There's been a video going viral on the Manospherian sites lately about Soy-Boys. Apparently, the Red Pills have imbibed the notion that the decline in American masculinity is somehow connected to consuming too many soy products in childhood. Cultures which consume large quantities of soy never produce masculine men, right?
Nonetheless, the Alpha-Boys have taken the idea and run with it. In a gushing review of Soy Boys, Red Pill Cultist Sfcton believes that he has hit upon a revelation. So he informs us that what separates Alphas from Soy-Boys is their capacity for violence. Because again, we all know that spoiled, soft, Snowflakes have no capacity to commit violent acts, right?
The capacity for violence is inherent in men. Civilized men channel that capacity into constructive channels. What actually separates men from thugs is their capacity to control violence. That is, use it in only as a means of self or communal defense. And even then excessive violence---employing more than is necessary to incapacitate the enemy---is morally wrong. This doesn't mean compromising with evil, either. Harry Truman was one of our most devout Christian presidents; yet he had no qualms about using atomic weapons to force the unconditional surrender of Japan and end WW2.
Violence without morality is simply thuggery and terrorism. Sfcton apparently sensed this inconsistency and tries to weave Red Pill Gnosticism into his argument: "Same with turning the other cheek. You cannot turn the other cheek if you lack the capacity for retribution...the worst kinds of chumps church up their b----h status with religious edicts."
This is wrong again. Christ taught his Church that turning the other cheek was an act of Faith---that God would judge. What he and other Red Pills don't understand that turning the other cheek doesn't refer to personal defense at all; but refers to attacks of any kind on the polity of the Church. The entire passage refers to Ecclesiastical Discipline.
In the comments section, Sfcton clarifies further to his applauding disciples: "Sheep always see Christ as the Lamb. Men see Christ as the Lion."
Apparently including John the Baptist, who announced Christ by saying: "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the world's sin!" Or for that matter, Jesus Himself, who stated: "But because you are not My sheep, you refuse to listen. My sheep listen to My voice: I know them and they follow Me." (St. John x:26-27).
And the Apostle St. Peter had occasion to mention lions: "Your adversary, the Devil, is walking about like a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour. Resist him, and stand firm in your Faith; knowing that your brothers and sisters throughout the world are undergoing the same suffering." (I St. Pet. v:8-9).
The Red Pills make the same theological error as some Pacifist Christian sects, who proscribe violence under any circumstances. They go to the opposite extreme, though, and make violence a Holy Act of Obligation. The moral approach to violence is a medium between the two, as St. Augustine taught. Thus Sfcton is wrong again when he says: "If you're the kind of guy who has to call 9-1-1 when someone is kicking in your door, you're a b---h." The reason civilized societies have armies and police forces is because (in theory) they are acting under the moral authority of a lawful government. In instances where individuals have to use force independently, there is always an official inquest for the same reason. What you do if someone is kicking in your door is call 9-1-1 first; then prepare yourself to take action only if you have to.
It doesn't make one more of a man to drive a nail with a sledgehammer and then sneer at men who (appropriately) use a tack-hammer. It's the same with violence---it's how and when it's used that makes a man.