The Vox Day thread

BortimusPrime said:
Here's what would really happen if a Gamma tried to act out his Sigma fantasy: say he swoops into a party and starts tooling the alpha and then blatantly hits on the alpha's females. Depending on the social class of the party that guy is either going to get sneering disdain from the alpha, tooled back harder by the alpha, or invited out back by the alpha for some pugilism. The betas and women in the party will take the social cues from the alphas and mirror his behavior, driving off the interloper. That's the social approval, that's what makes the alpha the alpha.
Of course you will fail trying to be sigma using an alpha/beta mating strategy(social circle, nightgame). That's why sigmas don't do that...

scorpion said:
The Catalyst said:
Can someone do the actual math on this situation and with the math described what actually happened? I went and looked at the post and it seemed like Vox was correct about the astronomically low probabilities.
Vox asserted that the probability of someone being at the scene of both the Gilroy Garlic Festival shooting and the Las Vegas shooting was astronomical. On its face this claim seems plausible, if not likely, due to the way our brains interpret information. But it's statistically false. Vox's basic error was calculating the probability that a person taken at random from the entire population of the United States happened to be at both events. But that isn't the correct calculation. The correct calculation is finding the probability that a person who was present at the Las Vegas shooting was also present at the Gilroy Garlic Festival shooting. In other words, you're dealing with an existing population of tens of thousands of people (who experienced the first event at Las Vegas) who make up your pool of potential bystanders of the second event, not the population of the U.S. as a whole.
If you're right, point taken. I can't work out the probabilities for myself.
 

Eusebius

Hummingbird
Gold Member
A sigma doesn't tool alphas; he doesn't give a fuck. And he doesn't blatantly (i.e. clumsily) hit on females in a territory already staked out by the alphas. A sigma gives off cues of high social status without having a hierarchy beneath him. Some women will go for that, some won't.
The outsider thing is real. I don't get why some people deny it. Actually, I guess I do: because sigma status is always claimed by gammas and even omegas, especially online. But so what. Alpha status is always claimed by betas from behind the keyboard as well. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
 
RawGod said:
A sigma doesn't tool alphas; he doesn't give a fuck. And he doesn't blatantly (i.e. clumsily) hit on females in a territory already staked out by the alphas. A sigma gives off cues of high social status without having a hierarchy beneath him. Some women will go for that, some won't.
The outsider thing is real. I don't get why some people deny it. Actually, I guess I do: because sigma status is always claimed by gammas and even omegas, especially online. But so what. Alpha status is always claimed by betas from behind the keyboard as well. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I think that's the general problem with the whole male taxonomy. It always gets misinterpreted into a caste system based on the size of your cock. Hence you get the keyboard jockeys trying to rationalize the archetype they want to be based on the personality they project on their favorite D&D characters.

What Vox calls a sigma is just him trying to claim some sort of alpha status while having no charisma whatsoever. I suppose a real sigma would be more of a non-creepy omega than anything else, the salient feature is non-participation in the social hierarchy.
 

Leonard D Neubache

Owl
Gold Member
Rawgod FTW.

You have to have seen a genetic sigma in action to believe it, though I get the feeling even Vox is fooling himself in creating that category for the sake of his own ego.

Thing is, sigmas are really bloody rare. We had a thread on the forum for self identified sigmas and lo and behold every man and his dog was convinced they were sigma. A lot of functional (non-genetic) sigmas get there from gamma but are seriously prone to backsliding which is how I would characterise myself and Vox for that matter. But there are natural born sigmas which are really something else. My layman's observation is that they're half way to being psychopathic in that they dont recognise social authority structures but they still have a functioning conscience. And yet, women being attracted to men with psychopathy are for that reason drawn to genetic sigmas, even 5'6" ugly ones. The sigma's lingering conscience allows them to build comfort but the latent psychopathy is like catnip for women, making them 1st-night-lay machines. Guys like that don't even pay rent. They just bounce from one girl's bedroom to the next.

Like I said, you have to see it to believe it.
 

rotekz

Ostrich
Gold Member
The Google whistleblower Zach Vorhies has appeared on the Alex Jones Show. At 13 minutes in he recommends Vox Day's book 'SJW's Always Lie' to viewers as essential reading.

ZV: I actually want to recommend a book called SJWS ALWAYS LIE by Vox Day. That's the only book that I would recommend that someone would read.

AJ: We do sell it in our store. That's one of the few books I've read the last year, I've been so busy. Yeah, they always lie!

ZV: They always lie, and the thing is is that people that aren't familiar with the tactics, you know, because this is weaponized. They don't understand what's going on and so they're likely to make a bunch of mistakes they think that they just capitulate and like apologize then it's just gonna go away.

AJ: Oh no! A few years ago I'm like well I'm not really saying that about Sandy Hook but if you say I'm hurting you and sending people to your house, I never did that but I apologize, that's when they just full-metal attacked!

ZV: Yeah they double down and the thing is is that they're gonna parade your apology around and say well, you know, he admits to this and that, he's like X, Y, or Z bad person and then they're gonna use that and they're gonna parade it around. And this is not something that people understand intuitively and so the thing is, get this book, SJWS ALWAYS LIE by Vox Day and read it. It's a fascinating read and it goes by really quickly, and it's kind of a funny title but

AJ: The point is stop capitulating, stop kissing their ass.

ZV: Yes, exactly. Exactly.... So I followed this book, basically, as a tactical operation manual on how I was going to leak this information.

Four years after first being published it is a category bestseller again. Good going.

 

Hermetic Seal

Kingfisher
Gold Member
First SJW book was very good. Second one felt rather redundant.

If Vox stuck to writing stuff like that instead of sperging out and doing weird stuff like trying to make a YouTube alternative and comic books, I doubt he'd get so much flack around here.
 

Days of Broken Arrows

Crow
Gold Member
scorpion said:
Yatagan said:
The "jealousy" accusations of Shapiro and Peterson are bizarre and silly to me; why them of all people? Vox could very easily be "jealous" of highly notable figures, from neo-cons like Bill Kristol to someone like Tucker Carlson that's highly regarded in this sphere.
To borrow a phrase from Schopenhauer: Odium figulinum, or "trade jealousy". That being the natural enmity a man feels for those he views as both his peers and competitors in his chosen trade. Vox is not jealous of Donald Trump or LeBron James or Tucker Carlson because they are not engaged in the same trade. Everyone he feuds with, however, is coincidentally involved in one of the fields in which Vox prides himself, whether that be running an alt-right website (Anglin), writing books (Scalzi, GRRM), martial arts (Rogan) or being publicly regarded for one's intellect and debating prowess (Peterson, Shapiro).

Indeed, if you're actually paying attention, the fact that Vox does not focus his ire on the numerous and far more deserving targets out there makes his motivations abundantly clear. He only attacks people who trigger his gamma insecurity by receiving more attention that he does for performing similar work.
I think Scorpion is 100 percent on the mark here about "trade jealousy." But I want to add one thing.

The reason Vox leaves himself open to this accusation is because he devotes post after post to people, not ideas. When you're battling with individuals every day, it looks petty -- because it is.

Compare this to the classic posts by Heartiste in his heyday or Roosh -- or most of the manosphere writers. Their best writing generally took on ideas or social trends they didn't like. Or they critiqued media and/or academic institutions. This is the difference.

When these manosphere writers did battle against individual people, it was often people in wildly different fields -- like feminists who wrote ridiculous articles, for example. Or authors. Or even the people behind movies and TV shows.

And they generally didn't pick on the same people again and again. How many times do we need to hear Ben Shapiro is flawed? We get it already. I would not even think about Shapiro anymore but Vox keeps bringing him up.

All of this is why I can go back to Heartiste or Return of Kings and continue to get insight...whereas when I go to Vox Day my thought is "Oh no, who is he beefing with today?"

This is not to say Vox doesn't have insights. He does. But his intelligence gets lost in his constant one-sided feuding with whoever his enemy of the moment is.
 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
Days of Broken Arrows said:
...
I think Scorpion is 100 percent on the mark here about "trade jealousy." But I want to add one thing.

The reason Vox leaves himself open to this accusation is because he devotes post after post to people, not ideas. When you're battling with individuals every day, it looks petty -- because it is.

Compare this to the classic posts by Heartiste in his heyday or Roosh -- or most of the manosphere writers. Their best writing generally took on ideas or social trends they didn't like. Or they critiqued media and/or academic institutions. This is the difference.

When these manosphere writers did battle against individual people, it was often people in wildly different fields -- like feminists who wrote ridiculous articles, for example. Or authors. Or even the people behind movies and TV shows.

And they generally didn't pick on the same people again and again. How many times do we need to hear Ben Shapiro is flawed? We get it already. I would not even think about Shapiro anymore but Vox keeps bringing him up.

All of this is why I can go back to Heartiste or Return of Kings and continue to get insight...whereas when I go to Vox Day my thought is "Oh no, who is he beefing with today?"

This is not to say Vox doesn't have insights. He does. But his intelligence gets lost in his constant one-sided feuding with whoever his enemy of the moment is.
There are literally millions of purple-pilled right-leaning normies who don't get it, and who are completely taken in by scumbags like Shapiro. That's the audience that Vox is trying to reach here.

The irony with these takedowns of Vox from the last couple of pages is that they accuse him of being petty, but those barbs are themselves rather petty, as they focus on his personality instead of his ideas and positions... I think it boils down to a cultural issue, arrogance being the ultimate sin in American culture, and Vox is definitely guilty of this.

Vox calling out the cucked/gatekeeping establishment fake right, people like Shapiro, AJ, Peterson etc, is an essential work. There are very few pundits that are undertaking this work. If not him, then who???



From my perspective, the main criteria to judge a media pundit are
(1) whether he can sift through the mainstream narrative and understand what is really going on in politics, culture and society, and
(2) whether he's honest and not manipulative.

Vox clearly meets both criteria.

Molyneux for instance doesn't meet the second criterion.

Owen Benjamin has some shortcomings with the first item (though he nails nearly all the important stuff) and is totally legit on the second item.
 

rotekz

Ostrich
Gold Member
HermeticAlly said:
If Vox stuck to writing stuff...
Current Vox books in progress:
1. Third in SJW series.
2. Extended version of 'A Sea of Skulls'
*** Trigger Warning***
3. 'How To Win Like A Dark Lord'. lol

Current Vox Projects:

Alt*Hero Comics including Alt-Hero Q
Dark Legion Comics Publishing
Alt*Hero Movie 'Rebels Run' in pre-production.
Owen Benjamin Euro Tour
Unauthorised TV (Not a YouTube alternative. Subsidised in-house content creators, documentaries, dramas, comedy as well as other wholesome programming taking on Netflix and the like.)
'Social Galactic' right-wing moderated social networking, about to relaunch with an in-house engine. It's nothing like Gab as there is no free speech.
Castalia Book Publishing
Info-Galactic taking on Wikipedia.

There is no one else doing more in culture war right now.
 

Hermetic Seal

Kingfisher
Gold Member
Allow me to re-phrase myself...

If Vox stuck to writing/working on one or two things at a time.

It's all really ambitious, I'll give you that. But I don't see any reason to think any of this is going to have much impact in any sense.

Don't get me wrong, I'm rooting for Vox all the way. I don't want him to fail. If he can take down Wikipedia or YouTube, then great. I'll eat my words, admit I was wrong, give him credit. But considering he hasn't been able to deliver the second book in his fantasy series after four-ish years (or the video game he announced something like seven years ago), far less ambitious projects, I'm not exactly optimistic.

As far as comic books and movie production, this is where Vox *really* lost me. I couldn't care less about this stuff, and I'm sick of comic book movies as is. I think this would be a great area to disrupt for people who are really into those mediums - but Vox pretty much admitted he never cared about comic books and basically got into it out of opportunism. I read the first couple of Alt-Heros, backed the Kickstarter (or whichever alternative he used), tried to get into it because I thought it was a good idea at the time. I was extremely underwhelmed.

The problem with Vox is this: most of us here agree with his positions. We agree that there are huge issues with people like Peterson and Shapiro. But his personality and various flaws (appearing jealous of other public figures, over-taxonomizing everyone) are so intertwined with his day-to-day writing and livestreams that there's no avoiding it being a huge turnoff. The dude just gets more and more unlikable, 10+ years into reading his stuff. I'd rather spend my time elsewhere.
 

Easy_C

Crow
My answer to the commonly made argument that Vox's critics are just jealous of his success:


Do you not realize that impression is exactly what his own behavior causes? Vox tends to aggressively insult, belittle, and attack anyone who is more popular than himself. He does it with such frequency and consistency that it gives off the impression of not a strong movement leader, but of someone who is triggered by the observation of anyone else being more popular than himself. The behavior isn't "alpha". Trying to climb status hierarchies through the creation of social drama is feminine behavior.
 

Athanasius

Kingfisher
Easy_C said:
My answer to the commonly made argument that Vox's critics are just jealous of his success:

Do you not realize that impression is exactly what his own behavior causes? Vox tends to aggressively insult, belittle, and attack anyone who is more popular than himself. He does it with such frequency and consistency that it gives off the impression of not a strong movement leader, but of someone who is triggered by the observation of anyone else being more popular than himself. The behavior isn't "alpha". Trying to climb status hierarchies through the creation of social drama is feminine behavior.
I just don't get that sense from Vox, that it's about getting back at those more popular than himself. He even admits he's arrogant and a niche product. I think he's largely an honest observer who, for example, thinks Peterson and Shapiro are dishonest gatekeepers. He also doesn't really like gossip.

His imperious behavior is ridiculous and embarrassing (he's almost autistic at times), which obscures his interesting thoughts to some degree. But I think it's a personality flaw borne from arrogance, not secret-king style resentment.
 

debeguiled

Peacock
Gold Member
Leonard D Neubache said:


Me combing through this thread trying to figure out which pro-Vox member is actually Vox. :laugh:
It's obviously 911.

Good job on "SJWs Always Lie," by the way. It is the one thing you did that I appreciate.

And your secret is safe with me.
 

PharaohRa

Kingfisher
Vox Day has his flaws but he serves a purpose, which is to call out the bullshit! Despite his flaws, he is doing what is necessary to make sure that right wing views are kept on the straight and narrow. You have to be blind to not be able to see that!
 

Leonard D Neubache

Owl
Gold Member
debeguiled said:
Leonard D Neubache said:


Me combing through this thread trying to figure out which pro-Vox member is actually Vox. :laugh:
It's obviously 911.

Good job on "SJWs Always Lie," by the way. It is the one thing you did that I appreciate.

And your secret is safe with me.
Let's test the theory.

911 said:
Grazie DBG!
You're missing a commer, there. Are yuo retarded or something?
 
Top