Seavey vs Rittelmeyer: Alpha or Beta

by

I am not sure how many of you saw my Tweet on the dust up between libertarian Todd Seavey and National Review editor Helen Rittelmeyer. The confrontation was during a conference related to Jonah Goldberg’s book Proud to be Right. The book is a collection of essays from young conservatives. Early in the proceedings Goldberg mentioned how debates on the right were always more interesting than those amongst the left. For once, Goldberg was correct.

The confrontation involved Seavey accusing Rittelmeyer of having a sadistic outlook that relished in suffering. That would fine had he not gone on to describe their “on again, off again” relationship.

If you care you can watch the video, or read more at Washington Post blog.

In case Roissy does not cover this, my question is, Todd Seavey: Alpha or Beta? Actually the question might be better asked regarding Rittelmeyer, who, if Seavey is to be believed:

  • “[played] matchmaker for one couple so she could seduce the man and hurt the woman”
  • “probably dated some people in [the] room [during their two year relationship]”
  • and that she wanted to repeal laws against assault “so that men get into more fistfights or at least live under the threat of constant fistfights.”

A callous Randroid (Rittelmeyer) versus a liberaltarian (Seavey); it was one of those battles where I find myself wishing that both sides could lose.
[Rittelmeyer even has a vaguely Ayn Rand look about her]

[less than carefully thought out commentary]
The rest of the discussion was more of the usual “hip conservatism” which involves destroying tradition and “getting God” out of the discussion. It was more of the same homo-economicus stuff that has turned people away for years. Like most Randian/Liberaltarian debate it treated humans as units of consumption and factors of production. These types are the first to claim that “liberals” are free-riding on the backs of the productive. What they fail to realize is they themselves are free-riding in the back of the traditions they disdain. If this is the next generation of conservatism we really are (thank you John Derbyshire) all doomed.

But back to the important questions: Seavey: Alpha or Beta. Which has the bigger nutsack Seavey or Rittelmeyer.

PS
There was another woman (Ashley Thorne) present that seemed more attractive and pleasant. Perhaps if Seavey had been boning her, and not the evil Randian librarian, things might have worked out better.

PPS
Rittelmeyer: Perhaps she was the horrible cloning of Poetry of Flesh and Lady Raine.

Update 10/21/2010:
As maurice pointed out, Rittelmeyer is probably not truly Randian. This is correct, as I replied I was reacting more to he caricature of the Randroid disembodied brain, all intellect, no heart. Not that such realization really changes my views on either person.

Advertisements

25 Responses to “Seavey vs Rittelmeyer: Alpha or Beta”

  1. Default User Says:

    This is probably the first time I have even vaguely been topical. Will I be able to surf the zeitgeist to page hit highs, or will I wipe out?

  2. namae nanka Says:

    The fat guy helped out nicely, and yeah he shamed her pretty well right in front of cameras.

  3. Default User Says:

    @namae nanka
    He did do a nice take-down, however, complaining about a past (failed) relationship sounds a bit beta.

  4. namae nanka Says:

    yeah but it didn’t seem that he started off on that. also the hint of cruelty.

  5. Default User Says:

    @namae nanka
    I agree that the argument could go either way, that is why I asked it.
    [I suspect that unless Roissy or Ferdi cover it we will never know. The handful of people that read this blog are staying silent. My plan to gain blog hits failed]

  6. sdaedalus Says:

    I didn’t get a chance to watch the video until now.

    Rittelmeyer was a horrible person. She was completely obsessed with herself and had no empathy or consideration for other people. Also, she thought she was much brighter than she was. I suspect a hothoused child, definitely not someone who has achieved things on their own.

    Out of the two of them, I preferred Seavey, because although also self-obsessed, he wasn’t quite so smug (no doubt my sympathy for the soft underbelly is creeping in here).

    I must say, I didn’t feel madly attracted to him, but his diatribe may have moved him up a notch on the attractiveness scale, hell, at least he has feelings, even bitter ones.

    Rittelmeyer was like a robot.

    But really nothing could redeem in my eyes a man who would date the likes of Rittelmeyer.

  7. sdaedalus Says:

    PS: don’t say bad things about Poetry. I am a big Poetry fan and she has always been exceptionally nice to me.

  8. Default User Says:

    @sdaedalus
    I saw the more promiscuous (many lovers) side as Poetry, and the sociopath side as LR.

    I am not sure accusing Poetry of having many lovers is all that bad, it is something she seems happy to discuss. Of course the comment was mostly in jest.

    Seavey sounded a bit whiny. He would have done better to leave the relationship woes out of it. I agree with your assessment: he seemed a bit of a chump, somewhat bitter, but not really too bad; she seemed utterly cold and unredeemable.

  9. maurice Says:

    Todd is intellectually alpha- totally confident in his particular sphere, and able to use it to achieve personal ends- but omega in every other way, including what those ends are.

    Helen is smug in exactly the way the few women in any overwhelmingly male environment always are. They get constant attention from undesirable men, so it pushes their self-image through the roof. And how do you get that she’s a “Randroid”? Conservative Catholicism doesn’t intersect with Objectivism in any way at all.

  10. namae nanka Says:

    If she weren’t so butt ugly he’d be, but what is he hitting on now?

    ultimate bitching over him, and men here(look at the comments too):
    http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/daskrapital/2010/10/20/dear-todd-seavey-now-that-you-have-shown-us-your-balls-a-little-advice-on-where-to-use-them/

    “Founding Jezebel editor Moe Tkacik”

  11. Default User Says:

    @maurice
    Some of views did not seem very Catholic. I suppose, though, I was reacting more to the caricature of the Randroid disembodied brain, all intellect, no heart.

    Many libertarian types seem to fall into that abyss. They only appear to consider humans as functioning units in some cosmic machine. Of course, humans are much more than factors of production and units of consumption.

    The multiple lovers amongst a followers, fellow travelers, and hangers on sounds a bit like the Ayn Rand story. I agree with your explanation for her smug attitude.

  12. Default User Says:

    @namae nanka
    It is a shame these two lived up the worst stereotypes of the right. This will get milage not just because of the drama but because it will allow the usual types to do what the love best: mocking conservatives. I note that in the article mentioned as much type goes on ideology as the exchange.

  13. Why this is the best Todd Seavey could get Says:

    […] further reading, see Default User’s post on the dustup, in which he sheds some more light on Rittelmeyer’s sociopathy. This girl is one sick […]

  14. David Collard Says:

    I think the girl is cute. Very sexy librarian. But I thought the guy eviscerated her. She will be the one crying into her pillow; and I suspect it will damage her among conservatives more than him.

    I am a conservative, very socially conservative. And I thought he punished a sluttish woman in a very traditional way, by public shaming.

    As a conservative, and the kind of man who might actually attend such an event, I felt she came off worse. Normally a man ignores foolishness and dishonesty in women, but sometimes he needs to put the hammer down. I thought he succeeded rather well.

  15. Default User Says:

    @David Collard
    I think that mentioning his past relationship may have turned a decent slap-down into a bitter whine-fest. It was mostly effective, but the realtionship woes (at least as expressed) allow for other to call him bitter while pasing over the accusations.

  16. David Collard Says:

    Look, it is not all about the pussy. He made the point that he had fucked her – and I do think she is cute and has intellectual standards at least. He disapproved of her screwing around. A real dweeb would have supported her “empowerment”. And he punished her in a public forum.

    The girl will be the long-term loser.

    He brought the little bluestocking down to earth. There she was, cerebrate, composed, using careful and controlled discourse, and he moved the centre of attention from her head and mind to her vagina. He reminded everybody that actions speak louder than words, and that mundane behaviour is the test of character. Basically, he conveyed a forceful message: this is not a female intellectual worthy of your attention; this is an educated whore.

  17. Default User Says:

    @David Collard
    My personal perceptions are probably closer to yours, however I suspect general perceptions will be less favorable. That is why I asked the question.

    I never saw it as been about pussy but as been about status.

  18. David Collard Says:

    Status is important in life, but not all-important. Same with pussy. Most men prefer status and pussy to looking “uncool”. But there is a time to speak up. And he did. He exposed an apparent hypocrite. She made no real attempt to deny his charges.

    The Roissy boys only want to rate her out of 10 and give the guy his omega rating. But sometimes there is a matter of principle. He is not the best-looking guy in the world, but he is not the worst either. He has a certain masculine severity, and he had the age and the gravitas to speak to her like a daughter. Her real father probably never did, or she would not have ended up such a brat.

    She is yet another argument for not over-educating most women. If they are leftist, they become ridiculous. And if they are rightist, they become twisted.

  19. This Means War « Default User Says:

    […] was desperate times indeed. My pathetic attempt to surf the zeitgeist did achieve a modest increase in hits, but I realized that it was time to try something new. […]

  20. Pulsotic Says:

    If you could call a bitter whining tirade ‘alpha’ (which I wouldn’t), then it was too little alpha too late. He was her doormat for two years and then cried after the game was already over. If he stood up for himself a little sooner, maybe he’d have spared himself the public humiliation.
    Alpha or Beta? Obviously beta because he hasn’t learned a thing from his relationship with her. What has he learned?
    1: It’s all her fault.
    2: “Waaa!”
    If he were alpha, he would recognize that if the relationship didn’t go the way he wanted, he had responsibility for it too. But, he’s on the victim triangle. Currently he’s in the role of ‘persecutor’, but previously he was ‘victim’. If you’re on the victim triangle, it’s BETA.
    A lot of betas will claim he is alpha because they identify with him, but they do not want to admit that his rant was a sign of weakness (beta) because that would be admitting weakness in themselves.

  21. unpopularculture Says:

    sdaedelus (btw, are you Daedelus from Lumpen??) said:

    she thought she was much brighter than she was. I suspect a hothoused child, definitely not someone who has achieved things on their own.

    Having viewed the original airing because I am interested in conservative doings (as a libertarian, specifically geolibertarian), I was underwhelmed by the ideas on display across the board. I did think the Seavey-Rittelmeyer exchange was bizarre and it was bad form of Seavey to go off like that. However, I was shocked to find out this thing has blown up like it has. Well, gossiping about this might be slightly preferable to gossiping about, say, Kim Kardashian’s naked booty on a magazine cover.

    Seavey came across as childish and (trying to give him the benefit of the doubt) lacking a mental filter. While Rittelmeyer, both from the panel discussion and from reading several pages of her blogs, must be some sorta intellectual since she drops literary references like confetti. But as Seavey noted, it’s difficult to discern any philosophical core holding it all together. You get the feeling she sees ideas like fashion choices: some of them she selects just to be sexy and provocative.

    And yeah, Pulsotic, lashing out in rage after the fact is definitely not alpha

  22. unpopularculture Says:

    period

  23. sdaedalus Says:

    nothing lumpen about SDaedalus, you must be thinking about someone else with a similar name.

    I am not the SDaedalus on the Navy Seal forum or on the free porn websites either.

  24. sdaedalus Says:

    Or the cyber-sex chatroom. Jesus.

  25. David Collard Says:

    A very belated comment, for which I apologise, but I had second thoughts about Helen Rittelmeyer:

    http://davidcollard.wordpress.com/2010/12/15/no-1-in-a-new-series-intellectual-cuties/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: