TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

crimeo Archive

View 0 posts and 108 comments by crimeo 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)
1

Ah alright gotcha, that is a lot clearer, thanks!
/r/MGTOW218/05/21 09:17 AM
2

When? Who knows. seems to contradict a bit with since October 2020 where I thought the crash was coming. You apparently have some kind of informed guess, yeah?
/r/MGTOW218/05/21 07:23 AM
2

What are the chances you think the whole market is due in for a crash in the next year or three or otherwise?
/r/MGTOW218/05/21 06:02 AM
-1

This is incredibly unsexy and bizarre and will kill any mood for extremely obvious reasons, AND It wouldn't even matter, because you can (and should be able to) withdraw consent during sex, obviously. People can't (and shouldn't be able to) sign themselves into slavery. So you just made everyone's day shitty and didn't accomplish anything, lose-lose horrible idea, and not a very good comedy skit either, if that's what you were going for.
/r/MGTOW218/05/21 05:35 AM
0

I actually don't think it should be abolished, however it should by capped at an amount that is a livable wage for a basic apartment, moving costs, food, and stuff just to survive. And only for enough time to get a job and get reorganized like maybe 6 months or something. You should also get half of any projects that were actually partnerships like if you worked together both on a business, or the value of the appreciation (not initial cost! appreciation!) of a home while you were both living in…
/r/MGTOW218/05/21 03:13 AM
6

Even if this was 1880 AD, that still wouldn't make sense for how the rules work right now. You routinely have all assets split, but going by your logic, only the assets accumulated during the relationship could possibly at most be justified as "the hit she took to her resume during the relationship." And that should also already be fully covered by an initial split, the logic would not apply twice to double dip into an ongoing payment? you're already caught up? Why would there be additional paym…
/r/MGTOW218/05/21 03:04 AM
3

appears so? I'm not sure if this is "first initial message only" or "participating in conversation at all" though, probably the former.
/r/MGTOW217/05/21 02:09 AM
2

oh wow interesting, thanks! I should go catch up on all the OKC data articles, it's been years.
/r/MGTOW217/05/21 02:06 AM
1

The guy in the video barely references women for like 2 seconds, and all he said about them is that "they are valued for who they are" which (correct or not) is a pretty neutral statement. The other 98% of the video is about how one type of man is perceived by society (which includes by other men) versus how a second type of man is viewed by society. Nowhere in the video is there "bitching about women" nor any mention of "having a problem with women" or their powers or rights. You're responding …
/r/MGTOW217/05/21 01:38 AM
1

I calculated it, we do have the data now: https://www.reddit.com/r/MGTOW2/comments/ndx9i3/i_proved_my_mgtow_point_to_a_friend_who_called_me/gydnqns/ The mean is 1.6 for sure, full confidence to the precision of the tenths place.
/r/MGTOW216/05/21 11:25 PM
1

Peaks have nothing to do with averages. (Well okay, mode is a type of "average", but mode does not directly relate to mean, the type of average we should care about here). Imagine the distribution of ratings was: 0 out of 5: 101 votes 1 out of 5: 100 votes 2 out of 5: 100 votes 3 out of 5: 100 votes 4 out of 5: 100 votes 5 out of 5: 100 votes The "peak" is at 0, the mean is at 2.496, which one better represents how good the raters are at rating beauty?
/r/MGTOW216/05/21 11:11 PM
6

Here you go, I showed my work: https://imgur.com/a/mzZiCzB Comes out to about 1.6 looks like average, so I didn't eyeball it that well. But that is like women having a 2/3x multiplier on what you would expect the attractiveness of a random guy to be statistically. Still not that extreme. I also don't know what to compare this to for men, it might be the same for them.
/r/MGTOW216/05/21 11:03 PM
2

No it was the gray line, I'm eyeballing about 1.8-2 as roughly the average (mean) of the gray curve. They don't give exact tabulated numbers, though. I supposed I could pull it into photoshop and measure the actual area of the chart if you like.
/r/MGTOW216/05/21 10:51 PM
2

If someone wants to be single, "Doing XYZ will make you less likely to be single" isn't "helping them out", because it's not relevant to their goals. There isn't a "problem" to "help" with.
/r/MGTOW216/05/21 10:05 PM
8

I just followed your link and found it, and it was an average of about 1.9-2 OUT OF 5. So, somewhat below random of 2.5, but nothing crazy at all like you're implying by making it sound like it's out of 10 https://www.yourtango.com/2016285828/women-find-80-percent-men-unattractive-says-crazy-study
/r/MGTOW216/05/21 09:57 PM
3

A big motivator for working harder and longer hours and pushing for lots of promotions not always but often tends to be "having a lot of mouths to feed". If you looked at "actual amount of discretionary funds in your pocket after all obligations are met" rather than income, I don't think you'd see the same trend anymore from the people at the top of the list. If you make $70k after tax but only have $20k bills and food and stuff for yourself, you are much wealthier over time than someone with $1…
/r/MGTOW216/05/21 07:18 PM
2

As a person who just found out this community existed a day or two ago and has been curiously poking around: The TITLE of the group is a perfectly fine concept. Obviously, going your own way is your right and implies no harm to anyone nor any sexism or anything else. The ACTUAL CONTENT of the subreddits I've been seeing is insanely hateful and routinely full of bitter lashing out and rampant stereotyping and bigotry, going far far beyond what the title itself implies. It's pretty clearly a hatef…
/r/MGTOW216/05/21 07:10 PM
0

Treat each gun with an open mind -- maybe it's loaded, maybe it's not! That's a terrible analogy because it doesn't even matter what the precise value is in any reasonable range. If it it loaded, you lose 50 years of your life, and if it isn't, you save 10 minutes. So ANY % chance higher than 0.000038% of it being loaded is not worth it. That's not the case for a woman like in the story. Nobody's life was at stake there. The issue was more like hours spent being miserable vs. hours spent being h…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/06/15 05:39 AM
0

I'm guessing you don't have a degree that would qualify you to diagnose mental disorders, and if you did, you would know not to diagnose them based on a few stories about one part of a person's life. I'm guessing you don't know what the phrase "most likely" means. If her disorder is so severe that a willing relationship with a man is seen as exploitative No, not any relationship. Only relationships with people who specifically identify and intentionally seek to take advantage of her weaknesses. …
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/15 09:10 PM
1

How is anyone being exploited? Women are adults That womAn, singular, seems to have significant issues that would most likely qualify as a mental disorder on further inspection (though obviously I only have one post's worth of quotes, that didn't stop the TRP guy from jumping to conclusions even more assuredly). Just like an addict or somebody else with significant issues, a responsible person should not exploit vulnerable people who may not have full normal healthy agency. Anecdotes like this p…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/15 05:20 PM
1

Yeah, occam's razor would suggest the simplest solution, which is that the one person has a disorder or something.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/15 04:57 PM
1

We don't hate women... we understand them. "We don't hate heroin addicts... we understand them." Sounds better, yes, but since you like your context, let's look at the broader context of that being posted in TRP, and it becomes clear that whatever understanding there is is being used to exploit, not help, people with problems. Thus, in the full context, it is more like: "We hate women... and we understand how to act on that by using them effectively." And then when you also consider the context …
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/15 04:48 PM
0

The girl in the story sounds like she has some sort of mental disorder. She is addicted (acts just like an addict. Should we give them drugs because they love drugs? Is that respectable behavior?), or she is cripplingly paranoid about being alone, or something. So yes at some sort of shallow level that particular girl wants him, for some sort of terrible delusional reason or addiction. Even the author of the original thread agrees with me, saying throughout the whole thing how horrible of a guy …
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/15 06:58 PM
1

I have never met an addict that rationalized their shit state; they embrace the horror pretty quick. When they're not in withdrawal or high, yeah. Just like the girl in the thread. It's not a permanent state of affairs, really. Also I'm not necessarily committing to the girl being an addict, it's just an example. I don't have an examination from a psychologist in front of me or anything. But obviously something is really fucked up there.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/15 06:52 PM
1

The boundary is at the point at which it would actually make sense in context that you literally want to go out with the woman. (Only up until the point where the answer is made clear) Any time it is obvious that you do not mean that, then at best you are harassing strangers for no good reason. Don't bother people for no reason. That's common sense. Would you ask somebody the time right after looking at your watch that you know is working? No. Unless you legitimately wanted to strike up a friend…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/15 03:27 AM
3

because its scary as hell You started out saying anything that wasn't a threat is within the boundaries of acceptable / not over the line. Now you are saying it's "scary as hell" and the only reason you wouldn't stand up for yourself is because you suspect you might be violently assaulted if you did so? have you changed your mind, or are you suggesting that women living in legitimate (by your own estimate) fear of imminent violence by implication of things yelled at them in context is totally ac…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/15 03:22 AM
2

The guy made an argument why he thought it was true. Here is the thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/3aqxns/girl_on_twoxchromosomes_continues_hooking_up_with/ I don't see this "argument" you speak of, unless you are referring to the single piece of anecdotal evidence which was full of the woman saying repeatedly the opposite of what this guy is saying. he has a single datapoint and his datapoint disagrees with him, as well as there being several obvious pieces of evidence that t…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/15 03:11 AM
0

That's a nice autobiography you have there. I missed the part where you explained how it is "typical" though.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/06/15 08:07 PM
8

IS the context misleadingly relevant? Or are you just throwing out that it might be?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/06/15 08:02 PM
5

lets just set it as default that everything is with consent. But it's not. At least one of the quotes in the OP explicitly explains that there was not consent. If you're only talking about pure consentual situations, then okay, but you're simply not responding to the thread in that case.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/06/15 07:40 PM
5

If a few hundred Catholic priests read about it and 286 of them chose to go out of their way to click a "yes +1 I like/support this" button, then yes.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/06/15 07:38 PM
11

If they were cherrypicked outrageous comments not supported by the community, then they would be in 0 or negative votes, not +100 etc. Unless you are suggesting that the OP is outright lying? Agreed I would like a link to the thread anyway though.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/06/15 07:36 PM
1

Men are more visually stimulated than women. Sorry, but this has nothing to do with the quote I was responding to. The claim was "most men fall in love with women's bodies" which specifies nothing about vision. Nor does it claim anything about men vs women. But to humor you, I did take the liberty of googling the stuff you brought up, and I did not find "mountains of evidence" in fact I found the majority of evidence for the opposite or no difference: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/808430 -…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/06/15 07:21 PM
2

Why would I seek to change my body to become attracted to a subset of people I find gross? That doesn't make any sense. If I told you there was some pill you could take to make you find people with boils and snaggletooths passably attractive to you, would you jump all over that?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/06/15 06:58 PM
1

It's not necessarily the "same crime." It's merely the same crime category on the books. As in both "aggravated assault." But one group might tend to barely qualify for the category while the other is barely contained within it on average. The whole reason that sentencing is flexible beyond conviction is for precisely that reason. Another example would be recidivism. If a woman does X once and stops but a man does exactly the same thing x for the third time then he will get a harsher sentence an…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/06/15 02:16 PM
1

...I don't need to read their minds. I need to read their POSTS. The people who post about dread are almost always: In LTRs Talking about intentionally acting to cause jealousy in their partners
/r/PurplePillDebate23/06/15 03:17 AM
1

Like I said, you can establish how well people lie on things they want to lie about by running another study where you tell people to do so and pay them more if they succeed, using the same procedure. If could even be the exact same individuals, and you run that after the relationship questions without them knowing ahead of time. Then you can even match up their abilities person for person individually! If you have no good reason to believe that lying skill equates to degree that sex matters, yo…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/06/15 09:56 PM
0

So? I'm talking about what people tend to mean when they DO use the phrase (I'm not talking about the majority of people to whom it doesn't apply and who don't use it...) 90% of the time it's used (just my impression from reading there), it's referring to purposefully inciting jealousy as a mind game / manipulation. 10% of the time it's used, people use it to mean something else.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/06/15 09:38 PM
1

Then they'd have trouble coming up with legitimate answers quickly, too. You say so yourself: Yes, to be more procedurally precise: You would probably do something more like "cull the data that is __ standard deviations above the mean for initial and in between reaction times" and your main analysis would be pretty much entirely relative / based on ratios of rankings and reaction time, rather than absolute numbers. OR depending on what's available in the existing literature for similar studies, …
/r/PurplePillDebate22/06/15 09:28 PM
0

Regarding dread game, from RP sidebar: Dread Game - Purposefully inciting jealousy in an LTR by openly getting attention from other women. Soft Dread is similar, but less open. With Soft Dread, the attention doesn't even need to be real. Creating the possibilty for female attention is enough to get the hamster going. (If you develop a great body, she knows that other women will find that attractive without having to actually see other women displaying interest.) The purpose of using Dread is to …
/r/PurplePillDebate22/06/15 09:09 PM
1

I'm reading it right off of the sidebar, dude. Not my fault if RPers don't even know what RP is: Dread Game - Purposefully inciting jealousy in an LTR by openly getting attention from other women. Soft Dread is similar, but less open. With Soft Dread, the attention doesn't even need to be real. Creating the possibilty for female attention is enough to get the hamster going. (If you develop a great body, she knows that other women will find that attractive without having to actually see other wom…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/06/15 09:05 PM
1

Do not promote active manipulation of women. Do whatever to your own body and your own outlook and spontaneous behavior that you think will make women be more generally attracted to you, but no mind games to control them by fear, etc. Only keeping them wanting you by passively/inherently being somebody desirable. If this were followed, TRP would be an order of magnitude more reasonable and positive in my opinion. (In terms of manipulation in the other direction, de-escalate, avoid, or dump only …
/r/PurplePillDebate22/06/15 08:17 PM
1

I don't know of any reliable, discriminative data. So I feel I am best off remaining agnostic if I can on the issue and not basing my decisions off of any such premises one way or the other. And I easily can be agnostic with no trouble, because I don't believe in changing anything about my behavior to adapt to another person anyway when it comes to a romantic relationship. I just go up and say hi and do whatever comes naturally. Then I date the people who respond positively and act attracted to …
/r/PurplePillDebate22/06/15 08:12 PM
1

Also a much more succint response to all this from another angle: If you don't know the answers for sure, that does NOT imply giving up on / not having relationships at all. It merely implies that you wouldn't go into a relationship with any preconceived notions one way or the other.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/06/15 07:55 PM
1

Girls are attracted to primarily behaviour in men. Guys are attracted to primarily looks in women. What is your evidence for either? Thinking about the ramifications of statements like these is a waste of time if you have not yet proven that the statements are true.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/06/15 07:52 PM
0

Because men are incapable of giving an untruthful-but-PC answer on the spot? Yes generally. Most people can't think on their feet that well. This is easy to establish (and has been) in studies where questions have correct answers and no ulterior motive to not get the correct answer. Such as just "list words that have K in the third letter position" and so forth. People are terrible at that kind of shit. The (small) rate of the population that can think on their feet well in such circumstances ca…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/06/15 07:48 PM
0

Okay first of all, I don't even know why you are talking about frequency of sex being a verifiable statistic. The original claim was "Most men fall in love with women's bodies" Which is much easier to verify. Off the top of my head, you could just run a study where you say "Please answer the following question as quickly as you physically can, first things that come to mind in order: List the things you love most about your partner GO" Throw out any data where the man hesitates for more than a c…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/06/15 06:39 PM
0

mass accumulation of anecdotal evidence, personal experience, reasoning, etc. That is all scientifically valid data. If you have such data, please share it. That's one form of what I was asking for originally. Anecdotes are only a problem for science if they are not treated as anecdotes, but as if they were randomly sampled data. As long as they are treated as what they are, you can potentially compensate statistically and use them appropriately. Although actual randomly sampled data is also ent…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/06/15 06:01 PM
1

It's ok to listen to people, but treating everyone like a partner is no way to lead. It's a very common mistake to think that leadership is about ideas. It's not. It's about certainty and drive. Agreed 100%. I would never use the procedure I just described if leading a platoon of soldiers or running a business. Good thing we aren't talking about either of those. I'm not sure how you equate mincing with dainty frollicking. "Acting daintily" is what the word means. And I imagine frolicking as the …
/r/PurplePillDebate22/06/15 05:46 PM
-1

Well don't we all think about how we should approach situations and people? I mean, everyone who is social has some kind of strategy to appear the way they want to appear and they use what they've got to try to persuade people No not really. I can't think of any strategies I use, outside of business meetings. Which are different because unlike a romantic relationship or friendship, I don't WANT to be there, I have to be to afford to eat and have a roof over my head. If not necessary, I wouldn't …
/r/PurplePillDebate22/06/15 04:53 PM
1

Nice try, but I meant: Any of a million other ways to be in good shape other than specifically lifting. I'm not excluding lifting here, it is just weird to specify only that. Indecisive is not the opposite of stubborn. The respectful but still decisive way of making decisions is "Hey do you have any strong opinions on this, partner?" If yes, then if you also have some, debate. If yes, but you don't have any strong opinions, just do hers. If no, and you do, then just do yours. If no, and you don'…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/06/15 04:40 PM
-1

I was extra nice around pretty girls that I wanted to date. That seriously was my intention This means you were consciously thinking about it / using it as a strategy. Especially telling too is the fact that the very first and only thing you mention as an expected goal of this strategy is how exactly you will eventually get to sex. These are not the thought patterns of the type of guy people are talking about when they describe this sort of ideal. (nor is the whole Christian after marriage thing…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/06/15 03:14 PM
0

Notice that I didn't even argue with you on that point, nor do I have to. Where did YOU get this "knowledge" from? 1) Somewhere reliable / objective? Then share the proof. Such as maybe you got testimonies and polled people, and if you did how exactly YOU know they weren't lying, etc. (all the stuff you wrote above)? 2) Nowhere objective? Then you pulled it out of your ass (or heard it in a dream or something that is also unreliable to other people), so who cares?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/06/15 02:53 PM
0

I live in a world where not every single man thinks or acts in exactly the same way. That piece of advice you mention is said amongst the type of men who are attracted to physicality alone. Whereas I am talking about another type of men who are not. Is this really such a difficult concept...?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/06/15 02:45 PM
0

Women tell you to just do you and be yourself and you will get a girl. This is fantastic advice. If you are really and truly a "nice guy" and don't have to think about it and it just comes naturally, then it works perfectly well (as far as this goes, there are other aspects to maintaining a relationship that are outside of this dichotomy) If that's not who you are, and you try to force it anyway from popular media, then it will ring false and not work... for you. Being dominant and macho if that…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/15 10:17 PM
0

"Genuine" (substitute a better word if you like) I am using as when you really want to be that way AND are that way without thinking about it. Either because you were raised that way, or because you put in a ton of effort to actually change all your habits and beliefs into that as your default, subconscious behavior. You act that way because it is inherent to you and/or brings you pleasure itself. "Non-genuine" I mean to be when you put on an act over a short period of time or just do a behavior…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/15 10:06 PM
1

Neither BP nor RP suggests male submissiveness anyway though. RP advocates dominance, and BP is less centralized but typically advocates equality.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/15 09:32 PM
5

I'm not sure what you are arguing. Both of those are genuine and yes of course they're influenced by their histories. From the way the OP is writing, it seems clear to me that the "nice guy" behaviors were tricks in a bag for him, not a result of his upbringing. More like the narcissistic girl trying to act more empathetic to get more guys after reading about it in a magazine rather than having the actual empathetic background like the other girl and deciding to change it.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/15 09:29 PM
12

Sure, but when somebody puts every consistent personality trait in quotation marks and says "it didn't work" it's pretty obvious that person was using it as a tool, not expressing any genuine personality of theirs, core or otherwise.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/15 09:07 PM
23

You seem to be confusing all of the things you wrote as strategies. They don't work as strategies. They work when you do them naturally and actually are that kind of person. I do chores because I'm not a douchebag and when I'm living with somebody, we are both benefiting from the house, so why would I not help maintain it? I'm emotionally there for my partners because I give a shit about them as people and I don't want them to suffer alone... So yeah if you were doing that stuff as tricks, going…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/15 09:03 PM
0

It being possible to change your personality does not explain why somebody should want to or why it is an "improvement" versus just a change. It seems to me like it's largely an improvement only from the perspective of the changed personality, rather than from the original one, so ... why?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/15 08:50 PM
1

If you don't think it's possible to support your claim objectively, then you're basically admitting to completely pulling it out of your ass, so I think I'll leave it...
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/15 08:34 PM
2

Yes, men and women almost certainly had sometimes different strategies for things obviously relevant to strength, like getting past a giant tree in the path (if it's just the right size that manual strength is relevant between them). Or running versus hiding from versus fighting certain rabid animals. That does not necessarily translate to love or mating, since large amounts of strength are not necessary for love or mating. It MIGHT be relevant in some roundabout non-obvious way, but since it is…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/15 08:21 PM
1

"Like that" = spoiled, narcissistic, childish, it was specifically listed out above by Cbus and you responded to it, then I did. Because that's what the most physically attractive women are like (You used the same phrase even yourself...)
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/15 08:11 PM
2

Again, please read my posts first. I plainly said that strength matters in some situations, and I gave multiple specific examples, so you are being obtuse in saying "no bearing whatsoever." Strength matters for picking shit up and throwing it and whatever you need muscles for. That you can argue without evidence or data. MAYBE it also matters for other nonobvious things. But if you want to argue that, you need to actually argue that and prove it. Like with evidence. Historical and archeological …
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/15 06:58 PM
1

most men fall in love with womens bodies [citation needed] Obviously some do. Most requires statistics.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/15 06:50 PM
1

Sure, if attraction for the man is about physicality alone, with those other features being things to get around or overcome or deal with. That may be true for you, but I for one, couldn't even stomach hanging out with a woman like that, much less sleeping with her (assuming I could even get it up, which is unlikely because I find them disgusting) It just boils down at the end of the day to whether your attraction chemistry is purely about faces and bodies, or whether it is tied in with behavior…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/15 06:48 PM
1

What is all this absolute, only go for one type of woman thinking? A lot of, probably most guys would consider "horrible self involved greedy whore monster" to be mutually exclusive with "hot as fuck" -- it being impossible for the two to coexist, because hotness requires not being a terrible person for them. Thus, there's no issue or problem of "calibrating" because the former type of woman is simply not attractive or a goal to be with in the first place, so a single calibration (the latter, no…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/15 06:39 PM
1

Because the method of talking to women suggested by RP is to talk manipulatively. There are other ways to talk to women that are perfectly effective and not manipulative, but that's not the type RP promotes. The making yourself attractive part is fine, I can't remember a single BP thread where people made fun of that.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/15 06:34 PM
1

Why is being more muscular, stubborn, and inexpressive "a better you" necessarily?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/15 06:29 PM
2

What? No, I don't accept that. Have you been reading my posts? I'm disagreeing with you and suggesting specific things I think you need to better establish to make the argument stronger.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/15 06:25 PM
2

Nobody has to argue that being strong never matters. Of course it matters sometimes, indisputably. Sometimes, trees have to be lifted and stone houses built, and strength clearly matters. But you have not done a goood job of establishing that LOVE is one of those places where it necessarily matters. And unlike moving a tree, it is by no means obvious at face value that it should be relevant to strength, even sometimes let alone always. You just handwaved past the most critical part.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/15 06:15 PM
2

And secondly, most of the fun/value of a relationship to ME is And then you "disagree" by saying what you think is most popular in general? That's not disagreeing... the whole point was we were talking about subsets of the population.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/15 06:11 PM
2

Yeah, our main evolutionary adaptation was our adaptability and flexibility. We're made to learn how to do things much more so than to do XYZ things. If it makes you happier, though, it doesn't matter, I can use a faux evolutionary biology trope instead: if you want to pick a berry from a thorny bush, then being strong doesn't matter--it requires delicate maneuvering between thorns, and light pressure to pluck but not squish. So the strategy for both levels of strength is the same.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/15 05:43 PM
3

1) Maybe, but since it involves a whole mindset and training for automatic ability to respond, these aren't things that one can generally flip off rapidly. So I suspect that he would know to try, and would likely partially succeed in toning it down, but not entirely. Worth a try perhaps from a RP perspective, maybe passable but not the most attractive person to that subset of girls. 2) Yes if your goal is to just get with as many women as possible, it makes sense. That seems like a bizarre goal …
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/15 05:39 PM
2

Again, it CAN affect strategy certainly, but is by no means guaranteed to. If the problem is "get to the store" and it's 20 miles away, both the strong and the weaker person are going to use precisely the same strategy: getting in a car and driving there. Strength only matters for things that, well, strength matters for. Things that involve powered machines, that require finesse, that require mostly thinking out a solution, are all not necessarily going to differ at all in a strong and weaker pe…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/15 04:55 PM
2

Two major problems here: 1) Different physicality does not logically necessitate different behaviors, outcomes, or ways of loving. For example, your incentive for going to the grocery store is to buy milk, mine is to buy bagels. We may still both end up driving the exact same roads though using cars, etc. Different physicality ALLOWS for different behaviors, but does not GUARANTEE them. In philosophical terms, you have described a necessary condition, but not a sufficient one. 2) Even if we disr…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/06/15 12:07 AM
1

This part of the OP: if you disagree with the fact that women are not more privileged than men... So the OP specifically asked if the reader disagreed, and tint disagreed. So again... what's your problem?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/15 11:22 PM
1

The data in those articles shows how much majors pay and their gender differences. It does not establish to what degree either gender going into them was a free choice on the part of the student. Which was the argument of this discussion thread. People don't get to just go waltz into any degree program they feel like from a giant free menu of options... you have to apply, you have to pay tuition, you have to make it through the program without changing. All of those steps provide ample opportuni…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/15 08:13 PM
-3

So you're saying men belong in jail due to biology? If the biology leads them to perform more malicious crimes and a higher degree of violence within any one legal category, yes absolutely. If you think that any disparity is unjust, you would have to clearly establish that men's higher degree of violence is PURELY due to prejudice and not actually the known biological differences from women. You have not established that. Unless you explicitly declare that when a woman does X that is less severe…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/15 06:16 PM
-1

nothing confusing about it. Then what is the "unclear language to deceive" ? You agree with tinteoj. "Each gender has advantages disadvantages" and you "men and women are both privileged" What's your problem....?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/15 06:02 PM
1

Today I learned that not every job in a major sweeping category of professions pays exactly the same amount. Shocking. ? The same is true of people with engineering degrees and business degrees. Some get paid shit afterward, some don't. ...and? Nothing you are concluding here is supported by the data you provided.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/15 09:03 AM
-7

Black people and white people have vastly fewer biological differences between them on average than males and females do. It's much more plausible that differences in sentencing in genders may actually be due to underlying differences in severity and violence of crimes between genders within any given set of technical legal category groups. Thus less immediately clear that it should be a concern (which it only should be if it's not due to real differences rather than prejudice), compared to raci…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/15 08:55 AM
1

You really come across as untrustworthy/manipulative when you do crap like list selective service 3 or 4 times in a row (didn't even bother to spread those ones out! Not just manipulative but really lazily so), socialized health spending 3-5 times redundantly just worded in different ways, etc. Some of the points are solid, but whatever force those arguments might have had loses its force and can't be taken seriously in the redundant gimmick filler.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/15 08:37 AM
0

You're not making any sense... a woman also offers everything else than any human being can offer another outside of gender... They offer companionship, shared hobbies, possibly finances, political views, religion if you're into that, tastes in food, music, movies, etc. etc. It's like saying that since the mailman uniquely offers the ability to legally deliver mail into your mailbox, if he doesn't deliver mail to your box, then he is thus a useless human being to you and there couldn't possibly …
/r/PurplePillDebate19/06/15 03:24 AM
1

You seem to think I'm disagreeing that sex is good or important. I'm not, read the original post above. I'm saying that sex is not magical and more special than a host of other things that are equally important. No sex is a worse relationship than good sex. But no [fill in multiple other things] is ALSO as worse than relationships with [the other things].
/r/PurplePillDebate19/06/15 01:35 AM
1

I realize that people care, but not why anyone would.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/06/15 05:42 PM
1

OP goes on a long rant about how we should all be shaming sluts for being terrible untrustworthy, worthless people, while making it pretty obviously he qualifies as a slut under his own descriptions. Nothing new here.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/06/15 05:38 PM
3

1) Who gives a shit? I might care if a partner is completely inexperienced versus knows whats up, that's about it. Why would anybody care at all about exact numbers of encounters? How is that relevant at all to me? 2) Even if you do give a shit, why would you insist on only having a conversation about it in terms of vague total numbers? If you're confused and you care about the details of different acts, just ASK and discuss that. "Yeah I've given like 5 people oral sex, had penetrative sex with…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/06/15 05:32 PM
1

You just made that up... plainly, plenty of relationships have no sex, and equally obviously, you can have sex without relationships (i.e. that need can be met as well outside). Thus it's neither a necessary nor sufficient condition, just a beneficial contribution. Just like everything else people want to have in a relationship and want to have fulfilled in their lives.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/06/15 05:26 PM
0

I would not prefer an emotional shell of a fuckbuddy to a boring in bed emotional companion. I would have when I was 18, not now.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/06/15 05:18 AM
1

I generally use vice grips to both hammer nails and turn screws.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/06/15 05:17 AM
1

Fine by me, I dont think people should be judged by the sex they have or by the video games they play. Nor by a neutral economic impact (draining is different, but only if you don't actually need to be / forced to be a drain by health, etc.)
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/15 05:28 PM
1

That's a core belief of TRP. They even have a special term for it "abundance mentality." The more slutty a guy is and the more committed to a slutty mentality, the more powerful they say.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/15 05:23 PM
1

... women give straight answers all the time. I say as a man who has never in my memory not gotten a straight answer about relationship priorities since high school. Maybe if you only ever ask immature 18-22 year olds you get mind games. Otherwise straightforwardness is the norm and if you don't get it, move on to someone else.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/15 05:16 PM
1

Because you like children and women yourself as people? If not then your logic is valid.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/15 05:09 PM
1

"You" in that sentence was the hypothetical person creating bastards. If you personally are not doing that then you're just thinking about it as a hobby of thought, which puts you at exactly the influence of a LOL player.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/15 05:07 PM
1

So you hurt the economy more. Ok.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/15 05:01 PM
1

No more or less okay than a sexy bedroom but dead emotional fulfillment.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/15 04:59 PM
1

The core philosophy is intensely hypocritical, not just fringe crazies. As just one common example, constantly expressing a preference for "respectable, non-slutty women" in the same breath as talking about spinning/banging as many "plates" as possible.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/15 09:57 AM
2

In terms of productiveness and the economy, what's the difference between playing LOL vs. sitting around classifying people into made up greek letter categories and trying to get in women's pants in your down time?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/15 09:47 AM
1

I don't think you have to worry much about the risk of becoming a leader of men.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/15 09:41 AM
0

intellectually and emotionally connected ... leaves me numb and hopeless I think you may be confused about what a positive intellectual and emotional connection is. Because you sure as hell are not actually describing one. Of course it is good for you not to be in a relationship that was terrible for sex, intellect, AND emotion. But "don't get into relationships that have zero redeeming qualities" is not a particularly interesting statement or relevant to the OP's argument.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/15 09:32 AM
4

That's the whole point of the OP: It's stupid to take 90% of the depth and range of human relationship and lump it into one derogatorily named category, and then give equal or higher status to the other arbitrary 10%. It's not ideal to have a relationship that doesn't cover sex well, but I don't really see it as particularly LESS ideal than one that does include sex but doesn't cover shared worldview, for example. In reality I it's fairly rare for normal people to have ZERO of either, usually it…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/15 09:29 AM
1

Yes that statement is true. The part that is weird about the "model" is why you are focusing only on that, and the whole rank order business. There's no formalizable rank order or set of rules or priorities across the board. It's just a hodge podge of good things. Good sex is good. Commitment is good. Money is good. Intelligence is good. Consistency is good. Listening is good. Shared interests are good. Passion (in life, purpose) is good. Competency and responsibility are good. Empathy is good (…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/15 08:03 AM
2

What you're seeing at TRP is excruciating pain. I think this is entirely accurate. they've never seen a man really go through growth and shedding old unproductive behaviors. This part is where you get it backwards. TRP enthusiasts generally haven't seen a man grow and shed unproductive behaviors, because the TRP response is the polar opposite of this: rather than growing and then shedding and simply moving on, TRP takes the pain and nurses it until it festers. Generalizing a few bad experiences …
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/15 06:03 AM
0

This is a bizarre perspective to me. People have wants/needs. They want good sex, they want companionship, they want stability, they want intellectual stimulation, they want food on the table and fancy clothes, etc. This is true of both genders. If you offer more of those things in higher qualities, no matter who you are, you'll attract more mates and be more able to choose people who are good partners for you in return from more options. It's as simple as that. You don't have to put it in a wei…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/15 05:28 AM
0

1) Nowhere did you establish that the people who believe this theory vs. those who don't are bluepillers, redpillers, both, or neither, or in what proportions. What does this have to do with this subreddit regardless of whether the theory is right, wrong, popular, or inconsequential? 2) You didn't post any of the "fair bit of" studies that you say back up his claims. A 3 minute cartoon popular media youtube video with no citations is not exactly an ironclad scientific truism that shows any denie…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/15 05:10 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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