[LeBeau]

(06-02-2014 04:55 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

He's easily the biggest American intellectual in the last 100 years or so

I can understand that Roissy has been important to many guys here, but let's not get carried away, and keep in perspective the small size of the audience too when you're making such a big claim.

[Tuthmosis]

(06-02-2014 06:22 PM)Dagonet Wrote:  

My point is that the The Game undoubtedly "influenced" the Manosphere, but Mystery and Neil Strauss have never been part of the Manosphere. Roissy has.

And, in my recollection, Original Recipe Roissy never used the term manosphere. Chateau Heartiste routinely puts it in quotation marks, and says this (below). So Roissy is as much a part of the manosphere as Mystery or Neil Strauss.

   

[cardguy]

Isn't Game 2.0 - about replacing fuzzy hats with genuine self improvement?

[Dagonet]

I'm not talking about who has used the term. None of us like the term Manosphere or chose to use it. It was created and adopted organically, and is used out of begrudging acknowledgement now, because we don't have a better word for it. Roissy is the foundation of what others call The Manosphere.

EDIT: Ay caramba! Eat my shorts.

[Tuthmosis]

(06-02-2014 06:53 PM)Dagonet Wrote:  

I'm not talking about who has used the term. None of us like the term Manosphere or chose to use it. It was created and adopted organically, and is used out of begrudging acknowledgement now, because we don't have a better word for it. Roissy is the foundation of what others call The Manosphere.

Fair enough on the bolded above. But simply declaring by edict that Roissy is the foundation of the manosphere--or the biggest American intellectual of the last hundred years--without any supporting argument, doesn't make it so.

I feel I've made a respectable case for the Game 1.0 guys.

[Samseau]

I'm calling it early on Roissy as one of the biggest intellectuals of our time. His importance only becomes more evident over time, as all major intellectuals do.

[The Father]

(06-02-2014 05:28 PM)Dagonet Wrote:  

There is not a direct connection between The Game and the Manosphere. They are culturally related, both being birthed from the same time and place.

Exactly. And both with the same central audience: Men. Actually, a subset of men - those who have "wised up" that the B.S. that was fed to them for many years ("women like nice guys", "women are the weaker, kinder sex") didn't serve their interests and wasn't an actual, scientific representation of reality. Both Game and the Manosphere (or men's rights movement, or MRA, etc) seek to study REALITY, to dissect it, and to systematically understand it in an empirical way, while ignoring the anecdotal bullshit that many men swallow. And then, to apply what they've learned in a way that benefits them - because society's rules have been deconstructed and reconstructed in a way that HURTS them and HELPS women.

[cardguy]

Samseau makes a good point.

It is like when people were discussing any major thinker - 7 years after they started writing.

At first - it would be like - this guy is a fad - he will fade away.

And it is only with the passage of time you see you were at the beginning of something big.

Just cos' people are writing on blogs and not paper - doesn't mean important thinkers have suddenly disappeared.

Interesting perspective there, Samseau!

[Quintus Curtius]

There are no more furious beasts than angry theologians.

From reading the past couple pages in this thread, we can begin to understand why it took the Council of Trent 20 years to hammer out a definitive doctrine.

In a Wikipedia article, the best you can do is hit the main points, and move on.

The major figures are not really in dispute. The question of their relative influence, merits, and virtues is a question for the ages, and best left for historians to ponder.

[MikeCF]

(06-02-2014 06:58 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

Fair enough on the bolded above. But simply declaring by edict that Roissy is the foundation of the manosphere--or the biggest American intellectual of the last hundred years--without any supporting argument, doesn't make it so.

What edict?

I supported my argument by citing sources form back when the manosphere was rising.

What guy who "came up" around the time the manosphere was starting to be using disagrees with the proposition that Roissy was foundational?

What does Roosh say? Ask him. I bet he'll agree that Roissy was an if not the OG.

P.S. Your Bart Simpson line to Dagonet was a bit out of line, don't ya think?

He was one of the original "Evil Patriarchy" guys and isn't trolling. He just happens to disagree, so there's no reason we can't be civil. No need for personal insults.

[MikeCF]

(06-02-2014 07:03 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

I'm calling it early on Roissy as one of the biggest intellectuals of our time. His importance only becomes more evident over time, as all major intellectuals do.

I've said that for years as have you. Nietzsche died broke, as it's often the case that contemporaries cannot recognize visionaries. They simply see too far past our own field of view.

I'll get into a "book readin' dick swinging contest" with anyone and I'll put Roissy up there with any the greats.

Look at who Roissy's biggest fans are - it's usually the most educated, high-brow members of the manosphere.

That's very telling.

[MikeCF]

Again, the question for Tuth is this:

Who does not consider Roissy foundational?

Roosh?
Me?
Rollo?
Captain Capitalism?

Any of the members of the SPLC hate watch list think Roissy is not foundational?

Does anyone who has been around writing since 2008 not think Roissy is foundational?

[MikeCF]

I don't have a Lexis-Nexis account anymore.

Does anyone have one?

What year was the term "manosphere" first used in the print or online media? That would be a nice starting place.

Who was around when that term was being used?

Who was associated with that term?

Then you look at what those men were writing and you ask what those men think.

See if any of them say that Roissy is anything less than foundational.

[Tuthmosis]

(06-02-2014 07:18 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

P.S. Your Bart Simpson line to Dagonet was a bit out of line, don't ya think?

He was one of the original "Evil Patriarchy" guys and isn't trolling. He just happens to disagree, so there's no reason we can't be civil. No need for personal insults.

That was an obvious joke--even to Dagonet, who acknowledged it with some vintage Bart Simpson lines. Let's not go instigating.

[Tuthmosis]

(06-02-2014 07:23 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

Does anyone who has been around writing since 2008 not think Roissy is foundational?

You're using this line of reasoning to disqualify everyone but you and a couple of select people from the discussion. It's tantamount to saying "Does anyone who can bench press 250 pounds think Roissy is not foundational?"

Discuss on the merits, not your notion of credentials.

[MikeCF]

(06-02-2014 07:17 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

There are no more furious beasts than angry theologians.

No anger here. It's a fun conversation that of course raises meta issues about "what is history" and "what is the truth." It's right up there with my own intellectual interests.

I've been supporting my arguments with facts and sources.

Anyone who is considered a "name" in the manosphere is going to say Roissy is foundational.

Tuth has been giving a lot of his opinions, but hasn't really supported it with any links to anything. He is speaking as if he is an authority when he is a newcomer to the scene.

Tuth even cited a Chateau Heartiste post for the proposition that Roissy is marginally involved in the manosphere.

But I already went through the "evolution" of Roissy in D.C. to Citizen Renegade, to Cheateu.

So that's a total red herring.

[draguer]

I just searched and couldn't find it in any cases.

It came up once as a reference in a journal (UCLA Law Review February, 2014 HOW TO FEEL LIKE A WOMAN, OR WHY PUNISHMENT IS A DRAG) in this paragraph:

Quote:

The ready currency of the association is even more striking given that outside the punishment context, linking femininity with subordination (especially sexual subordination) is controversial. Many different groups with ranging motivations resist acknowledging the victimization of women. Antifeminists deny or minimize the violence and discrimination women face. Men's rights activists, for example, claim that women take advantage of “victim culture” to falsely cry rape at alarming rates, [FN9] while cultural commentators like Katie Roiphe and Camille Paglia portray women as using victimhood as a way to avoid the consequences of their own poor choices.

It was a citation of the SPLC

http:// http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/in...bout-women

[Tuthmosis]

(06-02-2014 07:21 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

Look at who Roissy's biggest fans are - it's usually the most educated, high-brow members of the manosphere.

The operative word here is "fans." I think too many guys are bringing in their preferences and fandom into what's supposed to be an objective read of the manosphere.

Furthermore, by almost any objective measure, I am also among "the most educated [and] high-brow members of the manosphere." I'm neither a "fan" nor a detractor of Roissy, but rather the advocate for a fair and balanced appraisal.

[MikeCF]

(06-02-2014 07:33 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

(06-02-2014 07:23 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

Does anyone who has been around writing since 2008 not think Roissy is foundational?

You're using this line of reasoning to disqualify everyone but you and a couple of select people from the discussion. It's tantamount to saying "Does anyone who can bench press 250 pounds think Roissy is not foundational?"

Discuss on the merits, not your notion of credentials.

Bro, we lived it.

Yes, our eye witness observations matter.

That's how truth is reached.

If this were a history book on WWII, people would interview the "vets" from the war.

That's how history books are written.

You look at original sources. Newspapers, documents, etc.

You interview witnesses.

So it's not at all controversial that I bring up the fact that Roosh and other who lived this stuff matter.

Yes, our opinions matter more than yours.

Why?

Because we were there.

When the history of Return of Kings is written, it will be your time to claim credibility.

[MikeCF]

(06-02-2014 07:36 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

Furthermore, by almost any objective measure, I am also among "the most educated [and] high-brow members of the manosphere." I'm neither a "fan" nor a detractor of Roissy, but rather the advocate for a fair and balanced appraisal.

I will happily compare credentials with you.

[Christian McQueen]

I think it's quite simple:

IRT is the pioneer and Father of the Manosphere.

BigBootyLuvr is up there.

And lastly, ChocolateCockofZeus.

They have my vote.

[Truth Teller]

(06-02-2014 06:45 PM)cardguy Wrote:  

Isn't Game 2.0 - about replacing fuzzy hats with genuine self improvement?

Yes, and I think that's the point of The Game. Mystery and the rest are very good at seducing random women in bars and clubs, but they're terrible at keeping the ones they want. They have exceptional outer game, but mediocre (at best) inner game. I have the old MM book, and I don't think it mentions much, if anything about inner game. I haven't read it in awhile.

This is what guys like Krauser and Mark Manson call "performance-based game." I agree with Manson and Krauser. Whereas Game 2.0 teaches men to actually be attractive and not invested, MM is more based on providing the illusion of attractiveness and lack of investment.

[Enki]

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

Samseau's words, also might be of help.

[Tuthmosis]

(06-02-2014 07:35 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

Tuth...is speaking as if he is an authority when he is a newcomer to the scene.

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.

I'll leave this quote here for you, speaking of great philosophers:

Quote:

Generally speaking, it seems fair to say that the richer the intellectual substance of a field, the less there is a concern for credentials, and the greater is the concern for content.
-Noam Chomsky

[MikeCF]

Do a Google search for links to Roissy.wordpress.com

Note the depth of them. Everyone linked to him at one time.

If you looked at a chart showing nodes and networks, where does Roissy fall? He'd fall right in the middle as the major node.

https://www.google.com/#q=roissy.wordpress.com&start=90

"Dating market value"? That's all a quiz from Roissy.

Again, we could list concept after concept that came from him.

http://roissy.wordpress.com/2007/10/19/d...ket-value/