In this article, I’ll use the Return Of Kings meetup outrage as a way to take a look at human behavior, especially when we encounter people we disagree with. More specifically, I’ll use it as a way to talk about in-groups and out-groups. Recently, throughout the Return Of Kings media blow up, we witnessed the behavior of people at their finest when leftists, feminists, and social justice warriors attacked ROK readers. They threatened violence, death, and directed their most toxic venom at Roosh himself. You saw the worst of human nature up close, with full endorsement from the media machine.

When Can You Trust The Media?

Suppose there was a case where a feminist writer had a large online presence, sold many self-published books, and had thousands of followers. This feminist is a firebrand who gained notoriety for writing things like “Men must submit to women,” “Men are weak,” and promoted a way of thinking that women should always lead men. For anyone who isn’t a fan of hers, all they’ve ever heard are the most extreme segments of her writing.

The media later reports headlines along the lines of “Pro-Castration Feminist To Hold Rallies Worldwide.” Journalists claim this feminist writer is now promoting the castration of men based on a satirical article she wrote. Articles are released claiming she is holding meetings in dozens of cities centered on the idea that it should be “legal to castrate men on private property.”

Most of us would think she was insane, some of us would read the article, and a few would want to draw the worst conclusions from it. Some of us might say things like, “Yeah, she says it’s satire but this is how they actually think.”

Of course, the media would not treat this feminist nearly as horribly as they treated Roosh, and the masses would not be triggered the way they were as a result of the ROK meetup announcement. But I’m not talking about the sheep, the media, or feminists. I’m talking about you. About us. We would not react in a violent rage, and we wouldn’t threaten violence to anyone, but many of us would be angry. If we had the full endorsement of the machine to behave in any way we wanted, the way feminists currently do, it is possible that we might also act differently when we encounter a provocative article online and are fully encouraged by the machine to vent our rage.

How To Identify An Out-group

Now, let’s talk about descriptions. While reading about the outrage (and trolling on Twitter), I noticed something interesting about the words leftists used to characterize us:

“These guys all think women owe them something”

“Typical rapist bro”

“Another loser pick up artist”

“They all even speak the same”

What is the most common thread linking these sorts of comments together? “These guys are all the same.” For them, we are an indistinguishable bro-y, rape-y, douche-y mass. This is exactly how an in-group identifies an out-group.

We think the SJWs who are poisoned by a false ideology are all indistinguishable. For them, we follow a worthless philosophy and are indistinguishable. We see their idiocy and they see the same in us. We see collapse at the end of the progressive tunnel, and they see something equally terrible if we return to patriarchy. Engaging one of them and saying their progressive beliefs are wrong would be like them engaging you by saying your neomasculine beliefs are wrong.

Is The Out-Group Worth Hating?

One of the principles of in-group versus out-group behavior is that the in-group applies stereotypes to the out-group. This means that we personally and carefully evaluate people who are in our in-groups, and generally and hastily assess people in the out-groups. To put it another way, we treat in-group members as individuals, and respond to the out-group as members of a class or category.

Loading...

We more often notice the differences between those who are in our in-groups. For members of the out-group, we emphasize their similarities. For an historical example, think about World War II. To the American in the 1940s the Japanese were shifty and treacherous individuals, not to be trusted. For the Japanese, the Americans were hypocritical and uncultured because the American missionaries and salesmen, who the Japanese had the most contact with, seemed to have flimsy ethics and bad manners.

To take a relevant example, to members of the ROK community, all SJWs seem to look alike and seem basically indistinguishable from one another. We all know the markers: Short hair, neon coloring, overweight, etc. These are stereotypes for a reason.

Still, this is exactly how leftists see us. As soon as you classify yourself as a supporter of masculinity, patriarchy, or traditional values, you are no longer a complete human being with unique thoughts, feelings, and opinions. You are a member of the out-group.

If you try explaining to them that you are not a monster, but a man who just thinks maybe something is wrong with society, they don’t hear that. All they hear is, “I am a member of the out-group. I believe in crazy things that will oppress people. I might also hate anyone who doesn’t look like me or think like me.”

If you don’t believe me, try to flip this. Imagine that you are having a conversation with a girl, and suddenly she tells you that she is a major feminist, read all the literature, and thinks there is something wrong with society. At that point, she starts telling you what she thinks would help. Would you listen to her?

Can A Feminist Feel Love?

A second principle of in-group versus out-group behavior is group signaling. For social identification, it is just as important to show disapproval of the out-group as it is to affirm the values of your in-group.

We saw a ton of this during the ROK outrage. All over social media and protest groups we saw people posting things to show their friends that they disapproved of rape, which is a very courageous stance to take. The ROK protestors were attempting to gain status among their peers by showing them that they are against whatever the media tells them ROK stands for.

This type of group membership thinking is so ingrained, that we even believe only our in-group has certain capabilities for thoughts and feelings, whereas for the out-group, their capabilities have a more limited range. Depending on the out-group we will assign one set of capabilities but not others. For example, we might assign to a group capabilities like planning, manipulation, and cold logic but not the capability for others like pain, desire, or sadness. For another out-group, we might attribute to them the ability to feel love, empathy, or happiness but not the capability for planning, manipulation, and higher-order thinking.

Look at how one feminist describes a related idea:

A few articles have been making the internet rounds recently about horrifying discoveries that seemingly normal men were actually part of the “manosphere.’

Seemingly normal. It’s as though we have in our minds a list like “human qualities” which we attribute to our in-group, but out-groups can only have a few of those traits, but never all of them. That group can only think, that group can only feel, but we can do both. The out-group cannot be capable of feeling the entire range of thoughts and emotions, otherwise we might mistake them for being human.

But why does any of this matter—why should you care that you are an out-group to your out-group? Three reasons. First, by temporarily adopting the other position, you will strengthen your own argument for why neomasculinity is truly a better philosophy than leftism. Second, you will be able to more quickly identify true believers in leftism and not waste energy trying to convert them. Third, you will more clearly know what you are up against by subjecting your own beliefs to rigorous examination.

As strongly as you hold your beliefs, the leftists hold theirs equally strongly. But if you have the benefit of understanding this, it is to your advantage.

Read More: How 4Chan Discredited A Culture Of Outrage