Masochists on Masochism

Screen Shot 2019-03-05 at 20.59.35

The Cruxtoid fags from Warhorn Media have released yet another (too-)long podcast, whining about someone they describe as just an anonymous internet nobody. Despite Dalrock’s supposed irrelevance, they just can’t stop talking about him. The first half hour seems to directly answer my own criticisms (welcome Ben, Jake and Nathan to our post code, boys!) They also backpedal up the bullshit river, just as rapidly as they can.

Skip to 30:30 to get to the beginning of the actual podcast.

Dalrock lied about some pastor named Wilson? Big deal. Yes, Dalrock is a liar. He lied about me. He lied about Necro. He hosts a lackwit bottom feeder (Cane Caldo) who has spent years spreading falsehoods about numerous men.

Dalrock is dishonest. As like attracts like, his comment section is filled with similar scumbags. So what? He publishes anonymously, so according to you guys he doesn’t matter.

Incidentally, you Christian fags are just as dishonest as Dalrock. You’re also just as lazy. Where does Dalrock promote BDSM and wife beating? Where does he link to the Texas Dominatrix? I read Dalrock’s blog on the regular, for something like four years, and never once saw him promote anything like that. Do any of you trashy Christian pastors have a link?

With all the lies Dalrock has actually told, you’d think that the Cruxtoid fags from Warhorn Media would discuss them. They’d rather indulge in that fine Christian sacrament of making shit up rather than deconstructing their opponent’s actual arguments. There are also more nonsensical straw-man skits, and there’s more humblebragging about their leadership positions in their scroungy Christian church, and there’s lots of grandiose talk about how “holy” they are, even as they try to make connections that don’t exist, and bear false witness about people they claim don’t matter.

Did you listen to this latest sanctimonious pretend-friend of Jesus podcast? What did you think?

 

Author: Boxer

Sinister All-Male Dancer. Secret King of all Gamma Males. Member of Frankfurt School. Your Fave Contrarian!

15 thoughts on “Masochists on Masochism”

  1. This is why your blog here Boxer is so good. You are fair and balanced, even though we can identify that Dalrock is not always honest, he doesn’t deserve the shit treatment he’s getting from Warhorn media…. I hate to say that about my own Christian brothers and sisters but sometimes there’s no other term that describes them than your hilarious term: “Christian fags” because that’s how Warhorn media is acting at the moment
    Bunch of pussified fags who disable comments on all their blogs so you can’t respond to them
    As much as I hate the way Dalrock is super cowardly the way he over moderates his blog, I have no hesitation in taking to task Warhorn media for doing the exact same thing

  2. Bunch of pussified fags who disable comments on all their blogs so you can’t respond to them
    As much as I hate the way Dalrock is super cowardly the way he over moderates his blog, I have no hesitation in taking to task Warhorn media for doing the exact same thing

    I thought it was simultaneously humorous and sad when they invited comments, and then locked the thread, 18 hours later, when people didn’t just line up to kiss their asses.

  3. Do you think this site ran by women pretending to be men? Also I heard Atoria about a woman who is being denied access to America because she wanted to be with her Muslim man. Not sure if she was married to a guy here first

  4. Funny thing is, we wouldn’t be listening to Wormhome at all, if they never scrutinized Dalrock.

  5. “Did you listen to this latest sanctimonious pretend-friend of Jesus podcast?”

    I wasn’t planning on it, but maybe I should now? I listened to the first podcast because Dalrock is “close to home” and relevant to the sphere. I ignored the faults of Warhorn to focus on the faults of Dalrock for the same reason. It may have been one-sided, but I didn’t imply that Warhorn was acting pristine. Plenty of other people did that.

    “He publishes anonymously, so according to you guys he doesn’t matter.”

    To clarify my position, he’s anonymous so he has no authority. Whether he matters is a separate issue. I focus my criticism on Dalrock because I care about his readers that may be duped by his duplicity.

    First. On one hand is Warhorn, who decries Christian anonymity because it isn’t accountable to a church. On the other hand is Dalrock, whose own pastor doesn’t know about his blog. Given the two extremes, we find that Warhorn did the podcast without the knowledge (authority? accountability?) of church leadership and we find that Dalrock gleefully holds them to accountability. It’s utter hypocrisy by both of them. It’s classic “Good for thee but not for me.”

    Second. Dalrock accuses Warhorn of lying while simultaneously lying himself. Of course, Warhorn did tell lies (bear false witness) in the podcast. Hypocrisy, both.

    Third. Dalrock selectively posted parts of their email exchange and then criticized Nathan for doing the same. Hypocrisy.

    Fourth. Dalrock wants to be judged on the strength of his argument. Yet he spends most of his time talking about how he was personally attacked by Warhorn. At the same time, Warhorn claims to be the voice of reason and argues that ad hominem are legitimate arguments. Hypocrisy, both.

    Fifth. Dalrock should have said no to the interview when Nathan wanted a live debate and walked away when Nathan changed the nature of their dialogue. Warhorn should have cancelled the podcast when they realized that they were not going to address Dalrock’s arguments directly or use any part of the interview. It’s hypocrisy to seek reasoned debate and then engage in anything but that.

    “They’d rather indulge in that fine Christian sacrament of making shit up rather than deconstructing their opponent’s actual arguments. “

    Consider this case in point. Boxer here paints Christians with broad strokes, generalizing. Do I flip out over it? Nope. I have two options: don’t engage or cite counter-examples and make counter-arguments. These generalizations don’t apply to me and I have no obligation to engage on the topic. Making stuff up isn’t a valid choice. Neither is throwing a fit.

    This is why I won’t stop talking about this topic. Men, especially the leaders, must learn this. Both Dalrock and Warhorn are embarrassing us.

  6. A few general comments…

    Fifth. Dalrock should have said no to the interview when Nathan wanted a live debate and walked away when Nathan changed the nature of their dialogue. Warhorn should have cancelled the podcast when they realized that they were not going to address Dalrock’s arguments directly or use any part of the interview. It’s hypocrisy to seek reasoned debate and then engage in anything but that.

    If this is a mild case of backpedaling, then you should quit it. You made a very valid and astute point when you were talking about the difference between interview and debate. It’s one I never originally caught, and I think you should write more media studies.

    Boxer here paints Christians with broad strokes, generalizing.

    I thought it was obvious — I’m lampooning the Warhorn Media fetish of labeling all their detractors as gay homosexuals, pedophiles, trannies, etc.. Even so, this is a tact that’s so widespread among Christians as to be nearly universal (see Cane Caldo, SirHamster, Ted “Dark Lord” Beale, and countless other devout Christians doing what Warhorn does).

    As an aside: Some anon (not Derek) emails and tells me that Texas Dom is an actual figure on the alt-right/Christian manosphere. That’s great, but I don’t buy the guilt-by-association angle. I’ve linked to Cane Caldo before. That doesn’t mean I want to be held responsible for all his future girly tantrums. If Dalrock has ever cited Texas Dom as a source, or endorsed his sort of sexual degeneracy, I’d love to see it. A link should be simple to post, and will cause me to apologize and retract.

    If Dalrock ever did post such a thing, I’ll be glad to make fun of him for it. It’s really just as simple as that.

  7. “If this is a mild case of backpedaling, then you should quit it.”

    Dalrock could have expressed his concerns and bailed out, but the allure and pride that comes with being interviewed is blinding. Then, instead of whining and complaining, he could also have just accepted the situation for what it was and moved on. This is advice, not backpedaling. He has nothing to complain about. Not understanding what a media interview entails is not an excuse. He should take responsibility for his own ignorance, not blame it on others. Failing that, consider the charitable possibility of a misunderstanding.

    Larry Kummer questioned Dalrock’s objection. Kummer is the editor of a collaborative blog. Likely either he or his co-authors have been interviewed or interviewed others. Many of those authors are print-published and non-blog, web-published and have worked in the media industry. You can clearly see from his comment to Dalrock that he thought Dalrock was engaging in “wishful thinking” by expecting debate. Yet he encouraged Dalrock to take the high road and construct a back-and-forth conversation by engaging in a response to the content of the podcast. In short, Kummer understands media and questioned Dalrock’s naivety.

    Should Warhorn have cancelled the podcast? Despite Dalrock’s assertions, absent a signed contract, a media organization is under no legal obligation to run their story according to the wishes of the interviewee. However, Warhorn is a Christian organization and as such has certain moral and procedural obligations.* It is only in this light that I made the recommendation. It could perhaps be construed as backpedaling.

    * As a Christian, so does Dalrock. Matthew 18 clearly dictates that if a believer (Dalrock) is sinned against, he must first go directly to the person who sinned (Nathan) to work it out. If that fails, he (Dalrock) must take his complaint to a few witnesses (e.g. members from his own church and Clearnote Church). Failing that, he should bring his complaint before the whole congregation (his own church and/or Clearnote Church). Dalrock aired his complaints publicly. He never followed the three steps, which would be quite difficult because he is anonymous and his pastor doesn’t know about his blog (he isn’t accountable to his church). It’s interesting to note that if an anonymous Christian sins against you, you can’t follow the procedure even if you want to.

  8. “I think you should write more media studies.”

    On what topic?

    I could write on how New Media (which is often anonymous) and Old Media (which is rarely anonymous) conflict, in light of the whole anonymity discussion.

    I could write about my own experience with being interviewed by media and academics and the (lack of) fame that went with it. I could also talk about what it’s like to have a family that is semi-frequently in new articles/programs.

    My experience is limited, but if you had something else in mind, I take requests (otherwise I get distracted and go do other things).

  9. So here we are again lads. Dalrock is complaining again. In light of the absurdity of it all, I’m going full snark on this review. You’ve been warned.

    Dalrock states the following:

    “Nathan’s edited version of the exchange leaves out our agreement to have a back and forth exchange, and it leaves out the part where Nathan wrote:”

    Ah ha! Surely we have him here! The very best evidence so far of the Warhorn duplicity worth half a dozen posts! Pitchforks out boys!

    “I’d like to sincerely understand and present your point of view, even where our camp diverges.”

    Wow. Devastating.

    Let’s put our learning hats on and do a little analysis, shall we? Let’s see what Nathan wanted to do:

    1) To understand Dalrock’s point-of-view.
    2) To present said point-of-view.

    In other words, “I want to understand your point-of-view so I don’t misrepresent it.” Gah! My eyes!

    Nathan made his best attempt at understanding Dalrock. The point of the discussion was to make a best-effort to get it right, but that didn’t mean he couldn’t have gotten it wrong. So, did Nathan present what he viewed Dalrock’s point-of-view to be? Yes, of course he did. He even presented what he thought Dalrock’s full point-of-view was by posting the transcript of the email exchange which he referenced in the podcast (!!).

    What’s that you say? Nathan didn’t talk about every topic that was available from the email interview in full detail on a time-limited, tacky-humored podcast? Oh no!

    Okay, so in all seriousness, Dalrock is upset that he didn’t get enough airtime on someone else’s show. He’s upset that the editorial discretion of the podcast edited out the majority of content of the interview. He can couch this in terms of “he lied to me” but that’s not a rational conclusion.

    Lastly, consider now much time he has now spent not engaging in back-and-forth debate.

  10. “So, did Nathan present what he viewed Dalrock’s point-of-view to be? Yes, of course he did.”

    In my opinion, Nathan and crew may well have begrudgingly presented Dalrock’s point of view. However, it is clear that Nathan had no real desire to say anything positive about Dalrock or the manosphere, and he knew that when he first requested Dalrock to be on the podcast.

    What I find most disappointing about Warhorn’s approach is how they exemplify the ability to take isolated examples of extreme Red Pill people and come to such a poor understanding of Red Pill in general. Christians are the worst at this. Rather than doing some research and thinking for themselves, they are generally prone to believe someone else’s analysis. For example, InsanityBytes said Red Pill is evil, therefore it must be evil (and if it’s so evil I had better not even try to look at myself lest I should be damned to hell for even reading about such things).

  11. “First. On one hand is Warhorn, who decries Christian anonymity because it isn’t accountable to a church. On the other hand is Dalrock, whose own pastor doesn’t know about his blog. Given the two extremes, we find that Warhorn did the podcast without the knowledge (authority? accountability?) of church leadership and we find that Dalrock gleefully holds them to accountability. It’s utter hypocrisy by both of them.”

    How is it hypocritical for Dalrock (who believes anyonymity is okay) to point out that Warhorn (who insist being under authority is necessary) did this blog without the knowledge of Tim Bayly (who apparently would rather they had not done it)? Now, I don’t expect Bayly or similar to micromanage the blog but I rather think it would be reasonable for the podcasters to at least get an approval for their general topic for every podcast. I think Bayly and equals were too trusting, and the podcasters are too certain of their knowledge.

  12. @OKRickety

    “In my opinion, Nathan and crew may well have begrudgingly presented Dalrock’s point of view. However, it is clear that Nathan had no real desire to say anything positive about Dalrock or the manosphere, and he knew that when he first requested Dalrock to be on the podcast.”

    Yes, I completely agree. He begrudgingly presented Dalrock’s point-of-view where the camp diverged (as we knew it did). But why blame Nathan for knowing that up-front? Of course he knew it ahead of time. Dalrock should have known it up-front as well. For all the genuine civility, it was always a hostile interview. Naivety is not a very good excuse.

    “What I find most disappointing about Warhorn’s approach is how they exemplify the ability to take isolated examples of extreme Red Pill people and come to such a poor understanding of Red Pill in general.”

    I have little praise for Warhorn. Their podcast is, generously speaking, poorly produced. So many people (including Boxer, you, Lexet, etc.) have interesting criticisms of Warhorn. By contrast, Dalrock complains about the most incorrect, least interesting things.

    “How is it hypocritical for Dalrock (who believes anonymity is okay) to point out that Warhorn (who insist being under authority is necessary) did this blog without the knowledge of Tim Bayly (who apparently would rather they had not done it)?”

    This is a good question. If Dalrock believes that accountability isn’t important, then why bring it up? He was genuinely pleased that Warhorn was being hypocritical about accountability. It seems mighty petty to simultaneously believe that there is no Christian requirement for accountability and then call someone out for not being accountable, especially when there is a perfectly reasonable explanation (i.e. Bayly doesn’t micromanage). Maybe you don’t call that hypocrisy? How about schadenfreude then?

  13. Derek,

    “If Dalrock believes that accountability isn’t important, then why bring it up?”

    Because, much like you, the Warhorn guys believe that anonymity is antithetical to accountability (which they seem to define more as existing inside a hierarchical organization than being able to justify their behavior to others). If I recognize others’ failure to follow their own principles, then I think others should be aware of that failure, too. That failure causes me to become more skeptical of their claims generally.

    I would also hope, but it seldom seems to happen, that one might then reconsider their own position. To wonder, do I really believe it, or is just a convenience to allow me to win the argument? In the first podcast, when Jake argued against anonymity, it was stated that “the devil has thoroughly trounced you.”. So, even with their overall desire to denounce Dalrock, Jake was unsuccessful in convincing the others that anonymity was terrible behavior.

    “Maybe you don’t call that hypocrisy? How about schadenfreude then?”

    I would characterize Dalrock’s response as overly vindictive (or spiteful), and not how a Christian should respond. It is, however, typical human behavior when one is being attacked, which is clearly what the Warhorn podcast did. Neither side comes out looking pretty, but I am more disappointed in Dalrock than I am with the Warhorn crew.

  14. “If I recognize others’ failure to follow their own principles, then I think others should be aware of that failure, too.”

    If someone is being a hypocrite, it can be fair to point that out, but as Jesus taught, only if they are not themselves guilty of the same thing [Matthew 7:5]. It must also be an actual sin against you, not just a difference of opinion [Matthew 18:15-35]. I’ll demonstrate this in two ways.

    First. Let’s say that I believe eating meat sacrificed to idols is sinning and you do not. We go to a party and eat idol sacrificed meat. Should you condemn me? If you did, you would (1) cause me to stumble and (2) be guilty of hypocrisy by condemning me for the very thing you do freely. Surprisingly, it is your duty to change your own behavior first [Romans 14:13-23; Matthew 18:6]. So, if Warhorn sinned, then either accountability is a Christian requirement or there is a moral standard beside God’s. Since there is no other moral standard, if accountability isn’t a requirement, then Warhorn did nothing wrong. Since believing something is a sin (an opinion) doesn’t magically make it an actual sin, the hypocrisy would be irrelevant.

    Second. Consider the claim:

    “X can believe accountability is not required and still call out Y for not being accountable while Y believes that accountability is required.”

    Now let’s modify it:

    “X can be pro-choice and still call out Y for aborting their babies while claiming to be pro-life.”

    What exactly would the point of this criticism be? Would X be trying to get Y to be more pro-life? Sure Y is hypocritical, but that would be a pretty silly thing to do. Is X trying to convince Y to be more pro-choice? That’s more sensible. Or is X just engaging in ad hominem in an attempt to make their argument look stronger?

    Dalrock isn’t pushing for Warhorn to be less accountable (like him). Dalrock also isn’t really pushing for Warhorn to be more accountable. This doesn’t make logical sense any more than it makes sense for pro-choice persons to advocate that pro-life persons have fewer abortions.

    Considering the context, it seems clear that Dalrock pointed out the hypocrisy not to encourage them to be more accountable, nor to encourage them to be less accountable, but to engage in ad hominem discourse to make his position look stronger.

    In short, while pointing out hypocrisy is sometimes justified, it is not in this specific instance. Regardless, the proper Christian response should be to try to gently correct the wayward brother and to see if there is anything you can personally change about yourself to make it easier on your brother. This is sacrificial love. It is very difficult to do.

  15. I started listening to the podcast and…LOL!

    At 7:00 to 8:00, they echo everything I’ve been saying about how it was an interview, they were not doing it to give Dalrock a platform, that the podcast was going to focus just on Dalrock, they were not trying to have a long-form debate, and they declared their intentions up front.

    At 8:20 to 9:40, apparently they didn’t realize that Dalrock was going to use the interview posts on his blog to hijack the discussion and control the narrative. They were certainly naive, but I’m not going to excuse Dalrock either. As I said before, Dalrock had to hijack the discussion so that when Warhorn went on the defensive it would justify the decision to hijack the discussion. Self-fulfilling behavior, that.

    At 10:30-13:15, they pointed out that the transcript was 17 pages long, way too much material to cover in a podcast that was covering the manosphere generally. They had wanted to use Dalrock as an authority (LOL!) on the manosphere.

    At 16:00-16:30, they conclude that Dalrock is either massively deceptive or stupid. In case it isn’t clear why they make this conclusion it is this: If Dalrock knew it was an interview, then he must have been malicious in intention (and thus massively deceptive). If Dalrock didn’t know that it was an interview, then Dalrock was stupid. LOL! Stay classy boys.

    At 17:00-18:00, they call out Dalrock for publishing private emails and not listening to the podcast before complaining. Low hanging fruit, sure, but accurate.

Shout!

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.