Post: #26

RedPillUK,

Please provide link to article in which Vox states that "accusing other people of being Gamma, is Gamma."

If you don't, please admit that your statement was a lie. Then apologize and retract.

Post: #27

(08-18-2016 08:30 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  (2) I've diligently studied and discussed Vox's hierarchy for about eighteen months. Since this is so much longer than you've studied it, do you accept that my understanding and summary of it are much more likely to be better than your's?

Can you briefly sketch how you studied Vox's hierarchy? I'm open to examining it further.

Post: #28

(08-18-2016 08:33 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  RedPillUK,

Please provide link to article in which Vox states that "accusing other people of being Gamma, is Gamma."

If you don't, please admit that your statement was a lie. Then apologize and retract.

So unless an extremely specific behaviour that you just did is mentioned by Vox on his website as being Gamma, it's not valid and doesn't 'count' as gamma behaviour?

You can't use your own understanding of the concept of gamma being a nerdy loser type and then apply it to real life? Sounds a bit spergy, dare I say.. Gamma.. to me.

I would also add asking me to retract my statement and apologise (nah) sounds like delusions of grandeur which is something Gamma's have from my understanding.

Constantly going on about how you've studied something for 18 months and publically assuming it's everyones first experience with this also sounds like the socially unaware whinings of a Gamma.

Post: #29

This thread is becoming the gamma equivalent of the "is this beta?" thread.

Post: #30

Quote:A recovering ex-Gamma helpfully provides a list of behavioral attributes:

When you are having an argument with someone and it appears you are wrong, the most common belief and defense is that the other person simply doesn’t understand what you are saying.

When discussing matters with someone and you think you are maybe, possibly, being shown to be wrong, you start to get snarky, crack lame jokes, and immediately try to change the subject.

If someone holds an opinion contrary to yours, and you don’t think you have a good defense immediately to hand, you start to look for unrelated ways to disqualify the other person as being less than knowledgeable about the subject, even going so far as to disqualify them as being a good person or sometimes even a person at all.

Definitions are tenuous for you and words can be redefined at leisure during a discussion. If someone quotes the dictionary and it disagrees with your definition they are arguing unfairly and the dictionary is wrong.

https://voxday.blogspot.com/2015/02/iden...males.html

Post: #31

Considering the vast majority of guys here have had sex more then 5x the average (8 partners) have to be sigma or alpha

Post: #32

Truth Teller,

The way I studied it by myself is by going here. That's a list of every Vox Day post that discusses Gamma. You should begin with Gamma, mostly to get rid of it from yourself, but also to identify it in others.

If you want the shorter version, Google search "Alpha Game Plan Graduating Gamma", and read all parts, (preferably at least three times over three months).

I was lucky enough to befriend a filmmaker who ran a weekly philosophy group. We became good enough with all categories to look at each other, say "Sigma!" about someone else's behavior, and go from there. But you might not find a lot of people to discuss this with.

Ultimately, you'll gain a better sense of when someone is over-representing their strength, or putting their emotional well-being above everything else, or being unable to bond with a group, or being unable to accept their lowered place on a hierarchy, (all Gamma behaviors).

I hope that helped.

Post: #33

RedPillUK,

Vox Day developed the hierarchy, so asking you to reference him is very sound logic.

Also, Vox Day (not a Gamma) routinely points out where others behave in a Gamma fashion. His blog cites multiple funny Twitter exchanges where he corners people into either admitting they're wrong (Delta or better trait), or spewing irrelevant "squid ink" to avoid admitting they're wrong (Gamma behavior). Thus, simple logic dictates that accusing someone of being Gamma, isn't Gamma.

Lastly, no one made you say "Accusing others of being Gamma is Gamma." You chose to have a very strong opinion about something you haven't really studied. And so, you made a very loud statement that I know to be false, and you got caught.

Post: #34

(08-18-2016 08:30 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  Two things, Saint.

(1) Without citing any examples, can you comment on my argument, "Because Gamma behaviors are do prevalent, they're not inherently cringeworthy."

Again the argument is different based on context and of opinion. It's impossible to discuss this without an example of clear "gamma" behavior.

There's too many factors to outright consider any one behavior "gamma" unless the context is known, and my definitions of behaviors considered "gamma" are any kind of social behavior that reflects poor social skills/social weakness(so blatant that these people tend to be ostracized) dependent on context.

These behaviors in my opinion are cringe worthy to any sensible male, but are only somewhat prevalent due to the influx of social retards.

So your premise is false that these kind of behaviors are "common".

Quote:(2) I've diligently studied and discussed Vox's hierarchy for about eighteen months. Since this is so much longer than you've studied it, do you accept that my understanding and summary of it are much more likely to be better than your's?

I've "studied/discussed" Vox's hierarchy much longer than you have if we're talking time(since 2013 when I joined the forum I've read his stuff as that was Manosphere 101 even back then these articles are old very old for that matter), but here we are talking about the validity of such a system. I don't believe this system as a valid way to categorize oneself, but a semi-valid way to categorize things around you.

You're assuming I'm arguing Vox's opinions. No I'm not. I'm arguing against the use of such a system as self categorization.

Post: #35

I always felt quantity was the way to rank mens socio sexuality. To me it doesnt matter whether the international spy bags 9s and tens and the construction worker fucks 4s and 5s. As long as they bang dozens of them they are both alpha. In the natural world the man with the most partners and hence the most kids wins.

Nature favours the sexually prolific, western civilisation should remember that.

Post: #36

(08-18-2016 10:10 PM)Putin Closes Wrote:  Considering the vast majority of guys here have had sex more then 5x the average (8 partners) have to be sigma or alpha

Wait seriously ? 8 is the AVERAGE ?

Thanks for slut shaming me Putin.

Post: #37

Saint,

I get it now.

You're claiming to argue the system is invalid, but you're most loudly arguing that the system is "limiting" .

Right / wrong is superior to limiting / not limiting. And all hierarchies, as well as moral instructions, are supposed to be limiting.

Post: #38

Saint,

Vox has already stated that context matters when determining sociosexual status of behaviors, and he has given many examples of Gamma behavior. His Twitter account in particular is a rich source of information, especially when he posts articles of his Twitter exchanges.

So the two things you're most using to claim the system is "limited" and "semi-valid" are overcome by Vox at least three times a month.

Post: #39

Quote:This thread is becoming the gamma equivalent of the "is this beta?" thread.

The thread should then be titled "It seems Gamma."

Post: #40

(08-18-2016 10:10 PM)Putin Closes Wrote:  Considering the vast majority of guys here have had sex more then 5x the average (8 partners) have to be sigma or alpha

I wouldn't. There's a difference between bedding 40+ 7/8/9s and 40+ 2/3/4.

One is game, the other is "don't fuck up" for an average looking guy.

Post: #41

All these labels are hilarious.

Alpha
Beta
r/K selection
Blue/Red

Pretty sure we've beaten every dead horse imaginable.

We all understand the terms, the traits, the tendencies.

Can we get back to helping each other with game and females?

Post: #42

LOL ....'accurate'....'elegant.' 'Diligent...'

Give me a break. You can put your gold glitter and tinsel all over a pile of horse shit, and you still have a giant pile of horse shit.

I remember you saying you were a beginner last year. Stop the keyboard warrior bs.

Post: #43

DonnyGately is using name calling to debunk someone else's system.

Besides being rude and against forum rules, Danny's approach doesn't make sense. If you think Vox's system is bullshit, and if you're so confident in your argument, you should argue with him.

Post: #44

Donny & MMX let's not turn this into a flame war.

If you guys disagree take it to PM unless you 2 can intelligently retort.

I'm personally tired of the whole labels thing, most of the dudes on here just want to better their lives, learn game, fuck women, and travel.

We have a pretty good definition of the category's I just don't abide by it and I'm not living my life to jump through hoops to level up on OP scale.

Post: #45

Kaotic,

I don't accept your criticism that I'm "turning this into a flame war", because my posts violated no forum rules, while DonnyGately's clearly did.

Post: #46

MMX I'm not saying it is, or has been turned into a flame war, I'm saying it clearly has potential to.

I know what Donny said, it wasn't necessary.

Post: #47

The "flame war" between DonnyGately and I was over before you stepped in to stop it. And by stepping in, you're stuck trying to justify why you called out both him and me EQUALLY, when I broke no rules.

I don't think you can justify that.

Post: #48

Yup, you got me, totally stuck.

Let this go man, enjoy your Friday, I am.

Post: #49

No, I won't let this go.

Vox's best argument doesn't get promoted enough. He says that Liberalism can be reduced to five contradictory ideals: Tolerance, Equality, Progressivism, Inclusion, and Diversity. To combat Liberalism, one must reject all instances of those ideals in every part of one's life, no matter how small.

Since your correction implied that I and DonnyGately are equally to blame, I won't let this go. We're all better off if you say that you've never moderated any forum, and so even though you had good intentions, you still over-reached.

Post: #50

Okay great, then continue to write about Vox's theories and the OP. I'm always open to new views.


I have no correction about what I said, I simply stated that the discussion between you 2 could get ugly, that's it, that's all.

Basically a guy between 2 friends who want to fight saying "chill out".

Now you're acting all offended and thin skinned about all of this and jump behind the forum rules.

Seriously, it's a forum, this isn't a fight in real life, this is a topic being debated among men.

But you get all mad because I say "Hey I have a feeling, this might turn shitty real quick"

There wasn't any equality or bias, let alone leaning hard on one person at all.

This isn't worth anymore of my time unless you're going to write about Vox's ideas, which I look forward to.