11 Comments
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Apr 1, 2024
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Jeff C's avatar

Typical "reply guy" comment that combines a dim-witted snarky partial falsehood with an irrelevant response that does nothing to advance the conversation. You aren't as clever as you think.

Read Voxday's Social Sexual-Hierarchy, particularly that of the "Gamma Male". You might learn something about yourself and realize you don't have to be like this.

https://sigmagame.substack.com/p/the-socio-sexual-hierarchy

Edit: standard disclaimer that I'm not Jeff Childers but have a similar name and have used "Jeff C" on substack for years. Most people here know who I am but I don't want my opinions confused with his.

Expand full comment
E.Z. Prine's avatar

I agree with you that we have a lot in common with Muslims, having lived and traveled in a number of countries where Islam is the main religion and having friends and colleagues who are Muslim. Like Christianity, Islam has its extremists, but most Muslims are just normal folk who want to make a living, raise kids, have a home, etc. I also agree that the government whipped up anti-Muslim hatred after the 9/11 false flag to justify its invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and its seizure of their oil and drugs.

On the subject of the Social Sexual-Hierarchy, as a psychologist I can see that it seems useful for trying to understand different male personality types, but it doesn't have research behind it that I can see. The other problem with it is that it comes across as sexist in categorizing women as tier 1, 2 and 3, apparently on the basis of whether they are desirable to men. And even types men that way as well. It comes across as kind of simplistic and demeaning to both genders.

And besides, we know funny men are always stealing women from the pretty boys. And we know men settle down with women who make them feel like the big man on campus, not the 'tier 1' option. Wouldn't you say?

Expand full comment
Susan Stephens's avatar

But he has a valid point.

Expand full comment
Critical Thinker's avatar

You wrote all that...and I still don't see your point. You didn't do much better than the person you're attempting to lambaste, even worse possibly.

Expand full comment
Jeff C's avatar

My point is that habitually responding with comments that are snarky, partially true, and irrelevant to boot, is indicative of a deep character flaw. The fact that the commenter thinks it's clever just makes things worse. It derails the conversation and propagates ignorance. He could have responded to me in a civil fashion and explained where I was wrong, and I would have responded respectfully. He didn't but instead tried to score a cheap shot.

Voxday describes it perfectly in the gamma male, explains where it comes from, and why people (men specifically) behave this way. People make a choice to to act like this, it needlessly makes them miserable, and likely does those around them also.

Frankly I really don't really care what people think of me as long as I'm not mistaken for Jeff Childers. I do however respond to people with the same crap they give me. I do this for one reason only, so they can see what it's like. Most people are too "polite" to give people a taste of the own medicine. I'm not.

Expand full comment
TB's avatar

I broadly agree with your take in this "Islam" thread, but I'm not sure why "read the Quran to understand what Islam really teaches" is irrelevant? Snarky yes, and not nuanced, but it still seems kind of on-point.

Expand full comment
Jeff C's avatar

Thanks TB, I appreciate your comment. By irrelevant I meant that it wasn't in response to what I wrote. I never said anything about the Koran but spoke to the moral character of devout Muslims. I see your point that it might not have been the best word as it could be considered tangentially relevant. Straw man might have been a better term.

These reply guys always do the same thing; respond in an extremely condescending and sneering manner, throw out half truths that muddy the picture, and argue against points that no one actually made. One, two, three, every time. They think it makes them look clever but it actually shows how they are obsessed with drawing attention to themselves. Imagine tying to have a conversation with someone like this.

Note that this is exactly how Benjaminn behaves.

The thing is that while not only being annoying to everyone else, it also makes them more and more miserable. Instead of getting the expected kudos for their perceived brilliance, they are shunned for their boorish behavior. Then they wonder why they can't get a girl, make friends, or advance in a career. They could stop this if they wanted to but don't, but instead go into a downward spiral.

At it's heart is an ugly combination of arrogance and self-pity, which I truly believe comes from the devil himself.

Expand full comment
TB's avatar

Ah, that's fair; it just wasn't clear initially. I certainly have found that responding with at least a little depth leads to better discussion, even when I'm pointing out what seems like a dumb mistake in a comment.

Although sometimes I think most of us have a hard time resisting the urge to reply with an "awesome" one-liner...

Expand full comment
Ryan Gardner's avatar

The Koran is definitely troubling for the obvious reasons. But some of it just has to do with human nature when "beliefs" are used to justify "interpretations" of scripture for the purposes of manipulation that inure benefit to the Clerisy.

Christianity has been guilty of this. However the Koran is book not open to interpretation. It is a book based on manipulation to meet these ends:

The level of cruelty that can be justified when people believe in a "moral" crusade is boundless because the beast inside is no longer burdened with the boundaries of empathy.

There is nothing so dangerous as a person or group who believe the ultimate testament of their fidelity to a righteous cause requires acts of cruelty to demonstrate their purity.

Expand full comment