Illusory Commeraderie: Infinite groups limited to one member apiece.

A peevish man who can self identify as such may be able to tamp down the tendency to follow every unproductive rabbit trail about which his nature whispers to him, “go down there and find a skirmish”. Framing things with peeve disclaimers is not sufficient. The unfettered peeve chaser is boring.

To chase peeves dilutes real topical input. I hope this post isn’t just giving over to peevishness.

It had been awhile since a topic on a big blog like Dalrock’s brought out my irritation at the low fruit picking done by poseurs, cyber-intellectuals, actual learned men and low thinking reactionaries alike, who glom on to every opportunity to point out the failures of social conservatives. They do it with repetitive illustrations that are not particularly clever. “Socons are throwing men to the family court lions”……like that.

After open minded exposure to truths found around the sphere one needn’t be overly clever to criticize social conservatives (and the implied first cousins…evangelical Christians) . Given all the men reading those words, why can’t most see the dervish glee that permeates the comments of the self-anointed chief intellects of the manosphere when they jet into opportunities to take not-particularly-clever potshots at socons,  like sharks and barracudas with their illusory grins rushing into chummed water where they end up tearing one another apart.

I asked in Dalrock’s comments for an ideological label that can be hanged on the subset of commenters who are most prolific and predictable when the socon chum bucket is poured over the side. They refer to the existence of other like minded enlightened so I presumed the existence of an ideological cohort and without prejudice asked for a descriptor.

I was not trying to prove some silly notion that those who take up socon schadenfreude are the socon’s archenemy……..liberals. If someone thought that they are wrong. By miles.

The two people I saw responses from did, intentionally or accidentally, nod in the direction my question was intended. They referred to subsets of the Christian faithful. The obvious issue with that is that those most predictably peppering the boxes with ever less clever anecdotes about socons and referring to who is and isn’t receptive to discourse on the  topics where socons have gone off the reservation, those commenters are not likely going to be a part of the subsets of Christians to which those responses referred. Therefore they have to be labeled with ideological terms, not religious terms.

The peevish part of the problem is therefore that those who are first and loudest to jump into discussions about how socons/evangelicals are complicit in the fall of men are those who have always slithered away from categorization. If some label gets close to applicable they will slightly alter some already tediously nuanced position so that what they know cannot be known widely enough to ever have sufficient adherents that it be a nameable cohort.

For countless centuries people have done the same with religion. Still do. Today we see the religious analog to those who won’t claim an ideology in the common declaration of “I’m very spiritual”. Keep ’em guessing. Don’t let anyone figure it out. To be figured out is to reduce ones uniqueness. Keep the group membership where it is. Just one. The one who gets it, surrounded by a small group on sycophants who do not get it. Sycophants as chum.

It is pride, not ideology or spirituality that drives this phenomenon. It is why I asked in the manner I did, “By what shall they be known?”.

If this is merely a peeve it is the most discouraging one on my encyclopedic list. I don’t have a ready response held in abeyance for each potential answer. I’m not waiting to pounce with a sub-peeve. Either there will be no response or there will be a response.

16 thoughts on “Illusory Commeraderie: Infinite groups limited to one member apiece.

  1. Empath:
    Part of the problem in the Monosphere is that Churchian Gamers like Dalrock and his groupies have a vested intetest themselves in keeping as much friction going between Christians as possible. This is because they are promoting Churchian Game as the ONLY unfeminized sphere of Christianity (which it of course is not: not the only, not unfeminized, and not Christian). The dynamic you’re seeing here is really something like the Delphi Technique; a not uncommon cult procedure.

    The best advice to follow is ‘by their fruits you shall know them’. If what is being said and done is contrary to Doctrine, then there’s the response in plain view.

  2. I am prone to this myself. I think its one of my functions when I’m trying to sum up the hard lessons I’ve learned in the Manosphere. Then I pop off with something I think is profound and everyone does a collective “meh” and I scratch my head and go back to the drawing board.

  3. Ill try and post and fix that comment thing shortly. I may have reached my fill on this socon poaching. I have always thought that with the flaws and all its the closest group to the matters at hand, and maybe the least intransigent. The salivating alpha wordsmiths are good at what tyey do. Under their predicted future society, what they do will have less than zero value. Maybe they just want to say they told everyone so.

    They are not the most bothered by what they say they are. Prior to the loosely congealed manosphere they would have been looked at with ire or pity by the common sense men that make fun of.

  4. Empath
    I may have reached my fill on this socon poaching. I have always thought that with the flaws and all its the closest group to the matters at hand, and maybe the least intransigent.

    Well, ok. I figured that was just a conversation between you and TFH. My error. You were asking a larger audience. Ok, I’ll take the bait.

    First, what evidence is there to support your thought? Personally, in one-on-one conversations with social conservatives who are friends or co-workers, to a man I’ve found them to be conflict-averse around women, i.e. easily bossed and led by their “better halves”. Impossible to educate on male – female relations. Even the ones who are in conservative churches are endlessly deferential to women, no matter what those women do. No matter what those women do, it’s the job of the social conservative to “love on them”. Daughter having sex just out of high school? Look the other way, love on her, hope or pray for the best.

    The church babymommas drop a second bastard child, no one blinks and everyone turns-to to support her and her latest “choice”. No social conservative man dares say anything, because the Women Have Spoken. I have yet to meet a social conservative, including my friends, who could speak up even in private one word of criticism of an unmarried woman who has bastard after bastard, each by a different man.

    If social conservatives can’t stand up to a single babymomma, never mind stand up to their wives, I really don’t see how they are going to fix anything in the larger society.

    My social conservative friends are completely ignorant of , and totally intransigent on even discussing the slightest possible change to divorce law, or anti-family court, basically because men whose wives divorce them “must have done something”. There’s no such thing as a frivolous divorce to them, so far as I can tell, and I’ve known some of these men for 5, 10 or even more years. They are not casual coffee-shop conversation types, they are men I’ve worked next to.

    And when it comes to women, to hypergamy, to everything else, they are clueless and don’t want to learn.

    If I understand what you are trying to say, Empath, it seems to be that there are a lot of social conservatives who are just one conversation away from having the big light bulb go on over their head. I don’t know where those particular social conservative men are. I’ve never seen them in real life, and only know of a handful on the net.

    What I have seen, both in real life and on the net to a large extent, are men whose social conservatism typically all about conserving the liberalism of 20+ years ago. Men who married conservative feminist wives, who support all the 2nd stage feminist dogma, who have no problem with divorce and no interest in changing any of the laws, but who are angry about gay marriage. Their children will go to gay marriages with no problem, but will probably be socially conservative about polygamy.

    Please point to some of these social conservatives besides yourself who are ready to change.

  5. GIL

    I cant judge what of my ideas are profound. I dont pull it off so frequently. I didnt mean for this post to be profound. In the sphere profundity is linked to how few know the philospher being quoted, I marvel that such a practical group of men, logical, and the manosphere crowd are themselves highly educated in liberal arts. These men paint the apocalypse and quiver like kids offered unlimited toppings for their double scoop as they seem to think the world will fall under one of the philosophies most obscurious.

    Between these neck beards and the strident gamers and their alliance to not let up on what is a well known problem of socons not understanding that they are hurting men, marriages and children we lose track of whats important.

    Think about why writers poach on socons. Same reason preachers poach on men. Preachers get the Lift. These writers get orbiters and sycophants. Pride drives both. A gang of men from a small texas town would have their lights stay on and their families fed and safe. they’d immediately set hierarchy and women would fall into the role for the most part.

    And the funny thing is the neck beards would find allies among the defanged feminist because these groups are kindred in their grievance industry fascination.

  6. Between these neck beards and the strident gamers and their alliance to not let up on what is a well known problem of socons not understanding that they are hurting men, marriages and children we lose track of whats important.

    I’m not aware of any large number of gamers caring about socons, could you point to an example of what you are writing about?

    Think about why writers poach on socons.

    Because they are clueless, and refuse to learn, and are always cave in to women, especially feminists? Maybe that’s part of it?

  7. Ah, the irony of this comment AR given my latest post…. Daughter having sex just out of high school? Look the other way, love on her, hope or pray for the best.”

  8. AR, I wish you would understand the difference between cultural christianity and the Body of Christ. One is an organism, the other a blight.

    This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
    (2Ti 3:1-7)

    The fact that you despise socon’s is actually a step ahead when it comes to not falling into that category. Now if you just stay out of Romans 1 territory……

  9. AR: Amen. Women and men both know that women(by women I mean girls of 7 or 8 years of age) know that women have won the culture war and dominate . I do challenge the women and girls in my family and so pretty much only my one daughter will speak to me concerning the things of God.
    Empath: Why is a label needed? I try to view each individual as an individual and not as a member of a group. This is how I believe that Jesus views persons. What is wrong with that?

  10. GIL:
    The Gamers, as usual, are being hypocrites. While they complain about Christianity as anti-male; most of the Churchian Gamers demonize other men as ‘Blue-Pill Beta chumps” when they don’t fall into line behind the Gamecock ideology.

  11. AR

    First, what evidence is there to support your thought?

    I guess you mean that social conservatives are ready to change. That is your issue I hope, Because Ive never seen you so defensive as to allow the defensiveness to cloud plain reading.

    You see me acknowledge the issues with socons…..yes? If not, i cannot possibly be clearer.
    The “ready to change” part, my reference to that is in the fantastical extrapolation of the dystopian the flanneled geniuses so like to dwell in. And how the heck did game even get into this. Leave it out, I didn’t raise it, its utterly irrelevant to the very specific point I am making.

    You’ve written a long comment which argues something I did not assert.

    In this dystopian future I refer to, I wrote a comment at Dalrocks that should clarify the notion of a socon standing ready to change. Maybe it was after this post. In it I stated that supposing some societal collapse occurred and the (I was specific) southern socons filled the streets of small hamlets across middle Texas for example, they would keep women in out of the way and or assign them things and not be fussing about the things socons are so blinded by now. However the faux intellectuals would indeed start hair splitting and attempting to foist some ideological nonsense on the group and they’d be told to shut up and do X or go hide in there with the women so we can make sure you don’t get hurt. ,

    the tyranny that comes from those who will not do more than keep wearing off the scabs about socons would be something to behold and in a really developed dystopian fantasy would end in some kind of civil war between neak bearded hipsters from northern urban environs (who have created enclaves in the south from Greenville SC across to inner Buckhead Atlanta to Austin, TX and Sante Fe NM, and on westward)

    Let me put it another way. A societal collapse while some bumbling socons are still around in sufficient numbers has a softer landing than the collapse populated primarily with the weboyz.


    You also misunderstand the main point, which I allow for that being my lack of clarity. I do not place value on labeling. i am not burning with an urge to label. I am suggesting that if these wise men would have to describe themselves, they will either make it clear that they play the game of being unknowable, so nuanced as to always be a step ahead of even their most strident advocates…..its their form of AMOGing, and it has zip to even do with socons or half the grievance list they plop down in comboxes. They are like clever hecklers where if one wishes to read or participate in those type discussions there is no way to engage them. they bring out all manner of over lapping similarly minded but differently motivated counter-culture-original original original non conformists and the like.

    And like I said in the Dalrock comment, when the grid goes down (they love that stuff), what they gonna do? Sure they may have packed in weapons and food, though they are less likely than misguided southern socons to have prepped, but then what?

    This isnt tough to see. No one need actually label themselves to know that they eschew labels, not in the manner you have done (which makes sense) but in a way that avoids because to know them would be to reduce the mystique.

    Bobbeye, do you not know Christians who play the same game? have you ever encountered someone filled with evangelical arrogance who, when discussing biblical truths be they simple or complex will avoid ever sharing understanding with those around them? They seem to occupy a level of understanding always half a measure above anyone around them, They subtly make themselves and their words out to be something that others need aspire to to the point of distracting others from the scriptures themselves. they bounce on their toes a lot and jingle change in their pockets. They look weathered and may have a history. I knew so many in prison ministry its the one thing I do not miss about that outreach work.

    Its pride using situational leverage to get attention, by directly or indirectly elevating self and maintaining the elevation by being elusive.

    No need to actually get the labels assigned. The question of label is sufficient without an answer.

  12. AR

    Because they are clueless, and refuse to learn, and are always cave in to women, especially feminists? Maybe that’s part of it?

    Nope, I am saying if that was the motive Id have no issue. Im saying the motive is something else.

  13. Empath:
    In fairness, I was the one who brought up Game here. But the point was that the venue where you raised the issue is a Churchian Gamer blog, and that Churchian Gamers have their own agenda.

  14. Eric, in this case that train of thought is a distraction.

    Its about the fact that if I was compelled to pick from the existing ideological labels to describe myself, Id describe myself as a social conservative. I ping on 70% plus of what qualifies. Yet I’ll go ahead and say that’s the label Id choose if I had to choose a label.

    Those who will not identify an ideology have layers of reasons, mainly steeped in pride. To accept a pedestrian label for them is like holy water and garlic soup served to vampires. It burns. It burns because they have The Prestige. “Look over hear (at the socons) and get a chuckle, while I slight of hand the fact that I’m a rabid anarchist who wants to lock myself inside and watch The Purge through a webcam.”

    I’m being intentionally hyperbolic obviously. The 70% of socon that Id embrace is where the larger disagreement really lies with these folks. I’m flummoxed that decent guys are so easily duped by this stuff.

    In the end, its neither here nor there and Ill just ease out of that type of discourse or I’ll get wrapped up too deeply in my irritation.

  15. Pingback: The War Conservatives Never Knew They Lost | Things that We have Heard and Known

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s