Gammas must gamma

Gammas must gamma. After blocking this gent, he made an end-around and tried to post to my youtube.

From my critic earlier.


Dude, after listening to you for 100+ Barbell Logic episodes, I’m honestly shocked at how intellectually dishonest you are. You avoid posting my blog comment and block me for what, because I said some mean things? Fuck you, hypocrite, you called me a nitwit and a moron in a 20 minute video response to a simple email. More importantly, not once have you addressed the very basic criticism I have, which is that you present a false dichotomy of “problem” or “not problem” as the only options. You’re such a delicate snowflake that you melt the first time someone points out a simple logical fallacy, and start ranting incoherently about good and evil as if I’m personally attacking your values and family. Grow the fuck up.

Did I call the guy a nitwit or a moron? I don’t recollect doing that. He probably thinks that about me.

As for the false dichotomy of “problem” or “not problem,” I refer all of you back to the Law of the Excluded Middle. Things are either problems, or not problems. I wrote about that in the original post he responded to. The fact that people use a different word in an attempt to create a new category to skirt the LOTEM doesn’t change a thing.

Here’s the correct question from another reader/listener with a healthy mind and heart.

How do you define something that has the potential to become a problem if other variables happen to come together to make it so?

To which I say the variables are the problems.

Here’s our worn out example. Is marriage problematic? No. Marriage is great.

If a husband is a drunk and the wife is a gambler, those contributory factors are problems that cause the marriage to fail. Those factors are not inherent in marriage. Good contributory factors can never confound a marriage. Bad contributory factors will always confound a marriage, possibly to the point of failure. That doesn’t mean the marriage is a problem, or even “problemish.” By the LOTEM, it is not a problem.

If we believe in objective “goods” and “bads” it becomes clear than nothing good can hurt anything else that is good.

The new category of “problematic” crops up when people don’t hold this idea of the good. Painting the good with the “problematic” brush debases the good in the mind of the listener and thinker. That is evil. That is a personal attack on my values and my family. When someone hurts the good, he hurts us all.

If you are someone who reads this and thinks I need to be set straight, go somewhere else. Read something else. Create something else. After making it into my 5th decade and having accomplished what I’ve accomplished, I’m good to go without your “setting me straight.” You’re more than likely wrong anyway.

I have friends and love ones way smarter than you who I look to for accountability, your input isn’t welcome. To that end, I’ve now blocked the original poster on YouTube. Further contact from this man will result in me publishing his contact information.

4 thoughts on “Gammas must gamma”

  1. Your statement “Read something else.” is what most should do if an article doesn’t resound with them and causing them to think and have internal discussion. I had never dug into the use of the word problematic, but I totally agree that just because a problem exist doesn’t mean that the subject is problematic.

    1. This. Peoples blogs aren’t public forums they are Private places. If you walk into someones place of business and are a nuisance they have every right to show you the door. same applies here.

  2. I’ve been a long time follower of Barbell Logic and The Art of Manliness Podcasts. More people should tune into what these folks are sharing.
    Both of these sources have inspired me to become an avid reader and student of greats like Homer and Plato. I recently finished The Republic and from that I can clearly see where Scott is coming from in his post.
    Maybe if people were more interested in getting educated rather than always wanting to have the last word, they’d be less offended.

Leave a Reply to ScottHambrick Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top