Actually, I was mixed up about which article was in question (the nice guy one vs the one on white male privilege). So what I said about antisocial masculinity isn't relevant.
Your summary here of the nice guy article is mostly accurate, and I'd say it would have been better if you'd started your commentary with this kind of comment, rather than leaping to snide remarks.
The problem with your analysis, though, is that you take me to be siding against nice guys. It's true that I'm trying to be neutral in that article, but you should know from lots of my writings (which I think you've read) that I'm pretty radical in siding with countercultures against mainstream, normie societies.
This comes out at the end of the nice guy article: "However that may be, it seems clear why nice folks tend to finish last — even when they shouldn’t."
My article is meant to explain precisely that: why nice guys do tend to finish last (because they're incompetent in certain respects, as the flipside of their sensitivity and idealism, which holds them back on realistic grounds) even though this isn't ideal and they shouldn't finish last (because the real world ought to be transformed). That's the two-pronged argument, and I certainly don't object to the having of ideals.
Mind you, I maintain that not all ideals are equally worthy. And my point isn't that it's a "no go," so we should be realists rather than idealists. Rather, we should pick the best ideals (according to moral, existential, and aesthetic assessments) and carry on a tragically heroic revolt against natural horrors.
I understand that on monistic grounds, you dispute this humanistic dualism. That's the main difference here.
Some of your criticisms seem rather minor. The main distinction in the article is between realists and idealists, and I assimilate "nice guys" to the latter category. It's a broad generalization, of course, and there are bound to be exceptions, but the pattern holds. There's a type of person who's nice, as in submissive rather than aggressive, and whose niceness is based on both idealism and incompetence in real-world terms. The more idealistic you are, the further you're pulled away from realistic, useful expertise.
If you'd like to dispute that dynamic, have at it. But it' seems solid to me, and it's relevant because of the derivation of "nice," as I show in the article.
