TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

thats_a_semaphor Archive

View 9 posts and 181 comments by thats_a_semaphor 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

Well, do you think that some people might find, after time, that their values or feelings about the issue might have changed?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/10/14 03:15 AM
-2

Does, for some people at least, waiting until commitment involve an emotional element that would otherwise be missing?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/10/14 02:50 AM
-1

Do you think that different people value sex differently? Some more physical, some more emotional, etc.?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/10/14 02:34 AM
-1

I'm talking about money outside the relationship. Yeah, that's why the question relates to a change of values... Sweet morale high ground you stand on. Are you telling me that everything in your post is your intent at face value and you're not trying to deceive people in any way shape or form? I am not trying to deceive people in any way, shape or form. I think, posted here on the PPD forum, this is obviously a candidate hypothetical situation - but that it is not distinctly harmful or deceitful…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/10/14 02:23 AM
0

You could just try to word your question honestly It is worded honestly. I know the opinions of many people of the scenario you are talking about, and I want to see how they treat a scenario that has some similarities and some differences. you can show everyone that you're so "clever" and try to trick them in some logical way so you can pull the rug from under them to say, "HA, YOU'RE A HYPOCRITE!" I think you presume the worst in people, quite honestly, if you think that this is the point of th…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/10/14 02:06 AM
2

I saw this comment by /u/sh1v in a recent thread: As an example, if you're a slut, and suddenly decide you want until engagement to have sex... don't expect the poor whipped beta at the shit end of this arrangement to just sit back and accept the fact that your pussy, once freely and generously given to others, is off limits to him.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/10/14 01:52 AM
2

If you think that this is lame, it would be fruitful of you to explain in what manner.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/10/14 01:49 AM
1

This sentence translated: "If you think something is wrong with me, then something is wrong with you." Note that they don't have to use these statistics to determine that something is "wrong" with me. They could use these statistics to determine if something is "right" with me and the use of statistics instead of character would still raise a flag. If your stats say that you had e.g. 80 previous partners, then that is a strong statement about: None of these things were the statistical issue rais…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/10/14 01:48 AM
5

I honestly think the red pill is a mess. It's a fusion of various ideas, interpreted differently and for different purposes by various people with differing experiences and beliefs. The issue, then, is that when you ask a RPer a question, it sometimes feels like the goalposts are moving or that they are being disingenuous, but most likely it is because you are speaking to a person who took something different away from TRP than the last person you spoke to. That's what makes a sub like PPD so di…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/10/14 12:34 AM
2

I get the impression you don't understand this statistical misuse, then. By the way, do you know the cause of the instability in relationships with women with higher partner counts?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/14 01:56 AM
2

I see no valid reason why sexual partners should be excused from this heuristic. I didn't say they should be, I said that it was worth gathering 'data' about their character to make a better judgement. As for your 'main' point What was my 'main' point?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/14 01:54 AM
1

I don't know that I would jump to thinking she was a serial killer, but there's something pretty unsettling about that information. I agree. So, two points. The first, exhausted for now, I think, is that neither of us would automatically assume that the person was a serial killer and stop dating them for that reason. In that case, I think we both agree with the argument in the OP about how to use statistical correlations. Good news for us. The second is whether the information is important to us…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/14 01:52 AM
2

Why are BPers so obsessed with this issue? I'm sure there are various reasons, ranging from the trivial to the interesting. they are bored they hate people being wrong they like debating they are angry for some reason they have some level of care or empathy for RPers and think they are going down the wrong path they like to promote what they believe are moral social norms they care about the people that RPers will interact with On this last one, when people say, "Who cares?" or "Who loses?" I ge…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/14 01:45 AM
2

What does this have to do with the OP?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/14 01:39 AM
2

Are you a troll trying to make RPers look like unempathic idiots, or are you completely serious?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/14 01:37 AM
2

Dating is like job-hunting, huh?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/14 01:36 AM
1

This is a different point to the point of the OP. I'm not writing this because I am saying that you are wrong or anything, but I don't want anyone to be confused and think that this is what I am saying.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/14 01:35 AM
1

Again, this is the exact same statistical error that is described in the OP. If half of all people with red hair became serial killers, that does not mean that the person sitting in front of you with red hair has a fifty-percent chance of becoming a serial killer. That's a statistical fallacy. What it means is that you have a fifty-percent chance that you've sat down with someone who will become a serial killer. That's a subtle-sounding but important difference. The statistical correlation in th…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/14 01:33 AM
4

TBP sub is for people who want to talk to their in-group. I see no reason to be more angry or less angry at them for doing that than I see reason to be angry at TRP sub for not apologising for using "male language" in a "male space". They don't like your sub, you don't like theirs, I can't see why anyone should give a shit. People are allowed private spaces, and we are vehemently allowed to disagree with them. I'm not exactly sure what function TBP sub has except for some people to let off steam…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/14 01:16 AM
1

That's an interesting take. Interesting that you compare them to personality compatibility and not personality itself.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/14 12:30 PM
1

I'm not worried about these people. I'm worried about the unanticipated consequences of poor statutory drafting. I agree. I wrote my worry about devolving such power to private enterprises like universities while simultaneously making rules about what they can do.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/14 10:59 AM
1

Her case was dismissed, but under an enthusiastic consent standard, he's a rapist -- even though it was her idea to come to his room and blow him, and even though she didn't tell him she wanted him to wear a condom, she had unexpressed reservations and his failure to elicit those reservations from her (which he had no reason to suspect, given that the whole thing was her idea) makes it sexual assault. You know, having read what I've read about the law, I'm not certain that this is sexual assault…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/14 10:55 AM
1

People are inferring your position to mean that men ought to spend excessive effort and time because that's a reasonable inference based on the OP. I don't see how the OP suggests one spend excessive time or effort - certainly not on the scale suggested by posters here who suggest weeks or months. I don't see how it even implies days or a whole day. I really don't understand how statistics not actually telling you information about the individual in front of you suggests excessive effort or time…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/14 09:39 AM
1

It encapsulates most of the world's population's experience. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, pending some amazingly huge unbiased survey. I've seen what I've seen and it doesn't appear to encapsulate most of the world's experience from what I understand. But you understand differently, and I don't think there's much objective stuff to support either of our understandings. Maybe in a game of 20 questions, you can indirectly ask her stuff. And when she lets something slip, you disqualify …
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/14 09:21 AM
0

Hmm. I'm sceptical that infatuation is so strong that such measures are required. But it is a period I enjoy, when it is enjoyable, just as LTR are enjoyable as long as they're enjoyable. I keep hearing that you can't negotiate desire. I don't think you can negotiate joy - but somehow I get the feeling that that's what all these tools are meant to do.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/14 06:44 AM
1

Wait, I'm confused. Are social gathering, functions, clubs, sports and similar places where you intentionally went to meet women, or not (and therefore 'accidental'?)?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/14 06:42 AM
0

You can't blame a pragmatic approach to a general guideline as bad just because you believe there are exceptions. First up, let's be clear: there are exceptions. If there were not, the correlation would 100%. That's never been reported. Of course there are exceptions; the same studies that make the correlation confirm that it is a trend and not an absolute. No, but why risk it? My take is, What's the risk? By finding out about their character by spending time with them - and I'm not suggesting t…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/14 06:41 AM
1

I think it's been about eight or nine years since I met a single woman on accident. By 'accident', do you mean not at a social gathering, function, club, sport or similar?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/14 06:27 AM
-2

Sorry, when was he hurt?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/14 06:11 AM
0

Does this mean you are suggesting that using the average statistical correlation between high partner count and marriage dissolutions is deliberately meant to mitigate that you will be infatuated? Don't you think that if you are self-aware enough to mitigate through some statistical correlation that may or may not apply to the person you are dating that you would be self-aware enough to identify some of the red flags suggested in the article? Is using filters a tool to mitigate the loss of contr…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/14 06:10 AM
2

Saying that someone's character is best judged by their character and not by the set of statistics of a larger group that happens to contain them does not imply that each person is necessarily incredibly unique, though it does imply that not all people are the same, and it does imply that some things are best learnt by engaging with someone and not by their stat sheet. How you got "I must be a unique snowflake" from this, I'm not sure.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/14 06:04 AM
0

No, but that seems to be what you're suggesting I do. I can't see anywhere that I have suggested such a thing. No, I'm not a woman. The "occasion" doesn't "arise." I don't have the luxury of wandering aimlessly through life waiting for the opposite sex to take notice of me. I go out and make it happen. First up, this doesn't seem to characterise what I was saying (which was, simply, that you don't make a list of women and go through them one by one). Second, it doesn't seem to characterise real …
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/14 06:01 AM
2

I was just referring to OP herself who explicitly said that you can't attribute anything to her without getting to know her first, which implied heavy snowflaking. Is that what the OP says? Because it doesn't. It suggests (a) the best way to discern character is to engage with character, and (b) that statistical averages don't actually tell you about the person that is in front of you.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/14 05:29 AM
0

Is that how you date - you line up all the women first and then go through them one by one? Isn't a more realistic scenario that you would meet people on a case-by-case basis as the occasion arose? The comments in this thread are getting more and more ridiculously straw-mannish.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/14 05:27 AM
2

Man is anyone really hoping that their future wife had 50 different dicks in her? Is anyone suggesting that they should hope that? The latest set of comments seem singularly unrelated to the content of the OP.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/14 05:25 AM
0

The reason is because you seem to feel that every man should waste his time trying to get to know every slutty woman whose been eiffel towered by the basketball team "as an individual" before we reject them for an LTR. I think you'll find that I never said nor implied that. I'm trying to tell you that you or any other promiscuous woman's thoughts on whether or not they as an individual are prone to cheating, paternity fraud, divorce etc, is irrelevant You may notice I never raised a promiscuous …
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/14 05:25 AM
1

What sort of emphasis?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/14 05:07 AM
3

Number 1.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/14 05:07 AM
0

Getting to know someone involves banal conversation and several dates where nobody talks about sexual or relationship history and just tries to vaguely and blindly make judgments based on personality and feelings? No one said you couldn't talk about these things, I just said that immediate interrogation into the nature of every previous sexual act would be something I would probably be able to judge your character on. Why does the conversation have to be banal? What's wrong with judging someone'…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/14 05:07 AM
-2

If I were dating him I would at least have some further context (how was it raised, what exactly he said, other conversation surrounding it, his tone, mood, any judgements he made about it or about my responses, etc.) to work with. Was there remorse or guilt? Did it come out of nowhere or did it stem from somewhere relevant, etc.? Mind you, if there was any hint that he still hurt animals, he wouldn't be someone I would want to date. That doesn't mean I'd necessarily be fearful for my life.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/14 05:01 AM
1

The point is that to RP men, your thoughts don't matter. But I didn't raise my thoughts. You've introduced them for no reason related to the argument, as far as I can see. Getting to know them as a person comes after I've vetted them past the first round. Ah, I wasn't sure initially from what you said.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/14 04:58 AM
2

What is the well-familiar fact?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/14 04:57 AM
1

You as an individual may very well feel that regardless of your partner count that you may still be a suitable LTR candidate. What does this have to do with my thoughts about my candidacy? a coldly calculated world of possibility. It means you no longer need to "get to know each person as an individual" before you determine whether nor not they are suitable for an LTR. Just to check, filtering as intensely as you want doesn't imply that you can't get to know someone as an individual before you c…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/14 04:46 AM
-1

Do you mean, based on that information alone, would I worry that he was a serial killer? No.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/14 04:43 AM
2

I mean, you seem to be assuming that there is an implicit claim within the OP that women are unique snowflakes and you seem eager to disabuse me of this notion. However, it is not a factor of the argument of the OP.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/14 04:42 AM
1

I don't quite follow. Some people are exceptions to the rule. There is not a 100% correlation between high partner count and failed marriages. The self-image of women hasn't been raised in this thread. How do you think it fits in?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/14 04:24 AM
3

You'll see in the thread that I'm only arguing that it is a poor indicator, which doesn't account for personal aversion. If that is your reason, then the OP isn't really directed at you, as noted also for some other people in the thread. It doesn't really "checkmate" anything. Reading through the blog posts you linked (in a link in a post elsewhere in this thread), which draw from articles I unfortunately couldn't access, I can see that the causal link isn't actually determined anywhere. The foc…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/14 04:22 AM
1

It is known that people who have had many sexual partners are more likely to continue to do so. There are, of course, studies. This is the exact same error as outlined in the OP.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/14 04:06 AM
1

What exactly is involved in "getting to know someone" in your mind? If I'm on a date with a girl, and it comes up that she was wild in college and had a bunch of sex over a 4-year span, it's not an efficient use of my valuable time to learn more about the nature of every one of those sexual encounters to determine her actual approach toward love, sex, and relationships. Yeah, not an interrogation of her sexual history on a date. But, on the other hand, that example gives me an opportunity. If yo…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/14 04:05 AM
0

What I think is interesting is the assumptions made about timeframe, effort, character and whether or not I have a moral agenda. People seem to think that judging someone's character means committing months to them, rather than, as is usual for relationships, maintaining interest for as long as you are interested. It seems that a date can't possibly reveal anything, let alone two or three, a social occasion, or whatever. Months being committed is the minimum requirement that people are assuming …
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/14 03:54 AM
2

Spending months on a single woman and getting to know her Why is it that everyone assumes months is required? knowing full well she is a compulsive shopper and in massive debt, or a former drug user These are not similar comparisons because you are suggesting we know "full well" something about that particular individual, whereas the point of the OP is that we are assuming something about the individual, which we do not know in their individual case to be true or not, from statistics. This sort …
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/14 03:38 AM
2

You're the second person to raise the "unique snowflake" idea. Is it the case that people's personalities are either completely fungible or completely unique? Why is it that there is no middle ground?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/14 03:27 AM
0

Do you think that if convicted wife-beaters were not likely to kill, that people would still date them? That particular individual is known to have specifically beaten his wife. That's pretty clear. On the other hand (and there is a similar post in this thread somewhere), while an individual who is known to have beaten his wife is an indicator that he might beat his next partner, a trend within a promiscuous group of cheating of being dissatisfied with LTRs is not a clear indicator that any part…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/14 03:16 AM
1

No no. You said that promiscuous women are like a gun loaded with multiple bullets in Russian roulette. I wanted to clarify if you understood the point of the OP that the risk is not that the woman is caused to cheat by being promiscuous, but that you risk, in a by the numbers game, being cheated on (if, of course, you decide to commit to a LTR based off that one statistic). So I said that it is you dating a promiscuous woman that is risky, not the promiscuous woman. You then clarified to say yo…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/14 03:11 AM
0

Are you looking for a group, or an individual?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/14 02:59 AM
1

Dating with the intention of getting into a committed relationship or marriage, or dating within a committed relationship or marriage? (I don't mean dating other people, I mean two people in a committed relationship spending time with one another.)
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/14 02:58 AM
0

At least let me get your opinion on whether you think that the woman-beating man and the number of sexual partners are equivalently structured cases? You did raise one as an example to support the other. Yes, the OP is suggesting that partner count is not indicative of character for individuals, just for aggregates. Why do you think otherwise?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/14 02:56 AM
2

If you are spending months and months getting to know the individual personality of a slut to try to figure out if there’s some kind of magical chemistry there, you’re wasting your time. This sounds... not like dating? Not like the scenario in the OP? If you find no chemistry, I'm not suggesting you continue on and you'll find something magical. I'm suggesting that statistics are not a useful indicator of whether or not there'll be "magical chemistry" that engages you to spend time with someone.…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/14 02:54 AM
1

it is completely reasonable to use it as a screening mechanism. Why is it completely reasonable?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/14 02:45 AM
2

I don't know why it makes it "less personal" though. You'll see that my responses to in this thread have treated two different aspects of reacting to partner count, and only one - the statistical indicator in the OP - I suggested was incorrect. Basing a relationship off that type of information, I suggested, was less personal because is goes by average statistical indicators rather than direct engagement with another person/their character. I raised impersonal relationships in response to your s…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/14 02:44 AM
0

So if you met a man who had a past of hitting women and going to jail, you would say "past behavior is not indicative of future performance!" and plough ahead? I think you've missed the point of the OP. The statistical correlation in the OP is between the trend of women who are promiscuous to have less satisfying LTRs or to leave LTRs. That is, when you meet a woman and learn her partner count, you do not know whether that correlation holds true for her, just that it is a trend for people with s…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/14 02:40 AM
3

Just to clarify, you dating a promiscuous woman is equivalent... Not the promiscuous woman herself. Is that what you meant?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/14 02:35 AM
1

So what you're saying is RPers should waste months of time, energy, and resources getting to know an individual woman. Oh, is that a waste? knows that women with high partner counts are bad LTR material That's the contested claim. You can't prove that it is not causation without doing a scientific study. RP is the default hypothesis, is it? There's something about this that to me says "I'm a special snowflake and unlike women who are similar to me". You are suggesting that all people with a cert…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/14 02:33 AM
0

I'm definitely getting that impression from /u/homo_homini_lupus and /u/Tombstone31. Relationships seem to be between a man and a set of attributes, like shopping online for a car or computer.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/14 02:28 AM
4

It doesn't matter because what are you going to do about it? Change my mind? Eh? It matters in the sense of whether it is a legitimate concern. For example, if it stems from a misunderstanding or misuse of statistics, then it's not a real concern. (You could, in that instance, take a "red pill" and understand reality a little better.) But if it stems from an emotional aversion to promiscuous women or something, then that is a real concern (and you can see, in my original response, that it is not…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/14 02:25 AM
4

There's nothing wrong with red flags. I'm talking about not seeing an individual person because instead you're looking at the group average. You're not dating the whole group.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/14 02:20 AM
0

I already said that partner count isn't the best predictor. I do think it's a better predictor than your subjective judgment of their character. All judgement of someone's character is subjective judgement. But the impression that you are giving me is that if you spent a year of your life with someone, that is less useful for deciding whether to marry them than their previous partner count? Is that right? I ask because to me this takes the 'personal' out of personal relationship. Suddenly it is …
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/14 02:18 AM
0

An individual womans promiscuous past is a proxy for character, not "statistics" The statistics are the correlation between promiscuous past and character, are they not? Why is anyone worth getting to know? Do you mean, it is not worth knowing anyone?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/14 02:13 AM
2

The idea that there is something wrong with a person for declining to "get to know" a person who doesn;t pass their smell test is ludicrous. Rather, I'm arguing that the "smell test" isn't as useful as you suggest. Why would a person with options waste 5 seconds on another person who had unsatisfactory attributes of any kind? You are suggesting that there are people without unsatisfactory attributes of any kind? What's the percentage correlation between people who have a high partner count and p…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/14 01:24 AM
3

Well, this is interesting but riddled with cross-contaminating assumptions. For starters, it would depend why you are not comfortable with the number. If it has anything to do with predicted future behaviour, then you're incorrectly using statistics as described in the OP. If not, then you have at least explored character by having a conversation regarding statistics - you've talked about sexual comfort, values and character interaction through judgement. That's at least more than simply using s…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/14 01:21 AM
1

Statistics are a proxy for character? Isn't character going to be even better? I mean, aren't relationships about engaging with character, not statistics? How inaccessible is character that statistics have to be their proxy? Not to mention, as the OP points out, statistics are not a proxy for an individual's character, they're a proxy for the general trend of character within a group. So saying that they are a proxy for character is an incorrect use of the statistics.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/14 01:18 AM
3

Outside of that, promiscuity is apparently a good predictor. It's statistically verified. The point of the OP is that it is not a good predictor for an individual, it is a good predictor for trends within groups. It tells you very little about the person you are actually with. In this case, statistical "verification" seems misleadingly concrete. I would also argue that how you feel (or "feel" - what's the difference?) about someone is what a relationship is about. If someone is going to be decep…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/14 01:00 AM
1

I'm suggesting that the prior number of sexual partners is not a predictor of your future behaviour specifically. People believe it is because it is a fair predictor in aggregate. You don't actually know, from the number alone, whether people fall into the statistically average group or not. Therefore, number of previous sexual partners is poor information without getting to know the person.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/14 12:52 AM
1

I can't figure out what it means. Is the original research article anywhere? Maybe it means that it is easier to move across class boundaries, as they are more porous than before (certainly the case in Australia, mentioned in the article). Maybe it means that people are taking on careers where there is a higher pay-gap (especially is more professional industries). Maybe it means that maternity leave is biased towards women and that affects their decisions in terms of career/wage/education, and t…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/14 12:32 AM
1

Do you think that these are the people who are going to be affected by this law? If it's a false rape claim you're worried about, then this scenario doesn't even have to have a legitimate withdrawal of consent - one could simply claim that they withdrew consent after the fact. Apart from that worry, do you think that these people are seriously going to be affected by the law?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/10/14 11:22 PM
0

Yes the article defined that lack of consent doesn't equal consent. This tautology pre-existed the article and the law. Maybe you meant, "Lack of expression of consent doesn't equal consent," which I would argue is a common-sense concept anyway. The article says consent is "an affirmative, conscious and voluntary agreement", not that it requires a formal or legal verbal exchange as you've described.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/10/14 12:20 PM
0

I think if you read the article, you'll find that it doesn't require what you've described. I think California is worried about men erring in one direction, while you are erring far in the opposite. There's a middle ground here that people believe should be common sense, but you've missed it.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/10/14 11:29 AM
1

Here's my take: The Good Because people can be frightened regarding sexual experiences and passivity may be the result, the good side of things is that this will prevent cases where consent was not given but where it was incorrectly inferred. College campuses are, as I understand it, a place where many people have their first sexual experiences, especially with people that they do not know or do not know well, and plenty of them in a different social clime to that which they feel in control (not…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/10/14 08:46 AM
1

Well for relationships and sex there is only one thing I ultimately value and that's compatibility. For me personally this means I like women who are kinky and submissive. How important is sex in a relationship? You put them right together in your reply.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/10/14 04:05 AM
1

And sex is an integral part of having fun. Do you feel like this is probably true for most people? As for caring for others, I'd say that is less important than fun and being moral. Does this mean that caring for others isn't moral?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/10/14 04:04 AM
2

This is pretty poetic. And not a sentiment I tend to see on TRP at all. How do love and harmony and smiles fit in with general pieces of RP advice or theory? I mean, the first thing that pops into my head is that harmony might be achieved, from a RP perspective, by people taking on their appropriate gender roles as suggested by evolution/biology. Do you think that any common RP advice works against your sentiment?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/10/14 03:59 AM
1

If you were to get into a fight or be unfulfilled by the way your relationship was going, say because of the focusses that your bf had or the way he treated you or didn't treat you, what priorities might you look at? What I get if you mean your boyfriend is the most important is that if he said, "I'll break up with you if you don't do x," would you do x to stick with him?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/10/14 03:54 AM
1

Well, here in the purple pill debate forum, I get I mean important in any context where you, personally, would think that RP or BP or similar might be most relevant. That could be relationships, picking people up, reflection on legal matters or social norms...
/r/PurplePillDebate08/10/14 03:51 AM
2

Important to you. Thanks for the answering both, just in case, by the way. :) What I find interesting about your response is that the first two things are about other people, and the third thing is sex. Is there nothing else for yourself that falls in between? (I'm not saying that you're doing something wrong or have a bad disposition or anything, I'm just curious.)
/r/PurplePillDebate08/10/14 03:50 AM
2

I imagine that might be quite difficult as a paraplegic dolphin.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/10/14 03:47 AM
1

In personal relationships, does this have any negative consequences - putting yourself last, missing out on things you want, making too many concessions?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/10/14 01:12 AM
1

Does this underlie how you might approach or utilise the RP?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/10/14 01:11 AM
1

For enjoyment, definitely a mix of emotional and sexual arousal. I thought we were only talking about sexual arousal? Are you saying that emotional arousal isn't sexual, and that only physiological arousal is? Or are you adding something new in when you say emotional arousal (which would imply that you're not talking about either physiological or psychological arousal, the two terms we previously used)? This seems incongruous with your later statement: I think both physiological and psychologica…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/10/14 02:04 AM
5

This other research, whether accurate or not, still doesn't suggest that physiological rather than psychological arousal should be given primacy. As in my last paragraph, what is more relevant when discussing certain topics that are more likely to arise in TRP?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/10/14 11:55 PM
2

Here's my interpretation: The OP, I think, is claiming that physiological arousal and psychological arousal are different, and then claiming that physiological arousal is actual arousal. Have I got that roughly right? With that in mind, it would seem to me that the use of the term 'actual' arousal implies that physiological arousal is somehow more genuine or more important. This, I think, is backed up by the OP suggesting that the discrepancy between physiological arousal and stated psychologica…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/10/14 11:04 PM
1

Communicative responsibility, then. Your comment brings a couple of thoughts to mind: One - it doesn't mitigate your responsibility to continue only when you are certain that she is willing. Complete passivity would bring her willingness into doubt. You are both responsible, and your duty is to be responsive. Two - someone who is not participating physically or verbally is certainly not demonstrating consent, because consent occurs through participation. Three - if someone is not participating p…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/14 02:49 AM
1

I get the feeling that a girl just lying there is going to be more indicative of discomfort or distress. What sort of responsibility are you talking about?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/14 02:22 AM
1

From what I've read, it would be participation and common sense. If only one party is participating or seems present of mind, that, to me, would indicate checking for consent. That's where common sense comes in - there should be a level of common sense between 'yes' and 'no' where one can gauge whether the other is enjoying it. If one can't figure out whether someone is enjoying something, then that's when you need to more explicitly check.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/14 01:56 AM
4

a blue piller would either be in denial that they're doing it just because hot chick is hot, or they might be trying to nice their way into the pussy. A red piller would at least know, "I'm doing this because she's hot." Is this really the way that RPers see men?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/14 01:26 AM
2

I have to admit that I haven't seen any evidence for hypergamy. I've seen information that men tend to out-earn women in relationships, that relationships are less functional, on average, when women out-earn men, and similar information, but none of this implies, to me, that women are inherently driven to "marry up". Part of this might be to do with some redefinition of 'hypergamy' that the RP has made, but here are some of my problems: marrying up involves moving from one status group to a soci…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/09/14 12:11 AM
1

(f) morality is personally defined (m) each person should define their own aims, interests or desires Very individualist - would you also agree with (i) or (k)? On the one hand, morality is all basically just made up. It doesn't have any objective truth to it, like the speed of light. That would be (a): (a) moral nihilism, there's no objective morality, no moral judgement can be passed On the other hand, it's important for many reasons. One because it's built into human nature. I believe most of…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/09/14 09:04 AM
2

(d) there are logical or fundamental moral norms based upon social interdependency (f) morality is personally defined (g) morality applies to social groups and we should endeavour to correct social injustice (h) morality applies to families, close friends and those you are in constant immediate or significant contact with or have a history with, and we should endeavour to help these people (l) there are certain human aims, interests or desires that we should strive for (m) each person should def…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/09/14 08:57 AM
1

(a) moral nihilism, there's no objective morality, no moral judgement can be passed (d) there are logical or fundamental moral norms based upon social interdependency Is it possible that if (d) is an inescapably pragmatic position that one is almost forced to take, that (a) might not be true? Not saying it is, just thinking out aloud.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/09/14 08:53 AM
1

(e) there are objective moral standards (g) morality applies to social groups and we should endeavour to correct social injustice (h) morality applies to families, close friends and those you are in constant immediate or significant contact with or have a history with, and we should endeavour to help these people (j) as humans we deserve or should respect certain minimally satisfying conditions, regardless of our history and what we were personally liable for These work well together. I guess yo…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/09/14 08:52 AM
1

Agree with: d, e, and k. (d) there are logical or fundamental moral norms based upon social interdependency (e) there are objective moral standards (k) as individuals, we are deserving of whatever our historical decisions bring upon us due to our personal liabilities You're the only one to pick (k), which I find interesting. Does (e) come out of (d)? What do you think of the word 'absolute' in regards to morality? somewhere between g and h (g) morality applies to social groups and we should ende…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/09/14 08:50 AM
1

So i, m, and p. You little imp. (i) morality applies to the individual and each person has to look out for themselves (m) each person should define their own aims, interests or desires (p) morality is about consequence Seems consistently individualist. Fair enough. I'm also inclined to go with b, because I think evolutionary psychology sheds light on why we think and feel the way we do, and what would have been in our best interest before the agricultural revolution. But evolutionary psychology …
/r/PurplePillDebate11/09/14 08:44 AM
1

(b) morality is determined by natural inclinations, trends in nature, adhering to natural/biological norms, desires or traits (c) morality is socially constructed and moral judgements are significantly meaningful (d) there are logical or fundamental moral norms based upon social interdependency (g) morality applies to social groups and we should endeavour to correct social injustice (h) morality applies to families, close friends and those you are in constant immediate or significant contact wit…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/09/14 08:42 AM
3

My point in referencing occam's is that a direct relationship is a more probable causal mechanism to begin with as compared with a more convoluted explanation, all else equal. It is not more parsimonious to assume a direct causal relationship as you have, because it is the parsimony of the theory, not the mechanism, that Occam's razor is applying to. Whether the RP theory is more parsimonious than other theories, I don't know, because they are all rather complex theories.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/09/14 11:57 AM
2

The standard of is real life aplicability, if we agree on that and not a wishefull thinking standard: that truth makes me feel bad about humanity therefor it must be wrong, you will at the very least see my point and understand why I think the basis of your point is flawed. Conversely if you point out why my views are based more on a universal resentment of women, and how they fall short in covering human behavior, I will have no choice but to rethink my position and understand why you think it'…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/09/14 11:55 AM
2

if the hypothesis was against the evidence it would be scrapped. So the evidence determines the veracity of the hypothesis. That means we have to be careful that we're not interpreting evidence just to fit the theory, however.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/09/14 08:43 AM
3

It also doesn't mean you haven't. That's right. I just picked a random, made up example, but it works with all types of claims, not just the one I used. The directness of the relationship makes it a more likely candidate imo. Occam's razor. How do we know how direct the relationship is if we don't know the causal mechanism? I mean, the relationships in data exampled in the OP were never 100%, which I could, potentially, consider "direct". Certainly, but the sword cuts both ways. TRPers are hardl…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/09/14 08:37 AM
2

I present only the correlation and the limitations of the method. The rest is up for discussion, my view is just as valid as yours or the researchers. Well, this is difficult to assess, because I don't think you know my views, the reasons I hold them, or the rigour with which I support them, and I don't know yours, so without such information it sounds like you're making a blanket statement that any two views are equally valid. I find that difficult to believe - I think that you and I could cert…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/09/14 08:31 AM
3

No, the subjects are different. By studies and statistics being complicated and variable to change, I was speaking about the ones about women being more sexually promiscuous than men, or something similar. I don't see how the different subjects makes it less problematic - they still both fall into the area of topics that "are vastly complicated and are variable to change depending on the pool of people that were studied", as you say. When I said you could verify a theory (AFBB) with personal exp…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/09/14 08:22 AM
3

The problem with studies and statistics when they concern topics like gender dynamics, is that they are vastly complicated and are variable to change depending on the pool of people that were studied. That's why you shouldn't take them literally. If you were to do a study on a certain pool of 1,000 women, all of them could be serial cheaters while another pool could have zero serial cheaters. However, some TRP theories are more true than others because it's so easy to verify for yourself. AFBB, …
/r/PurplePillDebate03/09/14 03:21 AM
2

Gender researchers can't afford to make that leap because when dealing with peoples behavior in real life, they act very unfeminist, and un-feminist research not only conflicts with their values(their view on gender where formed by feminist after all) Is there a way that you safeguard yourself against the same type of biases? If you stop looking at the headline and look at the research and look at what actually happened, not what the researchers interpreted it as happening you can gain some actu…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/09/14 11:27 PM
3

So you're saying that a hypothesis determines the veracity of evidence, and not that evidence determines the veracity of a hypothesis?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/09/14 11:21 PM
6

I'm a little confused as to why some evidence stacks up better than other evidence for redpillers unless they're just being intellectually dishonest and whole-heartedly engaging in confirmation bias. I assume that when they say they are grounded in science and evidence that they are more rigorous than that. You seem to imply that sociology and psychology are steeped in ideology or politics (I'm very curious about this stance because sociology essentially evolved from a critical review of ideolog…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/09/14 11:19 PM
5

You're not supposed to take every single post from TRP to it's literal meaning; you're meant to calibrate the core values of what the poster is trying to make a point out of. This is male communication in it's purest form. This honestly confuses me, because I thought that the reference to studies and statistics were the type of posts to be taken literally; it sounds like you're telling me, "If a redpiller mentions statistics or studies, don't believe that he or she is literally referring you to …
/r/PurplePillDebate02/09/14 11:12 PM
2

The results don't show that women fail to use an opportunity to benefit greatly. The results say that women benefit less than men. Where are you getting this opportunity idea from?
/r/PurplePillDebate24/08/14 02:14 PM
3

What results?
/r/PurplePillDebate24/08/14 01:57 PM
11

This is because females are incentivized to file for divorce because more often than not it benefits them hugely - males, on the other hand have much more to lose and hence need deeper reasons to file for divorce. The OP made the opposite claim and provided links with supporting evidence - are you just going to make empty counterclaims? Why should I believe your claim over theirs? Women will pursue a divorce based on anything - even just boredom. Do you have some evidence for this?
/r/PurplePillDebate24/08/14 01:20 AM
1

Is there any investigation into correlation between promiscuity and culture/social norms?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/14 07:10 AM
4

You said the study was about hypergamy. Where's the information that related it to hypergamy: to marrying up?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/08/14 09:01 AM
2

So where the required marrying up of hypergamy? All you've mentioned is dissatisfaction as related to a social norm.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/08/14 06:05 AM
7

This paper doesn't mention hypergamy - if you think that that's what it is about them I think you're bringing a whole host of assumptions to the table that need to be expressed and justified. This paper concludes that as a result of social norms changing slower than market forces relationships where these norms are expected but not met become problematic.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/08/14 05:55 AM
2

Where'd my W go?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/08/14 05:51 AM
7

hat's the BP "angle"? I would argue that relationship cases are best looked at individually, because they contain only two individuals who interact around a great quantity of qualities - they don't easily fit some predictive model. Unless you have some data across a broad spectrum of women to demonstrate the correlation between women who can't get relationships and their qualities/circumstances all you have is some cherry-picking.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/08/14 05:06 AM
3

That's an interesting story, and it gets me thinking. First off, it is very sad that this person was depressed, suicidally so. Not all people become depressed by the same things or in the same way, and often not because of a single identifiable factor. So while I can certainly empathise with this person and their depression, it is not necessarily indicative of men in general (unless, of course, you want to make the sweeping generalisation that all RP men are suffering from a certain type of depr…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/08/14 04:59 AM
14

A man having an affair LITERALLY CHANGES NOTHING FOR THE WOMAN, assuming he is clean and not financially draining her for the sake of the other woman. But women will still claim "betrayal" or claim that this is some huge moral problem for them. But why? Nobody gets hurt, other than the wife's precious ego. I think this demonstrates quite well the completely different attitude towards relationships that redpillers and other people have. To say that someone to having an affair "literally changes n…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/08/14 12:14 AM
3

Just as I don't believe that there's evidence that "most" women have a toxic sexual strategy, I don't believe there's evidence to support your basis for this toxic sexual strategy either.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/08/14 01:42 AM
13

Red Pill simply states how sexual strategy works, either for (straight) men or women. It never proscribes a specific moral philosophy or system of right and wrong. This is incorrect, though, and I'm tired of seeing people post things along the lines of "sexual strategy is amoral" as if it were some kind of get out of free card. There are three possible interpretations of something like "sexual strategy is amoral". The first is, I think, redpillschool's interpretation: morals are socially constru…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/08/14 01:33 AM
–

There's a problem with the short introduction to TRP idea - TRP isn't a single philosophy that everyone over at TRP agrees on. Some people are there for self-improvement, some to get laid, some to do the MGTOW thing, some to improve their marriages, some to complain about the matriarchy, etc. etc. - but there's very few people that agree on what the goals of TRP are, the scope, or even which concepts are core concepts, true concepts, or how they are interpreted. (See the thread on dread-games re…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/08/14 03:13 AM
4

The reality of these situations is that America's system of awarding alimony cripples men everywhere to the point of severe depression. I know TRP loves science - you got a study to back this up?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/08/14 03:03 AM
4

This demonstrates the problem with RP/BP anecdotal evidence. We have one side of the story here, but let's assume it's told genuinely and honestly. She invited someone extra, he left, she later tells him it was a test and they fuck. Can we, from this, determine that she did this out of positive emotions? Might not her side of the story be that she invited someone around, the person she was attracted to left, and she felt poorly about it and did what she thought he wanted and said what she though…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/08/14 02:59 AM
2

There's a difference between one person conceding less than the other and one person leading. Leading is better defined by, well, leading; taking charge, making the decisions, etc.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/14 09:40 AM
1

Yeah, so I said that deliberately causing dread to achieve some goal was abusive, and that appears pretty straightforward to me; deliberately causing negative emotions in order to influence or control someone constitutes abuse. I mean, I don't see any wiggle room there. It's psychological coercion, psychological manipulation, emotional blackmail, which have negative psychological effects on the abused. How does deliberately causing dread to achieve some aim not fit the definition of abuse?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/14 09:35 PM
1

I said that deliberately causing someone to feel dread to achieve some goal is abusive, pretty much by definition. You're saying dread game doesn't involve the deliberate causing of dread, is that correct? So why's it called dread game? I get the feeling you're equivocating - dread game is a deliberate causing of dread to cause a reaction, but when that's called abusive then suddenly the term is extended to cover the non-deliberate side-effect of dread from more positive-sounding endeavours and …
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/14 02:06 PM
1

when my mother dreads i am leaving home am i abusing her by doing that? i don't believe so. Your mother? I've never herd of dread games occurring between mothers and sons, so I don't know exactly what you're getting at. am i abusing a girl who likes me by being attractive to other women and incidentally making her feel dread that another woman might steal me away? no. Incidentally? Is that how dread games work - there is no deliberate intention involved? How can it possibly be a strategy in that…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/14 01:40 PM
1

Hypergamy is the practice of marrying up. If you have a 22 year old women making $30k fresh out of college, marrying a slightly older man making even $90k would be hypergamy. That's not necessarily so. Status is not just about wealth or earning, but about perceptions of status division. There might be many reasons - family background, common origins, similar political or cultural beliefs - that make these two people perceive themselves as of the same social class almost regardless of money earnt…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/14 03:32 AM
1

"Sexual strategy is amoral" is what TRP responds with if anyone suggests that TRP might be unethical or have some similar complaint. If TRP is advocating something normatively - which TRP implicitly is - then this response holds no water whatsoever. I know that RP discussion avoids, generally, morality - I even said as much when I noted it did not self-judge. But here is the issue: someone says, "Doing x is immoral" and TRP responds "Sexual strategy is amoral", or "each person for themselves dec…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/14 02:56 AM
1

Well, my RP reading has led me to believe that dread games involve dread, and that, as such, it is inherently abusive.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/14 01:37 AM
1

Sure, but the fact that it endorses the goal doesnt mean it says its morally defensible. No, but endorsing a goal the way TRP does is not amoral. That doesn't mean people are saying it is morally defensible; it means that people are making statements to which moral judgement can and should be applied. That they don't self-judge or discuss such moral concerns doesn't mean that the advocacy is amoral, it means it hasn't been reviewed through a moral lens. If you tell someone how to build a bomb, t…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/14 01:36 AM
2

I still maintain that on its own, without the aforementioned nonsense, sexual strategy is amoral. That means it works regardless or whether or not it is ethical. I understand this viewpoint, but I still believe that the existence of TRP community and site as advocates of such strategies (e.g. people ask advice, are given advice, success stories are posted, message is reinforced, etc.) this advocacy demonstrates that it is not treated as 'amoral' - there is implicit and explicit support for follo…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/14 12:53 AM
1

Personally, I don't give a fuck if its "acceptable" by mainstream standards. I'm not commenting on whether or not you should - I haven't mentioned mainstream standards at all. I'm suggesting that the catchphrase "sexual strategy is amoral" is simply not applicable to TRP community, even in its fuzzy and diverse forms, first because it covers more than sexual strategy and second because it normatively advocates, which prevents it from being 'amoral'. I haven't argued here that it is immoral or mo…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/14 12:17 AM
1

So you're okay arguing for or against something, or that something is or isn't abuse, but you don't want to explain why? I'm not sure what you're here for at all, or why you think clarification is something that shouldn't be done.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/14 12:08 AM
1

I'm not debating; I'm asking. If you don't want to clarify things - and I have just asked for some clarification of the method - then don't wonder when people don't understand. You could probably have typed up a simple and effective answer in the time it took you to write this.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/14 11:39 AM
1

That's why I'm asking for clarification, yes.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/14 10:58 AM
1

It doesn't read so well that if I am in any doubt about what dread game is that I am suddenly enlightened. He ignores her on the premise that... something something, she suddenly wants him and we all interpret this as "natural" and, I assume, healthy. There's not much in this particular post. But here's what might help; maybe you could describe the premise by which dread games work (e.g. why does the woman react the way she does) in an ideal dread game. Then we can skip me trying to interpret so…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/14 09:59 AM
1

I was talking about #2. And yes, there are people talking about the way things SHOULD be (for example women not voting), but for the most part I think those are off topic pointlessly extreme tangents from TRP, as opposed to the core message, which is "the world is what it is, its fucked but heres how to take advantage of it and get what you want." There are two types of moral components that you raise with that last sentence. The first is that by noting how to "get what you want" in a community …
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/14 07:59 AM
1

I have to admit I have no idea what you're saying.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/14 07:50 AM
1

Just to be clear - you base general ("more or less") truth on your personal success and the success of a self-selected self-reporting sample of people? If that's the case, and we are questioning what type of evidence might change your mind, I'm guessing it would go along the lines of one of the following: it stops working for you it stops working for you and many others it stops working for others, even though you have success other people have success with same or similar goals but don't use RP…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/14 07:48 AM
1

you don't think a small percentage of men getting most of the sex is hypergamy? No. Hypergamy is "marrying up" above one's caste or social group. For this to be considered hypergamy you'd have to demonstrate status group distinction (I think TRP generally defines this, so we can go with their definition) and that the majority of women are having sex with people above their status (not below, not the same status). You'd also have to generally rule out alternative theories regarding context (are t…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/14 07:45 AM
2

So are you suggesting that the dread game doesn't actually involve threats and fear, or are you suggesting that it does and it isn't abuse? I'm aiming for a more constructive conversation than "swoosh" here.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/14 07:15 AM
2

There are no "core principles" to trp. There are certainly core principles, such as women being hypergamous, etc., that are constantly present in RP thought. Its a constantly updated manual on how to have sex with hot girls, not a moral compass It covers far more than having sex with hot girls - I've seen constant advice on the sub for all sorts of male-female interactions, MGTOW (which is certainly the opposite), marriage as an institution, the matriarchy, men's rights, etc. I've also seen lots…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/14 07:14 AM
1

Do you think that the posters on the site, including the mods and endorsed contributors, and that the links in the sidebar, truly treat this as 'amoral'? The make implicit and explicit recommendations based upon the core principles they espouse. If the Catholic Church says, "Don't use condoms" or something, is that 'amoral' because one can always turn away from the church?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/14 03:19 AM
1

So you judge the effectiveness of TRP toolkit based upon whether or not you achieve your specific goals? What if another person uses TRP and it is less successful or not successful for them - does that change your opinion? And, regardless of that answer, does this mean that you necessarily believe that RP concepts (like, "all women are such-and-such") are true? I say this because if you are your only real data point (or, alternatively, if a self-selected sample is the data set) then I'm interest…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/14 03:15 AM
1

do you mean "is the norm"? I meant "isn't", but that's what phones do for you. So I'm asking what you would consider sufficient evidence against. Just a note: The source you post doesn't show any evidence of hypergamy, i.e. it doesn't show that women "marry up" or "move up" - indeed, it shows no data regarding movement up at all. In fact, it doesn't show or argue where the "standard" should be from which we can interpret such a result. It doesn't qualify or quantify the status of the people invo…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/14 03:09 AM
3

So if it inherently involves dread and threats, then the question I posed to you remains: isn't that inherently considered abuse?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/14 02:59 AM
1

Do you think that these are personal judgments or that every man should be judged against these ideas?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/14 02:25 AM
1

Okay, so what would be sufficient evidence that hypergamy as described by TRP want the norm?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/14 02:23 AM
2

Isn't it inherently abusive, though? I mean, isn't it a threat based in fear (it's called a 'dread game' after all); in any other non-competitive relationship (and even in many sports) wouldn't that be called harassment?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/14 01:00 AM
1

Okay then - what would convince you that the model of the sexes is wrong? Actually, that's a pretty broad topic, so maybe pick one or two things about one sex and what might convince you that that concept is wrong. (I'm not saying the concept is wrong, mind.)
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/14 12:37 AM
1

I guess this demonstrates the complexity of something like the red pill and the diversity of its claims and the diversity of its community in that they do not all accept or bother with all claims. Self-improvement is not a new thing, it's not something that TRP invented or revolutionised. If TRP were simply self-improvement, they would not cop almost any of the flak that they cop. I'm not sure, either, that they would have much to contribute. Nor are they simply PUAs, because pick-up-artistry al…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/14 12:34 AM
1

You want me to describe an entire hypothetical universe? No, I'm asking what sort of evidence would change your mind about some core concept you choose to nominate. I'm not suggesting you exhaustively describe every concept and the requirements for evidence against, just a single one - and not as some exercise relating to alternate universes, but in terms of the standard by which you accept or reject redpill claims that you currently believe.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/14 12:15 AM
1

Alternatively, would you accept evidence that TRP is not the best resolution to less than 70% of heterosexual relationships lasting until death? (That is, either that it doesn't produce more than 70% of lasting relationships, or that some other strategy might produce more or be more effective at producing the same ratio?)
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/14 12:12 AM
1

Maybe pick just one concept, then, and the evidence that would be needed to change your mind about that single concept.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/14 12:07 AM
1

This is all going to depend upon a set of assumptions about the measure of whether or not things are "working" (what the goals are, etc.), what constitutes a "lame" guy and what a "fix" consists of. Is it possible you could elaborate?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/14 12:06 AM
2

It does seem strange to me that redpillers justify their conclusions with personal experience but dismiss the personal experience of others as if some type of brainwashing had occurred to them. It's a very asymmetrical rationale.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/14 12:02 AM
1

What would change my mind? Nothing. The core philosophy checks out. In this case, then, what level of judgement/justification do you use when you say that the core level of philosophy "checks out"? How rigorous is this checking, and what does it consist of?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/14 12:01 AM
1

Fair enough - I assume that this means you only believe in TRP in as far as it works for you and not as some set of universal claims about men and women?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/14 11:58 PM
1

Pander to academics by only calling science that which has a rigorous method and methodology. Otherwise, call it what it is: anecdotal evidence and personal experience.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/14 03:31 AM
1

I would argue that it is not systematic; again, it has no methodology or method and suffers from self selection bias.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/14 03:12 AM
1

Is this something that the red pill concedes?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/14 02:55 AM
1

That's not science. Anecdotal evidence as you've described it doesn't have a methodology, method or falsifiability, and it suffers from self selection bias.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/14 02:55 AM
3

I feel like this is an example of when they kept their conclusions and nomenclature even though they understood their basis was wrong - isn't that kind of the opposite?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/14 12:51 AM
3

That was an interesting read... but I don't think it counts. There's no evidence there that this person changed their mind about anything.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/14 10:29 AM
2

I'm speaking mostly to the redpillers who make claims of the sort that TRP changes its mind when faced with evidence against current beliefs. Now this is ambiguous, because the claims are generally about "the red pill" and yet there is no specific commanding authority or group consciousness for the red pill, so I can't look at those to see if they changed their minds. So I guess the next best place to look is consensus and authority on TRP in general: were there favourable threads for certain co…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/14 09:48 AM
1

Yes. Yes it does. All's fair. Personal integrity would have to be a person to person choice. I wasn't asking about personal integrity. You think that all sides of a debate should be able to say whatever they want regardless of what they mean? I mean, that's a norm you'd endorse?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/14 06:41 AM
5

I've seen various comments from redpillers regarding what theredpill is about: getting laid the matriarchy, including feminism, the media, mischaracterisation of the "real" character of men and women, women in government, feminist (or misandrist) social norms, and so on relationships between men and women, including short-term, long-term, one-night-stands all relationships between men and women, including platonic, friendship, and employment-based There's no critical way to properly assess if TR…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/14 06:06 AM
10

TRP always admit that it is wrong... Well, this is what I am asking for examples of. ...just less wrong than everything else that is brought up (bluepill). I'm not sure that relative correctness in relation to some opposing philosophy is a justified measure of correctness.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/14 05:59 AM
3

Why is it that when there is a critique of the red pill, or even an implied critique of the red pill (as in this thread), that some version of a tu quoque comes up? If feminists claim they are willing to change their views with evidence and then they don't, would that give TRP a free pass to do the same, or would integrity demand that TRP should be willing to change their minds in reaction to evidence and demand that feminism does the same?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/14 05:57 AM
1

I guess examples of infighting on any of the core theories would be good examples, if you have any links.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/14 05:55 AM
2

I have to admit I don't see the implication you're going for - is this an example of people disagreeing with TRP theory? Because it doesn't appear like it.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/14 05:54 AM
5

How does wanting TRP to be wrong inherently mean it is wrong? It doesn't, but I will admit that I am completely sceptical that something suggesting it is evidence-based and fundamentally based upon science should have a more perfect record than, say, science.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/14 05:50 AM
7

I guess I'm wondering because I see expressions of the attitude, "I'm willing to be proven wrong", but no examples of behaviour that demonstrates commitment to that attitude. So no one can show that you don't have commitment to that attitude, but no one can show that you do. And if you haven't been proven wrong, you should say, "I will admit when I'm wrong..."
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/14 05:48 AM
5

Sorry, I didn't quite follow. Who said that?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/14 05:42 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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