Possibly Useful
- Thread starter bearcat22
- Start date
Help Support Loneliness, Depression & Relationship Forum:
[quote pid='891463' dateline='1547139270']
For perspective, I watched a video of Anthony "Tony" Robbins and I have to say I disagree based on what makes an excellent public speaker. I'd say it often runs counter to being a genuine person. Farrell might not be a "powerful" speaker in his softspokeness but he comes across as more sincere and also non-confrontational to me while the most "effective" speakers are often riding a thin line between being effective and being a hack. Since most of Farrell's books are one or two decades old by now, I do agree on the necessary updating though. One point of criticism I have is that Farrell can be a bit too spiritual for my taste.
I'm familiar with MGTOW but I'm interested in whether you have specific people to name when it comes to the point of MGTOW being the strongest voices - unless you just meant collectively. A point would might disagree on either way, because the "golden age" has been over for a while and the average person is too prone to hyperbole, heavy emotional investment and a rather combative rhetoric. None of which is useful when faced with accusations of just being "angry".
I hadn't heard the author Jack Kammer before but it seems somewhat interesting, so I might give it read. Thanks for the mention.
[/quote]
This thread relates to the aspect of loneliness that arises from a huge movement to promote hatred and violence
against all males.
To disclaim, I only have read some of each man's books and have seen only some of their videos.
I am in no way an especial advocate to Tony Robbins, and I am well aware he can be and is
considered by some people to be just a salesman, which implies dishonesty.
I do strongly agree with some of what Warren Farrell has to say but do not at all endorse all his ideas.
i would also like to say that I am emphatically NOT a conservative and emphatically NOT a liberal.
Thank you for your reply, this gives me things to consider.
The basic subject was Warren Farrell, his overall message, and how to best promote, convey
and broadcast that message.
I made a comment about speaking style.
I guess what is at issue here is the term "excellent".
In this context, I have several criteria:
1. The speaker must have a strength of voice that comes across with physical clarity. When Anthony Robbins speaks,
I have no trouble knowing which words he used, or how he meant them to come across as both ideas and emotions.
I think it can reasonably be argued that in our current culture, if you wish to reach the majority of persons attention, this is a
bare essential.
2. There must be an ability and a preparedness to respond to attack.
When challenged, Anthony Robbins has consistently demonstrated that he can answer a question, answer
a heckler, or answer a hostile interviewer INSTANTANEOUSLY with a flood of direct calm speech filled with facts
and accuracy. He is ready, willing and MORE than able to PARRY, which is an absolute essential for an excellent speaker.
The reason for this is that in the war we are in, and it is a war, the tactic now being used is to literally shout down men like Warren Farrell.
I am sure you can find the several Youtube videos of this happening.'
3. There must be an ability to convey a very large range of tones to convey a very large range of emphasis
and emotion. There can be no hint whatsoever of Droning or being boring. Truth and facts are NOT enough,
there has to be at least SOME stimulation and variation to keep a listener engaged. There can be no hint whatsoever
of mumbling or any backtracking. Say one thing all the way through, and say it without any amendments or lack of certainty.
4. Courage. Anthony Robbins is polite, but not apologetic. Warren Farrell, by contrast appears to be actually full of fear
and guilt about speaking the truth, every single time he speaks.
5. You mentioned sincerity. This is an important factor. Demagogues do exist, and their self confidence should
not be confused with honesty. However, this is not enough. When I hear Warren Farrell speak what I hear is
"please don't hurt me, can't we all just get along and play nice?"
Suppose a rapist breaks into your house to steal your money, **** your wife, and torture your children to death.
You might be very SINCERE if you beg, "please don't stab me any more, you can do
anything you want to my wife and kids" but what is that worth?
We are dealing with people who say, with deadly sincerity, "All men are rapists" and "All women are victims of men".
These are deeply evil people and an excellent speaking voice is only one of many weapons that we are going to need to defend ourselves.
6. Energy. Anthony Robbins comes across with PASSION. What Warren Farrell has to say
is AT LEAST as exciting and important, but he speaks with all the enthusiasm of a wet rag.
The prolific Sandman has made a few very strong videos, but it not nearly enough. MGTOW is
fine, as far as it goes, but it won't protect you from the ***** by the law or the culture.
You can hide out in a cave only so long before you have to go out and stab that bear with a spear.
@@@
@
For perspective, I watched a video of Anthony "Tony" Robbins and I have to say I disagree based on what makes an excellent public speaker. I'd say it often runs counter to being a genuine person. Farrell might not be a "powerful" speaker in his softspokeness but he comes across as more sincere and also non-confrontational to me while the most "effective" speakers are often riding a thin line between being effective and being a hack. Since most of Farrell's books are one or two decades old by now, I do agree on the necessary updating though. One point of criticism I have is that Farrell can be a bit too spiritual for my taste.
I'm familiar with MGTOW but I'm interested in whether you have specific people to name when it comes to the point of MGTOW being the strongest voices - unless you just meant collectively. A point would might disagree on either way, because the "golden age" has been over for a while and the average person is too prone to hyperbole, heavy emotional investment and a rather combative rhetoric. None of which is useful when faced with accusations of just being "angry".
I hadn't heard the author Jack Kammer before but it seems somewhat interesting, so I might give it read. Thanks for the mention.
[/quote]
This thread relates to the aspect of loneliness that arises from a huge movement to promote hatred and violence
against all males.
To disclaim, I only have read some of each man's books and have seen only some of their videos.
I am in no way an especial advocate to Tony Robbins, and I am well aware he can be and is
considered by some people to be just a salesman, which implies dishonesty.
I do strongly agree with some of what Warren Farrell has to say but do not at all endorse all his ideas.
i would also like to say that I am emphatically NOT a conservative and emphatically NOT a liberal.
Thank you for your reply, this gives me things to consider.
The basic subject was Warren Farrell, his overall message, and how to best promote, convey
and broadcast that message.
I made a comment about speaking style.
I guess what is at issue here is the term "excellent".
In this context, I have several criteria:
1. The speaker must have a strength of voice that comes across with physical clarity. When Anthony Robbins speaks,
I have no trouble knowing which words he used, or how he meant them to come across as both ideas and emotions.
I think it can reasonably be argued that in our current culture, if you wish to reach the majority of persons attention, this is a
bare essential.
2. There must be an ability and a preparedness to respond to attack.
When challenged, Anthony Robbins has consistently demonstrated that he can answer a question, answer
a heckler, or answer a hostile interviewer INSTANTANEOUSLY with a flood of direct calm speech filled with facts
and accuracy. He is ready, willing and MORE than able to PARRY, which is an absolute essential for an excellent speaker.
The reason for this is that in the war we are in, and it is a war, the tactic now being used is to literally shout down men like Warren Farrell.
I am sure you can find the several Youtube videos of this happening.'
3. There must be an ability to convey a very large range of tones to convey a very large range of emphasis
and emotion. There can be no hint whatsoever of Droning or being boring. Truth and facts are NOT enough,
there has to be at least SOME stimulation and variation to keep a listener engaged. There can be no hint whatsoever
of mumbling or any backtracking. Say one thing all the way through, and say it without any amendments or lack of certainty.
4. Courage. Anthony Robbins is polite, but not apologetic. Warren Farrell, by contrast appears to be actually full of fear
and guilt about speaking the truth, every single time he speaks.
5. You mentioned sincerity. This is an important factor. Demagogues do exist, and their self confidence should
not be confused with honesty. However, this is not enough. When I hear Warren Farrell speak what I hear is
"please don't hurt me, can't we all just get along and play nice?"
Suppose a rapist breaks into your house to steal your money, **** your wife, and torture your children to death.
You might be very SINCERE if you beg, "please don't stab me any more, you can do
anything you want to my wife and kids" but what is that worth?
We are dealing with people who say, with deadly sincerity, "All men are rapists" and "All women are victims of men".
These are deeply evil people and an excellent speaking voice is only one of many weapons that we are going to need to defend ourselves.
6. Energy. Anthony Robbins comes across with PASSION. What Warren Farrell has to say
is AT LEAST as exciting and important, but he speaks with all the enthusiasm of a wet rag.
The prolific Sandman has made a few very strong videos, but it not nearly enough. MGTOW is
fine, as far as it goes, but it won't protect you from the ***** by the law or the culture.
You can hide out in a cave only so long before you have to go out and stab that bear with a spear.
@@@
@
user 115627
It's all so tiresome.
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2014
- Messages
- 4,979
- Reaction score
- 83
Reading your posts is giving me a mild aneurysm due to layout and content alike. Let me respond to your points broadly, but not without prefacing that I'm painfully aware of the "Men are the problem" crowd and the attempts to simply shut down even a mild-mannered man like Dr. Farrell by shouting buzzwords and pulling fire alarms. To continue...
My counterpoint is "content". As much as I'd wish that the topic of men and men's issues wasn't a contentious one, I know well enough that it still is. A man like Tony Robbins can speak with all the necessary strength, courage and passion because he's a motivational speaker and business strategist. I'd also say that he can speak to a group of strangers who see him for the first time and he can draw them in easily while men's issues is something that requires a much vaster foundation to be addressed properly while having to defend itself against accusations of "stealing away attention from the real victims/problems", to put it mildly. A proper apples-to-apples comparison would be to compare him to a Jordan Peterson or a Karen Straughan, actual contentious figures who deal in equally contentious information.
I would have agreed with all your criteria on good public speakers without the extreme detail. My points remain the same though. By the way, go easy on the pathos and the threat narrative. You had to bring up a fictional person who wants to **** my non-existent wife and children up to bring one of your points across...I don't want to be too snide, but I'm sure you are well aware of the term gynocentrism. Let's not forgot that an Anthony Robbins can still be a complete wimp when faced with a truly life-threatening situation when all he has is his stage rhetoric.
A personal note:
Don't create so many topics, you're close to being a spammer when considering that your responses are often long, weirdly formatted and a pain to read, even when they started from just a single sentence or a little poem. I've also read your responses to other people and I implore you to be as calm, rational and concise as you possibly can or you will look like just another one of "those men" with a chip on their shoulder. Dare I say you come across as someone with an activist mindset. I think it's much more productive to just have a casual conversation with people in order to open their minds to the other side of the argument. Your war rhetoric is alienating. Not splitting words here, but it just doesn't work when 99.9% of the population don't even know the war exists. Let me be clear though: I'm not your enemy. My opinion is closer than yours than you think, but you might be doing more harm than good.
My counterpoint is "content". As much as I'd wish that the topic of men and men's issues wasn't a contentious one, I know well enough that it still is. A man like Tony Robbins can speak with all the necessary strength, courage and passion because he's a motivational speaker and business strategist. I'd also say that he can speak to a group of strangers who see him for the first time and he can draw them in easily while men's issues is something that requires a much vaster foundation to be addressed properly while having to defend itself against accusations of "stealing away attention from the real victims/problems", to put it mildly. A proper apples-to-apples comparison would be to compare him to a Jordan Peterson or a Karen Straughan, actual contentious figures who deal in equally contentious information.
I would have agreed with all your criteria on good public speakers without the extreme detail. My points remain the same though. By the way, go easy on the pathos and the threat narrative. You had to bring up a fictional person who wants to **** my non-existent wife and children up to bring one of your points across...I don't want to be too snide, but I'm sure you are well aware of the term gynocentrism. Let's not forgot that an Anthony Robbins can still be a complete wimp when faced with a truly life-threatening situation when all he has is his stage rhetoric.
A personal note:
Don't create so many topics, you're close to being a spammer when considering that your responses are often long, weirdly formatted and a pain to read, even when they started from just a single sentence or a little poem. I've also read your responses to other people and I implore you to be as calm, rational and concise as you possibly can or you will look like just another one of "those men" with a chip on their shoulder. Dare I say you come across as someone with an activist mindset. I think it's much more productive to just have a casual conversation with people in order to open their minds to the other side of the argument. Your war rhetoric is alienating. Not splitting words here, but it just doesn't work when 99.9% of the population don't even know the war exists. Let me be clear though: I'm not your enemy. My opinion is closer than yours than you think, but you might be doing more harm than good.
Rodent said:
I think your reply is well meant and well said, and I assure you I will give it all the consideration it deserves.
It's unfortunate if the layout I choose happens not to be suitable to you, as well as various other objections
you raise. I'd say the obvious answer is, simply don't read my posts if they don't suit you. Or, for that matter, if
you think you can do better, be my guest.
If you can point to a site regulation regarding how many posts a person can place here, by all means, please do
so. You don't appear concerned about numerous others who appear to post even more than I do, usually only
in an effort to find someone to judge.
If you think fighting fire with fire is not productive, by all means, don't do it.
If you believe that appeasement and cowardice is going to win this war, by all means do keep trying that. Worked out just great
"playing nice" with Hitler, didn't it?
We've seen the Warren Farrell public speaking and interview approach. How's that working out for ya?
Many feminists decide to quit trying to call you a rapist exploiter after listening to him?
What is needed is a call to war and a strong voice saying "how DARE you try to pull this **** on men?"
As I said, I don't claim any comprehensive knowledge of either author. If you have some proof of your
insult, " Let's not forgot that an Anthony Robbins can still be a complete wimp when faced with a truly life-threatening situation when all he has is his stage rhetoric." by all means, let's see it.
A few sayings, old and new, come to mind:
If you aren't angry, you're not paying attention.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
Lead, Follow or GET OUT OF THE WAY
.
.
.
.
user 115627
It's all so tiresome.
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2014
- Messages
- 4,979
- Reaction score
- 83
I'm sorry you feel this way. I have played nice and argued points related to yours on this forum and so far it kept me from being banned or getting reprimanded, a privilege you might not enjoy. It might indicate that I am indeed doing better, not trying to blow my own horn here. Instead of platitudes and sayings, I'd rather go my own way. Good luck.
Rodent said:
I don't know what century you're living in, but in mine it is a simple matter to
circumvent forum bans.
If you have indeed produced the results you wish to, congratulations.
I'm satisfied with my approach.
If you would indeed prefer to 'go your own way" why did you bother to enter my thread or attempt
to change my methods? I am not at all concerned with yours.
,
,,
Hazed said:
Hazed, to whom are you addressing your post?
If to me, I am still the same person that made the original post.
If anything could be said to have "happened" it is that
I got some replies and answered them.
Why does that appear to trouble you?
Just out of curiosity, could you please explain, in as much
detail as you kindly would, your definition of the word "cool"?
Do you mean hasty, lazy, sloppy, conformist, popular, shallow?
,
,
,
Hazed said:
Not a problem, mistakes happen.
As for what you mean, no, there really can't be any certainty as to what you mean,
since I know nothing whatsoever about you. I have not seen your actions, read your posts,
listened to you speak, much less in relation to this specific word.
If I have been "pretentious" I challenge you to prove it.
In order to be so, I would have falsely claim to have some specific knowledge or skill.
What precisely are you accusing me of?
Perhaps you meant to use the word "disingenuous"?
As for "cool" perhaps you are not aware that some persons would consider those
commonly referred to as "cool" as nearly worthless vapid persons.
That would make the label an insult.
Perhaps "admirable" or "respectable" would be better compliments, but of
course it is your life and your language.
.
.
.
Similar threads
