~ archived since 2018 ~

Debate Week

CFRProflcopter

November 19, 2014

8 upvotes

The mods have been discussing the idea of a "debate week" for a while now. The basic concept is this: for a trial period, we moderate posts tagged "Debate" or "CMV" (Challenge My View) more harshly.

We had a difficult time outlining specific rules, mostly because we have no idea how this will go. After talking and talking and talking, we finally decided to just go for it. The rules may be somewhat vague to start, but we'll have to fine tune them as we go. The fact that we have Red Pill and non-RP mods will hopefully ensure that we can create an environment where both RP and non-RP individuals feel welcome to have serious debate.

Guidelines for Debate Week 11/19 to 11/26

All posts must be tagged with link flair. To tag your posts with flair, click the flair hyperlink below your post.
Posts tagged "Debate" or "CMV" and comments within Debate/CMV threads will be moderated more harshly. Basically, we're looking to get rid of the fluff, the insults, and the snark.
Comments in Debate/CMV threads should either ask a question, or offer an thoughtful explanation.
Be prepared to offer sources, and defend those sources. With scientific matters, you will need scientific sources. Google scholar is your friend.
Be direct. Sarcasm is not effective debate. It just pisses off those who disagree. Direct comments are more effective at communicating what you really want to say.

Some have asked if we will award delta points, which are essentially points added to your flair when you change someones view. We will not be awarding delta points...yet. If this debate thing sticks, we might. Also, we will not be declaring winners or losers. That's for you to decide.

Good luck.

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	Debate Week
Author	CFRProflcopter
Upvotes	8
Comments	56
Date	November 19, 2014 1:00 AM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/2mq21n/debate_week/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/debate-week.284335 https://theredarchive.com/post/284335

Comments

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (44 children) | Copy Link

[–]barbadosslim-2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (43 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (42 children) | Copy Link

[–]barbadosslim-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (41 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (40 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-3 points-3 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points7 points7 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–]barbadosslim-4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points5 points5 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–]barbadosslim-2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]barbadosslim-2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago* (27 children) | Copy Link

So I have had zero exposure to (lol) "Real academic thought" like women's studies and that's why I have the beliefs I have? Tell me, have I been to college or grad school? Have I taken Women's studies classes or read the works associated with them? How old am I? Am I male or female? Do all people immediately become feminist and agree with you upon exposure to "real academic thought"?

I was just giving you the benefit of the doubt. Never attribute to malice what could be ignorance. If you've done your research and still came to join up with this sexist movement, then there's not much to say other than that sucks. Like a creationist with a zoology degree or something, you know?

Is it possible for a rational person to hold different beliefs than you?

Of course, but not in all cases. For example, someone might rationally disagree with me how to achieve gender equality. But someone probably could not rationally disagree with me that gender equality is desirable. Or disagree with me that the earth is round. Makes sense, right?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]barbadosslim-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago* (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]AFormidableContenderPurple Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]We_Are_LegionAutumn Red0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AFormidableContenderPurple Pill Man-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (47 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago* (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]AFormidableContenderPurple Pill Man-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]AFormidableContenderPurple Pill Man-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

most people come here for discussion because it's the best place on reddit to come and actually have your beliefs challenged in a way to doesn't net you -10000000 karma for just asking a question.

Exactly, they come here for entertainment. People aren't paid to come here. People come here because they like dicussing these issues. I call that entertainment, but I guess your definition might be different.

Creating threads that give one side or the other an unfair advantage by design, on top of whatever intrinsic advantages one side has over the other is pretty sloppy for community management and basically ends up being nothing but flame baiting "let's brow beat RPs" mode...

That's certainly one way of looking at it. Alternatively, you could say there exists a free market demand to discuss these issues using slightly more rigorous academic standards. If that puts TRP at a disadvantage because their claims are ambitious, well...that sucks. Abitious claims are difficult to defend. That's just life.

That said, the rules are the same for both sides. That's the definition of fairness.

[–]AFormidableContenderPurple Pill Man-3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points1 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]hyperrrealLoves fun5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

I think you might be surprised. In CMV threads for example, bluepillers are going to have to present an affirmative position to be challenged. That alone negates the major argumentative/rhetorical advantage they have.

As /u/CFRProflcopter pointed out, TBP is an easier position, because much of the time TRP is making some affirmative (often scientific) claim about gender. TBP can draw on many arguments (which can even be inconsistent with each other) to show that TRP has not done enough at that time to prove its point.

But say a bluepiller does "CMV, Dread Game is Abuse." Now that person is in the position of defending an affirmative claim, and all redpillers have to do is show that OP has failed to prove it's abuse.

Anyway it's just an experiment, and it will be interesting to see what happens.

[–]AFormidableContenderPurple Pill Man1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]hyperrrealLoves fun1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]AFormidableContenderPurple Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]hyperrrealLoves fun0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sansa_Culotte_-2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]AFormidableContenderPurple Pill Man4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sansa_Culotte_-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]drok007Not white enough to be blue pill4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]AFormidableContenderPurple Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]Those_Who_RemainIrrelevant Homosexual2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AFormidableContenderPurple Pill Man1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]namae_nanka3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AFormidableContenderPurple Pill Man1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

You seem confused as to why blue pillers would ask for scientific sources to back up scientific claims in a debate sub. Why is that?

Straw manning makes for a poor argument. I'm not responding to a point I did not make.

Is it possible that it's not political correctness but just how things are? Scientists aren't exactly known for being "politically correct" or beating around the bush. That's why research into things like hypergamy exists. It just generally doesn't support the RP claim.

The crux is that there is a disconnect between how bluepills interpret how studies work and how redpiller's anecdotal experience stacks up. Just because studies do not yet support redpill theories does not mean redpill is not accurate. Things are proven and disproven regularly that people knew anecdotally for, in some cases literally centuries. There are certainly studies that suggest some aspects of TRP is not entirely true but those are mostly few and far between and when you take into account the experience of many men, there is clearly some validity to RP claims. Even men who aren't RP can agree to many of the behavioral observations of women. It's merely extreme convenience for BPs but especially women to be attempt to dismiss those experiences purely because some study somewhere determined that 54% of women over the age of 30 get married so "the wall" is bullshit.

[–]mrsamsa0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Straw manning makes for a poor argument. I'm not responding to a point I did not make.

"Stawmanning" involves assigning a false position to you and then easily dismantling that position. What I did was to take a reasonable interpretation of your position and basically ask if that's a reasonable interpretation of your position.

No strawman. (Seriously, for the love of god, can somebody sticky a thread directing red pillers to a page on what logical fallacies are?).

The crux is that there is a disconnect between how bluepills interpret how studies work and how redpiller's anecdotal experience stacks up.

Just to add to this, it's usually a case of science + blue pillers' anecdotes vs red pillers' anecdotes.

. Just because studies do not yet support redpill theories does not mean redpill is not accurate. Things are proven and disproven regularly that people knew anecdotally for, in some cases literally centuries.

Absolutely true. However, it does mean two things:

1) you lack solid reasoning for believing your position is true, and

2) you're screwed when scientific evidence explicitly contradicts your claims, as obviously no amount of anecdotes can ever counter that.

There are certainly studies that suggest some aspects of TRP is not entirely true but those are mostly few and far between and when you take into account the experience of many men, there is clearly some validity to RP claims.

I disagree with the idea that the studies are "few and far between" but you keep appealing to anecdotes as a counter to scientific evidence, that makes no sense.

Also, I'm assume you're aware of this, but you're making the exact same arguments that people use to defend homeopathy and astrology.

Even men who aren't RP can agree to many of the behavioral observations of women. It's merely extreme convenience for BPs but especially women to be attempt to dismiss those experiences purely because some study somewhere determined that 54% of women over the age of 30 get married so "the wall" is bullshit.

...Hold up a second. You're saying blue pillers ignore your experiences?

The whole idea of TRP is that the majority of people disagree with your view of the world. The point is that the experiences and anecdotes of people don't match yours. That's why it's called "the red pill" - because these people are mistaken and don't see the real world.

For your entire position to exist, you need to deny and dismiss the weight of anecdotes against you. These debates always descend into meaningless pot shots because when red pillers can't provide evidence for their position, they have to resort to anecdotes but blue pillers tend to have contradicting anecdotes. Instead of accepting that the anecdotes rule each other out, and it's impossible to say one deserves more weight than the other, red pillers simply dismiss those anecdotes, accusing them of lying, and just continue believing what they do.

So seriously, if you are against the denial of other people's experiences and anecdotes in the pursuit of proving your position right, then you can't also accept TRP, as it's founded on accepting things that contradict the experiences of most people.

[–]AFormidableContenderPurple Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

"Stawmanning" involves assigning a false position to you and then easily dismantling that position. What I did was to take a reasonable interpretation of your position and basically ask if that's a reasonable interpretation of your position.

A straw man is the refutation of a position your opponent did not make, usually because it's easier to defeat than their actual point, so no, you did not. You assigned a position to me, and used mocking sarcasm in an attempt to refute my position...Which fairly easily qualifies as a straw-man for all intents and purposes. I took philosphy. I know my fallacies. Probably better than you do.

Just to add to this, it's usually a case of science + blue pillers' anecdotes vs red pillers' anecdotes.

No, it's usually a study, which is ambiguous at best, RedPillers suggesting that it's not the whole story, and BluePillers claiming because it doesn't validate RP, it must validate BP. In fact, I've seen more RedPills take studies that disprove them with grace than BluePillars, who get belligerent, offence and flip logic cartwheels to try not to be proven wrong. I had a BluePill woman try to argue to me that the vast majority of women get married by 30, therefore, the wall isn't true. I then pulled up stats by the CDC from 2011 which show only 54% of women aged 30-34 are, or have ever been married, and boy did that conversation go south...

you lack solid reasoning for believing your position is true

Not if anecdote is strong enough, and at the end of the day, TRP is presented as a world view built via anecdote, and not a scientific endeavor. Any intellectually honest TRP would be perfectly secure in admitting TRP is not science based.

you're screwed when scientific evidence explicitly contradicts your claims, as obviously no amount of anecdotes can ever counter that.

Not necessarily. I've seen studies before that couldn't possibly have been true. I mean, even basica logic dictates that the conclusion of the study couldn't be rational, and that the people participating in the study are probably dishonest for whatever reason. Just because something is in a study doesn't make it infallible, though I will admit that there are some studies that do make it hard for TRP to argue against, though not impossible.

I disagree with the idea that the studies are "few and far between" but you keep appealing to anecdotes as a counter to scientific evidence, that makes no sense.

No I don't because I don't propose TRP is science. Most of TRP's "mantra" could likely never even be scientifically investigated.

Also, I'm assume you're aware of this, but you're making the exact same arguments that people use to defend homeopathy and astrology.

Not really because astrology is based on things other than direct experience. You can say "cancers are good with money", and go out and find cancers who are good with money because there are lots of people who are "good" with money, whatever definition of "good" you wanna choose. It's essentially a charade of basic human qualifiers.

...Hold up a second. You're saying blue pillers ignore your experiences?

For your entire position to exist, you need to deny and dismiss the weight of anecdotes against you. These debates always descend into meaningless pot shots because when red pillers can't provide evidence for their position, they have to resort to anecdotes but blue pillers tend to have contradicting anecdotes. Instead of accepting that the anecdotes rule each other out, and it's impossible to say one deserves more weight than the other, red pillers simply dismiss those anecdotes, accusing them of lying, and just continue believing what they do.

Because they don't. One anecdote doesn't dismiss another.

Typical RedPill anecdotal assertion: "women don't like nice guys. Women will take a fit jerk over an average nice guy any day"

Typical BluePill counter assertion: "I knew a guy once who was 30lbs overweight, and had a girlfriend. RED PILL IS A LIE!11!!1!"

So seriously, if you are against the denial of other people's experiences and anecdotes in the pursuit of proving your position right, then you can't also accept TRP, as it's founded on accepting things that contradict the experiences of most people.

Ironically, I do not think TRP contradicts the experiences of pretty much anyone, which is why BP seems such a ridiculous side of the fence to be on. The primary line of disagreement between RP and BP is how to react to RP's conclusions. I would be perfectly comfortable asserting that if you gave someone RedPill's belief structure without the unabashed hate speech on women, the vast majority of people would agree it's pretty generally accurate. (I know because I've done this and it works). However, at least to me, BluePills seems to believe the appropriate course of action is to continue on the path that's failed men for twenty something years and hope women decide to stop being shitheads, or better yet, that one turn gender-traitor and assist women to perpetuate matriarchical values because, duuuh, that's a great suggestion for young men, if you happen to have a vagina. No cons at all. RedPill, however, suggests you fight women's fire, with your own fire, which of course, is extremely inconvenient for women because not only would accepting that position require accepting responsibility for the state of gender socio-sexual politics, but also that they deserve punishment, or at least, that negative treatment from males is not an unreasonable reaction.

[–]mrsamsa2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

A straw man is the refutation of a position your opponent did not make, usually because it's easier to defeat than their actual point, so no, you did not.

Exactly, so no strawman.

You assigned a position to me, and used mocking sarcasm in an attempt to refute my position...

No sarcasm, it was a serious question.

Which fairly easily qualifies as a straw-man for all intents and purposes.

...Not really, even if your assumptions were true. At best it would be snark and misrepresentation, but there was no formal attempt at debate since I wasn't advancing a position, there was no intentional framing your position as weaker than you seem to think it is, etc etc.

I took philosphy. I know my fallacies. Probably better than you do.

Strongly doubt that but good to know you have a philosophy background.

No, it's usually a study, which is ambiguous at best, RedPillers suggesting that it's not the whole story, and BluePillers claiming because it doesn't validate RP, it must validate BP.

To the first part, usually the articles presented are direct challenges to the RP position, not "ambiguous" studies and RP retreats back to a vague unfalsifiable position as a defence.

To the second point, there is no blue pill position so I doubt understand how that makes sense.

In fact, I've seen more RedPills take studies that disprove them with grace than BluePillars, who get belligerent, offence and flip logic cartwheels to try not to be proven wrong.

...Wow, I have never seen a red piller accept they were wrong on some empirical fact. There's always an excuse, always a reason why their anecdotes are superior, a reason why they're talking about something a little bit different, etc.

Whereas when red pillers try to present evidence of their claims, they present studies which are contradicted by the weight of the evidence, methodologically flawed studies, studies which aren't generalisable to a relevant population, etc.

I had a BluePill woman try to argue to me that the vast majority of women get married by 30, therefore, the wall isn't true. I then pulled up stats by the CDC from 2011 which show only 54% of women aged 30-34 are, or have ever been married, and boy did that conversation go south...

Fair enough, but I don't really care what blue pillers think. They don't have any position to defend or advance, this sub is more geared towards red pillers providing evidence for their claims.

Not if anecdote is strong enough, and at the end of the day, TRP is presented as a world view built via anecdote, and not a scientific endeavor. Any intellectually honest TRP would be perfectly secure in admitting TRP is not science based.

If all the support you have is anecdote then you have to admit that you lack a sound basis for your position. This is because your anecdotes are entirely and perfectly contradicted by the anecdotes of blue pillers. There is no way you can say yours are more accurate or real than theirs.

Not necessarily. I've seen studies before that couldn't possibly have been true. I mean, even basica logic dictates that the conclusion of the study couldn't be rational, and that the people participating in the study are probably dishonest for whatever reason. Just because something is in a study doesn't make it infallible, though I will admit that there are some studies that do make it hard for TRP to argue against, though not impossible.

If there is a significant logical flaw in the reasoning of the study then you have a reason to disbelieve it, but your anecdotes are irrelevant. If there's only one study supporting the position then you can argue that it might not be a true result but you can't argue it on the basis of anecdotes.

Anecdotes never trump empirical evidence. If you choose anecdotes over empirical evidence then you are intentionally and knowingly acting irrationally. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, sometimes our gut feelings turn out to be right, but it's just not a sound basis for our worldviews.

No I don't because I don't propose TRP is science. Most of TRP's "mantra" could likely never even be scientifically investigated.

That's fine but usually red pillers are making clear empirical statements which are, and have been, tested by science. In those cases they are (if they want to be rational) governed by the weight of evidence.

If the claims aren't scientific or empirical (i.e. there are no consequences that impact on the observable world) then that's fine but you still need philosophical reasoning to support your claims. The evidence doesn't need to be scientific, but it needs to be something other than anecdotes.

Not really because astrology is based on things other than direct experience. You can say "cancers are good with money", and go out and find cancers who are good with money because there are lots of people who are "good" with money, whatever definition of "good" you wanna choose. It's essentially a charade of basic human qualifiers.

Except they do the same thing red pillers do when evidence contradicts them. They claim that they aren't making scientific claims, that it wasn't done properly and they're saying something slightly different, that the study defined the terms wrong and measured the wrong thing, etc.

But the point is that homeopaths and astrologers base their conclusions on anecdotes and argue that since they experienced it working then there must be something wrong with the scientific evidence that contradicts them. How is that different from what you're proposing?

No

Okay, my bad then, it's just that you explicitly said that. ("It's merely extreme convenience for BPs but especially women to be attempt to dismiss those experiences...").

Because they don't. One anecdote doesn't dismiss another. Typical RedPill anecdotal assertion: "women don't like nice guys. Women will take a fit jerk over an average nice guy any day" Typical BluePill counter assertion: "I knew a guy once who was 30lbs overweight, and had a girlfriend. RED PILL IS A LIE!11!!1!"

Anecdotes do dismiss another. If you present an anecdote, and I present a counter anecdote, then they are both completely and absolutely nullified.

That's the nature of anecdotes. Since they aren't objective and have no direct relation to the real world, they are only as good as subjective feelings about how the world works. Two contradicting subjective experiences are just as good as the other, which means they are good for nothing.

Ironically, I do not think TRP contradicts the experiences of pretty much anyone, which is why BP seems such a ridiculous side of the fence to be on.

But that's the whole basis of the metaphor.

The primary line of disagreement between RP and BP is how to react to RP's conclusions. I would be perfectly comfortable asserting that if you gave someone RedPill's belief structure without the unabashed hate speech on women, the vast majority of people would agree it's pretty generally accurate. (I know because I've done this and it works).

Depends how vaguely you write it. If you repeat the usual PR speech which basically amounts to: be confident, work on self-improvement, get fit, get rich, don't put women on the pedestal, etc, then obviously nobody is going to disagree with that because that is the standard dating advice.

If you got together a bunch of people and commented on the core elements of TRP that are in the sidebar and intros to TRP (which are the elements that make it unique from standard dating advice) then obviously you're going to run into disagreement. The idea that women are mentally teenagers, incapable of logic, can't love men in the way men love, that women specifically are subject to "hypergamy" (as TRP defines it), AF/BB, that men need to be dominant and women submissive for a successful relationship, etc, are not at all uncontroversial ideas.

If you take those ideas out, then it's no longer TRP.

However, at least to me, BluePills seems to believe the appropriate course of action is to continue on the path that's failed men for twenty something years and hope women decide to stop being shitheads, or better yet, that one turn gender-traitor and assist women to perpetuate matriarchical values because, duuuh, that's a great suggestion for young men, if you happen to have a vagina. No cons at all.

I'm not sure what you're talking about? Nobody is advocating putting up with women's (or anyone's) shit. Standard dating advice from everyone is don't put women on the pedestal, don't take shit from someone just because you're in a relationship, don't be a doormat, have self-respect, etc. All standard advice.

RedPill, however, suggests you fight women's fire, with your own fire, which of course, is extremely inconvenient for women because not only would accepting that position require accepting responsibility for the state of gender socio-sexual politics, but also that they deserve punishment, or at least, that negative treatment from males is not an unreasonable reaction.

This, in a nutshell, is the problem with TRP.

Everybody agrees that people (even women) can be shitty in relationships. Red pillers think that women are particularly shitty in relationships and so to "survive" the dating game, you need to be shitty back to them and put them in their place. Non-RPers think that people can be shitty and being just as shitty as them means that there are more shitty people in the world and that's not a good solution (and, of course, that being a shitty person isn't an effective dating strategy either).

[–]AFormidableContenderPurple Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

To the first part, usually the articles presented are direct challenges to the RP position, not "ambiguous" studies and RP retreats back to a vague unfalsifiable position as a defence.

Agree to disagree.

To the second point, there is no blue pill position so I doubt understand how that makes sense.

Though the main problem with this sub is that BluePills really don't have to stand for anything in particular, there most certainly are several areas of the gender/dating/sex debate which BluePills do hold solid arguments about, even if it's simply the refutation of an RP position. (ie. Between A, and B, if A is false, B must be true)

...Wow, I have never seen a red piller accept they were wrong on some empirical fact. There's always an excuse, always a reason why their anecdotes are superior, a reason why they're talking about something a little bit different, etc.

Whereas when red pillers try to present evidence of their claims, they present studies which are contradicted by the weight of the evidence, methodologically flawed studies, studies which aren't generalisable to a relevant population, etc.

How ironic that BluePillar studies are undeniable, and RedPiller studies are faux-science. Surely you're intelligent enough to realize how extraordinarily and conveniently biased that statement is. At the very least, you're proposing the exact same failings in logic as you're claiming RP's make.

Fair enough, but I don't really care what blue pillers think. They don't have any position to defend or advance, this sub is more geared towards red pillers providing evidence for their claims.

Not really, but I find it fascinating you've equated "purple pill debate" with "make TRP's defend themselves whilst we brow beat them, and stand for nothing in particular ourselves".

If all the support you have is anecdote then you have to admit that you lack a sound basis for your position.

That logic doesn't hold up. Anecdote and personal experience is perfectly acceptable for the basis of a personal belief. You don't learn to farm by reading a book; you go be a farmer. You don't learn to be a social and sexual success by reading a book; you go try to make people like you, or want to have sex with you.

This is because your anecdotes are entirely and perfectly contradicted by the anecdotes of blue pillers. There is no way you can say yours are more accurate or real than theirs.

I've already demonstrated why I don't agree with this.

Anecdotes never trump empirical evidence. If you choose anecdotes over empirical evidence then you are intentionally and knowingly acting irrationally. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, sometimes our gut feelings turn out to be right, but it's just not a sound basis for our worldviews.

I would agree whole heartedly on almost any other topic except this one. Especially when the only way to study socio-sexual trends tends to be to directly ask people, and people have a tendency to lie, even when they are told the study is anonymous,...something also demonstrated some studies I've seen, ironically.

That's fine but usually red pillers are making clear empirical statements which are, and have been, tested by science. In those cases they are (if they want to be rational) governed by the weight of evidence.

If the claims aren't scientific or empirical (i.e. there are no consequences that impact on the observable world) then that's fine but you still need philosophical reasoning to support your claims. The evidence doesn't need to be scientific, but it needs to be something other than anecdotes.

I don't necessarily agree. No other philosophical standard is held above anecdote. Some of the greatest work from some of the greatest philosophers in history have been essentially nothing but verbal diahhrea onto a page, from people-watching.

Okay, my bad then, it's just that you explicitly said that. ("It's merely extreme convenience for BPs but especially women to be attempt to dismiss those experiences...").

Well "ignore" is an odd word for it. Dismiss may be more appropriate. I mean, it's quite clear women do not like Nice Guys^tm and much prefer the jerk-jocks, but the narrative you hear from women is the opposite. If you approach or confront women about this, they jump through hoops to backwards rationalize why your experience must be unique, why you're a broken human being, or why you're actually some kind of misogynist asshole and it's in fact that that is causing you trouble in the dating world, and is no fault of women providing the male culture disingenuous and poorly communicated maxims.

That's the nature of anecdotes. Since they aren't objective and have no direct relation to the real world, they are only as good as subjective feelings about how the world works. Two contradicting subjective experiences are just as good as the other, which means they are good for nothing.

I don't agree. That's quite silly as far as I'm concerned. If I say the sky is blue without any scientific evidence to back up my claim beyond walking outside every day and you say the sky is purple, without any scientific evidence either, our two anecdotes are not of the same value.

But that's the whole basis of the metaphor.

The metaphor is more correctly explained as people's interpretation of reality, not of who's reality is more ...realistic. As far as I see it, RedPill is not making any claims that BluePillers don't agree does happen; the disagreement is almost entirely the intricacies of what those events mean.

Ie. A TRP might say women are unfaithful and can't be trusted, therefore, never trust women and treat them badly to keep them attracted. A BP might take the same premise (infidelity) and simply claim lots of people are awful to each other but that that's no reason to treat women badly.

No one is disagreeing that lots of people cheat. The only thing RP claims that BluePills seem to actually deny exists, is The Wall, which was a badly formulated expression of that idea anyways.

If you got together a bunch of people and commented on the core elements of TRP that are in the sidebar and intros to TRP (which are the elements that make it unique from standard dating advice) then obviously you're going to run into disagreement. The idea that women are mentally teenagers, incapable of logic, can't love men in the way men love, that women specifically are subject to "hypergamy" (as TRP defines it), AF/BB, that men need to be dominant and women submissive for a successful relationship, etc, are not at all uncontroversial ideas. If you take those ideas out, then it's no longer TRP.

Not so much no. You can stay pretty close to actual TRP and have average people agree..I've done this several times. For eg. "men need to dominate women for a successful relationship?" translates into "do you agree that in a group of two people, one person's opinions or character tends to be validated by the other far more often than the other way around, ie, one person becomes the leader, and the other, their follower?", "yes", "and do you agree that the leader tends to be male if the other person he's put with is a female?" "yes".

These aren't exotic ideas once blatant offensiveness is removed.

I'm not sure what you're talking about? Nobody is advocating putting up with women's (or anyone's) shit. Standard dating advice from everyone is don't put women on the pedestal, don't take shit from someone just because you're in a relationship, don't be a doormat, have self-respect, etc. All standard advice.

You know, as someone who got into the PUA industry at 17, still in highschool, now 26, I can honestly tell you that this advice was aboslutely no where. This stuff starting coming around after the existence of PUA was popularized and women pretending they've been saying this shit all along, when they most certainly haven't. It's entirely a "oh...yea...that's what I meant, obviously" reaction to the upswing of male frustration, and pro-male movements on the internet in our age of information.

Going to the gym regularly wasn't even something people talked about or advice suggested by women when I was 17...all we had was garbage like "be yourself" and "women like nice guys, you'll see!"

Everybody agrees that people (even women) can be shitty in relationships. Red pillers think that women are particularly shitty in relationships and so to "survive" the dating game, you need to be shitty back to them and put them in their place. Non-RPers think that people can be shitty and being just as shitty as them means that there are more shitty people in the world and that's not a good solution (and, of course, that being a shitty person isn't an effective dating strategy either).

Then provide me a solution. "Fight fire with fire" is a pretty god damn great solution when you're dealing with a group of people who couldn't care less about the well being of you or your gender, so I'm genuinely curious because not a single person, especially women I've ever talked to has been able to provide me an alternative to combating the types of realizations and behaviors outlined in the RedPill that was even logically coherent, let alone being achievable, pragmatic, and effective at making me or my fellow RP's even approach being happy about women, dating, and sex again.

I'm all ears.

[–]mrsamsa3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

How ironic that BluePillar studies are undeniable, and RedPiller studies are faux-science. Surely you're intelligent enough to realize how extraordinarily and conveniently biased that statement is. At the very least, you're proposing the exact same failings in logic as you're claiming RP's make.

It's not "ironic", in the same way it isn't "ironic" that the studies evolutionists present are scientifically sound whereas the studies creationists present against them are flawed.

Red pillers are remarkably terrible at science. I have never met a group of people who pay so much lip service to the concept of science who have so little understanding of it. Earlier, either in this thread or another, some red piller was trying to use dictionary definitions to define a scientific concept. I'll let that sink in...

Not really, but I find it fascinating you've equated "purple pill debate" with "make TRP's defend themselves whilst we brow beat them, and stand for nothing in particular ourselves".

Red pillers are the ones with a position, the whole sub is geared towards them defending their views and other people challenging them.

This isn't a discussion over two competing worldviews. It's red pillers and everybody else. In the last survey I think it showed that something like 2/3rds of non-red pillers had nothing to do with the concept of "blue pill" (never visited the sub, didn't identify as such, etc etc).

What would it even mean to think that blue pillers had views to defend? What would they defend given that they don't agree on anything?

That logic doesn't hold up. Anecdote and personal experience is perfectly acceptable for the basis of a personal belief. You don't learn to farm by reading a book; you go be a farmer. You don't learn to be a social and sexual success by reading a book; you go try to make people like you, or want to have sex with you.

That's how you learn it, sure, but if your experiences are contradicted by objective evidence then you'd be foolish to cling to your beliefs.

Again, I'll bring up the example of homeopathy as you keep skipping past it. Say I learn about how to treat my illnesses by my experience with homeopathy. I claim that it cures my colds every time. Science says that it can't. Do my anecdotes count for anything?

Of course not.

I've already demonstrated why I don't agree with this.

You've asserted it, not demonstrated it.

I would agree whole heartedly on almost any other topic except this one. Especially when the only way to study socio-sexual trends tends to be to directly ask people, and people have a tendency to lie, even when they are told the study is anonymous,...something also demonstrated some studies I've seen, ironically.

You realise that research is aware of these limitations and control for them in various ways? If you think you can debunk practically any study done past 1970 by saying the subjects might be lying in self-report measurements, then you're just reinforcing my impression that red pillers and science are like chalk and cheese.

I don't necessarily agree. No other philosophical standard is held above anecdote. Some of the greatest work from some of the greatest philosophers in history have been essentially nothing but verbal diahhrea onto a page, from people-watching.

Nothing in philosophy is anecdote. Any time some breakthrough based on anecdote has been contradicted by empirical evidence, the anecdote is (correctly) dismissed.

You're just simply wrong on this issue. It makes no sense to prioritise anecdote over empirical evidence.

I mean, it's quite clear women do not like Nice Guystm and much prefer the jerk-jocks, but the narrative you hear from women is the opposite. If you approach or confront women about this, they jump through hoops to backwards rationalize why your experience must be unique, why you're a broken human being, or why you're actually some kind of misogynist asshole and it's in fact that that is causing you trouble in the dating world, and is no fault of women providing the male culture disingenuous and poorly communicated maxims.

There are a couple of issues with this:

1) you haven't presented any evidence that your claim is true

2) usually "Nice Guys" are assholes. Most actual nice guys I know have absolutely no problem getting girls, whilst the jerk jock types have extreme difficulty

3) your categorisations of people are always going to be biased by your own perspective and experiences (as will the girl's themselves) so it's entirely possible that you (and/or the girl) will be incorrectly categorising these guys. That's why empirical evidence is so important.

I don't agree. That's quite silly as far as I'm concerned. If I say the sky is blue without any scientific evidence to back up my claim beyond walking outside every day and you say the sky is purple, without any scientific evidence either, our two anecdotes are not of the same value.

Of course they are. You might accidentally end up being correct but our logical justifications for our positions would be precisely equal. Your opinion is not more valid than mine, your anecdotes are not superior to mine.

Your example is a great demonstration of the problem here. If you think the sky is blue and I think it's purple, we come to a stalemate. You have no evidence that isn't matched and contradicted by my own evidence. To decide which of our opinions is correct we need an objective arbiter, i.e. empirical evidence.

As far as I see it, RedPill is not making any claims that BluePillers don't agree does happen; the disagreement is almost entirely the intricacies of what those events mean.

Strongly disagree. There are many things we disagree on - the idea that girls don't go for "nice guys" and instead prefer jerk jocks, that they are more likely to cheat, that they are incapable of logical thought, that they can't love like men do, that they shit-test, that they are hypergamous, etc.

Not so much no. You can stay pretty close to actual TRP and have average people agree..I've done this several times. For eg. "men need to dominate women for a successful relationship?" translates into "do you agree that in a group of two people, one person's opinions or character tends to be validated by the other far more often than the other way around, ie, one person becomes the leader, and the other, their follower?", "yes", "and do you agree that the leader tends to be male if the other person he's put with is a female?" "yes". These aren't exotic ideas once blatant offensiveness is removed.

..Well sure, if you change the statement so it no longer says something which supports TRP then people will be more likely to support it, but if it no longer supports a tenet of TRP then it doesn't support your claim here..

The point of the statement is a normative statement: men should dominate women for the relationship to be successful. Saying that when two people are together a basic hierarchy can form, or that this tends to be a man, is absolutely and completely irrelevant to the normative claim from the red piller.

To make it clearer, there is one conclusion possible from the red pill tenet: the man needs to be the dominant one in a relationship. In the broader statement you give, there are multiple conclusions: the man can be dominant, the woman can be dominant, neither can be dominant, both can be dominant etc (and importantly none of the conclusions suggest a normative "should" setup).

If we try to restructure your statement into a normative statement so it can be compared to the TRP tenet, then what it will say is: "Dominant people should be the dominant person in a relationship, or both or neither, and this can include women being dominant over the man".

If you're telling me that a basic TRP tenet is that women should be dominant in some relationships then you've wildly misunderstood your own philosophy. This is especially true when you take AWALT into account when interpreting the above statements.

You know, as someone who got into the PUA industry at 17, still in highschool, now 26, I can honestly tell you that this advice was aboslutely no where. This stuff starting coming around after the existence of PUA was popularized and women pretending they've been saying this shit all along, when they most certainly haven't. It's entirely a "oh...yea...that's what I meant, obviously" reaction to the upswing of male frustration, and pro-male movements on the internet in our age of information.

To be generous I'll accept the claim that you personally didn't hear this advice, but you have to understand that it's laughable to claim that it didn't exist before the PUA movement.

Going to the gym regularly wasn't even something people talked about or advice suggested by women when I was 17...all we had was garbage like "be yourself" and "women like nice guys, you'll see!"

..."Go to the gym" has been the main form of advice since probably the beginning of time. And "be yourself" is basically what the watered down TRP is advocating: be confident, pursue your own interests, don't put women on the pedestal, etc etc.

Then provide me a solution.

I don't need to. If someone has cancer and wants to cure it by sticking a fork in an electrical socket, I don't need a better solution in order to tell them it's a bad idea.

There have been a number of threads and subs for alternatives to TRP, that topic has been covered to death and they do the issue far more justice than I can.

I'm mostly just here because TRP is hilarious to me, I'm not trying to save you.

"Fight fire with fire" is a pretty god damn great solution when you're dealing with a group of people who couldn't care less about the well being of you or your gender,

This is just so sad.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AFormidableContenderPurple Pill Man2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]drok007Not white enough to be blue pill0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Those_Who_RemainIrrelevant Homosexual0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]drok007Not white enough to be blue pill3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Those_Who_RemainIrrelevant Homosexual3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]drok007Not white enough to be blue pill1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AFormidableContenderPurple Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]VoidInvincibleFull Measure0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link