A couple of other bloggers were kind enough to put together transcripts of the Warhorn podcast for those who don’t want to listen to the silliness but want to understand what was said. OKRickety put together what looks like a very complete transcript. I have only read about half way through, but it looks very thorough.
Larry Kummer, Editor of Fabius Maximus put together a more brief transcript, including his own notes. I am publishing it here with his gracious permission:
Transcript of “Into the Manosphere” at Warhorn, 26 February 2019.
Begins at the one-hour mark. Which appears to be roughly where they begin the summary of this 1 hr. 13-minute broadcast.
Note: I am not a stenographer, and did not review this for accuracy. It is a best-efforts transcript.
There are two speakers, I did not note who was speaking, or transitions.
“D” means Dalrock. I omit many of the verbal ticks (e.g., beginning many sentences with “and”).My comments are preceded by asterisks (*).
My note: This is the most obvious case of mirroring I’ve seen in a long time. Many of their accusations about you refer – quite obviously, imo – to themselves. It’s also pretty much gibberish.
—
Let’s talk about that. D does link to and quote sources meticulously. Then he regularly mischaracterizes what he quotes. He gets away with it among his followers. Why? There is only one real answer. That’s the fact that he relies on the appearance of honest to get his work done.Or more accurately. He relies on the laziness of his followers and their desire for validation. {High pitched funny voice} “Will someone please validate me.”
I picture all his followers as angry 20-somethings in their moms’ basements or a 40 or 50-year-old guy that just got a divorce and he’s mad and just wants someone to validate him and tell him he’s right. D relies on that because those guys aren’t going to follow the links.
Just be clear here. You’re accusing all of D’s followers of being dumb internet trolls.
No. I’m sure there is a wide variety of people who read D for all kinds of reasons. You read him. I read him. But when he gets away with the kind of blatant mischaracterizations that he gets away with regularly, one begins to wonder.
Why all this in response to his pseudonymous, Jake?
Because it’s a diversionary tactic. He wants to bluster about it being the arguments and about the truth. He wants to posture himself as the honest one and the victim of character assignation. He want to control the conversation by asserting from the top that anyone who questions his character in this process simply doesn’t have the chops to handle his arguments. That is all bluster and bravado and it is a diversionary tactic that is dishonest in his arguments from the top.
How do we respond?
First, has this guy even met a real SJW in his life? We’ve met SJWs … I don’t want to be self-aggrandizing, but Jake and I have had these public things transpire where large groups of so-called progressives were really really {sic} angry at us … {examples given}
Or you can go to the abortion clinic or the courthouse. … {discussing where to find progressives}. We deal with these people all the time … {examples}
My point. No SJW comes to Dalrock thinking {said with silly voice; both laugh often during this, which they appear to consider hilarious}:
“I have to find away around this guy because I know I’d lose against him in open debate. Because I’m really stupid. I’m a random minion unable to find his way around Conan the Barbarian because he scares me so much. He’d just kill me. So I’d better find a way to shoot arrows at him.”
Please. Anyone who has actually engaged with these people knows that they are completely confident that they’ll take you in open debate. {series of silly statements about SWJs} …
{Said in silly voice} “I know I can’t win in open debate so I need to assassinate your character.” Character assignation is a matter of {unclear: “pride in this case”}. They are happy to assassinate your character. {more discussion about this} …
So we’ve demonstrated that D has a fundamentally dishonest way of handling arguments and sources. So, can we talk about his character?
What kind of man props himself up as a teacher of men {funny voice} “about the nature of masculinity?” But without the courage to put his name behind what he signs? A coward. That’s the kind. {music begins} The kind of man who would never say to someone’s face what he says on the internet. That’s the kind of man that can’t be trusted.
**** My note: just like the writers of the Federalist Papers.
He can’t be examined by Jesus’ rule for teachers “You will know them by their fruit.” … If he says his fruit is in his teaching and his followers, fine. Take a look at his comment threads. That’s all you need to know.
**** IMO, this is a valid point.
And if he says his teaching o the Internet is not exercising authority, not claiming any kind of authority, and does not subject him to any kind of scrutiny – that’s just a feminist argument. …That’s the argument they use to have women deacons, for women elders, for women teaching mixed groups. They’re not exercising authority.
{change of voice} Jake, ad hominem much? Can we talk about ad hominin please?
{Jake} Knowledge is never divorced from character. Knowledge is never divorced from character. If I propound an idea it is completely legit to ask why and how I’m propounding it. Ad hominin is a perfectly reasonable form of argument.
**** This is nuts. The personal lives of philosophers, scientists, and leaders of all kinds are often of low character. We judge them by their deeds and their words. Often evil leaders have excellent characters.
{change of voice} I learned that’s not true. In high school debate class I learned that it is a fallacious form of argument. You’re attacking your opponent instead of his ideas. You can’t do that.
{Long discussion of ad hominin arguments follow. Both then agree this is a great thing to do.”
And D himself, the great philosopher, is not afraid to call out feminists for the unhappy fruits of their ideas.**** That’s the opposite of an ad hominem argument.
But you ask too many questions about D, you ask how he presents his ideas, or how his followers behave. Both D and his followers want to say “stop picking on us.” He is about the ideas.
Oh, yes. Yes. And ideas are connected to people. And Christ said of teachers, “You shall know them by their fruits.”
**** What are they saying about D? This makes no sense.
Right. The noting that ideas exist in this intellectual vacuum where they can be studied like some sort of museum exhibit just under glass. You go and look at the idea and look at the other angles of the idea and we all stay outside of the idea. Thumbs down!
Thumbs down!
**** This makes no sense. Also, what is the relevance to Dalrock?
Some it up in a sentence, Jake.
D is a man who cannot be trusted. You cannot trust his argumentation. You cannot trust his portrayal of his own honest and integrity. And you cannot trust his character. He hides behind weak arguments and he blusters about and postures himself as some hero of the manosphere. He would deny that. {funny voice} “I am just trafficking in ideas.”
That not how his followers threat him. They treat him like a founding father of some kind.
They call him that.
Yes. He’s bad. I’m thinking of Psalm 1. “Blessed is one who does not walk in the way of the scoffer, a mocker, the wicked.
You cannot engage with people of bad character and not be infected by it. This guy is poison. I don’t care if he says some correct things. A stopped clock is right twice a day. Lots of horrible people have said good things. But you do not want to hand out with bad people.
I learned some of my best theology from a serial predator that we based season one of The Ville on. So there you go.
**** Does this contradict the point they just made a length?
{more discussion about D in funny voices saying silly things.”
{music slowly swelling in strength} The mad is fundamentally dishonest about his character. He is not somebody who can be trusted to teach good theology no matter how many good things he says. No matter how God uses him.
Judas preached the true gospel. He preached repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. He healed people and he cast out demons. Then he betrayed Jesus for 30 pieces of silver. And hung himself. …
{More over-the-top denunciations of D}
D should shut up and give himself to his church. The people who follow him, who are out on the internet looking to him as a father, need to find a real father figure …
{The last 3 minutes is them saying silly things in funny voices, intending – I believe – to mock D. A lame attempt at humor.}
Probably a dumb question but I haven’t been paying a ton of attention to this whole thread: Are these Warhorn guys supposed to be Christians or are they just some run of the mill white knights with a soap box?
Not just Christians, but Reformed Christians, the kind that is A Cut Above.
I don’t blame people for not going to church. I haven’t sworn it off myself, but these people have a church I would not want to attend.
If you can stomach the podcast it’s a real lolcow. A look at the archives shows a recent show where they claim that Alex Honnold is a “coward” “effeminate and gay” because he won’t “process his fathers death” and stop taking ungodly risks. They are most concerned with the hardship on Honnold’s girlfriend. No matter that Free Solo tells of how she sought him out at a book signing and gave him her number. The 8.5 wanted a daredevil, not a smarmy church boy. “M’lady, Id never make you sad by taking those ungodly risks.”
Reading the transcript, my mind forms an image of a bunch of Tommy Chong types who are half drunk/stoned and trying to intelligently talk religion. Its nonsensical and comes off as sophomoric stupidity, and that’s just from reading the transcript! I dont think I could handle listening to this live for any amount of time, and I listen to a lot of dumb stuff. And what’s the chip on their shoulder about being anonymous? Have they met the internet before? So should I consider another Tetris player on my Xbox a huge loser for being “StayAtHomeMom9201” instead of “Karen Watterson of San Diego, CA”? I am aware of several families in foreign countries who are secretly holding church gatherings. Their anonymity is their safety and to lose it could mean their lives. Are they not to be believed or followed because they remain anonymous to many? These Warhorn guys are a joke and I actually feel stupider for knowing who they are now.
You better place yourself under their authority Dalrock. You better release your name, address, Pastor’s name, wife’s maiden name, children’s names, your GP, your first girl friend’s name, high school year book, all your high school reports, your university grades, company you work for, your employer’s name and your favourite sports team… else they won’t respect you in the morning; and you wouldn’t want that… now would you?!
You’ve been warned!
Answer for SnapperTrx:
John 10 (emphasis added):
11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
12 But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.
13 The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.
14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.
We would not eliminate all problems, by getting rid of all people who work in religion for pay… but we would get rid of many of them.
Funny how the religious professionals know the verse about the oxen and “the worker is worth his pay”, but do not know what Paul modelled in 2 Thess 3:10-12; he worked provided for himself, and also worked for free for God’s kingdom. Like most serious Christians.
@ Barnie
Chicks dig successful risk-takers. And Mr. Honnold is a famous, professional athlete, which gives him high status in his community, which makes him a catch for a hypergamous woman who is part of that community.
But making any of those obvious observations makes you a misogynist, and that’s not allowed, according to the Warhorners.
Every Churchian out there seems to intepret “You shall know them by their fruits” as license to ad hominem all they like and shut down any legitimate criticism.
@white
Without regard to the fact that Christ is the husbandman, not them.
Every Churchian out there seems to intepret “You shall know them by their fruits” as license to ad hominem all they like and shut down any legitimate criticism.
Right, and if we apply the standard they are using to them, the results are worse by far. Just embarrassing. I’m ashamed to talk about going to church around non christians, because stuff like this is pretty common. Previous pastor always wanted the congregation to invite people to church, and I thought why? No non christian I know would want to be part of this. If the church isn’t offering them salvation and truth, it’s just a third rate social club with virtue signalling and infighting.
A good church is something to cherish, but they are rare.
Actually, I think Dalrock should just cut out the middle men and send his name, address, phone number, a family photograph plus details about where he will be next Saturday to the local Dallas chapter of antifa or some other radical anarchist group that specializes in harassing conservatives. It seems that the Warhorn guys just won’t believe Dalrock’s concerns about needing his anonymity are legit until his wife and children are assaulted and put in the hospital and his house is burned to the ground.
Christians, part of a family of 3 pastors, who are trying to use fracturing in the PCA denomination to start their own denomination: evangel Presbytery
May they know everything they hypocritically ask for you Dalrock.
They think that SJW’s argue well???? Pardon me, but I have spent more time at liberal public universities than warhorn staff. Yes, liberals are confident, but their argumentation stems from emotion. Reason is not a quality that they value, or possess.
That these people think otherwise betrays their ignorance.
I am also not getting this hyper-expansive definition of Federal Headship. I understand how Adam’s sin is what initiated the fall and I understand the headship of the husband and how it mirrors the headship of Christ over the church. But the idea of blaming men for the fact that women are serving in combat missions is odd. Exactly what headship is involved here? Fathers who allow daughters to join the military? If she is an adult, he cannot stop her even if he wanted to. Pastors over women in their church who join? Again, what authority does a pastor have such that he should be blamed if women join the military? Is he to blame if he doesn’t speak against it? Or if he does speak against it and the women still join, does that get him off the hook?
Under our system of government, these decisions ultimately belong to the voters and the kind of politicians they elect. Given the so-called “gender gap” that has mostly women electing the kinds of politicians most devoted to women serving in combat, it seems that women are more to blame than men. Not exclusively, of course. But more so.
But the Tim/Joe Bayly doctrine of Federal Headship means that men are absolutely responsible for women in combat and women are not responsible at all. And this is what Federal Headship means? The Warhorn guys are very dismissive of Dalrock for not understanding this doctrine. But do they even understand it?
Welcome to covenant theologians flirting with “federal vision”.
Covenant theology can get very weird at times.
To my understanding, Tim Bayly took a soft stance on Douglas Wilson (federal visionist)
I’ve been harping on this fact for a long time in Dalrock’s comments. I don’t think he realizes he is in a larger war taking place in reformed churches. The allies of Wilson have targeted him
The sad thing is they never even engage with any arguments. None that I can see. They don’t even seem to try.
This is sad not because they are too stupid to engage in debate, but because they masqueraded as people who did actually care about the issues and wanted to report them accurately. Looks like they just wanted a target, someone to denounce.
Pingback: Warhorn’s projection | Dalrock
Here is an article on headship. Covenant theologians extend it and take it too far sometimes.
Covenant theology, replacement theology, and postmil eschatology greatly concern me. They have the tendency to create a separate religious system foreign to any other type of Christianity.
https://carm.org/federal-headship
@SnapperTrx
Warhorn Media and the Sound of Sanity podcast is a ministry of Pastor Tim Bayly’s Clearnote Church.
NotaBene nails the key point, imo, about the Warhorn guys.
“The sad thing is they never even engage with any arguments. None that I can see. They don’t even seem to try.”
Lots of smoke, followed by schoolyard insults – then denunciations. Sad.
It is a symptom of a sick culture that there is a large audience for these kind of people. It’s Weimamerica. Not gonna end well.
“Covenant theology, replacement theology, and postmil eschatology greatly concern me. They have the tendency to create a separate religious system foreign to any other type of Christianity.”
I think your concern here is somewhat misplaced in regards to covenant theology in that what we’re discussing here does not necessarily follow from it. Every denomination and theological framework has its cranks. How does your perception of flaws within covenant theology relate to the Warhorn matter? I don’t think I’m quite following you here.
@ Lexet Blog
That’s not their argument. The Warhorners’ argument is that SJWs go straight for character assassination, completely avoiding addressing any of their targets’ arguments.
If you’re confused, it’s probably for two reasons.
1. That’s exactly what the Warhorners did.
2. That argument supports Dalrock’s reasons for remaining anonymous.
In other words, the Warhorners don’t really know how to argue logically.
Its cult like mentality. They speak to their audience. Any criticism is wrong. They don’t need to establish facts, since their audience is suckered in.
I don’t want to get sucked into a feud, but this one is egregious. 1- one party claims to be a ministry, and 2- that party has been caught with their pants down.
There were times where Paul lived off of donations too. But the principle remains the same. The worst thing we did as a society was send kids to seminary to preach without having any practical skill.
It makes provision for his family the primary concern if he has to be removed, rather than the sin itself.
@Dalrock,
I have not followed the Warhorn exchange too closely, as it is very ‘inside Protestantism’, and I would prefer to be charitable to my separated brethren.
I couldn’t help but notice that Nathan claims you engaged in ‘character assignation’ with him.
Now, according to Longman’s dictionary, assignation means; a secret meeting, especially with someone you are having a romantic relationship with – often used humorously.
Question, was the assignation as good for Nathan as it was for you?
Delightful example of the Three Laws of SJW in action.
Also loving the “Demonstrate” portion of their rhetoric. This falls in with the “You can’t trust” wrapup. Summed up in a “Dalrock’s argument is bad and you should feel bad for reading it!” way.
SJW Gamma’s are so predictable.
“It seems that the Warhorn guys just won’t believe Dalrock’s concerns about needing his anonymity are legit until his wife and children are assaulted and put in the hospital and his house is burned to the ground.”
Don’t fall into that temptation Mitch. I used to feel the same way as you do, wanting to pillory myself just to spite the worldly powers and prove them wrong. Three bits I want to share. First is that these Warhorn guys are like the scorpion from ‘The Scorpion and the Frog’. “hehe don’t worry nothing bad is going to happen froggy, it would besmirch Warhorn’s reputation as well if I betray you!”
Second and third are from the Bible: There are those who will refuse to believe even if someone is resurrected from the dead in front of them. Lastly is when Satan tempts Jesus saying to put himself into danger purely to satisfy himself and pride. These Warhorn heretics, evil shameful demons, take tricks spoken into their ears by Satan himself. They want us to dash ourselves on the rocks to show submission to them alone. wtf, these vipers dare to show themselves and expect not to have their heads crushed.
Zachlott: That comment was In response to Mitch’s comment. Their (warhorn’s) concept of headship is informed by the rest of their theology. That affects how they view leadership and gender roles.
I won’t go into specifics, but there are associated ministries who have stated to me that their views on matters such as eschatology also shape their views on the family.
My point being that in their opinion, their theology creates and informs their thoughts on these lesser matters, to the point it makes a difference.
🙂 i hope you didn’t read the entirety of warhorns nonsense to get to that!
@Lexet
It’s interesting that even though Paul apparently spent his entire youth in biblical study to become a very young Pharisee, he still had a practical trade: tentmaking. Kinda makes you reassess the entire preaching career progression.
It’s also of note that his practical job is never used as a biblical example. There’s not one relevant reference in Paul’s teaching that uses his vocation specifically as an object lesson. Same with Christ and carpentry.
Their whole argument seems to be, “Dalrock is bad because his followers are bad,” without ever really addressing his arguments. They also go after snarkiness, but they’re the ones that are just cracking lame jokes about Dalrock. These don’t sound like intellectually serious theologians, just some “feel-good” Christians at a mega-church basking in their own self-righteous sanctimony.
Not much different than Leftists in that regard: https://theportlypolitico.wordpress.com/2019/03/04/sanctimonious-leftism/
It sounds like its a pretty casual podcast and the transcript is from the wrap up, but the frequent {silly voice} usage makes it difficult to take seriously anything they are saying. It makes me imagine they each knew a bully with a habit of grabbing their arm and telling them to “stop hitting yourself” in a silly voice. I believe the bullies never finished the job or the two would have grown up with more determination to not be so weak.
@ Lexet Blog
Yeah, well, they’re full of crap.
For example, the Warhorners claim that if an unmarried young woman enlists in the military, her father is guilty of sending his daughter to fight in a war, because of federal headship.
Okay.
That brings me right back to an issue I keep bringing up. The definition of authority is “the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience.”
Suppose a 20-year-old, single woman tells her father that she wants to enlist in the Marine Corps. Dad says, “absolutely not”. Daughter goes out and does it anyway, without dad’s consent.
What power does the father have to enforce his daughter’s obedience? And if he has no power to enforce his daughter’s obedience, then what authority does he have over her? If the father has no power to enforce his daughter’s obedience, then why do the Warhorners hold the father responsible for his daughter’s actions?
What’s he supposed to do? Disown his daughter for enlisting in the Marine Corps?
If so, then why didn’t Pastor Bayly excommunicate his female parishioner who commissioned in the Navy?
The Warhorners never address any of those issues, much less provide any practical advice on how a father should handle them. They merely blame dads, and if anyone raises any objections, they claim those raising the objections are neither smart enough to understand what the Warhorners mean, nor man enough to implement the advice they never gave.
The PCA spent a decade plus over the roles of men and women, and have yet to make a statement on the issue (to my knowledge). Tim Bayly was part of that.
The father is only culpable to the extent he raised his daughter. Ideally, in a perfect world, she should remain in his household until marriage. However, life doesn’t work that way.
I don’t support women in the military or in combat. I was of that opinion before I had a theological opinion on the matter.
Today, I would say that a Christian woman’s joining the military indicates her priorities, and an egalitarian mindset, as well as an ignorance of, or disobedience to, Gods word.
Unless the father went and forced her to sign up, how is he culpable for that decision?
Was Adam guilty of Eve eating the apple?
I want warhorn to point to a verse stating he is guilty for her act.
I can’t modify this comment right now, but Adam and Eve are not a good example, because Adam was present when eve ate.
@lexet
Present as in the same garden, or next to her?
I’ve asked before, but after reading the transcript, I want to shout “NO SERIOUSLY GUYS, WHAT SPECIFICALLY IS HE SAYING THAT’S FALSE, WRONG OR MISCHARACTERIZED?”
They just accuse you and don’t make a case.
Lexet
can’t modify this comment right now, but Adam and Eve are not a good example, because Adam was present when eve ate.
Must be time for a theology food fight! I’ve watched enough go-rounds on this to know where it leads.
Allow me to start the party:
How do you know that to be true? How do you know he wasn’t just doing his job somewhere else?
@ Lexet Blog
You’re making the same mistake that the Warhorners make.
Suppose that Dad intends that his daughter stay home until she marries, and raises her that way. Now, suppose, that at the age of 20, still unmarried, daughter says, “I’m moving out”.
Dad replies, “absolutely not”.
Daughter moves out anyway. Now what? What power does Dad have to enforce daughter’s obedience?
Here is the blog posting that says all men are responsible for the safety of all women:
http://baylyblog.com/blog/2011/10/what-about-women-combat
“Failure to recognize that the laws of Scripture governing the relation of the sexes are “of universal binding obligation” has produced the confusion we suffer in the Church today, out of which has come this present debate over the propriety of women serving as military combatants.”
This notion of Universal Binding Obligation is the basis for blaming men for women in combat. It is a strange logistical path that goes from this principle to the point of blame, but the skepticism I have toward it is how unsurprisingly it lines up with the complementarian resistance to holding women accountable for sin in general. It seems that if men have a universal binding obligation to be the protectors of all women not just their own wives and children then all women have a universal binding obligation to obey and submit to the authority of all men. But they would never make that argument because the obligations only seem to go one way.
How convenient. How very convenient.
@Lexet, I have heard this a lot recently, do we actually know this? Because I’m not really sure we do.
Also fun that Genesis only speaks of God commanding Adam to not eat of the fruit. How did Eve know this?
vfm7916, look at Genesis 3
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
Since she told Satan that she knew, either she was told by God or Adam. Bottom line is that she knew.
Pingback: Transcripts of Warhorn podcast. | Reaction Times
Interesting question that isn’t resolved by an inter linear dictionary.
It’s been a debate amongst many commentaries.
Matthew Henry’s commentary says:
It is probable that he was not with her when she was tempted (surely, if he had, he would have interposed to prevent the sin), but came to her when she had eaten, and was prevailed upon by her to eat likewise; for it is easier to learn that which is bad than to teach that which is good. She gave it to him, persuading him with the same arguments that the serpent had used with her, adding this to all the rest, that she herself had eaten of it, and found it so far from being deadly that it was extremely pleasant and grateful.
I agree with you on your point. There is an age where the child ultimately becomes culpable.
In a modern scenario, a father would have no power to prevent her decision from being made. However,
If the father raised a feminist daughter and encouraged her to reject femininity, I believe he would be somewhat culpable- for leading her astray. He would have failed to rule over his household, and to teach his kids to fear the lord. That is the extent of his culpability. And his culpability does not detract from his daughters.
Lexet,
See my comment in the other thread. Him being in the Garden would make him there with her. Nothing requires that he was standing next to her during her temptation. I would expect God to mention something about that if it was the case.
OT, earlier, a distraction that keeps coming up is whether pastors should work or not. For a number of them, they monetize their celebrity, and though not tent-making, is a form of income. I had a pastor who writes a book a year and was hoping to be self-sufficient through those efforts. The books are pastoral and so still leaves him beholden to fear.