Earlier we saw the boys from Warhorn media take apart Cane Caldo. As I subsequently noted: the fact that Cane Caldo is an idiot, doesn’t make his critics worthwhile, nor does it make their arguments against him sound. As promised, the boys from Warhorn have now released their podcast, in which they soundly kick Dalrock’s ass. Before they get ’round to this, however, they made the following specious claims:
- Rollo (author of The Rational Male) is a homosexual, based upon his mannerisms at some public appearance.
- PUA types are also closeted gay homosexuals, based upon Rollo’s supposed queerness, and the fact that he is somehow the global leader of all PUA brothers.
- MGTOW types are divided into incel losers or crass libertines who habitually use prostitutes. (There are no gray areas, apparently.)
- Manosphere readers and authors tend to be into weird paraphilia and degenerate sexual fetish lifestyles, specifically sado-masochism, rough sex, wife-beating, bondage, and other such lunacy.
None of these sweeping indictments are particularly credible. I doubt that Derek beats his wife, for example. Given that I’ve never hired a pro before, and given that I’m typing this from the bed in which I’ve screwed a hot brunette since last Friday (I’m waiting for her to get off work right now) I don’t seem to be the MGTOW brother they’re blathering about. All this aside, the boys do raise some interesting points as they take Dalrock apart. They make the following claims:
- Dalrock is a cowardly loser for using a pseudonym.
- Dalrock cultivates a toxic atmosphere on his blog.
- Dalrock argues dishonestly.
We have argued here over the first point at length. Most of us agree upon the second point. The third is also common knowledge.
Personally, I don’t care about Dalrock’s unscrupulous rhetoric, provided it is directed at my enemies. When Dalrock quits fighting feminists, and starts yapping at decent men (a few of which comment here) he becomes a problem. He has directed his hatred toward my brothers, almost exclusively, for about a year now.
The men at Warhorn then pivot into something which is actually worth talking to: Dalrock’s neverending dishonesty. The podcast is actually worth listening to (protip: skip about halfway through to get to the worthwhile stuff.) If you don’t have time for the podcast, you can get a little tidbit of Dalrock’s cheap rhetorical tricks at:
Sex and the Straw-Man: An Exercise in Logic
Dalrock has lied about Tim Bayly, with the same ease that he lies about a great number of other people. For the first time, a few antifeminists have called him to account for his dishonest behavior. In response, Dalrock doubles down.
Did you listen to the podcast? What do you think? Shout in the comments below…
It’ll be a while before I can listen ..
Thooooooough .. it’s on my list of “to-do’s”.
Thanks for the link.
I can’t listen now but I will later. I am curious as to their ‘homosexual’ theory for Rollo and PUAs and yet they don’t make that proclamation with Dalrock when they deconstruct his arguments (or call him a wife-beater). If you disagree with Rollo point out to the part you disagree with instead of getting into the ‘he’s gay’ retort. I lit up into Roosh back in the day on one of his theories without having to resort to that childish nonsense. FWIW…at least the online persona of Rollo is he has a wife and daughter and he self proclaimed fornicated with 40+ women.
You’ll get an earful of that within the first couple of minutes. It’s a bit frustrating to see people with legitimate complaints about Dalrock’s dishonesty, who begin their riposte with some of the most laughably dishonest smears imaginable. At first I thought they were being ironic, but soon it became clear that they weren’t.
I was also saddened to see Warhorn lock their discussion thread, a whopping 18 hours after posting the podcast.
I assume Cane Caldo (and possibly other assorted suckups from the comment section) wandered over and started disrupting the conversation. I suppose it doesn’t matter, since we can gossip about the Warhorn fellas here.
I’d just wonder what calling Rollo a homo based on what they think signaling body language accomplishes? Does that mean the things he’s said in his section of the sphere are considered null and void now? If I remember correctly isn’t that what Cane Caldo and Dalrock tried to do to you, Boxer?
If he has a flawed theory…what’s the flaw to it? It sounds like they did this with Dalrock.
@Boxer
That is a legitimate and frustrating observation…. It’s good to see Dalrock being taken to task for his dishonesty and hiding like a coward BUT the retarded and downright false straw man arguments doesn’t help their position
I mean their homosexual theory is outright laughable and sounds like something a woman would say
As a rational person, I can separate the faults of Warhorn from the faults of Dalrock and analyze them individually. Regarding the former, I have nothing to say at this time. I’ll listen to the podcast if and when I have time to do so. But as I’ve stated over at the other thread, Dalrock tried to manipulate this situation to his own advantage and he failed. He is still in spin mode. Notice that I stated this before the podcast was released and was unsurprising when Dalrock claimed that Warhorn refused to engage. It was so stupidly obvious what was going to happen, but Dalrock is acting surprised.
Now, right on schedule, Dalrock is claiming that Warhorn is lying about the purpose of their email exchange. This is not true. Go read that thread. Warhorn wanted to interview Dalrock and do a live back-and-forth interview. Dalrock refused the opportunity:
So Dalrock is complaining that he didn’t get a chance to do a back-and-forth debate, the very thing he declined to do. Dalrock, in an attempt to spin the situation to his control, portrayed the email exchange not as an interview but as a debate. It was never a debate. I could see that, and so could Nathan:
This is exactly how it went down. Dalrock didn’t like this, so he says “What Nathan is saying here simply isn’t true.” Dalrock is lying. This is Dalrock’s current point of view (that is, spin):
Dalrock sent the following to Nathan after declining to give a back-and-forth interview. Notice, still, how Dalrock is attempting to be the one in charge of the discussion. It is all about him and Warhorn is doing his bidding, which I’ve previously noted is laughable.
and:
Warhorn responded:
What did Warhorn agree to do?
1) Dalrock would answer Warhorn’s interview questions in email form.
2) Dalrock would also post the thread on his blog and respond there in detail (i.e. try to front-run control of the discussion).
3) Dalrock and Warhorn would achieve some of the back-and-forth that Dalrock (mistakenly?) thought they wanted to have.
4) Dalrock would give material for Warhorn’s podcast.
5) If Warhorn or Dalrock didn’t find the format useful (“takes too much time”), they could reconsider using it.
6) Warhorn agreed with the above.
7) Warhorn explicitly stated that they wanted Dalrock’s responses (i.e. it was still an interview).
Dalrock wanted a back-and-forth email debate, and Warhorn was never going to do that. This was Dalrock’s hope and expectation, but it was also ridiculous to assume that this would take place. Warhorn never agreed to it. Nothing in this implies that they set out to have a back-and-forth exchange. They gave Dalrock an email interview, as expected. It started as an interview and ended as an interview. No more, no less. And when the podcast came due, they used whatever materials from that interview that they wanted to use. Why? Because it’s their podcast and they can do whatever they like.
Consider Dalrock’s response to this:
Nathan never claimed that they set out to have a back-and-forth exchange. But even if they had, when Nathan didn’t find the email exchange format useful, he stopped offering responses, instead delaying responses until the podcast. This exactly what they agreed to do if one party decided that it was too time consuming, as Nathan clearly did not have the time to formulate responses to Dalrock and debate him in email (and deal with the one-sided blog posts and rabid Dalrockian hordes) prior to the podcast. Nathan was also quite upfront about the change, stating that he would no longer be responding in email, and Dalrock, consenting to the change, continued to give the interview anyway.
I’ll note again that Dalrock is engaging in classic sealioning behavior. Dalrock is engaging in trolling or harassing behavior while maintaining the pretense of civility. He is pretending ignorance, acting as the aggrieved party, and demanding debate.
In setting up the email exchange, Dalrock appears completely reasonable, setting up fair terms equitable to both himself and Nathan. It’s a nice casual email interview that can be terminated at any time. Now upon release of the podcast, the sea lion is acting injured, claiming that he is personally harmed, demanding immediate attention and debate, blah blah blah. Because he was so reasonable (sure!), Nathan must be a truly terrible person.
At least one person I respect has fallen for it, hook, line, and sinker.
Boxer, how did you listen to this guy whining for an hour?
I could only take about 5 minutes. Sounds exactly like how I think original pajama boy would sound like.
While I know someone can lie in one sentence and tell absolute truth in the next, I personally have great difficulty hearing someone make four “specious claims” and then consider anything following to be worth serious consideration.
I wish there was a transcript of the Warhorn podcast (I have not listened to it but I am considering creating one). I think it would make it much easier to discuss it.
Same I could only make it to about 10 minutes.
^^^Ditto ^^^
^^^ Agreed ^^^
^^^ Ditto ^^^
Boxer, you are just not very good at dishonesty. Tsk Tsk. You have to do it this way…
…and…
Dalrock’s first mistake was not disengaging. He wanted the advertisement so bad, his ego didn’t allow him to disengage. As you stated before, Bnonn was just toying with Dalrock. He had no reason to fully engage and it was just too easy to provoke Dalrock. Warhorn apparently did the same. There was, quite frankly, no benefit to engaging in mutual debate.* Disengaging is what to do when it becomes clear that further discussion will be fruitless or counterproductive (and it provides no amusement to troll further). The ability to walk away is valuable. The brothers should learn from this.
All that said, Warhorn let Dalrock’s views speak for themselves by posting the full text of the Dalrock interview, which seems like fair play to me.
* Dalrock forgets what it is like to be a nobody. I get little engagement on my blog because I’m a nobody and I don’t write things that people are interested in engaging with. Nobody owes me anything and I don’t expect anything from anyone. That is how it should be.
@Derek Ramsey
Wow! Your comment is the best summation of what’s going on that ive yet seen…. This needs to be pinned and high lighted
You have proven conclusively that Dalrock is lying
I wasn’t put off by their voices but couldn’t hardly tell who was who as I listened. My play-by-play is on Dalrock’s “Warhorn Responds” thread for the interested.
“Dalrock forgets what it is like to be a nobody.”
That would explain why he corresponded with them. Talking to public media is always risky at best.
Dear fellas…
Almost from the get, I identified their major complaint (Dalrock doesn’t out himself, so that we can publicly label him a fag like we’re doing to the guy who spoke on stage) as projection. The people who sling baseless accusations of perversity sound like a gang of teenage transvestites themselves.
I suspect that, if confronted, the Warhorn boys would excuse all this with claims that they’re just ironic shitpoasters, trying to be funny, etc. I was going to ask them what the point was, but they censored any discussion, less than a day after they posted their podcast and invited comments.
That guy agrees with me, that pseudonymous poasting can be worthwhile. The fact that Dalrock is a dishonest liar doesn’t mean that his kids should be hassled by blue-haired, human-walrus hybrids at the grocery store. We can criticize him without ruining his family’s life.
Well, you have a link here. I’m sure that, combined with my eight-figure circulation, prompts a few thousand bored malcontents to wander over there on the average day.
Ah yes the most loaded question the dishonest use.
Granted a sound of a voice doesn’t immediately = perv…because that’s conjecture…but I’d certainly take it as a red flag. Just like physiognomy or internal projection to those you disagree with as homos.
I mean there was a guy in the coffee shop I’ve talked to I could have sworn liked dudes based off how his voice sounded and last time we chatted he was talking about dates with and preferences for women he has.
I’ve been interviewed by the media on a number of occasions over the years. Fortunately I’ve never been the target of a hit piece, but even so they always get things wrong. It’s the nature of the beast. Sometimes they give you a chance to review the final product before it goes to press, but they are under no obligation to do so. Dalrock is behaving as if he has never been interviewed before. At best he is naive. You’ve got to have thick skin if you consent to being interviewed by someone who opposes you and you should expect it to be what you consider to be a unfair and biased. You have no recourse.
It is also tempting to think that because you are being interviewed that it means you are important. I admit, being in WIRED magazine was always cool for me and my ego, but it didn’t really mean anything in the end. It isn’t about you. I would have hoped that Dalrock would learn from this, but he’s playing the victim, so this is unlikely.
Great comments by Derek. I.m learning a lot.
Mike agrees.
As far as masculinity goes, I have the traits of cognitive masculinity. I’m also married and a father, so there is that too. But physically I have a short stature, I’m not physically strong (or ever been in a fight), and have a relatively high pitched voice (scroll to the video at the bottom). I also am readily able to understand the female mind (feminine emotional IQ or some such buzzword). Plus I work in a cubicle in IT. I’m pretty stereotypically “non-masculine” as far as those stereotypes go. A lot of “soy boy” attributes., yet being who my genetics say I am is not a red flag.
I’m not a huge fan of stereotypes, whether by Warhorn or those in the manosphere, but they are all too common. I’ve certainly been described in such overarching terms on a number of occasions. Such labels build a sense of community among those that use them, but like all slurs, they divide and are often ineffective.
Youze guys are assuming I was talking about timbre/pitch, but the content is the focus. Go over and listen (the first ten minutes is plenty) to the womanly gossiping in stage whispers, and the childish, defamatory skits. You’ll rapidly see what I mean. They’re grown men, aping mean girls in the cafeteria of the junior high school.
LOL. Now that’s how you handle a hostile interview.
I found the first 10+ minutes to be childish, but otherwise fairly innocuous. Sure, there were a few cringe-worthy moments early on (re: Rollo), but it’s primarily just tacky attempts at humor. Whatever. Not my cup of tea, but nothing worthy of much attention (Morning/daytime talk show TV is far worse). I didn’t find it all that funny, but I also didn’t take it more seriously than was intended. Clearly others found it more distasteful than my relative apathy. To each their own.
I only got 13 minutes in before I had to leave. Just need to find time to finish it off.
True…I think the content combining with their pitch made it cringeworthy.
I just finished (re)listening to the full podcast. My impressions are remarkably similar to Boxer’s.
The first 20 minutes are ridiculous. It is full of bad jokes, poor production, and silly, oversimplified, easily falsified claims (Later in the podcast, even they acknowledge how biased and unfair the opening segment was). My recommendation is just to skip that section. It wasn’t about Dalrock anyway.
Once they got past that, however, I was struck by how similar their arguments were to the ones that I’ve been making here and on my blog over the past few days, weeks, and months. They could nearly have been lifted from my comments, that’s how similar they were. They made similar arguments against anonymity and they even commented on how Dalrock tried to “control the narrative” by front-running the interview through his blog posts. My arguments and observations are so blatantly obvious that I was surprised more people didn’t notice. Consider:
From my perspective it has been like shooting fish in a barrel. Dalrock is so obviously lying and being dishonest that I’m shocked that people have fallen for it. I’d have taken Dalrock to task on his blog if he wasn’t so heavy handed with moderation and I thought it would make a difference. Fortunately, Warhorn made the same points publicly, so I don’t have to. It will be interesting to see if (and how) Dalrock responds to the content of the podcast.
Well that didn’t take long:
And yet, he’s still trying to rewrite the narrative, with daily articles, pages and pages long. It’s almost like these endless texts I receive from my bitches, after I say good-bye.
This sounds accurate. Not only does he continue the narrative control, but there is this gem:
You just can’t make this stuff up. All these posts and he hasn’t even given the podcast a listen.
One good SPIN DOCTOR deserves another .. (Dalrock vs Fake Doctor) ..
https://gizmodo.com/the-fake-sex-doctor-who-conned-the-media-into-publicizi-1832711205