What is the difference between calling out radical redpillers and radical feminists?

TalkToHusband · 2014-12-15T15:35:43+00:00

IF you look at /r/thebluepill and just about most places on reddit they try to call out /r/theredpill by featuring the worst of the worst posts as if they are...

[–][deleted] 19 points20 points21 points 11 years ago* (65 children) | Copy Link

The comparison between The Red Pill and feminism is really not a solid one. Feminism as a movement has been around for centuries, with its political influence seeing peaks throughout the 19th and 20th centuries (the abolitionist and prohibitionist movements in the mid 1800’s for example were spearheaded by feminists, with the prominent ones moving to the suffragette movements that led to the Nineteenth Amendment and then the equal pay and equal opportunities pushed for in the sixties and seventies). “Third-wave” feminism has its nut-jobs and certainly lacks the urgency that the first two waves had, but it’s certainly not without any purpose. It’s just the purpose is less tangible than Section IX or the right to vote.

The Red Pill (at least specifically the subreddit) has only been around for about two years (since October 2012, I believe). The “manosphere” as a whole dates back a bit longer, yet still is mainly reactionary to the third-wave of feminism. The problem with your argument is that the feminists that claim “death to all cis-males” and that “E=MC² is sexist” aren’t the prominent members of the movement. Hilary Clinton, Oprah Winfrey, Whoopi Goldberg, Elizabeth Warren, Danica Patrick, the Williams sisters, Mia Love, Emma Watson, and so on. I’m not a feminist, but I know that those are the more prominent “third-wavers” that the little girls today look up to.

Compare that to the claims that “feminists wish they were hot enough to be rape-able”, or that “…’the age of consent’ being as high as 18 is because of the artificially inflated market society tries to keep for women”, or that “[I] Thoroughly believe all women are crazy, the extent just differs. [I] Thoroughly believe all women are manipulative, the scale and intelligence of said manipulations just varies. [I have] Never met a bitch who wasn't crazy or manipulative”. These beliefs cannot be claimed to be from the “extremes” or the “crazies.” These are the moderators and endorsed contributors to the subreddit. These are highly upvoted comments from the individuals who are either in charge or whose opinions are highly valued.

Perhaps the only difference is time, and in time the rank-and-file of TRP will call out against the concept of “AWALT” or call for the removal of Women: the Most Responsible Teenage in the House from the “Required Theory Reading” section of the sidebar. When that happens, you’ll be able to play the “NARPALT (Not All Red Pillers Are Like That)” card.

[–]TalkToHusbandPurple Pill Woman[S] 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]pickup_sticks 16 points17 points18 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]TalkToHusbandPurple Pill Woman[S] 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]pickup_sticks 10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pointless_Endeavors-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]steelpuppy-3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]pickup_sticks 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]steelpuppy2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]pickup_sticks 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]steelpuppy1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]steelpuppy-3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points16 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

You talk about prominent figures like Oprah, Hilary Clinton, yet they aren't really leading feminism. They are just figure heads talking about 'equality.' I have never seen Hilary Clinton, ever talk about the patriarchy or other theoretical terms in feminism. Nor has she told guys to 'check their privilege.'

Because prominent feminists don't go around yelling "the Patriarchy^TM is coming, the Patriarchy^TM is coming" like Paul Revere, nor are they going around telling cis-males to "check their privilege."

The examples I used like the e = mc2 woman is an actual academic in feminism. Or Anita Sarkeesian.

The E=MC² woman was actually a man and a woman, Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont. And the article you posted? It was a hoax, nothing more than Sokal's "...experiment to test the journal's intellectual rigor and, specifically, to investigate whether 'a leading North American journal of cultural studies – whose editorial collective includes such luminaries as Fredric Jameson and Andrew Ross – [would] publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions."

As for Anita Sarkeesian? The chick has a series of YouTube videos about female representation in video games. You're two examples of "prominent feminists with extreme views" are a vlogger and a hoax article.

the examples you are using again are from an online forum where anyone can post.

Again however, the examples I am using are not just from "anyone." They are from the moderators and endorsed contributors of the forum. You asked the difference between "calling out radical redpillers and radical feminists." That's the difference. The crazy feminists tend to stay locked up, while the crazy redpillers are the inmates running the asylum.

[–]relationshipdownvotethe blue pill is a suppository1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]17b29a3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]autowikibot2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Section 4. Criticism of article Luce Irigaray:

Many feminists seek to criticize the perceived essentialist positions of Luce Irigaray. However, there is much debate among scholars as to whether or not Irigaray's theory of sexual difference is, indeed, an essentialist one. The perception that Luce Irigaray's work is essentialist concentrates on her attention to sexual difference, taking this to constitute a rehearsal of hetero-normative sexuality. As Helen Fielding states, the uneasiness among feminists about Irigaray’s discussion of masculinity and femininity does not so much reveal Irigaray’s hetero-normative bias, but "arises out of an inherited cultural understanding [on the part of her critics] that posits nature as either unchanging organism or as matter that can be ordered, manipulated and inscribed upon. Hence the concern over essentialism is itself grounded in the binary thinking that preserves a hierarchy of...culture over nature." Most of the critics of Irigaray could be characterised as overlooking her interest in the work of Martin Heidegger, which challenges many fundamental assumptions about Platonic philosophy; Irigaray uses this work to step outside prevailing theories of gender and to comment on the function of gender as a structure or limit on definitions of the human. [citation needed]

^Interesting: ^French ^{structuralist} ^feminism ^| ^Mimesis ^| ^Gillian ^Gill ^| ^Elizabeth ^Grosz

^Parent ^commenter ^can ^toggle ^NSFW ^or ^delete^. ^Will ^also ^delete ^on ^comment ^score ^of ^-1 ^or ^less. ^| ^FAQs ^| ^Mods ^| ^Magic ^Words

[–]17b29a1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TalkToHusbandPurple Pill Woman[S] -4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's like people saying Jihad isn't part of Islam.

Only Jihad is many, many meanings. In fact, outside of Muslim Indonesians, the majority used the term to mean "duty toward God", a "divine duty", or a "worship of God", with no militaristic connotations (Source).

I've taken a woman's studies course before. Other than being boring as all hell to me (again, I'm not a feminist so I didn't really have any interest other than it being a gen-ed for me), the patriarchal topics really didn't dive into the privilege-checking and man-hating as much as they dove into the wage-gap myth (yes, they called it a myth) and, ironically enough for this conversation, how social media is shifting the narrative towards the extremities.

Regardless however, none of those two arguments really pertain to your main issue: that feminism has its crazies and that equates to the crazies of TRP. My point is that no, that comparison is really a weak one. When TRP's "crazies" are moderators and endorsed contributors, you're trying to make a false equivalency happen.

[–]l_____o_____lBluish Purple Pill Man5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]namae_nanka1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So what?

Ideological feminists are not in the majority, but they are also not all on the lunatic fringe. On the contrary, they produce exceedingly sophisticated theories (such as the conspiracy theory of history)6 and adopt equally sophisticated strategies (such as work- ing within the established law schools and government bureaucracies instead of riot- ing in the streets, to achieve a social revolution that most people still find hard even to imagine). They develop these theories at respectable universities, moreover, and disseminate them through respectable publishers. 7 Eventually, these theories enter the popular culture of movies, sit-coms and talk shows. What was once truly radical, in other words, becomes conventional wisdom (until ideologues up the ante once more). In short, ideological feminists are at least as inf luential as egalitarian feminists in the journalistic, the academic and especially the legal circles that produce policies and laws. Although they often use the egalitarian rhetoric that is de rigueur in a liberal democracy—one that permits only gender-neutral language, for instance, in legisla- tion—closer examination of both their statements and the results of their campaigns reveals a worldview that is anything but egalitarian and often relies on double stan- dards. 8 For ideological feminists, men are not merely deluded. They are the ultimate, eternal or even ontological enemies of women. Either they or their remote ancestors (or both) are responsible for all suffering and injustice. Most ideological feminists do acknowledge exceptions for men who convert to the new worldview, but these male feminists function as honorary women. They are acceptable not because of their male- ness but despite it.

Masculine Identity in a Toxic Cultural Environment, Nathanson and Young

[–]l_____o_____lBluish Purple Pill Man1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]l_____o_____lBluish Purple Pill Man7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]relationshipdownvotethe blue pill is a suppository1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]We_Are_LegionAutumn Red1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Man, I really fail to see what's so wrong about any of those images from TRP. Most of them are context-less mob porn, where you take a tweet-sized harshly said phrase from one user to another user in a closed conversation and make it representative of TRP's long, long reading list on the sidebar. ex. misandry bubble, or sexual utopia in power

Perhaps the only difference is time, and in time the rank-and-file of TRP will call out against the concept of “AWALT” or call for the removal of Women: the Most Responsible Teenage in the House[4] from the “Required Theory Reading” section of the sidebar. When that happens, you’ll be able to play the “NARPALT (Not All Red Pillers Are Like That)” card.

Both of those are perfectly valid concepts for those who have the mental capacity to understand the purpose for which they are featured and exhorted. They will never be removed without something to fulfill those roles. The rank and file, if they should prove stupid enough to not understand, can fuck off like the rest of the masses who've stumbled across RP over lunch and been made to leave.

[–]DenswendThe Swiss Army Knife of Hate2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

Hillary Clinton

Oh, the gal who said something like "Women are the primary victims of war". Compared to "never met a bitch who wasn't crazy" which is a personal experience, and not implication that all bitches be crazy, or to the fact that women are most responsible teenager in the house (what does that even mean?) the former quote is many times more insane and psychopathic. Oh and, age of consent is not something that is carved in stone. It may be that the poster was right, that a society does try to accomodate for women with such a law.

Or how about the Pankhurst gals, who used white feather on one side to shame men into dying for their rights, and on other side wanted "equality". Get that, instead of asking to participate in war (because that would be "equality"), they shame men into fighting for them. And these gals weren't just run of the mill SJW types, no, they were prominent feminists. Hell, Emmeline is one of the most important folks in the 20th century according to some poll by Time. * It became known for physical confrontations: its members smashed windows and assaulted police officers. Pankhurst, her daughters, and other WSPU activists were sentenced to repeated prison sentences, where they staged hunger strikes to secure better conditions. As Pankhurst's oldest daughter Christabel took leadership of the WSPU, antagonism between the group and the government grew. Eventually the group adopted arson as a tactic, and more moderate organisations spoke out against the Pankhurst family.*

I'm bringing up both Clinton and Pankhurst gals because I don't want to be called out as cherry picking. You pick out ECs and Moderators, I'll pick out prominent feminists. How many ECs and Moderators of TRP have used arson as a tactic to promote RP? How many windows have we smashed? What is the damage that we done to women, actually physical one, not the "I've got PTSP from twitter" one. By us, I mean us, people who were proclaimed RedPillers, not who held red pill ideas (because red pill ideas are the paradigm of civilization for the vast majority of its existence).

Feminism is a political movement. It seeks power. As with any political movement, it is by no means immune from the abuses of its power, even if it had a virtuous goal. But the notion of "equality" is so vague that anything can be stuffed in it. Does it mean the opportunity to participate, without regards to result which may result in a very slight change overall? Does it mean the equality of chance, an absurd notion that everywhere, all people should have the same chances to succeed at anything, only because they have some innate "humaness" that somehow transcends all biology and all prior work done by their ancestors to secure their position? Does it mean the equality of outcome, where we are all equal in ability and chance and result, and if there is not a fifty fifty ratio in everything, then that is a result of some vast conspiracy (third wave batshit feminists are batshit only because they name it, other feminists do well to avoid calling it such, instead framing it as "culture", "boy's club")? To say feminism is exempt from all the bad stuff it brings because it wants something as disgusting as equality (wanting equality is supposed to be virtuous, a notion that I cannot even process) is like saying that nationalsocialism is exempt from the bad stuff they did because it wants prosperity for Germany people. "You oppose a feminist stressing over that guy wearing a shirt? You want all women back in the kitchen you muh sogge kneeist" vs. "You oppose the Final Solution? You want all Germans being poor and their wives and daughters whores, you Germaphobe". This is a tactic that has been long discussed.

third wave batshit feminists

This is something that has been pestering me. There is this myth that there is a linear social progress where the amount of sexual/cultural/racial tolerance and diversity is directly proportional to the well being of a nation. Then there are all the "waves" of feminism and social justice/civil rights. How do you think folks back 50 years ago thought feminists of today will look? How do you think folks back 100 years ago thought feminists of back 50 years ago would look? How do you think feminists of 50 years in the future will look?

The radicals of yesterday are moderates of today, are conservatives of tomorrow. When we discuss SJW tumblerinas, those tumblerinas didn't pop out of vacuum. They didn't magically appear. The folks you mentioned are not prominent feminists, they are actors (you know, there is a reason why actors are considered to be like whores in traditional societies) and politicians who take a social justice cause just for the show. The folks who are prominent feminists are not those who you see on TV, no, they are the folks on colleges and universities talking about Gender Studies or Women's Studies or whatever Hodor now exists. Those are the vanguards of modern feminism, those who will impact legislature, those who will impact culture. The guys who Hoff Sommers and Farrell said have gone batshit insane - and both Hoff Sommers and Farrell were prominent second wave feminists, and both were kicked out for being moderate enough, for being for actual equality. The SJW we now hear and laugh about, will write your laws give or take a decade or two. The folks on universities who parade Gender Studies and push modern day kangaroo courts with "during college, 5 in 3 women r raped", the people in media who invent crazy rape scares (like the Rolling Stone one), but care more for a nude photo leak than the systematic rape and abuse of 1400 British girls (cause that's racist).

And even then, given all that, in the entirety of human civilization, from Rome to Japan, from 6000 BC to the beginning of 20th century, the idea of women being equally capable to men and deserving all the social, cultural, and legal equality is a strange and ultra radical idea. The "Most Responsible Teenager in the House" was a phrase used by Aristotle, and well repeated for the entirety of our civilization. Comparing TRP and feminism in the context of human history, TRP is the sane one, even when you compare the extreme TRP to moderate feminism.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

Holy shit, brah. Alright, luckily work's been dead today, so let's do this:

Hilary Clinton

Replace her with Mia Love, Condoleezza Rice, Laura Bush, or Sarah Palin then. I greatly disagree with Hilary's politics, and that line is one of the main reason why I would never vote for her (and note she's gotten a lot of well-deserved shit for that).

or to the fact that women are most responsible teenager in the house (what does that even mean?)

The belief, held by most subscribers of TRP (including the moderator and ECs of the subreddit) that, quoted directly from the text:

"The difference between men and women in maturity, however, is that while females mature earlier in life, they also stop maturing at around the age of eighteen, as Schopenhauer aptly observes. And while men don’t catch up to women’s maturity until they reach around age twenty-eight, after that the men keep maturing throughout their entire lives."

Again, that's on the side bar, under Required Theory Reading.

White feather

I like when my history degree can finally get put to good use. Many people forget that Admiral Charles Fitzgerald, not any feminist, founded the Order of the White Feather back at the start of the war in order to increase recruitment into the British military. Now you are correct in that this was joined by prominent feminists and suffragettes of the time (like the aforementioned Emmeline Pankhurst and her daughter Christabel). What you need to realize however is that at the time Britain did not have a draft, and there was not a military on Earth at the time where women were fighting. The Pankhursts wanted a universal, involuntary draft that would force men into military work and force women into factory work, Rosie the Riveter style. IIRC, Emmeline even campaigned for women to be included in the military end as well, albeit in support roles.

Eventually the group adopted arson as a tactic, and more moderate organisations spoke out against the Pankhurst family.

So what you're saying is once the Pankhursts went too far, people started to protest them to the point where the daughter was pretty much ousted to America?

The white feather campaign has always been fascinating to me, because it was the first of it's time. We learned by WWI that patriotism and pride were much better motivators than shame, which is why the US never had to implement a draft until Vietnam.

I'm bringing up both Clinton and Pankhurst gals because I don't want to be called out as cherry picking.

And yet you take one quote from one politician in one country and a social recruitment tactic out of context. Bro, that's literally cherry picking.

To say feminism is exempt from all the bad stuff it brings because it wants something as disgusting as equality (wanting equality is supposed to be virtuous, a notion that I cannot even process) is like saying that nationalsocialism is exempt from the bad stuff they did because it wants prosperity for Germany people.

Nobody is saying that. The argument I put up is that /u/TalkToHusband created a false equivalency, and just because some not-so-prominent Tumblrinas and SJWs have shitty opinions does not mean that the ECs and moderators of TRP don't represent the popular beliefs of the subreddit. There is a huge difference there: the crazy feminists tend to stay locked up, while the crazy redpillers are the inmates running the asylum.

The "Most Responsible Teenager in the House" was a phrase used by Aristotle, and well repeated for the entirety of our civilization.

Yeah, I'ma need to see a source for that claim there. Also it's funny, in the beginning of this comment you claimed "...to the fact that women are most responsible teenager in the house, what does that even mean?" Yet here you are stating that it's a cornerstone idea of our civilization dating back to Aristotle.

[–]GI_Hugh_Johnson 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DenswendThe Swiss Army Knife of Hate2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

Replace her with Mia Love, Condoleezza Rice, Laura Bush, or Sarah Palin then. I greatly disagree with Hilary's politics, and that line is one of the main reason why I would never vote for her (and note she's gotten a lot of well-deserved shit for that).

The point was never in Clinton. The point was that you just picked feminists by their popularity, and not by their contribution. The folks you mentioned are not prominent feminists, they are actors (you know, there is a reason why actors are considered to be like whores in traditional societies) and politicians who take a social justice cause just for the show.

Picking any woman of any note in history and then bringing her up as feminist is dishonest. You can pick out the Queen of the biggest empire ever and say "yeah, she was a feminist" even though Victoria was pretty much against them. Imagine if I called every German who contributed to the history a Nazi.

And let's for a second assume that I subscribe to TRP ideology in full extent. What of the side bar? There is one claim that "women are most responsible teenagers in the house" which is in context of the entire human civilization much more moderate than the feminist cry that women are just as equally capable as men.

But, I'll get back to feminism later on in my post.

I like when my history degree can finally get put to good use.

Okay. Who founded it has no relation to the topic. Both Pankhurst gals were prominent in it. And they were supposed to be for equality, since they were feminists. They "supposed" to campaign for both right to vote and obligation to take part in war, yet they only achieved the former, and when questioned why they didn't achieve the latter it is said "it was a sexist time". It was a sexist time for asking for vote, yet they achieved that. It's oddly convenient.

But the stance still stands. They wanted equality of rights, but not equality of obligations that follow them.

And yet you take one quote from one politician in one country and a social recruitment tactic out of context. Bro, that's literally cherry picking.

I took one quote from one politician in one country YOU MENTIONED. I also took prominent and established feminists who used a social recruitment tactic and violent methods to pursue power at the cost of men. And "something is taken out of context" does not mean that it is by default wrong, as if context has magical ability to absolve all the bad something has. You can take a lot of things from, for example Mein Kampf, context. But context is still bad.

So what you're saying is once the Pankhursts went too far, people started to protest them to the point where the daughter was pretty much ousted to America?

Yep. But taken too far means arson. Just far enough means physical violence. So this isn't some random Solanas, but established and respected feminists. If anything, Pankhurst gals and their organization can be called moderate feminists, and they went to physical violence, only stopping at arson. When was the last time a self proclaimed red piller encouraged violence or participated in it? Because the "extreme" RP says women are most responsible teenagers in the house, not to give them any power over you. Moderate feminism smashes windows. Extreme redpill calls for complete passivity, instead opting out from society. Moderate feminism calls for more power to itself.

Nobody is saying that. The argument I put up is that /u/TalkToHusband created a false equivalency, and just because some not-so-prominent Tumblrinas and SJWs have shitty opinions does not mean that the ECs and moderators of TRP don't represent the popular beliefs of the subreddit. There is a huge difference there: the crazy feminists tend to stay locked up, while the crazy redpillers are the inmates running the asylum.

Now this is one false dichotomy. How do you know that crazy feminists tend to stay locked up? Feminists who were considered radical 100 years ago now border on conservative. Feminists who were considered radical 50 years ago are now main part of your culture and participate in legislation - not to mention propaganda (POTUS is even repeating feminist propaganda which is time and time again false). You see a pattern?

Crazy tumblerinas of 50s are now main part of culture. Crazy tumblerinas of 90s are now teaching in universities and participating in law making. Yet, crazy tumblerinas of today are going to be "locked" into asylum? Nothing is going to happen to them, just gonna "grow out of it"?

What you are doing right now is a false dichotomy. You think that TRP "attacks" imaginary tumblr feminists. It is instead concerned with feminists in law making, those who make laws with purpose to fuck men over because, those who like commissars show intent to fuck over those who don't conform to what they want (like the scientist with a shirt, you know the one). You instead create a fictional strawman that TRP will fictionally attack so that you may base your criticism off it.

Then you say that TRP is insane based on the fact that they do not consider women to be wholly equal to men, especially in emotional stuff. On what is your criteria based? Especially when you subscribe to insanity of third wave feminism, that there are "cultural" barriers to women in whatever the special snowflake wants. Who do you think erected those barriers, did they magically pop up? Red Pill views on women, even the extreme extreme ones, are what guys 50 years ago would consider reality. The guys who go back even further would consider them unusually female supremacists.

Also it's funny, in the beginning of this comment you claimed "...to the fact that women are most responsible teenager in the house, what does that even mean?"

Rhetorical question. Do you seriously deny that Aristotle had sexist, red pill views, especially on women?

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

I think the problem here is that it's a lot easier to identify the "prominent" redpillers than it is the "prominent" feminists when asking what the difference is between calling out radical redpillers and radical feminists. What represents a prominent feminist? There's no standard because it's a political and sociological belief, fluid and changing with the time. TRP, on the other hand, has two identifiers (the MOD and EC labels) to differentiate the riff raff from the prominent users who's contributions to the community have been deemed positive enough to warrant one of those two badges of honor. Such an equivalence doesn't exists in feminism.

Now I'm sure you've seen the Red Pill beliefs dump before, so no need to beat that dead horse. I'd like to step away from the feminism debate for a second just to re-address the question that OP asked: what is the difference between calling out radical redpillers and radical feminists? As unfair as it may or may not be to TRP, at the end of the day, in black and white, the "radical redpillers" hold the power positions in the subreddit. They are the esteemed posters and the endorsed contributors. They have been given the power to mold the subreddit's narrative through moderation. Those radical beliefs that many people say "don't represent the whole of the Red Pill" are held by the same people who mold the subreddit and who's opinions are valued and who's views are seen as insightful enough to warrant endorsement.

Such an equivalence doesn't hold for feminism. Feminism isn't a U.S. political party. It's not a degree one can earn, it's not a job title one can excel in, and it's not a position one can work towards. Its a belief system (whether it's political, sociological, cultural, or whatever can be debated until kingdom come), a label one accepts or denies. I deny the label, someone may accept the label.

[–]DenswendThe Swiss Army Knife of Hate3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

I think the problem here is that it's a lot easier to identify the "prominent" redpillers than it is the "prominent" feminists when asking what the difference is between calling out radical redpillers and radical feminists. What represents a prominent feminist?

How do you identify prominent Communists from the guys who wank over Che Guevara? How do you identify prominent fascists? How do you identify prominent scientists? How do you identify prominent philosophers? Any child will tell you that Albert Einstein was a scientist, and that Lenin was a communist, any all folks will agree. Why is then feminism so very different from the other aspects of human activity that we are unable to pinpoint prominent feminists?

Hell, prominent TRP users have a shitty EC flair for being active. Prominent feminists get an entire wiki page. But we are unable to identify prominent feminists while we do easily with TRP users?

But let's take your stance. Feminism is a political and sociological belief that is fluid and changing with time, just like any other political and sociological belief. Then, what makes one a feminist? What's the difference between a Klingon and a random average tumblerina? Simple, it is the subscription to the belief of feminism. This allows a lot of flexibility for the movement, and a lot of adaptibility also. But, this has a drawback. This means that there is no central authority which says "being for equality" is feminism, while castrating men is not part of feminism and it is a heresy of it which must be purged. Anyone who calls himself feminism and shares at least one socio-cultural/political common denominator with other feminists is a feminist. This common denominator is the neutral definition of feminism - "organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests". Now, the problem with neutral definitions is that they don't tell you much. Organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests is so vague that it can be interpreted in gazillion different ways. Castrating all men? Yeah, it's an organized activity, it is on behalf of women's rights and interests if we squint hard enough (their raping ability will be severely impaired). It's feminist!

So then, let's take a look at the totality of TRP (not just ECs, and Mods, but other folks as well) and the totality of feminists (so everyone who is labeled as one by contemporary historians, or anyone who openly declared themselves feminists). I gave you an example of using physical violence and arson for feminists. Can you give me a red piller using physical violence and arson (and I mean a guy who said "I am red pilled and post on r subreddit)? I gave you example of feminist using scare propaganda to leverage political power with rape scares and debunked gender wage gap. Can you give me an example of red piller propaganda?

So you can either :

A) Say that feminism is not fluid, and we can pinpoint prominent feminist so that we may bring them up for closer scrutiny.

B) Say that feminism is fluid, but then anyone who openly declares themselves a feminist is one, and is a respresentative of feminism in general.

If you opt for B, then you can't say that TRP is rigid and hierarchical because it has mods and ECs. I mean, TRP is only a subreddit. Feminism is both a subreddit and a political movement. All political movements have leaders and prominent users (even communism), and as a subreddit it too has mods. That is just cognitive dissonance or plain hypocrisy. The good part is that you can then use ALL TRP users, but the bad part is that I can then use ALL feminists. Even compared to "moderate" feminists (they didn't go all the way to arson), the extreme TRP (women are like children) doesn't buck that much power. So moderate feminism is more extreme than extreme TRP.

If you opt for A, then you can use ECs and MODs, and I can use prominent feminists (as identified by contemporary historians and feminist scholars). Then it's the same situation as A. Prominent feminists, or the moderate feminists, went only up to arson. ECs, and only a part of them, went up to saying "Women are like children". Again, moderate feminism is more extreme.

There is no way around it. Feminism is a political movement, an as such, it will constantly be more extreme than a social movement encouraging passivity and "gaming" the system. No matter what TRP EC Mod Fuhrer of the Penis Patriarchy say, there's always going to be a feminist who put her money where her mouth was, and did some serious damage and used dishonest methods.

As unfair as it may or may not be to TRP, at the end of the day, in black and white, the "radical redpillers" hold the power positions in the subreddit.

It is unfair. I am EC. I'm pretty much sure I'm not on the "shame" list. Hell, I got made an EC just because I shat on some guy's anger phase putting down female nature - I was just passing by there. So it's just so odd seeing you lump me as some extreme misogynist. You're a priori considering all mods and ECs extremist. Feminism is a subreddit too, is that subreddit too ran by extremist - and folks banned me for posting about Rotherham rape scandal. Are those mods given the power to mold the subreddit's narrative through moderation, or were they somehow denied this privilege? Are those feminists WHO BELONG TO A POLITICAL MOVEMENT THAT BY DEFINITION CONSTANTLY TRIES TO MOLD THE NARRATIVE OF THE ENTIRE SOCIETY THROUGH LEGISLATION AND CULTURAL WAYS somehow not trying to mold the narrative of the entire society?

What rather happens is that folks like you decide that TRP means extremism. Then we're supposed to be "insane" by a criteria of white upper class women who were hypocritically screeching for more rights less obligations at the cost of men. Which are totally not insane. But when we try to scrutinize those same women for smashing windows, shaming men into dying for them, complaining about not being payed equally while they are being payed equally,etc, they magically dissolve into "feminism is so vague that you can't tell who is and who isn't feminist". Even though we have historians (well, you're one) who can tell us exactly who did and who didn't call themselves feminist, and entire field of academia dedicated to that insanity. Nope, they vanish into thin air.

Why the double standard?

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

Why is then feminism so very different from the other aspects of human activity that we are unable to pinpoint prominent feminists?

It's not, If you're looking for the "Einstein's" and the "Lenin's" of feminism, I can name drop Stanton, Anthony, Gage, Stone, Billington, Friedan, Ireton, and Rawalt just off the top of my head from what I remember of my studies. The problem with pin-pointing today's proimient feminists to be put in the same category is that the third-wave lacks the focus and singular, concrete goals of the past waves.

Hell, prominent TRP users have a shitty EC flair for being active. Prominent feminists get an entire wiki page. But we are unable to identify prominent feminists while we do easily with TRP users?

It's all about the scope. TRP is sitting at about 80k or so subscribers, with a rigid hierarchy and fairly strict posting standards. Meanwhile, anyone from Big Red to Emma Watson can be successfully argued to be a feminist, and their prominence is fully depending on who you ask.

This means that there is no central authority which says "being for equality" is feminism, while castrating men is not part of feminism and it is a heresy of it which must be purged.

Again, there are extreme, loony feminists. Nobody is going to say that no feminists believe in "death to all men." My argument, at the core, is that society at large, and more importantly most people who accept the "feminist label," will agree with you and I that the "death to all men" feminists are crazy and can be ignored. No women in Congress got elected on that platform. No esteemed university professor got tenured on the platform.

Can you give me a red piller using physical violence and arson (and I mean a guy who said "I am red pilled and post on r subreddit)?

I'll have to find it, but I remember one comment where an EC said since his wife once approved of anal, he was always allowed anal even if she said no and pretty much literally ass-raped her.

Can you give me an example of red piller propaganda?

Honestly, pretty much half of the subreddit.

My work day's pretty much over, so I'm not gonna be commenting on this again. This is gonna go nowhere, so if somebody else wants to be tagged in, have at it. If not, the I guess /u/Denswend wins?

[–]DenswendThe Swiss Army Knife of Hate1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

It's not.

Then why say :

What represents a prominent feminist? There's no standard because it's a political and sociological belief, fluid and changing with the time.

This is a contradiction. Or is your stance fluid and changing as feminism?

TRP is sitting at about 80k or so subscribers, with a rigid hierarchy and fairly strict posting standards.

TRP is a subdreddit. Feminism too is a subreddit. It has as rigid and strict structure as TRP. So does the mainstream movement. And the mainstream feminism is the feminism in universities. The whole point of my rant is that SJW of today don't just magically go away, the radicals of today are the conservatives of tomorrow.

My argument, at the core, is that society at large

Then your argument is strictly derived from the society's approval. But the society in general, THE ENTIRETY OF HUMAN CIVILIZATION for the VAST MAJORITY of our existence held beliefs that would make TRP seem like radfems in comparison. What makes our present society, and by that I mean the Anglo Saxon hegemony upheld by USA (cause neither Russia nor China are fond of feminism), the one we should be basing our value judgement from. Why not Austria Hungary, or Victorian England - there is a female dominated country if there is one?

I'll have to find it, but I remember one comment where an EC said since his wife once approved of anal, he was always allowed anal even if she said no and pretty much literally ass-raped her.

The guy was posted on the wall of shame, don't remember his name. He then came her and explained - his wife gets "freaky" when she gets drunk, sexually so. The consent was given. The quote is framed so that it implies that no consent was given (in fact, it just says "HERPADERP A RED PILLER HAD ANAL WITH HIS DRUNK WIFE RAPE 101") and subsequent BP interpreting may mean that if a man has a drunken sex with his wife he's a rapist. Which is puzzling, if a man and woman both drink and then have sex, why is he the rapist and not her? The guys who were at that stupid list (herp, feel dah outrage, dah outrage and shock) came here and explained themselves. Fizolof for example asked "Why should my first instinct be to hate the guy who is a misogynist? My first instinct is to try to understand his perspective."

But let's use that as ultra super moderate TRP. A guy who has drunk sex with his wife (consent was given before the drink, and the gal married him ffs).

Honestly, pretty much half of the subreddit.

Uh, which half? What exactly?

This is gonna go nowhere, so if somebody else wants to be tagged in, have at it.

Honestly bro. "TRP is extreme to the core" and "the core of feminism isn't extreme at all" when the even the extremist TRP stance doesn't even come close to the moderate feminism stance. And you're basing "extreme" criteria on something so vague that I cannot even understand it. You do realize that if you look at the entirety of human civilization, the people who share TRP looks are in the vast majority? Do you really think Romans or Vikings or Mongols or entire British people, alive and dead were first or second or third wave feminists? Leftists in Spain during Civil War laughed when women tried to fight with them for their cause. How do you think they would respond to "gender wage gap"?

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

This is a contradiction. Or is your stance fluid and changing as feminism?

No it isn't. My point, from the beginning, keeps today's feminism in mind. You said:

Any child will tell you that Albert Einstein was a scientist, and that Lenin was a communist, any all folks will agree. Why is then feminism so very different from the other aspects of human activity that we are unable to pinpoint prominent feminists?

I can namedrop many prominent feminists throughout the history of the movement. Hell, anyone who has ever taken a basic US history course can at minimum tell you basics about Stanton, Anthony, Addams, and Friedan.

TRP is a subdreddit. Feminism too is a subreddit. It has as rigid and strict structure as TRP.

No it isn't. TRP exists just as a collection of blogs, self-posts, anecdotes, and "must-reads." OP asked the difference between calling out radical redpillers and radical feminists. Not radicals MRAs, not radical manosphere bloggers, not radical PUAs, and not radical masculists. Redpillers are the subscribers to /r/theredpill and its family of subreddits (though for this argument we’ll focus on the 87,500 or so that subscribed to the parent sub). Feminists are the millions and millions of politicians, journalists, academics, novelists, writers, philosophers, activists and other professionals dating back to at latest the 1860’s that subscribe to the ever fluid set of beliefs (note that all large political and social belief systems change over that great of a period of time). That’s why the comparison itself is shitty. You’re comparing a two-year-old subreddit with a centuries-old political and social movement. It’s apples and moldy, microwaved carrots.

The whole point of my rant is that SJW of today don't just magically go away, the radicals of today are the conservatives of tomorrow.

Yes they do, and no they don’t. The radicals of feminism in the first wave were literally jumping in front of horses kamikaze-style and committing arson. They died out; they didn’t become the conservatives of the second-wave. The radicals of feminism in the second-wave were burning bras and dropping acid. They died out; they didn’t become today’s conservatives. The radicals of feminism today are disrupting conferences and yelling/tweeting/posting “DIE ALL CIS-MALES; YUMMY MALE TEARS!” Guess what, just like the suicidals of the first wave and the bra-burning hippies of the second wave, the “death to males” radicals will die out, not becomes the conservatives, of the fourth-wave.

What makes our present society, and by that I mean the Anglo Saxon hegemony upheld by USA (cause neither Russia nor China are fond of feminism), the one we should be basing our value judgement from?

Because that’s the society we’re living in today. We don’t base judgment of civil rights issues on “THE ENTIRETY OF HUMAN CIVILIZATION for the VAST MAJORITY of our existence.” We don’t base judgment of land disputes, or criminal proceedings, or anything else on “THE ENTIRETY OF HUMAN CIVILIZATION for the VAST MAJORITY of our existence. Societies advance and we move on from the past.

The guy was posted on the wall of shame, don't remember his name. He then came her and explained - his wife gets "freaky" when she gets drunk, sexually so. The consent was given.

Now I very well may have missed the explanation and context, but the quote I recall went as such:

My wife tried to bargain with the ass…I accepted the deal as a reasonable quid pro quo…She tried to renege on the deal…I collected later when she was drunk…She no longer tries to make such bargains.

Again, link me the context or explanation, because that sounds pretty rape-y.

Which is puzzling, if a man and woman both drink and then have sex, why is he the rapist and not her?

Nothing to do with OP’s question; regardless, it should never be like that. You and I agree there.

Why should my first instinct be to hate the guy who is a misogynist? My first instinct is to try to understand his perspective.

Maybe not hate, but my first instinct when dealing with a bigot of any flavor (racist, misogynist, misandrist, anti-Semite, et cetera) isn’t “…to try to understand his perspective.”

Uh, which half? What exactly?

Again, I'm sure you've seen the Red Pill beliefs dump before. Besides that, cultish, groupthink shit like this.

[–]DenswendThe Swiss Army Knife of Hate-4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

No it isn't. My point, from the beginning, keeps today's feminism in mind.

Uh huh.

I think the problem here is that it's a lot easier to identify the "prominent" redpillers than it is the "prominent" feminists when asking what the difference is between calling out radical redpillers and radical feminists. What represents a prominent feminist?

Nowhere do I see "what represents a prominent current feminist". But let's play it your game.

You say that it is easier to identify prominent RPers than prominent contemporary feminists. Contemporary feminists are gals and guys who ARE IN UNIVERSITIES TEACHING COURSES ON FEMINISM AND WOMEN'S STUDIES, LOBBYING FOR WOMEN'S RIGHTS AND INTERESTS. How do you identify a current contemporary scientist? Is he a professor at a university teaching other students while actively contributing to his field of expertise?? Yes he is.

It's so odd. You have a field of academy dedicated SOLELY to feminism, and you go "how can we identify the elusive feminist of third wave". You have an entire media groups dedicated to feminism. But you can't find contemporary feminists?

For example, take these people - and by these people I mean PEOPLE WHO WORK FOR NORWEGIAN GENDER INSTITUTE AND DO FEMINISM FOR A LIVING. These people are academics, and you don't get more "core third wave" feminist than this.

These guys outright deny reality. They deny actual scientists who do evo psych for a living. And this isn't some TRP flavored pseudo bull, this is straight from the horse's mouth. They deny that. And then you say red pillers are the insane ones.

That’s why the comparison itself is shitty. You’re comparing a two-year-old subreddit with a centuries-old political and social movement. It’s apples and moldy, microwaved carrots.

The only reason I took Pankhurst gals is to demonstrate that moderate feminists, and by today's standards they are pretty fucking moderate, seeing as how they only want the vote and not smash the ~~civilization~~ patriarchy, and those gals were pretty fucking violent. But extreme extreme TRP is just saying mean stuff about women. Moderate feminism is more extreme than extreme TRP.

Yes they do, and no they don’t.

No they don't, and yes they do. Radicals of first wave smashed windows. Radicals of second wave burned bras. Radicals of third wave attempted murder. See the cascade.

But the question was never about the means which determines the extremities, but the goals. 100 years ago, thinking women should vote would be radical. Now it's normal. Hell, "radical of yesterday is conservative of today" is not something I made up. Thomas Sowell noticed it, and so did others. 100 years ago radical feminists fought for the right to vote, 50 years ago radical feminists fought for "social equality while feminists of 100 years ago were considered "not radical" in comparison to them. The very fact that you can identify prominent first wave feminists and learn about them in history classes as notable people instead of batshit insane radicals is a testament to that.

We don’t base judgment of land disputes, or criminal proceedings, or anything else on “THE ENTIRETY OF HUMAN CIVILIZATION for the VAST MAJORITY of our existence. Societies advance and we move on from the past.

Oh please. Basing morality is different from legal disputes and scientific disputes. But you said that societies "advance". That is odd, considering you're a historian. Societies also "decay" and "die". The fact that people talk about Golden Age of Islam/Rome/whatever is a plain evidence AGAINST the linear theory of progress. Technology advances. Science advances. Philosophy and social "science" not so much. You can't pinpoint the precise and best mode of philosophy as you can with science.

And then you say that you're basing your morality on society of today, while you're still acknowledging the possibility that society can advance. If society can advance and you're basing your morality on current society, your base of morality is shake, and you have no grounds to be the judge of whether something is "insane" or "sane", "radical" or "normal". So either dump "progress" narrative so that you may judge TRP, or stop judging TRP.

Again, link me the context or explanation, because that sounds pretty rape-y.

First off, the quote says nothing about consent and whether or not they both drank. No one can with certainty say that there was or wasn't rape. But your biased mind filled in the blanks to form a narrative where he literally raped her. It does sound pretty rapey to you, because you want it to sound rapey. But you don't have any logical grounds to make that accusation.

And secondly, the topic was something /u/fizolof posted, and it is titled "Are you in the text of shame" or something to that extend. It was a while ago and I have no reason to go search for it. Furthermore, you can PM the guy who said it. If you still insist on it, I will personally PM him so that he may elucidate his quote.

Again, I'm sure you've seen the Red Pill beliefs dump before. Besides that, cultish, groupthink shit like this.

Okay. I already gave you this. This is a documentary exposing feminism THAT GOES ON IN UNIVERSITIES SO NO, YOU CAN'T SAY IT'S NOT FEMINISM, and their beliefs. They deny reality. Then there is this. These are people who hold power and not some shitty internet tough guy power. The most cultish, groupthink, insane shit you can find in TRP pales in the most cultish, groupthink, insane shit you can find in feminism.

And then you say that TRP is the insane dangerous ones?

[–]13blues13moons8 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Denswend0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

red pill world view is based on a pile of pseudoscience and closed minded bullshit.

As opposed to feminism which is based on hard science and open minded bullshit? See, you harp on about TRP being pseudoscience, but it uses evo psych pretty scarcely. And when it does use it, it is very hard to refute unless you go "bleh bleh biotrufs" libtard route. But on the other hand, you've got this. This is a person who TEACHES Gender Studies and Women's Studies at Norwegian Gender Institute. She is OPENLY saying that her worldview is not based on science, not even pseudoscience. She is OPENLY being closed minded for ideas of other people, despite proclaiming herself open minded. You can't get more core feminist than being A FUCKING TEACHER OF IT. GETTING PAYED BY TAXPAYER MONEY TO TEACH IT. As you can see, these people are at war with reality.

but your opinion has no validity if you sit inside a confirmation bias bubble

"My" redpill view is nonexistent. I'm "redpilled" only by chance - I do not defend red pill as much as I attack feminism. So your blatant ad hominem is ridiculous. If I were redpilled, I'd be flaired with Red Pill tags. I just dislike BPers more than RPers.

And pray tell me, what makes RP worldview a confirmation bias bubble, and feminist worldview not one? Especially since latter are at war with reality, while former work with it?

[–]13blues13moons2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]give_me_shinies1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Denswend0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

They said

The topic was the difference between rad feminism and rad TRP. To change the goal post to "yeah, both are kinda shitty" is dishonest. Especially since one is several degrees more insane and powerful.

I only compared rad TRP to "moderate" feminists (who were known for violence) and "contemporary established" feminists (the folks in the Hjernevask video). As it turns out, TRP is more grounded in reality and pacifism than feminism.

So we're doing a comparison. If we drop the comparison, I will cede that TRP is a confirmation bias bubble, and I will cede that it my not be necessarily right, and I will cede that all "field reports" are anecdotal, and I will cede that it has a degree of hostility towards women (which is BTW, totally eclipsed by a degree of hostility feminism has towards men in both the deed and thought), and I will cede that a majority of them sound like whiny faggots (a blu blu blu, all women r sluts).

[–]CheesyFedora0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]13blues13moons0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CheesyFedora1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]steelpuppy0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DocileBanalBovine -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points1 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–]DenswendThe Swiss Army Knife of Hate1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points1 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–]DenswendThe Swiss Army Knife of Hate0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

My money's on it being a testament to cuittler's patience and goodwill, though.

Well, the user myfriendscantknow also debated me, so did many others who had no problem understanding me. My money is on your ADD. The fact that they engaged something in what they labeled debate says something. And my arguments are solid. Also, the fact that I was upvoted and gilded in this sub goes for my case more than it goes for yours.

Also, chastising someone for insults only works if you DON'T insult people

Nope. Especially since that person's debating style is through insults. I'm not interested in being nice to you not because you're not interested in being nice to me or because you're utterly despicable person with no qualities to bring to a debate, but because I genuinely think you have a mental problem. It's for your sake brah.

don't see the problem with calling out crappy debating.

Neither do I. But unlike you, I give an argument with an insult. You just give an insult.

[–][deleted] 0 points0 points0 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–]TomHicksAntifeminist sans pills0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Many people forget that Admiral Charles Fitzgerald[1] , not any feminist, founded the Order of the White Feather back at the start of the war in order to increase recruitment into the British military.

Sure. He was a fucking cunt as well.

The Pankhursts wanted a universal, involuntary draft that would force men into military work and force women into factory work

How is this defensible? This is utterly reprehensible. You can't just brush this aside.

They, in addition to handing out the feathers, also lobbied to institute an involuntary universal draft, which included those who lacked votes due to being too young or not owning property.

They shamed young disenfranchised boys to their deaths. How can you have so little empathy for their victims? Just watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7Jll9_EiyA

which is why the US never had to implement a draft until Vietnam.

What? The New York Draft Riots? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States#World_War_I

WW1? WW2? Korean War?

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]themanp150 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]namae_nanka-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Feminism as a movement has been around for centuries

It is old, but the word was coined by Charles Fourier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Fourier

“Third-wave” feminism has its nut-jobs and certainly lacks the urgency that the first two waves had

lmao the first wavers had nut jobs who were willing to run in front of horses, these turd wavers have nothing on them.

It’s just the purpose is less tangible than Section IX or the right to vote.

Title IX? It's already a problem that this thing hasn't really been applied to academics(STEM with male bias that is) and not to something that wasn't ever mentioned in it(sports).

These beliefs cannot be claimed to be from the “extremes” or the “crazies.”

What is extreme or crazy about that?

The problem with your argument is that the feminists that claim “death to all cis-males” and that “E=MC2 is sexist” aren’t the prominent members of the movement.

Should we wait for something akin to FI in sweden? Or end this charade here?

When that happens,

You're going in the wrong direction.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It is old, but the word was coined by Charles Fourier.

Huh, well you learn something new every day.

lmao the first wavers had nut jobs who were willing to run in front of horses, these turd wavers have nothing on them.

Well they had to get extreme to get their suffrage message across in a day where women literally had next to no voice when compared to men. Emily Davidson was hardcore, Big Red is a nutjob. Both will end up being footnotes in history, the difference is the latter will always be a nutjob, while the former is look at as hardcore.

Should we wait for something akin to FI in sweden? Or end this charade here?

This is America, every nut gets a political party with the right number of signatures. Besides, Fi only received 3.1% of the vote in '14 in a much, much more liberal nation. I don't see Fi being a thing here, and even if it was and it got the votes, well that's called democracy. Like it or not, we get to vote in this country.

You're going in the wrong direction.

Elaborate on what you mean.

[–]namae_nanka0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Huh, well you learn something new every day.

You've got much to learn.

Emily Davidson was hardcore

She's harddumb, it's amazing that you call RPers extremists and crazies when this stupid woman is one of the martyrs of the suffragette movement.

http://www.johndclare.net/Women2_DidSuffragettesHelp.htm

Big Red is a nutjob

For now, she will be the good feminist who fought against the gamergators led by the likes of Warren Farrell and CHS to those finding the fourth-wavers crazy.

She and her ilk however are so far removed from the crazy and extremist contention that it's not even worth bothering.

“THE Declaration of Rights and Sentiments” approved by the suffragists at the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848 is a remarkably puerile and deceitful political document. That it has achieved such immense historical stature is not a tribute to women’s rights but a glaring indictment. If eloquent 15-year-olds gathered to draw up a list of complaints against their parents, they would be no doubt be remarkably similar to the complaints in this document.

http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2012/12/suffragette-lies-1-and-2/

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You've got much to learn.

No disagreement there.

She's harddumb, it's amazing that you call RPers extremists and crazies when this stupid woman is one of the martyrs of the suffragette movement.

The fact of the matter is that the suffrage movement needed martyrs. That's a matter of historical fact. She seems loony now, but that wasn't the case immediately afterwards. Her goal was to the direct consequence was to galvanize male political support for suffrage, which she immediately accomplished in the form of the Northern Men's Federation for Women's Suffrage.

For now, she will be the good feminist who fought against the gamergators led by the likes of Warren Farrell and CHS to those finding the fourth-wavers crazy.

Or, much more likely, she, it, him, and it will all be nothing but footnoted in a cultural studies textbook fifty years from now.

She and her ilk however are so far removed from the crazy and extremist contention that it's not even worth bothering.

This I agree with. She's literally the personification of her belief group (Al Sharpton to civil rights, Glenn Beck to the Tea Party, et cetera).

“THE Declaration of Rights and Sentiments” approved by the suffragists at the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848 is a remarkably puerile and deceitful political document. That it has achieved such immense historical stature is not a tribute to women’s rights but a glaring indictment. If eloquent 15-year-olds gathered to draw up a list of complaints against their parents, they would be no doubt be remarkably similar to the complaints in this document.

You are being purposefully ignorant, because I refuse to believe that you honestly think the Declaration of Rights and Sentiments and the Seneca Falls Convention had a negligible or negative impact on the suffragette movement. It was the reason behind the first ever American women's rights convention to be organized by women, and it was hugely important in shaping the narrative for the women's right movement (back when women didn't even have property rights) for the next 50-75 years.

[–]namae_nanka-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ECoast_ManRed Pill Man-2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]hyperrrealLoves fun10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago* (40 children) | Copy Link

I have had this exact debate with some bluepillers on here, and have not gotten an answer to this. It is not clear to me why it's appropriate to judge TRP by the lowest common denominator, but inappropriate to do so with Feminism.

We should either cut both positions some slack when it comes to 'pop' interpretations of theory, or we should adopt a position that each ideology is only as worthwhile as it is actually understood and interpreted by the majority. Most people, however, are lenient towards their side, and harsh towards the opposition. That's an incoherent stance.

In terms of that essay by Richard Dawkins, it seems a little agenda-driven. The STEM/analytic philosophy crowd has a habit of badly misreading continental texts, and then arguing based on those poor readings that the text in question is meaningless and incoherent. Similar to how continentals often have trouble approaching specific scientific issues.

I have very little experience with Luce Irigaray (the feminist in question), but I don't think Dawkins is giving her enough credit. That's not to say I agree with her, but I don't think he is presenting her argument fairly. Dawkin's treatment of her, Baudrillard, Lacan, etc. reminds of Karl Popper on Hegel. They both come off as people with a score to settle, who have little to no understanding of what they are criticizing.

So I would argue that Dawkins is guilty of exactly what some bluepillers are- allowing himself to be overwhelmed by personal bias, reading texts out of the context and conversation in which they were written, and giving his intellectual opponents much less credit than he gives himself.

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points16 points 11 years ago* (37 children) | Copy Link

Simply because the lowest common denominators are leading and shaping TRP. They are not leading and shaping feminism.

It doesn't sound fair, but that's what it is. Feminism is a widespread political movement going back over 100 years with politicians, journalists, academics, novelists, writers, philosophers, activists and other professionals shaping it, each within his/her capacity as a professional.

TRP is what? A subreddit and a collection of blogs.

Feminism isn't judged by a subreddit and collection of blogs because it isn't representative of the movement.

TRP is judged by a subreddit and collection of blogs- not just because they are representative, but thats all there is.

I think that guys like you simply outgrew TRP. And you're frustrated it hasn't grown with you. (That's a compliment to you, btw)

[–]hyperrrealLoves fun11 points12 points13 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Simply because the lowest common denominators are leading and shaping TRP. They are not leading and shaping feminism.

The italicized part is debatable. These days it seems like misandrous, pseudo-intellectual, pop-feminism gets more "air-time" and drives the conversation.

TRP is judged by a subreddit and collection of blogs- not just because they are representative, but thats all there is.

Sure, but that doesn't address the issue here. There's significant diversity of opinion within the "redpill" blogosphere.

As a quick example, here's a post by BlackDragon arguing that women deal with more discomfort and hardship than men. Jeremy Sploosh (another popular RP blogger) does not think that women's sexual history meaningfully impacts their ability to "pair bond" or have deep relationships. GLL has argued against the typical redpill LMR advice. And there's tons more examples of dissent and discussion like this. Redpill theory comes off as more dogmatic than it actually is, because of the way TRP sub gets moderated.

Most people on reddit are judging redpill theory based on what they see on /r/theredpill. Is that a good way to approach the theory/community? Not in my opinion. Is it understandable? Yes. Same with feminism. Are there feminists doing valuable work on meaningful issues? Yes. Are those the feminists 90% of the population is exposed to? No.

I think that guys like you simply outgrew TRP. And you're frustrated it hasn't grown with you. (That's a compliment to you, btw)

This is a mostly fair assessment. I do read a few good redpill blogs, mostly for mindset and fitness advice, sometimes for game tips. There are redpill blogs that reflect where I am at emotionally, but they don't get much traction on the /r/theredpill.

[–]steelpuppy2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]hyperrrealLoves fun0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]taiboworksrational idealism > toxic egoism1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]hyperrrealLoves fun2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]give_me_shinieshere for the bants0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]hyperrrealLoves fun2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I think your perspective is skewed from being on reddit/tumblr too much and not seeing the big picture. Especially when you say 90% of the population is exposed to- what?

If you hang out on forums that data mine for gotcha quotes, you're not. 90% of the population. You're a fringe.

Perhaps the red pill does have more diverse opinions, but until those "diverse opinions" disown the sidebar if the subreddit, it's still going to sound misogynist.

It's good to see that some don't consider women that engage in casual sex to be damaged goods. And see the double standard. That is in fact, pretty huge progress. But it's not a widespread belief among RPwrs.

It was nice to see some empathy for the body issues women face, but really, that article was a huge exaggeration of the bitches be crazy trope, and of course, has no comment on how/when guys go apeshit. They're trying to make human reactions a gendered thing. The only way to do that is to pretend the other gender doesn't engage in that behavior.

But that's always been a core flaw of the red pill.

[–]hyperrrealLoves fun0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm not an expert on Feminism, but I've gotten decent exposure because I studied philosophy at a continental program. Respected academic feminism would freak most people out. The average person (myself included) thinks genders are categories that describe behavior. That stance (gender essentialism) is opposed by feminist thought.

And it's not just tumblr and SRS. Salon, Slate, Jezebel, HuffPo, Vox, etc. are hugely trafficked, legitimate websites. Vox and Buzzfeed just got VC investments in the hundreds of millions. That's the feminism most people have access to. I'm not sure how I'm cherry-picking, when both the academic and mainstream feminist conversations are pretty radical.

Perhaps the red pill does have more diverse opinions, but until those "diverse opinions" disown the sidebar if the subreddit, it's still going to sound misogynist.

The reason I read Redpill sites is because they don't care about sounding misogynist. There's way to much concern about protecting people's feelings these days. And that goes for MRAs and others complaining about misandry as well.

It was nice to see some empathy for the body issues women face, but really, that article was a huge exaggeration of the bitches be crazy trope, and of course, has no comment on how/when guys go apeshit.

This is a good example of what I mean. I don't ask that every women's issue article bring in the male perspective, or go into why women are just as guilty of x or y behavior as men. And I want to be able to read about the issues men face in relationships without always having to hear about "when guys go apeshit." I don't care about that, because I'm not dating any guys.

There's this assumption that because some redpill site isn't going out of its way to discuss the male side of some human behavior, that necessarily means its pretending men don't do crazy shit. Logically that doesn't follow.

When men want their issues discussed in feminism, it's met "what about teh menz lol." But when men try to have their own conversation about men's issues, its problematic for not bringing women's interests and perspective into the conversation. I don't think feminists will be satisfied until they control the conversation totally, and that's not fair or productive.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]steelpuppy4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]steelpuppy2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

We're not debating the merits of feminism. The topic is why TRP is judged according to the lowest common denominator (it is the lowest common denominator) and feminism is not.

We don't judge feminism by the lowest common denominator any more than we judge democrats, republicans and libertarians by the lowest common denominator.

So what you are saying is that we should judge TRP by their theory, not their "leaders" but then you say this:

Simply because the lowest common denominators are leading and shaping TRP. They are not leading and shaping feminism.

So how do you reconcile judging feminism as some sort of abstract concept outside of it's actors but then judge TRP by it's actors? I'm of the opinion that you are applying a double standard simply because it suits you not because of some fundamental difference between the two.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]homo_homini_lupus 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]steelpuppy3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CyraleaRedPill Vanguard3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]homo_homini_lupus 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wazzup987Blue pill, you can beat me black & blue for it later[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]homo_homini_lupus 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]wazzup987Blue pill, you can beat me black & blue for it later[🍰] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]homo_homini_lupus 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]give_me_shinieshere for the bants-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]homo_homini_lupus3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]give_me_shinies-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]homo_homini_lupus3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]give_me_shinies0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]homo_homini_lupus2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]give_me_shinies0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]homo_homini_lupus1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]steelpuppy1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]l_____o_____lBluish Purple Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]alcockell0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pillburtRed Pill Mana mana21 points22 points23 points 11 years ago (68 children) | Copy Link

The problem with calling out red pillers is a fundamental failure to understand the sort of communication that is taking place.

TRP doesn't purport to be a social movement recommending political or even widespread social change, instead it's a small personal philosophy movement recommending personal changes to best effect a favorable outcome.

The communication that takes place gets called out as "misogynistic" or hateful, but these critics completely miss the point of having a place for men to vent- and when you understand just what it is, you'll know why they do it, and why criticizing it won't fix it.

Imagine we were able to record marines talking with each other in a barracks, and transcribe it into text on a subreddit. You'd find them saying some really fucked up shit. Some talking about sluts, having sex, killing people, and other ridiculous things. Lots of machismo, posturing, joking, ribbing, and venting. Hyperbole and letting off steam.

But that's the culture, and that's what takes place behind closed doors.

It's a form of bonding, and a form of group cohesion. It assists with catharsis of the trials of their shared experiences.

What women and blue pillers are attempting to do by "calling out" red pillers is enter into their space, control the speech, and make sure it serves their own personal purposes. By ensuring that some speech isn't allowed and controlling it/steering it in different directions, women can co-opt these men into benefiting them. This is how women operate in the wild, as you see many male spaces become invaded and re-purposed. Anything from male gyms, cigar clubs, online forums- the results are always the same.

Do you know why I would never take their complaints seriously? Because I can't fathom of any sort of male-only group that women wouldn't label misogynistic or bad. That's telling. The fact is, it doesn't matter how much red pillers tempered their speech, message, or language. It would never be enough to appease women until it completely serves them.

And that's why they will never allow even the slightest modification to their speech at the behest of these women. It's a slippery slope.

To criticize feminists makes far more sense. They are not simply trying to vent among themselves in a protected environment. They are trying to pass laws to make illegal my body parts, and condemn me as a rapist until proven innocent. Let feminism burn, I say. They cross over from venting and hyperbole when their hate takes away my freedom and puts me in prison because of the 'patriarchy'.

[–]homo_homini_lupus 14 points15 points16 points 11 years ago (54 children) | Copy Link

[–]pillburtRed Pill Mana mana11 points12 points13 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]steelpuppy2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]taiboworksrational idealism > toxic egoism-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]pillburtRed Pill Mana mana9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]taiboworksrational idealism > toxic egoism1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]pillburtRed Pill Mana mana7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]taiboworksrational idealism > toxic egoism2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]pillburtRed Pill Mana mana4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]taiboworksrational idealism > toxic egoism1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]pillburt3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]taiboworks1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TomHicksAntifeminist sans pills1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]StabbyPantsPillhead0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]steelpuppy5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Those_Who_RemainIrrelevant Homosexual4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]steelpuppy3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Those_Who_RemainIrrelevant Homosexual6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Is it a formal establishment? No women allowed in the rules? Or are we talking about somebodies basement here?

It's a private(-ish) café with basically only men. The owner decided who comes and who doesn't, which results in plenty of opportunities for men to have a 'private male space'. Watching soccer, playing billiards, drinking etc.

Well we had the whole barber fiasco recently. Gentleman's clubs are getting shutdown the moment they are brought to publics eye.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentlemen%27s_club

Seems there are still plenty of Gentlemen's Clubs (which are hardly 'male spaces' for the average man to begin with). I have no clue what you mean about the barber fiasco.

Also:

From the 1970s onwards, some single-sex clubs opened to both sexes as guests and as members, partly to maintain membership levels.

And you know how you can create a private male space? By just setting up an activity yourself!

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]steelpuppy6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]homo_homini_lupus 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ArkiF4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]We_Are_LegionAutumn Red1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DocileBanalBovine 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]homo_homini_lupus 12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Those_Who_RemainIrrelevant Homosexual5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]CyraleaRedPill Vanguard6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]Those_Who_RemainIrrelevant Homosexual5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago* (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]CyraleaRedPill Vanguard1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Those_Who_RemainIrrelevant Homosexual4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

if it's private conversation between consenting parties, what does it matter how vile the conversation is?

TRP isn't private though. Not in the slightest. So that argument does not entirely apply here.

And it can potentially matter because the things you say and think may influence how you behave. If I am talking with friends on how I'd like to 'fuck some sluts' and others overhear me, they are fully in their right to voice their opinion on that.

I don't want to censor TRP. People will always find ways to voice their opinion. I want TRP to fully stand behind the vitriol they spew at times and stop hiding it behind excuses such as 'it's the anger phase!' or 'it's just how men talk'!

Some RPers (such as Homo_Homini_Lupus) do take that stance and I respect them for that. But many of them still try to hide behind excuses when talking about the actual content of TRP.

[–]CyraleaRedPill Vanguard1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Those_Who_RemainIrrelevant Homosexual6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]We_Are_LegionAutumn Red1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Those_Who_Remain0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]We_Are_Legion2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Those_Who_Remain0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CyraleaRedPill Vanguard-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Those_Who_Remain2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Cyralea1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Those_Who_Remain1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm an Endorsed Contributor. The other EC's/mods would likely agree that TRP is not a social movement. We are not Men's Rights. People find their way to us.

I know it isn't. TRP has made that very clear.

No. Newbies are only discouraged from posting new theory, because they likely haven't done enough reading to understand TRP fully. They're not discouraged from venting at all.

Okay fair enough. I was mistaken on that point.

There are a few forums outside of reddit that do just that. Reddit is fairly decent at fostering communication though, which is why the TRP sub is the forefront for manosphere ideas.

I actually feel Reddit is often worse for actual communication due to the upvote/downvote system, within established communities it is much harder to truly discuss ideas against the 'status quo' of that community. The 'circlejerk' or 'echo chamber' are quite large risks on fostering healthy communication and discussion.

That's partially just my opinion though. I prefer the forum lay-out for discussions.

[–]Cyralea2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pointless_Endeavors0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Those_Who_RemainIrrelevant Homosexual7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]StabbyPantsPillhead0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]homo_homini_lupus -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]l_____o_____lBluish Purple Pill Man2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]We_Are_LegionAutumn Red1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]homo_homini_lupus 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PurposeIsDeclared<- Redness lacks that-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Even if you had communicated with less openly animalistic men among your acquaintences, that would not devaluate your examples. So those are okay for your argument. But that is not the problem here. The problem is that you assume that the fact that the people on the Red Pill are venting, driven by some rage, or desperation, would change anything about the faults in their ideologies.

The criticism is not aimed at what Red-Pillers say once, but at what they defend.

This line of arguments by you and pillburt has been fighting a strawman, and while it is doing so, its defenders are calling Blue-Pillers the one who "deny realities".

You guys are the reason why the Red Pill is viewed the way it is. If you disagree, feel free to respond to my comment to pillburt, above, and change my mind about Red Pill ideology.

[–]homo_homini_lupus 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]We_Are_LegionAutumn Red1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ROOTderp3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The problem with calling out red pillers is a fundamental failure to understand the sort of communication that is taking place.

I think the most glaring fundamental failure is by RPers believing that non-RPers don't understand them. I feel like every time an insightful question is posed there are the highest-upvoted RPers just saying some thought-terminating thing along the lines of "You don't understaaaand".

TRP isn't that hard to understand. From what I've read online and experienced IRL, my interpretation of it is that it's all pretty juvenile and very easily graspable. And why wouldn't it be? It's an ideology (neoconservative in practice) that wants to attract as many people as possible.

The communication that takes place gets called out as "misogynistic" or hateful, but these critics completely miss the point of having a place for men to vent- and when you understand just what it is, you'll know why they do it, and why criticizing it won't fix it.

This is another thing that they don't seem to understand. Labeling what they are doing as "locker-room talk" doesn't suddenly mean everyone has to respect their opinion and put up with their shit. I'm not even sure how many of the people in TRP have actually spent time in a fucking locker room. I played football for eleven years. Dropped out of it in college because it interfered with my studies (which I should have seen coming..) and, at the end of the day, my mind was more important to me than my body. So I have a great deal of experience with this "locker-room talk", in addition to having many of my closest friends in Marines and other branches of the military. No one talks the way people talk in TRP.

Also, TRP is not a locker room.

Where do you draw the line for acceptable ways to "vent"? Is manipulating, forcing myself on women, possibly raping just a form of venting? Oh, well, sorry, I'll let y'all get back to it then.

Because I can't fathom of any sort of male-only group that women wouldn't label misogynistic or bad.

Because I can't fathom

The other thing is that TRPers seem incapable of grasping is that TRP doesn't exist in a vacuum. People in TRP do not decide how the rest of the world interprets their words and actions. They can say "X means Y" till the end of time, but the fact of the matter is that the people around you interpret meaning -- not you (TRPers).

If you want to talk about communication, this is how interpreting meaning from signs works.

Extra Credit:

a fundamental failure to understand the sort of communication that is taking place.

I don't think TRPers understand the sort of communication taking place between these neoconservative types and identity politics. It appears to be painfully obvious that TRP attempts to don the role of the victim to place itself in a position that speaks truth-to-power (or, in a Foucauldian sense, breaking silence through confession -- particularly in the claim that TRPers see "reality" for "what it really is"). Ironically, their language and discourse is anything but peaceful and nonviolent in the way that the phrase truth-to-power was initially used.

When all is said and done, TRP suggests that they are some kind of countercultural force trying to carve out a tiny little space for the poor oppressed men of the world, but in reality they are appropriating the tools of the oppressed (used to work against institutions of power) and use them to reinforce the very structures that they claim (on the surface) to fight against. The same happened with the whole hippy movement of the 60s, it's happening now with white individuals co-opting and taking over protests (in Berkeley, for example).

EDIT:

What women and blue pillers are attempting to do by "calling out" red pillers is enter into their space, control the speech, and make sure it serves their own personal purposes. By ensuring that some speech isn't allowed and controlling it/steering it in different directions, women can co-opt these men into benefiting them. This is how women operate in the wild, as you see many male spaces become invaded and re-purposed. Anything from male gyms, cigar clubs, online forums- the results are always the same.

If you think that there is a lack of male spaces, then we can't even have this conversation. TRP must exist on a different planet.

The world is fucking overloaded with male-dominated spaces.

[–]pillburtRed Pill Mana mana2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Labeling what they are doing as "locker-room talk" doesn't suddenly mean everyone has to respect their opinion and put up with their shit.

You don't have to put up with their shit because...if you don't like it, you can leave. Nobody asked you to be there. Showing up and telling them to stop is invading their space.

Also, TRP is not a locker room.

Just yesterday at my gym, a guy was commenting to his friend that the girl he saw on tinder was going out with him tonight. He asked "are you gonna give her the ol' one-and-done?" he responded that "no woman on tinder's worth more!"

Uh oh! Literally locker room talk!

Where do you draw the line for acceptable ways to "vent"? Is manipulating, forcing myself on women, possibly raping just a form of venting? Oh, well, sorry, I'll let y'all get back to it then.

As soon as a reddit post gains sentience and finds a way to start raping women, I suppose we'll have to address that elephant in the room.

People in TRP do not decide how the rest of the world interprets their words and actions.

No, but I can use what I know of the world and extrapolate from there. It seems blue pillers have a real problem with synthesizing hypotheticals from their experiences. I can't fathom a group that isn't labeled misogyny because feminists are so quick to label everything misogyny that even gamers (who are not inherently male) are misogynistic. It's a joke.

They can say "X means Y" till the end of time, but the fact of the matter is that the people around you interpret meaning -- not you

Do you really believe that reality is so subjective that you decide what I mean? That's some post-modernist bullshit if I ever saw it.

It's one thing to misunderstand and ask for clarification. It's another to exaggerate and assume the worst possible interpretation every single time. That's not on me, that's on you for being a dink.

Ironically, their language and discourse is anything but peaceful and nonviolent in the way that the phrase truth-to-power was initially used.

Here we are raping and killing again. Perhaps you could add a little propaganda to your propaganda.

TRP suggests that they are some kind of countercultural force trying to carve out a tiny little space for the poor oppressed men of the world, but in reality they are appropriating the tools of the oppressed (used to work against institutions of power) and use them to reinforce the very structures that they claim (on the surface) to fight against. The same happened with the whole hippy movement of the 60s, it's happening now with white individuals co-opting and taking over protests (in Berkeley, for example).

Yes, what we're actually doing is claiming we're oppressed and then we're forcing the government to hand us free sex, give us free money, and incarcerate the other gender for twice as long as we are.

That last bit was snark.

[–]Cactuar_TamerMaking poor life choices.-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

As soon as a reddit post gains sentience and finds a way to start raping women, I suppose we'll have to address that elephant in the room.

Oh, stop being precious. You know very well that people are reacting not only to what RPers say, but what they say they do, in other words, reported actions. Such as, less uncommonly than could be desired, raping women, or otherwise harassing/assaulting them.

Do you really believe that reality is so subjective that you decide what I mean?

No one decides what you mean. They decide what they perceive you to mean, and that is the only thing that matters as to how they are going to treat you. You can try to convince them that they're wrong, or you can try to change your communication in order that their perception lines up with your true intention, but you still have to live with the fact that you don't get to decide how other people interpret or experience your words/actions.

[–]pillburtRed Pill Mana mana1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh, stop being precious. You know very well that people are reacting not only to what RPers say, but what they say they do, in other words, reported actions. Such as, less uncommonly than could be desired, raping women, or otherwise harassing/assaulting them.

It's just such a tired argument to assume that people you disagree with must be evil in every way. So you don't like red pillers. That doesn't make them literally hitlers who rape everybody.

The venting isn't rape, the venting doesn't lead to rape, and there's literally zero evidence to support otherwise.

You can try to convince them that they're wrong, or you can try to change your communication in order that their perception lines up with your true intention, but you still have to live with the fact that you don't get to decide how other people interpret or experience your words/actions.

The issue here is when a red piller tries to clarify their position after a misunderstanding, blue pillers refuse to accept clarification. It works towards their goals to misinterpret and refuse clarification.

[–]PurposeIsDeclared<- Redness lacks that-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

"[...]philosophy movement recommending personal changes to best effect a favorable outcome."

Your sidebar consists of sermons about irrationality of women, and that men should be better than people dependent on women. That is the ideology that you promote, and then every now and then you throw in the internet-troll's favourite self-motivation/justification-line "be the best you" in order to convince yourselves that would actually be the topic or even purpose of your ideology.

But it is not. It is only about telling people that they should never fulfill anyone else's wishes than their own [leaving me wondering about the average RPer's definition of "love"]. However, in doing so, it provides absolutely no suggestions on what should be the aim to their life.

This could be alright. Red Pill ideology would then just be a very open recommendation about life. But it fails as that, because it restricts people who decide to devote their life to making other people happy, for absolutely no reason.

The Red Pill ideology can be viewed from two perspectives. The first is a restriction, and the second is supposed to be a recommendation, but ends up being absolutely nothing because it is made void by the previous restrictions [which are quite adamantly insisted on by its community - no one really knowing why]. This all yields in absolutely nothing, and that is just what RedPill-ideology is: void of any meaning.

If you can not falsify that argument [and I am pretty sure you will not be able to, because neither were the mods of your page, when I asked them whether there was actually any purpose to Red-Pill ideology that would be furthered by your views on women and culture], the only thing that remains of the cult is its constantly "venting" community. That community which receives the criticism which you have considered unjust based on the fact that their rants would not represent the core of their opinion. But since that is the only thing that actually exists in the Red Pill: What does define you?

[–]pillburtRed Pill Mana mana1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

Your sidebar consists of sermons about irrationality of women, and that men should be better than people dependent on women.

Sounds personal to me.

"be the best you" in order to convince yourselves that would actually be the topic or even purpose of your ideology.

The "best" us is somebody who understands RP and formulates an informed decision based on it. Some decide marriage, ltr, or plate spinning. Nobody's right or wrong, but many make a case for their own strategy. No convincing necessary, we all want what benefits us.

But it is not. It is only about telling you that you should never fulfill anyone else's wishes than your own.

That's an ineffective strategy. A big portion of the text is learning how to fulfill women's wishes so that they'll like you more. (Their unspoken wishes, not the fake ones they say they want).

However, in doing so, it provides absolutely no suggestions on what should be the aim to your life.

Because that's your choice. RP just discusses what the reality is, and the men then discuss their personal strategies and goals. We have different goals.

But it fails as that, because it restricts people who decide to devote their life to making other people happy, for absolutely no reason.

Why should somebody dedicate their lives to others' happiness? I think that the guys there tend to stress being wary of it because it's easy to be taken advantage of. And men routinely are taken advantage of. Guys do nice things for women, it's in their nature. They want to do something nice and gain their favor. Of course, trp would teach you not to, because it's a bad strategy.

This all yields in absolutely nothing, and that is just what RedPill-ideology is: void of any meaning.

That's just nonsense. And you know it. Perhaps you disagree with the meaning - and that is your prerogative-, but to try to reduce it to mean nothing is disingenuous.

If you can not falsify that argument [and I am pretty sure you will not be able to], the only thing that remains of the cult is its constantly "venting" community.

Well, I did falsify your nonsense.

[–]PurposeIsDeclared<- Redness lacks that0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

When I first responded, I figured I had taken things a bit too far off-topic, but some questions have been left open, and I hope you would not mind answering.

"(Their unspoken wishes, not the fake ones they say they want)."

I mentioned pretty clearly that I accept the Red Pill view of primal nature. I completely disagree, but I still think I made pretty clear you do not have to point out to me what Red Pill thinks about the female subconscious. I have read about the Red Pill opinion of how women would be incapable of certain aspects of love, typically "supported" by descriptions of their conduct in situations of hardship, and still do not see why Red Pill people refuse to accept that - independent of what the subconscious nature of women actually is like - women, like all humans, are capable of making choices based on long-term goals rather than short-term satisfaction in all situations of their life.

Relatedly, I really wonder who you think you are to be able to judge "what [women] really want" by any other way than investigating into the desires of the individual person. And if you now argue that such analysis is what you do to fulfill "unspoken wishes", then I have no idea what the Red Pill has to do with that.

"Because that's your choice."

It is, and I have to admit you have surprised me with how accurately you have phrased that, but that is not an argument against how the Red Pill could provide a suggestion for such a choice. And the reason I asked why it did not do that is because then the Red Pill is not a philosophy - which is what you called it.

"Why should somebody dedicate their lives to others' happiness?"

Because that is the desire that comes with, and defines, love and I endeavour to realise that desire. Also because paying an effort for other persons' wishes is the only action of which I never doubt the value. With my own tasks I can never know whether my priorities are set well. The time I invest into other people's goals or delight is not subject to their priorities, because they only have to worry about how they spend their own time, and not subject to mine, because it is not time devoted to my own purposes anyways, so I can trust in the other person's motives.

But why do I have to justify this? I thought the Red Pill would be applicable to anyone's goals.

"They want to do something nice and gain their favor.

Of course, trp would teach you not to, because it's a bad strategy."

Strategy for what? "Gaining favor"? What do you even mean by that as the motivation to doing nice things?

Doing nice things to people is the only strategy for the objective of making other people happy.

"[...] but to try to reduce it to mean nothing is disingenuous.

[...] Well, I did falsify your nonsense."

...And yet you have not mentioned anything about how the Red Pill would be a philosophy, or just generally what the Red Pill is [if "not a philosophy but something similar" should apply]. In fact, all you have said has made the Red Pill seem only even more like nothing but PickUp-Artistry for people who invented another word for their business because they did not enjoy being considered manipulative.

"Sounds personal to me."

Then, please, enlighten me, what is the subject of Red Pill "philosophy", if not what I listed there.

[–]pillburtRed Pill Mana mana0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

women, like all humans, are capable of making choices based on long-term goals rather than short-term satisfaction in all situations of their life.

They are able, yes. But red pillers believe that, like most other things, women are subject to market forces. So being able to do something, and doing it in practice are two entirely different things.

The fact is, women can and do make short term decisions knowing that they will be well protected from long term consequences. Women can commit crimes in our culture and get away with little to no consequence. Women can cheat on their husbands and rely on the cultural narrative that he should "man up" and take care of another man's child. Women benefit from these protections, as it helps serve their biological imperatives: secure the highest quality dna, and provisions. Perhaps not from the same man. It doesn't need to be, as we've learned, our culture is very good at ensuring no woman would ever suffer from her choices.

So can a woman make good decisions? Of course she can. But the environment is such that they don't have to. And if they don't have to, at least a portion of the population will do what they are allowed to do. That's how the market works. If women started suffering consequences from their actions, I think you'd see more responsible decision making from their side.

I really wonder who you think you are to be able to judge "what [women] really want" by any other way than investigating into the desires of the individual person.

Are you suggesting that no two women want the same thing? It seems to me you're so deep over your head focused on special snowflakism that you really think I need to set aside a year or two with each woman I meet to know that being cocky and fit will attract them. I don't. In fact, as a man, I realize quite well that I have to focus on traits that attract most women, because it's a numbers game. I don't have the luxury of learning somebody's personality before getting rejected- the rejection is usually quite quick. I have to go in blind and do my best to attract them before they decide otherwise.

And the reason I asked why it did not do that is because then the Red Pill is not a philosophy - which is what you called it.

I suppose I should clarify- the red pill is a study in our experiences as we know them (and interpret them as objective and factual, or a close representation of factual which can be improved upon with further study). Then there are a lot of people discussing their philosophies based on these "facts" and they state their case for it. Like "never get married." A large portion of TRPers agree with this philosophy. But not all. Because some are married! But you'll see guys make a strong case for why it's disadvantageous. The personal philosophy portion is decoupled from the study of reality. But yes, there is a philosophical component, it's just a personal choice, and no two people on TRP agree 100% on which strategy is the best. Which makes for interesting conversation.

Because that is the desire that comes with, and defines, love and I endeavour to realise that desire.

Your argument is that you derive happiness from altruism, and it's true, it can certainly make somebody happy. We're social creatures afterall. I think the reason it's looked down upon is that it is this very nature of man that makes us susceptible to abuse- there are suckers on TRP describing how they'd do anything for their woman, pay for college loans, give them gifts, and everything- only to find out that there was no equity in the relationship and that she'll have no compulsion to take that into account when factoring attraction. (They learned that the hard way).

But why do I have to justify this? I thought the Red Pill would be applicable to anyone's goals.

You have to justify it for the same reason anybody does- your strategy is your own, and you get to live it. That doesn't mean it's above scrutiny. If you make a case for your strategy, be prepared to explain why you think it's a good one. Then we debate. It's called "intellectualism."

Strategy for what? "Gaining favor"? What do you even mean by that as the motivation to doing nice things? Doing nice things to people is the only strategy for the objective of making other people happy.

In this case, a lot of men are mistaken in believing that "doing nice things" is an effective strategy at gaining attraction. It isn't.

.And yet you have not mentioned anything about how the Red Pill would be a philosophy, or just generally what the Red Pill is [if "not a philosophy but something similar" should apply]. In fact, all you have said has made the Red Pill seem only even more like nothing but PickUp-Artistry for people who invented another word for their business because they did not enjoy being considered manipulative.

I've been quite thorough here, I hope this clears up your misunderstanding.

[–]PurposeIsDeclared<- Redness lacks that0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"Women can commit crimes in our culture and get away with little to no consequence."

Yes, I agree. But these things are equally openly adressed by discourses in law, our culture in general, or Feminism, by now.

So, theoretically finally arrived in a society that would judge all ethics-criminals equally by their crime, would Red Pillers accept that this supposed primal nature is irrelevant, and that women can very well love a man for who he is, and devote understanding and trust to him for that reason, or would they continue to think women would be incapable of loving like men?

"Women can cheat on their husbands and rely on the cultural narrative that he should "man up" and take care of another man's child. "

No. They are told that this would be an option, in the typically horrible fashion in which people use arguments in discussions. Dealing with arguments like that is more of a question of growing up than of banning society's protection of women. They answer: "I could, but that would conflict with my objectives for relationships, so I would rather not." and that is where the discussion [which discusses opinion, rather that fact] ends.

If you need a group of people behind you to tell you that your decision is okay, and everyone who says a man could adopt another man's child and be a satisfied father would be totally wrong, how is your collective any better than the opposing one?

"I don't have the luxury of learning somebody's personality before getting rejected- the rejection is usually quite quick."

Interesting. I do not experience that. But that is not as important as this:

"[...] a lot of men are mistaken in believing that 'doing nice things' is an effective strategy at gaining attraction. It isn't."

Irrelevant. Having affection for people means wanting to make them happy. Then comes wanting to gain their attraction. If they decide they are not interested in such contact with me, I move on. From that, either romantic relationships or friendships ensue. [In which there is control on my behalf and in which I will be "cocky" when suitable. I just delay all the decision-making until I have actually found out what my partner likes, so I can make decisions for the two of us; I have been quite successful with asking my way through the individual favors of my partner until I get to that stage. That is not Special Snowflakism. It is attentiveness to how despite there being women who like the same things, it makes no sense to assume anything, when you can just ask and adapt.]

While you are playing your "numbers game", how do you have any time left to develop any affection for the people you decide to spend your time with? Do you postpone that until you know you have gained attraction with the person in question? Because that would be the exact opposite to my priorities.

I would not fall in love with people before finding them attractive, but if you get past a stage of friendship and present yourself as a suitable partner with every woman you meet, first thing, just to ensure she will perceive you as "Alpha" enough, do you never have platonic relationships before you are rejected? If you do, how do you decide what women to refuse to fulfill wishes to unless it maintains your Alpha-role?

You must have friendships in which you want to be nice to other people. But do you only engage in those when there is no physical interest in a person, so you can be safe to have guaranteed enough attraction, in case you might later develop romantic affection for the person, and consequently need to have maintained "Frame" long enough to still be attractive?

I figure you probably just consider the whole process 24/7-Alphaness. But from what you have said, that is not compatible with altruistic treatment of friends, if you ever want to be attractive to them.

Those are restrictions I would not want to have to put on myself. There are things I do not do strategically. Friendships are among them. And right from the start, as well. Because that would be against the point of friendships to me.

"this very nature of man that makes us susceptible to abuse- there are suckers on TRP describing how they'd do anything for their woman, pay for college loans, give them gifts, and everything- only to find out that there was no equity in the relationship and that she'll have no compulsion to take that into account when factoring attraction."

Huh? Sure, gift-showers are altruistic whenever they appeal to any wish of the receptor, but in your examples there were a lot of other interests that were offended by those executions of altruism.

How would it not have been altruistic of them only to provide these women with what they would have desired to receive from their romantic partners? I do not see an altruist being abused, but altruism being used wrongly; simply because the application of the intended wish-fulfilling conflicted with a lot of other intentions of the receptors - let alone the wishes of the men to be viewed as attractive. For the sake of your argument, assuming these men would only have been interested in fulfilling the desires of that one woman and not other person [to justify why they would not just direct their altruism somewhere less controversely appreciated], they would still have done nothing wrong in limiting their altruism to fulfilling those wishes that the women would have wanted to satisfied from their partners -without any attraction being limited-, because they would then have appealed to that desire of finding a loving, attractive partner.

"'intellectualism'"

Fair enough, but I think what I should originally have said would have been: "[...] why do I have to justify 'my purpose'?". You say I have to expose my "strategy" to criticism, but I have never brought up any strategy, but only talked about what I have declared my objectives. If you refer to that as "strategy", I still do not see how there is any need for scrutiny with a decision that I had already explained as, simply, what I find desirable. If you do not refer to "purpose" as "strategy", then you have not actually heard anything about my strategy to fulfulling my purpose yet, and it is a bit early to scrutinize it.

[–]SquidwardsEuphoriafemale neckbeard4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]manymacoronis6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]squirrels33Blue Pill Man2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]XYEaQMZJvS 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MissPearlEditor of frequent typos.4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think TumblrinAction is a perfectly valid concept. As for why the red pill should be judged by its asshats?

Its a smaller, considerabley more fundamentalist (eg core text focused) philosophy to which there appears (to an outsider) to be considerably less space for deviance and a lot of credit given to a prominent asshat with little internal criticism. Any given RP person generally has to new pretty close to the party line or be ejected, where as there are so many schools of feminism it is able to be in conflict with itself, and so on.

Theoretically I might be innacurate, but I can't see the same cycle of examination and conflict I expect when feminists deal with their own asshats at this time. However given the benefit of the doubt, we shall see what TRP is like in 50 to 100 years.

Precisely speaking judging all persons who care about men's rights by MRA asshats would be a better comparison.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]egotherapy2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]EaglePout 3 points3 points3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

trp's core tenets about women are derogatory and dehumanizing. Feminisms core tenants about men are that they're capable of being more than the sex-crazed animals older generations saw them as (and TRP still sees them as). The fringe of Feminists believe all men are rapists. The fringe of TRP believes women are actually capable of love, rationality, honor.

Trp isn't concerned with the emotional state of either it's followers or the women it degrades. And what I mean by this is it encourages men not to speak about how they feel to their partner, and instead play mind games. Listening to your partners concerns is see as concession. (Not including guys who are only looking for casual sex, they honestly don't concern me.) men are warned against trusting their partners in marriage, saying they will be bled dry by scheming harpies. this seems like an inherently unhealthy frame of mind to me, being both constantly afraid of rejection from not being "alpha" enough and a lack of trust towards your partner has never a happy relationship made in my experience. As someone with an open and loving relationship, the thought of using power games like trp advocates makes me imagine a very lonely and isolated existence. I don't think human beings were meant to function like that.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]EaglePout 5 points5 points5 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points5 points5 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–]cuittlerಠ_ಠ5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

The focus on women's negative traits is because the the sub is for helping men understand that women aren't perfect; it highlight's fundemental flaws in humanity as an overall, with emphasis on what women generally see value in.

-Nature intended women to be our slaves; . . . they are our property, we are not theirs. They belong to us, just as a tree that bears fruit belongs to the gardener.

For creatures so outwardly beautiful, modern women sure are ugly on a spiritual level.

Women are great at the whole permanent personality switch thing. The branch swinging hypergamy upgrade thing. And the whole "switch sides because it suits me to do so thing." They also need constant maintenance. If they're not haaaaaaaaaaaaaapppy then you're a shit man and they're off. Fuck the fact you have to work hard, concentrate on yourself, look after your kids and do other shit. No. A woman's responsibilities are domestic/kids and usually any part time job she has. You have kids, full time job AND THEN HER. She is probably the most mentally draining thing out of all of those things.

Women are programmed to be nurturing towards their young, not their men. Men are there to provide and protect while they raise their young, and if they have to be nurturing towards you too that means you're a poor protector and provider. Displaying any trait that reflects poorly on your ability to be a strong protector and provider is infuriating to a woman, because nothing annoys a woman more than accidentally fucking a beta.

I'm not convinced.

[–][deleted] 5 points5 points5 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–]cuittlerಠ_ಠ3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]steelpuppy-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CyraleaRedPill Vanguard1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]EaglePout 4 points4 points4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CyraleaRedPill Vanguard0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]EaglePout 0 points0 points0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CyraleaRedPill Vanguard1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]EaglePout 0 points0 points0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CyraleaRedPill Vanguard1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]EaglePout0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]aggressivejoeRecovering SJW0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheTerrorSquadlab rat6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]steelpuppy5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]steelpuppy1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TalkToHusbandPurple Pill Woman[S] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ArkiF1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]winndixie0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]teeeloRed Pill-2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (59 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points7 points7 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points-1 points-1 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points6 points6 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points1 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points4 points4 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points0 points0 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–]smurfcorp 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]radialomensBleeds Blue10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (42 children) | Copy Link

[–]teeeloRed Pill-2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (41 children) | Copy Link

red pill psychology does not apply universally?

No shit. There seems to be a reoccurring disconnect from Blue Pill about what terms like: AWALT really mean. They will misquote generalizations and use it to straighten the straw man. To expand on their rhetoric, I must approve of rape in order to be Red Pill. Well i don't of course, so I guess I'm not Red Pill. Durrrr

'No BS' people don't need a fuckin asterisk at the end of every sentence for fear of not letting the .01% exceptions of people go Unrepresented.

Anyways, I think it's great you spin your disdain for TRP being "misogynistic, unrealistic, and unattractive" as uhh, not based on some form of bitterness? Jesus, you people act like you don't care but actively participate in the debate against it. Why aren't you involved in a real movement and choose TRP to hate on?

Answer: It's personal at some level.

the aggressive nature of TRP rhetoric drives people away.

This is laughable. As if the thousands of Men who are drawn to TRP are not to be considered. It must bother you on some level at the rate TRP member subscription level rises each day as the Blur Pill stagnates.

[–]XYEaQMZJvS 14 points15 points16 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+]teeeloRed Pill-8 points-7 points-6 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]XYEaQMZJvS 12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]teeeloRed Pill-7 points-6 points-5 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]squirrels33Blue Pill Man5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]teeeloRed Pill-4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]radialomensBleeds Blue16 points17 points18 points 11 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

You can't make sweeping generalizations and act like you embedded an acknowledged exception in there. When a person says "Black people are thieves" or "Mexicans are lazy" or "Fags transmit HIV" then backs up and says, "Whoa now, I didn't say all of them were like that! You can't attack me, because some of them are," they're being dense and manipulative. At the end of the day, really, you've said nothing of importance if you aren't willing to put yourself out there and act like you made a significant statement with material that contributes to the discussion. Make a point or don't.

Anyways, I think it's great you spin your disdain for TRP being "misogynistic, unrealistic, and unattractive" as uhh, not based on some form of bitterness?

You know there are emotions besides bitterness, right? Like disgust? I'm not "bitter" about slavery, it's just a revolting practice. What's more, the motives you suggest are extremely specific and unapplicable. You and I know you can't prove in any meaningful sense that Blue Pill women are bitter that Alpha men won't fuck them, or that they're unattractive and unsatisfied with their partners. Our faces aren't next to our usernames, and I'm not messaging TRPers asking them to let me suck their dicks because my boyfriend's too feminist. Your description of what blue pill women "are" is drawn entirely out of your own circular rhetoric; no evidence submissible.

And isn't, "They're just jelly" the most immature response to criticism prevalent in the modern world?

This is laughable. As if the thousands of Men who are drawn to TRP are not to be considered.

As I was saying, this is something I have heard from RedPillers to explain why they get so much hate throughout reddit. If I can remember the discussion it was said in, I'll link it, but it was around 3 months ago, or the last time I was in PPD.

[+]teeeloRed Pill-12 points-11 points-10 points 11 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

You can't make sweeping generalizations and act like you embedded an acknowledged exception

Yes I fucking can. Especially in 'no girls allowed' sub reddits like TRP. Don't like it? Tough. Apparently some of you don't like what we talk about in our own subreddit? Double Tough. Sorry to have personally invaded your life with all our misogyny.

Some of us are in the know, the rest of you bitch about catering to the naive and ignorant. PASS THANK YOU.

Here's the thing- you're not wrong about generalizations or stereotypes for that matter. But you would have to acknowledge the truth between a prejudice statement like 'Mexicans are lazy'

You can be as liberal as you want about it, but face the fact that there is a reason sayings like that catch on. Are all Mexicans like that? fuck no, you should be enlightened enough to not nit-pick shit. If you are incapable of letting it go, consider your level of maturity compared to those who do.

Here is another point to consider: I know I am not a Misognyist or a Thief or lazy, so if you were to call me one it would not matter because I know what I am. So if I say all women are whores, only the whores should get offended. Women who are not whores won't care, correct? Well they shouldn't, unless they do. Only TRP knows why.

I'm not "bitter" about slavery, it's just a revolting practice.

Again, nice spin. Same shit though, sorry I'm not willing to break out my thesaurus to find your niche emotion. Tell me, why are you involved in Anti-Red Pill culture, but no Anti-Slavery subreddit culture or the like?

It's not a personal reason is it?

You and I know you can't prove in any meaningful sense that Blue Pill women are bitter that Alpha men won't fuck them, or that they're unattractive and unsatisfied with their partners

Absolutely right. I cannot prove any of it, just like I can't prove any TRP theory. But damn, if the evidence doesn't line up.

[–]smurfcorp 11 points12 points13 points 11 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[+]teeeloRed Pill-7 points-6 points-5 points 11 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]smurfcorp 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]teeeloRed Pill-3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]smurfcorp 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

I don't get my panties into a bunch over red pill speak anymore. I've read enough of it to be desensitized. That doesn't mean it's not still abhorrent and wrong though. I don't go into TRP to argue or police your tone. But we are in PPD where the whole point is debate. So yeah I'll call out the things you say here.

Words have meanings. That's how language works. All means all. Period. Not "most". Not 99%. ALL. Plus, you have zero evidence to support your claim that most women are "whores" (whatever that means... whore technically means a prostitute, so I guess that's another word that you're using improperly). "Whore" can mean anything you want it to. What constitutes a whore? A promiscuous woman? How high does the n-count have to be before you consider her promiscuous? It differs from man to man, even redpillers have different opinions on that. Is a woman a whore for not being a virgin when she meets you? Is she a whore for rejecting you? Breaking up with you? Is Lil Susie a whore because you saw her kiss Jimmy at recess?

Ultimately, since it's not a metric that anyone can objectively measure, like height or hair color, it's meaningless. It's a slur, an insult, a way for you to degrade women so you can feel better about yourself. It's an emotional outburst.

Recovering Men need this shock to their system. It helps snap us out of our original feminist ideology.

I understand, but reality is a little more complex and nuanced than that. Going from one extreme of "women are perfect angels who can do no wrong" to "all women are hypergamous whores who will fuck you over the first chance they get" is not productive. It's not logical or reasonable. You guys rag on women for being "emotional", well anger is a very powerful emotion that can easily take over your capacity for logic & reason, and severely cloud your judgement.

[–]teeelo-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I don't get my panties into a bunch over red pill speak anymore

First of all, good to hear you admit it does rub you the wrong way; And better that you are over it as well.

That doesn't mean it's not still abhorrent and wrong though.

This is your opinion based on your feelings. Is it wrong for Blacks to call each other Nigger? Probably. Does it matter? No.

Words have meanings. That's how language works. All means all. Period. Not "most". Not 99%. ALL.

Ok here is the problem with your argument, you are refusing to accept how I explain myself knowing full well the message between the lines and building a straw man argument. I'm sorry but I am sick and tired of defending myself over people who reinterpret what I mean to fit their frame. It's frustrating having to go back and systematically explain why your arguments are invalid. It's not worth the effort anymore.

If you can't discern when All means All and when it doesn't that is not my problem. Our debate is a niche subject and we do not need to waiver by including irrelevant points.

Plus, you have zero evidence to support your claim that most women are "whores"

What are you brining this up for? I never mentioned anything about all women being whores.... But this is a perfect example of the Blue Pill Strawman being formed. No good counter argument? Let's make one up! You made a very passionate but irrelevant argument about something we weren't even talking about....so skipping that..

Going from one extreme of "women are perfect angels who can do no wrong" to "all women are hypergamous whores who will fuck you over the first chance they get" is not productive.

I disagree! We need a good shock and one extreme from another will inevitably lead to BALANCE. We need to see both sides of the spectrum, not just one side, for us to get a real grip on reality. I theorize that part of the Blue pill Opinion of Red Pillers involved not realizing just how skewed our personal view of reality was. We are poorly guided souls brought I a tipping point.

anger is a very powerful emotion that can easily take over your capacity for logic & reason,

A phase all recovering Betas go through. Not to be skipped or avoided. It's part of the healing process. But remember, it is just a phase to work out all the BS we've experienced being laid out for us to see.

[–]Noccam1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]teeelo1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Noccam1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]teeelo1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Noccam1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]teeelo1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Sadly, as delusional as you say I am, I get what your saying. Life should not be a yes or no or a flip of a coin and in the grand scheme of things it isn't. No argument there. BUT we're not talking about all of life. TRP pertains to today's sexual strategy. The sooner YOU realize that the lessons are more important than the literal messagr the sooner you will see TRP teachings for what it is. Unless of course you don't need it, then it would just make you shake your head and hopefully move on....

But here is the kicker- in today's modern age of Western sexual strategy shit is totally flipped upside down and shaken up. It's not nice, it's not pretty, its a bastardization of sexual and social dynamics bread by Women's rights movements, the entitlement attitude, the American dream, egos, pedestalization of women, ETC ETC ETC.

Sounds crazy? So did the round earth theory.

Most of Red Pills critics have an almost smug sense of how wrong we are and how right they are. It's almost as if TRP exists based on some sort of fluke or some bizarre coincidence. What they refuse to acknowledge is that it was created as a response to the way the world is and the disillusionment thousands (millions?) of Men have experienced as a result of doing what they think was right and getting screwed by the women in their lives because of it.

I can only surmise that TRP's critics live in an isolated and sheltered community, where small town dynamics are the closest thing they get to real life experience. These people literally have no idea what some women are like, they either call it a fluke or dismiss it as confirmation bias or some shit. Send them to a Toronto or New York night club bus tour and maybe they will get a better idea of what people have become.

What you don't get, is that you have not lived my life and effectively don't know me. You're god damn right I was (and still am in some ways) insecure. Surprise, I'm human and Man enough to admit it. (Good luck getting my Blue Pill Trolls to admit they are flawed in any way. )

My insecurities came from my complete lack of understanding of sexual social dynamics and because of my own self confessed shortcomings of being another disposable Beta male in a world filled with waaaay better options I am able to strive to fix my shit like every other actualized Red Pill Man. It turns out, I WAS fucked up, and telling myself not to worry or that I am perfect the way I am or some other fictitious BS was killing my soul.

If I understand you, you want me to stop looking at life through the Red Pill lens and see it for how it SHOULD be. But this is just not the way things are anymore. You sound like you are denying that you are a lamb, but also sound like you want me to accept that it's OK to be the lamb. Some of us don't want to be eaten.

I ask you this, WHY does TRP exist? WHY is it gaining such a huge underground following? No one makes you swallow the pill, we do it ourselves, WHY do we do this to ourselves?

[–]Noccam1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]teeelo1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

TRP is all about how they arent wrong, how the problem persists with the other party.

Boom, there goes the dynamite. Sorry my friend, but this debate is over on account of my confirmed realization that you don't get it. I literally spent a paragraph telling you I was the broken one and you glazed right over it.

You are incorrect in your conclusion that TRP is about blaming women for our own failures. Big misunderstanding on your part that leads to a lot of Anti-TRP sentiment. Yeah, women are fucked up but it was us as Men that let them get that way and enabled it. We are as much to blame for the way things are as them. Actually, More-so Men. We are the ones in charge, and we failed a massive shit test handing over the reigns to any Woman that felt she was just as capable.

Some lambs lead sheltered protected lives, grow old and comfortable and wonder what all that survival fuss was about. Most get eaten by wolves. It's poor advice to tell all lambs to act like life is not a game of survival.

Lucky for you, you seem to be in a happy little shelter so far. Hopefully it stays that way.

[–]Noccam1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]XYEaQMZJvS 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]teeeloRed Pill-5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

LoL! TRP is self improvement for Men struggling to find identity. Blue Pill is a sad little hate group whose sole purpose is to spread and verify their own delusions and hate about us. You may have noticed there is no Anti-Blue pill sub reddit, this is because no one takes you guys seriously enough to warrant any recourse. It's best to ignore bullies, amirite?

Calling out why I'm not involved in a more useful 'anti-group' subreddit is a sad backpedalling tactic. YOURE the one involved in hating on a group of people, YOU are the one who chooses to spend their time this way. I choose to absorb TRP AND better myself for MY benefit. You chose not only to reject TRP but go on a personally field vendetta against it. This is why I wonder why you stop here at TBP? Certainly there are bigger more relevant fish to fry?

So to summarize, YOU-> Actively participates in a group against TRP

ME -> Minds my own business living the TRP life and self improving.

Because you are inclined toward drama and controversy, I ask why you stop here and not at a more pertinent movement?

Because it's personal.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]teeeloRed Pill-3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]teeelo1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Thai_Hammer0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]teeeloRed Pill-2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Thai_Hammer5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]teeeloRed Pill-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Thai_Hammer0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CountDrama 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]teeeloRed Pill-5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]CountDrama 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]teeeloRed Pill-2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]CountDrama 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]teeeloRed Pill-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't know how to say this without coming off like a dick, so...yeah.

You don't get it. You've got the victim mentality; the 'find a way to make this wrong and offensive' mindset and with TRP it's easy to make these connections. I base this on one of your summations of TRP:

trying to get laid as much as possible while simultaneaously hating the people they have sex with.

This confirms you don't get it, OR are choosing to be stubborn, I can't tell. Wouldn't it be better to have sex with someone I at least like? No! Red Pillers hate women! They fuck then because they hate them! They don't make any sense....so hate them!

With that kind of narrative it's easy to get people bitter about TRP. Good thing TRP doesn't enter your life until you let it.

We'll just have to agree to disagree and go our own ways. Piece of advice: don't go looking for Red Pill and it won't find you.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[+]teeeloRed Pill-11 points-10 points-9 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points16 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]teeeloRed Pill-8 points-7 points-6 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]teeeloRed Pill-6 points-5 points-4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Verizzle 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Bettering oneself after loss//defeat etc it's fine but I wouldn't call it bettering when most of your argument is to defend generalising a large and diverse group of individuals (half the world's population) as a bunch of negative stereotypes. Literally this is the same method that any other hate group uses to completely dehumanise their "opposition". You're not gonna listen to any other argument or accept any other possibility because it's a lot easier and more comforting to simply hate and feel personally hurt by a group of people who the majority of you have never met or seen. To be fair a lot of red pillers on here are not your level of bitter and are at least open to criticism and debate. You're a very special level of bitter against women. Which is probably why not many of any other redpillers have come to your defence.

I get that men lack a forum specifically for men. I get that people stereotype and generalise and are generally assholes. You're free to get mad and vent on trp but this is purplepill. Why are you even here if you just want to be yell " I'm right you're wrong " and lash out at any one who opposes you. You're not even debating.

[–]squirrels33Blue Pill Man7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]homo_homini_lupus 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jacks10000 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]100000nopesBlue Pill Woman-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	What is the difference between calling out radical redpillers and radical feminists?
Author	TalkToHusband
Upvotes	3
Comments	265
Date	December 15, 2014 3:35 PM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/2pd6sw/what_is_the_difference_between_calling_out/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/what-is-the-difference-between-calling-out-radical.284098 https://theredarchive.com/post/284098

Comments