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.