TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

EmpyrrhicalData Archive

View 1 post and 76 comments by EmpyrrhicalData on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
4

DiscussionEmpyrrhicalData/r/PurplePillDebate13/02/18 10:56 PM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
7

Mixed with male solipsism, and taking what women say they want seriously.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/04/18 04:44 PM
4

I talked with you for several weeks and ended up disagreeing with you. You mask your fraudulence within a bubble of truths.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/18 06:26 PM
1

Ethics are objective in this sense only relative to/among humans. Just as Trump is only POTUS relative to human consensus and agreement. The POTUS is subject to human consensus. Whether someone is or is not POTUS is an objective fact. These are two distinct ideas and you're conflating the two. Ants would have a different objective ethics in this sense... "different objective ethics"? This doesn't even make sense. Like I said, you're confusing two distinct ideas, and incorrectly using the word ob…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/18 07:58 PM
1

I think you're conflating two distinct concepts, and incorrectly applying the label objective. To say Donald Trump is POTUS is an objective fact. This is a description of reality, a positive statement. An alien from another galaxy can observe this to be true. To say murder is considered unethical by human consensus is also an objective fact. What we can't do is say "Murder is considered unethical by human consensus, therefore you must not murder humans.". You're deducing a normative statement fr…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/18 06:04 PM
1

I'm not making this argument in defense of moral relativism. I agree with Sam Harris that we can have an ethics informed by objective truths, but that's not the same as saying the ethics are thus objective. My point is you cannot say any ethics is purely objective on the grounds of reason and logic. Unless we can give reason to why the universe exists, we simply have no basis to claim certainty in our ethics. Who here is foolish or bold enough? With that said, I'd rather have an ethics be inform…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/18 03:54 AM
1

I personally believe that morality is objective and has a range of possibilities, I do not buy into the idea of completely subjective morality. Morality and ethics is not objective in the most pure sense. It comes down to logic. You can say "If you want to derive a 2, you must add 1 and 1." and have it be objectively true. This is the same logical category we place ethics. Now say "This is a 2, therefore you must add 1 and 1.". It doesn't follow. This is essentially what the is-ought problem com…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/04/18 08:08 PM
2

What happened to OP and why is there viscera everywhere?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/18 02:37 AM
2

I love this introspective version of you. We can extract far more value from your words here.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/02/18 02:12 PM
3

So you're suggesting these are widely known facts.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/02/18 02:03 PM
0

What is the "proper" way to go about thinking of women as flawed beings? Isn't that a heuristic itself? The relevance of these prejudiced heuristics is in the minimization of risk, even at the cost of another.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/02/18 01:48 PM
2

You mean people don't like their reputation prematurely tarnished by negative stereotypes? Never would have guessed. How about a positive stereotype? Do people take issue with those? Why the fuck are you so desperate to make this a gendered issue? If you were serious about addressing AWALT you have to begin with what AWALT is referring to in each case. Why do RP men believe it to be useful in that case? You lack imagination if you're unable to come up with a hypothesis.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/02/18 01:24 PM
9

All Women Are Like That is a heuristic. Is it a ridiculous generalization and laughably wrong to say All Women Are... monogamous? Surely you'd agree more with that heuristic because it doesn't suggest a negative personality trait. But we know not all women fit that heuristic. At the end of the day it's a probabilistic statement that's a rule of thumb for future decision making. What it's not, is a predictive description of a discrete event.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/02/18 01:09 PM
1

I agree, Jammerly2.0 is progress.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/02/18 09:43 AM
1

This is the most beautiful thing I've ever heard you say. Harmony and balance are the key to enlightenment.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/02/18 09:03 AM
2

Tell me, what solves this particular problem? We know two rights make a super right, but it's unlikely to occur.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/18 10:35 PM
3

I'm happy to see game theory invoked more often in our discussion about the SMP. The reason why NAWALT is used so defensively is because women know morally acceptable hypergamy is a tacit agreement on the acceptability of the male imperative. As long as NAWALT, hypergamy is implied to be "morally unacceptable". It's a rational strategy. This is why you hear the phrase "have their cake and eat it too" thrown around.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/18 10:34 PM
1

Yes love is contingent on something, for both men and women. Defining it in that way is perfectly fine, but it throws a wrench in the OP's theory of causality.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/18 05:50 PM
3

That's why an optimal strategy is not unlimited altruism. You cannot reach the highest order nash equilibrium without it, however.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/18 05:21 PM
3

Yes you're right, he was talking specifically about genes, and I was conflating the two in my hasty response. An individual is an expression of it's genes, though. Through this expression is how you the individual, as the sum of it's genes, can be selected for or against, based on the same principles of evolution.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/18 05:19 PM
4

I'm sorry, I misunderstood your previous post. Cooperation toward shared goals is a benefit to both parties by definition. In the case of unidirectional trade, that's called altruism. Altruism can still be justified in this architecture.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/18 06:51 AM
7

This is a fallacy. Cooperation does not necessarily require a zero-sum transactional balance. Look at trade between countries, you can have a trade deficit yet have it be a net positive for the country economically. To be fair even the President of the United States doesn't understand this.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/18 06:27 AM
9

This is correct. The Red Pill is the worlds first crowd-sourced thesis on the nature of sexual economics and the optimal male sexual strategy. As with any open source project, like Wikipedia, it's prone to vandalism and hijacking. This means you can get people advocating rape and other such abhorrent behavior. The reason why The Red Pill exists and the female equivalent does not, is because a blueprint for achieving your goals will only be instigated when demand exceeds supply. The closest femal…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/18 06:03 AM
0

When I said argue I really meant discuss. I'm in no way trying to get you to adhere to any ethics. I am an atheist and Consequentialist, though, just so we're clear. I just want to know why you so strongly believe in selfishness. It seems clear to me Rand herself was a reactionary. What's in you?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/18 02:03 AM
2

Free will is important for what it implies when dealing with ethical consideration. Why should we hold rational self interest as the supreme morality? Also, are you a masochist by chance?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/18 01:51 AM
-1

Oh, how I could argue with you for hours on this very subject. Assuming you truly adhere to the bullshit that came from that woman's mouth. I know how smart you are, but I can't tell how well versed you are in the counterarguments attempting to qualify Objectivism. I wouldn't want to fall into some trap you've set to prematurely claim victory. Tell me Atlas, have you spent more time studying Feminism or Philosophy? And what are your views on Free Will?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/18 01:19 AM
6

Leave Melania alone! That's what I always tell my female friends when they start digging into her, as if it's her fault the President is a piece of shit. Let her be a gold digger god damn it, why is that so bad? She never asked to be put under the microscope like this, so you can't hold her accountable for what he does.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/18 12:58 AM
12

You're misunderstanding my point. I was well aware you weren't suggesting to never be nice. In fact, I agreed with you in that point when I said there needs to be limits to "niceness". But the overall argument of "taking niceness too far, even in the smallest margin" is false. You are not foolish for being altruistic and cooperative, even from a utilitarian point of view. You're intentionally narrowing your scope of "benefit" to suit your argument.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/18 12:46 AM
28

Holy fuck wall of text. I'll start off by saying this is not only false, but false from a biological perspective. Read Richard Dawkin's The Selfish Gene. He explains how cooperation works to benefit the individual greater than any losses incurred by such cooperation. From a game theoretical point of view, cooperation is proven to be the mathematically superior option. However, an optimal strategy puts limits on "niceness". Speak softly and carry a big stick.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/18 11:03 PM
1

I subscribe to the idea that supply meets demand. If more women want commitment than men, then yes, men are the gatekeepers of commitment, as they comprise the supply.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/18 10:49 PM
1

You dare ask how to derive an ought from an is? In reality, what have men always done? Appeasement. There's very little choice, because the demand for sex exceeds supply, therefore women hold market power and dictate prices. Until Chad comes along, at least.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/18 10:38 PM
1

The perception is born from her own mind, but it's based on his actions. There's a difference. Why should she value love as relative attention, self-sacrifice, gifts, etc.? Because her biology dictates it.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/18 10:23 PM
1

The probability question is unimportant to me because the broader question of whether or not she will achieve feeling the heights of love still hinges on her own perception. I've clarified OP's position and explained why he's confused. Quantifying the problem is daunting, as it comes down to the individual and the infinite multitude of factors that influence their values and decision making.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/18 10:11 PM
1

Yes, the man could legitimately love the less attractive woman less, leading to less perceived love by the unattractive woman. But that still doesn't mean they are inherently unlovable because of their level of attractiveness. That is OP's assertion. I'm hesitant to say the sex starvation scenario is the same, but I'll say yes you can apply the same logic. Just because he is getting less sex, it is not necessarily because of his attractiveness. Right, the context is flawed. We're starting from m…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/18 09:58 PM
1

You can self-sacrifice your life for someone you feel no love for. You can express your love by sacrificing nothing and giving nothing, but that doesn't mean she is required to perceive that as love. How a man feels is independent from how a woman perceives him to feel. This is where you keep getting mentally hung up. Just because a man is showering a woman with gifts and sacrificing his time for her, that does not necessarily mean he feels love. Like I said, that could just as easily be barteri…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/18 09:37 PM
2

I don't know, bartering? For the woman who perceives it as love, well it's more love by her definition, right? But that seems counter-intuitive. Now we know why, because they're two distinct concepts.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/18 09:25 PM
3

You are correct. They do get treated better. However, this circles straight back to my point about perceived versus actual male love. OP is confusing the two. Love is how the recipient defines it. OP nails it here. Many women are unlovable not because of their attractiveness, but because of how they choose to define male love. Namely, how well they are treated (given gifts) relative to their peers, and to the extent that men self-sacrifice.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/18 09:13 PM
2

Citation needed. Take the same actions and attention on display from a man, you suggest being unattractive makes women perceive them as less loving than women who are attractive. This is the inherent flaw in your argument about the plight of unattractive women. The root of the problem is not their attractiveness, it's their perception.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/18 08:57 PM
4

There lies your answer. How attractive the recipient is means nothing.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/18 08:45 PM
3

You're confusing the perception of male love with actual male love.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/18 08:39 PM
1

i will take that as a personal insult You are amusing.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/18 08:13 PM
1

I really don't want to argue semantics with a lawyer. Not everyone is as smart as you, or as capable of expressing their ideas without resorting to the use of idiosyncrasies. We need to be more generous in our perception when it comes to public discourse, and where possible, suggest alternative, more accurate language. As I said, I agree with you he is wrong. However, I take no pride in proving him wrong. It's merely an exercise. Not gonna look through your comment history. Are you ENTP?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/18 07:15 PM
2

/u/damaskrose and I had a productive exchange in my Green Pill post here that broached a similar question. TRP is necessary. The real problem BPers have with it is it competes with the optimal female sexual strategy. If TRP talked of self-sacrifice and appealing to the female imperative instead of taking advantage of your bargaining position, TBP would have no reason to exist. We would call TRP-lite a proper education for men that sorely need it. Instead of satire, TBP should have been that exac…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/18 06:58 PM
1

I'm not asking you out of hostility, I'm sincere in my curiosity about whether you can explicate his own ideas, which is an unfair task. It's hard to say exactly what the OP intends with that quote, but I think your reading is accurate, if not exaggerated. I do agree he's using the wrong terminology, at the very least. At worst, he believes the very idea you outlined actually exists. I suppose this is just a semantic argument. I think we would be better off recruiting a word or concept into our …
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/18 06:31 PM
2

This method works for me. Be charming and cultivate friendships with women you don't intend on fucking, and she will show you off to her single friends. Be good at sex and then the network effect kicks in.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/18 06:00 PM
1

What term should he be using instead?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/18 05:49 PM
9

This is why you're confused, OP. The question is framed incorrectly, which leads to the seeming irrationality of the response.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/18 10:44 PM
1

My original point is not about motivation, or however you want to define the ideology. My point is the effect it has, and it's usefulness to specific economic actors.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/18 10:16 PM
1

Why does sex negativism, or the repression of female sexuality through shame, not lend itself to increasing the market value of sex by way of decreased supply?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/18 09:49 PM
1

My goal is not to define the ideology, it's to demonstrate how an individual can practically make use of it. The distinction I'm making is between two types of women, those with high sexual capital, and those with low sexual capital.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/18 08:22 PM
0

I concede that the movement is defined differently from a sociopolitical point of view, and that it can encompass many other ideas. However, it still has it's practical effects in an economic sense, which is the purpose of my post.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/18 08:09 PM
7

This is the correct view. Sex positive feminism is for the women who have less sexual capital, and are more willing to compromise to land more valuable men. Positivism lends itself to protecting the reputation of these women while they indulge in an act that devalues the sexual resource of all women by meeting demand at a lower cost. Sex negative feminism is for the women with high sexual capital. They command a higher price, are less willing to compromise, and will therefore slut shame to maint…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/18 08:04 PM
4

What happened during the sexual revolution was a market correction that devalued women's sexual resources, and forced them into the economy to strive to be masculine men. What we see in the sexual marketplace today is the application of capitalist forces that pit men and women in a battle against each other, and in competition with their peers. Gone are the days of regulation (the patriarchy, shaming) that tried to keep it from devolving into a laissez-faire libertarian nightmare. This is as clo…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/18 06:50 PM
2

Get off the internet and stop thinking about this shit. Please. If someone hurt you it doesn't need to define you.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/18 08:50 AM
1

And you're purposefully ignoring the the responsibility women share with men in a consensual sexual relationship. I've already established why we agree, now you're trying to create fallacious scenarios where women are absolved of their responsibility.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/18 08:15 AM
1

No, you're right, women are weak and incapable of making rational decisions. Why did we allow them to vote again?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/18 07:58 AM
2

You are very sweet, but also naive. Or just disingenuous. If your consent or trust is breached, you are not immediately transformed into an infantile kitten incapable of self-preservation. Men are not T-rexes, they can still see you even if you don't make sudden movements. You would be surprised by how many women want to be fucked at exactly that level of retarded. Sometimes without consent.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/18 07:39 AM
3

I know. And since he didn't, she needs to interject, or suffer the consequences.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/18 07:10 AM
3

My sweet child. Do you want it rough? No. K.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/18 07:07 AM
5

I'm glad we agree both his and her role in communication begin before that point. Even after the fact, we have safe words and actions. No need to downvote me, I'm being an honest interlocutor.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/18 07:01 AM
8

Would you like me to spank you? Can I pull your hair? Sure, you could go that far, but it's not as fun. Where does the woman's role begin in the communication of boundaries? If you insist that role doesn't exist, well then some eggs will be broken I suppose.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/18 06:54 AM
8

Don't get too mad at inexperienced young men, it's an unfortunate part of the package. There are plenty of men out there that will fuck your brains out and still apply aftercare in a genuine manner. What we should be doing is helping to educate them in the proper ways of rough sex. They sure as hell aren't getting that from porn.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/18 06:44 AM
9

At what point do we assume she had agency? Also, fake news.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/18 06:38 AM
0

/u/Atlas_B_Shruggin would tell you tell you it's about status, and maybe that her gray hair is worth it. Slaves to their emotion. Envy, Pride, Greed, and Lust. We live in a society that worships at their throne. As long as they're honest about it I suppose... People become irrational when you think the way you do, though. They don't want anyone digging at the foundation of their supremacy. It's like that for all aspects of life, particularly where money is concerned.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/18 05:47 AM
1

I'm glad to have helped make someone happy with this post. All I'm looking for is honest and genuine discussion about the subject. It's important feedback to help refine my theories. It definitely seems like you've thought this out, but I have a feeling many of your peers (if you're a woman) would vehemently disagree with the idea that your strategy is optimal. I can see how it's an accurate and fashionably cynical transposition of TRP, though. Other posts here suggest an ideal and uncompromisin…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/18 05:16 AM
1

High value men are in high demand relative to supply, meaning many women are chasing the same high value men. To say high value men are Alphas is a tautology. To say women don't value high value men is a contradiction. Just because you are a locally special snowflake not interested in high value men, that says nothing of the overall economic climate regarding the market value of these men. NAWALT? Sure if that makes you feel better, but it isn't going to change market forces at a macro level.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/18 05:06 AM
1

I think you're only partially right. I feel my response to another post adequately summarises the situation. In the economy of the sexual marketplace, the only time women end up on the demand, rather than supply side, of the equation is when it comes to Alpha men. A blueprint for achieving your goals will only arise when demand exceeds supply. That's why TRP exists, TGP doesn't, and RPW is concessionary.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/18 12:44 AM
1

I guess it would be a guide for "nice girls", the same way TRP is a guide for nice guys/betas. "Nice girls" only have a problem with getting Chad to marry her, so I guess that framework already exists in RPW. I guess TGP is unnecessary due to the relative ease women have it in the SMP, with the only exception being Alphas. They almost have no choice but to compromise and concede ground. This is why a contrasting ideology to TRP doesn't exist, and the closest we'll get is RPW. In the economy of t…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/18 12:38 AM
0

I love your post. The idea of a sociocultural sorority is an apt one. The foundation needed to support a Green Pill would be an extremely egalitarian society, similar to that of Native Americans or Communist/Socialist states. This might explain the lack of demand for advice on how to execute the optimal female sexual strategy. (edit) I think you suggest another good point in that women are, in a sense, in direct competition with each other for their stated goals. A blueprint for success is inher…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/18 12:10 AM
1

This is simply a mental hurdle you have to continue past. TGP would not necessarily have to equal TRP in it's intent and goals. As you said yourself They want love, respect, compatibility and reciprocity. So the question is, how would women best achieve their respective goals and sexual strategy? That's how we would define TGP it seems to me. Would you agree?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/18 12:06 AM
3

The Green Pill wouldn't necessarily have to counter TRP, it would just be focused on the goals of women and their sexual imperative. Doing as you said might be counterproductive to that goal, or would it not?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/02/18 11:46 PM
1

This might be a testament to the cunning and sophistication of women. You're suggesting women internalize their optimal sexual strategy by default, or through the process of socialization as a teen. Meanwhile, I would suggest men are ignorant and poorly socialized fools who can't read between the lines. Do you think this justifies some form of education for young men, in the fashion of if not exactly like TRP? Obviously as a BPer you disagree with parts of TRP, but does that mean you believe som…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/02/18 11:43 PM
1

Do you think a 1:1 type of contrasting ideology to TRP cannot exist? Do you think the closest you could get to TRP from a females perspective is RPW? I think your point about love is an important distinction here, because men and women want different things. However, those things can still be included in an overall sexual strategy.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/02/18 11:25 PM
0

Instead of MGTOW it would be called MGG (go gay). That doesn't exactly line up with what Green Pill in theory should be.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/02/18 11:23 PM
5

RPW is concessionary. I'm more curious about what an uncompromising sexual strategy would look like in contrast to TRP. Is it possible for that to exist?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/02/18 11:19 PM
2

The contrasting color of Red is Green. It's possible to have a contrasting ideology to TRP, is it not? That's part of the question I'm posing.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/02/18 11:13 PM
3

This is the uncomfortable truth women have to process. Men don't have an inherent purpose to bring vast wealth to the world for the benefit of women or the rest of society. In a vain attempt to come to grips with their cognitive dissonance, a typical reply to your statement would be an attempt to shame you. "You would only produce enough value to satiate your desire for sex? Pathetic. If I met you in real life I would never have sex with you, and I would tell other women to avoid you as well."
/r/PurplePillDebate13/02/18 09:46 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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