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:
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.
Claiming they're a caring liberal
Joining a religion
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.