I just had a short exchange on reddit with a guy, where I explained my idea of the whole MGTOW 'definition', and it got me into an analogy I would like to share here if anyone is interested.
When I was a kid, like a lot of average guys my age, I played a game called 'Dungeons and Dragons' with my friends. What the game was and how it works isn't really all that important here, but the system it used called 'alignment' is.
Actually, I guess some explanation is really necessary, so for the vast majority of you who know this already, slide on past the explanation if you like. D&D is a Role Playing Game (or RPG) where the player assumes a persona, and 'plays that character'. This meant a means of quantifying such nebulous characteristics as 'is this person a good person? What is 'good' to you?' etc, had to be employed.
D&D did this by a two word descriptor system, the first word being one of three words (Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic) describing the characters tendency to obey, or flout, well... authority essentially. The second descriptor was again, a choice of three words (Good, Neutral, or Evil) which basically - in my view at least - described how selfish/less the character was.
Ergo, a character that was Chaotic Evil would be, essentially, a completely self absorbed individual who believed rules were for suckers, and acted accordingly. Conversely, a Lawful Good character would obey the Law rigidly, and would sacrifice himself 'for the greater good' without hesitation.
When you get to the 'neutral' bits, things get more cloudy. A Neutral Good character, for instance, is equally likely to obey the Law as not, but the Lawbreaking is usually out of good intentions. A Neutral Evil character, again, about equally likely to obey (for instance, out of fear) or not, but nearly always with selfish intent.
A True Neutral character would be equally likely to be selfish or selfless at turns, and equally likely to obey orders as not.
The various combinations allowed:
Lawful Good
Lawful Neutral
Lawful Evil
Neutral Good
Neutral
Neutral Evil
Chaotic Good
CHaotic Neutral
Chaotic Evil
In Manosphere parlance, this translates thusly:
Traditionalist/MRA
Traditionalist/MGTOW
Traditionalist/PUA (Game Theorists)
MGTOW/MRA
MGTOW(Zeta)
MGTOW/PUA
Nihilist/MRA
Nihilist/MGTOW
Nihilist/PUA
You may not agree with my classification system, but it's the way I've been thinking of the Manosphere since before it was the Manosphere, only I never really codified it to myself until now.
Seems like a concise way of thinking to me. If you agree/disagree, feel free to let me know.
When I was a kid, like a lot of average guys my age, I played a game called 'Dungeons and Dragons' with my friends. What the game was and how it works isn't really all that important here, but the system it used called 'alignment' is.
Actually, I guess some explanation is really necessary, so for the vast majority of you who know this already, slide on past the explanation if you like. D&D is a Role Playing Game (or RPG) where the player assumes a persona, and 'plays that character'. This meant a means of quantifying such nebulous characteristics as 'is this person a good person? What is 'good' to you?' etc, had to be employed.
D&D did this by a two word descriptor system, the first word being one of three words (Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic) describing the characters tendency to obey, or flout, well... authority essentially. The second descriptor was again, a choice of three words (Good, Neutral, or Evil) which basically - in my view at least - described how selfish/less the character was.
Ergo, a character that was Chaotic Evil would be, essentially, a completely self absorbed individual who believed rules were for suckers, and acted accordingly. Conversely, a Lawful Good character would obey the Law rigidly, and would sacrifice himself 'for the greater good' without hesitation.
When you get to the 'neutral' bits, things get more cloudy. A Neutral Good character, for instance, is equally likely to obey the Law as not, but the Lawbreaking is usually out of good intentions. A Neutral Evil character, again, about equally likely to obey (for instance, out of fear) or not, but nearly always with selfish intent.
A True Neutral character would be equally likely to be selfish or selfless at turns, and equally likely to obey orders as not.
The various combinations allowed:
Lawful Good
Lawful Neutral
Lawful Evil
Neutral Good
Neutral
Neutral Evil
Chaotic Good
CHaotic Neutral
Chaotic Evil
In Manosphere parlance, this translates thusly:
Traditionalist/MRA
Traditionalist/MGTOW
Traditionalist/PUA (Game Theorists)
MGTOW/MRA
MGTOW(Zeta)
MGTOW/PUA
Nihilist/MRA
Nihilist/MGTOW
Nihilist/PUA
You may not agree with my classification system, but it's the way I've been thinking of the Manosphere since before it was the Manosphere, only I never really codified it to myself until now.
Seems like a concise way of thinking to me. If you agree/disagree, feel free to let me know.
No comments:
Post a Comment