Should It Be Necessary To Qualify Generalisations When Speaking To Men

Xsplat is one my favourite posters in the manosphere. I often find his writings insightful, thought-provoking and sometimes inspiring.

A comment I made on his article entitled “If she claims she’s ever been slipped a roofie, she has BPD and is lying.“, in which he references a Roosh V forum posting (which I admittedly mistook for a different article, since I was somewhat hastily scanning the post on the tube – my bad), provoked an interesting debate, whereby Xsplat posits that it isn’t necessary to qualify a generalisation when talking directly to men.

In fact, he then went to make a post out of his reply to my comment here – “You don’t have to preface every generalization with “mostly”, when talking to men.“.

Since I was mentioned in person, I thought I’d expand upon my original point, and in the spirit of inspiring debate post it here too.

Although I already replied to your comment on the original post, since you mention me specifically in this one I figured I’d use the opportunity to expand my point.

First, I agree entirely that when dealing with reasonable people the qualifier on a generalisation should not be required. And indeed, as you say, many of the people who read this blog should be credited with that level of intelligence.

However, I also believe that any reasonable, intelligent man would have already come to the conclusions of your other post without requiring any additional evidence. I know that personally I have been rolling my eyes at such claims for many years, long before I even knew the manosphere existed.

If we, as manosphere writers, only wish to appeal to those readers who have sufficient levels of intelligence and are already inclined towards our way of thinking, are we not guilty of preaching to choir?

I don’t know if that is in fact your target audience – it might be. Myself, I hope that my writing reaches some other people who are perhaps sat on the fence, who are still in possession of a measure of blue pill thinking. For those people, seeing what appears to be a sweeping generalisation will cause them to reject out of hand what otherwise they may have been led to believe, by simple dint of indicating that a generalisation was being made.

As you say, although it should not be necessary, unfortunately for those people who have lived their lives under a cloud of blue pill thinking, political correctness, and NAWALT, I believe it is.

As I wrote out this comment, it caused me to reflect upon why I find it necessary to qualify my statements to the degree I do. I find myself many times a day, whilst interacting with various of my friends, all of whom have varying levels of exposure to the red pill, attempting to persuade them to my way of thinking. I arrive at the conclusions that I reach due to a logical thought process, whereby I feel that the opinion I hold can be irrefutably and objectively held up to scrutiny, and as such enjoy attempting to bring others round to my way of thinking.

Ultimately, I like to share knowledge with those people who matter to me, so I want to bring as many people as I can along on this ride with me. If that means watering down my language a little to make my opinions more palatable, giving them time to sink in and be mulled over before being rejected out of hand, then so be it.

22 thoughts on “Should It Be Necessary To Qualify Generalisations When Speaking To Men

  1. Yes, that’s often good politic.

    I like the power of polemic. People tend to gloss over what they agree with, but polemic makes them feel uncomfortable enough to see where the edges are.

    And edge can be used with craft – bold sweeping statements on my blog are not casual and offhand. They are delivered accurately, and with intent.

  2. Also, a little edge of polemic is an easy way to avoid boredom. And mixed in after long lulls of agreeable prose cuts up the air with a sharp questioning jabs.

    Friendly, friendly, friendly, friendly-jab! Once the reader is sympathetic to you, a little polemic can kick him in his saggy pants and force him to get his edges straightened out.

    • Nobody wants soggy pants.

      I applaud your use of polemic then in this case, as it provoked a reaction from me that in turn led me to introspection as to the origins of my desire to make things more palatable for a general audience.

      • I agree with your general intent of being persuasive to a wide audience.

        I searched google for “polemic”, to make sure I was using the word correctly, and the wikipedia article notes a long list of persuasive polemicists.

        So while finding common ground Dale Carnegie effective, polemics is George Orwell effective. Different effective styles. Hitler was a polemicist, and he was persuasive.

        I’ve been learning to be more diplomatic, over time, and I agree that being on the same team as your audience is a powerful position for persuasion.

  3. Pingback: Should It Be Necessary To Qualify Generalisations When Speaking To Men | Viva La Manosphere!

  4. I agree we need to show some care n how we word things in order to better communicate with outsiders but I think the fundamental purpose of the sphere is to not play by the outside rules. This is our locker room, where we can talk freely and where we shed of all shame for being masculine and living as we think is correct and we state it outright in writing for all to see. Being able to generalize and shedding the programing to underline exceptions all the time is part of that unapologetic way of being and being unapologetic in that way and not changing when pressured but just pushing forward is key to how we will change other people. That said I do think some care is important and I think it is good that SOME of the bloggers take it upon themselves to play the role of entry points to the sphere where communication is more careful. But the sphere in general should not change like this to much because the sphere is supposed to be free of all that crap.

    • I do hear what you are saying. I believe a large part of the readership of the ‘sphere is quite young and impressionable however, as evidenced by the comments on Return of Kings and Chateau Heartiste for instance.

      Many of them won’t yet have developed the critical thinking skills necessary to spot a generalisation when it is being made for the sake of polemic, as Xsplat states, and will then go around in their day to day lives spouting it dogmatically.

      Still, different strokes for different folks. I strongly suspect that my urge to temper the somewhat more extreme statements springs from the heavy maternal influence on my upbringing.

    • On an aside, I recently found your old comment including the link to the AMP video. It really is extremely good, and as I recall you pointing out in a comment at the time, would represent a far simpler and less painful path for men to arrive at self-actualisation rather than forcing themselves through the traditional “baptism of fire” route espoused in pickup blogs.

  5. Qualifying your words is a general mark of intelligence. I would never abandon such a practice simply based on what men may expect. There’s no excuse for not expressing yourself as clearly as you can.

      • It is only through qualification that clarity is achieved. Entire fields of science have been discredited unnecessarily because of imprecisely parroted results.

    • Hello pal, good to hear from you.

      I’m great thanks for asking. Currently gearing up for retirement by the end of the year, and relocation to Brazil – can’t wait! Intermediate goals include obtaining the physique of a fitness model, and dating models. You know, the usual 😉

  6. Jeremy, I’m not sure how interested you are in the art of rhetoric, but if you look into it you’ll find that logical clarity is not the soul of it.

    From this article is this quote:

    “We of all people know that using pure logic never helps with arguments or discussions, people are appalled at the notion of manipulating but find when using pure logic these just leads to a rise in anger of those involved. Seduction (manipulation) used in persuasion is a great pacifier and yes it is manipulation, it’s why many people shy from it. Half of an argument is the manipulation itself. To reach the conclusion of an argument/discussion you want ‘consensus’, it’s more than an agreement and more than a compromise, it’s a shared faith in a choice, an action or decision that you want, it represents your audience’s commonsense thinking. Religious preachers know faith requires emotion and the persuasion behind it to create faith. People have to desire the act but they won’t want to fight, logic rarely get’s people to do anything. ”

    Persuasion is not a matter of legal clarity of thought.

    • Although in fairness, Jeremy did cite science as his example. Persuasion should have no place in science – a theory stands or falls on its own veracity.

      That said, in this day and age, the scientific method has been perverted by financial concerns and political agendas, and rhetoric (quite wrongly) forms a large part of it. Look at the global warming “debate” for a prime example of this.

      Pure logic definitely has a place in arguments and discussions with other reasonable, rational, intelligent men. It certainly has no place in seduction.

  7. “Pure logic definitely has a place in arguments and discussions with other reasonable, rational, intelligent men.”

    Right. And reasonable men admit to the context surrounding a sentence. We don’t need to be hyper vigilant to say “in general” as a qualifier for each generalization in honest rational discussion.

    Women or those with an opposing agenda will nit pick and dissimulate, and qualifying every generalization is now a habit people use to get them the fuck off of our backs with the god damned NAWALT all the time. But these people are not trying to have honest and rational discussions. They are trying to find any small fault to nit pick in order to discount the relevant data, to discount the generalization.

    It’s really pointless to cow tow to that type of nit picking. I say fuck em. Why let them barge into every fucking sentence we write? And if they want to disagree, we can correct them and point out the context. And needless to say it would do no good whatsoever – more dissimulation would follow.

    Look, some people just want to be inflamed. They are keyed up and hyper aroused and jacked up looking for some all-men-are-rapists fault. I won’t let such people control my honest discussions among honest rational people. I don’t have to have them force me to tip toe around in hyper vigilance.

    Rational people are my audience. The rest are not my concern. And that’s my attitude to much of feminist and other irrational thinking that is pure agenda that discounts any reasonable discussion. Fuck em. It’s noise and I don’t care.

    They are only as powerful as the power I give them, and I give them no power.

  8. And also, let’s not forget that rhetoric is useful and persuasive even amongst the most rational and honest of men. Polemic is a tool used by some of the most respected and influential writers society has ever produced. Polemic forces a man to take intellectual sides. No wishy washy let’s all get along lack of boundaries.

  9. I’m going to drone on. The contentious post title was “If she claims she’s ever been slipped a roofie, she has BPD and is lying.”

    We can all immediately see how this would inflame people cautious to never discount the real and tragic distress of a woman done wrong.

    And no one, I mean NO ONE, would ever read that sentence and then go on to believe that NO woman has ever been slipped a roofie and fucked. That will NEVER happen. There is no actual danger in making that statement. The only “danger” in it is pissing someone off who is vigilant about women being taken seriously.

    How about the benefit? Men will benefit. Even in the worst case scenario, if a retarded man takes that statement as meaning that 100% of women throughout history who have claimed roofie rape are lying, then (chances are) that belief will do him a great deal of good.

    You see, the point is, that men SHOULD NOT give women the benefit of the doubt about this subject.

    • I think you might be allowing passion to cloud your reason a little bit here.

      “And no one, I mean NO ONE, would ever read that sentence and then go on to believe that NO woman has ever been slipped a roofie and fucked. That will NEVER happen.”

      This is a patently untrue statement. There is no such thing as a certainty, especially when dealing with subject matter such as this. You are giving the rest of humanity waaay to much credit. Or are you again using polemic to illustrate a point?

      Basically, for me it boils down to:
      – it shouldn’t be necessary to qualify generalisations when talking with reasonable, intelligent men
      – not all readers of my blog at the least are going to be reasonable, intelligent men however. But they might be persuaded to come round to that mode of thinking with a remark which isn’t quite so polarising
      – so therefore I qualify my generalisations

      If the intended audience of your posts is simply intelligent, reasonable men, then you are correct in saying there is no need to qualify statements. But then perhaps there’s no need to even make them in the first place – we already know that a lot of women make up date rape comments. It comes back to preaching to the choir again.

  10. I have a difficult time imagining that there can be a single person on this planet who doubts that at least one woman has ever been given a roofie and then fucked.

    That’s not polemic.

    I doubt any one capable of thought thinks that.

    It is a very reasonable doubt to have.

    Furthermore I doubt that any human on this earth – yes, ANY human – I’m not saying that for effect – would start to believe that NO woman has ever been roofie raped based on my statement.

    I think what this REALLY boils down to is a knee jerk reaction to protect the neotenous. Nothing to be ashamed of, we are built that way, as humans.

    However this knee jerk natural human instinct is a disadvantage to men, in this specific circumstance, because women most often simply lie to gain advantage regarding this.

    Therefore in order to aid men, it is helpful to state the case in stark terms. If a woman claims roofie rape, run away and don’t look back.

    • A large part of the readership of the manosphere are impressionable young people. You’ve only got to look at the comments on the most popular blogs like Return of Kings and Heartiste to see this.

      Many of them lack the rationality and critical thinking skills to make their own mind up on things like this. The wholesale manner in which they eat up the “dark triad” and “machiavellian” nonsense bears testament to this. I honestly believe that if they keep seeing statements like that around the sphere, they will take it at face value, and start parroting it.

      Good word by the way, neotenous – had to look that one up!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s