Apr 28, 2019, 11:08 AM (10 days ago)

Hi James,

In one of your podcasts you spoke about how debating is kind of effeminate and a better way to approach conversation is to look for ways build people up, especially other men. It sort of struck me like playing toss - you want to give the person something they can feel good catching. Would you speak to this? I tend to have different takes than other people but it comes at the cost if I don't make people feel good talking to me. It's not merely an issue of technique, but habit, attitude, and awareness.

Let me give you an example. Last night I was out with my girlfriend at a photography meetup. I don't own a camera - just there to make sure my girl doesn't get mugged or hit by a car. And also to practice talking to people. So far, so good. But at the end of the night people were swapping stories and this middle aged women talked about the time that she was at finish line at the Boston Marathon when Teddy Brusci finished the race. She asked if she could have a photo with him and he said he didn't have time. And she was pissed about it. "But so-and-so, the Hero of the Boston Bombing, was there, and he had time to take photos with the media...."

Now, I could go on all day about this woman's entitlement and stupidity. (Who wants to annoy a man with a lifetime of concussions ?) I told her, more or less politely, that it was his choice and she wasn't entitled to his time. If he stopped for her he'd have to stop for everyone.

I don't think I crossed a line or anything, but did I win any friends? Not that that woman or that group are important, but I was a slave to my desire to correct idiots, to be right. And that's a terrible habit. How does one break it?

Best,

Polymarchus

Yes, you were right to practice your people skills.

Idiots do not deserve correction.

People like this woman can be used for practice making friends.

Making friends is how men stayed alive when journeying between various tribal societies.

Arguing is what women do among their own kind.

Debating is the elevation of a woman's squabble to a spectacle, which is negative in three aspects:

-it is emasculating

-it is dehumanizing

-it conceals, obscures, twists and misuses the truth.

Like pacifist Christian cults, debate is made possible by the protection of better men.

With the woman, you practice comforting her in the aura of your masculine psyche by asking her questions and helping her recover from her anger.

"Why do you think he was not sensitive to your needs?

"If he is such a callous man we might reconsider our admiration and our time spent supporting him as a gift to him and withhold it. Perhaps we might want to reconsider our support of celebrities altogether and support each other in our lesser pursuits instead.

Your goal, while projecting masculine calm—something agitated women desire in their bones—is to make her feel better about that event, to put a positive spin on it.

Women are good for sex, breeding, rearing small children, singing, dancing and domestic chores. They are not capable of imbibing and applying reason, morality or ethics, which is why they are sought out by political handlers for political and military leadership. The inherent subjective corruption of the woman makes her an ideal tool for managerial tyranny.

Her only purpose in social settings is to demonstrate and improve your ability to emotively wrangle her weak kind, and can be generalized to the handling of emasculated undermen.

I will cover the question of dealing with men in such settings—especially bitch men—in part two, as a fighter of mine gave me a workplace for instance yesterday involving a man which fits. I will finish with a part three, addressing the question of manly concord as a living guidepost.