— FIN —

…or is it?

Good attempt at misrepresenting what we’re about by dramatically overstating it. I’ve used that tactic myself a few times with a great deal of success; of course, it involved how a kid I didn’t like should marry his mother because he admitted to loving her. Still, it was the height of biting sarcasm for my second-grade self.

By the way, did you genuinely consider this blog post an “investigation”? How cute. We have lawyers, subject matter experts, senior instructors, journalists, and credentialed fighters who participate in our investigations.

You, have… a blog and access to Wikipedia. A blog most of us have never heard about, but seems to reek with the stink of middle-aged men who make excuses as to why they’ve spent years “training” in the Martial Arts without ever actually fighting anyone, and Sino/Japanophilia. Which is par for the course in the MA world.

If you’re going to drink your own kool-aid, at least change up the flavor from time to time. I’m sure you’ll eventually get tired of the “vinegar” flavor.

(That’s me calling you a douchebag, by the way, in case you’re a bit slow.)

—

Now, finally, I begin to understand. Everyone who “voluntarily” attends a McDojo is actually a victim, and it is your mission to rescue them from persecution.

Although these victims are quite literally asking for it–McDojo membership, that is–your rape analogy is still (tastefully!) appropriate. Because, as victims, they are not capable of granting consent. By adopting the tenets of Bullshido, they demonstrate the maturity and judgment needed to select a proper school. Once they accept Bullshido into their hearts, they are no longer victims.

Not to mention, the idea that the existence of McDojos is somehow validated because there are people who’ll always be suckered by them is a lot like arguing that rape is just a-OK because women wear revealing clothing or walk through bad neighborhoods unescorted.

After all, they’re just “asking for it”, right? Classy. Real classy.

Keep drinking your own kool-aid, idiot.

1. Frauds should not be teaching people.
2. If someone is discovered to be a fraud, the evidence should be made public.

I have yet to see any evidence of Bullshido enriching itself or its top echelons through the investigations. I believe specific numbers are very important here, as you can’t really call a site profitable unless it actually turns a profit. Furthermore, if the site is wholly staffed by volunteers, who’s making the profit anyway?

Also, it seems like most of the people here are criticizing the site based on their own unexamined premises. While I’ll admit some parts of the site are pretty rude and uncouth, the part that we’re discussing, the investigations, are quite orderly.

http://www.bullshido.org/Category:Investigations
http://www.bullshido.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=10

Take your pick of any of these, and you’ll find a very different picture of the site. Like any community, the impression one gets is heavily influenced by which facet one chooses to look at.

My teacher operates a small taiji/wing chun school. His school has been opened for 15 years now and his most senior students were fresh out of high school when they started their training, some 10-13 years ago. Now that they’re all grown up, 3 of them have PhD’s, 1 is in the process of earning it and 1 of them is a college teacher. Yeah… go tell one of these guys, “Guh, your martial art is useless…”

Here’s something else about my teacher. Whenever he sees a new martial school in the phone book, he calls up the owner and has a little chat with them asking about what they teach, who their teacher was etc… by doing that he’s made a lot of friends and contacts in the community. He also has a friend in law enforcement who teaches self-defense to police officers who often comes to my teacher (of useless traditional martial arts) for technical advices.

He also runs a non-profit organisation that offers free kungfu classes to kids in difficulty.

So yeah, uh, obviously, my teacher is polluting the world with his useless, traditional martial art. That’s the only sane and logical conclusion to reach…

***
So…

Want to “keep your community in order”? Well here’s a way to do it: stop acting like a jackass, teach kids the type of values they need to survive and compete in the modern world and develop some sort of link with the real martial art community (the one that’s, like, outside of your computer).

Either that or: Shutup, learn, then share.

I have decades of experience in one of their “approved” arts, but I am ashamed to be associated with these foul mouth kids. And there’s that style vs style “my master can beat up your master” BS again. Who’s the insecure one here? I don’t train in Wing Chun nor Ninjitsu, but I don’t go around disrespecting people to prove my virtual dick is bigger than theirs. If you really think your fighting style is hot shit, I tell you what, our Commander in Chief needs 30,000 troops in Afghanistan, go sign up and put your bad ass skills to use. Take a look at Rick’s post, your silly style & self defense / dueling effectiveness is a none issue, surely your Critical Thinking 101 class taught you that didn’t it? The last I checked, street fighting is illegal, and these forum wars you kids start are simply stupid. And what does “chi’ have to do with anything? Do you really know the origin and meaning of that term heavily butchered up in translation by us Americans? Why don’t you also declare war on “mojo”, the Holy Spirit, air, natural gas, HMO approved acupuncture treatment and “soul”? A word of advice for you Bullshido kids, people don’t hate you because they are not from your approved list of styles. People can’t take you seriously because none of you have the skills, knowledge nor the EQ to be taken seriously. Take a look at the book “How to win friends and influence people”, it’ll help y’all grow up.

By definition, logical arguments cannot stand on their own merit. Aristotle’s Prior Analytics defines syllogism as “a discourse in which, certain things having been supposed, something different from the things’ supposed results of necessity because these things are so.”

Careful examination reveals that most people have incorrect premises on every subject, which is quite enough to invalidate their conclusions under standard logic. But wait, it gets worse. Even if their premises were sound, the analyses quite often lead to what other logics might label a null proposition, or a game rule, or some other non-truth value–conclusions that can easily masquerade as truth under the traditional framework. Thus, term logic is a favored tool of narcissists and propaganda artists (and the targets of their artistry).

The Scientology analogy is instructive for a variety of reasons. First, because they use investigations as weapons, with the intention of discrediting their targets. Yes, sweethearts, telling the truth can be an act of violence. It is also possible to mislead by telling the truth in a selective fashion. (These are all tactics of information warfare, and although it does not literally produce scorched earth for evidence, I assure you it is quite real.)

Second, because they enrich their own organization (or just its top echelons) under the guise of public service.

Third, because their membership is not so much driven to them, but away from something else. This is Hoffer’s thesis (but not exclusively his) and so I’ll let him explain it.

There are other relevant similarities between these two groups. Do I really need to spell them all out here? No, I don’t think so.

Well-informed dissent is welcome, but I am easily bored by logical objections grounded in worthless common sense (otherwise known as unexamined premises).

I’m familiar with the history of Scientology, and I feel that it is completely different from Bullshido. Whereas one was created with the intention of collecting money, the other began as a consumer advocacy group. Also, what other groups are you referring to? I’m sure none of them are identical to the case of Bullshido, which is in neither a position of particular public prominence nor political power.

I will look into the book you recommended, but I have yet to be convinced by any of the arguments you have put forth. I don’t believe I (or, to some extent, jon) have asked for any “harebrained specifications” on the subject. Surely, if there was a mountain of evidence as you suggest, it would be easy to provide one or two sources of support for the claims you’ve made.

I looked around Simple Wikipedia, but they do not have a very extensive section on logic, null-A, term, or otherwise.