TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

61

Red Pill Theory... And Don't Listen to Me Like a 'Sperg, Either. (self.TheRedPill)

submitted by Whisper

Hi, I'm PinkKitty1992, and I made this reddit account so I can tell you all my very important opinions on the red pill stuff. A lot of it makes sense, but I just don't agree that All Women Are Like That. My mommy stuck by my daddy through unemployment and cancer, and I'm not like that either 'cuz I'm not a vapid whore and I don't treat men bad or slut it up with every man I see even though I'm in college now and lots of boys like me (yay!), and I want to marry a man I respect someday and have some children but I don't wanna be chained to the stove and not have a job and have to ask permission to do anything and I don't see why the red pill has to be so full of angry guys being nasty!

...

Hi, my name is ThadThunderCock2378954732918, and I'm decently along on my redpill journey, but I have a question about to deal with disrespect. The other day I was talking about some politics stuff (not American, I'm Lebanese), and one of my plates said "That makes sense, but I don't quite agree", and made some other argument, which I didn't really pay attention to because I was thinking about how to respond to this obvious shit test. What would you guys say if one of your plates disagreed with you?

...

Y'all spergs.

Nothing you read here is to be taken literally. Except the parts that are. Which ones? You figure that out. I'm not here to give you a comprehensive, literal, and precise theory of everything. I'm here to say whacky stuff that shakes you up and opens your eyes. What you read here should start a thought process, not end it.

In every conversation, there two channels along which information flows... the content, and the process. The content is the literal meaning of the words we say. Simple, direct, easy to absorb for anyone who speaks English. The process is the message conveyed by how I speak, and what I do while speaking.

Process communication is the larger part of human language. While TRP attempts to open your eyes to process communication, by talking about it in the content channel, we cannot dispense with process communication even while doing so, because people do not work that way.

Even here, the literal content is not the message, because the end result is not dry information. It's what you do with what you now know. It's how you feel about what you heard. It's your new state of mind. There's no way to encode that in the content of words, because language doesn't do that. I can describe you, but I cannot write you. I can use the word "tree", I can point at a tree, but I cannot reach through the screen and forcibly twist your head so you see the tree and stop staring at my pointing finger.

And eventually, you're going to have to look at all the different trees and understand the concept of a forest.

Spergs cannot generalize. They cannot grasp implications. They cannot grasp nuance. They do not have a sense of proportion. They hear the content of a message, and take it literally, or reject it altogether. They do not grasp the intent behind the words. That's not going to help you here.

To be masculine in a world that has forgotten how is not just to know something. It is to think differently, act differently, see things differently than before.

So I cannot tell you. I have to show you. And you have to figure out how to be shown.

If you argue about whether literally all women are like that, you're being a sperg. If you treat everything as a shit test (even when I have literally just written to you "everything is a shit test"), then you are being a sperg. If you argue about whether TRP is full of "hatey stuff" that distracts from the message, you are being a sperg.

Instead, use your burgeoning social skills to read between the lines.

If you do not learn to use and understand process communication, not only will women not ever want to have sexytimes with you, you will also not be able to use the instructions written here for changing that.

Think about the presentation. Think about the process channel. Use your own brain. TRP does not free you from the responsibility to think.


[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil52 points53 points  (38 children) | Copy Link

Our universities are literal Sperg Factories. Everyone is so interested in retarded details that they completly miss the big picture. If I write a fitness post about how you should eat White Fish and rice preworkout because of its easy digestion a sperg will ask about why not chicken and quinoa? They'll argue fir five paragraphs and at ythehe end of day not do shit and squat 135.

Our universites teach spergs to argue and sperg. Universities don't actually teach people how to do.

[–]Modified_Hackware 17 points18 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's the retarded combination of individualism with group think that hurt my head at university.

You're all special snowflakes what do you all think about anything?!

thhhheeeee saaaaaaammmmeee

Good children. Very good. The only thing left on the table to argue was how one felt about a topic which like you said was a complete sperg fest.

[–]Di-onysos21 points22 points  (26 children) | Copy Link

Universities teach you to argue your point in the most detailed and opaque manner as possible and to learn and use complex terminology to appear sophisticated and to hide the vapidity and lack of creativity of your ideas. It is a playing ground of these omega spergs who masturbate over the idea and image of being "smart" instead of doing smart things and coming up with smart ideas, a circlejerk of faux-intelligentsia imagining they're the gatekeepers of human wisdom.

The following gem is from Venkatesh Rao, the same writer who gave us the Gervais Principle:

"When “science” as description of a natural cognitive process turns into “Science!” as an identity-anchoring pattern of codified conspicuous production by the insecure, you get a cargo-cult procedural prescription. Unlike science, Science! is practiced by those whose social awkwardness is caused by actual social incompetence rather than the indifference and neglect that comes from being absorbed on another front. People who need procedural scaffolding because they never actually cultivated the necessary natural instincts. So natural behaviors like attentiveness and trial-and-error turn into Observation! and Experimentation! Seeking clarity by corralling doubt turns into theatrical Hypothesis! and systematic thought turns into Rigor!, Systems! and Methods! The result is an elaborate theater of mostly useless production where citations and awards become measures rather than consequences of value and curiosity turns into an expensive optional extra element in the business of grant-writing. Over the last fifty years, social support for science has gradually been diverted towards Science! which is why today, we’re paying far too much for whatever science actually emerges"

[–]TRP VanguardWhisper[S] 38 points39 points  (23 children) | Copy Link

"When “science” as description of a natural cognitive process turns into “Science!” as an identity-anchoring pattern of codified conspicuous production by the insecure, you get a cargo-cult procedural prescription. Unlike science, Science! is practiced by those whose social awkwardness is caused by actual social incompetence rather than the indifference and neglect that comes from being absorbed on another front. People who need procedural scaffolding because they never actually cultivated the necessary natural instincts. So natural behaviors like attentiveness and trial-and-error turn into Observation! and Experimentation! Seeking clarity by corralling doubt turns into theatrical Hypothesis! and systematic thought turns into Rigor!, Systems! and Methods! The result is an elaborate theater of mostly useless production where citations and awards become measures rather than consequences of value and curiosity turns into an expensive optional extra element in the business of grant-writing. Over the last fifty years, social support for science has gradually been diverted towards Science! which is why today, we’re paying far too much for whatever science actually emerges"

I like this a lot.

I am reminded of a young lady, working on a PhD in perceptual psychology, who got in over her head trying to write software for her dissertation, whom I gave a reasonable hourly rate to bail her out.

We spent weekend over some months, off and on, redesigning tests to capture small details of various models of attention and visual focus. And I wrote a lot of code to flash graphical objects on the screen, at various locations, for brief periods of time.

And at one point, we did something else. We would flash a distraction on the screen being showing the objects, and asking what they saw. It was a square field of static (random black or white bits) that I displayed for about twenty milliseconds or so, far too fast for the conscious mind to "see" it. And as we played around to find what was a good enough distraction, we encountered something curious.

  • If the field was smaller than the square area occupied by the objects, it wasn't a distraction. It had no effect.

  • If it was larger, it was distraction.

  • But if it was precisely the same size, and I mean precisely, then it melted the brain.

You literally would be unable to see the objects. Because the static came and went so fast, you couldn't see it. You didn't know it was there unless you wrote the code. But you would suddenly be completely unable to remember what you just saw.

The effect was scary. It was like a sudden onset of amnesia, an unexplained blank in one's mind. We were onto something no one had written about before.

And she cut it out of her experiment. Because it wasn't the subject of her dissertation. She wasn't there to do real science. She wasn't there to indulge her curiosity. She was there to get her PhD, and go pursue a tenure-track position, and get research grants. She did not have a passion for science, but only a career in "Science!".

One of the amateur scientists of the Enlightenment, or a greek philosopher, or a garage hacker, would have stopped, dropped everything, and begun feverishly investigating this new phenomenon. Alas, we live in the age of the professional, state-funded "Scientist!", whose ambitions include tenure, an impressive list of publications, and a prestigious award or two. Not so much with the curiosity.

[–]Tom_The_Human7 points8 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

How the hell do you get into a research position, find something new, and turn down the chance to study it? I'm about to start my dissertation, and I've switched from the effect that the Cold War had on the Civil Rights Movement to a comparison of Russo-American and Soviet and American relations purely because less shit has been written on it. How can you justifiably turn down such an opportunity?

[–]Myrpl1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Easy. Women who go for PhD don't do it for the advance, discovery and progress. They do it for the social value the "PhD" gives to the average person.

And women are a sucker for social recognition and prestige. I knew 5 girls who were into CS not related with each other, all 5 of them magically caught the "PhD fever". Let's take advantage of the "we need more women in CS" movement and it was literally a cakewalk to be accepted in any pro-feminist university they wanted (which are easy to find).

[–]ubercoolhipsterguy3 points4 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Easy. People who are genuniely interested in research will crawl through the muck if it means getting to engage with something that they are passionate about. Einstein was a patent clerk while working on relativity.

Do you really think Sheldon Cooper would stop studying physics if he had to move back to bumfuck with his mom and never got another government grant in his life? Nope. He would lie, cheat, and steal if it meant getting to follow his passion.

The only thing universities are interested in nowadays, especially the government funded ones, is a nice big government check. Then they do the bare minimum amount of work necessary to tie their bullshit research vaguely tangentially to some hot-button issue like CANCER because nobody's against fighting CANCER are you? Meanwhile all the men and spergs are in private enterprise or figured out the scam and dropped out of the system in middle school.

With the internet there really isn't much need any more for universities to serve as repositories of knowlege beyond the most esoteric of topics. Except for the most expensive of experiments requiring big equipment purchases any Tom, Dick, or Harry with enough intelligence and a moderate amount of spending money can do their own research in any topic they want in their own spare time; it's just that nobody wants to do it.

To most students universities are just signalling devices to potential employers, which is why we have hordes of people screaming and upset that their easy as shit degree in sex, partying, drugs, and feelings-full and fact-free, math-free, political lefitst identity politics or theatre degree didn't get them the six figure salary they secretly though they were entitled to while the serious students studying to be doctors or engineers were pulling all nighters in the library doing hard math and science; you know, honest to god work.

[–]erplaint2 points3 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Sheldon Cooper isn't real. Please don't use examples of fictional characters, they don't exist irl. Aside from that, valid post.

[–]QQ_L2P0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Really? From the entire post that was what compelled you to comment?

You read the OP right? I have never understood the fascination of people on this sub to smash a post because they used a fictional character as an example.

The character illustrates the point, he could have used Garfield the fucking Cat's love for lasagne for all the difference if would have made. The point has been conveyed. Shut the fuck up.

[–]erplaint1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Fiction isn't real! Get it through your head. Repeat after me: fiction is not real. You can not pride yourself on having swallowed the red pill aka accepting reality for what it is no matter how bitter, and yet invoke fictional characters in fictional situations as examples! Those are not real hence not examples of what happens in the real world.

Shut the fuck up.

Are you still in highschool? That's the go-to line of highschool brats. Time to grow up.

[–]QQ_L2P0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

No kidding man, fiction isn't real? You don't say! Congratulations on that personal revelation. Now, repeat it 100 more times just incase you forget.

Nobody is saying fiction is real, but characters are based on some principles. There's a reason comics like Dilbert and Snoopy are still kicking along with surprising popularity is not because they are hyper realistic documentaries. They're comics whose characters reflect reality and stories reflect a small and succinct part of reality in 4 frames.

Sheldon Cooper is clearly a hyperbolic representation of an Aspie, but that's what makes him a relatable character, people can see elements of themselves in him. If he was a normal Aspie, people would shun him because nobody would want to be associated with the Aspie who starkly mirrors real life, nobody wants that from their entertainment, especially considering TBBT's target demographic. That's how good literary works draw in their reader/viewer, by getting them to empathise with their characters who are based in reality and puffed up with hyperbole.

But, if the idea of sifting through things and picking out the necessary elements is too complicated for you, stick to your mantra. It'll serve you better.

[–]ubercoolhipsterguy0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

As the OP, both of you have valid points points. Fictional characters are the hallmark of betas who live vicariously through fiction, but can be useful as stereotypes and examples to derive principles which can be applied to the real world.

[–]NightGod0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Fictional characters that most people have heard of and understand something about are a useful anchor for discussion.

That said, I think Stephen Hawking would be a great example of someone who already has done essentially what the poster suggested and Neil DeGrasse Tyson would be a good example of someone who would, and both are real people.

[–]erplaint0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Fictional characters that most people have heard of and understand something about are a useful anchor for discussion.

Fictional characters in fictional situations do not exist in reality hence a very poor example in a red pill (reality no matter how bitter) context. There is nothing to learn from that for it is not real.

[–]NightGod0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

So there's nothing to be learned from, say, The Count of Monte Cristo? C'mon man. Fictional characters can have a very real place in discussions about philosophy and life in general. The very fact that they are archetypes makes them good points to illustrate with.

[–]2rp_valiant4 points5 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

that's fascinating - I'm also a coder and have something of a morbid fascination with messing with brain function and I've never seen anything this deterministic come out of a perception experiment. Would you mind sharing the code, or at least some further details such that I could reimplement this?

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

I won't share code. She paid for it, it's hers. I also don't want to give enough detail about her dissertation to make her identifiable. My comment history even more stalkerific than usual right now because I got bestof'd, and the SJWs are out in force.

She has a husband and a kid, and she doesn't need to get 6000 emails about how some guy she hung out with ten years ago and still says hi to occasionally on IM, is an awful person for saying shit on the internet that she agreed with when we talked about it back then.

Perhaps if I have some time, I'll do a gif of the phenomenon or something.

[–]QQ_L2P2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

In all seriousness, please do. This actually sounds amazing.

[–]Dronkavich2 points [recovered] | Copy Link

Though I doubt he would want to share, I too am interested.

[–]Profdiddy2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Can confirm. Source: I am a scientist. The issue is twofold as OP points out. However, it comes down to the funding structure more than the lack of vision. The researchers write a grant, it gets funded. They have to justify the money in papers, presentations, etc. or no more funding. Now a good scientist (Some of us are still out there) will use some funds to work on the proposal and some funds on these new questions that arise as a consequence of good experiments. Some of us are explorers and others molecular bean counters as I like to say.

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

Can you briefly describe the program? What size, the fps etc? I'd love to meddle with this

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

I'd like to experiment with this. Would you please give a better description of what the screen objects and flash looked like when most brain-melty?

[–]Asoka11111 2 points2 points [recovered] | Copy Link

A few years later when a male investigates the phenomenon

I totally saw that first. The patriarchy is stealing credit from me!!!

[–]TRP VanguardWhisper[S] 1 point2 points [recovered] (0 children) | Copy Link

Nah, that's not her shtick. Not a feminist. Bit of a sperg, kinda masculine mannerisms. Frankly, I don't think she'd care if I took it and published. After all, I'm the one who actually discovered it.

As near as I recall, my exact words were, "Hey, {Chick'sName}, come here a sec. I've found something weird."

We still talk occasionally. She got married, had a kid, works for some government bureaucracy or other.

[–]FrameWalker0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

That's the fault of that student and lab. Most phds have the opposite problem

[–]erplaint0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Universities teach you to argue your point in the most detailed and opaque manner as possible and to learn and use complex terminology to appear sophisticated and to hide the vapidity and lack of creativity of your ideas.

There's a name for that, it's called obscurantism. The fact that universities, which are supposed to do the exact opposite, practice it religiously in order to make morons feel smart while parting with their tuition money shows just how far gone it all is. Anti intellectualism is the norm and on top of everything it is disguised as knowldge. The doublethink is so think you can cut it with a knife.

[–]swimtohorizon3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I suppose "problem" is: The world doesn't any longer need nor want a bunch of thinking people. The big pillar of modern society is blissful ignorance. They day people start asking why, how and who, follows a night enlightened by fire. Just like an ant colony decays when every ant feels like chasing their dreams.

Our universites teach spergs to argue and sperg. Universities don't actually teach people how to do.

Universitys, like life or TRP, teach you whatever you choose to learn. They can teach you shitloads of things with in- and extrinsic value. But with society blinding and influencing all of us in our desires and dreams to a certain degree, its impossible to choose freely for most.

[–]AlphaAccountant2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

When I was back in school, we had three mandatory philosophy classes. I was one of the rare few who enjoyed them, they were actually some of my favorite classes though completely unrelated to what I was going to study afterwards.

Seeing just about everyone have the same "omg how can you even like that class" I came to the conclusion that people don't like to think. Maybe if they think too much they'll realize just how vapid their existence is. While I'm here trying to make it substantial with interesting hobbies and creating a legacy.

[–]ColdEiric-1 points0 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Our universites teach spergs to argue and sperg. Universities don't actually teach people how to do.

What does sperg mean? Who is a sperg, and why? And how is a non-sperg different? Is it like the Golem in the jewish folklore? Like An Useful Idiot? The explanation on Urban Dictionary is not good enough.

[–]Zaorish91 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

it's an abbreviation for aspergers which means in this case an obsession with minutiae and little facts and logic

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

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=aspergers

[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil-4 points-3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Iooks like we got another sperg over here

[–]ColdEiric1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Do I need to prove to you if I can or cannot notice the big picture? I don't get why I should here and now.

[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Prove it with shirtless picture of you flexing and Not A Sperg written on your chest in marker

[–]Di-onysos18 points19 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I believe Powertalk is a part of the sidebar.

AND YOU SHOULD FUCKING READ IT IF YOU HAVEN'T

You see it even here pretty often, people who cannot see the implications behind an expression or a metaphor, and are stuck at trying to comprehend it literally whcih leads to idiotic comments.

Also, "in real life", people of above average intelligence speak in this nuanced manner quite often and comprehending the implications behind the words is like a "club entry test", that is, if you consistently "sperg", and see only the literal implications, you get relegated to the category "people to be babytalked to".

Sociopath, Clueless, Powertalk, Loser, Babytalk, Straighttalk, Posturetalk, these are concepts that you should absolutely understand if you ever want to see the machinery behind social maneuvering.

[–]RP_Vergil6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This post reminds me of a story.

Beta guy uses OKC and literally message Guys who have "Here to make friends" on their profile if they want to meet up to talk about their hobbies.

His also famous for always objecting others comments or opinions during discussion because he "feels the need to be offering an alternative view".

[–]redambience7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Common sense is not expecting anyone else to have common sense.

[–]Asoka11111 7 points7 points [recovered] | Copy Link

This must be a shit test! I suck at A&A though, so I'll pressure flip.

Only a super-sperg would actually call other people spergs.

[–]unassumingusername71 point2 points [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Only a mega-sperg would actually call other people super-spergs.

[–]Trail_of_Jeers0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

All of you a spergs with over 9000 spergocity!

[–]2rp_valiant5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

this exact phenomenon is why TBP and other TRP-haters can come up with so much material. They read seminal posts like "Treat women like children" and they immediately go into mental spasms imagining us all talking to girls in kiddie-voice and sending them up for a nap when they get grumpy. They are too retarded to read between the lines and understand the message.

[–]Black-Pill2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

So..... is this a shit test?

[–]EnterPseudonym 6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Agree and amplify. Obviously he's 'sperging in his belief that most here takes everything posted literally. Next thing you know we'll be posting poems and discussing the implications of said poems.

[–]NidStyles0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

After that can we talk about our feelings?

[–]myexile1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

People need better intuition

[–]SunShoe8822 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Intuition is a sticky word and is usually something you have to earn with experience before you start whipping it out.

[–]myexile0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

That's true. I really mean just in general. Some people are too literal/binary. I have this issue sometimes.

I think why people may be like this here is because of the profoundness of the knowledge here. A lot of us were raised one way and this is profoundly different. At the same time, learn to try and find the intuition behind everything vs just asking for an answer.

This was most profound when finally trying to figure out the intuition behind every kind of lift I was doing in the gym. Instead of copying the way a movement looked, I tried to figure out how you were supposed to FEEL during it. Exhale and try to activate your core, pull through the elbows, different advice like that for different lifts. After I applied that my minor injuries for certain things went away and I actually got more muscle activation in areas that were supposed to be activated.

The same applies here. Too many people want to know an answer instead of trying to learn the intuition behind something.

[–]SunShoe8822 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree with the argument, however the context must be considered. Many of the people on this forums who seeking advice lack experience, and since intuition is built by experience, intuition as advice leaves much to be desired.

However, this is getting off-topic. The main issue with people described in the OP is that they are trying to treat Game/Social Mastery/ etc as a science rather than an art.

[–]fasterpussycatdie1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

When did I miss "sperg" becoming the catch-phrase du jour? All of a sudden it's everywhere.

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

Doesn't really roll off the tongue, but I can't come up with a contraction of Asperger syndrome that sounds any better. Will have to add that to YOLO and all the other modern terms that make me want to punch someone.

[–]ironblacksmith1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

forcibly twist your head so you see the tree and stop staring at my pointing finger.

I do that to my dog. Don't be a fucking dog.

[–]silvertongue35 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Decipher this and figure out how it applies

We just sittin' here tryin' to win,

try not to sin, high off weed and lots of gin.

So much smoke, need oxygen,

steadily countin' them Benjamins.

Nigga, you'd should, too ,if you knew

what this game would do to you.

Been in this shit since ninety-two,

look at all the bullshit I been through

[–]Dronkavich2 points [recovered] | Copy Link

Whisper, I stalked you a bit and read some of your previous comments and by god, upon reading some of your most downvoted responses this cannot be more prevalent. These people take shit way to literally.

[–]2ShitsWithTheDoorOpen0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

The problem is the format of reddit is made for content communication. Post content - > Post reply - > Argue about reply's content - > ad infinitum.

Look for "red pill" examples in life and then you can actually see the process. Or watch cool guys doing what they do through video or audio. Stand up is always pointed to. Ultimately you gotta just not be a keyboard jockey idiot who knows all the facts about lifting and human anatomy but is a fat, weak peace of shit. Knowledge is only meaningful to the extent it empowers us in the real world, everything else is mental masturbation.

Edit: These "process" communication threads always turn to a shit fest. I've posted similar stuff in the past to no avail... spergs gonna sperg...

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

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter