Well Red Pillers, it's May. In half a year we've managed almost 5,000 subscribers, and we're growing faster each day!
Since we're growing at such a fast rate, it's always a good idea to refresh everybody on our rules, and to address some new issues that have come to our attention.
I would like to take this moment to address the stance the moderators have on a few topics- and the direction we intend on steering this subreddit for the foreseeable future.
A commonly repeated trope is that we support rape because one of our moderators said "I don't believe in spousal rape." I will only address this once.
Any forcible exertion of will over somebody else's will is clearly wrong. Bodily autonomy should always be respected, and this applies in all scenarios, including marriage. Any debate on TheRedPill regarding the specifics of spousal rape is an argument of semantics and religion, and not one dismissing basic human rights. Nobody here advocates denying anybody else's autonomy, not even our moderators.
As rape is being defined as wrong because it denies the basic human right of agency, we must also consider the following:
Any force that requires a man, against his will, to make payments or to labor to afford making payments towards a another party must also be considered exertion of one's will over another's autonomy. This denial of agency denies a man's right to bodily autonomy.
Therefore we will refer to alimony as divorce-rape, circumcision as baby-rape, and conscription as life-rape.
If we accept that not all exertion of will over somebody else's autonomy is wrong, or that one can consent to waive certain rights to autonomy in certain conditions to certain people (even if the agreement includes a lapse of time), then we must revisit these definitions.
This will be the last time I address this: If we revisit the definitions, it is an exercise in hypothetical theory and not in itself an endorsement for rape.
Any attempts to conflate the two will be immediately removed and banned. It is a disservice and insult to victims who have actually suffered the terrible tragedy of rape.
With the influx of new users, we have to deal with the unfortunate reality that there will be more trolls. Because of this, we're going to have to be a little more strict in our adherence to the policies.
Posts that utilize any kind of concern or shaming language are immediately suspect. We will take a look at each post on a base-by-case basis. Typical phrases that we will be looking out for include:
Please note, we encourage open debate and discussion of our theories, but please bring facts, and not ad hominem attacks or concern for our well being.
A new trend that we have been seeing recently are the passive aggressive trolls that disguise themselves with plausible deniability. They attempt to cloud their true purpose by representing themselves as honestly inquisitive or perhaps genuinely mislead, and here to learn. We identify them by their concern language, ad hominem attacks, or insults to our moderators.
It is very possible to be here and ask questions, or disagree without setting off any red flags. However, common attributes of a troll post include:
Leading with a presumptive conclusion. "The fact that you're bitter is getting in the way of.."
Asking complex questions (fallacious questions) to which any answer is an endorsement to a presupposition that has not been determined or agreed upon. "Can anybody tell me why you guys hate women so much?"
Ad hominem "just because you are bitter.."
Condescension "This just seems like a bunch of chest beating to me.."
Unfalsifiable rhetoric - phrases, insults, accusations that cannot be falsified and serve no purpose but to manipulate the emotional state of the opponent or onlookers. "This is just a circle jerk"
Concern "I feel like this sub is focusing too much on.." (If you are genuinely concerned, contact a moderator, or submit more content of the quality you would prefer to see.)
Accusations of echo chamber/circle jerk. This is a combination of just about all of the above, but I want to highlight that the term "circlejerk" itself is meaningless and unfalsifiable rhetoric used to gain an upper hand in an argument without any of the legwork required to disprove the opponent's points.
Insulting the moderators - If you disagree with a moderator, that's just fine. You can do so publicly or in PM. We're not gods, we don't know everything, and we spend a lot of time learning every day. However, if you show disrespect to the moderators by using ad hominem attacks or thinly disguise an insult as a "genuine" disagreement, you will be banned.
If you feel you were unjustly caught we have no issue looking at appeals on a case by case basis, just know that your post history and account age will be looked at.
Our moderators do a lot of work to keep our sub clean and functioning on a daily basis, including banning trolls, flaring posts, and attempting to discuss solid red pill theory. Please do not make our jobs harder.