with it was. The heirarchy seems valid enough to me.
the hierarchy, as posted here, directly contradicts blog posts that Vox himself has made elsewhere. look through the comments under the post, it's described in detail.
Vox still hasn't corrected his definition of Alpha.
otoh, it's not really a major issue.
What was your original case? Something about Vox's socio-sexual hierarchy, right? I ask because it's surely more interesting than the circle jerk it devolved into.
the circle jerk is what Matthew is invested in creating.
for him to engage in a thoughtful, strenuous engagement of ideas, facts and logic would be a de facto and complete refutation of the assertion he has made about the nature of both of these blogs.
from a strategic level, Matthew cannot 'go there', for to do so he refutes himself.
and if there's one thing rabbit people absolutely positively will NOT do, it's admit fault.
@Athor
another notable 'conversion' was that guy who's handle was a variant spelling of Prometheus(?). he started out a raving atheist rabbit person and wound up converting ( mostly because he almost got an @$$beating IRL ) to Catholicism at last word.
which is a really strange result for a blog run by a Libertarian who started out Baptist. not sure what Vox religiously self-idents as now but i know it's not Catholic.
Vox, please tell me you invented Matthew as a joke. Is that really your friend typing or something?
If not, he posts those comments under his real name. I think no further comment is needed.
We're making fun of you because you fail to back up your assertion.
If it needs to be spelled out for him, then Matthew A is just an idiot who excels in verbal diarrhea.
Matt,
"He seemed to hint at understanding where I'm coming from, if remaining timid/equivocal about advocating full engagement."
Yeah, I'm a real shrinking violet.
The willingness to charge heedlessly into a china shop is not what makes one a bull.
Perhaps the headache you're experiencing from discovering that this place is more akin to an old cellar full of cast-iron cauldrons will bring that point home with some force.
Okay, I see we have made little progress from post one. C'est la internet.
I am just not going to pore through your boring commentary archives and construct an excel spreadsheet to scratch the itch of your suddenly preferred brand of "evidence" -- a preference that coincidentally appears when you are at the end of your rhetorical rope. This is rhetoric, which means we make passing observations for the consideration of the "320k" readers who do not necessarily comment, asking whether those observations ring true.
I understand why the louder representatives of group-think would conclude I haven't addressed any worthy issue or stated a valid claim or made a cogent case. And yet you replied to my nullity with over a hundred comments, which greatly exceeds (doubles? triples?) the average response here. If I am trolling, it is supertrolling. Most instigators do not leave an unusually voluminous response in their wake. They are clucked at and pecked by the hens, and are heard from no more.
Now ask yourselves -- what precisely is the quality that increased the quantity? Can you all really be just so very spontaneously scandalized?
That is the "sensitivity" that makes up your "sensitivity-driven" discourse.
Now that it's over, note the energetic reaction you create when you stir in the catalyst of sharp dissent. Rather than the staid, "Great post, Voxy!" "Man, you're the best. Keep it up!!!" a challenge to the orthodoxy at very worst inspires a lively defense, which, if a little yeasty and frothy, can also be substantive.
Now up the quality of your defense. You are woefully, wince-inducingly out of practice. The mockery and taunting is fine, even healthy, so long as it's backed up by more than sentiment (and contains a morsel of wit). The counter-challenges are good so long as they aren't inspired primarily by pique against interlopers. This was the point of Alistair's essay which prompted the original post.
No hard feelings. After all, we're not sensitivity-driven here, right? Cheers, brothers. I know you love it.
Matt
And yet you replied to my nullity with over a hundred comments, which greatly exceeds (doubles? triples?) the average response here
That's the way it works, yes. Go check the anomalous thread at VP, with 231 comments. You'll notice that the discussion was kept alive over its normal shelf life by Tad.
Now, would you say that it was more like "sharp dissent" or "nullity"? If the latter, then you'll have to conclude that the mere fact of disagreement doubles or triples the comment number. Quality doesn't matter.
As for the difference in the amount of dissent between this site and VP, it is probably because this is a single issue forum, and VP is multiple issue. If you don't agree with the single issue, you're not very likely to come here regularly. But if you agree with a considerable number of the multiple issues (and not necessarily all), you probably will become a regular.
This means that there is also going to be a number of issues where you disagree. And that creates much more dissent.
I remember one post from the early days, where Vox characterized me (along with at least Jamsco, and probably Nate) as a "critic" of his. These days I'm Vox's business partner, which happened because of the forum. Funny that, if he indeed doesn't have a high tolerance for criticism.
All that bleating just to prove beyond any doubt that you have no "there" there. And now you pat yourself on the back.
Sarah nailed you when she dubbed you King Ass.
Yah, you keep telling yourself that, Matty. (Projection much?)
What we have here (yet again) is a ludicrous failure to AMOG.
You could start your own blog Matt, if you are so very certain you know better how to run one. Hm?
Just think: from that lofty perch you could rain down your just pronouncements upon all the lesser Man-O-Sphere blogs around you. Soon your readers would reach to the millions, all flocking to bathe in your, um...fragrant clouds of rhetorical flourish!
Yeah! Like that! You would become truly worthy of your name, a King in his own Domain, lording over your loyal subjects and dispensing your vast trove of wisdom (and other gaseous discharges) to a truly *appreciative* audience.
The fact that you don't, the fact that you'd rather snipe here and wherever else, speaks volumes about you. And regarding that hierarchy that is supposed to be so isolated to this tiny corner of the Man-O-Sphere and utilized solely for suppressing dissent, I did notice that Krauser appears to be exploring the use of some of Vox's unique identifiers.
Oh noes! Better run off and bloviate at Krauser, see if you can shame him into giving up this ridiculous lexicon before it gets out of hand!
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.