699,178 posts

On reading comprehension and literal interpretations

Reddit View
March 25, 2014
308 upvotes

Frankly, it bothers me to have to write this, but somebody clearly slipped the general public some stupid pills. As has been the case since the beginning of the sub, the common thread that ties together anti-redpillers is the literal application of our analogies.

"You don't ask a fish how to catch fish, you ask the fishermen."

But but but women aren't fish! You don't eat women! And women want to be caught!

"A key that opens many locks is a good key, a lock that's opened by many keys is a bad lock.."

That's a bad analogy! You could say anything about anything! A pencil that's sharpened by many sharpeners is a bad pencil...

These are clear examples of people who do not understand analogies. Women are not literally fish. There should be no question about this. And the lock analogy is to demonstrate from who to get advice on the selective nature of women. This isn't to prove the selective nature of women... it's to give a new perspective. It's an analog, not a proof! You cannot just make up nonsense analogies to try to disprove an analogy because they aren't proofs themselves, they're descriptors.

Along with this, there's literal interpretation of hyperbole, generalization, and tone.

This is either a willful misrepresentation of the point for a cheap fallacy, or inadvertent illiteracy. But either way, as men, we should be far above it.

And yet, for some reason, here I am explaining yesterday's Tits or GTFO post. I banned more people yesterday than every day last week combined.

If you don't want to understand meaning, if you have no interest in comprehension, the red pill is not for you. If your initial reaction is knee-jerk instead of pause, the red pill is not for you. If you can't find the goddamned forest because you're too busy looking at trees, the red pill is not for you. If you think I'm literally talking about trees right now, the red pill is not for you.

On TITS OR GTFO

We value logic, reason, accuracy and practical application of our ideas above all else. If a woman has something worth saying she can do so without talking about being a woman, any truth to what she says will be self evident. We clearly live in an era where who is talking has become more important than what is being said, but I have no such interest on TRP. It's clear (from my experience on mensrights and seduction) that female presence tends to temper discussion and modify the message, so I wanted to ensure we kept it at a minimum. Further, I see no real value in field reports from women, because we shouldn't trust what they say (versus what they do).

Asking women not to attention-whore weeds out the stupid "as a woman I don't like xyz" comments that add nothing. If a woman wants to make a case towards a certain behavior, she can put forward a theory that has a logical basis and we can review it on its merits, not because she has tits.

Further, I can't believe I have to explain this, but we don't actually want tit pics, these will be deleted and banned.


Post Information
Title On reading comprehension and literal interpretations
Author redpillschool
Upvotes 308
Comments 293
Date 25 March 2014 03:15 PM UTC (6 years ago)
Subreddit TheRedPill
Link https://theredarchive.com/post/13071
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/21bs35/on_reading_comprehension_and_literal/
Similar Posts

Red Pill terms found in post:
the red pillfield report
Comments

[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil125 points126 points  (134 children) | Copy

Posting on purple pill debate has taught me that many of our detractors dont actually want a debate, they want to reduce the level of discourse through intentional misunderstanding to a pointless emotional argument.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 78 points79 points  (116 children) | Copy

The logical extrapolation of their entire argument is "nothing is knowable, everything is magic." There will be no productive debate taking place there.

[–]RPW MODLifterofThings44 points45 points  (28 children) | Copy

Debates go as follows:

RP: grass is green

BP: well green is a combination of blue and yellow. Grass is OBVIOUSLY not blue, but if you want to insist that it is because you're insecure, do so with my love and blessing!

RP: that isn't what I said and you know it, but if you'd like to continue your willful ignorance, do so with my love and blessing!

Mod: HOW DARE YOU CALL ANOTHER DEBATER WILLFUL AND IGNORANT! YOU ARE BANNED!

[–]carrotplanter8 points9 points  (1 child) | Copy

RP: grass is green

BP: well... bla bla bla

lmao well put. At times I'm even impressed at how trp detractors can come up with anything just to be able to put up an argument of any sort. Meanwhile, we're sitting here and not really trying, we're just stating the obvious.

[–]SavantTrain2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

You can only state things that are so obvious for so long. If they don't get it after a few times, they either don't want to or can't.

[–]alphabetmod-5 points-4 points  (25 children) | Copy

YOU ARE BANNED!

I don't know about that part. We, the mods don't just willy nilly ban people.

[–]TRP Vanguardtheubercuber0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy

Through a couple throwaway accounts I have objective evidence of red pillers being censored and shamed for insults, while my throwaway blue pill account insults RPers literally in the same chain of comments (and also gets reported) and action is not taken against the "blue pill female" tag. I thought cfroflcopter was to blame until I saw AlphaBet don his white armor in PM with my BP throwaway.

[–]alphabetmod1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy

Lol, so you should be able to show a screenshot of that right, since it was in pm and pm's can't be deleted?

[–]TRP Vanguardtheubercuber5 points6 points  (5 children) | Copy

A couple days ago I 'argued' with myself in a thread and both of the throwaways insulted each other and called the other (and their supporters) stupid. I reported both and the rp one was deleted. So the permalink from the report won't work, and I can't find a archived copy of it. However I can find the pm of you saying 'sorry for the trouble, I took care of it' or something along those lines while responding to the blue pill woman who was called stupid immediately after she called someone stupid.

And then of course the blue pill woman's insult is still posted, despite the report and request for removal.

[–][deleted] 2 points2 points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]TRP Vanguardtheubercuber1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

No I did my experiment in response to that exchange as a test.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] -1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy

Hang on lemme pull out my excel spreadsheet. Oh shit, /u/theubercuber is actually me. I didn't even know. Looks like he's /u/bluepillschool too. Guy runs shit.

[–]alphabetmod0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Well based on what he's saying the dude actually had an argument with himself under two different alts, one being a "blue pill woman" account... so what you're saying doesn't really sound all that far off.

[–]alphabetmod-2 points-1 points  (0 children) | Copy

Alright, but you said I was white knighting in PM as well... did you mean to say modmail? And I'd like to know where this supposed insult comment is.

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points  (16 children) | Copy

I'd say our ban-list is considerably shorter than any other RP/BP sub, and we generally give quite a few chances.

[–]TRP Vanguardtheubercuber2 points3 points  (12 children) | Copy

Through a couple throwaway accounts I have objective evidence of red pillers being censored and shamed for insults, while my throwaway blue pill account insults RPers literally in the same chain of comments (and also gets reported) and action is not taken against the "blue pill female" tag. I thought cfroflcopter was to blame until I saw AlphaBet don his white armor in PM with my BP throwaway.

[–]RedSunBlue3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy

#shotsfired

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Oh shiiiiii

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (9 children) | Copy

If you can pull up some links (and screenshot the PMs) and send them to the modmail, I would like to see what is going on.

[–]TRP Vanguardtheubercuber1 point2 points  (8 children) | Copy

What would it change? These exchanges literally happened at the same time and with the same exact insults and elicited two very different responses so obviously there is knowledge of the root problem.

I have to risk giving up the sweet ironic karma when I troll stupid things and tag on 'men suck' on PPD. I don't get much free time anymore and that's a fast laugh.

I'm not convinced you would do anything than grunble 'we'll do better'

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (7 children) | Copy

I would check to see if the Blue Pill posts were ever reported. We don't have time to read every single comment; a usual mod day for me is logging in, checking the modmail, checking my personal mail, checking the reports/spam filter, then logging out. We have issues with Red Pillers taking the law into their own hands instead of reporting, whereas the Blue Pillers are generally better about letting us know when there's an issue. As a result, we end up reprimanding Red Pillers more often because we see them breaking the rules more often.

I can't speak to what Alpha said in PM, and I don't know what your comments were, and I won't condemn one of my mod team if you won't show me what was said.

[–]TRP Vanguardtheubercuber2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy

I personally reported the blue pill posts.

[–]midnightmasses0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT. This exact same thing has happened to me. Typical of feminists and leftists, dissent is labeled with bogeyman terms like "bigot!" "Hate speech" and "wwwaaaaaycisssst" to simply SILENCE THEM. If it doesnt fit into your ignorant marxist echo chamber it must be WAAAYCISSS. Otherwise someone might realize the emperor has no clothes, right?

[–]2RedPill4LYF0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

I'll be nicer to you. My bone to pick is with your friend Spart mostly. Upon reflection, you probably wasn't intentionally trolling me now that I've seen your side of it, although I'm still very certain you are the one who engaged me in PM.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

I can't screenshot on a tablet, but if you go through your messages and click permalink on our first conversation, you'll see that you initiated the PMs on both occasions.

[–]2RedPill4LYF-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

I'll just give it to you because I'm too lazy to switch accounts over a minor point. Spart already did a wonderful job highlighting his own shenanigans.

[–]Endorsed Contributoraaron_the_just20 points21 points  (2 children) | Copy

And that's getting really tiresome. For example, romantic love is easy to understand, and it works the same way in most people regardless of culture or upbringing. Psychologists have researched it and documented it extensively.

Some RP wisdom over on RPW today:

"For whatever reason women are extremely emotionally and psychologically attached to the beliefs that they are unique, mysterious and unknowable and that love and sex aren't able to be understood and systematized like any other knowledge."

And back in our own sub:

"You don't know what you want until you understand it cognitively. Sure, emotions can help you in making some decisions, but your emotions alone aren't going to get you what you want. That goes for men and women. If you try to fulfill all of your biological desires without ever taking the time to think about what you want and how to get, you probably aren't going end up very satisfied. You can get a taste of it, but you're going to end up disappointed."

This desire to believe in magic is tiresome. Oddly enough, it mostly comes from people who would be adamant about how they don't believe in foolish things like God, religion, and so forth.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy

Humans have a proclivity to want to believe in a false idol, even if people reject the ones set up for them by society.

[–]Endorsed Contributoraaron_the_just-3 points-2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Yep. Which is why you're best off just going with the one society's structured around, rather than going off and starting your own goofy thing.

Women should adjust their religious beliefs to be aligned with their man's.

[–]2RedPill4LYF4 points5 points  (83 children) | Copy

I wondered why you were trying so persistently for a while, but it seems you guys reached the same conclusions I did. My other account got banned when I managed to get the whole mod team trolling me in PMs. PurplePill is just another blue pill front.

[–]widec2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

They should just call it the indigo pill because it certainly favors one colour a bit more.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 3 points4 points  (80 children) | Copy

Honestly, it was kinda fun to watch the different mindsets clash. But, no, nothing quality will happen there.

[–]2RedPill4LYF3 points4 points  (79 children) | Copy

I noticed when I started making headway with someone, one of the mods always had to butt in and started in with loaded and leading questions that made it sound like I was Hitler, so I started calling them out for being trolls. Didn't take long for them to get into private pissing contests with me. Eventually one of them got too frustrated and pulled the ban trigger, but not before attempting to shame me with the list of shaming techniques. I think some blue pillers really don't understand irony at all.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 11 points12 points  (46 children) | Copy

Hey don't you understand? They're there for balanced debate. That's why the head moderator of the red pill is.. banned? Oh, guess they didn't want to hear our side. Lol.

[–]2RedPill4LYF5 points6 points  (6 children) | Copy

That whole sub is so unwelcoming to red pillers, it doesn't surprise me at all they banned you. The bias is apparent from the get go. It's funny how blue pillers are as antagonistic as possible with their replies and nobody bats an eyelash, but a red piller being rational and calm with their reasoning gets dogpiled and ridiculed and passive aggressively threatened with a ban instantly.

Most of them think they win a debate by throwing up links to studies that are clearly false but validate their delusional point of views. No civility whatsoever.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy

The problem is that most of their arguments boil down to who has the best semi-related study that might suggest one way or another something tangentially related. Anything that they can disprove weakly is on their side, and anything that can't be proven 100% is used against us.

Couple that with the fact that they really do spend a lot of time antagonizing and trolling, it was no surprise to me that they tried to get me banned as quickly as possible.

[–]2RedPill4LYF3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy

That's exactly what happened to me. Any time I started sharing my own experiences, I heard the phrase, "anecdotal evidence doesn't count" followed by more links to super fringe feminist blogs. At one point I had to push my chair back from the desk and just thought, how is it fair these people can claim they're winning an argument over the internet when all they are doing is searching for literally whatever argument they want to make on Google and linking whatever pops up into the debate like they actually came up with it themselves.

I don't know about you, but I'm a see it and believe it kinda guy. I didn't believe anything about the red pill I wasn't sure about until I tested it myself. So, there I am, trying to explain my experiences in reality land, and these motherfuckers are screeching that I'm not a scientist so I can't be right while copy/pasting drivel they clearly just cherry picked for the sake of making me look wrong. How the hell is it really any different to link to a study nobody has heard of or recognizes or share a personal experience making the same argument? The pretentious smug superior attitudes didn't help their cases any either.

It just makes you wonder how can any of them honestly expect me to go, "Oh wait, you're right. Men and women are all completely equal. Not all women really truly are like that, even though you're doing exactly what the theory talks about right now. Your snide witticisms and community college grade essays you didn't read or write yourselves have shown me the light. Yes, I am the asshole."

[–]totorox2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy

these motherfuckers are screeching that I'm not a scientist so I can't be right

Fallacy of appeal to authority. Overused by liberal militants.

[–]BRINGMETHEBITCHES0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

They are biased and cannot see it or admit it.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (38 children) | Copy

Dude, come on. How many chances did we give you? How long did we let you break from being cordial before we banned you? One of the things Purple did was ask for your help in an official capacity, and also one of the first things Purple did was to thank you for contributing and told you if you needed help on the sub to come to us.

Of the users who cared to answer our survey, half were red pill. We most definitely want to hear your side, and your side is heard. Mods try to keep both sides from destroying the debate environment. Given the nature of the sub, it's far from perfect and emotions run high, but neither side's user base is perfect; both tend to make things difficult and both claim we have a bias for the opposite side.

One of the "heads" of the blue pill (SpermJackalope) is banned as well. We don't ban to silence one side, we ban because a single user is making things difficult.

I helped build purple pill debate because I like this topic. I'd browsed the redpill for months before helping make the sub. Every mod likes this subject too and I can promise you none of them actually like banning people. We want to have everyone contribute, but we won't apologize for getting rid of people who make it difficult for everyone.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 3 points4 points  (30 children) | Copy

but we won't apologize for getting rid of people who make it difficult for everyone.

The never ending RPS is a rapist threads are something that should've ended much earlier given that decision.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (29 children) | Copy

We address what's reported as best we can. Given that half our active user base is RP and they have a much higher satisfaction rate than the BP users, I say we do a pretty good job of keeping RP ideas from being shouted down. We have a comment like this as the second highest rated on a thread; I think RP ideas are pretty well accepted. Hotly contested maybe, but they're far from just shoved to the side.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 3 points4 points  (28 children) | Copy

After watching my argument get twisted, misconstrued, and mangled entirely by blue pillers, it was impossible not to believe they were not debating honestly, but instead trolling.

As was pointed out elsewhere in this thread by whisper-

Someone who assumes you are sane, tries to understand your argument in the most compelling interpretation he can, and then tries to refute it, is a debater.

Someone who assumes you are insane, or tries to find weak interpretations of your arguments that will be easy to refute, or reifies metaphors, is a troll.

Now, obviously after a month or so, I did give up and the quality of my contributions went downwards, but look at it from my perspective- I was regularly confronted, no, inundated, by trolls using method two here, finding weak interpretations of my arguments or outright misrepresenting them, and they hid under the guise of honest debate because they were "just asking a question" and if I called them out on it- it was me that would be chastised. The rules were that we couldn't accuse each other of debating dishonestly, but that's exactly what was taking place.

Alphabetmod even jumped in here and there to try to put the spousal rape topic to bed, but the willful misrepresentation of my position continued unhindered, the request was instead given to me to "let it drop" instead of what any normal person would do, defend themselves against such a ridiculous accusation.

The fact that your wet blanket mod team decided the best way to deal with this level of trolling was to tell me to just not interact with soulcake instead of outright ban and delete the fucking thing- that told me just how much effort to put in, and the signal was loud and clear to other red pillers.

The problem is that you have attempted to give a level playing field but you're not moderating a debate, instead you're taking a hands-off approach limited mostly to removing insults or very obvious pointed questions. In essence, you have a group with some theories that are being challenged, and a group with nothing better to do but troll the fuck out of everybody.

I have noticed the debates have gotten calmer more recently, and that's good for you, but this is in spite of your moderation team, not because of it.

[–]2RedPill4LYF0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy

I'll meet you halfway. You obviously wasn't interested in banning me so much as threatening me with it when I refused to engage you in your horseshit. I'd had about all I could take of the accusation-laden questions I could handle without throwing my hands up by the time you joined in to have your turn.

but we won't apologize for getting rid of people who make it difficult for everyone.

I think you mean you won't apologize for kicking anyone who doesn't agree with your views.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (5 children) | Copy

I think you mean you won't apologize for kicking anyone who doesn't agree with your views.

Again... come on. Look at our polls! Half our active users are RP! I'm pretty sure our banning record is in the single digits! We only do it when we feel a user is having a negative effect on the discussion. I'm sorry if you had a shit time of our sub. It can be rough, I know that. It's a tough topic to argue. But your ban wasn't because we didn't like what you argued. It was how you argued.

[–]2RedPill4LYF-1 points0 points  (4 children) | Copy

It was how you argued.

I seem to recall politely telling you that I didn't want to engage you because I believed you to be a troll. There was never any long rants or harsh language attacking you. I was trying to ignore you. I didn't like how you were engaging me, either. Sadly, I didn't have the ability to threaten censoring you when you wouldn't stop. You tested my patience, not the other way around.

You wanna prove how great you all are, unban ChaoticParadox and I'll gladly work with you all in a civil manner. I'll even think about taking back some of the things I said if you are being genuine.

[–]alphabetmod0 points1 point  (31 children) | Copy

one of the mods always had to butt in and started in with loaded and leading questions that made it sound like I was Hitler, so I started calling them out for being trolls. Didn't take long for them to get into private pissing contests with me. Eventually one of them got too frustrated and pulled the ban trigger,

Bullshit. Which mod?

[–]2RedPill4LYF-1 points0 points  (30 children) | Copy

Pegases? Some weird greek name like that.

[–]alphabetmod-1 points0 points  (29 children) | Copy

Spartacus? You're not on our ban list though.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

He (should be) banned on his ChaoticParadox account, but even that's not on our ban list anymore for some reason. When his comments started getting delayed while he was having a conversation out in the comments and I commented at him once in response to a report, he PM-ed me to tell me to stop filling up his inbox. I pointed out that it was ridiculous to message me first then to get mad when I replied (he hadn't yet told me that his comments were delayed), and then he accused me of being a troll and starting a pissing contest with him. I pointed out that he could have asked to become an endorsed contributor to get around the delays, since you had made that post asking for people who were frequently downvoted to message the mods so we could add them to the list, and he responded about as rudely as you would expect. And for all his bitching about getting into a "pissing contest" with me, I literally said "I'm done with you. Feel free to have the last word, if it's worth it to you." He was the one who continued to privately message me days after that conversation.

Edit: Laptop's busted so I'm on a tablet. Gotta fix the assload of typos.

[–]2RedPill4LYF-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

Your argument sounds solid and all, but I'd made it known several times before you messaged me that I was too fed up with the sub to continue contributing. By the time you messaged me, my inbox was full from not only you and the other mods, but also other blue pillers spamming me with trollish bs. I was telling everyone to stop filling my inbox, and then I told you not to get into a pissing contest with me, but you didn't listen and neither did Spart as I remember.

I messaged you days later in an attempt to get unbanned. I don't remember what was said after that point, but I know I don't take your sub seriously anymore.

[–]2RedPill4LYF-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

That's the name. I have several accounts.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (25 children) | Copy

Give me a minute. Purple remembers this guy's alt, and she needs to look up which of his accounts we banned.

[–]alphabetmod-1 points0 points  (24 children) | Copy

I didn't even ask him for his alt. It doesn't matter because every single person we've banned has a good reason to be banned. Unless he goes back and deletes his comments then we can prove it.

[–]suscitare0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

That never happened to me even though I use a very firm hand with those blue-pillers and feminists. Take it as a complement; getting banned is a victory.

[–]puaSenator7 points8 points  (2 children) | Copy

I occasionally try purple pill debate, but always walk away frustrated. They remind me a lot like creationists who construct a straw man and attack a completely different philosophy. Creationists often argue against a form of evolution which is faulty, because they intentionally created a new faulty theory to attack. Meanwhile they don't actually understand real evolution. That's TBP. Many of them are honestly convinced we just spend all day teaching each other to rape.

So now, the only time I argue with them is for self mental masturbation rather than actually try to change their view. The reality is, nothing I can say will change them. They are simply incapable of it. They are generally fat and unattractive hoes who's world view has been shaped as a fat unattractive hoe. The idea that the world is entirely different for social and attractive people is a foreign concept to them. And by trying to open up and understand the realities of the other side would mean they'd have to admit to themselves and confront the fact that they socially have the short end of the stick of what life has to offer.

By refusing TRP as a reality, they are effectively able to deny that that aspect of life exists. They never have to admit that guys are constantly trying to manipulate women for sex, one way or another, and the reason they don't see it first hand has nothing to do with the fact that they are fat and ugly. Their ego is never going to let them admit they are a bunch of fucking losers, which is why arguing with them is moot.

[–] points points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]puaSenator3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

Uggg... Exactly. They spend all their fucking time here arguing because they need this to be wrong. You know what I disagree with? SRS... I think they are a gaggle of fuckwits. You know what I don't do? Obsess and debate with them. It's fucking useless. I don't understand why TBP on the other hand is so obsessed with us, unless of course they have an ego to defend.

[–] points points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan13 points14 points  (9 children) | Copy

We should call it pussy logic...

aka. I have a pussy therefore I'm right.

[–]Endorsed Contributoraaron_the_just9 points10 points  (3 children) | Copy

The fun starts when you get two pussy-bearers to have a fight. Usually, one of them will accuse the other of betraying womankind.

[–]a-memorable-fancy9 points10 points  (2 children) | Copy

Hardly. Rather they turn into exactly the sort of judgmental harpy bitches that they claim ruin their oh so progressive social justice movement. You will never meet a more misogynistic person than a feminist mad at another woman.

[–]IsThisNameValid5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy

You will never meet a more misogynistic person than a feminist mad at another woman.

Quote of the day right there.

[–]Endorsed Contributoraaron_the_just3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

I watched #solidarityisforwhitewomen with great joy.

[–]2RedPill4LYF0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy

Who would have thunk women do most of their thinking with their vaginas.

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy

Well to be fair most guys do all their thinking with their dicks.

[–]2RedPill4LYF3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy

True but it could also be argued it's blue pill men who fall victim to their own carnal instincts. I think a big part of being a red piller is being in control of yourself in spite of your natural sexual attraction to the opposite sex.

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan7 points8 points  (1 child) | Copy

Yep when your brain has veto power over your balls you've become a man.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Favorite thing I've read all day. Thanks for that.

[–]Sinborn0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

this website is probably a good read: http://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm

[–]mikelovesvegas-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

debating is masturbation without the payoff.....

tyler durden applies in so many aspects of life its incredible

[–]TRP Vanguard: "Dark Triad Expert"IllimitableMan32 points33 points  (23 children) | Copy

If a woman has something worth saying she can do so without talking about being a woman, any truth to what she says will be self evident

EG: /u/veggie_girl

[–] points points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan4 points5 points  (10 children) | Copy

Yeah... I think it was a matter of picking her username before getting heavily involved in TRP.

That said the fact that she's one of the few (only? not sure if any RPW ladies are also endorsed over here) female(s) with an endorsed contributor tag says plenty on her capabilities to you know provide insight into the female stuff and relate it to stuff that will help guys out (as opposed to the general female crap of "Just be yourself!" sort of advice).

[–] points points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy

I often wonder what you endorsed men here at TRP think of RPW in general.

I actually think RPW is a very great place for women to discuss TRP in a kinder gentler tone that is more suitable for female digestion. Without the regular intrusion of men in the sub it enables women to discuss how to be more feminine and focus on winning the long game by securing a strong male for a LTR or Marriage. The thing is that unlike men who can be self made. Women tend to need more guidance and support. Behind every red pill woman is a red pill man or other red pill women (like fathers, grandmothers and the like). That is why RPW is very important for young women. Those women who do not have strong support structures RPW is a godsent. Much like how TRP really helps guys who dont have good role models. I think with a combination of TRP and RPW undoing the damage feminism has done to our society can be achieved.

Personally I think it'd be nice if RPW/TRP had some sort of thing where people endorsed on one TRP-related sub end up having it propagated to all TRP-related subs. Thus we could see RPW Endorsed Contributors show their endorsed status when posting on here for example. (PS: I think the color scheme over there is pretty nice for the female dominated sub and the tags you use for endorsed would look good for RPW posting in here for example).

This is why I enjoy reading and for the most part just keeping my mouth shut here. I'm still in the learning stage and thank TRP for helping me understand men better, my husband and sons especially and myself too for that matter!

We're all here to learn. Some people learn by memory. Some learn by doing. Some learn by teaching. I think I'm more of the latter myself. I get the most benefit when helping out others.

One more thing, are you guys saying that a woman would have a better time posting here if her nick didn't have any reference to her gender?

I think gender references in names is actually helpful to an extent. In many cases it highlights which opinions may need more scrutiny. For example when a woman posts on TRP or when a guy posts in RPW. It may or may not be the best advice but it comes from another redpill point of view.

[–]EVILEMU0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy

are you guys saying that a woman would have a better time posting here if her nick didn't have any reference to her gender?

Based on blind sexism from people that aren't reading what you have to say i'm sure your opinion would matter more to them, but that doesn't matter. It's about what you say, not who are you. This is why we don't like girls trying to gain credit or attention solely based on their sex. ex: "I'm a women and you're wrong because I personally don't display those characteristics."

[–] points points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]EVILEMU-1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy

I don't think announcing yourself as a RPW or not is a black/white answer. In some situations it could benefit your argument, but others it wouldn't be unnecessary. If you were asking a question or stating something you've noticed about X behavior when around other women then it would be useful to include. But if you're using your gender to say that your opinion is stronger than a man's opinion, then that is wrong because everyone can observe human tendencies and actions from either side of the fence equally as well. Being a women isn't a secret club and neither is TRP. The men aren't telling you you'll never understand TRP just because you're a women. Just many foundations of this community are based on societal taboos regarding gender differences.

Let me use a quick example I witnessed yesterday of a women announcing herself to attempt to gain "special treatment". This was in a subreddit devoted to touching up pictures with Photoshop and It has nothing to do with being male/female. Check out this thread. The girl posts (18/f) in the title of her request like it's a fucking porn sub or rateme thread to let everyone know she's a young women. And then out of no where the entire sub is telling her how perfect she is and how she doesn't need her photo touched up. Some direct quotes

You are a very beautiful girl, so I felt bad editing it

when I saw your picture my first thought was, "My god, why would she want to photoshop that picture, she's a natural beauty."

I got a little obsessed with trying to make you look like a model without making changes you couldn't make without surgery... Wanted to show the other stuff isn't important.

I'm sure she would have been helped even if she wasn't a women, but the white-knights just came out of the walls to tell a girl how beautiful she was. When asked why she put her gender and age in the thread title she responded...

Haha I know eh I wasnt sure if I should have put it in the title or not, but I ended up doing it because I thought it might attract people :)

Because it might attract people... Generally they don't come out and say it, but it's clear what is expected from society and the power that "I'm a women!" has. Trying to play the attention whore card on TRP won't go over as well as it did for my example, but if there's necessary reasons to state you're a women then do so in order for us to better understand your contribution. Just avoid using gender in the wrong way.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Hey guys 45(M) here, slightly balding and overweight, anyway here's my opinion on night club culture...

... just doesn't have the same effect.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

[–]TRP Vanguard: "Dark Triad Expert"IllimitableMan2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

Someone saying shes probably a 500lb land whale, which is just bigoted and irrelevant.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy

And false.

[–]IDefyAxioms1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

I honestly didn't know she's a girl. I don't really delve into post history and names are fairly meaningless on reddit.

She's a great example of how being a woman doesn't have to be some qualifier of a viewpoint and that ideas and positions can be accurately detailed without that attention bullshit. She's always super articulate in her posts and intelligent as well.

[–]wishIcared0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

The irony. .

[–]TRP Vanguard: "Dark Triad Expert"IllimitableMan2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

Yeah she has girl in her name, but she doesn't go on about being a woman and how that affects her viewpoint. Always found her a pleasure to deal with. Didn't get endorsed for nothing. On an off note in all that propaganda that we're evil misogynists, they forget to note we have at least one female endorsed contributor. Haha.

[–]IDefyAxioms-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

Oh but don't you see? She and all RPW are all brainwashed by misogyny out of some perverse thought fantasy. /s Anti-RP will decide to portray everything RP as evil, especially when it's the polar opposite. Not even worth getting mad over anymore.

I thought of this earlier today during a class when we were comparing the validity of indeterminism versus fate: no matter how many times or how many different ways you present an idea (in my earlier case, it was that a prerequisite cause creates an open-ended selection of effects), the opposing side can always yell out "But that's not really how it is! You can't understand the truth of reality!"

It's a great analogy to how BP responds to RP truths: they whine and holler about how it's not actually how attraction/sex/etc. works, and instead remove any sense of agency replacing it with victimhood and absolutist reality that women cannot control. Hilarious, really.

[–][deleted] 0 points0 points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy

I'm not a fan of hers. http://i.imgur.com/WCk1ljM.png

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

She has some good points to make, but luckily won't be running things here any time soon.

[–]gnoon120051 points52 points  (42 children) | Copy

I honestly don't understand how someone cannot think the lock analogy is brilliant. I've been using it for years

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan25 points26 points  (0 children) | Copy

Because when confronted with the raw unfiltered truth... Hamsters gotta hamst.

[–]brave_sir_fapsalot1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

It's such a perfectly apt analogy that the truth behind it feels inherent and incontestable. This is alarming for people who hear it but aren't able to accept it.

[–]AlsdousHuxley-2 points-1 points  (16 children) | Copy

I just dont understand why for the lock analogy a vagina and lock are paralleled, the whole purpose of a lock is to stay closed unless the right key is introduced, why are you trying to encourage selective sex? Is there any issue with promiscuous women? Just inherent to the concept, is a women having lots of sex worse than a man doing the same? With the approach to picking up women viewed as men "getting into the pants" of the girl that seems like a flaw with the system not the participants, a.k.a the problem men have to be the ones doing the work to get the women to consent, not that women are consenting too frequently

Edit: Although, the fish analogy is logical and can applied to many things other than just picking up women.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 25 points26 points  (15 children) | Copy

Women are the selective gender, which means it's easy for women to get sex, and very difficult for men. When a man says he's got skill with the ladies, it's impressive because we know it's not easy to do. When a woman says she can get laid, it's not impressive because we already know that. Most of us think well duh, you can get sex, heck I'd bone you right now if you have a condom..

[–]AlsdousHuxley-1 points0 points  (13 children) | Copy

Maybe to hop back a bit, where is the idea of them being the consenting gender? I get socially that we have to be the ones to make them desire to have sex with us, biologically we would and do have to prove to be an adequate mate, Im just wondering where this all stems from. What innately makes them have this power? It just seems to be the way it is. Maybe because our desire for sex is greater, or at least more over powering, so they understand it as a power issue?

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (4 children) | Copy

I'm a bit sleep deprived, so maybe someone else can clarify, but I'll try to tackle this problem.

Lets lay down some groundwork, excuse me if some of this is obvious

In nature, the crude goal of life is to reproduce ad. infinitum. With the case of genetic life, it's to reproduce those genes. This isn't a conscious decision, it either does, or it dies.

The point of sexual reproduction is to mix up genes a little so they don't become redundant and go extinct. (Genetic diversity). But from this diversity and from mutations, at any point in time, you will have creatures that are more likely to survive and reproduce in their environment, and those less likely.

Hence, one of the primary goals of humans, in general, is to reproduce and carry our genes into the future. Either directly, by fucking, or if we can't, indirectly, by supporting our tribe and helping our close genetic neighbors fuck.

In order to assure this fact, we want to maximize our genetic potential and mate with the strongest genes available, and do it as many times as possible. We also want the same of our children and grandchildren.

Ok, now ill get closer to the point. Men and women have a inherently different amount of opportunity to reproduce. Women get pregnant, and have a bit of a rebound period after they give birth, before they can get pregnant again. Also, quite a high amount of chance of miscarriage and complications, as well as infant mortality, especially before modern medicine. As well as being able to get pregnant only a limited number of times in their life. Even in ideal conditions.

Men on the other hand, under ideal conditions, have the potential to impregnate many women per day, every day, for the majority of their life. And there's very little risk to doing so.

Hence, women have to be extremely careful in who they choose as a mate because they have a small amount of tries to get it right. if they choose wrong, they can can either die in childbirth, or pass on shitty genes to their offspring, who might not be able to survive or reproduce in their future environment.

Men on the other hand, in order to propagate their genes, have to try to get as many women pregnant as possible. And because all men are trying to do this, and have the potential to constantly do this, it creates a whole lot of competition.

So we have a lot of men trying to give sex away as frequently as possible to whomever they can, and a small amount of women who are healthy enough to get pregnant who aren't pregnant already.

And so from this diversity, reproductive time-frame, and competition, it is in the woman's best interest to chose the one man, out of the sea of sperm, who will give her genetically strong kids, and to have a man provide for, and nurture the kids until they are old enough to fend for himself.

Now, our biology and our sexual culture has changed very since the time before birth control and now, and all of these feelings associated with sex still hold. They are instinctual, much more than they are intellectual.

To give a common example, these are the same instinctual feelings as when you find rotten food or poop disgusting, not because you learned that these things should be disgusting (although certainly you did as well), but because of the potential for these things to fuck you up beyond repair. And even though you intellectually know that these things can't really hurt you from afar, you are still repulsed by them because of instincts. Having poor sexual strategy is in the same way seen as disgusting, because it has a potential to fuck up your genetic line beyond repair, even though intellectually, there's little wrong with it.

So a woman who will have sex with any dude that flings himself at her is seen as repulsive, because this the worst sexual strategy a woman could have. Hence, a lock that opens to any key.

And a man who is able to convince a large number of women around him that he is the top genetic candidate out of the sea of men is seen as as noble and praiseworthy. Hence, a key that can open any lock.

P.S. Holy fuck, I did not expect to wright that much, it's 4AM, i need sleep.

[–]1Zackcid0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Well said, the concept of "Hypergamy" should become much more obvious to those struggling with it after reading this. Between the lines, we can see why it is females that are branded with "Hypergamous" and not males. It also explains why a woman could be vibing with you one evening and everything seems almost perfect. An alpha man suddenly walks in and Voosh! all her attraction vanishes and goes to this new, "superior" man.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Thanks, this is basically it.

[–]AlsdousHuxley0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

The long and short of it is that: since women are limited in how many times they can birth, they want to be most efficient/effective in terms of times reproduced vs quality of kids.

By the way, very interesting reply, certainly worth considering, thanks for taking the time to write this all

[–]aalewis____-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

nice explanation

[–]SenorPuff0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy

It has to do with the necessity of the society. For the survival of the species, women have to bear children and raise them up to a certain point. Men have to provide for the woman during that period. A weak woman doesn't create problems, because the Y chromosome that is passed to any future male offspring (and thus future providers/warriors/protectors) comes from the male. Weak women don't cause any problems because they already are the weak gender. Weak men pass on genes to their male offspring that lead to future weakness.

It's the alpha fux side of things.

[–]AlsdousHuxley-1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy

So that would imply only the strong or those with enviable traits should be allowed to reproduce.

A.k.a women are doing society justice by not sleeping with "bad" men.

Although, equally unreasonable to ask, Isnt it equally the responsibility of the bad men to stay sex free?

[–]SenorPuff0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

You're assuming there is intelligent choice there, it's more primal than that. We're preprogrammed to seek out desirable traits. Undesirable men will not reproduce because the women won't let them, unless of course they cannot find a better mate themselves. That doesn't mean we aren't all programmed to desire to reproduce: sex is fun for everyone. Also, genetic variety combats genetic disease.

When I said "society" I don't mean civilization, I mean the collective subconscious of the species. Like Ants knowing what to do for the ant Hill, or bees knowing what to do for the hive.

[–]funghii-1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy

That isnt how dna and chromosones work. You get xx or xy and 50/50 dna from each parent, and they dont have anything to do with eachother. Not all male kids of blonde men are blonde, f.ex.

[–]SenorPuff0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

The X and Y chromosomes that determine gender, are passed down. Yes, it is a simplification. Men give either their X or Y, women only X. But seeing as only men can give the Y that determines manhood, that is reason enough to be concerned. The woman's genes matter less in determining male offspring, and male offspring lead the group.

[–]funghii-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

Um, no.

[–] points points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]SenorPuff-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

http://www.genebase.com/learning/article/71

Edit: "The Y-DNA carries information about an individual’s paternal ancestry. The following characteristics of Y-DNA make it suitable for paternal ancestry analysis:

It is found only in males and is inherited strictly from father to son (the same way that the surname is passed down).

It’s genetic code is very stable (low recombination rate).

It contains STR markers which can be used to trace an individual’s recent ancestry.

It contains SNP markers which can be used to trace an individual’s deep ancestry.

The Y-Chromosome is passed down directly from a father to all of his sons and remains relatively unchanged throughout the generations. For example, a distant male forefather will pass his Y-Chromosome down to all of his sons. His sons will then pass the same Y-Chromosome down to all of their sons in the next generation and so on. Thus, all males who are connected to a common forefather will have the same Y-Chromosome. This manner of inheritance is identical to the manner in which the surname is passed down in most cultures (i.e. from father to son along the male lineage). As a result, the Y-Chromosome will allow two males with the same or similar last name to determine whether they belong to the same original family line and will determine whether different family groups with the same surname are connected. The Y-Chromosome allows genealogists solve questions about their ancestry where no paperwork exists and can be used to discover and re-unite family lines."

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

I don't think the issue is that getting sex is easier for them.

[–][deleted]  (2 children) | Copy

[deleted]

[–]2wiseclockcounter0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

OP quotes it in the post.

[–][deleted]  (3 children) | Copy

[deleted]

[–]SmokeU7 points8 points  (2 children) | Copy

Sounds like an invasion of female or immature minds.

[–]jolly--roger4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy

yeah well, another askreddit thread where trp is on par with morbidreality, watching people die etc etc etc..

[–]TheRationalMale.comRollo-Tomassi16 points17 points  (1 child) | Copy

Nothing belies the complete lack of a valid counterargument than deliberately interpreting your debate opponent's analogies, metaphors and illustrations in as literal a sense as possible.

In other words, it's squid ink.

[–]1rporion4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

No, I dont think that is true.

I think such people do not try to make a point, or even be "right", I think they try to win.

By "winning" I mean winning on a social level, if they can ostracize you, or shame you into silence, or lower your social status enough that noone wants to be associated with you or your ideas they have "won" on the only field of battle that matters to them.

I also think that they are giving away what they fear most by using this as their go to tactic almost instinctively.

[–]RPstudent11 points12 points  (10 children) | Copy

I've grown weary with the nitpicking over phrasing. In the house party writeup I saw enough examples of people harping on the use of swallowing in the title. Have we societally slipped our grasp on logic and deduction that we can't get the reference to the red pill?

It echoes the point you're making on the deconstruction of analogies. In these instances it's willful disregard for the author's (commenter's) intent when deploying the analogy or reference. And for those who enjoy playing gotcha games to score cheap debate team points, the red pill is not for you

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 11 points12 points  (7 children) | Copy

I saw that thread, and deleted it.

[–]RPstudent1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy

I saw you removed the "field report" from the troll yesterday, but my reference was to the presently top rated post. No worries either way, just there's been an uptick in sniping about the way people make their points rather than addressing the point made on its merits.

[–]RojoEscarlata-1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy

What field report?

[–]RPstudent0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

This one: http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/21915v/field_report_i_am_not_a_redpiller_but_i_want_to/

He was convinced that by being nice he could get girls to like him and refused to engage in any actual discussion of his logical fallacies. By the way, the logical fallacies picture is stellar.

[–]RojoEscarlata0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Missed that one. Thanks.

Besides the awesome insight that the table gives I'm impressed to the detail they put on Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Their body language represents their frame of thinking. Love it.

[–]dr_bloodmoney2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

You have just described most of reddit. It's infuriating.

[–]pheonixignition1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Yeah, that post was distracting from the point. "Don't use swallowing." Wtf?

[–]batfish5517 points18 points  (5 children) | Copy

If you think I'm literally talking about trees right now, the red pill is not for you.

That actually made me laugh out loud.

....but I'm forced to agree. It bothers me that, here, where men discuss logical, rational plans of attack in living life, there are plenty of people commenting who don't know the difference between "your" and "you're".

[–]1Krackor-2 points-1 points  (4 children) | Copy

Even worse are the people who spend time dwelling on mundane grammar or spelling mistakes instead of absorbing the point of the message.

[–]totorox3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy

But I'm triggered by your/you're and there/their confusions.

I actually am. It's kind of an experiment each time I fall upon one.

Should I let this slip ? Should I flame the fucker? Should I skip reading the rest of his comment altogether?

And if I do read it, it's with this idea in the back of my mind :

So let's see, is there anything in there to disprove the working-theory that anyone dumb enough to make that red flag of a confusion will waste my time if I keep reading him?

Rarely fails. So yeah, keep confusing "you're" and "your" you retards out there, saves me time from reading your comments... and depth of attention when I do read them.

[–]VelociReactor0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

I absolutely agree. When someone is absent minded enough to make the mistake of mixing up you're/your, you have to question their intelligence and I tend to value their opinion much less.

It's not that hard people.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

It's not even absent mindedness, but lack of attention to detail/ lack of giving a shit. Everyone makes typos, but if someone doesn't spend the few seconds it takes to read over what they just furiously typed, I can't be bothered to care about what they wrote.

[–]Endorsed Contributoraaron_the_just16 points17 points  (1 child) | Copy

rps, thanks for kicking it up a notch lately. far fewer shit comments the last two days.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 19 points20 points  (0 children) | Copy

Don't thank just me-

/u/pillpaxton

/u/bsutansalt

/u/SoftHarem

/u/redpill_factory

/u/MachiavellianRed

Are all here shouldering the load.

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan8 points9 points  (5 children) | Copy

If you can't find the goddamned forest because you're too busy looking at trees, the red pill is not for you. If you think I'm literally talking about trees right now, the red pill is not for you.

LOL way to drive the point home. That line just made me laugh.

Further, I can't believe I have to explain this, but we don't actually want tit pics, these will be deleted and banned.

Did people really pick TITS over GTFO after all that shit in their face about TITS choice just being a filter for being a whore? I guess we got a whole lot of shameless whores around here... or some dudes just copy and pasting tits from their porn folder. Either way great job on pruning the stuff out.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 17 points18 points  (4 children) | Copy

Haha, well we weren't getting any actual tit pics- but for some reason the younger members were replying "that's stupid bro, requiring tit pics is just begging for pussy.."

Their actual takeaway was that I wanted to expand my porn collection. Needless to say our banlist grew three sizes that day.

[–]IDefyAxioms0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

I'm really curious now, just how big is this illustrious list?

Thanks to you and all the other mods as well for doing your best in keeping this place top-notch. You're all doing a great job.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Pages and pages. I don't have an official count any more, but it's in the thousands.

[–]assinmygenes0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

I think it's safe to say that a fair amount of poorly educated men have been attracted to trp thinking it's their free ticket to pussy. Then when a Nietzsche post comes up their eyes glaze over.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

That's what /r/seduction is for. We have bigger fish to fry around here.

[–]FortunateBum9 points10 points  (1 child) | Copy

It's an analog, not a proof! You cannot just make up nonsense analogies to try to disprove an analogy because they aren't proofs themselves, they're descriptors.

Oh God, almost every fucking discussion I ever had with anyone in college. What a waste.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

Some baseballs are round, bats are hard, but a good baseball gets hit by a bat.. therefore you're wrong!

WTF

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy

It's clear that female presence tends to temper discussion and modify the message.

I'm glad you are able to recognize this and willing to act on it. Few are.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy

I didn't like this subreddit at first but it's stuff like this that's keeping me here - I can freshen up on some reasonable, sane, no-bullshit discussions, get a dose of straight-up truth with complete disregard for political correctness and other shit no one should care about. Thank you for being the way you are.

[–][deleted]  (13 children) | Copy

[deleted]

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 6 points7 points  (4 children) | Copy

Agreed. Mind you, random downvotes of good material has been normal here since day 1.

[–]MockingDead0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy

Isn't that the Reddit vote fuzzer? Or is that a rumor?

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 7 points8 points  (2 children) | Copy

The fuzzer is +/- maybe 5% - 10%. But we also get brigaded a lot. For a good portion of our history, we just didn't have downvote buttons. So the downvoting problem isn't new.

[–]RojoEscarlata6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy

The karma system is good on paper. Upvote to give visibility to comments that dd to the discussion.

Sadly this is not the case, the system is more like a "I upvote what agrees with my personal view, and downvote what doesn't"

Also low quality comments that have a quick emotional response, Like making you laugh.

A few days ago there was a thread in seddit full of good advice (Including my mind you) and all where shadowed by a top comment(and the following circlejerk) in the triple digits making a play on words on the tittle of the OP or something.

That's why I like 4chan format so much, the flow of the threads there is much better for an open discussion.

[–]the_Milkweed2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

I couldn't agree more, no one takes shit from anyone on 4chan and if you can't take the heat you are just told to fuck off. Reddit is an amazing example of how 'sheeple' rule the world through passive aggression.

[–][deleted]  (7 children) | Copy

[deleted]

[–][deleted]  (6 children) | Copy

[deleted]

[–][deleted]  (5 children) | Copy

[deleted]

[–][deleted]  (4 children) | Copy

[deleted]

[–]RojoEscarlata1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

Why not quoting the exact post you wanted to reference?

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy

[deleted]

[–]RojoEscarlata5 points6 points  (13 children) | Copy

This post reminded me the sticky they have in the header of /pol/

http://i.4cdn.org/pol/src/1378753471679.jpg

EDIT: Forgot to add the site too

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

Very helpful actually.

[–]MockingDead3 points4 points  (11 children) | Copy

My favorite is the Fallacy Fallacy. Decided to get into an argument with a fembeast and she kept talking about exploitation, and then accusing my of moving goal posts when I discussed free will.

Using the loaded word exploitation necessitates a discussion on free will.

[–]pheonixignition-1 points0 points  (10 children) | Copy

I would like to point out the fallacy fallacy relates to saying because a point that was poorly worded or argumented means its wrong.

Moreover, I'm really curious why you consider the word "exploitative" necessitates free will. Quite frankly, exploitation does not relate to free will. Don't give me some "they can leave/do x if they want to" bullshit, either. That's a false premise.

[–]MockingDead7 points8 points  (8 children) | Copy

So which fallacy is used when you claim a fallacy where none exists?

Exploitation implies that they are forced into an action. It's an illusion. We always have options, even ones we find unsatisfactory. Having advantage over someone because they are unwilling to choose other options is not exploitation. Specifically, offering someone a job when they need money is not exploitation. They may always refuse.

It's not a false premise. We always have options, and every choice has consequences. The only thing free will allows is for you to understand and accept the consequences you wish to take.

[–]RojoEscarlata1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Agreed, people are using the word exploitation too much lately, and lets be honest unless you are a modern slave like in Africa or the sweatshops in China free will is still present.

But people tend to think that they are "exploited" because all the options given to them aren't what they want.

Free will is a burden that many, many people just can't handle.

[–]pheonixignition-3 points-2 points  (6 children) | Copy

The reason that's a false premise is its the illusion of choice. Offering them a job when they need money is one thing, offering them dirt wages to the point where they need a second to survive and they're working so hard to make ends meet they can't either educate themselves for a better one or have time to look for another is different. Especially if you're getting rich off them, ie Walmart, etc. Don't believe the lie workers are paid what they're worth, either. That's sometimes true, but often not.

[–]MockingDead1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy

offering them dirt wages to the point where they need a second to survive and they're working so hard to make ends meet they can't either educate themselves for a better one or have time to look for another is different

There are options to prevent this. They are hard, and most people would rather get two jobs than engage in them, but that's a choice.

Don't believe the lie workers are paid what they're worth, either.

I think they are. I think prices are too high. But that's a potato/po-tahto argument. The argument is wages are not keeping up with inflation on goods and services.

[–]pheonixignition0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy

I can point you to some economists who can show why that isn't true. Looking at figures different figures, do you feel workers are more qualified or less qualified than thirty years ago? Most people have college degrees: average pay is less than it was thirty years ago. Meanwhile, the average wealth of the 1% is up 30%. One would think if these "job creators" have so much money, why aren't they paying workers more? Henry Ford hated unions. Despised them. But he paid his workers (largely barely high school educated, low skilled workers) $35 an hour. People made more because unions were more prevalent, and fought for workers rights. We've seen a reduction in unions, but no employers similar to Ford.

I could go on pointing to the many influential factors, but...wall of text.

[–]MockingDead2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy

do you feel workers are more qualified or less qualified than thirty years ago?

Less qualified. Most jobs outside stem can be done by average folks with 2 months training.

Most people have college degrees: average pay is less than it was thirty years ago.

The increase in college defrees has let to a dvaluation of same. worthless

average pay is less than it was thirty years ago.

Finally, an actual problem. When adjusted for inflation, you are correct.

Meanwhile, the average wealth of the 1% is up 30%. One would think if these "job creators" have so much money, why aren't they paying workers more?

Costco is.

Walmart isn't because the Walton Children are reprehensible people.

An increase in automation exponentially removing labor, and the economic fact that wealth will always flow upward unless prevented from doing so, usually by violence.

But he paid his workers (largely barely high school educated, low skilled workers) $35 an hour.

Well, our government decided to bail out GM rather than let capitalism take it's course.

People made more because unions were more prevalent, and fought for workers rights

Unions didn't help Henry Ford's workers. he chose to pay them more and make the 40 hour work week the rule because it improved the quality of the cars.

Unions are dinosaurs. The union increases AT&T's employees wages about 23% over Charter to a whopping 16 an hour...

The unions have become just as corrupt as any company. And the government and corporations hand in hand have made the option to strike nearly impossible. With no pay and huge bills, it's just not a thing that can be done easily.

But again, wealth flows upward barring violence (or innovation, which big companies are desperate to pull into their sphere). And unfortunately, wealth allows you to monopolize both.

but no employers similar to Ford.

A few, but on this we agree.

But none of this contradicts that if products and services were cheaper, wages would be at the proper level.

As for exploitation, workers always have a choice to leave. However, the difficulty of that choice prevents them. And that's the reality.

[–]RojoEscarlata1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

You two are over-complicating the argument.

Economy, social even weather changes have an impact on you, you can't control the circumstances around you, but you have control on how you react to them.

It doesn't matter if in the past/present there where more jobs or not, or more money flowing or not.

What matters is what you do, believe me after mi father died without an insurance and left my mom, sister and me in poverty a little more than 10 years ago, had to drop high school to get a job and the whole thing. It was rough, but fuck it that's life, it doesn't matter how many times it kicks you down as long as you keep getting back up.

TL;DR: You control your life.

[–]pheonixignition0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

I would argue that such times hardly constitute a choice. It used to be that people could force such changes (rebellions, etc.), but now its much harder. There's hardly even a voice for it. It's possible it may happen again, but...who is to say.

And its not just products and services, but wealth needs to be distributed. It's the same reason Ford did so well: by increasing the spending power of the people, it in turned caused a mass boom, which in turn made him more well off. If CEOs and stuff on average took a million or two off and distributed it among their workers, the collective lives of everyone improve. That's economics and common sense.

[–]MockingDead0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

And its not just products and services, but wealth needs to be distributed. It's the same reason Ford did so well: by increasing the spending power of the people, it in turned caused a mass boom, which in turn made him more well off. If CEOs and stuff on average took a million or two off and distributed it among their workers, the collective lives of everyone improve. That's economics and common sense

Well, we no longer live in a world like that. Yes, ensuring that the middle and lower class have 30% disposable income will increase the economy more than the 1% having same surplus, it was only ethics and a sense of obligation that made certain employers do that. Post-modernism torpedoed that right in the nut sack.

The others needed to fear their constituent employees. Given the surplus of cheap labor, and the inexpensive cost to purchase legislators and police means that route has been made more difficult

But still, there are options.

[–]RojoEscarlata0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I would like to point out the fallacy fallacy relates to saying because a point that was poorly worded or argumented means its wrong.

Exactly, a poorly presented argument, or an argument presented with a false premise doesn't make it invalid.

Like the example in under Fallacy Fallacy.

Recognising that Amanda had committed a fallacy in arguing that we should eat healthy food because a nutritionist said it was popular, Alyse said we should therefore eat bacon double cheeseburgers every day.

Amanda is obviously an idiot because of her reasons to eat healthy, but her point is still right, and Alyse is a bigger idiot for dismissing and idea and committed another Fallacy in the process. Amanda is wrong on her assumption on why we should eat healthy, therefore healthy food is wrong/bad.

And this creates a vicious circle of pure BS.

The table is not only to point people who fall under this fallacies, but to prevent you to falling in one too.

[–]SgtBrutalisk6 points7 points  (4 children) | Copy

Can we please make it a sidebar rule, something to the effect of: "Any comment starting with 'I am a woman therefore...' will be deleted promptly".

I am tired of all the Argumentum ad Feminem.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

It's already an unofficial rule that the mods enforce.

[–]Human_v20 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Make it an official rule so to discourage people from doing it. Might mean you have to do less enforcing and people will see exactly why it's being enforced when you have to.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

There are no girls on the internet.

[–]SgtBrutalisk-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

Thank God for that, one place where you can get respite from woman's nonsense.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy

To substitute the quote from this excellent piece of Reg D Hunter standup:

"Yeah well it sounded like you were [calling women fish]."

"It seemed like that, but I'm not. And the reason is, instead of you listening to me with your hearing and your intellect. You were listening to me with your feelings.

[–]RojoEscarlata0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Wow this guy is pretty good.

I'll check more of him at night.

Thanks for sharing.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

That's awesome. Thanks for sharing.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy

I initially gave TRP a pass due to my own prejudices, but thanks to my recovery I'm in this mode where I pretend I woke up in this body/mind and treat myself like a black box. I am carefully dismantling my own conditioning that's been holding me back not just with women but in life. It took a whiny /r/seduction post to bring me to here and shine some light on what you've already summed up so well.

I spent a few hours yesterday googling what the world thought of TRP because I wanted perspective and debate. And what I found were the most cherry-picked "extreme" examples to fit their firmly-entrenched narratives. Even the supposedly canned essays became a line drawn through the wrong data points. I find myself wanting to discredit them due to their motivations but I'd be just as faulty.

Certainly a post like OP's will barely make it as a footnote in the next great anti-TRP blog. The key-lock analogy, the fish analogy, these are easy targets for people unable (or worse, unwilling) to see the analogy for what it truly is. After I traipsed through enough of the criticism I asked myself with which side of the argument is better for me to be aligned. I'm unconcerned if it won't sway detractors I've spent enough time toeing their line up to this point.

The Tits or GTFO post was the line in the sand and I'm with you on it.

[–]totorox2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

The Tits or GTFO post was the line in the sand and I'm with you on it.

I agree it's a flag. A red flag to some, a blue one to others.

It's a great line in the sand indeed : You're against the tits or gtfo rule? You're welcome out.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (0 children) | Copy

Thanks man. Keep swinging the banhammer, so we can keep our little paradise clean from all these idiots out there.

[–]SenorPuff4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

Every analogy breaks down at a point, because it is intended to be representative, not be exact, by definition. Poking holes in an analogy doesn't remove the logic behind the comparison, necessarily. Good luck having a feminist understand that, though.

[–]still_very_alive3 points4 points  (8 children) | Copy

/r/TheBluePill needs to take a serious look at this post. In my experience a great deal of what they do is just being deliberately ignorant.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children) | Copy

That would require insight.

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan14 points15 points  (6 children) | Copy

You sound like you believe /r/TheBluePill is meant to be a serious and honest attempt to counteract our message as opposed to just a bunch of SRS idiots circlejerking and satirizing our shit because they cant come up with an original thought with the collective braincell they all share.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children) | Copy

Don't forget, they are absolutely obsessed with us. I think it's less a satire, and more of an homage.

[–]RojoEscarlata2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy

Ugh!

What a fucking horrible sub.

Just out if curiosity I visited there, saw this thread

Since the Red Pill wont shut up about Orwell

https://31.media.tumblr.com/9f7be1085ab74e948b48241feb2e9b7d/tumblr_n2yfcboROh1r87yi7o1_500.png

I clic the thread expecting a counter argument of the ideas presented by Orwell are or not RP, and instead I just see a silly image, circle jerck comments and no one compelling argument.

What a piece of shit sub.

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

Well you know they are from SRS and the operative word in the abbreviation being SHIT.

[–]2RedPill4LYF-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

Well you know they are from SRS and the operative word in the abbreviation being SHIT.

Boom!

[–]still_very_alive1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

The regulars, sure. For me, I actually first came to TBP, lurked there a while, then decided to actually check out TRP. It was then I realised just how full of shit they were.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

The problem is that people believe the argument is won as soon as you prove that TRP is socially awkward or TRP is misogynistic or TRP is evil. People for a variety of reasons find it impossible to grasp that the argument is won when you prove TRP wrong (or right). TRP makes no claims to be moral, socially accepted, or non-sexist. This is why arguments with stupid people will never work - they try to prove that you are wrong by societal wisdom, you are trying to argue that you are right based on what actually works. No ground can be gained - you both will just pat yourselves on the back and think you are right, because you both ARE.

The other thing is... people need to learn what a generalization means. If I say most women like dominant men for example, bringing up 1 or even 10 women you know who like wimpy guys contributes nothing at all to the argument. I don't know what it is about reddit and generalizations - generalizations simply work. More often than not, they are right, so in conversation, we should be able to drop ideas like "women prefer commitment, men prefer sex" without having some giant battle because I'm "over-generalizing".

If I tell you there's two stocks, one that has a 80% chance of doubling in the next year and one that has a 20% chance of doubling in the next year, which would you choose? Ok - now if 80% of women like muscular guys and 20% of women like skinny jean hipster stick-figures, can we just accept that there is an overall trend going on here, and to better your chances you will put on some damn muscle? People spend their careers studying trends and generalizations, which they use to make massive amounts of money for all kinds of companies. Yet you arguing on askbetas about what women like, you are too morally lofty to use generalizations and trends to get your dick wet?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

We value logic, reason, accuracy and practical application of our ideas above all else. If a woman has something worth saying she can do so without talking about being a woman, any truth to what she says will be self evident.

Tits or GTFO is a great post to weed out people who need to lurk and not comment, or not lurk. Also, like was said, this place is on reddit but not on reddit, so all the faggotries of "As a fisherman" or "as a cosplay girl" aren't needed due to the fact that we're working against talking being more important than what' said here.

How cringe to see the betas/knights flock to upvote and reply to all the "as a girl" posts.

[–]rokr12921 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

The fish analogy always reminds me of Patrice O'Neal. Rest in peace brother.

[–]totorox0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

and the reference will remain unknown to those not in the know...

[–]1myTRPaccount1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

And yet, for some reason, here I am explaining yesterday's Tits or GTFO post. I banned more people yesterday than every day last week combined.

I get why this is done to our particular sub, however, I have seen those 4chan explanations posted to other place on Reddit and get a lot of agreement from the popuilation. The point is valid and accepted as true elsewhere on Reddit to the point I have seem variations bestof'd. Anyone who was arguing against it is trolling.

On alt accounts, I've posted to askwomen and twox and never mentioned my gender. It's easy to get people to agree with you so long as you make valid points. Announcing your gender in gendered subs usually detracts from the conversation and is most often irrelevant to the discussion.

[–]CrashTheMachine1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

I like trees.

[–]Jswiizle3 points4 points  (31 children) | Copy

Okay... I agree with most of the laws of TRP, but I find the lock analogy too far... I think men and woman should be judged equally on their promiscuity.

[–]MagicGainbow1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

''I think men and woman should be judged equally on their promiscuity.'' Wishful thinking that will never fly, women use other women as an indicator of a man's fitness, a virgin 21 yr old women is highly sought after, a virgin 21 yr old man is avoided like the plague, so yeah good luck with that.

[–]TRP VanguardCyralea3 points4 points  (8 children) | Copy

That belies reality in that one gender is naturally selective. Women are the selective sex -- you agree with this much, right? A woman can obtain sex anytime she wants, obtaining it is not a feat at all (i.e. shitty lock).

Men, conversely, have more difficulty obtaining sex. Some men are fantastic at it (i.e. good keys) but on the whole it is much harder for the average male to obtain sex than the average female.

Such a dynamic is intrinsic given our biology.

[–]Jswiizle-1 points0 points  (5 children) | Copy

I think it is true to a certain degree, but is that instinctual? It may be a little, but in my opinion it is mostly due to societal conditioning. I am selective to who i have sex with, yes I do get shunned from the girls friends if i say no. I would only fuck like 8% of my school...

[–]TRP VanguardCyralea4 points5 points  (4 children) | Copy

The biological explanation for it is that women were forced to be selective to ensure they had the best genetics passed on, as pregnancy and childbirth were risky and resource-intensive. Being impregnated by a weaker male meant your offspring didn't likely make it to the next round of genetic cycling.

The corollary is that for men is that spreading seed is low on resources. Impregnating as many women as possible is the surest way to pass on your genetics. There would be no drawback in such a scenario for a man.

This is the basis for why men will generally sleep with most women (and men, in the case of homosexuals) and most women will not do the same with men.

[–]Jswiizle-3 points-2 points  (3 children) | Copy

I just want to say I am only 16 and I haven't studied that yet, but I assume you're correct. My question still remains though, yes that is out instinctual nature but in modern times I don't understand why this concept has to be applied, there is no use for it anymore which is why i suggest we are slowly evolving from this. I could see why it was important in our primal age, because of survival; but in modern times I dont think it is instinctual. I get urges to fuck a girl every day, but i dont bend her over and fuck her during class.

[–]TRP VanguardCyralea2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy

The issue lies in that our psychology is derived from the same genetics that caused our ancestors to survive. Like it or not, men will be turned off by slutty women just as women are always going to be hypergamous (i.e. chase the best quality seed). A slutty woman is one that many men had access to, meaning tons of sperm competition. The ones that chased chaste women were more likely to procreate, and you and I are the descendants of such people. It's a completely innate behaviour in both sexes. Further, over-ruling ones biology is really hard.

For what it's worth, I have a degree in Biochemistry, so I'm not pulling this stuff out of my ass. I encourage you to not just take my word though, look into it and better your understanding of human biology. It really puts into perspective a lot of human behaviours, not just sexual. It's a great primer if you want to really "get" other people.

[–]Jswiizle3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy

I enjoyed your perspective, you win... but I still don't think society should punish woman who like to have a lot of sex. From my understanding at least, consciously I am more afraid of the woman having STDs than I am about sperm competition. I think that threat of STDs would over ride our primal instincts, and would apply to both sexes But I do acknowledge that it may be subconscious too.. I don't really know. Thanks for the time and information... I enjoyed the debate man, have a good night

[–]TRP VanguardCyralea0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Cheers dude.

[–]dexmonic-1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy

Wow, this is a lime of thinking I have never seen before, and it makes a lot of sense to me. What you say a seems to be true. However, I can't fully agree until I see the intelligent counter claims to this type of thinking. Any respectable reading you would recommend that goes against what you are saying?

[–]rakenodiax0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Judging by your crazy person wall of text filled with misspellings and poor grammar (without a denial of my main point: that you reek of TRP [and hey, I hear you like parenthesis]), you probably are as most in this thread suspect. Not to mention commenting in TRP about how they've "won" (such a catch) you over. Have fun with the self-loathing and loneliness, bub.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy

I think men and woman should be judged equally on their promiscuity.

[–]Jswiizle2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy

Yeah, but that contradicts your analogy

[–]totorox-2 points-1 points  (0 children) | Copy

A woman proves her value by saying no : by being selective. Because all she needs to do to get dick is go outside and say yes. Because female sexuality is high value whereas male sexuality is worthless. Because the females are the limiting factor in reproduction.

The analogy calls the lock a shitty lock. Of course the notion of judgment hangs around that, but beyond judgment and the social moral rules that sustain it there is the biological gender differences that justify these social moral rules.

So the point of the analogy is like TRP, it's not to lay blame or shame it's to describe reality as it is... in a society infected by lies about it.

Female promiscuity can be shamed or not but that's not the point. The point is that it destroys said promiscuous females' ability to be a wives and mothers in the long term.

So TRP places itself outside of the moral debate as this moral debate is hijacked by feminists on one side and right wing tryhards on the other, with the success of feminism that we have seen in the past decades.

Beyond shame and judgment there is the hardcore life reality of promiscuous women. Their children pay the price, if they have any.

Shoulda kept those legs shut. Sorry you haven't been taught well but it's no motive for us to consent to you teaching your daughters to be even worse without us speaking up against your lies.

[–]wishIcared-5 points-4 points  (16 children) | Copy

Men use women for sex, women get used for sex. It's as simple as that.

No guy has ever seriously asked a women "do you only want me for sex?" Ive heard that question 3 times in the last week by comparison.

Women who have a lot of casual sex for little or no gain allow themselves to be used. Promiscuous women often have very low self esteem. Promiscuous guys are usually ontop of the fucking world.

The equivilant to a stud is a women that men want to wife up.

The equivilant to a slut is a friendzoned guy that girls wont sleep with..

[–]Jswiizle3 points4 points  (15 children) | Copy

Well, I don't really think that relates to my point... and you act like woman don't enjoy sex?

[–]wishIcared-5 points-4 points  (5 children) | Copy

Why would you judge two things equally when they are quite obviously very different.

Judging a fish how many times it can get caught vs judging how many fish you can catch.

Of course women enjoy sex, but they are far more selective. A guy can enjoy sex purely on the physical and visual aspects. For women there's far more contextual and mental factors that come into play.

Men are simple "id fuck a 7 or higher"

A man can have 100 children in his life time, a women cannot. A man wants to soread his seed, a women wants to secure a good seed.

A slut is as sad and pathetic as a man who gets married to a fat chick.

[–]Jswiizle3 points4 points  (4 children) | Copy

Uhm... because there's more factors than male/female. I (as a male) strongly prefer having emotional connection as well as physical, its about 70 physical/30 emotional. Not trying to sound cocky, but if I wanted to get my dick sucked right now, I could get an ok girl to do it... I think it's the same way with females, an ugly female can not simply go up to a great looking guy and fuck him... I have said no to girls that I was not attracted to before, about as much times as I have been rejected. And to say that they are selective? What do you base this on, because in most primal tribal communities were 100% promiscuous, and monogomy was rare.

[–]Human_v21 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy

Female promiscuity carries with it a risk of cuckoldry to a man who sleeps with her. A woman always knows her child is hers, a man does not (until recently with paternity testing). This means men value women who do not have high numbers of sexual partners because it is the best indicator of fidelity and thus carries the lowest risk of cuckoldry.

And to say that they are selective? What do you base this on, because in most primal tribal communities were 100% promiscuous, and monogomy was rare.

The point is not that women are selective in that they only sleep with a few men, it's that they're selective in that they only sleep with the ones who they perceive to have the best genes. Of course ugly women can't attract the best men but they will always try to sleep with the best man they can. Men can be selective but ultimately they don't carry the risk of bearing a child so they don't need to be as selective in their choice of mate. A man who sleeps with 100 women has a higher chance of passing on his genetic lineage than a woman who does the same. Since a woman does not have the option of 'spreading her seed' she must choose the best man to mate with. Hence why women are the selective sex.

[–]Jswiizle0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

I understand that woman are the selective sex, but that still doesn't convince me to believe that we should punish them for being promiscuous, but we shouldn't punish men... that seems like WAY too far. We are in 2014... I think men and woman should have equal rights, that doesn't mean they are equal...

[–]Human_v21 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Nobody cares what you think things should be like. This isn't a subreddit to discuss how we'd like the world to be and it isn't a subreddit for activism.

We're discussing how things are and the reasons they are that way, right and wrong doesn't come into it. I haven't made any mention of my own feelings on the topic, merely the theory behind why women who sleep with fewer people are more valued than men who do the same.

[–]Jswiizle0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I don't believe we need to treat woman like pets... that is silly

[–]totorox-2 points-1 points  (8 children) | Copy

Well, I don't really think that relates to my point...

but it does

and you act like woman don't enjoy sex?

no he didnt.

logic... learn it.

[–]Jswiizle1 point2 points  (7 children) | Copy

My point is woman should not be frowned upon for being promiscuous, nor should men... simple as that

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points  (0 children) | Copy

You can't change millions of years of evolutions with should, or should nots. Even if you did change the perception of it, men would prefer to still only marry the most virginal, and young with the nicest hips to waist ratio.

It's like with women - women should like and love nice guys, which I think is a shame, but the reality is that women crave for a powerful man with status who'll use her as a cumdumpster.

It's human nature, man.

[–]ModMachiavellianRed-3 points-2 points  (5 children) | Copy

woman should not be frowned upon for being promiscuous

99.9% of this sub disagrees with you. Sexual liberation is what got us into this mess. You're being idealistic, not realistic. If letting women slut it up allowed a society to have functioning family units, nobody would give much of a fuck. Unfortunately, this isn't the case. Broken families are EVERYWHERE since women got the freedom to fuck whoever they like and not be punished by the legal system or society for it.

Single parents typically raise inferior children, exceptions aside.

[–]Jswiizle6 points7 points  (4 children) | Copy

What the actual fuck? Im pretty sure there's a bigger problem with dads leaving their kids, rather than woman leaving... do you suggest that woman should only be able to fuck 3 guys in their life? And guys can fuck as many as they want? Lol are you really blaming broken families all on woman?

[–]ModMachiavellianRed-2 points-1 points  (3 children) | Copy

do you suggest that woman should only be able to fuck 3 guys in their life?

No, they should be serial monogamists, not cheating or otherwise getting strange dick every Friday and Saturday down in town.

The more strange cock a woman gets, the less she trusts men and the harder she finds it to be in a meaningful relationship with one. Then she gets to about 28-30, wants to rush to marriage now she's "had her fun" and makes poor wife material. She spent her whole life being selfish and having short term relationships, she has no idea what a long term relationship takes, it is poor preparation for family and/or marriage in later life.

Im pretty sure there's a bigger problem with dads leaving their kids

That's a problem, but when women have all the legal power, a lot of the time the dad is forced out, he isn't leaving because he wants to but because he isn't even allowed to see his own children. If your gf/wife is able to cheat on you and society/the courts won't punish her for that and you leave, who's the asshole? She is. Men are often painted as the villains, but it's not as simple as "Men = evil" and "Women = innocent" your automatic assumption that this is the case shows a lack of critical thinking.

And guys can fuck as many as they want?

Read this topic: /r/TheRedPill/comments/219u5q/the_loyalty_of_women_in_long_term_mating/

Lol are you really blaming broken families all on woman?

Women destroy families all the time, they call for 70% of the divorces, so yeah, I'll blame them for 70% of the destroyed families, sure. They're less willing to work shit out when it gets tough, give up, call it a day, find a new guy and claim child support from their old guy. That shit isn't acceptable. That shit doesn't help foster a healthy, productive society. In my opinion, it's one of the biggest problems a functioning society faces, the blind acceptance of fragmenting family because of a "woman's feelings." If you have kids with someone you better pick your partner well to begin with, plan the kids and do everything in your power to stay with the other parent. Kids with divorced parents fail more at life on all and every indicator of success versus those from functioning nuclear families.

[–]Jswiizle2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy

I do agree that woman have WAY more legal power than they should and they do screw guys on a lot of legal things, but I guess I misunderstood you? I interpreted it like girls should be selective on who they have sex with, not breed with. I still think woman and men should BOTH be selective with who they breed with. I don't think woman should be held to a higher standard than men are when it comes to that. I also disagree when you say woman are less likely to work their asses off. I don't think it is inherited, although with the laws we have they may be tempted to call child support.

[–]ModMachiavellianRed3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy

You're entitled to disagree. That's fine. I feel no inclination to say anything more.

[–]TRP VanguardCyralea1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy

I used to believe that it was the case that the misrepresentations were deliberate, but as I got older it's become clear to me that most people have trouble with logic. At least at a higher level. If I had to estimate, some 80% of people are fully incapable of coming to logical conclusions without a very active effort.

If I can add, the other common trait in such a person is that they can't understand generalizations. Most people don't understand that an exception doesn't invalidate a rule ("Chinese people are shorter than average" isn't invalidated by the existence of Yao Ming). In their minds I think they lack the tools to see the connections that allow probabilistic thinking.

[–]L3aBoB3a-2 points-1 points  (4 children) | Copy

May I add, "causation does not imply correlation"?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy

No you may not. C'mon dude, this is exactly the shit we are talking about. You are just parroting something you heard before without actually thinking about it.

"causation does not imply correlation"

If A causes B, does that mean that A is related to B?

Now think about: If A is related to B, does that mean A causes B?

[–]L3aBoB3a-1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy

I was actually agreeing with Cyralea's statement about about people who are incapable of using logic. I'm not sure who is parroting here, considering your textbook A and B example, so maybe you don't quite understand the concept and had to look it up. Next time, cite your source. See how my comment about the logical fallacy is parallel to the original post.

As far as his second point, he's talking about outliers. Most people who fail to see the logic in matters, always want to consider a point that completely outside of the data set and generally wouldn't even be counted as a factor in probability.

If I was an idiot, I wouldn't have commented or upvoted his comment.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

Are you really fucking trying to tell me that correlation implies causation? Because that directly deals with the OP about reading comprehension. The burden of proof for the source on that one is on you. I was using such simple examples because i suspected you were an idiot, but now you confirmed my suspicions, since clearly they were too difficult for you.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

"If I was an idiot, I wouldn't have commented or upvoted his comment."

It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt. -Mark Twain

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I'm going through this right now. Hanging on one word...... And misinterpreting it to cause an emotional fight.

[–]1kick60 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Agreed, but you're preaching to the choir.

[–]toysjoe0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

In the brackets it should be "versus" not "verses".

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

thx

[–][deleted]  (3 children) | Copy

[deleted]

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy

Don't stoop to their level and call them autistic.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

Yeah, that doesn't insult the idiots, it only insults the actual autistics.

[–]MagicGainbow0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Yeah, I have aspergers syndrome and find the whole thing offensive to an extent , most sperglords are not autistic, they are just uptight, I would say due to my own effort and with help from trp that I have come along way, recently it helped me bag a girl who looks strikingly similar to this actress http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/8c/b1/ea/8cb1ea609135c7bbe3547db68d314e20.jpg, so thanks trp!

[–]CallMeMrBadGuy0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

It's an intentional misunderstanding and intentional aloofness to the meat of TRP. This is especially by radfems. They specialize in ignoring logic and specialize in trying to bring the discourse into outrage and/or snark. It's really of no consequence however because the realities of the actual situation and there lack of a substantive counterargument or manner of action to RP theory means that for the people that stuff off their betaness and put RP concepts in action and see it work, will need no further convincing.

So I say continue speaking in generalities and analogies that are clearly evident to anyone but the trolls who choose to intentionally be brainless and worry less about their need for explicit wording. They're so intelligent they cant read between the lines

[–]wishIcared0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Having to censor is bullshit, just ban em all, the red pill is clearly not for everyone.

[–]Rainymood_XI0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

Further, I see no real value in field reports from women, because we shouldn't trust what they say (versus what they do).

Ouch

[–]wishIcared3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy

Its very true though. Women lie all the time, constantly and to themselves.

[–]totorox0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Yup. Self-delusion seems to be necessary to receptivity and passivity, like self clarity seems necessary to activity and emissivity.

I'm mysterious because I attract and I attract because I'm mysterious

I'm so mysterious I can spend all day listening to interpretations about me and my relationships

Not all women are fixated into the passive, receptive, self-deluded mode but the ones who aren't dont get caught by the attentionwhores net that is the tits or gtfo rule.

[–]totorox0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

Excellent. I hope this policy will remain enforced.

I'm glad I came over here after 4chan got censored.

[–]RojoEscarlata-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

Censored? I would say in here (reddit) we are much more censored by the etiquette and karma.

At least that's what I've seen in, pol, b, and fit, there is virtually no kind of censorship.

[–]modernneo0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Prime example. People take RP ideas and terminology completely out of context without even bothering to find out what is actually being said, and then downvote and mock the one guy who tries to clarify. They then go off on an idiotic tangent that is apparently meant to mock this subreddit but just ends up making them look like pathetic trolls.

[–]Endorsed ContributorBluepillProfessor0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

As a Christian man I feel this is reasonable.

[–]Deansdale0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Pure gold, thank you.

[–]MockingDead-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

Well said. I'd like to point out that we have formatting.

Style guides highly suggest you use italics to inform tones like sarcasm or sardonicism.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (6 children) | Copy

you can't ban them all, there are to many newcomers that think the matrix is a figment of male frustration, gynocracy is just a projection of frustrated divorced betas and the only value of /r/TheRedPill is pick up 2.0

and considering the huge number of rants and pop sci that get labeled as red pill theory I kinda get why they got that impresion

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 6 points7 points  (5 children) | Copy

you can't ban them all

Is that a challenge?

[–][deleted]  (4 children) | Copy

[deleted]

[–]2wiseclockcounter-3 points-2 points  (3 children) | Copy

wait, mods make money on reddit?

[–]IDefyAxioms0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I think you should read the OP again.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

If they do, then I would like to file a complaint...

[–]AlmostRP-1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy

If a woman has something worth saying she can do so without talking about being a woman, any truth to what she says will be self evident.

As a corollary, can we get rid of the TRP Endorsed stickers?

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

No.

[–]phreshfrince-1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy

We value logic, reason, accuracy and practical application of our ideas above all else.

I was expecting something akin to this when I found this subreddit yesterday. Maybe I have missed some legendary threads, but the first page of this subreddit is all related towards raging at or dealing with women. Game is only one part of the propulsion of redpill. Self-improvement, physical strength, and yearning for knowledge are all tantamount to game in redpilling, but I only see game discussion here, literal interpretation or not. The slightest disagreement is shunned instead of logically destroyed.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

You're not looking hard enough. There's a discussion stickied at the top of this very page on power talk and other language.

Further- disagreements happen regularly. Trolling is shunned.

[–]Arbitrage84-5 points-4 points  (1 child) | Copy

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Sorry, DV'ed because I hate that cunt.



You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2020. All rights reserved.

created by /u/dream-hunter