Although it sounds arrogant, I would describe the Manosphere, at least when not invaded by Trolls, as Socratic.
What does that mean?
First, we are Social Gadflys. Wikipedia:
“Gadfly” is a term for people who upset the status quo by posing upsetting or novel questions, or just being an irritant.
Since the status quo is a Pedestalization Epidemic, the Manosphere opposes it by questioning it and upsetting is a given when people don’t agree with something, the concept applies.
Second, although unintended, when males discuss, we apply the Socratic Method:
…is a form of inquiry and debate between individuals with opposing viewpoints based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to illuminate ideas. It is a dialectical method, often involving an oppositional discussion in which the defense of one point of view is pitted against the defense of another; one participant may lead another to contradict him in some way, strengthening the inquirer’s own point.
Ok, let’s make that blurb clear:
- One side present his argument.
- The other side presents a counter-argument, pointing out flaws in the logic of the first one.
- Both sides go back and forth, until one debater cannot logically defend his argument.
As it is a discussion method based on logic, and men are naturally inclined to logic, we attempt to use at least a rough approximation of the Socratic Method in all discussions. The young men of Athenas also favored it, after all.
But, that method simply falls flat against the enemies we fight, namely Feminists and Manginas. When we win the argument, which happens quite a lot, what they do?
Dodging and/or Shaming Tactics.
Sure, we win the audience, but we cannot convince the opposite side; we cannot change their behavior. We fight against weak debaters, but strong manipulators. And, here’s the crux of the matter:
HUMAN BEINGS FEAR BEING WRONG.
Let’s take a hypothetical example:
Imagine for a second that we are wrong. That women ARE the innocent angels that they claim to be instead of flawed human beings like all of us, that we as males are the evil beings that try to destoy their innocence, that we should be grateful when they finally stop screwing jerks and notice the true love that was in front of them and give themselves to it. Oh, and that it isn’t for pity.
Scary isn’t?
Don’t worry, in that example women are desirable up to their 40’s. LOL.
Feminazis and Manginas simply cannot admit that they are wrong. Their political beliefs are not only the base of their self-steem (really pathetic per se), they are also their main source of credibility and a major source of income. The Athenian wise men, poets, statemen, artisans, couldn’t admit their own ignorance not only because they lacked humilty, also because they had a major emotional and economic investment in their belief that they possessed wisdom. Socrates, in the other hand, could freely say: I know that I know nothing.
Which ironicaly, just as the Oracle of Delphi said, made him the wiser.
This is why attempting to use logic against Feminazis and Manginas is useless, they simply cannot admit that they are wrong because they depend too much on their emotions and their lies-selling business to do so. We are speaking of people who try to use their emotions as logical arguments. As an example, let’s see the common “I’m Offended.”
To cause displeasure, anger, resentment, or wounded feelings in.
Those are emotions — they should not be accepted as arguments in a logical discussion. The problem is that we are up against people both unfit for and without any desire for a logical discussion. So, by inserting emotions in the mix, they try to make us fight in their terms. Note that an emotional argument is usually covered with a heavy dose of nonsense.
Finally, as they stop contributing to the discussion and only spout nonsense, they are met with the banhammer, and they are removed from the discussion. A predictable result, but it simply proves that they are not to be convinced.
That cycle repeats itself over and over again; all that changes are the names and the writing styles. Whatever is OK, depends. If we were fighing for complete annihilation of the enemy, it would require several underhanded measures and a serious investment of money and time far beyond the scope of this magazine.
Fortunately, there is another way, which can be followed by all. The way of resilience. We don’t fight to win, we fight to avoid losing. The individual approach of cutting all influence of Feminism and Cultural Marxism from our individual lives works perfectly with this style. We are watching how the truth is reaching the mainstream, both favorably and not.
This decade will mark history and our society way beyond the stagnation of the past one.
Also, if you aren’t going to have children, write a novel or articles, teach others — do whatever it takes, because we are mortal beings, and for our ideals to outlast Feminism in the decades, centuries to come, they need to outlast us.
The teachings of Socrates lasted from the time before Christ until now. Is it impossible that ours might last as well?
-Gx1080
