Teh Interwebz’s foremost expert on all things “game”-related has uttered:
Cialdini’s theories about the nature of human psychology and his influence on the American elite are evidence of the triumph of Game. Game has infused every facet of the body politic, not just the sexual organs. As CH has said many times already, if you can game a woman into bed you can game a boss into handing you a raise or a nation’s voters into electing you President.
That is the awesomely dark power of Game. And dark it is, because what is essentially remote control of another person’s executive brain function is the kind of power that irresistibly pulls one to malevolent ends.
And I dunno, Zippy, but it sure seems like he’s talking about something more than just bedding sluts.
It remains debatable, I think, whether such power draws its user necessarily toward malevolent ends; but there is no question that, in a society where pathologies (i.e., sins) are turned into positive virtues, and the natural symptoms (e.g., guilt, anxiety) corresponding to those pathologies are treated as pathology itself, the power of influence over others plays an out-weighted role. I’d like to see more of it used for Our Side; the Enemy has been able to play with incentives, unopposed, for long enough.
Well, gosh, if the Internet’s foremost self-proclaimed expert on bedding sluts (we know it is true because he said so on the Internet) declares that any time one person has exercised influence over another throughout all of history that is by definition “Game”, and therefore (!)
… then Christians really ought to line up faithfully and light their pinch of incense to the self-anointed Internet King of Poon.
Why do self-respecting people treat gutter trash as if it were “leadership”? Perhaps the question answers itself.
Since you asked.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The genetic fallacy is beneath you, sir.
LikeLike
What genetic fallacy? Game is a prescriptive social phenomenon like liberalism.
If “Game” really is something completely different from a male version of inchastity, and is indeed independent of sexually influencing women in general, there must be scads of people around who use the term “Game” to refer to this definitely-not-male-inchastity thing and, simultaneously, have never heard of it in the context of PUA and are not aware of Game as techniques useful for bedding sluts.
Just where are all of those people?
Some day I hope you have the self respect to find the fawning over Heartiste/Roissy embarrassing.
LikeLike
“Fawning over Heartiste.” Now you’re arguing like a girl…
First you claim no expertise or ownership in defining the word, but only innocently claim to observe how it is used and understood in the wider community. So I find one of the prime exponents of that term using it in a manner (which he has for many years, btw) that doesn’t match how you think it’s used and understood, yet you object because you have certain knowledge of how it’s generally used. (This is even ignoring the fact that “game” probably already has 25 definitions. But, hell, I’m no expert.)
So you’re making the non-null, empirical claim. Not me. I’m just saying that’s not how I’ve come to understand the term broadly. Don’t have any idea how that could have happened. My guess is probably half of the manosphere, of which I’m aware, uses the term that, i.e., broader, way. Just a guess.
So there is an essence of bedding sluts, which is itself always wrong. And there is an essence of using psychological manipulation to get your way, which is of itself morally neutral. And it just one of those funny things about human language that one word might accidentally get used for both.
Anyway, Zippy, you seem to have a secret knowledge on this topic as well as the innermost motivations of those who happen to disagree. You should have the makings for a fine gnostic cult there.
LikeLike
No, no, no. Your focus on language rather than essences continues to keep you in a state of confusion.
Game, like liberalism, is something real — independent of language games, label shuffling, and pathetic attempts by PUA to stake a leadership claim that you materially, publicly support.
LikeLike
I just don’t see how any of that follows. “Game like liberalism is something real” and you have defined it as (and only as) “a program for bedding sluts”. Your entire argument hinges upon that use of language. Without this (idiosyncratic and tenaciously held) linguistic assertion, there would be simply nothing to argue about.
I simply say that a “program for bedding of sluts” is a (wicked) application of a broader category of psychological manipulation, which I have (here or there) seen referred to as “game”. Like, I dunno, getting white liberals to drive Priuses with Obama stickers affixed from the factory.
The essence of “bedding sluts” is, I agree, real and I agree it is wicked.
The essence of psychological manipulation is something different and (I think) we agree it is not, in itself, wicked.
LikeLike
You actually link in the OP to the post where I describe Game’s essence, and yet you blatantly misstate it in the comments. I’m pretty sure that you don’t pay close enough attention to even have this conversation.
LikeLike
About the only context in which I’ve heard game used to refer to something non-sexual was its use by hustlers regarding their marks. Running game isn’t necessarily sexual, but no, there isn’t any non-wicked real-world application. Anyone claiming such is lying to themselves and to the people they are, well, running that game on.
LikeLike
Zippy, UW: Goin with gnostic cult on this… all the way. You clearly possess knowledge which I not only do not possess, but could not possibly attain.
LikeLike
“Game, like liberalism, is something real — independent of language games”
Hey Zippy, how did you do on the SAT? Just curious.
LikeLike
I think the most important thing we’ve learned here is that words have innate, objective meanings and are not subject to linguistic evolution or differing interpretations. Also homonyms are not a thing, or if they are, they are a tool of Satan.
LikeLike
nickbsteves:
Hard to say what you could understand. Clearly you aren’t even trying, since the words you attribute to me as my definition are just flat out wrong — even though you link to my actual words in the OP.
LikeLike
Oh Zippy yer so witty.
Yes “program for bedding sluts” is TOTALLY different from “the male behavioral expression of inchastity”. Unrelated. Obviously. Ironic apololgies.
Ya know, since you’ve offerred so much insight into my underlying psychology, permit me to observe: that there are people who have a need for things to fit in neat little boxes, and you, sir, are one of those people. Usually this works out great, but occasionally it results in pure (and equisitely well articulated) nonsense.
LikeLike
nickbsteves:
The two are quite radically different in obvious ways. For example, a woman wearing slutty clothes is a female expression of inchastity no matter why she does it — even if, say, she only does it in order to attract a husband.
But one has to be able to think outside of little boxes to see that, I suppose.
LikeLike
So you expect me to believe that a psychologist who advises the Obama campaign on how to get white voters to feel good about themselves for voting for a mulatto, or the Betty Crocker advisors who told the execs to get women to add an egg to the box cake recipe, are, in essence, expressing male inchastity. Advertising is essentially male inchastity. Getting your troops to charge up San Juan Hill is essentially male inchastity. Forcing Henry IV to walk to Canossa is essentially male inchastity.
LikeLike
Those aren’t Game, any more than caring for the poor is liberalism.
LikeLike
Wait, I thought you said “program for bedding sluts” and “male expression of inchastity” were different things. I am accused of laziness or stupidity or both on account of this. A simple yes or no would suffice:
“program for bedding sluts” is a near synonym for or a common type of “game: male expression of inchastity”?
LikeLike
nickbsteves:
They are, and manifestly so. But “Betty Crocker box cake egg Game” was really the decisive moment here.
LikeLike
Manifestly? I’m about +2σ so if I cannot see the obvious, then I reaffirm my accusation that you are running a gnostic cult.
It seems that there exist male expressions of inchastity that are far removed from “game” (e.g., masturbation) by which your definition of “game” may be found wanting, but I’m having a hard time imagining how a “program for bedding sluts” is not at least a particular expression of male inchastity. And if a particular expression, then at least not entirely unrelated.
Certainly they are not so distinct as to justify being accused “blatantly misstate it in the comments. I’m pretty sure that you don’t pay close enough attention to even have this conversation.”
Or:
The two are quite radically different in obvious ways. For example, a woman wearing slutty clothes is a female expression of inchastity no matter why she does it — even if, say, she only does it in order to attract a husband.
which, if it makes sense at all, only makes sense by a further retreat into high esoterica. For example? You give a “for example” that it is not an example of the thing in question but of a different thing, and not at all (manifestly) showing how “program for banging sluts” is not a near synonym or useful example of “expression of male inchastity”.
Now mockery is not an argument. It is the way proggies, feminists (and not a few women) tend to argue tho’. The Betty Crocker story is (IMO) a perfect example of game because it reflects pure psychological manipulation, far more so than Teddy Roosevelt or Pope Gregory VII wherein genuine authority (of some sort) was in play. If you disagree, fine. But then we’re back to disagreeing about definitions. Which is kinda what I’ve been saying.
LikeLike
What genetic fallacy?
That’s where you gave a content free criticism of Roissy by calling him names, all of which may be true, but are irrelevant to my point. As a bonus, you accuse me of hidden motives (“line up faithfully and light their pinch of incense to the self-anointed Internet King of Poon”) which are insulting as well as irrelevant to my point. This sort of thing is “shaming language”, free of substantive content, and the sort of thing I’d expect feminists and Mark Shea to engage in.
LikeLike
nickbesteves:
Dude, if you really, actually think that “the Betty Crocker advisors who told the execs to get women to add an egg to the box cake recipe,” or your other examples, are instances of the use of Game, then you most definitely have an incapacity to see the obvious, with a concomitant incapacity to discuss the subject matter.
What the source of that incapacity happens to be is left as an exercise.
[Ed. More snark. I’m glad to have provided you some entertainment. Fuck off, Zipp.]
LikeLike
I’m certain you can find the words of hustlers in reference to their marks a great many places, Mr. Steves. It’s not secret knowledge at all. Where, after all, do you think the original progenitors of the internet variants of game found it?
LikeLike
Do we have to have such an intense debate over semantics?
LikeLike
Patrick: You wouldn’t think so, no. But some people are never wrong, and, when questioned are constrained to believe that those who disagree suffer from a moral or congenital defect.
UW: You purport to answer an empirical question without reference to data.
LikeLike
It does seem kind of an expansive definition of Game to include all kinds of psychological manipulation. For example, as a younger man I was asked if I have game, and bragged to by others with respect to their game, etc. This only in context ever meant being good at bedding sluts.
LikeLike
To answer Josh’s fair point, I have seen “game” used to refer to “the application of psychological techniques to establish social dominance”, a few examples of which I do document in the trackback. I do not now believe, nor have I ever believed, that “game” refers simply to any use of psychological manipulation simpliciter.
Also do bear in mind from the above conversation (or lack thereof) Zippy continues to insist that “bedding sluts” and “male expression of inchastity” are totally (and manifestly, so obviously that anyone who misses it suffers from a moral and/or congenital defect) different things. So you are perhaps a “nominalist” too.
LikeLike