Do you think TRPers are "entitled"?

fizolof · 2014-12-08T14:15:38+00:00

When TRP is brought up in the mainstream reddit, one of the most frequent reactions is that they're "misogynistic assholes who feel entitled to...

[–][deleted] 30 points31 points32 points 11 years ago* (277 children) | Copy Link

It's the anger that makes them seem entitled.

Anger at women who aren't having sex with them. (Rage at AF/BB)

Anger at women who aren't dressing to please them. (Rage at short hair/tattoos) or dressing for men that don't include them. (Slutty)

And when they're finally gettin' some, for feeling that they are punishing women for not giving them what they wanted earlier. (Disdain for sluts, pump and dump, hating those they are now having sex with

Yeah. Entitlement fits.

You may not agree with that assessment, but that's why I consider them to be entitled.

At the end of the day, they're still hurt from being rejected. But they're angry because women had the nerve to refuse them something they thought they should have. Thought they were entitled to.

Slut bitch cunt whore cumrag slut slut slut slut.

[–]polyhooly10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

I think you've nailed it, but I'd like to elaborate on your point, because I see a lot of RPers being hung up on you calling them angry: I simply don't buy that the anger stage is only just a stage. TRP is a virulently hateful ideology. Anger and hate go hand in hand. You don't have hate without anger, and sorry, RPers, there is little you can do to convince me TRP is not a hateful ideology. You say you're not angry, but you fail to consider how your initial anger has just morphed into you becoming more complacent in your anger, becoming more despondent or detached about women, sex, and relationships as a coping mechanism because feeling rage all the time is just not healthy. So TRP is anger, or the following emotions to cope with that anger, from feeling cheated out of what you thought you were entitled to. You thought you followed the rules to get a girl, and were pissed when you felt your righteous efforts were ignored.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

Anger at women who aren't having sex with them. (Rage at AF/BB)

You are not wrong with your reasoning, but you are dishonest if you're making it all about sex.

Like when some guy complains about the friendzone, and people say "stupid entitled guy thought he could put nice coins in to get sex out."

Both a wrong...the guy comlaining about the friendzone is wrong...and the people putting him down are wrong, because in most of the cases it wasn't about sex for him. He was crazy in love, missing intimacy, trust and so on and was looking for a serious relationship.

He is still wrong,... but intentionally leaving everything he was hoping for out out and making it all about "he didn't get sex and therefore he is mangry" is deliberately misleading.

Same with the anger phase. If it was only about sex, I would simply go to prostitutes as it is legal here.

[–]60865554 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthaveRed Pill Male4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Here's my view of the friendzone as a redpiller:

males (blue pill males) harbor false beliefs about human sexuality. They believe it to be a rational instinct and in service of the individual. To that end, if they simply act nice then they believe a girl will grow to like them sexually. They have no understanding of how to build sexual attraction in a relationship. These men are not sexy.
males are too ashamed of their sexuality to express it. So when they feel attraction toward a girl, they think it's best not to communicate it. They don't tell her. But they keep thinking about it, frankly obsessing over it, and then one day it just explodes in an awkward and inappropriate announcement of love for a girl who has literally no idea why her friend is saying these things.
males harbor really unrealistic expectations of romantic love. Seriously, if they actually got the girl they're pinning for, they'd be terribly disappointed. Life isn't like Disney.

So as you can see, contrary to the common narrative about TRP that it's all about hating on women, all of my criticisms here are directed at males. Now admittedly, I could derive these criticisms of men by starting with criticsm of our culture, but the end result is the same. Guys get themselves into the friendzone.

[–]60865557 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthaveRed Pill Male6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

you don't need to be a redpiller to be aware of that kind of things

I'm not saying that TRP invented every single idea that is part of TRP. You don't need to be a feminist to believe that women deserve equality under the law - but that idea is a feminist idea.

In my opinion, men are lied to by society about human sexuality. That, to me, is the core of TRP. Men are ill prepared for the reality of relationships and are thus set up for failure. The actions that they take while in the friendzone are the perfect example of this. They actually believe that being nice is all it takes to win over a girl. That's a lie.

It is incredibly rare outside of TRP for anyone to admit that women like a man to have a little bit of an edge to him. I predict that if you suggested as much in public you would be shouted down for it.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]rp132 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

I agree with you but a lot of these things are a part of the 'stages' and are expected to fade away once you realize them and accept them.

I know this is basically a scotsman but most 'veteran' redpillers:

Don't care about AF/BB. In fact, they love it. Just be AF not BB
Don't care about short hair/tattoos. Women can dress how they want, just don't fuck them if you arent' attracted to them. Here, any residual anger is more mocking the entitlement implied by women who make themselves less attractive being bitter about men not wanting them: 'I want you to fuck me but I expect to not change myself at all for you to be attracted to me'
Most TRPers love sluts. Sluts and hookup culture are awesome for casual sex. TRP lifestyle would be impossible without it. Just don't commit or make promises.
( hating those they are now having sex with) I don't know any redpiller who advocates this. It's sad. Don't hate women. Love women. Women are fun and energetic and taste good.

At the end of the day, they're still hurt from being rejected. But they're angry because women had the nerve to refuse them something they thought they should have. Thought they were entitled to.

Yes, at first, but like I said this is expected to pass.

Slut bitch cunt whore cumrag slut slut slut slut.

Epithets are disgusting, but again, expected to pass.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]rp132 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TomHicksAntifeminist sans pills0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]rp132 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CyraleaRedPill Vanguard1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]CyraleaRedPill Vanguard3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]CyraleaRedPill Vanguard0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MisteralcalaWhere's my dinner?1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rph44240 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

First of all, you call the women who try to "deceive their way into a LTR" as "sluts." But your own language contradicts itself. If she was really a "slut," wouldn't she sleep with you and lord-knows who else instead of trying to get a monogamous relationship with you? At this point, you're just speaking from anger and sour grapes. "Oh, that bitch, I bought her dinner, and she had the nerve to not sleep with me until the third date!"

That's like saying, "God, what a pig, that dude over there didn't even eat the whole burrito." Your language is the opposite of what you intend, and it doesn't make sense. You don't make sense. And I totally understand why your argument doesn't make sense anymore- you're so blinded by hate that you can't see the forest from the trees anymore.

When you say these women try to "deceive their way into a LTR," you act as though that's the deceptive part. Maybe if you looked in the mirror, though, you'd see that really deep down, YOU'RE the slut, trying to deceive the woman into a one night stand.

[–]CyraleaRedPill Vanguard0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedPillWatchTower 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I think, if you could make an argument for anything, I'd say it's less that TRP men are angry and more-so that they are taken aback by the audacity of today's women.

Many are aghast when they find out the true, hypergamous nature of women. Hypergamy which, on its face, most men would be totally fine with over time, and eventual pill digesting.

It's only when these hypergamous, cock hopping women start declaring that they want to "settle down", flip the "Slut Be Gone" switch in her life, and expect men to line up to wife them up, do these men start lashing out. It's when a woman starts spewing obvious lies and omissions about the true nature of her character do these men have a "WTF" moment.

"Don't judge me by my past", these women will declare. Men are "judged by their pasts" their entire life, starting with the very moment they were picked last at the schoolyard kickball game. Everything about being a man is about being "judged", and these women, who "demand equality", expect to NOT be judged on basically anything about her? That's when they say "fuck that noise".

[–]rp132 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This attitude is exactly in line with older people who rail on the younger generation for thinking they're "entitled" to good jobs that make lots of money and have benefits and pensions.

In both cases, you have a group (men/young people) who have been sold a false bill of goods. They've been told "here are the rules, be good and play by them and you will succeed". And so they play by the rules, follow the advice given, and often, their effort produces nothing. So they say "Hey, I played by the rules, I did what I was supposed to do, and it sure as hell isn't working out in my favor."

And then you have another group (you/women/older people) who come along and respond with "OMG you're just entitled! you think people owe you good jobs/women owe you sex! The only reason you don't have a good job/girlfriend is because YOU'RE NOT GOOD ENOUGH! ITS YOUR FAULT AND NOBODY ELSES!"

So, yes, many TRPers are angry, but it's not a matter of entitlement (entitlement means expecting something at little or no cost or effort). In fact, its the fact that you frame it as "entitlement" that is a big part of the anger.

[–]steelpuppy5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (129 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (128 children) | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthaveRed Pill Male7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (127 children) | Copy Link

without all the anger

You're not going to accept this, but a huge part of your problem is that you label criticism as "anger."

Let's say I head over to /r/videos and see some kid try to do backflip with a skateboard and break his leg. I criticize him by saying, "wow he's an idiot; that was dumb." Are you going to come along and claim that I'm angry at him?

Let's say I head over to /r/finance and read a post about a guy who has kept every penny he's managed to save in suitcases buried in his backyard. He's 50 and ready to retire. He digs up the money and discovers that he has about $40,000. I criticize him by saying, "wow you made bad decisions and now you're life is going to be hard; here's what you should have done..." Are you going to say that I hate old people?

Let's say that I head over to /r/relationships and find a post by a woman of around 30 talking about how she is now, at long last, ready to settle down. She wants marriage and kids. "wat do?" she asks. The narrative of TRP is that relationships are exchanges of value. So I might criticize her for asking the highest possible price in terms of commitment but offer (what I consider to be) lower value in exchange for it.

Here, finally, we come to the point where you are personally offended by my opinion. So even though it is functionally the same as what I said to the retiree and the skateboarder, here you're going to say that I'm angry and hate women and so on.

The problem here is you, not me.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (126 children) | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthaveRed Pill Male4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (110 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (109 children) | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthaveRed Pill Male5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (108 children) | Copy Link

my point still stands

I'm not sure what you think "stands" means in this case. Your opinion has been challenged, and I've provided an alternative explanation for the things you're seeing.

we're not looking at a set of criticisms and analyzing if they are neutral, or if they stem from anger, resentment, disdain, hate, a strong dislike.

if you want to be all sciency-rigorous, then what we're actually not doing is taking a random selection of posts from TRP and applying some objective measure to them. Instead, what's actually happening is that you maybe sometimes read through TRP and you skip right over posts that don't match your preconceived idea. But each time you see a post that criticizes women, it confirms your bias - in fact, that's actually called confirmation bias.

I pointed out to you that one problem is, you're labeling simple criticism as anger. That is literally all that I need do in order to challenge your claim unless and until you can provide an objective measure that says otherwise.

There is a strong presence of all of those emotions on TRP.

Yep. Confirmation bias.

And they come from a sense of entitlement.

Another opinion that you haven't supported.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (107 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[removed]

[–]cuittler1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthaveRed Pill Male6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (102 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]nicethingyoucanthave1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

She stated her opinion that there's too much anger.

My alternate explanation is that she labels simple criticism as anger.

I've offered exactly as much proof as she has.

If she wants to make a provable claim, then I suggested how she might do that. Unless and until she does that, then the only conversation we can have is, "my opinion is there's too much anger" and "my opinion is, you're mislabeling stuff as anger."

It's totally fine to have that kind of discussion. But you don't get to demand that the second party to that discussion prove his point without demanding that she proves hers.

Her: It's too goddamn hot!

Me: Nah, I think it's about right. Could be that you're wearing a sweater.

It's ridiculous to say, "prove that it's not hot! prove that she's wearing a sweater!" when she's the one making the claim, and when I obviously cannot reach through the computer screen and see what she's wearing.

"It's too hot" is an opinion. And she's entitled to it. But I've offered a possible alternative explanation. Unless and until she offers some objective proof that it's actually hot, my alternative is good enough.

[–][deleted]2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthave3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

my premise

If you just want to have a discussion based around a premise and expressing opinions, that's cool with me. You've stated your opinion and I've argued against it.

You didn't prove your opinion to be true. You only argued for it intellectually - and that's fine. But then, I attacked it in the same way, and that's all I'm required to do. You're not my audience anyway.

On the other hand, if you want to do more than have an opinion-based discussion, if you want to actually make a claim, then your claim here centers around there being some specific amount of anger in TRP (the existence of any anger at all is not enough to support your position, because every group has angry members). That is a positive claim of the form: X% of Y is Z. That's something that you have to prove - if you want this to a fact-based discussion.

I was nice enough to suggest a way for you to prove it here

it's the anger, disdain, hate, and resentment that shows that RP men are entitled

Sure. So, I can run over to /r/tumblrinaction and find a few examples of feminists being angry and hating on men. That's enough for me to have the opinion that feminism is a hate movement. But if I actually want to make that claim, then I'd need something a little more rigorous, because the mere existence of those examples is anecdotal, even if I have 10,000 examples.

Regardless, what is absolutely hilarious is that you'll make the claim, "X% of TRP is anger" and then when I say that's not true, you tell me that I need to prove the "not true" assertion in order to defeat a claim that you haven't supported in the first place.

The fact that you think you get to make claims without proof, but I have to prove them false is, ironically, entitled.

[–][deleted]2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So, I can run over to /r/tumblrinaction and find a few examples of feminists being angry and hating on men. That's enough for me to have the opinion that feminism is a hate movement.

No, assuming they were representative, that would be enough to show that TIA hates men. TIA doesn't represent feminism. TRP represents the red pill though. Sad but true.

I didn't say that you had to do anything. You came forward to debunk with the presence of criticism, I said that it wasn't a logically sound argument.

I suggested what would be logically sound. Not intending for you to do it. I mean, I take it as common knowledge that TRP (and some of the RP guys here) is absolutely brimming with with disdain, resentment, anger and hate towards women. It's obvious. Like gravity.

You don't find TRP to be full of men that don't like women? Fine.

Contrary to what you thought, I'm not expecting you go go through and put a check mark next to the angry posts, an asterisk next to the resentful posts, tally them up, tag them according to commenter, correlate according to which phase of the red pill he's on, and take a percentage to the guys on TRP that are expressing objective criticism with views on women that are not entrenched in resentment and disdain, weigh according to upvotes and downvotes and so on in order to come up with a percent.

And I don't intend on doing that either.

If you don't think TRP is full to the brim of disdain, resentment, anger and hate towards women, that's enough for me. We simply have different definitions of those words.

[–]nicethingyoucanthave4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

assuming they were representative, that would be enough to show that TIA hates men

Assuming they're representative is the whole point, my friend. If I select posts which fit my narrative, then I have not proven my claim. I've only employed selection bias.

You don't find TRP to be full of men that don't like women?

No, but I understand that you do find TRP to be full of angry men who hate women.

You're not going to accept this, but a huge part of your problem is that you label criticism as "anger." Let's say I head over to /r/videos and see some kid try to do backflip with a skateboard and break his leg. I criticize him by saying, "wow he's an idiot; that was dumb." Are you going to come along and claim that I'm angry at him?

Let's say I head over to /r/finance and read a post about a guy who has kept every penny he's managed to save in suitcases buried in his backyard. He's 50 and ready to retire. He digs up the money and discovers that he has about $40,000. I criticize him by saying, "wow you made bad decisions and now you're life is going to be hard; here's what you should have done..." Are you going to say that I hate old people?

Let's say that I head over to /r/relationships and find a post by a woman of around 30 talking about how she is now, at long last, ready to settle down. She wants marriage and kids. "wat do?" she asks. The narrative of TRP is that relationships are exchanges of value. So I might criticize her for asking the highest possible price in terms of commitment but offer (what I consider to be) lower value in exchange for it.

Here, finally, we come to the point where you are personally offended by my opinion. So even though it is functionally the same as what I said to the retiree and the skateboarder, here you're going to say that I'm angry and hate women and so on.

The problem here is you, not me.

[–][deleted]2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthave2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthave2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]nicethingyoucanthave2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthave3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthave3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthave3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthave3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthave3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

you want me to cite all the peer reviewed works debunking it

Well first of all, there is peer-reviewed science supporting it. If you think one is able to "debunk" peer-reviewed science, (as opposed to simply finding errors in the previous work) then we have kind of a huge problem with the whole process here. See, lies are debunked. Flawed science is simply corrected.

If you're claiming that every scientist that has been published in, for example, this journal is a liar, then that's a very serious claim you're making.

when applied to humans?

So it works for other animals, but not us??

Yeah, if you think that some physical process influences behavior in every single species that ever evolved in the billions of years of life on Earth except this one species that you just so happen to be a member of - you think that different rules apply to humans, then you are amazingly (and naively) arrogant.

You are an animal. You are a hominid that evolved in a rift valley in Africa. Like many other animals, you have the ability to make decisions independently and to override instincts, but you are not in any way different in kind from other animals; only in degree. That means that if you want to disregard a finding that can be proven in other animals, and appears true of humans as well, you have a serious uphill battle. "We're different" doesn't begin to cut it - especially when you have a political axe to grind.

But to answer your question, no I don't want you to cite anything yet. You said, "it doesn't work" so I want you to give an example of a purpose for which it doesn't work and for which you have a better alternative. What is your alternative?

[–][deleted]-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthave3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I told you. I'm not a psychologist or gender relations expert.

I'm not asking you to be an expert. I'm asking you to do defend or question what you believe. That's the tagline of this sub. If you're not willing or able to do that, then you might be more comfortable in a different subreddit.

The scientific community has already spoken

I linked you to a peer-reviewed journal, and I could link to other articles in other journals too. You haven't bothered to read a single source that I've provided. You just dismiss everything with a wave of your hand. You aren't arguing in good faith.

you're desperate

...and you're projecting. You're the one who brought up evopsych. So I decided to ask what you actually know about it. I have my answer: you know absolutely nothing.

Your objections to TRP are a result of ideological baggage you brought to the table, and systematic biases that reinforce your beliefs. Worse, you are unable to defend your beliefs and when the topic is broadened to other fields of science, you dismiss them out of hand because you're unable to even articulate your beliefs.

[–][deleted]0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthave3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I don't find it necessary to question what I believe w/r to scientology either.

An intelligent person is able to articulate his objection to scientology. You are not able to articulate your objection to evopsych.

Ironically, the way you dismiss evopsych with a wave of your hand makes you sound exactly like a scientologist dismissing psychology. (for example, Tom Cruise) <--- that's what you sound like.

Says science.

This is word salad. Be specific. Here's an actual scientist - Edward Hagen. PhD from UC Santa Barbara. He has prepared a very detailed FAQ about evolutionary psychology (can you be bothered to read just one link? I wonder) http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/epfaq/evpsychfaq_full.html

Is Edward Hagen a liar? Is he engaged in pseudoscience? Are all the arguments he makes wrong?

evo-psych is not adequate to describe human behavior

What specific claims have scientists in this field made that you feel are inaccurate?

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthave3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]autowikibot1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Scientific consensus:

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.

Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others), and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the 'normal' debates through which science progresses may seem to outsiders as contestation. On occasion, scientific institutes issue position statements intended to communicate a summary of the science from the "inside" to the "outside" of the scientific community. In cases where there is little controversy regarding the subject under study, establishing what the consensus is can be quite straightforward.

Scientific consensus may be invoked in popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but which may not be controversial within the scientific community, such as evolution or the claimed linkage of MMR vaccinations and autism.

Interesting: Scientific opinion on climate change | Discredited HIV/AIDS origins theories | Climate change denial | Ionization cone

Parent commenter can [toggle NSFW](/message/compose?to=autowikibot&subject=AutoWikibot NSFW toggle&message=%2Btoggle-nsfw+cmpr6qe) or [delete](/message/compose?to=autowikibot&subject=AutoWikibot Deletion&message=%2Bdelete+cmpr6qe). Will also delete on comment score of -1 or less. | FAQs | Mods | Magic Words

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]autowikibot1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Peer review:

Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people of similar competence to the producers of the work (peers). It constitutes a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards of quality, improve performance, and provide credibility. In academia peer review is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication. In parallel with these 'common experience' definitions based on the study of peer review as a pre-constructed process, there are a few scientific understandings of peer review that do not look at peer review as pre-constructed. Hirschauer proposed that journal peer review can be understood as reciprocal accountability of judgements among peers. Gaudet proposed that journal peer review could be understood as a social form of boundary judgement - determining what can be considered as scientific (or not) set against an overarching knowledge system, and following predecessor forms of inquisition and censorship.

====

Image i - A reviewer at the National Institutes of Health evaluates a grant proposal.

Interesting: Academic journal | Sham peer review | Medical peer review

Parent commenter can [toggle NSFW](/message/compose?to=autowikibot&subject=AutoWikibot NSFW toggle&message=%2Btoggle-nsfw+cmpr70k) or [delete](/message/compose?to=autowikibot&subject=AutoWikibot Deletion&message=%2Bdelete+cmpr70k). Will also delete on comment score of -1 or less. | FAQs | Mods | Magic Words

[–][deleted]0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthave2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthave2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthave2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

disagreements among scientists do not make them liars.

Wow. I have finally dragged you kicking and screaming into responding to a question I asked you in this post 16 hours ago.

That's right. These scientists aren't lying - even if perfect consensus doesn't exist.

that is a common criticism, from their scientific peer community that these guys are yes engaging in pseudoscience.

This is simply not true. You're making it up out of whole cloth. You literally have no idea what you're talking about. You've never heard of Stephen Jay Gould or E.O. Wilson. You have no idea that this is a debate that has been going on since the 1970s.

I've shown you sources and FAQs by eminent and famous scientists. You haven't managed any sort of rebuttal. The only reason you're so interested in this is that you have a political axe to grind.

[–][deleted]0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthave2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Who said I didn't read your links?

They don't help you. They don't gain you scientific consensus.

You want me to accept evo-psych? Then you need to convince the scientific community that it's more scientivically based than they assessed it to be.

Of course I cited something to support "my side." "My side", the peer scientific community, says that evo-psych is controversial at best, pseudoscience at worst.

You have refused to address the issue of scientific consensus and what is required for a theory to have wider acceptance within a community.

Instead, you keep pointing to the fact that there is an actual scientist involved and that he doesn't lie.

What do you want, a cookie? That's the bare minimum. FAQs written for popular science guys like you do little to convince the rest of the subject matter expert community that there is any merit to the theory.

Like I said, repeatedly, and you keep ignoring becuase you have absolutely no idea how to address this:

come back when evo-psych is widely accepted, and then we'll talk.

[–]xthecharacter2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthave2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You have offered literally nothing in this discussion to support your claims though, and your claims about this field are quite broad. There are "controversies" in all areas of science (string theory vs. the standard model for example). You point to the simple existence of controversy without being specific - it's a tactic that climate change deniers often use.

I know, I know, you're going to claim that anthropogenic climate change has more support than evolutionary psychology - but that's just more vague handwaving. You haven't offered anything to support that claim and further more climate change is a single conclusion (a result) from the field of climatology. Evolutionary psychology is a field.

If you actually knew what you were talking about, then you might point to a conclusion from this field and say, "this result is controversial" but since you don't know what you're talking about, you just repeat the vague claim that "there's no consensus" in the field.

It's laughable.

You're as ill informed as would be someone who disagrees with the idea of climate change (the result) saying, "climatology is bunk! There's controversy!!" - that's a ridiculous statement because climatology is just the field - the study of climate.

So then I might ask you specifically what problem you have with measuring the ocean's temperature or the amount of CO2 in the air (climatology) but you're too far gone to even realize what I'm asking. Your real problem is disagreement with the conclusion. You just aren't able to articulate it

You actually don't know of any conclusions from evolutionary psychology. And when I post links, you don't bother to read them. And if you did, you wouldn't be able to challenge them anyway.

[–][deleted]-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Climate change actually has a scientific consensus. The controversy is political.

Evo-psych doesn't. Scientists seen it controversial at best, pseudo science at worst.

When you're able to address the concerns that peer scientists in the community have made, then you'll have something. But the scientists themselves promoting Evi-psych haven't been able to address the community's concerns, so why would you be able to?

I wouldn't expect you to.

This whole arguement is going over your head because you think a debate between what you read on the net and what I read on the net is going to make a difference.

Scientists have already hashed this out. The conclusion is that Evi-psych doesn't have enough credibility to be accepted by the community.

you aren't going to be able to address those points. You're just a groupie.

This whole discussion is way over your head because you don't understand how science actually works.

The best you can hope to do is address why it is not accepted in the scientific community. But really, until there's a consensus, you're just grasping at straws here.

Sorry, I've got science on my side for the meantime. If that changes, let me know. Right now, you don't have anything going for you here.

[–]nicethingyoucanthave2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Scientists seen it controversial at best, pseudo science at worst.

You keep making statements like this about the field - the entire field. And not once in this entire discussion have you substantiated those statements.

So let's get specific. Let's look at a single result: hormonal contraceptive use predicts female extra-pair and dyadic sexual behavior.

What specifically is wrong with this result? No more vague hand waving and saying things like:

Sorry, I've got science on my side for the meantime

Prove it!

I'm pointing to a specific peer-reviewed scientific result withing the field of evolutionary psychology. If science is on your side, then what specifically is wrong with this result? There are six authors on this paper. The lead researcher has a PhD in clinical psychology from a university that ranks in the top 2% in the entire world. She has 21 other published peer-reviewed papers. You cannot dismiss this result with a wave of your hand and a vague reference to imagined controversy. You have to be specific. What is wrong with this specific scientific result?

[–][deleted]0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Why are you asking me to refute a paper that has been accepted by the community? I will refute how RP draws conclusions from said paper. TRP doesn't understand how to use these studies at all. That's why they sound so wacky talking about it.

But even more so, you're missing the point.

You still don't understand how this works. Why aren't you bringing forth papers that have different explanations? Because you're not interested.

The debate is not happening between you and me. You're a groupie, and I don't care. Neither of us is informed or knowledgeable enough to decide whether or not there is any merit to evo-psych, and under what conditions. Scientists are doing that right now. They're hashing it out, they're deciding what is valid and what isn't. They could find out that Evi-psych explains some things, and not others. They could find it's just lazy analysis. We don't know yet, and we're not going to find out before they do. Meantime, Evo-psych has yet to acquire acceptance.

Also, since you don't understand the world of peer review, you don't understand that the sentence "these results suggest..." Is what gets the paper accepted for publication. If they would say "these results prove..." It would be rejected. However, you and other RP types take it as if it was stated "these results prove..." And wonder why the rest if us think you're off your rocker.

Like I said. I have science on my side.

[–]nicethingyoucanthave2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Why are you asking me to refute a paper that has been accepted by the community?

I'm not asking you to refute it. I'm only asking what is wrong with it. You have repeatedly claimed that the field of evopsych is "nonsense." So I have posted a specific result from that field and asked if you feel this result is invalid.

Predictably, you have no good response. You probably couldn't even follow the language of the paper. So next you try changing the subject:

I will refute how RP draws conclusions from said paper.

This is called moving the goalposts. Here's what you originally said: evo-psych is nonsense.

You did not say, "TRP misuses this perfectly valid field containing perfectly valid results." Nope, you said evopsych itself is nonsense.

So which is it? Is the whole field nonsense, or are there valid results, but TRP misuses them?

I have science on my side.

More hand waving. I'm the one referencing peer-reviewed science here. You're just thrashing about making unsupported claims.

[–][deleted]0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yes, I still think evo-psych is nonsense. I'm not moving the goalposts. There is nothing right now to show me that it's not. There is a scientific community of people more knowledgable than you or I that says it's controversial at best, pseudo-science at worst.

It's not looking good for you. You can't argue with the scientific community. You can't. You're just an evo-psych groupie that doesn't know how to use the publications.

Do you understand what the paper is saying? It's tallying up data connecting sex with oral contraceptives and hormone levels. Those are the results. These results, I don't have a problem with.

Where is the evo-psych here? Where is it? Can you point it out?

There is no problem with the results, there is a problem with the evo-psych. Which is my whole point.

There isn't any evo-psych in the results. The evo-psych is in the conjecture.

Look. You don't get science. You don't understand the process, you don't understand the wording of peer reviewed journals, you don't understand how to interpret what you're using, and don't understand what it means.

Let's look at the wording of the abstract:

potentially indicating higher commitment to their current relationship.

Potentially indicating.

That means, they don't have a proven explanation. That means, if you subscribe to evo-psych, you will find an evo-psych explanation. And if you don't, you will find a different explanation. There is no proof of evo-psych here. This is conjecture.

These results suggest that suppression of fertility through OC use may alter important aspects of female sexual behavior, with potential implications for relationship functioning and stability.

These results suggest....

May alter...

Potential impacts....

This is actually the hand waving that you are talking about. They have no proof of evo-psych. They cannot conclude anything having to do with evo-psych. There are no conclusions here, there is no proof. These results do not prove that evo-psych is a relevant theory. If this is the best that evo-psych can do, then of COURSE the peer scientific community will say it's pseudo-science.

Where is the basis for evo-psych here? Where is it? It's just conjecture.

The only hard science that is here is the correlation between sex and contraceptives. That's all.

If you want to know the problems that the scientivic community has with evo-psych, look it up on wikipedia. It's well known. I don't have the degree, and neither do you. I don't have the background, and neither do you.

But I do know enough about journal publications to know that you don't know how to interpret what you're citing.

Yes. Evo-psych is nonsense.

Says science.

Come back when the consensus has changed.

[–]nicethingyoucanthave2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthave2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I already listed for you the journal-speak for "can't prove this but this is what I think."

Potentially indicating....

These results suggest....

May alter...

Potential impacts....

It's all there.

The hard part for you, is that the entirety of your belief is based on what comes afterwards. Your belief system is based on the conjecture. Not the science. It's based on the hand-waving. Not the results.

And what are you going to say when I go and find a bunch of papers in medical journals or regular psychology journals or any other field of science that use the exact same language?

OF COURSE it's in other journals. It's in EVERY journal. It's in EVERY field. Why in the world do you think I'm so versed in the cop-out language that people put in their publications? Look up the American Insitute of Chemical Engineers. I've got a few papers in there. And I'VE used that language because I'VE got theories that I can't prove. But I want people to know WHAT I THINK the reason for the results is, even though I can't prove it at the time of the publication.

That's the way it works.

You're just unfamiliar with it.

It's why I say, RPs have no idea what they're doing with these studies, and have no idea how to interpret the results.

You're a classic example.

[–]nicethingyoucanthave2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's in EVERY journal. It's in EVERY field.

Your claim is, "evo-psych is nonsense."

Your support for that claim is that the single EP paper you've ever looked at contains words like, "potentially indicating"

You admit that such language is in every journal in every field.

...so, every field is like evolutionary psychology.

I went to the website of the New England Journal of Medicine and this was the first article on the front page, A Randomized Trial of Intraarterial Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke. Quote: "For these reasons, intraarterial treatment is regarded as a potentially important component of the therapeutic armamentarium."

Here's another, Pneumonia from Human Coronavirus in a Macaque Model. Quote: "Studies revealed a broad tropism for replication in cell lines originating from different mammalian species, potentially indicating a low barrier for cross-species transmission."

From the Journal of Immunology: Psychological Stress in Children May Alter the Immune Response

Your belief system is based on the conjecture. Not the science.

I'm not even attempting to defend my belief system. I'm attacking your ridiculous claims. Let's go back through the thread and pick out the various scientists working the field of evolutionary psychology that I've named and asked you about. Are all these distinguished, sometimes famous people engaged in conjecture?

this comment asks about Katerina Klapilova
in this comment, /u/xthecharacter asks you about Steven Pinker
in this comment I mentioned E.O. Wilson.
and here I linked you to Edward Hagen's CV and a very helpful FAQ on evolutionary psychology, that I presume you didn't bother to read, because when I posted Dr. Klapilova's paper, you said, "Where is the evo-psych here?" You don't even know what it is that you disagree with!

Let's go back to EPJournal. I am really liking this paper: Evidence of Systematic Bias in Sexual Over- and Underperception of Naturally Occurring Events: A direct Replication of Haselton (2003) in a more Gender-Equal Culture. I'm sure you'll dismiss it with an arrogant wave of your hand because just like all the other studies, the author is *gasp* professional and knowledgeable enough not to overstate himself, and uses words like "suggests." It's hilarious to me that you think that makes the whole work conjecture.

[–][deleted]0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No.

My reason for saying Evi-psych is nonsense is because the scientific community has not accepted it.

Period.

I've stated so over 15 times and you think that by listing a few scientists' credentials that somehow is enough to counter the fact that it is not accepted. The scientists that do not accept it also have credentials, you know? That's how it works. Your scientists have failed to convince the community.

Period.

... Are all these distinguished, sometimes famous people involved in conjecture?

Scientists ALWAYS engage in conjecture. That's a big part of it. If you want your theories to be accepted, you need to PROVE your conjecture.

That's how it works. That is the... Scientific method.

Listing a bunch of publications that use the cop out wording- what's the point? I told you that everyone uses the cop out wording. EVERYONE. It doesn't matter what the field is. I use the cop out wording too. ALL scientists do.

What you're unable to do, because you simply do not have the training, is to differentiate between what is proven and what is conjecture.

That's great you are "really liking" the paper, but you don't understand it, don't know what to do with it. The author isn't overstating his finds, but you certainly are. I didn't say the whole work was conjecture, you didn't understand me. I said that the Evi-psych part is the conjecture.

And that this is a classic case of a red piller not knowing what to do with, or not understanding a paper that is brought forward as proof of something.

Vornash just did this actually. He likes these journal articles. Just doesn't know how to read them.

You guys simply aren't trained for this.

You're not scientists, you're groupies.

[–]nicethingyoucanthave2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

the scientific community has not accepted it.

More handwaving. You can't actually support anything you've said.

I've posted actual, peer-reviewed examples of the science of evolutionary psychology. Your objections to the papers I've posted were pathetic. The papers I've posted are fully accepted by the scientific community. There is nothing remotely wrong with them.

Listing a bunch of publications that use the cop out wording- what's the point?

The point is to highlight the absurdity of your position. Your position is that there's something different about evolutionary psychology, so I provided evidence that your position is wrong.

The author isn't overstating his finds, but you certainly are.

You're a liar. I'm certain that if I'd "overstated his finds" that you would have quoted me for effect.

I said that the Evi-psych part is the conjecture.

That's a hilariously meaningless statement.

Here, for the THIRD TIME is a link to a FAQ by an actual scientist actually working in the actual field. You might consider reading it this time.

[–][deleted]0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthave2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The FAQ isn't helping you.

The FAQ is a direct refutation of your claim that "the evi-psych is the conjecture." The FAQ defines the field for you, proving that what the scientists are engaged in is not simply conjecture.

See that? When I shoot down your ridiculous claims, I offer proof.

I didn't say that the cop out wording was different

This conversation started because you claimed that "evo-psych is nonsense." The whole field is nonsense, according to you.

But you only ever make vague statements about exactly what it is that is wrong. "Evi psych is not accepted" is a vague, hand-waving statement. When I tried to get you to be more specific, you said that the problem was what you called "cop out wording" so I showed examples of the exact same wording in other fields. Ergo, you did claims that something about the wording was different - else there was no point mentioning it at all

You are indeed overstating the author's finds.

You are a liar. If I had actually "overstated the author's finds" I'm certain you would quote me doing it.

you don't know how to interpret these publications.

Irrelevant. I have attempted no interpretation. You made a claim and I've posted peer-reviewed papers asking you to support your claim by showing problems with those publications. You haven't been able to do that. You tried to do it by saying the wording was "cop out wording" but as you now admit, that wording is typical of scientific papers. So the existence of that wording doesn't support your claim that evolutionary psychology is "nonsense"

You have utterly failed here. I'm content to keep bashing you over the head with it if you like.

[–][deleted]0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I didn't claim that evo-psych is conjecture. I claimed that the evo-psych part of that paper that you cited was conjecture because they had no proof connecting their results to the evo-psych explanation.

I claimed that evo-psych was nonsense because it isn't accepted by the scientific community. When they have a consensus accepting it, then come back. It's a vague statement, yes. But you can find that there isn't a scientific consensus and that many actual scientists doing actual work in the actual field consider it to be pseudoscience, just by googling it.

You're overstating the author's finds because you are unable to see that the part about evo-psych is the part that is conjecture. Not proof. They used the cop out wording.

Ergo, you did claims that something about the wording was different - else there was no point mentioning it at all

Nope. You went through a useless exercise to prove something to me that I already knew and tried to explain to you prior.

You haven't been able to do that.

I did actually.

You tried to do it by saying the wording was "cop out wording" but as you now admit, that wording is typical of scientific papers.

Yes, and I explained that scientists use it when they have no proof. Which was my point. There is no proof of evo-psych being an explanation for the connection between hormones and sexual activity.

You have utterly failed here. I'm content to keep bashing you over the head with it if you like.

You don't know how to read scientific papers. You don't understand the peer review process. You don't understand what a scientific consensus is. You don't understand how scientists can disagree with each others' results.

I'm trying to explain it to you, but you don't want to learn. That's not my problem, that's yours.

Also, the FAQ doesn't prove anything. I already told you. It isn't helping you.

[–]nicethingyoucanthave2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

it isn't accepted by the scientific community

More handwaving. I've posted actual peer-reviewed scientific papers by actual scientists with actual PhD's from actual universities. You have done literally nothing to impeach their work.

Their work is scientifically valid and it stands.

the part about evo-psych is the part that is conjecture.

LOL! Hillarious! I can't believe you actually typed that out and thought it made sense.

"the part about evo-psych" LOL! There is no "part about evopscyh." The papers are results in the field of evolutionary psychology. Not "part" of them. Not just one or two words. The entire thing.

You're not going to weasel your way out of this. Those papers are scientifically valid and they stand.

There is no proof of evo-psych being an explanation for the connection between hormones and sexual activity.

This sentence too shows your ignorance. You can't prove a field. Remember when I tried to explain the difference between a field and a result? Evolutionary psychology is a field, like climatology. Anthropomorphic climate change is a result from that field. If you say something like, "there is no proof of climate change" then okay - wrong, but at least it's a sentence that makes sense.

You are so clueless that you just said, "there is no proof of climatology being an explanation for ..."

the FAQ doesn't prove anything.

The FAQ is written by an actual scientist with an actual PhD and it directly refutes your claim about what evolutionary psychology is.

[–][deleted]0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

More handwaving. I've posted actual peer-reviewed scientific papers by actual scientists with actual PhD's from actual universities. You have done literally nothing to impeach their work.

Their work is scientifically valid and it stands.

You're wrong. Their work is not enough to make evo-psych accepted in the community. The "community" is comprised of:

actual peer-reviewed scientific papers by actual scientists with actual PhD's from actual universities.

The community is not impressed. The community is not convinced.

"the part about evo-psych" LOL! There is no "part about evopscyh." The papers are results in the field of evolutionary psychology. Not "part" of them. Not just one or two words. The entire thing.

You're not going to weasel your way out of this. Those papers are scientifically valid and they stand.

You're wrong.

I'll explain again. There were results: birth control use and sex drive. There was a correlation between them. That's not evo-psych.

There was an unproven explanation given for the correlation. That part was evo-psych. That part was conjecture.

You can absolutely take papers apart and separate the proven results from the conjecture. The good experiments from teh bad. It's a good ability to develop for someone who reads papers and bases research off of them.

you don't know how to do that.

This sentence too shows your ignorance. You can't prove a field. Remember when I tried to explain the difference between a field and a result? Evolutionary psychology is a field, like climatology. Anthropomorphic climate change is a result from that field. If you say something like, "there is no proof of climate change" then okay - wrong, but at least it's a sentence that makes sense.

Nope. That's not what I said. I said that their explanation was conjecture. The explanation is the bit about evo-psych.

The FAQ is written by an actual scientist with an actual PhD and it directly refutes your claim about what evolutionary psychology is.

The FAQ doesn't prove anything. And again, you're wrong. the scientific community doesn't accept evo-psych.

[–]nicethingyoucanthave2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Their work is not enough to make evo-psych accepted in the community.

"enough" is a weasel word.

The papers I've posted are scientifically valid. They were written by respected scientists and you've not even come close to impeaching them. They are works in the field of evolutionary psychology and they are fully accepted by the scientific community.

That's not evo-psych.

The actual scientists who did the research say otherwise. Your wild claims to the contrary hold absolutely no water next to what actual scientists say.

The explanation is the bit about evo-psych.

Once again your phrasing shows your ignorance. There is no "bit about evo-psych" anymore than a paper about methane is a "bit about climatology." The entire paper would be climatology, just as the entirety of the papers I've posted is evolutionary psychology.

...and the papers are valid works of science. You've offered no meaningful criticism of them.

The FAQ doesn't prove anything.

The FAQ refutes your claims about what evolutionary psychology is. It's like if you claimed that climatology was something it wasn't. A FAQ written by a scientist working in that field would indeed prove you wrong.

[–][deleted]0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The papers I've posted are scientifically valid.

Yes, I've said as much. And yet, the scientific community isn't convinced.

You have yet to reconcile those two statements.

Your wild claims to the contrary hold absolutely no water next to what actual scientists say.

Actually, I was repeating, verbatim, what the scientists were saying.

Once again your phrasing shows your ignorance.

Nope. It shows you don't know how to deconstruct a paper.

A FAQ written by a scientist working in that field would indeed prove you wrong.

Again, you're missing the point. The scientist doesn't need to prove me wrong, the scientist needs to convince the scientific community that he/she is right.

The FAQ refutes your claims about what evolutionary psychology is.

I made a claim about what evo psych was? Nope.

[–]nicethingyoucanthave2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The papers I've posted are scientifically valid.

Yes, I've said as much. And yet, the scientific community isn't convinced.

You have yet to reconcile those two statements.

Sure I have. Let's go over it again: When you say, "the scientific community isn't convinced" that's you (attempting unsuccessfully to) dismiss an entire field with the wave of your hand. Instead of letting you get away with that, I ask you for specifics, and I do that by posting actual, peer-reviewed science.

...which you now admit is scientifically valid. So if the papers in the field are scientifically valid, then your claim that "the scientific community isn't convinced" holds no water. Not convinced of what? Not convinced of your straw man? Okay. But you admit that the actual scientific work of actual scientists actually working in the actual field is valid.

It's you who have something to reconcile, not me.

It shows you don't know how to deconstruct a paper.

"Deconstruct a paper??" LOL!!

I've asked you what is wrong with the paper, and you flailed about, claiming certain language was the problem. So then I provided examples of the same language from other fields and you admitted that language was common.

We're back to there being nothing wrong with the papers. Your claims have been refuted.

The scientist doesn't need to prove me wrong

The scientist didn't. I did, by citing him.

I made a claim about what evo psych was?

You said that the field of evolutionary psychology was nonsense. I posted actual peer-reviewed science and you backpedaled, saying that only certain portions of the paper count as evolutionary psychology. The FAQ refutes that by explaining exactly what evolutionary psychology is.

[–][deleted]0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthave2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

reconcile these two statements:

did you ... did you just ask me to reconcile two statements that you made?? Wow.

Let's go over it again: When you say, "the scientific community isn't convinced" that's you (attempting unsuccessfully to) dismiss an entire field with the wave of your hand. Instead of letting you get away with that, I ask you for specifics, and I do that by posting actual, peer-reviewed science.

...which you now admit is scientifically valid. So if the papers in the field are scientifically valid, then your claim that "the scientific community isn't convinced" holds no water.

Not convinced of what? Not convinced of your straw man? Okay. But you admit that the actual scientific work of actual scientists actually working in the actual field is valid.

It's you who have something to reconcile, not me. <--- see this sentence right here?

[–][deleted]0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthave2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthave1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

you just don't understand how things work.

Right. Well, here's how I think things work: You make the claim that the field of evolutionary psychology is nonsense. So then I start questioning you about that and realize you have not a single shinny clue as to exactly what the field is. I offer you some helpful reading, but you just ignore it. I even offer you this paper which details misrepresentations of evolutionary psychology as a probable explanation for why you think it's nonsense.

You do absolutely nothing except wave your hands in the air and make vague dismissive statements. So I try to get really specific - I start posting actual results from the field. You backpedal by saying that those papers aren't evolutionary psychology at all. Then you say that only parts of them are. Finally, you admit that the papers are scientifically valid.

Which brings us back to your claim. It remains unsupported.

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthave1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

reconcile these two statements:

did you ... did you just ask me to reconcile two statements that you made?? Wow.

Let's go over it again: When you say, "the scientific community isn't convinced" that's you (attempting unsuccessfully to) dismiss an entire field with the wave of your hand. Instead of letting you get away with that, I ask you for specifics, and I do that by posting actual, peer-reviewed science.

...which you now admit is scientifically valid. So if the papers in the field are scientifically valid, then your claim that "the scientific community isn't convinced" holds no water.

Not convinced of what? Not convinced of your straw man? Okay. But you admit that the actual scientific work of actual scientists actually working in the actual field is valid.

It's you who have something to reconcile, not me. <--- see this sentence right here?

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthave1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthave1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

you just don't understand how things work.

Right. Well, here's how I think things work: You make the claim that the field of evolutionary psychology is nonsense. So then I start questioning you about that and realize you have not a single shinny clue as to exactly what the field is. I offer you some helpful reading, but you just ignore it. I even offer you this paper which details misrepresentations of evolutionary psychology as a probable explanation for why you think it's nonsense.

You do absolutely nothing except wave your hands in the air and make vague dismissive statements. So I try to get really specific - I start posting actual results from the field. You backpedal by saying that those papers aren't evolutionary psychology at all. Then you say that only parts of them are. Finally, you admit that the papers are scientifically valid.

Which brings us back to your claim. It remains unsupported.

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthave1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I have.

Repeatedly.

I have been trying to explain to you in different ways in post after post. I don't know how else to do it.

You haven't understood my replies. You haven't understood that I have addressed every point you brought up. And the reason you don't understand is that you don't comprehend how it is possible to publish a valid scientific study with the theory not accepted by the community.

You don't get it. I tried to explain, you don't get it.

It's something that happens all the time in the world of science. I'm trying to explain it to you and you don't get it.

This is where the misunderstanding stems from. I don't know how else to explain a process that is both logical and very familiar to me.

I tried.

You don't get it.

You can say that I haven't explained it adequately, sure. I accept that. I tried.

But the problem is, we can't move on until you understand. That's the hold up. That's the hump.

If you don't understand, there's no place to go further.

[–]nicethingyoucanthave1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthave1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthave1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

reconcile these two statements:

did you ... did you just ask me to reconcile two statements that you made?? Wow.

Let's go over it again: When you say, "the scientific community isn't convinced" that's you (attempting unsuccessfully to) dismiss an entire field with the wave of your hand. Instead of letting you get away with that, I ask you for specifics, and I do that by posting actual, peer-reviewed science.

...which you now admit is scientifically valid. So if the papers in the field are scientifically valid, then your claim that "the scientific community isn't convinced" holds no water.

Not convinced of what? Not convinced of your straw man? Okay. But you admit that the actual scientific work of actual scientists actually working in the actual field is valid.

It's you who have something to reconcile, not me. <--- see this sentence right here?

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthave1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You can stay or leave as you like. But you were wrong from your very first statement, when you made the claim that a field of science was "nonsense."

I tried engaging you on that but all you could must was vague handwaving. When I posted specific examples of papers, you fell flat on your face - literally none of what you said about the papers was true, and it was easy for me to respond. So you finally admitted that the papers constitute valid science, which brings us back to your initial claim, that the field is "nonsense."

You've also tried to very subtly move the goalposts by refusing to acknowledge that you said the whole field is nonsense and instead talking about "acceptance" but it's easy for me to respond to that as well, with my reference to string theory.

And now you're going in circles asking me to reconcile statements that you made.

The bottom line of all this is that you are and always have been wrong.

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthave1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthave1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

reconcile these two statements:

did you ... did you just ask me to reconcile two statements that you made?? Wow.

Let's go over it again: When you say, "the scientific community isn't convinced" that's you (attempting unsuccessfully to) dismiss an entire field with the wave of your hand. Instead of letting you get away with that, I ask you for specifics, and I do that by posting actual, peer-reviewed science.

...which you now admit is scientifically valid. So if the papers in the field are scientifically valid, then your claim that "the scientific community isn't convinced" holds no water.

Not convinced of what? Not convinced of your straw man? Okay. But you admit that the actual scientific work of actual scientists actually working in the actual field is valid.

It's you who have something to reconcile, not me. <--- see this sentence right here?

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthave1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthave1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthave1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]autowikibot1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Scientific consensus:

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.

Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others), and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the 'normal' debates through which science progresses may seem to outsiders as contestation. On occasion, scientific institutes issue position statements intended to communicate a summary of the science from the "inside" to the "outside" of the scientific community. In cases where there is little controversy regarding the subject under study, establishing what the consensus is can be quite straightforward.

Scientific consensus may be invoked in popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but which may not be controversial within the scientific community, such as evolution or the claimed linkage of MMR vaccinations and autism.

Interesting: Scientific opinion on climate change | Discredited HIV/AIDS origins theories | Climate change denial | Ionization cone

Parent commenter can [toggle NSFW](/message/compose?to=autowikibot&subject=AutoWikibot NSFW toggle&message=%2Btoggle-nsfw+cmpr8dp) or [delete](/message/compose?to=autowikibot&subject=AutoWikibot Deletion&message=%2Bdelete+cmpr8dp). Will also delete on comment score of -1 or less. | FAQs | Mods | Magic Words

[–]AerobusThe Red Pill is Truth1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]steelpuppy0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]steelpuppy2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]steelpuppy-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]steelpuppy0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]steelpuppy1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]steelpuppy0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Why not? Why would they direct anger at themselves when it's easier to be angry at someone else?

Why would they preach self improvement so much when it's easier to be angry at someone else?

I agree NARPALT. Small percentage. A few are here. It's good to know. The vast majority of RPs disdain women. I'm sure they also have a plethora of psychological issues, but the disdain for women is obvious. And all over the place. It defines the atmosphere of the sub. ARPALT.

Disagree. I think it's the other way around. Also I see that you have started to put into question their mental health. Very classy and non-hateful.

I never said anything about the non- TRP world. And it has no bearing on what I'm saying anyway.

Sure it does. A lot of people just don't say it out loud or think it's wrong to say it when they are feeling hurt and down on their luck.

They don't become misogynist on account of their anger and frustration. That's just TRP.

That just your interpretation and very low standard on what constitutes misogyny.

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

The OP considers TRP to be misogynist.

I put up a thread asking RPs if they considered TRP to be misogynist, or themselves. A surprising number said yes, and yes.

It's not that shocking. I don't know why you don't see it. It's the defining feature.

TRP is far far removed from the standard "bitches be crazy" talk. It's on a completely different level there.

I think many men in TRP have issues to deal with. They are human, humans often have issues. It's not taking a jab at them, I don't mean it negatively. They're ibviously having trouble coping with something, and choosing a therapy that exacerbates the situation.

Self-improvement (I.e lifting, getting a hobby, dressing better) does not necessitate not being mad at someone else. You can both lift weights and curse those lying manipulative hypergamous sluts/cunts/whores,

[–]steelpuppy0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]IncipioMutatio0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Their anger comes from entitlement.

Or from being played (by themselves, their friend, society etc..)

I'll save her the time from replying...

she's most likely going to reply that "see, that proves entitlement. They felt that they were owed sex by women because of dating advice or whatever else they were 'told'. They expected it and didn't get it. Ergo, entitled."

She said something along those lines elsewhere and despite it being somewhat understandable that someone could make that logical leap, it's disingenuous at best.

Let's say I check out some online auction sites and of course I go with Ebay because everyone says it's the best. I buy something from someone and it arrives. I have all expectations of it being what I ordered but inside is a brick. Now... I'm angry because I was played. In OP's mind, this anger manifests because "entitlement" and somehow, because I had a reasonable expectation of something because it is what I've been led to believe and it winds up not being the case, my disappointment and subsequent anger are a result of some misguided self centered entitlement.

Are the circumstances the same? No... of course not lol. Just using an example to show why calling anger stemming from disappointment stemming from a feeling of being duped/lied to does NOT automatically equate to "entitlement".

However, I will completely agree with OP that yes, SOME men obviously feel entitled to women's bodies... I've brought this up before with the exact example of the hate towards tattooed women. But women have their own huuuuge sense of entitlement when it comes to men as well so they're both (the entitled ones within the sexes) fucking ridiculous and childish.

Edit: Lol so quick with the downvote. How delightfully predictable.

[–]AerobusThe Red Pill is Truth1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

This misses the mark.

Yes, many RPers, including myself, at one point get angry at women for reasons you have mentioned (AF/BB dynamic, the fact that women are looser than in the past, they don't look like a 'traditional' woman anymore (the short hair/tattoos)), but the biggest reason we get angry isn't because of what women are doing.

The biggest, underlying reason why so many men get mad is because we were lied to. We were never taught about a woman's dualistic mating strategy (AF/BB), we were never taught that most men are not attractive to women. We get disgusted at women who say they want a nice guy but then go out with the alpha jock. We're mad because society lied to us.

We're not entitled. One of the principles of TRP is that no one--no man or woman--is entitled to anything. You have to work and earn whatever it is that you want. If you want a LTR with a 'good' woman, you need to have a high enough SMV to command that. We're mad because most of simply weren't taught the reality of the dating scene and how women work/behave.

[–]drebunny7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

What I find interesting about this explanation is the feeling of a victim complex. Although in my opinion that's a cultural issue in general, you can't go anywhere or do anything without someone being a victim, but that's an argument for another time.

Society lies to everyone. That's just life, having to go out in the world and try to figure out for yourself how it all works. And if something doesn't work the way you thought, just adapt. Now you can argue that TRP is trying to help people do just that, adapt, but I would argue that the presence of active anger implies a victim complex.

The reason why I call it a victim complex rather than saying you're actually a real victim is because I really don't believe anyone tried to mislead you on purpose. Society lies, but it's largely unintentional. Truth is, nobody really knows how it works. That would imply that there's one universal way to do things, rather than many different ways to do things that work differently for different people. People give advice based on what worked for them personally, and if that didn't work for you that isn't their fault.

One of my favorite quotes to live by that I think applies here is: there is no big lie, there is no system, the universe is indifferent

Also: chaos reigns, haha. Thanks to Lars von Trier for that little nugget of wisdom.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]drebunny1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AerobusThe Red Pill is Truth-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Society lies to everyone. That's just life, having to go out in the world and try to figure out for yourself how it all works. And if something doesn't work the way you thought, just adapt. Now you can argue that TRP is trying to help people do just that, adapt, but I would argue that the presence of active anger implies a victim complex.

Some people do feel as if they are victims. Yes, society lies to everyone. The natural reaction to finding out you have been lied to is anger, is it not?

because I really don't believe anyone tried to mislead you on purpose.

This is where you are wrong. Women subconsciously seek to enforce a social order. They want beta males to stay beta males and natural alphas to be alphas. They do this all the time by spewing BS like "just be yourself," "you should treat her to dates," "always be nice and caring," when in fact in order to get sex you'll need to act like an asshole, dominant, not give much of a shit about her, and not be caring.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]AerobusThe Red Pill is Truth0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]drebunny6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

It just honestly makes me feel bad for you that this is the way you think the world works. I don't doubt that you've probably seen behavior in the people around you that reinforces this idea, but I think you and I are in very different environments because I've never seen anything that backs this up.

In my environment, the nice guys do get the girls. This is why I have trouble with TRP philosophy, because of what I was talking about earlier where different things work for different people. Everything in my life indicates that TRP philosophy doesn't work, even if in your life you've seen evidence that it does.

Also, just to clarify, is your goal just sex or an actual relationship? Because those are two different things. Personally, I'm talking relationships because the types of people I hang out with generally aren't into hook-ups.

Edit: forgot to answer your first question. The answer is no, if it wasn't on purpose/malicious then I don't get angry. I don't get angry very easily though, so there's that

[–]AerobusThe Red Pill is Truth0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It just honestly makes me feel bad for you

I don't need your pity.

but I think you and I are in very different environments because I've never seen anything that backs this up.

Then I hope you will have the misfortune of observing this in your own experiences.

In my environment, the nice guys do get the girls.

In my environment, they don't.

This is why I have trouble with TRP philosophy,

This is why I have trouble with TBP philosophy.

Also, just to clarify, is your goal just sex or an actual relationship? Because those are two different things. Personally, I'm talking relationships because the types of people I hang out with generally aren't into hook-ups.

Who cares what my goal is or what the goal of TRP members largely is? It doesn't matter. We're allowed to do what we want.

The answer is no, if it wasn't on purpose/malicious then I don't get angry. I don't get angry very easily though, so there's that

You said it yourself, you don't get angry very easily. I don't either. But when I found out that I was lied to for my whole damn life, I got angry. And you know what, you're wrong on this. Men are allowed to feel a range of emotions, including anger. You have no business controlling how we feel.

[–]drebunny2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AerobusThe Red Pill is Truth1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]AerobusThe Red Pill is Truth0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]AerobusThe Red Pill is Truth0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AerobusThe Red Pill is Truth0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ArinlyPilsner1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AerobusThe Red Pill is Truth2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]relationshipdownvotethe blue pill is a suppository1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (86 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (85 children) | Copy Link

[–]relationshipdownvotethe blue pill is a suppository10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (64 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 11 years ago (51 children) | Copy Link

[–]relationshipdownvotethe blue pill is a suppository9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (41 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (40 children) | Copy Link

[–]relationshipdownvotethe blue pill is a suppository5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (39 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (38 children) | Copy Link

[–]relationshipdownvotethe blue pill is a suppository3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]relationshipdownvote1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]relationshipdownvote1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]relationshipdownvote1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]relationshipdownvote0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]relationshipdownvote1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]relationshipdownvote1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]relationshipdownvote1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]relationshipdownvote2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]relationshipdownvote2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]relationshipdownvote2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

I can't "prove" anything. This is my opinion. To me, it's a logical progression.

Guy thinks he deserves sex and will get it if he follows steps 1, 2, 3, regardless of what the woman wants or feels.

Woman doesn't want sex. Guy is pissed. He should have had sex with her. He did everything he was supposed to. And she didn't want him.

Fucking slut!

Oh look, she's going out with that asshole!

Slut/bitch/cunt/whore/

Backpedalling (since you don't know) is going back and changing a view in light of a new argument which poked a hole in the original view.

I said from the first post, that the anger, resentfulness, disdain and hate directed towards women, because they wouldn't have sex with these guys, shows that these guys felt entitled to sex with women.

And my opinion is the same.

I could take a guess where the entitlemen comes from? Unhealthy attitudes towards women. Objectifying them. I'm not avoiding talking about entitlement, you are. I said you could start a new thread and that I would be interested in the results. You didn't want to.

[–]powerkick3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]relationshipdownvote0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

70%, mostly dealing with attraction and social dynamics. In my experience and observation, behavior and attitudes TRP would describe as Alpha can very quickly rack up a huge partner count of a huge variety of hot girls. I have personally used shit like negging and dread game (both passive and active) and seen it work in my own life, on a lot of different girls, not just crazy ones but also middle class, smart educated ones. I did this before I knew what those terms even were, or what TRP was, or before it even existed I think. The caveat here is that IRL practice, this stuff doesn't look nearly as insidious or cruel as it sounds in text. It's far more playful and subtle.

20% of guys really do seem to have 80% of casual sex, and monopolize more than their "fair share" of girls during their peak SMV. I remember I was floored to find out at one of those thanksgiving high school friend reunions when everyone was in town, that all of my friends who worked hard at school, had good jobs and even owned houses had very little sexual experience, while I had a double digit p count and toured in a no name band and looked like shit on paper. Two of those dudes are now in LTRs with my former FWB or "plates" who are not that cute anymore, and its not going so well....

30%, TBP defines themselves as "anything other than red" so that just means stuff I'm not sold on. I'm sure there are some truths to evo psych, in fact some of it looks fairly obvious, IE women are pickier about mates because they have to carry a child for 9 months and childbirth is a huge risk, but a lot of posters go off on some weird tangents I don't really buy.

I don't agree that women have no morals or loyalty. This is not true in my experience. I think women are equally competent at most things, with notable exceptions like infantry. IMO they are probably better suited for other things than men, like anything involving complex interpersonal relationships. I don't care if they vote, because I don't vote. A winning politician is by definition a sociopathic tyrant IMO.

I also just don't really agree with much of their right wing nonsense and find it really embarrassing. I can agree that stuff like legal abortion/bc had adverse and largely negative effects on the SMP (from the male POV), but in no way want to ban those things. It's funny because some people think I want to control women, and I don't blame them for thinking that considering my affiliation, but IRL every girl I date or hookup with always says "you are the most chill, least jealous dude I have ever been involved with." I have even found out that girls left me because I wasnt controlling enough (dead fucking srs), because they took that as a lack of interest in them (some of them werent entirely wrong). In my experience, women really really do play advanced games and boundary test very carefully. It doesn't anger me, it fascinates me.

I guess I just look at the world through the lens of people pursuing their incentives, and how the outcomes are often unexpected or unintuitive.

Also, I always feel its important to emphasize that there are exceptions to every rule, and that others could have a different experience than mine.

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cxj1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ExpendableOneNeither1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]polyhooly6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]relationshipdownvotethe blue pill is a suppository0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

The whole "TRP, sexual strategy is amoral" thing is just a shield to deflect criticism.

It really isn't. TRP doesn't want to judge anyone or tell anyone how to live their lives. It doesn't care if women cheat on their husbands, sleep with thousands of dudes, and reject nice guys, it doesn't care. All it seeks to do is understand the truth behind how man and women interact with each other without being clouded by PC this and that, hoolywood movie ideas, and all that (the matrix, from the sub's namesake). It recognizes that men want women, and women want attractive men and it trys to explain what is and is not attractive, why and how you can become it.

If girls wanted to sleep with dudes in sweaters, TRP would be about knitting.

Essentially saying that we're just giving you the pure, unadulterated facts, doesn't mean you actually are.

Its definately not all facts. It's social science, the best you can hope for are polls and studies (which you will frequently find on TRP), and even those don't really prove what we want them to. There is quite a bit of debate over what works and what doesn't, it's certainly not pure unadulterated facts. But the focus of it is understanding sexual interactions REALLY work (essentially what we claim is covered by the matrix).

[–]polyhooly7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

This is a great PR write up for TRP, but reality simply doesn't match what you have described here. RPers are constantly making value and moral judgments about people, particularly women in regards to sex, behavior in relationships, and general every day behavior. The reason so many people have an issue with TRP is not because you guys are discussing how to find love/sex, but because of the pervasivness of asserting that women are morally and intellectually inferior to men, and should be treated as such. You are not discussing attraction and self improvement with highly upvoted rants that say things along the lines of "all women are shit, just warm holes for you to take advantage of." This sort of sentiment is not the rare, angry noob, but rather common, well received content produced by ECs.

[–]relationshipdownvotethe blue pill is a suppository2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

RPers are constantly making value and moral judgments about people, particularly women in regards to sex, behavior in relationships, and general every day behavior.

Examples. Post some good ones, posts that made it to the front page with a bunch of upvotes.

The reason so many people have an issue with TRP is not because you guys are discussing how to find love/sex, but because of the pervasivness of asserting that women are morally and intellectually inferior to men, and should be treated as such.

If we really wanted to be hate sub, don't you think we could come up with a better name? Hate subs have way funnier names like chimp out, shit reddit says, and pussy pass denied.

This sort of sentiment is not the rare, angry noob, but rather common, well received content produced by ECs.

I'll bet I read it more than you and I strongly disagree.

[–]polyhooly4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]relationshipdownvotethe blue pill is a suppository3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]polyhooly2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]relationshipdownvote1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

but because of the pervasivness of asserting that women are morally and intellectually inferior to men, and should be treated as such.

But they are. Is that what you want to hear?

You're not interested in reason, you want your opinion validated without actually giving any response to the person speaking to you. His point is valid.

Within the RP's purposefully isolated, completely unadvertised but not coincidentally not altogether unknown space, there exist two gentlemen shooting the shit.

One says "She's a fucking psycho. Isn't she?". The other replies: "Got that right, mate. All women are like that."

You being solipsistic you take this attack, which you painstakingly eavedropped on, to be a prescription for all womankind and scurry off to your stakeout apartment across the road with your SJW friends to complain about it.

In what way do you recommend we temper our tone for you? If I were a subreddit called... say, /r/islam, shall I limit all discussions to be strictly on-topic lest I trigger some of your suspicions that I may a terrorist?

Sexual strategy is amoral because if I write a bona fide rape guide and post it on TRP, this is not a wrong thing to do. Except of course as it violates the rules of reddit. But it is not wrong in and of itself. A gun manufacturer does not bear responsibility for the gun's use. If there are impressionable children reading, then they can fuck off. I will not temper my tone for their benefit. I will not revise my message until those children can glean from it the right message.

Women with a sexual fantasy of rape do want to be raped, by definition, as far as the fantasy implies. In my view, a fantasy does speak of a desire. However, I do not prescribe rape because I say this very logical thing.

Oh, and this line of yours here:

The reason so many people have an issue with TRP is not because you guys are discussing how to find love/sex

bahaha. Of course not. Its because of how. Be mentally honest. You'd latch onto RP's rape guides no matter how fucking nicely we put it. Whatever illimitableman or gaylubeoil put in their angry rants, that you could give to a more level-headed RPer like /u/whisper, /u/nicethingyoucanthave, /u/archwinger, /u/deepthrill, /u/nitzi, /u/vornnash /u/we_are_legion... you'd still hate it.

[–]polyhooly6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

You're not interested in reason, you want your opinion validated without actually giving any response to the person speaking to you.

With whom do I seek to have my opinion validated? My response to him is basically his assessment of TRP is pie in the sky bullshit, more of a glossed over marketing ploy that refuses to acknowledge the very real nature of TRP.

You being solipsistic

Oh Jesus Christ, spare me.

Within the RP's purposefully isolated, completely unadvertised but not coincidentally not altogether unknown space, there exist two gentlemen shooting the shit.... One says "She's a fucking psycho. Isn't she?". The other replies: "Got that right, mate. All women are like that."... you take this attack, which you painstakingly eavedropped on, to be a prescription for all womankind and scurry off to your stakeout apartment across the road with your SJW friends to complain about it.

Back in September I posted my "The Best of the Worst of TRP." I prefaced my log of RP material by pointing out how I only consider submissions that are highly upvoted and are well received by the community. I am not interested in the conversations between two dudes just shooting the shit, complaining about women, that are the equivalent to women sitting in the hair salon and gossiping about how men are pigs. I am talking about the well thought out, well received, resulting in thunderous applause, paragraph upon paragraph length rants that are filled with nothing but hateful, downright visceral contempt for women.

In what way do you recommend we temper our tone for you?

I don't recommend TRP temper it's tone at all. It is what it is, and I appreciate honesty over dancing around a very real, very large part of the content of TRP, which is what I felt relationshipdownvote was doing.

Sexual strategy is amoral because if I write a bona fide rape guide and post it on TRP, this is not a wrong thing to do.

That is a whole other discussion for another time. My point is that you can argue how sexual strategy is amoral until the cows come home. That doesn't make TRP immune to criticism for those views, and it comes of as especially hypocritical when so many RPers tout that line, but then turn around and make moral and value judgments on others for violating what they think are the codes of conduct they should be following.

Women with a sexual fantasy of rape do want to be raped, by definition, as far as the fantasy implies. In my view, a fantasy does speak of a desire. However, I do not prescribe rape because I say this very logical thing

That's not logic at all, that's you failing to understand the difference between fantasy and reality. I fantasize about exhibitionism and gangbangs. In reality, it is the opposite of what I want. I am an extremely private, modest individual, who kind of hates being touched by other people. I plank up when people hug me. Fantasy is a way to explore experiences you never will in reality, a way to put on a costume in a completely controlled environment without any real world repercussions. It is often the antithesis of reality, including desire based in reality, for a lot of people.

Whatever illimitableman or gaylubeoil put in their angry rants, that you could give to a more level-headed RPer like /u/whisper , /u/nicethingyoucanthave , /u/archwinger , /u/deepthrill , /u/nitzi , /u/vornnash /u/we_are_legion ... you'd still hate it.

Not true at all. Yesterday I wrote about on here how there are some RPers whom I enjoy reading and debating with, and specifically said it is because they usually approach the sub with good faith debate and honesty. I didn't name names, but some of the names you listed are ones I would consider to be on that list, and even a few you left out.

As I wrote in my post above, I would be more willing to dismiss the extremism of illimitableman and GLO if they were just fringe beliefs not really well received by the community, but their EC status, and the fact that their contributions frequently get several hundred upvotes demonstrates that their rhetoric is not only tolerated, but largely embraced by TRP.

[–]M_rafayCrimson Red0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

OK, you wrote me a bit. Allow me to do the same.

I am talking about the well thought out, well received, resulting in thunderous applause, paragraph upon paragraph length rants that are filled with nothing but hateful, downright visceral contempt for women.

In my view, those rants are shooting the shit. So are the people reading them. Its the equivalent of someone standing up on the barstool and making a speech after which you get "hear, hear"s or jokes. I just don't understand why it'd struck anyone as different. You have no idea the type of shit I used to spew on TRP(all deleted now), and I would say I mean none of it. It was popular too. Hell, one of the RP EC's posted pictures from pakistan on our IRC where he claims to work with a women's NGO. He is a right bastard on TRP though. We and you have vastly different ideas of what the internet means.

Its not any truth. Its an exchange. No amount of reason will change TRP's minds. They set it in real life. TRP just gave it a name and let them vent it. Same for all you blue. What exactly do you actually feel this thunderous applause and paragraphs implies?

That's not logic at all, that's you failing to understand the difference between fantasy and reality. I fantasize about exhibitionism and gangbangs. In reality, it is the opposite of what I want. I am an extremely private, modest individual, who kind of hates being touched by other people. I plank up when people hug me. Fantasy is a way to explore experiences you never will in reality, a way to put on a costume in a completely controlled environment without any real world repercussions. It is often the antithesis of reality, including desire based in reality, for a lot of people.

No, you still have an IRL desire for exhibitionism and gangbangs, directly or indirectly. But the negative consequences in real life, such as feelings of embarressment, potentially untrustworthy partners, fear and inability to carry through with risky endeavours... all of those feelings come together and outweigh the desire for the quick sexual release. Perhaps to the extent that you think the idea that you want to engage in exhibitionism and gangbangs IRL laughable. But this says nothing about a lack of desire. Only that the desire for the sexual fetish is relatively minor and the urge is outweighed by conditioned inhibitions towards risk.

You do want to be gangbanged and exhibitioned. A fantasy does speak of a desire. Directly or indirectly. But fulfiling that desire, no matter how small, is a tricky question. I used this rape fantasy topic as an example btw(forgot to mention). But do note in the case of this topic, the OP pointed out this fact(that fantasy implies desire) to approach the end problem: how to fulfill that desire for a happier sexual life. Or how to open new avenues in a dull sexual life. i.e. so his solution on how to fulfil the desire was basically "establish safe words, be aggressive, etc". Hardly anything to dislike. Yet because women don't want to admit they want to be raped, its a big deal somehow. Absolutely absurd. This is what I was talking about when I said children can fuck off. If you don't think a certain idea matches your experience, gloss over it. Its not for you. BPs focus on exclusively things that doesn't match their experience and use it to jerk their outrage hardon perpetually. They don't know how to read TRP.

That doesn't make TRP immune to criticism for those views, and it comes of as especially hypocritical when so many RPers tout that line, but then turn around and make moral and value judgments on others for violating what they think are the codes of conduct they should be following.

Is hypocrisy suddenly immune from "sexual strategy is amoral"? For example, promiscuous women are worthless for anything beyond fuck-buddies. However, as a promiscuous guy, I'd hate to encounter the same treatment. Doesn't exactly strike me as a conundrum though.

As a better example. imagine I'm badly affected by being cheated on. I complain. And I keep complaining. The fact that I am inconvenienced by someone's sexual strategy doesn't automatically make it suddenly wrong or right. It is still amoral. I probably realize that. But some part of my hindbrain doesn't care. I am being infringed upon and will continue to vent and complain. Sexual strategy is amoral continues to apply.

but their EC status, and the fact that their contributions frequently get several hundred upvotes demonstrates that their rhetoric is not only tolerated, but largely embraced by TRP.

What do you think being an EC means? What do you think being embraced by trp means? Please keep in mind that hte vast majority of TRP only joined recently(<1 year)

[–]rp132 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedPillWatchTower 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Pump and dump, cumrag, next, slut/whore/cunt -

Well, that's what modern Western women have demonstrated that they want to be. PnD, cumrags, and sluts.

Most new RP'ers aren't angry AT THE WOMEN or one PARTICULAR woman; they are angry at the system that told them that women were all honest, pure, special little princesses outwardly, but unbeknownst to these men, a majority of those very same women are hopping from cocks to cocks in ONS's and serial monogamy with jerk-boy douche bros behind their backs.

TRP is about helping men be horses on the cock carousel (that a majority of young women are riding), rather than the chump standing in line at the carousel, with his "Just Be Yourself" ticket, that the carousel riders will never punch for him.

No, there they are going up and down, up and down, around the carousel we go, all the while she smiles at the line of friend-zoners on the side, telling them,

"don't worry, just be nice and be yourself, that way I can marry you when I'm 32 and take you for a good divorce ride in 15 years!"

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CyraleaRedPill Vanguard1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]CyraleaRedPill Vanguard1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]CyraleaRedPill Vanguard1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Cyralea1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Cyralea1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Cyralea1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

below average height is an objective observation with no positive or negative connotation

I could make the argument that it has a negative connotation. What if instead I used the example of how women are physically weaker than men on average? Is that disdainful?

manipulative is a subjective observation with a negative connotation
liar is a subjectie observation with a negative connotation
hypergamous is a subjective observation with a negative connotation

And yet we can make those observations. If I tell you I'm a big black guy but you met me in person, I'm pretty obviously a liar.

You seem to dislike the negative connotation. You're one of the people who believe that negative feelings equate to how true something is. You're not able to uncouple your emotions from your observation of reality.

We are. I doubt you'll ever understand us. "Women are hypergamous" has the same emotional impact to me as "The sun is hot".

[–][deleted]2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Cyralea1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]FollowThisAdvice11 points12 points13 points 11 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]relationshipdownvotethe blue pill is a suppository5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]CyraleaRedPill Vanguard2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]FollowThisAdvice5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]CyraleaRedPill Vanguard5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AerobusThe Red Pill is Truth-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]FollowThisAdvice7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]AerobusThe Red Pill is Truth-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]FollowThisAdvice7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]AerobusThe Red Pill is Truth-2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]ArinlyPilsner3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]yaseedog will hunt2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FollowThisAdvice4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]autowikibot0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rp132 -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]garlicextract2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]chasethenoise7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]FollowThisAdvice7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]FollowThisAdvice5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]FollowThisAdvice1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]FollowThisAdvice2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

The archetype of a truly transactional person is the sociopath - other people are viewed merely as transactional means to the sociopaths ends.

True. However, I wouldn't generalize this: Just because you can interpret a certain social behavior as transactional doesn't mean it's sociopathic. On some level, most behavior is transactional in some regard. For example, just because I treat someone nice and have the unspoken expectation of him being nice to me in return doesn't mean I am unable to feel empathy for him. However, I am operating under the unspoken contract that he is reciprocating that behavior. But when he ceases to be nice to me (and I mean in general, not just because he's in a foul mood), I would endure it for an amount of time I consider reasonable, but after that I would cut contact. An emotional response would be "because he was a shitty person", but from an economic PoV I did so because he didn't hold up his end of the bargain. (this was a very technical description for "I am willing to put up with the antics of a friend for some time, but at some point decide that our friendship is for all intents and purposes over")

It's unhealthy if you operate under the wrong preconceptions about what kind of transaction. you're dealing with. The problem with romance is that it doesn't work transactional. The idea behind that transactional romance, however, is "if I show him/her how much he/she means to me and what I am willing to do for him/her, I will also get to mean the same to him/her", while the actual transaction is one of "niceness for niceness" in the best of cases and "validation for toleration" in the worst of cases.

If young people (women who put out early are basically falling for the same fallacy) were actually learning that you're better off investing time and effort into yourself than into a relationship you don't even have, they'd probably waste a lot less time pursuing these nice things they can't have. The problem is that it's counterintuitive because it's a misapplication of the golden rule.

[–]FollowThisAdvice2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mitreddit1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]steelpuppy0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mitreddit2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]relationshipdownvotethe blue pill is a suppository6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]chasethenoise2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]relationshipdownvotethe blue pill is a suppository0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]chasethenoise3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]relationshipdownvotethe blue pill is a suppository-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GridReXXit be like that1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]relationshipdownvotethe blue pill is a suppository2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]GridReXXit be like that1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]relationshipdownvotethe blue pill is a suppository2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]GridReXXit be like that1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]kkjdroidNo pills2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ArkiF2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]FollowThisAdvice8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]steelpuppy4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]FollowThisAdvice8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]LeGrandDiableBlancParochial Altruist4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]FollowThisAdvice7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]CyraleaRedPill Vanguard1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]steelpuppy-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]FollowThisAdvice6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]steelpuppy0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]FollowThisAdvice8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]FollowThisAdvice9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]relationshipdownvotethe blue pill is a suppository0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]FollowThisAdvice0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]relationshipdownvotethe blue pill is a suppository1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AerobusThe Red Pill is Truth-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExpendableOneNeither6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

The entire entire argument of "men who feel entitled to women" used by feminists is bullshit. Not just when it is used against the red pill. The only type of men who feel "entitled to women" are the types of guys who get so much female attention that they get to be in a position to take their success with women for granted, and start to feel entitled to certain things from women. It's an attitude that is far more common with women, towards men, than it is from men towards women. The fact that this argument is used against men who are either trying to speak up for themselves, who feel they deserve the same level of basic human decency/respect as everyone else or who feel that what they have to offer is often under valued or wrongfully belittled/disrespected, just goes to show how out of touch or how apathetic those feminists are to those type of men. Generally speaking, the men who are accused by feminists to be entitled to sex(whether it's nice guys or RP) are the ones who actually the least entitled to sex. It is just another way for them to shame, attack or demean certain men they don't like using a lot of ignorance and projection to justify their position.

[–]LeGrandDiableBlancParochial Altruist5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[removed]

[–]Villaintine╰▄︻▄╯1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

To bring you up to speed... the question was:

Do you think TRPers are "entitled"?

"You" in this question is figurative and refers to the collective readers on the individual first person perspective.

"think" refers to my opinion, thought, logic, critical thinking, reasoning, etc.

"entitled" however caused me to do some light research and reading to learn that this was in reference to the TRPers.... do I need to specify about the TRPers for you as well? Anyway... recent posts concerning the concept of some TRPers acting as if they are simply "entitled" to hot women.

Now my answer to this question, and I am so sorry you missed it because it was an emphatic implication of the word, "AbsoFuckingLutelyNot!". No one is "entitled" to a damned thing they didn't earn. You may choose to "feel" entitled, or you may even use the idea of "entitlement" as a personal motivator for what you might be able to expect when you are at the pinnacle of your mortal form, but in no way is anyone "entitled" to a female. Hot or otherwise.

With all of these breadcrumbs laid out for you I am sure you can find your way back so let's address your question:

What does that have to do with the topic?

The topic answer was a big fat negative! Now here is my OPINION on what I actually think TRPers happen to be INSTEAD of "entitled".

/class dimissed

[–]Villaintine╰▄︻▄╯2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mcKempt 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

It's just how TRP functions. It's a matter of how they work. Misogynistic views can be separated from entitled feelings, sure, but TRP currently struggles with weeding out their member's that can't seem to beat down the "and I simply must for the sake of breeding" when presented with the question "Then why actively seek out women to fuck?"

Any TRPer that doesn't seek sex with women is the only one that can comment that they don't have entitlement issues.

TRP: I hate women

PP: Then why do you want to have sex with them

TRP: Because I need to breed

PP: So you're mindless?

TRP: No

PP: Then why

TRP: They should just do what I want

PP: So you're entitled

TRP: No

PP: Then why do you want to have sex with them

TRP: They should just do what I want

PP: So you're entitled

TRP: No

PP: Then why do you want to have sex with them

TRP: They should just do what I want

PP: So you're entitled

TRP: No

PP: Then why do you want to have sex with them

(repeat times infinity)

Remember the five types:

misandry - female equality - gender equality - male equality - misogony

[–]LeGrandDiableBlancParochial Altruist2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

TRP currently struggles with weeding out their member's that can't seem to beat down the "and I simply must for the sake of breeding" when presented with the question "Then why actively seek out women to fuck?"

Are you misunderstanding what they're saying? They're saying that because sex is necessary for reproduction (at least it was until very recently), we as animals (not just humans, but all of them) have evolved reward neural pathways that grant us pleasurable feelings as a reward for having sex. So, even though I don't want children, and I am weary of the viability of long term relationships in our current social culture, I still desire to have sex the same as I desire to eat food. It's a base biological urge, not something that can be logically made to go away.

Let’s fix your conversation:

TRP: I find that modern society promotes the worst aspects of female nature while discourage the best aspects of female nature. I’m not sure if it is worth settling down these days. It seems like every woman I know is affected in one way or another.

PP: Then why do you want to have sex with them?

TRP: Because I have a base biological urge to have sex, and having sex releases a lot of pleasurable neurotransmitters and sex hormones which are pleasurable and rewarding in their own right.

PP: So you're mindless?

TRP: No, I am an animal that is both rational and emotional. Base instinctual urges to eat, sleep, and reproduce cannot be rationalized away (perhaps with the exception of dedicated every waking moment of your life to ignoring your natural urges like an ascetic monk).

PP: Then why do you want to have sex with them?

TRP: Seriously? You’ve never wanted to have sex? Almost everyone does.

PP: So you're entitled.

TRP: No, I have innate desires. I did not choose to have them, they are a part of me and every other human being of every race, sex, and culture.

PP: But why do you want to have sex?

TRP: Really? Put as simply as possible, because it feels good.

PP: So you're entitled.

TRP: No.

(repeat times infinity)

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mcKempt 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rp132 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

TRP: I hate women PP: Then why do you want to have sex with them

'Cause no woman ever has ever said 'gah men are such assholes.' in an off-the cuff expression of frustration to her female friends in an assumed safe space. NEVER HAPPENS amiright?

TRP: Because I need to breed PP: So you're mindless?

Sex and intimacy aren't human needs. Nope. Anyone who likes sex and pursues it is just a mindless drone.

TRP: They should just do what I want PP: So you're entitled

Who says this? TRP says the opposite: "They will do what THEY want. I should learn to be what they want"

PP: Then why do you want to have sex with them

Because all human sexuality is just a choice. Riiiiight.

TRP: They should just do what I want

I've literally never heard a terper say this.

PP: Then why do you want to have sex with them

Having interest and desire in the human need of sexuality and intimacy is "entitlement"? Sexuality is a choice? Nobody ever wants to have sex with inconsiderate people and someone can just turn off their sex drive forever if they decide dating is hard?

What planet are you from?

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

'Cause no woman ever has ever said 'gah men are such assholes.' in an off-the cuff expression of frustration to her female friends in an assumed safe space. NEVER HAPPENS amiright?

50% of women do, without a doubt.

Sex and intimacy aren't human needs. Nope. Anyone who likes sex and pursues it is just a mindless drone.

Thank you. From here on out, in all future posts, we can now know and accept that your position, forever, is that which accepts that you need both sex and intimacy. You might really not be one that talks like that (that you view them solely for sex), but you do go on to state that you think no TRPer does; which is a perception, so I can't take exactly take away points (Maybe like -10 for lack of attention to events surrounding you). (TRPer's do, however. It's the worldview they have. My apologies, you do seem more MRA than TRP)

Who says this? TRP says the opposite: "They will do what THEY want. I should learn to be what they want"

So, then this really should be,

TRP: I hate women

PP: Then why do you want to have sex with them

TRP: I've got issues in need of addressing

PP: Then why do you want to have sex with them

Because all human sexuality is just a choice. Riiiiight.

TRP: They should just do what I want

I've literally never heard a terper say this.

PP: Then why do you want to have sex with them

Having interest and desire in the human need of sexuality and intimacy is "entitlement"? Sexuality is a choice?

Nobody ever wants to have sex with inconsiderate people and someone can just turn off their sex drive forever if they decide dating is hard?

What planet are you from?

Why did you continue to answer when it was obviously repeating?

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SquidwardsEuphoriafemale neckbeard1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LeGrandDiableBlancParochial Altruist0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]TRPACC -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]winndixie-2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Do you think TRPers are "entitled"?
Author	fizolof
Upvotes	5
Comments	336
Date	December 8, 2014 2:15 PM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/2onb2k/do_you_think_trpers_are_entitled/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/do-you-think-trpers-are-entitled.284151 https://theredarchive.com/post/284151

Comments