[MikeCF]

(06-02-2014 07:43 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

You keep falling back on your idea of your superior manosphere credentials instead of the merits of the discussion. To make matters worse, you're mistaken. Your basis for arguing I'm a newcomer--your only basis for discrediting my well-supported argument, apart from trying to instigate a fight between me and Dagonet--is that I haven't operated a sufficient number of game blogs.

Tuth, you have not supported anything.

Where are you links? I have given several.

Where have you traced the history? I traced the history.

You keep talking like an authority.

Based on what?

Your word?

I have a proven history.

So, yes, I have more credibility on this than you do. That is based philogy.

It's not a personal thing. It's just a matter of fact that someone who can verify that, "I was there" has more credibility than someone who cannot.

You choose to remain anonymous and that's smart. It's not that smart to be "out there" on these issues.

But those who are out there do have superior credentials to yours since we are a known entity.

Again, that's not controversial at all.

[Tuthmosis]

(06-02-2014 07:37 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

I will happily compare credentials with you.

I know you would. It's literally what you've been doing in every one of your posts since you dropped into this thread--talking about your supposed manosphere resume.

[Basil Ransom]

I don't expect a good, neutral summary to make it into Wikipedia, but the discussion is worth having for our own sake.

Before I met anyone off this forum, I had met a few guys from PUA circles. I recently met another one by chance. There's a world of difference between PUA and the manosphere. Guys I've met on the forum, thankfully, use less jargon, and have a more measured perspective about what is and isn't possible. They're more willing to entertain negative beliefs, if they aren't true. A PUA calls any negative belief a 'limiting belief.' Forum members also far more likely to travel for pussy. They're more masculine and more dignified.

People on this forum and the manosphere generally often have this idea that Roosh and Roissy are synonymous with PUA. In reality, they are almost nobodies in that sphere, and I don't say that to demean them. I used to be a member of bitseduce, a closed forum for pirating pickup materials, and Roosh was hardly discussed, Roissy not at all. I recall searching years back Roissy's name on masf, and he was only mentioned a couple times in thousands upon thousands of threads. So while seduction is an essential element of the manosphere, professional PUAs like Neil Strauss and Mystery had zero part in it.

One of Roissy's prime contributions was framing the sexual market as fundamentally an economic one. Which reminds me of this Sexonomics site - http://www.lope.ca/sexonomics/ . This site according to the Wayback machine dates to 2004. https://web.archive.org/web/200403150000...exonomics/

This idea is pointedly referenced in the works of Michel Houellebecq, but Roissy really fleshed it out, so to speak.

Also, to devalue a man's contributions because you find some of his opinions unpalatable is rather unmanly and dishonorable. William Shockley invented the transistor and thereby fathered Silicon Valley - and was also a prominent advocate of eugenics. Linus Pauling won a Nobel prize for contributions to the field of chemistry, and then went on to embrace supposedly pseudo-scientific theories about nutrition and health. The merit of the initial accomplishments of these men stand on their own, regardless of what they chose to do afterwards. In the service of truth, every man ought get his due.

[MikeCF]

(06-02-2014 07:49 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  

People on this forum and the manosphere generally have this delusion that Roosh and Roissy are synonymous with PUA.

Yes, that is the irony of this discussion.

The manosphere is full of nobodies.

The Game is huge. Tucker Max is huge. PUA is huge.

Who is the manosphere? A loosely related group of men on the Internet who rejected PUA dogma.

So it's so weird when the manosphere is being tossed in with the Game an PUAs.

[MikeCF]

(06-02-2014 07:49 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

(06-02-2014 07:37 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

I will happily compare credentials with you.

I know you would. It's literally what you've been doing in every one of your posts since you dropped into this thread--talking about your supposed manosphere resume.

How is it "supposed," Tuth?

It's real. I am real. See my face. Read my writing. It goes way back.

No one has to take me on my word.

I've been out there raising hell for years.

All of this is easy to verify.

Doesn't make me a better person than you, but it does mean I have a lot of street credibility.

Which is ironic as I have explicitly stated I am not part of the manosphere, as the manosphere became something disgusting.

[Dusty]

[MikeCF]

(06-02-2014 07:56 PM)Dusty Wrote:  

No. It's not popcorn.

This is not drama.

I like Tuth and appreciate the work he has done for the Forum. There is no hard feelings on my hard.

I am simply supporting my position.

If Tuth disagrees with me, I would like to see his sources and authority.

But whatever happens, there's no drama or hard feelings on my end.

This is just intellectual debate. Men can disagree about such things without getting butt hurt.

[Dusty]

(06-02-2014 07:58 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

(06-02-2014 07:56 PM)Dusty Wrote:  

No. It's not popcorn.

This is not drama.

I like Tuth and appreciate the work he has done for the Forum. There is no hard feelings on my hard.

I am simply supporting my position.

If Tuth disagrees with me, I would like to see his sources and authority.

But whatever happens, there's no drama or hard feelings on my end.

This is just intellectual debate. Men can disagree about such things without getting butt hurt.

I was just trying to bring some levity to the discussion, which is interesting. Being a late comer to the Manospere, I was always curious about its history.

[Tuthmosis]

(06-02-2014 07:53 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

Doesn't make me a better person than you, but it does mean I have a lot of street credibility.

I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve by somehow claiming a longer lineage than me--which is in dispute to begin with. Not only is that equivalently fallacious as an old guy claiming to be wiser because he's older, you're solely basing your longer resume on your blog ventures. I don't think having operated (manosphere-relevant) blogs makes you more credible, nor does it matter to this conversation. I can't have that same part of the conversation over and over again. You're either not reading my posts, or have ulterior motives in dragging me into a circular, distracting conversation.

Needless to say, we're having this spirited (and I think civil and productive) conversation because mixing it up at this level is important, in the end, to our "way of life" or worldview. But can we stick to the merits of the discussion?

I've made a fair case for the Game 1.0 guys being an inextricable foundational element to the Manosphere. I could supply links to Tony's Lay Guide, but that seems like a waste of everyone's time.

[Basil Ransom]

I had an occasion to meet MikeCF recently, in person. It was not something planned, it was literally me just running into him in person, and he definitely didn't know who I was when I walked up to him. I introduced myself, and talked to him briefly, and then left him so as not to occupy him. I had argued with him on the forum before, although not recently. My short conversation with him suggests that he is a very gracious and intelligent man, and when he says he wants to help men, he genuinely means it. Just something to keep in mind when your primary perception of a man is through his words, and not his full persona.

[The Lizard of Oz]

I think it might help make the discussion more interesting if its terms were sharpened a bit. Heated as it is, it seems a little vague at the moment, if I may say so.

What is the actual claim about which Mike and Tuth disagree? I have not seen in clearly stated. It might help to focus the discussion to see an actual yes/no question which one side answers "yes" and the other "no".

[MikeCF]

^ Yeah you could have trained legs with me if you had wanted to. Next time!

Tuth and I are both hotheads, and we know that, so we don't take this b.s. personally.

This is a good look at the adversarial process.

He and I have both given more than enough information for people to adjudicate the truth for themselves.

He's made his case and I've made mine.

Or at least I have made mine.

So..."I rest my case."

[Tuthmosis]

(06-02-2014 08:06 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  

I had an occasion to meet MikeCF recently, in person. It was not something planned, it was literally me just running into him in person, and he definitely didn't know who I was when I walked up to him. I introduced myself, and talked to him briefly, and then left him so as not to occupy him. I had argued with him on the forum before, although not recently. My short conversation with him suggests that he is a very gracious and intelligent man, and when he says he wants to help men, he genuinely means it. Just something to keep in mind when your primary perception of a man is through his words, and not his full persona.

I don't doubt this, nor am I--to be clear--in any way angry at MikeCF or having this conversation on a personal level. Not only is that unproductive, my position in this forum limits my ability to have fair "beefs" and "feuds" with fellow members. Furthermore, I don't perceive any of Mike's disagreements as personal attacks on me or my work--which he has clearly stated.

I see this as a meeting of the minds among a group of intelligent men that has consequence on what we do and think. That being said, I'm about ready to attend to some of my other affairs, which I've postponed while attending to this discussion. Lastly, I don't want to supply ammunition to any of our detractors who would invent conflict where there isn't any.

[Dagonet]

To play referee, I think Mike's point is valid that if you actually lived through it firsthand, observed it, and were one of the writers considered to be part of the Manosphere, then that does give you more expertise.

However, the point in dispute is whether Tuth was a direct observer of the birth and growth of the Manosphere, which I don't doubt based on Tuth's comments. If we take him at his word, he was at least somewhat present during the formative times in question.

Tuth, I think the distinction we are at odds about, is not just the "influences" of the Manosphere in a literary sense-- which could include works back 5,000 years to the Kama Sutra-- but the backbone of its ACTUAL foundation and membership. We can trace back the literary lineage as recent and as ancient as we want, from Mystery and Tony's Lay Guide back, but we need to look at who is actually IN the Manosphere and work from there.

[Tuthmosis]

(06-02-2014 08:13 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

He's made his case and I've made mine.

Or at least I have made mine.

[Samseau]

(06-02-2014 06:44 PM)frenchie Wrote:  

(06-02-2014 05:34 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

I would say there are three main components to the manosphere:

1. Pick-up (Mystery Method)
2. Self-improvement (Pook @ SoSuave)
3. Cultural criticism (Bonecrackr)

Roissy blended them all together into a single format and shaped all future discourse around it. He is the Voltaire.

I like this. That's really the gyst of the movement as a whole.

We need a council of nicea here guys. Lets break the article into 3 main sections like this.

Pook came from here: http://www.sosuave.net/forum/index.html

Tons of guys read his shit. Some of Roissy's posts sound like they were taken out of the book of Pook.

Bonecrackr came from the MGTOW side of the manosphere, and he posted his stuff over at NiceGuy's forums back around 2003-2004:

http://www.the-niceguy.com/forum/

Bonecrackr was writing stuff like this back in 2004:

Quote:

Bonecrcker #141 - If You Don't Have Sex On The First Date, Your Chances Of Having Sex With Her At All Are Slim

If you don’t have sex with a woman on the first date, your chances of having sex with her at all are slim. The other side of that coin is, if you have sex with a woman you almost always can have sex with her multiple times in the future. Your goal on a “date” is not to impress a woman with endless blather but to make an excuse for her to come back to your place where you can seduce her. MOST of the time, if you aren’t totally wasting your time with a girl, she will come back to your place under the slimmest of excuses. She is going back there for sex. If she balks, makes a weird excuse etc., you might as well get rid of her (your not getting any, probably ever). The excuse needs to be reputable (so she can pretend she didn’t actually go back to your place for sex…..women are ummmm, nuts). "Hey, come back to my place so we can watch this chick flick on my DVD," is good. "Come and see the A-frame I built next to my bed," is not.

This is one of the many lies women tell. They SAY, they want to get to know a man and generate a certain amount of closeness, before engaging in a physical relationship. But what they DO is is decide within seconds of seeing you if they will have sex with you. The invitation lasts from seconds to several hours, and often has absolutely nothing to do with you (ie, she feels like a slut at that moment in time, and you are acceptable). That’s not normal. It’s not a good thing. But, it’s the way things are.

What Bonecrackr wrote above, for example, is nothing more than what Roissy and Roosh would write about later. Roosh repacked the above into the more fun and friendly "No Dating Challenge," which helped guys like me discover the truth. I myself did insane amounts of experimentation on it via the No Dating Challenge and the follow-up on how to get a girlfriend.

Tons of info on both of these guys:

http://www.returnofkings.com/9544/the-au...manosphere

http://www.returnofkings.com/14269/the-s...manosphere

[Menace]

Perhaps a better way to think about it is to divide the foundational aspects into theoretical and practical. Some contributed more (or predominantely) to one than to the other. I think Mystery, for example, was more practical. Roissy was more theoretical. Both are important for a fully integrated red-pill view. Not sure either advocated game from a lifestyle perspective...that is a more recent idea.

BTW anyone remember the names Maniac High ( http://www.pickupguide.com/ ), Tokyo PUA, Formhandle? Late 90's stuff. Very Game 1.0. Tony's Lay Guide is an admitted source of inspiration for Roosh (see Bang). Check that link out and look at the date stamps...late '99 and early 2000's.

Also, Gio put up some very interesting books. I believe the whole of pimp literature (Iceberg Slim, etc.) was largely overlooked or unrecognized during the development of the manosphere.

[LeBeau]

(06-02-2014 07:53 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

Which is ironic as I have explicitly stated I am not part of the manosphere, as the manosphere became something disgusting.

Mike you mentioned that you consider your blog to be "post-manosphere" earlier, just wondering if you could expand on that and the above bolded comment?

I ask that not as someone looking to stir any drama, but as a reader of your blog and others discussed here.

I agree that Heartiste's focus on race based topics often detracts from more important topics, and I'm not interested in those posts, but what else would you suggest is "disgusting"?

[MikeCF]

^ Just when he thinks he's escaped, he gets drawn in for one final mission.

The outright women hating is disgusting. There was a thread on a forum that shall remain nameless where some girls went to a bachelorette party. Due to a freak accident, they died after their car caught fire.

It wasn't their fault (there was no "comedic justice" or anything like that) and yet a lot of guys thought it was funny that some women burned alive.

I oppose feminism but do not embrace the bitter, woman-hating aspect that is prevalent in the manosphere. There's nothing cool about people being burned alive.

There are also a large group of losers (Earl and other so-called "manospambots" who are allowed to comment on sites. I think that is degrading and beneath the dignity of a man to allow people to comment just to get page views.

It also lowers the status of everyone vis-a-vis association. I only allow quality comments at D&P. One stupid comment (or even one that has a bad vibe) and the person gets banned.

Now look at PUAHate. Could Elliot Rodgers have spewed his women-hating venom on many manosphere type sites? You bet. In fact, I have seen many people express sentiments similar to his.

That is disgusting and I don't want to associate with that directly or indirectly.

As for my game and how it's evolved.

Imagine a grid. You have four segments. Lifestyle v. Game and Direct v. Indirect.

(Think back to debates. Guys will debate whether lifestyle or game is better and whether direct or indirect game is better. There have been threads on each.)


Lifestyle | Game
|
|
-----------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------
|
Direct | Indirect
|



Early game - in fact, The Game book - taught that you could be a loser but if you did enough "cold approaches," you could meet girls. It's fairy tale thinking and magical beliefs.

Real Social Dynamics and other scam sites still teach that crap. That is game-indirect.

Then guys started growing up, getting some career and business success, and started realizing that lifestyle was a major component to meeting women. (Think being in shape, hitting the gym, going to art gallery openings, wine tastings, etc., things that cost money.)

But they still believed in hiding your sexual intent and went indirect. That is lifestyle-indirect.

I am at the other end of the extreme. I am direct-lifestyle.

That is, my lifestyle is such that women are accessories to it. I don't run routines or have openers. I'm a train and they can take the ride or not.

I also don't hide my interest. I am direct. Women know why I am talking to them.

D&P is about building up men so that they can be lifestyle-direct.

"Become the man to see."

No one was writing about that when I started to, but now a lot of people are.

So you can trace the evolution of "game" from: The Game and fuzzy hats to building yourself up as a bad ass irresistible man.

Indeed, look at how the Lifestyle subforum took off when I started posting more often.

So that has been my contribution to how men meet women.

It's different because it also include a street smart component. Anyone can say, "Be the best man you can be," but you really have to have a certain degree of skepticism if not outright cynicism for western women.

But you don't get sucked into that vortex of hate.

[runsonmagic]

I'm fascinated my the history of the manosphere, but we've drifted from the original focus - namely that someone with ZERO knowledge of the manosphere has drafted the article on wikipedia that will be many journalists only source of knowledge when writing about the community.

It sounds like the next step, and what Frenchie needs is for someone who writes under their real name to chronicle what is common knowledge in a publication he can cite as a source. Writing an ROK article would work. There are several writers qualified to take this on, but unfortunately I'm not one of them.

I'd love to see Aurini do it, since he's an actual historian and is taking his writing in a more academic tone. Most of the writers who are qualified read this forum, and it sounds like there is an opportunity for someone to play a role in publicly defining the manosphere if they're up for the challenge.

[Farmageddon]

Reading through this thread I was reminded of a comment Christopher Hitchens made when the followers of Ayn Rand split into two schools:

"There's nothing like a good schism amongst objectivists."

[Tuthmosis]

It was only a matter of time before this became a direct-indirect debate.

I present to you:

Tuthmosis's Law: As an RVF thread grows longer, the probability of it becoming a debate over the relative merits between direct and indirect game approaches 1.

[AnonymousBosch]

(06-02-2014 09:07 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

It's different because it also include a street smart component. Anyone can say, "Be the best man you can be," but you really have to have a certain degree of skepticism if not outright cynicism for western women.

But you don't get sucked into that vortex of hate.

I've noticed where guys usually struggle with Game is not being able to accept women's minds and behaviour for what they are. The men hold onto their idealised perception of what women should be, and grow very bitter because of it. With some guys, this passes. It's a 'dying-off' of the old mindset.

Girls can be bitchy, illogical and emotional, sure, but only if you're holding them to male standards. They can still compliment your life and be a lot of fun to spend time with.

CH's racism tends to make me zone out, and I see focusing too much on him too much as handing a bow and arrow to your enemy, expecting them not to target you with it.

At the end of the day, it's only Wikipedia: it's a resource for people too lazy to independently-research a topic, and the core concepts of collective thought and groupthink guarantee polarisation to extreme points of view. Due to the controversial nature of the manosphere, the page will always be a battleground between ideologies, so, whilst I respect you and Tuthmosis hashing out viewpoints that are obviously important to you, anything you agree on can be instantly-wiped away anyway.

Hell, I'd even venture thinking Wikipedia is an authority on anything is pure Blue Pill thought.

[TonySandos]

In other words, people aren't being objective?

[All or Nothing]

(06-02-2014 07:49 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  

People on this forum and the manosphere generally often have this idea that Roosh and Roissy are synonymous with PUA. In reality, they are almost nobodies in that sphere, and I don't say that to demean them. I used to be a member of bitseduce, a closed forum for pirating pickup materials, and Roosh was hardly discussed, Roissy not at all. I recall searching years back Roissy's name on masf, and he was only mentioned a couple times in thousands upon thousands of threads. So while seduction is an essential element of the manosphere, professional PUAs like Neil Strauss and Mystery had zero part in it.

I was a part of The Attraction Forums and Venusian Arts forums back in 2010 and up to joining this forum.

Even though I did not know anything about PUA and the manosphere before then, Roissy's blog was very far reaching at that time.

I remember Future (an instructor at The Attraction Forums) quoting Roissy in his blog and saying that he was fascinated by his teachings about the true nature of women. If I remember correctly, Roissy also influenced a couple other instructors there at that time.

Roissy did affect PUA when his blog was at its height.

(06-02-2014 09:07 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

It's different because it also include a street smart component. Anyone can say, "Be the best man you can be," but you really have to have a certain degree of skepticism if not outright cynicism for western women.

But you don't get sucked into that vortex of hate.

This is the one alarming thing that I have started to notice about the "redpill" school of thinking.

It has started to move from away from the Truth and is slowly transforming into an ideology.

The problem with ideologies is that once fully formed they begin to become divorced from reality and start espousing emotional rhetoric with a basis on the original truths that led to the ideology itself.

It will be a dark day for the manosphere when it reaches the point where it completely shifts from truth seeking to enforcing a specific worldview on other people.

At that point it will be like trading one form of oppression for another.