3 Beta Habits That Some ROK Readers Need To Get Rid Of

I’ve noticed a disturbing trend here at ROK.  A collection of individuals have emerged who enjoy espousing commonly known alpha concepts, yet simultaneously exhibit remarkably beta tendencies.  I refer to them as purple pill.  Not fully blue, but certainly not fully red either.

I try to take their nonsense with a grain of salt, mainly because most of them are obvious trolls. For the ones who are sincere, they are trying to undo a minimum of 20+ years of feminist brainwashing, which does not happen overnight. Once we’ve had our eyes opened to the truth of masculinity, we crap out all that blue beta poison. Unfortunately, as with most excretions of this size, some remnants remain.


This transition process is critical because it is when a newly made man is most likely to fall back into old habits. Like any addiction, relapses are common, and beta traits that are not befitting a man still rear their ugly heads from time to time. I feel it’s important to recognize these bad habits to prevent them from hindering our self-improvement and growth as men. Here are three bad habits we need to lose:

1. Arguing

Arguing is a waste of time. A man does not argue with anyone. Using good old-fashioned plain speaking, he succinctly makes his point and doesn’t belabor it. If you agree with him, great; if not, he doesn’t really give a shit. If you’re obviously on opposite sides of the fence, his time is too valuable to waste trying to get you to see his point, and he has no interest in seeing yours.

Don’t be fooled by people who say they just want to engage in “debate”. Debate is just a fancy word for an argument and should be left to politicians, talking heads, and insecure people in love with the sound of their own voice (typically intellectuals), who all have a pathetic need to convince themselves and others that they’re as smart as they like to think they are.

As arguing is an inherently feminine trait, it usually devolves into childish ad hominem attacks, loss of composure, and irrational hysterics over trivial matters, none of which any man should partake in. It’s also why most of the kids on your high school debate team were girls, their beta orbiters, or closeted homos.

I’ve seen people on this site go back and forth over the course of an hour, and I can’t help but think two things:

1. How much self-improvement could you have engaged in during this time?


2. What are you doing with your life that you have this much free time to argue with a stranger on the internet?

Men who are seizing life by the balls don’t have excess time to argue with strangers on the internet because they are too busy being winners by building a business, improving their minds and bodies, and approaching women. Minimize your time on the computer and join the club.

In a perfect world, people who like to engage in pointless arguments would get Conneried with extreme prejudice.

2. Ad Hominem Attacks

An argument should not be confused with a discussion, where two men engage in a sharing of ideas or opinions in a mature and civilized manner, and can respectfully disagree without engaging in ad hominem attacks, which is the last resort of a person who either likes to argue but has no argument, or who lacks the discipline to control their emotions. Women are not the only ones with rationalization hamsters, and attacking someone with juvenile name-calling allows a weak-minded beta male to feel strong and rationalize his lack of a counterpoint by “telling someone off”.

The weakness of the person is especially telling if they resort to this tactic right out of the gate with absolutely no provocation. I can only assume that most of ROK’s readers are millennials who grew up engaging in this form of communication, whereby your ability to “diss” someone is more impressive than presenting cogent points. Typically the more excessive the name-calling, the weaker the argument is.

This is also a great indicator of troll methodology, using personal attacks to incite an emotional response to divert attention from the rational discussion at hand, eventually devolving it into Yo’ Mama jokes (I’ve actually seen this happen). Since ROK is a website devoted to masculinity, our trolls are feminists, manginas, and white knights. All three groups share the same basic feminist mindset and we know that feminists like cursing excessively to feel manlier, so when you see this tactic, recognize that you’re dealing with either a feminist troll or a weak-minded beta and ignore them as they’re not worth your time.

3. Seeking Approval

A very common phrase I’ve seen passed around recently is “this is going to ruin our credibility”.


We are a traditional masculinity website in 2014 America. We live in a society completely dominated by radical feminist ideology that has been conditioned for the last 45 years to consider our brand of masculinity toxic and hateful. We publish articles stating that women who cut off their hair are damaged, when every female celebrity idolized by women is doing just that. We reserve entire weeks to shame sluts and fatties, while the society you’re worried about appeasing believes garbage like this. News flash, gentlemen: we have no credibility to ruin.

Approval is for betas, women, children, and dogs.  Men neither seek nor need it.  What we do need is to stop whining and crying about how we’re going to be perceived by society.  Unless all of our articles from now on are titled “I’ve Seen the Light: The Patriarchy is Real” or “How I Learned To Stop Being A Misogynist and Acknowledge Women As Men’s Equals”, the feminist-dominated mainstream media in the West will never give us any credibility. To society, we are the outcasts. The creeps. The assholes. The losers.

If you truly believe that the feminist horde will just wake up one day and say they were wrong, ROK is right, and they’re ready to be chaste girls then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Evidence, facts, and reality cannot penetrate the shield of cognitive dissonance they’ve erected in their minds. This site is not about convincing women to see our point of view, but rather helping males become men. Where strong men lead, women follow, regardless of how feminist they are.

At the time of this article, Jizzabel’s Fakebook page has 488,316 likes. Femifisting has 124,976. ROK has 9,111. That should put into perspective where we stand. I check out these sites periodically because I like to know my enemy, and the one thing that stands out in stark contrast to our site is this: unity. Their comments section is virtually devoid of the petty squabbling that you see here. While their thought processes are clearly out of touch with reality, at least they are in agreement within their delusion.

Meanwhile, we’re busy calling someone a faggot because they had the audacity to learn a system of martial arts we don’t approve of, instead of applauding the fact they’re learning to defend themselves instead of sitting at home playing Warcraft or masturbating to anime porn.

We need to grow up and recognize that we’re vastly outnumbered and falling victim to feminist trolling and infighting is only going to further fracture and divide what is already a small collective. This site is meant to be a safe haven where men can be men, a place where we don’t engage in the same crap as the society we left behind. Let’s not turn ROK into the Fakebook of the manosphere.

Read Next: 5 Pieces Of Advice For Men Who Are Tired Of Being Beta

203 thoughts on “3 Beta Habits That Some ROK Readers Need To Get Rid Of”

  1. Wonderful article, I bet Plato, Socrates and the Apostle Paul were all beta faggots because they loved to argue.

    1. That motherfucking Socratic method! It’s for Pussified men…er. I can’t think of a greater intellectual hero. He is an immortal.

    2. Stopped reading at “a man doesn’t argue”. What kind of irrational, nonsensical article is this. Is up down, hot cold, and black white as well? Tell you what Samson Lamont, you’re a tool, no need to argue with that.

      1. Did he do that? Didn’t he write in the next paragraph:
        “Debate is just a fancy word for an argument”

        1. Yup.
          The issue boils down to the menu of ideology that came about in the 20th century. Communism and/or multicultural egality. Joined at the hip this you find feminism. It’s no coincidence that the February Revolution that deposed the Czar in Russia was staged on International Women’s Day 1917. Who could object to a bunch of Suffragettes agitating for equal rights eh? Who could object to the equality of Moishe Bankstein and Edogolu the Turk? Fucking bastard Czar! Patriachal aristocratic white bastard! We are still stuck in this paradigm. 100 years later.

    3. The Author is confusing Argument with Quarreling.Argument is essential to thinking and there is an art to it with correct and incorrect ways to go about it.Women NEVER argue,they spew whatever makes them feel good about themselves ,which can be inconsistent,at variance with facts,or self contradictory,which is why the more feminized society becomes the more batshit insane its Modus operandi must strive towards to realize such a society.
      No man would ever be able to break out of the Blue Pill mindset if he did not engage in argument.

        1. Third. What a bunch of pussies we are.
          Slaps everyone’s ass.
          Proceeds to argue.

        2. Fourth. Apart from the miss-use of the word ,,argument” a real man takes no shit from anyone. Good article !

        3. A real man doesn’t worry about taking shit. He can take all shit and not care if the circumstances require so.

        4. I respectfully disagree that people who use underhanded and dishourable methods of argument are pussies. People who do this come from a position of weakness rather than power. It is why women, conditioned from evolution from a position of weakness, just can’t see how they are more powerful in many ways and continue to use manipulation and other unhanded means.
          Men who resort to this sort of battle techniques are truly truly coming from a position of weakness. They have absolutely nothing in their ammunition to make them magnaminous in argument and other things in life. Of course if they do have potential but refuse to develop it, they might be called pussies. But many people, many men included, just don’t have it.In the past, they would have simply been killed off as cannon fodder seeing that do not have the ability to carry children as a last vestige of a claim for surivival.

      1. Good point. My professors at Uni would have the most vicious arguments with his colleagues (usually via journals) but at the same get on perfectly fine when he met them in person.
        I think a distinction needs to made between rational argument and pointless bickering.

        1. Passion and fanaticism can be divided by a simple social nicety: the fanatic doesn’t change the subject.

    4. Don’t know what to say about Paul, but Plato, and the Socrates through whom he spoke, never argued. He inquired and discussed, until his interlocutors were forced to contradict themselves. He engaged in discussion. Properly known as dialectic. No ad hominem. No arguing. He didn’t need to “diss”, for the people with whom he spoke ended up dissing themselves. This made them angry at him and hating him for “making the weaker argument the stronger”. So they killed him. He got no approval, but we still remember him. Socrates is immortal.

      1. He did get hot under the collar. Socrates was a soldier btw, quite a vicious one. I might also add that he had an awkward relationship with Alcibaides.

      2. Anger! Anger is a fellow of ours take advantage of that fellow and make him your life!

      3. If you want to improve yourself and shake off that brain washing you were exposed to then just get a Boomer mentor and imitate him.A Boomer was never brain washed and what he does is the natural way. His instincts are always correct and he doesn’t need to improve himself because he was never defective. He doesn’t even know how to be a pyjama boy. He never argues because he is the recognised authority on all matters and lessor beings will never challenge him. Only little blanket boys need to argue to try to prove themselves.

        1. Wrong. When you went off to college, you came home and told me I was full of shit. You were co-opted into the female dominated culture. Just saying.

        2. Actually, this is a great point. I’m often struck by how obvious and natural the Boom’s relation to Game and being a man appears, including the weirdo New York loft living poet types where you wouldn’t expect it. Like Richard Hell for instance, by whom I’ve just happened to read an autobiography. Apparently, they were given the right tools by those Greatest parents.
          Only problem with it of course is that at the same time, the Boom largely created the insane world we have had to endure, and tried to make sense of growing up.
          Guess it boils down to finding the right Boomer, or at least study what they do, not what they say or profess to believe. The guy writing this is a Swedish Xer.
          P.S: Generationally, the Boom needs to be defined. In order to avoid a lot of hairsplitting, I’d say Boomers (or ’68ers) in general are those born in the 40’s and 50’s. Xers are from the 60’s and 70’s and Millennials from the 80’s and 90’s. There are shades of grey at the edges.

        3. What the hell are you talking about? The Boomers are the narcissistic seed-bed of the brainwashing. All the brain-washers are boomers. Avoid them like the plague. Find somebody older, or, from another culture. Failing that, read and learn about the old ways through study and put that study into practice.

      4. He was killed because he was personally associated with a particular faction of Athenian politics which was Pro-Spartan.
        He was highly irritating in that sort of society truth be told. Socrates advocates eugenics, a near totalitarian government of Guardians and the removal of children from the organic family. He’s your worst fucking nightmare in many ways. Go and read the Republic and if you can’t see something of the nazi or the communist there you are blind.

        1. Curious about your source for “Socrates was killed for being prospartan.” Would be interested to read more.

        2. The Thirty (an oligarchy that Socrates supported) were Spartan puppets. The Republic is a veiled stump speech advocating Spartan social organization. Alcibaides was Socrates mess mate and was a Spartan agent.

      5. People get really mad on this site when you politely question their argument. They usually respond with insults. The moment you expose the shaky ground a weak man stands on, he becomes hostile and defensive.

    5. Philosophers make arguments, but I’m sure Plato never went around “getting into arguments” with people who were only interested in pushing their own position.

      1. He was a very disputatious person. Ugly too. anti Democracy and pro eugenics.

        1. Are those last two supposed to be bad things? LOL
          P.S. It’s Socrates who was supposed to be ugly.

        2. It’s hard to tell Plato apart from Socrates, given that the Athenian playwrites present Socrates as a very different character than Plato presents.

      2. Exactly the opposite. He made it a point to argue with people like that, often using their hypocrisy to hold them hostage to the debate, while demolishing their ignorance for public spectacle. (That is to say, Plato’s Socrates did this; Plato recorded Socrates’ disputes, but there’s not much to show what he himself did).

    6. Socrates certainly didnt entertain the stupid which is the majority of petty internet arguments.He well understood that you should not argue with those that lack virtue. Meaning the uneducated because they had no knowledge of truth and therefore lacked virtue. Socrates didnt like democracy for that very reason. It leaves you arguing with everyone. When really should be only arguing with your intellectual peers.

      1. Here is a synopsis of his reccomendations for Athens and the lineage of his ideas into our own day. The rigid caste-based society which Plato described in his “Republic” had many totalitarian traits, despite Plato’s stated goal (the search for justice), and it was clear that the citizens served the state and not vice versa. In his “Leviathan” of 1651, Thomas Hobbes envisioned an absolute monarchy exercising both civil and religious power, in which the citizens are willing to cede most of their rights to the state in exchange for security and safety. Niccolò Machiavelli’s “The Prince” touched on totalitarian themes, arguing that the state is merely an instrument for the benefit of the ruler, who should have no qualms at using whatever means are at his disposal to keep the citizenry suppressed.

        1. My god man…. I didn’t know you were so well versed! How can you be so well read and yet behave so ignorantly?

        2. You throw the ignorant, generalized, essentialist words around like a brainwashed fool. I’m racist and whatnot because I know exactly how things work. Society is a racial construct.
          Also I don’t behave in any particular way that would get me noticed.

        3. I don’t understand… what ignorant, generalized essentialist words do I throw around? There is a certain irony here that you seem to simultaneously doing this while accusing me of the same.
          If Fisherking and Director are the same person, I have certainly noticed you.
          If you are racist then by definition you have no idea how things work. You display a primitive mind and seem to have no grasp on what reality really is.

        4. You use “ignorant” “don’t generalize” and other lefty buzzwords instead of head on fighting. Most racists are far from ignorant. It’s a bitter realization to see that there is no such thing as common humanity. I’ve enjoyed sparring with you btw.
          I detest the way that anti-racists inevitably call racists ignorant or say that racists are guilty of generalizing.

        5. Sometimes people are ignorant and some generalizations are invalid. You should know that I’ve been at the sharp end of racism many times in my life (physical attack or verbal abuse) so it’s hard for me to view racism as anything but an ignorant ideology. And when I say ignorant I mean the racist viewpoint does not match what I know of science or of my friends and family.
          In spite of your ideology you’re actually a likable and witty chap, unlike some of the brutal men I have known in the past. And your grasp of history and humanities shows there is more to you than a strong disregard of black people.

        6. yes, and there is an interesting connection women have with The State, look up “Stephan Molyneaux estrogen” on youtube

        7. Incorrect, prejudice is built into human nature, I would not expect a person to save a stranger before their own relative or child, regardless of the fact that intrinsically, the stranger and the relative have the same value. When you add extrinsic value, which is how humans place value on others and objects, your argument fails. To deny that humans make judgments is to question your own existence, a pointless and untenable exercise. The kind of philosophical close mindedness I find in people who have never known or attempted to understand real strife. It is you who are ignorant.

        8. This is very interesting but it has nothing to do with what I said. As for not knowing strife… Oh my friend know of whom you speak.

    7. Socrates, by what we know of him, did not argue. Instead, he asked questions and allowed people to find wisdom or, better yet, find an argument against their own argument.

    8. Arguing means something different in this article, not presenting rational/logical arguments.

    9. Hahaha, and on a side note, If I masturbate to everything but anime porn…say like everything but anime and homo porn, am I a man then?
      “Just curious?”

    10. Plato’s dialogues weren’t dialogues with an actual person. They were literary devices. The Greek philosophers like Socrates and Aristotle were people with incredibly high social status; they debated because other people wanted to debate with them on various things (and use their wisdom), not the other way around.

    11. >we know that feminists like cursing excessively to feel manlier
      >beta faggots
      Ban this fuckwit.

    12. They were discussing, not arguing. Author made a clear difference between that.

  2. I’ve taken away some good wisdom from RoK by disagreeing with some of the posters.
    I feel like I’ve gained the most when I’ve been proven wrong or someone offers up a better or fresh perspective.
    I think what the author is arguing against is argumentation for the sake of argumentation.

    1. I think what the author is arguing against is argumentation for the sake of argumentation.

      I assumed the same as well. RoK is overrun with more trolls [and amateur polemicists] now than ever before. Prior to engaging a fellow reader in conversation, I ask myself three questions I believe every many should ask, on- or off-line:
      [ 1 ] Am I responding to a troll?
      [ 2 ] Is this man rational and/or making rational points?
      [ 3 ] Will this be an edifying exchange?
      Someone mentioned Plato, Socrates and the Apostle Paul earlier [which could also be considered ad antiquitatem, btw] and although I hold these men in an especially high regard we shouldn’t engage in all arguments, regardless the conversation’s quality, simply to keep with tradition.

      1. You are right! One must remember the context of the great philosophers.that by virtue of the fact that these men could read and write they were in the top 1% of the society that they lived in- wealthy families would pay for tutors. Aristotle was the tutor of Alexander the Great. whereas now functional literacy would be about 95% of the Western population. When you only deal with the top 1% and that is your job and the other person is well respected then it’s worth your whole arguing. In a modern context it most certainly is not the same playing field.

      2. I thought this website was a safe haven for male polemics that counter the standard politically correct narrative. You must discuss to learn from others, that’s what makes this website important, more so than the articles. Calling someone or labeling someone a troll is akin to covering your ears and screaming when someone says something you disagree with. All your judgments on whether a conversation is worthwhile are founded in identifying attributes that you cannot possibly know.

        1. I thought this website was a safe haven for male polemics that counter the standard politically correct narrative.

          RoK is the antithesis of a debate forum and if anything we need more open dialogue and fewer polemicists. Further, arguing with strangers on the internet is a Sisyphean task that I can’t endorse.
          If a man has a genuine love for debating, he should join a Debate Club on Meetup, assemble a group of like-minds to debate or start a debate at Debate.org.

          You must discuss to learn from others, that’s what makes this website important, more so than the articles.

          I disagree. The editorials are what drives visitor traffic and thus generates conversion.
          No editorials = No Traffic = No dialogue = No website
          Also, I believe there are glaring differences between discourse and dialogue. You’re still confusing the two activities.

          All your judgments on whether a conversation is worthwhile are founded in identifying attributes that you cannot possibly know.

          Would it be fair to assume you believe my conditions for qualifying a conversion should be adjusted to the following:
          [ 1 ] Is this man rational and/or making rational points?
          [ 2 ] Will this be an edifying exchange?
          [ 3 ] Am I responding to a troll?
          Or do you believe I should disregard the entire list and we should all debate for the sake of debating?

        2. You’re right, I don’t know why I tried. You will always disagree with me. Debate.org is stifling, the initiator always loses because human psychology acknowledges last made points first when voting, which is why voting is a bad way to judge the merit of ideas. I think our divergence is based on what I consider good rationalism, where I deem it impossible to know if someone is a troll, but as I try to learn from every exchange in some way; my empiricism as a scientist leads me to conclude it as edifying. All in the interpretation and application of the experience. Quite the same as approaching women to improve game, even if it ends in failure most of the time.
          I won’t respond again; too busy; I was trying to promote thought.

        3. I knew you would prove my point but to your credit, you made two sound points of your own.
          I agree with you in regards ‘trolls’ to a some degree. An indiscriminate communicator cannot spot a ‘troll’ but this doesn’t make it impossible.
          For example:
          I identity a ‘troll’ as anyone who enters a dialogue with an agenda. I’ve found this to be a reliable litmus for deciding who to interface with and who gets deflected but as you said, this interpretation may vary given the judge or scenario.
          Also, I absolute agree with your original statement ‘You must discuss to learn from others’ To be honest, I almost deflected this exchange because I had sensed your agenda (i.e. “trying to promote thought” ) but am glad I didn’t because you made logical points and this is an edifying exchange. However, I respect you for challenging what I believe and most men don’t share those morals.
          My only advice is in response to the question “I don’t know why I tried?” The best thing I can recommend is to stop “trying”
          You’re contributing to a forum filled with men who already share your most important world views [unless you’re in the wrong place]. What’s left to debate? Better yet, why not fight the impulse to debate altogether and simply fellowship?
          Ultimately, there is something to be learned from every exchange in some way. I guess the point of my initial comment was that arguments and debates are, by nature, emotionally taxing endeavors. Sometimes, it’s better to enjoy good company by allowing cooler heads to prevail.

          the initiator always loses because human psychology acknowledges last made points first when voting, which is why voting is a bad way to judge the merit of ideas.

          I’m curious, what do you believe is a better way of judging the merits of an idea?

        4. The best measure of merit, in my mind (though I am not an idealist), is results produced from the application of those ideas. This is why I think, the best that can be garnered from debate is to further refine one’s own philosophy and how they interact with people who inevitably will disagree. This is very useful in creating incentives for production in groups, and thus economically and socially important. It sounds cold to say you need to know how to handle others, but good leadership depends on developing this; and on the internet, developing an understanding of other people’s thoughts and conclusions is entirely risk free. 🙂

        5. In addition to my other reply, I see your point based on your definition of trolling. I would say most think of their cognitions as mostly correct, but, unrestricted on the internet, take this to an extreme, and I can sometimes seem reactionary to counter this. Other than my preference for seeing deeper into the emotional thought process of certain extreme and absurd ideology, there is little hope of impacting one who is sonorous in preaching tirades. Good company and enlightened discourse without thought blinding emotions is hard to find on the internet, where overestimation of intellect and accomplishment is common.
          Just out of curiosity, and feel free not to answer, what is your primary area of expertise?

  3. “At the time of this article, Jizzabel’s Fakebook page has 488,316 likes. Femifisting has 124,976. ROK has 9,111. That should put into perspective where we stand. I check out these sites periodically because I like to know my enemy”,,,,,they are as much as an enemy as a horde of hamsters. I wouldn’t over estimate them too much.

    1. What would you estimate is the ratio of male:female readers/posters on these sites?

    2. Women are herd animals. Men are tribal and predatory. Likes on a Facebook page count for nothing if you don’t say exactly what you mean. An unexamined life isn’t worth living.

      1. Perfect. I will argue with an intelligent man , but shake hands and have a beer together after. Men learn and bond entirely different then women, and comparing ROK likes to Jez. likes confuses the the issue.

    3. When women post something on facebook they average 26 likes, when men post something on facebook they average 3 likes.

  4. To have a website where real logical discussion without the trolling and emotional zeal of the internet is a rare commodity these days. It’s not so much the angry tirades people post on here but the “return fire” attitude that most internet jockies adopt that becomes counter productive. I’m all for discussing facts and time tested principles backed by results. I’m thankful for every disagreement and “reprimand” that people wiser than me have dished out. Otherwise I would not have seen the errors of my previous judgement and apply the correction to my life. Its about SELF improvement. Maybe some people still hold on to pride and ego as a way of life. To me it’s absolutely irrelevant. Call me anything you want…I just read it as %^^$$^^%$#@….heres the real information….$%^%$#%^&. But I digress…the point is, we can only grow if we can really process constructive criticism. A real man is not only able to admit when he’s wrong but also has the will to make the change and adopt a new ideology…no matter how inconvenient it may “feel.” In my book, being proven wrong is a GIFT.

    1. “In my book, being proven wrong is a GIFT.” Love this quote JLundone. It happens to be a philosophy of mine. Most are taken aback by this. “Why do you wish to be proven wrong?” I like being proven wrong for the very reasons you stated. I dislike being told I’m wrong because you (anyone) have failed to prove it to my satisfaction with logic and reason. The more I learn (from ROK and it’s readers), the more I realize I don’t know as much as I thought. I look forward to reading your comments in the future.

      1. Your “friends” will say your shit don’t stink. But your Friends…yeah they will prove you wrong not for the sake of looking good…but for the sake of trying help you grow. I have very very very few Friends.

      2. cheers to you mate for understanding that you are alone in this life and must do what you can to change your fate by yourself. Remember, those that say good things to you are the frauds of society. Just look at how women lie to each other. “Oh your hair looks so pretty” “You’re so thin and sexy.” And you look at them both they’re fatter than your 54 year old uncle mark with congestive heart failure. The truth is hard to look at. Society has taught us to be PC and “love our selves” I say bullocks! Look at yourself long and hard…then list down what you don’t like…then proceed to do everything in your power to change it. Consult with like minded people for knowledge and wearily ignore the rest. They’re not really there to begin with anyways.

        1. Good point. I do attempt alot of self-analysis. Most think this is sign of self-loathing. You Sir, would think differently. Being critical of ones self is the most efficient way towards improvement. Thanks for the reminder.

  5. This is a fantastic article. For months now the comments section here at RoK have been drowning in the long mundane bloviating drivel of those who believe their wordy pontifications offer something of value to us.
    Those of you know who you are.
    Please see the articles section on ” insecure people in love with the sound of their own voice (typically
    intellectuals), who all have a pathetic need to convince themselves and others that they’re as smart as they like to
    think they are.
    NO comment here should be more than a few sentences long. If you can convey your opinion succinctly and cogently in that space then…see above.

    1. This is a fantastic article. For months now the comments section here at RoK have been drowning in the long mundane bloviating drivel of those who believe their wordy pontifications offer something of value to us.Those of you know who you are.

      Great observation. You’re absolutely right but I think the problem is deeper than that.
      At the risk of pontificating, I believe your original idea is compounded by the fact that comment sections have devolved into a competition to see who can be ‘the biggest bitch’ [e.g. witty quips, scathing one-liners, etc]
      One would assume that readers of RoK, “a blog for heterosexual, masculine men” would be above ‘bitchiness’ but case in point:

      Wonderful article, I bet Plato, Socrates and the Apostle Paul were all beta faggots because they loved to argue.

      That was the highest voted comment for this article. Which isn’t terribly uncommon.
      Aside from shamelessly dropping the names of dead philosophers, it lacks context, depth; only encouraged a slew of mediocre comments [and pointless small-talk] but was up-voted simply because it was the most visceral comment made.
      As for the author, it’s unlikely anyone has seen him comment before; I doubt we’ll see him comment again and I highly doubt he will even respond to anyone who responds.
      C-sections are an excellent platform for would-be firebrands and internet comedians to [respectively] pontificate for hours on end and try out their best zingers without ever having to interact, communicate or build a rapport with anyone.
      An example of our culture’s extreme narcissism at it’s absolute fucking worst.

      1. Your doubt is misplaced unfortunately.
        Incidentally, the author thinks you’re a pussified omega just for trying to engage with me. Why bother defending him?

        1. Not defending, just making a observation.
          The author does cast a wide net but makes a few good points along the way, e.g. What are you doing with your life that you have this much free time to argue with a stranger on the internet?
          On a personal note:
          I believe there are glaring differences between an argument and discourse; So, I always try to make a distinction between the two. I rarely engage in arguments and only share discourse with those whom I also share a mutual love and respect.
          If a man has a genuine love for debate, he should join a Debate Club on Meetup or assemble a group of like-minds to debate. I am part of a weekly ‘salon’ at a buddy’s cigar shop where we wax philosophic and debate contentious subjects.
          With that said, arguing with strangers on the internet is a Sisyphean task that I can’t endorse. Aside from the fact that a stranger doesn’t give a shit what we think [and vice versa], what you say is almost always disregarded because it wasn’t what the stranger would say or wanted to hear.
          I leave you with this sir.

  6. Here are the alexa rankings for the sites mentioned:
    1. Jezebel: Global-1,673; US-488
    2. Feministing: Global-48,693; US-12,631
    3. ROK: Global-12,071; US-3,803
    Jezebel ranks much higher but ROK ranks much much higher than Feministing.

  7. To paraphrase (Not necessarily in this order):
    Stop trolling.
    Learn some fucking self-control.
    Fuck everybody.

    Honorable Mention goes to:
    Don’t be a sanctimonious douchebag
    and Stop being a fgt.
    As a postscript to this: Bitterness and righteous indignation are not synonymous with ‘Red Pill’ It just makes the rest of us feel like hanging out with a premenstrual ex-girlfriend.
    Great write up Sampson, your timing couldn’t have been more perfect. The RoK c-section is like the Wild West now; It’s getting too loco. A man can’t even have an opinion these days. Some of us needed this a week ago.

      1. I’m already working on an algorithm that calculates the exact amount of time.

  8. Thank you for that article,
    and dam you for that link, I cannot un-see that shit and now my eyes feel like they ate a whole box of doughnuts and washed it down with a gallon of classic coke, uggh.

  9. This article is right on point. Discuss and disagree if you think that way but don’t argue, belittle and verbally crucify other men because they do. This is a sight for helping other men. If you feel it can help you take it in. If it can’t don’t. Very simple concept but many don’t practice it.

  10. I wonder how much of the infighting between readers of ROK is truly fighting instead of simple friendly abuse.
    One of the primary differences between men and women (at least until women tried to be more manly) was that women would be polite and friendly with their friends/frenemies and acquaintences… Men show that they care through abuse, homoerotic humor, and other good natured “rabble rousing”.
    Typically, men are not “nice” in their discussions and often participate in near constant insults and shit talking.
    While I agree with everything this article has stated, I don’t think men will ever develop unanimous agreement in anything.
    It just isn’t our nature.

    1. A herd of men! That sound fucking awesome. Sarcasm off.
      When have you ever seen a united front among all men? Born to fucking kill each other over the big game.

    2. Right and we don’t take it personally. Gals on the other hand will take even the slightest insult personally and take it to the grave with them..

        1. Like your handle Baron Von munchausen has psychiatric diseases named after him. Munchausen ‘s disease and munchausen ‘s disease by proxy. Both of these mental disorders occur almost exclusively in FEMALES supporting our ( ROK /manosphere) notion that women are batshit insane

  11. I actually find arguing with my wife to be just the manufactured drama she needs from time to time. But you have to use it like buying flowers, unpredictable and rare (1-3 times a year).

  12. I did notice a notable upsurge in the quantity and virulence of these trouble-makers as of late whom I (half-jokingly) referred to as NAS trolls/agitators, as they most definitely did not represent genuine redpill participants in these here debates of ours. Though I now believe them to be nothing more than your lesser garden-variety feminists, manginas, and white knights with too much time on their hands as alluded to in the article above, I did at one point believe that the PTB were taking sufficient notice of what is occurring in these redpill corners of the interwebz to warrant mobilizing some sort of preliminary perturbance in order to detract would-be converts from the more “insurrectionistic” ideas preached hereby. On further reflection, I may have been wrong in this regard, insofar as I now believe that the messages conveyed here, though beneficial to the genuine redpiller, will probably keep falling outside of the scope of interest of the general public at large who will continue to follow its bluepill programming with little disturbance as set out by the cathedral.
    Even so, seeing them show up here and attempt these ridiculous ad hominems did encourage yanking their chains once in a while just to see what makes them tick. That said, though the exchange was short and cathartic for those who simply played the game and avoided getting drawn in further, the real mess was generated by those who either failed to recognize the game for what it was and did not terminate their interaction on time, or (possibly) by other prescribed cooperators assigned to see to it that the desired mess was well and good completed.
    Watching the c-section of RoK evolve and change over time is highly instructive in its own right. Though there are bound to be bad apples along the way, I maintain that the best commentators found here have indeed provided attentive readers with invaluable much needed perspective and insight that has gone on to help them improve their overall standing in life immensely. That a few slave masters have gotten upset along the way for failing to enchain a number of would-be subordinates due to RoK is their loss and may their come to suffer it well.

    1. If anyone lands a blow on me then good for them, if I do likewise and damage an opponent good for me. Thesis Anti-Thesis Synthesis. Failing that it’s good practice.

  13. In high school and college I wasn’t in any cliques or fraternities but I had a great social life anyway. In fact I almost didn’t make it out of high school because of my great social life. I’ve always been a renegade, maverick, free spirit whatever you want to call it and have the scars to prove it. I know the other side, our rulers enforce a rigid orthodoxy that would make Stalin blush. So please at ROK don’t try to do the same thing to me. Tell me how and when to argue or debate a point. I know most communication and debate today doesn’t even deserve to be called lowest common denominator, but I’ve learned many good lessons having reasoned debate with other intelligent articulate people, the vast majority of which have been men. Still, when you write crap like “The Elliot Rodger Massacre Marks the Beginning of the End for us” you’re going to lose credibility and lots of it. With me. Tell me as a man I’m not allowed to think that way.

  14. Respect. I love it when a blogger says “get off the computer”. Like Adam Carolla yelling “stop listening to podcasts, and go build something”.

  15. Regarding the facebook likes for the mentioned sites. It would guess that most men don’t want to be associated with the Manosphere publicly. The Manosphere unjustifiably has a bad wrap and, like the author mentions, is deemed to be the venting area of “the outcasts. The creeps. The assholes. The losers.” Given this perception most guys would not “like” the ROK website on their facebooks less they be automatically branded as Elliot Roger apologists and sympathizers. Although the cause is noble, it is not yet accepted and can be a source of persecution.

    1. Or they just don’t use the giant contributor of negative social behavor that is Facebook.

      1. It’s plausible but unlikely. Based on the alexa rankings that I mentioned in a previous comment, the popularity of the site doesn’t properly correspond to the amount of likes for the ROK site. The Feministing site has a significantly higher number of likes on FB. However, the ROK site is significantly more popular in terms of visitors.
        I don’t have all of the numbers and metrics in order to make a better hypothesis. But my original theory isn’t far fetched.

        1. I would posit that RoK’s tendency to post extremely offensive and incendiary things earns a lot of page views from people who come here specifically to counter them. Therefore, a substantial percentage of your traffic is not your supporters – but you are probably also correct in assuming that there are readers/members who will not “like” it publicly on facebook (though apparently this is “beta” behavior and you should shamelessly trumpet your ideology without caring what it will make people think of you, if this article has anything to say about it). It’s probably somewhere in the middle: more fans than facebook likes, but less fans than traffic totals.

      2. Agreed, don’t use “Vaginabook” or Twitter. Why would any man that comes here use those “attention-whoring” websites?

    2. • “It would guess that most men don’t want to be associated with the Manosphere publicly.”
      I’m inclined to wonder: Why NOT?
      Facebook “likes” are knot a reliable indicator of ANYTHING. There is a reason there is no “hate” button. THE MESSAGE: You either “like” something or you will shut the fuck up. That’s dishonest, manipulative and stupid. Just look around at what is “liked”. Who would want to be counted among that shit?
      There was a time about 500 years ago when everyone on Earth would have Facebook “liked’ the idea the world was flat. What IDIOT would want to be counted among them?
      I would rather be the guy who gazed at the moon and passionately said “goddammit you’re all idiots, the fucking planet is round just like the sun and the moon at all times… and the stars move in a CIRCULAR fashion. And see how the moon casts light and shadow like a sphere? And why is the Eclipse casting a ROUND shadow on the moon? Fuck you all I am going to build an Armada of ships and prove to myself at any cost that you are all fucking morons.”…. so who CARES if you don’t get “liked” for that. Galileo didn’t get “liked” … he got exiled and sentenced to death by the Church. And the only reason he lived is because they told him to never speak about it again.
      But Galileo knew something they didn’t.
      The truth can wait. For it lives a long time.
      There is NOTHING a bunch of Facebook “likes” or approval by women, Jezebels , or leftist femtartds can do about it. Generating likes on Facebook is hardly a challenge. Just say “women are smarter than men” and BANG!!! you will wake up tomorrow with a dozen likes from every cunt on your “friends” list. But they are VALUELESS. Facebook approval is cheap and worthless and far too easy to generate. There are companies and bands that ask you to “LIKE” them before you heard their music or purchased their product!!!! “like me!!” like me!!!” Fuck of you no-integrity having pieces of shit.
      • “Like us on Facebook to download!!!”
      • “Pay with a TWEET!!!”
      • “Thanks for the follow!!!!!!”
      It’s pathetic.
      These are the very same people that obsess over the number of “followers” online… but if you “followed” them around in REAL LIFE they would now brand you a “creepy stalker”.
      Sherri Shepherd on “THE VIEW” (still 500 years later!) admitted to not knowing if the world is round or flat. Yes really. Google the video. To be associated with the Manosphere is something to be proud of with that kind of shit getting “likes”. And since I saw that, I posted her stupid ass in that video all over the net. On Yahoo. On Youtube. Even on Facebook back then. Nobody “liked” what I had to say about it. I humiliated that broad at every opportunity. Including posting her piece of shit video HERE on ROK for everyone to laugh at.
      …. and only days ago… she got FIIRED. Yes. That stupid cunt finally got fired from the View and the headlines read “Flat earther Sherri Shepherd gets fired from the View”. All the women who “like” her don’t mean a fucking thing when truth is on your side. Maybe – in some small way – I (or the Manosphere) had something to do with that. Wouldn’t that be excellent? That’s cause for a goddam celebration.
      Sherri Shepherd and all her sheeple can WEEP.
      The world is fucking round, bitches. “Like” it or not.
      Men proved it 500 years ago.
      Manosphere wins. You lose.
      Always has. Always will.

  16. “Debate is just a fancy word for an argument and should be left to politicians, talking heads, and insecure people in love with the sound of their own voice (typically intellectuals), who all have a pathetic need to convince themselves and others that they’re as smart as they like to think they are”
    There’s something to this, although a part of me thinks its hate speech against a vulnerable misunderstood community (edit: no, I’m not serious). ROK has done a lot to persuade me though of the pointlessness of debating with people whose minds will always be closed to anything substantive I have to say. The lesson to take away I think, and which requires more discipline than I have a lot of the time, is to use one’s words wisely, with economy and restraint.
    Having said this I don’t entirely agree with the logic behind this. Post and be damned because ROK will never have any credibility anyway is probably not an entirely honest opinion. Credibility and popularity are not the same thing. Yes, some articles on ROK are going to be click bait, or deliberately provocative to the liberal consensus, but as other posts have pointed out this is a site that showcases a variety of opinion. Tuthmosis on short-haired women is responsible for what he has to say. Quintus, 2Wycked etc are responsible for their work and so on. Like any media what is published on ROK may or may not imply full editorial (i.e. Roosh’s) approval and support. What I feel personally though is that is its important that taken as a whole the site does offer material, ideas and debate that can demonstrate its credibility. That should not mean appeasement, or playing to an audience whose only interest is in denying any such credibility. What it means is making strong, cogent arguments, that will ultimately carry sufficient force in the wider discourse to if not necessarily persuade then force itself into public consciousness.
    So, its good not to compromise, or worry too much about ‘credibility’, if by that what is meant is appearing moderate, or polite or agreeable to the liberal elites, or for that matter the hoi polloi, but there is also a danger to isolationism. Saying what needs to be said, may also mean saying what needs to be heard. If we do not attend to those who receive the message we will be no different from those with a poor understanding of the minds of others, like schizophrenics, who publish and are damned not so much by the content of what they say but because that content presents as unintelligible, and therefore can be dismissed out of hand. That is to say the message, the communication, must be carefully weighed and directed if it is not to be indulgence, or an exercise in building some kind of separatist community capable of having little cultural impact. All we really need at the moment is to maintain a sense of proportion

  17. Solid article. I don’t scour the comments section too much but every so often I do see the petty infighting. Never thought much of it until now. Glad somebody addressed it.

  18. Great F’ing article. I still do this to some point, but I’ve slowly calmed down on it. This will only make me stop all together

  19. Well said.
    Though, I have to say that debate is healthy. Healthy for men. The masculine men that created this country (before it was ruined in the 20th century) believed in healthy debate.
    It’s feminism that believes that all debate should be quashed and all thought should be solipsistic. Personally, I have no interest in that such a world, definitely not among feminists and betas, and not even among men here on ROK.

  20. Engaging in trivial arguements indicates that SOMEONE ELSE is pushing your buttons, NOT YOU. Engaging your woman at hand is what she wants. Radio host Roy Masters had enough material from his one and only wife’s shenanigans to do a long running show. His advice was to ‘be still and aware’ to neutralize the situation. My advice is to focus on your STRENGTHS. Like rock – paper – scissors, you can skew your detractor regardless of their arguing, bitchhing skills, etc. If the swing of your dick exceeds her bitching abilities, then put her to sleep with it. And it is quiet. But never play rock-rock, not with your boss, your bro or your bitch. Bitch back and it escalates to mangina cops dispatched. Just listen to your local police scanner and the biggest alarm is always a ‘domestic’. Units all around scramble like a bunch of F-16’s that just saw a UFO, and it’s all to settle A FRIGGIN FAMILY DISPUTE. Sirens blazing, they race right by crack deals, coming primed and ready to shoot Jack right out in front of the house that Jack built. Manginas and white knights in black monkey suits. Only the true patriarch RULES WITH GRACE. Whereas historically the female rules with the leather whip and fishnets like the dominatrix from Genesis II. Only the true patriarch can stop the clock and put a reverse spin on the rock- paper – scissors game, making it CONstructive instead of DEstructive.

    1. I never argue with women. Ever. They have small brains. I negotiate and occasionally appease, but generally I just DO. I also let them make errors and provide the solution once the girl is done farting around.
      Arguing and even disputing with men is different.

  21. Good points. Purple pill: priceless. White knights, manginas and male feminists must be pink pill.
    At any rate, this article on ROK continues to resonate with me as it’s the one that drove me to rethink several of my blue pill habits:

    The Golden Rule Works

    Aside from the religiosity of the linked article, I find the premise relevant with the above. Best line: Slap a fool for Jesus.

  22. Chesterton made a distinction between arguing and quarreling. Arguing can be good if both parties are interested in discovering the truth. Quarreling is pretty much what the OP described. Socrates engaged in lengthy dialogues to discover truth, but even he mocked the Sophists.

  23. Brilliant article Samson, I see a lot of people on here (wannabe intellectuals) provoking childish arguments by name calling etc. I see people on here saying racist things about Blacks, Jews, Whites, and Asians. None of that garbage has a place here. I also see people on here ranting about how bad an article was when they haven’t contributed 1 article on this website to help anyone out. Sure, I’ve read great articles such as this one on ROK, but I’ve also have read good articles and average articles. But I’ve yet to read 1 article on ROK that I couldn’t pull at least 1 useful nugget out of, and that means the writer succeeded with me. If you are going to bash writers on ROK and be a “professional literary critic” do me a favor and drop 5 dollars into the ROK tip jar every month (I personally drop $20 because I’m on this site daily).

    1. What is wrong with tribalism and nationalism? A man needs a territory. Personally I see anti-racism and feminism as joined at the hip bullshit. The first people to hound you in public for making a slightly racist joke are always Equalitarian females.

      1. A man with a scarcity mindset needs Territory! To a man with an abundance mentality the world is his Territory. As for Tribalism, we are the Tribe of Men, not the Tribe of Black Men, not the Tribe of White Men, Or Asian Men, that mentality is divisive. We end up fighting ourselves while the enemy unites and crushes us.

        1. What was that article about that described the Battle of Lepanto? Did the women everywhere win that fight or the Holy Roman Empire? What is war if not men fighting over resources? The equivalent of Medea might end up stabbing you in the back and murdering your offspring but you better fight for what’s yours and dominate other men while you are at it.

        2. Scarcity mentality leads to progress. Abundance mentality leads to corruption, decadence, and eventual decay.
          Tell me again why an abundance mentality is better? I personally enjoy competition.

        3. Scarcity mentality says “there’s not enough girls in this club to pull a one night stand with so let me cockblock that guy by the bar who looks like he’s about to pull” Abundance says “there’s plenty of women in this city, maybe not in this particular bar so I will go to another bar to find them instead of cockblocking the guy by the bar.” Scarcity says “Its not enough money on this earth so let me sit on all my money instead of teaching others how to succeed because they may pass me up and become bigger than me”, Abundance says “there’s enough money in this world for everyone, so as long as my empire is built and secure I will help my fellow man get up the same mountain I made it up as long as I find him to be a man of integrity and ambition” I’m not trying to sell you on my point of view, its just the way “I” attack the world which has served me well.

        4. You guys keep your heads stuck in history books instead of going out and creating history. I never said it was anything wrong with competition, competition is what provides better products and services for everyone. How every I do see a problem with a Scarcity mentality, which is often the cornerstone to crime. A scarcity mindset has never served me or anyone I know well.

        5. I didn’t write the article about Lepanto!
          Get your head stuck in historical analysis. You might clean up then.

        6. different upbringing. I am actually surprised to see an optimist on RoK. Most of us have had our faces rubbed in reality for so long that we happily curb stomp pandora’s cunt.

  24. The only aspect where “purpleness” may be merited is calling us to get over the hate and do more with our improved selves than simply cycle through hordes of random lays. I’d like to see more articles on here about maintaining frames in relationships that involved children (whether they be in the nuclear family style or the increasingly more common post-nuclear style).
    When you really get right down to is, the key advantage of being a man and we have to offer, is doing what needs to be done when everyone else is consumed by emotion.

    1. Seriously, men are capable of ANYTHING. restricting yourself to just fucking one-nighters is as ridiculous as restricting yourself to just listening to one band. There’s more to life than getting laid.
      Then again, It might be a point of view. I have never understood the appeal of simply fucking a girl when you can turn her into a slave, body and soul.

  25. OK real life test for ROK denizens.
    When you are out on the road and some person cuts you off or pulls in front of you or generally does something stupid, do you react by yelling or honking your horn? Your emotional reaction cannot change the past and will not change the future.
    Yesterday a person almost exited the gene pool by opening their car door on a narrow street in front of my car doing 35. I swerved hard left because I could. Never said a word.
    Paraphrasing Andrew Luck as a teenager: Why let someone hijack your emotions?

      1. Yes, I honk for their attention to either avoid hitting me or look up from their phone and move forward.

    1. I simply offer constructive criticism, so that other drivers can improve upon their skill.
      E.G.: What do you think this is, a study in continental drift?
      You drive like old people fuck.
      Why do you hate baby Jesus so much?
      It’s called a turn signal, you filthy pile of dirt!
      The speed limit’s 50, you degenerate!
      (To bike assholes) Buy a car!

  26. Feminism can be summed up in one sentence . “All men are responsible for the worst deeds of the worst men and all women are only responsible for the best deeds of the best women”.

    1. No, it’s “people should be treated equally regardless of gender or sex.” This includes not holding the door open for me, not paying for my dinner, and all of the other supposed benefits of sexism that I would be ECSTATIC to trade for just an equal wage. If you think feminism is about prioritizing women OVER men instead of the effort to get us equal treatment, you’re not paying attention.
      Granted, if this is a website full of people who believe in the inherent and absolute superiority of men to begin with, there’s not really any space in your philosophy for feminism even as correctly defined… but like this article says, you have no credibility and there’s no point trying for it. So if you’re against even gender equality (even if you don’t want to call it feminism) just say so. Don’t waste your time trying to demonize feminism itself. A philosophy that has no place for equality doesn’t need to point out how or why feminism is somehow related to Nazis; all it has to do is say, “We believe men are superior and that women should serve and service us,” and voila, you clearly state that you are against feminism without ever once mis-defining or misinterpreting it. And it really would help you look less like a bunch of fucking idiots if you actually knew what you were talking about when you bring up feminism, and could explain why you do not believe in equality instead of having reactionary anger to women who expect society to progress to a point where we are judged on our merits and not our genitalia. If you think men are better because you have a dick, THEN JUST SAY SO. Sidestep that whole feminism word-trap entirely.

  27. This article is spot on, and quite pertinent.
    Just yesterday, I fell into such a trap when I visited Danger and Play. The article was entitled, “How To Get Out of the Friend Zone,” and needless to say it was a hot button with all who read and commented. It was well written, and well documented, serving as a cautionary tale of how men fall into this very real trap, and of course, how to avoid it.
    A commenter (name withheld) with all the perceived characteristics of a troll, tossed out the bait. He bashed the article, calling it “misogynistic crap,” or something along those moronic lines. DandP’s administrator answered briefly, and dismissed said troll. I, however, was unable to control my anger. I went on full keyboard warrior attack, called the guy a faggot, denigrated him, berated his masculinity (assuming it was even a male I was responding to) the whole nine yards. Rightfully, the Administrator and a few of the other commenters called me out on my behavior, and I realized what I’d done.
    It definitely taught me the importance of controlling myself and my emotions, and not to let myself be enticed by trolls. And if it was a man I was insulting, I wasn’t doing anyone any favors by attacking his masculinity without cause. We should be doing more to uplift one another, even in the face of disagreement, instead of tearing each other down. We are lions and wolves in the wild, not crabs in a bucket. It’s time we acted like it. I know I need to.

      1. LOL. Well, at least I wasn’t alone in my analysis. Still, I was wrong for going full retard.

  28. I think you underestimate the value of arguing. #2 and #3 are spot on but I went from far right wing Christian nutso to libertarian deist/agnostic due to arguing. It took me a while but I got there. Same for a lot of people when arguing. In fact, I’d make the case that arguing even just for the sake of arguing is very mentally stimulating. There is a reason top MBA / professors actually will make people defend the side they don’t believe in front of a class. That said, arguing with someone who has no desire to find truth is usually a waste of time.

  29. This article is rather stupid. It decries arguing by ARGUING that arguing is a bad thing. Sorry, but you post something on the internet, people are going to argue about it. Get over it. There is a productive value to arguing which other commenters here have already touched on. In addition, I would ARGUE that polishing up on your arguing skills is a form of “self-improvement.” I agree 100% about approval seeking, though.

    1. “I would ARGUE that polishing up on your arguing skills is a form of “self-improvement.””
      Lesson 1: Plato’s Socratic dialogues.
      Lesson 2: Aristotle’s Logic.

  30. If you guys think that arguing over message boards is somehow comparable to Greek Plato-esque debates, then you are deluded. Debating in real life can follow a multitude of points that you can actually put across. Plus it actually gives you a chance to see whether the other party is at all interested in your point of view, is not a mindless troll or even a sock-puppet.

    1. These debates were literary forms. I don’t see the big deal. To some extent boards like this are much more honest and enlightening than graduate seminars in college.

  31. Author see your’e out of SoCal-
    Places like Malibu and Laguna Beach aren’t that bad for aesthetics IMO.
    Iv’e met other Californians who hate the place due to taxation, red tape to run a business, hordes of overseas labor who are well organized and virtually impossible to compete with, etc.
    Where do you think is a quality spot out to travel and potentially relocate to?

    1. I would highly recommend out of the country. There used to be pockets of America that weren’t contaminated with Cultural Marxist subversion, but those days are swiftly nearing their end. Even the last three generally accepted international areas of traditional values (South America, Eastern Europe, and Southeast Asia) are showing more signs everyday of creeping Marxism gaining a foothold there. My recommendation is to read Roosh’s articles on the various places he’s been and check out the travel section of his forum for better guidance.
      As for SoCal, IMO it’s a vampire that feeds on youth. It’s great when you’re young and naive and sure there are lots of beautiful women, but as you mature and become wiser, that is not a good enough reason to stick around and get raped financially by Papa Guv’ment in the form of ludicrous taxes to pay for social programs used to support a bunch of losers who don’t want to work and think they’re entitled to your hard-earned money. It’s a shame too, because it’s a beautiful state and the weather is great. Hope this helped. Be well.

      1. “I would highly recommend out of the country.”
        So, when are you moving? The sooner, the better…

  32. The problem is that, in the modern world, if you don’t argue you lose. I can’t count the number of times i’ve bettered my position by arguing. I’ve gotten grades changed, i’ve gotten raises, i’ve gotten better customer service. There’s one big difference between good lawyers and bad: the good ones advocate for their clients (argue).
    The reason men have had their rights curtailed is that they think they can sit back stoically and they will be treated a certain way. Life don’t work that way, son. Maybe it did once, but not today.
    I mostly agree that arguing on the internet is a waste of time. But so are a lot of things we do for *entertainment*. Because thats all it is for most people (i hope).
    If i’m losing an argument, will I resort to an ad hominem attack? Fuck yeah. Because it might work. In my younger days I thought i was above it.
    Occasionally i’ll run up against someone who doesn’t fall for emotional attacks. Fine by me. Its a numbers game, baby.

    1. I can see your point. I would further add that in cases when you have to argue the first one to resort to cursing or name calling looses any respect. The English language is so wide and varied there are so many ways to put down your adversary in a calm and civilised manner that they will look foolish and crawl back into their sordid grief hole.

      1. I recall the Biden v Ryan debate. Biden was a bigheaded thug and Ryan was logical. Ryan didn’t stand a chance.

        1. Fair enough, never watched the debate. As I said the English language provides a multitude of ways to “mop the floor” without loosing your cool.

        2. Biden was belching in Ryan’s face. Ryan should have called the old fart “Hairplugs”.
          The vanity of Biden is legendary.

  33. All that is required for tyranny to flourish is for good and decent men to remain silent.

  34. “This site is not about convincing women to see our point of view, but rather helping males become men.”
    THANK YOU FOR SAYING THIS. That sentence sums up your article for me. We should not be concerned with what women think of us, we should be concerned with self improvement and getting more men to see the true nature of women.

  35. Short and concise article. I just read it with my breakfast. My body feels twice as emboldened after reading it. Really a wake up call. I’ve had a few “discussions” with mangania friends of mine. I never stooped to name calling or physical threats, just put my points across in a clear and civilised manner. I got plenty of name calling and physical threats in retaliation. I now realise these guys hate themselves and live in a deluded hell. I am now quite happy to leave them alone in their confused state. One discussion involved the fact that an Irish woman tried to assassinate Mussolini before the second World War. If she had succeeded there would have been no second World War. I shit you not, that was his whole argument, that is how women have contributed to history.
    I am convinced many blue pill men are border line retarded. Their minds have been warped. I have now made it policy that if a man I know will not accept the truth he is off my Christmas card list. I want them to rot in their beta hell, let them drown, let them burn, let their minds rot in their functioning body, they are the walking dead in my eyes. I think I can feel my breakfast repeating on my just thinking of these sad excuses for men.
    I’m only half way up the mountain, but the journey is so sweet and sour…..mmmmm

      1. I need to take performance enhancing drugs and win the Tour de France? Sure…. why not……

  36. Debates and discussions have a place. Especially when both are openn to the others ideas, or are aware the other has a dataset which they do not.

  37. The author takes his хуй too seriously. Of course we men argue, because as a rule you don’t argue with a woman! LOL

  38. I would add another “beta” trait which is kind a mix of (2) and (3). Overusing the words “beta”, “alpha”, “mangina” etc. as if to provide an authoritative cover for yourself (seeking approval from the group) and accusing anyone who disagrees with you as being a “beta chump” or some other vastly over-used insult.

  39. “and the one thing that stands out in stark contrast to our site is this:
    unity. Their comments section is virtually devoid of the petty
    squabbling that you see here.”
    That is because they have lots of dedicated dyke moderators who instantly delete any comments that disagree with the requirement that every word be politically correct. It’s called total censorship, which I would not mistake for “unity”. Sure, most of their readers probably agree with the usual policy planks, and any insult or demeaning comment against men is always allowed.
    Feminists, nobody said they had any logic behind their principles, or morals, it’s all about gathering as much power for women by taking it away from men.

    1. Dkos etc etc are heavily censored and community policed. Their readership are a herd delivered up to the Party Groupthink.

  40. Great article Samson. I’ve noticed these issues myself. This is what I would call an “organic” topic. You have also noticed silly comments about articles written here…such as the Elliot Rodgers hoax…no one died, no one was hurt. And readers are worried about ROK’s credibility. Give me a break. I come here precisely, to here opinions that are 180 degrees from the mainstream gynocentric drivel talking points that people adopt as their opinions without thought. I also come here daily to here men talk like men without having to worry about getting written up and having to potentially go to “sensitivity training”…if your lucky. I really didn’t care for the article about the 17 year old’s problem with oneitus. The reason for this is because it was written by a 17 year old. What can I learn from a teenager? However, I took from the well written article what I could, and declined to comment.

  41. I appreciate this article. You raise excellent points, which coincidentally I’ve been working on for some time. It occurred to me also when reading this that it basically means maturing internally as well as getting a handle on yourself, which is a great trait that those who would argue with/offend us have no desire to improve on.
    Look, I understand that the pre-red pill way of thinking, or even not thinking but letting your emotions be manipulated occurs easily, but it’s embarassing sometimes to see the behavior of supposed “men” who get in petty arguments and flaming in what otherwise would be very powerful, meaning discussions.
    This applies to real life as well, which is especially hard, and lord knows can be really hard to control one’s self when dealing with women who get you riled up.
    I forget where I read it, but I’ve been following advice I picked up somewhere (maybe here?):
    Do not argue with women or betas (weak men of whatever sort). It is a waste of time.
    Granted, that should really be “do not argue, especially with women or betas”.
    Self-control is hard, but you’re not going to convince any of those types to a better way of thinking, regardless of facts.
    The self-control needed didn’t come naturally for me, but I take it one day at a time, and I try to “chillax” everytime some preposterous situation comes up. No longer getting into a rant session, no longer get red-faced and hot under the collar. What’s the point?
    Self control is a tough skill but pays rewards. You have to rise above those small minded people who would provoke you into pointless sessions of insulting you, as we’ve seen is used especially by hostile women and weak men.
    Remember the points to this article, as well as “amused mastery” when handling hostility and being affronted by people, especially weak men. They are often lashing out at you as they possess no other qualities.

  42. feminist Insurgents in the comment section.

  43. Word. Mind if I add something?
    Thinking of yourself as a victim is pathetic.
    On the recent post by the police officer, the comments were chock-full of the teenage bravado crowd, saying “Fuck the police!” A man should have a cold fury in his soul for the abuses of power which many cops engage in, but when one of them comes brandishing the olive branch, he should have the wits to speak to him.
    I am disgusted by a lot of what I see in the present day world – be it the cops, the corporations, or the media – but I am not a whining victim, or some sort of counter-cultural rebel. I am a future patriarch; I’m the man who’s going to win; I’m going to make it into the history books, or die trying. My disgust is that of a Sergeant Major witnessing troops who can’t get their shit together – not that of a teenager who thinks his dad is uncool.
    Stop treating feminists, cops, and politicians as if they’re your social betters. They’re not; they’re your inferiors, and it’s to their own detriment that they don’t sit down, shut up, and start taking orders from you. Yours is the position of superiority; embrace it.

    1. It is hard to feel superior when they have all the guns and drones….
      Moral superiority did not serve the slaves of Rome either…

  44. I’m a woman and I completely agree with this article. In all honesty, I try to do the same thing. I hate arguing and it annoys me to no end when people try to start arguments with me. I had a man in my life who taunt me and say things that he knew would irritate me and try to start arguments. I hated it! He would always say “but you love arguing”! Like, because I’m a woman, I automatically LOVE arguing. Good article, I think I’m gonna send it his way.

  45. Usually I just skim the articles from authors I don’t recognize and go straight to the argument section. This time I’ve made an exception. I’ve read your first point though and though and it is simply idiotic. Arguing is a Russian favorite pass time. It is certainly NOT a waste of time. Just like gym or fighting keeps your body in shape, arguing keeps your mind in shape. It is a built-in testosterone drive to win and you shouldn’t argue with inferiors. Pick a real challenge or don’t engage.

  46. Nicely written, Samson! Oh and arguing is especially pointless if done over the Internet, with a complete stranger.

  47. What a bunch of horse-shit. It’s hard to quibble with the point about not making ad hominem arguments. Past that, it would be amusing (if it weren’t irritating) to have somebody make a long, one-sided argument that we shouldn’t argue with him, while also saying that credibility isn’t important to a new movement, simply because it already exists as an unpopular view.
    In case you haven’t noticed, many opinions and movements are unpopular, at first. The ones that grow, grow because they have credibility – they have a ring of truth that explains the world better than the system people are currently under, and so they move over to it. They cease being minority views, because they have credibility. Plenty of other groups – like PETA, the Heaven’s Gate Cult, etc. – are both unpopular and incredible, and hence remain small and irrelevant. Ideally we would like to avoid that fate.
    Argument is the masculine trait par excellence; wherever men have gathered to form society, they have always tried to have healthy debate. If you have to cooperate with other men to get things done, or to learn something new, or to work out some ideas, healthy debate is always the way to go. That is because it would be very beta for a bunch of men to just blindly cede obedience to some tool, and it would be very irrational (and hence unmanly) for every man to just do his own thing when there was benefit to be derived from cooperation. You seem to be confusing mere bickering or quarreling with debate, and the fact that you insist “debate” is a “fancy” word for petty bickering, shows you up for the fool you are. Of course a man should avoid pointless quarreling. But debate, and even sharply expressed disagreement, is a good tool for arriving at truth… and for eliminating stupid ideas, like some of those in this article, right off the bat.

  48. I have noticed that while the article’s nuances can be argued, discussed, quarreled, etc. The comment section has fallen victim to the very disunity this article has sought to oppose.

  49. “At the time of this article, Jizzabel’s Fakebook page has 488,316 likes. Femifisting has 124,976. ROK has 9,111. That should put into perspective where we stand…”
    yeah, it means that you have less likes on facebook, which could mean many different things, including that your readers are less likely to use facebook, or perhaps are more less likely to “like” things even if they do use bitchbook.

  50. The irony is that this article engages in what the author is describing as “beta behavior” by entering the same old whiny RoK standpoint about women being inferior.
    Yes, whining about women, homosexuals, and ethnic people is beta as fuck. It’s an underlying victim mindset that cuts to the core of this site.
    The reason feminist sites seem more “unified” and RoK has only 9,000 Facebook likes by comparison, is simple: the nature of this site is for people to hate-read it. It’s very hard for a balanced, socially intelligent, humanistic person to read anything on here without feeling uneasy (to say the least).
    At best, RoK’s writers appear ill-informed, at worst sociopathic.
    If you want more unity, then instead of complaining about people arguing on the comments, try losing the whiny anger against the other half of the population (or 2/3rds counting gays and blacks).
    And stop engaging in intellectual suicide by prescribing a LACK of contempt against women as being non-masculine.

  51. This article echoes the most salient points from another ROK article. The men’s right movement is a farce because it implies that we lost our rights and had to regain them. Ian Fleming was never out there debating Slyvia Plath on gender equality, he was fucking chicks and winning WW2 alongside Wild Bill Donovan. These men never had “beta” traits to reconcile, and even if they did it would have been within the confines of their own psyches. Our current times are more of a renaissance in which men can answer the call to masculinity under great pressure to conform to a globalized standard of passivity and femininity. It always falls on those with the strength and wisdom to change the world when they see something wrong.
    A true public forum allows all matter of ideas to be heard, some are worth consideration, some desperately seek an audience, others are nonsense. However, the best of those ideas are already in practice because their quality is immediately apparent. Calculating the area of a triangle isn’t some misogynistic institution because a man came up with it, it’s just the best way to find the area of a triangle.

  52. great article. we must unite as men. its simple and our ability to unite is one reason why we are the superior sex

    1. Cooperation without competition is mutual masturbation. The ability to work together while also competing with each other is a thing of beauty.

  53. “Sluts: We hate them, but without them, our entire get-laid philosophy would crumble. So let’s just have a week where we attack them, but then in other articles tout ways to get laid quick and easy that depend on women who are willing to have sex outside of a relationship. But they’re still sluts, and we still hate them.”
    I am laughing SO hard at you guys right now.

  54. Just a heads up on F.B. Guys like to lurk in the shadows. We neither seek approval or validation, that is why you have less than 10k likes. There are probably 100 times that but no dude is going to let the bitch down the block know what he is reading esp when she can then use it against him. Keep your friends close, your enemies closer, and in the dark. Like you said that camp is never going to wake up and see the error of their ways. We quietly share these articles among ourselves and then even so much selection goes into who we do share them with, because a little knowledge in the wrong hands is a dangerous thing.

  55. I think trying to bring about a collective where your target audience are the individuals and leaders of is, while noble, inherently flawed. Alpha males are such because they stand out in their communities as role models for the next generation, by grouping them all together under the slogon of ‘working together’ you are essentially trying to win the battle by losing the war.
    Listen, if you know you have the balls to be a man you don’t need the approval of other men, you know what you have to do already. All that effort put into fellowship could be just as easily used showing people how to act. People follow leadership if you give them something to follow. By focusing on brotherhood you are in essence failing your women. This is what caused the problem in the first place. But you kids don’t want to hear about that 😉

  56. Logical fallacies are for fools, and I don’t need anyone to validate me, but the Socratic method is not a waste of time. It led to empiricism which led to science and western civilization, and you are probably alive because of that. If you don’t care about “how smart you think you are” and “whether other people agree with you”, then why the f*** did you write a persuasive article. A man doesn’t build all knowledge from thin air, you have to study, listen and observe to learn, albeit with a bullshit detector.

  57. @samsonlamont:disqus I completely agree with the points you made in regards to items 2 and 3, however, i must take somewhat of an exception to item 1 for the simple fact that not all debate is “a waste of time.”
    You have made legitimate comments on how we are basically swimming upstream in regards to unplugging males from the fematrix but, don’t you think we would find greater success if we engage those males on the fence and even the occasionally open minded mangina about the things that truly constitute manhood nowadays? How else to achieve that but through debate?
    It’s not simply enough for you as an ROK writer to state these things; they must also be defended and elaborated upon on the open court of opposing though, otherwise they become no more than sacred cows that are taken less seriously precisely because we offer no proper debate on their merits or lack thereof.
    At some point of course, debates tend to deterioriate into the virtual equivalent of a catfight but we should not allow for the POSSIBILITY of a debate turning crass to otherwise influence us from engaging in a proper reciprocal exchange of insight for however long is necessary in order to penetrate the calcium deposit of feminization that has formed over the skull of every mangina that comes here.
    Some Men do not defend the truth you guys make simply because of a knee jerk testosterone response, nor because of an inflated ego, but because we sincerely subscribe to those beliefs and wish to defend them against those who would challenge them based on their own preconceived gender related prejudices. In those instances the truth will be expressed by the informed and perceived by the right minded, and those speaking anything else will be exposed by those right minded truth seekers as the intellectual frauds that they are. This in turn may help to disconnect some manginas from the fematrix that they are plugged in, and help them take the first real steps towards being the kind of REAL MAN God espects them to be and the US once mass produced on a daily basis.
    Jesus could arguably be interpreted as the greatest debater of all time…NO ONE could match him in a discussion precisely because he was intimately aware of the truth behind his position. He would speak often, would have discussions on what he spoke as needed, and would debate with the pharisees very briefly in order to expose them as the hypocrites that they are. He may be gone in the flesh but the strength of the truth and the weakness of lies and deception remain with us today…which is why we fight to protect the truth, even if we all don’t agree on just how to do it. You speak the truth, and we defend it. You have your role and we as the rest of the members of the 5th column have ours. We make your life easier by exposing the trolls and you make ours easier by banning them.

  58. It’s a great article. Socrates did not argue – he debated. His interlocutors often argued, often violently, but he kept up the good spirit of inquiry/exchange of ideas and never descended to cheap bickering. Same with the other greats.
    Whether the author confuses argument with quarreling is semantics and not important – hopefully we all get the real point: there is a good way to exchange ideas with others, and a bad way. The bad way is a waste of your time.
    One point he makes that I would disagree with is that leftists are not in some perfect unity – I don’t know what pages you look at, but I’ve known them to constantly bicker, argue over terminology etc. With no outward opposition right in front of them, they’re actually pretty quick to turn on each other.

  59. Great Article! Actually, I can see where engaging in these three can play right into women’s manipulative games. They’re all “victim” behaviours that women count on to further drag you into the rabbit hole.

  60. I stopped after I read this little gem:

    Don’t be fooled by people who say they just want to engage in “debate”. Debate is just a fancy word for an argument and should be left to politicians, talking heads, and insecure people in love with the sound of their own voice (typically intellectuals), who all have a pathetic need to convince themselves and others that they’re as smart as they like to think they are.

Comments are closed.