TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

AshleyYakeley Archive

View 9 posts and 487 comments by AshleyYakeley on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
4

Meanwhile, in Japan...
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/15 09:21 PM
3

Getting really tired of these "what's wrong with men for not being attracted to me" articles tbh.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/02/15 07:00 AM
1

A more likely causal chain would be better in-pair cohesion => more sex => more kids
/r/PurplePillDebate06/02/15 09:13 PM
2

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/services/ldepubahead.html
/r/PurplePillDebate06/02/15 09:12 PM
5

Not unless someone has the deciding vote.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/02/15 08:15 AM
1

Hat-tip to SSC.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/02/15 06:48 AM
2

That comic is not referring to evo-psych, just general evo-bio.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/02/15 06:32 AM
1

There's a germ of truth in it, and it's this: don't put on an act.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/02/15 12:19 AM
3

Not RP, but just to get all biotruthful, I think men and women are equally valuable in the sense of Fisher's principle, that parental expenditure on sons and daughters should be equal.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/01/15 01:33 AM
2

Perhaps you were looking for /r/TheBluePill ?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/14 01:56 AM
2

Actually, sucrose is fructose and glucose joined together. The first thing that happens to it in the body is that it gets split into fructose and glucose. So, sucrose consumption should be included as fructose consumption, since by consuming sucrose you are effectively consuming fructose. (It's possible to do this in the kitchen by boiling up sucrose with citric acid; the result is called "invert sugar".)
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/14 07:40 AM
0

If I had a daughter I would totally teach her how to dress like the prettiest princess who ever went picnicking on Hanging Rock. (Yeah, I'd be a bad influence. On the up-side, the girl grew up to be the fashion editor of some magazine.)
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/14 10:27 PM
2

I think butter is not so bad for you? It's fructose (including sucrose) that one should watch out for.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/14 09:48 PM
1

It seems to me there are two kinds of threat, which we might call manipulative and informative. The difference is, if the threatened does not comply, whether it is ordinarily in the interest of the threatener to carry out the threat. An example of a manipulative threat: "if you don't pay me the $5000 you owe me, I will break your legs." It's not in my interest to break your legs (besides my reputation for credibility relating to the threat). It doesn't make me better off. And I certainly wouldn'…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/11/14 10:13 PM
2

I'm assuming 1950s is a synecdoche for traditional gender roles? This study examines the relationship between the gender role and family attitudes of husbands and wives and five indicators of marital satisfaction. The authors argue that men and women who espouse nontraditional attitudes are likely to be less satisfied than their more traditional counterparts. and But the most interesting data may be that the women who strongly identify as progressive—the 15 percent who agree most with feminist i…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/11/14 08:38 PM
2

If you ask someone to "come fuck me against the wall" when you're out in the street, and they fuck you against the wall out in the street, then that's not assault, harassment, or a violation of consent, because you have given consent to being fucked against the wall out in the street.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/11/14 02:22 AM
3

Unless the other human being said "come fuck me against the wall".
/r/PurplePillDebate31/10/14 04:23 AM
3

If you ask someone to get their cock out, and they get their cock out, you have not been sexually assaulted or sexually harassed thereby. Even if you do it in a public space such as on the street where most harassment happens. (Of course, it might be indecent exposure with regard to uninvolved third parties.)
/r/PurplePillDebate31/10/14 02:30 AM
5

It's not assault if you literally ask for it, though.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/14 10:07 PM
1

I've been talking specifically about Dutch women, not American women, ever since Those_Who_Remain wrote "Here in the Netherlands,". Please pay attention, Mistress Natalie, and read the context before posting. You'll save yourself much embarrassment.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/10/14 07:53 PM
2

No, no, I'm just reading the article... When I talk to women who spend half the week doing what they want—playing sports, planting gardens, doing art projects, hanging out with their children, volunteering, and meeting their family friends—I think, yes, that sounds wonderful. I can look around at the busy midweek, midday markets and town squares and picture myself leisurely buying produce or having coffee with friends. In a book released several years ago called Dutch Women Don't Get Depressed—a…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/10/14 07:43 PM
1

I think they probably do tbh: They work half days, meet their friends for coffee at 2 p.m., and pity their male colleagues who are stuck in the office all day.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/10/14 07:22 PM
1

The women work less, apparently?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/10/14 10:13 PM
1

To the species. Both are needed to reproduce. "The species" doesn't have values as such, unless you mean some kind of consensus or aggregate. On the other hand, if you are particularly referring to reproduction, it may be fair to say that men and women are equally valuable to that particular endeavour. This by itself would not imply very much equal treatment however.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/10/14 07:33 AM
2

Does humanity (in aggregate) value men and women equally? If so, perhaps we don't really need feminism. Certainly, plenty of individual members of "humanity" value men more than women or women more than men.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/10/14 07:53 AM
3

What do you mean "to whom?" Well, "value" isn't meaningful without someone doing the valuing.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/10/14 04:59 AM
4

Men and women are of equal value. Equal value to whom?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/10/14 02:21 AM
9

I'd probably have to teach him to game my daughter though... And if he runs screaming from her creepy dad, you know he's a keeper.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/10/14 06:53 AM
2

Actually I think it's the opposite. What feminists call Nice GuysTMTM and what RPs call beta manginas are basically the same set of men. Don't be one of those men.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/14 01:45 AM
2

But my new, long-term partner was disappointed when they discovered that I had blown heaps of money on my previous partners. "Why don't you spend the same on me? That's unfair!" I explained I was a different person, especially in terms of financial thinking - the investment would reward us both, make our lives more fulfilling and joyful, but it required a bit of restraint in the now. I think this is very reasonable, for a constrained fungible resource such as money. Money spent today cannot be s…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/10/14 05:59 AM
15

My own pet peeve is when they link PPD posts and comments to TBP, instead of just responding here.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/14 12:12 AM
1

Awesome! One more for the sidebar?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/14 06:23 AM
10

Hmm, this is what WA state (where I live) has to say (bold added): (1) A person is guilty of rape in the third degree when, under circumstances not constituting rape in the first or second degrees, such person engages in sexual intercourse with another person: (a) Where the victim did not consent as defined in RCW 9A.44.010(7), to sexual intercourse with the perpetrator and such lack of consent was clearly expressed by the victim's words or conduct, or (b) Where there is threat of substantial un…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/14 08:24 PM
12

I'm a little disappointed by the folks here, many of whom I have upvoted in the past, claiming it was not rape even if she is telling the truth. By default, there is no consent. Can I touch your vulva? Can I slap your face? Can I stick it in your butt? Can I spank your ass? Can I whip you? Can I stick needles in your flesh? Can I taser your genitals? Yes. Yes, I can. I can do any and all of these things, legally, and it is not a crime, provided I get your consent first.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/14 07:49 PM
10

Because, by default, there is no consent, and he ought to have known this. If this weren't the case, you could go up to anyone at all and start having sex with them until they say no.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/14 07:32 PM
7

I'm pretty sure it's rape in most other jurisdictions too.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/14 07:28 PM
10

yes (at least under British law), because she did not give consent, and his belief that she gave consent was unreasonable.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/14 06:58 PM
1

-Power-talk, posture-talk, straight-talk, baby-talk. Cannot be explained in a few sentences. Wait, from The Gervais Principle?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/14 08:39 PM
5

Slightly off-topic, but I've noticed that the only two groups who genuinely value femininity are gender traditionalists such as Red Pill, and trans women. So there's something you have in common...
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/14 04:31 AM
1

Good to know a college education encourages longer marriages, at least.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/09/14 02:12 AM
2

Well, I think it's hurtful either way. I think people should take responsibility for the things they say, and "anger phase" isn't an excuse.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/09/14 01:46 AM
9

There's kind of a feminist "anger phase" too. How do you feel about that?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/09/14 12:56 AM
2

Does sex with men make you happier than sex with women?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/09/14 10:41 PM
2

This may seem a bit off-the-wall, but, are you attracted to men at all?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/09/14 08:35 PM
2

there is no blue pill philosophy I think what you're trying to say is "The subreddit /r/TheBluePill does not officially advocate a philosophy". True, perhaps, but not the same thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/14 05:25 AM
2

TBP sub I really don't care about the sub. But there is such a thing as a BP relationship.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/14 05:09 AM
1

It seems to me men are more empowered and women are more valued?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/14 04:07 AM
1

There is no such thing as a "blue pill relationship." There kinda is, actually.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/14 04:01 AM
3

Why would you walk after all the years you've been together? And why is the jealousy irrational? Nothing can be known perfectly. Trust is important in a relationship, but it doesn't need to be absolute. Rather than imposing an obligation to trust, it's much better to impose an obligation to be trustworthy, and let trust grow in a healthy way.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/14 01:45 AM
3

OTOH, as a woman imagining being pregnant and my SO either demanding a test or going behind my back and finding out later...it's a dealbreaker, plain and simple. He may as well just say "I think you cheated on me, I don't trust you", and honestly I'd just dump him since I find it pretty unforgivable. Baby or no baby, it wouldn't be worth it to me to be tied down to someone who didn't trust me. OK, so, now you're raising a baby on your own, shutting out the father who wants to be with both you an…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/14 11:02 PM
7

It seems likely there's going to be a thirty-eighth.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/14 09:02 PM
1

Right, lets get rid of that rule, especially as vote counts are no longer broken out.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/14 07:54 PM
1

It depends on what country you live in I guess, but long-term unemployment is surely more poverty than austerity?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/09/14 09:33 PM
2

That's an interesting question. Which do you think is worse, poverty with sex, or prosperous virginity? I would say clearly the former.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/09/14 08:47 PM
1

Henry beats women!! He cheats on them! He beats them after they get mad at him for cheating on them! Yes, he's abusive, and he also gets laid a lot. But what does that prove?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/09/14 07:32 AM
1

The Los Angeles Times should not use the word "export" to refer to people. It's inaccurate and denies the agency of those "exported". I'm not attracted to men and I imagine most Vietnamese farmer's sons aren't either, so why are you asking?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/09/14 01:37 AM
1

Vietnam is not exporting anyone. You can't "export" people (anymore).
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/14 11:17 PM
1

Who's this "they"?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/14 11:10 PM
1

For every poor young Vietnamese woman looking for a rich foreign spouse, there's a poor young Vietnamese man who doesn't even have this option and isn't likely to get his story told.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/14 08:24 PM
3

NO
/r/PurplePillDebate06/09/14 06:46 AM
5

/u/hyperrreal, if you don't mind another red-leaning mod.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/09/14 09:20 PM
1

In Britain some of the Suffragettes were members of the British Union of Fascists. If you can find it, check out the BBC radio documentary "Mother Was A Blackshirt".
/r/PurplePillDebate27/08/14 03:34 AM
6

Marxism fails to account for the value to society of shouldering risk. Regardless of how you organise your society, all human endeavour is associated with risk. Even if it's just running a bakery, you cannot predict how many people will want your fresh bread each day, so you have to guess how many loaves to make, and either throw out the stale excess or disappoint some customers. Nor can you predict changing patterns of demand, or issues with ingredient supplies, or whatever. Under capitalism, t…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/08/14 03:29 AM
3

look out for number 1 (and I'm number 1). There's your problem.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/08/14 11:09 AM
5

but the impulse comes from a desire to protect women, which is benevolent sexism. If men think women should be protected more than men, that might reasonably be called "benevolent sexism". But if women think women should be protected more than men, surely that's "hostile sexism"?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/08/14 01:53 AM
2

News reports can often get obsessed with missing white women. Some people rightly point out the racial dimension to this, but I'm surprised how often people overlook the "women" part of that phrase. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_white_woman_syndrome Right. I think adding the racial angle might help social justice types understand. It's called "white female privilege" and it's the intersection (or sometimes just the simple sum) of white privilege and female privilege.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/08/14 12:52 AM
4

Why is sexism that hurts men instead of women referred to as "benevolent"?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/08/14 12:46 AM
6

However, I'm also wondering about TRP's definition of crazy...do you mean a literal mental illness (such as mine, which is genetic) or simply erratic behavior (which one could argue, judging by AWALT, that all women are totally capable of doing and probably will do)? If they're sensible about it, they mean personality disorders.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/14 09:52 PM
1

So is this like social proof, then? Men are desired by women if we are respected in society generally?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/14 08:14 PM
3

a man's value by his status. This is almost tautological, isn't it? What's the difference between value and status?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/14 07:38 PM
2

Blue Pillers take a rational approach to relationships, while Red Pillers take an emotional approach to relationships. I believe this is the essential difference. That said, I have trouble wading through RP spaces because there's so much anger and bitterness towards women. (I have the dual problem with feminist spaces.)
/r/PurplePillDebate19/08/14 09:12 PM
2

You presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong. Nope, never made this presumption.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/08/14 07:16 PM
1

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque
/r/PurplePillDebate14/08/14 08:05 AM
3

I prefer The Antigones.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/14 08:31 AM
1

Well, what are its effects? Does it make people stressed out and full of, you know, dread? Or does it elicit sexual enthusiasm?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/14 07:52 AM
1

I'd say there's nothing unhealthy about being attracted to women who look like they're fertile and seem like they might be good mothers of your children, even if that means women who tend to be younger than you.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/14 12:13 AM
9

Yes, I get that. But what is "a legitimate desire to be raped in real life"? What do you mean by that? I mean, rape implies you don't desire it, right?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/14 09:09 PM
3

a legitimate desire to be raped in real life Is this even logically possible? Or is it referring to sex you want, but don't say that you want?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/07/14 08:53 PM
5

i'm sorry to disappoint you if you were expecting a detailed guide...? Well, the Red Pillers pretty much have that. what, that bpers are ignorant of the causes of attraction? that they don't have one, single answer on how to attract every woman? It's more, do the Blue Pillers have any ideas at all? Or is "common-sense stuff like sociability and looks" as far as this train runs?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/14 09:02 PM
6

It depends on the problem I guess. Red Pillers seem to believe that most relationship problems are caused by lack of female desire, and that the only way to fix that is for the man to demonstrate desirability. They measure their results by their partners' sexual enthusiasm, which is not a bad metric I suppose.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/14 08:55 PM
5

how absurd the idea that attraction is incomprehensible is Well, your own comprehension of attraction seems to only go as far as "common-sense stuff like sociability and looks, varying a bit individually, I guess". So I do think there's a Blue Pill blind spot here.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/14 08:34 PM
1

Thanks!
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/14 08:46 AM
5

common-sense stuff like sociability and looks, varying a bit individually, I guess? You guess? Can you peer any further into the box than that?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/14 02:13 AM
1

OK, so why are people attracted to some people and not others?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/14 01:38 AM
2

I think your definition is becoming less useful tbh. There does seem to be an opposing set of ideas to Red Pill, and it seems reasonable to label those Blue Pill, with most people being distributed along the range between the two.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/14 01:31 AM
2

It's part of something called "consent culture" apparently.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/14 01:23 AM
5

This post just seems to be a list of generalisations. Exaggerations too. Fair point, perhaps I should have talked about RP and BP attitudes rather than people. I highly doubt most blue pillers would literally ask consent before kissing a woman, I mean come on now. OK maybe, but I've definitely come across this attitude.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/14 12:57 AM
3

No, you should be civil regardless. It's one of the rules I think.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/07/14 10:18 AM
3

/u/DocileBanalBovine, could you not do this please? It reeks of bad faith.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/07/14 09:52 AM
2

I see, Westerners tend to think categorically and taxonomically, while Asians do not, is that correct?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/07/14 08:03 AM
2

Clearly, dads should help their sons, moms their daughters.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/07/14 08:23 PM
7

I thought the trans man AMA was the only worthwhile one.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/14 05:57 PM
7

Do you believe both genders to be equal? No. No two different things are equal. If you find this answer facetious, you should clarify "equal". Do you believe both genders have equal rights (in the first world Us,UK, NZ etc)? If you mean rights as defined by law, then pretty much.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/14 06:17 AM
6

I still don't understand why 'I don't like this, so I'm going to not be part of it' is anathema to them. I don't either.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/14 06:01 AM
2

So the main and eponymous metaphor of TRP folks is the Red Pill... ...which is a concept from the movie The Matrix... ...which was written by the Wachowski brothers... ...one of whom, nine years later, transitioned to female... ...thus identifying as something other than her "biological sex"... ...which means her gender isn't rooted in any aspect of her "male" biology, such as her brain... ...which shows that gender roles are completely unconnected with biology for everyone... ...which is someth…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/07/14 03:46 AM
1

What do you think of male-led long-term-relationship/marriage styles such as "Surrendered Wife", "Taken in Hand", "Captain & First Mate" etc.?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/14 11:13 PM
4

No, it works for the good of the genes. Parental investment helps propagate genes, so it's evolutionarily adaptive.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/14 06:35 AM
9

men ... have a much greater tendency towards quantity rather than quality of children compared to women? Not sure about this one, because you're leaving out paternal investment, i.e. kids do better with attention and resources from their fathers.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/14 05:03 PM
5

Did you know that the current gender balance at a university is nearly 60% female? Does this include Cambridge? P. sure that wasn't the case when I was there in the late 80s.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/14 07:06 AM
18

Is this about division of labour? Red Pill: man does paid work, woman does housework Blue Pill: both do paid work and housework Red Pill idea of Blue Pill: man does all paid work and they equally split the housework, because a man doing less than half the housework is unfeminist Blue Pill idea of Red Pill: both do paid work and the woman does all the housework, because a man doing any housework is beta
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/14 07:58 PM
1

I don't think this is a rule within an existing relationship.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/07/14 06:26 PM
3

Just get out there and be yourself, then?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/14 11:31 PM
2

So the man is in charge, and the woman does what he says, Yes. and the man matters more, and the woman is only there to help him do what he has to do... No. As I understand it, it's more like a parent/child dynamic: the parent is certainly "in charge", but certainly does not "matter more".
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/14 06:32 AM
-1

As a Brit, I am legally obligated to post this.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/14 07:29 PM
2

I agree, but, By your logic, a dump truck is superior to a ferrari because it "makes the world run." I'd rather live in a place without Ferraris than a place without dump trucks.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/14 07:23 PM
1

Because being "slutty" isn't going to ruin your value. You're already affluent. Your network is pretty set. In this sense, affluent individuals care less about perception.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/14 06:29 AM
7

I'm going to venture out and say that more affluent individuals care more about perception. If that were the case, why do the more affluent women care less about being perceived as "slutty"?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/06/14 03:10 AM
2

Just to clarify, Louie wrote this, right?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/14 08:03 AM
2

I think the best way to address the question "what am I entitled to?" is to ask "what are others' obligations towards me?". Certainly I think she'd end up happier if she disinternalised the notion that men are obligated to desire or love her. I'm not saying go full Buddhist and eliminate desire as a source of suffering, etc., just to accept that nobody is to blame for this. Still and all, I blame society. I mean, 100 years ago, Americans weren't so obese, so something has happened.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/14 07:53 AM
0

Christianity (like Abrahamic religion in general) is what's wrong with the West. It desacralises the world in favour of an abstract "heaven" and an abstract absolute God. It denounces human endeavour for its own sake. It replaces living mythology with fossilized scripture. It hates everything good: pride, power, sexuality. It demands absolute universal adherence to its values. (Sorry, this is nothing to do with Red Pill, but you did ask.)
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/14 09:25 AM
7

Not really BP, but I don't understand this myself. People are already objects, in the obvious sense. It sounds like the "objectification" concept is trying to grasp at taking away something. Is it dehumanisation? It can't be, given the examples below ("referring to people as sexual conquests or putting them on a pedestal"), since both of those are things we would only ever do to humans. It seems to revolve around valuing people in the "wrong" way?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/14 08:54 AM
0

Yeah, sure, that happens occasionally. Do you have any objection to removing the rule against downvoting, if votes don't matter?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/14 02:06 AM
0

I think they do. Comments that are downvoted end up buried either at the bottom of the screen or actually hidden. They're less likely to be read.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/14 01:36 AM
1

Maybe they were just crappy opinions?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/14 12:58 AM
3

It ends up disproportionately empowering those willing to break the rule.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/14 09:38 PM
7

Agreed. Let's remove it.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/14 06:29 PM
1

If I wanted a similar relationship as she had with those guys, I would not be apprehensive. I mean, it's likely #31 is going to go the same way as the others.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/14 06:04 AM
1

There are a number of things about RP I don't like, mostly revolving around their cynical attitude towards society and their posture of responding to perceived narcissism with narcissism. Still, I trust their own self-definitions more than I trust the straw Red Pills of the BP folks here.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/14 06:47 AM
1

TRP is an empty shell of an Alpha behavior. What do you mean by "Alpha behavior" here?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/14 06:37 AM
6

In other words, people who feel they deserve better as individuals also feel they deserve better as their gender.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/14 06:56 PM
6

OK, so what do you mean by "wrong" if you're not talking about morality?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/14 02:51 AM
4

If your goal is to get laid and/or build a relationship and TRP works for you, is that a bad thing? Are you asking whether TRP is moral? I though the whole point of TRP was that is was amoral.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/14 12:46 AM
5

Anyone under 35. According to the 2010 census, that's roughly 47% of Americans. So not most, not even half. Perhaps, but I'd bet that OkC appeals to some demographics more than others. It definitely skews younger, I'd say. The results have been separated out by age, so age skews aren't going to affect it. Fair enough. I'd assume the 'attractiveness' is mostly (if not completely) physical. Yes, it actually says "look best to" them.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/14 06:55 AM
6

(presumably) single Yep. computer literate to the point of being able to make a profile That's pretty much most people in the USA at least. affluent enough to consistently have access to an internet connection That's pretty much most people in the USA at least. choose OkCupid over any other online dating sites (with some overlap) That's pretty random, though, isn't it? be online at the right time to notice the prompt for the survey have the attention span to take the survey to begin with be comf…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/14 06:09 AM
5

The problem isn't with the results or the website, it's with the inherent flaw in taking a sample of a specific type of person and then applying the results to everyone else. Well, the specific type of person is "OkCupid user", which is biased towards... single people I suppose. Even knowing this gender difference about the kinds of people who might use OkCupid is still pretty striking.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/14 05:56 AM
15

Fortunately this never happens to women.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/14 05:55 AM
5

Does it count as mansplaining if a man 'splains another man?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/14 05:54 AM
5

Math isn't as hard as men like to think it is. It's at least as hard as Gödel liked to think it is.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/14 06:36 PM
5

he delivered three cupfuls of his sperm what
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/14 01:21 AM
2

Right, just get out there and be yourself.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/14 12:57 AM
5

Except love cannot be measured. So what? That's an abstraction designed to make you feel better about the unavoidably finite limitations you are under in actually expressing any kind of love to anyone.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/14 09:33 PM
7

Love is limitless, This is pretty meaningless, given that all expressions of love for and care of a child are limited by time, energy and financial resources.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/14 09:10 PM
11

Suppose the maternity ward calls you up and tells you they mixed up the babies, and your three-year-old isn't actually the baby you or your wife gave birth to. Would you have cause to be upset in that case?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/14 07:10 PM
-1

You've gone from being dysfunctional, not well adjusted, and drowning in loneliness, to being dysfunctional, not well adjusted, and drowning in pussy. Isn't that at least an improvement? One step at a time, and all that... You now know how [...] to get women to fuck you. Is this bit true? I'm definitely getting mixed messages from BP on this point. Do redpillers actually, you know, get laid?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/14 09:34 AM
1

Seattlite here, can confirm.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/06/14 03:29 AM
3

TBH I think Kyon's persistent herbivorous supplicatory pedestalisation of Haruhi is making Mikuru cry. A little Amused Mastery towards Haruhi-chan's antics and the whole plot could be over. This sort of thing actually annoys me about a lot of anime with romantic themes. I just want to slap the guy with a fish sometimes...
/r/PurplePillDebate01/06/14 02:45 AM
5

Who you are, socially, is everything you do. It includes all your behaviours and reactions. And these are certainly mutable: by behaving in a different way, you change as a person. You are always yourself, but that self can change and grow.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/14 11:18 PM
1

Wait, is this something /u/GayLubeOil posted? Have a look at his posting history, I don't think he's ever serious about anything.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/14 10:58 PM
4

I'm not RP, but the answer is, because there's no such thing as "being yourself". Or rather, you are always yourself, so everything you do is "being yourself".
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/14 10:55 PM
1

Right, and I think Nietzsche's concept of ressentiment applies very clearly to the social justice movement (much more than to Christianity today), particularly in their concept of privilege, which essentially constructs a moral system around the denigration of power. To the SJW, the mere having of power is considered negatively, even when that power does not hurt the powerless.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/14 07:59 AM
0

An example would be the BP notion of misogyny, which is not meaningful in the RP perspective. Certainly RP has the concept of hating women, but they interpret it as an individual failing that one eventually overcomes as part of their central narrative of individual male progress towards sex with more and prettier partners. By contrast, the BP perspective (roughly, I know BP is not really a thing as such) has misogyny as a social phenomenon, something pervading society, and specifically without a…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/14 07:42 AM
2

Someone's post on Nietzsche and TRP. I definitely think there's a connection. I'm a huge fan of Nietzsche's perspectivism, essentially the view that there is no objective truth; truth is only meaningful in the context of a perspective. "There are no facts, only interpretations." Furthermore, people pick perspectives to further their own ends, by and large, rather than in pursuit of "unbiased truth". This might not sound like a TRP thing, but I think it works at a meta level to explain the differ…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/14 07:29 AM
4

some super-villain who is the best in the world at pulling girls' pigtails Awesome. This is how I'm going to think of that guy from now on.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/05/14 07:21 PM
0

Let us say that you are the equal of some other person. If tomorrow you become a better person, then logically you become better than the other person too if they don't change. This is why the notion that everyone is equally valuable is toxic. Rather, it is up to you to decide who and what to value, and how. Rights are purely social conventions we adopt or codify in laws and enforce, according to consensus values. There's no real "deserving" except in line with some particular notion of justice,…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/05/14 05:09 AM
0

Well, are you a better person than you were, say, ten years ago?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/05/14 07:31 PM
-1

Obviously the former is true, but I meant the latter too, more or less. Some people are better than other people. Of course such judgements are subjective, but there's a fair degree of consensus about them anyway. If you don't take the attitude that some people are better than others, I'd say there's something wrong with you, because you've logically ruled out the possibility of self-improvement.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/05/14 03:05 AM
-2

Agreed. People are naturally unequal, and forcing equality eventually involves violence. The liquidation of the kulaks, for example.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/05/14 02:58 AM
1

Stormfront pls go. Not helpful.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/14 05:33 PM
1

I agree with this. I think the most one can say about people is that most of them don't deserve to suffer overall.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/14 09:11 PM
1

I find the fact that a post saying "I don't respect women" was so heavily upvoted and stickied on TRP to be very telling. Probably telling similar anger and frustration, I should think. (I'm not a great fan of it either tbh.)
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/14 07:53 AM
7

See now this is what happens when people believe "consent" is the be-all of sexual ethics. I take a very different approach to sexual ethics, based on outcomes. I say, sex is unethical if it's likely either of you will regret it later. And that's all. So you acted ethically in 3 (because you knew she'd enjoy it), and unethically in 1 & 4 (because you knew or should have known that she would regret it later). 2 is unclear, depending on the risk that she might have regretted what she didn't expres…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/14 07:11 AM
1

There's definitely no trigger warning, and I fail to see where the explanation that it's all a joke is posted, feel free to point that out for me. So what? One can post satire without having to mark it as such.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/14 06:13 PM
0

That's a remarkably crappy flowchart. The purpose of discussion or debate is not to change the other's views, but to discover truth. Just because someone would never change their mind, doesn't mean discussion with them is pointless. The position that is more reasonable and has more supporting evidence should not be accepted as true, merely as more likely. It's perfectly reasonable to move on to other arguments while earlier arguments are unresolved: it helps explore the issue from multiple angle…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/14 09:47 AM
3

TRPers posting something hateful and then claiming to not be "serious" about it is a far cry from intentional satire. But alphabetmod is claiming that some of their stuff is (intentional) satire. To which you responded "Even if they're not serious, it doesn't mean it isn't bigotry."
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/14 09:28 AM
3

No offense, but I only read your TLDR because there's absolutely no way I could address whatever points you made in your 1000+ word essay concisely, I'm not trying to write a dissertation. Wait, this is after you posted 59 examples, three posts and a flowchart?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/05/14 09:15 AM
0

Should they be viewed as a red flag? Are you asking flag or pill here?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/05/14 08:21 AM
6

You need to distinguish between the null hypothesis and the default assumption. The null hypothesis is quite clear: it's that there is no difference between the sexes (for some attribute). That's what null means. But there's no reason why such a thing should be "assumed" by "default". Instead, from a Bayesian point of view, we each have our own estimates of the probabilities prior to some particular given evidence, based on whatever observations, guesses, hearsay, evidence circumstantial or sign…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/05/14 07:01 AM
1

Any chance we could have a rule against commenting here and then circle-jerking it elsewhere?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/14 07:51 AM
0

When the reprogramming of the Lace Curtain program begins, the man must compensate with what, on the surface, sounds like woman bashing. The 'woman bashing' is not actually woman bashing, but his only release of the pain as his mind sinks through the terrible hell of being reprogrammed. etc. There's a curious symmetry between this and the "misandry don't real" attitude found in feminism. When you point out that various feminist spaces are swimming in it, they come up with similar explaining. I t…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/04/14 08:46 PM
1

Perhaps, but at least the title is correct.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/04/14 11:22 PM
1

Perhaps, but nobody deserves to be loved.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/04/14 08:07 AM
3

Theory: the true secret of Red Pill is that they're all trying to become Nietzschean Übermenschen. Sex is just the hook. Relevant.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/14 06:46 AM
3

Get a fur stole and call yourself the Mink Manther.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/14 08:25 AM
1

Yeah, maybe iago is going a bit further than I would. But you're asking something impossible, for Jane Austen to write a character so far out of her time it would practically be science fiction! Austen wrote an observation on manners of her time, her characters were constructed from the people and the mores of her time. If Jane were even as flirty as Lydia, the story wouldn't quite resonate the same way. For that matter, if we knew Bingley had even so much as kissed a woman before, the story wou…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/14 07:49 AM
1

Wait, no. Lydia's motivation for running off with Wickham was to get ahead of her sisters in the marriage line, cf her letters to her sisters later ("I'm married now, have no time to write to you." etc) That's certainly part of her motivation. Her motivation was not driven by her unchaste and unconventional desire or love for Wickham, therefore breaking convention. Except we know she's a total flirt. It's connected for her enthusiasm for the elopement. That they were celibate until marriage was …
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/14 03:50 AM
1

I don't think people cared that Juliet was a virgin, that was the norm, as have been stated many times. The text fairly clearly contradicts you. Do you read Bingley and Darcy and everybody in P&P as celibate, because they certainly were. But that's not the point, their sexual experience was absolutely not the point. The point is that it wouldn't be considered nearly such a good story if the women, and perhaps also the men, were sexually experienced. The scene where Bingley finally proposes to Ja…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/14 12:33 AM
1

Here's that stanza again: O son! the night before thy wedding-day Hath Death lain with thy wife. There she lies, Flower as she was, deflowered by him. The metaphor is clear: death has ruined her by taking her virginity. I think you're wilfully ignoring it tbh. Then we should be able to cite more stories the main thrust of which is the woman's chastity, primary against other incidentals. Well, it's not very interesting as a thrust, since by definition it's a non-event. Instead, virginity frequent…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/04/14 06:27 PM
1

Nobody gets congratulated for holding down a 9-to-5. Well, nobody laments the death of a loved one by saying "death has terminated his employment". Capulet is using her virginity to stand in for everything precious about his daughter, now lost. It's supposed to be a pretty poignant moment? Part 2 of his assertion is that art and lit supported this. That's not the case. It's often the case. It's not always the case. But the great stories are not great because they highlighted chastity, precisely …
/r/PurplePillDebate20/04/14 09:21 AM
1

I see we're going to disagree, you think Shakespeare intended to call attention to her virginity. I think this is one of those clever word-play flower/deflower Will loved so much. I think it's both. She's a flower, a virgin. Shakespeare is calling attention to her virginity and identifying it with her beauty. It's why the wordplay works. Another reason why it's not about her virginity is because it was the Elizabethan norm, in fact a norm pretty much everywhere until very recently. Nobody celebr…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/14 05:15 PM
1

I've shown you that the example you've enlisted did not illustrate your point, that nobody with a 12th grade education who read R&J could support your assertion that the lynchpin of the play was that R&J was pure and that's why the story was poignant. You said exactly this in your original post. Not exactly. Here's what iago- actually said: The play wouldn't have the emotional poignancy if Juliet were 30 and Romeo was penis #17 inside of her This is a fair point. R&J might not particularly exami…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/14 07:27 AM
2

This is roughly my approach. My grand single rule of sexual ethics is this: Don't have sex if you think either of you will regret it later. So it depends on whether you believe the person who is cheating with you will end up regretting it. On the other hand, you're not responsible for their cheated-on partner.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/14 06:10 AM
1

https://fetlife.com/users/34142/pictures/83342
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/14 02:00 AM
1

He made you for a highway to my bed; But I, a maid, die maiden-widowed. Come, cords, come, nurse; I'll to my wedding-bed; And death, not Romeo, take my maidenhead!
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/14 08:29 AM
3

I think this is a much better approach. Turn-offs, no matter how arbitrary or unfair, are never unethical or "problematic" or causes for soul-searching or self-examination. The right to say no on any basis at all is a personal sovereignty issue prior to and pre-empting all considerations of social justice.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/14 08:12 AM
8

You really think men have it harder than women? Well, according to various studies we are less happy and we die earlier, so why not?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/14 07:54 AM
3

Well, you can engineer anything. The folks you're going home with don't need to be "random", for example. My point is, however you arrange or preselect the men and women, the women are going to be pickier about sexual partners. You can correct for feelings of trust, or compare sexual relationships with "just friends" relationships, or whatever, but I do believe you'll still find the women are pickier about sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/14 02:02 AM
2

I think "be a man" can also mean "be an adult", "do the right thing", "take responsibility for yourself and your behaviour and their consequences", "perform your duty to your community". It's not a bad message, though maybe girls should also hear it.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/14 01:52 AM
1

So "be attractive; don't be unattractive" is the key, then? I'm really curious about the Blue Pill view on the acceptability of this kind of unconsented behaviour, but they're being unusually quiet about it.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/14 12:30 AM
2

Well, if you have to have twice as many women as men to get the men to be as picky as the women, that really only proves the point. So I think relative numbers might be a variable worth pre-setting to equal.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/14 12:26 AM
2

Perhaps, but more generally, I believe it's impossible to engineer a social situation in which men are more picky about sexual partners than women (assuming equal numbers drawn from the same age/subculture cohort etc.).
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/14 09:47 PM
1

Just to bring this on-topic... At one point I was walking up to a bar area when he was walking down and he very casually put his hand on my bare stomach. I'm like "what" but it's awesome. & Almost immediately after she says this, this dude comes out of NOWHERE, takes me by the hand and says "There are too many students here", kisses me on the cheek and asks if he can give me his phone number and to text him. I am super charmed, but also stunned. If I understand the Blue Pill position, the first …
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/14 10:57 AM
7

Maybe downvoting isn't such a bad thing?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/14 07:38 PM
2

She did Britain a favour tbh.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/14 09:49 AM
2

What's the point? The whole purpose of /r/PurplePillDebate is to debate this sort of thing, why circlejerk it?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/14 04:21 AM
1

I personally don't mind if they date much younger women (if they can find them, good for them) but I've often wondered what the logic is behind it. It's feels (desire), not logic. The question is whether that desire has some plausible evolutionary basis the way RP sometimes claims it does. But anyway, fertility begins its decline at 30 and then drops more severely at 35. A 25-year-old woman is going to have a pretty easy time getting pregnant, not too different from an 18-year-old. The only thin…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/14 04:09 AM
3

nearly all PUA has switched over to what is called "natural game," the process of proving to yourself through first hand experience that people like you for you. This really seems like the healthiest possible development for the PUA thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/14 04:01 AM
1

I'm reading a lot of "ick factor" in the comments. Historically, ick factor has not been a good guide to sexual ethics. Anyway, excellent questions and I have two more: Is it better or worse if the relationship is supposed to be long-term romantic, vs. purely sexual friends-with-benefits or one night stand? Is it better if the older partner is immature for their age? Or does maturity not work that way?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/14 04:32 AM
3

I've never liked the "privilege" concept: what it really is is the other's disadvantage. "Male privilege" is really female disadvantage, and vice versa. Run your eye down any of those "necessarily incomplete lists of examples of your privilege", and for each one ask, in a perfectly just world, would everyone have this, or would no-one? If some privilege is something that everyone ought to have, then the fact that at least you have it is not wrong, or unjust, or a problem. The problem is that som…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/14 11:04 AM
1

Right, pointing out a male privilege doesn't rebut the female privilege.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/04/14 10:26 AM
6

The fundamental problem is that people have trouble with emotionally-charged uncertainty. It's easy to be uncertain about a proposition if there's no emotional charge attached, since it's essentially just holding the two possibilities as ideas in one's head. But if it's emotionally charged, one essentially has to hold two conflicting sets of emotions simultaneously. This is stressful, so people generally just pick one and go with that. As you spotted further down, clearly if some accusations are…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/04/14 05:45 AM
1

Women can't help it. I don't believe this; there has to be a cultural aspect to it, because attitudes vary considerably by place and by time.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/14 07:29 AM
2

Eighteen is the age that much of the western world has designated as "okay to pursue sex/relationships with". Not very much of the Western world actually, I think it's just a few American states. It seems to be largely an American obsession, as if all the anxiety over homosexuality were redirected to adolescent sexuality.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/14 07:25 AM
1

For each of these you should explain how they make men and women behave differently, which is what the issue is all about.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/03/14 08:40 PM
3

Equality is not at all necessary for a healthy relationship. What is necessary is that both partners are getting their (possibly quite different) needs met. I do want to talk about morals, because I don't believe that Amused Mastery or Surrendered Wife or BDSM or power exchange or age play relationships are in general unhealthy or unethical. Many of these involve men treating women like children in some way or other, and there's nothing wrong with that as a style of relationship (rather than as …
/r/PurplePillDebate14/03/14 05:09 AM
1

Nasty.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/03/14 08:31 AM
6

In any field where men outperform women, feminists always blame anyone and everyone else I've noticed this too. Where men outperform women, the cause is externalised: men are to blame for suppressing women. Where women outperform men, the cause is internalised: men are to blame for underperforming.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/03/14 10:30 PM
1

You can dread game all your relationships. Try dread gaming your boss; see if you can't get a raise.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/14 09:35 PM
3

Sounds like it worked better for short-term rather than long-term relationships?
/r/PurplePillDebate24/02/14 09:34 AM
5

Well this is what I would expect.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/02/14 06:12 AM
7

Not RP per se, but you may be interested in Elana Clift's honors thesis on PUA.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/02/14 06:12 AM
7

we are all cut from the same cloth We're not; we make ourselves.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/14 08:20 PM
2

Yeah, negging is one of those grain-of-truth concepts that TRP has seized on and bastardized beyond all usefulness or recognition. "Negging", when done well, is what you referred to in your previous comment as "banter". In a more innocent time, we might have called it "teasing". What TRP gets right is that women really do like to be teased. What they get wrong is that the teasing has to be friendly and good-natured. It has nothing to do with "asserting your dominance" or "undermining her self-es…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/14 11:04 AM
11

wipes away single tear
/r/PurplePillDebate12/02/14 05:55 AM
0

Why would you say that you have no reason to doubt them? They base their entire worldview on anecdotes and every story they tell reeks of confirmation bias. It's their results, not their worldview, that I have no reason to doubt. Indeed PUA is not really a worldview; you're still thinking of TRP. PUA is merely figuring out how to get laid, that's all. And not surprisingly, with some effort and experimentation, they've figured out some things. That's not experimentation; that's just anecdotes and…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/14 09:52 AM
0

The problem is that you're assuming that PUA actually works, which is certainly far from proven. Strictly, "PUA" as such is not one particular method of getting laid, that might work or not. PUA folks are interested in pretty much anything that gets them laid. And they certainly claim results, which I have no reason to doubt. The reason why I compared it to homeopathy is that it too bases sweeping generalisations and truths on anecdotal data and confirmation bias, as opposed to medicine which us…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/14 09:17 AM
0

Not necessarily - I'm pretty sure people studying homeopathy are no better at curing illnesses than they were before studying their field. True, but people who study medicine are better at curing illnesses than they were before studying their field. What is medicine? It's about curing illness by whatever means are effective. PUA is the same. It's about getting laid by whatever means are effective. They're interested in anything that works, they're not constrained to any particular theory. NARPAL…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/14 08:51 AM
0

Except you're ignoring the fact that they got into TRP because they aren't any good at getting laid and we have no reason to think that they got any better. FFS, PUA, not TRP. If you make an effort to do something, you're likely to get good at it. For example, I'm pretty sure people on /r/cod are much better at that game than the general population. I think most red pillers are PUA types, based on my anecdotal experience with a massive amount of red pillers... But not the other way around. You j…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/14 08:35 AM
0

the main reason for this feeling is the fact that it comes naturally to people most strongly disagree with TRP. This seems like a weak suggestion or possibility to me. It doesn't compare to a group the whole point of which is to get laid a lot: that's a pretty direct connection. Most red pillers No, not red pillers. I said PUA types. They're not identical groups.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/14 08:14 AM
1

It doesn't really help us here though as it's not like blue pillers are unsuccessful in the dating world or have only had a handful of partners. I would assume that blue pillers, or whoever, date about as much as the general population. Whereas these PUA types (not necessarily RP folks) get laid a lot more: after all, that's the whole point of what they're doing.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/14 07:48 AM
0

It doesn't need to be an "all" statement though, that's what my first point refers to. If you say "My experiences suggest that most women are X" and I say "My experiences suggest that most women are not-X", then we've reached a point where we've both presented equally compelling "evidence" and neither side has any reason for people to believe it. I think at that point we examine the depth of experience. For example, if someone says "I've slept with 100 women and most are X", that's more compelli…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/14 04:18 AM
1

Well, I'm afraid I kind of trust the seduction people. They've put a lot of work into their "art" and at least according to their self-report are pretty successful. And unhappy romantically frustrated nice guys everywhere can't be completely wrong. My theory is that the women in this case are committing a Typical Psyche Fallacy. The women I ask about this are not even remotely close to being a representative sample of all women. They're the kind of women whom a shy and somewhat geeky guy knows a…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/14 01:25 AM
1

Actually I have a better example. Let's say bets A and B are both available, but you're not allowed to take both. You can take one or other or neither. This choice is presented to four people, P, Q, R and S. Bet A pays out 2 to 1 on $20 if life is found. Bet B pays off 2 to 1 on $20 if life is not found. Person P takes neither bet. Person Q takes bet A. Person R takes bet B. Person S flips a coin: heads they take A, tails they take B. Did S act rationally? Clearly, S has a 0.5 chance of gaining …
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/14 12:56 AM
1

Right. So you're claiming it's rational to do these two things, with the simple sum of results, but not rational to do either one of them alone, is that right? This seems counter-intuitive to me. For each decision, I consider whether it will on average make me better or worse off. So if doing two things is a good thing, and the results are the sum, then at least one of them on its own must have been a good thing. What if bet A is essentially forced upon you? For example, someone will just give y…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/14 12:15 AM
2

OK, supposing both bets are available to you. Person A offers you 2 to 1 on $20 that the mission will find life. Person B offers you 2 to 1 on $20 that the mission will not find life. Do you take one or both or neither bets? Bear in mind that if you take both bets, you are guaranteed to gain $20.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/14 11:21 PM
1

What if someone offered you a bet that would pay off to you if the Europa mission did not find life? Bear in mind there's no evidence that there isn't life on Europa. Would you take that bet, at even odds?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/14 11:07 PM
1

To make such a bet, you have access to information. Well, in this scenario, you don't have any more information than I've given you. But you have to make a choice whether to take the bet or not. Do you take the bet? You could be a double-decamillionaire...
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/14 10:57 PM
1

But where do you get that probability? We just guess! That's all we can do, but we must do it, because we have to make decisions in our lives. Is there life on Europa? There's no evidence for it, but it's still possible, as certain conditions seem favourable. There are actually various plans for missions to find out. Let's say there's a mission to Europa to look for signs of life. Prior to the mission, what probability would you assign to the chance that the mission finds something? Bear in mind…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/14 10:44 PM
2

We don't have that information. Well, this is the concept of Bayesian prior probabilities: you can always assign some probability to an assertion even before evidence. I daresay "intuition" is just feels for these probabilities, but since we have to make decisions in our lives, it's usually all we have. Look, you can go and eat the correlated-with-death aspartame if you want. The rest of us are going to do the sensible thing and avoid it.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/14 10:11 PM
1

Well, that's what the paper in the OP claims, that there is a connection between the actual doing of traditionally-gendered housework and sexual frequency. If your paper doesn't examine that, it's not really relevant.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/14 09:59 PM
2

And, as I explain above with publication bias, if they didn't find the significant relationship (through data fishing) then they wouldn't have published it. But they're not data fishing. They're only testing the one hypothesis. And publication bias applies to all papers. When you work with a large dataset like that then you open up the possibility of finding a chance result, not to mention the huge problem of publication bias that will likely occur. But only if you fish different hypotheses. If …
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/14 09:57 PM
1

Did they examine the actual doing of traditionally-gendered housework?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/14 09:39 AM
2

It's not really dishonest, just really bad science. And yet it was published in "the second ranked and arguably most influential scholarly journal in sociology" (says /u/nosoccertoday). And it's not really relevant whether they had a hypothesis beforehand, Ah, you seem to be backtracking on your suggestion that they had the data first and went looking for hypotheses that it might support. At least I hope so, because they say "To investigate the relationship between sexual frequency and division …
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/14 09:38 AM
2

But we were talking about one study with one correlation. One study might not be enough for the FDA, but it contributes something at least. After all, five studies is just an aggregate of single studies. Each of them contributes something. You have to flesh this out a bit more. I'm not sure you've really explained you can get from A to B. The only information we have here is a single correlation. From that single pieces of information, how do you estimate the probability of cause? To do the Baye…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/14 05:51 AM
1

The FDA does not take action based on a single correlation from a single study. I feel like that's obvious. But they would take action if they had sufficient evidence of correlation. For example, if there were five independent studies that all showed correlation, but none of them showed causation. How do you apply it in this specific instance? Lets say you had a study where 40/100 people died prematurely in the control group, while 60/100 people dies prematurely in the aspartame group. What is t…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/14 04:43 AM
2

I seriously doubt it. If there was reason to believe that aspartame caused shorter lives, they might take action. A single correlation without controls for any other variables is not really proof of much at all. If there were sufficient evidence of correlation, they would certainly take action. True "logic" and "reason" has rules. Logic is like mathematics, in that it can be either right or wrong. It's not probabilistic. One important rule of logic is Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc. Another is Post h…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/14 04:10 AM
1

So you believe you wouldn't be taking any more risk than before you'd known of the correlation? I do believe that if the FDA were convinced of a correlation between aspartame and shorter life, they would ban the substance. Would you consider such a decision to be irrational?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/14 02:56 AM
1

No. No reason to avoid aspartame. So would you actually avoid it, or not, if you had credible evidence of correlation with shortened life, but not of causation?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/02/14 10:41 PM
1

You don't have a logical reason to believe aspartame is harmful, however you have an intuition that it might be. You might make some inductively reasoned leaps to ensure your safety. Why do you pay attention to intuition or to inductively reasoned leaps? Do you have a reason to avoid aspartame, or do you not?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/02/14 10:32 PM
1

I'd be willing to apply it in that circumstance, but only because of the potential for physical harm. Why should you apply it at all? In that circumstance, do you, or do you not, have reason to believe aspartame is potentially physically harmful?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/02/14 09:49 PM
1

If there was no reason to suggest causation, then logic dictates that there's no reason to stop. That said, the precautionary principle dictates that if there's reason to believe something is potentially physically harmful, you should avoid it. You might be able to apply that here. Well, can you or can't you apply it? Would you have reason to believe aspartame is potentially physically harmful, or would you not? Most importantly, would you actually continue to eat the stuff, or would you not?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/02/14 09:34 PM
1

How would you go about calculating the probability in that instance? You don't go about it, you just do it. It's all just guesses. It's the best you can do at the point at which you're forced to make a decision. Supposing you learn that there's a correlation between eating blueberries and longer life. No evidence of causation is presented, so it's quite possible that this correlation is a result of some common cause, like the kinds of people who live longer anyway are the kinds of people who lik…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/02/14 08:50 PM
1

Even casually, it would be logically fallacious to assume that doing A will probably result in B if you're completely 100% unsure as to what causes what. All you know is that they're correlated, and not particularly strongly. In that case, you're not "100% unsure" as to what causes what. Learning about the correlation, which you didn't know before, causes you to revise your estimate of the probability of causation. Right, however this is based on the assumption that the only information you have…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/02/14 08:18 PM
4

But you don't need to conclude it. You're not trying to show scientific proof, you're trying to make a decision about your life, which you must make one way or the other, and almost always in the absence of conclusive scientific evidence. So any evidence is relevant. For example, you have some Bayesian prior probabilities concerning whether A causes B, and also whether B causes A. If you come across evidence that A and B are merely correlated, you'll reasonably assign increased probabilities to …
/r/PurplePillDebate08/02/14 08:13 AM
2

OK, so in that paper, they show that there are "high energy" people who do more paid work, more housework, and more sex, and "low energy" people who do less paid work, less housework, and less sex. Is that a fair gloss? But it doesn't speak against the OP claims concerning who does what kind of "gendered" housework, does it? I mean this: Specifically, if men did all of what the researchers characterized as feminine chores like folding laundry, cooking or vacuuming — the kinds of things many wome…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/02/14 07:53 AM
0

Isn't that dishonest? And what makes you think they did that rather than the former?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/02/14 07:33 AM
4

With just the correlation, you probably wouldn't advise a man to not do household work because you cannot claim that the household work will result in less sex. Why not? You don't need proof of a cause to give advice, you just need enough suggestion of a cause to make it more likely than before. It just needs to tip the Bayesian prior...
/r/PurplePillDebate07/02/14 06:16 PM
1

So are they different versions of the same paper? They have the same authors, and almost the same title. And yet they come to different conclusions.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/02/14 06:11 PM
2

Why does this matter? Surely if they first have a hypothesis, it doesn't matter whether the data was collected specifically for it or not? Or are you saying they started with the data and then looked for hypotheses that it might support at p < 0.05? (...where obviously one in 20 hypotheses will falsely show significance).
/r/PurplePillDebate07/02/14 06:00 PM
3

Paper. They did two studies, the first of which is psychology undergraduates (as usual). he second was drawn more broadly. Here, I picked some cherries for you: For women, feminism was again negligibly related to relationship health, whereas partner’s feminism was positively related to these variables (including sexual satisfaction) New to Study 2, sexual satisfaction positively covaried with relationship health for both genders, with the exception that men showed a weak link between sexual sati…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/02/14 10:07 AM
4

Are we looking at the same paper? We find support for a new hypothesis suggesting that women who “work hard” also “play hard,” as our results show women who spend more hours in unpaid and paid labor report higher coital frequency. We find no significant relationship between men’s household labor and sexual frequency.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/02/14 06:19 AM
1

Yes, sorry, I meant to say that LW is all about science and reason. DE does seem to be anti-Enlightenment as its name suggests, especially ethics more than reason.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/02/14 10:40 PM
1

Bingo. That's a big gap. One of the most important aspects of the scientific method is eliminating bias. This "gap" allows that bias to seep into the cracks. That's why it's pseudo-scientific. No, it only becomes pseudo-science if they were to claim that their field reports etc. were actually science, on a par with controlled studies or whatever. As it is, it's proto-scientific in many ways, but nobody claims that it's actual science. What they do claim is that some of their ideas are backed up …
/r/PurplePillDebate06/02/14 10:32 PM
1

It's not just about science and reason, Are we talking about Less Wrong here?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/02/14 10:18 PM
1

That is absolutely not proto-scientific. What you're describing are heuristics, and they're merely logical short cuts. Using heuristics to construct theories on gender is arguably pseudoscience. Well, here's the OED definition of "scientific method": a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses PUA do something resembling all of t…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/02/14 10:17 PM
3

There are a bunch of folks that identify as "Dark Enlightenment". So apparently there's a Dark Enlightenment movement. Which one might examine and criticise on a number of grounds. But that chart is bullshit. I doubt many of those sites/bloggers identify as DE, and I know Less Wrong certainly doesn't: they're LW are all about science and reason. And while there may be crossover between DE and TRP, it's not a necessary thing. TRP absolutely rejects elements of science an reason. It's not even deb…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/02/14 09:42 PM
5

OMG wait, am I Darkly Enlightened? (Endarkened? Benighted?) I came across this: But what are these underlying characteristics? Here are some: A rejection of sociological universalism, and a preference for particularism. Yes. I mean, it sounds good, right? An acceptance of human biodiversity. I don't think so? I was vaguely under the impression that the majority of genetic difference between races relates to appearance. An acceptance of Darwinian evolution, shunning egalitarian political correctn…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/02/14 09:22 AM
2

The movement of course has many arms, Oh not this shit again. It looks like someone's "all my enemies are really part of the same thing" fantasy. Seriously, Less Wrong on the same graph as traditionalist Christians and ethno-nationalists? It would be just as easy to do a graph from, say, an evangelic Christian point of view, showing links between rationalists, feminists, liberals, futurists, secular whatever that would partially overlap this one.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/02/14 08:47 AM
1

I'm waiting for a "fedora pride" movement. Though I can't say I particularly like the hat myself.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/02/14 09:25 PM
7

Favourite takedown.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/02/14 09:24 PM
3

Well I don't mind the enthusiasm bit. But I think too much importance is placed on the abstract concept of consent. We try to pack all our sexual ethics into the concept, so that sex is ethical if and only if it is consensual, to the point that its definition has grown like a tumour to accommodate it all. I mean, the sensible meaning of the word is enthusiastic agreement to a plan. That's short and to the point. However, people can be quite drunk and enthusiastically agree to sex. Young teenager…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/02/14 09:07 AM
1

I am saying that calling it "SMV" or "attractive" do an equal job of implying this. Implying, consequentially, yes. Being attractive means that your chances of hooking up with any given person is greater than the chance a less attractive person has of hooking up with any given person. Yes. The fact that this, in turn, means that people who are themselves more attractive are now more available to you is a consequence of the fact that all manner of people are more available to you when you are mor…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/01/14 03:34 AM
1

But you don't need "SMV" for that. That is already what "attractive" means. Attractive merely means that other people like you more. The fact that this, in turn, means that people who are themselves more attractive are now more available to you is a consequence of the way people pair off. It's the reminding of this particular consequence that's important.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/01/14 08:00 PM
7

I don't know if we should have special standards for women in the military or not We should not. What right does a woman have that a relatively weak man hasn't? Sports leagues is a simpler problem: should men and women have separate leagues? Yes, I think they definitely should. Right. But strictly, they are "unrestricted leagues" and "women's leagues". For example, I believe a woman once played for an NBA team. Can you prove that women shouldn't be sluts, while men can have as much sex as they l…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/01/14 07:14 PM
5

I don't think a woman can give up her child for adoption if the father wants to keep it. And furthermore she would be liable for child support payments.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/01/14 09:31 AM
1

Neither. Given that it has a somewhat different name, it probably doesn't mean exactly the same thing. Even if it had the same name, different groups use the same terms in different ways sometimes. Look, feel free to hang Red Pillers by their own rope. But some (apparently rather dubious) Wikipedia article about a somewhat different theory with a somewhat different name isn't really all that relevant.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/01/14 03:03 AM
2

"heterosexual male identity, ever since the beginning og the modern gay and lesbian civil rights movement, has really been kind of threatened and under siege, and straight guys have kind of been at sea." Well, I don't feel that way. NAMALT I guess.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/01/14 02:39 AM
1

That's not necessarily how TRP uses the concept "sexual market value". You're going to have to find Red Pill sources to make claims about how Red Pill thinks. Your relevant bit describes a claim that seems dubious and overstated to me, but SMV seems glaringly obvious.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/01/14 02:23 AM
1

I don't think using sexual market value for attractiveness restricts thought, but I do think deliberately using the term is making a point. And that point is, the more attractive you are, the more attractive are the people you'll get to date. I think it's a fair point that encourages self-improvement. It's also a welcome counterpoint to the fuzzy egalitarianism that sometimes pervades more feminist viewpoints, you know, ugly women are beautiful too etc.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/01/14 02:11 AM
2

But people are trying to get the most attractive partner. And by becoming more attractive oneself, it's easier to do that. So surely people are trying to get the best trade on their own attractiveness?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/14 04:37 PM
3

It's a description of attractiveness, an analysis of attractiveness, a standardised rating system for attractiveness, but still basically attractiveness, right? I'm really just trying to figure out why TBP objects to it.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/14 08:24 AM
1

But surely all those other things are part of attractiveness? For instance, a great personality is attractive, is it not? Maybe it depends on whether attractiveness is defined broadly to include all aspects of a person that attract others.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/14 07:08 AM
3

OK, you've convinced me.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/14 02:01 AM
1

Of course. The difference in brain connectivity could be affected by radiation from sex differences in cell-phone use. I'd just like to see some evidence first, that's all.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/14 12:38 AM
1

I'd say I generally agree. I think uninterest in long-term relationships represents a kind of narcissistic damage. This is my main complaint with TRP. Now not all of TRP is like this, but it is quite a common theme that seems to be part of their rejection of marriage, for example. So if all you're interested in is getting laid with as many attractive women as possible, that interest is evidence of narcissism in the first place, plus the narcissism will help you get laid, plus the kinds of women …
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/14 12:30 AM
1

I'm merely asking for evidence of anything else. Without evidence, we're left with genetics.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/14 12:10 AM
1

I edited that before you replied to make it clearer, changing "biology" to "genetics". OK, genetics obviously affects all structures of the brain, and all of the rest of the body. I'm pretty sure almost every human being has a corpus callosum, for instance, regardless of developmental environment. Shaped or molded due to particular causes making specific effects more likely. Seriously? Are you telling me that "female brains are designed to facilitate communication between analytical and intuitiv…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/14 12:08 AM
0

If someone says to you that a situation could be the result of x or y and that we don't yet know which it is and that it may be both, and you said "it's y, show me some evidence it's x' then you are the one who needs to back up their statement. We already know y (genetics) can affect the particular connectivity being studied. We don't yet (afaik) have a connection between x (environment) and the particular connectivity being studied.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/14 11:41 PM
1

So? Physical differences =/= innate/genetic differences. Gay men and strait men tend to have psychically different brains. You can see the difference. However being gay isn't strictly genetic. It has a large environmental component. If you're identical twin is gay, you're chance of being gay is only 11%. Same genes, physically different brains. Could you point me to evidence of identical twins with the same kinds of differences in the connectome that the paper finds between men and women?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/14 10:41 PM
1

Do you have any evidence that biology can affect the particular structures that the paper found? Biology obviously affects all structures of the brain, and all of the rest of the body. I'm pretty sure almost every human being has a corpus callosum, for instance, regardless of developmental environment. Surely if the authors had evidence either way, they would have concluded innate or learning causes but they didn't (because they had no evidence to conclude it was one or the other). Well, this is…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/14 10:36 PM
1

So we accept that neurological structures can be the result of biology or learning (as to deny this is to reject the foundations of neuroscience itself), and the OP has presented us with a study that finds differences in neurological structures of men and women. What evidence are you using to determine that the differences are innate? Do you have evidence that learning can affect the particular structures that the paper found, rather than just vague "wiring"? We already know that biology affects…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/14 09:44 PM
1

Well, if they really believe that no one person is better than another person, it's arguably a differently toxic environment, since that's a pretty toxic idea. Perhaps South America is an altogether healthier environment? I don't doubt that the narcissistic rot is in him. The question is whether it has to be in order to get laid with lots of the most attractive American women? Or is the very desire to do so narcissistic? Perhaps healthier men eventually look for LTRs.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/14 08:44 PM
2

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the onus is on you to prove that the gender differences are innate. It's you're assertion, so you have to prove it. In science and debate, its always assumed that two things are unrelated unless there's a proven link. It's a physical difference between male and female bodies. There's a proven link between genetics and all aspects of brain and body development. And to answer your question, there absolutely is a ton of evidence to suggest that the actual phys…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/14 08:29 PM
1

Yes, of course behaviours are the result of the brain. But the study found physical structural differences between male and female brains. Is this entirely a consequence of learnt behaviours? What evidence do you have for this?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/14 08:25 PM
3

The study found structural differences between male and female brains ages 8 to 22. As I understand it, you are saying that we cannot rule out the possibility that such differences are entirely due to learnt behaviours, is that true? Do you have evidence for this possibility, i.e. that learned behaviours can affect the kinds of connectivity the study measured?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/14 10:53 AM
3

Paper PDF.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/14 10:39 AM
0

The red pill essentially takes the tack that women are inherently narcissistic and But is this actually true? I mean, would you describe the most sexually attractive American women as narcissistic? Because if so, then surely TRP has a point?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/01/14 08:11 PM
0

Narcissistic behavior in men encourages shallow narcissistic behavior in women and vice versa. This is a Red Pill point, though, isn't it? American women, they say, are highly narcissistic, especially the most attractive ones, so men need to do what's necessary to appeal to that, which involves behaving in a highly narcissistic way. On the other hand, the whole "inner game" aspect doesn't seem to be so narcissistic. I daresay that side of RP works better for quality LTRs, and it's more about act…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/01/14 10:04 AM
4

He gives good advice but he's a pussyworshipping beta? Could you clarify? Actually I like his notion that a man needs both "alpha" and "beta" to make a long-term relationship work.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/14 05:45 PM
3

There's no shame in submitting to the worthy. You're letting another person lift you up; this makes you stronger.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/14 06:38 AM
1

I think the idea is signalling femininity, through whatever appropriate language.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/14 05:35 PM
0

The fact longer hair is higher maintenance is a sign of female value, she puts work into her appearance, isn't lazy about it, etc. Yeah, it's kind of a peacock's tail in a way, or a conspicuous display of free time. Perhaps a woman who takes care of her hair is signalling that she'll take care of her man?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/14 06:45 AM
3

Since 2009, for instance, a group of women at Arizona State University have devoted themselves to resuscitating gentlemanly behavior and chivalry on a campus whose social life is overwhelmingly defined by partying, frat life, and casual sex. A group of women promoting the idea that women deserve special treatment from men? I think they're part of the entitlement problem tbh. Chivalry is supposed to be the strong should protect the weak. It doesn't apply to gender so much anymore.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/14 03:57 AM
0

I love this for its sheer brazen shamelessness. Anything done with one's whole being is a path to greatness. As Blake said, If the fool would persist in his folly he would become wise.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/14 03:45 AM
2

Your current beta guy seems much more appealing than B (mentally ill beta) or J (abusive beta). Personally I think a man in an LTR should exhibit "alpha" and "beta" both anyway.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/01/14 03:55 AM
3

I'm not into ONS so much either, but different men have different needs. I think if we agree that we shouldn't "slut-shame" women who sleep around a lot, then we shouldn't look down on men who like to play the field either.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/14 05:36 PM
6

I think it's perfectly reasonable to downvote comments in this sub. I actually have CSS disabled site-wide anyway. (Presumably, no-one will downvote this comment.)
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/14 04:56 AM
0

Trp goes full retard with this idea and replaces any form of niceness/cordiality with toxic masculinity (aka, the type of machismo attitude that makes them come across as assholes out Neanderthals). I don't know, the whole "amused mastery" thing seems to work really well. Does that count as "toxic masculinity" in your book? Meanwhile, BP advice (if one can speak of BP as a thing) seems to consist of "get out there and be yourself", which is actually of very little use.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/14 02:55 AM
3

Yes, it turns out that beta herb manginas and Nice GuysTMTM are basically the same set of men. Don't be one of those men. I think, though, that some (not all) PUA/RP ideas (e.g. don't supplicate) help men escape from this trap, since they are focussed on raising men's sexual value. Whereas feminism/BP isn't really helpful for this.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/14 02:29 PM
1

Dark enlightenment? Benightenment? As the term suggests, the Dark Enlightenment is an ideological analysis of modern democracy that harshly rejects the vision of the 18th century European Enlightenment—a period punctuated by the development of empirical science, the rise of humanist values and the first outburst of revolutionary democratic reform. Hmm, postmodern lefty feminism also tends to be pretty critical of the Enlightenment, seeing it as justifying imperialism, capitalism, and (in the U.S…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/14 07:40 PM
1

But what about My Nationalist Pony??
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/14 07:31 PM
2

Here's the source. He has to pay 33k out of 170k / month, though that might be gross rather than net. In any case, he can afford a buffer in case that happens.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/01/14 05:57 AM
2

There is no equality of people.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/01/14 09:58 AM
0

I think women's dating advice to men is bad because men's and women's interests are actually not aligned. Of course, both win when they make a connection. But when a man is too bold to an uninterested woman, she loses more than he does. Red Pill advice thus tends to lean towards boldness, forwardness and risk-taking. Here's an example: XIII. Err on the side of too much boldness, rather than too little Touching a woman inappropriately on the first date will get you further with her than not touch…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/01/14 12:58 PM
1

What genetic differences that determine behaviour do they have?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/01/14 02:28 PM
2

What are the differences?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/01/14 01:43 PM
3

However, I will concede something that may surprise some, it appears that alphas do need to cultivate their emotional intelligence, especially in LTRs. Hmm, I think it means "alpha" men need to cultivate EI in situations in which they are in leadership positions. (Though possibly everyone should cultivate EI in LTRs.)
/r/PurplePillDebate03/01/14 05:24 AM
3

Most of my personal id rage nowadays is directed at male violence. Yeesh, the statistics on that... You should be thankful you're not a man. We bear the brunt of male violence...
/r/PurplePillDebate01/01/14 09:49 PM
3

the 2013 RedPillers who consider women an inferior gender. Do they actually claim that? Because that's nasty.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/12/13 09:22 AM
1

WTF, dude, you didn't say you were going to spoil the whole story.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/12/13 07:58 AM
0

Give them something they want, but don't know that they want. In my interpretation of alpha and beta, both are necessary for a healthy LTR. Gift giving generally comes under the second heading.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/13 09:10 AM
7

Definitely next anyone who turns out to be fictional.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/13 05:27 AM
0

Racism is the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race Yes I think Dovienya went a little bit further than that.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/13 03:14 AM
0

Any woman the speaker approves of. Also props to "Dovienya" for suggesting that Red Pill is basically exactly like racism. Stay classy, Blue Pill.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/12/13 01:53 AM
2

Well this could get silly quickly. Her: "You shouldn't listen to me." ... Her: "You shouldn't listen to me!" ... Her: "I SAID, YOU SHOULDN'T LISTEN TO ME!" Him: "I wasn't!"
/r/PurplePillDebate25/12/13 10:48 PM
-2

If red pill can literally mean anything, then it must be wrong (as it would be self-contradictory). If the red pill cannot mean anything, then there must be basic assumptions that all red pillers agree on. No, it's simply fuzzy. Ideas can be Red Pill to a greater or lesser degree. People can identify as Red Pill to a greater or lesser degree. I don't think you can identify any idea to which absolutely all Red Pill folks will agree, or all Red Pill folks will reject. Normally I would have agreed …
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/13 03:51 AM
0

By necessity, all red pillers must accept some of the same things, otherwise TRP could mean anything to anyone and the whole thing becomes incoherent. I think it's fuzzier than that. There are a number of ideas generally considered Red Pill to some greater or lesser degree, and people identify themselves and others as Red Pill roughly and inconsistently based on how much of those ideas they accept. There are ideas that are clearly Red Pill that may still be rejected by people who clearly identif…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/13 02:35 AM
0

Well, firstly, RP is not all that unified. And while in theory BP is anything that isn't RP, in practice denying various RP ideas does tend to cohere into a position of sorts. At this point I would say it's about equally useful to speak of an RP position as a BP position.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/13 12:23 AM
1

The same way you treat a child. Be the oak tree, firm and true, but emotionally supportive.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/13 09:21 PM
0

So the 'disappointment' is in the woman who had initially said 'no' to sex? If so, then yeah, that's just as bad (and sad) as a guilt tactic. I see no real difference between the two. Why is that bad? No because you aren't inflicting harm upon someone else. They are free to feel however they like. But there's a difference between someone being disappointed that they don't get sex, and emotionally manipulating someone into performing an act that they'll later regret. I don't understand. A woman s…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/13 04:03 AM
3

We're in agreement then. Well, roe_ said A small point - no TRPer would ever suggest begging or pleading for sex. DLV. -- which is true. Instead they advocate either "freezing out" (which may or may not involve instilling guilt), or just ignoring it and barging on, which is obviously unethical.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/13 03:58 AM
7

Yeah, those are rapey.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/13 03:44 AM
-1

What do you mean by "disappointment tactic"? Being disappointed isn't a tactic, it's an emotion. Same as what you meant by "guilt tactic", except with disappointment. Guilt is also an emotion. You're allowed to say "no" for whatever reason, but you're a shitty person if that reason is to manipulate others. So should we start calling out women who say "no" to sex if we think their reasons are manipulative? Actually TRP do this sometimes, but I don't approve. Your freedom of action ends at the poi…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/13 03:39 AM
0

That's explicitly what the "freeze out" method is. The intentional decision to remove intimacy in order to get them to sleep with you is the guilt tactic. Not necessarily. I don't see why it wouldn't work as a disappointment tactic. There's no suggestion or feeling that anyone's at fault. Of course and nobody has a problem with that, but that's not what red pillers are arguing for in this situation. The point is to "overcome" (as they say) LMR through the push-pull method. It's an act to achieve…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/13 03:25 AM
-1

It's the phrase used by red pillers. They also suggest "smashing LMR". Could you point to examples? Then I might be able to guess at what it meant in each case, since you asked me.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/13 03:18 AM
3

If that means you don't want to engage in intimacy any more then I doubt you'll find many people who will have a problem with that. If you choose to deny intimacy in an attempt to guilt them into deciding to have sex with you, then that's shitty behavior. If you're pushing guilt on someone, that's shitty. If it's mere disappointment at not getting intimacy, that's fair. After all, we all have the right to say no to intimacy for any reason at all. If someone decides to say no to intimacy-without-…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/13 03:10 AM
-2

What does the phrase "push through LMR" mean then? You tell me, you used the phrase.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/13 03:02 AM
3

That's what pushing through LMR is. Trying to convince them that you wouldn't view them as a slut, explaining how incredible you'd be, increasing kino, etc. Is it? The advice I've seen is pretty much the exact opposite: immediately agree with her decision and stop all intimacy.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/13 01:31 AM
5

What does viewing women as interchangeable have to do with accepting random offers of sex? I might ask you that. You were the one who said A man will have no success if he asks random women for sex, while a woman will have some success if she asks random men, and this is supposed to prove women have it better? (Speaking in generalities here) To me, this suggests a tendency to view women as interchangeable.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/13 01:18 AM
5

Sorry, but viewing a certain category of humans as interchangeable is pathological. Perhaps, but this is your interpretation of the fact that men will more easily accept random offers of sex than women. I see this fact as demonstrating difference, but not pathology.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 11:55 PM
1

"demonstrate higher value"
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 11:36 PM
8

Logically, men as a group cannot be advantaged or disadvantaged within such a (heterosexual) "sexual marketplace", because they are competing with each other, not with women. Who has an easier time of it is another matter... To me, this suggests a tendency to view women as interchangeable. They're just 'women'. Women, on the other hand, don't want just any random man. OK, so, this is an annoying tendency certain Blue Pillers and others have. They believe that men and women are fundamentally simi…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 10:48 PM
0

On the flip side, Dread Game seems very prone to mis-use and unexpected results, especially by those who take it exactly at face value and try to instill dread of abandonment in the women they love. The true point, from this thread and others which use real examples of Dread Game, seems to be more about self-improvement and proving to yourself that you're still worth it. As people gain experience with the technique, they seem to further and further distance themselves from the idea of directly i…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 10:31 PM
0

If one's solution to this is to disregard their's partners voiced concerns and assume that the issue is something else and they simply know better, that is unhealthy imo. I believe the correct way to resolve it is to empathise and try to figure out the issue together. It depends. If they're in a situation where the more he tries to empathise and to accede to her stated wishes, the more she complains, he needs to take a different tack. People are not always entirely rational when it comes to rela…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 09:35 AM
0

A more reasonable position would be this: when a woman pities a man, he loses his "alpha sexiness", and she's less attracted to him. When a man pities a woman, he's less likely to lose attraction to her.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 08:37 AM
0

If my husband assumed that I didn't know my own mind, I would leave his ass. And if I believed that my husband didn't know his own mind, I would also leave his ass. But people don't always know their own minds. Emotions are very often unconscious or difficult to admit to ourselves. There is a huge amount of contempt required to believe that your partner's verbalized dissatisfactions are irrelevant, and her belief that she has those concerns is false. But sometimes it's actually true. People are …
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 04:42 AM
1

The 'needing evidence' part is pretty unhealthy too, though. I mean, since you picked your partner, and you thought he was pretty rad, you can assume other people think the same. It's not that one needs evidence, just that one appreciates it. Of course I know my husband could be with someone else if he wanted to. And if I was upset about some kind of conflict, and his response was to ignore my concerns and to remind me that he could simply go find someone else if he wanted to -- christ, don't yo…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 03:49 AM
1

Denying a partner's expressed concerns and wants because you consider your partner to be unable to identify what their 'real' concerns are? That is a textbook example of contempt. But sometimes partners are unable to identify their real concerns. For example, she's really become less attracted to him, but ends up expressing that as finding fault in his behaviour. If he makes this interpretation, and attempts to fix the attraction issue, he might be wrong, but he is absolutely engaging in respons…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 03:35 AM
2

Let's look at the actual suggested behaviours: he doesn't understand that her attraction to him isn't rational This is contempt. No it's not. Attraction is not supposed to be rational. It's important not to try to "fix" what she says is broken, This is stonewalling. instead you work on your own game and improve your standing in the sexual market. This is disengagement and what Gottman codes as 'turning away'. No, stonewalling would be discounting or insisting the problem doesn't exist and refusi…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 03:11 AM
1

I'm sure that happens. But it's just as much an indication of self-esteem issues if someone is aware that their partner feels that way, and they stay with their partner anyway. Exactly! But if a man becomes more attractive and still stays with his partner, he is sending a credible signal that he does not feel this way. That's what is supposed to be thrilling, that she has clear evidence that he is attracted to her, because he sticks around instead of so easily finding someone else.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 03:08 AM
2

I don't think 'dread game' can really be defined as anything other than a strategy that is designed to cause one's partner to feel anxiety over the possible loss of the relationship The whole Red Pill thing tends to be very empirical: people there mostly report what has worked for them. So it's quite possible for them to be right about what works while being wrong about how it works.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 02:54 AM
1

If you assume your partner is only with you because they don't have the option to be with anyone else they wanted, then it's probably a sign you've got some serious self-esteem and insecurity issues to work on. I don't see why. I think it's occasionally actually true: someone is not all that attracted to their partner but sticks around because they feel they can't do better. So it wouldn't be any kind of self-esteem issue if the partner was aware of it.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 02:51 AM
1

I'm thinking there's a DHV aspect to "dread game" that is healthy and effective, but that instilling actual dread is not. By becoming sufficiently attractive that he could date others more easily, he doesn't instil dread but desire, partly because he is simply more attractive, and partly because she also feels more attractive because he stays with her instead of so easily finding someone else.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 01:58 AM
2

But would he stick around anyway? Isn't it more thrilling to know that he could go have anyone he wanted, so they only possible logical reason he sticks around with you is because of your own awesomeness? I'm beginning to think the healthy part of "dread game" is not dread at all, but simply DHV.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 01:35 AM
0

"Oh, he's sure to leave me now cuz he's ripped." Shit, with the meatloaf I make--he's not going anywhere. I think the idea is that if he's not ripped, your meatloaf doesn't matter, but if he is ripped, your meatloaf becomes meaningful: it's a thing you do for him that keeps him, and therefore a point of pride for you. (Not saying that's actually true in your case of course, just that that's the idea.)
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 01:25 AM
1

A relationship dynamic in which one partner's attachment style is anxious-preoccupied and the other partner's is dismissive-avoidant, is a harbinger of divorce and dissatisfaction, This part I believe. and that is precisely what is promoted by 'dread game.' This I'm not so sure about. This seems to be a common problem here, and both sides share some responsibility: Red Pillers for being vague about what their stuff means and for having alarming terms for relatively harmless behaviours (e.g. "neg…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 01:10 AM
0

If 'hypergamy' were a real and observable attribute of human nature, evidence of its existence should be able to be observed in repeatable experiments. If that's not the case, then it is nothing more than a superstition. So this is precisely the mistake you are making: absence of scientific evidence is not scientific evidence of absence. You cannot claim something is "nothing more than a superstition" just because it hasn't been observed in repeatable experiments. Is 'attractive confidence' a re…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/13 06:52 PM
0

When I'm making a life decision based upon a scientific claim, I need scientific evidence before making that decision. What makes a claim "scientific"? I mean, hypergamy is a behaviour that a bunch of people have observed. For example, I claim that more confident people are more attractive. Is that a "scientific" claim? All I have for evidence is my own observations and the observations of others. Should I wait for a corroboration from a scientific study before acting on that? If TRP is a philos…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/13 04:56 AM
1

Can users add one of these classes to their own custom flair, now that's there's a custom flair option?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/13 04:33 AM
3

Well, fair enough then.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/13 04:31 AM
-1

Such science. Do you really need scientific evidence before making decisions in your life? How do you live your life without a scientific study proving that, for example, strawberries are tastier than pineapples? But something declining over an extended period is the exact opposite of what "the wall" alleges to exist. I think that's more straw "Red Pill" tbh. The Wall is really the same thing Marvell warns of. It's not a specific age at which all women suddenly become unattractive.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/13 04:22 AM
0

the obvious inability to determine how many marriages that occur today (or in the past decade) will ultimately end in divorce. Nevertheless, you made the claim. Something around 40-45% is a reasonable figure when considering all marriages, Where did you get those figures from?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/13 04:19 AM
3

Yes, I would love to! If they would stop running around calling it the truth. Call it "my truth." Stick a bloody qualifier in front of it (YMMV). Anything really. How about, "based on our experience"?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/13 04:09 AM
-1

Instead the study is forced to reject a strict hierarchy where one person has final authority. No, it's only forced to reject a strict hierarchy where the wife has final authority. It did not examine the case where the husband has final authority. The results (of this very silly n=1 study) are in line with RP theory. From the article: Many people in the world live as couples, and we believe that it could be harmful for one partner to always have to agree with the other. However, more research is…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/13 03:55 AM
0

Probably a very slim percentage more than report the experience of "the wall." Actually, it's pretty widely reported among men in TRP and elsewhere that women's attractiveness to them declines considerably through her 30s. And lots of people report experiencing encounters with squatches, too. Very few since 1967, actually.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/13 03:46 AM
0

OK, so you made this claim: Most marriages end in death, not divorce What proportion of marriages end in death rather than divorce?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/13 03:39 AM
0

I hypothesize that women are more attractive when their age is an even number than when it is an odd number. And how many people report this experience?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/13 03:38 AM
-1

Actually, it means that the crude divorce rate was 53% of the crude marriage rate.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/13 03:35 AM
-1

Most marriages end in death, not divorce, In the U.S., about 53% of marriages end in divorce. (ignoring cohort issues)
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/13 03:28 AM
5

TRP's bizarro hypergamy claims have so scientific support whatsoever, "The wall" is an absurd metaphor that does not describe any actual sociological phenomenon. Could we stop with the whole "there's no scientific evidence for Red Pill" thing? If there's scientific evidence against some Red Pill claim, that's excellent, but in the mean time, it's perfectly reasonable to make personal decisions based on the collective experience of many many others, even when such experience would not pass peer r…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/13 03:22 AM
2

This isn't very helpful, because there's some truth in most of them. Figuring out the limits of each concept would be more useful.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/13 03:08 AM
2

Couldn't resist. Let me tell you about my one-eyed horn.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/13 10:30 PM
0

And yet they reported that they were happier. So clearly it wasn't because they were oppressed.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/13 10:24 PM
-1

I have no idea in what sense the world is "closed". But you can certainly make things better for everyone, or at least broadly better overall, for pretty much any kind of better.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/13 11:43 AM
10

So almost everyone who responded was telling him to turn down the asshole factor, figure out whether he wanted an FWB or GF relationship, and be more generous to her. The one guy who wasn't was getting downvoted. Do you disagree with any of that advice?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/13 07:45 AM
4

There does seem to be this mentality in Blue Pill of "there's no scientific evidence for it, therefore it's worthless". It's a false goalpost for the most part. It's ridiculous to insist that one should reject widespread but merely anecdotal evidence when trying to figure out how to behave.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/13 07:35 AM
1

Have you read "The Righteous Mind"? No, I'm still on "The Happiness Hypothesis". What does he say that's so Socially Darwinist? I think you misunderstood my point. At any given time, there is a limited amount of resources on the planet. In this 1 dimensional model (no time), to lift up the poor you must lower the rich. This is silly for two reasons. Firstly, "lifting up the poor and lowering the rich" and "creating resources" are equally changes that must be done over time. Secondly, what is goo…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/13 01:53 AM
1

Yeah, the issue with that is that the authors who literally wrote the book on the topic practically used the theory to support Social Darwinism. How? Down and up are relative to only each other. Bringing low people up is the same as bringing high people down. This implies you can never improve society as a whole; that is, that you can never bring everyone up. Here's a simple proof: bringing everyone up means bringing low people up and high people up. According to your premise, this is the same a…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/13 12:59 AM
6

It is also common to see TRP praise women of other races, most often framing the preference in anti-feminism. Asian women (and TRP is not alone in this), Brazilian women, Russian women and others are seen as more traditional, conservative, sexual, and/or submissive; "western women" are frequently denigrated; and a red pill icon travels the world searching for feminine women. This, at least, is surely an observation about cultures, not races?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/13 12:05 PM
2

As a counterpoint, consider Jonathan Haidt's moral foundations theory. Haidt points out that academics tend to have a "liberal" moral background, strong on care/harm, fairness/cheating and liberty/oppression foundations, and weak on loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion and sanctity/degradation foundations. By contrast, "conservatives" tend to be strong on all six. SD theory seems to come from a pro-egalitarian moral background, but egalitarianism can also become toxic when it tries to bring hi…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/13 12:04 PM
-2

It sounds like you're coming from a place where you believe perceived happiness is more important than measurable freedom. Is there a difference between perceived happiness and happiness? Freedom is important, but it's not an absolute. Too much freedom means to atomisation and disconnection from others. Happiness comes from meaningful relationships (to other people, to society in general), which always include obligations that necessarily restrict one's freedom.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/13 05:13 AM
-1

Maybe slaves really were happier too. No. If someone is happier being a housewife, they still have the freedom to do so. But that's not what happened. Women are unhappier than they were 35 years ago.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/13 03:13 AM
2

I'm not sure what caused women to say what they did. Maybe they really were happier then?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/13 12:58 AM
-1

So you're saying that when women were asked if they were happy 35 years ago, they said yes like slaves, is that right?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/13 12:12 AM
1

I don't know about signing something, but I should hope all of them have come to some agreement about what kind of "whatever" is and is not acceptable.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/13 10:56 PM
1

What does "artificially happy" mean?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/13 10:00 PM
1

Also, as far as I know the vast majority of S&M isn't explicitly contracted. Yes it is, there are agreements beforehand about what is and is not allowed, and the bottom trusts the top to stick to the agreement.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/13 09:56 PM
1

/r/PurplePill exists, though it's pretty quiet.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/13 10:04 AM
1

All of those sound like heat-of-the-moment reactions, and therefore poor self-control. Also, b and especially c are likely to cause serious bodily damage. I don't see how any of that can be healthy. To be healthy, there should of course be an arrangement, and punishment should be deliberate, within the parameters of that arrangement and not something that is regretted when one calms down.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/13 09:53 AM
1

I think the studies are perfectly reasonable for what they say. They just don't happen to contradict the Red Pill notion that men have greater scope than women to improve their perception of physical attractiveness through behavioural change - i.e., more than just going to the gym and dressing better.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/13 04:37 AM
1

What findings?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/13 04:10 AM
1

I've never been in such a relationship, but obviously this would only be healthy if one partner really wanted to be physically punished for their transgressions. They would agree to it at the beginning of the relationship as a sort of standing consent. It's a bit like how couples touch each other without asking for consent each time. I guess the person being punished would always be able to revoke that consent in some way, for example, through an agreement about resistance. Then again, some coup…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/13 04:08 AM
8

If it's part of a broader consensual arrangement, it's OK. If it's not, it's abuse.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/13 03:47 AM
1

There's a pretty large body of scientific evidence that physical appearance is by far the most important part of physical attraction for women. Not quite. It's a broader "physical attractiveness" which men can do much to change by changing the way they behave.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/13 03:37 AM
4

Complete sentence: On the other hand, some studies have found little difference between men and women in terms of the weight they place on physical characteristics when they are choosing partners for short-term relationships, in particular with regard to their implicit, as opposed to explicitly articulated, preferences. This may be true, but there's ambiguity around "physically attractive". Does it mean just the physical structure of your body and face? What about posture, clothes, general prese…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/13 01:36 AM
0

Feminism is wrong, and has destroyed the dynamic between females and males which was prevalent in history Men are meant to be alpha, but society conditions men to be beta by telling them to treat women as equals when there are differences that should be understood Men can regain their rightful position of power in a short or long term relationship by following tactics described in TRP These all have some truth in them. My own Purple Pill positions are more like this: Feminism does well to change…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/13 09:45 AM
0

True confidence is not as superficial. Someone who is truly confident doesn't go out of their way to make themselves more macho and masculine. They can be sure of themselves without reaffirming it and reminding the women they court that they are better than them. This is pure Red Pill.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/13 09:00 AM
0

You dont need to believe in all of the RP rhetoric to believe "be confident, be attractive". In fact I don't believe this is RP or BP. Not exclusive, but it is actually pretty central to RP. It's not central to BP, though, because apparently BP isn't a thing, it's just everyone who isn't RP. Or something. Yet on RP you will see people take and give this simple and universal piece of advice in an extreme way, making it more self involved and arrogant than BPers would. Um, OK.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/13 08:06 AM
1

You know, because fairness and all that. It's what Nietzsche called ressentiment. It sells newspapers.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/13 06:57 AM
0

So "TRP early adopters", whatever they were, weren't Blue Pill, is that right? But they also believed in "be confident, be attractive". So this idea does not have a Blue Pill origin as such. The redpill took that from everyone else (ie the blue pill) This, it turns out, is not correct. Red Pill took it from "early adopters" as much as from anyone. And TBH I think you'd be able to find something like "TRP early adopters" at any point in history.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/13 01:29 AM
1

Love this. This is the Red in my Purple Pill.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/13 12:42 AM
2

I'd argue any ideals that mimic the redpill back then were 'early adopters' and therefore not official members of TBP. I see. The redpill took that from everyone else (ie the blue pill) So did Red Pill take its ideas from "everyone else (ie the blue pill)" or from "'early adopters' and therefore not official members of TBP"? TBH I'm a little confused about what you're trying to argue. On the one hand, you seem to want to credit Blue Pill with first coming up with Red Pill ideas, but on the other…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/13 12:32 AM
4

So before Red Pill, all ideas for getting laid, or about anything else, can reasonably be called Blue Pill ideas?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/13 12:17 AM
5

Redpill obviously has some real-world logic thrown in (as we touched on briefly with the confidence/appearance bit.) So I'd argue that rather than 'the blue pill' mimicking the red, I'd say it's the other way around. The redpill took that from everyone else (ie the blue pill) So you're saying Blue Pill actually pre-dates Red Pill, even though it was created in reaction to it?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/13 12:00 AM
7

If he says 'focus on your mission, (which I assume is sex) not the woman' Nope. III. You shall make your mission, not your woman, your priority Forget all those romantic cliches of the leading man proclaiming his undying love for the woman who completes him. Despite whatever protestations to the contrary, women do not want to be “The One” or the center of a man’s existence. They in fact want to subordinate themselves to a worthy man’s life purpose, to help him achieve that purpose with their fem…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/13 11:42 PM
6

There is no universal cheat code that'll get you laid. This is an argument against straw Red Pill, not Red Pill. Things that will raise your chances are being attractive and confident. This is Red Pill. My only advice is "don't make sex the be all, end all in your every day interactions with women" If you're only focused on your end result you're going to be disappointed a lot I would think. This is also fairly close to Red Pill actually. For example, Roissy's "You shall make your mission, not y…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/13 11:16 PM
2

It wouldn't have to follow a bimodal distribution necessarily: I mean, we can talk of "rich" and "poor" people quite reasonably.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/13 08:49 AM
0

Eastern European women do seem to take much more care of their appearance and presentation. They also seem to be less troubled by the impossibility of media beauty standards. It's like they're adults or something.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/13 08:47 AM
2

I like the "Married Game" concepts, which are a bit different: alpha is "dominant" behaviour, and beta is "nurturing" behaviour, and for a healthy relationship a man should exhibit both.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/13 08:34 AM
2

No, I'm saying that in the adapting it to their idea of human relationships, they distorted it so much it really bears no resemblance to the (now retracted) wolf theory. For example, the wolves were supposed to have alpha, beta and omega couples. But in TRP theory, alpha and beta are states that individuals, especially men, have. Idk, your male hamster wheel might be spinning. Continue... Perhaps you'd care to clarify this remark?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/13 02:18 AM
3

TBH, TRP "alpha/beta" never had much to do with the wolves theory anyway.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/13 02:01 AM
2

Right, I think we all like certain kinds of men or women, certain attitudes, certain behaviours, more than others. 95% of what's called "misogyny" (or "misandry") is really this.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/13 10:18 AM
3

This effectively criminalises certain kinds of S&M play.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/13 04:24 AM
7

why is rape the only crime in which the mental state of the victim is considered but NOT the mental state of the perpetrator? This isn't true. For example, in England & Wales, it's a defence if the defendant reasonably believed that they had consent, even if they did not in fact.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/13 01:47 AM
9

being raped is more psychologically damaging than being punched into a coma because some "teen" comes up behind you playing the knockout game or being stabbed in the stomach? Actually they are similar sentences at that point, aren't they?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/13 01:45 AM
3

focus on yourself and your own self worth, the rest will come. This is actually a big part of TRP (or at least it used to be when it started).
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/13 10:37 PM
4

I'm thinking lead/follow relationships (to borrow a dance metaphor), whichever way round they are, tend to work better than equal relationships.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/13 05:56 AM
6

Surely no-one believes it as written? I mean, if a man does not want sex, the woman does not have the choice to have sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/13 03:18 AM
0

blue pill is just anything that isn't "red pill" its like asking "where do I get non-christian advice?" I'm not convinced of this. People sometimes figure out dating strategies on their own, and sometimes they can end up pretty "red pill" without them ever having heard of The Red Pill. By contrast, it is impossible to become a Christian spontaneously without exposure to Christianity in some form.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/13 11:19 PM
1

Can't you just link it? You can use "np." if you don't want people to vote on it.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/13 12:56 AM
2

I am young and pretty, OK, so, do you tend to be the first choice when men hit on women at parties? I think it's this sort of thing that's supposed to make women all narcissistic or something.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/13 09:02 AM
1

Well, it's consensus attractiveness, in particular how much attention you get. For example, how would you compare yourself to young and pretty famous actresses? I think the idea is that all the attention makes such women narcissistic.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/13 08:42 AM
2

I think the underlying assumption is that the most attractive women tend to be narcissistic. I don't know how true that is, though.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/13 08:24 AM
10

A lot of the time I think people (especially hetero males) mistake "female privilege" for "young and pretty" privilege. That's a fair point, but also I think some people (especially feminists) mistake "male privilege" for "rich and powerful" privilege. Of course, part of male privilege is that one is more likely to be rich. Then again, part of female privilege is that one is more likely to be considered pretty.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/11/13 07:10 PM
5

When people refer to women being privledged, it is usually over a perceived advantages that are rooted in beliefs about the inherent inferiority or incapability of women, such as in the case of conscription. Actually, that's rooted in the belief that women are more valuable than men. It goes along with the "women and children first" mentality, and why "violence against women" is more serious than mere "violence", and male disposability generally. This is what benevolent sexism is. Sexism is not …
/r/PurplePillDebate26/11/13 06:55 PM
1

I don't see why.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/11/13 04:10 AM
1

Why a person being on the lower end of the healthy BMI spectrum indicate respect? I daresay being anywhere in the healthy BMI spectrum is considered "thin" these days.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/11/13 03:22 AM
3

Thinking that men and women are different on a fundamental level (when they are total fucking not) is a problem because it propagates hatred towards women for their 'otherness'. It's an axiom of TRP that men and women are different on a fundamental level. It's an axiom of TBP men and women are the same on a fundamental level. Their perspectives are based on these assertions. Because they are axioms, there's really no logical argument either can make to convince the other. I mean, "different" and…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/11/13 03:17 AM
6

I think they're useful for representing two particular kinds of behaviour, "dominant" and "nurturing". I like the "Married Game" understanding that both kinds of behaviour are necessary to maintain a long-term relationship. As you say, there's no serious connection to ethology, and if one is going to get serious about evolutionary psychology, then it seems likely both behaviours are adaptive in some context, whereas TRP seems to think of alpha/beta as evopsych winners and losers. If that were th…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/11/13 12:43 AM
5

Having offspring has nothing to do with being alpha or beta. So basically no connection to the ethological meanings of those terms that Red Pillers claim as source? I think perhaps they forget the "evolutionary" part of "evolutionary psychology"...
/r/PurplePillDebate24/11/13 06:10 PM
1

I don't think BP is really a philosophy as such, it's more just disagreeing with RP.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/11/13 08:20 AM
2

OMG I love Haidt's stuff. He's my go-to guy for explaining irreconcilable differences in ethical worldviews.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/11/13 08:17 AM
1

Already posted.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/13 03:35 AM
1

That's fine, but the Wikipedia article doesn't say what you claim. It doesn't mention confidence. It doesn't say physical attraction is more important than everything else. This is what it says (that you've quoted): Women pay greater attention to physical traits than they do directly to earning capability or potential to commit. Women process physical attractiveness differently. Some studies have concluded that men place a higher emphasis on physical attractiveness in a partner than women do. So…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/13 03:33 AM
1

Those studies don't tell us whether physical attractiveness is more important than confidence, unless they actually measured the effect of confidence. And this isn't mentioned in the Wikipedia article. Even if they do there's a problem, because apparently confidence affects how women perceive physical attractiveness anyway, so it's difficult to disentangle.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/13 01:31 AM
1

The second source doesn't consider confidence. The chicagonow article does, but the women rated physical attractiveness after they went on dates with the men, so after they'd already been exposed to their confidence and charisma (or not). The trouble is, women's perception of a man's physical attractiveness may be influenced by the man's confidence. For example, See, researchers took photos of a bunch of guys they’d either plastered with the canned deodorant or left alone, and then had women rat…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/13 01:10 AM
0

than anything else The Wikipedia article doesn't say this. It doesn't say anything like this...
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/13 12:40 AM
1

In other words, if you're going out on a Friday night looking for a fling, physical attractiveness is most important by a lot. The list would look like this: Physical attractiveness ..... ..... Everything else That's not what it says, it's more like physical attractiveness ..... ..... earning capability, potential to commit, other factors we examined So far, I'm not seeing evidence that simplepill is wrong to place "confidence / charisma" at the top (nor that he's right for that matter).
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/13 11:27 PM
2

women pay greater attention to physical traits than they do directly to earning capability or potential to commit,[184] including muscularity, fitness and masculinity of features; This doesn't really contradict Red Pill claims, though, nor simplepill's list for that matter. How does "Confidence / Charisma" rate? Or anything they call "game"?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/13 10:56 PM
1

I'm surprised; it seems rather difficult to measure.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/13 10:20 PM
1

Have you read the stuff on the side bar? There's a clear implication that this theory was created scientifically through proper analysis. That's disingenuous. Also, if you've ever talked to people on TRP, they're strongly convinced science is on their side. That's as maybe, but "there's truth in the red pill" really doesn't mean much more than "hey this stuff works". And experience alone is a pretty reasonable basis to say that, in context. On the other hand, if they are claiming "science is on …
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/13 10:53 PM
1

Firstly, maybe they do have some scientific evidence for some of it, I don't know. Secondly, "experience-based" would be more accurate, but I hardly think that's necessary as that seems to be most people's interpretation of their assumptions. They don't need to put disclaimers on it.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/13 09:51 PM
1

It doesn't need to be. It just needs to be helpful in making decisions. That's why people are interested in TRP, to make decisions for relationships and their lives generally.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/13 09:35 PM
1

Well, if folks have experience with it working, that's useful for people trying to make decisions in their lives.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/13 09:23 PM
1

I'm just not seeing "there's truth in the red pill" to mean "hey this stuff works" as dishonest.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/13 08:35 PM
1

Hey, if they also provide evidence of a scientific standard, good for them. But at the end of the day, it's about making decisions in one's life one way or another, and it's that that sets the standard.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/13 08:26 PM
1

But to assert one way of looking at gender is true is arguably a scientific claim. ...you're claims seem scientific on the surface. Are you serious? I think most people would interpret "there's truth in the red pill" as "hey, this stuff actually works" rather than "we have scientific evidence for the red pill".
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/13 08:11 PM
1

But the word "truth" has the same standard in nearly all arenas. Firstly you are confusing the truth of a claim with its credibility. For example: There is intelligent life in the Andromeda galaxy. There is no intelligent life in the Andromeda galaxy. Prior to evidence, exactly one of these claims is true (we don't know which), but neither of these claims are particularly credible. Secondly, standards for credibility vary with needs. If you are trying to make decisions in your life, then decades…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/13 07:35 PM
1

In debate, the standard of "truth" and "fact" is whether a historical claim can be corroborated or whether any other claim can be tested with repeatable results. You're standard isn't high enough for debate. I don't know about this "debate standard" thing, but TRP etc. are all about making relationship and life decisions. I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that if they put something on their sidebar, it should be taken in that context.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/13 07:03 PM
1

To establish fact, you need a standard of what qualifies as fact. The standard is, can I use it to inform my life decisions? Decades of others' experience certainly meets that standard.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/13 06:49 PM
3

There is a certain conceptual circularity with "privilege"... What evidence is there for patriarchy? All the privileges that men have. What about these female privileges? They're not actually privileges, because they're not supported by patriarchy.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/13 06:38 PM
1

Anecdotal evidence is neither true nor false, it's just stories with no statistical significance. Still wrong. It may have no "statistical significance", but "anecdotal evidence" certainly can itself be true or false. Could you really reliably test that? Why does this matter? Something can be true or false even if it's not practical to test it to some "scientific" degree of reliability. The whole point of these "ideologies" is to help people make relationship and life decisions. It's perfectly r…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/13 06:26 PM
2

Anecdotes are neither true nor false, they're just stories with no statistical significance. This is not correct, anecdotes are stories about something that happened. Regardless of their "statistical significance", they certainly can be true or false. The TRP sidebar intro literally says "there's truth in the red pill." This is a bold faced lie. You can't say an unfalsifiable ideology is "true." It's funny that they say it that way, because while I don't agree with everything in TRP, there certa…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/13 06:06 PM
1

But anecdotes are not falsifiable. You can't prove whether they're true or not, or whether they have any statistical of scientific value. It's commonly accepted that anecdotes (even a collection of anecdotes all saying the same thing) are not valid evidence to support a concept. So what? People pay attention to "Red Pill" or "Blue Pill" or whatever in part because they want some guidance in their relationship choices. They have to make decisions one way or the other with whatever information the…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/13 05:51 PM
1

It's largely based on anecdotes and decades of experience, however anecdotes and decades of experience aren't support for an argument or an ideology. I don't see why not. If I want my relationships to work out, I'm interested in hearing about as many decades of others' experience as possible.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/13 05:15 PM
1

We might infer that, we'd just have no evidence or reasoning to suggest that it's valid to do so. Of course we have no evidence. That's the point, it's assumptions prior to evidence. But we do have reasoning: we're finding a similar situations and inferring from them. And whenever we have to make decisions without evidence, such as should I date this person or that person, we have to make some kind of assumption, even if it's an assumption that there is no effect. Would you agree that behaviors …
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/13 12:14 AM
1

Well, let's compare it to violence. Someone who has a history of violence into adulthood, but then makes a commitment not to, is still more likely to be violent than someone who hasn't been violent. So we might infer the same for promiscuity.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/13 12:01 AM
1

But you've arbitrarily adding the "into adulthood" part. No, I got that from the violence example. Someone who is violent in the first two years of life, but is non-violent thereafter, probably isn't a great risk of future violence. Just as someone who shits in nappies for the first two years of life, but doesn't thereafter, probably isn't likely to start doing so again.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/13 11:50 PM
1

I think it's reasonable to assume that someone with a history of shitting in nappies into adulthood is more likely to continue to do so than someone without such a history, even after making a commitment not to do so. This seems to me to parallel the violence example.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/13 11:43 PM
1

There aren't. Sure there are, they're both kinds of behaviours that people engage in, that some people tend to engage more in than others. There are differences too of course, and one cannot be certain that the same principles apply, but it's a reasonable assumption prior to evidence.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/13 11:34 PM
1

It's possible that they are more likely to be violent but without any evidence at all, it would obviously be ridiculous to try to use past behavior to predict future behavior without any kind of reference to major contextual cues. I believe we have evidence in the case of violence, and it's reasonable to use the case of violence to inform our pre-evidence assumptions in the case of promiscuity, as there are similarities between the two situations.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/13 11:27 PM
1

It's just impossible to make any assumptions based on that kind of logic without evidence, as you'd simply be assuming whatever confirms your prior belief. I really don't see the problem. Prior to evidence, the "habit" effect seems to me to be likely to be stronger than the "get it out of the system" effect. Consider violence. Someone with a history of violence makes a commitment not to be violent anymore. Are they likely to be more or less violent than someone with no history of violence who co…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/13 11:07 PM
1

As I've stated multiple times now, if the sky has always been blue and there is no reason at all for us to think that this fact may change (e.g. a contextual change) then it is reasonable to assume that the sky will continue to be blue. OK, so for the notion "past behaviour tends to predict future behaviour", behaviour 5 applies, but behaviour 6 does not, wouldn't you agree? Yes, it is reasonable to assume that a history of promiscuity can have an effect of behavior. We just don't know what dire…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/13 10:49 PM
1

Both behaviors have been observed in the past? Yes, it's been consistently blue so far, just as both behaviour 5 and behaviour 6 specify. So we've observed it being blue and we've observed it changing from blue to green? No, we haven't observed it change from blue to green. Neither behaviour 5 nor behaviour 6 specify that it will change from blue to green before 2014. It's very simple. The sky being blue so far has been consistent with both behaviour 5 and behaviour 6. Is it more reasonable to a…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/13 10:29 PM
1

If it's a single behavior then we're necessarily talking about the behavior of it changing. This is why I mentioned in my initial reply to you that your description was technically 2 different behaviors, but you corrected me and said it was 1. A behaviour is a way something might behave. Being blue up to 2014 and then green is a single way something might behave. So it is a single behaviour. I don't see how it would be considered two behaviours. If there is no contextual change, then yes, a reas…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/13 09:49 PM
1

You explicitly stated that I was to assume that the sky turning from blue to green was a single behavior. We know that the sky is going to be green in 2014 as that is the behavior you have told me to accept. No, I merely said that it could be considered a single behaviour, i.e, a way the sky might behave. I didn't tell you to accept that the sky would actually behave this way. What I want to know is whether behaviour 6 is just as reasonable an assumption as behaviour 5 for the continuing behavio…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/13 09:12 PM
1

Yes, because you want us to understand the change as a single behavior, so if the sky changes from blue to green from one year to the next, then if there are no extra contextual variables that arise in the future, we can reasonably assume that the behavior won't change - i.e. we can assume that in the future when the sky is blue it will change to green in the following year. Just so I understand you correctly, if the sky has hitherto been blue, and you know nothing of atmospheric science, it's j…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/13 08:16 PM
2

Someone who has sex with a lot of people hoping somebody will stick around is probably very differently motivated than someone who enjoys novelty/anonymity/sexytimes. True, although if someone has been in a lot of relationships that the others have quickly ended, that's also a bad sign.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/13 03:23 PM
1

Sure, if the conditions don't change then it can be reasonable to assume that the behavior won't change. If there are no atmospheric changes then we can reasonably assume that the sky will probably be blue tomorrow, What do you mean by "behavior won't change"? Is behaviour 6 (whereby it is blue until 2014 and then green) a sensible conception of behaviour that "won't change" in 2014 if the sky is blue until 2014 and green thereafter? Ah, so we need evidence to make claims that link past behavior…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/13 02:42 PM
1

Well, if I know that the sky has been blue once, and I have no idea why it is the way it is and some atmospheric condition changes which alters the context (choosing to engage in a long term relationship in the original situation), I wouldn't be confident at all in asserting that the sky will be blue again tomorrow. Well, first I want to know if 6 is a sensible conception of "behaviour". Let us say you know of no atmospheric condition change. Is it reasonable to assume that sky will continue to …
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/13 02:09 AM
1

Am I assuming I know the science and evidence behind why the sky is blue or am I supposed to momentarily forget all that? Momentarily forget all that, that's what I meant by "prior to other evidence". I have a pack of cards, I shuffle them into a completely random order and I start drawing them in front of you. I draw 10 hearts in a row. Is it reasonable to assume that the next card I draw will be a heart? If you draw ten hearts in a row from some big pile of cards, then it's reasonable to assum…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/13 01:41 AM
1

OK, so the daytime cloudless sky has a past history of exhibiting behaviour 6. It has so far coincided with the described behaviour. Prior to other evidence, would you say it's reasonable to believe that it will continue to do so into 2014?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/13 01:23 AM
1

I think all of them can be examples of behavior (although 6 would technically be two behaviors), depending on what we're looking at. Consider 6 as a single "behaviour". Are all of them are sensible conceptions of "behaviour" for which past history tends to predict future behaviour?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/13 01:17 AM
1

OK, so some examples of things that might be "behaviour": being promiscuous following one's intentions given the circumstance of a long-term relationship, not walking out on it not walking out on people in long term relationships (as something that, for instance, rocks engage in) being the colour blue being blue before 2014 and being green on and after it I would say that 1, 2, 3 and 5 are sensible conceptions of "behaviour" for which past history tends to predict future behaviour, and 4 & 6 are…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/13 12:44 AM
1

If I understand you, you are contriving "following one's own intention" as a particular kind of behaviour, as opposed to "being promiscuous", is that correct? But promiscuous people will generally have similar histories of not walking out on people in long term relationships. And here you are contriving "not walking out on people in long term relationships" as a kind of behaviour, instead of "walking out on people" as a behaviour and "long term relationship" as a circumstance, is that correct?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/13 12:22 AM
1

What exactly do you think helps predict future behaviour? I would say both past behaviour and intentions, but you seem to disagree with the former. Your claim is that past behavior predicts future behavior; if there is no past behavior of walking out on relationships, then they are no more or less likely to walk out on relationships. If someone has a history of long-term relationships that they have not walked out on, then it's more likely that they will continue that pattern.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/13 12:09 AM
1

In other words, we could say that the behavior we're looking at is promiscuity and say people who have slept around a lot will be more likely to sleep around in future. But, equally so, we can say that the behavior we're interested in is how people who in the past have decided to do X did X are more likely to do Y in the future if they decide to do Y. Right, both are equally possible. We might reasonably determine someone's future behaviour both by their past behaviour and by their intentions. W…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/11/13 11:50 PM
1

So the position now becomes: there is a general correlation between what someone wants to do and what they actually do. How reasonable does that seem to you? That seems very reasonable. But there is also, in general, a correlation between past and future behaviour, is there not? Otherwise there would be no patterns in behaviour. Are you claiming that this correlation disappears when preferences change?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/11/13 11:36 PM
1

Supposing it were true that for any given person, and any given time, their expected promiscuity after that time had no connection to their promiscuity before that time. That would mean that no one person is more prone to promiscuity than any other person. No-one has a pattern of short-term vs. long-term relationships, except by pure chance. How reasonable does that seem to you?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/11/13 11:26 PM
2

Regardless of whether you claimed it or not, do you believe this is reasonable, prior to evidence? Statement: A given person will change how promiscuous they are at a given time.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/11/13 11:17 PM
2

OK, I'm confused. Do you actually believe that this claim you made is reasonable prior to evidence? Claim: A given person will change how promiscuous they are at a given time.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/11/13 10:56 PM
1

So are you.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/11/13 10:10 PM
1

Since you have the burden of proof, I don't see why.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/11/13 09:51 PM
1

Your position is now completely and absolutely nullified by equally contradictory evidence and you have no good reason to believe your position. No, there are two alternative claims, and no evidence for either of them. But as I keep saying, my claim is more reasonable prior to evidence.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/11/13 09:43 PM
2

So is this: Claim: A given person won't change how promiscuous they are at a given time. Evidence: I don't have any. Of course, that's on an individual basis. In aggregate, people will change in various ways over time. But not everyone all the time.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/11/13 06:07 PM
2

Right, I think the RP/PUA idea is that the more attractive women consider a high partner count to be "social proof" of a man's desirability, whereas for less attractive women, a high partner count is more threatening because it suggests a man might be "out of her league". Men by and large do not consider a high partner count to be evidence of a woman's desirability, it seems. Men already know how desirable a woman is to them.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/11/13 02:07 PM
2

I don't see why not. Here's an extreme example: Claim: Sitting under a pyramid with a fried egg at each corner will not help cure cancer. Evidence: I don't have any. Still, it seems a reasonable thing to believe prior to evidence, right?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/11/13 01:41 PM
2

Your logic would lead us to conclude that nobody could ever get into a committed relationship though. If someone has never had a long term relationship, then why would we expect their behavior to change? It still happens, it just happens less often. If you suggest that men are exceptions, I don't.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/11/13 01:36 PM
4

I think TRP focus more on partner count rather than act count? Perhaps 80/20 rule is intended that way, i.e. 20% of the men have slept with 80% of the women. Not sure if that's plausible though.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/11/13 02:28 AM
5

Well that's fair. Someone who wants to try an LTR after years of "genital carousel" can certainly succeed, but it seems likely to be harder than for someone who hasn't set that behavioural pattern. I do think TRPs overplay this issue, but there is a concern there.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/11/13 10:41 PM
4

It does make it a reasonable assumption prior to evidence, however. Come to think of it, let's consider the opposite, that people promiscuous in the past are no more likely to be promiscuous in the future than people not promiscuous in the past. Do you even believe this?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/11/13 10:25 PM
7

I think that if one is looking for a long-term monogamous relationship, then men who have a history of promiscuity are less likely to stick around or to be faithful. My advice is, use balance of past history as evidence. If it's a mix of promiscuity and faithful LTRs, that's encouraging. If it's all sleeping around with no long-term commitment, that's not. If it's long-term ethical non-mongamy, that might be a good sign if you happen to be looking for that.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/11/13 10:24 PM
3

It seems to me, prior to evidence, that people promiscuous in the past are more likely to be promiscuous in the future than people not promiscuous in the past. Do you have any evidence against this?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/11/13 10:17 PM
4

Yeah, it's possible. A percentage of drug addicts reform. A percentage of people of one faith convert to another. A percentage of people in one career switch to another. Would you say those percentage are greater than, or less than, 50%? For example, pick a random Jew and a random Christian. Which is more likely to be a Christian say ten years from now?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/11/13 10:01 PM
2

Well, not that I know of. But it seems fair to assume prior that someone with a pattern of behaviour will tend to stick with it. Do you know of any evidence against it?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/11/13 09:34 PM
7

The most favourable argument I can think of would be that if one is looking for an long-term monogamous relationship, then women who have a history of promiscuity are less likely to stick around or to be faithful.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/11/13 08:50 PM
9

I think they are both what Nietzsche would call perspectives. His idea is that there is no purely objective truth, all truth is mediated in some perspective or other. Or, there are no facts, only interpretations. I think this is because truth is a product of thinking, and thinking is a human activity, not an abstract activity, and humans vary in how they think. This does not mean all perspectives are equal, by the way. Some perspectives are certainly better than others, but exactly which those a…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/11/13 01:20 PM
3

I'd say you're fully responsible for your actions if you choose to get drunk. But, the ethical standard should be based in experience and regret rather than consent. Consent tends to get overloaded with all our sexual ethics, and I don't think that's helpful. So, it's unethical to have sex with someone if either of you are likely to regret it later. If you get very drunk and are then enthusiastic about sex which you later regret, that's a bad pattern of behaviour on your part which you really ne…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/10/13 03:36 AM
7

Negging is something separate; I really think red pillers and blue pillers are not on the same page when it comes to the definition of this word. Maybe this can be chalked up to clueless guys thinking they can get laid by insulting, so it becomes something women have to deal with.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/13 09:35 PM
0

It is a gender situation that emerged as a result of gender roles. I suspect this is exactly wrong: the roles emerged to adapt to the situation. It's certainly the case here: men adapt to the role of strong and self-sufficient because we are in a situation where those qualities are admired by both women and men. As I said, anyone who has experience with depression would know that there is nothing wrong with asking for help. Of course there's nothing really wrong with asking for help. But it can …
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/13 09:01 PM
2

For red pillers, it's something like playful teasing to avoid a supplicatory frame or how about, playful teasing to establish rapport. Yes, there seem to be aspects of both. Perhaps the sense of "I'm just as good as you" that helps establish rapport. When I flirt, I love to do this kind of teasing as a game we are both playing. I usually take it in an imaginative/intellectual direction and I love it when a woman can keep up. I generally think of it in turns of displaying and screening rather tha…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/13 08:50 PM
2

As a person who has depression, do not disregard the "cry for help". People cry for help because they need it. It really comes down to how strong your sense of self preservation is. Yes, but there's the question of how much your cry for help might damage your social value when it is heard. Don't try to turn depression about "Oh no! I can't get laid!" that is not what it is about at all. It's not about not getting laid per se, it's about loss of social value due to being pitied. Social value mean…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/13 08:41 PM
4

Sort of. I don't begrudge hot women their preference to screen for social confidence and playfulness.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/13 08:29 PM
1

That is because women are more likely to use methods that fail, like pills or hanging, vs men who are more likely to shoot themselves. It's probably because women are more about the "cry for help" aspect of the attempt. There's really nothing stopping them from buying a gun. But guns are scary because they are, well, deadly. And part of that is because traditional masculinity tells men that they should not seek out help. It's not quite as simple as that. It's not really ideology that is driving …
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/13 08:22 PM
12

Blue pillers and red pillers have separate definitions of "negging". For blue pillers, it's something like negative comments or insults designed to lower the target's self-esteem. For red pillers, it's something like playful teasing to avoid a supplicatory frame, and they talk a lot about "calibration" to avoid actually insulting. Certainly some of the examples I've heard from PUA-types of "negging" seemed like playful teasing within a larger context of mutual respect, often on the theme of poin…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/13 07:58 PM
2

Original video.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/13 03:18 AM
16

What's their justification for the groping? That she wants to be groped? This doesn't look likely from the image. That the men interpreted her display as a desire to be groped? That the men can't help themselves? That would be male hypoagency. That she behaved inappropriately and this is appropriate punishment? I really hope the TRP folks follow Squirtmasterd2 and draw a line here.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/13 02:53 AM
3

This part is the key for me: society still (wrongly) overvalues men for their success in life, so too does society (wrongly) overvalue women for their youth and beauty I think women value men for their success in life, and society generally follows along in that valuation. Likewise, men value women for their youth and beauty, and society generally follows along. People admire their more sexually attractive peers; attractiveness and high social status seem to be bound tightly together. But "wrong…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/10/13 10:36 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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