Put On Your Game Face

So, I just watched this movie that’s all about The Great Game, that paradigm of self-actualization through world domination promoted by fantasy author Voxxx Day. In this movie, a gamma-type guy uses 1940s screwball comedy cartoons as a template for expressing godlike powers of romance and mischief-making, thus overcoming a criminal alpha guy and winning the blonde siren away from him.

This movie is so full of mythopoetic masculism, it’s like a whirlwind lesson in Game from Joseph Campbell, Carl Jung, Bugs Bunny, Pepe LePew, Dionysus, Eric Weber, Don Giovanni, and Charlie Sheen. In other words, it has all of the essential elements of Gaming. Some Masters of Game would charge you hundreds of dollars for the lessons you can get from this movie.

There are a couple of scenes before his transformation where manipulative females take advantage of him, as well as scenes afterwards where he uses his newfound powers to manipulate male authority figures. There is the requisite wingman and a faithful dog. There’s even the mask from a god-alpha which the gamma “tries on” until his inner transformation is effected, at which point the mask is discarded.

Oh yeah, here he is, the iconic Alpha Hound Dog:

The alpha game face reveals little emotion, but plenty of determination.

The quiet confidence and easy charisma of the alpha are irresistible to females.

It doesn’t get any better than that, if you want to be a 1970s lounge lizard sleazeball with comic book superpowers. That pretty much sums up my opinion of “Game.”

Now then, I don’t mean to denigrate the self-help industry, the men’s movement, or the Hamster Theory of female motivation. I think they all have their place. It’s just that I think that place is somewhere in the talking segments of a cheap 1980s frat-boy comedy.

The psychoanalytic aspect of the discussions is kind of interesting, if you insert citations to B.F. Skinner,  Edward Bernays, and Larry Flynt. The feminist complaint against it is disingenuous, and therefore entertaining to read about. The evolutionary psychology aspect is a pathetic post hoc rationalization, like everything else in evo-psych; but it is also entertaining to watch fake science pile up fake evidence.

The worst part about Gamesters is the ambience of their anonymous gatherings, which closely resemble 12-step groups for sex addicts. Yeah, I suppose it’s good for them to help each other out, but rubbing shoulders with them is kind of creepy, and the slime just doesn’t wash off with the first try. I think that with a little more flamboyance, they could at least make a clever screwball comedy.

Secure and confident in his masculinity, the alpha is not afraid to try a bold, new look. This will intimidate lesser men and intrigue high-status women.


31 thoughts on “Put On Your Game Face

  1. I guess you couldn’t resist the temptation to check my blog.

    It appears there’s value in checking my stats, the value coming from stumbling on new ammo, the discovery coming after giving in to the temptation to spend some time again on your blog, that after having written you off as a socialist, having decided I don’t want to spend a lot of time reading a socialist’s blog, especially when you try to make yourself out as a libertarian type.

    But the ammo will be useful in my fantasy world of taking on John the Pimp. Considering how Ted’s newest group blog is so blatantly sleazy.

    However, there’s not much use in talking about that right now, though it seems that with the right platform, the Pimp would cave in fast and tell Scott to quit promoting him.

    But maybe not, because even you, a decent family guy, won’t even reject Ted.

    We both entered into this scene about 6 years ago through the common tie of Ted. Why would I condemn you for initially becoming a part of Ted’s scene? I was there too.

    He gets promoted by WND, and he talks a good Baptist talk much of the time, along with, on the surface, not toeing the establishment line, so why wouldn’t people like you and me not be attracted to his wolf in sheep’s clothing world.

    But what’s with you? As long as he talks the good Baptist talk, is there nothing he can do to get you to condemn him? Or at least de-link him? Am I so much more insightful than you that 4 years ago I didn’t need his latest group-sex-talk blog to know he’s no good?

    Partly what I’m doing here is letting you in on my thoughts about the value of doing something that I had said I wasn’t going to do. About entertaining the idea that God might help events along sometimes.

    My initial thought was to leave a comment on Scott’s blog, to make vacuous claims about how easy he’s going to make it for me to get my desired results. But I don’t want to make empty threats. Talking is too easy. However, blowing steam off on your site, tonight, is okay.

    Being close to quiting, with the ability to soon be able to go anywhere for a while, in a more perfect world, I would move close to where you live, and we would be a team.

    We would be a team, like described in the short biographies in Norton’s Anthology of Literature, both American and English, where there was all that collaboration. But it’s a less than perfect world, and though two are better than one, having to work alone is just the way it is in an imperfect world.

    One last insult. You and Ted and Obama are a lot alike. You are whatever people want you to be.

    Well, in your case, being small fry, like me, you are whatever you want yourself to be. Everything’s a joke, which justifies you doing nothing, except when you feel the need to show otherwise. You’re a libertarian, except when you’re a socialist.

    If I was like Ted, I wouldn’t insult you like that. I’ll never get a following doing that. Ted’s good like that. He knows whose ego to stroke, who to ridicule, and what establishment players not touch so he can keep his platform fueled.

  2. Yeah, I was checking my stats, and when they show people looking at something I wrote years ago, I have to go back and look at it to remember how brilliant I used to be. So I read it, and it had a link from your old blog, and I wondered whether it was still there, and whoa! there’s a link to another blog that you recently used.

    I’m a socialist, a libertarian, a conservative, and an anarchist: whatever it takes to be discordian at the moment. Politics is a waste of time, like blogging. However, as a practical matter I believe that politicians should always use their power with fear and trembling, and that is the libertarian position. I find that the people most annoyed by that position tend to be the people who keep the State as their household god, so it’s all good.

    I’m sorry you have suffered so much by my fascination with Ted. At first I saw him as a role model; then as a literary study; then as a philosophical study; then as a cipher, that is, a personality study. Finally, I have exhausted myself. I don’t know if he has actually gotten dumber or more desperate, or maybe I am just thoroughly disillusioned, since now he is merely a distraction, like the sitcoms I used to watch.

    I was never sure exactly which aspect of the Pleb Vexer you most despised. I would say that he is no worse (in terms of negative attributes as a percentage of his persona) than many others on my blogroll. Why not complain about one of the evolutionists or religious syncretists?

    This blog does not depict what I consider most important, what I think about the most, or what I care about the most. It depicts the things that I wish I would stop thinking about because they are pointless, yet irritating. Once I write about them, I can stop thinking about them and simply admire the artistry of my expression. The blogroll, accordingly, links to sites which at some time served as sources of valid irritation, and which may yet again.

    A “valid irritation” is like an ingrown hair, an organic result of a thwarted natural process, which I would like to correct and from which I might learn something about myself; whereas an invalid irritation would be something like sticking my finger in a light socket, the result of a stupid choice, which teaches me merely to avoid it.

    Yes, I am insulted by the idea that my persona may be whatever people want it to be. That’s because in real life I am like that, but on the web, I want to be more contrarian and more eloquent, while still being paradoxically diplomatic, since it is contrarian to be diplomatic on teh interwebz.

    If you were Ted, you would ignore me, because neither praising me nor attacking me would puff you up enough. I think he takes his reputation as a mouse designer seriously, as well as his reputation as a literary critic. But perhaps you are referring to his role as a blogger/columnist, which is pretty much a self-stroking effort to epitomize an autonomous patriarchal feudal lord, such as now reign in Afghanistan, Sicily, Russia, Mexico, and Kentucky. Have you ever heard “Copperhead Road” by Steve Earle? Or maybe one of the Narcocorridos? There you go.

    I love the idea of collaboration and entrepreneurship. If only I had not had that really boring CS professor, and I had actually studied engineering rather than just talking about theoretical physics all night with other nerds, and had gotten a cool job with an Internet startup back in 1993, and gotten a bunch of stock with an awesome paper value, and bought an awesome house at the top of the real estate market . . . then maybe I would be broke, bankrupt, unemployed, divorced, and alcoholic by now, like other IT guys I’ve known over the last 15 years.

    Well, like you, I’m quitting and trying over. Not quitting the good job, which has benefits beyond the pay; but quitting the lousy job of editing the work of pretentious incompetents, holding their hands while toilet-training them as they struggle to overcome their worthless education and subnormal IQ, wallowing in the cesspool of their hopeless drivel.* This will free me up in my spare time to try another shot at the IT field, hopefully this time in an interesting and productive direction.

    The downside is that I also felt compelled to quit playing bass. I wasn’t that good at it, but last night I went to a service where the guitarist was playing, and all I could do was watch the bassist and envy him.

    *This is referring to folks with PhD and EdD degrees, by the way.

  3. As far as why I consider a particular link on your blogroll to reflect poorly on you, it’s about what I know, what I perceive, and about policing our own. It’s also about whether it links to a person who is a decent person.

    For the most part, I don’t know who you’re linking to, but my guess is that none of the others, whether Christian or not, are the type who promote someone like Bane. On your blog list there are people who you link to because they’re part of the larger debate, and then there are people who you link to because you identify with them. Ted, you identify with. That’s my perception, in spite of the fact that you engage in some Ted bashing.

    Ultimately, you don’t care about certain things that I think are important. What you care about is libertarianism and homeschooling. Ted encouraging men to play so-called game, which is antithetical to scriptural morality, doesn’t particularly bother you. That’s my perception. In fact, all of that is entertaining to you in the same way a little-bit-trashy movie is entertaining to you. You’re not that picky, as I see it.

    Ted periodically implying that whites are overall more intelligent than blacks doesn’t get you riled up. You care about homeschooling. You care about libertarianism. He talks the Baptist talk. Consequently, you feel a bond with Ted. That’s my perception.

    A link to an evolutionist on your blogroll? Considering that it’s clear that you’re not an evolutionist, it would be obvious to me that it’s there just as part of the larger debate for informational purposes. And it’s likely that the person would be a decent person.

    Anyway, I’m now drawing off of a core principle. It is this: you don’t try to make someone into what you want them to be for your own purposes, and when it’s important to not compromise, you don’t team up with someone who’s not what you want them to be.

    As far as the bass, there’s performance and then there’s production. I used to want to be a performer, but I don’t care about that anymore. I know the feeling of watching a performance, and it creating the desire in me to perform, but that’s a thing of the past, and I’m glad of that.

    I’m now to the point where all I’m interested in doing is producing, and if I can produce without touching an instrument, so much the better.

    I’m geared up, and I’ll eventually find out how much wishful thinking I’ve been engaging in.

    Having missed the engineering boat, if I was going to continue in telecom, I would probably get CCNA certified and try to break into working for a company like Verizon at a network operations center. A co-worker has a brother who was CCNA certified and making $80,000 a year at T-Mobile with only a two-year electronics degree.

    Jobwise, hopefully you’ll make the transition into something good. I’ve worked with a bunch of Indians who have worked as contractors while trying to get an H1B visa job. They generally have Masters in electrical engineering, but some have ended up in IT rather than hardware.

  4. If I ever felt a “bond” with Ted, it wasn’t religious, it was political. Ted has some good bits of political rhetoric. If I was going to be political, I would do it like Ted. But I detest politics and I think that people who obsess over it are fools, unless they are actually in the circles of power, in which case it is their whole life, and then I feel sorry for them. Politics makes people dumber and more desperate.

    I suppose Baptist talk could be an attractant, except that I don’t read anyone who does Baptist talk. Actually, I haven’t heard what I would call Baptist talk for over a year now. Baptists don’t really use Baptist talk anymore. You know that Greg Boyd and Rob Bell are Baptists, right?

    I guess I care enough to argue a point on the subjects of libertarianism or homeschooling, but not enough to discuss what I actually care about. So, I care enough to blog, but that’s a low standard. I don’t care if other people are convinced or persuaded, but I do care to clarify points. That is, I care about artistry, or artisanship, rather than relative political positions. Libertarianism is always a losing proposition, so caring about its results is absurd.

    No, I’m not amused by Game. The people involved are pathetic. Watching Jim Carrey’s performance in The Mask was really the first time I found the subject entertaining. For a few months I followed Game-blogging to try to figure out the psychology, but now I think I’ve got it. My cheap thrills are from webcomics, not self-important pickup artists.

    You know, for several years I’ve tried to follow all that Bell-curve stuff with Steve Sailer and a couple of other guys. I concluded that most of the time they’re right, but that since they are dealing with statistics about aggregate populations, it doesn’t mean much. Statistics is a way of dealing with people as a mass, and dealing with people as a mass is dehumanizing. Some people, though, are superstitious about the meaning of statistics. Is that why you think it’s a problem?

    In music, production is for art; performance is for the audience; but I just want the experience itself. I want to jam, and performance is just an excuse to schedule rehearsals.

    I’m not changing my day job; it’s changing me. My choice is to evolve or go extinct.

  5. “Baptist” would be Southern Baptist or a close variation. It would be Bible Belt baptist. Ted’s recent column on hell would be Baptist talk. That’s the kind of orthodox Baptist talk that keeps him being evaluated as overall good by certain people, such as yourself.

    There is a line of thought I want to travel down, based on what you’ve said, but it takes work to work the line of thought out.

    I haven’t worked out the details of the line of thought, but I think I know what the conclusion is because the conclusion is fairly simple.

    Team is huge in increasing the likelyhood of being able to produce, or being able to produce quantity. But if quality and not compromising is the goal, then team has many potential pitfalls.

    After resisting the temptation to team up with the villan, the next temptation to get over is resisting the temptation to team up with him who won’t condemn the villan.

    • I’m not sure what “overall good” means. Is that different from “not all bad”? I wouldn’t have a drink with him and I wouldn’t let him teach my kid. Some of his theology he keeps secret on purpose, so that it won’t alienate his political base. (When I say “political” here, I mean web politics, not electoral politics.) Nevertheless, it’s great how he rips into guys like Dawkins and Myers. If all I cared about was putting the hurt on them, because I thought it really mattered, then he would be a helpful attack dog, even though he has intellectual lapses. But that isn’t my purpose in life, and I don’t think it matters much whether Ted does it or someone more credible and coherent does it.

      I’ve read him long enough to know that he’s vulgar and proud of it, that he loves to provoke people, and that he’s extremely vain about his supposedly learned vocabulary (the proportion of two-bit words and syntax errors always shoots up whenever he is addressing someone he is contemptuous of). He also encourages and enables certain types of men, such as Nate and Bane, because he thinks they are really the best sort of man. That is the rationale behind the “Alpha Game” project: he wants to groom that sort of man, because it makes him feel very paternalistic and he thinks it will benefit society as a whole.

      His bizarre postmortem sentimentality for Bane indicated some unstable tendencies. The fact that he links to a filthy blog is less significant than the fact that the blogger is dead. And, you know, John J. Reilly links to VP; so does that mean that now I should delete his link on my blogroll? You do know that the web is made up of people linking to each other in an uncontrolled fashion, right? I’m not responsible for all the links on all the pages of the people I link to. I link to them because I think they have something interesting to say.

      Now, the stuff about Game shows that Ted is preoccupied with domination and status, and with educating the next generation of egocentric weasels. As I said, the feminist complaint is disingenuous, because many stupid women actually do fall in line with PUA predictions. Also, Ted is correct in noting that oppressive patriarchy has historically been a model for many successful societies. That doesn’t mean, however, that Game is a healthy preoccupation. The same benefits for society claimed for Game could also be achieved by a Muslim theocracy or by a Spartan dictatorship, without all the evo-psych and Iron John mumbo-jumbo; thus indicating to me that said benefits are not an unqualified good. And if it’s so compatible with biblical Christianity, why not just start a little commune in the desert and build a perfect little pseudo-Christian cult based on the Gospel of Roissy? Probably because the BATFE would raid them and burn them to the ground.

      Ted was never a poster boy for Christianity in the first place, so I suppose the problem for you is that some people think so highly of him and want him to be their leader and spokesman, ignoring his flaws; and so it has been a long-term project for you to get other people to shun him on the basis of his failings. But he is not my leader, my spokesman, or my pastor. If I really believed your implication that someone I respect would be shocked immediately upon clicking his link on my blogroll, then I would delete it. (You are correct in assuming that I don’t want to endorse something filthy, although with a blog one is always taking chances.) Also, if Ted went to blogging only about economics, fantasy football, Game, and fantasy literature. I would delete the blogroll link because he would have bottomed out with his boring preoccupations. But your attempt to destroy Ted politically is really no more important than Ted’s attempt to destroy Dawkins or Myers politically, although it is entertaining to watch you rip into him.

  6. Adios. There’s a time for everything. A time to start camaraderie, and a time to end it, although the severing of the tie doesn’t always come about all at once.

    After all, compromise is an important part of life. Giving people freedom is an important part of life. The tricky part is finding the balance. A person who’s not interested in being a cult leader, or in manipulating people will probably err on the side of giving others too much benefit of the doubt, at least until he wises up.

    You serve your purpose, Dave, but despite appearances, you are part of the norm.

    “You do know that the web is made up of people linking to each other in an uncontrolled fashion, right?”

    Complete nonsense. Every link on your blog roll was put there deliberately. Some blogs didn’t make the cut.

    “I’m not responsible for all the links on all the pages of the people I link to. I link to them because I think they have something interesting to say.”

    It’s a complex world, Dave. Evaluating what you’re responsible for is a multi-input exercise.

    You serve your purpose. I’ll let you work out your own salvation. Primarily, I want to keep this about me and my survival.

  7. What other people link to is not my responsibility. If you want to only link to sites that only link to sites that are perfectly holy and politically sanctified, you have already exceeded your ability to censor. In order to purify the links beyond that level, you will need to enlist the help of a few thousand ISPs. Basically, you had best remove all the links on your sites, too. But then, you are quite explicit about your hypocrisy, so you don’t really have to do that.

    Sorry to have disappointed you, but I laid out in detail my position on Ted, and you’ve given me jack, as usual: some kind of bad-faith pseudo-proposition covering for a predictive personality test. On the other hand, as usual, you have also provided me with a couple of cogent observations.

    My grandma told me once I can learn something from everything I do, or everyone I meet, or something like that. Since then, I’ve found education to be about all I can expect from most interactions: sometimes mine, and sometimes the other person’s.

    I think you should look to your own survival as well. Or that of whichever persona you are talking about. Here is some insight on personas and survival:

    El Pingüino . . . is a curious rooster, trying to walk like a human to avoid ending up in the frying pan, but ending up walking more like those arctic creatures.

  8. The fact is, you censor based on other people’s page content. A link is merely one of the many forms of page content, and a person’s blogroll, as opposed to a link in a post, is indicative of who the blogger is. To figure out what it means about them, if anything significant, well that’s part of the complexity.

    Without a doubt, you do take responsibility for what you link to. Considering how much information you plow through, there’s got to be sites you find interesting but yet won’t link to because they cross some line, that line involving everything about that site.

    You don’t identify with my complaint and my judgement of you because you don’t care about what I care about. After about 6 years, with this current set of comments, I’m finally at the conclusion that we’re on (very) different sides of the fence. It took me that long because we have a lot in common.

    Now that I place you on the other side of the fence, I can be detached and use your blog for what it’s worth. There should be no desire for me to comment here any more. Our positions have been made clear. We’re too different on what’s important to make it worthwhile to discuss things.

    It is very true that I compromise and link to web content that contains trash or which links to trash. On the other hand, I occasionally evaluate the dilemma that arises from doing that, and I try and figure out if there’s a better way of doing things, or whether I should quit linking to some person or site in particular. I don’t want to get to the place where I can’t be bothered about what I do, even if I compromise. I don’t want to evade responsibility, even if I compromise.

    Why don’t I make a judgement about you? You sit around the TV with your family and watch 2 people get it on, spew forth vulgarities, and use the name of Jesus as a curse word, laughing along with the funny parts. The same can be said for the majority of your fellow church members. Free free correct me on my assumptions.

    I made the last claim because that’s why you don’t care about my complaint.

    That’s where you’re in the 95% norm and I’m not. I rejected trash entertainment like that a long time ago. You want to talk about hypocrisy? That creates some major hypocrisy for me, because I still reject that trash and have no weakness for it, but I’ve surfed way too much porn.

    Again, of course you don’t see a problem with Ted. To keep peace in the family, or because you’re the leader of the pack, you became hard hearted about Ted’s kind of trash a long time ago. Feel free to correct me on my assumptions, or feel free to elaborate about the trash in the movie mentioned in this post.

    Don’t egg me on here, Dave, because considering my future detachment, I’m gonna wanna get it while the gettin’s good.

    • Well, no, the TV thing is totally wrong. I gave up TV as a habit about 15 years ago. Now I watch only the weather channel, and often only the radar subchannel.

      However, I do sit down and watch sometimes when someone else does, which usually reminds me why I don’t watch it on my own initiative. Survivor and The Mentalist are the only shows my wife watches, and The Mentalist is the only one I watch every time it’s on. Before that, something similar happened when I watched Heroes with my brother-in-law, and then I had to watch all of them until the series ended; and that also happens with Masterpiece Theatre about once a year. So I do get sucked into watching one hour a week of a series, but I get hooked by accident, so I can avoid responsibility for it.

      A bigger time-waster is movies, because we watch two or three movies a week from the library or Redbox. But we’ve also become disillusioned with that over the years, so that we have gotten pickier, like only watching PG, except when I make an exception for something like Ip Man.

      Still, we think that 99% of TV is worthless, and most movies are. We are even more restrictive about video games.

      Every single one of our extended family and church friends is completely baffled by this attitude, so we don’t preach to them about it. But my daughter is more aggressive about this issue and constantly argues with other children about why they should stop watching junk and using Facebook and start reading history. But then I have to lecture her about watching the Cartoon Channel when she visits other people’s houses.

      I am looser about the Internet insofar as I read webcomics, blogs, forums, and news sites, and I have to filter a lot of that. Ted actually caused me some problems in that respect because of his attacks on atheists and evolutionists, which offended my parents, so right now I consider his approach to be counterproductive. (Basically, everything on my blog would offend either my parents or my in-laws, which is why I have a blog. Go ahead and psychoanalyze that, if you like.)

      I’ll just deconstruct that one paragraph of yours, in no particular order. When The Mask came out (1994), I thought it was awesome. Then with the next Jim Carrey movie, I noticed how awful it was. I think the psychological implications and the comic-book flavor of The Mask had captivated me. So it was one of the movies someone gave my wife to watch when she was bedridden for a couple of weeks, and we watched it again, and I realized how trashy yet how brilliantly written it was, as an allegory for Game.

      I know you keep drawing that line further out by continually claiming I “don’t see a problem with Ted.” I think the problem is, I haven’t started an anti-Ted website with every post devoted to insulting him, in a vain attempt to dethrone him and cull his nominally Christian followers.

      Again: politics will rot your brain, man. Not electoral politics as such, but rather the political view of life, in which every word and deed is a political act that marshals one group of forces against another group of forces as part of a global war to make the perfect human society. It’s all corruption of mind and spirit, and completely unbiblical.

      “Peace in the family” would be what I would get if I worked less at a higher-paying job. No, there’s no connection between that and Ted. “Leader of the pack”? You’re obviously confused about my personality. Haven’t you noticed how I drive away readers of this blog? I wasn’t joking when I wrote once before that having a following spooks me because I begin to suspect that I’m not thinking contrarian enough. The crowd is always wrong. The difficulty is that in going against one crowd, one ends up attracting another.

      I’m still confused about “Ted’s kind of trash.” He uses profanity about once a week, which is bad, but pretty restrained as blogs go. He links to people who are scum, in an attempt to flatter them and increase his sense of his own beneficence. In the comments, he is vicious and intolerant, and his wife is worse. Plus there are the personal sins I mentioned before: his vulgar preoccupations, his provocations to anger, and his vanity. For all these reasons, I don’t read the comments anymore, I don’t click on his blogroll, and I rarely read his WND column.

      Yet, I would say that I still find value in about one out of four blog posts. That’s not Baptist loyalty or prurience, or whatever other excuse you want to find. I’m still convinced that your primary complaint is not based on an objective measure of trashiness, but rather the fact that he is politically manipulative, hitting on certain key ideas and words in order to maximize his demagogic impact, while hiding his personal motives, objectives, and indiscretions.

      He has the technique of the petty tyrant, a narrow populism in which he deflects all criticism of his personal life by defending his turf tenaciously, attacking outsiders relentlessly, and flattering his acolytes with an occasional approving nod as he casually tosses them the scraps left over from his dramatic kills. All the while, he shows only contempt for ankle-biters and works tirelessly to toughen up his mob so that they will reinforce his sense of personal accomplishment.

      Yet, this libertine and hedonist performs his soulless manipulation and brutish theatricality in the service of political ideals that you share in many respects. How humiliating that must be.

      I am sincerely sympathetic, insofar as I have often had to humble myself when my atheist family complains about Christian preachers, especially Baptists. In fact, my family delights in rubbing my face in their hypocrisy constantly.

  9. Sorry to have disappointed you, but I laid out in detail my position on Ted, and you’ve given me jack, as usual…

    That’s symptomatic of being very different. You don’t understand me. You don’t relate, so my attempts to make my case end up being jack to you.

    This comment is for a clarification.

    I’m not condemning you for who other people link to. I’m condemning you for who you link to on a permanent basis to promote them. My complaints about who Ted linked to were to try and make my case that he’s no good.

    I forgot, Dave, were you a Catholic at one point? Well, if so, you would make a good Catholic. You don’t seem to have actually read much of the Bible.

    I label myself a Christian. You label yourself a Christian. Ted labels himself a Christian. Did you notice that part in the Bible about condemning people who label themselves Christian yet live as a profligate? About disassociating yourself from such people? Do you want me to give you links and do word searches for you? No, of course you don’t.

    Call me a hypocrite, Dave. Do it. Get it on, and then go back to watching Brokeback Mountain. But wait, you wouldn’t watch two homos get it on. That’d be so wrong. Two heteros? That’s so different. That’s so 95% norm, so what could be wrong with that, or Ted’s trash?

    Get it on, Dave. Get it on. Get it while the gettin’s good.

    I’d give you smiley face emoticon, but I hate those things.

    • Did you notice that part in the Bible about condemning people who label themselves Christian yet live as a profligate? About disassociating yourself from such people?

      OK, so here you’re making a coherent claim. Everything before, frankly, was jack.

      I’m afraid that you will have to give me the verses if you want me to address it as a biblical argument.

      I get the point, though, and I accept it as a rebuke. You aren’t the first person to say as much. However, the last people who did left my church to join some kind of Old Testament style cult. Is that what you’re promoting? Or is it related to the Holiness movement?

  10. See Dave, this is where it pays to think things over, not be so impulsive. To look around. Check things out. That’s part of being a better survivor.

    This post in isolation would lead me to believe that you’ve gone serious on me. That you’re now eating some pride and being humble. Are you? Probably.

    When someone goes serious on me and concedes in a, I guess what you would call, “Christ-like manner”, then it makes me question my methods, and it makes me want to warm up to that person. This hardball game we play within this circle of people we’re in, it could be that we go overboard sometimes.

    But it pays to think and not jump too fast. To not judge someone as acting good or bad too fast. In the context of how this series of comments has ended up until now, I was inclined to post a warm, fuzzy, conciliatory post, interspersed with snippets of humor, trying to wrap up some thoughts pertaining to what we’ve talked about.

    But I looked around. I slowed down a little, and thought a little.

    Things don’t sync up. I could go off on a long explanation, but I don’t want to.

    In the past, you’ve bragged about enjoying playing with people’s minds. Saying stuff just to mess with people. Giving the appearance of something not true to mess with people.

    If that’s not who you are these days, then you have a marketing problem. You’re marketing yourself wrong.

    The scripture reference is 1st Corinthians 5. The whole chapter, but verses 9 to 13 in particular. The companion chapter on taking the guy back in is 2nd Corinthians 2.

  11. OK, I’m looking into it. My superficial response is that I don’t associate with Ted in the conventional sense, or even in the web sense. Also, Paul’s intended context seems to be gathering for fellowship, as in a local church, which would restrict the meaning even further. But I am going to meditate on this verse and its cross-references for awhile.

    I take ethical claims based on the Bible seriously. Plus, this is already an issue I have been considering for awhile.

    Yes, my sense of absurdity is sometimes too freely expressed. Here is my exposition of possible reasons:

    1. I am disillusioned with this world. Our attempts to impose meaning on it are laughably transitory and pointless. See Ecclesiastes, and Switchfoot’s song “The Beautiful Letdown.” From the perspective of eternity, we take most things way too seriously.

    2. I am fundamentally an existentialist poet. That means that I am constitutionally depressed and anxious, but I stimulate myself by compulsively seeking out discrepancies and inconsistencies in the world around me, and then trying to sculpt an artistic interpretation with words. Multiple meanings, homonyms, puns, rhymes, semiotic analyses, multilingual etymologies, cross-references, imagery, memories, philosophical implications, rhetorical interpretations, and historical footnotes are constantly rattling around in my head every time I read or hear something. Sometimes I feel like I’m living out “Finnegan’s Wake” in a four-dimensional gamespace.

    Fun fact: Most people don’t like existentialist poets, including me.

    3. For me, education is the purpose of every social interaction. Sometimes it’s my education and sometimes it’s the other person’s, and my fallible instincts tell me which way it’s going. If the other person is impressing me with their cogency, profundity, or rhetoric, I may decide that I have to listen to them and learn something. If they are stumbling somewhere, I try to teach them, but that’s a tricky thing, because maybe I don’t know what to teach them or maybe they aren’t teachable. So sometimes, in order to avoid pedantic didacticism, it ends up being an improvisational exercise in Socratic reasoning or stand-up comedy.

    I don’t think that really answers much, except to say that some things have value and some things don’t, and we are continually negotiating valences. “True” and “not-true” depend on a frame of reference and accurate measurement. The inability to define the frame or accurately measure valence, or the inherent lack of precision, may make it seem like a relativistic system even though it isn’t.

  12. Do me a favor and delink me. I understand the idea of the anarchy that’s associated with links, on the other hand, there’s a ton of censorship with people not linking to other people, or people just ignoring other people.

    But in general, with someone who’s trying to climb the blog ladder, it’s always 100% beneficial to get linked to from someone else, no matter how the linker is portraying the linkee.

    Don’t feel you’ll be meeting my standards of link-conduct-promotion-of-others by delinking Ted. I could analyze the site that you are now spotlighting, rather than having kept it buried in a blogroll.

    You are the horse that I led to the trough, but which I can’t make drink. However, with Ted, the standard of conduct is higher because of his “Christian Libertarian” banner, so my complaints about him are because of the higher standard.

    By and large, you link to bad-boy or rebel-boy sites with an intellectual bent, other than there’s a glaring omission of links to white supremacists and right-wing militia groups. Surely there are some intellectuals among those groups who make a few good points here and there.

    Delink me. If you want to show who’s in charge, of course you’ll keep it there, but if you want to respect my wishes, you’ll remove it.

    Any traffic from your site would always be beneficial to me, no matter how you portray me, but I never want to benefit in any way, shape, or form from you.

    Keep sending your traffic to Anya

    In order to find out, I took to the streets. For almost ten years I lived, loved and worked within the Montreal community, supporting sex workers, street punks, drug users and the homeless. During that time, I provided active listening, accompaniment and support to stigmatized populations. I learned the basics of directing, shooting and editing short films, organized community events, workshops on new media, and documented life on the streets with homelessnation.org.

    It’s all mere info to you. And everyone has a brain. Everyone should be capable of filtering. Except when it comes to those right-wind militias and white supremacists. You wouldn’t want anyone to mistake you for one of them by simply listing them in your list of links.

    Or by categorizing them under some heading which is your deceitful way of making it appear as if you’re not endorsing them, when it’s actually you’re way of ridiculing anyone who would object to you promoting them.

    • There–that misplaced tag made it look really ugly.

      I accept the politico-economic argument for delinking both of you. Again, here I’m talking about web politics, and the economics of linkfarming, reciprocal linking, site ranking, and blog ranking, which sometimes leads to financial gain through ads but more often is some kind of ego trip.

      I have made reciprocal linking agreements occasionally, and occasionally it has just happened, through some kind of netiquette. Right now I don’t care about it, though I know that both you and Ted think about it a lot. Since I don’t have any agreement with Ted, and I don’t feel the need to provide him with any politico-economic benefits, I think it’s good to delink now.

      Maybe someday I will be more intentional about this blog by incorporating positive politico-economic factors in my decisions.

  13. Actually, I did look into militias for awhile when I had to write a story, but then my contact got paranoid that the ATF was watching him and he cut off his militia friends. So I did the story on some non-militia right-wing radicals, among whom some white supremacists are found. I read a lot of their sites and listened to their radio broadcasts in doing background for that and other stories.

    The problem for both of these types, as I encountered them, was their narrowness of scope. They quickly become tedious. You may say, “Well, that isn’t a strong moral condemnation, Dave, so really you are implicitly supporting their immorality, which makes you immoral, too, just like the norm. Plus they use Baptist talk, which you identify with.”

    But for me, their inability to use more than a tiny fraction of their reason, or to open their eyes more than a squint, is the cause of their moral blindness.

    This was all years ago, before I even started blogging.

  14. There’s lots you said that I didn’t address.

    I want the last word. If you can solve the riddle, then you win.


    • Dan Quayle! Reviled by liberals as stupidest living Republican, rivaling only GWB. Attended his wife’s church, which I have also attended, and so I am familiar with the doctrine she was taught.

      But DQ has no apparent significance for me or this discussion, except that I used to live near the world’s largest Dairy Queen in the 1990s, and it was there that I picked up my first authentically populist right-wing anarchist literature, placed there by the owner who was mad about being run out of business by local politicians.

      Nah, too subjective. I vote that you are trying to express the concept of a superficial difference of opinion, such as the difference in spelling the word as ‘potato’ or ‘potatoe’, which was the point DQ tried to make. Of course, one is the majority opinion and one is a minority opinion, which is why DQ was ridiculed.

      However, the Oxford English Dictionary has the ‘potatoe’ spelling frequently attested through 1875, and even in 1979 in the UK. It is shown as a variant going as far back as ‘potato’, and OED doesn’t even show it as an archaism. Since it doesn’t appear in a modern US dictionary, it is definitely unconventional; even if not technically wrong, it opens one up to criticism as ignorant or sloppy.

  15. Posing my potatoe riddle was meant for nothing other than to make a play on the words “I want the last word”, which was a way take a break and see how easily this might be brought to an end. It’s a pet peeve of mine how media types assassinate people’s character over such things. I had to think a while to come up with a word better than, say, “punk”.

    Starting here, I want to contest your idea that “politics is always bad”, which is an idea that’s become central to everything you write. “Politics is always bad” is not some overly broad generalization that you now make. No, “politics is always bad” is everywhere with you now.

    It’s everywhere. These days, I talk about links, or whatever, and because I’m trying to do battle on some level, it’s all politics to you. Well then, fighting the good fight of faith? It must be that the Bible is nothing but politics, because doing battle is a huge theme in the Bible.

    First I’ll make some comments on things you’ve said in the comments to this post, and then I’ll go through a simple proof to show that politics can’t always be bad.

    Politics is a waste of time, like blogging.

    Don’t tune me out if I use words like “idiotic”, but this is an idiotic statement. Blogging is an extremely valuable method of publishing in spite of all the noise. There’s a good chance you don’t mean blogging is “always” a waste of time, but you do mean politics is “always” a waste. If you don’t, you’ve wasted a whole lot of my brain waves by having repeatedly made similar statements in multiple posts over a period of time.

    But I detest politics and I think that people who obsess over it are fools,….

    It’s very common for people to make sweeping generalizations, and then concede that there are exceptions, but, for you, it’s obvious “all politics” means “all politics”.

    Me and Ted. It’s all just politics, and all politics is bad.

    Politics makes people dumber and more desperate.

    Me and Ted. Dumb and desperate because we strategize on how to get a bigger voice on the web. I analyze the mechanics of the web publically; he’s less transparent on his thoughts. But to you, it couldn’t be anything more than politics and ego.

    Again: politics will rot your brain, man. Not electoral politics as such, but rather the political view of life, in which every word and deed is a political act that marshals one group of forces against another group of forces as part of a global war to make the perfect human society. It’s all corruption of mind and spirit, and completely unbiblical.

    Here you presume to know the motive behind all political actions.

    Me and Ted. If we engage in the mechanics of politics, you know that every word and deed of ours is a political act to try and marshal one group of forces against another group of forces as part of a global war to make the perfect human society.

    Much of the message of the Bible is extremely adversarial, with an enormous part of the message being to pursuade people, so what else could it be but politics? Therefore, it must be that the Bible will rot your brain.

    I accept the politico-economic argument for delinking both of you.

    Good. Mission accomplished, at least for a little while. I’d thank you, but it’s not like you might not change your mind in the future.

    I could go into a lot of related analysis. For example, has it been my goal to try and get you to stop reading Ted’s stuff? No. Not at all. What I care about most is “condemnation, ambivalence, or approval”. How does one group of Christians link to a shamelessly immoral Christian on a permanent basis without showing ambivalence or approval?

    Also related is that I’ve started monitoring his blog again, mainly through a RSS reader, and for me that brings up the question of whether I should continue to read him if I get bigger results, like getting him kicked off of WND. The answer? Only if I would be a hypocrite for doing so. Is there nothing of value that he writes? Most people are not totally devoid of good ideas.

    You asked me what “Ted’s trash” was. “Trash” is my general term for implicit and explicit sexual immorality, vulgarity, and profanity. There’s not much trash on his blog on a daily basis, especially now that he’s offloaded his group-sex-talk to another blog, unless you consider his links to create a collective of trash, which I do.

    Again, here I’m talking about web politics, and the economics of linkfarming, reciprocal linking, site ranking, and blog ranking, which sometimes leads to financial gain through ads but more often is some kind of ego trip.

    It’s true that climbing the blog ladder higher will stroke the ego, but that’s just one of many types of success in life. So that means success is always bad?

    Did you happen to notice, Dave, that so far, in regards to doing the things that will get me links to get me traffic, I haven’t done much right? And what I haven’t done right, I’ve mainly done on purpose.

    I have made reciprocal linking agreements occasionally, and occasionally it has just happened, through some kind of netiquette. Right now I don’t care about it, though I know that both you and Ted think about it a lot.

    Me and Ted. It’s a sin that we’ve thought about the mechanics of getting heard. Thinking? A sin. Ultimate actions? What we’ve ended up doing? Meaningless, of course.

    With a little thought and time, I could come up with a list from the Bible where it teaches how we’re supposed to conduct ourselves in relation to unbelievers for the purpose of evanglizing. What I’m looking for here is where the Bible elaborates on the mechanics of getting heard. Surely it’s there. Going two by two? More proof that the Bible is nothing but politics.

    Now for my proof by contradiction that “politics” is not always bad.

    I do not define “politics”, and I do not need to. First, assume that all politics is bad.

    If all politics is bad, then all political parties are all bad. Because it is impossible to have republican forms of government without political parties, then if all political parties are all bad, then all republican forms of government are all bad.

    Here, I require that you agree that all republican forms of government cannot all be bad. If you claim that all republican forms of government are all bad, then I cannot continue with my proof.

    However, you will not make such a claim. Thus, because all republican forms of government cannot all be bad, then all political parties cannot all be bad, so politics cannot always be bad.

    Consequently, we have a contradiction.

    We’re not willing to accept that all republican forms of government are all bad, therefore “all politics is bad” is false.

  16. Speaking of links. Here’s a link to audio recordings for the Greek New Testament and the Latin Vulgate New Testament, which you may find handy or want to put in your free Bible stuff.


    The link to the downloadable .mp3 files is on the main page.

    Good lyrics are hard to produce, so I’ve periodically entertained ideas of using the Latin Vulgate, but for a long time, I’ve wanted to know what a decent pronunciation of the Latin would be. I had a talking Latin dictionary, but that would be tons of work to use, and it wouldn’t have all the words.

    Today, while looking at the Latin Vulgate, with no idea how to pronounce the words, I finally found the above site.

    Like many people, the guy is being very generous. He doesn’t even have copyright symbols all over the place, like most people would have, not that I want to distribute his work, although it has spawned the idea of cutting up his audio and doing a lot of processing on it to fit it to some music, which I would then distribute freely.

    The fact that he doesn’t care to tell us that it’s copyrighted, which it is if he hasn’t specified the licensing or put it in the public domain, increases the chances that he wouldn’t care if I did that, and of course, I wouldn’t ask him for permission; I would only give him proper credit and try to promote him in what way I could.

    • There’s another one like that which I had found and then lost the link to, so maybe I’ll try to find it again. It was just for the Greek. Evidently there is a huge controversy about the pronunciation of ancient Greek, with at least two opposing sides.

      You should check out somebody who does the Latin Rites. Also, what about Gregorian Chants? There must be public domain recordings, because our college radio station use to butcher them for fun.

      • The general idea, in the absence of well crafted lyrics, is to use a language which very few people understand, yet has a novel appeal.

        I don’t understand Latin, so I wouldn’t know what the Latin Rites are about or what the Gregorians are chanting. To make it meaningful to me, I’d rather have a hunch what a phrase or word means.

        With the e-Sword Bible, I can do parallel comparisons on each verse of the Latin Vulgate and Modern King James. Then if I’m ambitious, I can look up a Latin root in a free command-line Latin dictionary that I have.

      • From the wiki page:

        The modal melodies of chant provide unusual sounds to ears attuned to modern scales.

        I wouldn’t mind listening to Gregorian Chant to get some ideas. I wouldn’t even care if I was influenced by other’s modern style of Gregorian chant.

        However, it’s not the Gregorian style that interests me; it’s hard to beat the modern use of the major, minor, and pentatonic scales. What I want is a “total package” to facilitate working fast and to always have “too much” material to draw from.

        Essentially, I may have it now with the Latin Vulgate, a parallel Bible, and the complete audio recordings of the Latin Vulgate New Testament. The advantage of using Latin rather than Greek is the Latin alphabet. Plus, Latin is a completely dead language. What could also tie into this package is my huge library of classical midi files.

        All this would be my equivalent of working on “cover tunes”. I don’t know yet whether it’ll be practical or whether it can result in some quality music. Then there’s that problem of actually working to get any of it done.

        The advantage of using Gregorian chants would be if they’ve done the work of getting the Latin words to flow and rhyme, and if I could use what they’ve done.

        I don’t see that I could, since I wouldn’t use the same melodies. Also, I’d need the convenience of having a library of recordings matched up with both the Latin words and the English translation.

        I like the idea of putting the words of the Bible to music with no interpretation or very little interpretation. The problem with using English is it would take a lot of work to get it to flow right, and to not sound awkward. With Latin, because beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, or the vibration of the beholder’s eardrums, only those fluent in Latin would get picky about certain things.

        If I could give people a complete package, some would like that. There would be the recording, the scripture reference, the links to an online parallel Bible, and a link to an online Latin dictionary. It could be very educational. There are people who couldn’t care less about my opinions, but who would be interested in learning a little Latin, especially if it was from the Bible.

        Here’s an online Latin dictionary, with a corresponding offline Latin dictionary:


        Although this link seems to work better for actual use:


        From my studying a little bit of Latin grammar, this was the best dictionary that I found. He does a good job of showing what the root is, and to get much use out of looking up Latin words, there’s no getting around having to figure out what the suffixes and prefixes mean.

        If you’re inclined, you could create a section of links for the Latin Bible: online and offline Latin Vulgate, online and offline parallel Bible, Latin recordings, Latin grammar, and whatever else would be interesting, like Gregorian chants and recordings.

        Greek also, I guess.

      • I’m afraid I’ve never been interested in Latin as it relates to the Bible. I’ve made a stab at Greek, but only so that I could argue about exegesis.

  17. And I didn’t even get to follow that major tangent on racism that I could have followed, based on your reply about my complaints about Whitey IQ’s whitey ways.

    It’s not that I want to now. I don’t think we bridged the gap. This racism thing that we didn’t agree on means there’s still a gap, and being infinitely wise like we are, we both know that there’s no need to debate all our differences to determine whether the gap can be bridged.

    What I’m doing here is gettin’ it while the gettin’s good. Crying on your should while it’s near.

    I looked at my blog, and there were too many recent posts about Ted. It’s disgusting.

    But now I have to put up another. Right now, it’s the easiest way to document things in one place. It’s not like I couldn’t bookmark pages in my browser, but then everything gets so spread out that I forget I documented something, or forget where it is.

    Dave, take it easy on me. Don’t take advantage of me in a moment of weakness like this. If you’re going to use my words against me to ridicule me, do it sparingly.

    I want it to be easy to make my case that Ted is a white superiorist, which is not the same thing as a white supremacist. You know how it these days; real racists are marginalized fairly quickly. Sexual immorality? People are calloused to that. Explicitly stating that whites are superior to other races, in particular blacks? Shout down time.

    The explicit is much easier to use than the implicit, the making of the case being important to being able to create a future ruckus about WND and John Pimper Piper having ties to Whitey Boy. Are you cringing at my hypothetical methods?

    I try to be honest and not misrepresent people when trying to get those political results that you so despise, not that I classify them as political. The temptation is to want to keep bumping up the rhetoric to a higher emotional level when people don’t respond to the data at hand. The temptation is to put words in the enemy’s mouth rather than deal with the tedium of making a case based on implication.

    It’s so much easier when the data is irrefutable because the target has explicitly confessed to his beliefs.

    Ted has only written one document that I know of where he’s gotten close to explicitly stating his belief that whites are superior in intelligence to blacks. That was a WND column where the implication was clear what the conclusion should be. He just didn’t have the guts at that time to state the conclusion. There could be more. I don’t scrutinize everything, or pay close attention many times, and I rarely read the comments, which I wouldn’t use as major source of evidence anyway.

    I say only one document, but that was yesterday. Today, he still doesn’t have the guts to explicitly state the “big ones”, where the big ones are exclusively intelligence and race.

    In The inevitable return of racism, he confuses the issue:

    So, here’s the question. Precisely how bad will things have to get before you abandon your belief in racial, cultural, national, religious, and ethnic equality?

    Though the post is based on his supposed evidence that blacks are less intelligent than whites (not recognizing the sorry state of Detroit education and of public education), he again won’t limit himself to only race and ethnicity.

    Obviously, some religions are junk. Obviously, some nations go into stupid mode. Obviously, some cultures are losers. Intelligence? I say intelligence can’t be evaluated on any refined scale because you can’t ever have a meaningful control group. Life, as in all of it, is the input that determines the IQ output. I don’t say that to try and fire up the debate on that issue.

    Anyway. I’m not crying any more. It bugs me that people respond to him as a messenger, in particular, Christians. He claims that the U.S. is in decline because the whitey guy Christian is not dominant anymore, yet decadence is a huge part of why we’re in decline, and he was a fratboy whose life revolved around scoring on women when he was young, he’s never repented of it, and he now encourages men to get it as much as they can without getting married.

    Tying this into all of the above, I’m not trying to police the web. People will read what they want to read. I’m bugged that the big fish have enabled this nonsense.

    Dave. Humble yourself. Email him and tell him to get more explicit so that his confessions are extremely simple for me to use against WND and John Piper the Pimper. Be my chaser. Bill O’Reilly has his chasers. Won’t you be mine?

    I’m through gettin it. You can have the last word.

    • I agree, that post today was disturbing. I am still mulling it over. The excerpt from Aristotle came to mind as an initial reaction.

  18. Pingback: Politics: Q&A « Brainbiter

Instigate some pointless rambling

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s