Saturday, October 22, 2016

No Gammas allowed

Here is an object lesson in why you should avoid permitting Gammas to join your team or your organization if at all possible. With the announcement of Infogalactic, we have a lot of volunteers coming forward who want to help, but as you can imagine, we're extremely busy, so we've been practicing a form of triage with regards to whom we get back to. Just to put this in context, since we've decided to bite the bullet and write our own engine, our current needs relate more to below the hood stuff than the paint job.

So, the initial contact is fine. It's a generous offer to help out on a big project. Nothing wrong with that.

Hey there, yea so, I am passionate about the cause, and I'de love to help out. I do graphic design and web design mockups for developers to code. Most of my web work in the last year is not up on my portfolio, been too busy. 

Now, I should have responded sooner, but I've been just a little busy, what with launching Infogalactic, Clio & Me, and MAGA Mindset all within eight days. So, nine or ten days later, he quite reasonably sends a follow-up:

So how about dignify me with a response. "Yes, no, moved on, found someone else, my work sucks, my work is fantastic, you're a pick," anything will do.

Or not quite reasonably. I've developed fairly sensitive Gamma radar and I picked up on an amount of passive-aggressiveness in the first sentence. There is also a just a hint of a lofty sense of entitlement, which is why my response began with a warning.

First, you need to lose the attitude if you want to work with us. I had three hours of sleep last night, because in addition to launching Infogalactic eight days ago, I just edited and published two books this week, one of which is currently in the top 250 on Amazon. If you can't deal with the fact that the big dogs on this project are insanely busy, you won't fit in. There simply isn't space for divas and egos on the team.

Answering the 100s of emails I get a day is something I do when I can get to it. It's not the top priority.

That being said, your work looks good. It's a little bit too soon for us to think about this, since we just decided to modify the roadmap and create a whole new MediaWiki engine replacement that doesn't suck and wasn't designed by brain-dead people. Send me your phone number and I'll give you a call next week. If you don't hear from me by Wednesday, ping me. And if you want to play around with concepts, read the roadmap. The link is on the front page.

He didn't lose the attitude.

Fucking asinine prick, you want to talk about egos and "big dogs on the project" all in the same sentence? I asked to be dignified with a response, even if it's "no thanks," since ya know, I was trying to volunteer my professional design services. How the fuck does that equate to an ego? Answer: it doesn't. What a hypocritical statement, talking about how you are a big dog to a small fry trying to humbly donate his time. Brilliant. 

"If you can't deal with the fact that the big dogs on this project are insanely busy." <-- the world revolves around egos, as if you are the only one in life that is busy. 

Then you proceed to tell me to give you my number and do some concepts. Listen here, I am not your little small fry trying to work for a big dog, and I have zero interest in donating my top notch professional design services to anyone who thinks they can talk like that to me. You have your world backwards, big dog. If you can't handle me requesting a hint of communication, then you are right, I certainly will not fit in with the team. Looks like to me it's you who needs your ego dismantled. "Divas and egos," you are a real fucking asshole. 

Glad we got this settled. Good luck, self-deluded self-important egotistical hypocritical prick. Maybe think a little longer before you respond when you are on 3 hours of sleep so as not to unnecessarily outlet your stress on people for no reason. And value the time your next volunteer will sacrifice for YOU, because we are all busy outside of your little inflated world. 

At that point, I realized we'd gotten off easy. I'd much rather have a Gamma meltdown when he's on the outside looking in than do so when he hasn't gotten his way on something in the middle of the project.

Glad we were able to weed you out at the start. 

I was unsurprised at both the posturing and the multiple responses. I've dealt with too many Gammas blowing up on the blog to not know what to expect. So, I just let him rant without responding. First, he started with the fake amusement and false sympathy.

BAHAHAHAH what a joke. So much appreciation. You refuse to acknowledge that you were unnecessarily and asshole because you perceive yourself as someone people are lining up for and begging to work you, which is also known as an ego diva big dog. 

Oh no, anyone calling themselves big dog has no ego at all. You just wish I was upset that you weeded me out, again like someone with an ego would do. You couldn't handle me being straight forward and asking for a response so you thought you could talk to me like a real piece of shit, then when I do not submit and kiss your ass you "weed me out." 

Honestly, are you fucking serious????? Man I tell you what, I do feel bad, but not because I cannot donate the time I barely have to your site, but because you are an outright fucking asshole. This conversation would not be happening if you were to be trying to talk to me like a piece of shit to my face. 

His next email moved on to the minimizing and belittling.

Oh wow two whole books selling on the top 250, good for your ego. 👍 

And the email after that consisted of the belated reframe of the reframing.

And you didn't "weed me out," you asked for my number, derp. I weeded YOU out, dim wit fake pseudo crusader asshole. 

The next day, not having received any response, he decided to take it public, on Gab, in a series of posts.

@voxday You follow just 32 people. Must be your egotistical self importance.

@voxday How exactly again did you "weed me out" after asking for my number and saying you were gonna call me? I weeded you out, because you were a pure uncalled for asshole. Go cry about it. You don't put someone down then ask for their number. You've been dismantled. Glad I didn't donate my time.

@voxday Careful, I see your ego showing yet again, in pretty much every exchange, how hypocritical. I will try to not let my "ego" encourage me to volunteer the time I really don't have. My huge inflated "diva ego" made me want to donate. My bad. Carry on "big dog alpha." 

@voxday Never in my professional career have I ever hear anyone talk about themselves like you did. You have a hard lesson to learn, but instead you will play alpha games and unwittingly prove my point about your level of mentality. All the best to infogalactic.

@voxday Post the fucking email you hypocrite self-deluded asshole. How do you feel smug for talking like that to people trying to give shit to you free out of selflessness? All I asked for was a response, even it was a "fuck you your work is shit." Then you call yourself a big dog, and me a diva ego

@voxday I called you out for what you are after you called me a "diva ego" then immediately called yourself a "big dog." You took your stress from lack of sleep out on me man, admit it. After your response I was no longer concerned about being "professional." You asked for my number, I declined. smh

@voxday Yea, when you try to belittle me, I tend to not be suitable to work with you. Unless of course I bent over and begged for more like u expected as a "big dog."  One, I was not looking for a job. I have two. Two, I already do work with a high profile dev team, much bigger than yours.

@voxday The fact that you went straight there and assumed I am some unemployed small fry do nothing shows how important you think of yourself. Pretty ignorant. How do you justify initiating a bitter dialogue them proceed to blame me for getting bitter? You need mental help.

@voxday I've worked with technology companies, marketing companies, brands, startups, I've been around the block, "big dog." I live in startup driven Portland Oregon's huge design community. I've met countless design professionals, and only about one had the arrogant ego rudeness you have.

@voxday Stop blaming people for reacting negatively to the rude way you treat them, then maybe you can find "suitable" volunteer shit ons

Then, to top it all off, he rushed over to Amazon to leave a fake review about SJWS Always Lie. Why, oh why, would we not want someone like this on the Infogalactic team?

By Allen on October 21, 2016

First off, when someone introduces themselves with a lie, even if it its a somewhat harmless lie, It really gives a bad impression and you cannot feel that comfortable assimilating their information. It makes you approach their book verya very skeptical perspective, and does indeed hurt any credibility.

Author claims between the two of his sites he gets over 3 million views, yet it clearly shows the amount of views he has on Alpha Game, which is just about 300,000 a month.

So unless Vox Day is getting a whopping 3 million views a month, which is extremely unlikely considering the content and the caliber, the author is inflating his credentials, no doubt due to his incredible ego. Most of the content is pseudo intellectual generalizations, which is your first clue to steer clear.

Have a look at the sidebar. Notice that it currently features a number in excess of 400,000. Those of you who can do the math will soon realize that means VP must get traffic of more than 2.6 million pageviews per month. Which, as it happens, is the case.

Anyhow, this is why it's best to avoid having Gammas on your team. You have absolutely no idea what will set them off, but you can rest assured that something will trigger their insecurities at some point along the way, usually to disruptive effect. And Gammas never forgive and they never forget. They will wait years just to take a petty shot at you in revenge for some slight you've completely forgotten.

If you're a Gamma, it's very important to learn two concepts. First, don't expect anyone to value you as highly as you value yourself. Nobody else sees you for the Secret King you are, that's why it's a Secret. Second, stop digging.

Friday, October 21, 2016

The Attraction Irony

The hallmark of a broken society: many women will now respond better to male infidelity than to male fidelity.
Most men in this part of the world won’t so much as verbally disagree with his female or even raise his voice at her. Men like this are fearful of the proverbial shit storm they’re sure will ensue if they upset the applecart. For this reason they live in a perpetual state of discontentment caused by this fear.

A man in a relationship where he’s afraid to check his woman for any reason will lose the single most important element in in keeping her loyal: respect. A woman cannot love a man she does not respect. It can’t be done. And if a man doesn’t have any backbone, his woman can’t respect him let alone love him.

According to women, two of the worst things a man can do to a woman within the context of a sexual relationship is physical abuse, and infidelity. But knowing what we know about women tells us that that these two ‘crimes’ keep them around a hell of a lot longer than the opposites.
It does make sense, in a sick sort of way. The man who cheats obviously commands interest from other women, whereas even the most desirable man can be dismissed as unable to attract interest from other women if he is resolutely faithful.

From a strictly hypergamous perspective, the unfaithful man is more sexually attractive than the faithful man, by definition. Traditional women are taught to control their hypergamous urges, just as traditional men are taught to control their promiscuous urges, but then, increasingly few men and women have been taught to deny themselves anything these days.

Thursday, October 20, 2016

A belated surrender

Women interpret criticism as "hate" and "abuse". This is why it is important to keep constantly hammering at the feminists and SJWs. They can't take criticism. They can't take the heat. It kills them inside. Sooner or later, they will quit and sink back into the bitter solipsism that spawned their attack on reality:
All of that shit right there is why writing this blog feels like pissing into the wind. Because for the abusers, there are no negative consequences. They’re able to leverage the controversy generated by my existence into increased sales and awards, while for me the consequences are always negative. There is only ever a progressive, steady toll on my health, sanity, and relationships. I might succeed in changing things behind the scenes at a few gaming companies, or at affecting the lineup of speakers at a single convention, or seeing harassment policies implemented at a handful of conventions and events. But none of that does anything to change the daily lived reality of what it means to be a woman in games.

People have told me more times than I can count that I’m “brave” for writing this blog. I’m “brave” for being open about my feelings and experiences, and I’m “brave” for saying what I think without apologizing or minimizing in any way. And to them, I always say the same thing: I’m not brave! I’m stupid. Doing what I do is like beating my head against a brick wall on a daily basis. Every once in a while, I might knock a tiny chip off the wall, and people may applaud and say, “look! Progress!”. But ultimately, nothing I do is every going to seriously harm the wall, but it will seriously harm me if I keep at it long enough....

I hate feeling that I’m playing into a generational story of defeat. My mother was run out of STEM because of sexism, ruining a career as a brilliant research chemist. She has her name on 12 patents! And the fact that I couldn’t persevere makes me feel hopeless. How can I tell my daughter that she can achieve anything of meaning when I have only stories of defeat to offer her? How can I tell her that she can beat the odds when her mother and her grandmother are both strong women who have been ground down into silence?
This woman is both stupid and part of a multi-generational losing tradition. Her daughter can't beat the odds because there is nothing to win. Life is struggle. Respect must be earned, it is never granted to whiners and complainers and those who others men into doing their work for them.

She has the complete opposite of the MAGA Mindset. It is not surprising, because women like this don't have the good sense to stop trying to change things for the worse, America is considerably less great than it was. It's good that she finally surrendered. She shouldn't have tried to fight reality in the first place. The cruel fact is that the world would have been a better place if her campaign and her blog had never existed.

Women will use any tool to try to shame men into not fighting, they will appeal to any authority to forcibly silencing men by threatening their jobs, their freedom, and their families for nothing more than the crime of voicing an opinion. Because they simply cannot take the heat in a world of free expression.

So, turn it up on them. Until they can accept the principle of free speech means everyone has exactly the same right to criticize them that they have to criticize everyone else, one side or the other is going to be silenced. And it isn't going to be us. We don't quit. Ever.

Observe that what proved to be effective in the end was not logic or sweet reason. It was relentless demoralizing rhetoric. These are psychologically weak individuals, so always hammer at their psychologies, don't waste time on their flawed ideas or perverse objectives.

Wednesday, October 19, 2016

The unsalvageable

Nicholas Peake describes the casualties in the War on Men at Return of Kings:
Over the years I’ve known a few friends (and, sadly, family) who at some point I began to see in a different light—these were men very close to me who eventually revealed themselves to always make bad decisions, avoid personal change and self improvement, fail with women (or get with terribly low-tier ones), and periodically need my help to get themselves out of a hole they had dug for themselves.

At the very least it was slightly annoying, but after bailing them out numerous times I become angry and frustrated with the lack of personal responsibility. I came to understand that these are broken men.

What I now call the “loser mentality” is not reserved for extreme cases like drug addicts, felons, and so forth.  Sometimes otherwise nice, decent people are actually living a “loser” life; not everyone is necessarily “bad” but sadly are still a net negative and will drain us of money, motivation, time, and more if we don’t make the hard choice to walk away from them.

There appear to be common traits among these types which serve as telling indicators of those who your good intentions are wasted on.
It's a perspicacious article and he makes some very good observations. But the key one is this: Never expect help when you really need it from those who have the loser mentality.... Losers cannot be counted on.  Ever. 

That's why I am very wary of placing any trust in gammas or omegas. They are like wounded dogs and won't even hesitate to bite the hand that is feeding them. And the moment I sense that I'm dealing with a gamma, I do my best to extricate myself from their web of drama and delusion.

Often, the fact that they have been mistreated and they do merit pity leads both men and women into misguided sympathy. But it is best offered in the abstract and from afar.

You can't cure any man with a broken mindset. About the most you can do for a man like that is give him a copy of MAGA Mindset, by Mike Cernovich, and hope for the best.

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

Alpha Mail: Gammas in the Wild

From a reader:
Spotting Gammas in the Internet wilds is relatively easy. Whenever there is a debate, they always hedge their arguments in a sort of supposed plausible deniability. Rather than directly addressing a point, and crafting a counterpoint, they deliver some kind of sarcastic reply that, if they are challenged on, they will claim wasn't aimed at the original post. The format is like this:

OP: The sky is blue.
Gamma: You know, so many stupid people think the sky is blue.

If challenged on the attack, the Gamma will try to escape with "oh, I wasn't talking about YOU," even when it is clear that he was. He'll then spin himself as the victim when the OP replies with a counterattack. He seems blissfully unaware that this sort of passive-aggressive behavior generates a raging desire to throttle the crap out of the Gamma. He must also be unaware that anyone with intelligence sees right through him. The Gamma thinks this kind of thing is supremely clever, when in reality it demonstrates in full public view just how much of a Dunning-Kruger idiot he really is.
Yes, if there is one thing, just ONE thing that I could convince every Gamma of, I would choose to convince them that they are not fooling anyone. For some reason, they seem to believe that their transparent little tactics are opaque to everyone else, and that no one realizes what they're doing.

I think this may be part of why women hate Gammas so much. Gammas often use female tactics, but when they do, they tend to use them ineptly. So, women tend to feel contempt for them in addition to feeling that the Gamma is invading their turf and playing the game wrong.

I think it must be difficult to live life as a Gamma, though, in that they're direct-conflict-avoidant and yet are constantly trying to pick fights. All I know is that once I recognize a man as a Gamma, I don't argue with him or even discuss substantive things with him anymore. I have no interest in their constant quibbling, dramatic posturing, and silly theatrics. You can't always punch them in the face, but it is very easy to cut them out of your social circle, because no one else really wants them around either. After that, it's easy to ignore them.


Monday, October 17, 2016

Roosh's Journey

Newsweek chronicles the transformation of Roosh from pickup artist to political philosopher:
When I meet Roosh at a Starbucks in Washington, D.C., he’s early. That’s surprising, since he tells his readers to show up five to 10 minutes late to dates. (“She’ll have anxious feelings focusing on your arrival instead of the doubts she had about coming to see you.”) Less surprising is that he records the interview. “Your editor, is he part of the global conspiracy?” Roosh asks. [Editor’s note: Yes.] “No? But let me ask you this: Who hired him? [And] who hired him?” Roosh is tall and has a thick, bushy beard with gray patches. He’s wearing a red “Make America great again” hat and a T-shirt, jeans and black sneakers. He grew up around Washington and says he is back visiting his parents; he’s been bouncing between countries for the past decade and lately sticks to Russia, Poland and Ukraine.

Roosh’s focus has changed, and Free Speech Isn’t Free shows it. His previous books explained how to “bang” women, but his newest one turns to a topic likely familiar to Trump’s followers: how people from minority groups can say whatever they want while straight men cannot. “There are active attempts to silence men, to marginalize them, and at the same time to elevate all these far-left agendas and viewpoints,” he tells me.

That shift in thinking is occurring across the “manosphere,” the informal network of websites, blogs and online forums that deal with masculinity, dating and men’s rights. “Once you learn how to do well with women, then you start understanding the deeper political and philosophical issues,” Mike Cernovich, another unofficial leader in the movement and a friend of Roosh’s, says in an email. “Why are gender relationships so toxic, you start to ask, and from there you are down an entirely new rabbit hole.” Few are exploring those ideas as well as Roosh is, Cernovich adds. “Roosh is a welcome relief from the banality of pseudo-intellectualism that passes for ‘free thought’ these days.”
If you haven't read Free Speech Isn't Free, you absolutely should. It's highly informative and even modestly thought-provoking.

Sunday, October 16, 2016

Sexual histories are relevant

As usual, feminists want to decouple female actions from consequences:
Both witnesses said she behaved with them in detailed sexual terms as Evans had claimed she did with him. And so the judge agreed that evidence of the woman’s sexual history could be admitted. I believe this will have a devastating impact on victims – and that it will in future stop them coming forward for fear of what they face in court.

I was part of a research team in 2003 that monitored the effectiveness of the laws preventing routine cross examination of a complainant’s sexual history. I sat through a number of rape trials and heard the flimsy reasons used by defence barristers when arguing that the judge should make an exception and allow the jury to listen to salacious details about the complainant’s sex life.

In our research, judges granted permission in two-thirds of the cases that we observed and did allow sexual history evidence, which was raised even in some cases involving children.

It has been widely reported it is rare for previous sexual history evidence to be admitted as evidence, but this is blatantly untrue. I hear regular stories from friends and colleagues that work in Rape Crisis and other support services of their clients being grilled in the witness box about their sex lives. Sexual histories are already dragged up and they already have a chilling effect on victims’ willingness to come forward. The Ched Evans case has made this many times worse.
They should have a chilling effect. That's a positive thing, because it will prevent more false accusations like the one that Ched Evans's accuser made.

In fact, there should be more chilling effects, such as jail terms for women who make false rape accusations.

There is an easy way for women to not have a sexual history that calls their testimony into doubt. Don't be a drunken slut, and then people will be much more likely to believe you.