Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Banning Matt aka King A

Since Matt simply doesn't understand that merely disagreeing with someone and attacking them is not tantamount to heterotopic discourse and refuses to abide by the guidelines I laid down for him, he has been banned.

I gave him multiple chances.  Four on the previous post alone.  He demonstrated that he is completely unwilling to abide by the principles of modern discourse as listed in the previous post, but insisted upon ignoring the topics at hand and showed that he was only interested in discussing my motivations, my character, how I might compare to others, (including himself), and so on.

Note the very first point in the modern discourse list: "personal detachment from the issues under discussion".  Matt is an observably postmodern rabbit, even though he attempts to appeal to modern values.  This, as I will explain in a future post, is quite common among high-functioning rabbits.

In his final comment, Matt brought up what a "Master Rhetorician" would do instead of banning him, thereby indicating that he simply does not understand that the purpose of dialectical discourse is not to demonstrate an ability to engage in superior rhetoric.  While I am interested in teaching people how to successfully engage the Rabbit People in a language they can understand, I have zero interest in putting up with someone who simply cannot rise above the rhetorical level whenever he disagrees with me or anyone else. And while I can engage in a rhetorical hopping match with him, I have even less interest in doing that.

This is especially true when I have seen his behavior on Dalrock's Rollo's, and Roissy's blog has been very similar to his behavior here.  They can tolerate him if they like, I will no longer do so.  Matt wants to be a chief rabbit, his problem is that he doesn't understand that most Game blogs are not run by Rabbit People.

Being limited to the rhetorical level, Matt does not understand that heterotopic and dialectical discourse does not rely upon permitting everyone to say whatever they want to say at all times.  Nor does he grasp that refusing to let someone repeatedly attempt to monopolize the comment section does not amount to being sensitivity-driven.  He is not being banned for his ideas or his differences of opinion or even for any subjective opinion of his behavior, but for his repeated refusal to participate in modern, heterotopic, and dialectical discourse.

For example, Matt added three more comments after the four for which he was banned.  Here is his idea of "heterotopic" discourse:
Who are these stuffed animals with which you word-joust? What kind of ciphers "lower their eyes" when some puffed-up prig makes mention of Mensa? No wonder you are so out of practice. You choose your opponents carefully and pretend the rest of us don't exist.

Erase me. Does it give you a little tingle thrill to exert such pretend power?

That's it. Yeahh. Nobody will ever know I can't manage even a mediocre comment section. On to the next "postmodern" self-flattery...
Notice here three of the distinguishing features of a rabbit.  He simply can't imagine that everything isn't about him.  More importantly he can't imagine someone taking an action that isn't rooted in how it will look to others.  And while his words superficially appear to make sense, they are fundamentally nonsensical; how could publicly announcing my actions possibly hide them from everyone knowing what they are?  Why would I pretend to "postmodern" self-flattery when it is his postmodern form of discourse that I disdain?

65 comments:

Josh said...

He always came across as someone who wasn't very smart, but thought that he was, and tried to sound like what he thought a smart person would sound like. As someone once described newt: "a dumb person's idea of what a smart person sounds like.

Daniel said...

I watched you invite him to become Exhibit B in this latest Voxiversity course. I watched him accept with ignorance and glee.

You were right yesterday. The ease with which this is done is clear, and the proof of the three "weapons" (which I think is a bit misleading - they are almost, aside from the minor claw, passive defenses.)

I've been thinking about how, exactly such ill-equipped and limited warriors were able to conquer the institutions of the "Greatest" generation in their lifetimes. Of course, some of it is an erosive effect, but I also wonder if their parents returned to normalcy too beholden by the hard-won comforts of peace, and simply didn't have it in them to go to just war with the rebellious children who outnumbered them.

Joe Blow said...

Many skilled rhetoricians simply killed in duels those who insulted them. Ben Jonson and William Pitt the Younger did, and on our side of the pond, Andrew Jackson, a contemptible man but skilled rhetorician, killed Charles Dickinson in 1806.

So I think there's other options available besides simply banning King A for serial douchenozzlery.

A said...

He probably drank too much of the Alpha kool-aid and believe any form of submission would throw his beta cognitive dissonance haywire.

Amanjaw Marcuntte said...

Mangina gonna mangine.

Wendy said...

Well, it does save some scrolling...

crazyivan498 said...

can i get a quick summary of what "rabbit people" are. thanks

Unending Improvement said...

Hey, you gave me a reason to read the previous post.

marellus said...

Vox, you couldn't reframe against him.

stg58/Animal Mother said...

Thank you for banning him. His craziness and Crypto-Catholic hysteria was getting to be a little too much.

Anonymous said...

@Daniel: "I've been thinking about how, exactly such ill-equipped and limited warriors were able to conquer the institutions of the "Greatest" generation in their lifetimes. Of course, some of it is an erosive effect, but I also wonder if their parents returned to normalcy too beholden by the hard-won comforts of peace, and simply didn't have it in them to go to just war with the rebellious children who outnumbered them."

I've wondered about this myself, and find some proof of it in family examples: A proven wise man becomes too weary and unwilling to join battle yet again -- and this time in his own home. It becomes demoralizing, to face another foe within the gate.

It's hard to pinpoint the failure mechanism, but this thought has potential.

Alan K

Trust said...

I've long found the paradox amusing. People who preach tolerance will go to a blog and throw out nothing but insults, then accuse others of being close minded for not putting up yet. Yet these same people ban even mild dissent on their blogs.

Here's proof. Go to Jezebel.com or feministing.com and ask polite questions about the unfairness of family and cuckholdery laws to me. See what happens. Yet trace these preachers of tolerance to other sites and are how they behave.

VD said...

Vox, you couldn't reframe against him.

I don't follow.

Ian Ironwood said...

I think he's just a chick pretending. His writing style is undeniably feminine (appeal to rhetoric, solipsistic tendencies, obsession with appearance) but he might just be gay or in the closet. (And no, not all gay men are overly effeminate. But enough of them are to justify the distinction. Mat is clearly in touch with his femininity). Either way, he got schooled by anyone with the wit to read it. Good show.

Daniel said...

can i get a quick summary of what "rabbit people" are. thanks

Rabbit people are the domesticated fools who are solely concerned with packing together with other like-minded fools, not in the hopes of bettering society or themselves, but in the hopes that one of their fellow fools will get eaten before they do, so they can survive another day.

Think of a looter after a hurricane, justifying his actions as "just getting mine." That's a rabbit person.

A kid who provokes a fight, gets beaten senseless, spared only by the mercy of his opponent, who later claims to have kicked his victim's ass. That's a rabbit person.

A guy who despises football not because it bores him, but because it offends him. That's a rabbit person.

Other examples:

A woman who believes she's owed "respect" because she got into college. That's a rabbit person.

A scholar who thinks he wins an argument because he read a book. Rabbit.

A person who votes for politicians because it makes him feel good. Rabbit.

Any one who cowers before or worships artists, celebrities (including geek "anti-"celebrities) politicians, or other sacred cows, and claims non-conformity when they are identical to their warren of friends. All rabbit people.

NateM said...

I thinkA is right, he seemed to be a confused Gamma who tried very ineptly to mimic alpha based on his flawed understanding of game, hence his constant need to say how he doesn't care what people think of him. The sad part is he didn't realize how wrong he was and how misguided. He seemed to think he was just playing the game and was just about to earn that precious head pat

dalrock said...

Wait. We can do that?

J/K

Beefy Levinson said...

Rollo had it right on: Matt's comments become more tolerable if you imagine them being said with Dr. Smith's voice from Lost in Space.

alphamission said...

I tell him that worshipping Mary is unbiblical, he says "we dont worship her, we venerate her. You obviously dont know your Mariology." Really dude, really? King A. will forever be King Anus in my book.

ray said...

long as youre at it, you should ban that "ray" guy too

he's an asshole and does all that dialectical heterotopic and stuff, as well

in fact, he's even worse than King Matthew aka King A!

thanks for your help, reasonable folk need to stick together

Josh said...

I think he's just a chick pretending. His writing style is undeniably feminine (appeal to rhetoric, solipsistic tendencies, obsession with appearance) but he might just be gay or in the closet. (And no, not all gay men are overly effeminate. But enough of them are to justify the distinction. Mat is clearly in touch with his femininity).

The current theory is that gamma males have a partially feminine brain, right? So it's expected that they would think and write like women.

Josh said...

he's an asshole and does all that dialectical heterotopic and stuff, as well

I don't think there is a need for anyone to ban you, you're just a bitter gamma who really hates women.

ray said...

"I tell him that worshipping Mary is unbiblical, he says "we dont worship her, we venerate her"


their next go-to is We don't worship her, we REVERENCE her (not to mention raise her to equivalence with CHRIST as co-redeemer of humanity, not to mention direct their "prayers" to her dead self)

lol . . . but no WORSHIP, mind you, just co-deity with the Son of God himself, as Queen of Heaven

heh

the pore catholics are soldered to the mary teat, it's gonna take the full Shitstorm to separate them now, too

tz said...

Any one who cowers before or worships artists, celebrities (including geek "anti-"celebrities) politicians, or other sacred cows, and claims non-conformity when they are identical to their warren of friends. All rabbit people.

That about sums it up. The "warren of friends". Read the post-mortems over Romney and you see it is on both sides. On Obama's side it is clear, but the recriminations and blame shows the USA is now Bipartisanship Down.

Immigration is to increase the rabbit supply (but technically color blind: white, yellow, brown, or black rabbit as long as you are a rabbit) without having messy things like pregnancy and babies so the college white debt slavery can continue to go smoothly.

ray said...

"I don't think there is a need for anyone to ban you, you're just a bitter gamma who really hates women."


correct a mundo Josh!

females flee from my presence, because i'm an ugly bitter loser and they arent attracted to me, never expressing sexual interest in me

i notice that just about every time i go the to supermarket!

:O)

but thanks for publicizing your inferiority, insecurity, and obvious status, Josh!

Unending Improvement said...

Judging by his comments at Roissy's, he definetly seems like he's on the autism spectrum. Somewhat high functioning autism, but he just doesn't seem to get it.

Martel said...

Just wanted to say that Vox's post on rabbit people he has at his sidebar, and the article he links within it, are stupendous.

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2013/01/digging-out-rabbit-people.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2Fvoxpopoli+%28Vox+Popoli%29

Doom said...

I still think boys should be taught away from girls, to include being able to call one another out for non-lethal duels or debates, maybe both combined, until they are older. The stupid ones would learn to be the quiet ones, the weak ones would drop their pair, and the strong ones would be so through hard testing, unlike how it is today. Today, the girl-like males are the ones getting press, publishing, and starring roles... political offices, judgeships, etc. Weaksauce USA, or rather Western Civ.

Postmoderns argue exactly like every woman I have ever debated in my personal relationships. Now, with women, I think it is because they want, need, to lose. So are these sissymen wanting the whole of society to lose? I kind of think so, if like women they have no clue to that end. But when it is society wide, there are serious problems with the society. It probably needs to die, the quicker the better. I am not sure it can, otherwise, be fixed. Certainly not quickly.

Oh, I mean, great! I hope you at least advised him to not let the door hit him in the ass on the way out, wouldn't want a lawsuit or hurt feelings. Weaksauce candyasses. Bleh.

Rollo Tomassi said...

Vox Day! Shame on you!

The urchin stench of your perfidious delimiting of the genuflection and musings of so refined and moral an enigma as Matthew King befouls and besmirches the very foundations of the integrity your pitiable cesspool of a weblog can only flailing convulse to attain.

I find reading Matt's sermons much more entertaining if you imagine Dr. Smith from Lost in Space reading them aloud.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mF6dCD8n2E

Rollo Tomassi said...

oh, and if you're feeling up to the verbal diarrhea necessary to actually engage Matt in debate, I find it's useful to consult a shakespearean insult generator to pepper in a few zings only he'll understand.

http://www.pangloss.com/seidel/Shaker/index.html?

Robert in Arabia said...

Burning protestants at the stake is the only reasonable response to their mental illness.

Josh said...

but thanks for publicizing your inferiority, insecurity, and obvious status, Josh!

You sad little man

Pepper said...

I don't like to make fun of people, but after reading this I think I have to:

"Who are these stuffed animals with which you word-joust?"

I laughed out loud! What kind of a man references "stuffed animals"...? I'm scared he even has that analogy at hand. Is this guy a eunuch or what? Can we nominate him for the "Never gonna get any" hall of fame?

I repent now...

Desiderius said...

Sure sign of a sigma:

When he does find a status-hierarchy worth fighting for, he brings a Death Star to a knife fight.

First Scalzi, now King A.

If Matt A is interested in winning rather than losing miserably at the AMOG game, he'll need to start a/several blog(s) of his own, get published, attract followers, etc...

There is a reason the word authority starts with author.

If on the other hand he wished to productively engage in the conversation, some sign of deference to those who legitimately have achieved such authority is required.

Desiderius said...

Again, though, to the extent he did have a point besides AMOGging, he wasn't entirely mistaken.

Will write more on that later.

Desiderius said...

"The "warren of friends". Read the post-mortems over Romney and you see it is on both sides."

Yes, the election was lost in Ryan's amused slavery in the face of Biden's AMOGing. The electorate took her cue from the moderator's reaction.

Likewise Romney's deer-in-the-headlights reaction to Crowley breaking the rules to help Obama.

mmaier2112 said...

Good riddance. He was a tedious bore.

Markku said...

His bloviations were occasionally entertaining, but there were just too many of them.

VD said...

When he does find a status-hierarchy worth fighting for, he brings a Death Star to a knife fight.

Okay, I laughed.

Again, though, to the extent he did have a point besides AMOGging, he wasn't entirely mistaken.

I don't disagree. That was why I gave him as many chances as I did. But he turned out to be much less interested in the points of genuine substance than in poncing about.

I had my finger on the trigger after reading his comments at Rollo's the other day and realizing that his behavior had nothing to do with me or anything I'd written, but was his modus operandi.

Michael said...

Can someone help the clueless among us and explain what "heterotopic" means?

Google thinks it has something to do with abnormal bone formation.

Johnny Caustic said...

The urchin stench of your perfidious delimiting of the genuflection and musings of so refined and moral an enigma as Matthew King befouls and besmirches the very foundations of the integrity your pitiable cesspool of a weblog can only flailing convulse to attain.

Rollo, wow, that was good! Hey, I hear there's a fresh job opening requiring exactly those skills in the Alpha Game comments section...

Desiderius said...

"Okay, I laughed."

Noblesse oblige.

Glad you caught the implied deference.

Lead on.

It will be a day or two before I can write about the misuse here of "modernism" to mean "everything before post-modernism." What is labeled here as "post-modern" is tragically much too narrow.

Matt A is drunk with the power that comes with the discovery of the pre-modern (cf. GBFM). One hopes this setback can go some way toward bringing him to his senses.

Toby Temple said...

Well, there were several people who respected or even praised him in Roissy's blog.

He seems to think that what he says mean a lot. Sadly, he cannot find the same results here and I think it is scratching painfully against his ego.

Jack Amok said...

I've been thinking about how, exactly such ill-equipped and limited warriors were able to conquer the institutions of the "Greatest" generation in their lifetimes.

Being too tired to fight yet another battle was probably part of it, but I also think it had to do with the insidious, perfidious, nature of the leftists. Fifth columns and sabotage are hallmarks of most stripes of socialism. I suspect a great many "Greatest" folks never realized just what the younger generation was until they had handed over too many keys to pull it back.

(Kinda reminds me of a certain set of - ah - brothers - in Vox's new book actually)

Plus, they have a damned high tolerance for beavering away in bureaucies. Pournelle's Iron Law Of the Bureaucracy probably comes into play. Groupists are more willing to toil away in profoundly unglamorous administrative jobs, and they make those admin jobs into power positions.

Matt A is drunk with the power that comes with the discovery of the pre-modern (cf. GBFM).

Are you saying GBFM finally drove someone crazy? I assumed it would happen sooner or later.

PA said...

Yeah, that Matt guy.

I think he must have been sodomized with a thesaurus at some point, leading to his comically pompous manner of communication.

Just like victims of sexual abuse often become hyper-sexualized as a means of dealing with their trauma, I suspect the same may be true here.

Or, perhaps he was simply improperly potty-trained by a "master rhetorician".

VD said...

It will be a day or two before I can write about the misuse here of "modernism" to mean "everything before post-modernism." What is labeled here as "post-modern" is tragically much too narrow.

I absolutely concur. If you noticed, I am simply referring to the term as used in the linked post. I prefer to view the divide as taking place on the dialectic-rhetoric distinction myself.

Let me know when you've written it up and I'll link to it.

Desiderius said...

Jack,

The Left set out to march through the institutions. Instead, the institutions marched through the Left.

Desiderius said...

I'm saying that GBFM recognizes that power. Unlike Matt, he also recognizes that a modern readership will have been inoculated against that power, and so adapts a different idiom to subvert their defenses.

Matt is akin to the proverbial American in Paris who imagines that speaking English louder will allow a Frenchman to understand him.

Miserman said...

The importance of personal detachment cannot be overstated. One of the most destructive influences in modern discourse is that people take things personally while not taking things seriously. This needs to be reversed, especially among men.

Anonymous said...

"Sure sign of a sigma:

When he does find a status-hierarchy worth fighting for, he brings a Death Star to a knife fight."

Outstanding!

Rollo Tomassi said...

Has anyone ever run one of Matt's diatribes through Gender Genie?
http://www.languagetrainers.com/blog/2012/07/09/the-gender-genie-algorithm-detects-authors-sex-from-a-writing-sample/

. said...

He practically begged you to take away his rights!

kh123 said...

"Can someone help the clueless among us and explain what "heterotopic" means?

Google thinks it has something to do with abnormal bone formation."


That would be true for the r-Type rhetorical male.

Desiderius said...

"I absolutely concur."

In that case, a write-up would be superfluous.

What we are fighting is modernism in its death throes.

Popper is the gateway forward. Strange bedfellows will be required.

stareatgoatsies said...

I find it very funny how, once someone popular defines a funny little expression in an interesting way, they start seeing examples of it everywhere, and their followers start tripping over themselves to explain their new theory of How That Thing We Already Didn't Like Is Actually That New Thing We've Been Discussing Amongst Ourselves.

A rabbit can turn a phrase, comes out with some funny insults - ah well, you see my friend, this here is on of them intellectual rabbit people we've heard tell of.

And so on.

stareatgoatsies said...

Just like the feminists do.

Daniel said...

stareatgoatsies, "rabbit people" has been a descriptor for such folk for years, and not just around this parts. I remember reading a libertarian's (L. Neil Smith, likely) references to "rabbit people" (in the same context) about a decade ago or more.

It is a more common and familiar term than you suggest.

Anonymous said...

you guys or the feminists its all the same its about power. I'll take the fems i guess better conditions for men than men would give men.
Dudes were paying child support alimony in world war ii
gunslingergregi

Kate said...

Nice wingmanship :) Nothing thrills like a bad-boy.

Agent Mongoloid said...

"you guys or the feminists its all the same its about power. I'll take the fems i guess better conditions for men than men would give men."

I can typing. For reallys.

Retrenched said...

"Burning protestants at the stake is the only reasonable response to their mental illness."

I wasn't expecting the Spanish Inquisition...

Anonymous said...

good choice.

roissy needs to ban his ass too. king a's pseudo intellectual jibber-jabber is attracting the wrong kind of commenters.

grey_whiskers said...

@alphamission on January 22, 2013 at 10:36 AM --

I tell him that worshipping Mary is unbiblical, he says "we dont worship her, we venerate her. You obviously dont know your Mariology." Really dude, really? King A. will forever be King Anus in my book.

I'm not defending Matt, but correcting a misapprehension about "Mariolatry."

Think of the fans who attach to Drew Brees, Adrian Peterson, or your favorite sports star.
Apply that attitude to the pursuit of sanctity, and submission to God, in lieu of sports talent.
Throw in a touch of the Magnificat and you're almost there.

Would I be correct in adding that another disagreement between Protestants and Catholics is the Immaculate Conception (Mary conceived without original sin)?

Further affiant sayeth not, to avoid getting *too* far off topic. This is not a religious thread, nor am I trying to start a flamewar: nor I will not respond to any attempts to start one.

Largo said...

Vox,

As a newcomer I want set my tone right, I so I've been looking through some of the old posts. I hope this post is not yet to stale for another comment.

I have no beef with "We do not worship Mary, we venerate her." I might argue against there being a meaningful distinction here, but I what I will fight is the distinction that you made, not your making the distinctions.

Alternatively, I'll have no beef with "Yes, I worship Mary. And I worship my wife. 'With my body, I thee worship'. But I will not to what Paul condemns in Romans, which is to worship the creature -more- than the Creator."

But I believe "You obviously dont know your Mariology" is a bit of an asshole things to say.

I hope you it was -this- that was unbecoming for a man to say, and not the words that preceded it. Can you give me guidance?

- Largo

Pussy-ManiaGirls: http://goo.gl/w9Oepq said...

watching my collection, we have upload more video at here:

Collection Part 1:

Doggy Style and In Missionary Position

Hot Sex Anal With Amazing Girl Friend

Sex Under Hot Lights Bad Girls

Give Me The Cum

Cum In My Panties

Nude Amateur Teen Girls

Sexy Brunette Girls

Young Kinky Sluts

Busty Tattoo Chick On Car

Young Asian fucked anal

Latina Havana Ginger gets

Teen Threesome Porn

Hot Blowjob

Amateur Pulls Down Tanga

Sweet girl amazing hot

Sexy japanese babes getting their tight

TEEN BLONDE ANAL SEX ORGY




Collection Part 2:


Hot asian blowjob and pussy creampie

Sucking dick, Audrey put vegetables in all holes

Blonde love fuck

Naomi Russell And Her Royal Ass

Sexy blonde gives blowjob in the car

ASIAN XXX PORN VIDEO

JAPANESE XXX PORN VIDEO

ARABIC XXX PORN VIDEO

HARDCORE PORN VIDEO

GAY XXX PORN VIDEO

WATCH STREAMING PORN VIDEO

USA CELEBS XXX PORN

LATINA XXX PORN

LESBIAN XXX PORN

Hardcore Porn Celebrity

HOT TURKEY PORN MOVIE

INDIAN NUDES CELEBRITIES VIDEOS

UZBEKS Fuck PORN VIDEOS

HOT RASTA GIRL


100% MAKE you satisfy......








































Reply Delete

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.