Some really good stuff in this article:
We get frustrated because women communicate differently than we do. Women communicate covertly, men communicate overtly. Men convey information, women convey feeling. Men prioritize content, women prioritize context. One of the great obfuscations fostered by feminization in the last quarter-century is this expectation that women are every bit as rational and inclined to analytical problem solving as men. It’s result of an equalist mentality that misguides men into believing that women communicate no differently than men. That’s not to discount women as problem solvers in their own right, but it flies in the face how women set about a specifically feminine form of communication. Scientific study after study illustrating the natural capacity women have for exceptionally complex forms of communication (to the point of proving their neural pathways are wired differently) are proudly waved in by a feminized media as proof of women’s innate merits, yet as men, we’re expected to accept that she “means what she says, and she says what she means.”
A common recognition in the manosphere is women’s predisposition toward collectivism and/or a more socialist bent to thinking about resource distribution. Whereas men tend to distribute rewards and resources primarily on merit, women have a tendency to spread resources collectively irrespective of merit. Again this predispositions is likely due to how women’s ‘hard-wiring’ evolved as part of the circumstances of their tribal roles.
This is part of boys-men’s earliest feminine conditioning; a calculated effort by the Feminine Imperative to train men to communicate as women do. I call this men’s “sensitivity training”, but in essence it’s a social effort to force men to rewire their brains to better accommodate a feminine-primary society. “Get in touch with your feminine side”, is really a plea for men to contort their natural ways of communicating into a feminine aligned mode of communicating.
This is seen on /r/purplepilldebate, with trolls, and pretty well everywhere on reddit these days: People will typically agree with red pill information as long as you don't word it in a red pill way. Our communication styles are different- and as our feminized society has normalized feminine communication (sensitivity training), they can use our lack of sensitive communication as something to attack- how dare we violate the norm!
This is also why we concentrate so heavily - as mods, and as a group- in not modifying our speech.
I'd say 99% of disagreements between red pill and others stems from a difference in communication or debate styles. They get so wrapped up in the language that they miss the point-
Is seduction manipulation?
The question is, what social interactions aren't a form of "manipulation?" The very usage of the term manipulation is manipulative, adding a negative context via it's commonly accepted connotation- that evil can change minds, so if a mind is changed it must be evil.
Why don't you treat women like people?
Getting caught up in the particulars of language, and assuming that somehow in the minds of men there exists a way to truly treat the object of your affection as something inhuman is an error in translation- and a massive projection to boot. The very phrase is emotionally based and carries little logic. How does one treat somebody else "like a person," or fail to do so? The problem isn't the interactions between two people, which could follow red pill advice and theory to a T and be very successful and pleasant for both parties, but instead the thoughts in the minds of men when engaging in the interaction. The very concept is thought crime, and a startling revelation and look into the minds of women: they assume malice because they know precisely how they lie when they attempt to manipulate others.
Are women really children?
Why all the hatred, anger and misogyny?
These are all tone questions, ones of emotion. They are not there to discuss the merits of our arguments, they are there to control the tone, to feminize our speech, and ensure that we get in line.
People regularly accuse me of banning people who "dissent" or bring alternative theories into the red pill. The reality is, I enjoy seeing ways our theories can be challenged, and I enjoy the discussion and debates that can take place. What we ban has a subtle difference- it's a thinly-clad attempt at shame and modification of tone that we remove. Myself and the other mods can spot it miles away. It doesn't approach the questions we ask, it doesn't look for answers- it appeals only to emotion and tries to temper our speech. Not on my fucking watch.