Gentle Reader may recall that in the comments section of the 'Vox Day's Problem' post, I said:
quoting VD: " ... Being an Award-Winning Cruelty Artist, I tend to rather enjoy seeing how speedily I can force them to retreat from a prosecutorial pose to the position of a desperate, wild-eyed defense attorney who knows his client is headed straight for the chair."This post is written to illustrate a prime example of the above analysis of his personality.
Ilíon:His primary motivation isn't to get at the truth, but to humiliate someone -- or, at least, to tell himself in his internal-dialog AAR (after action report) that he has humiliated someone. And, it seems, if he hasn't gotten his fix recently enough by beating up on someone who might be said to have deserved it, just about anyone will do.
Mind you, I’m not criticizing him because he’s “mean,” but because his goal is humiliation and dominance of others.
First, here is a post on his blog in which he does not display his problem: 'Flipping the flipped script.' It's a measured and sensible essay, even with the "Game" silliness it contains. I recommend it as a pretty good read and analysis of the subject matter.
BUT, in the comments, one finds this:
VD (quoted by JQP): But in the end, if you want a good man, then stop chasing bad ones.Now, the thing Gentle Reader needs to understand is that JQP is a member-in-good-standing of the so-called "Dread Ilk" -- that's "Vox Day's" pet name for the butt-sniffing toadies with which he likes to surround himself. MIND YOU, I am not saying that JQP is a butt-sniffing toady, just that a high percentage of the "Dread Ilk" are, and that that's how "Vox Day" likes it.
John Quincy Public: Groovy. And contrariwise [sic] if you want a good woman, stop acting like a bad man. Pathological narcissism is estimated to be prevalent in 1 out of 6 men, or 16 2/3%; a number remarkably close and consistent with the estimate of 20% given by your quotette above.
So let's have no more of this nonsense of Game and the faux narcissists it manufactures.
VD: JQP, if you have nothing to add to this particular conversation and no interest in it, why do you insist on taking part in it?
And look at this! JQP isn't even disputing anything "Vox Day" said in the original post; he's extending it, and pointing to the simple truth that the principle "Vox Day" elucidates in the OP applies to men every bit as to women.
And yet, apparently, "Vox Day" had the overwhelming *need* to "put him in his place."
Man! I would hate to be "Spacebunny" -- that is, assuming that "Spacebunny" isn't just another way to say "Vox Day." And, if it is, then I'd *really* hate to be "Spacebunny."
7 comments:
Now, the thing Gentle Reader needs to understand is that JQP is a member-in-good-standing of the so-called "Dread Ilk" -- that's "Vox Day's" pet name for the butt-sniffing toadies with which he likes to surround himself. MIND YOU, I am not saying that JQP is a butt-sniffing toady, just that a high percentage of the "Dread Ilk" are, and that that's how "Vox Day" likes it.
...Isn't that part of what being an alpha is? Vox's position on "game" has been that the alpha stuff doesn't just work on women, it works on men. Insofar as men react to it as well - Betas bow to alphas, deltas defer to betas, etc. Hell, I'm pretty sure Vox would flat out say, "The guy who is surrounded by butt-sniffing toadies is the guy who most/many women are going to be instinctively attracted to on some level."
Also, JQP didn't just chime in with this single observation. He's been going at it with Vox over this game thing for a while now. In fact, JQP seems like a real bad example for the sort of behavior you're pointing out with Vox, which I think is a complaint with some merit. Go watch how JQP reacts to people who disagree with him. He actually makes Vox look humble.
That aside, yeah, humiliating someone to humiliate them is a bad personality trait. I wonder if it's yet another alpha thing. I imagine it gets hard to stop acting like that once you're actually aware of it and try to consciously act that way.
"In fact, JQP seems like a real bad example for the sort of behavior you're pointing out with Vox, which I think is a complaint with some merit."
But, the point I meant to make here is that VD and JQP are buddies ... and VD *still* reacts to a comment from one of his buddies or allies that isn't even a disagreement with dismissive scorn.
"Also, JQP didn't just chime in with this single observation. He's been going at it with Vox over this game thing for a while now."
While I haven't been following their interactions -- I rarely read many of the comments to a VD blog entry -- I'm aware of it. But, so? JQP apparently disagrees in some respect with VD about "Game," or at least about its applicability ... and therefore, VD sees himself as justified in ... what?
Doesn't this rather underscore my opinion about VD's mindset as revealed in his behavior?
"Go watch how JQP reacts to people who disagree with him. He actually makes Vox look humble."
I've been on the receiving end of JQP's behavior -- with or without having actually disagreed with him. I don't know, perhaps to be a member-in-good-stanging of VD's circle one must be either a toady or a jerk?
...
As for the Greek-letter ranking scheme of "Game" (as expanded upon by VD), I'd just about bet that VD sees himself as a "Sigma."
Myself, I think VD is more a simple "Iota," for 'ιερκ'
If I remember the timeline correctly --
1) Years ago, before TIA came out, I tried briefly to follow VD's blog, but didn't care for the general tone of the "Ilk." I don't recall that I had a negative opinion of VD himself.
2) I read TIA, and was for the most part impressed with VD's reasonableness -- among which I include a willingness to openly mock foolish ideas/philosophies and arguments.
2a) On his heterodoxy (especially the silly "Open Theology," of which he seems to be unable to see that he has already answered his own objections to orthodoxy from which objections he moves to "Open Theology") issues, I put that down to "*sigh* no one is perfect."
3) Off and on since I read TIA, I’ve tried to read and sometimes comment upon items on his blog -- and I've concluded that the aspects of the "Ilk" which I disliked all along are but reflections of VD's personality.
===
And this just amazes me -- some of the people who regularly comment there are not only reasonable people, but their personalities don’t really seem to fit into the over-all theme of the place.
I think he's almost 100% right about the "Game" stuff. I just wish more people had the guts to talk about these issues using their *real names.* The only thing I disagree with him about is that he pretends "Game" is the result of the fall of man, whereas I would argue that some similar form of Game would exist even in Eden. Basically, Game is instinctive logic.
That said, I knew Vox Day was a bit of a fool the moment he called himself a libertarian, and when he suggested that private entities should be allowed to own tactical nukes. But pretty much everyone has some foolish traits, and I think it's a little unwise to get yourself worked up over this one blogger's tendency toward jerkiness and arrogance.
Also, your first link is broken (although I've already seen that post).
"I just wish more people had the guts to talk about these issues using their *real names.*"
That's really a non-issue (and an area where, Jonah Goldberg, say, is wrong to make an issue of it).
What would it tell you to know Vox Day's real name (assuming you don't already know it)? I know his name (as do thousands of people; it's even on Wikipedia) ... he's still some anonymous blow-hard who has abandoned America and seems to imagine himself thereby superior to the rest of us.
What would it tell you to know my name? It's easy enough to find out; in fact, some nearly mindless "liberal" atheistic Darwinist (but I repeat myself) seems to have it as his mission in life to publicize my name. But, even knowing my name, I'm still anonymous to you.
Edward Feser blogs under his real name, but unless one knows him in person, he might as well be calling himself "The Great Philozoné."
I never heard of "game" until recently, but a long time ago I realized some patterns that match up with it.
* If a girl repeatedly remarks on how rude, obnoxious, insulting, degrading, or disgusting some guy is - key, if she does this with annoyance in her voice rather than mocking humor - there's a good chance she'll sleep with him if he sets his sights on her.
* People who obsess about certain acts also tend to engage in them. If some person really has it in for thieves, and will go off on how they hate thieves or will complain about thieves with minimal provocation, watch your possessions.
...Isn't that part of what being an alpha is? Vox's position on "game" has been that the alpha stuff doesn't just work on women, it works on men.
Hm...maybe this is one of the split-points for geeks. Part of why the typical geek doesn't fit into normal social groups. There are alphas among geeks, but it tends to vary by topic, rather than person.
Post a Comment