TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

AIter_Real1ty Archive

View 1 post and 336 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
6

According to who? You, a random reddit user who was wrong about all the other previous countries and kept shifting whenever it was demonstrated that you were wrong?
/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

Doubling down on being wrong. Socrates had a basic education and was formally trained to be a stonemason. He didn't become famous until after he spread his ideas and they became popular. He was mostly self-taught, he didn't learn his philosophy through formal education. To be honest, I don't know that much about Socrates so it took me a long time through lots of looking and reading on google to see whether your assessment was right. And after this search I come to heavily disagree with you. Socr…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/06/25 11:22 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
2

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

Other ideologies were created by educated scholars who created sophisticated frameworks for their ideas with a sufficient epistemology. The redpill was created by a bunch of random online people with no epistemology whatsoever, based on feelings and vibes. There is a clear difference, considering the fact that the redpill constantly spreads misinformation, pseudoscience and misleading narratives based on bad data.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/06/25 01:19 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
2

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
1

Redpill is a made up internet ideology created by a bunch of randoms online. It was never ever going to be a good reflection of reality. Get out of your head.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/25 05:43 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
7

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
11

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

So you don't have an excuse? And now you're trying to accuse me of being mentally ill? Will you ever stop degrading me for absolutely no reason? I don't need help, I got mad because you kept insulting me, because who wouldn't.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/25 06:20 AM
1

Says the one who gets irrationally emotional over people making arguments they don't like. And an adult no less. At least I'm a minor, what's you're excuse?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/25 06:16 AM
1

You admitted to being triggered and losing control of your emotions. You admitted to relentlessly spamming insults. The only thing was that you tried to justify it. I started this? You're the one that responded to me first in this thread. You're first two comments were personal attacks about how the education system failed me. And in my response to your first comment, I literally asked you to stop with the personal attacks and unnecessary hostility, which you continued with throughout this conve…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/25 06:12 AM
2

How do you even know that when you rely on AI to think for you? I said I used AI once and now you've been latching onto it like a lifeline to continue being condescending and degrading. You've literally been insulting me the whole time, and you did it first That is not true whatsoever you started being an asshole first, WHICH YOU ADMITTED. Now you're backtracking because you're an emotional adult who can't take any fucking responsibility. You've literally been insulting me the whole time If anyt…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/25 04:43 AM
1

because your arguments are nonsensical Which you have not proven. And just because you think my arguments don't make sense, doesn't mean I was using AI. In the end this is just a bad-faithed assumption you're making because you won't spare an opportunity to be insulting. It is, however, a sign of a lazy, uneducated, and stupid person Wow great. More personal attacks. Your emotional childish behavior never ends. Just because you use AI, doesn't mean you're lazy or uneducated, as long as you don't…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/25 05:00 PM
2

You've literally been bleating like a sheep about how "dishonest" I am and accusing me of "crying" the whole time. You've been spamming insults and calling me dishonest this entire time. You are being dishonest, because I used AI a single time to present some examples of not always being able to sell/dispose of something when you own it, now you won't shuttup about how I use AI to think when that isn't the case at all. You keep spamming insults and personal attacks like your life depends on it. …
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/25 11:27 PM
1

You're just spewing insults now. This is sad. If you're an adult, I'm amazed at the fact that I can show more basic emotional control and maturity than you. It's just sad.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/25 06:12 PM
1

There is a world of difference between me not proving something and you not understanding something Wow really? Have you proven that? Oh wait you haven't 👏👏👏 every single term and concept that you've used over the past week has been used wrong. Literally every single one. And as much as Did you prove this? Oh wait you didn't. 👍 Even if I did use the terms wrong (which I didn't) that's not an excuse to act like a child and spew ad-hominem whenever you got the chance. You're extremely fragile. lik…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/25 06:11 PM
1

You're so easy to trigger.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/25 06:02 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
1

Says the guy who has repeatedly been wrong not only about the facts, but isn't even able to use words properly. Which you have not proven at all. More crying and screaming with nothing to back it up. You started by accusing me of "whataboutism" despite yet again not understanding the term you are using. And no, I don't expect to convince you of anything given that your entire worldview consists of "I reject reality and substitute my own". In fact, you seem to do this with everyone you "debate" w…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/25 02:39 AM
1

Cry me a river.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/25 02:36 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

There it is again. The crying and screaming about how I'm wrong, but nothing to actually back it up. Clap it up folks 👏👏👏
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/25 05:46 PM
1

Uhh did you get my comment? I think it might have been deleted.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/25 01:04 PM
1

Well actually, I could use my comment as an example. Gimme a sec I'll link it in my edit.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/25 01:02 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
1

Great, you chose to address four examples and ignore all of the other one's: Artworks and Cultural Heritage Objects: Many famous artworks and cultural artifacts are technically owned by museums, governments, or private individuals, but strict laws or contracts prevent their sale, destruction, or export. For example, if a piece of art is classified as a national treasure or is protected under heritage laws, the owner may not be allowed to sell it, take it out of the country, or destroy it, even t…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/25 09:21 AM
1

I didn't delete it, it was removed because I added a link the wrong way or something. Do you understand that someone finding your arguments idiotic does not make them "disingenuous"? Well it's a good thing then that I didn't call you disingenuous for that reason. I called you disingenuous because you distorted my argument. Just like you don't know the meaning of "whataboutism", "property", and "historical", I didn't use the word historical as a stand-alone, I specifically paired it with the word…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/25 09:21 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
1

Could men "dispose" of their wives without legal and social consequences? Your own chosen definition doesn't even support your assertions. My argument does not hinge on whether husbands can dispose of their wives. You just keep being disingenuous. My point is that ownership (possession) is apart of those bundle of rights. All of your arguments hinge on word games and twisting definitions to suit your arguments contrary to the actual facts. I didn't twist any definition, I literally provided crit…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/25 08:16 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's literally the definition of property. If you can't buy it and sell it, it's not your property. This statement is not even entirely accurate as a definition of property in law. While the ability to buy and sell (the right of disposition) is a key aspect of property rights, it is not the only defining feature. Legal definitions of property focus on a "bundle of rights," which typically include the right to possess, use, exclude others, enjoy, and dispose. The inability to sell does not automa…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/25 09:10 AM
1

The issue here is that you are so profoundly brainwashed with this nonsense that you think women's rights were comparable to a wagon. If you were actually engaging honestly in this conversation, you'd know that I've repeatedly specified that I don't think women were treated like literal objects. But I digress, because this response does not address the fact that you are just crying wolf with nothing to back it up. Absolute lunacy. How am I supposed to explain reality to an insane person? You are…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/25 08:44 AM
1

AKA bullshit Holy shit never mind, you are indeed intellectually lazy and emotional. You did not respond to a single thing I said. This is nothing but a whole lot of crying and screaming with nothing to back it up. You've really lost this entire encounter. It's literally the definition of property. If you can't buy it and sell it, it's not your property. Guess what's also an aspect of property? Ownership and control. Which was what husbands had over their wives under coverture.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/25 08:40 AM
1

Schizophrenic ramblings of a lunatic. How exactly is "property" able to own land, take out loans, run businesses, get divorced, and form contracts, because women did all of that as well as be heads of state? Is your couch a head of state? Is your chandelier? Like I said before, a vast majority of women for a vast majority of recorded history weren't able to do these things because the law specifically prohibited them from doing so. For the women who couldn't do these things under coverture, they…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/25 08:07 AM
1

I'm guessing you're just an intellectually lazy and emotional person who argues with people when they say things or state opinions you don't like. So many assertions and essentially none of what I said was actually responded to. What do you think the word informal means? It means non-academic, non-technical, unofficial, non-accurate. You want to hyper-focus on the fact that I used the term informal historical account, acting as if I meant the Handmaid's Tale was an accurate historical account of…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/25 07:54 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

2/2 AKA you know perfectly well what you said was horseshit and now you are walking it back. I am not walking anything back. From the very first sentence, I specified that I do not think that the Handmaid's Tale is an accurate historical account. Now I know for a fact you're being purposefully disingenuous, because I've repeated this over and over, and even in the comment where you ridiculed me for this, this is what I specified. I honestly can't even take you seriously. Dude, you're entire argu…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/25 11:08 PM
1

You know perfectly well how dishonest this argument is. The entire purpose of saying BS like "Women were property" is to be inflammatory and to bring up an image of slavery and oppression. Going "Actually, when I said that women are property, I meant that they weren't at all property" is not a compelling response. Ah yes, because you can read minds and have recorded every single instance where a person has made the argument that women were treated like property? We've recorded entire legal doctr…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/25 11:07 PM
1

Then they should stop saying it because it makes them look like idiots. They would be idiots if they argued something inaccurate like women being treated like property as actual slaves. But if they meant something like coverture they're not idiots because they'd be right. Just because you don't like the argument doesn't mean it's idiotic. You seem more interested in dismissing than understanding. Once again, when people say women were treated like property, it's a shorthand to describe systems l…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/25 02:31 AM
1

I never denied what is actually happening, I said that it is dishonest framing that you're doing to craft a specific narrative that satisfies your redpilled worldview. I said that men being net contributors, and women being net benefactors, is a fact. Men make more money and women make less and that is a fact. It's not about my conscience, it's about the specific story that you're trying to create, and what specifically you're trying to argue, and what conclusions you're trying to justify by usi…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/25 05:53 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

What is it with redditors not being able to have a basic conversation without being condescending, angry or hostile. I've done absolutely nothing to you.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/25 05:27 PM
1

It is a fact that men are net contributors and women are net benefactors. What is also a fact is that this is not a gendered thing and framing it as "government takes from men, gives to women" is dishonest framing. I say again, you are trying to craft a specific narrative that satisfies your redpilled worldview. I say again, you never specified "on aggregate." You just said, "gov takes from men, gives to women."
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/25 05:24 PM
1

It's dishonest because you're saying it to craft and push a specific narrative. You're making it a gendered thing when it is not. So yes, it's dishonest. Edit: and in your original responses you never specified "on aggregate."
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/25 05:18 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

Nah bruh. You said people who tell others they shouldn't care don't have an argument, and I responded with "there's a difference between caring and focusing 50% of all your problems and energy on it"---which was to point out what these guys were doing, which is why people are saying "why do you care so much." Then you started talking about why do the people asking why these guys care, themselves care so much. But that's just not relevant and doesn't address the initial thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/25 04:55 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
1

Right, and I'm sure women and feminists will have absolutely no issues with femsplaining and won't call it misogynistic and sexist. I really don't care what feminists think. Like sure there could be a double standard, but like this doesn't have anything to do with my point. If someone says with full sincerity and not a hint of hate that women simply aren't as strong, intelligent, or moral as men, does it make it not hateful? I mean yeah, someone could genuinely believe that, but there's a key di…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 12:50 AM
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
1

Mansplaining can be replaced with being condescending, there's no need to call it "mansplaining". It's called mansplaining rather than just simply being condescending because there's an important distinction being made. You could use either term, but one is more specific than the other. Mansplaining is a subset of condescending behavior. Cool, so when those man-hating women use those man-hating expressions invented by other man-hating women to hate men, are those expressions hateful? No. If they…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 11:55 PM
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
1

They are not "gamers" in a conventional sense, but they still play games. Games are games whether you like it or not.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 04:28 PM
–

Anyone who believes this has the ability to comprehend reality, which you pill ideologues don't.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 03:51 PM
1

A bunch of things can qualify as a videogame depending on your definition. In a literal sense, the demographic for videogames for men and women is 50/50. But if we focus on FPS, RPGs and etc then that will change. All you had to say was that men and women were into different kinds of games.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 03:50 PM
-1

That's not common sense, that's directly observable by statistics and trends.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 01:28 PM
0

Ok great so it's based off of what you've observed. Doesn't sound scientific at all 👍
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 01:08 PM
-1

Or maybe just don't be an asshole.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 01:08 PM
4

Redpill is so garbage bro. Children aren't a biological need. Love and relationships is pretty much all you need.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 01:03 PM
5

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
-2

Buddy you're just making assumptions.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 12:54 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
2

You seem to be making incorrect assumptions about which gender is predominantly doing this though How? When did I ever say anything that indicates this? as well as ignoring the consent element (and that's without getting into things like lesbian porn) I'm not arguing about the ethicality of watching the porn, I am merely just stating the fact that this is not a double standard. Cause it's not. Frankly it seems like you are trying and failing to find evidence to support your biases rather than tr…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/25 09:46 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
1

Cool dude.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/06/25 07:03 PM
–

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

Female companionship is not relaxing to men nor is it a benefit. It means having to entertain, having to protect, having to provide, having to be a shoulder to cry on,... That's why men go to their male friends to relax. There are always expectations that need to be fulfilled around your woman. And there are penalties for not doing so Citation needed. This is just an absolute assumption with no substantiation. Emotional support. Lol, you are kidding, right? Men don't get emotional support from t…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/25 05:32 PM
1

If she is your partner, then yes. If she is a friend, then no. Which is exactly the reason why most men don't even keep female friends. Because there's absolutely no benefit. The only way you can even come close to proving this true is if you had the proper data to back it up, which you don't. You're just making an assumption that this is the case for all men and women. What you believe is of course "self-evidently" true. But what I believe is not. How convenient of you. It is self-evidently tru…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/25 01:48 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

globally share the same behaviors. Where's your evidence that all women behave in this exact same, specific way that you describe? acting according to the same reproduction strategies instilled in you by evolution Evolutionary psychology is bullshit. And your expansion of it to make your own bullshit claims of human behavior is also bullshit. If each and everyone that I've met untill now acts the same, then it's logical to extrapolate that behavior as something that "women do It would be fine if…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/25 12:11 PM
1

That's not a friendship, that's just a bad person who only cares about themselves. There are bad people everywhere. You have no evidence that this is something all, or even a majority of women do.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/25 12:07 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

Not a pure true heterosexual man. What does that even mean? To be heterosexual means to like the opposite gender. Just because you're a man who's feminine, leftist or a simp doesn't mean you're not heterosexual. You've arbitrarily made up this term and are arbitrarily applying it based on how you feel. I am speaking on how most heterosexual men think And once again, you and your experiences can't speak for the rest of the human race. This is literally just basic logical reasoning. But of how I t…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/25 08:46 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
1

There are billions of people currently living on earth and you are a fallible human being with an imperfect and subjective perception and account of life. What I said still applies: you are acting as if your experiences are representative of the rest of the human race, which is blatantly illogical. This is an indisputable error of reasoning that you have committed. Yes, I have evidence contrary to what you're saying, and many other's have shared their contrary anecdotes in this thread and commen…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/25 05:28 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
2

And I'm guessing you've met the vast majority of women to be able to make this conclusion? And you're not making any arbitrary assumptions that could be categorized as sexist? Maybe women are just normal individuals that are human beings that aren't all the same, and each having their own personality, tendencies and interests?
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/25 04:03 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
1

Are you just making this general assumption, or do you have evidence backed up by statistics? Buddy, a women literally wasn't considered a legal person. A woman couldn't just pick up any old Joe off the street, because who she got with determined the entirety of her future.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/05/25 08:25 PM
1

Yes you're wrong. You're very very wrong. You're not just wrong you're braindead, because not a single living human being on earth with living braincells could actually believe that half the population are apathetic creatures who can't love because they're female.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/05/25 09:50 PM
1

I'm attacking your belief that women can't love or engage in genuine companionship, just because they're women.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/05/25 09:48 PM
1

Exhibit B.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/05/25 09:47 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
5

I hope you don't talk like this in real life. Jesus christ redpill is fucking cyanide.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/05/25 06:47 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
1

Either way, that does not make you a person worth listening to. You're not a person worth listening to. Not a single bit.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/05/25 06:41 PM
1

Your subscribe to redpill ideology. Your know nothing about reality. This guy just made a whole paragraph talking about how he thinks women are instinctually wired to be incapable of love or genuine companionship---and your response was to be like: "Yeah dude you're so right I totally agree!"---holy shit redpill is so braindead.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/05/25 06:40 PM
1

Holy shit you guys need to touch grass. Is this what redpill does? Make you think that half the population are just apathetic creatures who are incapable of love? Wow. Just jesus christ.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/05/25 06:36 PM
1

You ascribe to redpill ideology. You know nothing about reality.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/05/25 06:31 PM
–

Buddy, women didn't have control over who they got with for millennia.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/05/25 06:26 PM
1

Exhibit A of why the Redpill is ideological and unhinged:
/r/PurplePillDebate26/05/25 06:24 PM
1

I estimate something like 75% There's you're problem already. You're making arbitrary estimations with your own mind, rather than going off of science or data. This can already be immediately disregarded. What reason do you have to think that your belief is justified?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/05/25 06:23 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
1

> Just for the sake of intellectual honesty, don't you think it's weird that you don't have a single shred of evidence to prove that claim? You don't have evidence either. The burden of proof is on you anyway. > Don't you think it's weird that the blue pill collectively still hasn't presented a single shred of evidence to prove their most fundamental claim, despite all these years? Same thing with the red pill. > Why is such an enormous percentage of the male population red pilled? Source.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/25 02:47 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
1

Dude, I literally said she was brainrot too. That only one displaying bias here is you. Aknowledge the truth that he is wrong and believes his delusions instead of deflecting. And concede that brainrot does not justify brainrot.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/25 11:20 PM
1

Yes, you made your response explaining why I was wrong---but in your response you misinterpret my arguments multiple times and this is something I explain in my response. Your claim that the rest of this discussion is just me being weird and intentionally obtuse is an unsubstantiated assertion that you can't justifiably say in good faith because you have not engaged with the content or substance of my points---and therefore you cannot make that assertion when you haven't demonstrated it to be tr…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/25 11:08 PM
1

So what if it's mainly about OP overgeneralizing? What exactly is bad about talking about overgeneralization? Once again---and I'd like for you to stop ignoring my points---that is literally what the topic of discussion in this mini-thread has been about. Additionally--- I was responding to YOUR points, and I countered each and every single one of them. Yet you won't acknowledge my explanations for why your points were wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/25 11:01 PM
1

It's clear you didn't properly read through anything I said and are too lazy to make an actual response. If you just didn't feel like putting the energy in you could've simply made a short response or ask for a summarized version instead of disingenuously oversimplifying my arguments and dismissing everything I said without actually addressing the content or substance of my points. Instead of automatically downvoting my comments and actually reading my responses, you would know that I've already…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/25 10:55 PM
1

Response 2/2 Yeah, except that a woman's anecdotal experience would never "counter" a man's anecdotal experience. You don't understand the argument, and I don't know how you misinterpreted that. Reread what I said again---"in order to counter this clearly disingenuous and illogical notion u/melaninfinn responded with their own anecdotal experience as a woman."---focus on the word notion. By recounting her own experience, u/melaninfinn was not trying to disprove OP's own personal experience, u/me…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/25 10:45 PM
1

Response 1/2 A woman saying "no, that's not my experience so that's not true" is not equivalent. Someone sharing their experience and someone else dismissing it by claiming their personal experience are not on equal standing. Except that's not at all what's happened in this instance and you're being disingenuous, perhaps deliberately, by reframing it that way when that is not how this conversation has taken place. OP is making the claim that all women universally reject or treat their partners d…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/25 10:45 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

So you have nothing valid to say in response to my points? Great. Good to know.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/05/25 07:06 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
7

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
11

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
27

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

Yeah, that's why I said abolish the draft. Instead of sending more innocent people to be ruined at the front lines so you can "humble" them, how about we end it altogether? You have not proved at all how what he said was not delusional and unhinged. I don't know why you can't just admit that it is.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/05/25 07:38 PM
4

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
5

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
0

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
2

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
2

I really, genuinely hope this is satire.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 10:55 AM
3

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

Doesn't what I suggested end up with that result anyway? I feel like we're looking at the wrong metric here. We should be looking at what percentage of people stay married/in long-term relationships in their lifetime. If a majority of people end up living the rest of their lives with someone else, that's what matters more doesn't it?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/25 09:39 PM
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

Why do we need such a high ideal? Let people break up and find who actually suits them.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/25 06:13 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
1

They went on 5 dates, they weren't in a committed relationship.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/25 02:05 AM
1

All I see are a bunch of biased assumptions in this comment.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/25 02:04 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
2

Despite the fact that you know I'm a highschooler, for some reason you've gotten even more triggered and now want to engage in a brainrot roasting match. Holy shit do you talk to people like this in real life? I'm cringing hard right now.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/25 11:40 AM
2

If anyone in real life saw your reddit comment history all respect and credibility people hold for you would go away. Seems like the internet does turn off your braincells. Dumbass chronically online adults all around me and yet they're the one's that can vote.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/25 11:29 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
2

Jesus Christ I can't believe I'm talking to an actual adult. The internet was a mistake. I'm a highschooler and I have more basic maturity than this. Does being on the internet just turn off your braincells or something?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/25 10:53 PM
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
1

Nuance? Logic? This whole sub is just people talking about shit they don't understand based off their own preconceived biases and prejudices. So many people so confident they have the answer, and that everyone else is wrong, and yet we're still no closer to any "solution" than we were before.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/25 09:54 PM
2

I don't blame any women not wanting a relationship with you. I can see the issue here.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/25 09:51 PM
–

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

It was a question bro, that's why there's a question mark at the end.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/25 11:16 PM
1

So you're saying that women are controlling men by being hot?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/25 10:58 PM
2

Can I ask why you believe men are entitled to sex from women? Doesn't this just essentially devolve into a scenario where women are forced to have sex, which is rape? Basically. Because we don't treat them as the same. Why do we need to treat them as the same? Because we have discrimination in dating. And why does having discrimination in dating matter? Why does that need to be translated to hiring practices? Assuming your premise that both are the same, why can't we treat both differently than …
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/25 11:00 AM
1

Okay, hold on, I think I get it now. You're saying that women only have the freedom to reject men because they made it so that society takes care of their reproductive choices, therefore they don't have to bare the consequences of doing so? So like, women don't have to bare the consequences of rejecting men, and those consequences are those reproductive choices? If I did indeed get it right, can you explain how women only reject men because they can avoid responsibility for their own reproductiv…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/25 05:27 AM
1

Okay, I'll admit I'm a bit confused. When you said that "it" is a decision only taken because the change in socioeconomic conditions allow women to make choices without consequences---I thought you meant that women reject men's approaches only because they don't have to bear the consequences of not accepting that advance, due to how society has changed overtime to grant them to freedom to do so. (I'm also confused what exactly the consequences of rejecting a romantic approach is.) And so, with t…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/25 05:21 AM
1

WHAT context? Modern Western society? In the specific context of why leftists believe class revolt is justifiable. I'm trying to make the argument that it's not really a double standard because leftists assume that the rich oppress the poor, and therefore class revolt is desirable. Assuming this premise, I don't think it's a double-standard. Though whether the rich are actually oppressive is another debate, but I don't think that really matters. But we've literally had over a decade of systemati…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/25 05:03 AM
2

I'm confused. So you think men being rejected and people being rejected from jobs are the same thing, and therefore they should be treated the same? You want to bring back discrimination in hiring, but you agree that men aren't entitled to sex from women as well? Even if this is indeed a double-standard, you still agree that men aren't entitled to sex from women, so what's the angle here? Do you actually believe that they should be treated the same, that people should be allowed to fire or rejec…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/25 04:17 AM
5

I don't really think that's a double-standard, because in this specific context the rich are greedy and corrupt and oppress the poor. However, Blackpillers and Redpillers aren't being oppressed by women not wanting them. Which is the point of this post.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/25 04:11 AM
1

(BTW I was just making an analogy to show how stupidly people engage with this topic, but everyone, you included, seem to not understand the point at all) Your analogy wasn't very good to demonstrate your point. Additionally, you lacked crucial clarity and haven't made your arguments very clear. Instead of insulting other people, maybe self-reflect on your analogy and understand why so many people didn't get your point.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/25 04:06 AM
3

You're being intentionally obtuse and refuse to acknowledge the fact that a lot of people, in real life, do actually make the argument that men are entitled to sex and women's bodies. Your bias is very apparent. Like you can make the argument that it's a minority, but to act as if it doesn't exist at all and absolutely no one is saying these things is simply disingenuous.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/25 04:02 AM
1

Because you're only talking about one side of the discourse, when there are multiple sides. A lot of men's reaction to women rejecting a men's approaches is to make arguments that a women is obligated to accept romantic or sexual advancements from a man. Or making the argument that women are wrong or immoral for rejecting a man. That is why sometimes you'll see people counter with "you are not entitled to a women's body, you don't own her, she is not your slave."
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/25 03:57 AM
-3

Who gives a fuck. A man could be ugly, smelly and retarded. No women within a mile will come near him but it's their right to do so. It's sad and depressing, but that's life. Deal with it. It's not a women's obligation to take care of your problems.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/25 03:50 AM
3

This is simply not true. A sizable amount of government welfare is the state subsidizing women's personal reproductive decisions. OP was talking specifically with regards to women not wanting to date other men. When they said women nor society are applying oppression, they meant that they aren't applying oppression by simply rejecting a man that approaches them. They want to be left alone, until a criminal accosts them then suddenly it's every man's in the vicinity's responsibility to help them.…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/25 03:47 AM
1

"Owed restraint" is so incredibly ambiguous. Can you please provide an example of a man not showing restraint?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/25 03:30 AM
2

You literally make no sense. You're saying people don't have an obligation to not harm others? You serious? Why is any of this even relevant? "Women aren't owed men their restraint,"--what the hell does that even mean? That just sounds like rape dude.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/25 03:28 AM
5

its in fact society that is unfair, broken and oppressive and we need to change it. That's how it was for most of history. And that's how it still is in many parts of the world. You're forgetting that women's civil rights and gender equality are still a pretty new thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/25 03:22 AM
2

There should be no "convincing arguments" you people want to play the struggle Olympics so bad that you fight over who has "real" depression and decide according to some arbitrary metric of suffering to deliberately exclude others who experience suicidal ideation, all to satisfy your stupid as fuck gender war ideologies. Just shut the fuck up, and never become therapists.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/03/25 04:50 PM
1

Except I'm not "saying" this, it's literally documented that women attempt suicide as a cry for help, not actually wanting to end their lives, hence why men's attempts are more real. Being suicidal is the definition of a cry for help. But anyways, I'm sure you can provide your sources on that, yeah? And also provide sources about what percentage of female suicide attempts are not "real." This whole debate over whether someone is suicidal for "real," is dumb and unhinged as fuck. Never become a t…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/03/25 06:31 PM
2

Women attempt suicide more than men.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/03/25 06:24 PM
1

Females actually attempt succeed more.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/03/25 06:23 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
1

Wow, your responses went completely ignored.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/25 11:17 PM
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
1

Hypothesis' are scientific, you're just appealing to "common knowledge," which is also a logical fallacy. Sociology, or any science studying human behavior, especially one's that can't extract data from controlled environments, are extremely iffy. You're touting around acting as if your word is the absolute truth, when the truth is much more complicated, and the research is not as accurate or straightforward due to it's very nature. But you guys lack scientific literacy.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/25 05:18 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

"The people I agree with will agree with you, the people I disagree with will tell you that you're wrong."
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/25 02:56 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

Obtuse about what? How am I intentionally ignoring these issues?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/25 01:59 PM
2

It's not thoughtless, my arguments make sense. I just didn't flesh them out, but it's not that big of a deal. It's just reddit.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/25 01:45 PM
1

I found the Jordan Peterson sub spiraling into a MAGA circlejerk echochamber. "too easy"? Do you think I'm trying to trick you or something? You make no sense, what are you guys getting so twisted about.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/25 01:43 PM
1

It's literally just reddit man. It's not that big of a deal. I just wanted to see what you guys thought about it because you talk about this stuff on the daily, geez.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/25 01:42 PM
1

Age has nothing to do with it. That's the entire point of this conversation, to know what you guys think. No idea what the problem is.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/25 01:39 PM
1

How am I minimizing that? What did I say specifically that means this? Whenever did I advocate for taking away birth control or reproductive healthcare?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/25 01:38 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

Anecdotal examples are evidence that it happens, but it's not evidence that it happens in a statistically significant way, or even in the specific way it was detailed by the person. Additionally, anecdotes are extremely subject to bias, and since it is secondary, people who listen to them don't know the situation because they weren't there to experience it, which is another thing that makes it hard to accept. Of course, this doesn't mean that anecdotes should be thrown out completely, but that t…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/25 01:57 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
5

But the frogs are gay, chemicals are the only possible explanation???
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/25 12:57 AM
1

Anecdotal examples aren't evidence.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/25 12:53 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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