TL;DR - Intellectual Rigour VS Pwnage [26/Apr/16]

Teal Deer. Let's talk about the so-called Man-O-sphere and specifically on the topic of intellectual rigor vs straight up slam dunk mic dropping pwnage.

This topic today was certainly inspired by a couple of videos I've seen recently that I thoughtly recommend you check out first so that you hopefully see why I'm taking the tak on this
topic that I am. First is "The Red Pill - Then and Now" by Stardusk and second "The Man-O-Sphere" by Colttaine. In these video both address the current state of the loosely
connected groups that are often called "The Man-o-sphere" of the internet, the loose alliance of MGTOW, the MRM, PUAs and general anti-feminists.

So today I thought I'd throw in a few thoughts of my own into this arena because I find it quite an interesting thing to muse about and it's something I've been considering for
a while, to have a proper moment of introspection and good look at your own place within the ecosystem that is the internet and which online communities you frequent and your
roles within.

As Stardusk has pointed out, anti-feminism has become a genre in and of itself on youtube, we see almost daily new channels springing up attempting to 'debunk' the latest
offerings from feminists all around the internet. To be clear here I don't see this as inherently bad, I've made no secret of my position towards feminism that I consider it
at best a misguided but benevolent movement and at worst an outright hate-filled racist sexist authoritarian female supremacist movement and as such anything that helps to clear
the air of their intentional misinformation on what ever topic feminism has decided is 'problematic' today is ultimately a good thing as long as they are addressing the objective
empirical data on the issue and demonstrating the flaws in the supposed 'science' of the issue or the logical and philosophical inconsistencies of their rhetoric.

However, what I've seen is not that and seems to be rapidly becoming even less so. What in reality I've been seeing is a rise of the 'pwner' the so called 'debunker' the so
called 'skeptic', people who don't actually address the core premise of either the ideas nor the reasoning behind the motivation but instead will simply offer what is often
termed a 'rebuttal' but in reality is little more than calling the feminist in question a 'fucking moron' and saying 'you're wrong because you're stupid' with very little susbtance
behind the aurgument. In some cases this is all that is warranted and needed, a simple re-phrasing of the same argument swapping a couple of words such as black for white or women for
men or any descriptive word for 'jews' or 'gays' is, in some cases, all that's needed to show the blatant bigotry or double standards of the feminist position. In other cases however
this is used when a better and more in depth analysis is what is needed, to actually address the facts and figures of some of these issue or indeed to look beyond to understanding the
ultimate cause at the beginning. And honestly, I fear that this rise in flimsy 'debunking' content creators, while useful in swelling the ranks of visible opposition to modern feminism
and social justice actually does nothing to help in either it's downfall or in helping people to understand the reason why things have become the way they currently are and if anything
actually end up working counter to their own good intentions. In doing a 'call out video' or a 'take down video' or a 'debunking video' phrases that I hear from people on a daily basis
as requests, when that video takes the form of nothing more than a string of witty insults and put downs this only serves to solidify the feminists or social justice advocates views
that the world is a terible place full of misogynists or bigots or racists or whatever other ist or ism they'd care to label you and then be thrown back into the social justice cauldron
of evidence that perpetuates its own existence. For every video that looks the the data behind a study or piece of supposed 'evidence' that social justice feminists will use
and demonstrates the flaws in methodology, sample size, etc there are ten that basically just say "you're wrong because you're dumb, also you're ugly".

it is important to note here that even videos that do cover the data and address the core of the arguments will also still be dismissed as 'proof' of misogyny or simply
hand waved away as 'harassment' to the outside viewer to see one person spouting rhetoric and the other countering with hard data provides a clear winner. To look in
and see two people swapping rhetoric and insults demonstrates neither side to be the victor and leaves the viewer to decide on their own based on which side they favour best
and we'll see why that is a problem later, especially when one of those parties is female or acting in the interests of women.

This is something that I think needs to be addressed and is something I do not exclude myself from, there have been people even stating to me that I'm not as funny as I used to be in
older content and this I think is true and is because, as I've said before, I've made a concious effort of late to move away from the old pattern that I began in of frequent jokes and
mockery with occasional data to frequent or entirely data with the occasional joke or mock, something that, while not as entertaining, I think, actually helps to combat at least the
surface problem. Which is why I couldn't help but notice any supposed 'rebuttal' to me is always aimed at really old content from back in the times when I was but a humble road sign.

I see no inherent problem, as I've said, with the simple entertainment of the punchy, snarky, witty, humourous response, entertainment is important and serves as an entrance point for
people into the more rational empirical data driven side of this cultural clash we've seen growing in recent years. It's a humour laden reminder to people not directly involved but who
are just beginning to see the effects of social justice, feminism and cultural marxism in their lives that they are not alone in thinking this is strange, weird or outright crazy. However I
think there's a growing disparity between the numbers of people doing the humour entertainment side, the easy attention grabbing part that as we've seen from the explosion of channels
doing it that can lead to some pretty easy e-fame, and the number of people willing to dig deeper and do the leg work to interpret and understand data and it's underlying causes.

So, what are these underlying causes I've mentioned throughout this video? These I think are still the most contentious points within the camps of the man-o-sphere and things that I've
addressed to varying degrees on this channel over the years, things that go beyond the social and the political and things that even those within this same circle people seem to have a deep knee
jerk aversion to even considering. Topics which are often met with phobic cries of "you're just as bad as the feminists!". The topics of gynocentrism and hypergamy. Things which we have
overwhelming data to demonstrate the effects and existence of in various fields and yet they still remain the hardest pills to swallow and I think this stems from people's absolute lack of
will to accept that biology can be a part of certain facets of behaviour.

Tell someone that their brain is wired to prefer sugar, fats and salts, high caloric foods, a behaviour that is
irrational in itself, these things being nothing more than carbon, hydrogen and oxygen mashed together in various forms and yet they trigger in the brain a massive chemical response,
endorphines dopamine etc. tell people this and demonstrate it and they have no trouble accepting that things such as the obesity epidemic owing to over abundance of fatty sugary foods in
the rich western nations is simple a misapproriation and maladaptation of a behviour bred into humans over a series of tens of thousands of years dating back to before humans were even human
where individuals with a propensity for eating these things gained more calories, grew larger, stronger, more intelligent whatever and thus reproduced more or had offspring better suited to
their environments and thus the feedback loop of biology and environment continued ever onwards in this direction with individuals who had more of these receptors in their brain to feel
this food rush breeding more than those who had fewer until it became the majority trend of the species in whatever geographical area that adaptation was best suited.

This is not contentious, we are told this every day in the media it's accepted by all the but the most staunch social constructionists often within the fat acceptance movement.

Tell certain people within the so called man-o-sphere that mens and womens aggregate differences in behaviour in society come about as a result of basic socio-biological differences.
That men's higher rates of testosterone lead to an increased liklihood of risk taking behaviour, something necessary to succeed in business thus explaining why there are more male CEOs but
also more male homeless, after all, big risks either pay off big or fail big and again, only the most staunch social constructionists will find objections with this, the blank slate theorists.
Although given the overwhelming data against blank slate I'm still surprised there are any of them left. Tell this to them and then fill in the gaps about how the feedback loop of division
of labour and sexual dimorphism necessitated certain social layouts that is, hypergamous gynoctrism, men being the on average more physically competant sex, on average greater muscle mass,
higher aerobic capacity with bodies that adapt to these quicker and at higher thresholds etc and womens need for a period of gestation for their babies and then an extended nursing time
lead to societal arrangements that were made to benefit and protect women and encourage men to be of utility in this is suddenly the line that gets crossed and for whatever reason
cannot happen.

As soon as we hit the crucial line of daring to suggest that this arrangement lead women to prefer men who protect them, prefer men who are the fittest and to actively seek them out
and that it would lead men who fullfilled that role of carer and provider to be more likely to reproduce? HOLD UP! Absolutely not. There is no biological basis for attraction or society at all!
For some people at least. Even though this is the exact same process that lead to the human universal of prefering sugars and fats thus perpetuating a feedback loop of behaviour to
environment, those who prefered the beneficial behaviour owing to minute brain differences that enabled fractionally different behavioural output were fitter in reproduction for such a long
time frame that it became the norm, phrase this in simple things like behaviour around eating, no problem, frame it as a statement for preferences in mating partners that
then informs societal structure as a result of the basic process of survival of the fittest? Absolutely not! Why? Why as soon as this exact same process is used to identify the reason
why women have on aggregate (not all, but a majority) preferences in always 'marrying up', to use the phrase loosly, this becomes a problem? It is easily observable and quantifiable.

Humans play a hypergamous mating games, they always have and always will. Females determine what it is that males need to do in order to reproduce or at least go through the motions of
reproduction. The existence of contraception does not change the rush in the brain that people get upon successful intercourse, it is still driven by that basic urge.

This basic framework
explains why it has been well documented that women have easier times getting sex than men, with some studies finding that women will respond in the positve to proposition 0% of the time
with 0 incentive yet men respond some 75% of the time also with 0 incentive beyond the knowledge that they simply get to have sex.

Women hold all the cards, if a woman becomes pregnant, she wins the game of life, she knows she will reproduce her
genes, it is simply a matter of picking which genes will benefit her genes the most should they be mixed. Men are not so fortunate in their choice, they must demonstrate their worthiness
and even then success in mating does not assure reproduction for a man explaining why many men feel the need to have as many sexual partners as possible.
If a woman could reproduce on her own, no need for external input and all the necessary care was provided for her child, how many
women would seek a stable partner? The answer is very few, why commit to someone when you can get everything that person would provide but without any of the downsides of having to deal with a person?
Why self impose any limitation when you could have total freedom? This is hypergamy left unchecked and actually forms the basis of pretty much all of feminisms demands. We want women in XYZ fields, men
must do this for us, why? because if you don't you hate women and won't ever get laid. We want the state to force companies to provide child care, men have to do this for us (men being the majority tax
provider), why? because if you don't it's because you hate women and won't ever get laid rinse and repeat ad nauseum on every issue feminism has ever talked about.

Why is the anti-feminist anti SJW crowd suddenly so anti-science when it comes to this point? The people who will quite happily take the side of science when it suits to explain certain
social patterns and societal layouts suddenly spurn that very same science when it perfectly explains why the introduction of a welfare state and female birth control leads to the total
disinfrancisment of men and basically the removal of any value they would have in society leading us to the so called 'man drought', with highly educated, high earning women suddenly demanding
that men must do better because they refuse to do what men have been more than willing to do throughout history and date and marry down.

And I know what the reaction to this will be. Even from those who as I've said will happily use this same science when it suits them, they will turn on this explanation and call is pseudo
science, call it biological determinism, call it anything that they can to attempt to discredit the very same process that they happily defend and exploit in their own argumentation when
it suits them.

There is no judgement in this explanation, no good or bad, right or wrong in pointing out that this process happens. That owing to evolutionary pressure and the rise of certain reproductive