ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Sunday, January 17, 2016

Lessons in Rhetoric: Christian edition

LB engages with a Christian SJW on the attack and observes they don't behave any differently than their godless cousins, they merely rely upon different lies and double down on the sanctimony. A dialogue with analysis:
C-SJW: "Baptists have a habit of preaching 'against' the things of this life rather than preach Christ Jesus & Him crucified. They never point people towards the Holy Spirit, Who leads & guides into All Truth, comforts us & empowers us to live the Life that is INSIDE of us: Christ IN you, your hope of glory. Being in agreement about what we're supposed to oppose hardly produces the Love of Christ in us to share with a hurting world."

Analysis: There are a lot of dialectical bunny trails one might chase. But the SJW's primary attack works on two levels: 1. rhetorical holiness posturing, and 2. a dialectically false interpretation of Scripture as New Age niceness congenial to the worldly Zeitgeist.

LB: "Concern troll is concerned. Go censor all the Biblical examples of preaching "against" things. You'll be left with genealogies and genocides."

Analysis: Direct dialectical refutation, but succinct and dismissive to retain rhetorical frame. To the dialectical, the SJW is done. But due to brevity, the rhetorical will hear the slap without seeing the bullets. This baits the SJW to come in hot, stupid, and overconfident. He responds in rhetorical kind.

C-SJW: "Put down the crack pipe & talk plainly. I have no idea of what you are speaking."

Analysis: Insult + dialectical bait. If I expand and explain, I lose. Instead, I switch to rhetoric and reframe his incomprehension as stupidity.

LB: "In you is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias."

I know his pride is invested in superior Biblical knowledge, so I drop an obviously Biblical reference on him that I know he won't get. Pride directs him to Google. Google then directs him to Matthew 13:14:

"And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive"

This is part of a longer passage in which Jesus explains that he deliberately speaks in confusing parables so that an undeserving people would NOT be saved. The reference simultaneously insults the C-SJW, refutes his universalist niceness, and silences his objection to my obscure speech, all using a direct New Testament quote from Jesus Christ himself.

C-SJW: "LOL, are you vexing me?  LOL  You are full of pride & it makes people not want to be around you. If you can't walk in love & understanding, you can't walk in the Light."

Analysis: It's a hit! Two all-capital LOLs. No different than a negged girl laughing off tingle-tension, although less aesthetically appealing. He starts reframing hard to rebuild his ego, launching all kinds of random and rabbity accusations. He has no possible support for them as I've done nothing but quote a single line of Scripture! It's rhetorical and psychological, not dialectical.

He's suddenly given me a lot of material in just four sentences, and it would be easy to be overwhelmed by target selection. But going off on a tangent would be a welcome psychological relief for him. I need to maintain and intensify the pressure, which means continuing to drive down the rhetorical middle. That would be his holiness posturing, which is now the only barrier between me and his fragile gamma ego.

LB: "By "walk in love and understanding," I assume you mean "accuse people of smoking crack.""

Analysis: Barrier penetrated: hypocrisy demonstrated. Zero dialectic breather. Short reply highlights the verbosity of his butthurt reaction.

C-SJW: "Or calling me a troll"

Analysis: This is the SJW in retreat, now spewing squid ink. He's trying to settle for moral equivalency rather than retain his superior holiness posture, and there's no more attempt at offense. He's crying foul and looking for the ref. Now it's time to encircle and destroy. Mustn't let him escape with a failed offensive and a minor tacit concession.

LB: "Not only are you a concern troll, you are too stupid to avoid exposing yourself as a posturing holier-than-thou hypocrite within the space of two comments. But you proved yourself a liar in your first comment: "They never point people towards the Holy Spirit"

I Googled "sanderson1611 Holy Spirit" and found 4 youtube sermons on it in 3 seconds."


Analysis: The correct response to the cry of "foul" is to do it twice as hard - because it hurt. By repeating the accusation, I deny his lie of equating "concern troll" with "troll". I then reject his frame of equal culpability, making the hypocrisy charge explicit. I don't know what untried rhetorical options he has left at this point, other than Fall Silent.

C-SJW: *crickets*

Analysis: QED
This is really well-done rhetorical jujitsu. Knowing when to utilize pure rhetoric and when to launch a concise dialectical strike for rhetorical purposes is an art, not a science, and LB switches back and forth between the two very effectively here. The key, as he shows, is to identify the SJW's primary point of pride and, Belichick-style, attack it. Then one has merely to recognize when emotional pain has been felt, as indicated by the nature of the reaction, and press harder on that point.

As LB implicitly noted, "laughing" is SJW for "you are hurting me". Don't get distracted and deviate into dialectic at that point, just press harder on the Schwerpunkt.

Labels: ,

102 Comments:

Blogger Student in Blue January 17, 2016 8:37 AM  

Analysis: It's a hit! Two all-capital LOLs. No different than a negged girl laughing off tingle-tension, although less aesthetically appealing. He starts reframing hard to rebuild his ego, launching all kinds of random and rabbity accusations.

This is probably the #1 thing for the dialectically-minded to keep in mind - the rhetorically minded will react like women since they're running off of emotion.

So learning basic Game, since it involves handling those who live on emotions, will teach you a lot of rhetorical arguing techniques, such as maintaining frame, and how what you say doesn't matter whatsoever compared to how you say it.

Blogger Lovekraft January 17, 2016 8:38 AM  

2015 was peak-sjw. This year is where battle lines are being drawn.

Like Vox said a while back, there's no place for moderates anymore. I stated such to a leftist white knight about a month ago and he and I are on much more cordial terms. Likely because he knows he is facing an opponent, and not a supplicating beta.

I let him know that my understanding of world politics is heads above his and any appeals to emotion by him will be laughed at.

And get this, he hasn't read "Animal Farm". Should be required reading for any leftist.

OpenID simplytimothy January 17, 2016 8:44 AM  

Thanks for these. This is copied to my notes for parsing and study.

Clearly "not nice" is a good thing when employed virtuously.

What are the words for the virtue(s) does LB exhibit here?

Anonymous Man of the Atom January 17, 2016 8:49 AM  

"SJWs Always Lie" on demo. Excellent! Thanks for the training course supplements, Vox!

Blogger Ahazuerus January 17, 2016 8:49 AM  

great stuff. Very nicely done.

Just for kicks, and in no wise a serious objection (far from it), but:

"Concern troll is concerned. Go censor all the Biblical
examples of preaching "against" things. You'll be left with
genealogies and genocides."

In actuality I think the genocides are all the culmination of repeated refusals to hear the "preaching against things" incidents, so you'd only be left with genealogies.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan January 17, 2016 8:51 AM  

Yep #1 is spot on. That was a brutal put down exchange, and totally necessary, and done with the moral level of conflict firmly within LB's grasp.

Anonymous BGKB January 17, 2016 9:01 AM  

Tell C-SJW to go to an MCC church or the TEMPLE OF THE BACON EATING GRINDR RABI, you wont hear any bad things about god there.

Blogger JACIII January 17, 2016 9:07 AM  

Bravo. It is enlightening to see examples of the mechanism of focusing on the useful target points presented by the SJW as well as identification of emotional tells.

Anonymous Dave January 17, 2016 9:14 AM  

Belichick-style, attack it.

Watched Jaworski and Hodge on espn last night as they illustrated how masterfully Belichek shut down Alex Smith and Kelce in the second half of that game. Brilliant.

Blogger Al Cibiades January 17, 2016 9:26 AM  

Jiu jitsu indeed. This post reminds me of the "Jesus Juke" http://stuffchristianslike.net/2010/11/16/the-jesus-juke/

Anonymous Desiderius January 17, 2016 9:30 AM  

"What are the words for the virtue(s) does LB exhibit here?"

Manliness, foremost.

Blogger Bard January 17, 2016 9:31 AM  

That was a great example

Anonymous Desiderius January 17, 2016 9:36 AM  

"Clearly 'not nice' is a good thing when employed virtuously."

Niceness in general is adiaphora.

Undue concern with niceness is effeminacy.

Blogger Melampus the Seer January 17, 2016 9:42 AM  

Taking Paul's disputations with the philosophers as a model, I believe it is useful to distinguish among our enemies. Some are neo-pagans;, they are analogous to the Epicureans to whom Paul preached. Some are neo-gnostic; they are analogous to the Stoics to whom Paul preached. This fellow, C-SJW, is neo-pagan.

We see this when he promotes feelings to proper nouns with capital letters. His thinking typifies the pagan mind. The in-dwelling of Christ leads us into a "Life that is INSIDE of us". (Note the capitalization.) C-SJW then presumes that living this internal life would deemphasize the need to renounce worldly things.

This is utterly false, of course. The church, ό εκκλεσια, means precisely 'those who have been called out from the cosmos'. This is the exact situation taught by the icon of pentecost.Man was made in the image and likeness of God. He lost the likeness in the fall. When man recognizes this great loss. That man retains the image of God allows him to cooperate with God's grace and return to his true nature. The in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit simultaneously calls one out of the cosmos, but also urges one to save it, to reconsecrate the cosmos. Christ and Paul both went into the desert to live as monks only to return later and save the world.

The neo-pagan cannot cope with this. He sees himself, and everything else, as already called out. Everything is Love! (note the caps) The neo-pagan denies the fall and sees no sin only better or worse choices. In this situation of logical contradiction, all one can do is point as Aristotle said. Look, you lied. Look, you don't make sense. Look, you do not bear good fruits with this policy. Look, this is not what the Apostles said. Look, you're foolish here. Etc.

Many of the neo-pagan SJW christians are not liberal. Many are libertarians. They replace the notion of God's commandments with a modern political sense of consensually. What two have consented is permitted. It's completely at odds with scripture, and holy tradition, but that's what they now believe.

There is more hope for the neo-gnostic. He accepts the holy things. He has merely misunderstood the fall and the full meaning of the incarnation. He typically does not deny them. Let us reason with him.

Blogger Ahazuerus January 17, 2016 9:42 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger VD January 17, 2016 9:46 AM  

This has nothing to do with Spacebunny. What are you going on about?

Blogger Timmy3 January 17, 2016 9:46 AM  

Accusing someone of smoking a crack pipe is not Christian rhetoric. No wonder Christianity is in decline in America. We are so caught up in political correctness.

Anonymous Dave January 17, 2016 9:49 AM  

C-SWJ

Mch mroe effitave to gte teh nmae write

Anonymous not actually C-SJW January 17, 2016 9:59 AM  

Sorry dumb mistake. I meant LB, not SB. Anyhow, there's a reply to LB's last post which I think is interesting.

Anonymous Frank Luke January 17, 2016 10:09 AM  

A few months ago, after THAT court decision, a southern baptist woman I've known for all my life (and who should know better) said, "I don't see Christians protesting beauty salons even though Leviticus 19:27 says 'don't cut your hair.' I think Jesus is okay with this." She and I had already had our dialectical discussion beforehand, and she kept it civil then. In that dialectical, I had explained how the ceremonial laws were different than the laws of sexual propriety, one way we could tell was how the different laws had different punishments for being broken (repent and make amends vs. prepare to be executed). She just kept harping on "But Jesus himself never condemned it so it must be okay." Reply: He didn't need to. It had been roundly condemned throughout the OT. When the mission went to gentiles, Paul and company had to explain these laws also. Notice that they never mention food laws among gentiles, but repeatedly condemn sexual immorality. Ergo, they are different levels of wrong.

Since those had been ignored, I let rhetoric into this reply: "First, Leviticus doesn't say that. It says don't cut your hair like the heathens do. Big difference. And since your standard is 'if Jesus didn't condemn it, it's fine,' are you going to support incest and pedophilia next? After all, Jesus never condemns those actions by direct name."

She was enraged. But really. Making a canon within a canon is ridiculous under the best of circumstances. To do it to justify your political stance instead of letting the Bible dictate your stances is the worst of circumstances.

Blogger Were-Puppy January 17, 2016 10:24 AM  

That is quite a lesson.

This guy is wielding a rapier. I'm such a grasshopper i'm still mastering the club.

Anonymous LB January 17, 2016 10:50 AM  

Well hello Ahazeurus/Not-Actually-SJW. Fancy meeting you here.

If there actually is a response to my last post, I'm sure it would indeed be interesting. Why don't you provide it.

Unless, of course, you are a liar.

Blogger Ahazuerus January 17, 2016 10:55 AM  

Er, what? I am not "Not Actually SJW" nor anyone else.

I enthusiastically applaud your work. Have already done so, above, @5.

Anonymous Ezekiel Cassandros January 17, 2016 11:08 AM  

Churchians twist Scripture so badly they shouldn't be allowed to use it anymore, a la Ezekiel 18.

As per Ezekiel 23, its because they wish for the good old days when they were sucking horse jizz from donkey dicks.

If anybody tells you Christians have to be nice, they haven't read the Bible.

Anonymous LB January 17, 2016 11:10 AM  

Oh Ahazuerus, that's weird. Not-actually-sjw appeared to be following on your deleted post typoing SB for LB and inquiring who I was.

In any case, my comment still applies towards Not-Actually-C-SJW.

Blogger TheRedSkull January 17, 2016 11:16 AM  

SJW: Sullen Jesting Wimps

Blogger Ahazuerus January 17, 2016 11:26 AM  

@LB

No harm, no foul.

Anonymous not actually C-SJW January 17, 2016 11:30 AM  

LB, I didn't mean to imply you were lying about anything, just that AFTER you sent the convo to Vox/checked for answers, there was a reply (I was unclear). Which might be interesting to reply to... I was hesitant to link directly in case you prefer your social media profile not be linked to your voxday pseudonym. Which BTW, I'll shut up happily if that's the case. The reply was:

"Dude, you don't have a relationship with Jesus Christ because you have never repented. Instead, you went forward or raised your hand or said an insignificant 'sinners prayer', grabbed your bible & off you went to terrorize the planet. You have no power over sin. You are probably addicted to pornography, judge others & carry unforgiveness in your life. You need to repent. Get off of the throne of your life & bow your knee to Jesus Christ. Quit playing the religious game. You're not good at it."

Blogger Nate January 17, 2016 11:31 AM  

The art is in crafting a dialectal knockout punch while keeping within some parameters of rhetoric.

As he said the dialectals reading saw the rest of the conversation as a victory lap.

Anonymous LB January 17, 2016 11:45 AM  

Ok, apologies not actually C-SJW. I was mistaken. I thought he had deleted the thread, but actually he just blocked me. I can view it fine when not logged in.

I'd seen his response briefly and replied "Says the proven liar," but I lost access before saving his comment. Apparently the reply didn't go through either.

So your having access to that information appeared suspicious to me, but no longer does.

I assume Vox's editorial summary of *crickets* was also based on my faulty assertion to him that the thread was deleted. Mea culpa.

Anonymous LastRedoubt January 17, 2016 12:11 PM  

@Lovekraft

And get this, he hasn't read "Animal Farm". Should be required reading for any leftist

Sadly - they rarely do these days. I think the local high school still has copies, but I have already heard parents praising that they're assigning "more relevant" material and my kids friends questioning why they should read soch an "old boring" book.

Anonymous LastRedoubt January 17, 2016 12:13 PM  

@not actually C-SJW

SJW's always project.

Blogger Zaklog the Great January 17, 2016 12:15 PM  

As a very basic lesson in rhetoric, how important would you say it is in most arguments to not appear angry?

Anonymous LB January 17, 2016 12:31 PM  

@28 Ok. I thought he deleted the thread, but actually he blocked me. Hence the confusion.

Blogger VD January 17, 2016 12:34 PM  

As a very basic lesson in rhetoric, how important would you say it is in most arguments to not appear angry?

It depends. If you have an audience, it is important to not show anger if you are a man. A woman can. But if you don't have an audience, it can be very rhetorically effective to show anger.

Blogger haus frau January 17, 2016 12:38 PM  

@33 he blocked you? Clearly you struck home.

Blogger Sheila4g January 17, 2016 12:54 PM  

Excellent lesson - many thanks and lots of things to learn. I'm not even at grasshopper level yet. Expressing disdainful amusement without articulating it is difficult for me, and then zeroing in on where it most hurts.

I stumbled across a prime example of SJWS entry via code of conduct yesterday, and wondered if anyone here might parse it - it's from the Creeping Sharia blog regarding the mayor of Sandpoint, Idaho, who's trying to despoil the locals' American environment: sandpoint mayor's resolution.

Blogger Tom K. January 17, 2016 1:12 PM  

"Social media is war by other means."

"I am not a safespace."

Blogger Tom K. January 17, 2016 1:12 PM  

"Social media is war by other means."

"I am not a safespace."

Blogger bob k. mando January 17, 2016 1:38 PM  

33. LB January 17, 2016 12:31 PM
Ok. I thought he deleted the thread, but actually he blocked me. Hence the confusion.




muwahahahahahaha.

he was so confident in his reply that he blocked you so you couldn't see it. that's awesome.

Blogger Melampus the Seer January 17, 2016 1:49 PM  

@20 Way to handle it.

Blogger Ahazuerus January 17, 2016 2:02 PM  

@37 Hey Tom K.

An interesting conceptual overlap occurred a while ago in conversation with a theologian of my acquaintance. He noted that the modern limp form of Christianity (his term) maintains that the major attribute of God which they care about / evince interest in, is that he is SAFE.

But, he pointed out, he is not safe. Indeed, his primary attribute, in contradistinction to ourselves, is that he is GOOD.

For those here interested in religion / Christianity, and particularly the overthrow of Christian churches by SJW entryists, this is a major theological tell.

Anonymous Full-Fledged Fiasco January 17, 2016 2:40 PM  

O.T., from 1906:

"Socialism, in any version of it, must apparently be the death of individual independence. To what extent heterogeneous immigration may have changed American character it might be difficult to say; but great the change must be if the love of independence has lost its power."

Source

Anonymous Rolf January 17, 2016 2:42 PM  

Being an agnostic, but enjoying a good debate, I find a lot of logic in religious arguments eminently questionable and the references completely opaque. Having this particular argument spelled out is excellent, otherwise I'd be scratching my head about both sides of it.

Thanks.

Anonymous BGKB January 17, 2016 2:57 PM  

@24 its because they wish for the good old days when they were sucking horse jizz from donkey dicks

No wonder they support illegal aliens so.

Anonymous Jill January 17, 2016 3:01 PM  

Ironic (or not) that I went to a Baptist church this morning, and the pastor pretty much preached C-SJW's sermon.

Blogger Jeff Hendricks January 17, 2016 3:01 PM  

This just made my day.

We were discussing righteous anger and false justifications just this morning in Church.

Epic.

Blogger Neanderserk January 17, 2016 3:12 PM  

@41 Exactly. The SJWs create god in their own image. Being stunted, sexually immoral creatures, the result is Asherah: care/harm, resource abundance, and absence of K competition.

The Queen of Heaven rules Babylon.

Anonymous Ratchet January 17, 2016 5:12 PM  

Unfortunately, this is why I am no longer able to be involved with corporate religion. Your experience is a regular occurrence most everywhere.

Blogger Wayne Earl January 17, 2016 5:29 PM  

I have been humbled by Vox's lessons in Rehtorical Warfare, and the truly intelligent know that the first lesson in life this that Intelligence is not Wisdom.

I'm making making many conscious changes in my life, too numerous to list here, in support of my statement on wisdom above. I'm training, praying, and beating the Gamma out of myself in the areas of my life that I have allowed myself to see.

Leaving the snark behind for more refined and honest verbal weaponry is one of my greatest goals. Where might someone such as myself find a comprehensive overview and training manual? Consider me as the the one "troublemaker in school with so much potential wasted" as a starting point of ability to reference. Any recommendations would be met with gratitude.

Blogger weka January 17, 2016 6:08 PM  

@49. Amen, Bro.
I feel that the grasshopper level is yet to come.
@41. They talk about God needing our love, or Jesus as a boyfriend, but never God's righteous wrath. Indeed a tell: for the Good is not often polite and acceptable.

Blogger Rusty Fife January 17, 2016 6:20 PM  

@49 Wayne Earl

VD generally recommends going to the source; Aristole's "Rhetoric".

Blogger VD January 17, 2016 6:40 PM  

Expressing disdainful amusement without articulating it is difficult for me, and then zeroing in on where it most hurts.

If you have to articulate it, it isn't real. That's the problem with the whole Gamma and SJW approaches. They are fake, and anyone with sufficient social skills can smell it.

Leaving the snark behind for more refined and honest verbal weaponry is one of my greatest goals. Where might someone such as myself find a comprehensive overview and training manual?

There isn't anything like that yet. Perhaps we'll get a book out on it if I ever find the time and have the inclination. In the meantime, go through Alpha Game.

Blogger Neanderserk January 17, 2016 7:41 PM  

@49

Here's an untested theory for you.

I think one reason beating gamma is so difficult is that most advice from social superiors doesn't distinguish between personality core and exoskeleton. Probably because most social superiors were never hardwired gammas in the first place.

Here's the core blueprint:

1. Don't take it personally. Commit to objective truth and justice. This includes accepting social hierarchy and the Bible. (Which should cover the gamut of character flaws you might possess.)

And here's the exoskeleton blueprint:

2. Don't give it personally. E.g., you expressed large amounts of your inner self in that post. Stop that. Calibrate the degree of self-revelation to the intimacy of the audience, instead of always leaving it at "full".

3. Cedo nulli - cede nothing. You are expected to favor yourself, and maintain your personal boundaries and interests with ruthless masculine selfishness and thumos. This shield extends to your allies. Its reverse, antipathy, extends to your enemies.

The common error I see is an attempt to do #1 without doing #2 and #3, which is unsustainable. In order to not take things personally, one must build a robust personality exoskeleton that can support a bluff, cheerful, civil demeanor OR direct conflict without caving inward.

It's not really complicated unless you're trying to fix an exoskeleton issue by mucking with the core - which is a total nightmare.

Once you have a solid exoskeleton, it's much easier to decorate it with all the latest Game tips, rhetoric tactics, and whatever. Think of the exoskeleton as your thumos bubble, and decorate it to taste. Dropping the bubble is like dropping your pants - pretty gay in mixed company.

I'm kidding... sort of. It's optimal to drop #2 and #3 in a high-trust, small-scale environment. But that is generally not the world we live in.

Blogger Phillip George January 17, 2016 7:57 PM  

I come at apologetics politics society spirituality from a different line of approach.
"Is it absolutely true?"
The vast majority or virtue signalers. SJWs are stuck in moral relativisim, evolution, scientism. ie. They are simply wrong. And nothing lasting can be built on a pack of lies. Hence I tremble at condition in which things are in.

I did a with-guide-historic-grave-site tour, very recently. The ashes and monuments to kings and paupers corroded by time are identical. The philanthropist and philanderer are side by side in memory. Death is a wonderful leveler. But on whose side of God's fences are they?

Wrath is logical. With so many having ignored so great a salvation what is left for mankind? The wind?

Anonymous Crude January 17, 2016 8:35 PM  

Loved the post and the analysis, thank you for sharing it.

Anonymous Euryale January 17, 2016 8:45 PM  

Such clinics are very valuable. As long as dissonance can be evaded and reduced by adding unchallenged factors and qualifications, a debate is not settled. Which can be a good thing when both participants share are mostly dialectical mindset. Space is good then. It's a good thing agreeing on everything isn't required to live with others.

But when the goal is to penetrate enemy defenses, target selection carries its own uncertainty. You may hit something on an objective level, but if that's not where your adversary truly invested his self, it won't count.

No, it's not that simple to quickly get insulted and blocked on Twitter without resorting to outright insult. Except with German SJWs lol.

Anonymous Ezekiel Cassandros January 17, 2016 9:48 PM  

@53
I think you're onto something.

I say this because it matches both my experiences with Gammas, and aligns with what I already deliberately try to do.

As for endoskeleton, the Gammas I know get personally offended by my posting on important issues. Usually, on Facebook, I have been posting links to articles by better authors, and adding my own two cents at the top. This is occasionally enough to offend their feelings. If they say anything at all, being too timid to lash out overtly, they resort to passive-aggressiveness.

For myself, when I read an article or comment that DOES cause me any degree of internal emotional reaction, I take a step back and evaluate and re-evaluate objectively before I say anything. This is because I know that in matters of Truth and Justice, your emotions do not get a vote; because feelings are only good at telling you that something has gone wrong or something has gone right, and they SUUUUCK at telling you what it was, or why, or who is responsible, or what should be done. But oh, do they ever make insistent suggestions. That is why everybody who wishes to love God and their neighbor must learn self-control: if you do not control your emotions, they will control you.

As for the exoskeleton, Gammas believe that the way to discuss things is to open up and listen to the other person's inner self and all that ... and you must also signal your humility and gentleness by being vulnerable, and publicly displaying your weaknesses, bias, and uncertainty in what you believe.

(Except when they are angry - then they can speak with the fervor and certainty that comes from rage - and you must open your mind and your heart to them, or else.)

I try to show my internal weaknesses as little as possible - because it is rhetorically self-destructive, and if I did not believe it was both true and important enough to talk about, I wouldn't be bothering to convince anybody. If I am to be convicted that I was mistaken, it must be because I thought about what another person said and why they said it, which I will do on the inside.

How effective is this? Well, my friend count drops almost every time I post. So, there's that.

Anonymous Camilla Cameo January 17, 2016 9:54 PM  

@34

This is very interesting. I would wish to learn more about how women in particular can use rhetoric effectively. A lot of the instruction here is directed at men, and as most of the readers (at least commenting ones) seem to be men, and as it's men who should be the ones who conduct confrontation and conflict in the public square, that makes sense. But as so many men are feminized sniveling cowards, a woman must do what she can for the truth. Some of the Game stuff can be applied but obviously not all, and the hotness criteria for women offered on Heartiste does not seem as applicable, though I can see how being hot would offer one an advantage in certain circumstances.

Guess I'll start by reading Spacebunny's twitter.

Blogger Neanderserk January 17, 2016 10:21 PM  

@57 Thank you. The part on feelings was particularly good.

Blogger Groot January 17, 2016 10:46 PM  

@21. Were-Puppy:

Even rapier than Rape Rape or Scalzi?

Anonymous Desiderius January 17, 2016 10:58 PM  

Ratchet,

"Unfortunately, this is why I am no longer able to be involved with corporate religion. Your experience is a regular occurrence most everywhere."

I have that difficulty as well, but then I wonder whether we might have the cause and effect backwards.

The future belongs to those who show up.

Blogger Rusty Fife January 17, 2016 11:03 PM  

@57 & @53

Excellent model.

Anonymous Desiderius January 17, 2016 11:04 PM  

Camilla,

"But as so many men are feminized sniveling cowards, a woman must do what she can for the truth."

They are sniveling cowards because they lack the traditional support they've enjoyed from the women in their lives, who are too busy prancing around trying to be alpha men, and doing so very badly.

Joining them is not the solution. Better to focus on better supporting the men in your life and getting younger women into line, which used to be the role of older women but which they are these days neglecting, to the benefit of exactly no one.

Blogger Rusty Fife January 17, 2016 11:13 PM  

@61 RE: corporate religion

'Corporate' as in Joel Osteen, I don't think you'll get any disagreement here. 'Corporate' as in with other Christians is basically necessary. Otherwise, you never commune over Communion.

Perhaps you should look into house churches or small groups within a larger group. As a bit of an introvert; I find anything more than 45min bi-weekly too intense for small groups though.

Blogger Feather Blade January 17, 2016 11:21 PM  

@36 mayor of Sandpoint, Idaho, who's trying to despoil the locals' American environment: sandpoint mayor's resolution.

The hell, Sandpoint?

The first problem I see is that they are trusting the Federal Government to properly screen people.

Second, Bonners Ferry, which was listed on that DAESH target list a few months back, is about 30 miles north of Sandpoint. They may be setting themselves up as a sanctuary city.

Third, at least two of their premises are observably false.
Also the bogeyman clause mentions "Japanese internment camps" without specifying whether they mean "the camps in Idaho in which US citizens of Japanese descent were interned" or "the camps in which the Japanese military interned non-Japanese civilians and military personnel", which means they desperately need a copy editor.

On the other hand, North Idaho was where the Aryan Nations group was headquartered for a while (they moved out 15 years ago) so Sandpoint is probably attempting to preempt the low-hanging-fruit-accusation that Idaho is Racist.

Verdict: total virtue signalling

Blogger Rusty Fife January 17, 2016 11:22 PM  

@64 RE: corporate religion

We recently had a sermon series that looked at identity as a Christian and compared it to your identity as a family. We are commanded to be a family.

Once you accept the identity as a Christian, you kind have to hang out with those fallen losers occasionally.

That brother that never shows up at family functions, isn't really a part of the family; is he?

Blogger Feather Blade January 17, 2016 11:24 PM  

@58 Camilla, start with Aristotle's Rhetoric.

It's comprehensible even to women./sarc not sarc

Anonymous Desiderius January 17, 2016 11:29 PM  

"The vast majority or virtue signalers. SJWs are stuck in moral relativisim, evolution, scientism. ie. They are simply wrong. And nothing lasting can be built on a pack of lies."

Once this truth is recognized, the emotional control all but takes care of itself. Until then, the pain of the cognitive dissonance will sooner or later make itself evident.

Anonymous LB January 17, 2016 11:31 PM  

Why bother with corrupt churches? With Youtube, sermons are technologically obsolete. Get a projector, a home small group, queue up Pastor Steven Anderson or whoever and enjoy early church plus. If you want worthy fellowship, take it. Ditto wives.

Anonymous Ezekiel Cassandros January 17, 2016 11:42 PM  

@58 Camilla Cameo

A woman on VP once noted that women, in rhetorical battles, always are battling on three different levels at once. Or something like that.

She noted that, for one, she makes sure she never says anything that could potentially cause any embarrassment to her husband.

I have noticed that I did, internally, with no conscious exertion on my part, lose a little respect for a man once when he slipped from People-Should-Only-Talk-In-Dialectic mode to throw a brief jab, and his wife immediately stepped in to publicly apologize on his behalf.

And then, he publicly acquiesced.

Ouch.

Blogger Groot January 17, 2016 11:45 PM  

@Men:

Work out. I've had 18" guns all my adult life, and, though I did it for the women, the big surprise was how men defaulted to tail-between-the-legs. This is not genetics. This is perseverance in 100-degree-plus weather or biting-cold rain.

Read. Including non-fiction. Read on the Kindle, on your phone, on your computer. Listen to audiobooks. I have books open on DJVU, PDF, mobi, epub. I "read" when I'm walking the dog, working out, or driving. I am almost never not reading. Nobody is not impressed by vast knowledge. This is partly intelligence, but mostly perseverance.

Develop your presence. Stop stammering. Work on your vocabulary. Eliminate every tell for nerves, from twitches, to leg shaking, to cracking your knuckles. Don't squeak. Stand up straight and just stand there. Again, this is not genetics.

Humor. Some of you just don't have it, but most can get better.

Be Groot.

@58. Camilla Cameo:

The rules are completely different for women. You are cute, from little girls to grannies, and no matter your looks. This is not the same as sexy, and beauty is another category. You can cry, you can ask for help, you can cede entire aspects of life, from technology, to tools, and other vast areas. We will answer. We are fools. Play us. Very few are Groot, and even Groot is easily charmed. Just treat us like men, for such we are.

Anonymous Camilla Cameo January 17, 2016 11:45 PM  

@63

I am a younger woman, (this is second time I've been taken for old; the first was on John C. Wright's blog; given many young women today, I will take it as a compliment) and have no men in my life, sadly, besides my father and brother, who live far away. I will continue to endeavor to support them, indeed, but they already have my mother and sister-in-law, who do a decent job of it.

Should my focus be, then, solely, on catching myself a man? Please understand I ask this honestly, without irony.

And if I may again reference the model I suggested for myself, though Spacebunny supports Vox and he is, rightly, the more prominent figure, she is not silent. Does a woman earn the right to speak publicly only when she is joined in marriage to a man whose words and deeds she can always be supporting with her own? Again, I am asking this fully honestly, without irony, and will accept it and act accordingly if it is shown to be true.

Blogger Neanderserk January 18, 2016 12:04 AM  

" Does a woman earn the right to speak publicly only when she is joined in marriage to a man whose words and deeds she can always be supporting with her own?"

Who was Deborah's husband?

Anonymous Ezekiel Cassandros January 18, 2016 12:07 AM  

@72
Single women who dare to publicly stand up for the truth are hotter.

Blogger GJ January 18, 2016 12:13 AM  

@Ahazuerus

An interesting conceptual overlap occurred a while ago in conversation with a theologian of my acquaintance. He noted that the modern limp form of Christianity (his term) maintains that the major attribute of God which they care about / evince interest in, is that he is SAFE.

But, he pointed out, he is not safe. Indeed, his primary attribute, in contradistinction to ourselves, is that he is GOOD.


My first response was that this is a very good observation. The second was to wonder at C.S. Lewis’ insight:

Safe?" said Mr Beaver ..."Who said anything about safe? 'Course he isn't safe. But he's good.

Anonymous Camilla Cameo January 18, 2016 12:22 AM  

@71 @72
Thank you, Ezekiel, Groot. I am flattered by your attention. How to use those methods to take down social justice rhetoric... specific rules, like what Vox said about showing anger.

@67
Have read some of it and other Aristotle, will read more.

I guess the basics, as laid out in Aristotle, are the same, it's the methodology of building on it with feminine wiles rather than masculine dominance. I have learned a lot from reading VP and other such sources about characteristically female faults - taking everything personally, allowing emotion to trump reason, lying to oneself, etc. - and seek to minimize those faults in myself, but do not want to act masculinized either.

Blogger Feather Blade January 18, 2016 12:48 AM  

@72 Should my focus be, then, solely, on catching myself a man? Please understand I ask this honestly, without irony.

Are you a Christian? If so, then your focus should be on serving the Lord. "The chief end of Man is to glorify the Lord and enjoy Him forever" and all that.
Getting a husband is a perfectly reasonable means of accomplishing this.

Are you not a Christian? Become a Christian, then see point one.

Anonymous Ezekiel Cassandros January 18, 2016 12:57 AM  

@76
If I know more, I'd have told more. Sadly, I am a man, and inexperienced enough in the ways of manly rhetoric.

So, all I can say is, good luck. Although I regret the time I spent in (relative) silence, through cowardice and complacency; yet, it is good to be awakened to boldness, and to learn and practice to stand up for the truth.

Go give 'em hell.

Anonymous Desiderius January 18, 2016 12:58 AM  

Camilla,

"Should my focus be, then, solely, on catching myself a man? Please understand I ask this honestly, without irony."

Once I focused myself on "catching" a wife, I finally became a decent man. Things have improved from there.

Perhaps your experience will be similar. The women that have true influence in my circles are those who've found maturity through raising a healthy, loving family and doing what they can to help their husbands be men they, and thus everyone else, can admire.

Blogger Groot January 18, 2016 12:59 AM  

@72. Camilla Cameo:
"I am a younger woman... Should my focus be, then, solely, on catching myself a man?"

You did not strike me as an older woman. But, as I know nothing about you, I will not presume to instruct you. My experience as a son, brother, husband, father, uncle, friend, etc., however, is that your experience as a woman will be enriched by companionship, partnership and conjoining with a good man. In particular, some of my wife's college friends were pretty close to batshit crazy until they married, and now they are solid, funny and valued friends (despite a contingent of SJWs). In other news, most men are almost fanatically committed to being good men. The rest are self-promoting assholes who trumpet their not-goodness. Use your good sense. Find a man, maybe not beautiful, but committed to self-improvement, who is good.

Blogger Fan January 18, 2016 12:59 AM  

The customer had no choice in telecommunications alternatives and for quite many years had to put up with exorcist costs as well as the most serious customer alternatives you can think of. Somewhere along the way somebody saw light and Telkom was deregulated on 1 Feb 2005 which started out up the market for other telecommunications companies.

Vox 4 Sim Mobile In Pakistan

Blogger SciVo January 18, 2016 1:20 AM  

@ Camilla Cameo: Again, I am asking this fully honestly, without irony

You sound mature. That is good.

Family is important. I regret that I have to choose between my parents and my sister.

Younger is better for making babies. Of course you don't have to -- I respect nuns -- but if you want to, sweetness and attentiveness should suffice.

Because women have never been held responsible -- something that feminism reinforces -- your man will be held responsible for your words. So there are two paths: pick a man and only speak your thoughts that fit him, or speak for yourself and limit your prospects to the men who would say the same. The latter can be very powerful, since everyone cares about women; but it's often a lonely journey.

Blogger SciVo January 18, 2016 1:23 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger SciVo January 18, 2016 1:24 AM  

To clarify, my parents and my sister are on opposite coasts. It isn't a drama thing.

Anonymous Camilla Cameo January 18, 2016 1:36 AM  

Oh yes, @77 Feather Blade, all to the end of the glory of God, I just meant in the particular context of doing so through opposing SJWs and musloids and the like, as their works are evil.

Thank you all for your responses. I've been reading here a long time but been timid about commenting because it can get rough and tumble; you guys have been gentlemen.

Blogger SciVo January 18, 2016 2:02 AM  

@ Camilla Cameo; and seek to minimize those faults in myself, but do not want to act masculinized either.

We can't help you with that. I literally can only pay attention to one thing at a time; the only way I can multitask is if all but one are automatic habits. I do that one thing very very well, but I can't tell you how to use your talents.

I exhort you to be the one to figure out how to apply our methods in a feminine way. Maybe even catalog them and write a book, since you're articulate.

Blogger Ahazuerus January 18, 2016 2:17 AM  

@GJ

Good catch, I should have known Lewis would have been there before us.

Blogger SciVo January 18, 2016 3:03 AM  

@ Camilla Cameo: I've been reading here a long time but been timid about commenting because it can get rough and tumble; you guys have been gentlemen.

I promise to be rude if you say something stupid.

Anonymous FrankNorman January 18, 2016 4:29 AM  

Good catch, I should have known Lewis would have been there before us.

None of these things are new.

Blogger CM January 18, 2016 7:50 AM  

Because women have never been held responsible -- something that feminism reinforces -- your man will be held responsible for your words. So there are two paths: pick a man and only speak your thoughts that fit him, or speak for yourself and limit your prospects to the men who would say the same. The latter can be very powerful, since everyone cares about women; but it's often a lonely journey.

WOW.

SciVo, you should be lecturing roomfuls of single Christian Women. You might lose your eyesight to nails, but that needs to be heard.

No one gives advice like that.

Blogger CM January 18, 2016 8:00 AM  

Guess I'll start by reading Spacebunny's twitter.

Cam, I did that.

I find it far harder to decipher rhetoric because it is very effective against me. I'm not as well read in it as you appear to be. At first, I thought I was genuinely a Gamma trying not to be.

No. I'm just a woman :p

Anonymous That Would Be Telling January 18, 2016 8:32 AM  

@66 Feather Blade:

On the other hand, North Idaho was where the Aryan Nations group was headquartered for a while (they moved out 15 years ago) so Sandpoint is probably attempting to preempt the low-hanging-fruit-accusation that Idaho is Racist.

Based on a plethora of atrocities that generally go way beyond this one, Idaho seems to be the Cuckservative Capital of the US if not world. The almost always Republican powers that be are so terrified by this reputation that there are no limits to what they'll do to people like us; the worst example I can think of off hand is when an Invader-American from Africa (and now that I think about it, very possibly Muslim) imported for soccer coaching assaulted a man's wife after a game, and when the man confronted him immediately after the assault using a nasty, racist word in anger but nothing physical, the man was arrested and charged, can't remember if it went to trial, and the authorities not only refused to charge the thug, they spirited him out of town.

Also reliably reported to be a place where you're nothing if your family hasn't been there for a couple of generations. Avoid.

Blogger Aziz P. January 18, 2016 10:48 AM  

You know I disagree with you on almost everything, vox - but this sort of thing is why i still read you. Very useful demo. I suggest you ask LB to include the exchange in the second version of SJWAL.

Anonymous Bird on a Wing January 18, 2016 10:55 AM  

Good morning everyone. I see that original comments made by myself were referenced upthread by @71 Ezekiel Cassandros. I archived the link because it turned into one of those dynamic interactions that teaches and encourages at the same time. I love those. The origin thread can be found here:

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2015/09/mailvox-rhetoric-in-action.html

Camilla Cameo, I saw your comment last night, but it was too late at night for me to give you a good reply. There is much I can say to you, but lectures are boring. I prefer questions and answers in a dialogue because it’s the female skill of encouragement that makes learning girl stuff fun.

@72 Groot says:
The rules are completely different for women. You are cute, from little girls to grannies, and no matter your looks. This is not the same as sexy, and beauty is another category. You can cry, you can ask for help, you can cede entire aspects of life, from technology, to tools, and other vast areas. We will answer. We are fools. Play us. Very few are Groot, and even Groot is easily charmed. Just treat us like men, for such we are.

And he is completely correct. I wrote a bit of advice in the same vein to another woman which can be found here:

http://www.voxday.blogspot.com/2015/07/good-news-bad-news.html

In that particular thread, the questioner is at comment 136 and my reply begins at comment 162.

I don’t want to make this too long, but my philosophy as a lady rhetorician has been shaped by the following books and authors:

The Bible (I read it every day – and I mean EVERY DAY)
Aristotle’s Rhetoric
Thomas Hughes Tom Brown’s Schooldays and Tom Brown at Oxford
Georgette Heyer’s regency romances (all of them)

I should read Jane Austen, as she is the primary influence on Georgette Heyer, but I haven’t yet.

The Rhetoric class I had in college is where I read and studied Aristotle. I also had an upper level course on Persuasion that was incredibly influential, but it was in the late 90s prior to PC corruption. I doubt my Persuasion textbook would be duplicable at this point.

Blogger Feather Blade January 18, 2016 2:00 PM  

@93 Also reliably reported to be a place where you're nothing if your family hasn't been there for a couple of generations. Avoid.

Psh. That I have covered, but yes, everybody else should avoid Idaho, especially Californians, and west-coasters. (Welcome to Idaho! Now go home.)

I admit, it has been very disappointing how the state has rolled over for FedGov... but we have our own pushbacks against the SJWs.

Why, when the Moscow city council decided it was a good idea to harass businesses whose owners belonged to a particular local church... the voters replaced the city council in its entirety.

Blogger CM January 18, 2016 2:02 PM  

@95 Bird on a Wing,

Do you have a blog?

You make female rhetoric sound like the art of persuasion as it would have been learned in finishing school.

Blogger Feather Blade January 18, 2016 2:05 PM  

@86 I just meant in the particular context of doing so through opposing SJWs and musloids and the like, as their works are evil.

Being chaste, speaking against unchastity, honoring your husband, and raising children who honor God will, in and of itself, oppose almost everything that SJWs stand for.

Anonymous Bird on a Wing January 18, 2016 10:53 PM  

@97 CM

Sorry, no I don't have a blog. I comment here occasionally, but mostly I think the men should do their own thing in their own way.

I imagine finishing schools are exactly the place for ladies to get an education in feminine persuasion. I never went to one, so I can't say for sure, but it seems logical that the power-wielding upper classes would do just that. Female power is formidable, but it needs to be channeled properly, and most girls certainly don't understand the full scope of it.

Blogger CM January 18, 2016 11:50 PM  

BoW -

Thanks for the response. I'll start with your reading list and go from there.

Blogger SciVo January 19, 2016 12:24 AM  

@ CM:

Check out this Karen Straughn (Girl Writes What) vid: the invisible man riding the donkey backwards

Anonymous Bird on a Wing January 19, 2016 12:20 PM  

@ CM

In addition to following Spacebunny’s rhetorically excellent twitter feed, you might also consider following Margaret MacLennan, called MargaretsBelly. She is a very smart women, a GamerGater, and all-around entertaining read, particularly if you like trolling done right. The internets call it “shitposting,” and it is pure, unadulterated rhetoric done in an eminently feminine style.

My favorite Bible proverb on this topic is Proverbs 30:18-19

There are three things which are too astounding and unexpectedly wonderful for me,
Four which I do not understand:

The way of an eagle in the air,
The way of a serpent on a rock,
The way of a ship in the middle of the sea,
And the way of a man with a maid.

Which, as in most important things, can be summed up by the eminent philosopher’s Chantilly Lace disambiguation.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts