TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

redwhiskeredbubul Archive

View 4 posts and 131 comments by redwhiskeredbubul on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

Can't say for sure about that comment thread, but perhaps folks just decided not to feed the trolls? That doesn't really make sense, though. You can just leave one 'stop it' comment and then drop it, at least. I mean, sexism is a two-way street, right? And it really costs very little to say something about it. Whereas when you resist the idea that it might be worth it to do that it does look needlessly contentious. I mean, I am honestly not trying to paint you out as sexists here, and I get that…
/r/MensRights09/09/14 10:58 PM
1

I honestly have no idea whether he is or not, but it's an assumption most people would make in that context. So why not say something to the effect of, 'this is over the line' in such a situation, out of prudence?
/r/MensRights09/09/14 09:26 PM
1

They'll see that we police our own You don't always police them very well, though. I think the comment thread here is somewhat representative: you have the semblance of a good conversation and then this guy busting in making unambiguously misogynistic comments to the author. I mean this stuff hurts your credbility--why not just tell him, 'you're being rude and stupid'?
/r/MensRights09/09/14 05:32 PM
1

I'm not sure I see why this is a bigger outrage than the extreme and irrational forms of shaming and punishment of sex offenders seen elsewhere in the video. If you watch the whole thing, you'll see she is, for example, legally prohibited from even possessing photographs of her own children. Many of the conditions for men convicted of sex offenses described elsewhere here are considerably worse--one interviewee describes attempting to amputate his own penis and testes with a wire while in prison…
/r/MensRights10/08/14 04:19 PM
2

See, the thing that's shitty about this is that you're hiding behind your own sub and a bunch of mitigating generalizations say it. For example, I could call you a thirsty rapist with a syphilis-rotted cock hypothetically. and not really have to take responsibility for it.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/14 09:33 PM
1

Let me explain why it took you nine paragraphs of cnnvoluted deduction, anecdote, and speculation to arrive at your position. You are overgeneralizing wildly and forcing conclusions. Not all people on TBP have been in bad relationships. For that matter, not all people on TBP are women. Morover, not all bad relationships are the same, or happen because of the same impulses on the part of the person who gets into them. There is also an element of chance to it. Finally, not everybody who gets out o…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/14 06:49 AM
2

In direct response. Yes, I done seen it. Your qualifications can go way higher than you think (I dated an ex-fashion model once) but they don't go up infinitely. And no, that's petty resentment.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/03/14 11:21 PM
5

You do know you didn't give one particle of advice on how to attract a woman, right? Okay, I'm going to fill you in here. I'm a man. I'm bi. I am thus allegedly a sexbeast, but that's a topic for a different conversation and a different sub. I get approaches from men. And women. I see both sides. First of all, everything you suspect about the relative value of men as compared to women is true. Guys have to bow and scrape to find a woman, compared to finding another guy. It sucks! Second, as a gu…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/03/14 11:08 PM
2

Not to get into a digression, but I think the voting system and groupthink on reddit tend to cause the stinkiest shit to float to the top. That's why I think r/WTF is readable and r/adviceanimals or r/conspiracy make me want to gouge my eyes out. The better subs are the small ones but they're dispersed randomly among crap.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/02/14 01:16 AM
4

It's seriously just a comedy sub. Because the format's a circlejerk, the material is good to talk about, and posting requires a degree of effort, I think people are generally nicer to each other and maintain a higher level of discussion on TBP than elsewhere on reddit. Of course, it's all because we have someone else to crap on, but TRP is objectively loathsome enough so that it's somewhat justifiable.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/02/14 12:32 AM
1

Ok, I'll bite. I've had terrible relationships where I wasn't respected and pretty good ones where I was. I never realized that I wasn't respected in the terrible one until years after the fact, and it didn't 'feel like' anything, if you mean for example being bullied or put down: the woman who disrespected me was very negativistic about life but basically thought quite highly of my intelligence and looks, at least in comparison to other people. I think respect is strictly a matter of the conseq…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/02/14 12:22 AM
1

Blue pill male here. No, and I'm on the fence, but probably not.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/02/14 12:10 AM
3

This is kind of a myth. Most of the studies I've seen (informal stuff, nb) show that the partner counts for gay and straight men are about the same. Extreme promiscuity has become a lot less common since the 80's, though it might be making a comeback.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/02/14 06:43 AM
1

There's a difference between, 'could this advice possibly help someone in any way' and 'is it a good thing that this exists.' I'd say yes to the former and no to the latter.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/14 06:47 PM
7

Yeah, t'was sarcasm.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/14 06:41 PM
3

Would you use a stranger as a human toilet or punch them in the face for no reason?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/14 06:34 PM
11

It's dysfunctional people rationalizing their bullshit in harmful ways in public. I really don't think there's enough of this that goes on already in the world.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/02/14 06:31 PM
1

There's a pretty simple rule for offensive jokes: you don't have to take it, but don't dish it out if you can't take it. (Watch Don Rickles some time--he's a great insult comic because he takes it.) I doubt TRP can follow this rule.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/14 07:25 PM
3

Yes. The norms I just elaborated, i.e. An unwanted pregnancy or a pregnancy that becomes unwanted mid-stream is the responsibility of both partners, and a child is entitled to financial support from both parents. Are fair.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/14 09:52 PM
3

I was making a normative statement. You turned it into a leaky factual generalization. It is possible for a woman to want an abortion and not get one. It happened rather frequently prior to 1972.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/14 08:56 PM
6

I think TRP has caught stories with glaring factual inconsistencies, as opposed to the stories about going home from the club in a hummer with multiple Brazilian HB10's for three-ways, which clearly happened.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/14 02:26 PM
5

What if both things fail to happen? It strikes me as unlikely in this scenario that only one side would file the paperwork. You're basically just asking that both sides make a declaration of responsibility during the pregnancy.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/14 06:34 AM
4

Right, but if everybody was that prudent or lucky, we wouldn't need social services in the first place for many things. Also, like was said elsewhere in this thread, in many places you cannot get a late-term abortion, and if the father changes his mind late you are stuck.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/14 04:25 AM
7

That is insanely punitive, especially towards the kid.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/14 04:10 AM
5

If you're not thinking of ways to keep men living with the women they have kids with, marrying each other and raising their kids together, you're not thinking of solutions. There are massive campaigns in low-income communities about the responsibilities of fathers from social services, churches, etc. That's why the fathers' rights movement is also a fathers' rights and responsibilities movement. It would only come up for a social worker if a father was seeing a social worker for another reason a…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/14 04:06 AM
1

I would be totally for child support reform. Have a system in place where the mother has to provide an accounting of how the money was spent on a monthly/weekly/semiannual/whatever basis to the courts. These records would be made available to the father as requested. Would it be a pain in the ass for the mom? Sure. But it's worth it for the support for her kid (and would require some mindfulness about budgeting and spending). If the dad has to be required to pay money for the child's needs, then…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/14 03:59 AM
2

Oh, Krieger-san! (swoons)
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/14 01:54 AM
8

An unwanted pregnancy or a pregnancy that becomes unwanted mid-stream is the responsibility of both partners, and a child is entitled to financial support from both parents. I do not see why this is brain surgery.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/02/14 01:47 AM
2

I think the stock answer is that a narcissist or a psychopath would also be less inhibited by moral qualms when looking at the questions on the test.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/02/14 01:42 AM
1

Narcissism 1.9 Machiavellianism 2.2 Psychopathy 2.1 Blue pill as hell, marginally higher than most people here. Okay.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/02/14 01:40 AM
5

Yeah, the results here seem to either a.) reflect something wrong with the test b.) indicate the context is bad or c.) that the test only catches people who are pathologically narcissistic or sociopathic outliers.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/02/14 01:38 AM
3

No, I've turned down my gf because I have personal boundaries. I'm not down for physical intimacy every damn moment of the day.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/02/14 01:57 PM
3

First of all, men always want sex. No? I'm a guy and I'm not always in the mood for sex. And I mean emotionally. The assumptions you're running off of here are bad because they imply it's always natural for men, as opposed to women, to initiate sex and because they imply that if a man doesn't want to initiate sex something is off.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/02/14 01:04 PM
3

I didn't mean morally. I just meant it was factually incorrect, i.e. sometimes people just don't want sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/02/14 12:29 PM
0

Yeah, but trying to change what I said as being the status quo is like pushing on a string.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/02/14 09:52 PM
1

I'm bi and live in NYC, so YMMV, but I think if you sleep with somebody expecting that to mean exclusivity, and haven't discussed that explicitly, that's kind of on you.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/02/14 09:45 PM
1

I've never had that kind of a conversation after a one-night-stand either. What's puzzling is the way you talk about it, not what you're doing.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/02/14 09:37 PM
4

See, contexts vary. I have literally never had a conversation like that on a first date. I've had conversations about whether or not I identify as queer and erotic hypnosis and Taiwanese funerals and my date having had her leg shattered by a London bus. But I have never had a long contractual conversation like that on a first date, or at all, for that matter.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/02/14 09:22 PM
3

Okay, so I was asked to post an opinion about the linked post, with no context, and if I see anything wrong with it. I don't, for the most part. But it's like asking me if I see anything immoral about a toaster. It's just a bunch of platitudes. 'Tell somebody if you're seeing somebody else.' Okay, but that's completely contextual. You don't have to tell somebody you're interested in somebody else also if you're on a first date with them. Whereas this is just wrong: Last time a girl told me she w…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/02/14 09:01 PM
2

Fine. Can you just explain to me what the topic is?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/02/14 08:12 PM
2

Why?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/02/14 08:00 PM
3

I can't even tell what you're attempting to discuss. You posted a blind link to two comments and said 'there couldn't possibly be anything wrong with this.' I filled in the context and you spent the remainder of your posts demanding I not do so rather than discussing my response. Can you just rephrase the question as a concrete, single thing, and ask me if I see a problem with that?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/02/14 07:52 PM
4

Is this like 'maintaining frame' or something?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/02/14 07:40 PM
6

I permalinked to the comment chain I was referring to. Instead of looking at the comments that I permalinked to, you looked at and critiqued the OP which is not the subject of this question. You looked at the OP for #3, as you clearly said: Okay, I saw this objection coming, because you neurotically specified 'just look at this isolated piece of evidence, don't look at this other stuff,' which is a dead giveaway that the objectionable stuff was in the other stuff, and, furthermore, that you know…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/02/14 06:50 PM
6

1.) Depending on the context, saying 'you'll sleep better after sex' is bargaining for sex. Poorly. See context below. 2.) Again, depending on the context, you are not required to explicitly disclose the fact that you are pursuing other people in the early stages of dating. 3.) Depending on how you do this, doing so is in fact manipulative. Texting someone else in her house while you were in bed with her five minutes earlier is not just the opposite of classy: it's rude and a blatant statement t…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/02/14 06:24 PM
2

The trouble with the concept of 'male shaming' is that it's not really well-defined. What exactly are we shaming here? Traditional masculinity? Men in general? What would be an instance of male shaming? What you give is an instance of gender discrimination (in the broad sense, I have no idea about the legalities) but not really shaming. Here's the thing. If you hire a babysitter with no explicit agreement about their gender, the guy shows up and is a guy, yeah, of course that's discrimination. Y…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/14 11:58 PM
1

Or women's nature is to be empty vessels that can be filled with whatever you like, at least their sexuality can be molded enough so as to be raised madonnas in one and whores in another age. Except that the men in Sade's novels are predatory and debased.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/02/14 10:42 PM
4

That's interesting, because to me the basic thing about masculinity is that you exercise responsibility over yourself and define your own rules. Chasing women isn't masculine because--well, you're being ruled by your dick, and you're at the mercy of other peoples' reactions, but apart from that, it involves irresponsible behavior.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/02/14 09:23 PM
5

I actually think TRP makes a lot of sense subjectively, which is why it bothers me and why I feel some empathy for it. There are double/impossible standards for men. Men often are disposable in the dating game. Women often are duplicitous. Much dating advice is useless. And so on.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/02/14 09:15 PM
2

Yes and no. I'm really intolerant of what I view as stupidity, which is probably a common liberal attitude and is pretty widely (and justifiably) seen as arrogant by conservatives. But at the same time, unless somebody is engaged in something massively and inhumanly amoral (responsible for the deaths of large numbers of people, etc.) I can usually empathize with them to some degree. They're people, after all.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/02/14 08:38 PM
6

I have difficulty dealing with blue pill men. In what way?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/02/14 08:04 PM
-1

Fact is, the male standard is more* attainable. To be a really hot guy, you basically just need to be tall, have nice features and be in shape. To be a hot woman by the conventional standard, your body fat needs to be taking its orders from Hugh Hefner. The female beauty standard is impossible and based on lies. It amazes me what most guys don't know about airbrushing, photography, makeup and camera work, and that the comic-book physique almost literally doesn't exist. For example, most guys hav…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/14 09:11 PM
19

It's a page on reddit. It's not going to keep accumulating subscribers at a geometric rate until it takes over the world. It'll max out eventually regardless of what we say. There's also the trainwreck factor. If we wanted to help y'all deal with your personal problems or, alternately, prevent you from sexually assaulting people, there would be no practical space in which to do it. But you're there, making them public, so it's a bit hard not to stare and point.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/02/14 07:25 AM
2

Right, but TRP sets this up as an issue of the relationship between Olly and women. I think it's more of an issue of the relationship between Olly and Alan.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/01/14 10:59 PM
2

Assuming standard-issue M-F couplings, each time people have sex, exactly one woman and one man are involved and one tick goes in each column. I fail to see how it could be otherwise.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/01/14 10:33 PM
3

Because monogamy and marriage are still the social norm. If people actually had sex simply based on inclination, in a social context where sex can be made relatively consequence-free and people run into interesting strangers all the time, it would be impossible to sustain either of those institutions and we'd probably also have to change our ideas about romantic love. The role of limiting the amount of sex people have still mostly falls on women and ideas about who wants sex are still pretty tra…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/01/14 04:21 PM
1

If you want to be successful with a 22-year-old, extremely attractive bar slut who’s going to go home with you that night, or the next night at the latest, and you’re not looking to get married ever, and you want to date six women just like this at once, none of whom will pressure you for commitment, you’ll be ten times more successful if you go at this with a Red Pill attitude, even though you might be turning off and chasing away other types of women. Likewise, if you turn that Red Pill stuff …
/r/PurplePillDebate31/01/14 06:14 AM
7

1.) Does TRP work for you? If so, great, I guess. 2.) If not, there is probably no way for you to sleep with attractive women. 3.) It's not that they won't just willingly sleep with men. It's that they won't sleep with you. That's probably because there are a lot of men more desirable than you. 4.) It might be due to something you can't change: your income/education, looks, height, etc. 5.) If so, the solution is to stop trying to sleep with hot women.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/01/14 05:45 AM
3

I didn't say they weren't entitled to it.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/01/14 01:54 AM
4

You recognize, you say, that TRP is also just a set of consoling notions that men use to pump each other for the dating game. You see, I don't believe that either. Why? Why would I lie about this? Because you want us to believe that you and your children are entitled to love. But nobody said anything about that. You were the one who decided that the point had to be made.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/01/14 07:38 PM
7

So this is going to be a little object lesson in psychoanalysis. I'll start by being a bit harsh. You can get compassion, or you can get a logical explanation of your world. You can't get both. This isn't because you suck, or you're a horrible person, or something like that. It's because the reality of the world is strictly indifferent. The moral fact that you, or your friend, went through horrible suffering, unfortunately, is of no consequence to how the world works in general. Here's the thing…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/01/14 06:53 PM
5

If you're at the place where you need a bunch of smoky mystical statements in order to convince yourself that a lot of the ideology on Reddit is bullshit, you should probably just get off the computer, get out of the house and read a book.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/01/14 05:56 PM
2

Yah. Maybe a less loaded/abstruse way of saying what I was trying to say: TRP seems to have a visceral sense of what racism is. SRS doesn't--it conflates black humor, genuine expressions of hatred, borderline stuff, etc.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/01/14 11:57 PM
1

Yes, and TRP is exactly the same way.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/01/14 11:40 PM
2

I kind of listed them above. The three main things are that 1.) SRS assumes that liberal norms about discussion and individual agency, on the one hand, and racism, on the other, are antithetical: I don't think they are. 2.)SRS doesn't have much of a sense of how racism or discrimination is part of a context (e.g. the US) 3.) SRS never really talks about class.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/01/14 11:29 PM
2

Ugh, I've been around here too long. I saw wall of text and SRS and assumed that it was a rant about getting banned. Sorry. Anyway, liberals generally do (or at least think they do) enjoy the weight of received opinion. It's not just a delusion, though.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/01/14 10:29 PM
2

Why do you care, though? Some people are defensive. There's no need to poke at it with a stick.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/01/14 10:18 PM
5

I guess I could through it and catalog it--there are a lot of things people miss in here: 1.) Race is an American obsession--there are race issues in other countries but they don't work in exactly the same way 2.) Race is historically relative and fluid (e.g. the not-white-Irish, Asians and whiteness) 3.) Race is about power, not vice versa 4.) liberals are structurally intolerant of non-liberals 5.) PC liberals often adopt this attitude to compensate 5.) PC liberals often adopt this attitude to…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/01/14 07:14 PM
6

I think this is an entirely legitimate and accurate criticism. In the abscence of any real knowledge about the person in question, leveling the accusation at a man that they're a virgin is pretty much the precise analogue to accusing a woman of being a slut. It's based on the same set of gender and sexual norms--that men want sex and women don't. The nuance is a little different, though. Put bluntly, a woman has to prove she's not a slut in order to demonstrate that she's not a whore. A man has …
/r/PurplePillDebate28/01/14 06:33 PM
3

TiA is one of the weirdest subs on reddit. There are LGBT people on there and MRA's and people who think the idea of social construction is a Jewish conspiracy. It's dedicated to being angry about 15 year-old queer kids in Arkansas being angry. They're also easily trolled. I've seen a social media profile for the person who claims to run one of the most notorious blogs on there and they're actually a very reasonable woman in their thirties who works in publishing in New York. I'm almost positive…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/01/14 01:58 AM
3

Except that the whole premise of the linked talk is that wearing a skirt doesn't make you a woman and that anal penetration doesn't necessarily make you gay. He actually talks about the latter example explicitly: at one point the attitude even among gay men was that getting anally penetrated made you gay. But that isn't true anymore.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/14 11:15 PM
0

I'm going to go out on a limb here. The barrier for guys to recognize same-sex desire is way, way higher but your attraction is a lot less likely to get dismissed if you admit it. There are also differences in how people define 'bi' and how people define 'gay.' That caller's topic is actually kind of a hornet's nest, and I think the point there is kind of how far the expectations around bi guys go. Especially if they're predominantly 'straight.'
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/14 10:33 PM
3

1.) Okay. What do you think it's saying? 2.) But that's kind of what I'm saying. Sure, straight guys don't literally explain their straightness to each other every time they meet. But certainly they do make a lot of jokes about it. Jokes about how they aren't gay.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/14 10:18 PM
5

Except that's not what he's saying. He's saying that life for straight men is hard. And that they need more support. And the point about homophobia isn't meant as some statement of superiority! Gay people can be homophobic too. It isn't even that rare.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/14 10:00 PM
3

Serious question: do you believe in the existence of a 'homosexual agenda'? Anyway, I'm not the one trying to identify any non-straight sexual identity as 'abnormal' here. That's on you.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/14 09:56 PM
6

There's a kind of 'sauce for the goose' approach to the writing on Jezebel sometimes that I'm not necessarily crazy about: it seems to just show that given the opportunity, women can be as superficial, randy, and inconsiderate as men. But it's not really in the service of any deeper attack on men, any more than Jezebel advocates that women should act like, y'know, Jezebel in the bible. I think you might be going at this in a way that's a bit literal-minded. One thing I always see is the SCUM man…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/14 09:52 PM
4

This isn't consistent. You've simultaneously argued that your sexual and gender identity is set in stone and not a choice, and that TRP is helping men to determine the content of their sexual and gender identity.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/14 09:41 PM
3

I thought that the point of TRP was that men and masculinity were under attack from feminism. Now you're dismissing the idea that there's any threat at all once I've inserted the word 'straight.' Which is it?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/14 09:31 PM
6

There's a background narrative of straight male desire, sure. But that doesn't necessarily help to make men feel more secure about their own desires or identity. Actually, it sets crazy imaginary standards which by definition most guys won't meet. That's not really the same thing as a supportive narrative for straight men.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/14 09:18 PM
4

I meant more that TRP is a response to that threat which most straight guys face, not that TRP is especially homophobic. There is homophobia on TRP, but not much more than you'd see in any other explicitly all-guy-not-gay space. People will say egregious stuff more often, but that's just because the atmos there allows it. It's funny because I see a parallel to TRP in the gay community, but in the opposite direction you do--there is the pressure to be 'masc' and it's not necessarily great to be a…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/14 09:10 PM
3

I don't see why the population figure matters very much in this instance. Gays and lesbians have become much more visible in the media and, depending on where you live, everyday life. There's a strong narrative coming out every day about how it's okay to be gay. There's no similar narrative about how it's okay to be straight. Gay and lesbian identity has a lot of specific and historically grounded content to it: there are academic books about it and novels, etc. Straight male identity is vague a…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/14 08:55 PM
5

Verbatim quote: "heterosexual male identity, ever since the beginning og the modern gay and lesbian civil rights movement, has really been kind of threatened and under siege, and straight guys have kind of been at sea." He goes on to list a bunch of examples about letters from straight guys worried that x thing makes them gay. That's the claim he's making.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/14 08:45 PM
1

Done.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/14 08:05 PM
1

On it.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/14 08:00 PM
13

Well, part of it is just my sense that most men who do have a lot of sexual partners are unlikely to kiss and tell. It's also because I think the advice on TRP and the stated goals basically run at cross-purposes to each other. It's also because I think a lot of what gets told on TRP is made up. But it's also because of what TRP makes sex into. Sex usually isn't just sex but also about something else. In the mainstream view, it's about love and intimacy. TRP has made sex into something about pow…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/14 10:05 PM
11

I mean the thing is, unless you all in TRP live in Scranton PA or something, you are not literally competing with each other for dates. What matters in all the talk on TRP is self-image, not actual success with women.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/14 09:15 PM
19

My point is that TRP people actually don't seem all that interested in sex, as in pleasure. They seem interested in sexual conquest. In a funny way, that's about relationships. But it's about your relationships with other men who you're trying to impress.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/14 09:06 PM
31

That is, with all due respect, bonkers. A fairly important part of sex for a women also takes place in and around the vicinity of her lady bits, and the 'sex is mental for women' thing tends to be overstated. It mostly has to do with how a woman learns to fap. Women have practical needs in bed, and they usually don't suffice at five minutes of mechanical thrusting. I'm assuming you've heard of foreplay?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/14 08:57 PM
9

Here's the thing. TRP involves little to no practical sex advice when it comes to questions of technique. What it actually seems to involve is guys one-upping each other with suspicious-to-blatantly made up tales of sexual prowess. If you're asking about getting women into bed, here's the problem. Being super-eager about getting women into the sack and not paying attention to womens' emotions or sexual desires kind of implies you're a lousy lay. Moreover, you seem to have an insanely adversarial…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/14 08:45 PM
1

I don't think the distinction between an ideology and a body of knowledge is easy to make. It's true that feminism, especially third-wave feminism, in the anglo-American world is primarily liberal: by liberal I mean in the broad sense, in emphasizing individual responsibility and choice as well as substantive equality. But TRP is conservative/reactionary in much the same way. Stating that one deals with the is and not the ought is a common enough rhetorical move for many conservatives (see, for …
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/14 07:25 PM
1

Using "dread game" to install subtle or overt fear in the other that you may leave since you have other options Bringing somebody else in the group down to look better yourself. These strategies are immoral because they cause harm. This is a totally different question from whether or not they are amoral. For something/someone to be amoral, they must be indifferent to whether or not they cause harm. Saying that sexual strategy is amoral is not saying very much: it is just saying that what gets yo…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/01/14 07:53 AM
1

I've had this discussion with people elsewhere, not real productively, and while I'm completely sympathetic to the goals of the organizations in question, where exactly do they define street harassment as sexual harassment? My impression from looking at the websites is that they're trying to definite it as a separate category that requires action, but not necessarily as sexual harassment as defined with the law. I get the impression that there's ambiguity that comes in when sexual harassment in …
/r/PurplePillDebate22/01/14 04:49 AM
6

How can one even fully separate the two? It is human biology (an example: particular areas in the brain that enable language acquisition) that allow for human society to arise in the first place. Male social dominance had to come from somewhere and it sure did not come from aliens. This is true, but the implied bootstrapping argument (it must be biological because evidence is lacking of an early egalitarian or matriarchal society, and male dominance (aka patriarchy) is more or less universal,) i…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/01/14 06:42 AM
2

Our culture reflects our nature. It doesn't create it. Except that if you think about it for a second, this clearly isn't true. Mules are created nature. So are domestic bananas, domesticated dogs, the greenhouse effect, and trans people who get gender reassignment surgery. Most of the natural environment you see is 'second nature'--there is almost no original growth, say, in the United States or Europe, what you see with the forest along the highway is secondary growth that was planted there. T…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/14 12:10 AM
1

I think the important thing to keep in mind here is that human understanding of biological sex is filtered through our cultural understanding of gender, arguably more so than our ideas of gender are shaped off of biology. Now, by this I don't mean that biological sex doesn't exist. Human beings have sexual dimorphism in a way that is specific to humans, and that sexual dimorphism in peoples' bodies are shaped by their chromosomes in ways we can understand. But chromosomes can never explain every…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/01/14 10:58 PM
1

Seroquel is pretty serious medication. There's no reason to think you can't date just because of your diagnosis, though. I would focus on what works for you and worry about ideological stuff with blue pill/red pill later. If you want my advice about 'game,' which is the only part of RP that I think has any validity, I think it can help some people get some confidence.But as far as whether it works on women, I think it is like pushing the 'close door' button on an elevator repeatedly or driving t…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/01/14 08:21 PM
2

If they deserve it. Peoples' character flaws don't exist in a void and if they're harming other people with them and getting away with it they should be mocked.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/13 05:00 AM
5

It has some value as a bullshit detector but overall the atmosphere on the sub ain't that great. Also, I find I'm never personally offended by anything that they post but that cuts both ways. e.g. there are definitely people getting pissed off about things that don't matter on tumblr, but it's equally ridiculous, for example, when TiA gets mock-offended about SJW reverse racism towards white people. It's some neurotic 16-year old yelling slogans. Why do you care? There's also gross stuff that ge…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/13 04:54 AM
6

I can't make any sense of this response.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/11/13 03:37 AM
5

How do they not do that? If you claim that adaptation is the fundamental explanation of human behavior, that implies that it must explain everything, or else there is a factor which is not reducible to adaptation, and it has to be accounted for in every explanation.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/11/13 03:01 AM
4

Red Pill relies on tons of evolutionary psychology and sociobiology and bases its worldview on it. The Democratic and Republican parties don't.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/11/13 02:40 AM
2

A father who's been sexually abusing a child and is legally barred from contact with the family, for example.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/11/13 12:32 AM
2

Well, I think people choose to carry kids to term under wildly variable circumstances. And there's certainly such a thing as vanishing/rightfully removed fathers. Which is why we need social policy.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/11/13 09:45 PM
1

Wikipedia says it's state-by-state.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/11/13 09:32 PM
1

I mean, in that case I don't see a problem with this, except insofar as it would aggravate the number of involuntarily single mothers not receiving child support. I think that's something that should be preferentially handled by a social safety net, rather than tracking down the father in any case, though.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/11/13 09:30 PM
2

Right, but the parallel is deceptive because in a 'financial abortion' there's the possibility and probably of the child being brought to term. The question is if you should have a right to legally disavow paternity.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/11/13 09:16 PM
1

Would Red Pillers support giving this right to women as well? Both parents at the same time?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/11/13 09:11 PM
6

Being a Democrat or a Republican doesn't imply you subscribe to an ideology which claims to explain the whole of human behavior. Being Red Pill does.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/11/13 09:05 PM
1

But then the original question 'what if somebody is falsely accused of...' makes little sense. OP asks us to presume that this happens. I'm saying it's a loaded question for that reason.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/11/13 09:00 PM
1

Gaslighting is screwing with somebody's environment to make them think they are going crazy. Saying you have been gaslighted implies you think you yourself are going crazy, which undermines your credibility. It is like claiming to be a 'crazy bitch' when you actually aren't...but why would you want to be one, or perceived as one, in the first place?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/11/13 07:11 PM
3

Y'know what? I am a guy, I have my own definition, and I think what you are describing is a stunted manchild. The reason is that you have an impoverished definition of responsibility. First of all, you've completely subordinated your sense of self-worth to the question of whether or not you get to have sex, which by definition makes you dependent on other people for validation. Moreover, the reasons you ascribe to said 'other people' for wanting to have sex are based on the shallowest cesspit in…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/11/13 04:05 AM
1

(groans, starts at beginning) Do you understand why the idea of a false accusation of gaslighting is inherently very implausible?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/11/13 03:37 AM
3

Late to the party, but I think the distinction between a need and a desire (this is made in some schools of psychology, by the way) is tricky. You're right that Maslow does pointedly describe things such as sex, affection, and security as needs in the strong sense of the term. For Maslow, at any rate, a person living without those things cannot fully thrive as a person. But by the same token, it's deceptive to only discuss sex as a need because those needs are wholistically related to each other…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/13 07:22 PM
7

they enjoy being attracted to you more than they are willing to commit despite attraction That is a really, really subjective and nebulous thing even before you generalize it across a population. How could you possibly establish that as a fact that could be explained by biology or incentive structures?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/13 07:02 PM
2

er, let's discuss this some other time.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/13 12:41 AM
4

I already addressed this elsewhere here. Dictionaries are not the only arbiter of meaning, and it's impossible to address complaints like this without an example of what you mean.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/13 11:34 PM
2

Sorry, didn't mean to seem aggressive. It's just that you've associated yourself with a movement that seems to believe that women are irrational sometimes--and you are rational, no?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/13 11:07 PM
7

Please calm down. This is a debate sub. I am talking to you about rules and norms for debate. I am not saying you punched anybody. It is a metaphor, like 'holding a gun to society's head.'
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/13 09:57 PM
4

Sure. I think you're having trouble with the rhetorical uses of humor, though. The trouble with making feminism the butt of a joke is that other people take feminism seriously. The fact that you do so doesn't automatically mean you really do think feminism is nothing but a joke, but for some people the humor is difficult to get. When you back off and state that you mean nothing by your characterization of feminism, it lends itself to the impression that you intend to make a serious point and imm…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/13 09:38 PM
2

It is impossible to argue about something without at least the possibility of a shared definition. If I am talking about chairs, and what you think the referent of the word 'chair' is, is what I think is described by the word 'rock,' we are going to have difficulty agreeing on the properties of chairs. And refusing to give a definition of a term after being asked to do so is what's commonly called 'arguing in bad faith.'
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/13 09:22 PM
1

No, you're missing the importance of the qualifications in the statement. The dictionary is still a relatively neutral source compared to the definition of the feminist scholar, all else being equal, but the definition of the feminist scholar is still legitimate. This can vary by context: for example, if we are discussing Judith Butler's definition of feminism it is more appropriate to cite her definition because it is more pertinent. If people are saying that there is a difference in the defini…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/13 09:03 PM
5

Okay, can you explain to me what your point in fact was?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/13 08:37 PM
3

Dictionaries also have standards of evidence and proof. It's called philology. That's why a good reference dictionary like the OED contains examples of usage, preferably dated.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/13 08:27 PM
1

It depends on the context and the appropriateness of the definition. Saying that feminists or especially feminist scholars do not define feminism in the same way is not the same thing as simply rejecting the dictionary definition because it is an appeal to an alternate source of authority, not the sheer rejection of the one source of authority which has been mentioned. If you have an alternate source of authority by which to define feminism, go ahead and do so.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/13 08:22 PM
2

Why would I accept a dictionary definition for politics or a political movement? For the same reason you would accept a JAMA article which stated that vaccines do not cause autism. It is a commonly accepted and authoritative source on the matter. There is no dictionary definition required. The name is an identifier to associate with the group. That's called an ostensive definition. It is a valid form of definition, but not a more valid definition. The problem with ostensive definitions is genera…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/13 08:05 PM
6

I can't figure out what your second sentence means. Anyway, no, it's not a comparison of belief systems, it's a comparison of movements and ideologies. And as such it's fairly appropriate as a comparison. You're just drawing a specious analogy.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/13 07:55 PM
3

You see, this is what I mean. Yes, it is factually possible to argue from an inconsistent or incoherent position, but the impossibility of refuting such an argument isn't proof of its validity. EG: askdhjhdajkjdshdajsh, therefore you are wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/13 07:50 PM
2

And they could be wrong. Words don't mean whatever you want them to mean. If you want to provide an argument about why the dictionary definition is wrong, that's one thing, but you aren't entitled to reject its definition without justification. This is what I mean by having it both ways: you're imposing a totally relativistic standard on truth in politics while claiming bias is possible. It's a classic conservative rhetorical trick and it drives me up the wall.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/13 07:45 PM
2

Words for describing political movements are words we use as language: there is no word we do not use as language. And the point of a dictionary is to present as close as possible to a consensus definition of that word. That is what the dictionary is for. EDIT: If you can provide an alternate source of neutrality, be my guest, but otherwise this is special pleading.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/13 07:34 PM
1

The dictionary is politically biased? You can't have it both ways. Either the dictionary is a relatively neutral source or all definitions are hopelessly biased.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/13 06:45 PM
6

This is an invidious comparison, because the problem with Nazism and Communism was not that they enforced policies through laws. Actually, rule of law was very weak in Germany under the Nazis (the Constitution was basically ignored apart from the emergency decree) and in the Soviet Union under Stalin (very few of the protections in the 1936 Constitution were put into practice, there was extensive use of secret trials, etc.). Partially for this reason, law is used as the basis of social policy in…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/13 06:34 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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