Thursday, February 13, 2014

If You Argue With Turkeys, You Can't Debate Eagles

In Aurini's latest podcast he delves into detail explaining the "debate" structure of grammar, logic, and rhetoric.  Grammar basically meaning you all have to agree on the definitions and meanings of words.  Logic meaning you have to be intellectually honest and adhere to associative rules and other logical concepts that ensure integrity.  And rhetoric meaning you apply it in the real world or test one another's arguments with anecdotes from reality.  If both parties in a debate or even a discussion have these three things, then the conversation/debate is much more productive and progresses towards an inevitable "conclusion," "reality" or agreement.

What's funny though is for the longest time I never viewed debate as a cooperative effort, but rather an adversarial one.  One of competition.  One where you had an enemy that needed to be defeated.  Of course, this was the sad consequence of growing up with the mentally deficient people that populated my generation.  Parties I attended in my 20's I was regularly attacked and berated for being a conservative.  Debates in college (or even post college) were filled with emotion and vitriol.  And in nearly 100% of the cases my opponents degraded into name calling, ad hominem  attacks, accusations of "ism," or being a nazi, etc.  But Aurini's podcast and points made me realize and appreciate something that I don't think too many "Alt-Right, Econo, or Manosphereians" are aware of and something that didn't hit the ole frontal lobes until just now.  And that is:

Just how liberating and freeing-of-the-mind the Manosphere/Alt Right/Econosphere is in terms of debate and discussion.

Whether you realize it or not, chances are you haven't really had any REAL debates in your teens, 20's, even 30's or 40's.  What you HAVE HAD is a person with superior:

intellectual honesty
logic and

trying to explain to idiots, ideologues, and zealots (who not only lacked the aforementioned, but had no desire to pursue truth) why they're wrong.

The results are something we're all familiar with.  Frustration.  People yelling at you. People getting emotional.  Death threats.  Anger.  Etc.  And the reason why is that you are arguing at a level much higher and much loftier than they are.

The reason is simple.  You are interested in the truth.  And you are just as likely to admit you are wrong or ignorant in certain matters than you are to claim you are right because you have no emotional or psychological attachment to your arguments or ideology.  Matter of fact you don't have an ideology.  Ideologies and religions are beneath you.  You just, in a very scientific manner, want KNOWLEDGE, FACTS, and TRUTH.  The same cannot be said for the majority of people.

The majority of people are weak-minded.  They are also lazy.  However, they are also egotistical (especially Americans) and so their mind reaches for something that will not only allow them to claim some kind of intellectual "superiority" or "achievement," but also allow them to do so with no work.

Going green
Claiming they're a caring liberal
Joining a religion
Going vegan
Becoming a professor

This not only results in them living in a delusional, non-real world, but also makes them emotionally and egotistically invested in keeping up their ideological facade.  Thus, when you make impassionate, logical, stoic arguments of fact, math, and statistics you (consciously or not) pierce their ego, expose their charade, and therefore trigger a visceral, emotional, and often hate-laden response from them.

Sadly, this relegates you to throw a pitched battle every time about your ethics, morality, etc. etc., as you are forced to respond to their emotional outrage.  The original debate is quickly forgotten as you find yourself defending your morality, your ethics, why you don't love Hitler and why you don't eat babies for breakfast.  But what you DON'T realize (and what I just realized now) is how in having to throw these constant, unrelated pitched battles, your debate, discussion or conversation stagnates.  Your ability to advance understandings of politics, economics, philosophy, etc. is arrested.  And the reason why is that while YOU may be interested in using debate to advance your understanding of different things in life, your opponents RARELY have the same aim.  Your opponents are constantly in an emergency scramble to defend their hypocrisy, and thus your "debating skills" are stunted.

Enter the internet, namely the alt-right spheres and especially The Manosphere.

Not that there is 100% complete agreement here, but unlike the general population, most participants here care about the truth.  And while certain factions may have their disagreements, in the end we all agree we "want to get to the bottom of things."  This not only results in a more cordial and polite debating environment, but (most importantly) one that is VASTLY MORE PRODUCTIVE AND EFFICIENT.

Reading the alt-right and Manosphere alone in the past three years has advanced my understanding of philosophy, human psychology, and debating skills more than the previous 20 years of my life.  Instead of constantly defending my honor, never getting to the point where I can prove "government spending is 40% GDP," and that I am indeed not a Nazi, those calories of energy are instead spent, nay, invested in either further testing out my own ideas or considering and contemplating others'.  Pioneering new lights of thought, and pushing philosophical boundaries.  Additionally, in not having to argue with solipsistic adult-children who are only concerned about their egos, nearly 100% of efforts (on both sides of the argument) are put towards advancing and achieving knowledge.  In other words the Manosphere's engine of debate is infinitely more efficient than Jezebel's or the Troll section of Reddit.

Naturally, detractors will claim this is merely advocating an echo chamber.  That I only want to hear what I want to hear.  But to that I say, "bullshit."  One, I and the likes of me had to endure the completely emotional and dishonest whining that passes for "debate" in post-WWII generations (and therefore are intricately aware of exactly what kind of "debating" is going on) for the past 40 years.  We have been in anything but an echo chamber.  Two, the knowledge, wisdom and education I've gained from reading, debating, and listening to the likes of Stefan Molyneux, Dennis Prager, Roissy, Tom Leykis, etc., again, dwarfs what I learned the previous 20 years past.  Three, nearly everything that has been said, discussed, discovered, or theorized about in the Manosphere/Alt-right has proven true, especially in the rhetorical or "field testing" stage.  And, four, that's rich!  Leftists, who mire themselves in academia, media, and government claiming we're in an echo chamber?

The sad truth is that the majority of people under 60 lack the intellectual honesty in this country to pursue truth because it not only would force them to realize hard-work is a necessity for success, but they themselves are living a lie and are, quite frankly, a bunch of losers.  And given the amount of money (both earned and borrowed) that has gone into satiating all of our material desires, not to mention the billions of hours of self-aggrandizing bullshit the media how blown up every Americans' dirt chutes, there's no "reasoning with them" or genuinely "arguing with them."  They are on full-automatic zombie-liberal and are impervious to logic, facts, statistics, truth, or reality.  And it is because of that I suggest if you are one of the rare eagles out there who seek truth and reality, that you stop trying to debate turkeys and come join us eagles here in the Alt-Right and Manosphere.


Peregrine John said...

I've been mulling over the general need for logic and rhetoric (that is, the art of presenting a point of view), and their abject lack in the depressingly overwhelming majority, but hadn't figured out how to approach the need for it. Your observation that debate should be cooperative instead of adversarial strikes me as the kind of thing everyone should know but almost no one does, making it sort of a superpower.

It really does explain the success of the androsphere: we are all interested in the truth, far more than the implications of how it might be used. Everyone else (EVERYONE else) starts with the outcome they want and tries to reverse engineer reality to make it happen. This is why we can disagree on loads of things (which we do, let me assure you... well maybe not loads but on a few items of note) and yet learn. The overarching metaphor we tend to use is of waking up to reality, and the well-known result is a period of painful adjustment. It's just what is. But we'd rather go through that than live in an echo chamber and never see what's really going on.

Hot Sam said...

You're such a racist.

Anonymous said...

You should read The Art of Worldly Wisdom, by Baltasar Gracian. Gracian realized the world was full of many fools. He advised to avoid wasting your time with fools.

Davy388 said...

Captain I agree with your article 300%, will Print and hand it to some of my so-called liberal intellectual low information individuals.

Thank you sir for well written and totally understandable dialogue

Acksiom said...

. . .says the man who threw out a bunch of crap rationalizations about pricing and then dropped the discussion the moment they were all exposed as baloney.

AJ said...

Unfortunately it feels like the art of debate, hell even conversation is dead. At least in my work place. Unless I want to talk about others peoples children (i dont want any) or talk about what crappy soap was on TV last night, then I better just keep to myself.
The only place I get any mental stimulation is in this corner of the web. Thank you!

Aurini said...

"Reading the alt-right and Manosphere alone in the past three years has advanced my understanding of philosophy, human psychology, and debating skills more than the previous 20 years of my life."

I've grown so accustomed to this that I take it for granted these days.

The Manosphere regularly provides me with new information, new perspectives, and whole new fields of discipline in an organized, well-written, and tested manner; Manosphere writers aren't a bunch of children, vomiting up their theories on Das Kapital (despite never reading it), they're people who've put a lot of time and effort into understanding what they're writing about before they open up the wp_admin on their blog.

Daily, I'm provided with new data-points, new ideas to explore, and to connect to the other ideas. From the highest realms of theology and economics, to the 'lowly' realms of day-to-day behaviour.

Heck, one of the video's I'm planning is the connection between White Knights, Adam & Even, and Nazi slave ideologies - all built upon the work of my brothers here in the manosphere.

Gods, it's refreshing!

Black Poison Soul said...

Just starting to read Thank You For Arguing, about debate and rhetoric. Very interesting.

Robert of Ottawa said...

Not entirely with you on this one Cappy.

For the ages, and the ancient Greeks defined it, "debate" has been adversarial, for political reasons and based entirely upon rhetoric.

The objective is to dismiss your opponent, not necessarily even his arguments. Hence the liberal tactic of calling someone racist is intended to put him beyond the Pale and have people stop listening to his arguments. To indeed shut down debate.

Like a G-6 said...

More important, the three categories you listed are applicable to learning and understanding subjects, not just debate. Granted, knowing a subject is quite the prerequisite to debating a subject. What you describe is what is known as the Trivium Method.

This is detailed very much in podcast form at

Kristophr said...


Butthurt much?

If you have some proof of Aaron's lack of qualifications or character, please post a link.

We'll be happy to judge who won or lost this mystery debate.

DanceswithDwarves said...

I have never in my life heard a better explanation of my frustration through early college years. I argued tooth and nail talking about real results and actual evidence only to have other people put me down comically , insult my character multiple times ,ignore factual evidence and make bad and illogical decisions.

I saw a TED talk mention willful negligence (which is what I believe your mentioning). They know what they're doing is wrong/ not true but they decide to do it anyway. Thanks for this Enlightening post.

Also I called in the Free Domain Radio show and Stephan helped me in 10 minutes more than any "counselor" ever has in my life. That guy has some amazing things to say.

Captain here are two sayings that repeat the theme

Don’t argue with idiots because they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. —Greg King

Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference. —Mark Twain

Anonymous said...

debate is a waste of time

so is grammer honesty and punctuation

you are your own authority

permission not required

Legion said...

Robert of Ottawa said...

That's mere sophistry. It is the Greek art of debating without meaning anything.

Kristophr said...

Anonymous 12:06AM:

In order to get anything important done, you have to work with other people.

Putting men on the moon is not a solo project. Neither is building Hoover Dam, winning WWII, building a transcontinental RR, or kicking the British out of the United States.

The only thing you can do by yourself is sit in a cave, wear furs, and kill rabbits for a living.

Everything else requires some form of interaction with human beings. Only an experience-less adolescent thinks otherwise, IMO.

The Triumvir are the three basic tools you need for dealing with other men. Without them, you aren't even good at being a fucking barbarian, let alone a man.

Jordan Ciccone said...

You prioritize the truth yet don't seem to acknowledge cognitive differences between the races.

En-sigma said...

THIS!! THIS!! LOGIC is why I keep coming back. Not because the PUA succeeds - though their success flat out scares the crap out of me - but the LOGIC!!

That is the Red Pill. It is what I knew was wrong but living in a flock of turkeys you eventually think...heck...maybe I am a turkey...

Anonymous said...

It was a shock to me to find more truth in the mano-sphere and the alt-right blogs than a 15 years of academic study.

You are dead right.
Reformed Australian.