A couple of other bloggers were kind enough to put together transcripts of the Warhorn podcast for those who don’t want to listen to the silliness but want to understand what was said. OKRickety put together what looks like a very complete transcript. I have only read about half way through, but it looks very thorough.
Larry Kummer, Editor of Fabius Maximus put together a more brief transcript, including his own notes. I am publishing it here with his gracious permission:
Transcript of “Into the Manosphere” at Warhorn, 26 February 2019.
Begins at the one-hour mark. Which appears to be roughly where they begin the summary of this 1 hr. 13-minute broadcast.
Note: I am not a stenographer, and did not review this for accuracy. It is a best-efforts transcript.
There are two speakers, I did not note who was speaking, or transitions.
“D” means Dalrock. I omit many of the verbal ticks (e.g., beginning many sentences with “and”).My comments are preceded by asterisks (*).
My note: This is the most obvious case of mirroring I’ve seen in a long time. Many of their accusations about you refer – quite obviously, imo – to themselves. It’s also pretty much gibberish.
—
Let’s talk about that. D does link to and quote sources meticulously. Then he regularly mischaracterizes what he quotes. He gets away with it among his followers. Why? There is only one real answer. That’s the fact that he relies on the appearance of honest to get his work done.Or more accurately. He relies on the laziness of his followers and their desire for validation. {High pitched funny voice} “Will someone please validate me.”
I picture all his followers as angry 20-somethings in their moms’ basements or a 40 or 50-year-old guy that just got a divorce and he’s mad and just wants someone to validate him and tell him he’s right. D relies on that because those guys aren’t going to follow the links.
Just be clear here. You’re accusing all of D’s followers of being dumb internet trolls.
No. I’m sure there is a wide variety of people who read D for all kinds of reasons. You read him. I read him. But when he gets away with the kind of blatant mischaracterizations that he gets away with regularly, one begins to wonder.
Why all this in response to his pseudonymous, Jake?
Because it’s a diversionary tactic. He wants to bluster about it being the arguments and about the truth. He wants to posture himself as the honest one and the victim of character assignation. He want to control the conversation by asserting from the top that anyone who questions his character in this process simply doesn’t have the chops to handle his arguments. That is all bluster and bravado and it is a diversionary tactic that is dishonest in his arguments from the top.
How do we respond?
First, has this guy even met a real SJW in his life? We’ve met SJWs … I don’t want to be self-aggrandizing, but Jake and I have had these public things transpire where large groups of so-called progressives were really really {sic} angry at us … {examples given}
Or you can go to the abortion clinic or the courthouse. … {discussing where to find progressives}. We deal with these people all the time … {examples}
My point. No SJW comes to Dalrock thinking {said with silly voice; both laugh often during this, which they appear to consider hilarious}:
“I have to find away around this guy because I know I’d lose against him in open debate. Because I’m really stupid. I’m a random minion unable to find his way around Conan the Barbarian because he scares me so much. He’d just kill me. So I’d better find a way to shoot arrows at him.”
Please. Anyone who has actually engaged with these people knows that they are completely confident that they’ll take you in open debate. {series of silly statements about SWJs} …
{Said in silly voice} “I know I can’t win in open debate so I need to assassinate your character.” Character assignation is a matter of {unclear: “pride in this case”}. They are happy to assassinate your character. {more discussion about this} …
So we’ve demonstrated that D has a fundamentally dishonest way of handling arguments and sources. So, can we talk about his character?
What kind of man props himself up as a teacher of men {funny voice} “about the nature of masculinity?” But without the courage to put his name behind what he signs? A coward. That’s the kind. {music begins} The kind of man who would never say to someone’s face what he says on the internet. That’s the kind of man that can’t be trusted.
**** My note: just like the writers of the Federalist Papers.
He can’t be examined by Jesus’ rule for teachers “You will know them by their fruit.” … If he says his fruit is in his teaching and his followers, fine. Take a look at his comment threads. That’s all you need to know.
**** IMO, this is a valid point.
And if he says his teaching o the Internet is not exercising authority, not claiming any kind of authority, and does not subject him to any kind of scrutiny – that’s just a feminist argument. …That’s the argument they use to have women deacons, for women elders, for women teaching mixed groups. They’re not exercising authority.
{change of voice} Jake, ad hominem much? Can we talk about ad hominin please?
{Jake} Knowledge is never divorced from character. Knowledge is never divorced from character. If I propound an idea it is completely legit to ask why and how I’m propounding it. Ad hominin is a perfectly reasonable form of argument.
**** This is nuts. The personal lives of philosophers, scientists, and leaders of all kinds are often of low character. We judge them by their deeds and their words. Often evil leaders have excellent characters.
{change of voice} I learned that’s not true. In high school debate class I learned that it is a fallacious form of argument. You’re attacking your opponent instead of his ideas. You can’t do that.
{Long discussion of ad hominin arguments follow. Both then agree this is a great thing to do.”
And D himself, the great philosopher, is not afraid to call out feminists for the unhappy fruits of their ideas.**** That’s the opposite of an ad hominem argument.
But you ask too many questions about D, you ask how he presents his ideas, or how his followers behave. Both D and his followers want to say “stop picking on us.” He is about the ideas.
Oh, yes. Yes. And ideas are connected to people. And Christ said of teachers, “You shall know them by their fruits.”
**** What are they saying about D? This makes no sense.
Right. The noting that ideas exist in this intellectual vacuum where they can be studied like some sort of museum exhibit just under glass. You go and look at the idea and look at the other angles of the idea and we all stay outside of the idea. Thumbs down!
Thumbs down!
**** This makes no sense. Also, what is the relevance to Dalrock?
Some it up in a sentence, Jake.
D is a man who cannot be trusted. You cannot trust his argumentation. You cannot trust his portrayal of his own honest and integrity. And you cannot trust his character. He hides behind weak arguments and he blusters about and postures himself as some hero of the manosphere. He would deny that. {funny voice} “I am just trafficking in ideas.”
That not how his followers threat him. They treat him like a founding father of some kind.
They call him that.
Yes. He’s bad. I’m thinking of Psalm 1. “Blessed is one who does not walk in the way of the scoffer, a mocker, the wicked.
You cannot engage with people of bad character and not be infected by it. This guy is poison. I don’t care if he says some correct things. A stopped clock is right twice a day. Lots of horrible people have said good things. But you do not want to hand out with bad people.
I learned some of my best theology from a serial predator that we based season one of The Ville on. So there you go.
**** Does this contradict the point they just made a length?
{more discussion about D in funny voices saying silly things.”
{music slowly swelling in strength} The mad is fundamentally dishonest about his character. He is not somebody who can be trusted to teach good theology no matter how many good things he says. No matter how God uses him.
Judas preached the true gospel. He preached repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. He healed people and he cast out demons. Then he betrayed Jesus for 30 pieces of silver. And hung himself. …
{More over-the-top denunciations of D}
D should shut up and give himself to his church. The people who follow him, who are out on the internet looking to him as a father, need to find a real father figure …
{The last 3 minutes is them saying silly things in funny voices, intending – I believe – to mock D. A lame attempt at humor.}
