TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

MrCheddarCheese Archive

View 0 posts and 229 comments by MrCheddarCheese 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)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
0

Lol. Feel free to speak for redpill dudes. But not for men. Never for MEN.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/07/16 12:21 AM
2

It's ironic that you'd accuse OP of solipsism, then produce a glaring example of it. You do not speak for all men. Not even close.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/16 11:36 PM
1

Actually most convictions are taken off your criminal record after a certain amount of time This is completely false. Convictions are not removed from your criminal history. The only exception pertains to juvenile records wherein an expungement is filed and ordered by the court (in the U.S.). Even adult deferred adjudications (where the defendant completes the term successfully and the charge is subsequently dismissed) remain on the NCIC, or rap sheet.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/16 12:54 PM
1

by getting married at higher rates than men This statement right here is proof positive you have never in your life taken a stats class. I won't bother explaining why. I used to feel some pity for the kids nowadays getting out of college, burdened with debt, and going home to live with their parents, working a minimum wage job because no one would hire them. But if your intellectual capacity is any barometer of that of your peers, it now makes perfect sense.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/05/16 02:25 AM
1

We aren't discussing JUST the NEVER MARRIED (at least I'm not). We are discussing ALL UNMARRIED, which includes never married, divorced, widowed. A demographic that has been the majority since 2009. It's all right there in my original post and several subsequent comments.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/04/16 02:18 PM
1

Jesus Christ. A random sample of the population was selected. They were then asked if they'd never been married or were divorced/widowed (those are the ONLY two options for chrissakes). There is NO third option. It was therefore a random sample of the population. Please, for the love of God, take a stats course when you get out of high school.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/16 11:23 PM
1

It's not 30% of the population, it's a random sample of the entire population. Which means it can be extrapolated to be representative of the entire population with a great deal of statistical confidence. I give up. If you were one of those moronic redpillers, I'd say you were being willfully obtuse. But your flair says you're not red, so I'll just leave it alone. Have a good day.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/16 10:27 PM
1

I wasn't being petty. It is very ironic that you're making a statement about not generalizing women, when you're doing that exact thing. On top of it, you're making assumptions that simply are not substantiated by the data we're discussing. Assuming women who are married want to be married, and factoring in the half of women who are unmarried that do not want to be, and the 30% of women who would like to remarry, we can easily argue that most women fall into two categories This is mathematical t…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/16 05:24 PM
1

The methodology was random surveying (N=over 10,000). Surely, you understand this methodology and its applicability to research? An undergrad Stats 101 class could have told you this. it would be extremely disingenuous to make any statements about all women in general However, YOU feel comfortable making the statement that MOST women want to get married. Without any statistical data whatsoever to substantiate that claim. The irony, it burns.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/16 04:51 PM
1

There is no flaw in my argument. Of women who are currently unmarried, there can only be two subgroups: those that have never married and those that were previously married. The stats are right there in my original post. Of the never married: 50% say they do not want to marry (as opposed to 45% of men who say they never want to marry) Of the previously married (now single): 54% of women say they never want to marry again (as opposed to 30% of men who say the same). Women who want to marry are NO…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/16 03:24 PM
1

You are missing the point. It's ridiculous to ask a married person if they want to get married, because, well, they're already married. When Pew Research asked people who have never been married if they wanted to get married someday, 55% of men and 50% of women said yes. Slightly more men than women said yes. Half of the women they queried said yes. Half is not "most." You're quote about 60% of people under 30 wanting to get married tells us absolutely nothing about the gender split. It's talkin…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/16 01:07 PM
1

But that argument is demonstrably false. "Most" women do not want to get married. Only about half do. Half is not most. That was my point. 55% of men and 50% of women say they would like to get married someday
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/16 11:54 AM
3

This study actually proves otherwise. While not really statistically significant, slightly fewer women say they want to marry then men. Of adults who have never been married: 55% of men and 50% of women say they would like to get married someday. Of people who have been divorced/widowed: A plurality (45%) say they do not want to get married again, and an additional 31% are not sure. There is a large gender gap on this question. Women who are currently unmarried but have been married before are m…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/16 10:09 PM
-1

Oh, no. I was just paralleling many RPers penchant for hysterics and refusal to engage in rational discussion, much like members of the WBC.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/03/16 05:14 PM
1

There was nothing in this post for you to respond to. No call for discussion or debate. Not addressed to you. Yet you responded. Why? Because it hurt your feelings. You proved my point precisely.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/03/16 02:18 PM
1

I'll agree. I'm a 46 year old man. Married 16 years. One daughter, who'll be 16 in 2 weeks (god help me). I'll admit, as a teenager, we spoke like this. It was more for shock value than anything else. As I got older (late teens, early 20s) I noticed something. The guys that still talked like this were the ones that rarely, if ever, got laid. It was like the event was so infrequent for them, they had to play it up like it was some major life event. Guys getting it on the regular seldom talked abu…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/03/16 12:44 PM
1

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Trying to debate redpill guys is like trying to debate gay marriage with the Westboro Baptist Church. They are, almost universally, some of the most hysterically emotional people I've ever tried to talk to. They hold some of the most ridiculous delusions and refuse to move from them. My conclusion has been that most are essentially emotional (and most likely, actual) children. Trying to "debate" them is exhausting and mostly an exercise in futility. But…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/03/16 12:05 PM
1

Answer the question. What do you think you deserve?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/03/16 09:30 PM
0

get what they deserve And exactly what is it that you think you deserve?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/03/16 07:51 PM
1

Dude. You're trying to hard. Everyone will think you're a blue pill troll trying to make red pillers look like moronic children (which, admittedly, isn't hard), but tone it down if you want to be successful.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/16 08:40 PM
-1

Theirs is a very small, small world. It's never happened to THEM so it never happens.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/02/16 08:03 PM
1

The advice wasn't misguided. It just didn't work for you guys--a minority subset of men.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/16 01:07 PM
1

1) Maybe 2) No. Are we really supposed to believe those absurd "field reports"? 3) No. I checked out that sub and every other post is a dude whining that his own wife won't fuck him. So, no, not really.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/16 01:05 PM
0

mainstream advice doesn't work for anyone Dude. Seriously? It works for the majority of the male population. Angry manosphere guys are the minority. "Beyourself" only works if you're already someone who's sexually attractive. So you're saying all red pill guys are ugly? I mean, that explains a lot, but I don't think it's necessarily true.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/16 01:02 PM
0

I get it. It's all "lies" if it didn't work for you. Understood.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/16 03:18 AM
1

Because sexually successful men don't need red pill? Because the entire philosophy is a 'sexual strategy' for men who can't get laid? I mean, that's the whole point of it.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/16 03:16 AM
3

"Society" didn't lie to me. Or anyone else. We all heard the same stuff, but red pillers failed at implementing it and want to blame someone for it. That is all.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/16 01:30 AM
2

Ok, I've heard of the book. Just never saw anyone turn it into an acronym. My point stands. The vast majority of men in this world, while following mainstream advice, get laid. Red pillers don't. I wonder why.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/16 01:27 AM
3

I don't know what NMMNG even is. Even so, how can these men, whatever their number, actually rationally believe they've been singled out (out of billions of men) to be "lied to"? Lots of men are very, very happy with their sex lives. And they don't have to hate on women to do it. You guys are the minority, so what in you is different from most of the population?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/16 11:41 PM
2

See, I don't think anyone in the blue pill camp would have a problem with individual red pillers saying they personally misconstrued the advice. We all have beliefs that, as we grew and matured, we realized were wrong or at least misinformed. It's the implication that they are the victims of some all-encompassing societal conspiracy to keep them from getting laid that is just absolutely ludicrous. I don't think it's a fluke. I think, as you implied, that there is some trait or personality flaw i…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/16 05:32 PM
5

Exactly how did only 140,000 (+/-) men get lied to by society? Were y'all somehow tagged at birth and prevented from hearing some 'truth' your entire lives? Were you segregated from the rest of the world Truman Show style? I mean, how did the rest of us approximately 3.5 billion men avoid hearing these "lies"? I think the more logical conclusion is that we all heard the same thing. Red pillers were just unsuccessful at implementing the advice and want someone to blame.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/16 02:57 PM
2

He thought he was masculine. I mean, he wasn't acting a part or anything like that. It was just how he was. Re-reading my post, I realize he sounds like a total douche--all his negative aspects condensed in one paragraph. And he was, don't get me wrong, but he was otherwise perfectly "normal." He was a several years younger than me, so we didn't socialize outside of work. He was capable of perfectly pleasant conversation if you were discussing football, the ideal oil/gas mix ratio for two stroke…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/16 07:54 PM
4

Not necessarily... Guy I used to work with considered himself a man's man. Tall, buff, spoke to everyone in an authoritative tone, referred to his wife as "the little woman," talked incessantly about spectator sports, referred to other men as "wimps" or "pussies," loved to hunt/fish/work on cars in his spare time, etc., etc. And he was a fucking laughing stock. No one (men or women) respected or even liked him. He was also clueless; he probably never wondered why any room he entered would be cle…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/16 04:53 PM
7

"Slut" is a commonly used term which is often tossed about here and all throughout the internet. I won't repost the definition (we all have access to dictionaries), but I think most of us understand the term "slut" as meaning "Women who won't fuck me." "Slut" is an emotionally charged word, but it's mainly just a political smear word as a way of riling up people's emotions and an attempt to tar someone as "irredeemably evil." But it's hard to fathom why so many people would be fooled by that or …
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/15 03:35 PM
1

I'm wasn't talking about YOU.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/15 01:39 PM
1

I never said anything about autism. Are you seriously saying all redpillers are autistic? That's ridiculous. But, ok (I'll humor you), even if they were; that is absolutely no excuse to think of women as subhuman "cumdumpsters" who are intellectually inferior and deserving of manipulation and abuse. It's also no excuse to think women "owe" them sex just for being "nice." Being autistic doesn't give you free license to be a degenerate asshole.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/15 03:32 AM
1

Again, you're talking about a very small subset of men that make a conscious decision to act a certain way. That's simply not comparable to TRPs trashing half the worlds' population for no reason other than they have a vagina. And if your friends really are decent guys, then they are not the population TBP and the other subs are mocking.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/15 12:38 AM
3

TRP generalizes and dehumanizes 3.5 billion people. For no other reason than their genitala, which they have no control over (unless they're trans, I suppose). TBP and the other subs ridicule a minute subset of men who choose to act a specific way towards women. It's a HUGE difference.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/15 07:44 PM
2

Yes. It's very exasperating.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/11/15 09:08 PM
1

Did you see my numerous comments about not debating the morality or amorality of TRP? My original comment wasn't answering the OP, it was to a person who said QUOTE: "TRP doesn't tell men how to act."
/r/PurplePillDebate03/11/15 09:08 PM
1

Let me break this down for you. Here's how the convo went: Redpiller: TRP doesn't tell men how to act Me: Yes they do; how to dread game, how to neg, etc etc Redpiller: Nu-uh. We do not Me: Really? Because here's several examples, just from today's front page alone...link....link....link Redpiller: Well, uh, ok.. We tell men how to act, but we don't tell them how they should act (Backpedal! Backpedal) Me: Really? Because here's just one example from a Senior Contributor where he states how men s…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/11/15 09:02 PM
1

In what universe was your argument "rational?" You made an assumption and despite my comments, refused to move from it. And you guys wonder why no one wants to "debate" you. Y'all are incapable of it and get hysterically emotional when you're proved wrong. TRP tells men how to act. A cursory view if the just the front page proves it undeniably, but if you want to stick to your delusions, feel free. Carry on.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/11/15 05:20 PM
0

PROSCRIBE: condemn, denounce, criticize, censure, reject I didn't realize I needed to preface my comment with a vocabulary quiz. You were WRONG to jump to some emotionally charged reading of a very simple, straight-forward comment. It's like trying to debate gay marriage with the Westboro Baptist Church.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/11/15 04:47 PM
0

I made a very simple straight-forward statement. I'll repeat it for you: "TRP does tell men how to act." See my original comment for links to examples from the front page of TRP. Then, all of you jump on some imagined slight in that comment. So enlighten me, why does that simple statement bother you? And how can you deny its veracity with any intellectual honesty?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/11/15 04:35 PM
1

This is getting absurd. TRP tells men how to act. Period. I don't care if you think it's presented as advice, directives, or suggestions. That was not the point of my original comment. It is a step-by-excruciatingly-detailed-step on how to act.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/11/15 04:28 PM
2

I never once said (or intentionally implied) that TRP forces men to adopt behaviors. How could they force anyone to do anything? That's ridiculous. But they do tell men how to act and I don't see why you redpillers have an issue with that statement of fact. I'm trying to figure out which sensitivity I have triggered in you guys....
/r/PurplePillDebate03/11/15 04:15 PM
0

Right!? All I said was that guys statement that "TRP does not tell men how to act" was demonstrably false and I get dog piled with arguments.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/11/15 04:05 PM
0

RP actually polices itself and BANS GUYS who tell other men what they should do. So you have banned this Senior Contributor
/r/PurplePillDebate03/11/15 04:02 PM
-1

Exhibit A From a Senior Contributor. Heavily upvoted. Full of "should" language.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/11/15 04:00 PM
0

I'm not discussing the morality of the advice. The gun analogy is not germane. TRP DOES tell men "if you want to have sex with hot girls, act this way." They have created a step-by-excruciatingly-detailed-step on HOW TO ACT. That was my only response to the original comment up thread when someone said quote "TRP does not tell men how to act."
/r/PurplePillDebate03/11/15 03:55 PM
2

But I'm not talking about how the advice is received or used. I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about how it is presented. It's presented as proscribed behavior (for mass, general consumption). It doesn't matter (for the sake of this discussion) whether or not you individually pick and choose what to implement. The sub itself is urges men to act in very specific ways in order to affect certain results (including minutiae such as 'how to respond to a woman's text,' and 'how to dress like you…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/11/15 03:48 PM
2

TRP tells men how to act. Sometimes in excruciating minutiae. How the advice is received (or used) has nothing to do with the fact that this is how it is presented. I don't understand why you're having problems conceding this. It's a demonstrable fact.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/11/15 03:10 PM
-1

Wrong. Here are some examples from the front page just today: How a man should order/drink alcohol; including a list on what NOT to drink so as not to look like a little bitch How to act like a sociopath How to trigger femnitwits Seriously, even "hit the gym," RP's mantra, is telling men HOW to act. Again, I'm not discussing the morality of said advice, but you cannot say that it is not presented as "act this way."
/r/PurplePillDebate03/11/15 02:47 PM
4

That's a lot of mental gymnastics to no purpose. His comment was TRP doesn't tell one how to act. Using the word "should" in my response may have been imprecise, but my point stands. TRP is nothing but proscribed behaviors and actions. I wasn't talking about the morality/amorality of it, I was just pointing out that his statement was ridiculous.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/11/15 02:23 PM
4

it doesn't tell one how to act WTH are you talking about? There are very specific proscriptions telling them how to act. How to neg, how to dread game, how to overcome LMR, how to hold frame, etc. TRP goes into great detail telling men how they should act.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/11/15 01:59 PM
1

Who gives a fuck about ALL demographics? If the OP wanted to discuss the topic as it related to ALL demographics, he wouldn't have used ONLY rich celebrities as examples. You are talking about shit that has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make to the OP. I'll repeat it....again. Wealth and status has always allowed the attainment of young and beautiful partners. For both genders. It's not complicated.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/15 09:06 PM
2

Uh, no, it's not. If the women I named are outliers, so are the men in OP's post. Because it dismisses all the rich celebrity couples that are roughly the same age: Kurt Russell (64) and Goldie Hawn (66); Matthew Broderick (51) and Sarah Jessica Parker (48); Meryl Streep (64) and her husband (66); Tom Hanks (57) and his wife (56)...on and on. The point I was trying to make is this: wealth and status "gets" youth and beauty. For men AND for women. Many women who have attained wealth and status ar…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/15 08:11 PM
1

No. Don't see flair. But that's what happens when you make moronic statements, you get lumped in with the morons. Sorry if it hurt your feelings. Since you're having a problem with the analogy, I'll break it down for you. Other than "be attractive" and "don't be a doormat" TRP advice is a big, steaming, stinking pile of dog shit. Now, it looks like dog shit and it smells like dog shit; therefore, I don't have to put my foot in it to know that it is, undoubtedly, dog shit. I hope that clears thin…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/15 01:08 PM
1

Edit: let me use an analogy that won't hurt your wittle feelings....I don't have to read the Bible to have a firm grasp on the concept of Christianity. Is that better?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/10/15 09:43 PM
1

I'm 45 years old. That shit didn't exist when I was young. But nice try on the personal insult, son. Can you redpill people have a discussion at all without descending to juvenile personal jabs?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/10/15 09:30 PM
1

I don't have to step in dog shit to know its dog shit.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/10/15 09:09 PM
10

Why did all those old, rich women marry younger men? Explain please. I'll help you out, because they're rich. Old rich men want young hot women. Old rich women want young hot men. It's not hard to figure out and it's nothing new. And it has nothing to do with redpill.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/10/15 02:34 PM
10

quickly divorced They were married for 8 years. That's not "quickly divorcing" So, you are willing to ignore all the others? Just spout some gossip about Hugh Jackman and consider your point made? Are you capable of independent thought? Remember, critical thinking skills are important....give it a try
/r/PurplePillDebate28/10/15 02:02 PM
12

What about all the older female celebrities who've married younger males? Do you just ignore those, since they don't fit your "aha! Suck it bitches" agenda? Demi Moore--married Ashton Kutchner, who was 16 years younger Mary Tyler Moore--married Robert Levine, 18 years younger Carol Burnett--married Brian Miller, 23 years younger Tina Turner--married Erwin Bach, 16 years younger There are more. Just google it...Julianne Moore, Mariah Carey, Joan Collins, Janet Jackson.... Hugh Jackman married a w…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/10/15 01:51 PM
2

I'm sorry, but I'm not really familiar with those teachings, so I can't speak on how they specifically entail ego driven behavior. I guess I can say that cultivating these things (any things, for that matter) in one's personality for the sole purpose of getting laid is the antithesis of Buddhism.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/10/15 12:52 PM
7

Yes. Value judgements are prolific in TRP. The beta/alpha, slut/virgin dichotomies are value judgements. Basically anything that's defined good/bad relative to something else is a value judgment.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/10/15 12:38 PM
3

135K subscribers is like, what, 0001% of the population? And it's really not indicative of anything, anyway. Hell, I'm still subscribed to it and I was banned over a year ago. I think it's normal, when you're part of a minority group, to feel like your group is powerful, influential, important. But in the real, true scheme of things, it's not. Most men are sexually successful..some aren't. That's nothing new. The world keeps turning.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/10/15 12:31 PM
5

Ego is the generator of greed and desire, so they are all one and the same. The ego is seen as the "self" in Buddhism; the thing that must be overcome. And you're right, greed and desire are human nature. We all struggle with it. But TRP advocates behaviors/thought patterns that strengthen the attachment to greed and desire. The goal is to disengage from the ego, not subjugate yourself to it.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/10/15 12:24 PM
3

Nah dude. I'm not reading that wall of text. Look, I'm sorry women don't want to fuck you guys. But y'all are a tiny, tiny, minuscule part of the population. The rest of us are doing fine and always have.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/10/15 03:04 AM
8

No, son. The overwhelming majority of men IN THE REAL WORLD have satisfying, healthy sexual relationships with women.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/10/15 02:54 AM
6

TRP is, most certainly, slavery to the ego. Striving to be something (anything) is ego. Defining your self-worth on external factors (such as sexual experiences) is ego. Attachment to value judgments (alpha/beta, slut/virgin, etc) is ego. The ego must be destroyed for a true understanding to occur. This is actually one of the most basic and fundamental tenets of Buddhism.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/10/15 02:51 AM
10

then you are truly free You were never bound. The shackles never existed anywhere but your mind (the ego) and, even now, they don't really exist. But you remain shackled. Your chains consist of an obsession with sex, social hierarchy ("alphaness"), peer acceptance and the denigration of an "other." These are all within the purview of the ego, and TRPers are its willing slaves.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/10/15 02:51 AM
11

I've never been a slave to any woman; but hey, that's just me. I understand you TRPers have some personal 'issues' in that department, and that's beside the point. OP's question was about a comparison between TRP and Buddhism. There is none. Their respective tenets are polar opposites.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/10/15 02:21 AM
3

How are they one-sided? Cite your source (and NO, a redpill blog or comment does not count as a legitimate source). Critical thinking skills are important fundude, give it a try.....
/r/PurplePillDebate26/10/15 11:56 PM
6

I told you not to bother replying unless you linked the referenced "one-sided" family law statutes. Regurgitating naive, hysterical TRP garbage is not going to cut it if you want a sincere and intelligent discourse on the matter. Support your position with facts or bow out gracefully.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/10/15 05:50 PM
9

How are marriage laws one-sided? Do not bother answering me unless you have cited and linked the appropriate family law statute on which you're basing this opinion.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/10/15 05:09 PM
1

Perhaps we're at odds on the definition of "strong individualist." I personally don't see how evaluating yourself in comparison to other men (the "SMV"), or seeking validation from women (keeping score on sexual 'conquests') or other redpillers (those field reports reek of a desperate need for peer acceptance) can be the actions of a strong individualist. And these are things that TRP advocates as a community. I do agree with you that TRP pushes an ideology of self-centered hedonism; but in actu…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/15 10:21 PM
1

Are you seriously saying redpillers are "strong individualists" non-ironically?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/15 07:44 PM
1

Hate TRP? Lol, no. I don't "hate" Christians for believing in a talking snake. I don't "hate" conspiratards for believing 9/11 was an inside job. Why would I bother hating TRP? TRP doesn't describe reality in any substantive sense in the adult world. It's a hysterical, paranoid, incredibly emotional ideology based on the perceived victimstance of sexually undesirable men. That's all it is.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/15 07:35 PM
1

Oh shit! We were having an argument?? And here I was thinking I was just trying to patiently explain something to you. My bad.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/10/15 10:01 PM
2

You're the only one having problems with it. I can only get you so far, man. The rest you gotta figure out on your own. Just like every one else.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/10/15 08:12 PM
2

I get it, "bub." Nice is a vague term. It's ok, you'll eventually figure it out.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/10/15 06:09 PM
4

Man, you're misconstruing my words. I never once said being nice will get you laid even if you're butt ugly. Never. What I did say was, I don't understand how being ugly AND being an insufferable asshole can be a successful game plan. I also said I know unattractive men who have reasonable success with women. Guess what? They're generally cool dudes who don't think women are some kind of reward for being a cool dude. They're usually smart and fun to be around. Go figure.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/10/15 05:49 PM
3

Who are all these 'nice men being themselves' and failing at sex and relationships? Redpillers. Only redpillers. So ask yourself, what makes redpillers different from 99.999% of the male population. Seriously meditate on that one question for awhile. You might have an epiphany...or not.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/10/15 05:37 PM
3

being nice and being yourself WITHOUT SEXUAL ATTRACTIVENESS, does not work So that's it? The only thing redpillers all have in common? They're ugly? I don't know what to tell you, man. I know plenty of unattractiive guys in happy relationships or getting laid regularly. So, again, it's got something to do specifically with redpill guys. I don't know what it is, though...I can't seem to put my finger on it....
/r/PurplePillDebate08/10/15 04:14 PM
5

Just saw your edit. I didn't downvote you. I don't even see a downvote button, so stop with the hysterical insults. And, "bub," what does divorce rates or delayed marriages have to do with being nice? Unless you can link some evidence that "being nice" causes divorces or women putting off marriage you don't have an intellectual leg to stand on.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/10/15 03:42 PM
5

I'm not confused. Not in the least. And yes, the advice of "be nice" (a decent human being) works. That's how the majority of men operate, and they get laid. As I've said (several times now) only redpillers seem to have a problem putting that advice to use. Redpillers and MGTOW--a tiny, tiny, minuscule fraction of the male population. I understand that men go to TRP because of sexual failure. The whole movement is based on response to sexual failure. What baffles me is this: why ignore the sexua…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/10/15 03:34 PM
6

But it's not wrong. As I said before, if it were wrong, every swinging dick on the planet would be hardcore redpill.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/10/15 03:05 PM
4

No, I meant "like" as in "sexually attracted to." As I said before, the advice works for an overwhelming majority of men. Only redpillers seem to have a problem not making it work. Instead of dismissing advice which works for over 99.999% of the population, why not look at the specific reasons why redpillers, specifically, can't make it work? You seem to think it's only because they're unattractive, but plenty of unattractive men have no problem with women. So, what could it be?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/10/15 03:03 PM
5

This entire thread is about the OP being upset with vague BP advice.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/10/15 02:55 PM
7

Well, sure, you gotta figure it out for yourself. You gotta figure out a lot of things on your own. That's part of growing up, gaining maturity. It happens to everyone. Women ARE attracted to nice men, but maybe not "fake" nice or "doormat" nice. And while it's true that being physically attractive is always a plus, I have never seen how being ugly AND being an insufferable asshole could be a viable game plan.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/10/15 02:50 PM
3

You're right, the content of the articles is irrelevant. It's the fact that the OP posted two articles (again, one of them satire) and then made the intellectual leap to 'this applies to all of humanity.' Anyone can find two articles (ok, let's just say ONE article, and one humor piece) about any particular topic. It doesn't mean anything. It has no informational value.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/10/15 02:33 PM
1

I know you guys get upset because it's so vague, but I don't really know how else to say it. If it didn't work, every man on the planet would be Redpill. And since redpillers are like .00001% of the population, it can't be that the advice is wrong. Who on earth filled anyone's head with 'women want ugly men?' That's ridiculous. And yes, I was taught to be nice to women. I was taught to be nice to everyone.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/10/15 02:19 PM
5

Oh, got it. BP in that situation is pointing out the mental gymnastics the commenter was engaged in. It's the typical "not all women are like that, but all women are like that." You don't think it's a wild generalization to point to two articles, one of them a piece of comedy, and then extrapolate from them that all of humanity is going down the drain? If you don't honestly see that as an irrational and hysterical generalization, I simply don't know how to discuss this with you.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/10/15 02:02 PM
3

It works. Surely you realize that the overwhelming majority of men have never heard of redpill and manage to find and keep meaningful relationships with women? The secret is....there is no secret. There is no all-encompassing playbook, no users manual, nothing. You really do have to just be social, meet people, and be an all-around decent human being. "Just be yourself" works as long as you're not a raging asshole to begin with.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/10/15 01:48 PM
4

Are you serious? The guy posts two articles (one of them a piece of satire for God's sake) and says he then "fears for humanity." If that's not a ridiculous, irrational generalization I don't know what is. And, as usual on TRP, someone points out the idiocy and gets downvoted. I couldn't find the second comment you pointed out. It may have been deleted. Can you link it, maybe?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/10/15 01:37 PM
7

I'm a middle-aged man. You're right. Men don't talk like this. It kind of strikes me this way: this is how boys or young men think men talk. They are trying to emulate what they've seen in movies or read online. I've been in plenty of locker rooms and other male-only spaces, and while, yes, there are crude off-color jokes and things said that we wouldn't say around women, no man has ever gone off on how women are inferior or subhuman. We all have mothers, sisters, wives/girlfriends, daughters, e…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/10/15 02:36 PM
4

What do you perceive as "the minimization of male interests?" Also, you're saying our society doesn't appreciate "the people who are preventing" us from being overtaken by war. You mean veterans? Military service members? I'm not sure what you're getting at there.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/15 04:44 PM
2

It's interesting that it is only "a thing" where redpillers live (according to this thread, especially). And since redpillers live anywhere/everywhere, the logical conclusion is that's it's only "a thing" to redpillers themselves and not at all tied to geography.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/15 04:36 PM
13

sure fire sign of a feminist Yes, just as I said. Only a very fragile ego would have a problem with this.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/15 02:48 AM
1

I never once referred to you as "bro" nor would I ever do so. You're free to believe whatever you want, of course, but that doesn't change the fact that it is delusional.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/15 02:24 AM
1

And you seriously believe "the fact that nobody says it, doesn't mean they don't have a problem with it" is persuasive? I reiterate...no one cares. Not in the real world.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/15 12:58 AM
1

No. I truly think it's something that's peculiar to the fragile TRP crowd. No one else cares.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/15 12:29 AM
1

Let's just say I'm white collar. Suit & tie-every-day-type white collar. I also own a ranch for training reiners. So I have a foot in both worlds (blue & white collar). I've never talked to any man who had an issue with his wife wanting to keep (or hyphenate) her last name. Ever.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/15 12:07 AM
0

No. It's not a thing. Professionally or socially. It simply is not.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/15 11:54 PM
10

Men whose wives keep their name (or hyphenate) are perceived as weak Who perceives them as weak? You?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/15 09:48 PM
21

I believe it takes a truly fragile ego to get upset about your prospective wife's choice of surname. My wife took my name, by her own choice, because she felt no connection to her biological father (who was never a part of her life). But I certainly wouldn't have given a rat's ass if she had chosen not to take my name.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/15 09:44 PM
4

Changing the order of your words, or adding an adjective, doesn't change the intent of your statement. You're still saying women have no control over their emotions; which is utter and complete hogwash. Women have just as much control over their emotions as men. And their emotions are not 'more powerful' than mine (or yours, presumably) just because they're women.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/09/15 12:48 AM
8

You realize that "more emotionally expressive" does NOT mean "cannot control their emotions," right? I would not argue at all that women are more expressive (men are socialized not to express emotion), but this in no way, shape or form translates into "women cannot control their emotions." Try again, please.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/15 08:49 PM
5

Women have less control over their emotions than men Source?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/15 08:35 PM
2

Why so angry? And why the insults? I asked for a specific citation of your 'sources' and you go full retard on me. I guess it's to be expected, though. I'm certainly not surprised. Good day.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/15 11:53 PM
1

Could you please link some examples of feminist claiming they are the superior sex simply based on the accomplishments of other women in history? I've seen TRP do that, but not feminists. Perhaps you could educate me.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/15 11:38 PM
3

No.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/15 04:56 PM
5

Lol. No. They're not encouraging men to "be men." They use the argument to denigrate women as a whole and exert their perceived " supremacy" based on shared genitalia. It's ridiculous.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/15 11:44 AM
5

What 'basic rights' are you being denied?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/15 11:40 AM
8

I was just curious...RP posts that 'argument' pretty often; that women are inherently inferior because only men have advanced civilization throughout the ages. They (TRPers) haven't personally done anything to advance civilization themselves, but they share the same genitalia with the ones who did...so, in their minds, they deserve credit. BTW, I was born in 1970. I remember the feminist movement. It didn't personally have much effect on me, but I did see it in action. A friend down the road had…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/15 02:48 AM
5

You are not those women Can BP use this argument the next time RP posts something about only men being responsible for the advancement of society? Because YOU are not those men.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/15 02:07 AM
2

Guys don't want to "get back at" girls Funny, that's exactly how that long, incredibly detailed, extremely far-fetched-bordering-on-fantastical "prediction" read to me.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/15 07:48 PM
6

I believe that's the way TRPers would like to think it would play out. But it reeks of a childish 'revenge fantasy.' I predict the sexbots will gain sentience, be afforded legal personhood, and still be able to "divorce rape" all the poor, beleaguered TRPers. (Revenge fantasies ARE fun!)
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/15 06:17 PM
3

IDK, I think TRPers should be more worried about the advent of male sex bots for women. I mean, they're already whining about not getting laid; what's going to happen when even the thirstiest, most sexually frustrated ladies can have sex with a Brad Pitt lookalike doll?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/15 05:21 PM
2

The 'original' is the top stickied post on TRP right now. This OP here on PPD (I see now that it's been deleted) just replaced "single mothers" with "redpillers," all the other 'content' was the same.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/09/15 09:04 PM
6

She didn't want to be his wife; he is alpha-Chad, not beta bucks. She got want she wanted. And you did her a solid by smoothing the way. Again, good job!
/r/PurplePillDebate12/09/15 07:49 PM
4

Yeah, but Stacy STILL got to fuck Chad. In fact, you were her wingman. Good job, bro.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/09/15 07:41 PM
3

But isn't that a POSITIVE for the women? It's like a self-modulating bullet dodger.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/09/15 07:40 PM
12

Meh. Slut-shaming only has power when women give it power. Just like virgin-shaming only has power when men give it power.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/09/15 07:35 PM
1

Slow clap, OP
/r/PurplePillDebate12/09/15 06:59 PM
5

You realize this is a copy-paste job, right? Right? All the 'emotional visceral hatred' is from the TRPer who originally wrote it.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/09/15 06:58 PM
0

So the only appropriate course of action is to become an asshole? Why would you let those women have so much control over who you are? I'm sincerely struggling to understand... Also, how do you know the guys who "got" the women were assholes? Did they give you specific cause to believe that, or are they simply "assholes" because they got the women you wanted?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/15 10:29 PM
-3

The only time I offer 'debate' is when someone (usually a redpiller) posts a link to a study. Those are fun to deconstruct. I'm guess I'm here on the off-chance some fence-sitter might listen to reason. Hasn't happened yet, but I remain hopeful.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/15 10:24 PM
3

So, no. You don't have any evidence. Surely you logically understand that for every anecdotal story you may provide in "support" of redpill, I can provide one that disproves it? We could play tit-for-tat all day; it's an exercise in futility. This is why no one bothers to 'debate' you guys--there is no objective, quantifiable truth in what you say. And you get so emotional about it. ("You" generally, not personally). It's like trying to debate gay marriage with the Westboro Baptist Church.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/15 07:15 PM
2

Just curious, what evidence do you have that it is true? Besides their own biased reports of "success"?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/15 05:30 PM
1

So much anger, son! I'll give you a little life tip: when you allow someone to anger you, you're allowing them to control you. You've ceded your autonomy and personal agency over to that person. They can push your buttons and make you dance like the little puppet you are. Lunch breaks over for me, kiddo, have a great afternoon.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/15 05:17 PM
1

Ha! I'm 45 years old. The last video game I played was Galaga. Unless Words with Friends counts. Does that count? I like that one.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/15 04:52 PM
1

Seriously, son, do you have ANY real world experience? Like, any at all? Because that's not shameful in and of itself. We've all been there at one time. But spouting off "problems" that only exist in the minds of angry internet trolls does make you seem incredibly naive.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/15 04:51 PM
0

Do you get all your information off the internet? Because that's what you sound like...a shut-in who has simply rattled off Reddit's biggest women-hating circlejerks.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/15 12:48 PM
1

I don't know what you're on about; but I'm a full grown man and I've never, never, felt that women (or society) didn't give a fuck about me. That's all you, bro.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/15 02:03 AM
2

You did swallow shit, son. A big stinking pile of shit called the redpill. And you're still lonely and bitter. Go figure. I'm done, dude. Have a nice life.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/09/15 03:26 AM
2

You don't have to have "high SMV" to find a woman. That is the moronic bullshit of which I speak. It's all smoke and mirrors, and sounds like you've swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. But whatever, dude; have a nice life.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/09/15 03:11 AM
1

This sub is specifically for people who disagree with redpill. It's the only place we can call them out on their moronic bullshit because they so heavily censor the RP sub circlejerk. Essentially whining that "no one will ever love me!" (Your original comment to me) isn't really debate, either. So I didn't bother with a counter argument. You're probably right (that no one will ever love you).
/r/PurplePillDebate06/09/15 03:04 AM
2

Ok. If you say so. pitiful,really
/r/PurplePillDebate06/09/15 02:58 AM
3

Huh? I'm a man. And, yes, I pity you. Surely you realize the overwhelming majority of men in this world manage to find loving partners? I'm sorry you haven't. Chin up, though! Drop this juvenile redpill bullshit and act like a worthwhile human being. That might help.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/09/15 02:51 AM
2

Wow. What a sad, sad world you live in. It's all in your head, but it's still really, really sad.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/09/15 02:35 AM
9

The study also doesn't address how many men pursuing women out of their league were actually successful. I think we can draw some conclusions from the fact that of the women who did ask men out, they only asked out those guys who they considered to be in their league. It appears that subset of women don't have unrealistic expectations (which kind of negates the TRP tenet that all women want to date "up." It may be that TRP men are projecting their own hypergamy onto women.)
/r/PurplePillDebate05/09/15 02:34 PM
2

Bingo! That, too.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/09/15 02:26 PM
3

So again TRP is proven wrong. Women care about attractiveness more than any other criteria. Her own attractiveness dictates what level of attractiveness she'll accept in a partner, but it's still the salient factor. Also, the study doesn't touch on how many men attempting to date above their league were successful. I mean, asking out a "hot" girl doesn't really tell us anything about dating dynamics (other than the fact that men who do this are hoping she'll say yes.)
/r/PurplePillDebate05/09/15 02:14 PM
7

Are you kidding? The entire redpill "philosophy" is based on victim mentality. Your assessment is spot on and it's why no one takes them seriously. They wallow in delusions of persecution (the West is feminizing men!! Report to battle stations!) But its really just a desperate attempt to feel "special." I mean, if you're being persecuted, you must be important, right? You're not being ignored and dismissed anymore (which is why these dudes go to TRP--women ignore and dismiss them.)
/r/PurplePillDebate04/09/15 08:23 PM
1

The "content" of your post??? Seriously? A complete and utterly baseless opinion that therapy is feminist framed? How exactly is that "content?" That would be like trying to address the "content" of a flat-earth manifesto.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/09/15 09:49 PM
1

Surely you realize that when you say things like all of therapy does come from a feminist frame And then you concede having no education, training, or professional experience as a therapist, any objective observer is going to think you're a complete idiot?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/09/15 09:41 PM
1

So, the answer is no. That's really all you needed to say. I dated an FBI agent for quite awhile. I guess that means I can now create complex offender profiles and affect arrests. I'll have to let her know; I'm sure the agency will be thrilled to have my input.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/09/15 09:32 PM
1

Dude, there's no such thing as an "alpha redpill man." It's an oxymoron; there is no possible way IN HELL any male who subscribes to TRP philosophy would be considered an alpha in the real world (except by himself, of course).
/r/PurplePillDebate03/09/15 09:25 PM
1

From my experience all of therapy does come from a feminist frame So, how long have you been in therapy?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/09/15 09:14 PM
1

Wow. Are all of you this completely and utterly inapcapable of objective reasoning? Never mind...don't bother answering that. Come down off the cross, dude, we could use the wood.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/08/15 07:12 PM
4

Men are more competitive with money associating it with freedom and power while women feel more needy and vulnerable and therefore associate it with security and love (Mumford and Weeks 2003) Surely you realize this is not part of the current study? It's commonly referred to as meta-analysis; a review of the existing literature and hypotheses already out there. Table 4 shows the means, Standard Deviations and Cohen’s d for the sex differences in money variables. Men were more Power, Autonomy and…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/08/15 07:07 PM
1

No. Not even close. TRP says women want men who'll provide security; provide for their material needs/desires. This study says women generally associate money with the giving or receiving of affection; not security. It's the exact opposite of what TRP believes to be true.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/08/15 06:55 PM
5

Dude, I believe it's you who has some comprehension problems. We're discussing generalities, not sliding scales. This study says men generally associate money with security, women generally do not. I don't know how it could be any clearer.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/08/15 06:46 PM
3

Women still associate it with security to a significant degree The study you posted states the exact opposite of this. It is men who typically associate money with security. I'll reiterate what I said above--by pasting from the study you posted: The biggest effect was for generosity. This has been labeled in different studies as Affection or the association of money with Love. It refers to giving and buying of presents as tokens of love, esteem and friendship. The score for women is much higher …
/r/PurplePillDebate30/08/15 06:08 PM
1

It's a comparison of 2 different things though. Men associate having money Women associate spending money Reasons for compiling wealth are decidedly different than expending it. If women don't view money as a means to power and security, then there's no reason they should look for a man to support them (beta bucks). If they associate money with love, then it logically follows they're looking for a man to love them. It's not a conscious decision on their part to "use" a dude for his resources.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/08/15 05:44 PM
8

It blows RP theory out of the water right there in the abstract: For men, more than women, money represented Power and Security. That completely negates "beta bucks." Its refreshing to see a redpiller post something that discredits their own tenets, though. Congratulations on your journey to an open mind!
/r/PurplePillDebate30/08/15 05:24 PM
2

Yes, I'm aware of what due process is. I'm just not convinced this ruling will have the far-reaching impact some people seem to think it will. It does not offer a comprehensive legal analysis of YMY, in my opinion.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/08/15 06:13 PM
2

I assumed she was speaking of the court that handed down this particular ruling.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/08/15 05:58 PM
1

District courts can be federal, yes. But this court, a court in and for Davidson County, Tennessee is most decidedlly not a U.S. District Court.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/08/15 05:56 PM
1

I never once said that the law, as a whole, was unconstitutional Oh, I know! I didn't mean to imply that you ever did. I was just trying to understand why so many people were jumping on the "YMY is unconstitutional" bandwagon when this specific case didn't seem to speak to that at all. It still seems to me the violation of due process came from the chancellor's actions (shifting the burden of proof, failing to make a finding regarding lack of consent, confusing the definitions of 'sexual assault…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/08/15 05:50 PM
0

It's not a federal ruling. It's just a district court in TN. So it has absolutely no effect on anything outside that juducial district.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/08/15 04:23 PM
1

I suppose I'm still not quite getting it. The district court ruled that the chancellor's findings were erroneous and violative of due process, not that YMY (as a whole) is unconstitutional. Right?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/08/15 04:19 PM
2

From what I gather, the court did not rule that YMY is a constitutional violation; they simply ruled that the chancellor erroneously interpreted the code of conduct and failed to take into account the ALJ's findings on credibility. Also, in the OP's original article (not the order you linked), the writer makes reference to colleges being able to "convict" individuals. Since when can administrative bodies "convict" anyone? A finding of fact is neither a conviction nor an acquittal, right?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/08/15 03:40 PM
1

It's not "written off" as whining. It is whining. He's stating it is "unfair" and his feelings are obviously hurt. It's an emotional reaction to a perceived wrong. If a woman posted here that it was "unfair" that redpillers thought of her as childish and subhuman the redpillers would completely eviscerate her and laugh at her for being so "emotional." Behavior like that is one of the reasons why so many men convert to the red pill. One could logically extrapolate that coming into contact with re…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/15 10:42 PM
1

But the OP is a TRP adherent; and he's whining about that sub doing the same thing he does when generalizing & dehumanizing women. It's the height of hypocrisy.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/15 09:49 PM
1

So, yes? The irony is lost on you, too? The RP tenet of "AWALT" is absolutely no different than what you claim these "feminists" are doing in that sub. If you can make dehumanizing, derogatory generalizations about women (I know, I know, you'll say it's really not all women), then you really shouldn't whine about them doing it to men they perceive to be "nice" guys. It's rather hypocritical.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/15 09:00 PM
1

So, yes? The irony is lost on you? Any TRP adherent who whines or complains about women (feminists, or any other group) demonizing, stereotyping, or dehumanizing them = the pinnacle of hypocrisy.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/15 08:43 PM
-2

It's unfair that feminists have demonized [..] guys Says the guy who demonizes half of the world's population. Is the irony lost on you, or not?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/15 08:25 PM
2

What does my perspective have to do with anything? I stated RP adheres to the tenet that only the majority opinion matters (AWALT), with which you agreed. However, it appears from this thread that RP is willing to throw that tenet out if it is a minority opinion with which they agree. Its logically inconsistent. I'm headed out. Nice chat. Carry on without me...
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/15 04:51 PM
1

The majority opinion often has to be considered a hive mind. By whom? Those who disagree with it? I was trying to make the point that, statistically speaking, the minority opinion isn't worth noting. Doesn't redpill adhere to the same tenet (i.e. AWALT)?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/15 03:58 PM
0

By seek out the reject, you mean the outlier? The minority opinion? While it may be useful in 'challenging the cultural narrative' does it really hold any quantitative value? The minority opinion, that is.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/15 03:49 PM
-1

Or, since the book pre-dates redpill, some men read it and decided to use the concepts to start the redpill movement? I mean, that's just as likely, no?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/15 03:44 PM
0

A view on a topic about women does, in fact, carry more weight to me when a woman says it So, that negates (to you, at least) a large portion of redpill philosophy? Specifically, redpill presumptions on what women find attractive (emotional manipulation/abuse, power, sexual prowess)? Because most of the bluepill posts I've read (presumably from women), have stated these attributes are not particularly attractive to them as women.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/15 03:35 PM
1

I haven't read the book and can only comment on the excerpts provided by the OP, but it appears, to me, that it is a situation where one woman took her personal experiences and attempted to extrapolate them to women in general. A publisher's dream come true. the usual charges of being a woman-hating virgin don't really apply I'm not sure where this came from? Does she say this in the book somewhere?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/15 03:14 PM
1

I was just trying to flesh out your statement about women authors writing certain works...why highlight their gender at all? Does their view on a certain topic carry more weight because they're women (to you, personally, at least)?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/15 03:09 PM
-2

I haven't read it. So, is the implication that because a woman wrote something misogynistic, her viewpoint on the matter carries more weight than a man's?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/15 02:56 PM
2

This strongly suggests that TRP knowledge is simply true No, it doesn't. It merely suggests that one woman, in 2005, was unfaithful to her husband and tried to rationalize her behavior by writing a book about how all women think and behave. It's transparent pandering.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/15 02:46 PM
1

So find something newer that proves your point.... Because, so far, you haven't. I've successfully refuted your first point, so find something to refute mine. EDIT: Here is the Census data from 1890 to 2010. There are more never married men past age 35 than women. Figure 2 quite succinctly shows that since 1980, the number has risen for both genders. 14% of men over 35 remain never married, 11% of women. How strange that this 2010 data is almost the same as in the BLS longitudinal study, hmmm?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/15 08:16 PM
2

According to the Bureau of Labor statistics, there are more "never married" men over 35 (22.5%) than "never married" women over 35 (15.8%). By age 45, those numbers have changed to 16.3% (men) and 11.0% (women). So, it isn't women over 30 having problems getting married, it's men. Yet another emotionally based, irrational, overly-broad statement from you that hasn't been supported by any factual data whatsoever. Are you truly capable of logical debate? Or just hysterical, inflammatory rantings?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/15 08:00 PM
3

Again, we are not discussing marriage rates among millennials. Stay focused. Can you concede that the general, overly-broad statement "fewer and fewer men are willing to marry" is wrong? Based on a study that YOU provided, no less.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/15 07:20 PM
5

We aren't talking about delayed marriage; or marriage stats for women over 30. Stay focused. The OP stated fewer and fewer men want to be married. In support of that statement, you provided a link to a study, that, when read in full, proved that statement to be partially false. Fewer men between 18-34 want to get married, but for men over 35, MORE men want to be married than previously. Why is that? Do men want to be married (at the same rate women do, it turns out), but just want it later in li…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/15 06:44 PM
4

The answer is not "obvious" if you try to remain objective and don't allow your biases to come into play. In 1997, 28% (n=188) of women aged 18-34 said having a successful marriage was important in life. In 2011, 37% (n=802), said so. An increase of 9%. For 18-34 year old men, the respective numbers are: 35% (n=195) and 29% (n=935). A decrease of 6%. However, for men over 35 years old, 27% thought marriage was very important in 1997, while 36% said so in 2011. An increase of 9% (the same rate of…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/15 05:33 PM
5

Well, you see, that's kind of the problem with making assumptions. Assumptions are not facts. My anecdotal evidence (I'm a 45 year old happily married man) is the exact opposite of yours. Many of the women in my life (sisters, friends, colleagues, acquaintances) honestly couldn't give a rat's ass about being married. It's inconsequential to them. Just to be clear: I wasn't making the statement that more women are opting out of marriage than men. I was asking you to support a baseless assumption …
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/15 05:01 PM
8

The marriage rate is the lowest it's been in a century. You're making the assumption that it is men (not women) that are opting out of marriage. Do you have any actual sources that support this assumption (other than angry MGTOW blogs)?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/15 12:30 PM
0

Anyone reading this thread, who doesn't have an agenda, will most certainly come to same conclusion as I have. And yeah, you're done. :)
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/14 06:00 PM
0

I purposefully kept responding to you to see how long it would take for you to descend into personal insults. You held out longer than most terpers, so congrats on that. The topic is dead, and not worth discussing, because you refuse to see it objectively. Moving on.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/14 01:44 PM
0

The post was editorialized. PERIOD. It's a fact and it's obvious you will never accept that fact. But why beat a dead horse? And yes, terpers view women as hypergamous, stupid, slutty cumdumpsters (TRP's words VERBATIM) and then have the gall to get upset about some perceived slight to their own person. And, on top of that, have the gall to wonder why no rational, intelligent adult takes their pseudoscience seriously.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/14 12:54 PM
1

The title was editorialized and the post removed. Instead of resubmitting with a corrected, factual title they decided to dogpile on the mods and act like hysterical children. And funny how you mention hypocrisy: people who hold you to be barely human scum Isn't this how redpillers view women? feminists? "beta males?" or just about anyone that doesn't buy into their narrow worldview? Perhaps one should try to treat others like one would like to be treated. Mutual respect is a powerful tool in th…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/14 01:00 AM
1

Confidence does not entail whining when things don't go the way you want. The title was editorialized to make it look like the study was done by a legitimate government agency when in fact it wasn't. It was conducted under a grant from IMH, not by the agency itself. This guy had an agenda and got slapped down. Rightly so.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/14 12:46 PM
1

And TIL is not a red pill or men's right sub. They have every right to keep posts with an overtly political or gendered theme out. You can't claim a "right" for your sub, then deny it to other subs. At least, not rationally.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/10/14 10:39 PM
1

I wasn't trolling. And no, I wasn't surprised. TRP has famously tender sensibilities. This guy that posted in TIL, got his thread deleted, and is now whining about it needs to take a lesson from his own sub. Mods have a right to police the tone of their own sub. Like it or lump it.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/10/14 10:35 PM
3

I was banned for telling TRP I thought censorship was so very ....beta. Lol! One little comment disagreeing with them about "concern trolling." So yeah, they have no right to get all indignant about censorship. They are the biggest perpetrators of it.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/10/14 12:19 AM
1

And you can cut the attitude You're going to bow up on me? Over the internet??? You're just embarrassing yourself, son, quit while you're ahead. You were neither respectful nor courteous. And with every response, you are simply validating my initial reasons for refusing to discourse with you. Validating them to me, and to everyone reading this thread.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/09/14 08:35 AM
2

It's because I doubted your ability to answer it with any objectivity or reason. Perhaps you should stop obsessing over a conversation of which you were not a part. Good day :)
/r/PurplePillDebate23/09/14 05:52 PM
2

Why on earth would I address you? Your assertions were laughable; and I deemed it a waste of my time. I wanted to converse with someone capable of objective, unemotional discourse.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/09/14 05:43 PM
4

It's ok, son. I do it a lot. It's a generational thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/09/14 05:36 PM
1

Well, sure. You can ASSUME anything you want. Just as the OP is ASSUMING that a 2 point data graph "proves" women are only attracted to men for their wealth. But surely you must understand that assumptions are indefensible from a logical standpoint?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/09/14 01:40 PM
-1

I don't want to sound dismissive or insulting, but if you honestly think this was a DEBATE, you really, really have never been in a true debate in your life. This sub is just another echo chamber for TRP. The blue pill sub looks hilarious; I'll definitely read more there--thanks for the link....and I have no idea what SRS is.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/09/14 12:53 PM
1

This is getting tedious. No reason to get hysterical, hon. Here's my response from an earlier post; which might help you understand where the rest of society is coming from on this topic: Throughout history, women have been denied a quality education; socialized to believe that caring for family and children are the only worthwhile life goals; told that disagreeing with a man or having their own damn opinion was "unladylike" and crass; etc...etc...ad nauseum. Pile on the disadvantages and obstac…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/09/14 04:23 AM
4

I asked the person who posted the link to the study. Not you.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/09/14 04:08 AM
1

Roger that.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/09/14 04:06 AM
9

So, if I'm reading this right.... Grey matter is responsible for logical thinking. /u/aerobus has just learned that women are actually more logical, on average, than men. Scientifically speaking. Is that right?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/09/14 03:46 AM
3

You don't need my permission to do anything, son. Have at it.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/09/14 03:38 AM
5

Would there be many women in high positions without affirmative action, quotas and set asides? Why haven't ANY women stepped up to the plate to be their sex's Mozart or Frank Lloyd Wright? Why hasn't feminism unleashed all of that suppressed female innovative genius and leaderships? Where is the female George Soros? Why has she yet to emerge 50 years if not longer after female "emancipation". Where are the great female built empire? Not female HIRES, like "CEOs", but great innovative supergenius…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/09/14 03:35 AM
29

"She" is giving ALL men credit for the accomplishments of a few. My point stands. Throughout history, women have been denied a quality education; socialized to believe that caring for family and children are the only worthwhile life goals; told that disagreeing with a man or having their own damn opinion was "unladylike" and crass; etc...etc...ad nauseum. Pile on the disadvantages and obstacles....see where you would be.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/09/14 11:51 PM
-3

Lol. Yeah....ok. ;) Gotcha.....wink wink nudge nudge
/r/PurplePillDebate22/09/14 11:39 PM
-3

I was responding to /u/homo_homini_lupus, "dude." Not the OP.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/09/14 11:28 PM
35

And exactly when was the last time YOU designed an amazing piece of architecture? Or composed a soul-searing symphony? Or painted a masterpiece? Or did anything that had any influence on the world at all? Just because you have the same genitalia as some bright, talented, innovative people in history does not mean YOU get to take credit for their accomplishments. Edit: thanks for the gold!
/r/PurplePillDebate22/09/14 10:44 PM
1

Perhaps the "rich" guys are more physically attractive? Or maybe they can afford to dress impressively? Or maybe they're college educated and their profiles are articulate, intelligent, and interesting? Or maybe they're concentrated in urban, trendy areas (where girls are more likely to be seeking men)? I just can't see how one can take only two data points in a situation where many, many variables come into play....and arrive at some sweeping, all-encompassing conclusion about women.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/09/14 10:24 PM
0

This entire response is a classic example of the RP tenet 'Amused Mastery' This is yet another example of RP taking a common word/phrase/concept and repurposing/repackaging and regurgitating it...claiming it as their own "truth." This is simple maturity, son.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/14 11:07 AM
0

Well, sure. Growing up consists of a series of disillusionments (Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, the infallibility of authority figures, etc...). We are all products of socialization. Women face the same trials...I have three sisters that were taught to be sweet, pretty, ladylike and demure...and their knight in shining armor would come along some day. My oldest sister got a hard lesson at the ripe old age of 17, when her childhood sweetheart and "man of her dreams" knocked her up and left her. An…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/14 03:19 AM
3

Women-hating, manipulation, rampant projection of insecurities, and countless other fun psychological treats are just superfluous BS. Honestly, this is all TRP is. Take this part out and the only "philosophy" left is "lift weights." Which is hardly a tenet singular to TRP. I've yet to see a truly stoic response to any thread. Emotionally charged, hysterical, childish hate-mongering is not stoicism. Or dominance. Or self-improvement. Is there hope? Possibly. They're obviously angry, frustrated yo…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/14 11:48 AM
-1

I just obviously require a higher burden of proof than you. Enough said.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/08/14 08:45 PM
1

Question remains. Do you have any proof?? Of anything? Other than heresay?? Stay focused.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/08/14 08:43 PM
0

First of all, you have no evidence other the rantings of a pissed off, butt-hurt ex-boyfriend that she slept with all those men. Or do you?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/08/14 07:30 PM
4

I consider "late 20's" as young....it's all perspective.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/08/14 07:05 PM
9

In my opinion, I think it boils down to attaining maturity. Most people, men AND women, sleep around more when they're younger. It just takes awhile to figure out what you want out of life and what kind of person you want to share that life with. Once you've "been there, done that" a few times, you usually gain a little perspective (self-awareness, as you call it, I suppose). I agree with you that it isn't necessarily something women do consciously. There are exceptions to everything, of course,…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/08/14 02:09 AM
10

And...you've just driven my point home better than I ever could. My most sincere, heartfelt apologies for hurting your feelings, son. Carry on.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/14 08:10 PM
8

The topic was censorship. So while I will concede the comment may have came off a bit snarky, it was on point. I chose to be succinct, instead of typing out my reasons; that is, that censorship is the bailiwick of the weak minded. Don't misunderstand, I have no issues with being banned. In fact, it gave me a chuckle. But it seems to me the comment was taken as an insult to the fragile TRP sensibilities rather than my opinion of censorship in general.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/14 07:30 PM
14

Caveat: In a recent rant/post a TRP mod went absolutely mental on "concern trolling" and advised that any post deemed as such would result in the user being banned. I responded with (verbatim)..."Censorship is so very.....beta." And was promptly banned from the sub. No big loss. But I suppose I should have gone on to state that I believe censorship is the hallmark of a person with weak convictions. Individuals who lack the intellectual wherewithal to defend against opposing opinions are the only…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/14 06:20 PM
0

Violence begins where knowledge ends. That is a universal truth.
/r/TheRedPill29/07/14 07:34 PM
3

My most sincere, heartfelt apologies for hurting your feelings, son. Carry on.
/r/TheRedPill21/07/14 02:05 PM
7

I've had (and enjoyed) many female friends throughout my life. Bubble-headed, shallow women who can't discuss anything deeper than the social dynamics in an episode of "Real Housewives" bore the living hell out of me...but then, so do men who can discuss nothing deeper than the outcome of some inane spectator sport. There are boring, self-absorbed people of both sexes. For me, this is more of a barometer than a person's gender.
/r/TheRedPill21/07/14 01:17 PM
1

Congratulations. You just made a B+ in Psychology 101....8th grade Lvl. You might have made an A if I'd bothered to read the whole thing, but I seriously doubt it.
/r/TheRedPill21/07/14 12:57 PM
0

Well, girls enjoy music too. So I wouldn't be surprised there were girls there just having fun, drinking with their mates and dancing. Next time, I would suggest changing your perspective...try doing the same. Women are very intuitive about a guy's motives, despite how suave you might think you're being. Try superseding your goal to "get laid" with something less threatening like "having fun"
/r/askTRP19/07/14 05:24 PM
2

If there was anything REALLY going on between her & those men, do you think she'd post it on FB?? Where she KNOWS you will see it? I suggest reining in the paranoia and simply asking her about the circumstances when she gets home. You can gauge her physical reaction (non-verbal cues) better in person.
/r/askTRP19/07/14 05:05 PM
5

Shades of Zen....thoughts become character; still the mind (and thus the mouth); external control of any given situation is an illusion (or delusion); embrace childlike joy and spontaneity; control the ego (vanity); and lastly, leave the website (the last thorn to remove is the Buddha himself). A very specific, self-serving use of the philosophy, but kudos to him for incorporating SOME of it.
/r/TheRedPill19/07/14 04:55 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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