TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

189
190

Red Pill TheoryFamiliarize yourself with our Simplified Rules (reddit.com)

submitted by Modredpillschool


[–]2awalt_cupcake 17 points18 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

I think it's beneficial for members to insult and harass eachother. It separates us from most subs.

Secondly it teaches members frame over the internet by posing questions: "Is this insult worth responding to?", "how can I agree and amplify this situation?", and the verbal sting is enough to maybe shake a few members awake. Now I laugh at most insults on here-- which I don't recieve as much as I used to. I reflect on my highschool days and understand the young men in my classes and their immature name calling and aggressive play style and I understand them now. They were just having fun and it toughened them up for the adult world while I was this pseudo neo hippy unsure why people called eachother names so harshly.

This is my 2nd or 3rd trp account because beginner me was a bitch as well as a poor communicator. I was misunderstood! Victim of situation and assumed intentions! I didnt let that stop me and now I am actually at the point where I can help new members when they reach out to us or me personally. Which leads me to my third point.

Third, I believed and saw the truth in the red pill. I knew the community spoke the truth. So I toughened the blood boiling responses out and learned from it. if you want something bad enough you put on a thick skin and push through. If members can't deal with Internet insults, like nigga close your eyes; walk away from the screen damn; they are far from the man they need to be to absorb the harsher truths on here about how the world is and becoming the type of alpha male that slays poon.

Let's consider harassment and insults

Bitch

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 7 points8 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

There's a difference between good quality ribbing and simply being insulting/trolling. We don't allow the latter.

[–]2awalt_cupcake -1 points0 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

While I agree with the differences, there will be plenty of people IRL that will want to insult our members and keep them weak and beneath them so that they will feel good. There are just people like that. I find its a perfect mirror to the steel mind you have to have to deal with that matter.

[–]Miheegz 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

awalt_cupcake, I agree that the ability to have insults/BS hurled at you and maintaining frame is a very key skill to have which like most skills will need practice to master. However, I do not think this is the place to get that practice. This is a place to learn the ideology like why someone might be insulting you and why you likely shouldn't stoop to their level. If we allow insulting and trolling just to toughen ppl up the valuable TRP knowledge will be diluted with worthless arguments. Absorb the knowledge here. Go apply it and toughen up in real life. Internet fighting will likely give you false confidence as it is much easier than maintaing frame in real person.

[–]Modredpillschool[S,M] 1 point2 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

This isn't up for debate. This has been one of our policies since the inception of the sub.

[–]2awalt_cupcake 1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Huge opportunity missed

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, a huge opportunity to devolve the forum into troll baiting and insult slinging rather than quality discussion.

We'll really suffer without it.

[–]2awalt_cupcake -2 points-1 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

That's pessimistic thinking and extreme

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

You can't possibly speak to the thousands upon thousands of comments this mod team have removed.

[–]2awalt_cupcake 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Other subs hate us and other users are troll accounts. Troll accounts are scum. I can see how this creates a problem that needs to be tamed.

I don't know another way to foster good 'ol fashioned masculine e-rivalry besides allowing some hate-speech at this time.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

You don't need to think of a way. Ribbing is already allowed. Trolling is not. There's nothing more to consider.

[–]pokerkid89 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Agreed 100%. I feel like all this anti-bullying propaganda is BS. Being picked on as a kid has made me stronger.

[–]TheMGhandi 14 points15 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Pretty much all posts break the rules as they are clickbait. Then after you read some elaborate post, there's a shitty lessons learned. Here's an example:

Title - Hamster run amok on valentines day.

Sum - Girl hangs with me while her boyfriend still calls her repeatedly.

Body - ....

LL - Awalt.

Edit: Titles don't have to be the conclusion. Half the time I read a title and don't need to read the post. Not bad for me, but if you want your shit read, it should have a title that only gives a taste of what you are sharing.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 9 points10 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

We're cracking down more on this. I've been deleting posts a lot today.

[–]TheMGhandi -4 points-3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Can fear mongering be included? There's a post called "Rape accusers sue University of Tennessee for giving the accused due process" that can potentially scare the stupid less informed members of our community. A lesson learned including 'ghost tactics' where the woman you bang once has no idea about your name, address, number or any place she can find you, would stop fear dead in it's tracks. "Don't stick your dick in crazy" is not enough and the fact this isn't mentioned directly leads me to believe something else.

The OP is a woman, and a very lovely one, if I do say so myself. The give away is that I was slightly annoyed reading her post. You know that way women love to just restrict/suppress certain things like "don't run outside, it's cold" or "keep the toilet seat down"? Yeah, fuck that, I wanna be free, and anyone who doesn't want me to be free is either a woman or a politician.

Plenty of women have zero guilt in false accusations...Your red pilil knowledge should allow you to get with many women who don't do this.

Again, here we have a "NAWALT, so come and find us, you know how to!" I mean really? No guy is capable of speaking in such a feminine manner, unless he's a politician that is.

Edit: She has some pretty good submitted posts, I should add.

[–]Modredpillschool[S,M] [score hidden] stickied comment (0 children) | Copy Link

As an aside, if you report a comment or post, it will let you select which rule was broken, that helps us in the long run.

Thanks.

[–]MisterMisogyny2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Suggestion for top-level rules:

The TITS OR GTFO Rule.

I've noticed this not getting enforced for the last little while. Someone says "as a female" to regain her girl-advantage, then a bunch of ass-hats start tipping their fedoras to her while complimenting her on how progressive she is to reject feminism. FFS. They have learned nothing.

Also, some variation of the No Participation Rule, or at least some rules saying no direct links to reddit (since I presume the bot is still killing them on sight.)

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Any time you see "as a female," report it. The only ones slipping through the cracks are the ones we don't see.

[–]Senior Contributordr_warlock 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

FYI, your mod flair is gone.

[–][deleted]  (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted]  (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Gnometard 0 points1 point  (9 children) | Copy Link

The wording of the first rule seems iffy to me. Sounds like you're advocating for an echo chamber. Ideas need to be challenged and dissected.

[–]1ToSeeAndToHear 5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

We can and should debate about what is to our benefit, but the core message serves as a baseline assumption for being here. If you want to debate the core message, there's PurplePillDebate for that.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 9 points10 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

There is zero ambiguity to this:

We are not interested in debating or defending our experiences to those who disagree with the red pill, nor do we want to clog up our threads defending the morality of our choices.

I swear to god every kiddo on reddit heard the term "echo chamber" once and they try to shoehorn it into the wrong places where the word "topic" should be used.

We have a topic. We enforce the topic.

Want to talk about Christ? Don't do it on an atheist forum.

[–]LeftShark86 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

Honestly, I haven't seen many examples of this. Maybe in a comment here or there, but certainly not in actual posts. Maybe they're already being blocked.

The red pill theory, and what individuals choose to do with that knowledge are two entirely different topics. Yes, I would agree that a post that would argue against basic trp tropes like awalt wouldn't be useful to our members, but discussion of our choices certainly is. TRP is innately amoral. Like a set of tools, they are inherently neither good nor bad. However, the choices we make with those tools should be up for debate. If not concerning morality, then certainly simply of basic utility and achieving one's goals whatever they may be.

[–]Do not send modmail to my personal inboxCrazyHorseInvincible[M] 6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Honestly, I haven't seen many examples of this.

Because we remove them.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think of your mental health each day mods and offer a small prayer to Brodin to watch over you all, I sure as shit wouldn't have the patience.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

You can make an argument that certain behaviors are beneficial or not. But you'll never convince me their wrong because of some mythical, magical invisible sky-daddy.

You want to have a moral system, you're free to do so. But nobody wins over other rational thinkers by simple using the defense "it's just wrong!"

[–]LeftShark86 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The flying spaghetti monster is most displeased with this post. May he have mercy upon you.

[–]SteelChicken 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

This is a bunch of cowardly horseshit and I agree with most of what RP says.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Ok, bye.

[–]LeftShark86 2 points3 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

Prohibiting posts stemming from fiction and literature is incredibly short-sighted. To argue that valuable lessons cannot be learned from these sources is decidedly ignorant to say the least. Though not many posts directly pertain to fictional works, there have been some excellent discussions within threads which often use literary sources to illustrate points. Furthermore, lyrics from current songs are a great way to view current thinking about any topic; trp included. Artists' work reflects culture. Obviously, we want to avoid fictitious posts, but this going too far.

Also, the moralizing rule has been stated before, but it's entirely unnecessary. Again, we want to avoid discussion based solely on individuals' morals, but to outright ban it shows weakness. If a redditor has an argument relating to trp, moral or not, he should be free to discuss it. Likewise, others should be given a chance to defend their views. What is morality besides opinion, anyway? We should be able to make posts/comments and be able and willing to defend them should others disagree. This is how we all grow.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]LeftShark86 Nuke! N H 1 point just now Prohibiting posts stemming from fiction and literature is incredibly short-sighted. To argue that valuable lessons cannot be learned from these sources is decidedly ignorant to say the least. Though not many posts directly pertain to fictional works, there have been some excellent discussions within threads which often use literary sources to illustrate points.

We didn't ban allegories and parables. We banned the endless posts of "Hey guys, isn't the bald guy from breaking bad alpha?"

Furthermore, lyrics from current songs are a great way to view current thinking about any topic; trp included.

Cue every hip hop song called women sluts. It's just not quality discussion.

Artists' work reflects culture.

Indeed, if you read the entire rule: "Discussion of overarching popular culture themes, however, is on-topic and makes for an interesting analysis of the shifts in cultural thinking."

Also, the moralizing rule has been stated before, but it's entirely unnecessary. Again, we want to avoid discussion based solely on individuals' morals, but to outright ban it shows weakness.

Weakness against what? That's garbage. Morals are relative, nobody shares an exact moral framework.

If we allow moralizing here, then we entertain the morons who jump on accusing people of misogyny-- not because there's a well reasoned argument for or against what they're saying, rather because people reason backwards from morality. If it's misogynistic, then it's wrong. Who cares to dig deeper than that?

Anybody who starts an argument with "That's evil therefore," is arguing from an unexamined perspective. Somebody who has not started from square one to deduce a consistent world view, but instead has simply picked up things he's heard other people say and takes the short cut of morality.

Arguing from morality is what keeps Religious nuts from considering that there might not be a god. If the very act of considering something outside the realm of the religion is sinful, then we keep ourselves trapped in the box.

Morality serves as a thought terminating cliche, nothing more.

If a redditor has an argument relating to trp, moral or not, he should be free to discuss it.

It seems like I can't make these rules any shorter, and yet people like you are quick to the draw to click submit on your uninformed opinion of them. Did you read the damn rule? Be honest here, did you?

Decidedly, you did not.

You're welcome to discuss why certain morals or values might exist, or their benefit in the context of strategy, however arguments that stem from morality (i.e. this is evil, therefore) are strictly prohibited.

[–]LeftShark86 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

We didn't ban allegories and parables. We banned the endless posts of "Hey guys, isn't the bald guy from breaking bad alpha?"

Good. I agree, though I haven't seen many of them.

"Discussion of overarching popular culture themes, however, is on-topic and makes for an interesting analysis of the shifts in cultural thinking."

Great, but we need to reference cultural works for good discussion. I understand what you're trying to say, but the rule doesn't read that way to me.

Weakness against what? That's garbage. Morals are relative, nobody shares an exact moral framework.

Weak debate, philosophy, thought, etc. My basic fear is that this will limit discussion and posts will turn into one big circle jerk. Example: "FR I just f*cked my beta friend's wife. I'm the Chad now." I would be critical of this post. Not because of my morals, but my opinion on what trp represents. In this example, I'd argue that sleeping with your friend's wife tells me you can't get any of the myriad of single-ish girls at your local bar and that she didn't sleep with you because you just made her gushing at the sight of a real alpha. I feel like it'd be easy to dismiss this argument or any dissenting argument as moral-based.

It seems like I can't make these rules any shorter, and yet people like you are quick to the draw to click submit on your uninformed opinion of them. Did you read the damn rule? Be honest here, did you? Decidedly, you did not.

Yea, I did. Did you think this write-up was a masterpiece of literature; free from error and mistakes? Come on. This is the internet. My opinion is not uniformed. I'm not saying wild things here. We can disagree and/or clarify things to each other without frothing at the mouth. This is supposed to be a group where we can build each other up as men.

All arguments stem from some sort of morality. Your morality, religious or not, is simply an opinion of what is best for whatever reasons. I think we both agree that "do this because it's good or don't do this because it's bad" are simply bad arguments and should be limited. I'll leave it at that.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

FR I just f*cked my beta friend's wife. I'm the Chad now." I would be critical of this post.

And you can be, as long as you're not simply taking a moral approach, but instead a logical and rational approach.

I'd argue that sleeping with your friend's wife tells me you can't get any of the myriad of single-ish girls at your local bar and that she didn't sleep with you because you just made her gushing at the sight of a real alpha. I feel like it'd be easy to dismiss this argument or any dissenting argument as moral-based.

That's not a moral argument. It's a valid opinion. You didn't call him evil at any point.

Did you think this write-up was a masterpiece of literature; free from error and mistakes?

No, and I'll correct mistakes as they come. However your critique is not one I'd consider to be valid, as most of your complaints are addressed in the text of the rules themseves, had they been read thoroughly.

All arguments stem from some sort of morality.

They don't, and shouldn't. If you think something's "wrong" you better have a good rationale why people of different moral systems should agree with you.

Otherwise, you're as good as the christian telling the atheist he's going to hell for sinning. The point passes right by the atheist because he doesn't share your value of heaven, hell, or sin. Why would he agree on any points you build upon such premises?

[–]Do not send modmail to my personal inboxCrazyHorseInvincible[M] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

What you wrote:

Prohibiting posts stemming from fiction and literature is incredibly short-sighted.

What the rule says:

No examples from fiction or lyrics.
Posts only

Fiction, pop songs, daytime television freakshows, and reality tv do not present useful examples of typical human behaviour, and cannot be learned from.

Discussion of overarching popular culture themes, however, is on-topic and makes for an interesting analysis of the shifts in cultural thinking.

I think we are done here.

[–]LeftShark86 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't know what you're trying to say. Yes, I think examples from fiction and lyrics should be allowed. That's what I was writing about. I understand the rule, I just don't think it's beneficial to the sub.

For instance, if I wanted to share the story of The Fisherman and His Wife, which describes things like husband/wife dynamic, how women value things, lessons on contentment, etc, I couldn't under these rules. It has a talking fish in it and is nothing more than a simple fairy tale, but it has lessons we can learn that are relevant to trp. That's my issue with the rule. Again, maybe I'm not seeing the crap posts that come up before you guys remove them, so I'm not seeing the need for the rule.

Edit:

Use of fiction or other controlled narratives (reality tv, etc) should only be used as an example of the author's psychology, not the character's.

I disagree with this. I think even fictional characters' motivation, psyche, actions, etc, can be valuable to us in our real-life situations. For example, if I comment on the way James Bond handled a situation and how we should emulate that, I think that could be valuable.

[–]Do not send modmail to my personal inboxCrazyHorseInvincible[M] 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

For example, if I comment on the way James Bond handled a situation and how we should emulate that, I think that could be valuable.

That is precisely the kind of low-value post we are trying to prevent.

Emulating fictional characters might be motivational, but it is not educational.

[–]fingerthemoon 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Morality and Evolutionary Biology-Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[–]TheMGhandi -2 points-1 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Is it moral for a state to execute a man who murdered someone? No, but it's moral to let him rot in prison for 30 years.

Morality does not equal justice and usually, amorality does. If we were an amoral people, many crimes that are "socially wrong" wouldn't destroy lives. Ironically, being moral is what leads to being immoral, and slowly you lose your sense of reason when you think morally.

Maybe that's why religions say Truth vs Falsehood. It requires intelligence to prove one or the other and separates the wise from the fool in the decision they make.

Edit: the problem is most religious followers think in terms of morals, so they are wooed into following a leader into committing mass genocide.

[–]iLLprincipLeS-1 points [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

Morality is a weak system developed by humans that are incapable of doing something. That something that they can't do is just passed on as morality - as the wrong thing to do - simply because it would not be in the best interest of that person if someone else would do that thing. Morality is self interest. Morality is the ultimate emblem of selfishness.

[–]LeftShark86 -1 points0 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Nothing could be further from the truth. Ideally, morality is embodiment of love not selfishness. If I wanted to be selfish, I'd be apathetic. Obviously, people use the guise of morality for things other than this, but that's a comment on the lack of true morality rather than its presence.

[–]iLLprincipLeS1 points [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

Love? Unsolicited love from a hopeful mortal. The morality that you seem to refer to can't exist without order. And there's no order anymore. You can waste your time believing in forgotten rules but I prefer to adapt and ENJOY THE DECLINE.

So,

Can you have that apathetic stance on online things - where you don't try to interfere with the self interest of the USER who wants to discuss amoral sexual strategy? Good. Try to impose your universal world views and you will automatically just derail the discussion due to your selfishness where you are interested not to represent the SELF INTEREST of the USER you are replying to, but you are interested in representing.. something else.

example: I don't give a shit if you are a weak cunt who projects that the FR wife I just fucked could be yours. You can tell me I could get caught and shot by the husband. Thanks, nothing new actually but whatever. Still, don't fucking tell me to think about the poor husband or the kids or the world or whatever. That won't help with anything. I am interested in information on how to fuck her once more or how to make sure her husband won't find out. Sexual Strategy.

TLDR: let's keep it on topic.

[–]LeftShark86 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

You can waste your time believing in forgotten rules but I prefer to adapt and ENJOY THE DECLINE.

Adapt and stop the decline, if only for you and yours.

Can you have that apathetic stance on online things - where you don't try to interfere with the self interest of the USER who wants to discuss amoral sexual strategy?

What sexual strategy? Fuck as many women as possible? Fuck the best woman possible? Fuck HB 2-4s on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays and HB 9s on Sundays? There are a lot of competing sexual strategies. To answer your question, of course. The problem is, a lot of members don't even know what strategy they're trying to pursue. And what's the point of pursuing any of them? Utility/happiness. If that's the true end goal, then we can comment on which strategies are preferable compared to others for each of us.

Try to impose your universal world views and you will automatically just derail the discussion due to your selfishness where you are interested not to represent the SELF INTEREST of the USER you are replying to, but you are interested in representing.. something else.

What do you think I'm trying to represent? What's my universal world view that I'm shoving down your throat? Achieve your goals in a intelligent and efficient manner to increase your happiness? That makes me selfish?

example: I don't give a shit if you are a weak cunt who projects that the FR wife I just fucked could be yours. You can tell me I could get caught and shot by the husband. Thanks, nothing new actually but whatever. Still, don't fucking tell me to think about the poor husband or the kids or the world or whatever. That won't help with anything. I am interested in information on how to fuck her once more or how to make sure her husband won't find out. Sexual Strategy.

TRP is not solely about sexual strategy. That's one aspect, sure, though probably the least important. In your example, the OP is pursuing a sexual strategy at the expense of the broader TRP theory, in my opinion. Even if we just focus on simple sexual strategy, the OP in your example would not be achieving his goals in an optimal manner. I'm not even telling you to think about the kids or the husband or the world, I'm telling you to think about yourself. We are our actions. Pursue your goals and do so intelligently. I guess if his only goal is to bang this wife, he's doing great; though I doubt that's really the goal.

TLDR: let's keep it on topic.

This is the overarching theme of TRP and it's a lot more fun than discussing my gym routine.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

embodiment of love

Which is the sixteenth element on the periodic table.

[–]tuzki -4 points-3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Disagree.

[–]macksdowntownsong 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

TRP's mission is to discuss men's identity, sexual strategy, and options in the context of our current global culture for the benefit of men. Anyone who does not share that goal will be banned the instant we detect them.

Thank you!!!

[–]spunk_wizard 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Thanks for the reminder, redpillschool. Those rules are as concise and simple as they come.

Something I have noticed a lot lately is lazy titling of field reports, most notably something along the lines of:

'Here's something I said to someone/was around for/found online. Hamstering ensues'

It's vague, lazy writing. The frequency that I see posts with this title format these days suggests that it's becoming a bit of a trp trope.

Good work on the 'rule broken' selection on the reports. Makes things much more efficient for both the mods, and the community. Keep up the good work.

[–]masnera -2 points-1 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

No examples from fiction or lyrics

100 percent agree to this...i wish its the same with stupid analogies, though it project similarities, don't even makes sense.

[–][deleted]  (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]LeftShark86 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

There's some merit to this. Age range would be nice - High School, College, 20's, 30's, etc. Maybe marital status and continent, too. The shirtless pics are a little...weird...unless it's a post specifically about lifting...I guess.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Too likely to be used for abuse/idenfitication.

[–][deleted]  (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]LeftShark86 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't even need country. I'd prefer continent. That gives me enough information to determine if it's culturally relevant to me.

[–]sir_wankalot_here -3 points-2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I plan to do an in-depth study of all the girlybars in SE Asia, after an extensive 2 year study I will write complete report. To sign up for this report send me $100.

Is this type of service allowed ? I think it would benefit the members of the male community since they would know which girlybars to visit.

Joke 😊

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2024. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter