It is important to remember that there is a difference between arguments intended to demonstrate a truth and arguments intended to convince a listener. The first kind of argument is reasoning, the second kind is rhetoric. This distinction is especially important to remember when you are dealing with generalizations about groups of people.

Most political discussions about gender, race, class, and so on consist entirely of rhetoric. Discussions about gender, race, and class are necessarily general in nature, whether they are politically correct or not. Whether it is the PC culture warrior who states their axiom, "Women are underrepresented in field X due to oppression," or the red piller who says, "Women are hypergamous," a generalization has occurred.

In rhetorical arguments about general facts, the entire battle is for control of the archetype. An archetype for a group is a specific type of individual from within the group which the mind treats as its representative for the entire group. So, for example, when someone says, "White Americans brutally enslaved Africans and have kept them down ever since," the image invoked in the mind is that of a white man whipping a black man and forcing him to stay low to the ground.

This is the kind of statement that might be made by a liberal in order to justify (or merely "explain") a local group of black teenagers beating the shit out of white guy for walking through their neighborhood. It starts out with an undeniable fact in order to establish legitimacy (black people were enslaved), then transfers to a statement which invokes imagery. The point of the statement is not to justify the ethics of the black teens, nor is it really intended as a causal explanation. The real point is to invoke an archetype. The black teens are the black man enslaved and beaten into the ground, the white man is the brutal slave owner. So of course, the beating of the white man, though regrettable as a senseless act of revenge, is perfectly understandable.

Keep in mind here that this is all intended to operate in the emotional background. In the foreground there might be bickering over whether black people are really "kept down by white people," and so on, and that's where the argument will seem to be focused. But in fact the real heart of the argument is in the background, in the battle for the archetypes.

The way to win a rhetorical argument is to recast the archetype, or simply resort to the plain facts. The white guy who got the shit kicked out of him was on the way to work, not a brutal slave owner, nor was he in any way responsible for the behavior of slave owners from the past. The black teens who kicked the shit out of him were violent thugs who take pleasure in beating the shit out of people, and are people who the liberal would likely find very unpleasant to be around, despite his warm sense of pity and respect for them.

My point is not that a "good argument" will avoid the struggle over archetypes. Certainly archetypes are shit when it comes to determining the facts, but in rhetorical arguments they are always present in the background, regardless of their usefulness in determining the truth. If you ever do want to win an argument of this kind, remember where the true rhetorical center really lies.

Liberals and blue pillers in general have known this for quite some time, at least instinctively. The whole point of r/thebluepill is to find the worst and most ridiculous examples of redpillers in order to reinforce their archetype of redpillers. They have no interest in addressing the red pill philosophy directly.

This is also why I think trp's "blue pill examples" are important for new people. Each "blue pill example" is a direct attack on the male and female archetypes handed down to us by the PC status quo. To men who already understand the truth of the society we live in, these are unnecessary and even annoying. We are more focused on the facts, on what is generally true and generally false (and yes, it is possible to reason about generalities with validity). The struggle over archetypes, which is just a rhetorical struggle, does not interest us. But it still has its place, if we wish to help men change.