698,118 posts

I think blue pillers have projected their own version of the red pill to argue against, and have yet to accurately describe our position

Reddit View
September 16, 2013
0 upvotes

I have yet to see a single comment by a blue piller accurately describing our position before they tear it down. Therefore I do not think blue pillers actually know red pill theory, and I do not think they have done anything to dismantle our arguments.

In this thread: prove to me you actually know what you're fighting against.

Edit: Take your pick- choose one topic and give the red pill perspective.

Edit 2: So far a lot of anger here, but not a lot of people standing up and explaining what the red pill view is. I'm disappointed.


Post Information
Title I think blue pillers have projected their own version of the red pill to argue against, and have yet to accurately describe our position
Author redpillschool
Upvotes 0
Comments 155
Date 16 September 2013 09:13 PM UTC (7 years ago)
Subreddit PurplePillDebate
Link https://theredarchive.com/post/286787
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1mj00q/i_think_blue_pillers_have_projected_their_own/
Similar Posts

Red Pill terms found in post:
the red pill
Comments

[–]fhqwhgads_ 24 points24 points [recovered] | Copy

Please describe your position.

[–]mrsamsa23 points24 points  (2 children) | Copy

Firstly, this post is not worded neutrally and there is no question attached.

Secondly, the whole point of this debate sub is that red pillers and blue pillers can come together and try to understand each other. Blue pillers have started a number of threads, with excerpts and links from red pillers, and asked, "Is this what you actually believe?". I've yet to encounter a thread where red pillers actually disagree with how the position has been described, but rather debate whether it's a core belief of red pill philosophy or whether it's just a few extremists who believe it.

I think the main problem is that red pillers have defined their philosophy in such a vague and nebulous way, that they can even deny that the beliefs of their members, mods, sidebar authors, etc, represent what red pill philosophy is. It's like trying to criticise the bible, where everything the theist doesn't agree with suddenly becomes metaphorical when it suits them, and then changes back to being literal at the drop of a hat.

To be fair, it seems that I have misunderstood an aspect of red pill philosophy. I was under the impression that they were describing (or trying to describe) the majority of women - at least, a large enough section for generalisations to be applicable. However, I have been corrected by multiple red pillers and now I realise that red pillers only believe that their comments on women (that they can't love, that they're hypergamous, that they are the gatekeepers of sex, that they prefer dominant men, that they are attracted to dark triad traits, etc) only apply to a very small subsection of women; the subsection of promiscuous women that they are interested in sleeping with.

With that said, I'd be interested in whether you agree with their characterisation of red pill philosophy, or whether we need another thread to figure out whether red pillers "really understand" red pill philosophy. Because I'm willing to bet that the "core beliefs" of red pill philosophy changes with every single red piller, and the intentional refusal to clearly define your position is done precisely to make it possible to always claim that critics "don't understand our position".

[–]fhqwhgads_ 18 points18 points [recovered] | Copy

It's like trying to criticise the bible

This is a huge theme I've seen in this subreddit. In fact, many of the arguments used by TRP members are the same ones used frequently by theists in religious debates.

where everything the theist doesn't agree with suddenly becomes metaphorical when it suits them, and then changes back to being literal at the drop of a hat

This has really started to bother me in debates as well.

only apply to a very small subsection of women

This is actually not true. Many TRP members believe that their rules apply to about 99% of women, i.e. there are exceptions but they are so few that they can be ignored.

[–]mrsamsa12 points13 points  (0 children) | Copy

This is a huge theme I've seen in this subreddit. In fact, many of the arguments used by TRP members are the same ones used frequently by theists in religious debates.

Absolutely! One of them actually said to me that if scientific evidence and their beliefs conflict, then they will ignore science.

This is actually not true. Many TRP members believe that their rules apply to about 99% of women, i.e. there are exceptions but they are so few that they can be ignored.

I personally agree, but redpillschool is saying that bluepillers are misrepresenting their views so I'm telling him that I have been 'corrected' by red pillers who say that the philosophy only discusses a very small minority of women. The problem with bluepillers, I'm told, is that we don't understand that there is an unspoken agreement on TRP that their generalisations only apply to this extreme minority of women, and that's where the claims of misogyny and rape apologism stem from.

I'm skeptical of this claim but I'm interested in how redpillschool responds: either we're right (and so we have an accurate understanding of TRP, whereas many red pill members don't), or we're wrong and TRP becomes a trivially true and uncontroversial philosophy which says that there are some women out there that may like the way they suggest men should behave.

[–]soulcakeduck16 points17 points  (65 children) | Copy

I described your position on rape repeatedly and carefully. In response, you always like to take a line or two of what I said out of context, pretend I was talking about something else, and call it wrong. Then, if you bother to describe your position at all, it matches what I've said perfectly, 100%. When I ask a direct question to confirm there is no difference, 100% of the time you do not give a direct answer; it is ignored or the whole thing is repeated again.

Since I'm undoubtedly a big motivation for your submission here, I'm considering doing a mega-post reviewing my claims versus your comments. The only thing preventing it is that it would be massively long, because you go in circles repeating the same thing you pretend to refute ad naseum.

You know, a moderator here in PPD told me I was taking it out of context too, and described a different meaning for it. Then I asked him to reconcile his interpretation with other words from the same comment... and he deleted his comment instead. :-/

I'm pretty sure the problem is with redpillers not understanding what we are saying, on this topic.

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill[S] -3 points-2 points  (64 children) | Copy

No, you're done.

For anybody curious, I have corrected soulcakeduck countless times explaining that her portrayal of my views did not accurately describe my views. She then proceeded to brute force argue with me that I'm wrong about what my own views are. There will be no more discussion on rape, case closed. She is literally trying to attach her own views to others and it's disrespectful. At this point even a moderator here agrees with me. There is nothing more to say on the topic.

[–]soulcakeduck11 points12 points  (18 children) | Copy

I have corrected soulcakeduck countless times explaining that her portrayal of my views did not accurately describe my views.

Except, I am then able to use those supposed "corrections" to represent your views, because those "corrections" are exactly identical to what I've said all along.

When I ask direct questions just to make sure there's no difference, you don't answer, or just repeat the entire thing again usually along with this same victim-deflection nonsense.

For example, I UPDATED my submission to PurplePillDebate so that it now OPENS with your "correction," which, magically, just happens to match EXACTLY what I said of your position.

I see nothing morally wrong if both parties knowingly enter into a contract of perpetual consent.

Those are YOUR WORDS, and they match exactly the description I've tried to give of your position throughout. To understand my description in any other way would require you to take my words out of context.

I've pretty much agreed with every single thing you've said about your own position, and only disagreed with the implication that I ever said otherwise about it. So...

At this point even a moderator here agrees with me. There is nothing more to say on the topic.

Perhaps you should change this to past tense, since, as I mentioned (did you even read the comment you're replying to?) that moderator deleted his defense of you and fled when I asked him to explain the words in your comment.

[–][deleted] 5 points5 points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 4 points4 points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery[M] 0 points1 point  (14 children) | Copy

This adds nothing to the discussion.

[–]Stair_Car4 points5 points  (13 children) | Copy

I believe that redpillschool's use of the phrase "brute force arguing" is code for "continuing to disagree after I have restated my position several times." soulcakeduck has worn down his patience by not shutting up and pressing him on his own statements. Nothing about this employs "brute force," so I made a snarky remark. Apparently my intention was clear to four other people judging by the upvotes. However, I see your point that sarcasm might not be suited to a debate thread, and I will edit the comment.

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery-1 points0 points  (12 children) | Copy

UPvotes mean nothing. TBPers upvote each other regardless.

[–]mrsamsa7 points8 points  (10 children) | Copy

This is bullshit for the same reason it's bullshit when redpillers were crying about being downvoted before that code was changed.

Blue pillers receive more upvotes because they are arguing in the spirit of the sub. They are doing everything they can to remain civil, posing good questions, acknowledging the responses from red pillers, and critically assessing them.

Red pillers were receiving more downvotes because they are violating the fundamental assumption of this subreddit. They aren't arguing honestly, they are being snarky and dismissive, and generally engaging in shitty evasive behaviors.

But look at members like "LifterOfThings", a red piller who generally receives a lot of upvotes. Why is she upvoted? Because she actually engages in honest discussion.

So instead of thinking up conspiracy theories to explain why bluepillers are receiving more upvotes, maybe you could do your job as a mod and start trying to urge redpillers to actually deal with the subject matter in threads. For starters, I suggest you get redpillschool to address a single rebuttal.

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery-1 points0 points  (9 children) | Copy

If you think that redpillers are the ones being snarky and dismissive it's because of your own bias. Ask another mod.

[–]mrsamsa9 points10 points  (5 children) | Copy

If you think that redpillers are the ones being snarky and dismissive it's because of your own bias.

No it's not. There are only a handful of redpillers who are here to actually have a discussion, and they are well-upvoted every time they engage in discussion.

The rest just make ridiculous comments and get all indignant when it's pointed out to them. Like BornAgainCatholic - I had a discussion with him last week on a topic, went to the effort of searching out multiple scientific papers that disagree with him, explained each one of them, and in the end he says something to the effect of: "Yeah well, science isn't all there is so I'm going to just believe whatever I want". He then gets all shitty at me for saying that I don't approve of his anti-science stance.

The very fact that one of the mods was stupid enough to initially delete soulcakeduck's rape thread because it was "combative" (apparently "combative" means accurately defines the opposition's position, criticises it, and then politely asks for feedback) was bad enough, but it's worse now that it sparked a number of new "stricter" rules that redpillschool blatantly broke, doubled down on by his edited comment where he personally attacks everyone by calling them "angry", and his thread and comments are still up?

How is he not banned yet?

And you have the balls to accuse me of bias? Fucking heal thyself.

[–][deleted]  (2 children) | Copy

[deleted]

[–]mrsamsa10 points11 points  (42 children) | Copy

But your "correction" was just a restatement of exactly how she described your position. Soulcakeduck described it as:

you find nothing morally wrong with sex against the immediate consent of your spouse where the law permits it

and you "corrected" it by describing it as:

I see nothing morally wrong if both parties knowingly enter into a contract of perpetual consent.

It's the exact same thing...

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill[S] 1 point2 points  (41 children) | Copy

Those are two very different things.

The law not recognizing spousal rape, and recognizing perpetual consent are not one in the same.

[–]soulcakeduck3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

You actually make it very clear in a lot of your comments exactly why they're the same thing anyway. When people knowingly enter into a (marriage) contract, in full knowledge that the law views it as a perpetual consent contract, then they are willingly entering into a perpetual consent contract, and that is exactly the requirement you choose for when sex-against-immediate-will is morally fine.

But more importantly, my description does not preclude an explicit perpetual consent clause in the contract. I was never talking about merely implicit legal recognition of perpetual consent. So when you limit my words in that way, for no reason, you are the one who has failed to understand or who has taken them out of context.

[–][deleted]  (39 children) | Copy

[deleted]

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill[S] -1 points0 points  (38 children) | Copy

It implies that there is no consent in a perpetual consent contract. This relies on the definition of consent.

This can keep going in circles till the cows come home.

  • You cannot force somebody to enforce a contract, you can only sue for breach of contract.
  • This means that consent cannot follow contract law, because breach of contract in the wrong direction (one party withdrawing consent but the other party continues is criminal), giving a non-civil definition of consent.
  • If consent followed contract law, then having sex against the immediate will of somebody would be considered sex with consent under a consent contract, thus negating any rape having taken place (rape being defined as sex without consent).

This was the outlay of the discussion, which was a thought experiment. I have not endorsed forcing anybody to have sex. I literally said, "I see nothing morally wrong if both parties knowingly enter into a contract of perpetual consent."

Arguing that this translates to "nothing morally wrong with sex against the immediate consent" fails to understand the meanings of the words I've written. Entering a contract is not the same as forcing somebody to have sex with you. You should be able to understand this difference.

All of this is hypothetical, because there is no such thing as a consent contract. (at least perpetually).

It was a thought experiment. I guess you think Schrodinger actually wants to kill cats too?

Final Edit: Filled out a bunch, finished now.

[–]SpermJackalope7 points8 points  (17 children) | Copy

If consent followed contract law, then having sex against the immediate will of somebody would be considered sex with consent under a consent contract, thus negating any rape having taken place (rape being defined as sex without consent).

This is a blatant misunderstanding of contract law. If consent followed contract law, then having sex against the immediate will of somebody would still be considered illegal because you aren't allowed to enforce contracts with violence.

For example, when you make a contract with someone to, say, do your landscaping for money, if you refuse to pay after the landscaping is completed, or if the landscaper refuses to do the work after being paid, neither of you is allowed to try to violently enforce the contract in that situation. You are not allowed to make the landscaper do the work at gunpoint. The landscaper is not allowed to rob you. The contract has been broken, and you now have to take it to civil court for rectification.

Contract law does not allow individuals to violently enforce contracts. If you have a contract with someone for sex and they refuse sex, you are not allowed to physically force them to have sex with you anyway. You are allowed to sue for breach of contract. IT WOULD STILL BE RAPE TO PHYSICALLY FORCE THEM TO HAVE SEX WITH YOU.

You either have no understanding of law, or are purposefully misrepresenting it.

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill[S] 1 point2 points  (16 children) | Copy

This is a blatant misunderstanding of contract law. If consent followed contract law, then having sex against the immediate will of somebody would still be considered illegal because you aren't allowed to enforce contracts with violence.

in reply to

You cannot force somebody to enforce a contract, you can only sue for breach of contract.

[–]SpermJackalope3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

So then you can't ever have sex with someone against their immediate will, so why do you even talk about "consent contracts"?

Also, I was primarily addressing this misunderstanding of contract law:

If consent followed contract law, then having sex against the immediate will of somebody would be considered sex with consent under a consent contract, thus negating any rape having taken place (rape being defined as sex without consent).

There is no version of contract law analogous to that. (There is no contract an individual can legally enforce themself through violence. I don't understand why you mischaracterized contract law so. Nor what the point of your "thought experiment" is)

[–][deleted] 5 points5 points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill[S] -1 points0 points  (13 children) | Copy

Where did I state that I would enter into a perpetual consent contract?

This is a hypothetical thought experiment.

[–][deleted]  (19 children) | Copy

[deleted]

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill[S] -2 points-1 points  (18 children) | Copy

If we define the word rape to mean bananas, it would be:

If consent followed contract law, then spousal bananas would be considered sex with consent under a consent contract, thus negating any bananas having taken place.

This is why it's a hypothetical thought experiment. We're not talking about what is, we were talking about what if perpetual consent could exist?

Edit: You do understand why I'm using descriptive words in a discussion about definitions, right?

[–][deleted]  (17 children) | Copy

[deleted]

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill[S] -4 points-3 points  (16 children) | Copy

Because you're really just missing what I'm saying. I'm saying, what if a perpetual consent contract could exist?

You say any sex against immediate will is immoral.

But, this disregards one's right to enter into a consent contract.

Morally, the person would hypothetically have already agreed to the terms of sex at a future time, regardless of potential emotional state.

Again, I'm not even advocating this. I don't think perpetual consent contracts would work in practice. We were literally just debating the morality of said contract.

Again, if a breach happened, it would result in a law suit, not in forcing somebody to have sex.

But if that were the case, then the definition of consent needs to be revisited.

That was why we were discussing it, because the implications of the concept consent. It was intriguing to me. There was absolutely no reason to bring this topic up everywhere on reddit every time the red pill was mentioned. This was being pasted to me as if somehow I advocate rape.

I want to hear you say you don't think I advocate rape.

[–]EradiKate17 points18 points  (0 children) | Copy

Many of the topics presented here for debate are taken verbatim from upvoted posts on TRP. How, then, is it a failure to understand on the Blue Pill's part, and not a failure to communicate ideas properly on the part of the Red Pill?

[–]SpermJackalope32 points33 points  (41 children) | Copy

I think this post is unnecessarily combative and inflammatory.

It also puts an undue burden on Blue Pillers, as different Red Pillers do not agree among themselves on the focus/goal/position of TRP. It's impossible for us to know your cohesive positions when y'all don't have one. Instead we argue the specific topics brought up here, that are advocated by some number of TRPers as TRP positions. In fact, you, RPS, have never once put forth a coherent idea of what you believe TRP is.

Dissent among your community is not our fault, nor is your own inability to relate your philsophy, and it's not our job to search through TRP for your "core philosophy". Indeed, when you deny the articles in your sidebar are accurate representations of your beliefs, you seem to be just trying to weasel out of actually defending any of the ideas you propagate.

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill[S] 2 points3 points  (38 children) | Copy

You're the one telling us we're wrong. Burden of proof is on you.

[–]SpermJackalope27 points28 points  (1 child) | Copy

No, it's not. Burden of proof is on someone advancing a position. Not on the people being like "I doubt it".

But again, as you so commonly do, you simply did not address my point. You're claiming it's unfair for us to criticize you when we can't easily explain your position, when we can't do that because you refuse to coherently explain your position!

[–]away_throw_314-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

You're right, burden of proof is on someone making an assertion. If you want to assert that TRP is wrong burden of proof is on you. Just like if they want to assert any of the sidebar material, the burden of proof rests with them.

If you choose not to admit RP philosophy into your body of knowledge or perspective because they have failed to convince you, then the burden of proof remains with them.

But as long as you want to go around saying 'you are wrong,' the burden of proof is on you. If you want to say 'you have failed to convince me' then burden of proof remains with them. It is a subtle but important difference.

Please stop mixing that up -- and please don't claim that you are in an 'I doubt it' postilion. You have many times ASSERTED that TRP is wrong.

[–]LifterofThingsDelicate Feminine Flower13 points14 points  (9 children) | Copy

Mmmmn, technically it's the other way 'round.

I can make any assertion I wish, no matter how absurd. That is why the burden of proof is on me. So if TRP makes an assertion about the biological nature of men or women, burden of proof is on TRP-- it's not up to naysayers to prove otherwise.

Same reason atheists take issue with the "well you can't prove God doesn't exist, therefore you're wrong, and he does exist" stance.

Edited to add: ... although I do think you are correct. I think a lot of the criticism of TRP comes from people selectively reading the most inflammatory, venty posts. I think TRP would benefit from removing some of the documents on the sidebar, to that end, but I don't mod there.

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill[S] 0 points1 point  (8 children) | Copy

I understand that somebody making bold claims has the burden of proof.

But that said, I have yet to see one person here even treat the claims honestly enough to disagree.

If blue pillers want to disagree, the onus is on them to show they know what they're disagreeing with.

[–]LifterofThingsDelicate Feminine Flower13 points14 points  (0 children) | Copy

In all fairness, do you think given some of the stuff on the sidebar, that it might be possible if not likely that one would develop a skewed perception of TRP?

I read that Sexual Utopia document in whole, and there's a lot of... pretty problematic shit in there, with no qualification from you guys. Likewise, a lot of the "required theory reading" exists without any real evidence behind it (besides anecdotal, which unless I'm mistaken, isn't "good enough"). The shit's heavily biased, most of the "references cited" are more waxing-poetic on the part of heavily-biased people.

I like the State of the Sub post, and the Introduction, and I think there are some gems in the recent interview you did with Business Insider. The trouble is that a lot of the stuff is arguably contradictory, and sometimes blatantly contradictory... which is fine if you're really invested in seeing what TRP is about and willing to do the leg-work, but for a new or dissenting reader, TRP's "platform" is unclear.

You're certainly not obligated to make the sub or the movement more reader-friendly, or to soften the blow and make the pill easier to swallow by censoring some of the more venty "women are dicks" posts...

... but those posts, in combination with the inconsistencies in the sidebar material are why people are misinterpreting shit. I don't know if you're actually confused about where people are getting their ideas, or if this is just a diplomatic way of saying "do the leg work and figure it out, assholes", but just my $0.02. :)

[–]Stair_Car10 points11 points  (5 children) | Copy

Except you made this thread. Nobody asked you to. If you think a specific bluepill poster has misunderstood you, then by all means point out their mistake. If you sit on a stump and ask people to prove themselves to you with nothing particular at issue, you won't get many takers. How about you present a TRP claim and we can then explain why we think it's wrong.

Oh wait, that happens all the time in the other submissions to /r/purplepilldebate.

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill[S] -4 points-3 points  (4 children) | Copy

I made this thread, just to see if you guys could articulate the ideas as we see them. It was simple.

[–]Stair_Car7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy

As these ideas come up, people on both sides address them. If you think that someone has misinterpreted your position on a particular issue, make a thread about that issue, explaining how you have been misinterpreted. As it stands, you have stated no position. Please feel free to do so.

[–]soulcakeduck7 points8 points  (2 children) | Copy

And you were wrong. Obviously updating threads to address your "corrections" is not the action of people unable or unwilling to represent your ideas accurately.

So yes, it was certainly simple.

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill[S] -3 points-2 points  (1 child) | Copy

You guys can't, I think that makes me right.

[–]soulcakeduck7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy

So you're saying now that linking to your explanation that supposedly corrects the matter is not an accurate way to present your position?

PS you forgot you were blocking me.

[–]soulcakeduck11 points12 points  (0 children) | Copy

They meet that burden in every individual topic they participate in. Take your responses about their alleged misunderstandings to those specific topics if you're not willing to discuss them here, only to allude to them accusingly without any evidence.

I've also yet to see you treat the claims of BluePillers "honestly enough to disagree." Like, how you pretend my description of your position amounts to anything beyond

I see nothing morally wrong if both parties knowingly enter into a contract of perpetual consent.

That sentence was the clarification you offered to prove I was mishandling your position, but that was how I handled it throughout.

[–]EradiKate23 points24 points  (24 children) | Copy

I think it's telling that instead of succinctly explaining your position, you rail that we just don't understand.

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill[S] -2 points-1 points  (23 children) | Copy

I'm confused, I have an entire sub and sidebar with my position. You all claim we're wrong but refuse to even try to understand our position. How are we wrong?

[–]Stair_Car16 points17 points  (2 children) | Copy

Wait, wait. So if you have a sidebar which clearly delineates your position, and we've all read it, what makes you think nobody outside of TRP understands it? What makes you think this lack of comprehension even exists?

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill[S] -2 points-1 points  (1 child) | Copy

Go for it, describe the red pill view.

[–]Stair_Car13 points14 points  (0 children) | Copy

I refer you to my previous comment, in which I address your response to it.

[–]GerudoSheikahSky Blue Lady14 points15 points  (10 children) | Copy

I've seen posts by bluepillers that actually point to things in your sidebar. Then they were told that that is not what you all believe. No matter what we post here, we are told that we don't know your position. Could you please tell us? If even the sidebar isn't your true position, it will be hard for us to find out what you truly believe without you just coming out and saying it.

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill[S] 0 points1 point  (9 children) | Copy

I agree with Rollo Tomassi's writing 100%. I obviously agree with my own writing. There are some brilliant points in the book "the manipulated man" but it's chock full of hyperbole, so you take it with a grain of salt.

"Sexual Utopia in Power" is an important read because he really nails the cultural power struggle and change. His "solutions" are hypothetical and regressive, but I think he does so to prove a point. He uses hyperbole to prove a point, and I think the general outlay of that one is pretty obvious to most men. I don't really care how women interpret it.

The no ma'am article about women being teenagers is clearly hyperbole to address an important aspect of male/female relationships. It's obviously not factual, nor scientific, yet it does reflect a lot of our experiences with women, especially for the married folks on our board. It's more of a mindset piece- to put guys into a better frame to handle interpersonal relationships. The guys who discuss it seem to grok this. Others see it and take it literally. That's not something I care to "fix," it's working as intended.

[–]ratjea12 points13 points  (8 children) | Copy

The no ma'am article about women being teenagers is clearly hyperbole to address an important aspect of male/female relationships.

On the contrary. The blog post clearly pretends at sciencyness. It yearns to be taken seriously and be seen as a logical, rational, science- and fact-based presentation. It quotes extensively from Schopenhauer, a philosopher, and James, the pioneer of psychology. It uses biological claims and biological terms to sound important and to try to prop up its theses.

It then uses this established pseudo-scientific credibility to purport biological drives for behaviors the author claims to see in women as a whole, such as "fitness-testing" or "hypergamy." This pseudo-credibility is also used to put forth hierarchical theses of degrees of humanity — how human a being is — with men at the top and women somewhere near puppies and children.

This is a very tortuous route, its very tortuousness intended to mask the core misogyny of the blog post.

It's obviously not factual, nor scientific

You got that right. We're all on the same page on this point.


Edit: Removed inflammatory tone.

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery[M] 5 points6 points  (3 children) | Copy

Please don't just downvote or mock opinions you disagree with, question them and have a real debate.

[–]ratjea4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy

I consciously wrote this post in a non-mocking manner.

If you'd point out the language you consider to be mocking, I'll edit it.

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy

[deleted]

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy

O hai misogyny.

That part and the TL;DR while not really mocking per say, is probably why it got reported. Anyway, I assume you are new here (because I haven't seen you post before I don't think) and saw that you were having a decent discussion. I don't really think that anything you said is all that bad, hence I approved the comment and ignored the report. I just wanted to say something to remind you to keep it civil. The way I see it a cautionary reminder on a mildly condescending post is better than letting it get out of hand later.

[–]ratjea1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

You know, that was the bit I paused on. I should have thought twice before leaving it in. Actually, I will amend it, because it's saying something serious in a flippant tone.

Thank you for the feedback.

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Thank you. I want to be clear, partly because of how I am sometimes perceived to be biased here. I have no problem with you suggesting that something someone said is considered misogyny by you. The line I usually try to hold is between "I think that view is misogynistic." and "You're a misogynist." If that makes sense.

Also, I agree with your assessment. Flippant describes it better than condescending.

[–]away_throw_3140 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

When I read it, my take away was very similar to redpillschool's.

My two cents.

[–]EradiKate20 points21 points  (8 children) | Copy

Let me be clear. I don't think you want to be understood. I think you prefer to say that we're wrong at every corner, rather than actually articulate what it is you believe. Maybe it's because you don't understand yourself, or you like feeling superior by virtue of not sharing your toys. Either way, the end result is the same.

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill[S] 0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy

Is there something unclear in the sidebar?

[–]EradiKate17 points18 points  (1 child) | Copy

I want to hear, in your own words, what red pill theory is all about. Until I hear that, I'm not sure you understand exactly what it is you're trying to preach.

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

I have written extensively on the topic. Hell the stickied post on TRP right now has a full interview on the topic.

But that's not the question.

There are a lot of people who disagree with the red pill, but I have yet to hear even one of them describe accurately our views well enough to disagree from an educated position. The question was, what do you think we think?

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (3 children) | Copy

You could start with "Women, the most responsible teenager in the house."

Every time "red pill" ideologues are proven wrong, they all mysteriously abandon the thread.

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill[S] 3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy

Ok go ahead, explain to me what you think it means to red pillers.

[–]angatar_18 points19 points  (0 children) | Copy

Is the sidebar not clear?

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

Not a clue. I literally have no idea what it means to "red pill" ideology. It's an article full of information that is demonstrably false, and no "red pill" ideologue has addressed this (to my knowledge).

I humbly admit that I am completely ignorant on this; this is honest, genuine curiosity. How does an article that is demonstrably untrue relate to your philosophy?

[–]soulcakeduck9 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy

This submission is you, claiming you've seen things that were wrong.

You're saying it is our burden to prove you've never seen anything that was wrong? And that you have no burden to prove you've seen things that were wrong?

[–]TRP_4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy

I agree with /u/spermjackalope for once gasp. Seriously, this post is useless they know what the red pill is about, they choose to take it out of context to mock us.

[–]SpermJackalope11 points12 points  (0 children) | Copy

"Context"

[–]luthiessong28 points29 points  (5 children) | Copy

A summary of my past attempts to understand what /u/redpillschool 's positions actually are:

  1. Bluepiller reads a sidebar article. (Women stop maturing at age 18.)
  2. Bluepiller thinks this is silly, and asks a /u/redpillschool for evidence of this remarkable assertion. (Why do you think women stop maturing at age 18? Do you have evidence?)
  3. /u/redpillschool claims bluepiller doesn't understand. (You just don't understand the article because you're a woman. Men communicate via hyperbole, and that's why you misinterpreted the material.)
  4. Bluepiller asks /u/redpillschool to explain the thesis of the article. (If it doesn't mean what it says, then what does it actually mean? What should people take away from this article?)
  5. /u/redpillschool refuses, point blank, to answer the question, and calls the bluepiller names (honey-buns; cupcake) in response to the question. (Those are names /u/redpillschool has actually called me instead of explaining his position.)
  6. /u/redpillschool makes a post on /r/PurplePillDebate claiming we don't understand, in spite of the fact that he refuses to explain it.

Do not make us guess. You claim the sidebar material is not literal, but you won't say why, or tell us what it actually means. Until you actually tell us what your position is, we will continue to take the sidebar material at face value because you have given us no alternative.

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill[S] -3 points-2 points  (1 child) | Copy

So help us out. What do you think we believe?

[–]Stair_Car13 points14 points  (0 children) | Copy

Until you actually tell us what your position is, we will continue to take the sidebar material at face value because you have given us no alternative.

It sounds like luthiessong thinks you believe what's in the sidebar. Is that a fair evaluation of you?

[–]TRP_-5 points-4 points  (2 children) | Copy

I don't think he necessarily wants to explain it, but rather have you tell him what you think. I understand where he is coming from, I constantly see blue pillers take things out of context and claim they know what we think (such as women are fit to have sex at age 12). All the information is readily available for you to read to completely understand the red pill, but many choose not to.

[–]SpermJackalope13 points14 points  (1 child) | Copy

The problem is we have read it. And we just get y'all constantly saying we understood it wrong, without ever explaining how you understand it that's apparently right.

[–]Stair_Car9 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy

Case in point: TRP_ just said it is not the case that TRP believes women are ready to go at 12, but several RPers have claimed otherwise. Are these people not truly TRP? Because they get away with this stuff pretty regularly, sometimes without even being challenged (remember applebloom?)

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (0 children) | Copy

If this bothers you, by all means make a post with TRP's philosophy in it. If you look at some of this sub's earliest posts, it was actually suggested from the beginning that RP tenants be brought onto this sub for discussion so there was a clear idea of what the discussion was about. Currently, many of this subs posts come from TRP's sidebar or whatever general topic is perceived as common to TRP. If you can hone the dialogue with a post like that, I'm sure the sub would benefit.

[–]Canned_Wine1999 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy

I don't disagree with the entirety of the red pill philosophy because I understand it encompasses a lot of stuff, about finding identity as a man in a world where masculine identity is becoming increasingly ambiguous and improving your success with women and realizing your full potential and all that good shit, and to disagree wholly with something as broad as red pill ideology is a visceral, reactionary thing to do. That said, red pill often has visceral, reactionary opinions on a broad range of ideologies it claims have done injustice upon men such as feminism which as an empathetic, historically and politically aware person I could not perform the mental gymnastics to dismiss as a bunch of wommenz hamstering their way into making men believe that they're the oppressed ones when the truth is that the evil feminazis have tricked man since the dawn of man to be moar beta and subsidize their existence so they can sit at home and read mindless chick lit and buy shoes while men have to go to war and make science and do the hard work to advance the societies. This point has a lot more to do with my general distaste of most MRA's but I do find MRA and TRP to be inextricably linked in a lot of ways. My second point is more specific to TRP I guess, that TRP frames itself to be an objective set of observations that dictates male-female relations. You call it The Red Pill for christs sake, like once you gain entry into the club you know what it's all about, you see the world as it truly is meanwhile all the blue pills are stuck in their fantasy world of men and women actually being real fucking people able to transgress the evolutionary biotroofs of male-female relationships and social hierarchy that we as humans can't escape from. Something about that whole deterministic, we're still victim to the rules of animal social hierarchy thing and have no means to escape it seems, I don't know, I think you would (erroneously) refer to it as something totally beta to believe in, don't you think?

[–]angatar_11 points12 points  (12 children) | Copy

Have you actually explained your position, or do you think we're mind readers?

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

We discuss it daily. I'm just confused why so many people are adamant we're wrong when they can't even articulate what is is we think?

[–]angatar_9 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy

So we can take quotes verbatim from /r/TheRedPill and expect it to be "your" position? Then what was the point of this thread if you're just going to say "carry on doing what you're doing"?

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (8 children) | Copy

You know, I did try to do just that. It seems to have been ignored, or ridiculed and downvoted.

http://np.reddit.com/r/TheBluePill/comments/1l5gpn/some_questions_and_observations/cbwb1wp

/u/redpillschool may correct me at his convinience.

[–]mrsamsa2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy

Huh? I think you linked to the wrong comment. The comment you linked to wasn't ignored or ridiculed, and whilst you got a couple of downvotes, you were also given gold.

Your comment was met with a response of: "Please can you support any of the claims you made", and a rebuttal of your anti-science rejection of evidence (demonstrated by you placing it in scare quotes).

I assume that your downvotes actually came as a result of you refusing to back up any of your claims.

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

Huh? I think you linked to the wrong comment. The comment you linked to wasn't ignored or ridiculed, and whilst you got a couple of downvotes, you were also given gold.

Not at all. The thread questions whether TRP has ever articulated the TRP postition. I have attempted to do so, at length.

True, I made no response. However, consider the context. It was on TBP, with people whom didn't seem too open to discussion as it is. Someone who quips that they saw the username and wishes they didn't...? Not a space I'm likely to get much fairness in, and not someone who is likely to believe the answers I attempt to provide. I chose not to engage, it seemed pointless.

[–]mrsamsa1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Not at all. The thread questions whether TRP has ever articulated the TRP postition. I have attempted to do so, at length.

To be more accurate, the member above questions whether redpillschool has articulated his position. He's well known for dodging the issue and simply claiming people are wrong without explaining how they wrong (even though they are quoting him).

True, I made no response. However, consider the context. It was on TBP, with people whom didn't seem too open to discussion as it is.

They seemed fairly open to it from what I read? The person offered you an upvote for supporting any of the claims made, and you were even given gold.

Someone who quips that they saw the username and wishes they didn't...? Not a space I'm likely to get much fairness in, and not someone who is likely to believe the answers I attempt to provide. I chose not to engage, it seemed pointless.

That was a quip about your user name and how it related to your position on evidence. I'm not sure if it's actually related or just a coincidence, but the religious themes of your name seem to accurately reflect your position on evidence - the idea that it can be ignored whenever it doesn't fit your beliefs.

It may sound 'rude' to you for someone to comment on the relationship between your name and your position, but to me it seemed like recognition of the fact that that particular line of discussion wasn't likely to go anywhere productive.

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill[S] 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy

I like what you've written. One tweak:

believe was intentional deception on the part of our feminist culture.

I think that the effects we complain the most about were not intentional, but instead incidental side effects that would naturally surface because of biological imperatives. (greed).

That is to say, anybody who can gain power will abuse it. People can seek power with the purest of intentions, it makes no suggestion what they might do once they get it.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy

Acknowledged. Correct me if I'm wrong, you're saying that feminism took power with pure intentions, and thus the deception was not intentional?

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill[S] -3 points-2 points  (2 children) | Copy

I think women act in the way that they feel best serves them (no different from men). They don't need malicious intent for the consequences to play out like they did.

I don't think any feminist said, "hey let's take the vote, morph our country into a socialist nightmare, and end up in 2013 where the government bails out big corporations -- fuck the economy!"

But that's what happened because for better or worse, the feminine imperative sees other values as necessary and (in my opinion) is less likely to think of the long term financial outcomes of policy making. Did other factors play into our economy? For sure. But you cannot overlook feminism's role in this.

For instance, look at welfare, child support laws or violence against women laws. On the surface they appear to be positive contributions to our country (usa), and they are undoubtedly the result of giving half the vote to women. I don't think they got together and conspired to say "hey if we can get the government to step in and be dad, we can be less loyal to the men who father these children!"

But there you have it, marriage is dying, child support is up, and dads being wrung out by family courts can't find anywhere to turn.

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

I think women act in the way that they feel best serves them (no different from men). They don't need malicious intent for the consequences to play out like they did.

Ah okay. With respect, that wasn't what I was trying to get at when it came to the deception, and malicious intention.

Rather, I believe that the intentional deception and malicious intent is seen in the perception that the culture has lied to men about women's sexual preferences.

Not, that feminists got together and conspiratorially decided to ruin the economy.

Sexual preferences only here, not the broader implications.

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children) | Copy

the culture has lied to men about women's sexual preferences.

We believe it, but draw the line at intent. I think women believe the lies too. It just doesn't hurt their mating strategy so they don't look to closely at it.

[–]IRScientistSober7 points8 points  (39 children) | Copy

Broadly, you seem to think that feminists have taken over the world, to the detriment of both men and women. You believe that someone's gender is one of the most (if not the most) important factor in determining their behavior. You believe women respond to dominance (alpha) behavior, and that men who disagree with you are "betas" who aren't getting laid. You back up your views on gender with some lazy science. You think marriage is generally a bad idea (I say generally because there is some variation in opinions) and gives the woman too much power over the man. Ditto babies.

I'm trying to stick with broad beliefs that will encompass most members, as there seems to be disagreement about things like abortion, etc. Am I at least close?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (34 children) | Copy

One, maybe two out of many...?

Broadly, you seem to think that feminists have taken over the world,

Not exactly. Feminists do seem to hold a disproportionate amount of sway in certain areas, at certain times in the western world. For instance, the feminist dominance of the domestic violence issue has entrenched the flawed Duluth model of domestic violence into many different organizations, and cultural assumptions. This is especially egregious, when it has been suggested that the type of domestic violence described in the Duluth model is actually the least common form of domestic violence. Gender-symmetry is much more the norm. The silencing, and I daresay, persecution of Erin Pizzey is another example. Could we please avoid no true feminist cliches in the response?

You believe that someone's gender is one of the most (if not the most) important factor in determining their behavior.

Some redpillers, maybe. Otherwise no. Of course, it plays a huge influence, but it's not everything.

You believe women respond to dominance (alpha) behavior,

Somewhat. It depends on what is meant by dominance, something we never really talked about in the other thread. Not all dominance behaviors are the same, and not all have the same effect. Leadership may be a more apt descriptor.

and that men who disagree with you are "betas" who aren't getting laid.

Obviously not. Some are having this experience, some are doing okay, some are oblivious.

You back up your views on gender with some lazy science.

Sometimes. Sometimes we take what the science says and look for answers outside the laboratory. Not everything worth knowing is published in peer-reviewed journals.

You think marriage is generally a bad idea (I say generally because there is some variation in opinions) and gives the woman too much power over the man.

Finally, got one about 100%. Marriage in and of its self would be fine, if it were not for divorce, and how heavily the legal framework skews it towards women.

Ditto babies.

Babies are great, but we remind each other that in this environment, they're a huge financial liability.

Close? Maybe. But some fine-tuning would be more beneficial.

[–]mrsamsa5 points6 points  (30 children) | Copy

This is especially egregious, when it has been suggested that the type of domestic violence described in the Duluth model is actually the least common form of domestic violence. Gender-symmetry is much more the norm.

Just so you know, the idea of "gender symmetry" in domestic violence is not well-accepted in science at all. There are only a handful of studies that hint at this possibility, and all of them suffer from the same methodological flaws. One of the main problems being that they rely on the "Conflict Tactics Scale", which is well known for finding inaccurate results - namely, because it relies on the subject to recall instances of violence, we find that men overestimate their partner's violent outbursts and women underestimate their partner's violent outbursts.

One of the best papers on this area can be found here: “Gender Symmetry” in Domestic Violence A Substantive and Methodological Research Review. When we use more accurate measures of violence (i.e. ones that aren't from the 1970s), and exclude instances of "violence" which were self-defence in response to domestic violence, we find that 90% of systematic, injurious, and persistent violence is perpetrated by men.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (29 children) | Copy

Just so you know, the idea of "gender symmetry" in domestic violence is not well-accepted in science at all.

Statistics Canada has some findings on that...

we find that 90% of systematic, injurious, and persistent violence is perpetrated by men.

StatsCan supports the notion that male perpetrated violence does tend to be more serious than female perpetrated.

But this is about the rate of, not the seriousness of.

Kimmel's piece is published in a journal called... Violence Against Women. Gee. I wonder if confirmation bias is going to be an issue in his research.

From Kimmel,

Despite numerous studies that report the preponderance of domestic violence to be perpetrated by men against women, there are also now more than 100 empirical studies or reports that suggest that rates of domestic violence are equivalent

Nearly 100 studies, and they're all flawed? What was that about scientific consensus...?

In the United States, numerous studies have found that women and men are equally likely to report to researchers that they have hit their partners during the preceding 12 months.

It matches the StatsCan data.

And sure enough, it doesn't take long before the bias creeps in.

Although such activists draw our attention to the often ignored problem of men as victims of domestic violence, their efforts are also often motivated by a desire to undermine or dismantle those initiatives that administer to female victims.
(emphasis added)

Someone who levels such an accusation on the opening page of his paper? I do not care how well-respected he is, this calls the rest of his research into question. It's nice to see that he wears his bias on his sleeve, it certainly makes my job easier. And as this source is presented for me to evaluate well... Perhaps it is my bias, but given the evidence I don't think that this paper can be called "best" of anything.

And if we consider historical context, it gets worse.

Given that the evidence also shows that a certain group of people will not hesitate to resort to threats, intimidation, censorship, and even violence to maintain their dominant position when it comes to opinions that challenge their narrative...

It's hardly surprising that Kimmel plunges right in.

Their solution, however, is not more funding for domestic violence research and intervention but to decrease the amount of funding that women receive, although they never challenge the levels of violence against women. (emphasis added)

Just so you know, the idea that I should accept this as evidence is ridiculous.

[–]IRScientistSober2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy

Look at the second panel of the stats you cited. If you look at the most violent forms of DV (sexual assault, choked, threatened with knife/gun) most of the victims are women! Check your sources before you use them--as far as I can tell you're supporting mrsamsa's points.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy

You should umm... probably read the rest of my post.

Yes, men tend to do things which are more destructive in DV, and I even say so.

StatsCan supports the notion that male perpetrated violence does tend to be more serious than female perpetrated.

If the word "serious' is ambiguous, then I shall clarify. By serious, I mean destructive, or potentially destructive. A man who threatens with a gun is generally speaking, potentially a much more destructive threat than a woman who attacks with her fists and feet (perhaps she's an expert in Krav Maga, but even then, I'd rather have the gun.)

The incidence of DV remains roughly the same, and is no excuse for the presumption of male guilt as per Duluth.

And I don't say this because I want to take something away from women as Kimmel perniciously misrepresents. I say this because Duluth is the thin edge of the wedge which is now being used as a cudgel against men. Our most basic rights, the right to face one's accuser, the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and possibly others, are under attack. That is something which I find to be a huge problem. We've even enshrined this erosion into Canadian case law, and I strenously object to that.

[–]IRScientistSober1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy

Yeah, I misread that bit. It happens.

What these stats aren't looking at (and a criticism of that other article) is whether the violence is happening in self-defense, it's just looking at the violence. For instance, are the women biting and hitting because they just got slapped? They're only numbers. The article seeks to add context to it. I mean, you can say things like, "There are more black men in jail today in the US than there were slaves," (which I'm think is true). This statement isn't taking in account the fact that there are more people, of every race, in the US. It sounds rather disingenuous then, doesn't it?

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

I agree that the CTS is not a good methodological approach anymore. I find Kimmel's argument persuasive. What I'd like to see, to put the final nail into this discussion is where the StatsCan methodology mirrors, or uses the CTS, or parts of it. I've dug through the methodology, and I'm not sure I see it. Maybe. I'm trying to 'get it' but I just don't 'get it.' If you can, can you make it really obvious?

[–]IRScientistSober0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

No, honestly. My understanding of stats is not so great that I feel like I'm able understand the methodology of a scientific paper. It's also why I like meta-studies, as I have more faith that they're able to tease out the truth vs. two researchers locked in a grudge match (I think in our discussions an example of this has come up before). If you want to talk about genetics, I can probably explain a bit more, or Hirschsprung's Disease. I remember quite a bit about that.

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

Thanks, I appreciate the honesty.

I'll summarize the only thing I can think of that's been said of substance and try to point out why I remain wholly unconvinced: both the CTS, and the StatsCan survey use self-reported data.

That's it. That's apparently the whole "proof" that the StatsCan survey used buggy methodology. I dunno, but would that convince you?

I mean, it's not to say that this isn't a methodological weakness, I can acknowledge that, but I'm of the opinion that it's hardly enough evidence to be convincing.

And I get that it's just counting incidents, and while that approach may not be ideal either, it supports the notion of gender parity in terms of people directing abuse at each other.

So I'd be willing to put the StatsCan survey into the "questionable data" category based on the self-reported flaw alone, but I'm having a hard time seeing how self-reported data alone, and counting incidents of violence is equal to the CTS.

That is, unless that's the entireity of the CTS, in which case, that's just bugnuts crazy. I'm of the opinion that there's got to be more to the CTS than that!

EDIT: Ah, I think I see what's actually going on here. The CTS has been criticized by feminists, and rightly so, because originally (there's a CTS2 now), the CTS didn't include sexual abuse as being part of abuse. Sure, I can get behind that criticism, and therefore they've painted the CTS as having a lot of flaws in order to discredit the whole thing. They might be right, they might be wrong, but they believe it, and that's what matters here.

The StatsCan survey obviously included these sorts of questions, yet an examination of the StatsCan methodology fails to uncover any kind of obvious links, other than the self-reported data, between the CTS and the StatsCan methodology. So, if someone had a vested interest in discrediting the notion of gender parity in domestic violence, one of the easiest ways to do so, would be to say something like, "this study/survey/whatever uses the CTS/a modified version of the CTS, and it is therefore bunk!" Okay, well that would certainly be a valid criticism of the StatsCan survey if it could be shown that the StatsCan survey used the CTS. So the question I naturally ask is, "does the StatsCan survey really use a discredited methodology?" Maybe, but I'm not satisfied with any of the attempts at an answer thus far.

StatsCan says, "The questions measure both physical and sexual violence as defined by the Criminal Code that could be acted upon by the police."

The criticism that this doesn't cover all spousal abuse, and psychological abuse is harder to see is a perfectly valid criticism. But the criticism that "the StatsCan survey uses the CTS!!!" IS NOT, because the StatsCan survey doesn't even pretend to use the CTS, or even a modified version of it.

Could be wrong about that, but nobody has yet been able to show me that I'm wrong.

What's the best way to try to discredit something? Mix truth and validity without outright lies...

END EDIT

It's also why I like meta-studies, as I have more faith that they're able to tease out the truth vs. two researchers locked in a grudge match (I think in our discussions an example of this has come up before).

It has, and though it's not really anything I didn't know before, it was both pleasant and instructive.

If you want to talk about genetics, I can probably explain a bit more, or Hirschsprung's Disease. I remember quite a bit about that.

Cool. Do you know much about epigentics? The possibility that epigenetics is a very real thing has a great deal of influence over a lot of the life-choices I'm making right now. It seems to make sense, and the implications are really scary, and because I try not to be alarmist, I'd really love the opportunity to debunk any false notions I may have.

[–]mrsamsa2 points3 points  (22 children) | Copy

Statistics Canada[1] has[2] some[3] findings on that...

Based on self-reported data from the flawed Conflict Tactics Scale, which we know results in males overestimating their rate of abuse and women undersestimating it..

StatsCan supports the notion that male perpetrated violence does tend to be more serious than female perpetrated. But this is about the rate of, not the seriousness of.

No, the idea of "gender symmetry" has no concrete definition like that - the only common factor is the claim that they are "equivalent". But all papers, reviews, and analyses define "equivalent" differently, some in terms of rate, seriousness, consequences, motivations, etc.

The one thing that everyone seems to agree on though, is that if you're basing it entirely on a simplistic understanding of "rate" where swearing at someone is equal to killing or raping someone (as you are doing), then your results are meaningless.

Kimmel's piece is published in a journal called... Violence Against Women. Gee. I wonder if confirmation bias is going to be an issue in his research.

If you think there is a problem with confirmation bias, then you need to clearly identify it and provide evidence to support it. As I told you in our last discussion, you can't just vaguely handwave away criticisms of your position.

Importantly, the fact that it's in the journal "Violence Against Women" does nothing to support the idea that there might be confirmation bias. This is because the existence of gender symmetry or gender asymmetry has no effect on the existence of violence against women. Kimmel even spends most of the article discussing how serious the problem of violence against men is and how it has been underappreciated in the literature.

Nearly 100 studies, and they're all flawed? What was that about scientific consensus...?

Now, now, BAC - don't you remember our discussion on how consensus is formed? Specifically, do you remember the discussion we had where you thought consensus was based on number of papers and I corrected you, explaining that it was based on the weight of the evidence?

With that in mind, do you understand why 100 studies using a recognised flawed method which gives us wildly inaccurate results would be weighed differently to a methodologically sound study?

And yes, they are all flawed. They all use the Conflict Tactics Scale. Why aren't you attempting to address this point? I assume it's either because you don't know what the CTS is, or you can't find any author or article which supports the use of the CTS to analyse domestic violence (which would be because most of the people that supported it died out in the 70s).

Also, do you really think there are less than 100 studies that don't find evidence of gender symmetry?

And sure enough, it doesn't take long before the bias creeps in

I have a feeling that, to you, "bias" means "I don't agree with it".

Someone who levels such an accusation on the opening page of his paper? I do not care how well-respected he is, this calls the rest of his research into question. It's nice to see that he wears his bias on his sleeve, it certainly makes my job easier. And as this source is presented for me to evaluate well... Perhaps it is my bias, but given the evidence I don't think that this paper can be called "best" of anything.

What are you talking about? It's undeniable that many of the efforts of activists in this area are calling for "gender symmetry" on the basis of their motivation to reduce compassion given to women. Just go to any area of the manosphere where this is being discussed and it is obvious.

And if we consider historical context, it gets worse.

What historical context?

Given that the evidence also shows that a certain group of people will not hesitate to resort to threats, intimidation, censorship, and even violence to maintain their dominant position when it comes to opinions that challenge their narrative... It's hardly surprising that Kimmel plunges right in.

...Uh, you realise that the violence and threats go the other way mostly right?

Just so you know, the idea that I should accept this as evidence is ridiculous.

In other words, you can't find a single thing wrong with his arguments or methodology, so (AGAIN!) you're going to dismiss scientific evidence because it disagrees with your belief system?

Jesus fucking Mary on a pogo stick, this is ridiculous.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (21 children) | Copy

What follows is a verbatim copy pasted from a message I sent in response to the above. /u/mrsama may attest to its authenticity if he so chooses.


I am messaging you away from ppd... well, I have my reasons. You may post this, as my response if you like, but I will not do it, at least for the time being. Verbatim, if you like.

To your points. Actually, I agreed with Kimmel on the CTS, the argument made sense. Yes, I didn't address it, mea culpa, because, if you were trying to bring forward Kimmel as an expert witness, even the worst lawyer, on his worst day wouldn't have any trouble getting him excluded. His comments bring his evidence in to question, full stop. You cannot make an argument out of a source who so clearly has an axe to grind.

As such, even something as gob-smackingly obvious as how bad the CTS is, it is suspect, because it's coming from Kimmel's pen. Even if, and I want to make this absolutely clear, I agree with the argument.

To his arguments specifically, I have never seen the manosphere advocate that we should reduce DV funding, rather, that funding should be available for men's shelters as well. I know that there is some criticism that the DV paradigm turns some shelters into hotbeds of misandry, but I do not for a second accept that criticism as anything other than pointing out that we have a problem we should fix. And no, not by pulling funding, but by reconsidering the dominant paradigm.

The household survey conducted by Statistics Canada did not use the CTS. I can't find it in the methodology, I don't know why you would think they did. Or is that what Kimmel said?

Finally, as for violence and threats there's a certain Mrs. Pizzey whom you may like to meet.


There is more to this conversation. I don't want to misrepresent /u/mrsama, so he may post his 'halves' if he so chooses.

[–]mrsamsa0 points1 point  (20 children) | Copy

To your points. Actually, I agreed with Kimmel on the CTS, the argument made sense. Yes, I didn't address it, mea culpa

The problem isn't that you didn't address it, it's more that every supporting argument you made in your post relied on the acceptance of CTS as a valid measure. It's okay if you don't feel like explicitly acknowledging a point, but I'm just saying that you can't accept that point and then rely on evidence that contradicts that point.

because, if you were trying to bring forward Kimmel as an expert witness, even the worst lawyer, on his worst day wouldn't have any trouble getting him excluded. His comments bring his evidence in to question, full stop. You cannot make an argument out of a source who so clearly has an axe to grind. As such, even something as gob-smackingly obvious as how bad the CTS is, it is suspect, because it's coming from Kimmel's pen. Even if, and I want to make this absolutely clear, I agree with the argument.

That's fine but completely irrelevant. This is science, not law. We don't accept ad hominem arguments in science because we don't support our claims with authority figures; we support them with logic and evidence.

If there is a problem with the logic or evidence, then it needs to be discussed. If the author is a raging man-hating warlord who rapes kittens and children, then that sucks, but the evidence still stands.

To his arguments specifically, I have never seen the manosphere advocate that we should reduce DV funding, rather, that funding should be available for men's shelters as well.

Then seriously, I am very glad for you. You have had fortunate experiences and not everyone's experiences with the manosphere have been the same as yours.

As red pillers like to explain, anecdotal experience is as good as evidence.

I know that there is some criticism that the DV paradigm turns some shelters into hotbeds of misandry, but I do not for a second accept that criticism as anything other than pointing out that we have a problem we should fix. And no, not by pulling funding, but by reconsidering the dominant paradigm.

Many people argue that domestic violence figures for women and the laws used to protect them are evidence of a feminist conspiracy to demonise men, and actually argue that the numbers have been inflated or exaggerated to make men look worse.

You see this most in discussions on rape statistics, where even though the unarguable scientific consensus is that around 1 in 5 women are raped across their lifetime, people still try to argue against this as a "feminist lie". I don't doubt that some men join in because they think it's a result of dodgy science (without actually looking into the science themselves), but large sections of the manosphere do so in order to try to make it look like women don't face as much rape as they claim.

The household survey conducted by Statistics Canada did not use the CTS. I can't find it in the methodology, I don't know why you would think they did. Or is that what Kimmel said?

The stats are based on the "General Social Survey of Victimization", which is only a slightly modified form of the Conflict Tactics Scale.

Finally, as for violence and threats there's a certain Mrs. Pizzey whom you may like to meet.

It was horrible what happened to her, but you have to realise that it's a drop in the ocean compared to what people face for suggesting that domestic violence is not equal between men and women - and those people have science on their side!

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (19 children) | Copy

Happy cake day.

I'll take your evidence first.

Have you read the paper...? Because it suffers from the very same bias problems as Kimmel.

Briefly addressing another of your points, before going back to the paper, this paper could be used as evidence to support the notion that feminists are engaged in a conspiracy. Well, maybe not conspiracy, plot against men perhaps? Because this appears to be operating in the open.

Aren't you constantly harping on anecdotes used as evidence? Because the paper does just that. Can't have a paper about women without bringing up the national day of male shaming can we...?

To another of your points, which is touched on in the paper;

You see this most in discussions on rape statistics, where even though the unarguable scientific consensus is that around 1 in 5 women are raped across their lifetime

You know that the paper you presented actually heaps a good deal of scorn on the StatsCan Violence Against Women Survey which is often cited as one of the sources for that statistic?

A few years ago, I looked at that data in detail, but if I remember correctly, and I could be wrong about this, the 1 in 5 statistic includes the least severe sexual assaults.

So, I'm awfully sorry, but your own source says that the statistic is arguable.

Finally, there's a rather glaring problem here, and that is that the paper discusses the 1999 General Social Survey on Victimization. If you look, the evidence I presented is clearly, and unambiguously from 2009.

Now, as difficult as it was to get through the paper, I could be possibly be persuaded that StatsCan is still using the same flawed methodology 10 years later. But more glaring is that it the paper was so completely and overwhelmingly bias that it was completely unable to advance a persuasive argument. To Kimmel's credit, at least he was able to check his bias long enough to present logical reasons why the CTS is nonsense. This paper attacking StatsCan? Not so much.

In sum, if you want me to find that the StatsCan data is faulty, you're going to have to do better than throwing a heavily bias piece which doesn't even deal with the same data set as I presented.

That's fine but completely irrelevant. This is science, not law.

I'm sorry, but the paper you just presented satisfies me beyond a shadow of doubt that the data should not be considered without also evaluating the credibility of the source. Therefore, I'm applying the lawful standard to any, and all sources.

You're free to denounce it as irrelevant if you like, but it's relevant to me.

Then seriously, I am very glad for you. You have had fortunate experiences and not everyone's experiences with the manosphere have been the same as yours.

Anecdotes again... If you have evidence, please feel free to present it. I don't think I've ever made the claim that my experience is anything but strange.

Many people argue that domestic violence figures for women and the laws used to protect them are evidence of a feminist conspiracy to demonise men, and actually argue that the numbers have been inflated or exaggerated to make men look worse.

Well, there seems to be some truth to that. On both ends.

From the paper again;

Many feminist researchers have argued that by keeping definitions narrow, and tied too closely to the criminal statutes, surveys do not uncover large portions of woman abuse.

This whole paragraph argues that the rate of violence should be higher because the definitions are too narrow. I'm picking just this line because it's probably most illustrative. This clearly, and unambiguously points to an anti-male feminist agenda.

Do I think there's some grand conspiracy? No, because though it's cliché, NAFALT. But do some, perhaps many, feminists have an axe to grind, and that by virtue of their positions of power and influence in the academy, do they bring along many unknowing, and unwitting well-intentioned people? Your paper certainly supports that, and in spades I might add.

It was horrible what happened to her, but you have to realise that it's a drop in the ocean compared to what people face for suggesting that domestic violence is not equal between men and women - and those people have science on their side!

That's irrelevant. Pizzey has been ruthlessley silenced, maligned and misrepresented by feminists. That she has, at all, given her history, strongly suggests that feminists do not actually have science on their side. That she now writes for A Voice for Men, which is much maligned by various groups which lionize victimhood?

What we can glean from considering her example as a case study suggests to me that reality is simply much more complicated than your sources would have you believe. That I can easily point out a certain political thread that runs through them shows that there really isn't a scientific consensus here, and we ought to be much more skeptical. Remember when I mentioned your bias? Here we see it in full. I'd point out that this example shows that we shouldn't lionize science to the degree you obviously have, but I suspect that would fall on very deaf ears.

[–]mrsamsa0 points1 point  (18 children) | Copy

Have you read the paper...? Because it suffers from the very same bias problems as Kimmel. Briefly addressing another of your points, before going back to the paper, this paper could be used as evidence to support the notion that feminists are engaged in a conspiracy. Well, maybe not conspiracy, plot against men perhaps? Because this appears to be operating in the open. Aren't you constantly harping on anecdotes used as evidence? Because the paper does just that. Can't have a paper about women without bringing up the national day of male shaming can we...?

I'm not sure what any of your comments refer to, and I have no idea what a national day of male shaming is. I only linked it as evidence that the GSS is simply a modified form of the CTS.

You know that the paper you presented actually heaps a good deal of scorn on the StatsCan Violence Against Women Survey which is often cited as one of the sources for that statistic?

I'm not sure how often it's cited but it's irrelevant, given that every single major study of this issue returns the same results. Importantly, their study is from 1998 so I wouldn't rely on that for my figures.

A few years ago, I looked at that data in detail, but if I remember corerctly, and I could be wrong about this, the 1 in 5 statistic includes the least severe sexual assaults.

No, this is a common myth in the manosphere but it simply isn't true. Most studies explicitly make the distinction between completed penetration, attempted penetration, and sexual assault in general. To make it clearer, 1 in 5 women across their lifetimes will experience completed penetration against their will.

So, I'm awfully sorry, but your own source says that the statistic is arguable.

They only discuss one paper which cannot refute my position. If you want to single out a single paper, then have a read through the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey.

Finally, there's a rather glaring problem here, and that is that the paper discusses the 1999 General Social Survey on Victimization. If you look, the evidence I presented is clearly, and unambiguously from 2009.

They are using the same methodology. That's why it's called the "General Social Survey on Victimization", as they are using the "General Social Survey" (GSS).

But more glaring is that it the paper was so completely and overwhelmingly bias that it was completely unable to advance a persuasive argument.

It explains how the GSS is a modified form of the CTS and provides citations for the claim. How is that unpersuasive?

In sum, if you want me to find that the StatsCan data is faulty, you're going to have to do better than throwing a heavily bias piece which doesn't even deal with the same data set as I presented.

I think made you're going to have to drop the ad hominem's for a minute and actually deal with the claims and evidence within the papers, and not just attack the authors for what you perceive to be as bias. Incidentally, it's likely that what you are seeing as "bias" is, in fact, your own bias.

I'm sorry, but the paper you just presented satisfies me beyond a shadow of doubt that the data should not be considered without also evaluating the creddibility of the source. Therefore, I'm applying the lawful standard to any, and all sources. You're free to denounce it as irrelevant if you like, but it's relevant to me.

But that's just an absurd way to analyse scientific evidence. The whole point of the scientific method, the whole reason why it's so powerful, is that the authors of the pieces are irrelevant to the validity of the evidence overall.

This is why scientists don't attack work based on who wrote it.

Anecdotes again... If you have evidence, please feel free to present it. I don't think I've ever made the claim that my experience is anything but strange.

Hey, hey now. Don't try to pull that one. You're the one that told me that evidence can be ignored if it disagrees with your personal beliefs, so I'm just pulling the same trick so that I don't have to waste my time hunting down sources.

Because, of course, if I do find sources that support my point, what are you going to do? Accuse the author of bias, reject the evidence presented, and conclude that your experiences are more important than any science that I might have.

This whole paragraph argues that the rate of violence should be higher because the definitions are too narrow. I'm picking just this line because it's probably most illustrative. This clearly, and unambigously points to an anti-male feminist agenda.

How does that demonstrate an anti-male agenda? It shows that abuse is not limited to the legal definition of abuse. That is, psychological abuse can be important to consider as well. This is true for both men and women.

Do I think there's some grand conspiracy? No, because though it's cliché, NAFALT. But do some, perhaps many, feminists have an axe to grind, and that by virtue of their positions of power and influence in the academy, do they bring along many unknowing, and unwitting well-intentioned people? Your paper certainly supports that, and in spades I might add.

...What power and authority do feminists have in academia??! They are mostly shunned, rejected, and ignored whenever they mention the word "feminism".

That's irrelevant. Pizzey has been ruthlessley silenced, maligned and misrepresented by feminists. That she has, at all, given her history, strongly suggests that feminists do not actually have science on their side.

How does that demonstrate that they don't have science on their side? It sounds that some people are horrible and hateful people.

That she now writes for A Voice for Men, which is much maligned by various groups which lionize victimhood?

I think the fact that she's chosen to align herself with a well-known hategroup is evidence that she has less than honest intentions when she makes the comments she does.

What we can glean from considering her example as a case study suggests to me that reality is simply much more complicated than your sources would have you believe. That I can easily point out a certain political thread that runs through them shows that there really isn't a scientific consensus here, and we ought to be much more skeptical.

You haven't shown any "political thread" running through the papers though. You've just kind of broadly claimed "bias", assumed any mention of feminism was 'political', and interpreted comments support women's rights as "anti-male". It's ridiculous.

Remember when I mentioned your bias? Here we see it in full. I'd point out that this example shows that we shouldn't lionize science to the degree you obviously have, but I suspect that would fall on very deaf ears.

If you can show any hint or lick of bias in my comments and arguments, then you'll have my full attention.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (17 children) | Copy

I'm not sure what any of your comments refer to, and I have no idea what a national day of male shaming is. I only linked it as evidence that the GSS is simply a modified form of the CTS.

Really?

Canada was, and still is, a country characterized by class, gender, and racial/ethnic inequality (2).

The answer to these questions is that many Canadians, especially conservative upper class males, benefit from these and other forms of gender inequality. They have no interest in eliminating patriarchy, and in fact are determined to strengthen it (Naiman, 1997).

Although Canada is a patriarchal country, every major social institution, such as the family, the workplace, and the military has been affected by laws and other means of eliminating sexism (Renzetti & Curran, 1995).

the Canadian federal government committed C$176 million to various initiatives on family violence, especially woman abuse in adult heterosexual relationships (Denham & Gillespie, 1998)

Gallaway was a Joint Chair of the 1998 Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access (SJC) (Pearson & Gallaway, 1998), which devoted considerable attention to Ferrel Christensen’s (2000) submission claiming that feminist survey researchers engaged in "prostituted science and scholarship" and that violence in intimate relationships is sexually symmetrical.

Obviously, Christensen and others with similar views influenced the SJC because it concluded that "because of the existence of violence against men, the Committee would not recommend that family law or divorce legislation employ a gender-specific definition of family violence" (Pearson & Gallaway, 1998, p. 81).

Of course, it can be argued that members of MERGE, Roger Gallaway, and other supporters of the anti-feminist backlash are simply "extremists" or "right-wing ideologues" who have little, if any influence on the general public and government policy. However, if this was the case, why, then, are gender-neutral terms like "spousal violence," "family violence," and "domestic violence" frequently featured prominently in recent government documents like Statistics Canada’s fifth annual Family Violence in Canada report (Trainor, 2002a), which features 1999 GSS data ?

Thus the backlash politics involved here have a major whiplash effect on both workers and survivors, making it more difficult to garner public support and resources. Women who have been victimized in abusive relationships not only find themselves without concrete help, but are belittled and trivialized in the public arena by men’s rights groups in the process.

Repeated contacts with politicians to discover what they are doing to promote gender equality, innovative research, and strategies aimed at alleviating violence against women are all important steps that do not cost a substantial amount of money (Morris, 2002).

It is also necessary to recognize that no matter how many positive steps are taken to end violence against women and other highly injurious symptoms of patriarchy, there will always be men’s rights groups, politicians, and others who dig in their heels, brandish their fists, and who construct anti-feminist barricades (Faludi, 1991).

You can’t see the agenda, the political bias in that? I’ll spell it out for you: more government money, for the DV industry. More government money for shelters, more government money for research, more government money for public relations, and anyone who disagrees is obviously, an anti-feminist.

It explains how the GSS is a modified form of the CTS and provides citations for the claim. How is that unpersuasive?

And you taught critical thinking?

It’s completely unpersuasive because the authors clearly have a vested financial interest in securing more government funding for themselves, and people they’d count as allies. As such, they have a vested interest in overstating the number of victims, and the severity of their injuries.

I think made you're going to have to drop the ad hominem's for a minute and actually deal with the claims and evidence within the papers, and not just attack the authors for what you perceive to be as bias. Incidentally, it's likely that what you are seeing as "bias" is, in fact, your own bias.

Sure sure. And the authors of the paper you presented insist on using gendered language when discussing domestic violence because they’re completely objective observers, without any hint of duplicity.

This is why scientists don't attack work based on who wrote it.

I’m not a scientist, obviously. And as good as the scientific method is, it’s supposed to be objective, or at least, try to be objective. This, was obviously not. That you can’t see it is strong evidence that you yourself are not being objective either.

I realize that I’m not being objective here, but I’m objective enough to consider Kimmel’s arguments, and even find them persuasive.

Hey, hey now. Don't try to pull that one. You're the one that told me that evidence can be ignored if it disagrees with your personal beliefs, so I'm just pulling the same trick so that I don't have to waste my time hunting down sources.

If you think it’s futile, feel free to give up. I’m going to keep on talking.

Because, of course, if I do find sources that support my point, what are you going to do? Accuse the author of bias, reject the evidence presented, and conclude that your experiences are more important than any science that I might have.

You know, you could try applying the same standard of evidence, and read for gob-smackingly obvious political agendas.

How does that demonstrate an anti-male agenda? It shows that abuse is not limited to the legal definition of abuse. That is, psychological abuse can be important to consider as well. This is true for both men and women.

Ah, but feminism is as feminism does. When we try to organize and talk about it, well, see what happens: http://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1mo1sa/feminism_advancing_mens_rights/ccb3jkd

...What power and authority do feminists have in academia??! They are mostly shunned, rejected, and ignored whenever they mention the word "feminism".

Where did those protests take place again? In domestic violence shelters right…? Oh they were on University Campuses...? Backed by CUPE? Yeah no power there at all.

How does that demonstrate that they don't have science on their side? It sounds that some people are horrible and hateful people.

Sorry, doesn’t work. Why was it so very important that her books not be published, then? Why is she not allowed to speak on a subject she knows intimately?

Could it be because one political group has a vested financial interest in silencing any voice which challenges their dominance in a particular sphere? Naw, that never happens...

I think the fact that she's chosen to align herself with a well-known hategroup is evidence that she has less than honest intentions when she makes the comments she does.

Now her intentions are called into question… Funny, I thought scientists didn’t attack the person, but the argument.

You haven't shown any "political thread" running through the papers though. You've just kind of broadly claimed "bias", assumed any mention of feminism was 'political', and interpreted comments support women's rights as "anti-male". It's ridiculous.

Care to try that one again?

If you can show any hint or lick of bias in my comments and arguments, then you'll have my full attention.

As you’d say, heal thyself.

http://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1mo1sa/feminism_advancing_mens_rights/ccb4a7p

You can still have men's rights groups led by men, for men, which accepts the principles of feminism.

In other words, feminism is about deconstructing the patriarchy and men's rights is about tackling the problems that men face because of the patriarchy. So by feminism attacking the patriarchy, it necessarily also helps men.

We can be feminists AND interested in fixing some issues with men's rights.

So few men's rights activists actually take the time to check out male spaces in feminist groups because they've already written off the feminist group as being evil and wanting to castrate them, or something

Oh, so Krista the Femitheist, and the radfems at radfem hub are doing it wrong then?

[–]IRScientistSober5 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy

This is from your introduction:

Our culture has become a feminist culture.

Perhaps I engaged in hyperbole, but I don't know if your opinion is the mainstream one on TRP.

I think "huge influence" vs. "one of the most important factors" is splitting hairs. After all, the two subs are divided by gender.

Also, from whence the phrase, "Beta bucks, alpha fucks"? Until the linking rules changed, the subreddit spent a lot of time talking about "this stupid beta". Now they have to gossip about their friends.

While I'll agree science isn't a replacement for art or religion, common sense is not a replacement for science. The world isn't flat, and the sun doesn't revolve around it, even though it looks like that to me.

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

Perhaps I engaged in hyperbole, but I don't know if your opinion is the mainstream one on TRP.

Okay, hyperbole umm.. "aside?" Yes, I agree with the notion that feminists have achieved dominance over much of our socio-political discourse. Obviously, this is limited to countries generally thought of as Western: North America, Australia, and most of western Europe. If I took your point too litterally, I apologize. I guess you can claim that one.

I think "huge influence" vs. "one of the most important factors" is splitting hairs. After all, the two subs are divided by gender.

Okay. You seem to be saying, and correct me if I'm wrong here, that gender is much less of a factor than we think. Can you expand on what you mean here?

Also, from whence the phrase, "Beta bucks, alpha fucks"? Until the linking rules changed, the subreddit spent a lot of time talking about "this stupid beta".

Well, maybe this is where I break more completely from TRP, but I don't consider a man who disagrees to be automatically a "stupid beta" or any other derivative of that monicker. A man who doesn't agree might well be entirely capable of getting many partners because redpill isn't a panacea. It's a reaction to a percieved bad situation. Rather, I would consider the full context of his disagreement. He might be a "stupid beta," but in my experience, it's more likely that he's simply unaware of just how much the deck has been stacked against him. Most men are not aware that their, pardon the turn of phrase, God-given presumption of innocence is slowly but surely being erroded. I can't very well expect him to be redpill if he doesn't realize this, appreciate its significance, or understand its importance.

[–]IRScientistSober2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

"Splitting hairs" means we're actually saying the same thing, just in different ways.

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill[S] 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy

Broadly, you seem to think that feminists have taken over the world, to the detriment of both men and women.

Well, westernized countries, but yes, working on the world.

You believe that someone's gender is one of the most (if not the most) important factor in determining their behavior.

Regarding interpersonal relationships, yes. I don't think it effects their ability to be a doctor.

You believe women respond to dominance (alpha) behavior,

Yes.

and that men who disagree with you are "betas" who aren't getting laid.

Incorrect. Betas can get laid, but for different reasons. Furthermore, people who disagree are not betas. There is no correlation between disagreeing and being beta. Betas are less likely to attract women on primary sexual features, but instead tend to rely on provider features. They are also usually walked over by women.

You think marriage is generally a bad idea (I say generally because there is some variation in opinions) and gives the woman too much power over the man. Ditto babies.

Yes, yes.

[–]IRScientistSober2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy

Thanks for the reply! Yes, I should have qualified "westernized" because no one's worried about gender equality when they're hungry.

Incorrect. Betas can get laid, but for different reasons. Furthermore, people who disagree are not betas. There is no correlation between disagreeing and being beta. Betas are less likely to attract women on primary sexual features, but instead tend to rely on provider features. They are also usually walked over by women.

My thoughts on how TRP views betas is influenced by some of the discussions I see there. People would link to threads/discuss beta behavior, often in a derogatory manner. There's the phrase "beta bucks, alpha fucks." Is that just members letting off steam? There also seems to be an "us vs. them" mentality, and a desire to divide men into two groups (alpha/beta). Do you think that's something the members do that isn't necessarily part of RP theory?

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill[S] 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy

A lot of us started as the beta-bucks part of that phrase, including myself. It's not really an us-vs-them discussion, more of a reminder not to fall for the trap again.

A lot of those people in /r/relationships threads that we critiqued eventually came over and we explained why we were critiquing. It's not because we hate betas. Instead, we sympathize. We also understand that his failings really are his fault and nobody else's.

Personal responsibility for one's well being is a strong pillar of red pill philosophy. Sometimes a little tough love is what's necessary. I wish my dad had been tougher on me when I was a kid, but growing up with my feminist mother, I learned only the ways of a beta.

[–]IRScientistSober2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Honestly, this is one of the things that really confused me about your subreddit, is its relationship/attitude toward other men. Now I know that what people upvote/say isn't something you have full control over (I actually mod a subreddit, but because it's private and fairly unknown, I don't have to delete a lot comments etc.), so that's probably coloring my impression of things, nor do I see everything that happens (like you talking to people from /r/relationships). Thanks for explaining your perspective.

[–][deleted] 9 points9 points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill[S] -1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy

packing up his toys and throwing a little tantrum.

It was a simple request. Can you accurately describe the position you are so adamantly against?

[–]mrsamsa7 points8 points  (2 children) | Copy

Describing everybody as "angry" because you can't refute them is a "simple request"? And I have described an aspect of red pill above - you've ignored my post.

I know it must be hard for you to realise that you can't just ban people or shut down subReddits when you start losing arguments, but maybe try to address some of the arguments in this thread instead of dodging everything, yeah?

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill[S] -4 points-3 points  (1 child) | Copy

Sounds like you're being rude.

[–]mrsamsa5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy

No it doesn't - stop being evasive, and try responding to what people actually say.

[–]soulcakeduck7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy

Take your pick- choose one topic and give the red pill perspective.

So far a lot of anger here, but not a lot of people standing up and explaining what the red pill view is. I'm disappointed.

I think redpillschool believes this about spousal rape:

I see nothing morally wrong if both parties knowingly enter into a contract of perpetual consent.

Prove me wrong.

[–]IRScientistSober9 points10 points  (6 children) | Copy

Response to edit 2: People have explained what they think it is. You just haven't bothered to respond to them. Much like the "science" on your subreddit, you seem to have cherry-picked which responses you see.

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill[S] -2 points-1 points  (5 children) | Copy

I have just responded.

[–]IRScientistSober6 points7 points  (4 children) | Copy

I just read your edit, skimmed the comments (of which there were many that weren't answering the question, and some that did) and noticed you hadn't responded to anyone answering the question.

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill[S] -1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy

I am making my way through my inbox, it's got 40 replies!

[–]mrsamsa8 points9 points  (2 children) | Copy

The point is that of the responses you have made, none of them actually address the comments made.

Do you really believe that you have answered any of the responses in this thread? Even red pillers think you have been evasive.

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill[S] -5 points-4 points  (1 child) | Copy

My request was to see if any blue pillers could articulate red pill theory from our perspective. Most of the replies did not show they could. Some accused me of being too vague to have a position. Some think that their versions are here ripe for my rebuttal.

I am replying to those who made honest attempts at answering the main topic. Of course I'm not wasting time on trolls. There's only one of me.

[–]mrsamsa6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy

My request was to see if any blue pillers could articulate red pill theory from our perspective. Most of the replies did not show they could.

If they could not accurately describe your position, then fucking correct them. Don't just sit back and say, "Wrong". That is not what this subreddit is about.

Some accused me of being too vague to have a position.

And that is undeniably true.

I am replying to those who made honest attempts at answering the main topic. Of course I'm not wasting time on trolls. There's only one of me.

And that's fine, but the point is that you haven't actually responded to anybody.

Plus, referring to people as trolls here is against the rules.

[–]LifterofThingsDelicate Feminine Flower7 points8 points  (4 children) | Copy

I'm interested to see what comes out of this topic...

From my own perspective, TRP is more descriptive than prescriptive. What you do with the information presented is up to you-- some dudes use it to get mad, some dudes use it to get more pussy, some dudes use it as just another perspective with which to interpret the world around them.

The one thing that I could really say that all of TRP believes is that men and women are different (in a general sense), and thus value different things in terms of romantic partners.

To what extent and why seem to be up for debate. Most redpillers seem to think that it's more down to nature than nurture.

[–]mrsamsa0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy

To what extent and why seem to be up for debate. Most redpillers seem to think that it's more down to nature than nurture.

According to redpillschool, the core beliefs of the red pill philosophy argue that the differences are largely due to nature:

Most of the ideas revolve around the idea that men and women are fundamentally different, due to evolution.

[–]LifterofThingsDelicate Feminine Flower1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy

... that's what I said, wasn't it?

[–]mrsamsa0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

Sort of, it just seemed that you were saying that whether the differences are due to nature or nurture is up to the personal beliefs of the individual red piller. I was just pointing out that a core tenet of the red pill philosophy is that most of these differences are due to nature (and so a red piller who thinks that they are due to nurture would be rejecting that part of red pill philosophy).

If that's what you were saying then we're in agreement. To me it just sounded like you were suggesting that that position isn't strictly tied to red pill philosophy.

[–]LifterofThingsDelicate Feminine Flower1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Ah, yeah. Most of 'em are on the nature side. Some of em think more highly of the influence of nurture than others.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy

There seems to be a lot of disagreement over certain issues amongst the members of TRP, and some of the terminology is so broad or flexible as to be useless, in my opinion. One good example is the word "alpha", which is often used as a way to describe certain behaviours, but which is defined so loosely that anything can be said to be "alpha". A man aggressively pursuing a woman he is sexually interested in may be alpha, a man ignoring a woman he is sexually interested in may be alpha, a man insulting a woman he is sexually interested in may be alpha, etc. etc. It's very difficult to concretely state red pill definitions and ideas when they're so open to different interpretations. I could say "I have a problem with the concept of 'alpha' because x, y, z" and the rebuttal would be "but that's not what alpha is." And then when someone attempts to define it, nobody can agree on a definition. It makes it difficult to argue against "red pill ideas" when nobody can state with any certainly what those ideas actually are.

[–][deleted]  (3 children) | Copy

[deleted]

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill[S] -2 points-1 points  (2 children) | Copy

You're right. It's tricky. The difference is they are less combative, and reserve their judgment until after they think they have a grasp.

[–]SpermJackalope5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy

So, you're saying we do understand TRP, you just think we aren't nice enough about it? After all, that seems to be what "the difference" being combativeness and judgement implies.

[–][deleted]  (13 children) | Copy

[deleted]

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill[S] -1 points0 points  (12 children) | Copy

Pretty fair, I would add one nitpick to the interpretation- albeit it's not one the no ma'am guy presented. It's commonly held on the sub that this is not an intrinsic property of women, but instead the result of a lack of economic forces.

For instance, it is not all women who are less mature, but instead the prettier the woman, the more she gets away with, the less pressure she has to learn to mature.

This is a trend that we noticed, and exceptions always apply.

[–][deleted]  (11 children) | Copy

[deleted]

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill[S] 0 points1 point  (10 children) | Copy

Well, okay. I haven't noticed this. I know some attractive women and they're not less mature than the unattractive women I know. Convince me you're right. Unless you don't care to, in which case, why would anyone who isn't desperate take you seriously?

This is a discussion about what our views are, not whether they're defensible. I think there's a discussion on this article somewhere already, but you can make a new one if you'd prefer.

You use this to discount other people "noticing trends" that run counter to trends you notice.

I won't deny what you notice. I also won't change my life because of it.

[–][deleted]  (3 children) | Copy

[deleted]

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill[S] -1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy

enough. There's a distinction between saying "I observe X and it influences my behavior in manner Y," which is what everyone does, and "I observe X so it should influence your behavior in manner Y," which is what you often appear to advocate.

The people who end up at my sub read my view, and connect with it, perhaps a lot have similar experiences.

I really don't doubt other people have different experiences. There should be room in our theory as to why they do.

But we cater to those who have similar experiences.

I don't expect somebody who is happily married for 40 years to find any of my advice useful.

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy

[deleted]

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

If I were to consider my worldview to be complete, it must include at least a plausible reason. I'm not saying there's extensive conversation on it, yet, but that doesn't preclude that one couldn't happen. In fact, it's fascinating to me.

[–][deleted]  (5 children) | Copy

[deleted]

[–][deleted] -1 points-1 points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted]  (2 children) | Copy

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 0 points0 points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery[M] 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

Rude comments will be deleted. No personal attacks.



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

© TheRedArchive 2020. All rights reserved.

created by /u/dream-hunter