Tuesday, February 7, 2017

The Gamma self-destruct

Gammas regularly engage in social self-destruction. Precisely what triggers it, I haven't learned yet, but it is the result of overestimating their own importance to others, most likely as a consequence of erroneously attributing their sense of self-importance to those they feel should appreciate them. Consider the following example of a volunteer proofreader who discovers that his efforts have not given him a veto over the publisher's book covers.

I agree that the pointless promiscuity prevents this from being promotable as a young adult novel. The previous covers were excellent.

This was fine. It's a legitimate opinion and the Gamma was agreeing with someone else who felt the cover was too alluring. However, note that the first commenter spoke his piece and left it at that. The Gamma, of course, did not. The other weird note was the use of the term "promiscuity", which didn't even make sense. This is the first sign that we're dealing with a Gamma here, as in an attempt to appear smarter than they are, they often use words they don't fully understand in an improper manner.

VD: Thank you for all the virtue-signaling. As I'm sure you know, we don't care. If you are under the mistaken impression that I am even remotely concerned with your standards of decency, I would invite you to read the prologue of A Sea of Skulls. Preferably at a hospital capable of treating stroke victims.

Vox, perhaps an open discussion about the pros and cons of presenting an oversexualized image to young boys in an already oversexualized culture that has serious problems with cavalier attitudes toward sex would be more constructive than the caustic defensiveness I see you reactively spouting. Your snark is approaching McRapey levels.

And now we're off to the Gamma races. First, the appeal to "open discussion". The Gamma always wants a jury trial, particularly when one is inappropriate. Second, observe the dishonesty and emotional projection. My response is neither caustic nor defensive; it is not even remotely snarky. If you have read the book mentioned, then you will be aware that, if anything, I am putting the contrast mildly. Anyone who has an issue with the cover of Daughter of Danger is going to have very serious problems indeed with the orc-rape, murder, and pillage of a household that is described, in graphic and sadistic detail, in A Sea of Skulls.

Mindlessly accusing folks of being "puritans" without knowing them or even really engaging with the conversation is little different than the SJW squawking "Nazi!" And a question to consider: Do we really want to take the position of mocking purity?

He continues with a false and inappropriate comparison. He then follows that up with a rhetorical question meant to emotionally manipulate those who disagree with him.

Caustic defensiveness, reactively spouting, snark, and McRapey? You're projecting. I'm not discussing this with you. Just go away now. And that is the polite version.

I've already recognized that I'm dealing with a Gamma. I don't like Gammas and I won't argue with them, because I know there is no point. So, I tell him to go away.

I rarely comment anyway, but I'll certainly go away if you wish. I've done a fair amount of free proofreading for you over the last few months, but please don't email me again requesting any more.

A beautiful example of Gamma pretense combined with Gamma fear of rejection, followed by the usual appeal to importance and being on the same team combined with a threat. He even managed to work in an implication of superiority. In just two sentences, the Gamma manages to check five identifying boxes.

[in reference to requesting further proofreading] I will certainly refrain from doing so. [In reference to the Gamma going away.] I think that would be for the best. This is exactly why I always seek to avoid working with Gammas or even permitting them to volunteer. As Mike, Milo, and others have learned, they will ALWAYS turn on you the moment they feel insufficient respect is being shown to them. The ability to work constructively with those with whom they disagree is almost completely beyond them.

And yet here you are lashing out and name-calling people with whom you disagree or who you feel haven't shown your book cover sufficient respect. Doesn't seem to different to me.

Where is the lashing out, name-calling, or most tellingly, a failure to show sufficient respect? Pure, unadulterated Gamma projection.

I consider myself alt-right and I voted for Trump, but it's amazing how quickly you folks will turn on someone who expresses what you deem to be the alt-right's version of badthink.

Notice that he has not gone away despite having been encouraged to do so. The Gamma is now revealing his fear of being outgrouped, and in his desperation, makes a weird and irrelevant appeal to claim membership in the group. What do his political views or his presidential vote have to do with the rejection of his call for more purity in book covers?

Shut up and go away, Gamma. We didn't turn on you, you turned on us. Now go away. You don't belong here.

And the self-destruction process is complete. This guy is probably reasonably high Gamma, because he didn't stick around longer or launch into a bizarre series of attacks on me, the publishing house, or other commenters on the blog. But a Delta would never have been so disloyal as to offer public criticism - a Delta with similar issues would have emailed me privately - and both Betas and Alphas would have shut up as soon as the relevant authority's lack of interest in his opinion was demonstrated.

You will see this process play out in the Gammas around you with regularity. That's why they don't have many friends or remain in the organizations they join, and to which they often contribute, for long. Sooner or later, the Gamma will overstep his bounds, and instead of backing down, he'll challenge authority, get promptly swatted down, and then, in his pride, turn what should be nothing more than a minor correction into self-destruction and banishment.

60 comments:

Michael Maier said...

Not regarding the content and I just woke up, but this post seems hard to read from the changing BOLD to Italics.

pdwalker said...

wow. just wow.

how to take something innocuous and blow it all out of proportion 101.

(fwiw, i actually think that "Iron Chamber of Memory"'s covet was steamier and neither cover would i have any problem showing to my children)

David The Good said...

You spotted him faster than I did. When he got to the "I rarely comment anyway, but I'll certainly go away if you wish. I've done a fair amount of free proofreading for you over the last few months, but please don't email me again requesting any more" comment... I realized the guy was a windowlicker.

paworldandtimes said...

And then there's the churchian's crypto-feminism.

All kinds of concern about a boy's exposure to the female form, but nary a peep on promoting girls' immodesty (if you accept the puritan premise).

With them, it's always solely about restraining male sexuality.

PA

Son of Issachar said...

Make Book Covers Great Again, Vox!

Harsh said...

It amazes me how those cretins follow the same script every time. At some point you'd think they'd realize that no one cares what they think.

Anchorman said...

Your writing’s not as clear and focused as it was years ago. This post conveys a different message than you think.

rufusdog said...

Your first response was needlessly waspy, you provoked the response you got. He may just have thought the cover was oversexualized for the age group targeted and said so, no virtue signaling required (why any anonymous person on the internet would bother virtual signaling I don’t know, it only makes sense if the person is known in the flesh). His opinion would be common among a significant percentage of Christians.

matthew thomas said...

I agree with rufusdog, your first response was needlessly hostile in nature. He was actually helping you with free labor and the way you responded smacks of ingratitude and an inability to deal rationally with criticism or different opinions.

If i disagree with someone I just tell them that I disagree, sometimes i will explain why if i think that i owe them a explanation or if i think it will help. But i don't do it in a pointlessly insulting way that will only serve to cause more disagreement.

Anchorman said...

I agree with rufusdog, your first response was needlessly hostile in nature.

I noticed this:

It's a legitimate opinion and the Gamma was agreeing with someone else who felt the cover was too alluring. However, note that the first commenter spoke his piece and left it at that. The Gamma, of course, did not.

I think there was more to the conversation.

VD's response does seem over-the-top, but I think there are parts missing.

Gaiseric said...

And then there's the churchian's crypto-feminism.

All kinds of concern about a boy's exposure to the female form, but nary a peep on promoting girls' immodesty (if you accept the puritan premise).

With them, it's always solely about restraining male sexuality.


Sounds like they're only a hop, skip and a jump away from endorsing the burkha.

Harsh said...

"I agree with rufusdog, your first response was needlessly hostile in nature."

Neither of you seem to understand that Vox's response was precisely the correct one.

Austin Ballast said...

VD is often over the top.

The cover is a bit raunchy as I look at it closely. A bit too much skin than I would expect from something from John Wright.

That said, I am rather "meh" about the whole thing. Much more important things to focus on.

Happy Housewife said...

Yeah, the artist should have used a full burqa so men wouldn't be tempted by the mere sight of a young woman's abdomen. Honestly, what's with all the pearl clutching? VD's response was correct in its disdain.

KSC said...

I'm curious what everyone thinks would have qualified as an inappropriate cover.

VFM #7634 said...

I still maintain the complainers are being overly puritanical. It's a bit sensual, sure, but if a young man is going to stare for minutes at the cover and start touching himself instead of actually, y'know, reading the freaking book, there are more serious problems going on.

@rufusdog @matthew thomas
Let's look at it this way: the puritans' criticisms actually came across as deeply arrogant and superior since they were assuming that they were the only posters that 1) had functioning male equipment and 2) were practicing Christians.

Sounds like they're only a hop, skip and a jump away from endorsing the burkha.

@Gaiseric (and @paworldandtimes)
The Muslims are an interesting case. Like feminists, they want to restrict male sexuality and let women do what they want... if they're kaffirs (such as the feminists themselves). For Muslims, they're the opposite: maximal restrictions on Muslim female sexuality and minimal restrictions on Muslim male sexuality (e.g., Goatfuckistan). This might in fact be another facet in helping to explain the strange camaraderie that feminists and Muslims have.

Yollo said...

I think it pays to understand Vox Day. There are a lot of people on Vox Popoli ( I don't read the comments here so I don't know about this place) who agree with him about a lot of things. I don't know if I do. I don't think I'm old enough or wise enough to make a decision about that. But I think I sort of understand him.

The core of his philosophy is right here at the bottom of this website. "I don't expect you to agree. I don't even expect you to understand."

He is the epitome of "I don't give a fuck." He has his own opinion on a lot of things. You are at liberty to have your own opinions on his opinions. You are even allowed to voice your opinions on his blog comments. If you disagree with him, he will reply to you in whatever tone he likes. And he's free to. It's his blog. Don't like that? Go start your own blog. This is understood the moment you begin typing in the comments box.

This is the kind of philosophy he bases his life on. That's probably why he irritates angry leftists so much. If you stop him from using an online facility, he'll create his own. If you get every mainstream publisher in the world to (sort of indirectly) agree never to even look at one of his manuscripts, he'll make his own publishing house and make more money than everyone else.

The only option left is to ridicule him and that bounces off his chest like bullets off Superman. "You're being mean to me. I was just speaking my mind," means absolutely nothing to Vox Day. Because he can speak his mind too. And he's an award winning cruelty artist or something.

Koanic said...

I notice that your emotional reading comprehension is way above average.

I experience something similar with conceptual, abstract reading comprehension. So when you pointed out a bunch of emotional beats that I hadn't noticed, I understood to go back and read at a finer parsing level. Sure enough, everything was there.

Perhaps this explains why so many are disagreeing.

If I remember this finer mode exists, it will in some ways narrow the scope of permissible abstract communication, but also widen the flexibility of emotional nuance.

matthew thomas said...

@Harsh

I think that if the response had been along the lines of "I disagree, I like the cover as it is. Thanks for the proof reading." Then the only response he would have got from the 'gamma' would have been. "No Problem."

As Vox Day day said, "The ability to work constructively with those with whom they disagree is almost completely beyond them", that maybe true but when your first response to the opinion of someone that is proofreading for you is to accuse them of virtue signaling then you are not showing any ability to do that.

I have professional disagreements with people all the time, sometimes with people i really personally dislike, but there is a scale and you don't need to start at 10, or even 6/7 for that matter. unless someone is being a dick to you why be a dick to them ?

Harris said...

LOL.

I don't always agree with VOXDAY and have been told a couple of times to shut up. I figure this is his blog, not mine, so if I'm told to shut up, I do.

It is not required that you abjectly agree with Vox, or even apologize for having a "bad" opinion in his judgment. The only real requirement is that you recognize and respect that this is his blog, not yours. And then abide by his rules and requests - the same way you would do if visiting in his home. Your other choice is to leave.

Personally, while I don't always agree, and sometimes dislike VoxDay's online friends, I keep coming back because he presents coherent arguments that help me look at issues in a different light. So, I see value in his blog posts, both here and at Vox Populi. That's enough for me, and should be for others also. Requiring that VOXDAY validate you (or me) is kind of ridiculous. I don't even know the man. I just think he has interesting things to say.

Yollo said...

@matthew thomas

unless someone is being a dick to you why be a dick to them ?

The answer, my friend is because he can. And there's nothing anyone anywhere can do to stop him. The moment that sinks in, everything else falls into place.

Koanic said...

> Precisely what triggers it, I haven't learned yet, but it is the result of overestimating their own importance to others, most likely as a consequence of erroneously attributing their sense of self-importance to those they feel should appreciate them.

Most people are adaptation executors run by emotion. One of emotion's primary purposes is to protect the individual's status and inclusion.

Clearly the offended individual had low emotional and abstract reading comprehension and depressed testosterone. Read VD's initial response with a lowered tolerance for direct conflict and a big reading comprehension smudge factor. It now looks like what the gamma described it as: a mean-spirited exclusionary immoral personal attack.

This triggers an emotional defense of his morality and justification within it. From the evolutionary perspective, he defends the former because it is congruent with his adaptation strategy and thus enhances his status. From the subjective perspective, he cannot conceive of any other moralities as self-consistent and biologically congruent, so he thinks he is defending Morality in general. This makes him higher status in his own eyes than in the world's, AKA Secret King.

Like women, classic gammas reject pack hierarchy for flat herd dynamics. Hence their belief that insufficient respect shown to low-ranking "stakeholders" can topple the king.

Unlike women, gammas have no "submit to alpha male" instinct. They attempt to enforce a global herd sociomorality, since pack competition would be reproductively disastrous. Hence the reflex to stage revolts against anyone openly pack alpha.

Harsh said...

"unless someone is being a dick to you why be a dick to them ?"

Vox was not being a dick. That's a low-value male response.

VFM #7634 said...

I'll say it again, since there were two long posts submitted within a minute after mine and my point apparently got lost in the noise:

The puritans' criticisms actually came across as deeply arrogant and superior since they were assuming that they were the only posters that 1) had functioning male equipment and who would understand the problem, and 2) were practicing Christians (or even Catholics).

It's not a matter of "just being a dick because you can", as Yollo suggests, or a mere professional disagreement, as matthew thomas thinks. Rather, it's a justifiable irritation at what we might call Gammasplaining.

Stg58/Animal Mother said...

Do any of you fuck heads know that he is called the Dark Lord for a reason? Does anyone think Darth Vader keeps kleenex and lollipops in his utility belt thing?

Alexander said...

There is a difference.

When Vox expresses an opinion in a post, one is invited to oppose, provided there's a logic and evidence behind it.

Vox wasn't offering an opinion; he was posting about a new product available at his publishing house. It was not a forum inviting discussion on how Vox, John C Wright, or Castalia House should market their products. Absolutely nothing in the thread hinted that Vox was looking for advice on how to best - but appropriately - reach a target demographic.

If a reader had an issue with it, they could have emailed Vox. But seriously, what was anyone expecting in that thread?

Yeah, sure - Vox was more caustic than he is right-off-the-bat in most threads. Because it wasn't most threads.

Harris said...

"Vox was not being a dick. That's a low-value male response."

Even if he is being a dick, who cares? It's his blog. He can be a dick on his own blog.

Either the blogposts have value or they don't. If they don't, then leave. What's so hard about that?

rufusdog said...

#7634

Your point wasn’t lost, you are simply being uncharitable to the puritan, what he said wasn’t deeply arrogant or superior, the context is known, he is simply saying the cover will be a problem for some Christians and he is correct. This isn’t that complicated and the comments after he was provoked were worthless. You don’t provoke someone and then blather on when they react poorly.

Go over to John’s blog and read the comments, seems like they are able to disagree without any drama. Mrs. Wright’s comment about their son’s observation was funny and showed her humility and grace.

Double E said...

a lot of people reading Vox project. They just don't understand sigmas. So when they see something he's written, they tend to assume he is speaking from the 'normal' emotional position that they and most others would have to be in to make a similar statement.

Most people would have to be feeling fairly strong emotions to openly tell somebody "I don't care what you think". And so they assume Vox is doing the same thing. "oh look hes being defensive." or "that comment must have really got to him"

No. He just ACTUALLY doesn't care what the guy thinks. He isn't stewing over this conversation for the next few hours, or thinking about what would have been the sickest burn - he isn't thinking about it at all.

So also, his insights into the emotions of the poster aren't an attempt to attack the guy, or get him to do or feel anything. Its not about him. Vox doesn't care about him. It's much more closer to an alien being like "hmm this insect flies in circles when I pull off one wing. Interesting." **writes in notebook**

Meanwhile the bug is shrieking about how cruel, and mad, or triggered this alien must be to do such a thing.

Double E said...

"Your point wasn’t lost, you are simply being uncharitable to the puritan, what he said wasn’t deeply arrogant or superior, the context is known, he is simply saying the cover will be a problem for some Christians and he is correct. This isn’t that complicated and the comments after he was provoked were worthless. You don’t provoke someone and then blather on when they react poorly. "

This reminds me of a cartoon where an Irish guy was complaining that some beer swilling sports fan called him "pat" as a generic Irish fill-in name. The Irish guy was explaning how that's racist, and then says "Now that IS my name, but he had NO way of knowing that!"

So this guy makes a comment that, to most of us, doesn't seem particularly noteworthy or gamma-ish. Then Vox accuses him of virtue signalling, basically calls him a Gamma.

then the guy continues into a standard Gamma meltdown.

And the readers here are saying, yes it appears he was a gamma, but vox had no way of knowing that! If he hadn't been so mean the Gamma wouldn't have come out and he would have just left. So that means Vox was overly harsh...or something.

bob kek mando ( Death To The Boor-geois, Keks To The Lol-etariat ) said...

Austin Ballast said...
The cover is a bit raunchy as I look at it closely. A bit too much skin than I would expect from something from John Wright.



you are clearly wholly ignorant of the estimable Mr. John C. Wright.

http://johncwright.livejournal.com/171782.html


be careful not to notice the areola outlines.

Koanic said...

It was virtue signaling because the criticism was made publicly instead of through email.

Nathan Bruno said...

#1 This was not the first person to comment about the cover. That guy said his piece. This was piling on. I didn't observe the first guy come back to fight on this one's behalf, with good reason.

#2 There is a war in Science Fiction. One of the sides of being a traditionalist is signalling consanguinity with the old pulp magazines, among which this cover would have seemed tame. It's like suggesting the Patriot fans not wear red, white, and blue because it's offensive. That the gamma guy was a reader, ostensibly familiar with the turf marked by Castalia, it meant that his argument was calling for Castalia to surrender on one point of the feminist neo-puritanism while pretending to do it under a Christian false front.

SirHamster said...

VD's response does seem over-the-top, but I think there are parts missing.

It's direct and to the point. Also, reviewing the thread, it's not directed at anyone in particular.

Several comments offered their opinion that they think the DOD cover is too risque. Vox here offers his opinion of those opinions, which is only fair ... and after that, what else is there to say?

But the Gamma has a strange need to dig a hole and throw himself into it.

You may see the triggered conflict as unnecessary, but this is faster failure - the Gamma now knows his opinion is not valued and no longer offers unappreciated free services; and Vox now knows not to work with the Gamma. It's a win-win, though the Gamma might try to drag this out further.

Kill the ego, move on.

SirHamster said...

I think that if the response had been along the lines of "I disagree, I like the cover as it is. Thanks for the proof reading." Then the only response he would have got from the 'gamma' would have been. "No Problem."

Vox could be more sugary in his replies. But why should he? Some cultures value harsh honesty. A friend stabs you in the face.

It was in fact virtue signaling - "it should be done this other way" (I have superior knowledge virtue and can tell you how to do what you do), vs. "I don't like it/I prefer this".

Gammas blow up over the trivial. Other types deal.

JohnR219 said...

Vox's original comment was not directed specifically to one person. It was directed at several people. His response was fine. His original comment to the peson mentioned in this post was, "No." That was pretty polite to me.

JohnR219 said...

The Danielsaur is a twat...

David The Good said...

"So this guy makes a comment that, to most of us, doesn't seem particularly noteworthy or gamma-ish. Then Vox accuses him of virtue signalling, basically calls him a Gamma."

Red Man Vox spots crooked paleface and leads him into a trap, just as when Coyote walked the earth.

Austin Ballast said...

Bob,

you are clearly wholly ignorant of the estimable Mr. John C. Wright.

Those covers were quite different. All were clothed, if sparsely. This cover has a nekkid girl with a flag draped on her. Different approach.

I have not done an exhaustive search outside of that post, and many things were quite exposing then, but this seems much more modern than classic. More like modern porn than classic sensuality.

It is still not consistent with what I would expect from John Wright. That could be because I have a false view of him, but that is my expectation. He and Vox are free to put whatever they want on the cover and I can chose whether to buy it or not.

Dave said...

@bob kek mando

I'm disappointed you didn't mention JCW's appreciation for Catwoman. http://www.scifiwright.com/2016/10/catwoman/

Oh, they're all clothed, I think.

bob kek mando ( Death To The Boor-geois, Keks To The Lol-etariat ) said...

i apologize for failing to meet your high standards of Wrightian apologetics. i can only note as an excuse for my failing that i've not yet found a way to enable a photographic recall on my part.

however, you have pointed me to Mr. Wright's opinion on the subject:
John C Wright 4 months ago
To the pure, all things are pure. God made the female body to bring joy and love to the eyes of men. If you abuse the privilege, and lust after a frankly imaginary woman in your heart, then by all means go to confession.



and i thank you for that.

Felix Bellator said...

Are there more gammas in America now because they do or did not get regular beatings for being snarky as a result of the zero tolerance policies in schools and in public?

Harsh said...

@Felix
I would say yes that is very much true.

bob kek mando ( Death To The Boor-geois, Keks To The Lol-etariat ) said...

i would say that there are more Gammas because primary socialization now occurs from the Television.

it's been well known since the 1950s that parental isolation and social isolation will derange the infant. quite possibly, permanently.

https://infogalactic.com/info/Harry_Harlow#Monkey_studies

and, after all, plopping your children down in front of the TV and ignoring them is a form of both parental and social isolation.

if nothing else, it trains the child that he may act out in any and there will be no feedback or reaction from the "other party".

William English said...

Honest question here. Who buys the paper books in the YA market? (I’m assuming 12-15 YO, by the time I was 16 I was reading adult)

My assumption that in ebook form the youth is making the purchase, but that in paper copy it would be an adult buying for the youth or an adult buying for the library.

hmmmm.... couldn't post using Brave, had to switch to Edge

Markku said...

This cover has a nekkid girl with a flag draped on her. Different approach.

Because it's a damned scene from the book, drawn exactly as it is described.

Markku said...

It is these people who project a nefarious motive on it, when the artist just read the relevant portion and drew it. And yet they don't do so for Michelangelo's David, who in fact DIDN'T go against Goliath balls dangling.

Anchorman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anchorman said...

It's direct and to the point. Also, reviewing the thread, it's not directed at anyone in particular.

Link helped. I didn't read the thread, only what was posted here.

Thanks for clarifying.

bob kek mando ( Death To The Boor-geois, Keks To The Lol-etariat ) said...

Markku said...
who in fact DIDN'T go against Goliath balls dangling.



well, *technically*, we don't know that. after all, the text only says that David had just gotten done stripping Saul's armor off, it doesn't describe any other accoutrement except for the sling.

and he couldn't have been using the sling as a banana hammock while he was twirling his rock around ...

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel+17&version=KJV

[ /Spockbrow ]

Rex Little said...

A small nitpick: Vox says his response (the first one in bold) was "not even remotely snarky". Unless I'm unclear on the concept of "snark" (quite possible, and I invite correction if so), the last sentence of that response is indeed snarky. (Nothing wrong with that, of course.)

TheDanielsaur said...

As the gamma singled out by this post, I gotta say that I do find the analysis enlightening. I never considered myself a gamma, but seeing the conversation laid out and picked apart like this, I actually find myself agreeing that I dug myself into a gamma meltdown, and knowing Vox, I should have known better than to react poorly to his "F*ck you" attitude. I will take notes from this lesson and be a better man today.

David H. said...

I gotta disagree with VD. The initial "gamma" could have been laying a trap, but then again they could have been genuine. It seems to me that VD was the first to break rapport and assume malice. Then, the exchange became a self fulfilling prophecy. Of course the guy got defensive. It's not gamma behavior to get mad when disrespected.

Vox, been a fan for a while, and I understand you deal with gammas and other BS on the regular, but given the info I have before me my judgement is that you came out of the gate too aggressively.

bob kek mando ( Death To The Boor-geois, Keks To The Lol-etariat ) said...

David H. said...
I gotta disagree with VD.
February 8, 2017 at 9:12 AM



posted almost an entire half hour behind ... the Gamma in question agreeing that Vox had a point.

classic.

Anchorman said...

David,
Are you basing it off what's written here or the thread?

Dave said...

and knowing Vox, I should have known better than to react poorly to his "F*ck you" attitude

More gamma...Vox gave the mildest admonishment you'll ever see online. First suggesting you go away and then after your own admitted gamma meltdown he said to shut up and go away. That's not even in the same area code as a f*ck-off attitude.

TheDanielsaur said...

Just making sure Vox has enough to write about on here :)

David H. said...

@Anchorman

I'm only basing my judgment on what I see here on this post. I didn't catch the rest of the thread so I could be wrong.

Jed Mask said...

Smh... I have a good amount of "Gamma friends" who are "good people" deep down but they just shoot themselves in the foot way too often.

Try to help them but not always sure on the right approach. Give them good advice or the "best I can" at the moment but they don't follow through.

Supplicate and wallow in self-pity over failure to attract and keep the attention of the opposite sex. "Effeminate". Also, get "walked over" and from not standing up for self "being a man" and all.

Kind of "empathetic for their plight" but they hurt their own selves when someone really actually cares enough to help them out.

I just put them in prayer.

Gammatude is a "self-destructive" hell. Amen.

~ Bro. Jed

Nate73 said...

This reminds me of a conflict between a radio host and one of his co-hosts. He fired him and said later the reason was showing insufficient respect. On the other hand, the boss seemed very peevish when I worked with him. So I can't decide which of them was gamma-ish and "not showing sufficient respect" in those situations.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.