Wednesday, April 3, 2013

How to enter the lion's den

"When you go in the lion's den, you don't tippy toe in. You carry a spear, you go in screaming like a banshee, you kick whatever doors in, and say, 'Where's the son of a bitch!' If you go in any other way you're gonna lose." 
- Brian Billick

Rollo wisely admonishes those who will be drawing media attention as the androsphere begins to command mainstream attention:
 I understand the host here is contracted to the Huff-Po so the context begins in terms of what entertains women’s need for indignation. No indignation, no audience. George is hamstrung from the outset: we have the ubiquitous 50+, “I’m ok with the beta provider I married after fucking my spell of bad boys and learned my lesson so you gals should learn from my mistakes” woman (aka the Aunt Giggles, Kay Hymowitz archetype). Next we have the prerequisite “clinical psychologist” who looks like one of the mothers on Dance Moms, and rattles off the feel good humanist psychology truisms clich├ęd in the 1990′s. After that we have Nathan the self-identified White Knight who’s only purpose is to bolster both women’s feeble positions to better identify with any woman in the hopes that she might be watching and, God willing, anonymously seek him out to potentially hook up with him for being such a team player.

That’s a tough cast to work with so I will commend George on his effort, however, his dropping the ball here is less about his grasp of red-pill wisdom (I know and read his blog regularly), and more about the context that the MSM will allow the manosphere to be represented in. Learn this now red-pill literati before you venture into the MSM – the feminine imperative will gladly make you the red meat for the indignation that sells their advertising to women.
As I now have a considerable amount of experience with hostile mainstream interviewers, I recommend listening to this interview I did with a gentleman by the name of Thom Hartmann for an example of how to go into a situation where you are aware the host does not share your views. What you always have to keep in mind is that they are not talking to you, they are talking to their viewers/listeners through you. To communicate effectively, you have to do the same. When listening to this, note that Hartmann not unreasonably considers himself more intelligent than the average talking head. And yet, simply by being sufficiently prepared for a potentially hostile interlocutor, I am able to present a case for the seemingly unthinkable in a perfectly credible manner.


Anonymous said...


You "outfact'd" him. This is why we all need to read our little tails off. But also to turn that knowledge into wisdom.


VD said...

You "outfact'd" him.

True. But any Game theoretician should be able to easily outfact any man or woman unfamiliar with Game.

The point is to be prepared to face hostile questions and questioners. You may not. But in many cases, you will.

Roundtine said...

One method is to take their view point and present your argument to them in their own words. They may still disagree, but they can understand it. Reactionaries/conservatives living in a liberal mecca has to learn to do this or stay silent.

But if feminism controls the MSM, then do you need it? Maybe the best approach is to troll it, or seduce it. The goal of the manosphere is the happiness of women. Seduce the audience.

Shimshon said...

He certainly doesn't challenge you on the facts. And the facts are sufficiently erudite that by itself it makes you look intelligent. It also weakens his challenge on your ideas. Because he relied on using situations (like Scotland) to counter you, which in the end only bolstered your position.

You also made better use of the facts. So what if Texas would be net loser? You don't even challenge whether they would or wouldn't be. And it would look stupid on his part to say that the parasites in Texas should be forced to stay in the union.

Nice job.

SarahsDaughter said...

You compose yourself so well it interviews. Knowing my proclivity, as a woman, to need to process my thoughts in order to not respond emotionally, I have turned down voice interviews. I've witnessed some of the most reserved spokeswomen flip their lid in situations like this.

Giraffe said...

I think you were aided greatly in that he didn't react emotionally. He was willing to have a conversation.

He could have said, "you see, Voice of God here thinks the South should have been allowed to leave and keep their slaves. What a RHSD!"

I think a manosphere guy should expect hysterics. What is the best way to deal with that?

Rollo Tomassi said...

"The thing for the Republican party." heheh, Vox is too well educated for the Republican; they still think Sarah Palin is an intellectual.

I listen to Thom Hartman occasionally, and while I don't agree with him on every topic, he is a consumate statistician. You'd better know your shit and know it well before you engage.

While VD had the benefit of a forum founded on intellectual exchange, 3MM was simply walking into the circus of the feminine imperative. He made good points but no one on the panel or even the host had the capacity to grant him any legitimacy from the start. Manosphere = Misognyosphere, and the best cogent debate bores women's hamsters.

They don't want to think, they want to feel, and feel they did. They got their indignation dopamine high, and before George could fire back with the next valid point it was "I'm afraid that's all we have time for, thanks."

Martel said...

Good job, but although the interviewer disagreed with you, he did so respectfully. Handling a Piers Morgan or Chris Matthews requires a different skillset. It's one you may in fact posses, but it's not on display here.

Regarding the content of your argument, I'm in partial agreement. I believe it is the function of government to preserve individual liberty. When a succession movement will increase the individual liberty of its citizens, I support it. When such a movement would instead lead to greater oppression, I don't.

Usually, the collective sovereignty of a given state corresponds with the expansion of liberty for its citizens. However, sometimes it doesn't.

I am endowed by my Creator with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I consider states that recognize that to be legitimate and those that don't to be illegitimate, regardless of their size, which came first, or whether or not they were democratically elected.

But you did a very good job at presenting your poits to the interviewer.

Martel said...

@ Giraffe: The way to deal with hysterics is to reframe. Typically, I ensure that the audience recognize that I'm dealing with hysterics, that I'm being victimized, and then counter-attack ruthlessly.

As far as BS rhetorical techniques that may not seem hysterically but are equally illegitimate (and effective), I provide an example of what I do here:

VD said...

I think a manosphere guy should expect hysterics. What is the best way to deal with that?

Agree and amplify. Nothing discredits an individual like going into a frothing frenzy. When I sense someone is on edge, I calmly push them right over it. Make them look even more ridiculous than they are.

On one Canadian radio show, I methodically egged the female caller on to declaring that all men and women who disagreed with her feminism should be put into Cambodian-style death camps. Even the liberal, feminist radio host was aghast.

Anonymous said...

At 4:03 he purposefully interrupts you when you were about to bring home your point about how self determination may seem crazy to us, but nonetheless it's essential and he switches the focus with another question about Lincoln (classic lib tactic). You fell for it and answered his second question without finishing your sentence about the first point. This happened again, so just want to you to be aware of this slight flaw in an otherwise great job.

Newly Aloof

Anonymous said...

The interviewer didn't have his facts correct. Texas brings in more money to the US government than the other way around. Texas is the fastest growing state in the country. Last census it gained four electoral votes.

Texas is the mecca of energy in the world. Since the United States uses 33% of its energy from Texas, what would the US do if Texas went its own way? Texas already has the cheapest gas, imagine it being much cheaper without the federal regulations.

In addition, other energy producing nations of the world rely on Texas (where do you think the shale oil technology came from?). Texas could get an alliance from Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Mexico, and various other countries. Those nations need Texas more than they need the United States.

25% of the military all come from Texas. Most military veterans retire in Texas. Militarily, Texas would be a potent force today especially with so many technology companies moving into the state.

Daniel said...

The interviewer didn't have his facts correct.

They never do. That is not the point. The point is for the interviewee to have his facts correct and to deliver his message to the audience on his terms.

See the rules of the teevee interview are simple, whether the interviewer is good (rarely) or openly biased (most of the time): Interviewer asks question to spur content. It doesn't really matter what the content is. Just anything that fills dead air. Leading questions don't need to be "properly" answered, as long as they are answered in some way.

Now, some really bad interviewers may get emotional and such or just go off the rails. That's fine. No one is listening to them anyway. I can remember a lot of people's answers. I can never remember the question.

The proper answer, for example, to a bad question like "When did you stop kicking your dog?" is "Zero, and its development in the field of mathematics is fascinating..."

You don't answer the question. You castrate it.

Note that the answer is not a non-sequitor: the talk of zero suggests that you do not, in fact, kick your dog, ever.

The half-decent questions like the ones Vox was asked are obviously a little trickier to defuse, but the principle holds. Bad questions are simply an opportunity to assert the obvious.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous wondered what the U.S. would do regarding Texas's energy if Texas seceded. That's easy: send in the troops and the drones, same as we do with any other 3rd-world energy kingdom that gets uppity.

Anonymous said...

i don't even bother with radical feminists. the facts are most young women will admit they wish more guys knew game.

i game my female readers CONSTANLTY.

realmatt said...

I didn't imagine God's voice would be so nasally.

Peter Garstig said...

Cracked up when you said Liechtenstein...does 'Tom with an H' knows where that is?

Your audible voice does not match your writing voice, strangely. Gotta shake hands next time your in my town to set that straight.

Anyhow, he interrupted you several times but staid quite calm during the debate. It's as fair you can get it with this kind of media.

Dave O said...

Hartman says around 2:30: "You could argue that the reason Scotland was part of the UK was because they were conquered and now they're unconquering themselves."

He seems to have a blind spot about the Civil War and the sheer tyranny of all. You can say the same about the South (that they were conquered), or about the Union in general- any will to leave the Union was conquered.

Jacob Ian Stalk said...

Three points to make:

Arguments voiced are more powerful and compelling than arguments written.

Shallow arguments well made tend to outmuscle deeper ones, much like the spear-wielding banshee in the quote at the start of this post.

Grace won the day in the interview, rather than Game. I wonder, a deliberate act of grace the same in spiritual terms as Game well played?

Martel said...

@ Jacob: It's "Game well-played" in that somebody without it won't be able to take advantage of any grace that comes their way.

The other guy might leave you open, but you still gotta make the shot.

VD said...

At 4:03 he purposefully interrupts you when you were about to bring home your point about how self determination may seem crazy to us, but nonetheless it's essential and he switches the focus with another question about Lincoln (classic lib tactic). You fell for it and answered his second question without finishing your sentence about the first point.

I didn't fall for anything. You can't go backward in a media interview. It always looks lame. If they have to interrupt and move on, that means you won the point and they know it.

I followed the correct strategy, which is to focus on winning the next point. If you're thinking about how to go back and finish the point you intended to make, you're going to blow it.

Trust me on this, I've made that mistake before. But when they control the mike, they make the rules. You have to be adept enough to play by them, even if they are changed halfway-through on you.

Joe Blow said...

The Smartest Attorney I Have Ever Known (SAIHEK) is a former White House Counsel. He tells the story of when the NY Times approached him about writing an essay defending a Bush 41 or maybe a Reagan policy. He asked, "you're not going to get me to do all this work, then give it to an op-ed writer who will write something debunking this, then not publish my essay, are you? Because you guys did that to ______ and he told me about it."

"No, of course not," the NY Times editor said.
"We'd never."

So the SAIHEK, a guy who should have known better, spent several hours out of a couple very busy days where he really didn't have several hours to give, writing a cracking essay defending Administration policy. He faxed it to the Times. (This was the late 80's). He waited several days and was thinking about calling the editor, when he happened to open the Sunday Times, and there was an op-ed thoroughly hammering the Administration policy. There were several arguments in it, and each was a clever rebuttal to the arguments of the SAIHEK. They were even in the order that they'd be written, if they were directly in response to the order of the Smartest Attorney & etc.'s op-ed. He didn't bother calling the editor back because he presumed he'd be told they never got the fax.

As the SAIEK puts it, "I learned a very important and highly sophisticated lesson from that experience. Don't trust the media."

You can probably draw other lessons from that relating to preparation, how your argument needs to be structured to avoid pre-buttal, demanding equal time coverage & getting the last word, but SAIHEK's summary is probably the key thing to remember.

Jules L. said...

Thanks for the interview. Hope you do more of them. In this post-literate society, it helps.

In the Frigid North said...

Vox, how would you define victory in a situation like 3MM's panel?

The lion's den can be scored by body-count, football has rules and a scoreboard, and honest debates on a discrete topic can be measured on fact and logic, but it seems hard to devise a metric for a panel discussion on relationships that are put up by HuffPo.

Anonymous said...

i finally got to watch the interview. well done Sir.

and androsphere blogger being interviewed by huff-po is akin to walking into NOW HQ and demanding dinner a blowjob.

Bill Solomon said...

I don't understand where one gets this "right of self determination", is it a moral right? I am extremely suspicious of any principles that share names with things acclaimed by Woodrow Wilson. And it seems like this "right" comes from a faulty analogy between the individual and the state.

Anonymous said...

VD, I see your point now. And he knows you won anyway.

Newly Aloof

Anonymous said...

That's the only time I've seen Thom. Was it understood in advance that he wanted to play devil's advocate? His entire strategy was just to try to catch you out while offering nothing of his own, and to gloss over all his factual errors.

That sort of behaviour is fine when that's the guy's known MO. If he changes tack with people he agrees with then he's just a pseudo-intellectual gamma moron.

Matthew King said...

"I recommend listening to this interview I did with a gentleman by the name of Thom Hartmann for an example of how to go into a situation where you are aware the host does not share your views."

Ben Shapiro does it better (and he has a new book out about it, Bullies). He explains his method step by lethal step:

His original annihilation of Piers Morgan:

And he's all of 29-years-old. In January he will be the age when Plato's guardians are prepared to take positions of leadership in The Republic. The manosphere needs a young officer class patterned after Shapiro.


tz said...

Entering the Lion's den is easy. Staying and exiting intact is the hard part.

It reminds me of a joke. In ancient Rome someone was condemned to death unless he could complete three tasks.

The first was to consume a large jug of strong wine. The second was to remove the abscessed tooth of a lion. The third was to satisfy a virgin.

So he goes into the coliseum, and drinks the whole jug.

Then the lion is brought and released. A lot of motion ensues. The lion is roaring and the man is yelling. It looks like a whirlwind or tornado. No one can tell what is going on. It goes on for several minutes. Finally both the man and lion collapse in opposite directions.

The man staggers to his feat and asks in a slurred voice "OK, now where is the virgin with the abscessed tooth?".

LP2021 Bank of LP Work in Progress said...

Fine interview! Very educational post-interview points.

"Diminishing credibility?" You handled that all too well.

Self-determination seemed to flown over his head although I'm sure he understood.

Unknown said...

Good interview.

While the MSM has been going on about Crimea, another area in Italy, Veneto which includes Venice has voted and declared independence.

Post a Comment