A paper on commonly used TRP tactics in debating

I decided to write this after I had read in the “Reddit gender issue sphere” regularly for quite some time, mostly on PPD, and I started to notice some distinguishable patterns or tactics - debating devices - that were repeatedly used by posters coming from the red pill camp in a systematic fashion. While this should not suggest that these tactics were created on purpose or from a vile motivation, they are used by red pill posters to defend, promote and positively depict their views and their agenda in a noticeable fashion, and by multiple posters. I tried to summarize some I picked up while browsing Reddit, not to object to TRP views or attack red pillers, but to shed some light on the debates here and how different sides represent their views from an observational perspective, and in an way as objective as possible. I focused on behaviors that I observed from posters from the “red side”, because I found them the most interesting. If anyone from the red (or any other) side has observed other patterns used by the "blue side", I’d be intrigued to hear them too. Or if you noticed other patterns from the red side, you're welcome to share them as well.

The paper will be accompanied by some posts I linked to, and while they are few, they should stand in as hopefully good examples of more widely used patterns.

The first debating device could be called: constant crisis awareness. It is used is to reproduce the claim that the Western world (North America, most of Europe and parts of Asia) is in the midst of a large and extensive crisis in the area of relationships and gender relations. The group which is affected most severely by this crisis is young, single men, especially those who struggle for sexual experiences, but also men in existing relationships, as well as divorced men. The ones affected in the most brutal way are the “incels” – young men who are frustrated, unsuccessful and helpless on the relationship market. Men not only struggle for love and affection, but also for their “identity”, their roles as men and the role of manliness in general. The picture drawn with this tactic is one of an emergency situation, illustrated by coupling it with anecdotal stories of men and women unhappy with their relationships or data about divorce rates as well as birth rates.

Admittedly, declaring a crisis exists can be seen as more of an assertion than a discussion tactic, but this declaration is often used in a subtle way, often in threads about completely different topics, with the underlying statement of “Obviously our current system does not work, and it’s only natural we need a replacement.”

example 1, example 2, example 3

Appeal to history. This device is about the claim that TRP ideas were “always existent”, and were even the societal norm and the standard of what was held as the truth before the “rise of feminism”, such as in the “glorious” 1950s. “If it was good enough for my grandpa, it sure as hell is good enough for me” and “Feminism is the aberrant ideology, for TRP has been around much, much longer” are two exemplary statements that could fall into this pattern. These statements ignore that old societal structures were not replaced without a reason and that they were often based on religious thinking or what we would say are archaic, outdated ideas. It also ignores that the historical pictures used are often distorted or biased. One example would be the patriarchal Christian family structure, in which the man was officially the unquestioned leader of the household. Yet you often found women being the actual heads of these families – this situation is not new nor was it exceptional in other times. There is even a specific term for it in German: “unter dem Pantoffel seiner Frau stehen”. Another issue with this way of arguing is that even in these times, TRP ideas and statements would not have been all deemed acceptable on societal discourse. I refer to statements along the lines of „women are good keep the belly full and the balls empty, conversation with them is futile“, or „women cannot love like men“.

Intertwined with this way of arguing using – often distorted – pictures of history is a deep romanticization‎ and glorification of past times. The times of patriarchal structures and before the emergence of emancipation are characterized a glorious time of potent, confident and true men.

example 1, example 2

Appeal to success. Naturally, success stories are an important element of movements such as TRP, which seek to gain new members. Without chances of success, the movement would have lost its cause. Yet, the device of “Appeal to success” comes in different forms with different natures.

One form is to reproduce the claim that TRP ideas, opinions and behaviours are only being scorned on the web, by blue pillers, in an exceptional, rare fashion, while they are able to achieve excellent results with women in real life. This is even true for behaviours which can be seen as disrespectful towards the person the behavior is aimed at. One example by TRP poster “Archwinger” is a post that read like: “Real women giggle when I tell them the patronizing things I say on TRP”. These claims are based on different kinds of anecdotal evidence – either posters own experience, or the poster’s own observations of his surroundings. The second kind can be a method to preemptively stall any criticism of limited, anecdotal evidence – for example, with the statement: “This is how things are, I see it not only with myself but with every couple I know and everyone I have met in the last 30 years, and every one of my friends has observed the same for many years.”

Another form of this device is to ascribe TRP behavior to successful people. Famous people, actors, politicians, people who “made it to the top”, achieved their success thanks to the “TRP mindset”. One example is this comment by a poster who claimed that actor Terry Crews was a “terper” throughout his whole career and then hypocritically points out the importance of expressing your feelings as a man. The message is “Every man that is successful with women, or in life in general, either got very lucky or is a terper, even if he has never heard of TRP. This proves that TRP is correct.” One will notice that within the TRP sphere, there seems to be sparse room for alternate ways to success, as TRP seems to deal in absolutes in a striking fashion. While claiming to be a movement for all men, methods or behaviors unfitting to the traditional male ideal are rarely acknowledged in general.

example 2, example 3, example 4, example 5

Just anger phase: This tactic is used to deal with statements within the TRP sphere that are clearly and openly misogynist, misanthropic and hateful, and will likely be considered so not only by the stereotypical “triggered SJW”, but by the general population. Using this tactic, these statements are claimed to have been made by new, rookie TRP members and therefore, are not relevant to TRP ideology and not a valid reason to criticize TRP. This “anger phase” is claimed to be a natural reaction of the “innocent man” to the true biological nature of humans and most importantly, the true nature of women (such a hypergamy and the female “dual mating strategy”), combined with the “feminist, gynocentric” propaganda that had taught this man that women are good beings and “being a nice guy” would lead to relationship success and satisfaction (such as the Disney movies he saw in childhood). Essential to this tactic is the claim that the anger phase just the beginning stage of the “TRP way”, but that any “real” terper will leave it in due time. Summarized: The anger phase is a necessary evil, but not an actual goal of TRP.

This line of thought ignores not only that – as one will realize – objectively hateful statements are a norm rather than an exception in the TRP subreddit, but also that even moderators and endorsed contributors have noticeably made such statements. This in turn, was once justified with the explanation that extreme statements by moderators are not meant literally, but were specifically directed at “anger phasers”.

example 1, example 2, example 3

Just a hyperbole or a convenient shorthand: This is a very popular way of arguing which enables posters to deal with TRP statements that can reasonably be considered generalizing, absolutist, unscientific, and systematically irrefutable, without having to openly reject or oppose these statements. An intended exaggeration, hyperbole or generalization, which was deliberately made “for reasons of comprehensibility”, is suggested. “It was to get a point across”. It can be used to relativize own statements, or statements made by TRP ‘leaders’ – moderators or endorsed contributors – so that a clear dissociation is not necessary.

While one could suspect that this device acts as “defence of TRP to the outside”, it is interesting to note that the use of hyperboles can also cause distortion among people identifying with TRP, as there have been several discussions on whether the “AWALT” principle is to be taken literally or not. Just as with the “anger phase” device, TRP posters sometimes like to point to the “rookies”, and say that points are deliberately exaggerated to give new members a much desired ‘wake-up call’ (example given)

example 1, example 2

But I love women: This is a popular device used to preemptively quash accusations of misogyny. The message is that TRP cannot be misogynist, as its members feel attracted to women, want to be close to women and women to be part of their lives. “But I love women” is one exemplary statement. One important element is a strong emphasis on (biological) sex differences, to purportedly remove the hostile aspect of negative attributions to women – such as by stating “I love women for what they are, I don’t want them to be men, I’m not gay!”

By stating “I don’t want women become men”, it enables one to define many different traits as primordially and distinctively “male”. These traits are often the ones generally acknowledged as good and worthy, such as: courage, drive, ingenuity, honor, organizational skills, logical thinking, rationality, active life management and “true love”. Using this almost doublespeak-like tactic makes it possible to paint a dismissive statement about women in a seemingly positive, affectionate coat – in the same breath. Exemplary statement: “I love women for the beautiful emotional creatures they are, for their carefreeness and warmth.”

It has to be mentioned that posters in the red pill sphere do attribute actual positive traits to women. These are mostly stereotypical traits in accordance with the “traditional female” role model, and fit the archetype of the “caring, nurturing and warm-hearted mother and housewife”. However, these definitions of ‘the woman per se’ are many a time accompanied by a dismissive, belittling attitude towards them. One example is TRP poster Archwinger, mockingly describing how he finished the typical “womanly duties” of a household – such as washing the dishes, vacuuming the rooms, cooking and playing with the kid – within a few hours and without any struggle, and that these easy duties are wrongly called “the hardest job in the world” (link to post)

example 1, example 2, example 3, example 4, example 5

The harsh truth or Realz before feelz: Within this pattern, posters identifying with TRP openly acknowledge that TRP “truths” can be dreary, sad or even gruesome. Yet, dreary statements such as “women will desert you if you show signs of weakness”, “a woman will always be on the lookout for a higher-tier man” or “women do not care if you are a good person” still deserve to be asserted, for they are the objective, singular truth.

One will note that the term “reals before feels” already suggests that TRP truths will very likely evoke emotions and appear repulsive or unsettling – these reactions are rationalized by connoting seemingly cruel, absolutist statements with a sense of actuality unavoidable for those seeking truth. It also aids in creating the illusion of a clear discrepancy between a comfortable, “feely” but completely unreal vision of the world – one that has been “drilled into our heads” since childhood by an education system infected with feminism and gynocentrism, and an uncomfortable but truly objective singular truth based on logical thinking and resisting the PC narrative.

example 1, example 2, example 3, example 4