On Rabbits and Disqualifcation

Even the most brilliant K-strategists will tend to miss a subtle aspect of r-psychology, due to the massive differences in the cognitive programming that ideologues exhibit. In this post, Vox discusses the r-strategy of seemingly disqualifying an argument by disqualifying the one who made it. In the exchange, two leftists try to define Roosh as a rapist. In Vox’s view, the rabbits were trying to disqualify the point made by Roosh, by logically denigrating Roosh’s reputation and stature, and thus by extension, his point. I believe that what motivated the rabbits was much more primal. Notice that the first rabbit points out a great chunk of Europe was offended by Roosh, and Vox lives in Europe. Why focus on Europe, where Vox lives? When that fails to produce any result, the second says Roosh is a rapist, but runs off when Vox points out that a fellow leftist claims to be a rapist himself. What they are really doing, is trying to threaten Vox with an attack by “the group.”

Vox’s problem in understanding this aspect of rabbit psychology comes from the difficulty K-strategists have in internalizing the wholesale cowardice and conflict-avoidant-drives of the rabbit. Cowardice and desires for conflict-avoidance penetrate their entire psyche and define who they are, to the point that it emerges even under non-threatening conditions, like the gentle back and forth of simple debate. The most subtle shade of danger, conflict, or threat, and the rabbit amygdala will react fearfully, producing a desire to flee in the context of the environment. Likewise, rabbits project this onto their opponents. Thus many of their strategies are attempts to scare opponents with fear triggers. I believe that this psychological absorption with cognitive fear triggers, and not conscious disingenuous intent, is why many rabbits seem wholly ignorant of the logical arguments associated with the debate. They are so designed to focus on fear triggers, that they literally lack the cognitive hardware to focus on facts or logic.

As we have discussed, in r-selection, reality is not the selector for genetic success, rather mate attraction is. Thus any strategy to attract a mate, even if it offers no practical adaptation to K-selection or reality, is advantageous. When jostling for one such attractor, namely status, it would appear that the rabbits have evolved not only to exhibit this fear of conflict, but also to focus their mental powers on using the conflict-fears of those rabbits around them to try and shame and frighten their own way to the top of the social ladder. Since each rabbit cannot fight themselves, due to their programming, (and all of them know this about each other), they have adapted to try and wield a threat of turning other more aggression-prone individuals in the group, upon their opponent. It produces a strategy where the rabbit can wield the seeming threat of force, without needing to bear the burden of actually engaging in violence, or enduring risk themselves (something believable to other rabbits). In essence, in debate, the rabbits are a bunch of frightened cowards, each desperately running away from the threats of mob violence wielded by their opponents, as they simultaneously try to frighten others with their own imaginary mobs, so as to elevate their own status. The rabbit who frightens all the others best while avoiding their threats gets the status, by virtue of being the only one who didn’t run away.

This is why we have all of the leftist social shaming today, from political correctness, to SJWs, to hate speech, to triggers, to social shaming, to boycotts, to witchhunts, an on and on. Each is an attempt by the fearful to rein in the unmanageable among us, using the threat of the group’s ire to scare them. If we are so awful, why will the leftist not dispatch us themselves, by their own hand? It is a strategy to wield threat while avoiding conflict themselves.

Where this becomes most fascinating is where this strategy is applied, in lieu of logic, in the course of logical debate.

To understand the difference in the programming, you must first visualize the dichotomy in its more extreme form. Invade Vox’s house and threaten his family, and he will fight. It isn’t a question, or a logical problem to be considered. He won’t feel bad about it, or worry about it, or desperately look to avoid it at any cost. Let the attacker have overwhelming enough force to make fighting suicidal as he threatens Vox’s family, and Vox would probably approach the battle with a workman-like attitude as he looked for an opportunity to prevail despite the odds. If you are a K, fighting to protect your own is just what you do, and death comes with time to all.

Rabbits are different. Invade their house, and they will capitulate. Grab their wife to beat, rape, and kill her, and they will cower in corner obediently, hopeful you will confine your assault and murder solely to their spouse and children. They may even compliment you on the strength of your backhand, hoping that compliment will save them. Let a ruthless despot take control of their nation, and they will put their heads down, hide when they can, and hope that with enough supplication they will not be hauled away and killed. And if the government comes, they will go to their execution obediently. One of Stalin’s most trusted henchmen, Nikolai Yezhov, being executed on Stalin’s whim, still professed his love for Stalin, and swore he would die with Stalin’s name on his lips.

At this level, it is the Stockholm Syndrome. When people are so cowed by conflict that they behave like that, it is the hallmark of a completely different mindset, which will manifest much differently, even in the mere rhetorical jousting of logical debate. A victim of the Stockholm Syndrome, and Ronald Reagan, will have vastly different programming running when they clash in debate. One will eagerly respond to logic, the other will only grovel with the application of fear.

So returning to the Roosh comment. What those leftists are saying is not, “Roosh is disqualified because his reputation is not respected due to a (supposedly) factual assertion by me.” They aren’t even saying that, “Roosh’s opinion doesn’t count because I am smearing him.” What the rabbits are saying is, “Roosh is about to have the group turn upon him, so anyone who stands with him is in physical danger themselves. Do you want to be there with him when he’s attacked?” That is the dogwhistle which any rabbit will hear blaring in their ear.

Vox’s expected response is to flee the rhetorical vicinity of Roosh, because that is how a rabbit is programmed, and rabbits base all their assumptions about the behavior of others on how they themselves would react. You can see what happens when you have no in-group loyalty. You know you are alone, because you would eagerly betray yourself if the circumstances were reversed.

What is funny is that Vox is so totally lacking in such fear and conflict-avoidance circuitry that he seems unaware that anyone would ever even experience a fear of danger from such a trigger. Yet the fear (and desperate desire for conflict-avoidance) is so ever present in the rabbit, he just assumes Vox will flee from Roosh immediately, both sacrificing Roosh’s support for Vox’s position, and casting Roosh adrift alone. This is how rabbits gain social status, when people aren’t actively killing off the weak. They use rabbit fear and selfishness to foster betrayal among other rabbits.

Vox’s response is dead on. In tightening ranks with Roosh offensively, and casting rabbits as the enemy, Vox releases a signal that things are getting aggressive, and the leftist’s best course to follow for conflict-avoidance would be complete capitulation and supplication. Of course the leftist response will be to flee. The defense has become most offensive indeed.

As was pointed out in a previous post on the Enterovirus that Obama has infected our children with, this effect can be used elsewhere, and the example it produces there may illuminate the nature of this effect better, due to its more extreme presentation.

In the linked article, rabbit scientists try to argue that examining if Obama may have brought the Enterovirus here wouldn’t be useful. When arguing this point, you could make a great scientific argument, but the leftist will ignore it unless it has one facet – casting somebody as the enemy that the group is about to set upon. To use this leftist psychology against them (indeed to most effectively argue in such a manner as to provoke leftist defeat), my first move would be to establish that someone is undoubtedly about to be attacked by an angry mob, and then ask if the scientist wants to ally with the person about to be attacked. In this case, the more you can subtly imply that the mob would be justified in attacking, the better the effect on the target’s amygdala. A hypothetical exchange might go like this:

Moderator : Some have said we need to examine if the current immigration surge has brought Enterovirus D68 into America. What are your thoughts on this Mr Rabbit?

Rabbit : I don’t think any useful scientific purpose would be served by pursuing that line of inquiry.

Me : I disagree. If Obama did bring the Enterovirus here through his immigration policies, then he betrayed American parents for foreigners. He wounded these American children for life, horribly. And it was all done in a crass effort to cater to foreigners who would support him politically, against real Americans.

If Obama’s actions on immigration paralyzed these children, don’t you think their parents deserve to know what the science says? Do you think other parents of healthy children deserve to know if a similar immigration policy in the future may make their children ill, paralyze them, or even kill them? If I were a parent of a sick child, I would want to know if these pro-immigration people did this to my child, and if I were a parent of a healthy child, I would want to know if a similar policy Obama proposes might do this to my child in the future.

Do you want to oppose the ability of all of our parents to protect their children, by hiding the science on this issue from them? If you advocate that, then you are advocating deceiving all American parents and putting their children at risk of paralysis or death, all for partisan political reasons, just to support your precious little left-wing political causes.

This has just enough science to justify it, and that creates the foundation for the fear triggering, which is really all that the rabbit hearing this will respond to.

Delivered hard, forcefully, with locked eye contact, and an aggressive, unwavering countenance, it would produce an immediate withdrawal, not due to the activation of logic circuits or reasoning, but due to the conflict and competition-avoidance circuitry which is perhaps the most deeply imbued programming in the rabbit brain. As I picture delivering this to a leftist rabbit, I can see the glossy eye’d panic set it, as they ponder the “danger” they are facing, and grow flustered with the myriad of bad options to deal with it. That is a dogwhistle, and it is disabling. Deliver the argument without the threat, and the rabbit will regroup and attack again some other way.

Their leftist neural circuitry is rabbit circuitry, and the easiest button to press in them is “Flee!” We need to press that button, often and hard.