TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

AIter_Real1ty Archive

View 1 post and 225 comments by AIter_Real1ty on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
21

DebateAIter_Real1ty/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/25 02:08 AM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
4

How many times are you going to shift bro 😭
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 06:54 PM
1

It's all completely arbitrary.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/25 04:24 PM
2

Such is the redpill.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/25 12:13 AM
2

We're on reddit bub.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/25 12:06 AM
1

How does that even work.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/06/25 03:31 PM
0

Redpill doesn't align with reality.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/06/25 12:27 PM
1

So you think it's these normative systems, that are separate from toxic masculinity, that is responsible for societal pressures upon men and women? Isn't toxic masculinity involved in this?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/06/25 11:39 PM
0

You're not here to contribute to the discussion. You're just here to circle-jerk because you don't like feminism.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/06/25 11:37 PM
1

Does being a machiavellian man mean you manipulate women and exploit their mental health hand self-esteem to satisfy your own urges?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/06/25 01:23 PM
1

You didn't build shit buddy. Your only contribution to this world I've seen thus far is praying on younger women when her parents are away---which you admitted to yourself.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/06/25 01:21 PM
1

That is whataboutism sir. Bottom line is men can control themselves and their own actions. They aren't brainwashed or hypnotized by women or porn.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/06/25 01:16 PM
1

You sound delusional and predatory. You're the kind of man you wouldn't even want your own daughter to date. And you know it.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/25 10:44 PM
0

Bro are you trolling? Or are you a sociopath or some sh? Like clinically.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/25 05:57 PM
0

Thank you man. I disagree with you but at least you have a line and can see creepy when it's there 😂 If even you are rejecting this guy, the OP who is defending age gaps, then you know this man must be doing something horrendous 💀 Edit: I guess this can go up as an example for why people don't like age-gaps. Cause of dudes like this.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/25 05:55 PM
0

You all sound delusional. Holy crap this sub is brainrot.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/25 05:53 PM
2

You're acting like sex and sexuality is some kind of mind control. It isn't. This is like purity culture logic. Men take it upon themselves to search up sexual things to satisfy their urges, but at the end of the day they have the ability to enact self-control. This whole argument is dumb.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/25 05:52 PM
0

The power of her sexuality? The fuck? You realize men have control over their own actions right? You sound horrendous sir. You're going to deliberately pursue a young girl, only once you know she's away from her parents? Holy shit. Do you realize how predatory that sounds.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/25 05:49 PM
0

They're both making a bad choice. The responsibility doesn't just fall on the buyer.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/25 05:40 PM
2

I don't know. I don't care.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/25 03:53 AM
5

I gotta say man... You're cutting it real close. 8-year age gap with someone who just got out of highschool? Tbh I feel uncomfortable and a little bit icky with that but I think you haven't crossed a line so you do you. If you were 30 though my eye brows would raise to the ceiling. I hope she looks older cause if not you're gonna have a hard time lol. Personally speaking, what do you think the line is?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/25 03:28 AM
3

I'm sorry to say man. But this subreddit is not reality.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/25 03:24 AM
2

Is she still in highschool? Or did she just graduate?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/25 03:23 AM
3

Holy shit nah bro that's disgusting. An 86 yr old? Tf was he doing? Like we can say that young adults are still responsible for who they get with. But that still doesn't change the fact that if you're in your middle ages dating someone two decades younger than you, fresh out highschool or still in college, you're disgusting.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/25 03:21 AM
6

Both can be blamed because both have control over their own actions.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/25 03:18 AM
1

Age gaps are indeed icky. It doesn't matter how the relationship transpires. At the end of the day the older person in the relationship has the power to reject.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/25 03:15 AM
-1

Power and control is an illusion. The only reason things happen is because people let it happen. Trying to arbitrarily shift accountability because you're uncomfortable with it is irrational and immature.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/25 03:14 AM
8

The notion that there's more agency on the women is an illusion. It is not actual power or control, the only reason dating is the way it is, is because men let it be. But even if that were true, it doesn't matter. Because the bottom line is that a man can reject a woman if he wants to. And your analogy is horrible. Acting as if the other guy in the relationship doesn't have the power to end it.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/25 03:12 AM
1

You said it was indoctrination. Bro how in the world do you think people won't see you as crazy. Like my man.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/06/25 02:33 PM
3

I didn't know Mulan and Tangled were propaganda. Wild. This sub is brainrot.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/25 07:45 PM
2

Everyone believes in the big bang theory because what an overwhelming majority of people know about it, is based on a misconception that there was an explosion and then the universe was created. When in actuality, that's not what the big bang theory is at all.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/25 02:42 AM
4

If I was being charitable, I'd grant you the notion that the leaked datasets of all these dating apps being similar may suggest a general trend, but not a conclusive or concrete statistical ratio. But even then I'm extremely skeptical because there is a prevalent verifiability and credibility issue. Maybe if I researched some more I could see if a statistical trend could justifiably be made, could you link all of what you currently have?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/25 06:29 PM
8

That's because the empirical data is just bad. Like literally all of not most of your data is from data leaks, blogs, and none of them are from actual academic, peer-reviewed studies. Dating apps just aren't representative of the population and the randomized control for sample groups is horrible.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/25 06:09 PM
1

Uhh did you get my comment? I think it might have been deleted.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/25 01:04 PM
5

Yes I 'disagree' with your conclusion, based on the alone fact that it is an absolute. But I agree that if you hold those undesirable qualities, women are less likely to like you.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/25 09:32 AM
10

Well you can present examples where opponents are being biased, and I can present examples where the idea being criticized is being criticized because of it's lack of standing. Most of TRP though, is not backed by science or statistics.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/25 09:28 AM
7

I essentially disagree. You can prove it. It's just a matter of approaching it from the logic side, not from the evidence one. And keeping the red pill on its original meaning. The only way you can prove something is if you have evidence to back it up. That is logic. But no amount of loving a woman, respecting a woman, dedicating time or resources to a woman will offset being ugly, unfit, unkept, insecure, boring, passive and incompetent. How do you know if this is true? Through empirical data. …
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/25 08:53 AM
13

So we rely on logic, evolution and other studies. That's dandy and all, but you can only verify your theories and claims with empirical data.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/25 08:49 AM
19

Opponents reject their analysis because what they argue isn't actually backed by statistics, and in statistics, especially sociology, there are always other justifications for statistical outcomes. That is literally the entire deal with statistics, that there are an infinite many variables to outcomes that are hard to account for.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/25 08:47 AM
6

You're making a claim of what the redpill is and what it is about, but what the redpill is and what it is about changes constantly throughout different spaces of the internet. This is the problem. Andrew Tate and Fresh n' Fit are just as much apart of the redpill as you are (especially when you make the same arguments), and to claim otherwise is no true scotsman.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/25 06:51 AM
8

Your very first point is already wrong. You say that: 1. The Red Pill Describes Patterns, Not Laws. Except the idea that 80% of women go for the top 20% of men is a well-known, highly parroted notion made by redpill ideologues. When you make a statement or claim about something, you need to prove that it's true. And in order to prove that something is true, you need science. A lot of Redpill is psuedoscience, and the "evidence" they present that they claim supports their beliefs is either incred…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/25 06:38 AM
0

That literally has nothing to do with why a logical fallacy was used. You're not educated, you don't do the proper research, you don't try to be objective, and you have no developed epistemology whatsoever. Why do you think you're justified in believing the things you do, despite all of this? Because like most people, you're lazy and lack intelligence.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/25 07:01 PM
2

Why did you respond with whataboutism.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/25 09:18 AM
1

That flair is giving me brainrot. loll
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/25 09:17 AM
1

It was downvoted, because the only reason he mentioned it, was to say that the notion women were treated like property in history is just a fictional story like the Handmaid's Tale. But this isn't true, women were treated like property. But of course, you deliberately ignore this.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/25 11:18 PM
1

When people say women were treated like property, it's not meant in the sense of being bought and sold like objects. It's referring to historical legal systems, like coverture, where women, especially married women, had limited legal rights. They couldn't own property independently, make contracts, or have full legal autonomy. They weren't legally property in the same sense as lands or goods, and their rights were controlled or transferred through their relationships with men. This is why legal …
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/25 05:45 PM
1

And just like I said, to frame it as "the government takes money from men and redistributes it to women" is dishonest framing.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/25 05:12 PM
1

That's true, but it's also true that women do a lot of work but isn't paid for it, like with childcare. The reason men have more money is cause most rich people are men. The top percent. My point still stands. Framing it that way is disingenuous. The government takes money from everyone.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/25 05:08 PM
1

I never called it slavery and I never said it could be compared to other systems in history where humans were treated as legal property. It's clear you're just here to be unnecessarily hostile and fight. Can't have a simple conversation all of you adults are online too much and have too much anger. Jesus. Instead of going straight for personal attacks and saying my education failed me, you could simply ask me to expand upon what I mean.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/25 04:42 PM
1

It's called coverture, it was a legal doctrine in the 19th century. Maybe not literally legal property, but this legal doctrine has something resembling the principles of it, or in the very least was similar. Don't talk about failed education when you don't know what I'm talking about and haven't even asked. Edit: you could say that this legal doctrine classified women as property in an unconventional way.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/25 04:32 PM
1

Isn't that what it is tho. Cause we were talking about guys who complain on the Internet, and then you started talking about other people caring.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/25 04:14 PM
0

And yes, Handmaids tale is actually an informal historical account of what has happened to women throughout history. Everything that the women were subjected to in Handmaids tale is something that happened to women somewhere in history, which is the point of the book. But of course, someone like you would never be able to comprehend that.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/25 01:33 PM
4

This entire comment is just whataboutism.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/25 01:31 PM
1

So? To frame it as "government takes money from men and redistributes it to women" is still disingenuous framing. The only reason men are net payers is because they make more money, and the government still takes money from all women regardless. This isn't a gendered thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/25 01:27 PM
1

The government doesn't take from men and then give money to women. That's dishonest framing. The government takes money from everybody, it doesn't care what age, race, or pronoun you are.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 07:13 PM
1

"Like they did for women." Buddy, society didn't change itself because women couldn't get dick.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 07:12 PM
5

There's a difference between caring, and focusing 50% of all your energy and problems on it.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 07:03 PM
3

You literally just did.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 07:01 PM
2

What I'm saying is true, women were considered legal property. You're really just showing your lack of education in history---It's called coverture, it was a legal doctrine back in the 19th century. Search it up.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 12:10 AM
4

> And I can say that none of the concepts are inherently sexist against women or evidence of man hating. Yeah. They aren't. The only one that can maybe qualify for that is the term toxic masculinity, but not really. Depends at how you look at it. > or if you'll just brush everything off as not inherently sexist or man hating I just simply disagree that the terms you presented were inherently sexist or man-hating. I'm sure you can bring up far better stuff to support your claim. > Do you think th…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 07:44 PM
0

It isn't. All of those concepts are not inherently sexist towards men, or man-hating. And one of them is a term even applied to women. You're yet to demonstrate even how.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 06:59 PM
5

"Women were never oppressed"---They were literally considered legal property. How delusional can you be.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 06:56 PM
2

Women were literally not recognized as people by the legal system and had no civil liberties or freedoms. A woman back then had to depend on a man in order to survive, and everything a woman would do would be decided by the men around her. The redpill showcases it's delusional train of thought, as usual.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 06:55 PM
4

That's not evidence at all.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 06:47 PM
–

Anyone who believes this has the ability to comprehend reality, which you pill ideologues don't.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 03:51 PM
–

Or maybe just don't be an asshole.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 01:08 PM
–

Times now are better than they ever were. Enough with this romanticization of the past bullshit.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 01:01 PM
–

Redpill is both a symptom and a cause, but not of what you're saying it is a symptom of. It's delusional is what it is.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 12:57 PM
1

Yeah dude. All data on human behavior is trash, especially in these kinds of debates.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/25 03:29 PM
4

But I literally just explained that it's not the exact same type of action explicitly because they engage with it differently---and you're the one being disingenuous for deliberately ignoring this point. Additionally, once again at the end of the day you're assuming this person has a double standard when they haven't even demonstrated to have one. For some reason you get defensive when they say something about men.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/25 09:49 AM
3

Because they consume it differently. It is not just about the kind of porn they consume, but why they consume it. Forget for a moment what the type of porn is, and focus more on the fact that one person fantasizes about degrading and harming others, while the other fantasizes about being degraded and harmed. That's essentially what it's about, and that is the key difference.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/25 09:20 AM
4

These commenters are specifically talking about if they would date a person if they watched that type of porn... which has nothing to do with women being the majority consumers. In your comment you said this: "Being that women are by quite a significant margin the largest consumers of that type of porn, why do you care if a man shares that fantasy?"---assuming the commenter has some double standard. It doesn't contradict anything they said.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/25 09:18 AM
6

You keep spamming this notion throughout the comment section that women are mostly the one's who consume it, but it's literally irrelevant. Defensive much.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/25 06:22 AM
2

It would only be a double standard if they were the same. But they're not the same.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/25 06:20 AM
–

There is no "rule," humans are not robots or language learning models. You haven't even met the burden of proof that this "rule" exists.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/25 05:39 PM
1

you're the one with ideology, and so bad one that it doesn't even track with reality You're a redpill ideologue. You're perfectly describing yourself. have a biological imperative to spread their seed, all women have a genetic biological imperative to get the best genes for their offspring AND a separate genetic biological imperative to secure resources for their offspring from a male partner More evopsych bull crap? Really? You have a source for this? Women are not biologically wired to extract…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/25 12:58 PM
1

How is that abusive? So you think the only thing a man can get out of a women in a friendship is sex? I'm increasingly finding it very hard to believe you're a person worth listening to with this kind of horrid logical reasoning. It is perfectly possible for a man to get something beneficial out of a relationship with a woman other than sex. This notion is so self-evidently true I don't know how you've convinced yourself otherwise. A quote about "fictional realities" comes to mind. All a man has…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/25 12:20 PM
1

I was simply pointing out the fact that it is your personal experience, but your experience doesn't represent all others. I am in highschool and there are a bunch of girls and boys that are friends with eachother without it leading to anything, or anyone catching feelings.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/25 10:25 AM
1

Or maybe sometimes men on the echo-chamber internet space rant about non-problems and blame others who aren't responsible. This is the internet.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/25 09:01 AM
3

"The thing is that in my experience"
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/25 08:51 AM
1

You don't believe in good girls, but you still believe in the term as a way of expressing your horrid ideology. You think that all women act in the way you describe, that all of them are bad and can't commit to their boyfriends/husbands. This is what I was talking about. You don't believe there are good girls, but you still believe in the concept of the archetype itself, and that it's something that a woman should ascribe to, but unfortunately according to you no woman fits inside this box you'v…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/25 05:35 AM
2

Your anecdotal experiences aren't representative of the rest of the human race. Why do people in these pill circles always think otherwise? It's so blatantly illogical.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/25 04:20 AM
1

Your argument only works if you accept this absolute notion that this is how all women and men behave with eachother in friendships.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/25 04:11 AM
3

> I agree with you that it isn't friendship. Unfortunately, it's the only "friendship" women have to offer to men... This doesn't make any sense at all. When a man initiates a friendship with a woman, he decides whether or not he's pursuing the friendship with ulterior motives. When a woman becomes friends with a man, she does not go up and ask him, "hey, do you want to be my friend while secretly having the ulterior motive of getting into my pants?"
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/25 04:05 AM
1

Please explain to me what exactly you're describing as mildly abusive? How does that counter the notion that men need to take accountability for only seeking friendships with women with ulterior motives?
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/25 04:00 AM
3

Correlation does not equal causation.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/05/25 10:01 PM
–

> I’ve seen Yeah man, who knew that your worldview is shaped by the things you consume. Wow. The few things you've seen aren't representative of the human experience buddy, that is basic logical reasoning. Do you have the ability to critically think and question your own views, or do you just believe in whatever you want to based on feelings?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/05/25 09:46 PM
–

Redpill is so absolutely fucking miserable that if you see two people in a happy relationship, but their dynamic doesn't conform to your ideology, you automatically assume all of these horrendous things and believe that either it's not genuine companionship and they'll break up----or it's not genuine companionship and the only reason the relationship exists is because of superficial attributes. Your mind is allergic to reality. Or nuance. Or literally anything that doesn't conform to your ideolo…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/05/25 06:45 PM
–

Buddy, women didn't have control over who they got with for millennia.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/05/25 06:26 PM
–

Traditional housewife types, I'm assuming.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/05/25 06:19 PM
5

It is. Prove me otherwise.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/25 08:40 PM
1

> Let me guess, you hate TRP because it makes you uncomfortable, but you drink up the most radical feminist arguments like the gospel? Pot, meets kettle. I've already demonstrated in my response why I don't like TRP Overtime, it has been heavily corrupted due to the cooption of incels, misogynists and grifters. This is something that you Redpillers yourselves agree with. It is a Pseudoscientific, online ideology made by random people on the internet. It is not credible whatsoever and whatever cr…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/25 08:38 PM
1

Assuming I've never looked into evopsych because I disagree with you, how lacking of critical thinking. Many people in the field of science, particularly in general, agree with me. I will reiterate--"No conclusions made in evopsych are valid, credible, or verifiable."---you can contest this with a genuine argument or you can completely dismiss me acting as if you've proved anything. You say I didn't look into it but this is something you can't possibly say in good faith because you haven't even …
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/25 08:22 PM
4

I have looked into evopsych, and it's psuedoscience. It is unfalsifiable, which is a bare minimum requirement for science. No conclusions made in evospych are valid or credible, or verifiable.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/25 11:38 AM
2

> instead of pushing us to despair like women do? This is a false dichotomy. You have a plethora of choices other than believing in a pseudoscientific slop online ideology made by unreliable randos. The fact that it's been coopted by incels, misogynists and grifters should give you more than enough of a clue. > Yeah, why would we believe in online ideologies that gave us explanations for women behaviors Because you people don't have the ability to critically think, or even think for yourselves f…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/25 11:29 AM
5

Psychology is good enough to be classified as at least a "soft science." Evopsych isn't even that, it's nothing. In the very least, psychology is far more scientific than evopsych, and it's findings are much more credible/reliable. Evopsych is psuedoscience.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/25 11:17 AM
2

> There is no Department of Red Pill Studies And you shouldn't expect one. Red Pill is an online ideology created by random people online. It is not scientific, credible, factual or reliable whatsoever. > far-left gender Marxism in 70%+ of universities on Earth What the duck does this even mean, are you just putting a bunch of random political terms together? And where did you come up with that number? What the hell does Marxism even have to do with anything? How is Marxism biased against men? A…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/25 08:40 AM
2

Even if that were true, still doesn't change the fact that pretty much all of evopsych is unfalsifiable, which is the exact opposite of scientific.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/25 08:27 AM
6

Evolutionary psychology is psuedoscience.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/25 08:26 AM
2

It's because it's an online ideology where most people who engage with it are chronically online themselves, who spend most of their time in echochambers, negativity and bitterness. This ideology was created by random people online, a lot of whom are grifters, misogynists and incels---why you people actually believe in this I'll never know. Made up online ideologies will always and forever be stupid.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/25 08:23 AM
2

How can you people think so irrationally so blatantly? Is 99% of this sub people assuming that the entire outside world revolves around them, and that their experiences represent all of humanity? You people are so unintelligent.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/25 08:20 AM
1

> These "good girls" you talk about are a myth. Based on your anecdotal experiences? You see how irrational this is, right? What the hell does "good girl," even mean? Every time I look you pill-ideologies are always archetyping or creating these rigid boxes of human existence.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/25 08:18 AM
3

> but not an echo-chamber. Lot's of circle-jerking though. Most discussions/posts here are horrendous, negative and unproductive.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/25 08:14 AM
4

This is what the redpill, or any pill for that matter, understands. They just look for whatever confirms their beliefs and run with it.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/25 08:10 AM
18

Literally everyone does that buddy. Literally everyone. Especially through porn---the consumer base of which is mostly comprised of men. Like what you said wasn't even relevant to what the commenter said. Why do you guys always answer with deflection or whataboutism: "yeah what you said was 100% right but I'm not going to talk about that, instead I'll bring up these other woman I don't like." Redpill is so stupid man.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/25 07:39 AM
12

Abortion is an entirely different matter that is very subjective and arbitrary. Let's stay on topic man.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/25 04:59 PM
–

Buddy idgaf about queers for Palestine that has nothing to do with this. Why is your entire comment about something completely unrelated. Like you just completely side-stepped the question. Just give the definition and criteria for woke.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/25 02:59 PM
–

It's just because people are stupid and tribalistic. That's it, that's all.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/25 02:33 PM
–

That's just a ridiculous random example. Give us a definition and criteria.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/25 02:32 PM
–

People will use insults regardless of whether or not you're right. But you're not. And you're too entrenched in your echochamber to see it. Comparing people dating to eugenics is asinine and forever will be asinine. You've not thought this out whatsoever and you have no serious argument. Shallow intellectual engagement everybody.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/25 03:39 AM
–

You need to stay offline brother.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/05/25 08:12 PM
–

It's not comparable to eugenics whatsoever. Holy hell you people need to read more and stop thinking like your high-class intellectuals. You're just stupid.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/05/25 08:11 PM
–

It's so offbase that if someone were to assume that you lacked a basic education and only had as many as two braincells inside of your brain left, they'd be completely justified in that belief. This argument and comparison is so ludicrously asinine that words in the dictionary cannot properly describe how braindead it is.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/05/25 08:09 PM
–

"Women are incapable of arguing using reason." Yeah you're not a person worth listening to. Get offline.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/05/25 08:07 PM
–

That's a big giant leap and you know it buddy. Just because someone covers for you on a meal, doesn't automatically mean you've set or have to adhere to a certain strict relationship dynamic. What you're saying is just utterly stupid.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/05/25 08:05 PM
0

Bottom line is that he's wrong and he genuinely believes his delusions. Doesn't matter who or what he was responding to.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/25 09:45 PM
5

Except he actually believes it. Brainrot doesn't justify brainrot.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/25 07:15 PM
1

I never said it was tribalistic to share your own experience---I was specifically referring to the act of claiming an entire group of people do "x" thing based on your anecdotal experience. Which is blatantly irrational. You validate the experience that many men report of being rejected and treated differently when they display vulnerability or emotion---but when it comes to women also telling their experiences you don't extend the same kindness, or even reject them. It's an obvious double-stand…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/25 04:29 PM
2

The redpill has always touted a distorted and disingenuous version of stoicism that doesn't actually reflect it's true teachings or principles. I have some questions: What do you mean by "let them go and move on"? What in your vision is an example of "emotional restraint"? In your last sentence you say that "before resorting to emotion, one should practice self restraint," which seems to me is you saying that showing emotion and having control over oneself is mutually exclusive. Do you think tha…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/25 01:54 PM
3

Or maybe because you're all tribalistic shit heads who can't comprehend anything happening outside of their own echochamber. Especially when it doesn't conform to their own preferred narrative. This guy is just wrong. Why won't you admit that.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/25 01:43 PM
2

That is a very based tag there you have my friend. Tell me the story behind it.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/25 03:20 PM
9

Literally nothing of what you said has anything to do with this thread or my comment or the OP comment. This entire response is just deflection. You're all so entrenched and polarized and tribalistic in your own online cults you can't see anything past the black-and-white, ideological, binary lens you're looking through. The OP of this thread is a no pill woman, pointing out the fact that OP acts as if he can read the minds of all women and apparently knows the secret to the "orgasm gap" that no…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/25 11:46 AM
10

You being sick and tired because you're chronically online and consume things that make you angry has absolutely nothing at all to do with what the comment you're responding to said. The point they made was completely valid, but you respond with something completely irrelevant. You've disproved nothing and have not contributed to the conversation at all. The fact that a woman making a valid point about how OP acts as if he can read all women's minds, makes you mad, is quite telling.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/25 10:47 AM
25

Does the difference really matter when you're all just fabricating imaginary shit to get mad at? Like this post is acting as if they can read the minds of all women on earth, with an accusatory tone like they did something wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/25 10:42 AM
2

Yes I believe it is unlikely that a good looking man who's also good financially and improving, has absolutely no other options but artificial means and going abroad. I do believe that it is more likely that in this scenario said man might resort to those last-case alternatives regardless if he is challenged to succeed. But overall, I think men who are good looking and financially secure are incredibly unlikely to resort to such things and would just do it the standard way instead. Going abroad …
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/25 02:24 AM
1

Yes, you're probably a loser if you need to travel abroad, or have a sex doll or AI girlfriend. You know what the word probably means? It indicates that if something is "probably" the case, then that means that something is the most probable (or more probable) case scenario. Or at least, one of the most probable cast scenarios. That doesn't mean it's the only case scenario, only the one that is more likely.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/25 01:18 AM
0

Provide alternative? Bro, no one is obligated to bend over backwards to help random strangers because they can't get laid. No one has to provide an alternative, we're just saying getting that AI girlfriends are just unhealthy, corporate exploitation, and will make all your problems worse.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/25 01:09 AM
1

That's why they said probably. If you're attractive and have something going for yourself and still can't find a partner then you're most likely just not good at it.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/25 01:04 AM
2

Just don't go into subs you don't like.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/25 01:02 AM
10

To be honest it does sound real creepy. Having intense sexual thoughts about a stranger you saw pass you by... that can't not be creepy. It isn't morally wrong per se, but it is definitely creepy. And don't be surprised when people find you creepy when you say you do that.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/25 12:45 AM
3

Because we shouldn't punish random women for having rights, especially when they've done nothing wrong. Imagine sending someone to the front lines of war to lose their life or get traumatized so you can simply "humble" them because they have rights. That's just delusional and unhinged. I can't believe I actually have to explain this to you people. Just because men are sent to the front lines, doesn't mean women have to as well. Instead of trying to make everybody suffer, abolish the draft.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/05/25 07:06 PM
1

> See, the thing is, what you said is meant to highlight/hyper-focus on something that can be very easily painted as negative, egregious, heinous, etc.. Yeah, women not having rights for the vast majority of history is pretty easily seen as negative. What does that have to do with you failing to address my point? > to the privileges women have held, one very big one over human history being the fact that women's lives have generally been protected and valued I don't care if women have "privilege…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/05/25 06:45 PM
3

I really have no hope at all if you can't see anything wrong with his statement. He wants to send random women on the front-lines into war for having rights to "humble" them. That's just fucking unhinged and delusional.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/05/25 06:21 PM
2

literally nothing in this comment at all addresses what I said. I said women didn't have rights, because they didn't. They couldn't vote, couldn't own property, couldn't manage their own bank accounts, didn't have control of their own bodily autonomy, no rights to legal personhood, job access, education, etc. Feminism was created to address the stark lack of rights women had for the vast majority of human history. Nothing you said changes this. This will always be the central point. A higher per…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/05/25 10:39 AM
0

Social science deals with an incredibly complex and fluid subject: human behavior. Unlike the hard sciences, it struggles to isolate variables or produce definitive, repeatable results. This makes it difficult to apply scientific methods in a strict sense. Theories like hypergamy may describe trends, but the data is often correlational and the conclusions are far from settled. Too often, people treat these ideas as if they were hard facts, when in reality, the science is limited and interpretive…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 11:47 AM
2

Your comment relies heavily on personal anecdote and extrapolation---taking one's own experiences and generalizing them to the whole population, which is just poor reasoning. It just sounds like your projecting your feelings and experiences onto everyone and everything else, and in your last sentence you literally admit doing so. You know you haven't gone through the proper education or research, and you know that those are numbers you just made up based on what you personally think---do you rea…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 11:38 AM
2

Women literally didn't have rights, bub. And you're getting salty because society created a philosophy to address that? They never said that women shouldn't care about men's problems; only that feminism was created to address women's, which isn't the same thing, or a bad thing. Your automatic jump to hostility is immature and lacks critical thinking. This sub is a cesspool of people who can't think beyond an impulsive and almost child-like level of intellectual engagement.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 11:26 AM
2

You're the reason why the redpill is seen as the delusional pill ideology it is online. Like, do you hear yourself? Jesus.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 11:14 AM
1

Things objectively have gotten better since feminism has been implemented. Like it's literally with regards to civil rights dude, lol.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 11:12 AM
1

I'm not sure you're not being hypocritical here, because it seems to me that not only is your worldview incredibly rigid, but it's also black-and-white. You came into this conversation with automatic hostility and no desire to have genuine dialectic conversation whatsoever. The commenter was right in that your response was a red herring that didn't directly engage with or refer to what they said whatsoever, and they were right to point out the fact that you're the one who brought up being gay, d…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 11:06 AM
1

I really, genuinely hope this is satire.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 10:55 AM
4

I don't think this is as rigid and as absolute as a thing you guys think it is.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 10:53 AM
5

You're really just showing the lack of intellectual capacity of those who espouse redpill ideology. This is unhinged, horrendously disingenuous and immature and you know it.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 03:14 AM
1

Not everyone needs to be in a relationship all the time. I feel like all of this is very subjective and arbitrary.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/25 09:36 PM
1

I'm not sure about the claim that women at large don't care much about muscles, but to know at large what women's preferences are and how significant they are requires science, but social science is incredibly flawed, is a soft science has a massive replicability problem. I don't know if whether the majority of women like muscles or not, or how significant it would be in selecting a partner, but I still do see the utility of gaining muscle. It just gives that extra percentage of chance---and bei…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/25 08:35 PM
1

> You can't level up your aesthetics as a man. You can. You can work out and get muscles, get a good haircut, fix your teeth and whiten them, wear good looking clothes, do skin care, get rid of pimples, and perform good hygiene and smell good. This is attainable for most men. Maybe you can't change your facial structure, but just about everything else you can change. And even then you can use some makeup. I think good clothes and haircut will do wonders.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/25 06:23 AM
1

It's not like any of this is scientific so we don't know what will or won't work for most men. They should just try it anyways, it's always good to have a good routine and hygiene.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/25 06:15 AM
1

I'm assuming you have evidence of this, and all of your definitions and methods of quantification aren't subjective or arbitrary? Right?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/25 06:10 AM
1

I hope you're joking.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/25 06:08 AM
2

It's not an overreaction, it's completely normal. Like this is the most basic kind of dating action in dating interactions in human romance. Like I cannot emphasize how unproblematic this is. Even if it was not the best action to take, you're acting like she's satan or some horrible person. There's no nuance at all with you pill ideologues.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/25 06:02 AM
2

What are you talking about? OP isn't complaining about the dude---she's complaining about her friend and using her as an example of "replaceability." I agree that using this anecdote to proclaim all men as "replaceable" is stupid though. I'm confused, what do you think happened here in this story? Are you criticizing OP's friend or OP themselves?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/25 02:08 AM
2

It wasn't one time, she got turned down multiple times. And you don't know if the relationship was "reasonably fulfilling"----they went on five previous dates with each other. They're not in a committed relationship. Judging an entire person you don't know based off a interaction you read about them from a secondary source on reddit is simply irrational.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/25 02:00 AM
3

She did wait, she asked multiple times each day and every time he said no. Admittedly that's a relatively short period of time---but she has no obligation to devote herself to a guy she doesn't know. What she did was completely reasonable and not wrong at all, she hasn't committed some crime nor did she harm anyone.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/25 01:55 AM
1

You're making a bunch of unsubstantiated assumptions about the man and the woman in this story based on your own preconceived prejudices and biases. You're assuming this woman is a horrible person and she did such a horrible thing because she stopped seeing a guy who turned her down multiple times---which is reasonable. Even if he couldn't see her because he had work, that means that their schedules aren't compatible. Additionally, they weren't even in a committed relationship in the first place…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/25 01:52 AM
9

Holy shit, why do you people always jump to the worse conclusions about women over the most basic dating interactions? She asked multiple times to go on a date---she was turned down all of those times---so then she stopped chasing. How is this anything but reasonable? My god, people on the internet will complain about anything.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/25 01:46 AM
1

We don't know Tinder guy, he could actually just be the same but actually available. At least from OP's implication.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/25 01:43 AM
1

Or maybe you're just problematizing normal dating interactions that aren't an issue in the first place. A person has no obligation to another. In this specific instance, all of the woman's actions were completely reasonable. She asked the guy multiple times to go on a date, she got turned down all of those times---so then she stopped chasing. It's as simple as that, there's no need to make this a whole issue.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/25 01:41 AM
2

She got to hook up with some tinder guy, good for her. Who cares. The entire point is that her leaving after being turned down multiple times is completely reasonable, regardless if she hit up tinder guy or not. You guys are getting irrationally angry at this. You make even the most basic dating interactions problematic.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/25 01:38 AM
1

Okay, but this is actually a case where the actual study itself doesn't have any conclusive results. It's clear you're simply having a visceral reaction and accusing others of prejudice for speaking the truth because the study doesn't support what you want it to support. Merely saying that people criticize/are more skeptical of studies when it paints women in a bad light is not an actual substantive criticism, you have to prove first that the criticism against the studies are invalid. Otherwise,…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/25 01:21 AM
1

Or maybe you guys should think about whether or not your beliefs are actually true. You know, critical thinking. Instead of screaming "why are you all disagreeing with me!" ask yourself instead --- "Is it reasonable to be skeptical of the notion of an entire demographic acting as a monolith, always taking this action I say they will take, when given this specific condition." None of you people on here critically think, you're all ideologues. Pill ideologies should die.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/25 10:10 PM
–

Well actually that's a pretty good definition.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/25 09:55 PM
–

So then short is arbitrary. Like everything in this sub.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/25 09:49 PM
1

Okay, that seems reasonable. Before I jump into everything, I have a question. In your Libertarian society, do you still facilitate Intellectual Property Rights, like Copyright, Patents and Trademarks (and also trade secret law?), or will inventors/companies not have legal protections for their creations? While it most certainly has it's issues in the status quo, I think that IPR is incredibly important when it comes to innovation and economic growth. Another question- In your world, do subsidie…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/25 12:32 AM
1

A reality TV show is not representative nor should be a model to base society. I didn't want to be mean, but buddy, you have to admit here that you're being a bit delusional.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/01/25 02:36 AM
1

You didn't specify, some Libertarians think that there should be no government at all, or government completely non-involved with the private sector. Infrastructure requires a massive amount of central planning and resources, where are you going to get that? Additionally, since all land will be privately owned, are people going to have to pay money every time they exist on someone else's property? Are you going to have a pay a toll every time you pass a separate road? Why would anyone build the …
/r/PurplePillDebate22/01/25 02:35 AM
2

It really wasn't as good as everyone thinks it is. Like, really.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/25 07:26 AM
0

It's just a reality TV show, man. Even if they didn't deliberately pick those women it's still just 5 woman... And one of them actually did have survival skills, from what I know. She was just ignored by the group.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/25 07:24 AM
1

What happens when people can't afford things? Do they just die? Or live without those services? Who's going to build our infrastructure, like roads? When there are disputes between two people or private entities, like over a contract, how is that going to work out?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/25 07:05 AM
2

Really though? Men solidarity over Trump? I don't know but I just haven't seen it. Why would they do that?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/25 11:02 PM
1

Of course, innocent before proven guilty will always be the way.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/25 11:01 PM
-1

What is it like to walk around the world and be this sensitive? To be so unable to handle being exposed to other ideas? It's the foundation of every pill ideology. They're always so centered and focused on themselves and what they want to be true that they react to something that even remotely indicates what they don't agree with.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/25 10:33 PM
4

Why do you think it's a good idea to use the same braindead woke logic you criticize feminists for using. Rules for thee but not for me. You pillers are too ideologically captured.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/25 10:21 PM
3

That's horrid.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/25 10:19 PM
-4

There shouldn't be charges for false accusations. It'd be nice but the actual application of it in your mind is not going to match up to reality.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/25 10:18 PM
1

I never said there aren't differences when it comes to the general experiences of men and woman in the dating market. The thing I'm contesting is the notion that not a single woman on earth has experienced "tumbleweeds," or that some woman, albeit less, no matter what they do will not be perceived as romantic interests by other men. I am saying that your assumption is an absolute that is assuming the experiences of half the entire human population, that is not gaslighting, that's basic logic. It…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/25 09:46 PM
1

Why do I need to explain to you that random people online conducting "social experiments," on dating websites is not definitive proof of an absolute regarding the experiences of half the entire human population.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/25 04:05 PM
2

I never said that. However, the field of evolutionary psychology is just a bunch of "just so," stories that are unfalsifiable, and assume certain behaviors are adaptive traits with no actual evidence. If you had at least a basic understanding of evolutionary biology, you'd know that not all traits are adaptive, and that culture and environment are a significant component that is not controlled for.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/25 10:59 AM
7

> What contracts were they not allowed to sign. Cite evidence. Why don't you cite evidence that women were allowed to sign contracts outside of direct property nationwide? In some states, women could not independently enter into employment contracts without their husband’s permission. This restricted their ability to work outside the home or negotiate their own wages. For example: the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Michigan law that prohibited women from being licensed as bartenders unless they wer…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/25 05:10 AM
1

Evolutionary psychology is bullcrap and all of the stuff you just said is a bunch of bullcrap as well, by extension.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/25 04:00 AM
8

If you think women were treated better than you're just dumb. You just typed a biased prompt, got the answer you wanted and didn't search for any additional context or information that didn't confirm your views, literally the definition of confirmation bias and cherry-picking. They did not immediately or uniformly grant full contractual rights to all women across the country. The process was gradual and varied by state, with some states being more progressive than others in granting these rights…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/25 03:46 AM
1

You're making the claim that it's 0%, that there are no women on planet earth who've experienced it at all, even though there are literally anecdotes on this thread that prove otherwise. Buddy, the burden of proof is on you.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/25 03:29 AM
0

Ah yes, because some random blogger with no reputability doing a "social experiment" on some random website is the holy grail of absolute truth in determining all of the experiences of the entire human population, with no deviation whatsoever.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/25 03:24 AM
1

Nobody said anything about equality buddy, you're just putting words in their mouth so you'd have something to complain about.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/25 03:18 AM
0

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim, genius. We already know some men will never have romantic partners, just saying that it's women too. But for some reason you guys get so triggered when this is mentioned.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/25 03:17 AM
0

Except you need evidence to prove your claims, that's how logic works. I always scratch my head when I see you pill-ideologically driven people think you can guess perfectly the life situation of the entire population, and think people behave according to your confined bubbles.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/25 03:11 AM
0

Holy fuck you people need to go outside. Jesus Christ. You're definitely not a no pill.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/25 03:07 AM
1

Ah yes, I suppose you have evidence to back this up.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/25 03:03 AM
0

Literally irrelevant. He said that it happens to woman too, not that it happens to them more.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/25 03:00 AM
2

"It isn't true at all," is not true at all. You're just getting mad at him for pointing it out.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/25 02:59 AM
1

> India is not the west, India is an argument about how birth control is not the reason for the low birth rates. You said birth rates decline because of feminism, if India has declining birth rates but not because of feminism, then that proves that feminism isn't the only potential factor when it comes to declining birth rates. In fact, it proves that feminism can be factored out entirely. to disprove p implies q "there exists" not p and q That's a logical statement, do you understand it? Additi…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/25 12:05 AM
1

> Test hypothesis > control for socioeconomic factors, control for difference in cultures, control for access to birth control. Reach the same conclusion participation of women in the work forces reduce birth rates > feminism is the main reason in the west for women entering jnnthe workforce in masse > therefore feminism is the root of the issue. Okay, and where is your study that controls for all of these factors and isolates feminism? What is your definition of feminism? Okay, so now it went f…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/25 12:05 AM
1

> Basic pattern regonition. That's not credible nor a valid answer. Drawing a statistical and mathematical relationship between two variables requires quantifiable data and credible scientific method. When it specifically comes to sociology, it becomes hard to categorize human behavior, and with something as broad, relative and subjective as feminism, drawing such a relationship is going to be incredibly difficult and overall is flawed methodology. You need to actually provide evidence, statisti…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/25 02:03 AM
1

Research indicates that teen pregnancies historically accounted for about 10-15% of total U.S. births in the late 20th century. For instance, in the 1970s, it is estimated that around 17% of all U.S. births were to mothers aged 15-19, contributing substantially to fertility rates of that time. Accordingly, as teen pregnancy rates began to decrease in the 1980s and 1990s, this decline mirrored a downward trend in overall fertility rates, suggesting a strong correlation between these two factors. …
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/25 01:17 AM
1

> No, it's not being "ideologically narrow-minded", when you remove and isolate factors the only reason left is feminism. And what study or report do you have to substantiate this? It is objectively false the feminism is the only cause or even the largest contributor. There are many studies, on economic and socioeconomic factors, conflicts, teen pregnancies and contraception, that draw various connections to declining fertility rates. You are being intellectual dishonest by only focusing on femi…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/01/25 12:49 AM
1

They never specifically point out contraception as the cause, and don't acknowledge that most births, even before the 21st century were not planned and accidental.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/25 10:25 PM
1

What specific regions are you talking about? I don't think it's productive to be so ideologically narrow-minded, and only accept feminism and culture as the only cause, when there are other, much more quantifiable and less politically beholden factors. According to this CDC report: > Had the global campaign to increase access to family planning (FP) services had been delayed just 10 years, there would have been more than 400 million more people on the planet than there are now. Link: https://pub…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/25 10:23 PM
1

I think that's quite narrow minded and dismissive. A majority of births are accidental, not planned, even back then. Women before the 21st century for the most part didn't have children because they wanted to, but because they couldn't do anything but carry the baby to term. Additionally, half of the reason why birthrates are low in the United States, and across the globe is due to the decline in teen pregnancy rates, which emphasizes my point.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/25 09:49 PM
1

I mean, I was more so talking with regards to public discourse about it.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/25 09:04 PM
2

Well that's one way to get your genes passed down.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/25 09:02 PM
3

Yeah, according to this CDC article a large percentage of teens use contraception. According to the data, almost 100% of all teens who've engaged in sexual activity have used contraception. That data doesn't really provide details on how consistent teen's contraception use was, but overall based on this article it can be assumed that contraception use is widely prevalent in my demographic. https://medicalxpress.com/news/2023-12-cdc-sexual-contraceptive-teens.html I also read somewhere that half …
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/25 02:12 PM
1

I don't know. I posted here cause I was scrolling through the sub and saw that you discuss gender stuff a lot, and I saw a recent post about declining birth rates and thought I should share. Also, I'm a highscooler and I just came from playing a basketball game so yeah, I'm lazy. Shoot me. That's why I said I might make a follow-up post cause I'm well aware, but it depends on how I'm feeling. Feel free to leave any tips or suggestions as to how to make it better. You seem like a decently informe…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/25 04:19 AM
4

Okay but what do I gotta do with that. I understand if you're angry, but why at me? At least for you.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/25 04:14 AM
2

I'm not a fan of Jordan Peterson, I think the guy's a psuedo-intellectual with a persecution complex. I just spent a lot of time on the JP subreddit cause that's where I started when I made an account, and I would argue with a bunch of his fans. I was never really a fan, but I did have somewhat of a respectable/indifferent opinion on Jordan Peterson initially, but that has gone downhill as much as his sub has. I know about all of that stuff, but not in a thorough, formal (?) way. I've read about…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/25 04:08 AM
2

Oh wow, I didn't even think of that, but when you think about it, it seems quite obvious. How would primitive humans know without technology or information that sex lead to pregnancy? That's crazy.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/25 03:51 AM
1

No I didn't, to be honest I just posted my thoughts without much deliberation beforehand. I always had this idea inside my head when listening to this topic, so I just put it down. Lot's of laziness on my part, should've done some more research cause it seems like a lot of this stuff is pretty crazy and interesting.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/25 03:48 AM
2

I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, it's just become more of a free country. And you know what they say, freedom come's with a price, or whatever. Edit: Most people wanna have families, even feminists. I have heard some women saying stuff against starting a family, and pushing being childfree, but I don't think it's as significant to fertility rates as you think it is. It'd also be hard to quantify and prove. Same with hedonism. We're not that bad off, really.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/25 03:42 AM
2

> Had the global campaign to increase access to family planning (FP) services had been delayed just 10 years, there would have been more than 400 million more people on the planet than there are now. That's crazy. I think this more than proves that contraception is incredibly significant. 400 million more babies?? Jesus. We would be at what? 8.4 billion?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/25 03:40 AM
6

Wow, that's crazy, I did not know that. Teen birth rates are actually that significant when it comes to population numbers? That seems a bit messed up actually. You think this means teens are using contraception a lot or are having sex less, or a mix of both?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/25 03:33 AM
–

Okay, so the reason you're being so critical is because you think I should be more responsible when it comes to discussing this topic because of how significant and controversial it is?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/25 03:30 AM
2

The only caveat is that there'll be less people, but we just have to work around that somehow.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/25 03:14 AM
5

So are we gonna just ignore the fact that you assumed I wanted to ban contraception? What's your deal man why are you so angry.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/25 03:08 AM
–

Bruh
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/25 03:07 AM
3

Bro, is that why you've been like this? You think I want to take away contraception? Bruh, I'm literally woman myself. Contraception like birth control are also used for other things like period cramps, and also preventing STDs, I know cause my sister got one. She got the one where they had to insert something in her arm or something, not sure how it works. I believe in sex-education and people having sex with protection. I don't even consider population/fertility decline a bad thing, I think pe…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/25 03:02 AM
-4

Really? Personally, as someone in highschool I hear other about other highschoolers hooking up all the time. And I read somewhere that the youngest age someone would start having sex on average has decreased as well. From roughly 17 to roughly 16.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/25 02:56 AM
3

That could be it too. Did a quick skim and apparently sex frequency has decreased since 2000. There's not much data on sex frequency before the 21st century. Finding out whether people back then had more or less sex than us now would be helpful in figuring it out.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/25 02:54 AM
0

It's not that big of a deal, you can just say what you think, even if you don't provide sources. I just want to know your opinion. It really doesn't take that much effort at all. Of course, you don't have to respond, but I'm finding these exchanges quite pointless.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/25 02:45 AM
2

Are you saying that deciding whether or not to use contraception is a value in and of itself? Guess that makes sense.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/25 02:42 AM
1

This is just reddit, man.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/25 02:40 AM
3

I don't understand things completely and I'm not as informed as I should be, but I think what I'm saying at least makes a bare minimum amount of sense. Right to the internet because sometimes I just want to share my thoughts, it's not that big of a deal. As a no pill woman, I'm interested in what you have to say on it.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/25 02:38 AM
0

At least give me your thoughts. I know this post isn't very substantive, but I mostly just wanted to get the conversation going. And well, I'm lazy.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/25 02:33 AM
1

That's true, however I think not many women had good accessibility to it, nor were they actively educated or knowledgable about it (probably expensive too), though that could be untrue. Additionally, they didn't have as advanced medical technology as us so abortions were also probably more risky. Even today, a majority of women who get pregnant don't get abortions either. Contraception however, makes things much easier and cheaper, and prevents pregnancy in the first place, which is no wonder wh…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/25 02:30 AM
4

I'm confused. Do you think the reason for low fertility rates is because we are having less sex compared to back then? I think you can answer that yourself. Are you more willing to have sex with or without contraception and why? I mean, people do still have unprotected sex, it just isn't as much anymore because there are other, probably better, cheaper options.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/25 02:26 AM
1

I guess an argument can be made that the increase in abundance and pervasiveness of contraception is due to culture. Of course, if people wanted babies they can just stop using contraception, however contraception gives them the ability to do the tango without having a baby. In this day in age, having a child is something you need to specifically plan to happen, but a majority of birth's don't come from intentional planning. Additionally, due to the human perfectionist mindset (not exactly the r…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/25 02:23 AM
1

Everyone is wrong on this topic. Yes, everyone. The reason for globally decreasing fertility rates isn't money, economics, inflation, culture. It's because of contraception. A majority of births even in this day and age are accidental or not planned, and back in the day this was the case for 100% of births. Humans would do the tango, then get pregnant, then have to carry the baby to term. Humans back then had a lot of babies, not because they wanted to, but because they fucked like monkies and h…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/25 01:43 AM
-1

Attraction can change.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/25 01:03 AM
-9

Once again, people fall out of love.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/25 12:59 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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