TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

mrsamsa Archive

View 1 posts and 1,949 comments by mrsamsa 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)
13

mrsamsa/r/PurplePillDebate22/01/14 04:44 AM
Showing the 1,000 most recent of 1,949 comments.
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
3

Have you seen that Expelled movie with Ben Stein where creationists get together and discuss how they were unfairly fired and mistreated when they worked in evolutionary biology departments? I think they use similar methods as them to discover the problems with the field.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/15 11:04 PM
3

Absolutely. The red pills terrible understanding of science is why I started posting here in the first place.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/15 10:55 PM
3

I agree medicine is another. It's another study I linked. Some of the other articles I linked showed issues with psychology leading up to the whole ordeal. You seemed to be making the same mistake with your interpretation of that data, which is that it's a pretty equal problem for all sciences. Fire example, the study showing unusual rates of positive results was bad for all science. Also it's a common mistake to interpret their "psychology and psychiatry" category as representing experimental p…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/15 10:54 PM
5

The problems with evo psych aren't really about reproducibility but rather with the starting assumptions and methodology. Basically (for a lot of the field) it's just a case of "bullshit in, bullshit out". There's a decent article here if you wanted to learn more about the problems and how good research in the area tackles the problems: Evolutionary Psychology and the Challenge of Adaptive Explanation.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/15 02:23 PM
5

Psychology is also the first because there was increasing suspicion that something was amiss within that field. This simply isn't true. The problem was discussed in multiple fields before it was determined to be an issue inherent to science, and psychology wasn't even initially mentioned. Psychologists simply took it upon themselves to help improve the state of science. One of the earlier papers collating the concerns is this one: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. The focus wasn't …
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/15 02:21 PM
10

Just note that the replication crisis is an inherent problem with all of science (as the authors of that paper are careful to note). Psychology is currently the field of discussion simply because it's the first that's attempted to rigorously measure and come up with interventions to fix it. If you wanted to use the replication crisis as a tool to determine which sciences you trust and don't trust, then technically you'd have to conclude that psychology is currently leading the pack in terms of r…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/15 08:13 AM
1

The problem is that masculine characteristics / traits in general tend to boil down to dominance-oriented attitudes. Competitiveness, aggressiveness and so on. Both in men and women. So basically then patriarchy reduces to saying that people who are more hell-bent on acquiring power tend to actually be more powerful! Isn't it a bit tautological? I'm not sure what your understanding of a patriarchal society is as it doesn't match up with anything I know. There isn't a problem with pointing out th…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/15 10:23 AM
1

Maybe I'd retreat from my original statement on patriarchy and explore whether discrimination, and prejudice or privilege for certain things, is hardwired into the human brain. Can we even make decisions as a society without prejudice? Obviously I'm not talking about prejudice towards biological phenomenon like race or sex, but prejudice towards certain traits and behaviours. It leads one towards privilege if you then assign those traits to a gender. I think you're conflating two different uses …
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/15 10:59 AM
1

It seems to me like we're hardwired to create essentially patriarchal societies, if we're to accept your earlier definition of patriarchy (divorcing the term from its misandrist stigma). I don't think there's any evidence of a claim as strong as that. Masculine traits denoting expansion and domination of the environment, or simply domination of problems, are what has brought us where we are today for better or worse. I don't think masculine traits are defined so broadly. Perhaps it's hierarchica…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/15 10:10 AM
2

The Marxist would say that the ideas and norms of a society are propagated by the ruling class, which would historically-speaking be men. In the Western world, they would also be white. So in roundabout ways it's basically blaming rich white men by association. But the description has nothing to do with "blame", it's a scientific description of a phenomenon and not a value judgement. And regardless of how the circumstances came about, it doesn't mean that current groups are the immediate cause o…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/15 09:26 AM
1

Yeah that's exactly what I was thinking.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/15 12:12 AM
7

There is a rise in popularity of this same Marxist logic that you often see with progressive types these days that people with better outcomes are responsible for bringing about the circumstances for those with worse outcomes. (ie women get paid less because men are responsible or black people commit more crimes because white people made them do it). Maybe it's because I don't hang out with "Marxists" and I've never in my life seen any of the "progressive types" that you discuss, but I don't rec…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/15 08:28 AM
0

Actually they rather do in my experience. I have pointed out the vagueness of the statement to people IRL and they really did not have much to say on the subject. Nor does the BP subreddit given that it's far too busy mocking TRP. I think you're either being selective in your memory of events or you've had the unfortunate experience of meeting the small percentage of idiots who would stop with mere platitudes when trying to give real advice. As to "get jacked, get money" being vague, sure, excep…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/15 06:11 AM
-1

"Be confident" isn't unique to RP ofc. But it's also useless. What does "be confident" mean? It's extremely vague. No shit, but so is the advice of "get jacked" and "make money". Nobody actually says "be confident" and leaves it there. It's not that they aren't confident..... it's that girls just say no (or rather, blow them off). And that's because confidence isn't the only factor, which I think all BPers and RPers would agree with. Comments from BPers just within the last week. It's common for…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/15 04:10 AM
5

I think the reason that it doesn't seem funny to you is because satire and parody requires you to accept that the object of the satire is ridiculous. If you happen to agree with the object of the satire then it's no longer a joke, it's just a superficial and weak retelling of something you believe. So if you accept TRP, or at least many points within it, then the first link with the copypasta won't seem very funny because it just seems like a silly story. But if you realise that most of their fi…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/15 02:21 AM
0

it isn't circular, it's simply based off things we don't agree on. But that's exactly what makes it circular. We disagree on what those positions entail so appealing to those positions as evidence of what they entail by defining them as such isn't going to convince me. If you simply wanted to reiterate your position that you think RP is correct, well, that's cool but I don't. So since this is a debate sub you should ideally be presenting some of those reasons why you view that distinction and wh…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/15 12:46 AM
0

The problem is that you're making the nebulous claim that they're "doing it wrong", with your only argument for this being that you know they're doing it wrong because they're not red pill which is what you define as "right", which is just circular reasoning.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/15 12:01 AM
0

The original thread question might be an opinion question but the comment of mine that you replied to wasn't. I was asking why someone would think X when pure observation disproves it. Your initial response was that the user I was responding to was indeed wrong (i.e. blue pillers do try to improve their situation) but suggested that a more nuanced RP answer was that blue pillers do it wrong. I pointed out that this is false in the context of the discussion as blue pillers clearly do what the use…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/02/15 11:45 PM
0

But there's no evidence or reason to think this is true. As I mention elsewhere, the very fact that BPers generally don't need a guide or something like TRP to be successful in social situations and to find partners surely means that they are at the very least as effective as red pillers, if not more so.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/02/15 11:26 PM
0

That seems like a separate argument though. The claim is that blue pillers wouldn't do things like working out or improving their career to make their situation better - which is clearly what everyone does as a first port of call when they're unhappy with their life.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/02/15 10:16 PM
0

It's not that BP wouldn't want to do better, it's that he wouldn't believe that the things RP ascribes as leading to romantic success--muscles, money, game--are going to help him out any. But this is blatantly false. You can disagree with blue pillers all you like, claim that red pill is correct, etc etc, but you can't say that blue pillers don't agree that things like working out, having money, and being confident will help you. The disagreement is over two things: 1) whether those things are u…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/02/15 09:36 PM
-1

If a guy is not that good looking face-wise but gets jacked and makes money he won't be a 4 physically anymore and he definitely won't be a 4 overall. So I would say the RPer would be better off. Have we reached the point where we are just equating red pill with: "work out and earn money"? I know this has been said many times on this sub but those things aren't exclusive to TRP... An ugly guy with a BP mentality will just accept that women don't like him, not change anything and stay a virgin li…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/02/15 09:51 AM
1

That's not my argument at all, I'm just pointing out that it's a common strawman. It's one of those stories that get spread along friends or online and then everyone eventually starts telling the story as if it actually happened to them.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/02/15 01:17 AM
1

Don't like it, move along. It doesn't (or at least shouldnt affect you). It's not that I "don't like it", it's more that it's a huge claim which seems to fly in the face of reality. And it doesn't affect me, sure, but it's still a wrong claim that I'd like to hear support for. The fifty shades thing was an example, one instance. If I come here and tell you every detail of every little time someone erked me by getting bent out of shape then Im no better and it's just complaining. It's not that I …
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/15 08:46 PM
0

I am still getting through all the side bar stuff. So far my favorite is the pdf from the 'The Futurist' (The Misandry bubble?). I like how the author points out that the media has removed strong masculine role models for kids to aspire to. ...uh, really? You could say I'm new to TRP, but the basis is something I've known for a long time and taken my own steps long ago, so I think I have somewhat skipped the 'anger phase' I guess. I was drawn to it when I started seeing the buzzword misogyny pop…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/15 07:25 AM
2

What was your favourite article in the side bar? I liked the one by the white nationalist who argues that date rape shouldn't be illegal.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/02/15 11:08 PM
2

I'm not "playing" to anyone. The reason I stopped posting here so regularly was the circle jerking and tribe mentalities so I'm hardly going to make comments just to win points with my "friends". His post was literally incomprehensible. If you found a single good point within that garbled mess well then all the power to you.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/15 08:20 PM
2

I think it's telling that you have to rely on strawmen just to hold your position.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/15 12:39 AM
2

I don't think it makes sense to all that, it's not like they are separate groups. It's just that practically every feminist is concerned with both issues.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/15 12:26 AM
4

Awesome, you're close to seeing the fallacious reasoning in your logic here! There are multiple groups, with multiple aims and goals, and just because there are more starving people in Cambodia doesn't mean that we should just ignore and forget about the starving people in Africa. In the real world, there are also other issues that can make your impact on one issue more meaningful and have a greater impact. For example, there may be more starving people in Cambodia but if I'm already travelling …
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/15 12:09 AM
3

I didn't claim they were representative. You asked why TBP links to those posts and I gave a number of reasons, mostly revolving around what they say about the community. You just randomly starting talking in absolutes and about representativeness.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/15 12:06 AM
3

Dude you're an idiot. You'll argue over even the most basic points for the sake of it. Dude calm down. Watch that frame. And what "basic points" am I supposedly arguing over? You are throwing textbook fallacy after textbook fallacy and I'm patiently explaining why your view is fucked up, and suddenly you're the angry one? Okay pretend there was one feminist in the entire world. She has x amount of time. She wants to do advocacy for Cause A. Would she have more or less time than if she advocated …
/r/PurplePillDebate13/02/15 11:40 PM
3

Maybe it would be quicker if we just focus on issues relevant to what I've said and this discussion, rather than asking me a bunch of questions about things that have nothing to do with this thread? I mean, if you want I can just spout off a bunch of answers about what beer I like to drink, how I like long walks on the beach, I'm a Capricorn, go Red Wings!, etc etc., but I'm not sure how that'll help us here? If you've so badly misunderstood my position that you think these questions are relevan…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/02/15 11:35 PM
3

Yes but you forget that this is a zero sum game. There is only so much funding for academics and activists. If you prioritize one form of activism, there is another area that will lack. It's not really a zero sum game as many forms of activism don't cost anything at all or only very little - for example, raising awareness by commenting online. If activists busy themself with defending women who have larger sizes, obviously it takes away time from campaigning against stoning women for adultery or…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/02/15 11:31 PM
1

Not by much. Once a thread is buried, no one sees it. Clearly you don't understand how reddit works. If it's buried, no one can see it and vote it lower. You obviously don't know much about reddit but the vote total you see is the upvotes minus the downvotes. If it's at 50% then that means just as many people agreed with it as disagreed. If you go to any other sub and find a post that is highly disagreeably, it will go far below 50%. If I went to /r/biology and said I think god created the world…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/02/15 11:21 PM
3

You're not understanding. What happens when a post get's 50% upvotes? It's score is zero bud. That means that most of the community doesn't even see it or agree with it. Yes, and you understand that it can go lower, right? Do you understand how reddit works? It could be an honest mistake, but I highly doubt it. Trying to say a post with 6 points and 50% upvotes (where the average highest post daily is 200 upvotes) is representative of an entire subreddit is clearly cherrypicking. Nobody has said…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/02/15 11:12 PM
3

It's one thing to be logical. It's another to bend the truth. /u/M_rafay has already pointed out your mislabelling of "Red Pill Spokesmen/Leaders" Except he did no such thing... In the the post I made, I pointed out how you were bending the percentages to make it seem like the posts that TBP linked to were widely adopted. No you didn't, you just said that you thought 50% upvotes is okay even on horrific posts and my argument was that even that amount is too much.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/02/15 10:08 PM
5

But that's understandable. On a physical level, a fat woman may not be as effective in many positions, and her physical state is often seen as giving clues to other undesirable traits (which may be the case, unless it can be proven otherwise). This isn't the same as discrimination on the basis of something you were born as and cannot change. But that wouldn't be discrimination if their size makes them incapable of doing something. What a weird example. If there's evidence that obesity has ever b…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/02/15 10:06 PM
3

Except for those feminists who are doing what they can about boko haram?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/02/15 10:04 PM
3

How is it low? His comment made no sense.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/02/15 02:40 PM
4

I think the fact I'm getting upvoted is evidence that I'm one of the few people here who posts simply to defend the logic of different positions, and not to desperately cling to some ideological predisposition. I mean, just look at your last few posts in this thread, you practically went insane because all the evidence was against you and your comments descended into gibberish, before you took off with an appeal to "I know you are, you said you are...".
/r/PurplePillDebate13/02/15 01:23 PM
4

Ah I see you're one of those who likes to get the last word in by pretending that the person they can't argue against is simply trying to get the last word in. Go for it, I'll let you have it this time.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/02/15 01:19 PM
4

I'm going to take your insane ramblings there as an admission that you have no response to my points.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/02/15 12:42 PM
0

Well that's a bit of a strawman, normally the concerns with weight are about discrimination based on size but there's still a good discussion to have on how our understanding of attractiveness is affected by social factors.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/02/15 12:23 PM
8

Dude, what the fuck, bro? Brah, I can't even. I can't take you seriously now. Read sh1v's posting history. READ IT. This is not any unique pattern for sh1v.[1] I know this link because I commented on it, but there are definitely more if you care to look. Read his posts in the same thread even. And he's been called out on it plenty of times, completely seriously.[2] However, literally everyone except crossovers from TBP identifies it as harmless fun. Harmless fun? For starters, I'm still not conv…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/02/15 08:34 AM
7

In regards to your reasoning of how some posts were "50-70%" upvoted, so "they are supported by TRP!" that's just misrepresenting the data. You're talking about less than a dozen votes here compared to the average decent post of ~100 votes. Oooh, okay. So not only do posts need to gain significant support, they also have to have that support from lots of people? Sorry, I'm just struggling to keep track of these goalposts. It's particularly disorientating given that for the past few years red pil…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/02/15 07:15 AM
7

The one where you pretend every case of inconvenient votes was because TBP messed up the results. I don't pretend, I show with evidence. You realise that when a thread is linked to TBP it takes a screenshot at the time of posting, right? The one where you pretend, despite all evidence, that the person quoting 100% literally meant what he was saying(I know Poe's Law, but this is ridiculous). I haven't said anything about the truthfulness of the post but the ones discussed all had followups and it…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/02/15 07:08 AM
7

Two points here: 1) feminists obviously fight all of those things, and 2) even if they didn't, I don't think your use of fallacious logic is going to show anything meaningful. That is, if I take part in an animal rights group and we focus on campaigns to get your pets neutered, to close down puppy mills, to educate people on not leaving pets in cars, etc, it would make no sense to say, "But there are animals abused in circuses in Russia! Why aren't all these animal rights groups fighting for tho…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/02/15 06:51 AM
7

By definition, a post that is upvoted by the community is supported by the community. I'm not sure how more straightforward I can be. Sure you can say ModeratorX is often looked up to and 99% of his posts are supported. But why use "the identity of a certain poster" as a measure of how well supported a comment is and not a far more better measure that's readily available? And that measure is upvotes. Of course leaders in every community will say things that aren't supported by the rest. I do not…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/02/15 06:39 AM
9

The thing is, BP is constructing their image of TRP based on these examples: Why doesn't TBP just use highly upvoted examples to illustrate what they think of TRP? Because TRP isn't as extreme as TBP thinks they are in their head. They often do but red pillers argue that they're not a true reflection of their beliefs. Haven't you seen the albums of TRP comments? Most of those are heavily upvoted. Mods/contributors can make comments outside of their roles of mods/contributors. You can try to argu…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/02/15 04:27 AM
28

There are a number of reasons why posts which are downvoted or only have low numbers of upvotes are linked: 1) the comment is made by a mod or endorsed contributor 2) the comment is posted on PPD where downvotes will come from non-red pillers as well 3) the comment comes from someone new to TRP who thinks they're applying red pill tenets and ends up hurting themselves or someone else. These are all valid criticisms of TRP because they can all be measures of the problems with it, along with posts…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/02/15 03:58 AM
1

Firstly, your description of ethics is a little oversimplistic. Sometimes intentions matter, sometimes they don't, depending on what framework you're working from. I imagine most red pillers would align themselves with a consequentialist view and agree intentions don't matter. Secondly, regardless of the above issue, I wasn't making a moral claim. I made a purely pragmatic one about what his actions resulted in. That is, his actions contributed to a hostile work environment and were an example o…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/14 11:33 PM
2

"zomg! He remembers a post from a thread where he posted more than a dozen comments himself! How is that possible!!" rolls eyes Predictably, your definitions of "creepy" and "stalking" are as flimsy as your definitions of "hostile" and "harassment." You're basically a bully. You use these terms to (try to) bully people into conforming to your worldview. Oh you misunderstand. I'm not saying you aren't right in what you remembered, just that the level of obsessiveness is a little disturbing. It's …
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/14 09:42 PM
0

That's some creepy stalking but unless I said that sexual harassment is the same as a hostile work environment, I don't see the point of your comparison. The only thing that actually matters is mrsamsa's personal morality and political position. "That shirt is offensive!!" is a statement of personal morality. A southern baptist has similar opinions. A suni muslim has similar opinions. Sure, but I never said it is "offensive". So not an issue of personal morality. There is literally nothing about…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/14 11:51 PM
2

They aren't a recognised mental health authority so I don't see how they could weigh in on the claim at all. EDIT: Had a look at the reference and his claim seems to be that because Johns Hopkins has stopped performing gender reassignment surgery due to them perceiving it as a treatment that causes more harm than good and thinking that it requires therapy rather than surgery, then transgenderism must be a disorder. The bit he misses is that gender reassignment surgery isn't a treatment for trans…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/14 08:13 PM
4

I'm not really interested enough to read the entire article but this bit: For example, he calls transgenderism a psychiatric disorder. is necessarily and unarguably wrong. No mental health diagnostic manual in the world considers transgenderism to be a disorder and they can't do so without radically changing the concept of mental illness as it doesn't meet any of the criteria for what a mental disorder is.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/14 08:42 AM
2

I found it pretty ironic that the feminists who were complaining about lack of female representation in places like NASA were more concerned about his fashion then about his accomplishments. I never understood why people say this. Of course people who explicitly identify at feminist writing for feminist oulets are going to talk primarily about feminist-related things.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/14 02:06 AM
0

Some of her comments seem weird: The shirt, as we soon found out, was made for the occasion by a female friend, but this didn't help. ...Of course it didn't help, why would it? The only explanations I can think of for why it would be relevant at all would be if we had to assume that women can't perpetuate harmful sexist norms (which isn't true), or that he can't be sexist because he has a female friend (which isn't true). And then, in slightly lesser degrees of importance, there are the traditio…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/14 02:04 AM
2

Exactly. If you watch someone like Victoria Stilwell, you'll see that she basically doesn't leave until the behavior is fixed.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/14 09:45 PM
3

we will assume this sophisticated hierarchy I told you about. There's nothing really sophisticated about it. The sophisticated structure is the family structure they use in the wild, and the "hierarchy" we see in captivity is the break down and collapse of that structure. But be wary, it's a zoo thing only, under no circumstances behave like that when locked in a house. There needs to be a ZOO sign, otherwise it doesn't count! It doesn't need a zoo sign but it does need many of the elements of t…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/14 09:44 PM
6

The short answer is that they don't. That's why all veterinary and behaviorist groups have formally come out to explicitly say that his methods don't work, that there is no science to support them, and they do not recommend using them. The more complex answer is that sometimes they kind of work but a) don't work for the reasons he thinks, and/or b) they are the least efficient way to do things. For example, a technique he sometimes uses is the "alpha roll", where you roll the dog on its back whe…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/14 11:04 AM
-1

All the above statements are theories. If you think such nebulous social concepts as privilege and oppression are even able to proved as scientific fact in the same manner as like, the theory of relativity, then... like... there's not even room for possible agreement between us. You've misunderstood those ideas. They are scientific facts, not theories. In other words, they are descriptions and observations that have been given labels, they aren't theories that attempt to explain phenomena. The f…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/12/14 07:55 AM
6

My hasty construction of said consensus would be: "all races/sexes are born equal, or close enough that we shouldn't focus on our differences. All people should have the same rights and opportunities, and we should work to get rid of privilege. Whites, rich folk, and men are historical oppressors, and currently have it easier (more rights, opportunities and privilege) than women, poor folk and minorities." I've never understood the way the term "political correctness" gets used. In the quote abo…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/14 10:03 PM
1

Sure, I don't really agree with your other points either though. The cultural bias in the WAIS was a problem for studies in the 90s but has largely been controlled for now.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/14 09:24 AM
1

You're conflating the Wechsler IQ test with the concept of IQ tests in general. Not all tests have the components you mention. For example, the Raven's matrices test is entirely abstract and it's the one primarily used to compare different cultures.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/14 09:07 AM
15

Main discussion, **do you believe that there is a genetic link to intelligence? Undeniably. Does this link go by racial lines or some other model? There is currently no real evidence supporting this claim so I think it's best to be doubtful. Do you believe that such statements ought to be made if they are true? Yep. The only issue would be that given the potential negative effects of the finding, researchers should ensure the claims are valid before promoting them too hard. As a comparison, ther…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/14 09:03 AM
0

If someone says "its not her problem, it's yours" that means you need to figure out a way to deal with it, because it doesn't affect her. The only way to take that is to mean, you have to be OK with it because she's going to do as she pleases. No, it means that her past isn't a problem for her, it's a problem for you. Regardless of your position on this that claim is true. In the context of the OP, what they are saying is that it's okay not to prefer women with high partner counts, but it's not …
/r/PurplePillDebate24/11/14 01:53 AM
-1

It didn't support your claim for the reasons I gave.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/11/14 01:18 AM
-1

Then why can't you find a quote that supports your interpretation?
/r/PurplePillDebate24/11/14 12:19 AM
0

It was there before you made your comment above, and it's not really backpedaling as to "backpedal" you have to go back on a claim you've made and reverse it. That didn't happen. The point being that even without the edit you can't interpret their position as saying what you claimed it to. Even the bit you quoted doesn't support what you're saying. What we have here is a clarification to avoid hyperbolic misrepresentations of the OPs position which apparently served as an excellent prediction by…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/14 11:44 PM
0

EDIT: After-thought: You are, of course, allowed to have your preferences. There's nothing wrong with you if you'd prefer a woman who hasn't been around. You are not morally obligated to be attracted to anyone. All I'm saying is, if you go around sleeping with whoever you like and call a woman a slut for being the same, you're probably a hypocritical asshole who lacks introspection. That is assuming that you are using the term "slut" in a derogatory manner. The fact that OP thinks the preference…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/14 11:37 PM
7

This is true only if you believe that you're capable of differentiating between the good ones and the bad ones. Guess what? Nobody is so smart that they can do that perfectly, and you're arrogant if you believe you can do that accurately all the time. That's a bit misleading. The problem with applying population-level statistics to the individual is that there are a number of other variables controlling the behavior. What this means is that whilst these statistics give us good info on what thing…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/14 11:34 PM
0

You've misunderstood the OP. The claim is that if you personally are okay with "sluts" then that's awesome, there is no problem with you also being a "slut". However, if you have a problem with "sluts" but you yourself are a "slut", then there is a problem of hypocrisy. The OP even explicitly says that you are entitled to your preferences and that if you don't like promiscuous women then there's nothing wrong with that. The only thing that's wrong is when there is hypocrisy.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/14 11:24 PM
4

How ironic that BluePillar studies are undeniable, and RedPiller studies are faux-science. Surely you're intelligent enough to realize how extraordinarily and conveniently biased that statement is. At the very least, you're proposing the exact same failings in logic as you're claiming RP's make. It's not "ironic", in the same way it isn't "ironic" that the studies evolutionists present are scientifically sound whereas the studies creationists present against them are flawed. Red pillers are rema…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/14 06:53 AM
3

A straw man is the refutation of a position your opponent did not make, usually because it's easier to defeat than their actual point, so no, you did not. Exactly, so no strawman. You assigned a position to me, and used mocking sarcasm in an attempt to refute my position... No sarcasm, it was a serious question. Which fairly easily qualifies as a straw-man for all intents and purposes. ...Not really, even if your assumptions were true. At best it would be snark and misrepresentation, but there w…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/14 07:30 AM
1

Straw manning makes for a poor argument. I'm not responding to a point I did not make. "Stawmanning" involves assigning a false position to you and then easily dismantling that position. What I did was to take a reasonable interpretation of your position and basically ask if that's a reasonable interpretation of your position. No strawman. (Seriously, for the love of god, can somebody sticky a thread directing red pillers to a page on what logical fallacies are?). The crux is that there is a dis…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/14 07:43 PM
3

That's a good point, but the source-cry is always BP favoured. You seem confused as to why blue pillers would ask for scientific sources to back up scientific claims in a debate sub. Why is that? There's 100x more sources for BP undertakings than anything supporting RP purely by political correctness. Like I always say, no one's going to fund research for "women are hypergamous derps that treat men like shit". Is it possible that it's not political correctness but just how things are? Scientists…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/14 04:18 AM
1

Exactly. This is what I called absolutist TBP style bullshit. The position that I rejected? I agree that it is absolutist but, as I say, I don't think there are any positions that accept it. I am living in reality. So you say, yet I'm the one with the evidence... "punished for negotiating", ha, they actually don't even try and Idc about your imagined reasons why the timid princesses don't. "viewed as demanded and arrogant as opposed to men". There are nuances between demanding and being assertiv…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/14 09:51 PM
0

...You can't use impact factor to judge the quality or validity of papers! Jesus. It's made even more ridiculous by the fact that 1.3 is a decent impact factor for any journal other than Science or Nature. And no, I haven't claimed to present the "definitive definition", I've claimed that you needed to link to a definition that is actually used in the literature (as that's how science works, we don't quote dictionaries). To help you along, I linked you to the definition of one of the seminal wor…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/14 07:45 AM
0

... Did you seriously just try to use impact factor to judge how valid an entire field of science is? You know that's not what impact factor is for, right?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/14 07:24 AM
0

So defining how feminists use the word differently from others isn't relevant in a discussion about how feminists use the word? Um . . . k . . . Why do you keep bringing up "feminists" in this discussion? We aren't talking about feminists, we're talking about sociologists. Imagine a rapist. Spousal abuser. Serial killer. Corrupt politician. Pedophile. What gender was the person you imagined? What you're describing are the negative effects of patriarchal societies on men, it's part of the concept…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/14 03:48 AM
1

One use of the word is precise. That used by anthropology and related fields. However the feminist usage of the word is quite different. Indeed, and the only relevant definition here is the sociological one, which is the one I'm using. It's not a matter of opinion or interpretation. False. We live in a patriarchy which values the masculine above the feminine. You said as much. Why if we valued men over women in some ways and women over men in others then it wouldn't be a patriarchy at all, but r…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/14 02:53 AM
1

I am not anybody's team, but I do dislike exceptionally and unjustifiably haughty and stubborn people. Just saying. Jesus, you must hate 90% of people on TRP then! The part I agree with you is that the people arguing are repeatedly using absolutist interpretation bullshit to rebuke a concept. too TBP style for my taste. You use "absolutist" like it's a bad thing but we're not talking about opinions, we're talking about rigorously defined concepts. If someone told me that evolution means flies gi…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/14 10:07 PM
1

No deflection, you just have to understand that it is insane to be quoting a dictionary when it comes to scientific concepts... There is no "official repository of scientific terminology" because terms are mostly defined in the literature and cited from there. One of the seminal works is Walby's "Theorising Patriarchy": Patriarchy as a concept has a history of usage among social scientists, such as Weber (1947), who used it to refer to a system of government in which men ruled societies through …
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/14 09:49 PM
2

I come from the sciences but regardless, no part of science references the dictionary to define its terms. Most scientific concepts do not match the definitions in the dictionary because the dictionary gives common usage definitions, whereas in science we use technical definitions. That's why each field will usually have it's own dictionary or encyclopedia to cover many of its common concepts. It's also why you'll never find an article cite a dictionary for a definition and instead they'll refer…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/14 10:02 AM
2

Why did you link to the dictionary when discussing scientific concepts? If a scientist opened up the dictionary to define "black hole" they'd be laughed out of academia.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/14 06:01 AM
5

Yeah it has a bunch of names. I also like the term "Dear Muslima fallacy".
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/14 04:04 AM
3

I like how we are just supposed to just believe there is a lot of sexism at that STEM company just because you say so. It's more the fact that sexism in STEM fields is a non-controversial issue. We know there are less women there, we know that they are hired less on the basis of their gender, we know they are paid less on the basis of their gender, etc etc. Surely that's not in debate? Feminist equality everyone! Because we assume that we are oppressed, it just isn't the same when we do somethin…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/14 03:50 AM
3

Uh no, that's a very outdated understanding of feminism. That was maybe true of the older feminists who were trying to gain equality by showing that they can be just like men so deserve equal treatment but current feminism (anything in the last few decades) is focused on choice. That's why so many feminists get annoyed when feminism is disregarded as being "man hating, hairy legged, masculine women" because many of them are feminists who are typical "girly girls", and some even want to be tradit…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/14 03:45 AM
5

1) Who said anything about surveys? 2) Even if we were talking about them, surveys are a standard scientific tool. So I mean, continue to dig yourself into a hole if you like and display your ignorance of basic science, but at the end of the day the only thing you'll be left with is your bias. I don't know about you but I prefer to have an accurate understanding of the world rather than have a superficial perception of being "right" that comes about purely through confirmation bias.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/14 02:50 AM
4

peer reviewed crock of shit made up by some communist sociology majors If you have to posit a conspiracy just to dismiss scientific findings then you really need to stop and recognise your bias here.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/14 02:29 AM
2

That is perhaps your definition. There is more than one. And even that is wrong. ...No, it's a rigorously defined scientific concept, not a matter of opinion. When it comes to child care does society prefer masculine over feminine? Feminine, quite clearly. Can it explain the women are wonderful effect? Yes, because the "women are wonderful" effect refers to women being associated with more positive social traits and feminine traits are usually things like being sociable, kind, caring, etc, so ob…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/14 02:28 AM
4

I just think it's funny that you're so desperate to hold on to your position that no evidence will convince you.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/14 02:23 AM
1

It's a crock that no ones hiring women there are lots of women truck drivers. So you say... women dont WANT to be truck drivers, thats why they arent flocking to a lucrative career that always hiring, just like women dont want to do most of the hardest, dirtiest most dangerous unpleasant work. You mean like mining?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/14 02:12 AM
2

Did you not read my post? I explained that the same problem in trucking that exists in mining. No ones stopping wmen from buying fleets of trucks and being their own trucking companies but women ... Are you serious? You know what you need to do before buying trucks and starting a trucking company, right? You need to work for a number of years in the trucking industry, work yourself up from driver to operating manager, develop contacts and specialised knowledge (whilst saving money), and then you…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/14 02:05 AM
3

...How does that sentence even make sense to you? There's nothing wrong with being masculine. The point is that there's also nothing wrong with being feminine.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/14 01:26 AM
3

Huh? Nobody said it's okay if a woman did that. I simply said it wasn't a valid comparison. The problem with the shirt was that it was another instance of the problems of sexism within science. If you reverse genders then the shirt is no longer another instance of problems of sexism within science, so the shirt isn't a problem on those grounds. It can still be unprofessional, it might be a problem in the sense that it's disrespectful to men to walk around with half-naked men on your shirt, etc, …
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/14 01:25 AM
1

Are you sure? Even if we accept Ceci's study, if your takeaway message is that science is sometimes slightly biased towards women then you're not reading the article.. where they accidentally the data with such a model that comes to an absurd conclusion that women have to be more than twice as good as men to make it. How is that absurd? Fields where they are hurting in, psychology with its massive overrepresentation of women doesn't come under it. Huh? Did you think the problem is that there are…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/14 01:21 AM
1

In favor of women? Small bias towards women is the general finding iirc, and it's not new, they have been making the same point at least since 2009. That's not what the finding is. Even the great Wenneras and Wold study's institute now has it. The study showing that male scientist's competence and achievements were significantly overestimated and women's underestimated on the basis of their gender? I will look into the links you gave, though psychology is another field. How so? We're talking abo…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/14 01:01 AM
1

The difference is that the Ceci article still found discrimination, they just argued that it wasn't institutional. There was a lot of backlash to the article from researchers who pointed out all the studies that contradicted their claim but even if we ignore all that research like Ceci did, they're still missing the fact that there is more to sexism and discrimination than just institutional. The fact is that we see the same thing across all of science, and practically every other career, like h…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/14 12:33 AM
3

No, a patriarchal society is one that favours masculine gender norms over feminine ones, which means that generally men are advantaged in social situations. There's nothing about it which suggests that men are dominant to all women and women cannot ever challenge them. Seriously, where are you getting this stuff from? Just link to the journal article where you got your understanding of patriarchy and it'll help me understand why you have such major misconceptions.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/14 12:22 AM
2

They generally can't get the jobs. You see the same thing with the mining industry where women are applying for the jobs but the mines won't hire them because they think they're too weak (before even meeting them or reading their qualifications). That's why feminists were able to successfully challenge major mine companies on issues of sexual discrimination for refusing to hire women.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/14 12:19 AM
3

Under a patriarchy men can do whatever they want and women will have to forever walk on egg shells to avoid offending the pro-male majority. ...What? No theory of patriarchal processes argues that. Can you link me to some academic articles where it states something like that?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/14 12:16 AM
2

Haha, if you're really going to appeal to the Ceci article then I think it's safe to assume you don't know what you're talking about here.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/14 12:13 AM
3

They have those opportunities. Even more so than men these days with quotas and abundant amounts of scholarships not available to men. Except I pointed out evidence that they don't. So where's your evidence? Women have it easier than men these days in most areas of life. They are consistently looked at as victims and given the benefit of the doubt in every single situations. So you say but I'll repeat what I said above: I don't give a shit about your feelings. This is America in 2014 not Saudi A…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/11/14 11:37 PM
3

"Nonessential things" like having equal opportunities in terms of employment and pay?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/11/14 10:52 PM
9

That's quite a disingenuous parallel to draw. ...It's not a "parallel", it's just a description of the situation. There is not institutionalized discrimination against women in STEM. There are numerous forms of discrimination against women in STEM, but most notably is the fact that simply having a male name will make you more likely to be hired, more likely to be viewed as competent, and offered a higher starting salary. In fact, it's quite the opposite. Between a similarly qualified man and wom…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/11/14 10:07 PM
2

Women who want to get into STEM need to stop being fucking babies. Ah, so that's what discrimination is? Minorities are just being babies.. People who believe in themselves and know they have the intellectual chops to accomplish their dreams don't let a few naysayers get in their way. Those darn naysayers! Just to be clear, you understand the the "naysayers" are the employers and their form of "naysaying" is to not hire them, right? There are so many scholarships and opportunities for women to g…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/11/14 09:03 PM
5

Maybe you need to control your emotions and discuss this like a rational adult.. You really think you have the right to dictate what kind of shirt this man wears? He's a grown ass man. He can wear whatever he likes. Yes, and nobody is arguing for a law against him doing that. But the people criticising him are also grown ass men and women so they can criticise him for whatever they like. If a female scientist wore a shirt with a bunch of scantily clad meathead dudes on it no one would bat an eye…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/11/14 07:52 PM
4

I don't think it exists. When I first heard how this guy was harassed for contributing to a hostile work environment, I sort of thought "Yeah, he obviously deserves some reprimand for that choice but he doesn't deserve harassment!". Then I had a discussion with someone who was upset that he was harassed so badly and he said that the harassment was that he was called a misogynist and told to apologise for his actions... I assume something else must have happened, like him receiving death threats …
/r/PurplePillDebate16/11/14 07:22 PM
2

[Part 2/2]: what exactly makes an "underprivileged" person competent by default and more worthy of being listened to than someone lower on the LoP-hierarchy? It's not as if underprivileged persons can't embellish their ordeals or abuse their LoP-privilege to silence opposing viewpoints. Nobody is claiming that they are automatically right. The claim is that people without privilege are better at understanding the experiences of people without privilege. Specifically, a woman is better at underst…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/11/14 10:09 PM
2

[Part 1/2]: ...is it really? Pretty much, yep. First: The whole "lack of privilege"-hierarchy doesn't sit well with me. Is an affluent minority person more or less privileged than a poor white person? Is a white woman less privileged than an Asian man? Is a wealthy white woman still less privileged than a middle class white man? Where are you on the privilege-hierarchy if you're a Black Muslim handicapped lesbian, but also a billionare - are you more or less privileged than the WASP Joe Everyman…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/11/14 10:09 PM
2

They aren't different standards because that implies they are the same. Isn't that the normal red pill difference of treating women differently? It's still equal because we're just accepting the differences between the genders? Well the same thing applies here. Society understands and reacts to the genders differently. It makes absolutely no sense to describe the processes that affect them as being the same thing when they are demonstrably fundamentally different processes.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/11/14 09:27 PM
1

But what we were talking about had nothing to do with what jack said.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/11/14 09:34 AM
1

Not just feminists, anybody who understands the formal definition of the word will say that. The key is just to understand that the common use of "sexism" usually refers to prejudice.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/11/14 07:45 AM
1

Any time!
/r/PurplePillDebate13/11/14 12:19 AM
2

No problem! My view is pretty much the mainstream view. If there is ever any debate over Freud then it is usually a debate over whether he had no influence or whether he added some things to the field, it's never whether he was a significant figure as nobody really believes that. You can see it in how psychology is taught these days in top universities. I can't find the source at the moment but a recent survey of undergrad psych courses across top universities throughout the world showed that le…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/11/14 11:52 PM
1

I don't know, I don't know him as well as you. Many of the sources I could find simply said that he used the fact that Freud was his uncle to bolster his claims and ideas but couldn't find any technique or idea that actually came from Freud.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/11/14 11:46 PM
2

There are probably multiple reasons for it so I'll sum up the main ones: 1) people generally aren't very good at knowing important scientists in history, that's why the average person has probably heard of Richard Dawkins but not Gregor Mendel. 2) Freud gained notoriety in his time as being a bit of a crackpot and so he became fairly well-known because people were making fun of him and dedicating time to showing how silly he was. He was chased out of conferences and across countries because of h…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/11/14 10:32 PM
1

A little, yes. What psychoanalytic methods do you think he used? (Note that this is a different question to what methods did he think he was using).
/r/PurplePillDebate12/11/14 10:06 PM
0

I am denying that everyone who is labeled as privileged over someone else actually has to be. ...Sure, I guess. It's a hard thing to mistake though, as you're usually either white or not, or male or not. So you want to say you're either in denial, lying, or not half as knowledgable about SJWs of all decades and nationalities as you think you are. Fine, saves us Ah, that must be the only logical conclusion given that I knew enough to identify specifically the strawman you were referring to, expla…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/11/14 10:01 PM
1

if there's some conflict of interest between someone who is "privileged" and someone who ostensibly lacks privilege, the latter is somehow right by default, and even if he or she isn't, something outrageous must have happened to force him or her into the position of the bad guy. Firstly, I'm not sure why you put scarequotes around a scientific concept. You aren't denying the existence of privilege, right? Secondly, I won't go so far as to say nobody has ever held the view you describe because I'…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/11/14 09:40 PM
1

since i can't read the article because it's behind a paywall that's hard for me to determine. Did you think the excerpts I gave weren't conclusive enough? i've read up on fechner since you mentioned it though and it seems he was an inspiration for freud. but even if you believe freud just popularized his ideas, and had none of his own, that was still important. Freud didn't popularise his ideas though. It's like this: pretty every psychologist (and philosopher interested in psychology) in histor…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/11/14 09:26 PM
-1

No, I said I don't think "political correctness" is a real thing - it's a rhetorical device that people use, not an actual position that anyone accepts. The fact that there are people that the term is applied to is not debatable, it's just that they don't really accept the things they are described as believing (like the silly "cultural Marxism" meme). Don't tell me that people actually believe that it's more than just a strawman insult? Either way, regardless of how valid you find my own argume…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/11/14 07:26 AM
1

Sure, but none of that is due to Freud's work. The paper I link to above gives a great history of unconscious processes and explains why it's a mistake to think Freud was relevant.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/11/14 07:21 AM
-1

It's the most surreal experience I've ever had. I guess Poe's law is a thing for a reason but I seriously thought his comments were so over the top they had to be a blue piller trolling TRP. I'm still not entirely convinced he isn't.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/11/14 05:20 AM
1

I was discussing an intellectual trend. You started blathering on about Jewish conspiracies and the like. "Cultural Marxism" isn't an intellectual trend, it's a conspiracy theory. That's the point. Claiming you are surprised or amused is not particularly convincing. You are obvious quite familiar with the intellectual trend and quite defensive about it. I'm familiar with the term because people joke about it on all the "bad" subs, like /r/badsocialscience when people parody conspiracy theorists …
/r/PurplePillDebate12/11/14 03:53 AM
1

What the hell, are you on about this "Jewish conspiracy" again? What are you talking about? The Jewish conspiracy isn't the same as a cultural Marxist conspiracy - they're two different things. I brought it up as a comparison (even though many explanations of cultural Marxism are based on evil Jews controlling the world). Uhhh... The point being that if I quote Hitler it doesn't make me a Nazi. Of course it is. In the same way that a secret Jewish conspiracy is a real thing, yes, but I mean it's…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/11/14 03:36 AM
-1

No, you weren't under that impression, but it's very telling that open discussion of cultural Marxism gets under your skin quite a bit. I was under that impression because it's an insane conspiracy theory. I've only heard people use it when they make fun of conspiracy theorists, and they added "Marxism" to it because Americans seem terrified of anything vaguely related to communism. TheBluePill actually quotes Adorno himself - the freaking Godfather of cultural Marxism. 1) who gives a shit who t…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/11/14 03:18 AM
0

I'm not "fond" of any Jewish conspiracy, I was just under the impression that nobody actually used the term "cultural marxism" seriously in the same way that nobody actually believes in a Jewish conspiracy. This is too crazy, I'm not touching this!
/r/PurplePillDebate12/11/14 03:09 AM
-1

TheBluePill is feminist and progressive, and even actually quotes Marxists from time to time. It's a "red flag" and "too extreme" because it hits close to the mark. ...You were serious? You were using the term "cultural Marxism" is an unironic way?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/11/14 03:03 AM
2

Just so you know, it's considered against the rules to make fun of red pillers by parodying them in insane and ridiculous ways. And with that said, your parody is way too extreme, I don't think any red piller would actually believe that blue pillers think that. The random and inexplicable use of "cultural Marxism" was the red flag that gave you away, you may as well have blamed it on the secret Jewish conspiracy.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/11/14 02:19 AM
1

Can you recall any specific comments or references that might be relevant?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/11/14 01:04 AM
1

Nah I haven't sorry, do you think it contains information that contradicts what I've discussed above?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/14 09:49 PM
1

so why complain about what's normal. I certainly accept that, it was more just confusing that I wasn't even making a post that was pro- or anti- any pill and instead just made a pretty dry factual comment about some aspect of psychology's history. It seemed like such a random post to downvote. second, can you post some peer reviewed links to your points? Sure! There's a good article on the history of the unconscious here (unfortunately behind a paywall): Fechner as a pioneering theorist of uncon…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/14 08:40 AM
1

I'm being even more general than psychology though. I'm talking in the super general, cultural sense. Freud's ideas, even if they were wrong, became part of the culture in a way. Ah fair enough, yeah I can agree that he's relevant in a cultural sense and although it isn't my field, I think I've heard some people suggest that the psychoanalytic approach to literary analysis holds some validity. My only concern was appealing to Freud when making claims about psychology. You don't have to agree (an…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/14 04:34 AM
1

it's more a kind of personal "ugh" reaction to people who feel that major figures can just be written off without any thought or consideration. I can agree with this, in that even though I'm staunchly against the idea that Freud was influential in psychology it still annoys me when people make incorrect claims about him. Right or wrong (and I don't say that in a dismissive way, I know 'right ot wrong' matters), he was a major thinker of our time. Ehh... I don't quite agree here. Freud is a curio…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/14 04:13 AM
1

BUT. I do think there is/may be something to the "mysterious" view. I think you're finding a more nuanced position where Freud wouldn't have agreed with you. There are essentially two things a person needs to accept to have a realistic view of the mind: 1) many parts of it can be studied scientifically. This just isn't up for debate - it's studied scientifically on a daily basis. 2) at least some parts of the mind can't be studied scientifically because they aren't scientific issues. For example…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/14 03:51 AM
1

I wouldn't describe myself as a "Freudian" in any way but it's certainly gotten to the point where rejecting Freud is pretty much de rigeur in academic and intellectual circles (actually, that may have already peaked but that's another topic). Generally I see the life cycle of someone's opinion of Freud like this: 1) "Freud created psychology, he's amazing!" - this is the point where a person knows nothing about psychology and the only name they know is Freud because their uncle used to make Fre…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/14 01:28 AM
1

This isn't true. The concept of the unconscious was around long before Freud and was developed long after Freud with no reference to him. The role that Freud played was that he added his own flavour to the concept of the unconscious (conceptualising it as being divided into id, ego, and superego). Unfortunately there was no value to doing this and no scientific support so even in his own day his understanding of the unconscious was rejected. The form of unconscious processes that we work from to…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/14 01:21 AM
0

But agartha didn't present any evidence that needs to be discussed and I dismantled his "logic" in my post above. As for the random psychoanalysis there, that was hilarious.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/14 08:17 PM
1

This sounds like one big wank about how you're upset that not only are you expected to present evidence but that you also have to understand it in the greater context of scientific research. I had a similar argument with a red piller here months ago where he would skim through the literature to try to find a paper that supported his views. I'd be happy that he at least referenced something and then I'd explain why the paper doesn't support the views (e.g. I point out specific flaws in the method…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/14 11:50 AM
1

A lack of education in the humanities, particularly psychology and sociology. This lends to susceptability of pop-psych and pseudo-science, of which is depressingly pervasive throughout the ideology. This is such a big one. You always see red pillers talking about "nature and nurture", and how men or women have evolved to do X, etc, but it's always quite clear that they don't understand the basics of what those claims entail.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/14 12:48 AM
1

EDIT: You know what? Should have stopped reading at this pedantic bullshit. go away. I don't think you understand what "pedantic" means as nothing I've said is 'pedantic'. you don't have a point unless you can interpret things in absolutes. you depend on loopholes where someone forgot to put in a disclaimer from that. this is what you're showing. No, absolutes aren't needed - the point is just that he's pointing to a general trend that he believes exists and I'm demonstrating that even on his ow…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/11/14 03:31 AM
0

Comments? More than one? I'm not aware of any. Why wont you be civil and simply link to it? Civility is rule #1 in this sub. That's a bit rich coming from you, isn't it? If you'd rather bitch about your misunderstanding of burden of proof for 10-odd posts rather than just scrolling up then I think you're the one lacking civility. I claim that you have not demonstrated that. You claim that you have. Please support your claim by showing me where exactly that was done. I supported it by telling you…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/11/14 09:48 PM
1

because rp is the example of choice to represent the views and sentiments of the world? Why would I need to represent the views and sentiments of the world? The claim was that rape is taken seriously by everyone so all I needed was one example of a group that didn't take it seriously. Since we're in PPD and he's a red piller, it seemed convenient and relevant to point out that his own subreddit contradicts his point of view. He can claim whatever he wants. You are reducing him to his subscriptio…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/11/14 09:37 PM
-1

How is it circle jerking or a strawman to point out to somebody who claims that sexual assault is always taken seriously that their own subreddit doesn't conform to their views of the world? In other words, he can't claim that rape is taken seriously by people whilst being subbed to TRP that claims date rape isn't real.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/11/14 05:04 AM
-2

Which I did, by pointing to my comments in this thread. Now it's your turn.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/11/14 04:36 AM
-2

But in this case, you haven't presented a theory, or written a paper, or so much as posted a comment making the argument that "hello" is harassment. You've stated it as fact, but never actually made an argument for it. Ah, that's where you're falling down - I did, above multiple times in this thread. If you have a counter-argument, then by all means present it. Burden is on you afterall.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/11/14 12:32 AM
-2

You really don't understand how logic works, do you? If I present a theory in a paper and present the evidence, then you might come along and say that I haven't supported my claim. It's not up to me to present the evidence again. You have made the positive claim that I haven't supported my claim - the burden is now on you. The same thing applies here.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/11/14 11:47 PM
-2

The take-away message from that post is: raise your SMV high enough and you can never be accused of raping a woman because she'll always want it.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/11/14 10:25 PM
-4

My claim is: "no, it hasn't." I'm not required to prove a negative. Your claim is: "has been demonstrated" You are required to support that. You aren't being asked to prove a negative, you are being asked to prove the positive claim: that it hasn't been demonstrated. You are the one making the claim, you have to support it. Don't feel bad though, many laymen misunderstand how burden of proof is actually used in philosophy and science. No, it's not. Yes it is. You need to start supporting your cl…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/11/14 10:24 PM
1

But I guess that's not "real" rape so it doesn't contradict the guy's point above. I'm sure he'll come back and link to all the comments in the thread calling for violence against the men that rape. I hope he hasn't read their sidebar, especially the article that says that date rape isn't real. He's going to be calling for violence against the TRP sub itself!
/r/PurplePillDebate05/11/14 10:17 PM
-1

Wow. No, it hasn't. I love how you take your opinion, that it hasn't been demonstrated, and then preface it with "Wow, no it hasn't" as though that carries any weight at all. Once again, this is rich. You're the one attempting to label a polite greeting as harassment. And you have the gall to say that I'm doing the very thing you're doing. No redefinition required, it's covered in the definition. You my friend are well schooled in the ways of postmodernist discourse. I'm sure we've had a discuss…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/11/14 10:16 PM
-1

I love how you take your opinion, that it constitutes harassment, and then preface it with, "you'd have to really try hard to think it's not" as though that carries any weight at all. Except the point is that it's been demonstrated to meet the definition of sexual harassment. The point is that red pillers attempt to redefine what sexual harassment is (and sometimes even make absurd appeals to the "1st amendment"!) to try to argue that it's not sexual harassment. Like if I called you an idiot, yo…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/11/14 09:59 PM
-1

Please point out the sexual assault in the video. Why would I do that? Nobody claimed that sexual assault occurred in the video. If she actually got sexually assaulted at all (not harasses), people would be asking for these men to be killed. People get really angry at rape/sexual assault they know is true beyond a reasonable doubt. Haha, have you ever read TRP when a rape case is brought up? The main concerns are: what was she wearing? Did she lead him on? She was probably drunk and just regrett…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/11/14 09:43 PM
-4

LOL wow dude! That's your argument that my opinion has no merit? That it was posted to a tiny sub that you happen to like? That is the most unintentionally hilarious appeal to authority that I've ever heard. Huh? No, I didn't make the argument that your opinion has no merit because it was posted to that sub, I said that your opinion has no merit and the reason is the same as to why it was posted in that sub. And seriously man, that's the most hilarious failure at identifying a logical fallacy th…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/11/14 09:40 PM
-1

We're talking about a video in which "how are you this morning" (said at 0:36) is labeled harassment You'd have to try incredibly hard to think that that phrase, in that context, was not a form of harassment. Mild harassment? Sure, he's not slapping her ass and throwing slurs at her, but it's still clearly harassment.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/11/14 09:37 PM
5

Dude, you're purposefully ignorant ? Poor living condition and poor education is what makes harrasment of any kind possible. ...You must be joking? The problem with sexual harassment is precisely that it's not limited to one group of society, it's pretty prevalent all throughout. Have you been to poor countries and see what means harrasment there ? Male and women there don't get hello, and have a good day for harrasment. And yes i've been to poor countries. Good for you buddy, who gives a shit? …
/r/PurplePillDebate05/11/14 08:29 AM
2

I honestly don't know what point you think you're making. I don't know how anything you've said relates to anything I've written above but in an attempt to break your one man circlejerk and get the discussion back on track: of course poor people should not sexually harass people. Why would socioeconomic level change whether someone can harass another person or not?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/11/14 08:00 AM
2

You're a boss bro ;) You realise that I was basically just repeating back what you said? It seems kind of silly to try to mock a comment that you created. Sorry I forgot. Every social league is the same as the ones you have experience with. Apologies. ...Are you seriously that self-unaware? I am just repeating back your claims and making the opposite point. You claim that you play a lot of sports, then I claim I play a lot of sports. In response you try to sarcastically mock my appeal to playing…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/11/14 07:58 AM
2

In my experience.. and I have played a lot of sports, you are wrong. In my experience, and I have played a lot of sports at high levels, I am right. a) It is always initiated by someone.. be it facing up to someone else, getting in their face, shoving/pushing etc. That is violence initiated. It doesn't make any difference if both end up throwing punches. Violence generally escalates in physical encounters - rough challenges leading to questionable challenges leading to physical altercations. b) …
/r/PurplePillDebate05/11/14 07:25 AM
2

But it is a gender issue (even if you could somehow demonstrate that it's a poor issue as well). There's a reason why nicethingyoucanthave's comment was posted to /r/badsocialscience (namely that it was a woeful understanding of the issues involved).
/r/PurplePillDebate05/11/14 07:19 AM
1

I don't understand your message, it doesn't seem to apply to anything I've written.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/11/14 06:56 AM
4

Two important points there: 1) normally fights in sports games are entered into by each person (in cases where a person is sucker punched the behavior is rarely excused), and 2) the violence usually isn't dismissed - they face serious organisational repercussions and can face legal charges in some cases.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/11/14 06:54 AM
11

On the flip side though, if someone filmed themselves walking down the street and showed all the instances of them being robbed and assaulted, you'd be unlikely to find a bunch of apologists trying to explain it away by saying things like, "That wasn't a robbery! He just wanted to borrow your wallet for an undefined period of time!" or "That wasn't assault, he just pushed you and spat in your face, he didn't punch you!". The problem with many forms of sexual violence is not so much that they occ…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/11/14 04:36 AM
0

I'm not sure if it's possible, but I'm going to need you to quantify this. Unless you are a woman, I'm not sure how you could comment on something you're not looking out for on a daily basis. You'd also have to double check his methodology as I assume he'll say that things like, "Hello gorgeous", said in the same context as that video, aren't forms of harassment. In other words, it's easy to support the claim that harassment is rare if you arbitrarily ignore major forms of harassment.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/11/14 02:43 AM
1

I like how you guys have been downvoted for providing context to the pseudoscientific claims in the OP... Jesus, some people are really going hard on the downvote button in this thread.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/14 09:52 PM
-6

My hyperbole was quite purposeful to illustrate how this could be framed, because it can be framed in many ways. Sure, but I think it's probably best to try to frame it in the most reasonable way that makes sense given the context provided. I'm don't think people should seemingly shrug this off because it's Dunham and they like her politics. People shouldn't shrug it off but they also should remember that they were the actions of a 7 year old. I'm sure if I described some shit I did as a kid in …
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/14 11:04 AM
-2

If this was a case of a brother masturbating to his 10 year old sibling and bribing them with promises of candy for kisses, playing with their genitals, and emotional manipulating them into dependance the way she describes in her book she would be pulling out the pitchforks. Do you have any sources for those claims? The way you describe it makes it sound far more involved and serious than the excerpts of her book that I've read. For example, the section I read about her masturbating stated that …
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/14 10:25 AM
-2

Truth Revolt legal update[1] . I suggest for those who wish to debate that they at least familiarize themselves with this link. I'm not sure where exactly the law stands in regards to misrepresenting someone like that but at the very least the "Truth Revolt" seems to be purposefully trying to frame her actions as "sexual abuse" without being able to find any quotes from her book to support that. From the evidence they present it sounds like she was a weird kid with maybe some problematic boundar…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/14 06:15 AM
3

What? No, the "reasonable person" criteria is a condition for most laws. It doesn't rely on the opinions of "one reasonable person" or "two reasonable people", it is a condition that lawyers have to demonstrate using evidence in court. If you think the reasonable person condition is "subjective" and "subjective" laws are useless, then you've thrown out most of the legal system!
/r/PurplePillDebate02/11/14 02:57 AM
2

It always crosses my mind that this might be a bad situation if a girl had 1 drink. It crosses your mind that a reasonable person would view a girl who has one drink as being incoherent? Unless the girl has really, really low tolerance then I don't think a girl would suddenly become incoherent after one drink. You're post are so infuriating to read because you are being so disingenuous. You know this is a grey area. You always phrase your answers with "likely" which MEANS IT IS A FUCKING GREY AR…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/11/14 02:55 AM
1

You're contradicting yourself. Not to mention you're contradicting yourself, and also making presumptuous statements about people you don't know at all. So you say, but your inability to point out any contradictions is awfully telling of how strong your claim is. Right, right. We don't have accurate statistics for rates of rape, but somehow we have them for rates of false rape. Silly me Huh? We have accurate statistics for both. The whole point is that the situation SEEMS clear at the time, and …
/r/PurplePillDebate02/11/14 02:04 AM
0

What? I can't control for people willfully and purposefully making stuff up that I haven't said. If you want to argue against strawmen then go for it, just don't bother directing it at me because I can't defend things I haven't said and don't believe.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/11/14 01:45 AM
4

There is a huge gray area in between sober and passed out and you damn well know it. There isn't though, it's really very simple. If it even crosses your mind that someone may not be coherent enough to consent to sex and you might be accused of rape, then you're dealing with someone who likely isn't coherent enough to consent to sex. It's not disturbing that I acknowledge this truth, its disturbing that you think men should go to jail for having sex with drunk girls. I don't think that and I've …
/r/PurplePillDebate01/11/14 10:34 PM
8

Says who? You? This exact scenario actually happened to a friend of mine. It wasn't exactly that awesome for him to go through that. Just basic statistics says so. I never said it's impossible, just less clear than you're making out out to be; But the whole point is that if the situation isn't clear, then you'd be a moron to think that the consent may be valid. When I'm dealing with the checkout operator at the supermarket or talking to my boss about some issue at work, I'm not sitting there thi…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/11/14 10:31 PM
1

1) You said who the hell thinks it is I'm answering your question. You can't just go and be like "oh, well THEY don't count!" It was a discussion between me and cxj, and fizolof says "Drunk sex is not rape". Why would he say this? Nobody in the discussion thinks that. The fact that another user in the thread, or your mate Bob, or the homeless guy down the street from you might think that is irrelevant. Why would someone take the time to tell me that drunk sex is not rape when I'm not the one who…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/11/14 10:23 PM
7

God your argument is so awful. Of COURSE the line isn't clear, I've known plenty of people who have blacked out and done impressively complicated tasks, only to say the next day they have no recollection whatsoever of doing so. These are people who, if I had not seen them drink beforehand, would not have known they were drunk (or at least, would not have had any idea how drunk). These are people who could have feasibly consented to sex in a very believable, coherent way. And according to the law…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/11/14 08:52 PM
7

1) Why would I care what the person below me says? 2) but nobody in this string of comments claimed that drunk sex is rape so why bring it up?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/11/14 08:45 PM
8

The line is not clear. It is very difficult to know, let alone prove, a person was sober enough to consent. You have extremes, on one end sobriety, on the other being passed out. Virtually everything in between is pretty damn tough. It really isn't and it's a little disturbing that you think it's difficult to tell if a drunk person is coherent.. Let's make it simple: if you're in a situation where you are having difficulty determining whether someone is coherent, then they likely aren't. And if …
/r/PurplePillDebate01/11/14 08:44 PM
8

It's not vague and subjective at all, the line is clear: is the person you plan on having sex with coherent enough to understand the implications of their actions? If not then it's most likely rape. And if the "PC" crowd or illuminati or whatever conspiracy got you to stop and doubt to yourself that this girl was sober enough to consent, then that's a fucking win. I'll take that, no matter how annoyed you are that you were forced into not assaulting someone for the sake of getting your dick wet.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/11/14 08:00 PM
8

No shit, who the hell thinks it is and why are you bringing up that irrelevant point in this discussion?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/11/14 07:24 PM
11

She obviously doesn't need to be passed out or nearly passed out to be unable to consent, just so drunk that she reasonably can't be expected to be able to consent. You apparently were able to see that was the case and avoided taking advantage of her which is something to be proud of and not something you should feel like you have to defend.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/11/14 07:23 PM
21

It's awesome that you got a glimpse of what women tend to face on a daily basis but your comment about "bullshit rape charges" seemed a little weird. If you had some concern or hesitation over the fact that she was so drunk that it's possible that her consent may not be valid, then that wouldn't be a "bullshit rape charge", it'd likely just be standard rape. Sounds like the chick was into you though, should have grabbed her number to hook up with her later.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/11/14 11:38 AM
5

...and the feminist argument amounts to "women get 77% for totally the same work as men get and as long as women don't make 100% of the money men make the system is utterly injust." You find me an academic that you believe is a feminist who thinks that the unadjusted wage gap refers to equal work and I'll agree that they are factually wrong. What I see most often, even with non-academic feminists, is that they will argue that the unadjusted wage gap is still (at least partly) the result of sexis…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/14 10:57 AM
4

Did you just link to the "Brainwashed" 'documentary' when discussing bias in academia?... And no, of course feminists (or anybody) haven't debunked the gender pay gap - it's because it can't be debunked. Even the most ardent anti-feminist accepts that the pay gap exists. The arguments against it essentially amount to: 1) the unadjusted pay gap is explained by other factors, and 2) the adjusted pay gap isn't that big so it's okay. But seriously, if you're linking "Brainwashed" as evidence then yo…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/14 09:49 AM
2

Except rape culture has a basis in science. You're not making much sense here. Okay, let's break the concept down a bit and you tell me where you disagree: Rape culture describes societal elements in cultures or sub-cultures which can affect attitudes towards rape and/or actual incidences of rape. Now, are you suggesting that it's unscientific to think that things in society can change how we think about rape, or are you saying that things in society can't affect the incidences of rape, or are y…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/14 06:36 AM
2

Alright, so does that mean it's above being labeled as bad then? Why would it be above being labeled as bad? Cancer is a scientific concept, still bad. It's the scientific description of a bad thing. Will you join me and other defenders of scientific concepts like hardcore human eugenics? About barracking for the inherent intellectual superiority of certain races or sexes? They're also scientific concepts. Eugenics and sexist/racist agendas aren't scientific concepts by definition, they're pseud…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/14 06:21 AM
2

Not really, a "scientific concept" is a rigorous framework or idea which is utilised in scientific research. It's pretty narrowly defined as it only applies to concepts used within science.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/14 04:00 AM
5

You realise that all of the work and activism into changing the definition of rape to include the assault of men is done by feminists right? The fact that the US now even accepts anal penetration of men as rape is entirely the result of feminist efforts.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/10/14 12:21 AM
1

There's a subtle difference because TRP isn't a presumably neutral free-for-all-sub (actually not really a debating sub), but one that admits being ideologically biased. One of the things that TRP likes to boast is that it is open to all, rejects censorship, and allows people to really speak their minds. Had the OP for example criticized censorship in /r/feminism, your comparison would make sense. How does that make sense? However, he isn't asking that the opposing side has to bend over when red…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/14 11:39 PM
4

If an ideology has a record of twisting the facts, using false statistics, not owning its mistakes and engaging in wishful thinking, then the assumption that scholars who adher to that ideology are more likely to fall for comparable fallacies isn't that far off. Sure thing, which is reason to be skeptical and used to encourage you to find flaws in the data and methodology. It's the beginning of a critical appraisal, not the end. Also, you seem to be suggesting that having some ideology (e.g. bei…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/14 11:37 PM
5

Well I can see that he received a number of awards from prominent organizations. So saying that he isn't a successful scientist just sounds you being a petty contradictorian. He won a couple of early career awards in the 80s and then the rest were either awards for non-science things like writing awards, or his supposed contribution to popular science awareness. I don't doubt that their detractors are biased but at least they don't operate (for the most part) from a purely ideological origin. Bu…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/14 11:34 PM
5

So, a highly intelligence and successful scientist and author is on the level of a first year uni student simply because you say so? Makes total sense. I guess the man stopped educating himself after the 80s. "Highly intelligent" is debatable, "successful scientist" is just plain false, and the author claim is irrelevant to the discussion. So yes, a man who has no real background in science who might be reasonably intelligent (and happened to write some books which were heavily criticised and re…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/14 10:37 PM
7

Even accepting that there are more liberals than conservatives in the field, what is that supposed to prove? You still need to find fault in the data or methodology, simply handwaving at some possible political affiliation is meaningless. And given that most countries outside of the US aren't really as divided over the left and right, my experience suggests that most psychologists fall somewhere closer to the middle rather than to the left and rejecting the right. I think the other thing to keep…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/14 10:31 PM
8

He has more expertise than a layman, at least when looking at evidence from other studies. Arguably he would have some knowledge of how to read studies but considering he hasn't done that kind of research for decades, his skills would be rusty. Okay, let's say he would have equivalent expertise on the matter as a first year uni student - I'd still consider that a layman. I doubt he came to this conclusion simply trying to be edgy. More likely scenarios is that there are a multitude of factors th…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/14 09:37 PM
6

Well, he referred to the scientific concept of rape culture as "hatespeak", so that might explain the downvotes (i.e. somebody who either clearly doesn't understand the basics of the topic or is willfully misrepresenting them probably isn't adding anything constructive to the discussion).
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/14 09:22 PM
8

A couple of points there: 1) it's highly debatable whether he's a "respected psychologist". For starters, he hardly does any experimental work in the field so we can debate whether he can even be considered a relevant psychologist, and secondly most of his opinions are highly controversial and rejected by most psychologists. That's why his books are used as examples in evo psych classes of how the field should not be done. 2) he has no training or expertise in the matter of rape research so his …
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/14 09:21 PM
0

No, no, you misunderstand. It's "censorship" as the term is used by red pillers to criticise the actions of other subs. I get that it isn't really censorship, in the same way that when people on the internet complain about their "free speech" they don't actually mean free speech in the actual sense. In the OP, for example, he thinks that TIL removing threads for violating their rules is "censorship". Even if they removed it because they didn't like menrights stuff and it didn't even violate the …
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/14 09:14 PM
4

That's censorship.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/14 08:18 PM
2

I'd disagree with the idea that seddit is feminist-friendly at all but otherwise I have no real complaints with the ideas you present. Of course subreddits are going to put in place things which create the kind of community and atmosphere they want. Askscience cuts out jokes and unevidenced top-level comments, psychology bans self-posts and questions about personal problems, etc etc. The point is just that "censorship" (when denied so broadly as to include things like that) isn't a bad thing. It…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/14 11:21 AM
8

My money is on "they looked at your posting history and assumed you were unlikely to contribute anything worthwhile to the sub". So censorship?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/14 10:05 AM
4

Not a BPer, but here's what they'll say! It is inherently misogynistic that Joe should want to acquire four hot women for a polyamorous relationship, because women are fellow humans who need to be viewed and appreciated in a holistic sense, not as just a means to an end! They're not collectibles! So in short, Joe and his penis and their desires are just wrong before any of his action plan comes into effect. Realistically, does this help Joe? Nah. Will it change his mind about what he wants? Nah.…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/10/14 09:22 AM
4

Would you describe any of those scenarios are rape, even "accidental rape"? What about the time between she wanting to stop and he noticing something is wrong? During that time he was, without doubt, penetrating her against her will. Is he a rapist? Rape is when a reasonable person would think that they don't have consent. Many of the examples you've given are ambiguous and highly dependent on other factors in the situation. It makes no sense for you to think that rape requires the other person …
/r/PurplePillDebate07/10/14 09:59 AM
3

Under your reasoning, it is reasonable for a woman to not check up on him to find out if he's enjoying himself in while blowing him because she's just that into it, but a man, say, fucking a woman has the reasonable expectation to continually ensure what he is doing is to her liking. No, both need to check up. Also yes I have had sex with women who like to be silent for long periods of times. They tend to say they're too focused on the pleasure. Being silent is fine, nobody said otherwise. Maybe…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/10/14 03:40 AM
3

Well, I agree with you on basically all of what you said here. You cleared up a bunch of misconceptions I had on this. Thanks, I appreciate your honesty there. Normally discussions here require more butting of heads before concluding that we'll have to agree to disagree.. If the victim doesn't say "stop" for fear of violence and the rapist isn't aware that the victim wants him to stop , then we have an issue of communication here. The key part there is "isn't aware that the victim wants him to s…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/10/14 02:06 AM
3

Incorrect. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967[1] I don't understand why you've linked to evidence that I'm right, as the text makes it clear that if the person is under the reasonable impression that he has affirmative consent then there is no crime. I'm a lawyer. This is what I deal with every day. A law stating what does not count as an exception is not, in any way, entailing that the inverse does count as an exception. You may be a lawyer, I do…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/10/14 01:13 AM
3

Only one of those was non-verbal (lying back with a smile), and I admit I missed that one (saw it on a rewatch). And moaning isn't talking, but that and "resounding yes" fall pretty in line with each other. "Verbal" refers to the use of language or words, so things like moaning comes under non-verbal. But that's a minor point. But if you're having consexual sex with a japanese girl and she doesn't react at all during the entire event, but when you ask her, she says she's fine. It's a pretty mixe…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/10/14 01:04 AM
3

She does? I saw the whole video and only saw verbal enthusiastic yes messages being accepted as valid ways to consent by her. She gives examples, some of them were her lying back with a smile, some were her moaning, and some were verbal in other ways (e.g. "oo yeah, I like that"). She only mentioned an actual verbal yes as one example among many. There was a whole section dedicated to her presenting examples. However, accidentally raping someone is a concept that contradicts itself, no? Rape inv…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/10/14 10:34 PM
3

No, not under the California campus rape law. Then give me a link because everything I've read says differently. The guy, in my example, was sexually assaulted under that law. "Some violation" did not occur; he did not consent, she did not obtain affirmative consent, and he was therefore sexually assaulted/raped. No because rape requires a reasonable person to deduce that consent was not given. If someone asks a person if they want to have sex, that person screams "YES!" and then they actively t…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/10/14 10:23 PM
5

I'm talking about the campus rape rule You said "under California law", you said nothing about campus rules. With that said, all the evidence I can find suggests that California campuses are enacting an "affirmative consent" campaign where affirmative consent is needed for sex to occur which would obviously include stopping when consent is withdrawn. Subsequent actions do not have backwards causality. If consent was withdrawn at Time X, but not verbally withdrawn until Time Y, and even if Person…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/10/14 10:13 PM
5

Do you think Y or Z1/z2 matter under the California law? Because they don't. Not quite - California is one of the seven states which has actively expanded the definition of "nonconsent" to include withdrawal of consent and people have been prosecuted for it. Most other states have not formalised this expansion even though many recognise it and practice it, but at the very least continuing when consent has been withdrawn is generally viewed as sexual assault. If affirmative consent was not given …
/r/PurplePillDebate06/10/14 09:51 PM
8

Well yeah, of course it has to be continually affirmative. If you're fucking someone and they go completely silent, stop moving, have no facial expressions that express enjoyment of any kind, then you really need to stop and check in some way that everything is okay. At the very least, someone is doing sex wrong if the women they fuck lay there like that.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/10/14 09:24 PM
15

I just watched the video and Laci makes it clear that the issue of consent doesn't need to be verbal... Did you link to the wrong video? The closest part was after she talked about "stop lights" and said if any of those indicators are present it can be important to get a verbal yes, presumably because if you're not sure if someone is actually wanting to have sex with you then you don't want to accidentally rape them - which seems reasonable.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/10/14 01:45 AM
5

I don't see why it would be rape given the few details given in the story. I can only go on how the author has described it but it seems like the girl was looking to score, meets a guy, is hesitant about going too far because of her period, the guy makes it clear that he doesn't care about that and she's happy about that so she gets down and dirty. Enthusiastic consent ftw.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/14 10:18 PM
10

That's the good thing about the "enthusiastic consent" idea, it doesn't limit consent to verbal consent. In fact, I don't think anybody has ever proposed that idea. It seems to just be a popular strawman that people like to knock down.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/14 10:15 PM
1

I never said "can't", I said that it doesn't necessarily involve that. Taking someone off their pedestal simply means you stop treating them like a flawless god, it doesn't mean you have to say negative things about them.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/14 09:19 PM
1

I could hardly contain my laughter. You want a place that is inclusive and welcoming to women's imput and at the same time allowing "negative but not sexist" comments from men. Sorry, but all negative comments is and will be viewed as sexiest. The women you are so desperate to have a say will view any such comments as sexist and have them banned. What world do you live in? Seriously? Everywhere outside of reddit contains negative comments about women. Even /r/relationships will make negative com…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/14 01:39 AM
2

One of the major foundations of PUA or RP is taking women off the pedestal. This encompasses not treating every woman a man meets like a unique snowflake. Which was one of the main tenets of the sub I suggested. Only an idiot would think creating "atmosphere that hopefully discourages blatant misogyny, sexism" will allow negative comments to be made about women. Only an idiot thinks: 1) taking women off the pedestal necessarily means making negative comments about them, and 2) that it's impossib…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/14 10:21 PM
1

I fully stand by that thread. I have not deleted any of my comments despite the massive hate-train sent my way. When a high value man pushes through a woman's attempts to resist, that turns her on. But only sometimes. The nuance is fleshed out in that post. The nuance wasn't fleshed out at all, you literally said: So when is it rape instead of ravishment? Aside from obvious cases of drugging someone or having sex with the unconscious (for the feminazi retards: No one here condones these instance…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/14 10:13 PM
1

That would be weird but nobody has claimed that it's a white supremacist sub so I'm not sure how it's relevant here. The claim is that there is a problem with racism on the sub and pointing out that you have black friends doesn't help.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/14 10:08 PM
1

Lovely. But I wonder why you're making a RP sub at all then. :) Haha, I know skepticism and TRP don't generally go hand-in-hand (honestly didn't expect a red piller to explicitly say that!) but I think if you applied skeptical and logical ideas to core TRP principles then it could be a far better sub. At the very least, you'd get a huge decrease in the /r/thathappened field reports. You get it :) I'm glad at hearing this expressed for once. Honestly it's a common view in TBP, especially given ho…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/14 10:22 PM
0

BP would love you, TRP wouldn't like it if it was forced on them. If you managed to start this on another sub, you'd be doing poorly. But hey, TBP has tried worse tactics. I honestly think the opposite is true given the large number of positive responses I've received from red pillers asking me to start this sub because they aren't happy with TRP. This matches up with the feelings of a lot of red pillers here and those who go to TBP who don't like TRP but don't feel that there's anywhere else fo…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/14 09:40 PM
2

That would be my thread. Did you happen to read it? Or were you inflamed by my (admittedly inflammatory) title? Of course I read it - how could I criticise the content without reading it? Did you even read my post to notice that I didn't care about the title? In it I describe how women desire to be lost in the dominance of a strong, high value male. This is a very different thing than "Hey guys, women like rape so go out and get your rape on". It's a discussion about the notion of "ravishment", …
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/14 09:37 PM
0

Okay I'll make this simple: for the sake of argument I'll ignore all the stats I've seen and pretend that the demographics of TRP have shifted radically over the last few months. How does that help you? Saying that "some of my best friends members are black" doesn't suddenly make you not-racist.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/14 09:34 PM
1

Huh? Nobody is claiming that alphas are noble or admirable, or equal to the virtuous. What I've written above is purely about self-improvement and self-confidence, nothing to do with being a nice person.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/14 09:33 PM
1

Yeah that's cool but we're not talking about your beliefs, we're talking about your understanding of TRP. The point is that obviously TRP isn't some nebulous concept like "it's whatever you make of it" - there are set beliefs, even if there is wriggle room in how you apply them. In other words, if there was an EC on TRP who was a hardcore liberal feminist who believed that pick up artistry is inherently evil and that women are superior to men, and that there are no gender differences, etc etc, t…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/14 10:07 AM
1

Well, I have the benefit of experience and am more qualified to speak on RP than you. No offence. On the other hand, I have the benefit of seeing the surveys before they were deleted so I'm still going to trust the data.. lol, would this argument apply if we were attending a martial arts school and I was a black belt? Of course not, which is basically the argument I make but I'm told that the shitty opinions of ECs on what TRP is about cannot be trusted (when it suits them). I am in-charge of my…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/14 09:25 AM
3

ECs are a group of people. They do not represent RP. The only people who take that mindset are people who take the opinion that TRP is some movement like feminism. With representatives. Which is an opinion RP abhors and crushed with extreme prejudice long ago. TRP is a theory. For opportunists. It has no place for idealists. TRP ECs are individuals who know stuff about this theory, through experience. Fin. Nobody is claiming that they are representatives, I was pointing out that when ECs are use…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/14 06:55 AM
-2

What about findings based on implementing red pill that are inherently unflattering to women? Being "unflattering" isn't a problem. If red pill ideas were simply unflattering to women then nobody would care. For example, through long-time community consensus we've deemed plate theory is damned effective. There is no scientific evidence. I don't quite understand how plate theory (as I understand it) is unflattering to women. If guys want to engage in multiple relationships whilst informing their …
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/14 06:50 AM
2

Then you've got the slippery slope argument. What if another admin comes along and says "I think everyone in /r/theredpill[1] are a bunch of morons who can't provide anything of value to the world, I'm going to ban them." You realise that you're the one presenting the slippery slope and such arguments are generally recognised as fallacies? The point is that there is no need to allow the slope to slip. Obviously its your site so you can ban whatever you want, but the reason that Reddit has become…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/14 06:20 AM
4

I talked about ECs. In any case, 90% of TRP's membership is less than a year old. We're growing fast. I can't say I'm surprised demographics shifted since then, but there's still so much multi-racial discussion i dont notice it. It seems strange to limit it to ECs though because I'm always told here that ECs don't represent TRP and most red pillers seem annoyed that random people are given the tag despite them supposedly not understanding TRP. Survey links? I'm trying to find them but I think re…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/14 06:07 AM
1

The last 2-3 surveys you guys did came up 90%+ white.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/14 05:48 AM
4

That isn't telling men to commit rape though, but you are right in that it can be considered encouraging it. What that thread is talking about is that a lot of women fantasize and get off to rapey shit (guys to, but that don't mention that). Guys and girls have some very sick fantasies. That is why you say you are fine with X things before hand and have safe words. I'll give you the fact that they discussed the importance of a safe word which is definitely a good thing (and something I've seen r…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/14 05:45 AM
4

How is any of this free speech? Because free speech is the idea that the government cannot prevent someone from communicating their opinions through some means. It is not the idea that private media owners must publish all content put to them. If I give The Guardian an article idea I have on how Obama is a lizard man from the Bahamas, they would reject it and it wouldn't be a violation of free speech. /r/redpill[1] exist as it does now because Reddit, for the most part, allows free speech. Not a…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/14 05:00 AM
3

All your suggestion leads to the BluePill. There is no way in which you can allow mainstream advice, and yes women's advice, into the sub and not have it turn BluePill. Huh? Not at all. TRP, as I'm told, is all about self-improvement, not pedestalising women, being confident in yourself, and making sure that your needs are met. How is that bluepill unless that description of TRP isn't accurate? There is very little in /r/repill[1] . Very little bigotry in TRP? Are you serious? I don't think I've…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/14 04:46 AM
1

I don't think I said that. There are bigots AND pedos here. Some bigots are pedos and some pedos are bigots, but I'm sure there's a politically correct pedo out there and a racist that doesn't like little boys (although I imagine the overlap is large!). And I don't think the "brightest minds" have been corrupted, they're just leaving. That's why the content on reddit is so shit and we've been the eternal September for the last few years. The point is that people can complain about "censorship" a…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/14 04:39 AM
6

Reddit is a private website based on the free will of people's commitment to pick and choose how they present unrestricted content-aggregation. That is the main principal which makes it popular to begin with. That's fine, it has nothing to do with free speech. I'm not the kind of person who sacrifices integrity to make other people like me so I'm not fussed about supposed "popularity". You've seen the controversy which arises for any types of censorship. I've seen the bigger problem with the lac…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/14 04:19 AM
6

Not at all, my concept of free will is based on the definition of free speech - which is probably as objective as it can get. Banning greatapes would have nothing to do with free speech because, as I said, I wouldn't be implementing governmental sanctions on those users, just banning it from my private site. My reason for banning greatapes is basically just they're a bunch of morons who can't provide anything of value to the world, let alone my personal site.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/14 04:17 AM
2

There's no hypocrisy there because banning things I don't like doesn't affect free speech.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/14 04:14 AM
8

What are you talking about? I'm agreeing with free speech. The point about "warped sense of free speech" refers to people who think that "free speech" applies to private areas, which is ludicrous and is itself anti-free speech and freedom of expression - in that if I can't control what I personally want to listen to and publish on my private site, then how is that free?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/14 04:14 AM
7

It pretty always is, especially when it's bigotry.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/14 04:12 AM
6

Well, there's the "required reading" which argues that date rape shouldn't be considered rape: Sexual Utopia in Power. There was the endorsed contributor's thread simply titled: "Women want to be raped by a high value man" [+76, -0]. Some random getting upvoted for saying: "I didn't know what that meant so I just raped her". Another endorsed contributor getting upvoted for admitting raping his wife. And of course there are currently two threads in PPD where red pillers are arguing that it should…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/14 04:11 AM
7

In my view, an alpha is someone who is confident in themselves and so are happy to let everyone else be themselves just as he can be himself. He doesn't need to put anyone down or hate anyone for superficial reasons because he's got what he wants from life. Bigotry is the irrational hatred of other groups and expending that energy by hating other people for no reason at all is just not very alpha. It's better represented by the insecure beta who struggles to find confidence in a world where peop…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/14 03:45 AM
4

I'm explicitly saying that I wouldn't change the laws of my country in order to ban speech that I just personally disagreed with. What are you talking about? Banning content that I don't like on a private website isn't a violation of free speech. The fact that you don't understand what "free speech" doesn't magically change it. For example, you realise already that reddit and even TRP itself engages in the kind of censorship you're so upset with here, right? If you disagree, then try doxxing som…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/14 03:38 AM
6

Not at all, at no point would I (as reddit admin) implement governmental sanctions and laws to ban legal content on reddit. So I'd still be a huge supporter of free speech.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/14 03:28 AM
1

I think RPS stole all the red pill related sub names so my idea doesn't even have a chance at getting off the ground! shakes fist at the sky
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/14 03:00 AM
3

Right you are, my bad. If I were admin of reddit I imagine I'd run it a fair bit differently to the current admins and I wouldn't hide behind a warped sense of "free speech" in order to avoid making decisions that would upset people. So I'd have no problem banning shitholes like greatapes, beatingwomen, creepshots (or whatever it's called now), etc. I'm not sure if TRP would be bad enough in terms of content to warrant a banning but I'd definitely talk to the mods to try to get them to at least …
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/14 02:59 AM
20

I've actually thought about this before and I even vaguely contemplated starting /r/trueredpill or something because the ideas that TRP supposedly promotes are good things that I can get behind and I'd love for a resource like that to be available to people. I imagine it as a subreddit filled with advice on workout routines, dietary habits, posting links to psych resources on attraction, relationship advice from people who adopt the position that women shouldn't be put on a pedestal and that men…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/14 12:56 AM
1

I'm on my phone at the moment so sorry that I can't go into too much detail but testability is definitely important to science (arguably not a defining feature given the existence of theoretical sciences) but testability and falsificationism aren't the same thing. For example, the verificationists agreed with having to test claims but they obviously didn't think that claims were only true if they could be falsified.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/14 11:35 AM
7

Bit of a side note: falsificationism isn't really accepted as a valid criteria for the demarcation of science. It achieved a little popularity when Popper first proposed it as it seemed to successfully side step Hume's problem of induction but both scientists and philosophers quickly realized its shortcomings. The main arguments against it are summed up in the Duhem-Quine thesis which talk about various problems to do with the underdetermination of theories. The only place you'll find falsificat…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/14 05:00 AM
2

Haha are you really saying that minorities aren't actually good at things because privileged people still achieve things even when they're called names? That's a woeful understanding of reality.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/14 04:41 AM
2

You're being hugely disingenuous by now trying to desperately back track and conflate 'complaining' with 'expressing emotion'. Like I said, come on own it. If you think women are big complainers then stick to that, don't try to weasel out of it by replacing 'complain' with 'express emotion' and hope that everyone reading suddenly forgets the English language in order to think you're making a reasonable claim.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/14 04:28 AM
1

Basically there is a huge amount of sexism in chess and even the ones most dedicated to it drop out at early ages to avoid the harassment.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/14 04:24 AM
2

You can't make a hugely bigoted comment, fake offense at the implication that you're a bigot, and then suggest that there is a valid topic up for discussion.. Come on now. For the sake of this sub I'm willing to forgo downvoting people for making blatantly sexist comments but let's not pretend that they're normal and unproblematic. Own your shit.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/14 01:34 AM
1

We thought we destroyed it when we invented computers but it's found a way to return.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/14 01:20 AM
2

Ah, the old "you know you're a bigot too!" defence.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/14 01:19 AM
2

That seems like a really weird and obscure stereotype...
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/14 01:18 AM
7

Just note that there are significant reasons why women have their own league other than skill.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/09/14 11:00 PM
1

But isn't this saying you can only "fully" judge whether someone/something is being objectified by judging the culture as a whole, rather than specific instances? Not at all, I'm saying that the societal variables can modify individual experiences. As a comparison, this is why calling a black person an N-word and calling a white guy a cracker has nowhere near the same effect on them - even though they are both technically slurs, the societal variables radically change how they manifest. But, in …
/r/PurplePillDebate25/09/14 10:42 PM
3

I don't think I've just observed the prejudice norm theory, I probably experienced it myself. I didn't pay attention to Daniel Tosh enough to notice that aspect. Just to be clear, Daniel Tosh is just an example (as that was the only the comedian I recognised out of the ones you mentioned). Feminist myths abound: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwogDPh-Sow[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oqyrflOQFc[2] Those videos don't do much to support your point there (especially Christina Hoff Summers wh…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/09/14 10:15 AM
2

I would reiterate that their shared experience is good enough, especially since it echoes throughout culture, most notably in comedy. I'm not accusing these comedians of anything, but they play hard to the TRP perspective: Bill Burr, the late Patrice O'Neal, Daniel Tosh, among countless others. But that claim requires us to accept all of the experiences that contradict TRP. Just look at how many people laugh at how ridiculous TRP's beliefs are - how could that be the case if they were common bel…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/09/14 09:16 AM
4

I should say, you mention Feminists have science on their side, but do not give fair treatment to what you call a "notion of sexist supremacy". I would relabel it, "a common experience among RP members", which as far as I'm concerned is good enough (not great, but good). I would disagree that personal experience is "good enough". So, the lowest common denominator in Feminism might just want to get that promotion that she keeps being passed over on at work in favor of equally qualified men. Where…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/09/14 08:05 AM
4

You seem very much on the attack--calm down. It's good for you. ...Uh, I think you must be responding to the wrong person? I can't see how it's possible to interpret anything I've said as "being on the attack" or needing to "calm down". It's more of an issue of the question not making sense. If you feel compelled for elaboration, re-read my other replies, as I feel like I'm starting to repeat myself. It's not a particularly confusing question though and it makes perfect sense. You even coherentl…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/09/14 07:15 AM
4

I'd still argue that feminism is a close enough comparison, but without any academic leadership in TRP, it would never look like feminism the way you described the differences. I don't think academic leadership is necessarily the problem. I'd argue that the problems are essentially twofold: 1) there is no agreed philosophy of TRP, and 2) there is no effort to splinter the movement where disagreements arise and instead everyone is included. For example, followers of Feminism are like RPers in tha…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/09/14 07:08 AM
4

We can't decerne how many TRPers agree with each individual quote because we haven't taken a tally They weren't asking for the percentage of red pillers that believe those things though, they were asking you what percentage you thought would accept them. You don't need to have an accurate figure for it to be a useful starting point for discussion. and I wouldn't respect a generalization of such a thing. Whoa, okay. Out of interest, how do you feel about red pill generalisations of women's behavi…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/09/14 06:21 AM
8

I don't think there's any "Schrodinger" about that situation there, that's just straight up misogynistic.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/09/14 06:17 AM
8

I sincerely doubt this sort of masculine movement has been around or had time to mature, so there will be a lot of ideas dismissed over time, and dissenting opinions will remain as is true with most social movements. Arguably true but I don't see how this is a defence. If there is no way to figure out what is and is not red pill then the entire thing is meaningless, and so any debate here is automatically over before it even begins because TRP cannot possibly be right without a coherent philosop…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/09/14 06:15 AM
12

Firstly, I don't see an attack, only a description. Is saying that "it reinforces their self identity as revolutionary types" an attack? Where is the insult? Secondly, even if it's an attack on them or a personal insult, that doesn't make it an ad hominem fallacy. If I said that Bob is an asshole, that's an insult, not a fallacy. Thirdly, the content of their beliefs is irrelevant to what the user above is discussing so the ad hominem fallacy isn't applicable. For them to have committed the ad h…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/09/14 06:08 AM
1

Is there a difference between Objectification and Lust? Yes, that's why many of the examples you gave sound silly (e.g. if thinking our wives have 'hot asses' was objectification, a negative process, then objectification becomes a ridiculous concept). If Objectification and Lust are separate things, are they still naturally co-occurring phenomena? How can we ascertain the difference between Objectification and Lust, if there is one? Objectification and lust (or sexualisation) do overlap, in that…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/09/14 06:03 AM
6

Not to mention, how the fuck should we know? Check how many times it's been upvoted. Maybe that many. I imagine the awkward wording is because it's quite difficult to pin down what red pillers accept as being representative of TRP. For example, you suggest looking at the upvotes but many red pillers will vehemently disagree (when it suits them) that upvotes represent TRP because sometimes the members don't really know what TRP is. The same goes for mod comments, endorsed contributors, the sideba…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/09/14 05:24 AM
8

I can't tell if you're joking or not but there's obviously no ad hominem fallacy there.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/09/14 05:21 AM
4

As others have said the best approach is probably not to take "pills" but reading through your comments I have to say that your portrayal of the BP 'side' (as is hammered home every day here, there is no real BP side as its a diverse amalgamation of everything non-RP) seemed at odds with what I see from blue pillers. Some examples: Yet, I don't necessarily buy the whole “women want decent guys” thing. One girl I know was hard-working, smart, and pretty. I don't think you'll find a single blue pi…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/09/14 10:41 AM
4

All of the links phrase it as the OP does, you simply misquoted her and so didn't need to "correct" her. I also link to that rationalmale article, as well as two other sidebar articles that say the exact same thing that the OP does.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/09/14 09:18 PM
5

It actually is mentioned at least 3 times in the sidebar: once in the 'introductory' materials, and twice in the 'required readings' (I can't remember if it's mentioned elsewhere). It's possible for a red piller to disagree with the claim but it's not possible for them to deny that it's a fundamental assumption of TRP.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/09/14 08:17 AM
12

Then why did he misquote a commonly misquoted BP strawman of TRP? I fixed it for a reason, because when properly quoted it doesn't fit his narrative of making RPers as slavers even though he states in his post that slavers were over exaggerated. Their claim was that TRP believed that "women are incapable of unconditional love" - how is that a misquote? It is repeated all over TRP: Women love pragmatically and have no capacity to love unconditionally for romantic partners, only their children. Me…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/09/14 04:06 AM
5

I never said I agree with TRPs view that women are incapable of intelligent and rational thought.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/09/14 04:59 AM
11

Doesn't it seem to you that even though BP is supposedly enlightened by more feminist principles they seem to take this superior tone about the women who may not agree with their outlook in life? Is it any small wonder why women of color, muslims, and American mommy bloggers often have such issues with this movement that supposedly is for all women? You've accidentally conflated blue pill with feminism so this thread seems a bit pointless.. To answer your questions though: I can't find where the…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/09/14 10:57 PM
2

It's a bit weird but, if I were to defend them for a second, defending a worldview (even if made up) can be important - especially if it's what shapes your perception and interaction with the world. As a comparison, things like ethical and political positions are 'entirely made up' but it's still important to make sure we can defend the positions we take because they have real-world impact. With that said, the problem with TRP's position is just that it's not a coherent system and it's not based…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/09/14 10:39 PM
1

Yeah, it's the problem of having an ideology that sprinkles in a few exaggerated facts or facts taken out of context, with a handful of vague claims, and then having a couple of feel good cliches thrown in for good measure. You end up with something which looks alright from the surface ("We just care about self-improvement based largely on biological facts, what's wrong with that?!") but when you look at it a bit closer you realise the claims they're making are more extreme and disconnected from…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/09/14 12:49 PM
1

I don't really understand how you can be tired of "arguing" with me though as you haven't really argued any point at all. You've just restated my own premises, reached the same conclusions as me, and then claimed I'm wrong. Then asked me the same questions over and over again. You can claim you're right as much as you like, but I engage in discussions in subs like these so I can open myself up to the possibility of being wrong. You should try it some time and critically assess your own views.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/09/14 10:40 AM
1

Jesus christ, I feel like we're just reliving Zoolander here.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/09/14 10:31 AM
1

...Are you serious? This whole discussion has been me describing the inconsistency. You even quote it in your post above. I summarised it in its most simplest form in my earlier reply to you: Because: a shit test is a "finder function for betas" af/bb suggests that women have different mating strategies for different length relationships (alphas for short, betas for long). the women in the example were explicitly using long-term strategies and looking for committed relationships. If red pill the…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/09/14 10:08 AM
1

It's pointing out an inconsistency with the proposed explanation and the concept of af/bb. This could either be due to the explanation being wrong, af/bb being wrong, or the explanation being sloppy and the user meaning something else, but there's no reason to automatically think that it's af/bb that's wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/09/14 10:03 AM
1

I haven't claimed that it invalidates af/bb.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/09/14 09:58 AM
1

TRP does not say women prefer betas for LTR. TRP says they settle for betas and then divorce rape them later. Yes, that is the point we've agreed on multiple times now. Beta bux is not attraction, it is exploitation. Those are the exact words I used earlier. Alpha fux and beta bux are completely different things, not once did TRP equate them as equally viable. Agreed, this is how I explained it earlier. If an alpha fails a shit test,she does not need to immediately exploit him. No shit, I don't …
/r/PurplePillDebate11/09/14 09:49 AM
0

Then what the fuck is your problem? I don't have a "problem", I just pointed out an apparent inconsistency and the collective red pill mind blew its shit. How the fuck does it blow your mind when she leaves because of a shit test and somehow that contradicts af/bb? It doesn't. Because: 1) a shit test is a "finder function for betas" 2) af/bb suggests that women have different mating strategies for different length relationships (alphas for short, betas for long). 3) the women in the example were…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/09/14 09:33 AM
1

If she could have an alpha in a LTR(marriage) she would chose 100% ever damn time the alpha and not the beta. But she won't get it because alphas are players by definition. So she will "settle" for the beta, the worser option to her in her mind. Thanks for restating my initial point! This discussion would have been quicker if you had just agreed with me from the beginning.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/09/14 09:21 AM
1

Let me put it more simply. Women don't care about betas. They do not have to pursue them for LTR or bux or whatever. Got it now? Of course I get it, I've explained that concept multiple times in this thread already. What you haven't explained is how that is at all relevant to this discussion. Nothing I've said suggests or implies that women have to pursue betas for a LTR. When she decides to settle then yes betas could have some redeeming values. WHEN - No shit, this whole discussion starts from…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/09/14 09:17 AM
1

How the fuck is the MOST RELEVANT THING irrelevant? Missing the point much? Indeed you are much missing the point - I explain why it's irrelevant above and your failure to counter my description there suggests you have no defence. BETAS ARE ALWAYS ON THE CHOPPING BLOCK. No shit. Nobody claimed otherwise. In LTR in STR in MARRIAGE in ANYTHING. No shit. Nobody claimed otherwise. What is preferred is not the beta but the bux, the bets is the useless appendix to the money that is trashed around. Not…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/09/14 08:55 AM
0

TRP also says that are constantly looking for the tingles. If she has no tingles she can DUMP YOUR ASS at any point. Indeed, that's the short term strategy part of the "alpha fux", I explain it in my posts above. If you are a beta you are always on the chopping block. Just because she looks for beta bux as a strategy does not mean that beta will ever have a stable relationship. She will dump a beta for any reason under any circumstance. Indeed, I explain this above when I talk about hypergamy an…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/09/14 08:38 AM
1

Oh god! Do you even understand that af/bb are two completely different strategies? Yes, I explain it in my posts above to Rose-boy. If a women follows a strategy do you understand she is not interested in the other one? AFBB refers to the fact that women follow different strategies for different relationships, they can be exclusive (monogamy or hypergamy) or done at the same time (married to beta, sleeping with alpha). If she is looking for an alpha and she discover that what she really has is a…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/09/14 08:17 AM
1

Yes, it's a "finder function of beta", and yet beta signals (e.g. putting them on a pedestal, giving them attention, providing security, etc) are what women look for in long term relationships. Or rather, that's what they look for to exploit and to trick men into raising their children, until they can move up the ladder to someone better. You can keep screaming "shit test" like a conspiracy theorist yells "Jews!" as much as you like but it doesn't change the fact that the contradiction remains -…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/09/14 08:00 AM
0

It contradicts the alpha fux/beta bux principle, as I describe in detail above (which you apparently can't find any point of disagreement with).
/r/PurplePillDebate11/09/14 07:54 AM
0

I understand that that's what the claim is, I just pointed out (using evidence from TRP) that it contradicts another basic red pill belief. If you have anything of value to actually add to the discussion, then feel free to do so!
/r/PurplePillDebate11/09/14 07:50 AM
2

AWALT does not literally imply all women. It's a phrase meant to be used figuratively, this is something blue pillers struggle with. This phrase is a generalization of the behavior of the largest common denominator of women that men on /r/theredpill[1] are interested in fucking. It's hyperbole, it's not now nor has it ever meant to be taken literally. I linked you to a highly upvoted comment, from a moderator of your sub, in a stickied thread, which unambiguously and definitively says that it is…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/09/14 06:32 AM
2

"Alpha fucks beta bucks" does not imply that every woman on earth only desires betas for relationships. It implies that they only pursue relationships with betas who are wealthy. It also doesn't say that women cling to betas, that would be counter to RP theory. Wow, you have misunderstood so much about TRP. Firstly, AWALT means that all women are like that. If you try to suggest that, for example, not all women are hypergamous then you will be banned by softharem for contradicting one of the cor…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/09/14 05:19 AM
5

You misunderstand. I phrased it as a question to be polite but I wasn't really asking you what you thought. I was highlighting the fact that the "alpha fux, beta bux" concept completely contradicts the explanation you've given above. In other words, you cannot think your explanation is true AND accept that core tenet of TRP - one has to be wrong (unless you're happen with inconsistency). I assume your short reply here was given because you'd realised you fucked up (and/or you don't actually unde…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/09/14 03:58 AM
2

Doesn't that contradict core RP belief? Isn't the whole "beta bux, alpha fux", and references to hormonal preferences for caddies, and notion of hypergamy or attraction to wealthy pushover men, etc, supposed to suggest that these women would have stayed with their men despite not loving them the way they thought they should? EDIT: missed a word out.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/09/14 03:33 AM
1

Being a single instance doesn't make it sexualisation, the amount of times is irrelevant.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/09/14 01:00 PM
1

It's not policing thoughts as nobody is being punished for their thoughts. Pointing out the problem with viewing people as objects, like the undeniable direct effect it has on your behavior, is part of rational discussion.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/09/14 12:47 AM
1

But they're not "just admiring her body", they're quite clearly reducing her entirely to "boob". They are talking about "getting boob" and "had boob" which is all undeniably objectification. I mean, if we're arguing over whether a boob has all of the rights and respect as a full person then I think we've reached a gap that we'll never cross.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/09/14 12:18 AM
1

All the ones I read made it clear that objectification requires not seeing them as persons.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/09/14 11:35 PM
1

Exactly. Many aspects of objectification rely heavily on the large scale societal acceptance of those ideas and that power can change the scope of individual acts. Like with the example of sexy girls in music videos above where a single instance of it is just sexualisation and not necessarily a bad thing but when that's a commonplace representation of women then that one instance becomes an example of a larger problem.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/09/14 11:02 PM
1

Thanks, they all seem to agree with my definitions that I've used.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/09/14 10:53 PM
1

Nobody's arguing that it's not bad because it's not on the same scale, I argued that it's not the same kind of problem.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/09/14 10:49 PM
2

Perhaps in some very conservative small towns in the bible belt there may be, but overall no there's not. There is a common sense belief, however, that if a woman wears revealing clothing and walks down a dark alley at night, then yeah there might be a pretty shitty person or group of people there to take advantage of her. All the slut walks and attempts to "teach men not to rape" will not change the fact that there are shitty people in the world who have no problem with raping or murdering othe…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/09/14 04:28 AM
4

That's a very unlikely situation, let's face it. The attitude underpinning it isn't unlikely at all. The fact that it's so widespread is why 'culture' is used as a descriptor in the terminology. And it's not an indication of "rape culture" - that's just someone being a rude jackass. It's both. The fact that they're being a rude jackass in a way that promotes the objectification of women and dismissal of their rights and boundaries encourages rape beliefs and can increase incidences of rape. I co…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/09/14 03:55 AM
2

I can agree with your main argument here. However, a large problem is that many women (feminists in particular) throw around the term "objectification" extremely loosely when it comes to men. I won't disagree that sometimes people use terms incorrectly but usually when people make claims like this they are attacking strawmen. A guy casually checking out some bikinis on the beach, which is more or less normal male behavior? Sexist and objectifying, and borderline rape culture. It can be an exampl…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/09/14 03:25 AM
2

On your first point, see this thread. http://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/uw8ox/thoughts_on_the_objectification_of_men/[1] The OP seems to be a question from a woman who's not sure what objectification means and asks for feedback. The top comment does a good job of correcting their misconceptions and representing the popular view of it. I've always felt really weird and silly when I'm around women who objectify men. The other day I was out with a new friend and we were sitting on a …
/r/PurplePillDebate05/09/14 03:12 AM
3

It's very clear that men and women are sexually driven by different things. Men rely more on visual stimulation right off the bat than women who, while visual stimulation is a factor, it is less important in what arouses them. Sometimes they are, sure, but I don't see what relevance this has here. Just because of the fact that women consider the "whole package" (i.e. intelligence, leadership, courage, etc as you've stated) more than a man does in the initial judgment on what they find attractive…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/09/14 03:09 AM
7

Going through it now. And it goes like this. It's by a guy called Yuan Chen: "I cannot bear to put away the bamboo sleeping mat. The night I brought you home, I watched you roll it out." He became hooked on a sleeping mat, probably because of elevated activity of dopamine in his brain, just like with you and me. The absurd neurobabble here is a little off-putting... What relevance does "dopamine" have here? It confuses the direction of causality in that (at a best guess) he's not keeping the mat…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/09/14 03:03 AM
1

I wasn't going to bother replying to your post as it lacked any kind of substance or understanding of the topic but since you're concerned about downvotes I figure I should attempt to educate rather than dismissing it: Meanwhile, those feminists and BP women who rant and rave on about women being objectified were probably flocking the theaters at the Twilight movies a few years ago drooling over Edward and Jacob taking off their shirts What you've described isn't objectification. It would be a c…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/09/14 02:45 AM
5

First, I'm not interested in seminal works, I'm interested in the pop-culture feminism we're mostly exposed to. I'm just posting stuff I find on reddit. Then it seems strange for you to try to 'correct' a notion of objectification when your own understanding of it is wrong. But fine, if your complaint is with the misuse of objectification then examples of that might be relevant, as the description in your OP of some cases didn't seem to contradict the standard definition of objectification. As f…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/09/14 02:39 AM
4

The only thing I disagree with in this is how you think objectification is often defined. I've already posted links in the thread, and I'll find more if you want me to, but I think the way it's defined often does confuse physical attraction with objectification. For starters, it might help if you could find sources which are seminal works or highly cited, rather than an obscure collection of works from some symposium. For example, find some comments from Nussbaum, Haslanger, or Langton that make…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/09/14 02:18 AM
1

It doesn't "police thoughts", it's a description of a thought process. It is viewed as a problem because of the effect that those thoughts have on your behavior. The OP of this comment string has provided some evidence on why this is a bad thing. In other words, having a thought isn't necessarily bad. But since our actions and behaviors are controlled by our thoughts, then bad things which stem from our thoughts means that we should be wary of some problematic thought processes. There's simply n…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/09/14 01:58 AM
4

I think a proper definition of objectification has to include the concept of lack of consent. My mere thoughts do not count as objectification; I have to take some action that strips a woman of her right to self-determination, or at least contemplate such an act. In other words; I actually have to treat a woman as an object, or consider actively doing so, for me to be guilty of objectification. Objectification is a description of an attitude or particular perception, no action is necessary. And,…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/09/14 01:55 AM
6

Just adding in some coins but I never understood why some folks say videogames/magazines/porn objectify women, when most girls don't look like the girls in this media. ... For two, the singers/rappers are not objectifying you, just the women volunteering to be objectified sexualized. Right? Am I missing something? ? If these women want to do porn/pose half naked in videos, it's no skin off my nose. I think the problem you're having is that you are conflating multiple different issues and viewing…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/09/14 01:44 AM
3

So in the case that GNG "merely" values the woman for her body, and the woman obviously cares more about her other traits (but he honestly knows very little of that and doesn't care for now), that would be sexual objectification. Only if he doesn't treat her as a person (i.e. someone with agency who needs to have things like their consent, wishes, desires, boundaries, etc, respected). If someone doesn't do that then I can't see how they're a nice guy - genuine or otherwise. I think the confusion…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/14 07:45 AM
2

Seems awfully tight as a distinction between what we are seeing. Awfully close to being a semantic dispute. I don't think this distinction is as clear as you make it. See here from the APA as sexual objectification is described: That still seems consistent with what I'm describing as they are intentionally specifying this bit: "SO occurs when a woman’s body or body parts are singled out and separated from her as a person". If someone is treated primarily as a sex object AND her body is separated…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/14 07:10 AM
6

What makes you think I'm strawmanning? The wiki definition is almost precisely what I hear from feminists I know as well as many online. Which isn't a problem as I don't see anything in the wiki article, or anything generally promoted by major feminist organisations, as contradicting what I've said. You're primarily judging a woman based on her sexuality, and other traits are ignored. You see the key word difference here: merely vs primarily. When I go to the shops and buy some bread and milk I …
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/14 06:33 AM
4

First off, as I mentioned in the OP, I tossed together a lot of ideas together. On limited time. Some of the points were partially written in jest, like the kittens one. Others are my own, but I didn't spend enough time thinking them through. Others ones I've heard from bpers (e.g. "some guys just need to aim for women in their own league / compromise, and be a little honest about where they stand"). That's fine, I was just pointing out that the overall view of "GNG" seemed quite different to ho…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/14 05:47 AM
2

On subjects as contentious and subjective as sociology, psychology, human sexuality, etc, we have endless supply of information coming from all sides. There is not as much objectivity as we have in, say, mathematics. This means that any side can just Google up whatever they want that supports their own views. I've heard this claim before from RPers and it confuses me. Firstly, the idea that someone can just "google up" contradicting evidence is only sort of true, in that obviously in all of scie…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/14 03:45 AM
7

I think it might help to understand why people don't see how what you described are "GNG's" if you reverse some of the claims you made. In other words, do you really believe that GNG's can't think that one night stands are okay, that the girls they're interested in aren't "unique", that they can be bitter and jealous at times, that he should have an equal say in activities, etc? Surely not, right? It just seems incredibly weird to me to think that genuine nice guys require some "deep connection"…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/14 03:02 AM
6

Haha yeah I saw that too but I'm assuming he wasn't blaming feminists for the name of a particular genus of moth.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/08/14 04:28 AM
11

"Eye rape" "Microrape" "Date rape" etc. etc. Just to be clear here, there are some things you probably need to know: 1) "Eye rape" isn't a feminist term. It's just a common saying, usually said in a positive way like, "Whoa man, that chick just eye raped the fuck outta you!". A brief internet search suggests that it was started by the Wedding Crashers movie (not a feminist documentary). 2) Microrape isn't a thing. There was a troll who made it up and put it into the "microaggressions" wikipedia …
/r/PurplePillDebate13/08/14 01:13 AM
1

You've responded to nothing I've said. I've explained in every post how what you've said has nothing to do with what I've said. At the very beginning I explained that having inconsistencies and contradictions in the core beliefs of a philosophy is problematic. You spent posts and posts telling me that I thought any inconsistency, no matter how trivial or unimportant, was enough to destroy TRP. You randomly accused me of believing that all red pillers are the lowest scum of the earth and then, fo…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/14 10:05 PM
1

I see that you chosen to continue with arguing against a strawman rather than responding to anything I've said. Great, have fun arguing with yourself.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/14 09:28 PM
2

Never said I don't agree with the core tenets, not even close. Then why the fuck are you responding to my comments as if they are directed at you? This entire time I have explicitly stated that I'm talking about contradictions and inconsistencies in the core tenets. Hmm, maybe because what I quoted you saying was a response to you quoting me claiming I'm a supporter that doesn't have to agree with everything... You quoted something directly about me, then follow with a question that's not about …
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/14 05:35 AM
1

What is this childish no u's? The burden of proof is on you for your claims. If you think the fact that TRP sub is criticised heavily everyday here, elsewhere and on TBP for censorship is not true, you're just gaslighting OP and everyone else who wonders this legitimate question now. No, I disagree with the claim you were making - you have the burden of proof, not me. As for the "gaslighting" claim, that's a bit rich from you given that the comment I replied to was you gaslighting me... They rea…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/14 05:29 AM
1

Well it is a bit of a hivemind given that the mods will regularly ban people for disagreeing, but the philosophy is just inherently toxic. If it was the case that there are just a few bad apples then I'd be right on board but it's simply not.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/06/14 05:21 AM
0

How is it possible to "link out of context"? If you are linked to the original source then you are necessarily reading the context. And most of the time the titles are direct quotes as it seems you can't be more hyperbolic than a red piller's opinion.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/14 09:20 AM
0

I agree with both points there but I just think it would have been better to phrase it in the sense that the evolutionary differences don't mean what they think it means, rather than making it seem like the evolutionary differences can't exist.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/14 03:30 AM
-1

I think your first one where you made up a bunch of shit about what I supposedly believed.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/14 03:25 AM
1

That's fair enough but I think people are jumping on you for saying that "men and women didn't evolve differently".
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/14 03:23 AM
10

To be honest, if TRP starting practicing and operating in a way that was consistent with what a lot of TRP apologists claim it is about, I would likely be a support in a heart beat. I'm not sure if I'd be a member since I don't need any relationship advice or help but I'd certain defend it. Specifically, if TRP was a sub about self-improvement, owning up to your shortcomings and improving them, basing your views of the sexes on scientific evidence, developing yourself as an individual so that ot…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/14 03:20 AM
2

Ah, the neurobabble myth of oxytocin. Oxytocin is released for a wide range of reasons, including things like depression and lactation, but most relevantly here it's released during orgasm. But what the authors are trying to do here is essentially what is known as the reverse-inference fallacy, where they note that previous studies have found oxytocin to be related to love, they've found the presence of oxytocin, and then concluded that their result is related to love. Most neuroscience journals…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/14 03:00 AM
0

Jesus. It's like you're completely oblivious to how science works. That's a bit rich coming from you.. By definition, your starting point is before evidence is collected. If I was the founder of a scientific field of inquiry then yes, you'd be right. But science doesn't work like the simple "Scientific Method" you learn in high school. We start with a Bayesian-like approach where we look at what is more probable. Importantly, I'm coming into the field when the research has already been done. It …
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/14 02:47 AM
0

It pains me to say this but nicethingyoucanthave is on the right track here. You're right in that, for the most part, men and women are part of the same species and had the same ancestral selection pressures etc so that means we are generally geared to solve the same problems but there are differences still. Or, to put it in an even less controversial way, just because we're attempting to achieve the same thing, it doesn't mean evolutionary processes cannot operate differently on each sex. So if…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/14 02:39 AM
1

I think /u/SpaceWhiskey was responding to the question in the OP about innate differences, not just mental differences in general. Even though the things you've listed quite likely have innate components, none of them are necessarily evidence of innate mental differences. For example, many of the differences in rates of mental disorders are due simply to biases in reporting and diagnosis, like with many girls with ADHD being underdiagnosed as they tend to not attract as much attention as boys. S…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/14 02:34 AM
1

My starting point isn't culture, my starting point is whatever the evidence supports (I.e. science rather than politics). EDIT: If you observe that, for example, more men pursue careers as engineers, you say, "that must be a result of culture." Then you look around and say, "ah ha! someone made an off-color joke! That's the cause!!" ...No. If more men pursue careers as engineers I'd point out empirically observed facts that contribute to it, like the negative attitude society has towards women d…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/14 12:24 AM
2

Yeah I think we're in agreement.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/14 10:45 PM
3

lol no. What I just described is anthropomorphism. No you didn't, anthropomorphism is attributing human traits to non-human entities. The more reasonable starting assumption is that a behavior is innate. Then you can try to prove it's culture. Why? Because that's the only possible explanation for 99% of species that have ever evolved. Hahaha! No, in science you don't set your default as the least parsimonious, least evidence-based position and ask people to disprove it. That's what the creationi…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/14 10:44 PM
2

I said I wouldn't call myself a 'red piller' because I think that label is ridiculous, and implies rigid adherence to the ideas, as if that philosophy somehow defines me, and it doesn't. That doesn't change the fact that you consistently try to refer to TRP as a single entity, in which case as an active member I'm definitely a part of it. If you don't agree with all of the core tenets and don't consider yourself a red piller then my comments about red pillers, by definition, don't apply to you. …
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/14 10:39 PM
-1

It kinda is, by definition.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/14 10:27 PM
0

yes im sure many members try to accurately understand TRP. no bias going in at all. I'm sure they dont get their understanding from seconhand sources. ...You realise that TBP links to TRP and people go there to read it, right? They don't just tell each other what they think and get an impression from that. i wasnt aware TBP were criticizing anything. I thought it was just a citclejerk Well you're not going to make fun of a topic you agree with, are you?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/14 10:27 PM
1

But I remember reading descriptions in the article that were so borad I could conceivably have been raped according to them. And...I haven't been raped. Sure but my point is that the problem there is the overly broad definitions, not that the person didn't believe they had been raped. If the definition was much narrower to the point it's not debated (like your holding down and screaming no suggestion above) and the same person said that they didn't believe they had been raped, then we'd surely a…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/14 01:48 PM
2

Fair enough, I can see how that could be a problem. I just wanted to clarify that the person's beliefs about the matter are inconsequential unless we're particularly interested in what they believed.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/14 01:27 PM
0

I always found it interesting how some BP members pay more attention to TRP than RP people. Seems like some of you are just sifting through the sub everyday looking for things to circlejerk over. I've never understood this mentality. Well we'd be idiots to criticise something we didn't understand. Part of disagreeing with something involves making sure you understand it better than the proponents themselves, and I think TBP succeeds there. Plus, it's just hilarious.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/14 01:25 PM
-1

I described a couple of cases, like in RPW when a dedicated red pill woman asked Dana if a red pill woman had to lack a college degree and disagree with feminism. She was banned and told that RPW isn't a place for disagreement.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/14 01:23 PM
9

You definitely said quite a few times that to be a supporter of TRP you have to believe quite a few things. I said I wouldn't call myself a red piller because that's not how I define myself. I said that to be considered a red piller someone would need to adopt the core tenets of the red pill. That isn't telling you what you believe, it is simply stating a fact of definition. As a comparison, individuals feminists may disagree and believe various different things but ultimately they have to agree…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/14 07:19 AM
8

Besides the situations described by /u/cuittler I don't think it's unethical but I would question how solid the relationship is. I don't understand what reason someone would have for withholding information like that so it just makes it sound suspicious rather than it simply being an odd hypothetical.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/14 05:29 AM
0

I'm not saying you are wrong, you're probably not, but really, how could you prove that statement? People research it. They compare the data of reported rapes against the data gathered from women who were raped but didn't report it, and they systematically find that unreported rapes heavily outweigh the reported ones.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/14 05:24 AM
2

I remember it went into one of the surverys where women who had said they didn't believe they had been raped were counted as rape victims anyway because the researchers definitions were quite broad. To be clear, that's not actually a problem (if done right). The researchers will want to know how many women fall within the legal category of rape, not how many women believe they were raped. This is essentially a way of getting around the problem of self-reporting, in that people's responses will d…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/14 05:20 AM
1

No apprehension for me, I don't see how it matters.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/14 05:14 AM
2

The idea in TRP (generally) is that sexual experience in women is a turn off for guys because of [insert pseudoevolutionary explanation here]. I don't know if you were asking the question specifically because of this RP belief or inadvertently stumbled upon it but the blue pillers all seem pretty comfortable having a relationship with the girl described. The people who are saying they'd have sex with her but not date her are mostly/all red pillers. The hole is the fact that questions like yours …
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/14 05:13 AM
-1

All of the comments made by the researchers, they reject blank slatism because they make comments that are incompatible with it.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/14 05:02 AM
8

t started off fairly sane and quickly went into: me being told what I believe because I support RP ideas ...What? At no point have I told you what you believe. I mentioned that the reason why it would make sense to allow red pillers to critique aspects of the philosophy was so that it could improve. You told me that you don't need to do that because you don't consider yourself a red piller. I said great, but that's irrelevant to what I'm talking about. repeated insistence that the mere presence …
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/14 05:00 AM
6

When faced with actual evidence of innate differences, blue pillers will hem and haw and say that more research needs to be done and we can't possibly know for sure. Really? Can you link to someone saying that or are you just going to make it up? Or they'll say that it's a combination of factors - which is just flatly stupid. Of course it's a combination of factors. But one or the other factor is more important and that is obviously the question you're actually asking. But given our current stat…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/14 04:46 AM
1

Yes undeniably.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/14 04:27 AM
0

First of all, IIRC, there was no point in the video where the host used the term "blank slate" anyway. Those were your words Indeed, I'm using the term for the concept under discussion so I don't have to keep spelling out the concept in long form. It's easier. To be clear, I'm not demanding a literal statement of those exact words, it's just the concept behind it that I'm interested in. Secondly, "Blank Slatism" as commonly defined (by wiki and so on) is an epistemological theory that individual…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/14 03:40 AM
0

You're joking right? Splintering into multiple sects is fundamentally different than fixing a logical inconsistency, especially because treating parts of a holy text as figurative and parts as literal is a pathetic cop out. It's not the opposite of fixing it, the "pathetic cop out" was the attempt to fix the inconsistency. The literalists fixed it by denying contradicting evidence, and the figurativists fixed it by denying that their stories contradicted the evidence presented. There are no logi…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/14 03:24 AM
0

First, my original point is still correct. She was offended. She didn't respond by making an argument about scientific consensus. And this is post on reddit. I'm not defending a dissertation. My language may end up being slightly imprecise, because of the nature of the medium, and the speed at which I am writing. I don't see how any of this is relevant. I gave you the benefit of the doubt before, but since you don't appear to be doing the same, social construct theory =! performativity. No shit.…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/14 03:21 AM
1

I don't need it to be perfect because it's not my philosophy. Then I think you're steering this topic into another area which isn't related to what we were talking about. If you're not a red piller and you're not concerned with people freely critiquing the philosophy on the TRP sub, then awesome for you. When has this ever worked with religion? That was actually a big part of my analogy that I forgot to throw in at the end. Pretty regularly, hence all the religions (and non-religious groups) we …
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/14 02:47 AM
0

It's not irrelevant. Feminists generally consider the fragmentation of the movement to a defining feature of feminism. It is irrelevant, as I explained above. Before continuing, the idea of 'scientific consensus' isn't meaningless, but it's not that significant either. It's our best evidence. If you're arguing against the consensus then yes, they can be wrong, but you need a fuckload of evidence behind your claims. This is a gross oversimplification, as well as a strawman. It's not a question of…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/14 11:15 PM
2

I wasn't listening, but I was reading the subtitles, and iirc they do make that claim. It was emphasized that besides reproductive organs, hair, breasts, etc, physical attributes, there's no difference. You're referring to the guy who said that there's "basically no difference". Key word since it goes from being a wrong claim to a claim that is supported by the scientific consensus. The social scientists also were critical about the intent of other scientists for trying to find biological basis …
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/14 11:07 PM
1

Absolutely strongly disagree if you're implying it isn't one of the main points of /r/TRP criticism. Selectively backtracking and dismissing this now is disingenuous. You making shit up is also disingenuous. In fact, I recall(I was banned from TBP a month or so ago for "triggering" a mod) they have always had an amusingly high horse about criticising redpill's "censorship" policies. Ironic considering their sub is basically militantly stalking and brigading it everyday. How is it "ironic"? TBP i…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/14 10:51 PM
1

This is because there is no unified set of rules that all people must follow. Everyone has a different philosophy and everyone has different goals. Of course things are going to contradict. That makes no sense. So TRP is a philosophy where you can accept the core tenets or believe their exact opposite? If that were the case then we're proven that TRP is meaningless, can't possibly work, and should be discarded. I've seen people disagree plenty of times and no one gets banned. Really? What about …
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/14 10:42 PM
-1

Why not just take a minute and copy/paste your question over there? Is she that afraid of being banned? I can't speak for her motivations but I wouldn't do it just because it'd be a waste of my time. Why bother writing up a post just to be banned and have it deleted? Why would I go out of my way to interrupt someone's space with questions they have explicitly asked to be free from just so I can satisfy my own personal curiosity? That seems fucked up to me and I'd hope noone would do that. I don'…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/14 10:37 PM
1

Why should it be perfect? It doesn't need to be perfect, but if there's an obvious flaw, why should it stay there? I don't follow TRP tenets in some religious, worshipful manner, that's not what philosophy is about. I think the sub would disagree, as not following it religiously gets you banned.. I'm not looking for him to tell me how to live my life, I'm looking for a different perspective on life in general. This is something reading TRP material did for me as well. Sure, but again the point i…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/14 10:33 PM
2

If you actually listen to what they say they make no such claim, and some of them explicitly reject it. The problem is that (as the creator was criticised for later) many of the interviews were edited to try to make his case as strong as possible but essentially the strongest position he could get was a sociologist saying that biology isn't a major factor in their work (because, of course, they're sociologists and not biologists).
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/14 10:29 PM
0

I don't think specifics are relevant but some differences involve things like spatial awareness, reactions to jealousy, mate preferences during hormonal shifts, mathematical abilities, aggression, etc. It's not really possible to make claims stronger than that given the extremely weak evidence we have of innate differences at the moment, and obviously there is a lot of research out there pointing out that a large section (potentially all) of some of those differences are due to environmental fac…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/14 10:27 PM
1

Charming, but no. Just being honest. It's the way these conversations tend to go with people making odd claims about feminism. Second, the idea of a "standard feminist position" that can be easily be accessed by a lay person is ridiculous. Nobody has suggested that a lay person should have access to this information though. We're talking about feminists. Anyone who has spent time with feminist texts understands how fragmented the movement is. Which is irrelevant, as the point is that the positio…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/14 10:24 PM
0

What feminist classes did you take? I'm willing to bet that you're either misunderstanding what was said or you're simply making it up. There's a slim possibility that someone taking a "feminist class" (whatever that may mean) was just so woefully misinformed about feminism's stance on the topic but I think it's unlikely as it is such a massive deviation from the standard feminist position.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/14 09:21 PM
0

Yeah he is but I don't see your point. Has PPD boasted about it's freedom to say whatever you want? Was he banned for polite disagreement? No and no.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/14 09:18 PM
0

I don't know how many women he's slept with and I imagine you probably don't have an accurate figure either since you'll have to go on what he says. But accepting that, my point still stands in that his method clearly didn't work in that video so his results were incredibly poor. Maybe his other methods work and maybe he's constantly covered in women but on that night, using that approach, he struck out hard.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/14 09:16 PM
1

Oh I thought you were saying that the gender research itself attempted to tell people what to do rather than people using the research telling people what to do. I agree.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/14 09:11 PM
5

I don't think she would have gotten banned if she asked her question in a friendly manner. But people have in the past so why would now be any different? Off the top of my head I remember a red pill woman being banned because she asked Dana if it was necessarily the case that a good wife had to lack a college education and be opposed to feminism. In any case she didn't even try. If you're afraid of getting banned because of questions you might ask, whats the point? You're not going to comment an…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/14 02:22 PM
3

Serious inquirers are expected to work through all the available material before wasting the group's time with questions they could answer themselves. The problem, however, is that many of these questions are pointing out contradictions and inherent flaws in the TRP philosophy. The point being that it's not possible to work it out yourself by reading the literature because the literature contradicts itself and often these people are asking how red pillers can resolve this. This attempt to fix a …
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/14 02:13 PM
4

You've never seen people blindly claim this? I just saw it a minute ago while browsing. http://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/27tssg/to_red_pill_women_what_makes_you_want_to_leave/ci4buw9[2] Yeah that was the second example I gave in my post above, where someone asked why didn't they raise their concerns with RPW and they explained that they'd get banned if they did. That seems perfectly valid to me. It seems like most of the people that are instabanned are there to troll/argue/start…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/14 02:09 PM
5

I don't know, I was just referring to the question about TRP and RPW. I was under the impression that /r/askTRP has the exact same rules and moderation as TRP though, given that the "ask" part is more about advice on implementing TRP rather than asking questions about the theories behind it (which is generally what gets you banned).
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/14 01:40 PM
9

I don't think I've ever seen the complaint raised in that way. It's normally presented after a red piller claims that SRS or /r/feminism etc censor dissent or speech that isn't politically correct, with the implication that TRP is better. Recently someone asked why red pillers here ask questions to other red pillers since they could do that on their own sub and it was pointed out that they're not allowed to question TRP. RPW was also recently mentioned when someone said that they didn't understa…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/14 01:08 PM
1

Saying men and women have different brains, skills, strengths, weaknesses is usually considered sexist Is it though?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/14 10:54 AM
1

but so often gender research is used to tell people what they should do Is it? Can you link to some of that research?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/14 10:52 AM
3

I found it weird that the show was premised on Norweigan social scientists advocating blank slatism and yet all the people they interviewed rejected blank slatism.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/14 10:51 AM
6

Yeah I'm not sure how it's really possible to answer the question in the OP in terms of my high school experience as there were no clear differences. It's not like the "asshole jocks" were getting sex left, right, and centre and the nerds got none. And most of the jocks like me were in the top classes as well, so there wasn't really a division like we see in American movies. Also, like you, there were very few asshole guys at my school. I can only remember one guy who could fall into a TRP ideal…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/14 06:50 AM
6

What results did he get? Women seemed to be incredibly uncomfortable around him and creeped out, and then his big moment at the end was where he made it seem like he was going to score with a girl who was in tears even though she apparently wasn't aware of this. Just look at the woman he's with at the beginning where he tries to demonstrate the "pole dancer" idea, and initially he gets off to a decent start where he makes a joke which essentially says: "Fuck it's creepy when guys ask if you're a…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/14 06:34 AM
4

That scenario doesn't really illustrate anything and then it just gets awkward when he starts ranting at her and she keeps saying "yeah" to get the conversation out the way. Cringeworthy conversation overall. Yeah that's what was obvious to me. I don't understand why he included the segment of the conversation where the woman very blatantly was turned off by his supposedly 'alpha' approach. Wouldn't it have made more sense for him to edit that out?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/14 06:20 AM
5

Honest question: is he supposed to look sharp in the video? I genuinely thought he chose an obviously horrible outfit as part of a "peacocking" routine. Was he not peacocking?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/14 06:17 AM
1

I was thinking Jesse Tyler Ferguson.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/14 06:13 AM
2

Let's go party?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/14 04:36 AM
3

Do it...
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/14 04:04 AM
4

Do you see what you get when you mess with The Warrior?!
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/14 03:36 AM
3

Yeah, I agree. I think the reason why RPW generally receives less criticism than TRP is simply because it's mostly about women who enjoy being in traditional marriages talking about being in traditional marriages. There's nothing wrong with that even if some people wouldn't like that for themselves. The only time I see them criticised is when they start promoting harmful opinions (e.g. there was a thread where a wife noticed that there was a problem with their finances and she queried whether sh…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/14 03:34 AM
12

My only problem with this is John Boehner is mocked for crying, Chris Matthews is mocked for getting overly enthusiastic. This is politics at its highest level and people are trying to take those biggest chunk out if you possible. Jon Stewart wasn't making fun of them, he was highlighting the fact that emotions exist in men as well and yet the media doesn't try to make it seem like their emotions are a problem. In fact, as Stewart showed, when men in politics display emotion they are praised for…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/14 06:37 AM
-2

Ooooooh! So that's why RPers try to get a completely red thread started while attempting to shoo the rest of us away! It's sad and annoying at the same time. Most likely yeah. Have you been banned from TRP yet? I think I'm shadowbanned from MRM but not TRP. I can't remember if I was or not but I've never commented there (and have no plans to) so it's not an issue for me either way.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/14 04:39 AM
-3

They're not allowed to. TRP defines any kind of questioning of its beliefs as "trolling" and they will quickly ban anyone who tries to do so.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/06/14 02:45 AM
1

So your argument is that a red piller came into purplepilldebate where people discuss concepts relevant to the red pill and he's presented an article and made statements which could be interpreted as stemming from the red pill belief that men shouldn't pay child support, but really it's more likely that he's just randomly posted it here because he wanted to discuss some intricate wording of an arbitrarily chosen law? K.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/14 01:59 AM
1

I'd say that's a rather opinionated interpretation. We're dealing with a proud bigot here, not someone with carefully thought out positions. I don't think there's any leap or opinion required. Regardless, paperwork that says "I just used this guy's semen to impregnate myself and release him from all financial obligation" should stand up in court, no matter the ideological beliefs of the person sharing the story. Maybe it should (although that might raise potential problems of women being coerced…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/14 01:38 AM
1

Sure, but the reason he thinks it is stupid is because it conflicts with his ideology - specifically the idea that a man shouldn't have to pay child support.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/14 01:21 AM
1

My reaction.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/14 03:03 AM
2

Yeah, I think when an article starts out by saying that they defeated feminism by appealing to the "not as bad as" fallacy, their position isn't actually as strong as they think it is.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/14 03:01 AM
2

and the only reason a doctor is being brought in is to provide evidence that the baby is not the result of a sexual relationship. I certainly get what you're saying and you're right that discrimination in terms of the cost of insemination for non-hetero couples could produce an issue that needs to be addressed, but (as you say) that's what the law currently says and he clearly fell afoul of it.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/14 02:57 AM
9

That's what I don't understand about this faux outrage (that is really just a way of trying to justify a lot of bigotry from the OP). The law makes it clear that people who donate sperm aren't liable for child support payments and it outlines what you need to do to qualify as a 'sperm donor'. The guy didn't meet those requirements. There is nothing to debate or disagree with here. It's perhaps morally wrong on the part of the mother depending on their situation but presumably what comes first is…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/06/14 02:17 AM
11

When there's a conspiracy against you, everything proves your point.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/06/14 06:22 AM
1

There still seems to be specific issue with psychology. You're reading into it what you want to, it is explicitly saying that it's not unique to psychology. Plus, we have to note that that's a journalist's take on the issue, they don't even use the term "replicate" correctly creating that meaningless sentence that you quoted. It would be one thing if all sciences did this and have the same control methods, All of the sciences do do that. That's what the articles you linked to stated. It's a very…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/14 10:32 PM
1

It seems genetics has an influence, and that was just an easy one to point out and any differences are transitively related to that, I'm not sure why this is a hard concept. You would have to be a blank slatist to start denying that. You're confusing issues here. The reason why we know genetics plays a role is because we have evidence that it does. There is no logical way to go from looking at different chromosomes to concluding that there must be differences in behavior. They did in the comment…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/14 10:23 PM
1

It would depend on the context and a range of other hugely important factors. For example, if I was at a zoo and I ran away screaming because I saw a tiger sleeping on a rock behind metal bars and a few safety barriers, then I'd be a dickhead. I'd lose out on the money I'd spent, I'd forego the great time I was going to have and the experiences that would make me a better, more fulfilled person, and worst of all I wouldn't get to see the monkeys throwing shit at each other. Additionally, if you …
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/14 12:06 PM
2

I'm not sure if the edit was a direct response to me but I wasn't offended at all. It is an interesting article to post, doubly so since it wasn't immediately obvious whether she was joking or just batshit insane. I only replied because I was confused as well over whether she was serious or not.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/14 10:26 AM
3

Yeah, I was laughing too thinking it was a great parody of some of the stupid things people often say about feminism, and warped ideas of gender roles, etc. But then I realised that the parody was really good, as in I'm sure I've seen red pillers say the exact same thing. Further research seems to suggest that she's serious..
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/14 10:20 AM
6

Uh... looking at some of her other posts, her FAQ, etc, I don't think she's joking.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/14 10:12 AM
2

Also, further down: "The field of psychology has come under particular scrutiny because many results in the scientific literature defy replication by other researchers." Which was a weird claim to make as they link to the Ed Yong article that points out that replication occurs often in psychology and the problem is the lack of avenue to publish the replication (which your other article describes as a problem for all science). I think that if RPers or someone with an ideology like that got a soci…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/14 08:06 AM
2

Cultural differences are not inherent differences. There is a difference. Cultural differences can be changed, inherent ones can't. That's fine but nobody said anything about the differences being cultural. (Your claim about the malleability of cultural and innate differences is wrong as well). If they are so similar, then why does treating them similarly as a sexual strategy not work? Who says it doesn't work? I have anecdotes to disprove you. But dismissing that, even if they are innately simi…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/14 07:40 AM
2

From the article, about psychology: You mean the part that was immediately followed with: "We have to be open about the problems that exist in psychology and understand that, though they're not unique to psychology, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be addressing them. If we do that, we can end up leading the other sciences rather than following them." (My emphasis). That's not what I'm doing. I think it would just give them the same value. "Same value" as what? What are you comparing them to? I th…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/14 06:08 AM
1

They refused to even acknowledge what difference would arise from having XX or XY chromosomes. I did state that this was an "obvious" difference. I believe it's fair in that case. Anyway, I see this type of thinking a lot. I feel it comes out more when they think you don't know any better yourself. ...But those comments accept that there are differences. They are simply in line with the current scientific consensus that men and women are more similar than dissimilar, and that the differences are…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/14 05:59 AM
1

I know for a fact that is not true. Engineering, as far as research goes is basically just a further divide within science. Sure, it is slightly more applied but the research works functionally the same. Sure, but I'm not saying that the research in engineering isn't scientific, just that the field itself isn't a science. To compare the validity of engineering to a science is impossible. The articles seem to think there is something especially off about psychology. It was lumped in with the soci…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/14 05:37 AM
1

Thanks for that, my bad.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/14 05:32 AM
1

Sorry, I was typing on my phone and it seems it missed a word. No, the only comments I could find were from people who were rejecting the idea that men and women don't have differences.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/14 05:32 AM
1

Some of their generalities probably do have merit; men generally are stronger than women, relationships generally do take a broad setup with the man as the dominant one, men generally approach women rather than the other way around, etc. As for the second question, that's where the problems arise. The answer is that it depends on what your goal is. If you're a red piller, and you believe that the average woman is a slut, stupid, disloyal, illogical, and overly emotional, etc, then acting on gene…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/14 03:45 AM
2

I didn't say you have to be a feminist to accept it. You said it was a feminist view and it had been expressed in this thread. I don't think it's relevant to quote non-feminists making claims about feminism.. I think if you asked the one who believe they are the same, they will tell you they are feminists. If someone has claimed that then please link me as I asked above. The point is that it is a well known view now. I hear it repeated by feminists, and people who have been taught by feminists. …
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/14 03:40 AM
2

Engineering boils down to science on some level, and they do perform research. I've performed engineering research anyway. It doesn't boil down to science, it is an art that applies scientific findings to its work. There can be research done within it, just as there can be research done in fine art, but that doesn't make it scientific obviously. Here is a link to my post on studies. Thanks for the links. As I thought, "behavioral sciences" essentially meant applied fields like medicine. I think …
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/14 03:34 AM
1

Nobody is talking about absolutes.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/14 03:19 AM
1

It's not a pragmatism of assumptions, it's a pragmatism of the evidence given to them. So you're saying that they simply set their threshold of evidence so low that a general trend can be considered evidence that the trend is good? If so, that doesn't seem to be true at all as they only accept evidence when it supports their beliefs, which is why when I've had in depth discussions with red pillers and presented solid, uncontroversial scientific evidence, they tell me that they would sooner rejec…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/14 02:13 AM
4

It's a long thread but I've just tried to read most of the comments and I can't find what you're describing. I did see about 5-6 blue pillers explicitly claiming that they reject the idea that men and women don't have differences. Can you quote or link the comment which functionally says: "I am a feminist and feminism believes that men and women are the same"? EDIT: fixed the messup.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/14 02:08 AM
2

Point 3 is the extent of what we were talking about, I've recognized that as all we can do, that's what anecdotes are. And, as above, I've claimed that there is no problem using anecdotes as 'evidence' of anecdotes, or self-reports as evidence of self-reports. So I'm not sure why that would present a problem for the social sciences, as you've suggested. Point 4 I don't believe, especially if the data is surveyed. You can't control with the same rigor you would in a physics, chemistry, or enginee…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/14 02:03 AM
2

What do you suggest as a scientific method for determining TRP has any validity? I would suggest that if TRP wanted to make valid generalised claims about the behavior of men and women then they should familiarise themselves with the scientific literature. If there is no good evidence to support their claim then they should qualify what they are saying and make it clear that it's simply opinion. When I say that it is thorough, I mean that it lines up perfectly with what I've always known or wond…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/14 01:30 AM
2

However, feminism has run rampant, and there is this general idea, that men and women are exactly the same. This is what is taught to be true now, even though it isn't the common sense approach. That's not the feminist view at all and that's not what people generally accept. I guess you could say the common sense view is no longer obvious? You're confusing yourself with semantics.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/14 01:25 AM
2

Most women are not attracted to youth. Women tend to like men their own age or younger. Men, when given the option, tend to like the closest to a 20-24 year old woman they can land. No, both men and women aim for their own age group. Putin just traded in his wife for one. Soros has one. Hugh Hefner has 3. Guys who have the choice and don't feel judgment prefer young women. This is occasionally true for women, but not nearly as often. Anecdotes... Not true. Men tend to go for the hottest option, …
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/14 01:22 AM
3

The only thing left is to receive evidence and take a pragmatic approach. Most people find fault with the evidence not the pragmatism. I'm not debating pragmatism but that is a value that is unrelated to what we're discussing (i.e. pragmatism can't get you from a trend of a specific relationship type to saying that it's good) and red pillers quite clearly are not pragmatists when it comes to many of the claims they make. They don't usually don't claim that it's practical to assume X is true, the…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/14 01:01 AM
2

There are a number of mistakes you've made in that single sentence there. The main ones: 1) social science doesn't just study people through asking their opinions. 2) self-report is rarely a primary measure and when it is used it involves more than just "asking their opinions". 3) self-report, when used, is only used as evidence of self-report. No study will ask for someone's opinion on hypergamy, for example, and then use that for evidence of hypergamy. They will use it as evidence of what that…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/14 12:58 AM
2

It's not semantics because the problem is with the concept underpinning it, not the word used. What you are arguing is semantics, as you're trying to debate the literal word used without addressing the problem of the concept. More simply: the problem is that red pillers often appeal to a kind of "common sense" that supposedly everyone has about a topic to support their claims about men and women. But the whole meaning behind their philosophy is that common sense is wrong (i.e. these things are n…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/14 12:52 AM
2

It can be, but the tendency is much higher in women. Men are attracted to youth and beauty. Women are attracted to confidence and power. But women are attracted to youth and beauty as well, which is why we don't observe age hypergamy in women (people prefer relationships with people their own age). Women tend to want the best option they can have with minimal consequences. ...So do men. The thing about hypergamy is some women(and men) are more susceptible to hypergamous impulses. Just like some …
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/14 12:50 AM
3

I downvoted you because your post added nothing I had not already touched upon My post used facts to contradict your opinion. The downvote button is not a "disagreement" button and it's against the rules to use it in this sub. and rightfully so as it appears your post was an attempt to bait me into a discussion with you "Bait you into a discussion"? You realise this is a discussion sub, right? Discussing things is generally what we do here and if you're so terrified of having a discussion, I rec…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/14 12:47 AM
4

Well that might be true, but TRP seems to believe it. And that's fine, but they're lacking the evidence. The evidence they're trying to use is the trend which doesn't give us the normative statement. They've already set their values, so it's smooth sailing from one to the other for them. They see it working for other people, they like it, and they adopt it themselves. TRP accepts the value that "if it's a trend then it's good"? If so, you're right that they can shift from one to the other easily…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/14 11:50 PM
2

I'm not sure if you've missed a word there as I'm not entirely sure what you're saying, but if you're saying that you can't make any claims after hearing someone's opinion then you're absolutely right.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/14 11:48 PM
2

If something isn't obvious "now", then it's (by definition) not obvious.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/14 11:47 PM
3

That would be another inconsistency, as "hypergamy" (when used to refer to wanting to date someone that is "higher" than you) is observed in both men and women. Kind of related to that, one of the other problems is that TRP tries to use "hypergamy" to describe women leaving men for someone better, when of course that's not what it means and there is no reason to think that that will happen just because another guy scores "higher" than you.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/14 11:30 PM
2

Okay so another inconsistency is how TRP misuses the term (like solipsism). But is TRP really just saying that people don't aim low when looking for a relationship? Why abuse the term hypergamy just to say that?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/14 11:06 PM
4

Firstly, what did you downvote me for?... Sure Russia is an assuption. And one that was inaccurate. But I've spent time in the middle east and all over south america and many of the families I met abroad were very much what we would describe as patriarchal, but the wife ran things in the background. Captain first mate. As someone else commented, I'm not sure you really want to purposefully identify with cultures which actively promote misogyny and limit the freedom of its people. We also have to…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/14 10:55 PM
2

That hypergamy, when it is practiced, is most likely not innate due to the fact that it mostly occurs where the freedoms and rights of women are low. In other words, women tend to marry up in those cultures because they have no job prospects and no means to live an independent life.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/14 10:51 PM
4

Can go into detail about what you mean when you say single data point? I mean it's an anecdote. It stems from a single, highly subjective person who comes from an extremely specific position with very limited experiences whose view is shaped by their own molded view. It's ridiculous to try to use anecdotes as explanations for anything in the world. That's why we invented science, we recognised how faulty and flawed our perceptions and anecdotes were. As for TRP being very thorough in theory, I'm…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/14 10:30 PM
4

So basically, in countries where women aren't forced into situations that they can't get out of, they choose to behave differently to what RP suggests are their natural behaviors? So the things you guys describe are "natural" and "innate" insofar as they are forced to do those things? I'm also willing to bet that you're making your claims about those countries based on the stereotypes you have in mind rather than ever actually having been there. You say Russia is very RP? Okay, are the highest d…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/14 10:27 PM
2

If you had evidence that it creates the most success and happiness then you wouldn't need to appeal to the trend at all. Normative statements can never follow from observed facts as the values must come first (hence the "is-ought divide").
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/14 10:17 PM
2

That makes no sense given that there are many studies done on hypergamy, they just generally don't support what TRP says.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/14 10:15 PM
4

No, you could say that there are many anecdotes of women being hypergamous. It's impossible to cross over from anecdote to evidence because anecdotes are so flawed and confounded that you cannot ever make a generalised claim from them.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/14 10:14 PM
4

You've described the exact opposite of "obvious".
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/14 10:13 PM
17

However, would you still agree this is sort of uncommon? I don't think TRP is law or works when speaking in absolutes, but some of it does accurately describe some trends or generalities. I can't speak for /u/doth_revenge but the problem with RP isn't necessarily the generalisation (I'm not sure things are as general as they believe but we'll skip that for now), but rather the fact that they try to confuse the generalisation with a normative statement. So they don't just say: "Men tend to be dom…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/14 05:34 AM
7

Anecdotes supply precisely zero validity. Even if we assume that they're true we're still faced with the fact that they are highly selective samples that are generated from a single data point. They can be sufficient enough for claims like, "Of all the girls I've dated, half have had brown hair" because anecdotes about your personal experiences are generally pretty good indicators of your personal experience. But for RP claims like, "Women are naturally hypergamous" then anecdotes are useless - …
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/14 05:28 AM
7

I think we're using different definitions for the word "obvious". I'm not quite sure how something can be obvious and not obvious at the same time. If (assuming that people often follow words instead of behaviors, which I don't think is true) people are so easily misled then surely that means it isn't obvious. If I present you with a riddle that only makes sense after I explain it to you then, by definition, it wasn't obvious.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/14 05:24 AM
7

Sure but I'm not sure how that applies here.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/14 05:15 AM
7

The point is that anecdotes don't indicate validity at all, so if both groups have anecdotes then it simply means that they have anecdotes. The only way to distinguish between them is to look for evidence.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/14 05:14 AM
9

Maybe I misunderstood the OP, but don't you see how this response is kind of making his point? Yeah, you either misunderstood his point or my response. He just asked what people on TBP views on gender dynamics, on 'the world,' etc. And you respond with a wall of text about why people on TBP don't have to provide an affirmative position. Well you're right, they don't have to. They don't have to do anything they aren't legally obligated to do. So what? You're conflating two different parts of his …
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/14 05:12 AM
3

You haven't actually explained what BP beliefs and ideas are.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/14 03:58 AM
2

Haha thanks, I still dabble here and there.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/14 03:56 AM
12

That reasoning has always confused me. The whole premise of TRP is that they exist in a Matrix-like world where they can see the truth that all other people are blind to. But when questioned on some fact, they use the "obviousness" of it as evidence, despite the fact that their own philosophy is founded on the fact that it's not obvious.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/14 03:17 AM
7

Indeed. But surely, at the very least, if they're going to present their experiences as evidence then they must accept that your experiences can completely nullify theirs. If anecdotes are evidence then they can't just pick and choose which anecdotes are "real" and which are "outliers" based entirely on their own anecdotes.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/14 03:15 AM
5

I am aware, and I want to hear their views. That's what this post is about. I don't think all 13,000 are radically different. I'm sure their are some similarities. TRP isn't that narrow either. There may be some similarities but the point is that it has nothing to do with a "TBP stance". TRP, on the other hand, is necessarily and undeniably narrow given that it's a specific philosophy with well-defined and clearly stated beliefs. The subreddit even has a "required reading" list. I disagree, I th…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/14 03:13 AM
23

I often see BPers say they don't have a stance and just that TRP is wrong. I think you've misunderstood the claim here. Blue pillers generally say that the blue pill doesn't have a stance, or that there is no blue pill position, rather than saying they themselves as individuals (who happen to subscribe to the TBP subreddit) don't have a stance. The point is that there is no such thing as a "blue pill perspective" on an issue. TBP is literally just a place filled with people who think TRP says st…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/14 02:09 AM
2

In that even if we ignore the error bars, the actual difference is only about .5 in the scores (with the men's difference being only slightly less than that). The point being that the increase in attraction was not substantial enough to raise them above indifference. Being in a relationship, even if it increased the rating, was not substantial enough for them to hit even the most minimal level of attraction. It's like showing that there is a tiny but statistically significant difference in your …
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/14 12:35 AM
2

Statistically significant, it says nothing about the clinical or absolute significance (which appears to be tiny). My conclusion doesn't contradict the author's, you're just conflating the everyday understanding of "significant" with the technical usage of the term (as applied in statistics and science).
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/14 12:19 AM
2

Thanks for the link but note that the graph is identical to the one in the thesis, where the difference is incredibly tiny.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/14 08:15 PM
5

Just glancing over the report, the main responses I'd have would be: 1) note that this is a Masters thesis, not a peer-reviewed study. We have no idea if the student even passed so we have to be very careful in taking the data at face value. 2) looking at their data, it seems that the differences in preference of men between single and committed women, and the differences in preference of women between single and committed men, is similar (with large error bars). I'd want to see some replication…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/14 08:39 AM
4

The problem with these kinds of discussions is that you tend to get a group of (well-intentioned) laymen trying to discuss a field which is actually incredibly nebulous and complex. So I think a couple of things need to be cleared up before any real discussion can take place: 1) The difference between the field itself and its subject matter: there's a common bait-and-switch manoeuvre that overly keen evo psych supporters use, and that is to try to redefine evo psych the field as purely being its…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/04/14 10:42 PM
6

The red pill claims to have all, or at least some of the answers. Blue pillers claim that the questions remain unanswered. "Culture" isn't a definitive answer, but rather a potential explanation of what they observe. This is a good way of framing it in that usually the possibility of culture as an explanation is raised simply as a potential confound that needs to be accounted for. The best example I can think of off the top of my head was that thread about the study that showed biological differ…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/14 05:06 AM
5

Though gender expectations influence gender expression, gender is not entirely a social construct. Human beings are animals subject to the laws of nature.[4] Before I get to the linked article I just want to clarify something here: the social construction of gender does not claim that biology has no effect or influence on gender. There are supposedly some stronger forms that assert that gender is entirely caused by culture (but really these are more nuanced than that and are discussing something…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/14 08:43 AM
3

I don't think I've linked to ppd before elsewhere on reddit, you probably saw the link in one of the many askreddit threads discussing the worst sub on reddit with TRP coming up and then someone will link to ppd afterwards.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/03/14 04:28 AM
1

Of course, they will say they were young and stupid or some other convenient excuse for their behaviour. And that may be valid, but does it not mean RP theory is in fact true? How are you distinguishing between these men getting dates with women because of TRP and these men getting dates with women despite of TRP? Most of the time when I read descriptions of women who have dated men with RP tendencies, the general description seems to be along the lines of: "Something seemed off about him but he…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/03/14 08:16 AM
1

Again do you believe we have a neo cortex, limbic system, and R-complex? Of course but none of this helps the debunked myth of the Triune brain ??? reptilian brain=r-complex. Are you caught up on the terminology? It's just an issue of semantics. I'm accepting that the brain structures that Maclean described as a "reptilian brain" exist, I'm denying that the classification "reptilian brain" is useful or meaningful (i.e. I'm pointing out that it's rejected by science). Either way, there was really…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/02/14 03:21 AM
2

The discussion we are having now is pretty meta. I never said anywhere in my post that I think TRP is losing the debate, that TRP is having a lot of problems with their argument, etc. That may be your view, but in terms of our conversation, it is unproven. It's not unproven, it's a logical conclusion. The point is simply that there are no complaints from factually true and rationally supported positions that are criticised. If TRP is having issues here, then it's likely that these are caused by …
/r/PurplePillDebate26/02/14 02:18 AM
3

I specifically said we all agree that there ARE biological differences. I said the disagreement is about how they affect our mating strategies. No you didn't - you said we all agree that sexual desire is biological. You said the point of disagreement comes in the claim that there are biological differences in sexual desire, and strategies, between men and women. So again, how do you believe our biological differences affect our mating strategies, if at all. I'd have to look into the research to …
/r/PurplePillDebate26/02/14 02:03 AM
1

Did you see that post in purple pill recently? It showed 11 studies with many things RP talk about. Yeah it was a painful disfiguring of science. What? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triune_brain It's only been around since 1960, what is a "long, long time ago" for you?? Half a century in science is a long time ago. Carl Sagan, one of the most brilliant minds in the last century talked about in the 70s. He seemed like a nice guy but he wasn't a psychologist or neuroscientist so his opinion is irre…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/14 10:51 PM
2

Once more, yes, of course they won't, because they are wrong, and they opt for the easier road. TBP has taken the same road. But you're missing the point in that you suggested that if evolution vs creationist subs didn't require creationists to advance a position then it would be much easier for their side. I pointed out that these places don't usually force creationists to advance a position and yet it's still easier to be on the evolution side. I think the weakness of the bluepill criticism is…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/14 10:35 PM
2

I think part of the issue the two of us are going to run into, is you seem to be coming from the analytic side of philosophical world, whereas my education is entirely continental. As a result there is serious potential for miscommunication, and the two schools have very different approaches to discourse. Just wanted to clarify. Not at all, my background is more in continental philosophy as well. Well it was not controversial when it was written. If you read the entire Proslogion that is obvious…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/14 10:30 PM
1

I think RPers are the ones not concerned with morality and more concerned with pragmatism. It's usually BP saying how RP is dehumanizing, a lot even admit that they'll agree with what RP says but they don't like the language and misogyny. ...I think you're taking the analogy too far. I'm not literally saying that red pillers are complaining that blue pillers don't have an explanation for the universe. RP tries to take real scientific theories and apply them to social science. Ignoring the RP cla…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/14 09:43 PM
1

In theory, maybe, in practice a perfect argument cannot exist because people are imperfect. Anselm's Ontological Argument comes close to perfect structure, but even it can be dismantled based on how the terms are defined. I think you're defining "perfect" in an odd way here. It may be structurally valid but the assumptions it makes in the premises are highly controversial which, to me, makes it less than perfect. I agree that due to our infallible nature a perfect argument may be impossible but …
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/14 08:41 PM
1

Even something has logical as evolution is still debated and even people in politics have openly said they don't accept it. Some schools still teach creationism, in the US and around the world. I think you're missing the point of my analogy. The point is that even though it can still technically be debated, the form of the debate changes drastically. How many times have you heard someone defending evolution complain about having the burden of proof or saying it's hard because people can criticis…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/14 08:05 PM
3

Having said all that, I am curious about the way the debate in this sub is set up. I get the impression (correct me if I am wrong) that /r/thebluepill[2] does not consider itself to be an ideology, or even attempt to advance a set of premises or arguments that unite its membership. All the bluepill is responsible for is trying to prove redpill theories wrong, irrelevant, unethical, and so on. I understand that on their sub they mock redpill attitudes and beliefs. Agreed. It's impossible to set u…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/14 06:56 AM
2

My first position is that r/thebluepill is filled with very angry and upset people. Have you ever actually visited TBP? It's full of fun and laughter. It's one of the most pleasant and humorous places I've ever found on reddit. If you want angry and upset people, then you probably want TRP. You are an example of this, in addition to posting on r/thebluepill you are also a moderator of a sub called 'Red Pill Facts' which lists things you feel are wrong about TRP ideology, you spend hours of your …
/r/PurplePillDebate12/02/14 04:42 AM
2

And still you cannot refute the evidence I presented. Point proved. Checkmate, atheists. Come on, stop posturing and actually attempt to defend your position.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/02/14 09:25 PM
2

I've just taken a look through your post history and can see you post on r/theredpill. It's understandable that you are trying to justify yourself to me, but really you should stop and consider what you are doing to yourself. Not only is your sexism and bigotry offensive to others but the way you deliberately misrepresent your opponents is affecting your critical thinking abilities. Edit: I love the fact that you accused me of making up straw men but when presented with undeniable evidence, you …
/r/PurplePillDebate11/02/14 07:17 PM
3

The suicidal young man made a post on TRP, the post on r/thebluepill was made by a bluepiller who linked to the one on TRP and it was in the r/thebluepill post where the suicidal young man was mocked and insulted. You are referring to a different incident. No we're talking about the same one, unless you're talking about the incel that was threatening to kill women for not sleeping with him before committing suicide. TRP is about self improvement, Red Pillers go there to improve their lives and s…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/02/14 03:20 AM
2

The comments were all respectful and concerned, and it was deleted by the mods because going to satire communities is not a healthy option for someone in his situation. You'll note that the thread he created here in PPD was also deleted for the same reason. Look, you can dislike TBP all you like. You can call them meanies if that makes you feel better. But you cannot support TRP and then try to judge others for their actions. You cannot belong to a community of self-professed rapists, people who…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/14 11:14 PM
2

Strictly, "PUA" as such is not one particular method of getting laid, that might work or not. PUA folks are interested in pretty much anything that gets them laid. And they certainly claim results, which I have no reason to doubt. Why would you say that you have no reason to doubt them? They base their entire worldview on anecdotes and every story they tell reeks of confirmation bias. But PUA doesn't. PUA is fundamentally empirical: it's based on experiment and observation. There's a long histor…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/14 09:24 AM
3

True, but people who study medicine are better at curing illnesses than they were before studying their field. What is medicine? It's about curing illness by whatever means are effective. PUA is the same. It's about getting laid by whatever means are effective. They're interested in anything that works, they're not constrained to any particular theory. The problem is that you're assuming that PUA actually works, which is certainly far from proven. The reason why I compared it to homeopathy is th…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/14 09:05 AM
3

FFS, PUA, not TRP. But you're ignoring my anecdotal evidence! If you make an effort to do something, you're likely to get good at it. For example, I'm pretty sure people on /r/cod[1] are much better at that game than the general population. Not necessarily - I'm pretty sure people studying homeopathy are no better at curing illnesses than they were before studying their field. But not the other way around. You just yourself pointed out MGTOW and incel parts of TRP, which are not a big part of PU…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/14 08:40 AM
2

This seems like a weak suggestion or possibility to me. It doesn't compare to a group the whole point of which is to get laid a lot: that's a pretty direct connection. Except you're ignoring the fact that they got into TRP because they aren't any good at getting laid and we have no reason to think that they got any better. From where I'm sitting, it's like you're telling me that people who get into MLM/pyramid schemes are richer than the average person because their whole point is to make a lot …
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/14 08:21 AM
1

We must be thinking about a different guy then as there was no thread made about him - I thought he meant the guy who started threads everywhere saying that he's going to kill himself if he doesn't have sex soon. Is JohnEngland talking about that insane incel guy who threatens to go on a killing spree if women don't have sex with him? If so, yeah that guy deserved to be made fun of (and preferably locked up).
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/14 07:57 AM
2

I would assume that blue pillers, or whoever, date about as much as the general population. I'm not sure that's a valid assumption to make. A common disagreement from blue pillers against TRP is the fact that it seems weird and awkward to "study" how to pick up women and convince them to have sex with you - the main reason for this feeling is the fact that it comes naturally to people most strongly disagree with TRP. So, I'd argue that it's entirely possible that blue pillers have far more sex t…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/14 07:56 AM
2

When he was posting on TRP there was another post linking to it on r/thebluepill, mocking him and insulting him. They KNEW he was feeling suicidal, they just didn't care. How do you think he would have felt if he'd seen that thread? What type of people would post stuff like that about a suicidal young man? I remember that thread - everyone on TBP was incredibly supportive, directed him to suicide hotlines and places to talk, and warned him that a satire sub probably wasn't the best place for him…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/14 07:32 AM
2

I think at that point we examine the depth of experience. For example, if someone says "I've slept with 100 women and most are X", that's more compelling than "I've slept with 5 women and most are not-X". It doesn't really help us here though as it's not like blue pillers are unsuccessful in the dating world or have only had a handful of partners.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/14 07:24 AM
3

It doesn't need to be an "all" statement though, that's what my first point refers to. If you say "My experiences suggest that most women are X" and I say "My experiences suggest that most women are not-X", then we've reached a point where we've both presented equally compelling "evidence" and neither side has any reason for people to believe it. As I say above though, this is fine from a blue piller side because they aren't actually trying to push a position so simply showing a red piller argum…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/14 01:48 AM
3

In those cases then we refer back to the first argument. Red pillers' anecdotes and generalisations are no more valid than my own, so when only anecdotes are presented, all claims can be dismissed.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/14 01:32 AM
3

Also, I've noted the number of counter-arguments to RP generalizations occur in the form of "My relationship/experience isn't like that..." So... that's interesting. Note that using anecdotes in response to RPers generalisations is not an invalid line of argumentation. There are two main ways in which it's used: 1) the assumption that if anecdotes are accepted as evidence in their worldview, then my anecdotes must be just as valid as theirs and thus all claims are refuted. If they claim all wome…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/14 01:08 AM
3

Depends what you mean by "fight back". I think any social rule that says you can't engage in genuine self defense is stupid, whatever the gender. If you mean that people should be allowed to fight a woman for attacking them, despite having the opportunity to leave, then that's stupid. This applies equally to the situation involving a man.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/14 10:06 PM
6

different moral standards apply to men and to women You can't derive an ought from an is. there should be different social rules for men and for women there should be different laws for men and for women True, insofar as these different rules and laws are based on actual inherent differences in men and women. For example, having different bathrooms for men and women can make sense, both in terms of what equipment is needed (women don't really need urinals) and in terms of reducing unease. Having…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/14 07:49 PM
2

I don't think they say, but how would it be relevant?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/14 07:31 PM
2

And yet it was published in "the second ranked and arguably most influential scholarly journal in sociology" (says /u/nosoccertoday). Bad science happens in all journals. Ah, you seem to be backtracking on your suggestion that they had the data first and went looking for hypotheses that it might support. At least I hope so, because they say "To investigate the relationship between sexual frequency and division of household labor among married couples, we use data from Wave II of the National Sur…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/14 07:29 PM
2

Well that would be covered under the section where they look at the effect that gender ideology has (i.e. what roles are appropriate for wives and husbands) and they found that gender ideology has no effect on sexual frequency.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/14 08:44 AM
2

It's not really dishonest, just really bad science. The problem is that it is a valid method for trying to uncover real relationships between data, it's just that scientists should be careful to explicitly identify it as a exploratory research so the evidence doesn't appear stronger than it actually is. And it's not really relevant whether they had a hypothesis beforehand, as it's still possible that the chance result existed there to be found and they just luckily picked the right one. This is …
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/14 08:38 AM
0

The latter, yes, it's called data fishing. It's awesome as part of exploratory research but it needs to be followed up with confirmatory research.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/02/14 06:36 AM
1

Yes, they are different drafts of the same paper. Scanning over it, it looks like the final drafts include more data and utilise the longitudinal component of the data to allow for more accurate predictions. The final draft is the only relevant one to look at, as earlier drafts would have been rejected for a number of reasons (quite possibly it was rejected from being published due to failing to account for a significant confound, and when accounting for it their results changed).
/r/PurplePillDebate08/02/14 06:35 AM
1

That's a different paper, the one I linked to is this one: Who Has the Time?:The Relationship between Household Labor. The results show that both women and men who spend more hours on household labor report more frequent sex than those who devote less time to household labor. Interestingly they also found that gender ideology had no effect on this result, so it isn't a case of people in traditional gender roles have more sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/02/14 08:33 AM
6

Massive confounds, due to the fact that the data was not collected as part of a specific study but instead was just a collection of a whole lot of mostly unrelated data points. Based solely on how statistics and science works, it is literally inevitable that two variables will show a significant relationship even when no such relationship exists. It's certainly very interesting and illuminating as an exploratory study but we have to keep in mind that the same methodology used here also "proved" …
/r/PurplePillDebate07/02/14 01:48 AM
6

Men who share the housework are generally happier and are more likely to stay together with their wives. Are men who share traditionally feminine chores more likely to be compensating for some perceived deficiency on their part in their relationship? Perhaps they are relatively unattractive and their wife is more attractive. Are they less likely to be the primary breadwinner? Men may be happier, but unless wives are sexually satisfied, it's a relatively sub-optimal situation Maybe it's all of th…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/02/14 01:42 AM
9

It's an interesting suggestion but the evidence is a bit weak to try to reach that conclusion, as it's using data collected across a massive range of issues which isn't focused on housework and sexual frequency so it's highly possible to be the victim of p-value fishing (i.e. there will inevitably be significant relationships between things reported even when no such relationship exists). Let's look at some of the literature on the topic: Men who share the housework are generally happier and are…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/02/14 11:10 PM
2

No apology will be forthcoming until you provide a reliable source for these assertions, as I requested above. Your reasoning appears rather convoluted, although I am not an expert on these issues. What? You want a source on the difference been ultimate and proximate explanations? That confusing levels of explanation will lead to erroneous results? Start by pointing out the flaws you see in the logic above and then I'll suggest introductory texts to these basic concepts based on what level of kn…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/02/14 09:32 PM
1

Single childless women out earning their male counterparts is progress. Women being paid fairly for jobs that were typically undervalued as a result of being "feminine" is progress. Women out earning men in a plethora of jobs, many of them male dominated is proof of discrimination. No, it's simple statistics based on discriminatory practices. An absence of proof of discrimination is proof that discrimination accounts for the gap. Gaps in the research are proof of discrimination. No, direct suppo…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/02/14 12:57 PM
1

Oh sorry, that's right, it's contradicted by amorphous "other factors" that can't be identified at all - except for when they include discriminatory processes, like stereotype threat.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/02/14 12:12 PM
1

Except all that empirical and experimental evidence. Same things the creationists do, dismiss valid scientific results when it contradicts their personal beliefs..
/r/PurplePillDebate04/02/14 12:04 PM
1

There is, it's called the adjusted wage gap. (Wow, weird deja vu, I totally feel like we've gone through this before).
/r/PurplePillDebate04/02/14 11:41 AM
1

Unlike you though, scientists just can't handwave away data because it doesn't fit with their personal beliefs :(
/r/PurplePillDebate04/02/14 11:30 AM
1

No, its not. Its a dominant belief among many people, with little evidence. You mean "scientists" there, not "people".
/r/PurplePillDebate04/02/14 11:20 AM
2

Here is one, but it wasn't the one I was looking for: Thanks for the link, I see that it supports your claim that some neuroscientists think that there is a problem in neuroscience of researchers downplaying the significance of sex (I can't say I agree but I can't refute claimed experiences from Cahill), but it doesn't support the claim that neuroscientific evidence alone can distinguish between innate and environmental effects on the brain. For example, take the findings on sexual dimorphism in…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/02/14 08:21 AM
2

TIL the sex hormones that we are born with, as a result of our biological sex, are not innate differences between human men and women. A claim which hasn't been denied so I see no relevance here. You have a hypothesis thus far that requires testing, nothing more. As I said, I would be happy to read that study if it has ever been conducted. It hasn't, therefore nothing else can be said. But I've linked you to one already. We know that it happens. You are saying that it is impossible and I have co…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/02/14 07:06 AM
1

It may be a mediator, but given it's largely fixed in a population that's irrelevant. It's relevant because the performance in the task is not innate, it's affected by innate variables. It's like saying men are innately better at basketball than women because men are genetically taller than women and taller people are better at basketball. It's a horrific abuse of the word "innate". Yes and I told you why that's not necessarily transferable here You've done no such thing. You suggested that brai…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/02/14 06:43 AM
4

Untested hypothesis. One type of training to eliminate a gendered difference doesn't necessarily translate here as well. I would appreciate such a study being conducted though. To date I can find none. There are too many variables to begin to make such an assumption. I gave you the example of training effects on mental rotation task success. This shows you haven't reviewed the studies. The hormonal controls that partially negate the difference are interesting. Since women's hormones are largely …
/r/PurplePillDebate04/02/14 06:04 AM
4

This is the correct answer. There isn't essentially a problem with unrealistic portrayals of "beauty" or even instances of objectification in the media. The only problem is when those unrealistic portrayals and objectification become the standard representation of a group of people - i.e. women. The reason why it is less of a problem for men is because they are given a far more diverse range of role models to look up to, and they literally come in all shapes and sizes. This isn't to say that pro…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/02/14 04:15 AM
2

Whoa whoa whoa, hold up there. Accepting the existence of innate differences doesn't suddenly mean that the environment and learning disappears. Look at it in terms of intelligence. Most people would agree that there are innate factors contributing to intelligence but accepting that premise does not mean we have to accept that people who have "gene X" are going to be smarter. Why? Because genetic determinism is pure pseudoscience and we know that the environment plays a huge role in the final ou…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/02/14 04:08 AM
3

Depends what you mean by "intentional". As a red piller, I have few doubts that he accepts that men and women are fundamentally different on an innate level. When he hears about neuroscience demonstrating a difference, whether consciously or not, I imagine that (like many people) he conflated "it's in the brain" with "it's innate". There was a similar problem with his thread "Male and female brains wired differently, scans reveal" where he talks about the differences being "hardwired" just becau…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/02/14 03:50 AM
3

I'm not sure what the point of this is, everybody accepts that there are innate differences in the brains of men and women.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/02/14 03:34 AM
5

They both seek the same destination (or goal), but one pathway is not as effective as the other, therefore women score lower on the test. Sure, I'm just pointing out that saying "it's in the brain" is redundant nonsense. Can you raise a woman like a boy in a controlled environment and produce different results? Perhaps, but it's not that simple, because there are other factors to consider like hormonal effects on brain development, as well as maturation effects. No need to raise a woman like a b…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/02/14 03:33 AM
1

The point of my critique there is that redundant appeals to neuroscientific sounding terms is hugely misleading and I just personally find it quite insulting to science. It's like if someone posted an article about how biologists have discovered "the missing link" - I'm not complaining about the existence of the fossil that fits within our ancestral line, I'm complaining about the unscientific and nonsensical description of those valid scientific results. I expanded on my criticism at the end of…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/02/14 03:25 AM
1

I hope someday you'll see the irony in a red piller trying to accuse others of misogyny.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/02/14 03:22 AM
1

You have not presented evidence of your position. Your world view is that any unexplained wage gap is the result of discrimination against women, thats a belief. No it's not, it's the scientific conclusion. But how would that be a "worldview"? A worldview is a set of beliefs and ideas about the worlds that shapes and colours the information you receive. You either mean something else by "worldview" (in which case I urge you to just come out with it) or you are horribly misusing the term. My posi…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/02/14 02:06 AM
1

Okay I've presented the evidence but clearly there is something that is stopping you from accepting it so I'll try a different approach. What worldview do I supposedly possess?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/02/14 01:28 AM
1

Red pillers be angry!
/r/PurplePillDebate04/02/14 01:10 AM
-1

Okay, I think now that you've descended into outright denial of science I'm going to bow out. EDIT: I also find it interesting that my single downvote for my comment appeared right at the moment you posted. You naughty boy, you should know that you aren't allowed to downvote.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/02/14 12:11 AM
1

No, it means that discrimination is the best explanatory variable that is left. Just look at your responses above when you tried to explain how we could get the results without discrimination - you handwave away the question for multiple responses and then your best suggestion was discrimination (i.e. stereotype threat). And let's not forget that the unadjusted gap includes a number of discriminatory processes as well, so even if you wanted to suggest that some obscure, unknown variable accounte…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/14 11:35 PM
1

But it's not unexplained, it's a result of discrimination. That's what the adjusted gap means. It is the most reasonable explanation we have given the data we have. Science is not a paranoiac world view, for the last time.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/14 11:32 PM
1

The last bastion of a defeated person on the internet, accuse the other of trolling and use terms they don't understand like "handwaving" (for future reference, "handwaving" doesn't mean comprehensively and painstakingly demonstrating all of your points to be wrong using logic and evidence).
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/14 10:57 PM
1

That's because that's what the adjusted gap means.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/14 10:55 PM
1

TBP doesn't link to PPD. And you'd also have to consider TRP's history with brigading (since history is supposedly the best predictor of future behavior) which is that they were/are really, really bad for doing it. They had to have admins step in, give them warnings, and force them to use redditlogs instead of posting directly or even using .np links.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/14 10:55 PM
2

who were asked to perform the Iowa Card Task revealed data showing that men and women differ in their decision making processes on the neurological level. This sentence makes no sense. They either differ in their decision making process or they don't, saying that they differ "neurologically" is like saying someone's heart beat increases "cardiacally". The point being that if there is a behavioral difference then, by necessity, there is a neurological difference. Where else would behaviors come f…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/14 10:53 PM
1

I don't actually think it's the people who contribute to PPD that downvote. It's either lurkers from each sub that just like to fuck with people or it's people who have been linked here from other subs - like SRD or Bestof.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/14 10:44 PM
1

No, thats the figure after all the factors the researchers could think of and measure were controlled for. There is no evidence they covered all the factors, or evidence the remaining 8% is due to discrimination. It's all the factors that have ever been found to explain attribution of wages to employees and it also perfectly fits with the experimental data that finds the same trend. This is how science works, you go with the explanation that has the evidence behind it. If you disagree, then you …
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/14 10:41 PM
1

A scientific approach is not a paranoiac world view.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/14 10:39 PM
1

Too bad you can't make a single valid argument to support your point then.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/14 09:51 PM
1

How do you figure that? I'm the one being trolled, he keeps suggesting that hours worked and maternity leave could explain the difference in the adjusted gap!
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/14 09:51 PM
1

It not a minimum, the adjusted factors explain everything over 8%, so 8% is the maximum. No the adjusted gap explains everything under 8%. The raw gap, the unadjusted gap, explains everything else - ie above. Discrimination is possibly a component of the 8%, as are other factors the researchers are missing (perhaps for example making people believe they are more discriminated against than they are effects their productivity by x%), is what makes up the final 8%. The 8% is the figure we get when …
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/14 09:50 PM
-1

Who is forcing women to be housewives? Many men, social norms, unfair hiring practices, the wage gap, etc. And then why is Sandberg saying "lean in", and not "escape the tyranny and slavery"? Because she's talking about women who want to make a career but are too unsure of themselves to do so. Have you even read her book? "Lean in" implies the women have the power to do this. They are not objects being locked in. They have the potential and must push themselves to reach it. Exactly, they can do …
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/14 09:46 PM
1

Done. Can you ask him to edit the snark out his posts above please?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/14 09:43 PM
1

You're making the same mistake, looking at divorces versus marriages. Look at the graph that shows marriage tastes rapidly decreasing whilst divorce rates stay fairly stable. When the authors looked at actual divorces n existing marriages the rate was far lower than what you're suggesting. Also, criticizing a source based on its age is against the rules here so you might want to edit that.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/14 09:42 PM
1

Not assuming, that's what the adjusted wage gap is. And that's just a minimum estimate, given that large aspects of the unadjusted wage gap is a result of discriminatory processes, so really the wage gap is at least 8% (as I state above).
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/14 03:34 AM
1

The existence of the unadjusted gap only proves that it may or may not be down to other factors or discrimination. Such as... I've conceded all along that a small component of the gap might be discrimination. Scientists estimate at least 8%, this is called the adjusted wage gap.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/14 03:20 AM
2

I said that most of the wage gap and glass ceiling can be explained by women option to work less and that there may be some discrimination contributing to the gap, just that there is little evidence of it. And then the existence of the adjusted wage gap completely disproved you, as demonstrated by your own source which quoted the OECD report. Can you not figure out that a group that works less, will be less represented at the top? Why wouldn't I be able to figure that out? I explained in one my …
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/14 03:13 AM
3

No, I am. You're citing news articles which vaguely reference the science and the data. When you read the actual science papers, the evidence is all consistent and it supports my claims. You tried to use the OECD article on wage gaps to "prove" that it doesn't exist and that it's caused by negotiations or choices in careers! You clearly haven't read any of the scientific articles that your news articles purport to represent.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/14 02:39 AM
3

Science is not rubbish.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/14 02:34 AM
3

I don't think anybody is saying that there is no component of discrimination in the gap and class ceiling, there might be, evidence is thin on the ground however. The evidence of a wage gap, as presented by my sources and your own, containing discriminatory processes is currently indisputable. The science is showing that it can mostly be attributed to women's choices. That's the unadjusted wage gap, yes but obviously women's choices can play absolutely no role in the unadjusted wage gap - which …
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/14 02:25 AM
3

Other studies show that women do ask employers for additional benefits, but there are sex differences in requests. Men are more likely to ask for more money, while women are more likely to ask for shorter hours.49 http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/36488/1/Feminist_myths_and_magic_medicine_the_flawed_thinking_behind_calls_for_further_equality_legislation_(lsero).pdf[1] The OECD study that the article/book is referencing states that the adjusted wage gap is a result of discriminatory processes and even goe…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/14 01:53 AM
3

no Yes. Deciding to have children and work less, are mainly what causes the wage and gap and glass ceiling. No. No it doesn't, and there are studies that contradict that one study. No there aren't. This is also true, you can still find these women that bully other women for choosing a traditional lifestyle and letting the sister hood down. No there aren't. ^ Do you see what happens to a debate when you handwave away things instead of providing evidence for claims? Present something, anything tha…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/14 01:27 AM
3

Evidence that women making more than men is due to discrimination against women. Well I presented that in my reply just above. AKA women at a certain age choosing to have children and work flexi time on the strength of a partner's wage. What do children have to do with anything? The glass ceiling effect occurs when women aren't picked for promotions on the sole basis that they are women. It doesn't refer to women leaving work to become full time mothers. One study in one area, doesn't discount t…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/14 12:47 AM
3

Evidence? Women are paid more than men, because of discrimination against women, seriously!!! What exactly are you asking for evidence for here? That there are less women in male dominated jobs? Well, that's sort of true by definition. That there are extra challenges to women? This is undeniably true, like the glass ceiling effect or the fact that men and women with the exact same cvs don't get hired and paid at the same rate. Or the simple statistical fact that if you have greater restrictions …
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/14 12:30 AM
3

Here, Farrell found 80 jobs where women out earn men, many of them traditionally male jobs. "In the 39 jobs listed below, women's median earnings exceeded men's by at least 5 percent and in some cases by as much as 43 percent" http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/28/commentary/everyday/sahadi_paytable/index.htm Yes, because of discrimination against women, I explained this above. If you look at traditionally male careers then women will on average be paid more than men. Why? Because for a woman to make …
/r/PurplePillDebate02/02/14 10:04 PM
3

Other factors, there isn't evidence that its down to discrimination. "Other factors"? Care to expand on that? And the fact that a job applicant will get paid significantly more for having a male name is evidence of discrimination. And there is more evidence that women get paid more then men, than there is evidence that men get paid more than women. Can you link to this evidence or describe it? So far you've only mentioned one very specific situation in one city, which obviously is not (in any wa…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/02/14 08:55 PM
3

Feminism doesn't want to close the adjusted gap, it wants to close the 78c to one dollar gap. No, it wants to close the adjusted gap. It also points out the fact that the 78cents to the dollar statistic isn't a fact that is completely devoid of discriminatory processes. The adjusted gap does exist, just like the unadjusted one, what doesn't exist is evidence that its because men and women are getting paid the same work and the same hours. When they've accounted for all currently known factors th…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/02/14 08:30 PM
3

This doesn't exist. What exists is a gap between married people, one works more while the other works less on the strength of their share of their partner's wage. Do you have any evidence or reasoning as to why the adjusted wage gap "doesn't exist"? Single childless women , out earn single childless men in cities. Sure, and that's a sign of some progress but I could point out that some black men in one particular area of professional sports earn more than white men in the same area, but that doe…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/02/14 07:51 PM
5

If that anecdote was used as proof of a generalisation of men or women then absolutely it's very similar to that - i.e. meaningless information.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/02/14 07:47 PM
5

The logical thing would be not to view the video and not tell anyone about it. Viewing the video or participating in its distribution encourages the gross dudes who made and hosted the video, giving them page views and profit. But if someone cared about stopping it then how would not viewing it or reporting it help? And that's assuming the person cared about stopping it. If someone cared about how hilarious something is then how would not viewing or sharing it help them let other people know how…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/02/14 07:15 PM
9

I know your claim is false because every single blue piller (current and past member) has exactly and precisely demonstrated to me in unarguable ways that they are not attracted to red pillers in any sense at all. With our contradicting anecdotes here (although I'd say my anecdote is slightly more impressive), I guess we've reached a stalemate. I think the next logical step would be for you to present actual evidence of your claim otherwise we have to accept that we have no reason to believe you…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/02/14 07:12 PM
3

All the feminist groups that are against the wage gap, which is the basically the gap in time spent in the workforce between working women with kids, and working men with kids. No, that's the unadjusted wage gap (the raw figure gained from subtracting women's average wage from men's average wage). There are arguably some societal issues there which can be problematic but for the large part most feminists (and scientists, or generally fair-minded people) don't really care too much about that. Whe…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/02/14 07:02 PM
8

No, Sandberg argues against women being forced to be housewives when their passion and ambition is for other things. Try again.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/02/14 05:35 AM
1

I don't appreciate the snark just because your study doesn't say what you want it to. Look, I'll first explain again why your data is useless so that even if you think I'm wrong, you would still have absolutely no evidence to suggest that the rate of divorce is near, or approaching, 50%. The stats you present look at the rate of marriages in a given year against divorces in a given you. The whole problem as discussed in the OP is that marriages are also decreasing. So if we have more marriages o…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/02/14 05:33 AM
2

It comes from a shortening of "Gropecunt Lane", a popular spot for prostitutes at a time and the point of the usage was to reduce women to body parts.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/02/14 05:00 AM
1

Not quite, because we can still accept (if you like) that men have been oppressed and accept that "dick" has never in our history been associated with the lesser.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/02/14 04:55 AM
3

I think feminism would argue for both points. If all women tomorrow decided that they wanted to take submissive roles in their relationships then, at least according to the principles of feminism and from what I know of feminists, they would fight to the death for women to have that choice. Of course, in reality, the problem is simply that many, many, many women don't want to take the submissive role but are often forced into it through circumstance. Feminism thus fights against the idea that wh…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/02/14 04:53 AM
4

Are they? Can you link me to some major feminist organisations fighting against women who choose roles like being housewives?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/02/14 04:51 AM
0

The problem is that cunt, like nigger, has a history of oppression whereas dick does not.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/01/14 07:05 AM
0

It doesn't really work like that as the social contexts clearly make some comments worse than others. As a comparison, saying someone "sucks" can be bad and upsetting in the same way saying "I fucked your mum" can be bad and upsetting, but if that person's mum had just died then the two comments aren't even on the same level.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/01/14 07:02 AM
2

The cdc study you've linked to uses the well known flawed method of calculating the number of first marriages in a year and then looking at the number of divorces in that same year. It didn't actually track the probability of a first marriage failing and some researchers suggest that their predictions of divorce are meaningless based on that data.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/01/14 06:59 AM
0

Not to be difficult but I'm not sure those two are comparable. That's like having a sub dedicated to a discussion of race and having one rule using the word "cracker" and one using "nigger". Arguably they're both bad words but 'cracker' (or 'dick' in this case) is obviously far less problematic than 'nigger' (or 'cunt'). I don't see the problem with "Don't be a dick". If people's feelings are so hurt by it though, "asshole" tends to be the gender-neutral, non-problematic way of referring to thes…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/01/14 10:23 PM
4

Where does feminism rail against women being submissive? I don't think that's true at all.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/01/14 10:13 PM
7

When I was reading these academically styled posts from yesterday about divorce, I felt like it was cheapening the experience. Reading things like “I don’t really see why all the stigma behind it” or “You act like people aren’t happy or that these are even problems to begin with”, and all the upvotes to go along with it - it was like reading a big “Fuck You, and your kids.” The reality is, this a very painful experience and it shouldn’t be appropriate to take these things lightly. It’s stigmatiz…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/01/14 10:12 PM
2

Let’s start with a couple of givens from the internet: About 50% of women will admit to cheating on a man at some point in their life. About 50% of marriages end in divorce. So let’s just assume for the sake of argument that if you meet a woman, there’s about a 50% chance she’s going to cheat on you and/or the two of you are going to end up divorced. And a 50% chance that she’ll never cheat on you and/or your marriage will withstand the test of time. This isn't directly related to the thrust of …
/r/PurplePillDebate30/01/14 09:59 PM
3

As for my question.... what is your favorite thing about this sub, or even if you hate it haha, why do you keep coming back? My favourite part of the sub is that it gives me a place, with enforced rules in place, that allows me to debate and discuss an ideology I don't agree with. I love challenging my beliefs and views, and one of the best ways to do that is to ask for evidence and reasoning from people who are immersed in, and passionate about, the subject. Unfortunately for me, I came into th…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/01/14 05:45 AM
4

I think I may have upset him... and after all that, he still can't provide a single piece of evidence to support any claim he has made.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/01/14 04:25 AM
8

So you actually do believe that passive aggressive snark is "alpha" in terms of red pill belief? Interesting..
/r/PurplePillDebate29/01/14 09:59 PM
8

My interpretation of "Manning up" would be not giving a shit what you think about my or (RP's) positions are. In fact, that's exactly what I'm telling the OP to do by: Stop wasting your breath on these fucking time vampires. So your understanding of "manning up" is to whine about how internet people mistreat you because you can't logically defend any of your ideas? I personally don't think passive aggressive bullshit is very alpha, but what do I know. To think that any traditional values or the …
/r/PurplePillDebate29/01/14 09:40 PM
10

You act like it would be worth the time to go the distance. That an RPer that did post something of merit would get any kind of credence within this sub. We both know that's not true. What about all the red pillers who are respected here and have really interesting debates with us? How can it be impossible when they quite clearly demonstrate how wrong you are? And even if it were true that all blue pillers are dickheads and wouldn't give you credence, I think you're missing the point of the sub.…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/01/14 09:00 PM
-1

Well I think describing women as hypergamous sluts who are incapable of love, honour, or being logical, and never able to progress past the mental age of teenagers is very mean.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/01/14 08:37 PM
14

These people are hopeless. They don’t see what is self-evident. Oh right, okay, debate over then. Great display of those superior logic skills. If you ask a simple question like “is single motherhood better or worse than a traditional family setting?” You’ll be met with a line of bullshit “Hmmm, that really depends on the situation, ya know?” Oh fuck, seriously? They would dare point out that a red piller is intentionally simplifying a situation to personally suit their own narrative? The horror…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/01/14 08:31 PM
-2

I think you're clutching at straws a little bit here as I don't fully understand how being grateful that someone whose presence wasn't conducive to productive and meaningful debate is now unable to post here could be considered "being a dick". But I'll drop it, I was just trying to share my opinion and I've said it now.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/01/14 08:07 PM
2

My god, do you guys not see that when you take /u/redpillschool or endorsed red pill contributors or other red pill users that have a lot to say out of the picture, it threatens the integrity of this sub? How so? I've been told by most red pillers arguing here that the mods and endorsed contributors are some of the worst representatives of what TRP stands for and that what they say cannot be used to argue against TRP. Are you suggesting that this is untrue? Why do you think you and all the other…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/01/14 08:05 PM
2

How is that a cheap shot? I've told it to his face multiple times and it's a fair criticism of his [lack of] debating style. What you meant to say instead of "cheap shot" is that it was "a fair, yet robust, criticism of his presence in this sub".
/r/PurplePillDebate29/01/14 07:02 PM
-4

It's not circlejerking, I was serious.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/01/14 07:00 PM
7

Don't be silly, nobody debates redpillschool, they simply are forced into a one sided discussion where he repeats the same sentence over and over again whilst saying that people don't understand him. But I agree, it sucks not being to answer people criticizing you, which is why it'd be awesome if he stopped preemptively banning people from his sub.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/01/14 05:44 PM
20

To ask for "solutions" assumes that there is a problem in the first place, and I don't think you've successfully done that. But for a society, pretty bad. There are some obvious effects: to take on example, quite a few studies show the negative impact that growing up in a single parent household can have on kids. Arguably true. But there are probably many more studies showing that children raised in homes where the parents fight and are unhappy with each other have even worse outcomes. So basica…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/01/14 11:11 AM
14

You guys banned /u/redpillschool I agree, that's one of my favourite parts of this sub as well.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/01/14 03:11 AM
4

This is different from let's say baseball which let's assume has no ban on women from playing the game (I do not know the details on women's eligibility to be in the MLB, but just for arguments sake). I know this isn't vital to your point at all, but up until fairly recently in baseball history there was an explicit ban on women playing in the major leagues, partly as a result of Babe Ruth publicly stating that he thought women would never last in baseball as it was too strenuous for them. Of co…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/01/14 02:55 AM
9

To clarify your point a little, if there is solid evidence or reasoning behind a "double standard" then, by definition, it's no longer a double standard - as "double standard" is about unfair, hypocritical treatment of two different people for no reason other than something like bias or prejudice. So if I go to the movies with two friends and I get 3D glasses for one and not the other, then that can be a double standard. But if the other friend is blind then it's not a double standard because th…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/01/14 11:12 PM
1

My basic philosophy (based on my nativist bias) is to let them inform me of their preferences and then encourage development in whatever direction they want to go in. It's very much my job to stay out of their way as much as possible. That sounds decent and fair to me, and if that's your "bias" then I think it's generally just a "good parent bias" rather than a nativist one. But, if I can give a little push in the direction of STEM-type interests that's something I'd be interested in (at the mom…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/01/14 11:02 PM
1

By "control my anticipation" - I mean, if I were in a position of having to design policies based on probabilistic assessments of the aggregate evidence, what would I do? How do I operationalize the knowledge? (I have somewhat personal motives at stake - I'm raising two girls) I'd argue that trying to build policies, or raise children, on aggregated evidence of biological constraints would be a hugely impractical and potentially harmful - even if the evidence supports the biological explanation.…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/01/14 10:18 PM
4

To be fair, blue pillers have done everything humanly possible to ensure that they are discussing red pill ideas. The problem is, according to red pillers here, these following things are not at all indicative of TRP: the sidebar major red pill blogs that are commonly linked on TRP highly upvoted ideas on TRP the opinions of TRP mods the opinions of endorsed contributors the "introduction to TRP" written by the guy who started the red pill sub When asked what things are representative of TRP or …
/r/PurplePillDebate28/01/14 10:53 AM
1

the paradox, from what I gathered, was that while in Norway they are incredibly egalitarian and push for equality and they have opened up choices to women and yet there is an underwhelming response to this and women still seem to prefer the usual stereotypical roles. Ah right, then there is no paradox. It's just a misunderstanding (or purposeful misrepresentation) of the argument. Being more egalitarian in law does not mean that all patriarchal processes are no longer present. Arguably you can h…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/01/14 10:43 AM
9

yes it is the same behavior but men have evolutionarily nothing to gain for sticking to their wives whereas wives keep what they married for. You're making some big claims here with very little else besides some less than convincing just-so stories. But regardless, you seem to be agreeing that it's the same behavior. No. It is blamed on biology (on biological rewards enacted through reproduction) and society (social norms). No, that's a little dishonest. They "blame it on society" only insofar a…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/01/14 10:28 AM
1

At this point, I'm basically asking questions cause I'm trying to figure out how an "unconscious learning" hypothesis should control my anticipation. Sorry I don't understand what you mean here. It seems really hand-wavy to me right now, without much in the way of positive evidence. That's because I don't need positive evidence because I'm not making a claim, I'm simply pointing out a confound that needs to be controlled for by nativist studies. The hand waving is actually coming from people try…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/01/14 01:00 AM
1

Animals (except for higher primates) don't have culture, I'm not sure why you think culture is only present in humans and higher primates, it's fairly ubiquitous amongst social species. It isn't even limited to mammals. so the fact that animals mate guard is evidence of a mate guarding instinct, which likely continues in humans. Even if I accept that culture is limited to humans and higher primates, how are you teaching this conclusion? Are you suggesting that the only possible options are insti…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/01/14 12:52 AM
1

I've never heard of them before so I'm interested in why you think they were the flagship Institute for gender studies. I also don't know what the paradox is supposed to be.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/14 09:46 AM
1

Sorry I'm on my phone at the moment and can't figure out how to link to threads. It's the one called "Norwegian documentary".
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/14 09:44 AM
3

OK, genetics obviously affects all structures of the brain, and all of the rest of the body. I'm pretty sure almost every human being has a corpus callosum, for instance, regardless of developmental environment. Oh no, that doesn't work. As you explain above, you need direct evidence that genetics can cause the specific differences in connections found in the study. Seriously? Are you telling me that "female brains are designed to facilitate communication between analytical and intuitive process…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/14 01:21 AM
8

That's irrelevant to this sub then, and is also untrue.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/14 12:13 AM
5

Biology obviously affects all structures of the brain, and all of the rest of the body. I'm pretty sure almost every human being has a corpus callosum, for instance, regardless of developmental environment. I edited that before you replied to make it clearer, changing "biology" to "genetics". What does "designed" suggest to you? Shaped or molded due to particular causes making specific effects more likely. That paper doesn't examine the connectome at all, just at relative volumes of grey matter.…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/14 10:55 PM
8

But we all agree that it's indefensible. If it's not surprising, then why are you describing it as the "BP assertion"? Especially since, unsurprisingly, no blue piller believes it.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/14 10:47 PM
2

You can be pro-gender equality without being a Feminist, just like you can be pro-self improvement without being a "red piller". I'm not sure that's really comparable. Feminism is a broad umbrella term for multiple views and ideas but are grouped due to the common belief of gender equality. The same isn't true of TRP in that TRP is defined precisely by the adoption of claims beyond "self-improvement", like the belief that most of the differences between men and women are innate, and that feminis…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/14 10:44 PM
8

I don't think I've ever seen a blue piller argue that TRP is problematic because it involves preparation for sleeping with women.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/14 10:18 PM
5

Do you have any evidence that genetics can affect the particular structures that the paper found? Surely if the authors had evidence either way, they would have concluded innate or learning causes but they didn't (because they had no evidence to conclude it was one or the other). But actual evidence, if you like (ignoring the fact that many of the effects they found changed over time suggesting, at least in part, a learning effect) can be found in second language learning since 'language' was on…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/14 10:02 PM
2

Left/right brain, therefore women are hairstylists. No one has a problem with this statement? Haha yeah, I loved the throw back to outdated pseudoscience as well. I'm surprised they didn't try to 'explain' their results by suggesting that maybe women only use 8% of their brains whilst men use the average 10%...
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/14 09:46 PM
8

The idea of gender being a social construct has nothing to do with the nature/nurture debate. The 'social construction' view of gender inherently accepts the role that biology has in the development of gender, the only argument it makes is that the society and culture that we live in will shape our understanding of gender and that will in turn affect how we apply the concept of gender to ourselves. It's not a debatable position in science, as the only way to reject it is to claim that the idea o…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/14 09:43 PM
6

There was a thread asking blue pillers what they thought about the question of nature vs nurture, and every single person who responded rejected the position you're assigning to them there.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/14 09:41 PM
3

The evidence that learning and environmental experiences affect the development of brain structures is, again, neuroscience. Look up the neuroscience of learning, for example. Let's put this another way: when somebody learns something, like how to ride a bicycle, what do you think is happening in the brain? A physical neurological structure is built, right? The only way to deny this is to accept substance dualism and even most of them accept basic neuroscience. So we accept that neurological str…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/14 09:38 PM
4

Interesting but unfortunately flawed. It's discussed in more detail in the other thread but basically SBC failed to properly blind his conditions so that the person who was testing the reactions of the babies could have been aware of what their gender was. As such, the results may have been interesting but ultimately so flawed that no meaningful results can be found.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/14 09:30 PM
5

You need to read what people are writing before responding and before assigning strawmen to their position. Nobody has claimed nature plays no role and nobody has claimed that it is all learning, and nobody has even suggested that any aspect of the study necessarily was the result of learning.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/14 09:28 PM
4

Some, all, none - I don't care, it's irrelevant to my point. The brain structures are built and molded through two basic mechanisms: genetics and environment. Pointing to neurological structures which have already been formed tells me nothing about which of these processes caused the development of those structures. I'm not the one making the claim (beyond the indisputable fact that the environment shapes the brain) so you're the one who has to present evidence in addition to the neurological st…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/14 09:27 PM
7

I'm not sure what kind of evidence you're looking for. The entire fiend of neuroscience is based on the fact that behaviors are the result of the brain. Do you have any evidence that thoughts, attitudes and behaviors come from anywhere else but the brain?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/14 10:59 AM
2

Likewise, the existence of human nature and gender doesn't seem to be something that sociologists can figure out using their normal tools. If there is something deeply rooted in human brain that ties gender to sex, it seems natural to study it from a biological point of view. But sociologists aren't attempting to figure out the totality of human nature and gender, they're just looking at how culture affects the development of human nature and gender. To me, it seems undebatable that the field th…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/14 10:50 AM
12

I've seen it. There's a PPD thread on it already where I explain that it's very poorly done, lacks any real evidence in favor of biological arguments, and largely relies on misrepresenting the sociologists. For example, one of the main misunderstandings is the idea that you can use cross cultural data as evidence of an innate cause.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/14 10:44 AM
15

Just so everyone knows, this study does nothing to answer whether the difference is innate or learnt. I see nothing particularly controversial or questionable about it until people try to speak beyond the evidence by suggesting that it is evidence of innate differences. Edit: the final comment about their brains being "wired" for specific skills has it backwards. Being good at certain skills wires their brain that way, it's not the brain wiring that causes them to be good at those skills.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/14 08:30 AM
2

Exactly - when it's relevant. Like the people interviewed said, they accept the role of biology, it's just not relevant to many of the questions they're asking. Likewise, many biologists accept the role of culture and learning, it's just not relevant to the questions they're asking. That's why the concept of interdisciplinary research exists, we don't expect scientists to be experts in all fields.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/14 03:49 AM
1

...and on mating decisions? ...inter- and intra-sex social structures? ...preferred day-to-day activities? You are right that it doesn't overly much change our approach to abstract physics problems. I see no reason why it would necessarily cause differences in those areas. To be clear, I'm not saying that the behaviors are learnt, just that there is no rational or logical way to argue that any cross-cultural behavior is evidence of innateness. This is a specific difference in the predictions of …
/r/PurplePillDebate25/01/14 11:46 PM
2

I feel I'm being deceived and the fact that societal rules are so temporary, wishy-washy, and so open to abuse that I'd just rather write the whole thing off and trust what I feel to be my nature. Something as easy to abuse as the rules of society (popular beliefs, etc.) shouldn't be followed over biology. There are two major issues with your approach here: 1) learning from experience (e.g. cultural and societal rules) is necessarily and inextricably tied up with our biology. You can't meaningfu…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/01/14 11:25 PM
1

Sure, but the point is that the evidence (including unconscious behaviors and animal mate-guarding) is not evidence of innateness - they are, in themselves, just facts and observations that perfectly fit an innate and non-innate explanation of the behaviors. It's just that, for the innate explanation, it needs to be true that the behavior is cross-cultural. That's not evidence for an innate explanation though, it's just the absolute minimum requirement is met to show that it's not necessarily im…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/01/14 11:18 PM
2

I think this is probably one of the biggest points of contention between red pillers and other people, which is the fact that most people don't play games. It's not that they don't call them games, they just don't play them. Sure, there are people who behave in shitty ways and maybe don't realise what they're doing but to purposely act deceptively to get people to behave in ways that you personally approve of is not normal and most people strongly disapprove of such methods. Also, in my opinion,…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/01/14 11:15 PM
17

Sure, here you go: 1) we have the indisputable evidence that on the issue of "honour", red pillers treat the same behavior in men and women differently 2) the aspect of difference is that when a woman acts against the red pill definition of honour it is blamed on an inherent or internal trait within women, but when a man acts against the red pill definition of honour it is blamed on some external or motivating circumstances. For example, when a woman cheats it is explained as a result of her lac…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/01/14 11:11 PM
2

What? No, that's not how science works. Areas are specialised precisely because it's near-impossible for anyone to get the knowledge required to do vast interdisciplinary work all the time and arguably it would be detrimental to the progress of science to change our research paths to something so vague. More simply, it is not a problem that sociologists study sociology and biologists study biology. It's not bias, or ignoring explanations; it is specialisation. To put is another way, are you goin…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/01/14 11:01 PM
1

Then we're definitely in agreement there.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/01/14 08:12 AM
1

But the point is that the "underlying issue" isn't relevant or useful in many cases as the primary driving force behind a lot of behaviors is environmental.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/01/14 08:11 AM
4

Not so much bowed out as got tired of your agenda driven ramblings. What agenda do I supposedly have? Cite a scientific paper and I'll continue. A paper to support what claim? Without evidence every argument on this sub is nothing but mental masturbation. I agree. But that doesn't give you the right to shift the burden of proof. I'm not the one making the claims. As such, I will bow out of said sub and leave you to it. Alternatively, you could stop treating people as your ideological enemies bec…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/01/14 05:02 AM
5

To be honest, I keep hearing this defence from red pillers which basically reduces all red pill claims to: "respect yourself and build a better life" (obviously ignoring any specific abhorrent claims) and sometimes I think that I could get on board with that. I wonder if I'd be welcome to subscribe and contribute to red pill, and take the red pill (assuming those arguments are true) and make posts there, where I disagree with people who make controversial claims which aren't core red pill belief…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/01/14 04:52 AM
1

A bunch of bitches on the internet are just that, a bunch of bitches on the internet. And in addition to this, I've asked for a link every time someone makes a claim like this and nobody can ever produced one. I mean, I don't doubt there are idiots out there saying stupid things, but if someone is basing their entire view of a philosophy based on a supposed claim that that philosophy makes then surely it has to be prevalent enough to be able to find a link easily.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/01/14 04:47 AM
3

Don't ignore someone's past for political correctness's sake Out of interest, what do you mean by this?
/r/PurplePillDebate24/01/14 04:44 AM
3

Be sure to note that human universals aren't evidence of innateness. A behavior being cross cultural simply means that it meets the minimum possible standards for potentially being an evolutionary behavior, a claim that requires actual support for. More simply, being cross cultural is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a behavior being innate.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/01/14 04:37 AM
3

She thinks a "theoretical hypothesis" has more basis than a study with a sample size of 200 000 people. He thinks no such thing. He pointed out that the study of 200,000 people is great evidence for both biological and cultural explanations. You failed to understand the science behind this issue so I understand why you bowed out of the discussion. The gender researches argument was not based on empirical or measurable evidence - "theoretical hypothesis". No, their positions were based entirely o…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/01/14 04:35 AM
4

You haven't shown any such thing - if anything, you've found reasons to reject any evidence which conflicts with your preferred hypothesis. Your post is just covered in motivated skepticism. I don't understand what you mean - what is my "preferred hypothesis"? I lean towards the biological, I'm just aware of the actual state of evidence. Like one half of the species having to grow another member of the species inside them while the other half only has to fertilize the egg? How much "constraint" …
/r/PurplePillDebate24/01/14 04:29 AM
2

To be clear, I wasn't asking why there was a focus on biology, I was asking why people adopted biological determinism. In other words, if we know that biological processes can lead to X, but we also know that more complex cultural processes overlay those biological processes which lead us to Y, then why do red pillers assume that humans will just ignore Y and go to X? It's like they think that biology just trumps everything, which isn't suggested by any kind of science or logic.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/01/14 03:58 AM
2

You can work on cultural issues, but why not work on the underlying issue? Because not everything reduces (at least meaningfully) down to lower levels of analysis. There can be no chemistry without physics but there's a reason why chemists look at things on a chemical level for the most part, rather than the physical level.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/01/14 03:56 AM
2

I can still see it here. Or are you talking about something else?
/r/PurplePillDebate24/01/14 03:55 AM
2

That being said, I don't think attraction to dominance and giving me bullshit are mutually exclusive. Dominance: With almost every girl (nice, feminine, tough, quirky, etc.), I've found they have an initial attraction to dominance. Once I get to know them better, they may turn into a girl I am not interested in personally, or they may start disrespecting me. The two might not be mutually exclusive but, to me, someone wouldn't disrespect you if you were truly dominant and they were truly attracte…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/01/14 03:53 AM
2

Never understood the notion that the 'norms' of my sex are repressing my sex. Please can you give me a brief overview on how being a man/doing traditionally manly things hinders me being a man? Well one concept that MRAs and even some red pillers often worry about is the idea of the "disposability of the male". This is due to the fact that gender norms (whether objectively true or culturally generated) treat men as stronger than women, both physically and mentally, so they're needed for the more…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/01/14 03:45 AM
4

No, sorry but no. The way they immediately question the ulterior motives of the other researchers right after their opinions are presented is not edited in at all. Questioning the ulterior motives is absolutely warranted though because, as demonstrated, the studies were flawed and the logic was shoddy. The fact that they directly refuse to engage the bio viewpoint because they are not interested in it is out of their mouths. That's because they were sociologists... Why would they care about biol…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/01/14 03:20 AM
3

I was on my phone so I couldn't explain in detail but the problem is that there is absolutely no rational basis for taking the position you are. You are literally just admitting that you have a personal bias towards biological explanations so you're more likely to trust them even though there are no objective or rational reasons why. I appreciate you attempting to answer my question but I think we've gone on somewhat of a tangent. My initial question was about biological determinism which seems …
/r/PurplePillDebate24/01/14 03:15 AM
3

But that makes no sense, you wouldn't trust single studies obviously as that's not how science works. If it were the case that there were entire frameworks that coherently and comprehensively present both sides for a particular issue then I'd argue that the best approach is to remain skeptical - not to throw all your eggs into your preconceived biases. But of course this is all hypothetical, such a situation couldn't really happen.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/14 08:58 PM
4

Of course, because it was edited that way but they still make valid points, like the fact that the current biological evidence is very sparse and limited so we can't make any strong claims at the moment. I think you also have to take into account the fact that the biological side also talked to present a single valid line of reasoning to support their position, so the strongest position based on the video alone is that we have no good reason to make claims either way.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/14 08:47 PM
4

The two aren't comparable. For starters, rape isn't rare and affects around 20-25% of women across a lifetime and obviously a large number of men as well. Secondly, the reason why it's not worth worrying about is because even if it is true and common, the approach that produces the least harm to other people is to assume it doesn't exist. The worst harm that comes about four not pressuring someone into sex is that you don't get sex, which is such a trivial thing that it can't be considered a har…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/14 08:44 PM
3

I don't really understand what that means..
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/14 08:40 PM
14

Good decision, in my opinion.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/14 06:28 PM
3

I personally do both as it's impossible to understand behavior without both. Any attempt to understand behavior in a vacuum (ie without taking environment into account) will necessarily give you the wrong answer. The effects of culture and learning are emergent level effects and cannot be fully reduced to biological processes.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/14 06:19 PM
4

Yeah of course it's a thing, it's just that it's so rare its not worth thinking about and can't be for the reason trp thinks it is. Importantly, probability would now suggest that if you try to push through someone's LMR, you're just being sexually coercive abs potentially raping them.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/14 06:16 PM
8

You think it's a shame the gender studies Institute was shut down, despite not following the scientific method (watch the video for your proof) It wasn't shut down for not following the scientific method, it was entirely political based on the backlash of the dodgy documentary. You think the social scientists had legitimate articles and arguments despite not being scientific or following the scientific method. Their positions were entirely consistent with the current scientific consensus, yes, u…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/14 11:43 AM
8

You're assuming he set it up.. I don't see what reason he had for being dishonest. I'm not assuming it, just watch the documentary. The whole thing is tailored to support the biological side which is why the ones interviewed on the "blank slate" side (which is ridiculous given that a couple of them even make statements which clearly show they weren't blank slatists) complained afterwards that he was dishonest in his methods. Did you totally miss this bit? He said there where differences in male …
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/14 11:39 AM
5

Yup, and this is simply a difference of opinion based off our experiences Except the problem is that the red pillers are the ones making the claim, so whilst their experience isn't valid evidence to support their generalisation, my experience is valid experience to disprove it. It's basically Popper's falsificationism, where you guys are saying all swans are white and I'm telling you I've seen a black swan. It's more important for men. (When I start to see an equal number of male prostitutes, st…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/14 11:16 AM
5

"Basically everything ever done" is a strong claim. Strong but true. As far as I can tell that's nearly the only study on the subject, at least using that phrasing No there's a handful of studies on them, mostly ranging between the 70s and 90s. The great thing though is that the more recent ones, like the one I linked, are quite rigorous in their designs so allow us to reach fairly solid conclusions about the phenomenon. At the very least, red pillers wouldn't need some pretty strong contradicti…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/14 11:00 AM
3

Ah you're a legend. I knew I had read a study on it but didn't have time to search for it.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/14 10:55 AM
9

see, but those pink blankets and congratulations cards are speculation. We have no way of knowing. It's not speculation, they are very real confounds that weren't accounted for. It is certainly not a strength of the study. It's more than that, it makes the whole study and findings worthless. What's the point of having a study that attempts to determine whether something is learnt or innate which fails to account for significant learning effects?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/14 10:55 AM
6

Yep, I was probably the most enthusiastic about my atheism at the point I heard about that documentary and after watching it I became far more critical of the atheist community. Still obviously accepted the position of rejecting god and religious claims but came to view a whole lot of them as assholes when previously I might have overlooked their shitty behavior due to my own biases.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/14 10:53 AM
2

I believe you have misheard. That the experimenter really knew the gender of the baby was speculation by critics. It wasn't speculation you can read the paper itself, there were no efforts made to ensure proper blinding. The experiments also took place in the birthing unit (obviously since they were so young) and no attempt were made to remove any tell-tale signs of gender (e.g. pink blankets or "congratulations! It's a girl!" cards from the bedside table). The effect reported was not shown "dis…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/14 09:10 AM
6

Basically everything ever done on token resistance, one such study is this one.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/14 09:06 AM
5

Basically all of the research on token resistance shows that it's a fairly rare occurrence and, when it does occur, it's usually around twice as likely to manifest in men rather than women.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/14 08:50 AM
6

Is there any reason to believe that conditioned motivators trump biological ones? Well the fact that they can, and do, is the reason why scientists rejected the notion of drive theory. In other words, we previously used to believe that behavior was just a way of satisfying basic biological needs and they used this to explain why people worked for money. However, they started having trouble when people would work for money over basic biological needs, even if the money was objectively worth less.…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/14 08:49 AM
9

I do think our desire to get sex influences our behaviour and that there is a difference between male and female sexual goals. Generally agreed, but I think the red pill ideas on the differences in sexual desires between men aren't as distinct as they sometimes suggest. I think men having more testosterone makes our sexual urges/drive/libido more apparent. Honestly its really important for a lot of men. Sure, but it's also really important for many women too. The disagreement is in the details. …
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/14 08:48 AM
6

Men are driven and controlled by their sex drive and we probably are less capable of empathy (within some contexts). To deny psychological differences in men and women is a direct rejection of science. I'm interested in hearing more about this claim. Firstly it would be good to read some studies specifically showing men being controlled by their "sex drive" (using quotations because keep in mind that drive theory is a rejected scientific notion and not considered a valid way of viewing behavior …
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/14 06:49 AM
7

Oh god, I hate this documentary. It's a Gish Gallop of half-truths, questionable ethics, and biased editing. In the first part, for example, the creator sets it up to make it seem like there are a bunch of crazy blank slatists but they actually got quite pissed off afterwards due to the host being dishonest about what the debate was about, so leading them down specific lines of questioning, and then selectively editing it. More simply, none of the people interviewed were blank slatists. This is …
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/14 06:22 AM
1

Absolutely! But the inevitable conclusion is a squabble over whether sources are reputable and whether generalizations are okay and what things are anecdotal... Fair enough, I just see those things as crucial to whether a position has any basis though. Again, I completely agree. I think we want the same things, just coming from very different angles. I'm not a science person, so reading sources isn't in the cards for me. I am a people person, and I work with the unwashed public, so I like the "t…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/14 06:08 AM
1

I think it must be because I spend all damn day arguing over nitpicky things that I just don't care about that when debating here. Yeah for me the devil is in the details. Often in a discussion I think people get hung up on the big claims and end up having a big rant fest with another person over how much they disagree. Sometimes I think it's best to just say: "Oh wow, that's an interesting claim you just made. Do you have any evidence for it?". The point is not to be a pedantic asshole or to se…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/14 05:40 AM
2

My best conversations have been when I meet someone in the middle, and we each define our positions and talk about how we got there. For me, my interest in the sub is trying to figure out how people could hold such radical beliefs and still seemingly function in society. So I'm not that interested in how they reached that point but rather in how they could justify occupying the space they currently are. Let's be honest, TRP isn't really based on science any more than TBP is based on science - th…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/14 05:25 AM
1

At least you didn't hit the big red button that deletes the intern... screen goes black
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/14 05:18 AM
1

I wouldn't see it as undermining though. Surely the mods view themselves as a team right, and you all follow the same guidelines on what actions to take under specific circumstances. So if you had an "appeal mod", it would simply be someone who doublechecked your work for you. Yeah there will be times where you disagree with the appeal mod but ultimately everyone's on the same team, with the same goal in mind, so it's not "undermining" someone to disagree with them, in my opinion.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/14 04:55 AM
2

Your face is a confirmation.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/14 04:50 AM
2

I think people would be more likely to change their minds if they weren't gangpiled by 20 people all arguing and nitpicking every word to catch them up. I wonder if it would help if, occasionally, people could challenge others to a sort of formal debate that consists of setting up a thread where only a couple of specified users can post (mods can delete any other people who try to post). It can then be set up so that both sides start with an opening argument and then each posts in turn, with a w…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/14 04:49 AM
1

Sorry, probably spamming your inbox here, but maybe you could set up a system where the mod that removes the post leaves an explanation, and if the person wants to argue it then it can be sent on to a different mod. If the decision is overturned then that mod can restore the post and if the decision is upheld then that's the end of the argument, don't bother replying to them. That way it streamlines it a little and ensures a fair-ish trial. Maybe you could even hire a mod simply to be the guy/gi…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/14 04:44 AM
2

Your face intended to link to /r/redpilldebate.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/14 04:38 AM
11

I have to admit I am hesitant about posting here. It seems that this is very much a non-satire version of /r/thebluepill[1] but with slightly more tolerance to red pill ideas. You'll find many blue pillers who think that this sub is basically just a watered down TRP, so it probably is just a perspective thing and it converges on somewhere between the two. With that said, if you're approaching from the extremer side of TRP, then this sub will look very blue to you as a lot of the red pillers who …
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/14 04:35 AM
2

Both sides succeeded in persuading us mods to make rules that we never should have. Yeah, I can see how that can be shitty. I usually try to steer clear of such discussions because most people can't step outside of their own shoes for a moment to try to just objectively analyse what would be the best rules for the sub. When you chuck in everyone's biases, wants, needs, desires, etc, you end up with something that works for nobody. That's why I have no problem at all with mods making executive de…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/14 04:26 AM
1

I'ma be completely honest with you here samsa... that's how it feels most of the time I see you, soulcake, or dana in the modmail. That sucks but it's not really my fault if redpillers dislike me and report my posts a lot. I assume that's the reason why they downvote all of my posts as well. But obviously the point is that I stay well-within the rules and I haven't broken any rules except for once right at the creation of the sub. I want you to understand though, that from Purple's perspective i…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/14 04:17 AM
1

I'd see it as the most neutral way of phrasing the topic possible. It makes no judgement either way and the only implication is that they are linked in some way, which could simply be the link that is made by many non-red pillers as an association. To me, I would be far more offended by your correction to my hypothetical date rape title as that identifies a very specific relationship between TRP and rape, but again I think this is just where I cannot understand how red pill minds work.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/14 03:51 AM
1

Though, I'm not trying to reframe the situation. A fair portion of this post was pretty offensive given that you accused us of lazy modding. But again, to clarify, I did no such thing. I summarised a comment from a mod and then pointed out that I could be wrong, hoping that the mods could explain the actual reason. That is, I was hoping PPD's explanation wasn't the actual explanation. The comments of yours that were deleted had a sizable percentage of them just dedicated to finding out how many …
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/14 03:49 AM
1

Yeah there's also the problem with character limit in titles, so something like that might get shortened to "TRP and rape" and then the details can be in the OP, but I think a thread like that was deleted (maybe because it wasn't a question? I can't remember).
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/14 03:35 AM
1

I agree about wording putting people on the defensive and it's definitely something to watch out for, but I can see how difficult it is for blue pillers to figure out what things would be offensive to red pillers. For example, to me a thread saying something like: "Why does TRP have such a problem with the existence of date rape?" seems like a fairly innocuous question after everything I've read about the topic on TRP and I imagine many red pillers would happily answer it (e.g. women often lie, …
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/14 02:37 AM
1

Broad ideas that are interpreted and implemented differently are the only things that I think can be safely assumed. But this is what blue pillers do when they start these threads, and as evidenced by soulcakeduck's incredible efforts, they go to great lengths to demonstrate that they aren't one-off fringe opinions but widely held broad beliefs. I suppose what I'm getting at is: if I wanted to start a thread about TRP, what method should I go through to determine whether something is a staple be…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/14 02:29 AM
0

My last comment didn't insult you. They were light-hearted jabs at a few of the comments you made. Ah snark, nice one. Clearly I've gotten under your skin, and we aren't even discussing things that I've done. Take a minute to compose yourself, then maybe we can restart this conversation calmly, where we can both admit to having done something wrong and try to make something constructive come from it. Alternatively, you could just accept that you severely overreacted, broke the rules of your own …
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/14 02:18 AM
1

I'd say it's a staple because it's a prolific idea across the sub, expressed in highly upvoted comments that support it, is expressed by endorsed contributors, mods, and the sidebar, and I've never actually seen a red piller disagree with it. Even the example you give there still suggests that women don't have honour in the same way men do and just qualify it as a slightly less absolute claim. And even if all red pillers didn't agree with a claim, I still wouldn't agree that it's "leading" just …
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/14 01:38 AM
2

Well I didn't read the thread so I can't really say. I assumed rules were broken. And that would be a reasonable assumption to make. If PPD hadn't posted in TBP to say that the reason the posts were deleted is because she didn't have time to look through the posts to see if they had broken the rules then I likely would have just accepted it as a shitty fact of life, and maybe PM'd the mods to restore my posts if I thought any were worthy enough. But from the comments of all the mods in this thre…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/14 01:31 AM
0

So sorry that we deleted your masterpieces, but they WERE off topic, and completely unnecessary. Haha yeah they were funny, but I like how you ignore all the other posts of mine that you deleted: This sort of gets into Red Pill theory super hard. It's more that red pill borrows common sense ideas from the real world from time to time. Women don't want to be hit on by creepy dudes, or low value dudes. A woman finds it insulting when a low value man takes up any of her time, and feels that it is s…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/14 01:20 AM
1

Things get nuked all the time because one person in the conversation breaks the rules. I've never seen it happen on this sub until now, but on others such as /r/subredditdrama[2] and /r/askwomen[3] , it is a common enough occurrence. It's easier to just get rid of all of it for the good of the sub, imo. It's not lazy moderation, it just makes sense to get rid of an unproductive conversation. Oh I agree - if there is lots of rule breaking then nuking a thread makes sense. The point is that no rul…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/14 01:10 AM
3

No leading questions. I think the point soulcakeduck is making (or what she is hoping for) is that the change from "neutral" to "no leading questions" means that you can have a thread asking what red pillers think of something given (for example) the belief that women don't have honour. The point being that it's not "leading" because it's a staple red pill belief but it would have fallen afoul of the "neutral" rule due to "assuming" that red pillers accept this basic tenet of their ideology. The…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/14 12:31 AM
1

Ok, where did I say that? I said changing your tone would be helpful. It's unhelpful and aggressive. We'll take what you say under consideration if you don't treat us poorly, and saying "You done fucked up" is snarky and disrespectful. No, my tone was civil. It wasn't polite, I'll give you that, because I was a little pissed off that you had deleted a whole lot of my posts (and the posts of others) for what was explained to be no other reason than "I didn't have time to see if the reports on the…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/14 12:21 AM
1

Oh sorry, no I meant that I had quoted the deleted post to a mod in this thread. Up above I quoted it to purplepillmod but when I was talking to you I thought I had quoted it in the OP.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/14 12:00 AM
3

Thanks for this thread, and I agree with soulcakeduck that the removal of the neutrality and question rules is probably a good move. I also like rules 1 and 6. As for the hands-off moderating, I'm not sure how that will turn out but I understand the difficulty in figuring out the best moderating approach for a sub. In my opinion, I think the best style is something more like "limited moderating", where only posts that break the rules are removed and mods don't attempt to step outside the rules. …
/r/PurplePillDebate22/01/14 11:58 PM
1

As you've said, I'm attempting to answer your questions. I don't speak for individual actions of the other mods unless I know exactly what's going on... I'm getting there but I'm not ready to attach intent to their actions. I've seen this basic sentiment from the mods a few times and it still confuses me. How can you not know why an entire mass of comments were deleted? Surely you have modding guidelines that you have to follow before performing actions like deleting comments so that you ensure …
/r/PurplePillDebate22/01/14 11:36 PM
0

You can absolutely criticize, but the tone needs a change. "You done fucked up" is disrespectful, and after putting in a full day, coming home to that is frustrating. Deal with it for weeks and it builds. We're tired of it. I snapped at you, yes, but I'm returning the disrespect I feel we're getting, and does it not show just how difficult it can be to discuss things with someone who is disrespectful? It's nearly impossible. The problem is that you're saying that criticism is allowed but me sayi…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/01/14 11:33 PM
0

No, we have plenty of meta threads in this sub without issue. Do we? Soulcakeduck seems to get the snarky responses as well. Remarks like "The mods are too lazy to do their jobs.", "that's just shitty behavior," and "You done fucked up here, mods." are why we felt attacked. That can't be too hard to understand. It is hard to understand because none of those are attacks in any way. The first is just a description of what you yourself said. The second is saying a behavior is shitty so there's noth…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/01/14 11:26 PM
40

TRP seems to define anything negative a woman does as proof of female dishonor, while conveniently ignoring the same, or similar behavior from men. To them, men have reasonable, legitimate reasons for their behavior. Women are just solipsistic. It's a result of the cognitive bias known as the ultimate attribution error, which is basically just the fundamental attribution error applied to groups. What it means is that essentially any negative behavior observed in an out-group is attributed to int…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/01/14 10:53 PM
2

Your comment was a reply to a user, not a mod. I know, I never claimed it was a discussion with a mod. The user made a snarky comment that got deleted, and another one after you asked that question. It was basically troll bait, which is why I removed it. If it's a big deal I'll approve the comment. But just so you know, I did have what I thought was a good reason to delete it. I don't care about it being reapproved, the problem is more that my comments were deleted and I had no idea that they we…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/01/14 10:28 PM
2

Well the comment's deleted so I can't link it, it was in this thread though.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/01/14 09:30 PM
2

This post is specifically calling out the mods. No it's not and I'm really disturbed that the mods see criticism of their actions as a "challenge". It's a questioning and criticism of an action in the hopes of improving the sub. The entire point of these meta threads is to make it a better place, not to attack the mods. You assumed that and made this post. Sure, I assumed it and was consequently proven correct by the mod responses here. We've done this since the subs conception. In every meta th…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/01/14 09:26 PM
1

In the future I'll try to make sure deleted comments know why they're deleted. It's good mod etiquette, I agree. Thank you. And to be clear, I understand that this isn't always going to be possible - there are time constraints and sometimes it will be missed. It's only when it becomes standard practice that it's a problem. You can be upset, but even if we had updated the rules to cover "going off topic" or something of that nature, we'd be accused of moving goal posts or changing rules frivolous…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/01/14 09:14 PM
1

This happens everywhere on reddit. Click on a link from srs or srd and half the time the entire comment chains are removed. Unfortunately it's the only way to deal with a brigade and it's an accepted practice for mods to do this. It sucks, but it is what it is. Sure, but I don't think the possible one or two votes that occurred could really be classed as a horrible instance of brigading that needed to be stopped. Where is it posted, in the OP? I've looked through the comments and don't see it. S…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/01/14 09:04 PM
5

I understand why the other mods seem upset. These meta posts are sometimes made calling us out when the first step should have been to settle it in modmail. These meta posts aren't "calling you out", they're calling for a public discussion. This couldn't have been done over modmail and you understand why - if I presented it to you guys, I would have gotten the response that you were busy and it was causing you a headache so you deleted the thread. If I tried to push further I'd be told I was out…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/01/14 09:02 PM
2

No, the point is simply that it's clear that he's making an absolute statement here. Obviously it's his belief but it's the belief that is the problem.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/01/14 08:25 PM
1

I wasn't around for this one so I only have this to say about it: That thread got brigaded. You're allowed to post to your home subs, as per the rules, but as long as the subscribers of the home subs are gonna downvote shit over here, stuff is gonna get removed. I would have removed the thread in question for that reason alone. The linked comments went from about even or +1 to all of his comments going -5 or worse after TBP got it. Brigading sounds like a more reasonable reason for the deletions…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/01/14 08:22 PM
4

So? Start training them then? As for the meta threads I think maybe the mods need to be a little less sensitive given the bullshit they've been spewing at me here. Meta threads exist because a member wants to help make the sub a better place. Work with them, be constructive, don't just hurl insults and break more rules. (Not that you are throwing insults, you seem to be the one mod who is staying within the rules).
/r/PurplePillDebate22/01/14 08:15 PM
3

So "no woman will respect him" refers to most? That seems like a confusing way to communicate.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/01/14 08:11 PM
4

What counts as 'legitimate'? You've admitted that many, if not all, of the deleted comments did not break the rules...
/r/PurplePillDebate22/01/14 08:09 PM
1

Yep that's one of the biggest problems here.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/01/14 08:08 PM
1

So what you're saying is that you don't need to answer any questions and you're just going to sit there engaging in more snark than you have banned others for? Maybe you need to chill out and come back to this thread when you have a more level head.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/01/14 08:07 PM
4

Alternatively, you can try to provide something of substance to this, or any other, thread instead of having a little hissy fit because apparently you don't like me. Who are you anyway, have we discussed something before?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/01/14 09:13 AM
6

Well that was a useful contribution to the thread.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/01/14 09:06 AM
10

Yeah, I can imagine that they get a lot of shit behind the scenes because of how much hostility is generated by the clash of pills but I just don't think the solution to being short on time is to delete it all. Above I suggest that if they're short on time then hire more mods, which seems like a much more productive solution to the problem they are having. At the end of the day, it sucks that they're busy and they get a lot of shit from people, but that's not my problem or the problem of most me…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/01/14 08:38 AM
3

It's basically like he had hit The Wall.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/01/14 07:44 AM
4

In response to the question of why the man needs to be the dominant one: "Because otherwise, no woman will respect him, and both he and his partner will be miserable."
/r/PurplePillDebate22/01/14 07:34 AM
7

Oh I'm sorry. I forgot that we needed to be on call at all times and had to constantly preen and get your approval on decisions. I don't even know what you're talking about here. How does this relate to my post? Look, we do what we can to keep shit flowing smoothly. I support that nuking. It was needed. I'm sorry if that wasnt pre-warned in the rules, but we cant think of every thing. We've had to institute new rules enough around here to keep you guys from bitching each other into oblivion. Ser…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/01/14 07:24 AM
9

And I am so tired of people acting like we mods should be treating this place like a full time job. Who asked you to treat it like a fulltime job? I'm asking you to moderate - to implement the rules of the sidebar and to explain your actions. I understand that people have real lives and there will be time constraints, but surely if you're so short on time it would help you if you didn't waste so much of it deleting posts that you yourself admit weren't against the rules. Like, I really think you…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/01/14 07:16 AM
3

People were reporting shit on both sides constantly. I tried approving things at first, but then more people reported it and it just showed up in the reports again. It was gumming up my modqueue and I decided to pull the plug. What rules did they break or were they removed simply on account of reports being amassed? If I start spamming the report function, can I get any post I don't like deleted? I'm sorry that you poured hours into it, but it's done now and the other mods have decided over modm…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/01/14 07:12 AM
1

I think it's due to the fact that they base their worldviews on anecdotes, and so they're hugely inaccurate as a result of a number of cognitive biases that skew their perception. So what happens is that they act submissive in a relationship, and then the relationship goes south. They talk to other people and find that they have similar anecdotes. Conclusion? Submissiveness causes the collapse of relationships. In reality, they have absolutely no reason to think that was the cause or trigger of …
/r/PurplePillDebate22/01/14 03:21 AM
3

I got told by an upvoted red piller (here in PPD where supposedly the moderates reside) that a woman will never respect a submissive man and any relationship with that dynamic will necessarily fail. I'm pretty sure I even asked if he was generalising for effect and he claimed it was an absolute truth.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/01/14 02:58 AM
2

Heh, there's nothing dramatic about pointing out how fruitless debate is when your partner won't admit to things they just said. If I've said it, then just quote it. You've written out two posts to me now trying to defend the idea that I'm contradicting myself. Why bother writing all those words and trying to come up with arguments when you can simply just quote me? Also, being a contrarian does not equal cogency. Your posts boil down to quoting me and saying, "no it isn't." They clearly don't. …
/r/PurplePillDebate22/01/14 02:03 AM
3

You've been as slippery and as much of a contrarian as I'm willing to stand. How have I been "slippery"? I've maintained the exact same position consistently throughout this entire thread. At some point you've misread something I've said and imagined that I'd taken a position I haven't. Now that I've corrected you, the appropriate response is to either: a) accept that you were wrong, or b) simply quote me saying the thing you say I've said. There's no need for dramatics - if you think I've state…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/01/14 01:43 AM
3

[Citation needed] There's a decent overview of the issue in ape and monkey species, and some other mammals, here: Sneaky Monkeys: An Audience Effect of Male Rhesus Macaques (Macaca mulatta) on Sexual Behavior. Have the most sex =/= pass on genes the most I never said that they "pass on genes the most". I stated that they can often have the most sex and that this enables them to pass on their genes, which is undeniably true.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/01/14 01:35 AM
2

In one breath you admit you aren't good and don't have anywhere near the experience I have, in another you downplay my level of experience and success and act like there's no difference. I never said any of that, you literally just made it up in your head.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/01/14 01:23 AM
4

See, this is why this stuff is so hard for you guys to understand. Negging and peacocking? That shit is from over ten years ago. 99% of the time I am literally just talking to people. That's what natural game is. I watched a red pill seminar video on how to peacock just the other day. That's what you guys don't understand, you can't just pretend that the embarrassing parts of your ideology don't exist. You ever read about those young puas causing chaos and getting kicked out of shopping malls? I…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/01/14 11:41 PM
4

It's impossible for more than one thing to work? You're clutching at straws here, buddy.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/01/14 07:41 PM
5

Strawmen aside, this just shows how little you've actually read about TRP. Read the rules - you're not allowed to just claim someone is misunderstanding, you have to explain why. The rule is there for situations like this where you can't show me to be wrong (because I'm right) so you try to hand wave it away. Vast amounts of prose have been put forth about taking personal responsibility for your appearance and actions. The calling out of hamstering is pointing out how some folk won't take that p…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/01/14 07:34 PM
3

When did I say that plausible deniability doesn't work?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/01/14 07:30 PM
3

Read TRP, practically every concept they have there is to protect the guy from feeling like it's their fault if something goes wrong. She doesn't want to have sex with you? That's just last minute resistance, bro, smash through it. A woman claims that she is capable of love? She's just hamstering, amirite?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/01/14 07:20 PM
2

You realise that her comment had absolutely nothing to do with being seen as a slut and simply specified what conditions she would go back to a guy's place for (I.e. more than just sex), right?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/01/14 07:17 PM
10

Go try this with girls. Really. What do you mean? How do you think the vast majority of people who don't engage in negging and peacocking get laid? They use lines practically identical to that. It's how normal people interact - they just talk to each other. That's why normal people are so creeped out by red pillers obsession with deception and manipulation. Honestly, go try this with girls. Really. Do you think that pickup guys didn't extensively try this before everyone moved to "plausible deni…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/01/14 11:21 AM
7

There is a component of "want" here. That means up to the harassee to say they don't' want something. No it's the other way around - you have to demonstrate that you had reason to think that she did want it. Could you imagine how fucked up the world would be if everyone had to explicitly tell everyone else at every moment of every day every single thing that they did not want done to them against their will? If that were the case there would be no laws. So because there's a law against murder th…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/01/14 04:34 AM
7

A guy making a rude comment to woman, is not a big deal. It's not great either, but women do it too. It's called "sexual harassment" when it's unsolicited and unwanted, regardless of who does it. We live in a free speech country, so it's how it is. Free speech doesn't cover sexual harassment. That's where the saying, "Your freedom ends where another's begins" comes from. It's a gender issue. It's not a gender issue because both men and women understand it. You don't need a female perspective to …
/r/PurplePillDebate21/01/14 02:26 AM
10

I don't consider a cat call sexual harassment. And that's you're prerogative, you're wrong though. I'm sorry but I'm honestly not going to debate whether it's sexual harassment to yell at women out of windows asking them for sexual favours or to send unsolicited dick pics to someone. There is a line in reality that even TRP cannot seriously cross, I hope. Well I'm asking because your position doesn't make sense, and I think it might if I could see from a woman's perspective. Maybe a woman will c…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/01/14 12:31 AM
9

It's not something i would do. I don't really know why it's "wrong". Well I never said it was "wrong", just that those people are douchebags. But the problem is that society operates by people within that society adopting a minimum level of standards so that everyone can live and function as best as possible. One of these standards is to not sexually harrass people. In my opinion, and I think this is shared by many others, this isn't a particularly difficult standard to meet and therefore anyone…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/14 11:59 PM
12

You don't understand why yelling at women out of car windows and randomly sending dick pics makes someone a douchebag?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/14 11:48 PM
3

It's not the directness which is douchebaggery, it's that you will get associated with people who talk like that and they are, for the most part, douchebags. For example, guys who yell out of car windows asking a girl for a fuck, or guys who randomly send dick pics and ask the girl to come over to ride it, etc. As I explicitly mention in the quoted section above, there is nothing wrong with being blunt and ignoring basic manners when you have a decent understanding of how she'll react. But if yo…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/14 11:41 PM
11

I don't think I have any 'ethical' concerns with "plausible deniability", the only real issue I have is that it's just so childish and I hate people who play games in relationships (even if that relationship is just a one night stand). To me it's like kids in high school who, instead of just asking a girl out, go through this big charade of asking her what she would say if he were to ask her out one day, and if she says 'yes' then he asks her out but if she says 'no' then he tries to laugh it of…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/14 11:16 PM
2

NAWALT.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/14 11:02 PM
8

Maybe it's okay to be hostile to submissive men because they are going against "evolution"?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/14 10:58 PM
2

This might sound ignorant or maybe i missed something but whom is actually making an empirical claim, do you mean that TRP say its fact that men and women are naturally like that? The initial empirical claim was made by /u/rougecurious when he said: "A woman can very easily respect herself and be submissive becasue it's more natural for her gender and there is no conflict there". And your follow-up comment about there being a trend of submissiveness in women compared to men is also an empirical …
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/14 10:56 PM
2

Im sure you will have evidence to say its one way but there will be opposing evidence contradicting it. Not really. The fact that there will be contradictory studies is an inevitable part of science, yes, but that's irrelevant as science is about the overall weight of evidence. I feel that you might be blinkered to other ideas unless its been nailed down to the table of science. Only in the area of empirical claims, and that's simply because science is the only reliable tool we currently have fo…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/14 10:16 AM
7

Seriously. You may decry Sociology as "Too soft", but to discount it because ti does not meet the standards of rigorous science that are not expected of those scientists that support your own ideology is stupid beyond belief. It's actually an observed and studied phenomenon. It's described by the "scientific impotence discounting hypothesis" and it's more or less what your flow chart suggests - when science contradicts someone's position that is usually based on politics rather than evidence, th…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/14 08:01 AM
5

You see this in practically all species with any form of strict hierarchy. The lowest ranking male can often have the most sex and thus pass on his genes due to the fact that the alpha male has to spend so much time and energy defending his social rank.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/14 04:11 AM
2

To be honest no one really knows do they ? Depends what you mean by "knows". Do we "know" it in the sense that an omnipotent being overlooking every aspect of the universe knows it? Probably not. Do we "know" it in the sense that the current weight of scientific evidence suggests that it is true? Absolutely. And since scientific evidence is currently our best method of determining truths in the observable world, we have to at least agree that it's more or less a solid conclusion (until any contr…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/14 08:22 PM
8

Thanks for trying to dig up a study but the source contradicts the point made by rougecurious. The study you referenced suggests that women are not naturally submissive but only become so when exposed to very specific variables (i.e. smiling) in a very specific situation (i.e. where gender is made salient). The research found that the subjects were even resistant to displaying submissive postures (note: they weren't submissive in terms of personality or choices, only in body posture which is obv…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/14 05:12 AM
4

Are you Male? If you feel being submissive and having high self-respect as a male is difficult, it's becasue it is. A woman can very easily respect herself and be submissive becasue it's more natural for her gender and there is no conflict there. But I wouldn't expect you to feel good and comfortable being submissive. That sounds very interesting - can you link me to some research on that?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/01/14 02:46 AM
3

Let me help you there. "the oppressor"= men. "Him"=men, Man In other words, you'll reinterpret it in ways that are incompatible with the actual message of the essay in order to reach conclusions that you've already decided on? Maybe that's where the confusion lies. When I say that I don't see how to interpret it any other way, I meant in an intellectually honest way. As you've demonstrated, if we drop the criterion of being intellectually honest, any interpretation is possible! Where's "egos"? I…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/01/14 02:45 AM
3

She would have had more than enough time to grandmother Elisabeth Cady Stanton, who was born when Wollstonecraft would have been 56. I'm not sure what you mean here - you realise that "grandmother" isn't a literal term here, right? She is a grandmother to ideas and movements, not people. Haha what a load of hoseshit. So you're now reduced to redefining words to defend this crap. Interpreting words in context is not "redefining words". In fact, it's the precise opposite. Substitute him and his wi…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/01/14 01:22 AM
3

Because you can define existence as that which only exists within objective reality. So things which are constructs do not actually "exist". That makes no sense, of course they exist under your definition as they are part of objective reality. This line of thinking is actually taken from when we argued about whether or not "The Patriarchy" existed or not. Considering you are the one who actually explained this to me, I am actually surprised you are telling me this is now non-sensical. You might …
/r/PurplePillDebate16/01/14 12:01 AM
3

Leane has provided one source already but there's another one here.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/14 11:57 PM
3

Even Mary Wollstonecraft (18th century) is considered a feminist (see the wikipedia page I just linked), so you're arguing against a wall. She is informally described as the grandmother of feminism! That is, her ideas gave birth to the generation that gave birth to feminism. You're digging a hole here.. If calling men in general oppressors and patriarchal women insane does not count as putting the sole blame on men, nothing does. Please explain how that is not blaming men. Did you even read the …
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/14 11:54 PM
6

Essentially, the society has given different rules for the sexuality of men and the sexuality of women. It just so happens, the rules of sexual conduct for women are super hypocritical, and all over the place that as a result a woman who wishes to express her sexuality while still maintaing her conformity to society will express hypocrisy. So if we (again) pointed to the fact that men engage in a much higher rate of LMR than women, would that be evidence of hamstering more in men?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/14 08:57 PM
6

It's in quotes because "the truth" is a loaded term, especially when preceded by the word "speaking". Since it usually implies a more substantive claim about the world, rather than a description of time and date, I thought it would help if I clarify the fact that I'm using the phrasing differently than how you were in your comment. On top of that, your comment doesn't make much sense in itself - why wouldn't social constructs exist? Gender is undeniably a social construct and I don't think many …
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/14 08:55 PM
8

Yes, we agree that AVFM speaks the "truth" when limited to dates and times. Everything else is poisonous bullshit, which we agree on.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/14 08:37 PM
3

Oh I'm sorry, what game is this? Is it "pretend Elisabeth Cady Stanton isn't part of first-wave feminism" week already? What claim do you think you're responding to? People tend to live for a little while so she can be part of something which isn't feminism and then later be part of feminism. That's why the "Declaration of Sentiments" is usually considered "proto-feminist", as it was one of the sparks that eventually led to first wave feminism a few decades later. Sure, did that in another respo…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/14 08:33 PM
2

Can you link to a source that didn't take place nearly half a century before feminism starts? Or are you arguing that all woman's rights movements were feminist?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/14 08:04 PM
8

I don't see how this is relevant to my point as I never said Fox News is wrong on everything they say. I explicitly compared it to a specific instance of reporting by Fox News which is demonstrably biased.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/14 08:01 PM
8

Blaming problems on "who"? Feminism doesn't blame men, why would you think that?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/14 11:44 AM
17

I'm not sure you should trust any information from A Voice for Men - that's sort of like posting an article from Fox News and asking why liberals allow a non-US citizen to remain as president. From all the information I can find, the University had no problem at all with the male studies course. They had a problem with suggested lecturers, including one who is well known for filing frivolous lawsuits against universities (e.g. attempting to sue a University for teaching a religious cult - femini…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/14 09:14 AM
6

I think you might have missed the point of my comment. Red pillers make generalizations from far shakier data trends than the one being discussed here but when it's pointed out that there are many people who don't fall within their stereotype, the accusations of "nawalt" begin.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/14 08:37 AM
8

I think you may have misread the question - it's aimed at Blue pillers, not red pillers. Based on past surveys you would likely get crickets when aimed at Red pillers as I think the number was something like 96% of red pillers were single.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/01/14 03:52 AM
11

It's weird. When someone says that women want men to pay for dates because a minority of them do, surely they should be calling "NAWALT"? Why are they suddenly so concerned with these "special snowflakes" and "unicorns" that want men to pay?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/14 08:31 PM
5

From the TBP survey a little while ago, about 50% of blue pillers were married or in a long-term relationship.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/01/14 08:28 PM
8

I think what we can conclude from this thread is that we can't find a single blue piller who accepts a blank slate view of gender differences. Perhaps it might be useful to redirect this thread to trying to determine why red pillers continue to present this strawman despite the mass of contradicting evidence, and I think (based on the responses in this thread) the misunderstanding comes from two basic claims [paraphrased]: 1) "You accept there are differences but you probably think they are all …
/r/PurplePillDebate06/01/14 01:48 AM
2

It has, long ago. They call that branch "radical feminism" specifically to distance themselves from their ideas.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/12/13 03:17 AM
5

There are ideas that are clearly Red Pill that may still be rejected by people who clearly identify as Red Pill. If red pill can literally mean anything, then it must be wrong (as it would be self-contradictory). If the red pill cannot mean anything, then there must be basic assumptions that all red pillers agree on. The rest is details. It's the same with any named ideology. Not a good comparison because other ideologies still accept the same basic assumptions. Even if red pill is split into di…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/13 03:14 AM
5

firstly, RP is not all that unified. Whilst possibly true, it doesn't really affect the discussion in here. TRP is a philosophy and has built a community on the acceptance of at least a few basic tenets. By necessity, all red pillers must accept some of the same things, otherwise TRP could mean anything to anyone and the whole thing becomes incoherent. In such a situation, it would be impossible to say that TRP was "right" or "wrong" as it would simply be meaningless. So in these debates here pe…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/13 01:54 AM
4

I don't understand who is responsible for patriarchal oppression. No person or group of people are "responsible" for patriarchal oppression, it's just a societal system that has developed through a number of different processes. It's not like a conspiracy where there are a few men at the top making lives shitty for women. Also doesn't patriarchy privilege men as a class over women? The patriarchy doesn't privilege men; the privilege men receive is "the" patriarchy. More simply, privileges receiv…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/12/13 01:40 AM
5

My least favorite are the ones where people try to tell the other side what their views are, even after the side being accused tries explaining that those views are not in fact, their views. I think part of the problem here is that blue pillers often discuss "the red pill position" referring to common themes or central tenets as found within TRP literature, introductory material, required readings, etc, whereas red pillers are interpreting those comments as "you personally believe these things".…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/13 08:50 AM
5

The beliefs simply mesh with their own experiences but they come here (at least I do) to debate those things and change their view if more convincing things make sense to them and fit with their experiences. Personally I come here because I'm interested in many of the topics relevant to red pill and want to see if any of their arguments are convincing. Unfortunately, I have no real opinion on many of the issues, I'm just interested in whether TRP has any validity and looking for evidence to supp…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/13 08:47 AM
4

Isn't it saying that this is a result of patriarchy though? Yes. That same patriarchy that oppresses women. Sure but, to be more clear, it would make more sense in this context to say: "That same patriarchy that negatively affects the lives of men and women". And since men are responsible for the patriarchy Men aren't responsible for patriarchy. People who enforce things like traditional gender roles, discrimination of women, or inequality, are responsible for patriarchy - both men and women. th…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/13 08:40 AM
6

I get that it can be annoying but I don't understand why people would base the validity of their position on what they think of the alternatives. Either there is evidence for the claims that red pillers make or there isn't; even if every suggestion made by blue pillers was ridiculous and wrong, it doesn't make it more justifiable to adopt the red pill approach.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/13 04:56 AM
6

But often blue pillers don't have an affirmative stance to take.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/13 03:29 AM
17

TRP doesn't strip women of autonomy, Feminism strips women of autonomy. But that's blatantly false. RP teaches that women are incapable of logic or thinking rationally, and that's why in relationships the man must be the dominant one or the "captain" and make all the major life decisions, like looking after the finances. I'm not sure what feminism has to do with this discussion so I'll just ignore tackling the veracity of your claim there to avoid getting caught up in an off-topic discussion. It…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/13 03:27 AM
9

Then why do some red pillers accuse blue pillers of "falling back" on the "excuse" of parody when they claim that blue pill doesn't have any affirmative positions and that they can only answer as individuals?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/13 03:19 AM
9

In the last day or two I've had this debate with GaiusScaevolus, AutoNFA, regtopolous and Occam's because there have been a number of threads criticisng the "blue pill position" and I've simply stated that there is no such thing. The idea in response was clearly that there are bluepill beliefs and positions but BPers try to escape honest debate by claiming "parody" when it suits them. And that isn't even going into nicethingsyoucanthave's crusade to change the rules so that blue pillers have to …
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/13 01:07 AM
19

I can't say I've ever experienced it either. I don't know if it's because I've only ever dated women (maybe men are more prone to childish and emotional outbursts? The description by abracadanielle of the boyfriend throwing the game controller across the room is something I've witnessed before), or maybe it's because red pillers specifically aim to date young women/girls. If you're dating people who aren't much older than children then chances are there will be occasions where they act like chil…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/13 11:05 PM
8

No, they really don't. How many threads have we had in the last week demanding an affirmative position from blue pillers? It's getting so bad with red pillers conflating blue pill with an actual philosophy or position that I was considering making another PSA thread on the topic.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/13 10:59 PM
-1

This isn't what happens though. It's exactly what happens though. A red piller in this thread mentioned that he thought sleeping with someone who is in a relationship is a bit shitty, and he got banned. People hold exact opposite views than one another constantly. I've disagreed with RPS in his own sub before and not been banned. Then you're one of the lucky ones. TRP is a place where people discuss TRP theory among other things. Simply disagreeing won't get you banned. Coming in there and askin…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/13 10:34 PM
2

Hooray. Everything is absolutely nebulous. Every roadblock is in place. Enjoy your circle jerk. It's not nebulous, it's just that you aren't quite understanding the concept of parody. It's just a subreddit filled with people who think TRP is ridiculous, for one reason or another. For many it's their horrific beliefs, for some it's their silly pseudoscience, for some it's the shitty attitude they received for trying to break the circlejerk, etc. I think, if you really wanted to nail down some pos…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/13 08:23 AM
1

Impossible for me to do. Of course, because it is parody so you can't show it not to be parody. Simply anti-TRP. Yes, I know. Actually, there was a discussion the other day and it turned out that blue pillers don't even need to accept that. There are a number of blue pillers who are red pillers and RPW who were banned from their subs for disagreeing with some of the comments there. So TBP consists of some people who even believe that red pill philosophy is correct. My annoyance was with the same…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/13 08:05 AM
3

It is "off topic" because those comments don't contribute to "how to get an attached woman to cheat" thread. The OP isn't asking fore moral input or alternative views. But "being on-topic" does not mean "agree with me". And if that's what "on-topic" means in TRP then that just furthers strengthens the claim that they're being hypocritical on the free speech issue. Very few posts on TBP actually qualify as parody,[1] and hiding behind the "parody" theme is disingenuous. Most qualify as parody. De…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/13 08:03 AM
-3

The parameters mean that there can be no accountability for anything ever said because: parody. I suggest that this doesn't apply to RPW, and even if I do cite examples, it will be fruitless because: parody. So your problem is that you can't treat parody as a serious position? I think the fault lies with you here. I recall a thread on TBP about a month ago focusing on how content was being posted from places like /r/AskMen[1] and /r/MensRights[2] and having bash fests that didn't center around T…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/13 07:56 AM
3

The comments that were deleted were off topic though. If a thread is talking about how to get an attached woman to cheat, then obviously comments saying that cheating is wrong will either be down-voted or removed. Many of the men believe that any woman is fair game regardless of her relationship status. Now, I don't condone or agree with that view (nor do many other RP men), but I know the OP doesn't want to hear my sanctimonious dribble, so I simply refrain from commenting. That's a very odd de…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/13 07:39 AM
1

Carrying the point further has several visible roadblocks. I made the response I did because I saw them, and disengaged. But you haven't mentioned any roadblocks that you think exist. Also, do continue to construct more hypotheticals to explain your logic that use either racism or pedophilia, you've a flair for the dramatic and I like the cut of your jib. I find that using extreme examples helps simplify it for people who struggle to understand the logic of arguments.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/13 07:34 AM
5

A couple of points: 1) you're still missing the point. We've already accepted that all blue pillers think that every red pill woman is subhuman. I'm explicitly not asking you for examples because my position is still correct even when we accept the strongest form of your claim as true, and 2) it being satire isn't a "defence", it's a statement of fact. When Stephen Colbert talks about how the poor are scary and smell funny, and someone responds with, "Hey! I'm poor and I take offence to that!", …
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/13 07:21 AM
7

To avoid the whole charade where you pretend you have evidence, I ask you for it, you tell me it's obvious and handwave it away, I remain skeptical, etc etc, I'm just going to skip past all that and say this: let's accept for the sake of your argument that every single person on TBP thinks that every red pill woman is subhuman. What relevance does it have to anything I've said? My claim was that TBP doesn't state that people should be allowed to say those things because of free speech and then b…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/13 06:54 AM
3

If TRP is being criticized for censoring, then it's perfectly valid to bring up the fact that TBP also engages in censoring. No it's not valid to do so because TBP doesn't go on about the importance of "free speech" (in scare quotes because obviously free speech isn't applicable to private sites). Nobody has stated that they have a problem with censorship, they are stating that they have a problem with TRP's hypocrisy (i.e. promoting free speech whilst practicing censorship). You can't criticize…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/13 06:47 AM
1

Same as what you meant by "guilt tactic", except with disappointment. Guilt is also an emotion. So the 'disappointment' is in the woman who had initially said 'no' to sex? If so, then yeah, that's just as bad (and sad) as a guilt tactic. I see no real difference between the two. So should we start calling out women who say "no" to sex if we think their reasons are manipulative? Actually TRP do this sometimes, but I don't approve. Yes, absolutely. It's shitty behavior. This is complete rubbish. I…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/13 03:53 AM
5

We're in agreement then.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/13 03:47 AM
4

The quote you provided does not state that violence against men is due to the oppression of women. It states that it's due to harmful gender norms that affect men. In other words, the violence against men is due to our prejudice against men in the area of violence they face.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/13 03:34 AM
6

Not necessarily. I don't see why it wouldn't work as a disappointment tactic. There's no suggestion or feeling that anyone's at fault. What do you mean by "disappointment tactic"? Being disappointed isn't a tactic, it's an emotion. So what? After all, we have the right to say no to intimacy for any reason, just as we have the right to say no to sex for any reason. It's nobody's business what our private preferences are. You're allowed to say "no" for whatever reason, but you're a shitty person i…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/13 03:32 AM
9

There's a recent example here: "once in the bedroom, i pretty immediately made some aggressive moves after mostly ignoring her and her attempts to make me jealous all night. had some LMR to break through". Heartiste describes some ways to break through LMR here: "Agree in words, but not in action. Simply affirm whatever doubt she voices as if you are going to do what she says, but go on moving the seduction forward. “It’s too soon.” “I agree.” “Maybe we should slow down.” “I agree.” “But we hard…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/13 03:31 AM
3

A "blue piller" is anyone who isn't a member of TRP. A red piller is someone who accepts red pill philosophy. A TRPer is a red piller who is part of the TRP community.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/13 03:25 AM
1

If you're pushing guilt on someone, that's shitty. That's explicitly what the "freeze out" method is. The intentional decision to remove intimacy in order to get them to sleep with you is the guilt tactic. If it's mere disappointment at not getting intimacy, that's fair. After all, we all have the right to say no to intimacy for any reason at all. If someone decides to say no to intimacy-without-sex, I think they're allowed to draw that line. Of course and nobody has a problem with that, but tha…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/13 03:19 AM
1

Did you petition for TRP to remove it from the sidebar? The point is that you can't criticise someone for supposedly removing agency from a woman whilst identifying, even partially, as a red piller. The entire philosophy is predicated on the idea that women have no agency and are subhuman.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/13 03:16 AM
5

It's the phrase used by red pillers. They also suggest "smashing LMR".
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/13 03:15 AM
2

Yeah the "freeze out" is the other tactic used by TRP and that obviously has the un-alpha aspect of still trying to trick the girl into having sex with you.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/13 02:53 AM
4

And then people call that behavior manipulation. Men can't win when it comes to this. They can - they can just treat the women like people and accept "no" as a "no". If that means you don't want to engage in intimacy any more then I doubt you'll find many people who will have a problem with that. If you choose to deny intimacy in an attempt to guilt them into deciding to have sex with you, then that's shitty behavior. The reason they call it manipulation is because ceasing everything and stoppin…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/13 02:52 AM
5

What does the phrase "push through LMR" mean then?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/13 02:47 AM
7

That's what pushing through LMR is. Trying to convince them that you wouldn't view them as a slut, explaining how incredible you'd be, increasing kino, etc. That's all begging and pleading. Basically, if you have to "push through LMR", then you aren't very alpha.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/13 01:05 AM
2

Maybe there is, but it's still entirely and absolutely irrelevant and off-topic in this thread. There's a difference between parody and chocolate-coated testicles, but there's no reason for you to bring up that distinction here either.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/13 01:03 AM
0

The blue pill isn't a philosophy, it has no position on "free speech", it is there for parody and satire, etc etc. Your entire comment here is irrelevant and off-topic.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/13 12:48 AM
8

That's sort of what confuses me about the whole "LMR" mentality. Even if we accept that sometimes women say "no" when they really mean "yes", obviously most of the time they really mean no. So why try to pressure them into it? If someone doesn't want to have sex with me then I'm not going to spend the next hour begging and pleading for it. And surely that would be the alpha way? Being alpha is something that women are supposedly inherently attracted to and it results in them practically throwing…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/13 12:45 AM
3

Because Bluepillers don't just argue You're making the mistake of conflating individuals from the blue pill subreddit with the idea that "blue pillers" all accept and believe some set blue pill philosophy. Blue pillers argue a vast range of things, it is impossible for you to summarise any position of the individuals in a single sentence. "There isn't enough evidence to support TRP principles, and they could be right or wrong", they argue "TRP principles are wrong". Three important points here: …
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/13 12:14 AM
7

I think you're stretching things a little there, given that bullying and virgin shaming rarely (if ever?) actually occur on TBP. That's why the discussion above was purely hypothetical, in that there are no actual tenets or beliefs of a "blue pill" position that encourages or supports such things. I don't quite understand the point of this line of reasoning though or what you're trying to get at. To make it easier, let's just accept for the moment that every single member of TBP was a kitten mur…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/13 12:10 AM
4

The quote you've presented doesn't suggested that violence against men is due to the oppression of women, it explicitly states that it's a result of patriarchal attitudes at work - i.e. gender norms which also hurt men.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/13 12:05 AM
8

Since TBP isn't a position then yeah, technically anything goes. It's just important to clarify that those behaviors aren't "Blue Pill" behaviors, since it's incoherent to phrase it that way. In other words, it encourages bullying in the same way that not collecting stamps encourages bullying.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 09:40 PM
3

Can you link me to some actual feminist sources making this statement as a feminist position?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 09:31 PM
5

Why would they think that since that's not what feminists say?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 09:20 PM
8

Given that blue pill is stamp collecting. (blue pill = stamp collecting) No, red pill is stamp collecting. Blue pill is everyone who doesn't collect stamps. Then TBP would be a stamp collecting subreddit where Neo-Nazi behaviour and attitudes were encouraged and cultivated. TBP would be a subreddit where people who hate, dislike, are indifferent to, stamp collecting gather. Since this is a massive and diverse group with no set beliefs or ideas, there will inevitably be a range of behaviors and a…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 09:13 PM
6

I am saying that blue pill (as a supposed position or philosophy) is indifferent to it. In the same way that some people who hate stamp collecting may also be neo Nazis, even though being a neo Nazi isn't required or expected of people who hate stamp collecting.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 08:54 PM
6

TBP can't be hypocritical because it has no beliefs. You've presented a great example there where some people are against RP because of how badly they treat people (including things like virgin shaming) and others are against RP because it's funny to make fun of them (which can include virgin shaming). There can't be any hypocrisy because they're is no blue pill belief saying that it's wrong to treat people badly or to bully them.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 08:50 PM
3

Nice. Full respect to you.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 08:12 AM
5

Yeah it's really weird - none of the research cited for the claim actually make, or even support, the claim made. It's like the academic version of the Gish Gallop where instead of finding answers, you just keep getting linked to more obscure citations.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 05:50 AM
6

You asked for my comments above so I'll weigh in here if you like: there is nothing inherently problematic about the concept of SMV. The fact that the aggregation of all of your features (physical and mental) will give you a general "score" is undeniable and, if we like, we could call this "SMV". The problem of course is the way that TRP interprets it, which is very narrowly and focused entirely on biology (and even this turns out to mostly be pseudobiology). The point being that even if someone…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 05:18 AM
3

I don't know what this is. Patriarchal processes refer to processes within a society that enforce gender norms that are the product of patriarchal societies (i.e. societies which have been mostly developed and maintained by male interests). In this specific situation, the gender norms relevant are things like "boys are logical and enjoy mechanics" and "girls are emotional and enjoy social interaction". Now, if these gender norms are present even in countries with more egalitarian laws then we sh…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 04:56 AM
12

Obviously Bluepill is primarily a parody sub. But if they are mere parody, then they are not engaging in honest, good faith debate and this whole sub is pointless. Your claim makes no sense. Why would non-RPers need an affirmative position to engage in "honest, good faith debate"? And it wouldn't make this sub pointless, as this sub is about whether red pill has an evidential basis or not. The truth or falsity of the supposed "blue pill position" is absolutely irrelevant to the veracity of TRP. …
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 04:40 AM
8

And I'd have no problem with that. People want to live their life according to what they've observed and experienced? Excellent - I'd suggest that's the only rational way to live your life without wasting it away by fact checking every single life decision. Want to get together with a community of people who have similar observations and experiences? Excellent! Enjoy discussing things with like-minded people and even asking for their advice on similar issues. Want to use your own anecdotes, and …
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 04:33 AM
2

Sorry for the delay, I've been busy finishing up work for the christmas break. 1) The rules for individual relationships are complex, which is why there's kind of a feel-it-out process for every couple. But in the aggregate, what the dating market place is not (I assert) is random. It is ruled by the gods of probability and statistics. And where probability exists, there is the potential for maximization. You missed my point before that though, which is that people could refuse to accept a posit…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 04:29 AM
7

How to blue pillers explain the prevalence of violence against men? What there to explain? Violence against men exists and it's horrible and we should do something about it. The narrative, in general, is that it's actually oppression of women. How is the abuse of men the oppression of women? The closest I can think of is the suggestion that the public reaction to male violence is, in part, due to oppressive and discriminating attitudes against women. To argue against this would mean that you don…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 04:07 AM
6

It seems like there's a push from some red pillers to turn TBP into an actual position or philosophy so that they can say that the blue pill is wrong, therefore it's rational to accept the red pill. But that push to turn TBP into an affirmative position is just leading to these incoherent topics.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 03:52 AM
9

It obviously makes no sense to ask for "the blue pill's beliefs" as there's no such thing as 'blue pill beliefs', but my own personal take is: I have no affirmative theory on sexual dynamics. The reason I'm here (as I assume someone might think or ask what I'm doing here if I don't have a position) is that I'm interested in practically all things psych related and the question of sexual dynamics necessarily touches on psychology. My hope was that when people made big claims about sexual dynamics…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 03:50 AM
6

I'm going to guess that it's a reference to the widely rejected and heavily debunked "Gender Symmetry" research that utilises the "Conflict Tactics Scale" which has long been recognised as a unrepresentative measure of actual rates of violence. Whatever the paper is, there's a decent criticism here: Gender Symmetry in Domestic Violence: A Substantive and Methodological Research Review.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 03:15 AM
9

My attempt at a summary: men are hurt by women too feminists believe that men being hurt by women is evidence of the oppression of women [no explanation or reasoning given] blue pillers are feminists so they must believe that too I don't understand the concept of patriarchy this all has something to do with TRP [but no explanation is given]. I hope that, uh, clears it up for you... I don't understand the purpose either. I think basically it's subtly hinting at the idea that feminists don't care …
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 03:08 AM
7

I think most feminists are against unfair alimony - i.e. only awarding it to the woman, or awarding it to the woman regardless of the family situation. I don't think anyone could really be against alimony as a concept though as if two people in a relationship make the decision that one partner will give up the opportunity of a career, to lose out on all pay rises and career advances, and then years later the relationship falls apart, the other partner must necessarily cover the cost of them atte…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 03:02 AM
3

Not that I necessarily think that you're wrong but do you have any evidence that alimony laws target men disproportionately? Obviously the "proportional" measure will be based on who is the stay-at-home partner, so for it to be disproportionate you'd need evidence that stay-at-home husbands are awarded alimony less frequently than stay-at-home wives.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 02:59 AM
4

NAWALT.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 02:49 AM
2

The importance of differences being innate or environmental is that it could change how we would structure major societal institutions, like schooling. For example, if it turned out that boys had an innate preference for "visual learning" and girls had an innate preference for "auditory learning", then arguments could be made for gender segregation in schools or classes and to utilise methods that improve their chances of success. On the other hand, if many of the claimed differences are in fact…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/13 10:06 PM
2

My understanding of null hypothesis testing is that you assume the null hypothesis in order to establish whether or not you have statistically significant evidence against it. The null hypothesis requires evidence to support or reject. The null hypothesis is simply the default position, which is usually: "There is no difference between X and Y". When we run experiments we never prove or support the null hypothesis, we (at best) simply fail to disprove it. My point is, if TRP has not met that str…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/13 09:59 PM
1

I can't find that post under any searches like "RPW" or "Red pill women". I do remember it but since it's a parody sub it's important to look at the context. Since blue pillers tend to reject the idea that people should be compared to animals, and red pillers constantly talk about the "female hamster", I think the joke is supposed to be that's how red pillers view RPW. Why would blue pillers have a problem with women choosing to be housewives, when many of the women in BP have chosen that role f…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/13 09:46 PM
2

That seems like an odd claim to me as, from what I've read, most people on TBP have a relationship dynamic very similar to many of the aspects of RPW. That is, many are in traditional relationship setups where the man is the "breadwinner", they are submissive in the bedroom, they respect their partner's opinions, and enjoy doing things to please him like cooking etc. The only point of contention that I've seen in the rare times that RPW is brought up and criticised is when the RPW start talking …
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/13 08:49 PM
1

Here's the thing though - the null hypothesis also has to meet standards of evidence Why do you say this? Even if we were discussing null hypotheses, the null position is simply the one we adopt when there is no evidence found to support the alternative. By definition, it doesn't require any evidence at all. If, on the other hand, people were to positively assert that (for example) there were no gender differences and that the alternative claim is false, then they have moved away from being the …
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/13 08:42 PM
6

If the anatomical neurological differences between men & women where caused by environment (early development, socialization, etc.) - one would predict that egalitarian societies would produce brains with fewer anatomical differences and therefore, fewer behavioural differences between the genders. Why would we expect countries with more egalitarian laws, but still the same patriarchal processes, to present less gender differences? Has this happened? In some ways, yes, the genders behave more si…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/13 08:37 PM
6

For me personally, I don't have a problem with people using their own anecdotes to make guesses about how best to behave in their own lives. The problem comes when they start generalising their own anecdotes to other people's lives, and suggesting that they are describing "obvious facts" that don't need to be supported any more than the claim of the sky being blue needs to be supported. When people start making stronger claims like that, then I expect them to have evidence or reasoning to suppor…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/13 07:21 AM
9

Whilst interesting, it's important to note that neither of the things you mention are indicative one way or the other as both the nativist and socialisation theories predict the same outcome - that most/all societies should produce the same results. For the first issue, of a society showing reversed gender roles, no socialisation theory would predict this because the basic structures that determine gender roles (according to their theory) are the same - i.e. they are all shaped by patriarchal pr…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/13 07:17 AM
4

Good question. It wouldn't occur to me to ask the question but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be asked if someone wants to. But I think that really gets at what the OP is trying to ask: why wouldn't it occur to you? If someone is spouting off racist comments in your community, do you not ask questions of it because you agree with it? Because you'd rather just ignore it? Do you not see the comments as racist at all? I would be more inclined to take it up on an individual level ie if a person says…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/13 09:14 PM
3

anyway so seeing as racism is bad I still ask why are we asking the question? Is it to find fault with the red pill? I don't think it's "to find fault" as such, but rather members here trying to understand how red pillers view their philosophy in light of things like racism and how they think it affects their community (if at all). Given the numerous recent comments and articles from red pillers endorsing racist opinions, I think it makes sense to question how happy red pillers are with this ass…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/13 11:55 AM
4

Yeah I remember that thread. I ended up having an argument with a red piller over whether black people float or not. He was convinced that black people could not physically float and that's why there's no black people in Olympic swimming. 'Nuff said.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/13 05:01 AM
4

The comparison doesn't really make sense for a number of reasons: 1) I might be wrong but I think you are making up that statistic and supposed subreddit, and 2) most importantly, TBP isn't a philosophy with any set beliefs, agendas, tenets, or axioms, so it's irrelevant what everyone there believes. Or, to put it another way, since TBP is "everyone who isn't a red piller", you'll likely find all manner of horrible beliefs and philosophies coinciding with "blue pillers" - since it literally incl…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/13 03:51 AM
5

No one can resist the dreamy eyes of Jacob.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/13 02:29 AM
3

I'm sorry but you are incorrect. I'm clearly not. Just as if I were to say your argument is invalid because you lie about being a psychologist and are actually an undergrad dropout, but then provide an argument on wby you are wrong, that would violate the rules still. That would be different for two reasons: 1) you'd be blatantly lying (as aptly demonstrated by Pizzaonearth who got his ass whooped when he tried to make the same claim), and 2) that would just be an insult and have no relevance to…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/13 02:28 AM
3

Utilitarianism is one example among many, and there's a decent discussion on a related topic here: Toward a Natural-Law Ethics of Killing. Basically, since utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory of ethics that relies on the assumption that what is good is what increases the welfare of most people, there is therefore no possible distinction between different types of killing. Self-defence or murder are the same thing and are to be judged as moral or immoral depending entirely on the conseque…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/13 02:24 AM
5

Most moral systems have forms in which there are no differences, for example there are multiple brands of consequentialist and deontological systems which make no such distinction. In those systems mentioned it is the default that things like killing are equal and people who disagree are left with the burden of modifying the system to allow for their understanding of the issue.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/13 12:37 AM
3

You're conflating law with morality, that's where your error is.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/13 11:46 PM
5

Probably for two main reasons: 1) it appears to be a substantial overlap, suggesting common values rather than a mundane coincidence, and 2) racism is generally viewed as a bad thing, even by some red pillers, so it is more important to discuss than something like red Pillers siding more with Team Jacob than Team Edward.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/13 11:45 PM
8

It would be pretty hypocritical, yes. If someone kills someone for killing, then that is being logically inconsistent. If someone shames someone to shut them up for supposedly shaming someone to shut them up then that is equally being logically inconsistent.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/13 10:19 PM
8

What an incredibly dishonest misrepresentation of the thread topic. The OP was asking whether their perception of an overlap between TRP members and racists was accurate or not, and how TRP members feel if this perception were true. Whether or not race is completely irrelevant to TRP is completely irrelevant to whether or not some individuals happen to have certain beliefs about race. Does the TRP community have members that overlap with racist communities? Yes. That's your answer.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/13 10:07 PM
11

Aren't you essentially trying to use shaming tactics against soulcakeduck here to get them to stop discussing a topic that you find verboten (that TRP has some areas of overlap with racist communities)? As far as I can see, the idea that areas of TRP overlap with racist communities seems to be an entirely neutral and factual statement - as evidenced by the fact that one of the required readings was written by, and published in, a white nationalist journal. If someone pointed out that a philosoph…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/13 10:02 PM
6

That's really interesting, I haven't heard of that measure before. Thanks for the link.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/13 09:56 PM
7

The rule is against dismissing a source on the sole basis that it is pop psychology. I dismissed the article because it was an inaccurate reflection of the actual article (which was linked in the study) and have detailed reasons why. You'll find that I am in prefect accordance with the rules.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/13 07:58 PM
2

And even if true, it's ignoring the fact that many blue pillers have left too - some were driven away by the abusive tactics of some red pillers and others just gave up when it was clear that most red pillers weren't going to attempt to present evidence or reasoning to support their positions.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/13 11:59 PM
6

Yeah, and I think the other problem is that men's emotional outbursts are generally considered to be acceptable or at least aren't viewed as negatively as women's emotional outbursts. You can see it in my discussion with Vornash, where he raises the example of women supposedly often crying over nothing at the drop of a hat. I then point out that I can counter that anecdotal observation with the fact that many men get angry over nothing at the drop of the hat. Instead of accepting that these are …
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/13 11:54 PM
4

If the crying is not meant to illicit a support response, and is simply an outlet to feel better about a meaningless or mildly annoying/unfortunate occurrence, then yes it is crying wolf to the man, because he can't always tell the difference. Then I think "crying wolf" is an inapplicable phrase to use here. The phrase 'crying wolf' is a statement on the objective facts of a situation - specifically, there was no danger, the reporter knew there was no danger, that person reported danger anyway (…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/13 11:49 PM
4

Lying is a poor choice of a word for it. It would be an expression denoting a real emotional state, but with insufficient reasoning or substance behind it, which could be related to other issues that are an ongoing problem, sure, but that gets relatively complicated and is not always the case. So it can't be considered "crying wolf", as the emotional state is real. Men are more likely to react to a poor emotional state with anger and breaking things, that is clear to me. The anger is the emotion…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/13 10:29 PM
7

Sometimes women break down in tears over meaningless things, I've seen it many times. But so do men (as I have observed many, many times). There's also the problem of conflating emotional expression with emotion there as well. In this case it would be analogous to crying wolf in a sense. I don't see why unless you're suggesting that they aren't actually emotional or upset by the things they are crying over. In which case your statement about them being more emotional is wrong. In other words, yo…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/13 09:27 PM
3

I'm not sure it's entirely fair to say the study found that men were uninterested in accurately identifying their partners' negative emotions. It just found that men's ability in accurately assessing women's negative emotions was not correlated with men's relationship satisfaction. Sure, that's what I was getting at. This could be in part because their accuracy, while important, was ultimately less important than their willingness to make the attempt. Their partners are most affected by the men'…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/13 09:19 PM
10

I'm not sure about the equal part I'm just referring to the results of the study, which suggest that men and women make fairly equal demands of themselves and their partners in a relationship. especially given that women tend to be more emotional overall Is this actually true though? which implies an asymmetry of needs and leads to observer/actor situation I commented on. Sure, but I'm just saying that we can't reach your conclusion based on the results of the study - as the results suggest that…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/13 09:10 PM
7

Yeah it makes no sense to include actual distress in any interpretation of the study as the researchers didn't even attempt to look at how men or women felt when their partner was distressed. It makes just as much sense to conclude from this study that women like the colour pink. It may be true but there's no way we could support such a claim from the actual data gathered.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/13 08:59 PM
7

They seem less interested, I agree, which may lead to the phenomenon of male relationship neglect and female surprise divorce. That's a good point - maybe men sometimes report being "surprised" by a divorce because they appear to be unwilling to put the effort into identifying when their partner is upset. I have always maintained that women require more out of a relationship than men do. Men in many ways are the simpler sex IMO. That may be true, I don't know, but I'm not sure it can be supporte…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/13 08:54 PM
14

This is the problem with pop-science summaries of research, it gives a far too simplistic (and often incomplete) overview of the findings. This is an important finding from the study: Women’s ability to read their husbands’ negative emotions was positively linked to both men’s and women’s relationship satisfaction. In other words, both men and women based their relationship satisfaction on whether their partner was able to read their negative emotions. For men, however, their relationship satisf…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/13 08:34 PM
2

Indeed, you're in agreement with me. I don't think there's any need for red pillers to agree with each other, beyond accepting the basic tenets of the philosophy.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/13 06:31 AM
1

This is taking it too far; there can still be a "red pill" philosophy, even if there is not 100% agreement behind it. I'm not sure how this is supposedly possible though, and nobody seems willing to attempt to explain it. The TRP philosophy is defined by a number of tenets. A red piller is someone, by definition, who accepts those tenets. To put it another way: someone cannot be a red piller if they do not accept the claims which define red pill philosophy. This is surely necessarily true. How c…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/13 05:16 AM
9

This is ridiculous and exactly why he puts rape in quotations. In the text you've quoted she never says no like you say she does. He said that she used token resistance, which is defined as saying "no" but meaning "yes". So she said "no", unless he's using "token resistance" in an idiosyncratic way - and, in that case, the fault lies with his communication skills not the interpretation of his words. He is also confused as you have quoted but you frame it as him being pushy I didn't frame it as h…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/13 04:49 AM
1

NO. Certain things that get discussed in TRP are wrong to certain members. You're confusing TRP forum with TRP philosophy. Things said in the forum aren't necessarily accepted by the members, true. Things said in the philosophy are necessarily accepted by the members, as that is by definition what a red piller is - someone who accepts red pill philosophy. If a red piller can be someone who doesn't accept red pill philosophy then technically everyone is a red piller. It's a place for discussion o…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/13 04:39 AM
6

I think there might be a misunderstanding here. I think when he talks about "date-rape" he's using the term in the context of the "regret-rape" or "false rape accusation" sense. He's referring to all "non-real rape" cases, as described here: The “rapists,” it turns out, were never lying in wait for them in remote corners, were not armed, did not attack them. Instead, these “date rapes” occur in private places, usually college dormitory rooms, and involve no threats or violence. In fact, they lit…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/13 04:17 AM
2

And therein lies the problem. Most rpers don't agree on a lot of things either as evidenced by them saying so in about every post here. Well no, that can't be true at all. By definition, all red pillers agree on some fundamental things. That's what red pill is - a set of beliefs that all members of a community agree with. What you are referring to is the idea that not all red pillers agree on: a) non-RP related issues, and/or b) specific interpretations of red pill tenets. Those issues can be ha…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/13 04:09 AM
3

I don't think an affirmative stance makes any sense for threads started by blue pillers. What possible claim could they make from a blue pill perspective? We don't agree on anything. If the affirmative stance is based on the individual person's belief then that will lead to a confusing thread that ends up discussing their personal belief - which is irrelevant to this sub.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/13 08:18 PM
8

The problem is when this cold shoulder is intentionally deployed as a weapon. That's a problem. There's still no obligation to talk, but the intention to 'hurt' someone is a bad one. Yes, agreed. That's an important point to make. If the talking or sex is withheld in order to emotionally manipulate someone then they are assholes, despite being allowed to withhold such things. And here I draw the same connection to TRP. TRP does weaponize the cold shoulder. Dread game might deploy it, or the "3:2…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/13 11:20 PM
5

If I refused to talk with a partner for the same amount of time, no one would say "nobody's obliged to, you just have to be okay with it" No, I'd say that you are perfectly allowed to refuse to talk to someone if you don't want to and I'd add that anyone who suggested otherwise was a moron. Forcing someone to do something against their will is just shitty behavior, whether it's forcing them to have sex or talk (although I'd argue there are varying degrees of harm caused by different things). Eve…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/13 08:36 PM
2

Well obviously. The red pill is too busy ferreting out the truth to concern itself with self-segregating into a bunch of sharply defined sub-ideologies. Whatever their reasoning, you seem to be agreeing with me that there are no subsets of red pill philosophy. That doesn't change the fact that some places (Dalrock and Sunshine Mary's blogs for example) are rather traditionalist, whereas other places (RooshV's blog for example), are very hedonistic. And that doesn't change the fact that you (and …
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/13 08:40 AM
1

You haven't explained how any of the positions you are arguing against are wrong. Please provide evidence and reasoning. It also makes no sense to demand blue pillers hold an assertive position, that's an absurd misunderstanding of what blue pill is.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/13 08:19 PM
-1

I had trouble finding any but even if I've overlooked a couple, we have to agree that the overwhelming response was that there is nothing wrong with someone choosing to leave if they don't get sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/13 02:46 AM
0

Did tbp mock him for threatening to leave? That's not how I remember the thread.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/13 02:06 AM
7

I think practically everybody agrees that if a relationship is lacking a component that you feel is necessary, like sex, then you should leave (although I imagine many would suggest trying to work on the relationship first in case it's salvageable).
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/13 01:10 AM
4

Cougars.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/13 07:45 PM
6

That's so true. That's what pisses me off about the concept, it's not that it's "offensive", it's just a buzz word and filler to try to explain how a certain behavior somehow magically fits into their ideology.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/13 07:33 PM
3

Should it be considered required reading if many red pillers don't think it's important or relevant to their philosophy?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/13 07:30 PM
2

Yeah I can definitely see the difficulty with it but I understand perhaps the need for it. I think it's reasonable to allow paywalled articles in discussions where people are simply exchanging ideas and they can look it up if they want, but if someone is trying to start a thread about how a certain position is wrong, then they probably need freely accessible articles.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/13 06:28 AM
3

No problem. It's a shame that it's behind a paywall though and every study I can find on the topic seems to be behind a paywall.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/13 06:11 AM
5

Source? One of the best collection of data on this topic is this article: Token Resistance to Sex: New Perspectives on an Old Stereotype which is unfortunately behind a paywall but the abstract sums it up quite well: "These results refute the stereotype that most women—and only women—engage in token resistance to sex. Furthermore, these results cast doubt on prevalence data reported in previous studies. Results indicate that the overwhelming majority of women and men who say “no” to sex actually…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/13 06:03 AM
7

It certainly is dumb but you can see why non-red pillers would be confused as to why people are suggesting this RoK article is "trolling" or "click-bait" when it seems to be entirely consistent with red pill philosophy.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/13 05:46 AM
8

The same belief is described in their "required reading" in the sidebar where, in the "Sexual Utopia in Power" it suggests that date rape isn't real and instead of treating date rapists as criminals, their victims should just be forced to marry them so then everyone is happy.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/13 03:51 AM
7

There's one on the front page at the moment where a coworker of a red piller mentioned that a guy was being creepy (turning up to her work and waiting outside with gifts). Is this a shit test, how do I pass?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/13 03:44 AM
11

Given your other comment in this thread aimed at me and soulcakeduck I'm assuming this is your attempt to get blue pillers to give an "affirmative" position on a topic, even though it was already explained to you in the other thread (and now here) that it makes no sense to ask for the "blue pill position". So, now that we've established that it's absurd to ask for "blue pill advice" and we've accepted that you're likely to get as many varied responses as there are blue pillers, I'll give you my …
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/13 03:10 AM
0

If it's the comment I'm thinking of, before I linked the post it was positive with no downvotes. But that can't really prove anything so maybe you're right. It's currently on -3, with 10 downvotes. Isn't it being hypocritical enough? Since TBP takes the moral high ground? I'm not sure it's true that TBP "takes the moral high ground". Some members are there because they find TRP morally reprehensible, so I guess you could describe them as "morally superior" but a lot of people are just there to t…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/13 02:48 AM
1

Well that's nonsensical. There is absolutely no reason to think that I would respond differently to that situation.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/13 02:26 AM
2

So all PUAs and people who implement game and plate spin are red pillers? If I went to r/seduction would they agree?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/13 07:48 PM
2

If you're referring to me then have a look at our actual discussion - I specifically ask you for evidence and some reading material on the topic. I'm particular, I was hoping for some information on how mgtow could be a subset of red pill when it predates it. So far you have simply asserted that is true. At no point did I prevent you from trying to define your own philosophy, I simply asked for actual evidence that your position is right. Keep in mind that I'm constantly told that there is no co…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/13 07:46 PM
0

Thank you for retracting your claim and accepting it as wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/13 07:39 PM
2

No if it was a girl then she'd also be a creepy asshole. I'm not sure why you'd view it differently but you have no reason to think that I would.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/13 07:31 PM
1

It's always something that has to be considered, but when you're facing the options of real harm versus possible future harm, I think most people would risk the future possible harm to end the actual harm. If I push someone out of the way of a bus it's possible that they may fall, bash their head and die. But obviously, if I don't then they will simply be hit by a bus and die. Not saying that those were necessarily the only two options in this case but rather that I can see a good reason why his…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/13 04:41 AM
1

That's fair enough. But as you can see from the post linked in my OP, being antifeminist will earn a person a fair share of down votes, so there are at least trends that can be spotted in TBP. Sure, and being a feminist will earn you a fair share of downvotes as well, like with Gracana being downvoted for explaining what was wrong with TiA. I don't want to derail on this topic, but despite some TBPers objections, TRP has a lot of people that subscribe to varying degrees as well. But that asserti…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/13 04:14 AM
1

Agreed. I think he was maybe a bit desperate, thought that time was against him and did the only thing he could think of. I also think the OP is a bit of an asshole in general so probably had no real qualms about skipping the tedious stuff and going for the drama filled nuke.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/13 03:28 AM
1

I was being a little dramatic, but you misunderstood. I was saying that what the OP of the TBP post did should be a crime, not what orange did. Oh I see. I don't think that's workable at all. If orange was a girl there would be an uproar in TBP about someone bullying her or some such bs. So the situation would be: a girl is sleeping with a guy in a relationship, using morally questionable methods to seduce him and tricking him into thinking that if he broke up with his girlfriend then she would …
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/13 03:26 AM
0

Perhaps, but for me I'm a 100% "turn the other cheek" kind of guy. I usually am too, but if a good friend of mine starting spouting red pill bullshit and telling me tales of how he's messing with somebody else's life, relationships, and mental stability, then I'd have to do something. Not necessarily what the OP has done but I don't think I'd be able to turn the other cheek when it's a good friend at the centre of it all. I don't even think we should "punish" criminals, we should actively rehabi…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/13 03:15 AM
1

I completely agree. But, in the mean time, I'm not sure I can condemn the OP for attempting to minimise the current harm being caused by the guy.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/13 03:13 AM
0

Forced, convinced, whatever, lol. It's a fine line. It implies that the woman has no agency/can't make her own decisions. She decided to cheat that's the bottom line. But I think the point is explicitly that nobody is denying the woman agency. "Convinced" clearly implies that she was responsible for her choice and the consequences of such a choice. The point is simply that just because someone is responsible for their choice doesn't mean that the person who convinced them isn't also responsible …
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/13 03:11 AM
-1

And ultimately, what does punishing the "orange" guy really accomplish? Publicly shaming him isn't going to change his world view. Well I don't think any punishment took place, at least according to the intentions of the OP. It was about helping people, not punishing him. The OP gives the example of warning friends who own dogs that a mutual friend abuses dogs. Sure, it may "punish" him in that those friends are less likely to hang out with him but obviously the point isn't to punish him, it's t…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/13 02:52 AM
0

I read that, and he should have tried harder. Patience is the name of the game. True, I guess. But after discussing it with him over the span of a few days and still not getting an answer, I'm not sure how patient a person can be. I think it's the OPs job to potentially warn any parties actively being screwed over, however to warn future/past "victims" is too much like punishment. I don't think OP has the right to be judge and jury on this one. I'm not sure. To be fair, practically everyone on t…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/13 02:48 AM
-2

Some replies to your comments first and then I'll give my opinion on the issue: The OP of the post sent out ~1000 messages to a supposed redpiller's female friends "warning" them that his buddy is a manipulator, and that he forced a woman to cheat on her SO. I don't think he claimed that he's "forced" her to do anything and instead the OP uses the word "convinced". I think it's a valid concern if someone is convincing another person that they want to be in a relationship with them so that they b…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/13 02:44 AM
1

I think the reasonable response would have been making a calculated effort to figure out who the girl was. Then the OP could have found her boyfriend and anonymously messaged him. He did attempt to do this but all attempts failed (according to image 1).
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/13 02:34 AM
1

I think he meant JSTOR and he was suggesting that he could copy and paste the relevant sections of the article, or perhaps the whole thing. The first option wouldn't solve the problem and the second is illegal.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/13 12:05 AM
7

MGTOW is a subset of red pill thought. They look at the world through the red pill lens and see that it is not worth it and then they decide to GTOW. So TRP has been around since before 2000? Honestly asking, I can't find much info on its history. Either way, I wouldn't have thought that every single MGTOW-er would consider themself a red piller (as your claim necessitates). The sub movements are there. If you want to pretend you can't see the distinction between groups that have a goal to raise…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/13 04:29 AM
4

I gave you the names already. They are written above. You didn't give me any names, you simply listed different views of individuals within red pill and then mentioned MGTOW (which obviously isn't a red pill subset). If you are looking for the christian approach to redpill you can go to dalrock. If you want to spin plates roosh. If you are looking for LTR or Marriage game look at rationale male or Married Men Sex Life, If your focus is from the female perspective look at redpill women. If you wa…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/13 03:55 AM
4

There are clearly defined boundaries in each red pill subset as well. They might have some overlap but that doesn't mean they are all the same. Just like feminism has the same overreaching goal of equality between the sexes, however they have subsets that are looking for different outcomes. Red pill is no different. That's really interesting then. Can you link me to some literature on the different brands of red pill thought or at least tell me what they're called? Red pill is the same way. You …
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/13 03:41 AM
5

Well in this case specifically, there is a traditionalist streak of red pill thought which advocates a return to conservatives social and sexual norms, while there is the player variety of red pill thought which advocates a the player lifestyle. Can you link to some materials on these different brands of red pill thought? What are the names given to them? From what I've seen, these are just different views of individuals and how they interpret TRP, rather than actually being formally defined dis…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/13 03:18 AM
5

But there are clearly defined boundaries between different feminist thought, the broadest of which are described as "waves", and then you have narrower categories like radical feminism, intersectionalist feminism, sex-positive feminism, etc. These aren't names for different beliefs that individuals within the movement have, they are actual distinctions within the umbrella of feminism. What your argument is suggesting is that if an individual within a group is also a member of another group (like…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/13 03:16 AM
5

"Subsets in thinking" aren't the same as different movements or brands of red pill. To be a different movement there needs to be a clearly defined boundary between where one movement ends and another begins. What you are describing is different interpretations of red pill from individuals, but that doesn't mean that the philosophy of red pill has been formally altered or expanded in any way.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/13 02:09 AM
3

Ok fair enough. I technically would have raped her had I continued. Yeah, as per your discussion above, your actions would have fulfilled the requirements for rape. But therein lies the problem. Whether or not a rape occurred should not be decided on whether or not the woman feels bad about it the next day, in any circumstance. That opens the door for consensual sex being turned into rape because the woman regrets it the next day. But whether she feels bad about it is irrelevant. We're talking a…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/13 01:00 AM
4

BUT, they also say that a man shouldn't be entering into an LTR. TRP believes marriage, or any long term commitment is a no go, while RPW strives to make themselves into the women that "alphas" want to settle down with." I'd say that's two different perspectives. As far as I understood from discussions with red pillers here who have corrected me, TRP isn't against marriage (hence why there are married red pillers) and even a couple of people in this very thread have complained that it's a misrep…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/13 12:57 AM
2

We didn't discuss it before hand. But we both don't consider it rape. That's the grey area. It's not really grey area though as, if you had continued, it would have met the technical definitions for rape. All that remains was whether your wife felt like she would have retracted consent in those circumstances (or at least would have wanted the opportunity to do so). Basically, it's not a "grey area", it's enough to be considered rape depending on whether there was a victim or not. No. Given the i…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/13 12:51 AM
7

Want to expand on that?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/13 12:48 AM
4

So you're saying there's only one kind of red pill? I may be misunderstanding so I'm looking for clarification. As far as I've ever seen or heard there has only been one red pill philosophy. I'm definitely interested in hearing more. It seems like that statement might be a little off especially considering how much TRP and RPW are derided in TBP for being complete opposite spectrums and having complete opposite goals from one another. I'm not sure what you mean? TRP and RPW, from my understandin…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/13 12:47 AM
6

l don't think there's any gray area there. If your partner says you can finish if she falls asleep then you have consent and it can't be rape. This is true in a one night stand as well. However, continuing to have sex with an unconscious person on the assumption that consent will just magically carry over would meet the basic requirements for rape, especially when that person wakes up later and is angry at your actions. The point being that, given the information provided, Soft Harem raped someo…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/13 11:23 PM
12

...in the same way that I can find feminists who think porn is okay, and feminists who think porn is oppressive. And if there was only one kind of feminism (like there's only one kind of red pill), e.g. sex positive feminism, that claimed that porn was both good and bad, you'd be making a great point! Threads framed the way this one is framed are a waste of everyone's time. Except they're not, you've already (albeit reluctantly) added some content to the discussion. From what I've gleaned from y…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/13 09:49 PM
10

Stating it the way it has been stated is pointless for the same reason that a post like, "why do feminists hate men so much!" is pointless. Feminists will come in and say, "we don't, actually." And anti-feminists will come in and say, "it's because they're ugly and bitter" But that makes no sense. This is the impression everybody gets from red pill - that they view promiscuity in women to be a negative thing and that they also want to sleep with a lot of women. Honestly, I'm surprised that you t…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/13 09:36 PM
22

Why don't you tell us what you believe, OP. Not about TRP, but about promiscuity. Then, people from TRP (if they even disagree with you) can argue their position? Stating an affirmative position would be pointless. Then the thread would essentially just be a discussion about what the OP believes, which is irrelevant to debating what red pill believes. If you think a position is misinformed, then reply by stating how it's misinformed. Present evidence from red pill material, introductory essays, …
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/13 09:07 PM
7

I don't get it, if she fell asleep during the act, the consent must have been there. Think of it this way: consent isn't a thing that extends into the future. It's given for a specified act and it can be retracted at any point at all for any reason whatsoever. If I am having sex with someone and, for example, I bash my head on the wall and pass out - I do not give consent to someone having sex with my unconscious body. I expect them to try to wake me and call for an ambulance if I don't wake. I …
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/13 09:04 PM
2

I don't understand the purpose of this thread as I can't find the previous threads which supposedly have leading questions. I also assume that there is sarcasm included there since I wouldn't think many red pillers accept that transsexuals are perfectly normal.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/13 12:38 AM
2

It looks like anal_pro_laps' account has been deleted so I can't find his comment. The second comments are here: http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/1al73o/rape_murder_analogy_i_posted_in_another_thread_i/c8ylira?context=3 And the last comment has been deleted as well, ghost thread here: http://np.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/1hyaws/what_being_force_fed_affirmed_consent_made_me/caz7ofx
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/13 06:30 AM
1

I think most of the comments were deleted, but I'll see if I can find them.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/13 06:23 AM
3

The clearest examples are these ones: "Just one night you have to ignore her objections, that rational voice in the back of your mind that tells you to actually consider her feelings" [Double hit]"Husbands cannot rape their wives" and "Verbal resistance is a shit test and one that I have crushed multiple times with multiple women". "Then you have guys like me who openly don't believe in spousal rape... I don`t go a night without sex unless I decide I want one. I have the respect, loyalty and adm…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/13 04:22 AM
2

Well, if it helps, Dana argued earlier today that women shouldn't be allowed to vote.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/13 12:35 PM
5

The eyeroll came much later.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/13 06:45 AM
4

No. The answers you gave were answers.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/13 06:17 AM
2

Age implies maturity. Which nicely dodges the actual question asked. If you date older people because they're more mature and satisfy other requirements of a relationship, then say so. There is no way that can be assumed in a discussion on whether someone who looks for child-like qualities in a relationship dates older people for reasons other than to avoid legal consequences. Your conclusions, even if I state an age range is "If you don't state specifics about your preferences with your stated …
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/13 06:15 AM
5

I reached my conclusion based on the responses you made. It was the only possible logical conclusion.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/13 06:05 AM
4

You did engage, you just didn't engage in any meaningful way to suggest that the implication was unfounded, absurd, or unthinkable. If someone asked me what the difference is between my preferred relationship setup and dating a child, I would be able to explain in great detail with a multitude of reasons why such a comparison is untenable. I would not simply give my preferred age range.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/13 05:56 AM
4

Haha, I still don't know if you're serious or not. No, I'm not going to correct my statement that TRP is a subreddit filled with angry men. The existence of multiple women posting within that subreddit doesn't make my statement untrue nor does it imply that you are a man. TRP is a subreddit filled with angry men.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/13 05:13 AM
2

As part of my line of questioning yes because that was the only possible conclusion from the answers you were giving.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/13 05:11 AM
5

Does it really need to be said? Age preference is 23-26, as I'd stated. I do not desire children. I've dated down to 18 within the last several years and they're too young for me, even as legal adults, which dismisses minors entirely. Your angle is intended to aggravate and not to have any constructive discourse. I also do not desire to kill, rape, steal, lie, etc. I make every attempt to be a constructive member of society. My question wasn't to aggravate, it was entirely serious and I became c…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/13 05:09 AM
5

In other words, you can't find me actually accusing him of being a pedophile? The comment above is only stating the necessary conclusion from the statements he has made - the point was for him to actually raise arguments against that position and demonstrate that he doesn't have a thing for kids. He chose not to do so. I am a female. You will not misgender me again. You have warned. I hope this is serious. Again, keep your strawmen to yourself.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/13 04:34 AM
4

My comments preceding your accusations were clearly jokes. Whether they were intended as jokes or not doesn't change the fact that you couldn't (or wouldn't) answer the questions I was putting to you. You decided to be antagonistic in your responses. There was nothing antagonistic in my responses to you. You just didn't like the implications and so became a little emotional and defensive. I would remind you from the multiple exchanges we have had that I have not once been rude with you or spoken…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/13 04:31 AM
2

All of the current evidence strongly suggests that it doesn't cause aggression. As for libido, it might, I don't know - that's why I asked for evidence. At the moment I can make a guess based on anecdotes but if I do that then I risk making the same mistake people did when they formed the myth that testosterone increases aggression. The placebo effect is powerful.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/13 03:42 AM
7

I'm not sure I quite understand what you hope you achieve with your comment here. Do I view myself as having the "moral high ground" in discussions on red pill? Of course. Me spending an afternoon winding up a guy over the fact that he couldn't justify not wanting to date children was simply funny. There was no accusation that he was a pedophile so you can keep those strawmen to yourself. All I did was ask him why, if he enjoyed dating people that he could scold and order about like a child, why…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/13 03:40 AM
3

Already proved to be backhanded, snarked and false. Not proved at all, only asserted as a way to dodge contradicting facts. Besides, If we are to go on the metric you gave, if any post actually giving praise to TRPers then you are praising TRPers as whole. How does that make sense? TBP criticises the overall behavior of red pillers in the sub, not exceptions. If any posts in TBP is some thing uncalled for and it reflects the sub as a whole and for that RPW itself, a sub made of people in a certa…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/13 03:24 AM
3

Why bother being thought police the censoring people Calling for consequences to actions and statements is not "thought police" or "censorship", in any reasonable world. If it is, then why are you acting as the thought police by trying to censor /u/Canned_Wine199's comment by disagreeing with it? for the sake of a 'parody' sub that claims moral high ground while engaging the in the same actions either by joke or not. Not everyone is here on the planet to please you or anyone else. ...I'm not sur…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/13 01:35 AM
7

Even accepting your example as an example of "racism", that's not at all comparable to the situation we have here. You had to track back 3 months, searching outside of TBP, to find one tenuous example of possible racism from a single member of TBP. If it were the case that one red piller, outside of TRP, made a sexist comment a few months ago, I would be right with you in calling people idiots for suggesting there is a misogynistic streak in TRP. But that's not the case. You have highly upvoted …
/r/PurplePillDebate28/11/13 01:28 AM
2

Okay, I was just under the impression that such arguments were no longer allowed as that's the type of response that pissed of Pizza and RPS and led to this rule.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/13 07:56 PM
2

But what if the information is wrong because of the age? Suppose l tried to refute a claim that women use texting to cheat on their partners and I link to a study from the 90's that showed very few women did that. If my opponent can't find any other study on it, does that mean they have to accept my evidence?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/13 07:42 PM
2

Even accepting the validity of every statement you've made, l don't see how it's relevant. You've simply shown examples of biological factors that influence the development of gender. Since the social constructionist view explicitly accepts the existence and importance of these factors, l don't see why you think they would be a problem. To refute the social constructionist view you need to demonstrate that culture has no effect on gender at all.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/13 07:35 PM
2

No more complaining about a source being too old or too pop-psychology. If someone's article presents false information, find a way to disprove it based on actual data, not just based on the source magazine/website/journal's characteristics. I've been thinking about this some more and I was hoping that the mods could give me some feedback on their thought processes. My question is basically: is the age of an article the only threat to external validity that we're no longer allowed to bring up or…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/13 07:27 AM
2

One thing I'd like to add here is that "ties to white nationalism" imo wouldn't really be necessary to bring up at all. A way that will make your point look more credible is to concentrate on debunking the actual science/study/article with better information. Saying that a source is invalid because of the author's credentials alone or because the study was done by a "questionable" organization isn't a good critique unless there is hard evidence to back up your claims. Part of the problem is that…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/13 07:24 AM
7

Are you fucking kidding me? It is abundantly clear that there were some major misunderstandings here, and I have zero desire to work out those details. I can only work with what you have written on the screen. If the words you use aren't the ones you mean then that's fine, clarify what you actually meant. I can't read your mind. This is like a Christian vs atheist debate It really is. I ask for evidence for specific claims and you keep moving the goalposts, playing with semantics, and just gener…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/13 07:15 AM
7

this is not a placebo effect How would you know?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/13 07:10 AM
6

Evidence?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/13 07:00 AM
4

He was arguing against a point that I apparently completely unwittingly made. I guess I said the only reason men and women have cognitive differences is this one specific area of the brain. No I'm not. I seriously don't know whether you keep presenting this strawman because you really believe it or whether you are intentionally misrepresenting me. There are only so many ways I can explain this to you. The initial claim was that the idea women are less logical than men is pseudoscience. You claim…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/13 07:00 AM
5

I've never claimed that your second link is pseudoscience. In fact, if we go back to my reply to you linking the article, I even explicitly say: The idea that there are differences is not pseudoscience (although, the tenuous link between brain and behavior discussed in that article is a little concerning, which isn't overly surprising for a pop-science article).
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/13 06:56 AM
5

The second link doesn't link to any research, it just makes weasel word statements like "Studies show" or "Researchers found" etc, but since they don't mention any actual articles there is no way for me to assess their claims. The article even concludes by saying that there is a huge amount of overlap in men and women, making any claim about women being "less logical" very difficult to support based on their conclusion.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/13 06:55 AM
1

Maybe. I was thinking more along the lines of anytime blame is assigned, it's called slut-shaming, victim-blaming, internalized misogyny etc.. I'm not quite sure what you mean - how does "responsibility" fit into any of those things? For example, how can a woman take responsibility for being blamed for her rape? I also don't think slut shaming and victim blaming, as concepts, are necessarily feminist. An example might be the recent situation where a woman received oral sex in public, and after s…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/13 06:49 AM
4

No problem, I thought there may have been a crossed wire somewhere.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/13 06:38 AM
2

I re-read the thread and I can't find me saying that anywhere. I can see /u/polyhooly saying that about the "anti-feminists", but not me.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/13 03:47 AM
1

I've already stated the arguments I've seen, and you've already stated that no "real feminist" would say that. If you would like to quote me saying that, I'd much appreciate it. Looking above, I can only see where I ask you if it's possible that you were talking to individuals who weren't representative of the philosophy or whether it was possible you misunderstood their arguments. If you think that the people you talked to were representative of feminism as a philosophy, then it shouldn't be ha…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/13 03:26 AM
4

Okay... well, I mean I've produced a couple of sources backing up what I've said that you choose to ignore. Where have I ignored them? I responded in great detail to all of them. You keep saying I need to find sources to back up what I'm saying. You want me to google a few more? If you've provided a link to studies showing that men are more logical than women, or that women use more of their brains when processing speech, or that women are more intuitive, or that men tend to listen for informati…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/13 03:22 AM
3

I haven't argued that. You haven't presented any statements from claimed feminists for me to deny or accept whether they are feminists.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/13 03:05 AM
2

Feminists challenging benevolent sexism and the advantages that come along with that, and fighting for the right to join the army or work in coal mines would surely satisfy "taking more responsibility"?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/13 02:41 AM
1

Why would I argue that a feminist organisation wasn't "really feminist"?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/13 02:38 AM
5

Men are more mathematical. Are they? The existence of stereotype threat would disagree. Emotion is not logical. I'm not sure that's true. Many psychologists today would argue that it is actually physically impossible to be logical without being emotional, which is why Damasio's somatic marker hypothesis is currently widely accepted. I also wouldn't agree that men are less emotional than women, and there is some reason to think that it's not true. Language skills are based more in expressing emot…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/13 02:36 AM
1

Feminism is an umbrella term encompassing many schools of thought. There is not just one version of feminism and that's it. Which wave would you consider to be the one you agree with? If someone claims to be a feminist that doesn't automatically tell me exactly what they believe. Sure there are many generations, but there are commonalities amongst them all and they all agree on some things definitely not falling within their philosophy (hence why it's possible to talk of feminism as an umbrella …
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/13 02:16 AM
16

If you doubt my anecdotal experience either go find more anecdotal experience on youtube at your neighborhood gym or make your own anecdotal experience by adding more testosterone to your system. You misunderstand. I am not rejecting your anecdotal experience, I am rejecting all anecdotal experiences. They're meaningless. Useless. Irrelevant. Find your own data on testosterone and behavior, I challenge you to provide one study that says that testosterone makes you feel calm and at ease. There's …
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/13 02:12 AM
2

Anything's possible I guess, but it seems like a stretch to me.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/13 02:00 AM
10

I'm not sure that article really helps you, as the main author discussed in that paper and his work conclude the opposite: We are not convinced, however, by the claim that previous studies provide evidence for the hypothesis that testosterone causes aggressive motivations in men. and In summary, although there is some evidence suggesting a role for endogenous testosterone levels in physical and non-physical forms of aggression, results are conflicting and inconclusive. In addition, there is no e…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/13 01:59 AM
12

You won't hear just feminists say that, you'll hear all relevant scientists say it because gender is a social construct. Gender and sex aren't the same thing though, and gender being socially constructed does not mean that biology doesn't influence it.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/11/13 01:50 AM
3

Is it possible that you've either met people who don't understand feminism and are thus hugely unrepresentative of the philosophy, or that you might have met actual feminists but misunderstood what they were saying? I suggest the latter because many times I'll see a discussion between a feminist and non-feminist, and the feminist will describe the concept of patriarchy and the non-feminist will come away thinking that the feminist has argued all of the society's problems are caused by men (when …
/r/PurplePillDebate26/11/13 10:33 PM
5

Sure, but I'm still interested in support for the claim that women are less logical or rational than men, which is what the discussion was about.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/11/13 10:31 PM
19

You think testosterone has a placebo problem? I don't "think", it's a well-documented issue. Just think back to how everyone used to believe that testosterone made people aggressive, it wasn't even that long ago that that particular myth was hugely popular. LOL I gained 30 pounds in two months. I had diamond erections. My joints felt loose and lubricated I couldn't get tired. I was always hungry. I was referring specifically to the placebo effects on behavior, but physiological reactions are bey…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/11/13 10:30 PM
10

That was interesting, especially this bit: Ira Glass: What are some of the misconceptions you run into? James Dabbs: Well, they think it makes them manly, and heroic, and virile, and sexual, and-- which is not really true. It doesn't take much testosterone to have sex. So that's sort of beside the point. Ira Glass: What scientific studies can tell us is that in general, more testosterone does not mean you're a more successful person. In fact, blue-collar workers tend to have more testosterone th…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/11/13 10:27 PM
5

I literally never said anything about those types being anti-science. You don't think this: "There's no use debating anyone who tries to refute years of scientific research because they don't like the conclusions" is someone who is being anti-science? How would you define "anti-science", other than someone who refutes years of scientific research because they don't like the conclusions. And did you not read that article? Did I post the wrong one or something? I found several that clearly state t…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/11/13 10:16 PM
0

If you believe the "patriarchy" is a thing, you are a feminist. That's not true. "Patriarchy" is a scientific term and so any scientist in a related field (sociology, anthropology, psychology, etc) will accept it as valid but obviously not all of those scientists are necessarily feminists. "Rape culture" says it's normal for women to be disrespected in public and so no one does anything about it. That's not what rape culture suggests. Rape culture suggests that there are elements within a given …
/r/PurplePillDebate26/11/13 09:59 PM
2

IMO I think you are misinterpreting the first citing. I don't see him saying spousal rape is okay. But I never said that he said "spousal rape is okay". I said: "the idea sometimes suggested on TRP that marriage should imply constant consent". In that linked comment, he explicitly says that marriages without that constant consent are meaningless and cannot be taken seriously. He is advocating that you shouldn't get married so that you don't have that financial penalty affecting your decision to …
/r/PurplePillDebate26/11/13 09:41 PM
5

http://m.livescience.com/20011-brain-cognition-gender-differences.html That source doesn't say anything about being logical or the differences in the corpus callosum and its supposed effects on behavior though. I can't link to more than one source at a time on my phone, but the point is that there is evidence of differences. Of course. Every person in this discussion accepts that there are differences. The debate is over: a) what these differences are, and b) whether these differences are innate…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/11/13 09:34 PM
16

Much of Feminists/Bluepiller's, rhetoric stems from the assumption that all behavior (especially gendered) is learned. I don't think anyone believes this. There may be someone out there that does but I do know that in every thread where it has been claimed that blue pillers believe it, every blue piller who has responded has explicitly stated that they don't. Your body is now in overdrive. With all of those extra calories you have way more energy. Your workouts become better. You want to meet pe…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/11/13 09:26 PM
2

You don't have to accept my view, but you should certainly evaluate a paper critically, which you are not doing here. This paper has serious flaws. Let's look at some more. I've had a busy few days but I'm interested in hearing your objective critical analysis of this paper and those horrible flaws in it. Notice Figure 2 on page 719. In the 90's there are about 14 people hired per year to 5 orchestras collectively. We are dealing with a very low percentage career. Sure, but this is of course irr…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/11/13 01:20 PM
7

Firstly, (again) nobody is claiming that physical differences have to be only physical, so I don't understand why you would spend any time at all arguing against that. Secondly, you said: "Our brains are constructed differently. Men's brains are physically better suited to zoning in on issues and taking emotion out of decision making" and then "If you prefer not to take note of actual proven physical differences between the male and female brain or choose not to acknowledge that those physical d…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/11/13 12:45 PM
3

When you say men (as a group) have the power, exactly what power do we (as a group) have? Societal power, meaning that many institutions and norms are set up to work in favour of men. For example, the norm suggesting that men are harder workers, smarter, more logical, etc, results in men getting paid more than women. It also results in traditional male jobs as being valued more (both in respect and financially), which is why when men leave a profession, the average wage decreases. TRP is accused…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/11/13 05:29 AM
3

You've misunderstood intersectionality. Lacking privilege in one area does not mean that you suddenly lose the privilege you do have - for example, being black (thus lacking white privilege) does not mean that you suddenly stop being seen and treated as a man. Importantly, intersectionality doesn't really apply to TRP (definitely not as a whole) as its userbase is generally extremely privileged across all axes. They are young, white, educated males from middle to upper class incomes. Bigotry req…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/11/13 04:53 AM
4

The Red Pill is admittedly a work in progress still going through the growing pains of having a coherent theory. Lots of theories are still being proposed. Some admittedly worse than others. Just like any conceptual theory. There is no problem with trying to describe RP as a conceptual framework, that's fine if that's how you want to view it. But the comparisons to actual scientific theories are hugely inaccurate. Yes, conceptual theories go through stages of assessments, adjustments and modific…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/11/13 04:19 AM
5

Except that I'm not trying to prove anything. But you literally stated that those brain differences cause cognitive/behavioral differences between men and women, and you accused anyone of not believing in these "actual proven physical differences between the male and female brain" as being unworthy to talk to because they were rejecting science... You were making very, very strong claims. And that's fine, if you think you're right and you're confident in your position then you should make strong…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/11/13 03:59 AM
2

There is a good example here from RPS: Of course the problem is we'd never advocate raping a woman. The reason why our member was arguing that spousal rape isn't real is simple: Based on the contracts that made marriage a thing back in the day- spousal rape really couldn't exist. Obviously in today's legal atmosphere, spousal rape does exist in the legal sense, which is one of the core reasons we feel that marriage in itself has lost meaning. As a man, and I think I speak for the majority on the…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/11/13 03:51 AM
10

There is a lot we don't understand about the human brain, and I didn't claim that physical differences are 100% proof that women are less logical. But what I'm saying is: 1) the actual neurological evidence doesn't support the claim you were making (either empirically or theoretically), and 2) even if it did, it still wouldn't even be convincing evidence that a difference exists. I certainly don't believe in discounting the possibility that the physical differences between men and women don't le…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/11/13 02:57 AM
4

The Red Pill is simply a concept made up of empirical observations. Concepts aren't supported by evidence or "true" in any objective way - they are simply useful descriptions to base our framework of knowledge on to. Even if you want to compare RP to the patriarchy as a framework of knowledge, you don't escape the fact that RP undeniably makes testable empirical claims. Such claims need to be evidenced. If your framework for understanding the world makes empirical claims that aren't supported by…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/11/13 02:37 AM
9

Women have more connective tissue between the hemispheres of the brain. I assume that you're referring to the corpus callosum? If so, the belief that there are significant differences between men and women is not really accepted any more (good papers on the topic here and here). More problematically, even when there was believed to be a difference between the two, the difference went the opposite way to what you're suggesting - where scientists previously believed that men had the large corpus c…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/11/13 02:34 AM
1

Patriarchy is science because feminism. You see how this circular logic works? I've never made that claim or anything like it though, so I don't know what your point is supposed to be here. Please try again but first read what has been written above. Feminism is science because rape-culture! Nobody has claimed that feminism is science. Please try again but first read what has been written above. Where the magic quality "science" is supposed to somehow buy you some credibility where you have NONE…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/11/13 09:57 PM
1

You don't even know where the term "rape culture" comes from, and you're busy telling everyone it's a scientific term. Yes I do, you're the one who doesn't. You thought that it was originally applied to prison rape amongst male inmates. It comes from the film "Rape Culture)" which defines the term as science does now (as a cultural normalisation of rape in men and women). The study into its existence in prison populations was an application of the idea, not the idea itself. Feminist hamstering i…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/11/13 09:54 PM
1

I'm sorry but no. You're not a psychologist. You're not a scientist. Well damn, how the fuck did I sneak into this office and get my name on the door? What should I do, continue pretending that I work here or just quietly leave and hope nobody notices? You're a post-modernist college student and Noam Chomsky is making fun of you. Why are you conflating post modernism with sociology? Even if I were a sociologist or college student, why the fuck would I care what Chomsky thought of me or my field?…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/11/13 09:50 PM
1

Redpillschool argues (as I state above) that the concept of marriage should be changed to imply constant consent.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/11/13 09:31 PM
1

Did you really just claim that psychologists are with you sociologist lunatics on the whole patriarchy bandwagon? I'm a psychologist, not a sociologist, and yes, the concept of patriarchy is accepted in psychology. The problem with your entire argument is that (feminist) sociologists have taken words out of the collective lexicon and redefined them in such a way that when they use them people think they mean one thing when they really mean another. As scientists often do, yes. I always wonder wh…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/11/13 09:30 PM
1

I showed that it is defined as a science, it is categorised as a science by the major academic institutions around the world, and that it routinely uses the scientific methods in its investigations. At no point does my argument reduce down to "this is undeniably science because patriarchy". What more could you possibly want?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/11/13 09:24 PM
1

I see you fail to support your position in any way whatsoever.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/11/13 09:23 PM
5

No the adjusted gap is when all factors are accounted for and that's why it's consistent with experimental evidence (which allows us to make causal claims) that shows that the difference is due to the treatment of men vs women. These types of discussion always seem to be a red herring to me though. We can debate every single percentage point if we like but the end result is that a significant fraction is due to discrimination. That much cannot be denied given current evidence.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/13 06:23 AM
1

That's the claim that needs evidence. When asked for evidence, we tend to get anecdotes or links to research on the dark triad traits that red pillers have misunderstood.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/13 05:14 AM
5

Well l don't think it's the smallest factor by any stretch of the imagination - direct discrimination alone accounts for around a quarter to a half of the entire unadjusted gap. It's also largely discussed because: 1) non-discriminatory factors are irrelevant (as nobody is being treated unfairly), and 2) they are incredibly easy to fix and eliminate. There is literally no valid reason for the adjusted gap to exist.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/13 01:50 AM
5

I don't think there's anything controversial about suggesting that the gap is shrinking, but the figure l indicate above is from studies done within the last ten years so it is reasonably accurate.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/13 01:32 AM
7

You're confusing the unadjusted wage gap with the adjusted wage gap. The latter is what equality movements discuss and it accounts for the other factors you discuss (career choice, hours worked, etc) and all that's left is pure discrimination. In other words, when we look at people in the same career, working the same hours with the same qualifications etc, there is a gap of around 5-10% which can only be explained by direct discrimination. And as discussed in this thread, it's fallacious to int…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/13 11:08 PM
1

Done.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/13 01:23 AM
2

Well then I would suggest you explain yourself and ask questions better. Or just ask questions better. You might get better results than with all this anger and comparison to hate groups. I would suggest that maybe you take a few minutes to read a discussion before jumping into it. Wrong... The following comment was in regards to a relationship that someone has: ]SpermJackalope 6 points 1 hour ago (7|1) He has her text him from work to see if she can eat a piece of cake on a coworker's birthday.…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/13 07:19 AM
2

I'm referring to the idea sometimes suggested on TRP that marriage should imply constant consent, so that it can never be rape when you're married because they 'consented' when you got married.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/13 07:08 AM
1

I was replying to the claim that women are innately attracted to sociopaths. As for them being attracted to alphas, that may be true but as red pillers told me in another thread, there is no set definition of alpha - it can mean whatever you want it to mean. So the claim becomes meaningless and unfalsifiable.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/13 07:06 AM
1

Thanks for the link, I appreciate some kind of figure being applied here - although I'm not sure it really helps us a whole lot. Firstly it's a shame that the relevant figure seems to be a dead link so I can't see what the actual numbers are, but importantly simplepill's claim was that it was difficult to find a job with a liberal arts degree. Showing evidence that people may be slightly better off in a STEM field doesn't support such a claim. On your last point though: I think those two factors…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/13 07:06 AM
1

To come at it from "their" perspective, this would be addressed by enforcing a structure, having rules and boundaries, and displaying consistent value and support for your partner. Establishing agreed roles and providing for one another's needs. Being the defined and recognized leader, and never being afraid to walk away if the structure is not followed sufficiently. Also, not for a single moment being a doormat or enduring unnecessary emotional outbursts. And if that's how they personally want …
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/13 04:03 AM
1

But they do care, that's why they always get so emotional and upset when people describe precisely how TRP presents itself to the rest of the world. Try suggesting that their positions sound like they're promoting spousal rape and you'll have their mods doing weekly updates defending their position and jumping in to threads on spousal rape demanding that people stop talking about it.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/13 04:01 AM
3

It may be common knowledge, I don't know, it seems like a claim that requires evidence though. More importantly, he never claimed that STEM fields are more in demand. He claimed that liberal arts degrees aren't going to land a lot of jobs - that's a different claim. Even if STEM fields are more in demand it doesn't necessarily follow that there aren't many jobs for liberal arts majors. I'm pretty sure that the reason he has stopped responding is because he can't support the claims he's making.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/13 03:56 AM
2

Why bother? It's how they feel as the individual. Other viewpoints were expressed by other posts. Why bother? Because this discussion is about red pillers who are tired of people "misrepresenting" them and I suggested that if you don't like the image people have of TRP, then they should make an effort to publicly counter such beliefs. If you aren't concerned with the public image then my comments have nothing to do with you. Perhaps we just don't get so worked up over correcting and just offer o…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/13 03:54 AM
1

For someone who claims to be a skeptic you certainly do take at face value everything that seems to support your position. The authors have an agenda and make sure their paper fits that agenda. Ah, I see. So I'm not a skeptic because I don't accept your completely speculative and unevidenced belief that the authors are part of some grand conspiracy? Gotcha. Table 4 is where to real data is. Table 5 is a non-controlled data analysis completed after the fact. Read Table 4. The all negative signs i…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/13 03:42 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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