How much is too much?

GayLubeOil · 2014-04-01T20:19:03+00:00

It is I the Great And Magnificent Gay Lube Oil. Lorde of the Red Pill Underrealm. Bringer of the Red Light. Purvayer of the true way. How dare yee question my supreme rightness?

In all honesty im endorsed because my posts are entertaining. Im a 24 year old muscle bro who likes to post for fun. I dont have it all figured out. Calling me a guru is a bit much.

IllimitableMan · 2014-04-02T12:04:19+00:00

Divorce rapes, hypergamy and all that shit is hardly imaginary. Somehow I don't think we have much to worry about. TRP encourages critical thinking and self improvement and places a lot of emphasis on the truth. What this post is saying "what if that truth isn't an objective truth, but a subjective truth of the philosophy itself" the hilarious thing is, that even if stemming upon an objective truth or "a flawed interpretation of the original truth", which would become a subjective self-sustaining truth despite its roots, ultimately it has its origins in observations of a civilization that fails males at every level, the key focus is always about male betterment while noticing the flaws of women that society actively chooses to make excuses for or not even acknowledge, much to the disadvantage of males.

Society does not encourage men in the same way that it encourages women. It does not protect men from hardship in the way it protects women. Some of this is social, and some genetic. It is often thought men have an instinct to protect women/children and this is culturally reinforced also. Does the reverse apply? No. Male disposability is both culturally and genetically reinforced.

To me a philosophy (way of life) is not the same as an ideology (blind belief in a system of concepts because they're theorised and occasionally backed up by questionable case study.)

The great thing about philosophy and ideology is some of them are compatible. Eg: I can go out today and see both capitalism and socialism (due to taxation) same with TRP I can go out today and see RP and BP attitudes.

The Blue Pill is not a "counter philosophy or ideology" either.

The Blue Pill is the product of irrationalism and feminisation which has taken over a post-war (on home territory) feminist gynocentric society. The Blue Pill is all things emotional over logical, idealistic over pragmatic, dream over truth, it is political correctness, an inability to think critically or debate fairly (shaming tactics et al)

The Blue Pill society has no place for men, it gives men nothing to aspire to, it does not facilitate their needs. There are very few male spaces or pro-male propaganda in the media. Society questions and even demonises the development of men. Male suicide rates are higher. Men have less legal rights than women in family court. Socially more is expected of men. Current affairs are a combination of traditionalist expectations of men which fall in with RP theory (be alpha/strong/resourceful) along with feminist expectations of men (she can do whatever she likes, be an alpha or beta female, and still get herself a high value male)

Feminism in the contemporary is a greedy hypocritical ideology that is so incredibly easy to pick logical inconsistencies in, primarily because its largest benefactors and supporters (eg: Oprah Winfrey) are probably not particularly logical themselves. Feminism wants to place all the traditional burdens of men firmly onto men whilst removing woman's, granting them additional rights and elevating their social position through things like quotas. While the radfem department is teaching women through media and the single parent family structure to despise men and have kneejerk reactions to the idea of men coming together without female intervention (all male spaces are DESPISED BY WOMEN - they see it as an immediate threat)

The Blue Pill sub has no ideology or philosophy, it is merely a group of people who were so indignant and upset about the emergence of a pro-male group, that they have created a sub designed to subverting it (vote brigades, sometimes comment brigades) and skewing its image to outsiders who take an interest in it. They dedicate their time at attempting to dismantle the red pill philosophy, but their counterpoints when apparent are usually along the lines of "do you have any scientific evidence for that? if not - it's not true" and this is the entire basis for all refutation, an appeal to science as the mighty holy grail of truth. They do not attempt to engage whatsoever on a philosophical level, quite likely because they're incapable of doing so and too biased to think critically about something such as gender differences.

Which then brings me to the topic of how modern day academics, especially Gen X and millennials would deny the truth perceived by many simply because it hadn't been incorporated into a study. They can not measure likeliness based on experience, they do not think for themselves. They cling to the idea that scientific study shows higher validity (when some studies are so terribly biased and containing small sample sizes that a higher sample size of corroborating anecdotal data would be more valid) because they want to look intelligent and sophisticated, yet the acceptance of feminist dogma and inability to question their own beliefs, as well as TRPs, with critical thinking suggests this is not a level of brain development they have reached. Feminism a sham, many of its studies are incredibly weak, yet we're meant to believe their bullshit points because they can cite a poorly done study, rejecting the truth in favour of this so-called "proof" this is the major problem with feminism, it hijacked academia for its own ideological pursuits and it has disrupted the bonds between academia and truth, trying to present feminism as a type of truth because "hey, look, look rad fem Ann Oakley (1972) found that....." and blah-de-blah. It's all bullshit hiding behind an academic veneer to try and look credible and win hearts and minds.

Even in the case where a study backs up what TRP says, they often reject the study, saying it is flawed or non-representative or some other BS disadvantage of research methods they learnt in their humanities class at college. These people have already decided that the post-WW2 way of life is what they're interested in, and they self-sustain by being an echo chamber. Society itself/TBP does not have a critical review or debate of what gender roles are, why they are what they are, what works best and yadda yadda, TRP does REVIEW these ideas but in and among themselves, not with feminists. The feminists have shown time and time again they do not engage well with critical debate, we know better than to debate them or give them a voice within our own space. Their space is everywhere which isn't TRP, so it hardly seems fair to let them damage the integrity of a fledgling philosophy. If you want to challenge TRP you can challenge it in your own life and see how it changes incorporating RP ideas into your life. Arguing with a feminist is a waste of time, it's like telling a muslim Allah is not real, just don't bother they don't want to hear it, their minds are not open to the idea feminism can be wrong, any debate they have is merely an attack upon your ideas out of an emotional need to silence/conquer such ideas.

They cling to science to seem intelligent, but the very act of putting all your intellectual and spiritual faith in academic study is a naive one. Critical thinking is the most important of all the cognitive traits within a decision making process. Logic. Logic can be wrong, but at least if it is, it's not in bias, it's in ignorance that does not allow said logic to develop enough maturity to be factually coherent.

Whenever you see a gender debate in the public sphere, say on tv, it's always from a PRO-FEMALE perspective and typically being discussed by a bunch of women (who have been confirmed by study, ironically, to have an in-group bias - women stick together if the alternative is helping men) they'll have one or two token manginas agreeing with all their bullshit to make it look like some fair debate representing all sides, but really it's just a group of feminist/feminist leaning people giving feminist views on gender. If there was a non-feminist view of gender publicised in such a way, the threats/shaming/bullying would come quickly after whoever dissented against feminist dogma in such a public manner had aired these views.

Advertising can not be anti-feminist, as to be anti-feminist is to be politically incorrect. It's not profitable to be anti-feminist, so companies tow the feminist line. At least at a consumer level, at a worker level feminism harms companies with quotas, but again, another topic. Feminism rules the social landscape and it is a key contributor to all the bullshit idea that the ideal (for some) of egalitarianism is actually a truth. If anything, these are the people stretching reality to fit their view of the world, trying to convince themselves despite innumerable differences we are all equal, whilst the reality is quite the contrary. TRP recognises differences, it does not try to rationalise them away and shame dissent into silence.

The major failing of blue pill society is that it thinks, thanks to how mainstream radical feminism has become, that you can't be pro-male without being anti-women. There is a failure to make this critical logical distinction which highlights the distinct lack of critical thinking that pro-feminists are typically incapable of. There is most likely fear that allowing men to unite will weaken the feminist dominance on social rhetoric at a status quo level, whilst on a micro level individuals feel irrational fear over the idea, equating ideas of male union with the feminist concept of "patriarchy" that doing so would oppress women.

Most people who oppose the red pill, actually do so not because they see it as helping men, but because they perceive it as a threat to women. Which goes to show how culturally ingrained it is to care about the needs of women whilst not giving a remote damn about men. Men are having problems en-masse culturally and make their own group on the internet. The response from mainstream society is to demonise it because it could be damaging to women. Tells you a lot, they don't care if males have problems, if their attempt to fix their problems could negatively affect women, they don't want them to fix those problems.

To me, that there in and of itself is very telling of the position of the average day man. He gets much lower priority.

The great thing about a philosophy based in realism is you always have reality to check your ideas against. Feminism/Bluepill has to jump many mental hoops to reconcile bullshit with what can be perceived as "reality" RP ideas need no such hoop jumping, as many have said "it just all falls into place."

This whole discussion feels like it belongs in purplepilldebate, not alreadyred.

Nitzi · 2014-04-01T18:54:25+00:00

Pretty telling that having self esteem, actively preventing yourself from being manipulated and thus harmed, and seeking out personal fulfillment would be classified as an "Ideology".

Male happiness is incredibly threatening apparently.

steadymotion · 2014-04-01T23:16:20+00:00

I see TRP as a bunch of guys calling each other out on our bullshit. It's like having sparring partners for the mind. I agree that we shouldn't take ourselves too seriously, because once we start believing we have the "truth" we blind ourselves to future progress.

Nitzi · 2014-04-02T04:34:21+00:00

It seems to me that you are confusing the ideology of the red pill with the actual facts that the ideology stems from. Let me expound:

Facts

The Red Pill ideology is based off of facts. These facts include the hypergamous nature of women, the pussification of men, and the differences in male/female biology that influence what attracts them to one another.

These are facts, the red pill ideology is a pattern of behavior based off of these facts, and others. Why do you think feminists hate evolutionary biologists so much? These academics don't have any sort of "misogynistic agenda" they are simply in the pursuit of truth, much as we are. They are trying to explain why male sperm contains "killer sperm" or why human males have much larger penises than other primates.

Ideology

Based on these aforementioned facts, men have gotten together, had a discussion, and formulated an ideology. In the case of the red pill, the ideology includes such things as:

Positive masculinity
Avoiding marriage
Avoiding long term relationships with slut
Have as much sex as you would like with attractive females
Being consciously selfish, looking out for #1 and not making sacrifices for women or for "the group".
Continuous self-improvement, including mental/physical health, as well as financial independence.

This ideology is formed out of facts, facts don't change or at least they don't change very quickly. Divorce laws are not going to get any better for men any time soon. Women are definitely not going to become any less hypergamous anytime soon. Society is not going to stop treating men as disposable resources to be exploited any time soon.

Where we differ from MRAs is that we are not trying to change society. We have recognized the flaws of society as well as the general underpinnings of human behavior and have decided to use this knowledge to our advantage.

Another point to make, is that there really is no set ideology. The ideology is to get laid without losing your shirt or dignity. That's it, I've heard no one say that there are any hard and fast rules about how to be the model "red piller". Those that do, are often called out on their lie, because no such thing exists. You can always break our "rules" here, and no one will knock you for it if it makes you happy. Rollo Tomassini is (I believe happily) married, no one discredits him simply because he decided to tie the knot.

deepthrill · 2014-04-01T16:06:38+00:00

I saw your comment about this yesterday, and it was interesting.

Also based on our discussions on core tenets, the more you try to find things which apply to (mostly) everyone or everything, the more the ideas devolve into seeming platitudes or clichés.

From wikipedia,

According to this [meta-ideology] perspective, ideologies are neither right nor wrong, but only a relativistic intellectual strategy for categorizing the world.

also,

For Willard A. Mullins ... an ideaology is composed of four basic characteristics:

it must have power over cognition

it must be capable of guiding one's evaluations;

it must provide guidance towards action;

and, as stated above, it must be logically coherent

(1) Check, (2) check, (3) check, (4) (still under debate?)

Regarding your point about confirmation bias:

Its followers search for evidence that proves that their findings are correct and dismisses all other evidence.

This is why I may be in the minority, but actually have no problem with /r/purplepilldebate. At least I can see the best arguments our detractors make, and the onus to show some logic, rationality, or peer reviewed studies, keeps me sharp with my views.

When it becomes a circlejerk or dismissing something because of how it makes others feel is when I leave the debates (e.g. the "dehumanizing language" arguments I don't even bother touching). But there are usually good tidbits of rationality discussed there.

AdmiralVonJackass · 2014-04-01T18:41:12+00:00

It would be great to see a credible philosophy professor take a crack at the logic behind TRP.

MockingDead · 2014-04-03T02:24:47+00:00

I feel that, perhaps, your concern trolling about TRP is here because you can't concern troll in TRP.

That said, let me be the first to say do you question gravity every morning? Drop a pencil? What about fossils? because your argument sounds very much like those made by creationists - that just because we have confirmed something one hundred times, or a thousand, or ten thousand doesn't mean we can rely on it.

We can, unless evidence is shown to the contrary.

We should experiment with the Red Pill, but this argument is just a convoluted NAWALT argument. Oh, the red pill says X, confimrs X, but what if it's not true?

If it's not true it will be proven untrue by experiment. So stomp on some rocks and refute it thus.

I just had a thought - are you in the bargaining stage of grief over blue pill fantasies? It's totally ok to be. Sometimes I still am.

MachiavellianRed · 2014-04-01T23:04:03+00:00

[permanently deleted]

redbluepilling · 2014-04-01T20:37:45+00:00

That's the burden of trying to maintain logic and reason on your side. Like here with this post, we have to question ourselves to make sure we're not once again mindlessly spouting ideas (even if they happen to be rooted in truth) or mindlessly receiving them. This is a key attribute that separates trp from tbp of simply being a countering ideology. We get to the root of the issue by asking questions, toning down the emotional gut-response, and thinking critically. If we fail to do that, we're simply yelling back.

I realize not everyone here is an atheist; but, regardless, look at what can happen when a child is raised as an atheist. Or, perhaps better stated, raised without believing there is a god. They aren't necessarily encouraged to develop the critical thinking skills used to filter through ideologies, and they become susceptible to prevailing religions around them that offer them the feel-good benefits of community and simple answers that, on the surface level, sound good.

mrust · 2014-04-02T00:32:10+00:00

I agree that TRP is an ideology. The traits you've described are more akin to cults, which I think TRP falls far short of.

There is actually a flip-side to the question. Constantly questioning your beliefs will never allow you to develop a solid frame. You start seeing a new girl and search for evidence that she is different from all the rest. Maybe you've found your unicorn? You start seeing uniqueness everywhere and the exception becomes the rule. The ideas become muddled as you come up with caveats, counter-rules and special circumstances.

Confirmation bias is a huge danger when making generalisations. This is partly due to selection bias. Women who are post-wall, ugly, or masculine may very well not exhibit hypergamy, emotional bias, or evidence of hamstering. Probably because they don't have the same conditioning, upgringing, or opportunities as the women who can actually hold my sexual interest. I think you can see why this doesn't matter to me.

A good model isn't necessarily true in all aspects. Its quality is measured by usefulness. You may yearn for scientific rigor, but the truth is we are dealing with soft sciences and you will never get the same precision and conclusiveness that you would in mathematics or even physics.

puaSenator · 2014-04-02T02:02:20+00:00

[permanently deleted]

2014-04-02T13:15:53+00:00

Nitzi, I recommend what most people on TRP sub may not. Be a human being and use your critical thinking.

Test everything until it has a 90% success rate. If 9 girls fuck you because you upped your game, that tenth one may not. This doesn't mean you aren't "Alpha" enough, it means she is probably fucking busy and doesn't have intent to fuck with guys.

Look at the local News channels as a great model, you know most of the "facts" are bullshit but people without guidance will follow that shit until the road ends. Your part as a human being is to know which exit to take to get to where you need to go before you come a dead end. Never take instant satisfaction as proof. Challenge every day the limits of truth.

Do women have a grand underscheme to marry young so they can be lazy? No.

Do 85 women out of 100 do this? Yes.

It's not a matter of looking at life with red pill goggles, it is a fact of making up your own goddamn mind.

The Red pill tells me that anyone has time to juggle 3 plates and be successful. "Anyone can do it" they say. Well you know, that is bullshit hive mind thinking. Every time I step out to get pussy, my progress in school gets fucked up. I try to make that shit work until I knew it wouldn't, I threw in the towel and realize school is far more important. I'm not going keep watching the "news" for guidance because i don't give a shit about vagina that much. I'm going to bust ass and pass college algebra.

Tl; dr use your critical thinking skills and decide what is right for you. Never take a prescription red pill as directed if the fucker keeps making you sick. Realize that it is a guide, not a solid template.

2014-04-04T12:47:11+00:00

It is not an ideology, none of your arguments even argue the ideological nature of TRP. Your arguments are suited for prison gangs and could generally be bounde to any marginalised group.

An ideology has a shared doctrine between individuals, my views on TRP is incomparable to any other, because they stem from personal experiences. This goes for all members, PUA, MGTOWs (and MRMs). Yes there is bandwagoning sometimes but that is a consequence of being in an internet community.

The basic principles we gather around are not as much principles, but rather the rejection of mainstream principles. You could define TRP as a counter culture in that case. But our differences are more important to us individually than our commonalities, the "manoshefere" could be called that, if you force the boundaries of reason and group everything togheter.

The best description would be sexual positivism. A rigorous adherence to observation and validity with disregard to rationalisation and mainstream beliefs.

Title	How much is too much?
Author	Nitzi
Upvotes	35
Comments	71
Date	April 1, 2014 2:52 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/AlreadyRed
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/AlreadyRed/comments/21xdeo/how_much_is_too_much/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/AlreadyRed/how-much-is-too-much.1217956 https://theredarchive.com/post/1217956

Comments