Shouting Thomas: I stopped reading Roissy because he isn't interesting.

To you. I consider him fascinating and where it’s at in yes game, but also gender realism and anti-feminism. I mean the number one place on the net for all those three. If anyone here knows anywhere truly competitive in ANY of those three that has a large volume of post output, I’d really like them to tell me about those places here, with links. Really.

As far as being where it’s at as far as teaching game and the PUA arts go, Roissy’s is where to find fundamental theory a lot of it generated by him, and the underlying basics of practice, and their links to evo-psych. There are plenty of places that teach PUA routines, and canned stuff, and give specific situation advice. For the sort of person that has to follow a cookbook blindly, they’re probably better. Though Roissy does give detailed situational examples quite often, and some routines. I find Roissy’s much more helpful. I made up my own game (and observed and copied others that were working it) as I went along before ever hearing about game or PUA’s. But game or certainly learning specific PUA skills is actually the least of why I go there.

As far as I can tell or have so far discovered, Roissy’s is ground zero both or popularized gender realism and for anti-feminism. In Roissy’s idiom, and mine, they’re intertwined, the former informing the later. Where else does the coming generation get enthused in huge numbers about these things? Or for that matter a fair sprinkling of gen X’s as well? Where? I’d really like to know.

Are all Roissy’s posts top notch? No – though they’re always extremely well writen and often bitingly amusing. His output these last 2.2 years has been immense. Was he most shocking and revelatory early on, when he was first introducing his ideas to most who’d never thought of things his way – oh yeah. He still has that impact for many that are first joining him now. He also virtually every week at least adds some new twist or insight or further illuminating examples, even to those who’ve read him all. Yes I think he’s both top notch and important. He can also sometimes be outrageous. (E.g. calling for an end to women’s suffrage. If you google site search on that and read his reasoning and don’t just completely wall it out, it WILL make you think, blowhards readers. I’m not saying convert you, he hasn’t me on that, but think.)

Finally, part of the reason Roissy’s threads have become so long is that are only partly comment threads these days. Sure there are trolls that take too long, and there have been too many race debates and low intensity but lengthy wars, now apparently and hopefully played out, and occasional severe attention whores like Lady Raine (who annoyed the regular women at Roissy’s most of all. Several have told me privately. Others have made it clear enough on the board.) (Oh and there’s a fair amount of mutual flirting there these days too.) But mostly they’ve gotten very long because Roissy’s has become a board, or forum. That is a good and valuable thing.

If you want to comment on the post and are dismayed that there are already 250 comments, just comment without skimming more than the first thirty say, and admit that’s what you’ve done. Others will probably take up your comment if it’s interesting.

Posted by: doug1 on June 5, 2009 3:38 PM

I guarantee the Roissy crowd will look back on all this sturm und drang in 10 years and cringe. Nothing more than bitter, youthful angst directed toward the chaotic morass that is dating. The fact that Roissy, their pied piper, seems to be a good 5 to 10 years older than his minions does not bode well for him in the long run.

Posted by: JV on June 5, 2009 6:02 PM

doug1:

That Roissy and his crew can no longer tell the right way to silence an obnoxious woman is the essence of the problem.

In any case, Lady Raine is an obnoxious woman.

You fools mistake for chivalry a gut reaction by normal emotionally functioning human beings against what is essentially bitchy sociopathy.

Dragging a small child, posting his picture, theorizing all the ways his mother has made him into a future criminal or worse, beta, with one commenter essentially wishing someone molest him on a previous thread. And no, all that stuff about his Mom bringing him up as a subject and it being for his own good is bullshit. One doesn't get to choose their parents, and I fail to see how using him as a tool to hit his mother does any good to anything else other than your wounded anonymous internet egos and sense of retarded schadenfreude. "A girl was being a bitch to me online! Scarlet Letter time GO!"

Considering that Roissy is now complicit in turning someone's private sphere into a public sphere, one can only hope that what goes around comes around.

If you folks wish to overturn the system of today, I shudder to think of the world you'd create in turn.

Shouting Thomas has got more alpha in his right testicle and guitar pick than can be squeezed out Roissy and all his fanboys. And he has the added benefit of demonstrating that in order to be a man, first you must be a decent human being, or at least strive to such a status, instead of engaging in sexual Pokemon (Chicks, gotta bang 'em all) and thinking somehow they've washed off the reek of the pathetic geek they once were.

Also, anyone who thinks he's a freaking awesome writer is just advertising they don't read all that damn much. He's good for a PUA blog writer, which ain't too hard to pull off.

Posted by: Spike Gomes on June 5, 2009 7:53 PM

"I stopped reading Roissy because he isn't interesting."

whether right or wrong, roissy's posts nothing if not interesting.

as doug1 pointed out, roissy is the most successful blogger to lay out a system that melds evo psych, HBD, and Game into one neat little package. actually, it's not so neat, but its packaged.

i've looked all over the web for any discussion about human nature, and they're either too dry or not based in fact. for the most part, despite the fact that discussions of the kind roissy engages in involve overgeneralization at times, roissy has back backing up well-written observations about human nature, men, and women.

re: roissy commenters, of which i am one. it's a discussion board. people bounce ideas off each other. there are flamers and trolls, but its no worse than any other board. i have learned a lot from many commenters there, many times when i throw out an idea that i'm just "floating" to see what sense it makes.

the general outlook of men on roissy's board isn't all that much different from that of men in the "real" world.

Posted by: Chuck on June 5, 2009 7:54 PM

The debate on whether a matriarchal society truly exists reminds Pupu of the controversy around bonobos as the peace loving, matriarchal, sexually liberal, Hippie chimps.

LINK

It is not a coincidence that Margaret Mead (1928) was also cited in the article.

Posted by: Pupu on June 5, 2009 9:19 PM

Men will labor for the benefit of a household which they can identify with and which propagates their genes. A man can never be sure who fathered the child of a woman he coupled with; but he can be certain the child of his mother's daughter is related to him.

It would be interesting to find out more about the Mosuo. Spiegel is hardly a reliable source. For one thing, I wonder what duties are enforced on men within the matrilineal household.

I would not expect too much impact of the influence of Mao and the Communist regime in such a remote area. It's surprising how much pre-Communist culture survived in the USSR.

Posted by: Rich Rostrom on June 6, 2009 12:48 AM

Bonobos = the wimp chimps

Posted by: PatrickH on June 6, 2009 3:04 AM

Spike Gomez

Also, anyone who thinks he's a freaking awesome writer is just advertising they don't read all that damn much. He's good for a PUA blog writer, which ain't too hard to pull off.

What I said was “an excellent writer”.

He’s excellent for any kind of popular blog writer period, as is very widely conceded by those who’ve read him however much they may disagree.

I suppose those readers had their panties less in a twist, Spike.

Posted by: doug1 on June 6, 2009 10:52 AM

A wimp herself, Pupu understands and occasionally appreciates some wimpy qualities in humans as well as in animals:-)

Posted by: Pupu on June 6, 2009 11:52 AM

Is Pupu familiar with the story of the chimps, the bonobos and the Hamburg Zoo during the Allied bombing campaign?

It seems there were two groups of our relatives in Hamburg during the bombing: one chimp, one bonobo. Hamburg was of course bombed with merciless bombingness...to the last one, the bonobos died from shock (not the bombing itself). None of the chimps died.

Consider the question of which is a closer relative to us: since we humans were bombing away and being bombed upon, and not dying from shock in the process, it would appear the fierce patriarchal and violent chimps are closer to us than the matriarchal peaceful and playfully sexy bonobos.

You may consider this a tragedy or not, depending on taste.

Posted by: PatrickH on June 6, 2009 2:24 PM

Roissy is a fantastic writer and I've probably read more classic literature than anyone here.

Posted by: Thursday on June 6, 2009 4:45 PM

doug1:

It's "Gomes", and it's not my fault that so many people like you are functionally illiterate and have no taste, Doug.

Read some goddamn Mencken and Celine if you want to see misanthropy and misogyny done right, namely sans the catty bitchiness.

In the land of the sick sad dolts, the hack with the purple prose is king.

Posted by: Spike Gomes on June 6, 2009 7:17 PM

Patrick,

Pupu would probably have also died of shock! None of us is built to live through bomb attacks, directly or indirectly. One should always try very hard to prevent the bombs from dropping in the first place. The rest is in God's hand.

As far as who is our closer relatives, chimps almost definitely are. But they must have bred with bonobos, especially if we believe that humans have bred with neanderthals. If we've got chimps in us, we would have bonobos in us too. It's really not that bad - bonobos are better looking after all.

Pupu linked to the article initially to support what you said that many seemingly matriarchical societies cannot be taken on their face value. The article casts considerable doubts on the belief that the bonobos are peaceful, free loving and matriarchic creatures. They don't just do yoga, they kill too. And the bonobo guys hold up at leave half of the sky!

Posted by: Pupu on June 7, 2009 11:25 AM

It seems the Margaret Mead fallacy afflicts even the study of animals. Sigh. Always the search for the Noble Savage. Always the failure of the search. Even if the search extends beyond humanity and into the animal kingdom!

Not even animals are noble, it seems. Savage, yes. Noble, no.

How far back does Original Sin go then? Were Adam and Eve a pair of non-asexual protozoa? Did the Fall and the expulsion from the garden actually happen not in ancient Mesopotamia, but all the way back in the primeval soup?

That article saddened me, Pupu. But gave me hope too. Stephen Pinker, whose hair I worship even more than his ideas, has pointed out that violence between people has decreased, and sharply too, over history. This, even with the historically recent state-driven massacres of that unlamented backwater century, the totalitarian Twentieth, taken into account.

Violence is declining? Then maybe there is hope for us after all, Original Sin and murderous bonobos notwithstanding.

So cheer up, dear Pupu!

P.S. I cannot imagine Pupu as a wimp. That seems simply to be more of her subtlety, of her indirection and self-effacement. Such is Patrick's belief, despite what would no doubt be continued denials from herself in this matter.

Posted by: PatrickH on June 8, 2009 9:18 AM

From Roissy's post (something Randall Parker wrote): "Greg has speculated that people will become more loyal to family. So the world will become more like the Middle East."

I don't see how that can be without really increasing the levels of inbreeding.

Perhaps "soft polygamy" (which would make more people in any given society more related to one another) will be enough to make members of society more family oriented, but I would think it would be more like the way sentiment is in sub-Saharan Africa rather than the Middle East. One would need more intense inbreeding (i.e. quite high consanguinity rates) to wind up like the Middle East.

Posted by: Ginger on June 14, 2009 1:09 AM






Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?