698,118 posts

Disappointment in the Lack of Critical Thinking

Reddit View
July 30, 2018
296 upvotes

Contrary to the accusations, I don't hate Jordan Peterson. I generally support most pro-male figures, even when they're terribly mistaken about major points. I like Milo, even though I disagree with him on religion. I like Jordan even though I disagree with his conclusions that a reversal to pre-sexual revolution times is a genie that can be put back into its bottle.

But I really disagree when somebody is operating in the frame of the feminine imperative and they either don't notice, or worse - don't care.

The lesson this weekend, which many of you chose to ignore or misunderstand, was specifically to address learning to be critical of high-visibility thought "leaders" (for lack of a better term).

The original post I made I think stood for itself. The point in question was JP's insistence that pickup is an inherently psychopathic behavior, and that's because individuals matter. The individual woman matters.

Sometimes I post content like this to take a measurement of the community, to see what, why and how people are interpreting the world around them. And this was a very dissapointing outcome.

Instead of some reasoned comments dissecting his misinformed statements, I got just plain drivel. Ad hominems, accusations that the mods and ECs here don't know shit about women, sex, or the red pill, and whiny concern trollers talking about how things used to be better before people started calling JP on his bullshit.

I gave the community a second chance, perhaps the post was too focused on JP himself, as many people rushed to his defense but the discussion was devoid of any substantive material in regards to the video. So I posted a transcript of the first few minutes of JP's rant. And the results were worse than I could have expected.

Very very few people were able to pick out the issue in JP's reasoning. Instead, many elected to insult me, the mod team, pickup, game, and even the red pill itself.

I'm disappointed, because I believe the sort of content we promote here is designed not only to change your worldview, but also change how you think about things so that you can change your own worldview. You cannot escape blue pill thinking by simply finding another god to worship. You must learn to process information for yourself. You must learn to pick out internal inconsistencies in others' ideologies and ideas.

The fact that there's a pro/anti-JP argument on here is fucking stupid. Because it shouldn't matter who has said anything. If his ideas are good they should stand up to scrutiny. If they are bad, then it is fair game.

A lot of people have reached out to me and asked why we still allow JP content on here, given that a lot of his advice and goals are counter to the established theory we've been refining over the years.

The fact is, ideas must stand up to scrutiny including our own. I see nothing wrong with discussing JP's ideas and comparing them to our own. What is useful, you keep. What is not, you throw away.

But I'm done tolerating any further discussion about the man himself. Because it's clear too many here are unable to process ideas and theories apart from the man, and a discussion of a man is not sexual strategy. This forum is for discussion of man's ideas and theories.


Pickup Artists are Psychopaths.

It should be obvious to anybody who is familiar with TheRedPill (read the sidebar), but the primary problem with this statement is that it operates within the frame of female primacy. It appeals to the feminine imperative and only serves them while hurting men.

REDPILL 101 ALERT: Female sexual strategy is one of selection. Women select. Men are selected. Inherent in this system is the fact that since men must be selected, their strategy must employ persistence and play the numbers for success.

Women, in their capacity to select, must by definition reject most possible suitors to maximize their strategy. Their ability to procreate is limited, and as such, selecting the highest value males is beneficial to her strategy. For her, selecting among many eligible mates means she may eventually need to filter based on more superficial qualities. The story of sexual selection and how it shaped our species (such as secondary sexual characteristics) is a post for another day. If you're not familiar, I recommend you spend some time reading the sidebar.

But returning to my main point... JP uses the phrase "Pickup Artists" as a caricature. The idea that a dude put on some fancy hat and makes a habit of going out and tricking women into fucking them is not only a very outdated reference, it doesn't really touch on how men actually learn and use game to increase their changes with women.

Pickup artistry as is depicted in the media is mostly dead, and in my opinion never really lived. It was a gimmick of sorts, but I don't believe it was as effective as many had bragged about. For some? Sure, maybe they cleaned up. But for many, pickup served as an introduction to one of the most important topics man can learn: GAME.

Game can best be described as understanding and using psychology to best avoid being a complete fucking idiot and fucking up your chances with a potential mate. Game isn't a parlor trick where a woman's panties drop and she's none the wiser. Game is a set of strategies and explicit behaviors that help complete god-dammed social retards from getting in their own way.

And JP is saying quite frankly that he thinks improving on male sexual strategy is psychopathic. That's not because it is. It's because the negative connotation helps push the narrative of the female primacy, and helps grow the influence of the feminine imperative.

Men should not improve their chances with women. Men should abandon anything resembling numbers games with women because each women is special and unique and you must put in high-investment before being considered a possible mate. Do these things, and do not do the other things.

JP is effectively telling boys and men how not to be sexually successful.

This is making no comment on whether you think hookups are moral or not, or whether hookups are even a preferred strategy. Some here don't want to spin plates. Some here also want the wife, two and a half kids, and the white picket fence.

Although I strongly disagree that a traditional marriage can happen or work in today's culture, that is up to you what and how you want to pursue it.

But no matter your goal, you won't get to spin plates, LTR, or anything else if you cannot first attract a mate. And following JP's advice, anything that makes you better at attracting a mate is psychopathic.


Be on the lookout for people framing advice with the feminine imperative

This should go without saying but any time somebody makes an appeal to some greater good or cultural norm that isn't directly addressing your strategy or goals, you should proceed cautiously and ask yourself, who am I serving with this advice?

Can you spot the frame?

  • Man up and take care of her child as if he's your own!
  • Be the best man you can be.
  • Spinning plates is wrong, you should only date one woman at a time.
  • Game and pickup is weird and wrong. You should only use "honesty" when meeting women.

Moderation

The mods have not been banning from these threads, even though our general policy is to remove people who resort to personal attacks. I wanted to finish this exercise in critical thinking before we begin a purge.

We want members to recognize what this exercise was and perhaps rethink how they approached the subject. If you remember hurling insults to other members instead of discussing the merits of the ideas, perhaps now is a good time to make a comment on this thread and discuss what you learned.

But stay on your road of blind denial, ad hominem, and appeals to authority, and you will be swiftly removed. We have a much higher standard of content than that.

That is all.


Post Information
Title Disappointment in the Lack of Critical Thinking
Author redpillschool
Upvotes 296
Comments 220
Date 30 July 2018 02:06 PM UTC (2 years ago)
Subreddit TheRedPill
Link https://theredarchive.com/post/51738
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/934c9c/disappointment_in_the_lack_of_critical_thinking/
Similar Posts

Red Pill terms found in post:
framelong term relationshipplategamethe red pillthe blue pillfeminine imperative
Comments

[–][deleted] 107 points108 points  (35 children) | Copy

Bill Burr was a stepping stone to Joe Rogan, Rogan to Peterson, Peterson to Molyneux, Molyneux to TRP and so on.

"Finding another god to worship" Is exactly what people get with Jordan Peterson or even TRP when they see these "thinkers" or threads as anything other than a tool box and become emotionally invested into their internet father figure. Never meet your heroes and burn their idols. TRP is about rejecting dogma and instituting your will onto your own life.

[–]TRP VanguardWhisper54 points55 points  (15 children) | Copy

Which is of course, frustrating, because I never asked for their worship. That's why I keep using this line about how, in person, I would eat their lunch and steal their girl.

I don't object to Peterson because he is a rival for the position of "cult leader"... because I don't want the job. I want young bros to stop joining cults of personality. The "great leader" they need to follow is themselves.

All the rest of us are just tossing out ideas for them to consider.

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points  (10 children) | Copy

Unfortunately herd mentality is instilled younger and younger. Kids have iPads put in their hands before they can read. The need for a master, spreadsheet or connect the dot art book in life is a symptom of a greater void in the current male experience. You can only shove so much down a garbage disposal before it breaks and frankly men need to be broken more than ever, left on an island with only themselves. Those who thrive deserve to. Those who construct gods from their resources deserve to die on their knees praying for absolution.

[–]TRP VanguardWhisper28 points29 points  (8 children) | Copy

I am repeatedly struck by just how prone to compartmentalized and contextual thinking most humans are. They can experience a principle, learn it, thoroughly grasp it in some area of their lives, then utterly fail to even consider applying it to another area.

I still remember a room full of computer science PhDs, who would never in their own field accept anything less than evidence from a properly controlled and statistically analyzed experiment, vigourously insisting that human-created global warming was not only indisputable fact, but an existential threat to humanity, all because a journalist told them that some unnamed scientists said so.

This is no better or worse than the people in TRP who start yelling about how "Jesus" is the ultimate redpill, because they have accepted the idea that their entire society could be lying and/or mistaken about the essential nature of women (whom they see every day), but the 47 year old spinster who taught their sunday school must have been absolutely right about the invisible wizard who controls the entire universe.

This sort of person reminds me of nothing so much as owning a cat. You can train your cat not to jump up on the table. You can even, if you first make the cat like you and want to please you, train the cat to stay off the table when you are not there watching. But if you get rid of the old table, buy a new table, and put it in the exact same location, the cat will have to learn all over not to jump up on it.

Why? Because cats have an Encephalization Quotient of about 1.0, and they can't generalize from the concrete concept of "this flat thing here", to the abstract concept of "tables". They can't reason about classes of things.

Well, there's a lot of people here who can get the idea of "this blue pill" as an abstract symbol of a matrix of cultural lies about women, but can't grasp the idea of "blue pills" as cultural matrices of lies about lots of different topics, and they won't get it no matter how many times you point it out.

Such people can only ever be followers, because they lack the biological capacity not only to be free, but to even understand what freedom is. And while you can fix cowardice, ignorance, laziness, hopelessness, and many other things, stupid happens in the womb and cannot be cured.

[–]riot2100[🍰] 7 points8 points  (1 child) | Copy

vigourously insisting that human-created global warming was not only indisputable fact, but an existential threat to humanity, all because a journalist told them that some unnamed scientists said so.

Most don't take the time to interpret the underlying reasons why such conventionally intelligent people take a single journalist's spin on things as undeniable fact. Today, our news is designed around only one thing: profit. One of the reasons Trump won the election was his leveraging of the media's greed. For example, news articles that centered around his outlandish commentary garnered more views than articles regarding Clinton, or in fact, anything in politics. This trend continues in the media today. Things like clickbait titles, top 50 lists that allow ads to be reloaded multiple times while you advance in the "slideshow"—simply put, the average man is blind to the tactics of today's modern journalism, and fail to question them.

Now that I've highlighted this, I can connect this back to what you said about the scientists. They take one view as fact and fail to continue to research and take other's accounts into consideration. The news you read isn't all fact, people! I follow 8 media networks consistently, including CNN and Fox. At first, I did this to discern fact from exaggeration and bias, as an average person (and just like said PhD's) I wasn't trying to actively make out the difference between the facts presented and the deeply embedded opinion. Most people do not question their sources, even their own beliefs and ideas. Now, when I read the articles, what's the truth is easily highlighted out of the crap that embodies 90% of the "story". This is true critical thinking, a rare commodity in today's world. And if someone wants to truly unplug, it's a necessity.

Everything must be questioned, or you will blindly follow someone else's ideas and never create any for yourself.

(Edited for grammar, extra analysis would be greatly appreciated)

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

Epic post. I'm on my phone or I'd contribute more than my appreciation.

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

Ah but they only lack proper education and a comparable socioeconomic status. Everyone is made of the same clay /s

[–]jaitajupi 1 points [recovered]  (4 children) | Copy

A lot of the advice around here is surface level, lift, do shit, fuck good, do A to get B. However, there is little focus on the why. This sub is limited to improving men by focusing on sexual strategy. There needs to be more focus on identity and purpose. Sure, some people only come to learn what to do to fuck more, but a lot also want guidance on how to be men. I think maybe we need to change the stated goal of this sub to something more broad.

[–]TRP VanguardWhisper3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy

So what are your plans for that?

[–]RedHoodhandles2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Yeah no that's not gonna happen. TRP are tools for the how.

Every man has to find his why for himself. And one why is just as good or bad as the next.

[–]Endorsed ContributorWe_Are_Legion0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Outline your vision, as a start.

[–]riot2100[🍰] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Every time I see a 5 year old with an iPad I sigh a little. If you look at their face, it’s cold and unchanging, dead focused on whatever game their parents gave them to keep them quiet. It’s awful. When I was in my elementary years, I was reading books and developing vital skills thanks to them, such as critical thinking. I’d take my copy of the magic tree house wherever I went. I’m sure a lot of you here were similar in this sense. Now seeing how parents treat their children is extremely disheartening! That iPad game won’t help them develop the very skills that allow introspection and free thought, skills all of us here used (or are in the process of using) to unplug.

If you don’t believe that technology is making us dumber, this is a prime counterclaim. I’m sure the lot of you here with kids are smarter than that, but don’t put the damned device in their hands, EVER, for their sake!

[–]Rian_Stone10 points11 points  (0 children) | Copy

Heh, more altruistic than me. this is my take a penny, leave a penny jar.

I'll steal your lunch money, but leave with a 'how to steal lunch money' guide

[–]satlinrabbow1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

This post and this quote " You cannot escape blue pill thinking by simply finding another god to worship. " Is why people get upset when anything not dickriding JP is hated here.

People want, NEED, Gods to worship (Which is Ironically a thing that JP mentions when hes not shitting the bed about sexual dynamics)

This need is so strong, that when a God arises, people will turn off their critical thinking and reasoning, and flock to the altar of their new God, disregarding everything else.

This is actually a very serious issue, as Men and as a consequence women who follow them, will stop thinking or themselves, and start thinking FOR THEIR NEW GOD.

The end is nigh.

Luckily for me, my God is Brodin.

[–]Andgelyo0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

The “great leader” they need to follow is themselves....

Brilliant. The newbies and younger guys here need to understand that. You need to think outside of the box and not follow the herd. Critical thinking is absolutely necessary. Sometimes you even need to question your idols that you’ve looked up for all your life.

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

I ask in all seriousness, if you are the man you claim to be, why are you on here attempting to help others and spread your knowledge? Wouldn’t it be better for you to keep this to yourself and have less competition? You say you don’t care about any sort of leadership in this movement and that you would “eat their lunch and steal their girl,” but your very presence here seems to indicate that you do care at least a little about something besides your own sexual imperative.

[–][deleted] 24 points25 points  (13 children) | Copy

Just go straight to the classics: Plato, Aristotle, Hegel and Kant, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Evola and Heidegger.

Peterson dosent even understand what post modernism is. They censored those books in the iron curtain states and as we can see today theyre a decade or two behind western degeneracy, infact most of them cannot even imagine how things can go as badly as they did in the US/UK or Germany/France.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM/edit

Also go to groups that talk about these things. Out of all places FB meme pages are good for this, 4chan and discord groups too.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy

WOW. Gonna need to build a new bookshelf from that doc. Thank you.

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

On a side note if u have trouble understanding the literature get urself a very nice notepad and a very nice pen ink and take ur time. Dont try to save up, its just 2 items and its for your own education.

[–]monadyne4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

Peterson dosent even understand what

post modernism is

.

Perhaps that is correct in a strictly academic sense. However, Jordan Petersen uses his Post Modernism/Neo Marxism explanation to illuminate to those who are unaware of it the dangerous state of current intellectual ideology on college campuses, and thus, in the minds of the indoctrinated students those campuses are spewing out. Worrying about the accuracy of whether the important Post Modernist manifestos were written as a cause of the shift of Marxist thought from economic to identitarian oppression or the result of it is not as crucial as recognizing that that shift did, in fact, take place. And is wreaking its horrendous influence right now, to the detriment of Western Culture.

[–]Lib3rtarianSocialist1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy

Just go straight to the classics: Plato, Aristotle, Hegel and Kant, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Evola and Heidegger.

Evola and Heidegger are new names for me. Do you think it will be good for one to also read Sun Tzu, Locke, and surely Marx?

[–]1scissor_me_timbers003 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

The art of war is kinda more trendy than useful. Yes it’s a classic but I would say overrated. Read a few passages and see what you think.

John Locke is a fairly outdated enlightenment philosopher. He came up with the blank slate dea which is baloney we now know conclusively. Frankly if you’re gonna go that era, Hume and Voltaire are better. Hume especially is more interesting and still relevant in a big way.

Marx is incredibly important but extremely long and dense. Better off reading a synopsis as his ideas are not terribly complex and don’t require the slog of reading him directly in order to grasp. As an unabashed capitalist, I still must say Marx does make some very valid critiques of capitalism. unfortunately Marxist replacement systems have just been total garbage.

Evola is pretty interesting. As a right wing philosopher he’s not taught in mainstream academia. He’s kinda wacky and mystic but pretty interesting and a refreshing alternative to the typical leftist ideologies.

Heidegger is one of the most important 20th century guys. Biggest German thinker since Nietzsche and heavily influenced by Nietzsche. He’s also really dense and confusing so I’d recommend a primer book on him. His ideas are still extremely relevant.

[–]1Self-honest1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

If you read the Art of War, read a few different translations and form your opinions out of all interpretations.

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

Sun Tzu

The Chinese literally have lost every major war they have been apart of I don't think you should try to learn warfare tactics from them they are notoriously bad at wars. Plus the books meaning is lost in translation which is what happened with Marcus Aurelius and some Greek writers too.

Should I read Marx?

Yes, go on https://www.marxists.org/ . Also you might be interested in Slavoj Zizek.

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

Except that big one... what was it? Oh yea. WW2

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

They got completely annihilated and became a vassal of jewish/soviet revolutionaries.

[–]magx010 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

For new readers I would suggest working up to that stuff or at the very least, mix in one purely for fun fiction (or non fiction I suppose but something that really grabs your attention) after/before each of the more academic stuff.

I have encountered many people in a former career that ended up hating reading because of going too deep too early and not being honest about their desires (shallow or otherwise).

[–]Ta11no1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

TRPis about rejecting dogma and instituting your will onto your own life

This, the fact that people conflate TRP with traditional conservatism is a testament for how misguided everyone is. You would think that people who seek the truth would be a bit more critical of every piece of advice and knowledge shared with them but it isn’t the case. Most are too wrapped in their BP idealizations to realize that mindlessly consuming everything isn’t the way to go thru life. You end up living for the wrong thing again and the cycle continues.

The concept of “destroying your gods and replacing them with new ones” is a topic that is glossed over repeatedly here in the sense that your “new gods” should be yourself and your vision. Because ultimately YOU have power over your own life. Jp won’t be there on your deathbed lecturing you about how you’re promised a spot in heaven/hell for your own decisions. You will be alone. And Whether you like it or not it is ultimately your burden to carry. Your responsibility. But why be responsible for our lives when it’s so much easier to just dump it on another person? That is a question only one with a master mentality would be able to answer...

[–]omega_dawg930 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

there's a whole lotta people that preceded bill burr...

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

Exactly. This is the danger of "finding another god to worship". I visit CH's page a lot but for the past two years or perhaps more, his idolization of Donald Trump has clouded his opinion. His game post are still on point.

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

Just view those posts as how Game applies to politics.

[–]1scissor_me_timbers00-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

Man he is so funny to read tho. So pulpy. I agree he’s a bit too Trumpian tho.

[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil31 points32 points  (6 children) | Copy

When a person is on a state of trance they will retroactively reinterpret all new contradictory information to conform to the anchored belief. If you want to watch this take place check out Darren Brown's Special Gift.

The Blue Pill is a hypnotic state there is no logically talking people out of it. That's why plenty of dudes here needed to watch their girlfriends faces get Spiderman-ed by Chad before they can come into any realizations about how the sexual market place works. Plenty of people need mulitiple girlfriend Spidermanings maybe even a divorce rape or two. The only thing that works at unplugging people concistently is trauma.

The point of all of this is that your not going to get the big come to Red Pill Daddy moment you were hoping for. The walking dead are going to Ex Facto rationalize you as villian and miss the point of this fun little party you created for them..

The only thing we can do to disrupt hypnotic states is traumatic language, images and dragging spergs into the banvan.

Lastly posts on seducing Jordan Peterson by washing his lobsters are sexual strategy and should be excluded from the black list.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 11 points12 points  (4 children) | Copy

The walking dead are going to Ex Facto rationalize you as villian and miss the point of this fun little party you created for them..

They can suck dicks.

All I can do is offer a space to share the knowledge and tools.

Nobody will take the red pill until they're ready, hopefully before their sham of a marriage finally kills them.

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

By that logic the entire TRP IRC channel mods are full of Lobster worshippers and should be gotten rid of too!

[–]3LiveAFTSOV1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy

The Red Pill IRC channel is a toxic shitpool that needs to be completely cleansed.

As far as I know, only 2 ECs/Mods go into the IRC, and strangers get banned instantly. By stranger I mean people outside their usual clique.

I've been banned a split second after popping in and saying wassup - and I wrote 2 of the best posts and got 3 points! IDK what those guy's problem is.

They're fags.

[–]Rian_Stone8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy

Damn, didn't know people still use IRC

A/S/L?

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

Yeah theyre obnoxious as hell and i generally could not get a single legitimate conversation with them going where i didint have to dumb myself down. That said ive heard good stuff about them. Apparently they've saved a lot of lives and so on despite their stubborn personalities.

[–]jontycampbell0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

seducing Jordan Peterson by washing his lobsters

Oh my I had a guffaw at that.

[–]Senior ContributorNightwingTRP34 points35 points  (15 children) | Copy

I sense Peterson never really gave this some thought. When caught out on the gay marriage cake question, he changed his view because he'd not really thought about it properly.

Some of his individualism is cool. Some of it is quite obviously fulfilling the feminine imperative and making men assist them in their selection process. The old "be yourself" being the absolute epitome of this style of advice. The funniest thing I see is how "man up" is used in the feminine style by Peterson, but we use it here sometimes. Here it is in the masculine. Man up does not mean "suck it up and help her" it means "suck it up and sort yourself out." Something I know Peterson does support. It's what he's trying to achieve, starting with all that room cleaning. I wonder if he's ever noticed the difference.

[–]Rian_Stone36 points37 points  (14 children) | Copy

he's got an N count of 1, married before Reagan took office.

He doesn't have the experience

[–]Senior ContributorNightwingTRP7 points8 points  (11 children) | Copy

Let's try to avoid the SJW reasoning of "if you haven't experienced it, you can't understand it." I'm going to stick to my point about him supporting the feminine imperative and using feminine style. Supporting your note of him getting married before Reagan, I'd suggest he's perhaps ignorant of just how much the dating game has changed. He's got some idea since he's aware guys are checking out. But perhaps he's less aware of how low the quality of women in terms of RMV has become.

[–]Rian_Stone2 points3 points  (10 children) | Copy

That was where I was going with it. Just hearing the difference now from 7 years ago is amazing.

Its like uber now

[–]Senior ContributorNightwingTRP5 points6 points  (9 children) | Copy

Yeah. The difference is crazy.

It's also important that we remind guys that n-count does not directly dictate how smart/redpilled or game-savvy etc you are. Otherwise we'd have to invite roosh to take over here... just no.

[–]Rian_Stone1 point2 points  (8 children) | Copy

Lol, he was smart enough to ignore that NYT article when they wanted a quote.

Poked fun at rollo for being made I to a poster boy for a new testosterone app testing kit 😂

[–]Senior ContributorNightwingTRP1 point2 points  (7 children) | Copy

Rollo got turned into a poster boy?

[–]Rian_Stone1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy

Accidentally. They pulled a bait and switxh

[–]Senior ContributorNightwingTRP1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy

I'm always left with mixed feelings about how sporadically active I am on here. Clearly I'm missing out on things to laugh at.

[–]Rian_Stone1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/25/style/sperm-count.html

Originally was "why men are panicking about aperk count" to "why men are scared of sluggish sperm"

[–]Rian_Stone0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

“Tell your editor to stop being an idiot and reassign the article to a man,” he wrote in a direct message on Twitter. “Then get in touch with me.”

[–]Endorsed Contributorvandaalen13 points14 points  (1 child) | Copy

he's got an N count of 1

Which essentially makes him an eunuch and renders his opinion on anything women related obsolete and discardable.

[–]Endorsed ContributorKeffirLime37 points38 points  (14 children) | Copy

Definitely notice a common thread of people on here still very attached to idealism.

Still hoping for that perfect girl. Still wanting that great marriage. Still hoping that things will just go back to the old days. Still hoping that there's 70 virgins waiting for them in the afterlife.

This is why Jordan Peterson appeals to them, he speaks about a great world that we "should" live in.

TRP breaks down that idealism and focuses on what is, and this is where most people choke on the pill. They still think they can use the tools on here and still live that soulmate fantasy, while completely ignoring the basis of the theory. Ignoring the entire philosophy behind it.

I understand that a large part(if not majority) of the community is still swallowing the pill, and therefore their views are still somewhat tainted by societal programming.

The concern is these people are posting content on here, and other people just like them are upvoting it and endorsing it. Ultimately it ends up skewing the message when the drivel is getting all the exposure and the solid content is being lost in it, mostly down voted because it dashes the hopes and dreams of blue pill billy.

So kudos on tightening the screws, I for one welcome it, and think the right stuff will be getting the exposure it deserves.

[–]Endorsed ContributorFeralRed10 points11 points  (0 children) | Copy

Opinions are like assholes. But every asshole gets a vote on Reddit.

Those who care about votes don't know the popular opinion on these subjects is rarely the correct one, and those who know about the inherent bias re. votes on unpopular subjects don't care.

Using redpill tools to reach bluepill goals never works.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 17 points18 points  (10 children) | Copy

Both of my posts got a score of 0.

If need be, I will disable all posting and sticky every damn post I make.

[–]Endorsed ContributorKeffirLime9 points10 points  (6 children) | Copy

I think u/Whisper's critique of JP also got 0

Which is a pitty because IMO those are some of the most important posts. It's not just do this or that to get pussy, but it really gets stuck into the philosophy behind the red pill, which sadly I think most people on here have no desire of internalizing.

[–]Rian_Stone16 points17 points  (3 children) | Copy

the voting algorithm at Reddit was designed as a crowd sourced spam filter. Looking at it as a barometer of truth, success, utility, or really anything but that is useless. The fact it's logarithmic curve means even the votes don't matter. If you downvote it 10 times in the first minute, it carried more weight than the 1000 upvotes it would get an hour later.

It's a horrible metric and needs to die

[–]Random_throwaway_0002 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy

It's a horrible metric and needs to die

What do you recommend?

[–]Rian_Stone0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Reddit wants clicks, it's working as intended

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

Reddit wants clicks, it's working as intended

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children) | Copy

Whisper is by far one of the most prolific writers TRP has.

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

Whispers analysis of Peterson and the pivotal role technology, above all, has played in creating what we see today helped me fully digest the darkest part of the redpill. JP is a fine entry to confused young men in the context of our decadent culture, but he is certainly not the end point, especially regarding male sexual strategy.

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

You can hide the up/down vote buttons via CSS.

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

Only on old.reddit.com

[–]DwightWolftail0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I didn't get to read the first post when it got out. But the second one I did read. Maybe there is something I do not get, maybe I'm short sighted. So in that second post, you quoted him. I didn't vote. I didn't know it was his speech in the beginning and I figured out you were trolling to see who fell in the trap. I have commented a few times in the sub and that is that. I don't live in the US and to be honest I never really cared about JP.He seemed a bluish shade of purple in that interview.

What concerns me though i that you judge by votes. Of course you should sticky them. They are good for discussion. I wouldn't even had read it. Score 0 , puas are pshychos ? Seems legit vote in trp. How the hell should I know what to vote in that post ? Upvote because it was a good trolling ? Or downvote to show that you're wrong ? Or maybe the interpretations is : Upvote = I think you're right ? = wrong => I'm stupid.

Maybe I'm analyzing too much, but we already know that votes in a sub where at max 10% has ''critical thinking'' don't count. Especially when a mod/ec posts/comments on something.

Edit: grammar

[–]Endorsed Contributorvandaalen7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy

All that can be summed upped in one sentence, even in just one term:

Bargaining Phase

[–]jontycampbell0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

JP's shtick on taking responsibility for your life resonates with many younger men, and while his advice is not as unvarnished, direct as RP, once a man starts to 'clean his room' --in other words nascent efforts to make himself and what's immediately in front of him a psychological inner locus of control-- perhaps his mental point of origin, as it were he starts to adhere to what I call the Row Your Own Boat (RYOB) mindset, and never-mind what the World and his wife are doing, get your own life in order first, and so forth.

That at least is starting to deprogram from Leftist pathology PoMo of "why bother, why make an effort, nothing matters" victim-loser mindset that can lead to men never getting out of their basements, checkout and go fullblown MGTOW nihilism.

Nihilism is the ultimate BluePill hell for men, a nihilism that claims lives, one that creates ultra simp Big Jessie Boymen that become Incels or SoyBoys, and we can't have that, for one thing they're cringe-worthy to be around. What's almost as worse (as was mentioned in a recent 21Convention group discussion) is that we can't have men hating wmn, that's not the point of deprogramming. The point, as many in TRP know, is to dislike what we used to think wmn should be to us (I may be paraphrasing here).

Lastly, to the folk deploying logical fallacies to the criticism of JP such as strawmen and ad hominem,for the love of God play the ball, not the man. If you can't enter the Thunderdome of Ideas -if you will- without knowing how to discuss and argue points with grace and civility, you don't belong in the discussion. Stop being a triggered Big Jessie that gets in a flap and learn how to act.

Apropos to that, checkout the yourlogical fallacyis dot com sites for useful primers.

In short then, JP is in the right direction, though disagree with some of the details, though that's what happens as folk clump about refining their thoughts and ideas, dialogue is vital as a dual refining process.

Thankyou for listening.

[–]EdwardBarnes191321 points22 points  (28 children) | Copy

Like you I’m shocked at the PUA hatred on here. The amount of times I’ve heard things like “snake oil salesmen” from seemingly otherwise intelligent and clued-up manospherians has astounded me.

Let me say this loudly and slowly...

PUA WAS THE GENESIS OF WHERE WE ARE NOW.

Please understand this. Of course it was kooky and hit and miss. How else do you create?

Thing is I’ll accept PUA as psychopathic. But it worked for me and countless others where honestly and decency failed. And surely even for a blue puller that says far more about women than men?

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 14 points15 points  (20 children) | Copy

It's learning to accept rejection and move on without a huge amount of up-front investment. Suggesting it's psychopathic only serves women by convincing you that you must invest more and be more fazed when a woman rejects you. That only hurts male sexual strategy.

[–]EdwardBarnes19133 points4 points  (19 children) | Copy

Yes it does I agree.

But if we take psychopathic to roughly mean treating people as an amorphous, predictable blob instead of as idiosyncratic “individuals” then I’d be tempted to agree with Peterson but for very different reasons.

Why are men who give shit about people acting like they don’t?

Why are men now defaulting to stereotypes when before they were interested in people’s unique qualities?

They are not doing this because they want to Mr Peterson. That undiluted female sexuality should turn men into psychopaths is the real story here. Just one that we’ll never hear in the mainstream West.1

[–]ebaymasochist8 points9 points  (11 children) | Copy

PUA was never about becoming a psychopath. It wasn't about not giving a shit about people either. It was mostly about rebalancing guys who would place far too much importance on women accepting them. "Oh she didn't return my text message, that must mean I should never approach another woman in my life because I suck. It must be something I did wrong. There's no other explaination" That kind of shit..

[–]ebaymasochist5 points6 points  (3 children) | Copy

Also if you can't adapt in game, you have no game.. So you sure as shit don't get to Artist status by treating every woman as " amorphous, predictable blob instead of as idiosyncratic “individuals” "

I think JP's biggest flaw in his opinion of PUA was he probably never took any time to really learn what it is before going on a rant about it

[–]EdwardBarnes19131 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy

“...get to Artist status”

Ha ha this made me chuckle. Even pick-up artists are too embarrassed to refer to themselves in this way I’m sure.

Treating women as an “amorphous predictable blob” is a much better policy for the young AFC than treating each one as “idiosyncratic individuals”. He’s already spent his schooldays trying that one and knows the result all too well. This very website is testimony to this. It would not exist otherwise.

Why on earth would attraction be idiosyncratic from an evolutionary, alpha-takes-all point of view?

[–]ebaymasochist1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

I guess it depends what you want to get from it. If you're playing the numbers game and just approach every single girl and are okay with closing one out of 100, the blob approach works. Personally I find it boring and inefficient.

If you read The Game, by the end, the PUA approach based on Mystery Method was already played out in Hollywood. They had approached virtually every decent looking girl in every club. The women already knew the lines, the gimmicks. The game had to evolve, and it has. Real Social Dynamics has taken it all so much deeper. And in The Game, Tyler and RSD were the outliers.

Why would attraction be idiosyncratic? Because situations and environment are also factors. The "pickup artist" should be able to get a girl's number at any time of the day in any setting, within reason...

The girl walking to work on a busy street can't be approached the same as she would be at 1:45 am in a club. It's just not practical

[–]EdwardBarnes19130 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

No absolutely.

I posted on here years ago (my only ever sort-of field report) about the depressing effectiveness of asshole game but that was all in bars and clubs. Might not be so effective at night-school.

But still knowing female sexuality which by definition is rather narrow for most of us is essential first off.

But speaking of those guys I think I read in Strauss’ follow up “Don’t be afraid to break any and every rule once you understand the game.” - the correct implication being outer game leading to inner game.

[–]EdwardBarnes19131 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy

Psychopathy is one of the Dark Triad characteristics. How do we know this?

[–]ebaymasochist1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy

Having a characteristic of something and actually being that thing are entirely different. I can appear to lack empathy in social situations. Some girl got insulted and walked away.
I really don't care so someone can call me a psychopath, I guess?

An actual psychopath can hit someone with their car and not care. They're going to be angry about their paint job getting ruined.

[–]EdwardBarnes19130 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy

Yeah of course.

Peterson knows enough to know you can’t be turned into an actual psychopath. He means these men are exhibiting psycho like qualities. Lacking empathy as you say.

My point is these men are doing it cos it works not in any way, shape or form because they want to. So if he wants to shame anyone it should be females for their sexual nature.

[–]ebaymasochist2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

I don't think anyone should be shamed. I don't think you do either. Just for anyone else reading this. Part of being a psychologist is not judging people for the way they are, because you should have a pretty good idea how they became that way.

The thing I liked about Game is there are so many good guys who have no knowledge of how to pick up women at all and it's far more destructive than the few "bad guys" who use pick up for "bad reasons"

The awkward engineer who thinks you should show up with flowers on a first date.

The "rock star" who crashes on a different couch every week but has charisma.

We both know who is more likely to get what they want.

Game at least gives the first guy the knowledge to "level the playing field".

And the saddest part of it all: Most women want the engineer to be attractive.. They want him to know how to seduce them.. They want him to be assertive and confident and handle himself well.

Trying to suppress the information is hurting the very people they think they want to help. For all we know, JP has figured out his core audience can get the same "self help" he peddles in a more attractive package from the pick up community and is bashing them to preserve himself.

[–]EdwardBarnes19131 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

I’m a massive believer in Game. Its instructive that we live in victim-centred society yet men who can’t achieve companionship are not only excluded but hated and punished for it. For wanting some fucking human contact and intimacy!?!

Yes you’re right. Girls actually really liked me growing up. But of course my body decided that wasn’t good enough. I know many were willing me to radiate that extra bit of je ne sais que we now know to be game. But for a self conscious nice guy who had no idea what attraction looked like it was never going to happen.

Lastly yeah pretty much. Peterson’s core are just the sort of people who would know who Rollo Tomassi was anyway. I personally believe he’s done this before. He knows exactly how far he can go on some matters as overall it’s good he stays in the public eye if slowly but steadily moving the Overton Window.

[–]ebaymasochist1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

Even just having knowledge of things like:

If she has a boyfriend, she may be attracted to you, and willing to fuck you, but she can't give you her number in front of her friends or they will think she is a whore. So you have to get her away from her friends, or approach her away from the table, before you try to go to the next step...

That's GOLD right there.. And most guys are never taught that. And they get all confused when they get certain signals and things don't go as they expect. They blame the woman or themselves.

Women want us to know these things. It's in everyone's best interest to know these unwritten laws. But our fathers aren't teaching us this. Maybe if we're lucky enough to have an older brother who was bright enough to figure it out

[–]EdwardBarnes19130 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Glad you mentioned blame. I’ll include hate, frustration and confusion,

For me these are things the manosphere had helped me eliminate not (as popular politics suggests) ‘cause misogyny’ or whatever. It literally does the opposite now if I see a women deal with a nice guy I feel empathy for both.

[–]Rian_Stone1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy

But if we take psychopathic to roughly mean treating people as an amorphous, predictable blob instead of as idiosyncratic “individuals” then I’d be tempted to agree with Peterson but for very different reasons.

change definitions enough, you can make anything mean anything

[–]EdwardBarnes19130 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy

How do you define it?

[–]Rian_Stone7 points8 points  (4 children) | Copy

I generally defer to the clinical definitions. A subset of antisocial personality disorder, caused by damage (nature or nuture) of multiple brain areas responsible for empathy, fear response. They have correlary traits of superficial charm, impulsive etc etc.

Basically they arne't wired properly, and exhibit masculine alpha behaviours, with 0 restraint or control. they aren't evil, they literally aren't wired for giving a shit

[–]EdwardBarnes19132 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy

Right. It’s not giving a shit par excellence.

Men have learned to successfully mimic this trait for sexual reward through game - which itself was discovered as a learned application by pick-up artists.

Using “psychopathy” as a means to attack PUA is like attacking an unpleasant but successful antidote.

[–]Rian_Stone3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy

Thats an understatement. It's not that they don't give a shit, they don't have the cognitive capacity to do so. this is like saying double amputees can't be bothered to lift weights.

they don't have fucking arms

Water is required for survival. you'll still drown in a flood. Same thing here. Very few psychopaths are able to be functional long enough to have a long healthy life, free from imprisonment

[–]EdwardBarnes19130 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

No they aren’t but impersonating them is no less sexually rewarding.

Anyway although they are an interesting topic my point is not their finer details but Peterson’s error in attacking PUAs for simply doing what works.

[–]Rian_Stone1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Toolbox, I've posted as much myself.

Wisdom of psychopaths is an entire book related to this

[–]Red_Faust5 points6 points  (6 children) | Copy

The three pillars of attractiveness are status, physique and game.

PUAs, with different levels of success and sellout-ism, distilled game, inner and outer, to never-before read levels. What did we have before? Casanova, Marquis de Sade and The Art of Seduction by Greene?

We made a terrific revolution on one of the three pillars. And now we know better and try to achieve goals in all three areas.

We were pioneers 15 years ago.

[–]EdwardBarnes19134 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy

In fairness we knew about the other two anyway to an extent whereas many of us had literally no clue about Game.

[–]Red_Faust2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

True

[–]Endorsed ContributorWe_Are_Legion0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy

That is a very unique take, and describes to an extent what I find missing in PUA.

As a short thinking exercise, aren't these three pillars lag indicators? (Spitting game, taking care of your body and having status and confidence)

Whats the lead indicator though? Because I'm sure even a behaviourally high status man, with decent physique who is a good flirt, one can still remain unhappy. Or at least miss deeper meaning and peace. You'll get laid often enough, sure, but something will still remain incomplete.

I'm sure there's a lead indicator lost here, one that is deeper than the others, and perhaps is the source of them in the first place. I've encountered it in meditation, and in extreme sports. I've encountered it in my mission. I've encountered it in moments of cold anger. In martial art. I think I've encountered it in rites of passage. It just escapes categorization.

[–]Red_Faust2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy

I think you are referring to non-reactivity, non-neediness, being in your center, being serene or calmness.

It's when your intention and focus are not swayed neither by external circumstances nor by rogue thoughts and emotions spontaneously sprouting from your unconscious.

Your mind and soul being in peace like a still lake.

The shortest path to this is, as you say, mindfulness meditation. I meditate 15 minutes each and every day.

There are other things you can do. For instance, with NLP I've been able to heal the majority of my childhood wounds, so I have been able to replace survival reactivities with managed strategies in all areas of my life.

Another thing you can do is adopt the stoic philosophy and some of their techniques. Take cold showers to desensitize yourself to pointless hesitations, see the glass as already broken etc.

This is an awesome topic BTW.

[–]Endorsed ContributorWe_Are_Legion0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

This is an awesome topic BTW.

Absolutely. Do keep thinking on it.

I plan to invest this month to revisit this topic too. Perhaps the red pill audience is onto something. There's a deeper calling than game, fitness and status.

I think you are referring to non-reactivity, non-neediness, being in your center, being serene or calmness.

No. Those are also by-products, wouldn't you say so?

[–]Red_Faust0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I think you are referring to non-reactivity, non-neediness, being in your center, being serene or calmness.

No. Those are also by-products, wouldn't you say so?

This is why I don't think so:

Ideally we would walk all the time with a clear head and choosing at each intersection the optimal, to the best of our knowledge, path to our goals.

However, we don't work that way. We (humans, as a collective) make suboptimal decisions time and time again. Like getting married, doing drugs, driving under the influence, not going to the gym on schedule and so on.

Some of these behaviors are rooted in biology. Like instincts (for men, fuck as many chicks as possible then storm off; for women, look for the best mate, secure his provisioning by betaizing him, start looking for next best mate). Or cognitive biases, like generalizations, projections or rationalizations.

Other behaviors are rooted in strategies learned when we were child or teenagers. Say in your house when you grew up money was scarce. You grew up determined to never have a lack of money. Then you proceed to spend your adult life chasing boatloads of money at the expense of health and happiness. Or when we were teenagers chicks didn't want to hook up with us, so we dedicate an unhealthy chunks of our adult lives to chase pussy, and a rejection will always sting us more than it will for the former high school chad.

Distortions rooted in biology are maladaptations. They can be managed by being conscious of your instincts and biases in order to transcend them. I might be more mental or less instinctive than other people, because I don't feel biological urges with much intensity. But anyhow they can be channelled, e.g. strong sexual urges transmuted into energy to reshape the world, or to lift like a beast.

The second set, learned suboptimal strategies, are called neurosis, or distortions of your thinking. They can be "fixed" (yeah) by revisiting your memories and healing them. Neuro linguistic programming is an excellent choice of a tool for this. Ok, I'm biased here being an NPL therapist and all that, but I'm sure there are many other tools that can do the job. From what i've read, CBT Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy (which is quite similar to NLP) and EMDR Eye-Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing, also give awesome results.

If you can transcend your instincts and heal your inner woulds to get rid of reactive neurotic strategies, my experience is that you start progressively reverting to a calm, centered state.

So IMHO it's not like a byproduct but instead a "default" state to progressively go back to.

[–]Endorsed ContributorFeralRed38 points39 points  (12 children) | Copy

The inherent paradox is what gets me.

JBP prescribes how to be a man. Clean your room, be honest, "man up", and all these platitudes and imperatives that engender a misguided but feel good response in blueboys.

I understand it. These guys have been told what to do from day one by mom, by religion, by TV, by society and culture. They're institutionalized.

But something is not right. The dissonance creeps in.

“We've all been raised on television to believe that one day we'd all be millionaires, and movie gods, and rock stars. But we won't. And we're slowly learning that fact. And we're very, very pissed off.”

JBP comes along and says, "I get you. Here's how to be a man."

The boys vociferously inhale all that smoke, as that's what years of conditioning have programmed.

I'm a man now!

No, no you're not. You're still being led around by your nasal ring like cattle, you just exchanged who was holding the rope because He polished your cowbell and it makes you feel better.

'You have to understand. Most people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured and so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it.'

TRP doesn't give a shit about "becoming a man". That undefinable. TRP doesn't give a shit about what you do with your life. TRP isn't monetized. TRP won't tell you to clean your room.

Those who come here seeking advice to fix the fact that they are not yet a rock star and that they've decided that becoming a rock star is their life goal, there are tools here that can assist you to make that happen.

What is a man? How do I become one? Paradoxically, by deciding your own definition of a man is the only one that matters, stop listening to people who are telling you how to be one.

A man? Someone who is doing exactly what he wants.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 31 points32 points  (6 children) | Copy

Indeed, I always cringe when I see somebody post 'TRP is about becoming the best man you can become.'

Best in which way? What is best? It's an appeal to somebody else's ideal of what a man should be.

TRP isn't about becoming a better man. It's about fulfilling your goals and finding happiness in success, whatever that success might be. It's about removing the cultural blinders that artificially limit and stunt your ability to achieve said goals.

Ironically, once you finally swallow the red pill, the realization should be that you were your own biggest enemy.

[–]deville056 points7 points  (5 children) | Copy

Indeed, I always cringe when I see somebody post 'TRP is about becoming the best man you can become.'

Best in which way? What is best? It's an appeal to somebody else's ideal of what a man should be.

Really? I always read that as the best man I can become..In the sense that what I feel a man is and should be.

TRP isn't about becoming a better man. It's about fulfilling your goals and finding happiness in success, whatever that success might be. It's about removing the cultural blinders that artificially limit and stunt your ability to achieve said goals.

But that's what being the best man is, isn't it?

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 6 points7 points  (2 children) | Copy

If that's your goal, then yes. It's just an easily hijackable imperative.

[–]deville051 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

My point was that being the best man possible is about getting out of your own way and achieving your goals. Atleast that's what I always thought 'be the best man you can be' means

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

You're not wrong, but in the given the culture and society we live in, it's not always safe to simply use the phrase without raising some level of fem-primacy context.

[–]Endorsed Contributorvandaalen2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

I always read that as the best man I can become..

Read it as "Become the best possible version you can imagine of yourself." and it suddenly gets another flavour.

[–]deville051 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

That is essentially what I meant to say

[–]Rian_Stone6 points7 points  (4 children) | Copy

Clean your room, be honest, "man up", and all these platitudes

I did them, was a damned good one too. Here's the thing though. They only work while times are good. As soon as hardship comes, they expose their impotence.

If it doesn't survive stress testing, what good is it?

[–]Endorsed ContributorFeralRed1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

u/Thotwrecker posted this comment a few weeks ago....

"when you try to recruit the entire sub to help twist and contort TRP ideology to help you get your BP goals achieved (validation, oneitis, feeling cool about yourself, self-sacrificial martyr goals, trying to change womankind, etc)... that is where the line has to be drawn. TRP isn't about doing whatever you want to do with TRP knowledge - in fact, the reason most guys lives are so fucked up is because they do what they want. Not what is objectively going to help improve their life.

This is why it's far better to just avoid the questions of morality, greater life purpose, destiny, legacy, etc, until you are a healthy, financially stable, sexually active, internally validated man. From that platform you can make a decision about how you want to use TRP - before you get there any kind of idea you have on morality or actualization or even your own hopes and dreams... it's garbage, just pure trash."

[–]jontycampbell0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

For me the cleaning your room and manning up thing essentially means developing grit and true optimism. True optimism is realising and acknowledging when things are sub optimal and yet you find in yourself the discipline to drag yourself out of bed or off the couch, roll your sleeves up and get stuck into fixing what you've been neglecting all these weeks, months or years. Not this Tony Robbins rah-rah-rah Pollyanna-ish nonsense about 'positive thinking'.

[–]PR0JECT_XIII0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

What impotence did you personally find?

Personally, "Stand up straight with your shoulders back" is useful as saying/small reminder about how you should compose yourself physically.

If at a moment I feel like my posture was "weak" I reposition myself. I don't think JBs book actually root out, or provide solutions to issues to problems. If anything it has provided more comfort for some.

[–]Rian_Stone0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Notice lifting weight for better posture wasn't the suggestion?

[–]Jyontaitaa18 points19 points  (4 children) | Copy

RP has been pretty damn good on reporting ideas that are backed solidly by observation.

JP offers advise that is generally unsupported by real world examples.

What saddens me about RP is not the death of marriage but the concept that people should never have kids. If anything it’s the people who have learned the red pill lessons that should be fathers and guiding the next generation.

I have put my recommendations out before and been completely ignored; 1)that lobbying for mandatory dna testing to verify paternity 2) abolishing alimony which is no longer acceptable in an egalitarian world 3) tougher sentencing for women who make false allegations of rape/abuse that has been undeniably disproven.

I think most of the people reading this forum are forever locked in anger mode even after they figure out how to get the girls they are still punching the air.

Your right about JP but at least he is trying and failing to produce an “antidote to chaos” where as the red pill, whilst correct, seems to be saying “just enjoy the decline”.

[–]Senior Endorsed Contributormax_peenor7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy

people should never have kids

Who said that?

[–]1iLLprincipLeS3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy

Statistics for kids raised by single mothers shows all manner of dysfunction (poverty, mental illness, crime) for kids raised by single mothers. e a kid alone. But the sheep don't see it like that, they start making all these wild accusations that the father was probably abusive or violent and that's why she raised the kid alone. It's presumed the mother is a victim of circumstance even though 99% of the time she created the circumstances she's in not only for herself, but for her kid(s.) And it's presumed the father is an asshole, but most the time he was a horny guy begged not to use a condom and told she was on the pill when she wasn't. So she gets pregnant and keeps the kid. Sometimes these guys don't even know they have a kid until they get a child support notice out of thin air. Then the poor guy gets fucking berated for being a deadbeat when all he did was fuck a woman under the presumption it was recreational sex and that no baby would be born.

If bitches are deceiving guys into fatherhood, and then crying victim when it backfires because he refuses to defer to her deceit, tough shit for her. The only victim here as far as I'm concerned is the child. She tricked the guy she fucked, tried to force him to become a parent, and when he wouldn't, tried to ruin his reputation and extract wealth. That is some fucked up shit. But hardly anybody sees it from that perspective, do they? Naturally, bitches be crazy and society is all jumped up on the sycophancy of feminism and the woman are wonderful effect, so she's blameless and he's just a cunt. People are so single-minded and intent on blaming the father it's unbelievable. If your father is never there for you growing up, there's a good fucking chance that's your mothers fault. But no, everyone acts like she's this marvellous creature for forcing her kid(s) to struggle for THEIR ENTIRE LIVES. And that the guy is probably some dark triad woman/kid abusing asshole. It's total fucking bullshit. Very few men are violent or abusive, that's complete lying utter horseshit used to smear the male name and justify the child abuse that is raising kids without a father.

No, the truth is, mummy was somebody's plate/one night stand and thought it would be a wise idea to not use protection AND THEN keep the kid. Her body, her choice, right? Does this oft gloated feminist principle not fucking extend to the responsibility of giving and raising life too? It makes me sick how everybody rallies to the aid of single mothers and exclaims how hard they have it and how everyone should feel sorry for them. Fuck that. Fuck them. They had a choice didn't they? I mean a whore has a fucking choice to take a pill, or get an implant or terminate. Or a million other things. The kid had no fucking choice to be born and go through all the dysfunction that awaits it. The kid is a total innocent and the mother, a cunt. I reserve all my sympathy for the boys and (to some extent, the girls) who grow up fatherless and fucking despise the child-abusing fucks that single mothers are. They are total fucking scum contributing to the complete and utter degeneracy of our society morally, spiritually, socially and economically. Total fucking scum. Again, it is total bullshit that the huge amount of kids who have no father all had asshole fathers who abused the mother/kid when most men in society are complete fucking betas. That's just not plausible. This is simple female blame-shifting mixed with misandry.

[–]Endorsed Contributorvandaalen10 points11 points  (0 children) | Copy

the red pill was never about "social responsibility"

Ding ding ding.

If at all, it is about acknowledging that you don't own shit to society, but society also does not own shit to you. Put yourself first, but also hold yourself responsible for your fucked up situation first.

[–]Vynxe-Vainglory17 points18 points  (0 children) | Copy

This is a sad line of posts in many ways.

However, I’m glad that JP has finally been criticized appropriately for talking out of his ass.

Usually it’s only morons attempting to debunk things he was actually correct about, but here we see him being rightfully corrected for letting his narrative-bias get the better of him.

JP doesn’t like the hookup culture because it goes against his idea that enforced monogamy is healthier for society, and that we can swiftly return to such a Utopia if everyone just straightened up. I assume that this, along with his overzealous attitude toward individualism, led to his clumsy statements about PUA and the weird implication that girls should be treated like unicorns.

It’s an odd stance for him to take, since he quite frequently talks about AWALT points.

I love him, but the man’s not perfect.

[–]DropDeadTyrant10 points11 points  (1 child) | Copy

Pickup Artist Talk: I agree with the statement made that pickup artistry is "psychotic". In my mind, any person could drive themselves wild thinking of one-liners or conversation topics to "get" girls. But, imo, it's the fact that you're thinking at all, that makes it psychotic. I'm not saying it should come naturally or will come naturally. However, some might keep doing it and never evolve to where, it does come easily. If you're doing it and not evolving, then you truly are picking up a psychotic tendency. At that point, you're doing something that you either cannot perfect or are not in the state of mind to perfect. What you need is improvement. The keyword is improvement.

JP: I love watching jordan peterson's "roasts" and conferences where he destroys someone. However, I do believe some of his opponents have had better points than him. I think it's pretty obvious that Peterson is a natural debater. But, only because he can handle himself. I've seen it in school with 17yr olds, it's blatant. If you have the ability to remain calm and not let anything show on your face, of course your opponent gets flustered. In my opinion, the key to winning any argument is not acting out. If you look at debates, they constantly try to get a rise out of people. No matter how sound the argument, the debaters throw in insults or personal attacks. If you ignore those, they begin to get flustered and will eventually devolve into an onslaught of attacks instead of arguing. Now, with JP, I felt that the second I watched him. He stays calm while his opponents get angry. He gives off the vibe that he knows his topic and he wont be swayed. I believe that's why he has the base and following he has. Even if you watch his talks, you'll see his plotholes. You'll see his wrongness. But, because he (as the redpill says) has such a strong frame, you're sucked into it. You believe because you see that he believes. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel like that's what OP wanted to say as well in his post. He wants you to see things and break them down. Not just follow them. He wants you to be able to argue for your topic and not yourself (if that makes sense).

Granted, I'm only 17 and I have no idea how coherent this will be to anyone, yet, thanks for reading if anyone does.

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

Well said!

[–]2virusofthemind5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy

The fundamental difference between Jordan Peterson's philosophy and Red Pill thinking is that Peterson believes in a fair society and the greater good in an egalitarian sense. To a point he sees how societies across the Western world have become unbalanced in favour of the female imperative and seeks to address that.

Red pill believes in the individual and pretty much doesn't give a shit about society (which is in a sense psychopathic) except in offering an antidote to societal programming. The nearest JP gets to RP thinking is his discussions on personal sacrifice. BP thinking believes sacrifice should be done for the benefit of others such as your oneitis or white knighting some woman you don't even know because society (the female imperative) says it's the right thing to do. Peterson on the other hand espouses personal sacrifice (be it the gym, or studying or the slings and arrows of crabs in the bucket when you take responsibility for your own life) as a way of bettering yourself and hopefully making society a better place as an added bonus.

RP thinking is all in favour of sacrifice too; encouraging you to lift, learn game (the sexual strategy of women and how to hack it) and of course increasing your status/power, but has no concern of what the extrapolated effects are. They can be good or bad but we don't rejoice if they're good, and neither do we remonstrate if they're bad. The individual is sovereign.

Most of the readers on this sub will be aware of the BB/AF dynamic and how female mating strategy differs from men's and how to utilise that knowledge to create sexual success. In some of his works Peterson goes another layer deeper yet on how we construe meaning and value in the world. Knowledge like this is gold if it can be applied to game or status, it's literally the source code of everyone's internal map of reality. Don't disrespect the gold, or bring your ideology to make you ignore it :mine that gold

In summary: Take what you can from Peterson's work and apply it to yourself. It's a tool for your toolbox to put alongside others. If you needed a pipe wrench to stop your house from flooding you wouldn't refuse an offered one if it was given to you by a passing SJW. You would take it and use it for your own benefit. It exists as a source of value for the task in hand and its origins don't affect how useful it is in the present moment.

JP's philosophy and RP philosophy are different sides of the same coin. Heads, and you win a modest amount and society benefits, tails and you benefit more and society may or may not benefit a small amount.

[–]adrixshadow0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Peterson is perfect for understanding the concept of Frame.

In fact if you come from the perspective of LTR and Captainship you can understand Peterson perfectly. Which makes complete sense since it's all psychology and that what Peterson breaths.

The only fault Peterson has is that he thinks things can be resolved with discussion and negotiation. TRP has much better tools.

[–]Endorsed ContributorSKRedPill2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

It is very easy to simply use (or fight over) another person's frame than to make one's own that is honestly based on one's own experience. Religion does that all the time...

[–]jokuhuna22 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

It comes down to ideology. Ideology makes people stupid. The ones who see RP as the new true awnser to almost everything bought it as ideology. Then you are just another sheeplet. There are no simple awnser. If people tell you that there are, they are demagogues.

[–]cumfortably_dumb2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

You cannot escape blue pill thinking by simply finding another god to worship. You must learn to process information for yourself. You must learn to pick out internal inconsistencies in others' ideologies and ideas.

The fact that there's a pro/anti-JP argument on here is fucking stupid. Because it shouldn't matter who has said anything. If his ideas are good they should stand up to scrutiny. If they are bad, then it is fair game.

I am thrilled and excited as you have said this. People forget nothing can ever be perfect. We have to constantly work on it and refine it. There is no eternal truth. Everything is up for scrutiny and its not your intelligent but your awareness which will help you dissect and learn.

We have a much higher standard of content than that.

I truly believe this and continue to believe this.

The only thing that you did wrong was to poke at people more than once in a short amount of time. You should have given them sometime to settle. This is an attempt to humor the audience, You invested too much.

[–]ChrimsonChin9887 points8 points  (6 children) | Copy

I read both those posts before and the top comments. I think those responses were both critical of both you and JBP. I thought they were pretty good responses.

Yes, I agree JBP his perspective might at first glance be flawed and it very well actually might be however- your arguments had fatal flaws as well.

I think your main point was that instead of "enjoying the decline" Peterson chooses to live in a fairy tale as he wants to go back to 'the traditional ways'. Also many people seemed to think this might be because he's not in touch with the current dating scene etc as he's been off the market for a long time. That his false sense of "we can still save this sinking ship" comes from him being out of touch with reality.

However and I think this is your fatal flaw, you don't know his motives; you think you do. Remember this guy has an IQ of somewhere around 150. He has probably thought out a strategy years ago as to how he can become as successful as possible. He's entered a niche market and his talks are specifically designed to attract as many people as possible in that market.

I think it's naive to believe that he says what he actually thinks in public, on record. We all know going full RP will eliminate a significant amount of possible customers. So he might put in that little bit of blue pill on purpose, who knows right? I think his content will become more RP over time and he started off soft.

This is a very smart man don't underestimate him by thinking he's no longer in touch with the evolving of the dating scene etc. He might sugarcoat for his audience but that doesn't mean he does it for himself.

I'm not a 'big' fan of him. I think he has interesting stuff to say and have watched a couple hours of his material but that's it. His book had some nuggets but most of it could've been the Shia screaming 'just do it' for all it's worth.

Indeed, he's not the answer to everything and to those people riding his dick, open your eyes and look around. There's many sources to learn from.

Edit: Why the fuck are we even discussing if JBP is RP 'enough'? So fucking useless. Use what you think is usable and discard the rest. Simple as that. Now get to work and stop this mental masturbation fiesta.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 15 points16 points  (0 children) | Copy

this guy has an IQ of somewhere around 150.

I don't buy an appeal to IQ nor an appeal to authority.

I know what he says publicly and will criticize him on that.

[–]Lib3rtarianSocialist2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

I agree with you that he has to conceal some of his knowledge to not be kicked out from mainstream acceptance, which is beneficial long-term.

[–]Dehryll 1 points [recovered]  (1 child) | Copy

Imagine the extreme backlash a prominent figure like Peterson would get if he actually started dropping RP facts. His current public opinions are relatively tame, yet he still receives a lot of criticism.

I think you’re correct in that he doesn’t publicly share his actual beliefs. The way his book was written, especially with its Christian references, implies some very glaring RP undertones. You can also see him backpedaling a few times in his lectures to cushion and sugarcoat things that could otherwise be considered “misogynist”.

I say we be a bit more patient.

JP was the stepping stone for a few fellows I know to at the very least consider the red pill, instead of the typical way of having to be shocked into it after a woman’s betrayal.

For now, we can criticize his unfounded belief that the “genie can be put back in the bottle,” but I would still consider many of his beliefs to align with ours. I’d be willing to bet that the line between RP and JP will slowly fade over time, unless he decides to never pop the controversy bubble in the name of profit.

But yeah, the whole discussion is pretty pointless. It’s borderline gatekeeping - RP is a toolbox, not Barney’s step-by-step guide to living life. One can still apply JP’s tenets and RP tenets. God knows that his explanations, at least, are better-articulated than the “guys 18 year-old here and I totally stole some slut from her bf at the club REMEMBER AWALT” posts here.

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

For now, we can criticize his unfounded belief that the “genie can be put back in the bottle,”

If the genie cannot be put back in the bottle what is the alternative? Sharia law? Nationalism?

Civilization will turn to dust and the bad times will create good men.

Good women are born only in Hell.

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

I think your main point was that instead of "enjoying the decline" Peterson chooses to live in a fairy tale as he wants to go back to 'the traditional ways'.

It's not a fairy tale. What is meant by the "Decline" is the complete collapse of society into some nationalistic,ideological or islamic hellhole. Peterson merely wants Christianity light that was the basis for our modern world with all its freedoms in the first place.

The Beta will always exist and be essential to functioning society.

The fantasy is that TRP can "enjoy the decline" forever.

TRP is not even a revolution meant to save all men.

[–]ExternalKing6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy

I don't see nothing wrong with being psychopathic.

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

True.

[–]nietzschethegreat 1 points [recovered]  (7 children) | Copy

Wrong again. He's commented many, many times about what truly sexually successful men are really like.

There are many fallacies in this post, so I'll comment on a few of them. You're strawmanning his argument that pick-up artists are psychopathic by misconstruing it as a criticism of all male sexual strategy. Blatantly false.

Women are the selectors of men. They represent the Chaos in nature which selects for the most evolutionarily successful men—shaming those into vulnerability who do not meet up to the evolutionary standards of our species. They select from the male dominance hierarchy.

And even if you disagree with the idea that "pick-up" and "Game" is inherently psychopathic (the psychological definition is extremely fuzzy), if you have any sense whatsoever about intersexual relations, you'd realize that "pick-up" and "Game" masquerade as facades for any true sense of climbing the male dominance hierarchy.

Again, as I said in another post, you're failing to distinguish between 1. "pick-up" and 2. true male sexual strategy.

Pick-up takes low-status men and tells them to act and speak like high status men, which they aren't. True male sexual strategy takes low-status or high-status men, and helps them become high-status men.

Instead of taking upon the evolutionary initiative to climb up the male dominance hierarchy, pick-up artists try to manipulate women into thinking they are worthy of reproduction, when in fact they are not.

As a result, if the facade and veneer of sophistication succeeds, we get men who are inherently low status, unattractive, and have no real value fucking women who think they are high-status, attractive, and capable of climbing the dominance hierarchy. It's bad for society and high-status men.

[–]Endorsed ContributorWe_Are_Legion2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy

But not bad for the individual male! Not bad for you! Even if we buy JP's strawman of pickup artists, its still stupid.

See, you're thinking and appealing to the feminine imperative right now. You're imposing arbitrary morality on yourself that you somehow owe it to women or society to EARN sex the right way, or else you should remain celibate.

I make this reply not to debate pickup but to try to convince you that you're limiting and hurting only yourself through this self-imposed mindset; what some TRP users call "slave morality".

Ask yourself: why is pickup mutually exclusive to "True Male Sexual Strategy"? Why can't you work on your life goals (if thats what YOU want) while getting laid? To go into monk mode out of fear or for your own concentration is one thing. To do it so as not to pollute society or high status men is something for the Darwin awards.

Its a rationalization someone programmed into you that makes you self-sacrifice for society's sake, which is stupid enough, but it doesn't even serve society. It serves the feminine imperative.

If it matters to you at all, your competition has no qualms about faking attractiveness, gene pool be damned. See how differently the narrative addresses them: Every HB8 woman who wears copious amounts of makeup is NOT psychopathic. Every woman who wears push up bras and learns to flirt is not psychopathic. Every woman who instinctively shit-tests all potential mates regardless of who they are, who tries to break and undermine your self-confidence/frame... who plays coy and makes you wait, LMR, bitch shields, and discusses how to manipulate you with friends or cosmo magazine... is not psychopathic. That's just nature.

But god forbid a guy learn how to fake one quality, such as confidence, that he doesn't already have. Regardless of whether he's trying to learn it or not.

[–]Rian_Stone2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

This here, basic economics. A plow horse cartel will never work, always a thirsty man who will cheat to get ahead at your expense

[–]nietzschethegreat 1 points [recovered]  (3 children) | Copy

You make some fair points, but some blatantly erroneous assumptions. I didn't word my post as well as I would have liked to, but there are still some semantics that are getting in the way of what we're disagreeing upon here.

But not bad for the individual male.

Wearing hats, jewelry, saying memorized lines, playing through routines, and pretending to be attractive when you aren't is terrible for you. You're wasting time when you could be developing true confidence and frame. Not to mention that "pick-up" in itself will never ever be able to replace genuine confidence, frame, and social acumen. Ever.

See, you're thinking and appealing to the feminine imperative right now. You're imposing arbitrary morality that you somehow owe it to women or society to EARN sex with justifications that don't really serve you, even though you say they do.

I am not appealing to any such "feminine imperative." I am holding men to a higher standard. I would rather see my gender become truly confident, high status men who know how to genuinely attract women instead of going to bootcamps, wearing flashy clothes, and saying a memorized line in a certain tone of voice to pretend they are more than they are. You're not allowing the man to become all they can be.

I make this reply not to debate pickup but to try to convince you that you're limiting and hurting only yourself through this self-imposed mindset, what some TRP users call "slave morality".

I know exactly what "slave morality" is, and I vehemently am in opposition to it. Hence my username. I'd know if I was succumbing to it.

To see how this is so, just notice how easy to poke a hole in your argument it is. Answer: why is pickup mutually exclusive to "True Male Sexual Strategy"? Why can't you work on your life goals while getting laid? Its a rationalization someone programmed into you that makes you self-sacrifice for society's sake, while believing otherwise.

You think a real man goes about attracting women by shying away from his genuine mission in life, failing to work towards real status, and denying his true value hierarchy? By placing women on a pedestal and working to "pick up" women who are inherently higher status than him? (This is inarguable—no matter what "pick-up" teaches, the ultimate focus is on the woman and the ultimate goal is to attract the woman.) By opening up "sets" and listening to "teachers" from "bootcamps" and wasting his money on meaningless crap? By learning how to become manipulative instead of becoming genuine? By constantly settling for less than he could reach (in terms of his own value) and not becoming all he could be?

If it matters to you at all, your competition has no qualms about faking attractiveness, gene pool be damned. See how differently the narrative addresses them: Every HB8 woman who wears copious amounts of makeup is NOT psychopathic. Every woman who wears push up bras and learns to flirt is not psychopathic. Every woman who instinctively shit-tests all potential mates regardless of who they are, who tries to break and undermine your self-confidence/frame... who plays coy and makes you wait, LMR, bitch shields, and discusses how to manipulate you with friends or cosmo magazine... is not psychopathic. That's just nature.

But god forbid a guy learn how to fake one quality, such as confidence, that he doesn't already have. Regardless of whether he's trying to learn it or not.

Forget this idea of psychopathy. Women are the selectors of Nature. All those things you listed—shit-testing, trying to break your self-confidence, playing coy and waiting, bitch shields, and discussing how to manipulate you—do you see the common link between them all?

They are all direct indicators of male status. Of a male's position on the dominance hierarchy.

There's no "psychopathy" or "manipulation" there. It's simply an evolutionary prerogative to screen for the highest value male.

The focus should always be on the man. TRP has its fault there. It focuses too much on women's shit-tests, reactions, messages, texts, behaviors, cheating, etc. You know what that all is? It's a reaction to your own status as a male. Everything a woman does is a secondary product to who you are, how she perceives your status.

Only men push forward in a competitive dominance hierarchy (females have theirs too, but it's minimally significant). Only men compete for true evolutionarily success. Only men have an innate desire to rise in status.

Once you realize that it's all on the man to become as high status as he possible can by rising up the male dominance hierarchy, you'll forget about women. They're just an unconscious measure of your progress.

[–]Endorsed ContributorWe_Are_Legion0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

Answer: why is pickup mutually exclusive to "True Male Sexual Strategy"? Why can't you work on your life goals while getting laid?

Look, I'm not gonna engage in all this chitchat. Address my question. It is not mutually exclusive.

And I want you to dispense with the strawman of hat-wearing pickup artists. Those don't exist. Probably never have besides the few guys following Mystery. The average self-actualizing man spinning plates and gaming as a hobby is the reality.

[–]Rian_Stone0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

You think a real man goes about attracting women by shying away from his genuine mission in life, failing to work towards real status, and denying his true value hierarchy?

I'll bite, you say his real mission MUST exclude sexual success... Why can that not be a mission? Why can missions not change over time?

They are all direct indicators of male status. Of a male's position on the dominance hierarchy.

Can you fight, and can you fuck. everything else has been automated, outsourced, or been given to women wholesale. Your search for supermarket masculinity will be fruitless.

Bringing home the bacon to a wife? Bacon is 3 dollar, she can do it

Being a good father? Half of women divorce you and get stepfather to do it. More aren't even bothering to ask you to join in.

workaholics building their empires? More coal for the fire boys

become as high status as he possible

follow through. why do you want status at all, for the sake of it? Or is it possibly because the princess is in another castle?

[–]Gargantuar011 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

TRP is about becoming leaders in a sense and not following one, You can steal ideas from intellectuals but just like inspiration to create art, take multiple sources. Use these as tools to becoming an ubermensch not a slave.

[–]Nergaal1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

I think one reality that TRP have a hard time truly digesting is that women have been doing the 80:20 rule since humans developed civilizations. When agriculture was invented, 1-in-17 males would have offsprings. That's it. Not 1-in-5. There were another 12 genetic dead-ends besides the initial 4 failures. 16 dudes would never get to raise kids for each one who would.

What should the 16 do? Cause lions fight to the death, and the winner kills any offspring from the previous king. It's an unstable solution for a civilization.

Advanced civilizations democratized the marketplace for males a bit, and for better or worse, probably the church was the most "equitable" period. It was a sort of brotherhood system, at least in part.

Smashing that system, has allowed females to SUBCONSCIOUSLY aim for that 1-in-17 extreme.

I think that Eric Weinstein? guy has an interesting perspective on psycopathy: it's actually a useful adaptation of the species, a correction tool. It is useful to have a small percentage of people who really want to kill if they get deployed in Iraq to serve the interests of "all".

Even if PUA is psychopathy, I genuinely think it is an adaptive/corrective tool to the constraints of the modern world.

Edit: sociopathy video: https://youtu.be/33Ftipn4fyI

[–]jibril_131 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

The frame you gave examples of is a perfect example of the feminine imperative. In order to obtain the masculine imperative from those examples, I attempted to invert the meaning of those statements as best I could: - Man up and if you see a woman with a child act like "daddy" to get her tingly and perhaps wet or at least somewhat moist! - Be the best man you can be! (Always be the best wingman for anyone you see is trying to get with a woman if you can tell that they are already emotionally invested in each other, otherwise the I think the feminine imperative will ensure that you're gonna have a bad time) - AF BB (sidebar) - Telling white lies is an Indicator of Interest in the direction of masculine to feminine

TL;DR Reid a book.

[–]Dtris1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

This post made me go back and review the others linked in the op. A few points and questions,

JP labeled the objective and the behavior as psychopathic, not the individual. This is a very important distinction. Behavior and objectives can be changed, people are not so easy to change. If you have a child who plays baseball and is terrible at batting, it will make a big difference whether you say, "You suck at batting," or "Your batting sucks." The relationship of the verbs is very important and can affect how someone thinks.

In his context the goal and means are done in a psychopathic way. Psychopaths devalue other individuals and do not care for rules and law.

TRP has stated many times that it has to be internalized. Posters on here are told often after field reports that they need to keep working to make it an internalized belief system. Is this not the same as saying that pick up techniques without the underlying belief are a veneer?

You have made a post castigating the audience for lack of critical thinking. Yet, you have interpreted what JP said to be improving male sexual strategy as psychopathic. He never said that in the video. TRP says to flip the script to make her qualify for you. Is this true or is it a superficial qualification?

Lastly his discussion was in a larger context of truth which sounded very fascinating. I thought what he said was similar to Models by Mark Manson. This was after the part about pickup artists. Am I mistaken about this similarity?

[–]splintyeastwood1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Most people on reddit are enpty headed soy sucking drones, more news at 11.

[–]justtenofusinhere1 point2 points  (7 children) | Copy

Good post, but something you said, I think, should be expanded:

Game isn't a parlor trick where a woman's panties drop and she's none the wiser. Game is a set of strategies and explicit behaviors that help complete god-dammed social retards from getting in their own way.

While game certainly includes strategies, it is much more than that. Game, as the name can imply, is much closer to a sport. It is an entire discipline which requires work and skill sets. Much like many early sports encapsulated human contests to take the life and death aspects out while still harnessing the natural energies, game does exactly the same.

A person has to know his own strengths and weaknesses. He has to develop and build skill sets. He has to apply them daily to see what works and what fails. It should be thought of not as "this is how I get laid" but as "this is how I approach the psychological aspect of humanity while developing and maximizing those aspects in myself."

Game isn't about getting a girl's panties off, it's about getting people to do what you need them to do in a consistently productive way. It takes self awareness which leads to empathy and sympathy (you've got to know and understand what and how other's think). It takes knowledge and understanding to allow for critical analysis. And it takes planning to execute.

Game is not about being a psychopath, it is about being the ultimate cognizant human. Just as an achitect must understand building materials, engineering, geometry and logistics to build a sky scraper instead of just a hovel, so must a person understand game to truly build a life instead of just an existence.

EDIT: To clarify--I...mention empathy and sympathy, but only to the degree that having those skills gives a game practitioner more information and more options. It was not meant to suggest that we should elevate other's positions/emotions but that by being aware of them we can better utilize them.

[–]1iLLprincipLeS3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy

Game is not about being a psychopath, it is about being the ultimate cognizant human. Just as an achitect must understand building materials, engineering, geometry and logistics to build a sky scraper instead of just a hovel, so must a person understand game to truly build a life instead of just an existence.

Probably the best TRP quote ever, the defining quote found in a post about the sub reaching 100 subscribers:

"In a game of chess, do I politely not take out the oppositions' queen in hopes not to offend or win the game?"


Full context:

Mastering Game

Game is an important portion of a sexual strategy. A lot of you probably came here from seduction and are probably wondering why we'd need a new subreddit if one dedicated to game already exists. The reason is simple: Game is a facet of The Red Pill's sexual strategy. Determining good game is impossible to do so without first understanding the context given by The Red Pill's framework. Something I keep seeing over on the seduction subreddit is a problem taking over most relationship and sex forums: the desire to feminize the discussion (basically making it sound politically correct if read by a female).

Yes, game got a bad reputation from girls who demonize manipulation. This is because game is an effective strategy against their own sexual strategy. I believe women's opposition to game can be attributed to the unconscious factors in women's sexual strategy.

When women started becoming vocal about their opposition to game, that's when men decided it would be necessary to make game more politically correct. "Oh, we're not here to manipulate women to have sex with us- we're here to become better men!"

And thus, the female imperative took over game. When men think they must define their own sexual strategy in a way that best delivers results to the female sexual strategy, you know your own strategy will suffer! In a game of chess, do I politely not take out the oppositions' queen in hopes not to offend or win the game?

[–]justtenofusinhere0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

I understand what you are saying. I don't understand how it applies to what I said. Nothing in my reply showed the slightest concern for women. I did mention empathy and sympathy, but only to the degree that having those skills gives a game practitioner more information and more options. It was not meant to suggest that we should elevate other's positions/emotions but that by being aware of them we can better utilize them.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy

I think you're confusing 'Game' and 'Pick-Up Artistry'. Consider Ted Bundy, the serial killer, since we're using the term 'psychopathy'.

Socially, I'm sure he had great game - by all accounts I've read, he was very likeable, attractive, plenty of girlfriends and eventually a wife. Active in University, involved in politics, outwardly appearing to be a functional young man doing well with his life.

You could argue whether this was actual game or some more 'learned' behavior set that he had to employ more like PUA, but I personally believe he had genuine game.

Then there's the other side to his life - serial killing. I think the existence of Profilers qualifies the idea that serial killing is a framework that can be predicted, mapped. The killers have patterns, habits, modus operandi. They often use the same lines and schemes to lure victims (think Buffalo Bill asking Catherine for help loading his van in Silence Of The Lambs). They go through the same (sometimes evolving) rituals after that with their victim.

That same idea of framework is how I see PUA - it's not about teaching you to be a social person who can exist in his own right in a given setting. It's how you'd teach a robot or piece of software to exist in that setting, with routines and scripts and actions that are applied in the style of a flowchart. We only know of 'negging' and all of the other specific techniques because the behavior was observed in guys that could successfully interact with women without needing coaching. It was then broken down into sub-routines to be sold off to those who didn't have them naturally.

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

Some guys are so clueless they need to memorize a few steps to see what success looks like.

Practice only makes you better if you're improving.

The crushing failure makes practice much harder.

That does not make one a psychopath.

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

Sure, everyone will need to memorize a few steps.

I haven't studied PUA seriously. Read 'The Game' by Neil Strauss, looked into a bunch of his and Mystery's stuff, and a bit of early Tyler Durden (RSD) to see how his stuff presented versus how Strauss describes him in the book (coincidentally, labels him as very robotic, which I think is what we're getting at in using the term 'psychopathy').

What was apparent in their world at that time is that it wasn't about teaching guys to be naturally more relaxed and confident around women. It was more about having a bunch of scripts that you link together, like the Best Friends Routine (google it). That, and a bunch of other routines are used a lot throughout the book. Strauss himself even talked about how the LA scene became over-saturated with aspiring PUA's all running the same routines in the same clubs on the same women.

I read the book back in about 2007 and was really impressed, but started reading it again recently through a more Red Pill lens, and was actually quite creeped out. If you haven't read it, it's well worth it, regardless of the previous sentence.

[–]justtenofusinhere0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

How it is used has nothing to do with what it is.

[–]Red_Faust1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

This is why Whisper is one of my favorite authors, ever (meaning, not of TRP but in general).

He's always bashing in people's skulls the importance of learning how to think, instead of what to think.

However, these kind of messages always fly over people's heads (ask me how I know).

Today I was trying to bash into the head of a particularly thick-headed woman (IKR?) that to make money it's not enough to desire to make money, but to deliver value that an employer, or clients, will want to pay you for. I could as well have been talking about the reproductive cycle of the malaysian lemur, since she as a broken record kept repeating that she wanted to do some youtube videos to earn money. Fortunately it was a short convo and I went my way.

The most critical quality for a person, IMO, is neither intelligence, nor hard work, nor honesty nor any of the typically touted (except persistence: being gritty is a close second). The best quality to have is adaptability, because with that you can allow and prod yourself to change to have success in any endeavor.

Open mindedness is adaptability of the mind and beliefs.

And so many people are so closed minded it's unbelievable.

[–]TheseNthose1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

"The point in question was JP's insistence that pickup is an inherently psychopathic behavior, and that's because individuals matter. The individual woman matters."

You only listened and understood a fraction of what he's talking about.

[–]Zech4riah1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

This is great. Like how many subs or generally forums in the internet teach critical thinking in this kind of illustrative way? Making a mistake and feeling like an idiot goes a long way and really sticks in memory. I think this critical thinking exam hammered some lessons to many guys heads.

My pattern of thoughts when I read the posts:

Interesting, a mod post > Ok, what is this shit. This doesn't sound like redpill even tho I know that some ECs really despise cold approach > This isn't providing any useful. I just gonna close the tab... > Nah...wait, gonna check the comments if anyone else spotted the weirdness > Oh right...now I understand.

[–]BuddhistSC1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

JBP has never put any thought into the dating world. He's been in a relationship with 1 woman continuously since he was a young child. He legitimately has zero information or experience on the topic. He spoke very poorly of MGTOW and had to retract it later after he realized he jumped the gun.

He's just completely outside of his depth on the sexual strategy department. He'd be wise to not talk about it until he's done some research, but I think he doesn't realize anyone exists outside of the BP dating scheme and caricatures of PUAs.

In other words, he doesn't even know that TRP / male sexual strategy even exists in the first place. He doesn't know what he doesn't know, and doesn't even know there's all that much he could not know on this topic. Makes it hard for him to not say stupid shit.

[–]LaniusTheLancaster1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

Game and pickup is weird and wrong. You should only use "honesty" when meeting women.

What's wrong with this idea? If you are honest and authentic and unashamed about your sexuality you will be immediately attractive to women even if they turn you down for whatever reason. All you need is sexual honesty. The problem with "game" and "pickup" is that it's inauthentic. It's try hard; it's fake. I have no problem morally with this and I do not speak from a moral standpoint. I speak from a purely practical standpoint. I'm saying it is more practical to be honest with women you want to fuck with than to DHV or try any weird game shit (although it will work on many girls if done properly). Just look her in the eyes and say "I am sexually attracted to you and I want to get to know you." If you can do that her panties will melt. You don't even have to say that exact phrase, saying anything will work as long as you're honest. Alternatively just stare at her unapologetically. She'll get the message. If you're nervous or don't think you're good enough for the woman, that's another issue and you won't get her no matter how "honest" you are. But don't talk down on being honest with women. It's the most direct, masculine thing to do.

[–]Koryphae_2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

But you wouldnt walk up on a stranger walking on a street and say that you want to be sexually with her. Thats just weird. Your Value must be astronomical to pull that off. Thats what Game is for, I think. Interacting with women in the language they understand. What is wrong with that?

[–]Omnidempotent3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

The confusion that a lot of newbies and casuals have with tradcons like JBP is that tradcons can sound very red pill when they are criticizing today's Matrix, the upside-down clown world of feminism, leftism, cosmopolitanism, etc. Like TRP, tradcons stand outside the current system, look in on it, and are not happy with what they see. But they diverge from TRP in their intent and prescribed solutions. They push "traditional" values, religion, conservatism, and so on. All of these things are part of the old system, a previous version of the Matrix to which they want to go back. So the newbies need to be careful with tradcons: JBP and his friends do earnestly want to pull you out of today's Matrix, but only so they can reboot the system and plug you back in to their version of it. That is the critical mistake a lot of JBP fanboys are making: they think they're are being red-pilled but really they are just swallowing a different flavor of blue pill.

[–]uwey0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Everyone worship something.

Simply because people don’t take pain and suffering seriously, like to have some thoughts as back of your head type of door as emergency exit.

Embrace the suck, and let life teach you the brutality for being alive. If you can’t be smart then this world had no mercy for stupid.

Win at your own account, and only advice I always share is simple.

“Don’t try.”

[–]expansion1010 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

The four statements you provided. I can tell the first, third, and fourth ones are definitely in a feminine frame. But what makes the second so? I understand that it's a vague statement, but it also advocates for you to be the best you no matter what. Sounds masculine.

[–]Nergaal0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

You cannot escape blue pill thinking by simply finding another god to worship

Cypher's dillema

[–]RedDespair0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Sexual strategy aside, I don't know why but JP reminds me of that grey haired mad scientist character in "Rick and Morty". That cartoon has become so popular that it's insane.

I guess the portrayal of a grey haired figure inspires wisdom in younger generations. Desperate to follow a role model, one teaches to be apathetic to reality (nihilists) while the other to cope with it.

[–]1sezamus0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

280k subscribers... it had to be like that sooner or later. The more people, the lower average inteligence of a user. And the rules are so simple... so fuckin' simple, like "read the sidebar", "don't insult other user", etc.. How hard that can be?

[–]zyqkvx0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

The part about PUAs being psychopaths. There's an elephant in the middle of the room made from 100% irony. Women's entire existance is PUA. Instead of sex their prize is power, money, leisure, status, popularity. Women's first metric of truth is they have to look good awhile they say it. The social logistics they use cuts against anyone else's interest involved. And why shouldn't they? Awhile boys are squeezing mud between their fingers and thinking, "shit I got to figure out this stuff and make some money." girls are fluttering around smiling and seeing others as locks to pick. They aren't primarily after sex. Men can't imagine all things aren't mirrored. If you focus on what they want you will see the level of PUA they exhibit at at 12 years old is higher than most men will be in their life. As Chris Rock said in the 90s, "Everything about a woman is a lie". They mimic being sexual aroused by putting on lipstick. And they leave these sexual switches flipped permanently on like a light switch. Now men are trying to figure out the most basic rules and called psychopaths.

Also: feel free to comment on my writing style. I think I come off as a dick sometimes and am missing something.

[–]monadyne0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

This should go without saying but any time somebody makes an appeal to some greater good or cultural norm that isn't directly addressing your strategy or goals, you should proceed cautiously and ask yourself, who am I serving with this advice?

All of this seems to suggest that the only acceptable strategy or goals TRP supports are those which accrue social power, prestige or pussy. To some of us, there is far more to being a man that the successful pursuit of such terrestrial rewards. For one thing, the pursuit takes on an additional level of meaning when a man learns to discover and then occupy his authentic self, leaving behind the projections, expectations and opinions of others to become an actual individual. The antithesis of that is to follow the constrictive doctrines of a hide-bound ideology authored by others. An independent man accesses information, assesses it carefully for himself, then accepts what suits his journey and, without wasting energy on value judgments, leaves behind the rest.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

I gave the community a second chance

The second-chance article showed a huge divide between the medium and the message. It was you, RPS, presenting a very not-red-pill point of view. The message ended up confusing... "why would he write this? this makes no sense".

I didn't comment because it just made no sense. I suspected you were very drunk or your account was hacked.

Be on the lookout for people framing advice with the feminine imperative

This is hard because we all have an innate preference for women. It makes it hard to spot the underlying female preference in what we're told, especially when it's universal.

Partly also it's what we want. We WANT to be ourselves. We WANT to be loved as we are. Most (even here) would prefer monogamy to its alternatives.

It's very hard to spot that "be a good guy, work hard, and you'll naturally just find a woman who loves and respects you" is a deep fucking problem. It sounds right. It feels right. It's what we want. And it's utterly self-serving on the part of the women who say it and the men who repeat it.

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

The medium was the message.

I wanted people to disagree with the point, regardless of who says it.

Debate the point, not the man.

JP is apparently a trigger word for some of these kiddos, so I left him out of it. I wanted people to disagree with me. And some did. I got some quality replies out of it too.

[–]BostonPillParty0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Well I fell stupid for defending JBP so strongly. Amazing write up, I need to keep this in mind and not fall foley to the mistake of accepting his negative thoughts on game.

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

Your bit on the evolution of secondary sexual characteristics as being presumably primarily driven by female selection is incorrect. There is, for example, a species of primates in which the males are sexually distinct from females, but only the males that drive other males away have sex. Females in this species are not choosey.

[–]1randomperson1233210 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy

Peterson just states his truth. What he says is true, just very limited. Some people just disliked it when you called him out on this.

The misinformation lies within the reasoning behind some people's initial interest in pickup and "game".
- On one hand we have people who were burned in the past and seek "revenge" or had very limited social experience and success in relationships, thus being totally uncalibrated when interacting with others (they miss the timing all the time when doing PUA routings, thus appearing creepy/aggressive/etc.).
- On the other hand we have cluster b personality disordered people who use manipulation tactics on others, in order to feel better for themselves. (seducing just for the gratification, sneaking abortion pills on their woman to drop their kid in the making, secretly bearing someone else's child and making someone else believe it's his, etc.).
Peterson misses the functional spectrum of people who get informed about pickup, game, seduction, and the likes. Essentially, he misses most of it, the one he is also included in.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

his truth

Blech

[–]1randomperson1233210 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

From your point of view it's cringe worthy. It's noteworthy however, that he does motivate lots of people to work on themselves and introduces them to relationship dynamics.

Sugar coating what's difficult to accept is a viable way of changing minds. Going from A to Z while skipping most of the in-between is a recipe for disaster. On top of that, it's very difficult to unlearn what you have learned. Add on top how hard the red pill has become to swallow on modern societies... It's an uphill battle.

So as long as the recievers use critical thinking they will find their path. As for the rest, it's not the sheeps that change the world.

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

People in labour camps can be highly motivated too. I mean in the context of motivation there is no difference between a guard with a gun and Tony Robbins, they both motivate people to put the work in, so why are you against someone who would motivate others?

[–]Rabbit-Punch0 points1 point  (24 children) | Copy

Please tell me how being religious is being terribly mistaken, you typical science atheist.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 5 points6 points  (23 children) | Copy

If you were born in the woods and never met somebody to tell you about religion, would you be religious?

If you later discovered civilization and met Christians, Jews, and Muslims, which would you connect with? Why?

[–]Rabbit-Punch-2 points-1 points  (21 children) | Copy

If you were born in the woods and never met somebody to tell you about religion, would you be religious?

Yes, you would be religious probably. In your isolation you would probably develop a sense of transcendent purpose, which is completely natural for people to do since its been happening for the whole history of humanity. Religion just doesn’t mean organized religion. Watch more JP if you really don’t get it.

You seem to have this idea in your head and are twisting around what JP already said to fit your narrative. JP was talking about a specific type of PUA, he isn’t saying that you shouldn’t learn anything about gaming women. Why do you have this obsession with this idea you have created?

Also for your last question, probably Judaism or Christianity. These two religions reveal truths about the human condition that I have not been able to find in other areas of literature.

[–]Senior Endorsed Contributormax_peenor2 points3 points  (13 children) | Copy

develop a sense of transcendent purpose, 

Recovering Catholic here: what is a religion is a topic covered at length in the church academic circles--clearly these guys need hobbies. The concept of religion didn't even arise until the 16th and 17th centuries. Culture, race and beliefs were generally all smashed together in one sort of identity for people, which is why most communities only had a single set of divine beliefs. Everything else was literally foreign to them, often a source of xenophobia. Of course, once you had blue water navies and the speed of travel accelerated dramatically, the world got a lot smaller and more and more different peoples started interacting. And thus new area of study.

Ugg Betarocks may see a shooting star and decide it is some sort of divine, flaming astral goat that makes his spear fly better, but that isn't a religion. A religion needs one (or both) of two things: dogma and worship. The former is obviously not at work here, because that needed some sort of centralized identity for the religion, like that hairy old guy with a really big mask and a big stick he would shake at you to make the spirits help your pecker get harder. The second has a much lower bar, as even Jesus said when two people came together and prayed, that counted as a church--the inviolable symbol of a religion. I won't go into why sandal-boi said that, because he was taking an obvious point, worship means religion, and using it for political means--but that's a topic for a different day. If Ugg Betarocks pulled his pecker a dozen times to gain the favor of space goat, he was not worshiping--he was just masturbating. However if he formed a circle-jerk, he created a ritual and that ritual is when it becomes worship and that worship is when it becomes a religion.

A religion always has an identity. Every single one has a name, even if it's given by an insane person. Identity is worthless if you don't share them with anyone; you are just that crazy bum yelling at the bus seat because it won't give you a cracker--and you have no idea what his name is. The whole purpose of an identity is to share it with others. Likewise the whole reason for a ritual is to share it with others. You put identity together with ritual (and with it worship) and you create a religion, and because of those two things the religion does something magical: it spreads.

And let's circle back to the incels in robes that spend lots of time thinking about this stuff and why they defined a religion this way. If no one else participates, it isn't a religion. It's just some loner jerking off in the forest because he saw a shiny object. Or, you know, some overweight, unshaven 26 year old sitting in his parents basement jerking off between watching the shiny video game...

[–]Rabbit-Punch1 point2 points  (12 children) | Copy

Recovering Catholic indeed, I am as well. The Catholic church is very good at producing atheists. Anyways, your religion is what you believe. I believe the academic definition of religion isn’t a useful definition. I distinguish between organized religions and an individuals religious/spiritual beliefs. Of course people get offended when I say everyone is religious, but we can just say philosophy of life (same shit). Everyone has a philosophy of life.

[–]Senior Endorsed Contributormax_peenor0 points1 point  (11 children) | Copy

I'm not an atheist; I'm just not a christian, nor do I pretend to understand shit I can't see. For a most part, that helped my relationship with the church immensely, which if you spend a lot of time with really drunk priests that fuck some of the congregation's wives (yes, some of the Irish ones that aren't fat actually like women) when no one is looking, that's pretty much their opinion too. Alas, I'm no longer welcome there because, well, enjoy the decline.

Beliefs are not a religion for the reasons I pointed out, which would be one reason people get offended. Let's be honest though; most get offended because you either aren't singing the company song or they really can't handle free thinking and it make them surly.

Fuck them. I think on that part we can agree?

[–]Rabbit-Punch1 point2 points  (10 children) | Copy

I just think we risk throwing the baby out with the bath water by disregarding Christianity. Churches have failed for the most part. They are uninspiring at best and hypocritical at worst. Free thinking is extremely important for forming your religious/spiritual/philosophical beliefs because religion/spirituality/philosophy is extraordinarily personal. With that being said there is so much truth about the human condition that Christianity reveals and its ideas truly have transformed the West and brought us where we are. I don’t know if churches will even be a part of religion in the future, but by definition they are supposed to be dogmatic because if they are too liberal with their ideas they risk losing all structure.

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp0 points1 point  (8 children) | Copy

Churches have failed for the most part.

They played a role when the Church itself was a source of news, information and knowledge. Once we "invented" science, religions, instead of adopting and adapting, decided to take deliberate contrarian positions to BASIC scientific facts or even logical observations that took a new meaning b/c we could finally explain it through hard science. That stubborn, contratian position is why most religions in educated parts of the world are in decline: people can clearly see that their dogmas don't stand up to basic logic and criticism. This in turn leads to the "sacred" not being fullfilled which drives people away b/c they can see this is not faith or sacred ritual but a show with bad writing and bad acting.

https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2018/01/11/cringe-and-the-design-of-sacred-experiences/

[–]Rabbit-Punch0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy

durrr religion was a failed science. don’t be a sheep. science cannot replace religion since science cannot determine proper morality. morality is just feel good mumbo jumbo though right? nothing really matters anyways we are just tiny specks in the universe durrr

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy

Just a few days ago there was another study released confirming that small children can distinguish between good and bad actions done by themselves, can distinguish good and bad actions done by others, have built in empathy and can "ostracize" person that does the bad deeds. Children as in 1-2yo mind you.

As you can see, no religion is needed, science can and will explain your religious mumbo-jumbo, (hard) science will probably explain the psychology, psychiatry, sociology, perhaps even parts of philosophy too.

So yeah, pray and repent, because the judgement day is coming.

[–]Senior Endorsed Contributormax_peenor0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I just think we risk throwing the baby out with the bath water by disregarding Christianity.

Your thinking is not flawed. Your thinking is just going in a direction counter to the state of the world around us. The baby has already been thrown out and he's in the pipes heading to the sewage treatment plant. JP thinks if he snakes the clogged shitter he might be able to get more shit flowing again.

It's too late. That civilization is gone now.

Its ok for you to believe in god, jesus or space goat. None of that will alter where we are heading as a species. The genie will not go back into the bottle.

That said, who knows what happens down the road. This has all happened before and we all ended up back in Sunday church eating the body and drinking the blood of our messiah.... Well, ok then.

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

a sense of transcendent purpose

Feel good mumbo-jumbo.

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

Feel good mumbo-jumbo.

Exactly.

[–]Zech4riah2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy

Even tho this is something natural, you are still mistaken if you are religious?

If you naturally develop sense of transcendent purpose or feeling of a greater power, it still doesn't make religion (or your feeling) factually right?

[–]Rabbit-Punch1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy

Define factual? There is nothing factual about any moral system. Morals are based on values. Values and facts are two separate things. I believe murder is wrong for example. There is nothing factual about my statement. I also believe humanity is good and worth preserving. Again, nothing factual. You can’t use science to answer these moral questions, you use religion/philosophy.

[–]Zech4riah-2 points-1 points  (1 child) | Copy

Exactly, no facts to tell that the god exists. There is nothing factual in these things. That's why religion at it's core is a mistake.

You can be moral and have "good values" without religion.

[–]Rabbit-Punch0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I don’t think you understood me at all. Are you Indian or is there a language barrier here? Get out of here with that weak logic.

[–]nervouslaughterhehe0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

If you were born in the woods and never met somebody to tell you about religion, would you be religious?

Of course.

Early religions were basically people looking at stuff like the big fireball in the sky or lightning bolts and concluding something way way way bigger than them put it there.

They didn't have concepts like "fusion" or "potential energy". The most logical image would be a big dude lighting up the sun or throwing lightning bolts. And now you have a God. We think in metaphors.

It's almost unimaginable you wouldn't be religious if you were born in the woods.

If you later discovered civilization and met Christians, Jews, and Muslims, which would you connect with? Why?

You'd connect with whichever one had the closest metaphors to the ones in your head.

[–]EdmondDaunts0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Pick up may seem like it is psychopathic if you look at the definition of psychopathic behaviour. But then so are rape accusations and abuse accusations in divorce courts. Putting the emphasis only on men promotes the female imperative as you say.

Stoic behaviour could be seen as psychopathic. Many unusual practices could. But it’s the intent and purpose that he is alluding to and overreaching on. As if even incorporating these practices a little into your life implies psychopathy.

Use what works. Discard the rest. Evaluate after some time. Reset.

[–]SelfTaughtPiano0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Be on the lookout for people framing advice with the feminine imperative

This should go without saying but any time somebody makes an appeal to some greater good or cultural norm that isn't directly addressing your strategy or goals, you should proceed cautiously and ask yourself, who am I serving with this advice?

Can you spot the frame?

OK, I was wrong. I understand your point now.

[–]deville050 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I like peterson and the things he says. Nothing he has said yet has got me to go..Hey that's not right. I don't care if he said something g about pick up artists...cuz well he isn't a pick up artist so I am neither offended or for it. I don't care...

That being said I have met quite a few guys who do pick up and are sociopaths. Probably because that community attracts those kind of people too. It's not gonna change my mind into thinking that all pick up artists are sociopaths.

But so does RP attract all kinds of people including people who can't distinguish thoughts and ideas from personality and character.

In any case maybe later he will apologise like he did about mgtow. In any case.. don't stress over it man. You are allowed to disagree with any pov and present your own pov

[–]CharCanDo0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

See Ben Shapiro’s defense of James Gunn.

A lot of these famous “red pill traditionalists” currently collecting on their payday are really just intellectual cowards playing he centrist game. They sit firmly in the middle of the Overton window and petulantly smirk at whatever corner is currently getting the most unfavorable attention.

They have a slightly more multidimensional feel of the pulse of public consciousness than over-40s who rely on Fox News to satiate their rebel instinct. And whatever benefit that would be to others is quite decidedly outweighed by the personal monetary gain that they have managed to fenegle from it.

These types are stiff necked, moral cowards on two counts - because they fraudulently purport their own bravery as they collect their shekels from the massive contingent of right wingers desperate for red meat. And to them they give purple cabbage.

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

Immediate downvote from faux internet Chad who found the daddy he needs in Peterson.

[–]flownthedark0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

The fact that JP has a daughter, as do I, has to play a role in his beliefs. It is a strange thing to understand female nature and yet have a little girl you love and want to raise to be better than the wymen around us.

[–]Skee0130 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

Tbh if you started calling it "acting like a normal fucking person with average social skills" instead of "game" it would sound way less douchey and retarded

[–]BiteAndThrow2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

But longer. Hence, game or awalt

[–]StudntRdyTeachrApear0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

A much needed realignment. Thank you for your service.

[–]A-Mi-Manera 1 points [recovered]  (7 children) | Copy

This post has really been the first post I’ve ever read on this subreddit that made me think “wow, OP is a whiny crybaby who wants everyone to agree with him.”

I don’t agree with every post I read on this sub by any means but most of the time I think most posts have something interesting to contribute — something I hadn’t thought of before or some experience I haven’t personally had that’s useful in some way, even if the conclusions drawn at the end don’t align with my way of thinking about things.

The reason your second post fell flat on its face and didn’t generate any compelling discussion is because it wasn’t quality. You gave no context and your hand typed transcript was grammatically retarded.

Anyways - “And following JP's advice, anything that makes you better at attracting a mate is psychopathic.”

That’s not what he’s saying at all — let’s take a look at the ideas here, not the man or whatever it is you keep mentioning.

Jordan Peterson says in the video that PUAs are psychopaths because they ignore the individuality of women. When picking up a woman at a bar, it doesn’t matter who the girl is as long as there is in fact a girl. You misinterpreted this as somehow being “you have to treat every woman like a special snowflake and anything you do to develop your ‘game’ is really just an exercise in psychopathy.”

What Peterson is much more likely trying to say is something along the lines of part of Kant’s categorical imperative, which states it is immoral to use another human being as simply a means to an end. Essentially, you shouldn’t go to a bar and try to use women solely to get sexual pleasure for yourself.

The immediate redpill response would be one of two things — “women use men as a means to an end ALL THE TIME,” and the other would be something about how society is falling apart and you might as well do anything to enjoy it because the rules have all been broken and all bets are off now (sorry Kant!).

However, just because women may use men as a means to an end doesn’t make it necessarily okay for us to do the same. Most redpillers would argue it is, but Peterson’s ideology isn’t redpill. I personally think that there are ways to approach women while not simply using them as a means for sex or whatever else you want. In fact, I think this approach is wrong and is simply setting you up for frustration.

Obviously, Petersons interpretation of a PUA isn’t necessarily correct — he seems to be watching a bunch of strange, gimmicky YouTube men who are vaguely desperate and really are simply using women as a means to an end. They’re dishonest and willing to throw away everything that makes themselves who they are in their pursuit of sexual gratification. This, to me, is in fact psychopathic.

However, Peterson is not criticizing what you refer to as game, or general sexual strategy. He’s not saying you shouldn’t approach women, or that approaching lots of them is necessarily bad. He is saying that you shouldn’t just go up to any woman at a bar simply because she’s a woman at a bar and you happen to know she has a vagina you might be able to shove your dick into. You should go up to a woman because you are attracted to her, you’re interested in possibly having some fun flirting, possibly having sex — i.e. various possibilities — but that you’re also not going to throw your individuality out the window in pursuit of some pussy.

Developing your ability to talk to women without coming off like you are on the spectrum is not psychopathic, and that’s not what Peterson is saying here. Using another person (girl at bar) as a means to your end (sex), and trying to overly strategize what Peterson would likely consider unique encounters is psychopathic in his eyes because you’re not going to be enjoying any of it up till the sex. He doesn’t like the idea of these scripted, vaguely robotic vaguely salesmen like pickup artists running around trying to be something they’re not, trying to deceive women into having sex with them without being able to enjoy women for their personalities and capabilities (and perhaps you’d argue women don’t have any but that, to me personally, is beyond ludicrous).

On a final note, I’d like to say that if you believe the true you is some autistic man who trips over his words when talking to women if he doesn’t have some underlying strategy to rely upon, you’ve gotta work on yourself a bit.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy

If you remember hurling insults to other members instead of discussing the merits of the ideas, perhaps now is a good time to make a comment on this thread and discuss what you learned.

..

Your reply...

This post has really been the first post I’ve ever read on this subreddit that made me think “wow, OP is a whiny crybaby who wants everyone to agree with him.”

Gone.

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

Oh man, I already banned you for doing exactly what this post was warning about.. but man you really have a lot to unpack here.

However, just because women may use men as a means to an end doesn’t make it necessarily okay for us to do the same.

Of course- women can maximize their strategy, but we must appeal to a nebulous higher authority that coincidentally limits our ability to maximize our strategy.

it is immoral to use another human being as simply a means to an end. Essentially, you shouldn’t go to a bar and try to use women solely to get sexual pleasure for yourself.

Why?

I personally think that there are ways to approach women while not simply using them as a means for sex or whatever else you want.

But that isn't really the point, is it? The point is before you move to step 2 (whether that be sex, relationships, or whatever) you first need to succeed at step 1. Which is being selected by a woman (that is, being attractive enough to be selected).

So what happens when the first woman you approach turns you down? You gotta approach another woman. How many times do you get rejected before you become immoral?

He is saying that you shouldn’t just go up to any woman at a bar simply because she’s a woman at a bar and you happen to know she has a vagina you might be able to shove your dick into. You should go up to a woman because you are attracted to her, you’re interested in possibly having some fun flirting, possibly having sex — i.e. various possibilities — but that you’re also not going to throw your individuality out the window in pursuit of some pussy.

I don't think many PUAs were in the habit of approaching women they weren't attracted to.

You're pretending that banter or other connections are somehow more meaningful than sex. That operates within the frame of the feminine imperative that works hard to make this about the individual and about special soul magic, all in an attempt to knock down your sexual strategy a few pegs.

When you make an appeal to morality, you gotta wonder, whose fucking morality are we appealing to? The one society has conditioned us to believe in?

And yes, I banned you for the personal attack on a post specifically outlining why we're going to ban people for personal attacks. Clever move.

[–]Endorsed ContributorFeralRed2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

So, awalt is both wrong and immoral.

Gotcha.

You every been on this sub before?

Also, it is RPS's sub... he gets to steer the ship wherever he wants. Course corrections are important. Start a sub yourself on a controversial topic, get 270,000 subscribers and don't mod it at all... see how long it takes to devolve into chaos.

I agree that JBP is not redpill. That's the problem. If you're not part of the solution....muddy waters.

[–]1iLLprincipLeS4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

Statistics for kids raised by single mothers shows all manner of dysfunction (poverty, mental illness, crime) for kids raised by single mothers. e a kid alone. But the sheep don't see it like that, they start making all these wild accusations that the father was probably abusive or violent and that's why she raised the kid alone. It's presumed the mother is a victim of circumstance even though 99% of the time she created the circumstances she's in not only for herself, but for her kid(s.) And it's presumed the father is an asshole, but most the time he was a horny guy begged not to use a condom and told she was on the pill when she wasn't. So she gets pregnant and keeps the kid. Sometimes these guys don't even know they have a kid until they get a child support notice out of thin air. Then the poor guy gets fucking berated for being a deadbeat when all he did was fuck a woman under the presumption it was recreational sex and that no baby would be born.

If bitches are deceiving guys into fatherhood, and then crying victim when it backfires because he refuses to defer to her deceit, tough shit for her. The only victim here as far as I'm concerned is the child. She tricked the guy she fucked, tried to force him to become a parent, and when he wouldn't, tried to ruin his reputation and extract wealth. That is some fucked up shit. But hardly anybody sees it from that perspective, do they? Naturally, bitches be crazy and society is all jumped up on the sycophancy of feminism and the woman are wonderful effect, so she's blameless and he's just a cunt. People are so single-minded and intent on blaming the father it's unbelievable. If your father is never there for you growing up, there's a good fucking chance that's your mothers fault. But no, everyone acts like she's this marvellous creature for forcing her kid(s) to struggle for THEIR ENTIRE LIVES. And that the guy is probably some dark triad woman/kid abusing asshole. It's total fucking bullshit. Very few men are violent or abusive, that's complete lying utter horseshit used to smear the male name and justify the child abuse that is raising kids without a father.

No, the truth is, mummy was somebody's plate/one night stand and thought it would be a wise idea to not use protection AND THEN keep the kid. Her body, her choice, right? Does this oft gloated feminist principle not fucking extend to the responsibility of giving and raising life too? It makes me sick how everybody rallies to the aid of single mothers and exclaims how hard they have it and how everyone should feel sorry for them. Fuck that. Fuck them. They had a choice didn't they? I mean a whore has a fucking choice to take a pill, or get an implant or terminate. Or a million other things. The kid had no fucking choice to be born and go through all the dysfunction that awaits it. The kid is a total innocent and the mother, a cunt. I reserve all my sympathy for the boys and (to some extent, the girls) who grow up fatherless and fucking despise the child-abusing fucks that single mothers are. They are total fucking scum contributing to the complete and utter degeneracy of our society morally, spiritually, socially and economically. Total fucking scum. Again, it is total bullshit that the huge amount of kids who have no father all had asshole fathers who abused the mother/kid when most men in society are complete fucking betas. That's just not plausible. This is simple female blame-shifting mixed with misandry.

[–]modTheRedPike[M] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

The reason your second post fell flat on its face and didn’t generate any compelling discussion is because it wasn’t quality. You gave no context and your hand typed transcript was grammatically retarded.

hahahaha It's our job to make you think critically about something that is clearly in need of critical thinking. And if we don't set it up properly, you'll be left playing with your own shit and posting spergy and stupid comments. Whoa boy.

Can I, /u/redpillschool, pretty please?!?! I've been a good boy.

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

I already nabbed him. Literally in a post that ends with

If you remember hurling insults to other members instead of discussing the merits of the ideas, perhaps now is a good time to make a comment on this thread and discuss what you learned.

But stay on your road of blind denial, ad hominem, and appeals to authority, and you will be swiftly removed.

and he opens with a personal insult.

Also- I didn't hand type it. Just copy-pasted from youtube transcript.

[–]Endorsed ContributorKeffirLime0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Firstly no one here is endorsing PUA, simply criticizing JP's take on them.

When picking up a woman at a bar, it doesn’t matter who the girl is as long as there is in fact a girl

This is not how PUA approach woman(I dont know if any one approaches woman with this mentality), their whole gimmick is using certain techniques to obtain a woman you are attracted to.

you shouldn’t go to a bar and try to use women solely to get sexual pleasure for yourself

This is an issue of morality, TRP doesn't deal in this.

All encounters are somewhat transactional. e.g If i take her on a few dates to get to know her and then have sex with her, same goal, different process.

Otherwise if we were truly only interested in her intellect/personality guys would be chatting to pam the whale just as much as Sally the model.

PUA are just getting straight to the point without wasting too much of anyone's time. And once again nothing is stopping a woman from not fucking a guy she just met in a bar.

because she’s a woman at a bar and you happen to know she has a vagina you might be able to shove your dick into

Once again no one is using this logic,not even pick up artists, see my earlier point.

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

I only remember some well supported back and forth argumentation regarding his ideas. Who cares about the rest?

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

I wouldn't call this quality:

Mom admits to willed incompetence.

She disagrees with

-staying at home and cooking food. It's too much to ask.

or

-providing all the money

Agrees to do part of everything. Sounds like inefficient garbage

lol. This isn't men's fight. It's women's. and we shouldn't care for them more than they care for themselves.

Either free women will step up and make their freedom viable, or cultures that control and coerce them will win over.

That simple. yolo

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

This whole fiasco really goes to show just how much of a thankless job you and the rest of the endorsed contributors are doing here. Sometimes I wonder if a cap on membership or an intense screening process might help this sub turn a redder shade of purple.

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

The problem with TRP and really any cult of humans is the 'groupthink' that happens.

Metaphysical factors aside, many people "fake it till ya make it" and part of being a fake is not really understanding. If you don't understand you can't use critical thought because your toolkit is just a list of predefined responses to a given scenario.

Posing the discussions about JP that you did, definitely put most of the TRP plebs outside their predefined zones.

Your average egomaniac is not going to confess "hm interesting point, I never thought about X or I am not informed enough about Y yet" instead they will just attempt to "defeat" the argument by inanely debasing it.

Ironic, because this is essentially hamstering in those other posts you linked.

Edit: Also great post btw OP. We need more objective intelligence and wisdom around here.

[–]RedwallAllratuRatbar0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

Careful, interesting point but - can get people banned

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

Nah he's good

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

The problem with TRP and really any cult of humans is the 'groupthink' that happens.

That's one of the reasons Whisper and I spend so much time trying to talk about critical thinking and understanding reasons and motivations behind things rather than just giving out instructions.

[–]RedwallAllratuRatbar0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I think you oversimplified this a bit. When I run out of plates I "forget" trp wisdom, despite "knowing" that 2+2=4, my brain writes answer as 5. With enough plates, even if due to luck, anyone suddenly can "invent" half of the sidebar

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

I am a huge fan of JP, even if I have strong reservations regarding some of his ideas. I believe he has strong misunderstanding of "manosphere".

PUA is this weird mix of a social skills community, and downright psychopathic community based around lies and fabrications. There are many people who first join the PUA community, see some success using rudimentary tools, like improving body language, having good posture, and holding eye contact, but are then turned away by "advanced" skills, that say to be truly effective you need to fabricate a persona around yourself, and pretend to be something you're not.

TRP is the next logical step. A fork. It tells you to do the same, but instead of suggesting you should put up a screen of lies, tells you to rebuild yourself into the best version of who you can be. Jordan fails to see this, instead damning the entire community based on some of its more extreme members.

I completely agree that this sub needs a good purging. As much as I hate to say this, even some Endorsed posters now use shaming language to dissuade conversation.

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

You don't buy an appeal to authority but who made you king to think you know what's best to think and how we are "misguided"??



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

© TheRedArchive 2020. All rights reserved.

created by /u/dream-hunter