~ archived since 2018 ~

Does the "concern troll policy" prevent reasonable criticism? What would be so offensive that TRP would not endorse it?

soulcakeduck

October 3, 2013

6 upvotes

Here is an example where someone worried about supposed homophobia in the sidebar discussed concerns with TRP. They're called a concern troll and the post is apparently removed.

We're also told that it doesn't matter anyway, as he is just one person, and we don't have to agree. It is also apparently better to be proudly and loudly wrong than to "curtail to popular culture" even when that means being right.

We've seen similar defenses for other "problems" including, for example, the sidebar post that argues rape should not be a crime: if there are redeeming qualities, then the problems apparently don't matter, and may even earn a merit badge for brashness.

Is it possible to ever say "this is wrong and we should not associate with it" or does TRP have a built in disposal for all such concerns?
Homophobia, and the idea that rape should not be a crime, are apparently tolerable even if wrong. Would there be anything so shocking that TRP would distance itself from it even if they liked related content?

Archived from /r/PurplePillDebate

r/PurplePillDebate is a neutral community to discuss sex and gender issues, specifically those pertaining to /r/TheBluePill and /r/TheRedPill.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/PurplePillDebate archive

Download the post

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

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	Does the "concern troll policy" prevent reasonable criticism? What would be so offensive that TRP would not endorse it?
Author	soulcakeduck
Upvotes	6
Comments	117
Date	October 3, 2013 3:45 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1nnr9s/does_the_concern_troll_policy_prevent_reasonable/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/does-the-concern-troll-policy-prevent-reasonable.286721 https://theredarchive.com/post/286721

Comments

[–]Azure_phantomBlue Pill5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (68 children) | Copy Link

I would say red pill's Machiavellian approach to human interaction would make it difficult if not impossible to debate anything on a moral or equal level. When the end justify the means, it can't matter whether the means are tolerable or moral or not. The end (getting laid) trumps any other potential issues.

Now, if that's the approach red pill takers want to have for their lifestyle choice, then I would say, in an equally Machiavellian manner, that society needs to end this sort of lifestyle or human interaction gender war crap. When you have an entire segment of the population with getting laid as their be-all-end-all goal in life, and unable or unwilling to analyze their own morality because it gets in the way of getting laid, then I would argue these sorts of individuals should be isolated entirely from society. They are taking a sociopathic approach to interactions and sociopaths can be dangerous.

When your group advocates that sociopathic tendencies should be cultivated and getting laid is the only thing that matters, you have just rendered your group as dangerous and pretty useless to society as a whole - an albatross, if you will. And nobody likes dead weight.

It's not morally wrong - my end (productive society moving forward and progressing) justifies removing the albatross.

Of course, Machiavelli wasn't writing a how-to book on how people should behave. It's more a guide on how notto approach life.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (45 children) | Copy Link

[–]Azure_phantomBlue Pill5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

We're just saying you can't... because it is destructive as a whole to the general public.

These dynamics can be thought of in terms Evolutionary Game Theory. You can simulate large groups of people which all have "neighbors" with which they play the game with iteratively. Each person can either cooperate or default.

What you're doing is trying to stop men from using this strategy because it would be inconvenient for women if every man employed it. Your insistance for men to cooperate is laughable because the majority of women are defaulting.

There still exist women cooperating according to the classic roles, but not enough to justify the strategy of cooperating as a man. It is simply an inviable strategy.

A nontrivial percentage of men are still cooperating, but a trivial percentage of men are cooperating and also finding women who are cooperating.

Cooperating will only become a viable strategy when there is some comparible percentage of women cooperating.

You have no idea how much most people in TRP would love to cooperate given the chance.

[–]Azure_phantomBlue Pill2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Using Machiavellian principles is destructive to men and women in society. It's the epitome of "me me me" because you are, by the very nature, saying that nothing matters but the end goal. If sex with hot women is your only purpose, you will have no qualms with rape or murdering male competition because it stand in the way of the sex.

But your entire hypothesis of "social conduct" depends on the definition of women being subservient to men. That is their "role", in your ideal society. They are the barefoot, pregnant, cooking and cleaning drones that a man "deserves". They must take a backseat compared to their man.

But aside from the backward ideology, this presents another problem - the majority of red pill men don't want kids off a ltr. Why on earth would a woman ever choose to play by your definition of society (where she needs to be lead by a man and her only purpose is providing children) when the majority of your group don't even have a desire to participate in the social construct you are saying is the best model.

I'm sorry it's inconvenient for your group to realize that women aren't merely baby making dolls who will bow to your leadership, but them's the breaks. You guys seem insistent to return to an almost Sharia model (minus the hijabs) where women don't get to do anything without a man. And that's great for you, because you have a penis. But dictating that someone is inferior or second class because of their genitalia is very primitive. And if you can't see that it's not right to limit someone to the kitchen/home because they have a vagina instead of a penis, I can't say there's much hope for you (you as a collective, not necessarily individually).

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

This is silly, Machiavellian principals are meant for leadership in the context of politics and war. It's simply good strategy. What you do with it determines how it impacts society.

If sex with hot women is your only purpose, you will have no qualms with rape or murdering male competition because it stand in the way of the sex.

Quite a flimsy strawman you have there.

Not only is the implication false, the premise is also false.

deserves

No one deserves anything, life isn't fair. You get what you get.

They must take a backseat compared to their man.

In that system women are being carried by men.

The majority of red pill men don't want kids off a ltr.

You'd be surprised. If marriage wasn't such a monumental risk I'd gander that the majority of TRPers would want to get married and have kids.

I'm sorry it's inconvenient for your group to realize that women aren't merely baby making dolls who will bow to your leadership.

Women can do whatever they'd like. If they want to act like classic men then by all means, go for it.

That's surely not what men want or have any use for.

Women will choose how they want to live and then men will act accordingly.

But then you don't get to cry foul when men stop commiting to women. You can't eat your cake and have it too.

[–]Azure_phantomBlue Pill6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Machiavellian principals are meant for leadership in the context of politics and war. It's simply good strategy.

Then if you're applying Machiavellian principles to a relationship, you view it the same as winning a political battle or a war. That explains a lot of the idiocy in red pill writings then. If you approach relationships in an adversarial manner with you as the center that it should revolve around, then yeah, you're going to be incredibly disappointed when women don't put your needs at the center of their universe. Go figure!

Not only is the implication false, the premise is also false.

Not really. If you have a group advocating Machiavellian and sociopathic/dark triad traits and approaches to life, if their end (sex) is blocked by something as silly as consent, then rape (the means) are perfectly justified. Red pill is trying to create sociopaths (aka dark triad traits). There's not much getting around that one. Unless you want to say that red pill doesn't suggest people follow the dark triad traits?

No one deserves anything, life isn't fair. You get what you get.

Indeed, which makes red pillocks that much more hilarious. They whine and bitch because they're not getting the pussy they feel they deserve. Irony, much?

In that system women are being carried by men.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. But I guess if you want to see support where most Westerners see oppression, more power to you.

I'd gander that the majority of TRPers would want to get married and have kids.

I've seen no evidence of this. Especially since red pill is supposedly a sexual strategy to maximize sex and minimize commitments. Kind of the opposite of marriage where (hopefully) sex and commitment are maximized.

That's surely not what men want or have any use for. Women will choose how they want to live and then men will act accordingly.

So basically, alpha men can't handle "female competition". Such fragility in such alpha men. Basically you're saying that when the woman isn't 100% dependent on the man financially and socially, then that puts you at a disadvantage. I'm sorry, if that's your position, we'll never agree. Ever. Because I find that an entirely fragile mindset for a guy, where your group wants to pretend that's totally alpha.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Then if you're applying Machiavellian principles to a relationship, you view it the same as winning a political battle or a war.

How will you distinguish someone "using Machiavellian principles"?

The whole point of TRP is that you stop expecting women to put your needs at the center of their universe and take responsibility for your own needs.

Machiavellian

You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

But I guess if you want to see support where most Westerners see oppression, more power to you.

Life used to be a struggle.

High child mortality rates and dangerous working conditions.

I've seen no evidence of this.

Marriage is no longer viable.

What is the devorce rate now, greater than 50%?

What percent are initiated by the women, about 70%?

if that's your position

That's not my position.

Men can most assuredly handle female competition in terms of being able compete with them in traditionally male roles.

It doesn't have to do with competition.

It's the case that women don't want male commitment until they have already spent that which is valuable to men: their ability to produce healthy offspring. How many women are anxious to get married before 25, or 30 even?

Now don't get me wrong, women are just as capable as men to provide the things that men find valuable from other men. There exists women better than me at everything that is traditionally male. Stronger, smarter, better at providing. But we that's not what men looking for from women. Intellectual stimulation is relatively easy to find, a buddy is relatively easy to find. What women are selling men aren't looking to buy, what men are selling women aren't looking to buy. We are at an impass.

What you had before was the following:

Men took care of womens needs: provision and protection.

Women took care of mens needs: sex and reproduction.

A mutually beneficial partnership.

But now women need a man like fish need a bycicle right?

The statistics show that the majority of women aren't wanting the traditional deal.

OK, fine then. So we'll take responsiblity for our own needs. We'll learn how to be someone that women want to have sex with. We'll change what we're selling in order to get what we want.

If I find a beautiful women that wants to take the old deal with me, then I'm all for it. There aren't enough of these women for everyone, if any.

So I'm going to take care of my own needs.

I have no qualms with women. You (assuming you are female) have every right to go after what you want in life. That is your responsibility.

Similarly it is my responsibility to find what I want in life, whatever that may be. Why do you have a problem with this?

[–]_FallacyBot_0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]someonewrongonthenet1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

You have no idea how much most people in TRP would love to cooperate given the chance.

As far as I can tell, that's precisely the problem.

From what I can tell from lurking, TRP is made almost entirely out of idealists who became hardened via disillusionment. They see that the dating world, like most facets of humanity, is shallow and selfish. Thereby they decide that the only way to survive is to become shallow and selfish themselves, and learn the strategies to manipulate shallow people.

And as a result, they are doomed to keep having interactions which harden them further. Obviously, if you use TRP-style "game" you'll end up interacting mostly with women who respond to that sort of thing, further confirming the perception among TRP-folks that it's the only way to get any sexual attention. If you project traditional values, you'll attract traditional women. If you project feminism, the women in your life will be feminist. If you project intelligence, they'll skew more intelligent. Obviously, the total number of people who are traditional/feminist/intelligent varies, so some strategies are more successful than others.

TRP isn't always factually wrong (although they often are). Instrumentally the strategy that they are using are probably not going to make them happier, since they themselves perceive the "red pill" as a hardening and loss of innocence.

[–]mrsamsa0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

These dynamics can be thought of in terms Evolutionary Game Theory. You can simulate large groups of people which all have "neighbors" with which they play the game with iteratively. Each person can either cooperate or default.

You're referring to the Prisoner's Dilemma game there (as opposed to Game Theory as a general area). Importantly, there are a number of strict conditions must be met for a situation to be described as a PDG and I'm not sure you've demonstrated them in the situation you describe.

Assuming it does fit, it's key to recognise that you're referring to the tit-for-tat strategy that has been found to be amongst the most successful approaches to the game. This is only true in iterative games where you play with the same person over and over again. There are some key issues with assuming a tit-for-tat strategy though:

1) it requires the person to always begin by cooperating.

2) it requires absolute forgiveness and no grudges to be held - as soon as somebody cooperates, you cooperate back.

3) variations of the tit-for-tat strategy can be more successful, such as "tit for two tats" where you forgive two defects and then retaliate, or even "tit for tat with forgiveness", where you occasionally cooperate despite the series of defects (this avoids the death spiral where two people defecting never forgive and so both end up losing).

All in all, I don't think the PDG is applicable here (or, if it is, it suggests we do the opposite of what TRP recommends).

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Azure_phantomBlue Pill1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]angatar_-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]angatar_0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]angatar_1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]angatar_2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]angatar_2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I disagree with the censorship of any opinion, no matter how stupid or harmful, including Nazism.

Obviously the German people have decided otherwise. They are willing to risk losing free speech in order to get rid of the Nazis.

The freedom to be a racist didn't lead to 60,000,000+ deaths. The entire German country acting under Nazism lead to 60,000,000+ deaths.

Ignorant free speech often works against the speaker. That is one of several reasons why it must be given rein instead of suppressed.

Communism has lead to many mass killings. Shall we disappear anyone promoting communism?

You can't stop people from having opinions, you stop people from making actions.

You can't stop the KKK from existing, you stop them from lynching.

You can't stop the Nazis from existing, you stop them from "holocosting".

You can't stop extreme Muslism from existing, you stop them from "jihading".

You can't stop extreme Christians from existing, you stop them from crusading.

By the way, what exactly is the evil that you think TRPers do?

[–]angatar_2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]angatar_2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That conflicts with:

I don't think it does, I'm not sure what you think I ment by that.

What I mean by wholistically is to think about what the unintended consiquences are of implementing policies.

I think in principal it is a bad idea to implement a policy of censoring ideas even if I vehemently disagree with them. The only realistic response to ideas that you disagree with is criticism and perhaps parody.

Forcing gender roles upon people

By changing the type of women they commit to?

Hurting the men's rights movement, promoting regression society, promoting sociopathic/anti-social behavior.

So by talking to people on the internet?

So am I correct in infering that you are in favor of censoring TRP for the infractions of being picky and saying things you disagree with on the internet?

[–]angatar_2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If freedom of speech must always be defended, then murder in defense of free speech is justified, no?

I think in principal it is a bad idea to implement a policy of censoring ideas even if I vehemently disagree with them. The only realistic response to ideas that you disagree with is criticism and perhaps parody.

Until they become destructive rather than constructive. Not all ideas are created equal, and people are dumb. You should not rely on bad ideas being filtered out through discourse.

By changing the type of women they commit to?

No. More like the alpha/beta and Madonna/whore false dichotomies. I've been called feminized and raised by a single mother (as a reason why I treat women the way I do) even on this sub for disagreeing with a Red Piller. I don't have a problem with being selective with who you date (though I think that's a huge reason they have a problem with women).

So by talking to people on the internet?

The Red Pill is counter-productive to the men's rights movement because it favors inequality and regression. It's one of the reasons why MRAs are seen as male supremacists rather than the egalitarians I suspect many of them to be.

The Red Pill promotes regression of society back to the 1950's or pre-women's suffrage because they believe feminism is a blight upon society.

These are also a huge part of the third on that list, where they try and separate themselves from society and it's morals to justify their own beliefs and actions. Not to defend them, but to say that it doesn't matter.

So am I correct in infering that you are in favor of censoring TRP for the infractions of being picky and saying things you disagree with on the internet?

Not necessarily that I disagree, but more along the lines of counter-productivity. If The Red Pill wants to date immature, inexperienced, and dumb 18 year old girls- fine, not my problem. But when they finally do get an immature, inexperienced, and dumb 18 year old girl I don't want to hear about how all women are shitty. If The Red Pill wants women to pull their own weight in society, I don't want to hear about how shitty all of feminism is. I don't want to hear bitching about child support after hearing that women should be stay-at-home mothers with no career.

I also don't support wholesale censorship, and any censorship I would do would be similar to reddit's current policy. No brigading, but say whatever you want in your own community. That'd also apply to SRS. If given the power, I wouldn't censor them. I just think that it'd be a good thing for there to be timeout.

[–][deleted]1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If freedom of speech must always be defended, then murder in defense of free speech is justified, no?

No? How does that follow?

Until they become destructive rather than constructive.

Who decides what's constructive and destructive? What do you do when about something that's destructive?

For instance is communism constructive or destructive?

I would say destructive since it doesn't work in principal, but are we going to sensor those promoting communism?

I also don't support wholesale censorship, and any censorship I would do would be similar to reddit's current policy. No brigading, but say whatever you want in your own community.

Oh OK, that changes things a lot. I was assuming you meant China style censorship or something.

I agree, I'm all for TRP staying within its own domain. And similarly for SRS.

The Red Pill is counter-productive to the men's rights movement because it favors inequality and regression.

I'm all for women having the same rights under the law as men. They can do whatever they want.

I can't think of anywhere that women are currently legally at a disadvantage.

And I definitely don't agree with the SJW type that are looking for equality of result rather than opportunity.

These are also a huge part of the third on that list, where they try and separate themselves from society and it's morals to justify their own beliefs and actions. Not to defend them, but to say that it doesn't matter.

I think they're point is that why would they enter a deal in which they're getting fucked over.

If they're are no more ladies then there's not much point to being a gentleman.

The Red Pill promotes regression of society back to the 1950's or pre-women's suffrage because they believe feminism is a blight upon society.

Well giving women the vote and allowing them to own property was good. I don't see any good from the current feminism.

I don't want to hear bitching about child support after hearing that women should be stay-at-home mothers with no career.

Yeah, agreed. The issue is that women have both. They have careers and can get child support.

[–]angatar_2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Who decides what's constructive and destructive? What do you do when about something that's destructive?

You can quantify that. When a subset of a movement that requires large-scale social support is turning away potential supporters, then it is destructive. If it gains more support than it loses, it's constructive.

And if something is destructive, you attempt to eliminate it, of course.

For instance is communism constructive or destructive?

I would say destructive since it doesn't work in principal, but are we going to sensor those promoting communism?

I'd say it's constructive and can work, just not on a large scale. There's too many people in places like China or the USSR for communism to work, but it'd definitely work for a village or something small like that. It's much simpler that way.

And I definitely don't agree with the SJW type that are looking for equality of result rather than opportunity.

To be fair, there's a portion of The Red Pill that seems to support equality of result. Specifically the portion that points to divorce being started more often by women than men, and uses that as justification for a number of things.

I think they're point is that why would they enter a deal in which they're getting fucked over.

If they're are no more ladies then there's not much point to being a gentleman.

There are more options than "be a gentleman" and "split from society", and those work for a large number of people. I also haven't seen evidence that they're getting fucked over other than their own anecdotes, which I consider among the poorest of evidence.

Well giving women the vote and allowing them to own property was good. I don't see any good from the current feminism.

International feminism, and also the movements that have piggybacked onto feminism, like LGBTQ. Common usage of feminism seems to have expanded to mean a number of things beyond what it actually is.

Yeah, agreed. The issue is that women have both. They have careers and can get child support.

So do men.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]tubefox-2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tubefox-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Azure_phantomBlue Pill4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]tubefox-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]angatar_3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]tubefox-3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]angatar_4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]tubefox-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]_FallacyBot_0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PizzaOnEarth -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]fhqwhgads_2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PizzaOnEarth -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cipahs -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Azure_phantomBlue Pill2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]angatar_1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]cipahs 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]angatar_1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]cipahs -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]angatar_1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Think of it this way, the US has a problem with math scores, now what would happen if women found math majors sexy.

Problem solved...

It's my understanding that math majors are undesirable in the workforce because pure math jobs are rare, especially so for those with a bachelor's- not because women don't find it sexy. That's quite a leap you're making there.

...the male sex drive is a massive means of economic growth.

Maybe with porn, but in engineering? I'm not so sure.

Hell most my friends do the things they do because they think women like it.

Color me convinced!

Why do you think most men go into fields that actually pay money, but are stressful as shit.

Because have traditionally been expected to be the provider? Because men are conditioned to believe their worth is based off how much they make, risks be damned?

[–]cipahs 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]angatar_1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fhqwhgads_1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mazzyTuff-2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (79 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (78 children) | Copy Link

"Red pillers" often make this argument, but I don't think it accurately represents the state of their subreddit.

/u/redpillschool has stated several times that they ban suggestions of violence, as well as racism. Even though I don't blame them for erring away from condoning that type of behavior, it shows that there is an implicit ethical component to TRP ideology, whether they want to admit it or not. Their philosophy isn't amoral, it's morally inconsistent.

One example that's been discussed numerous times on this subreddit is Genghis Khan. He's an ancestor to somewhere in the ballpark of 8% of people living in Asia... his strategy of getting laid consisted of raping the women of his conquered cities and villages. Though the strategy was extremely effective in getting him laid, I highly doubt he'd be welcome at TRP.

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill-3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points4 points4 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points1 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]angatar_6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]angatar_5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mazzyTuff-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (67 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (66 children) | Copy Link

[–]mazzyTuff1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (65 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (64 children) | Copy Link

[–]mazzyTuff-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (63 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (62 children) | Copy Link

[–]mazzyTuff1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (61 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (60 children) | Copy Link

[–]mazzyTuff1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]angatar_6 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mazzyTuff2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]4 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]angatar_3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mazzyTuff0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Oh, don't be so daft. Anyone in an intro chemistry class will tell you how easy it is to get chloroform.

But if you really don't know whether rape is easier than TRP ideologies' general strategy, why hasn't anyone tried? I mean, you said it yourself, ethics play no part in your strategy; why are there no field reports on the efficacy of rape as an effective sexual strategy?

If you want a good field report on the subject, start with David Parker Ray. He mentions how easy his strategy was numerous times in that transcript, and it helped him land upwards of hundreds of girls, so how could you argue with that?

My point is, if ethics truly don't play any role in your "sexual strategy", it seems kind of unreasonable to not explore something with a possibly much larger payoff (I mean, DPR and Ghengis Khan had hundreds, if not thousands of "partners").

Unless, of course, you simply have a moral issue with rape.

[–]mazzyTuff1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]angatar_3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mazzyTuff1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SudoTheAdmin-3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]soulcakeduck[S] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]SudoTheAdmin-2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]soulcakeduck[S] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago* (18 children) | Copy Link

With regards to homophobia, this is literally the first link when you search the red pill for 'gay'.

Can you please explain how this contradicts my statement?

oddly you never provide those quotes.

That's a laughable assertion, given that your usual complaint about my submissions is that I found too many quotes and you refuse to read them (source), or that I provide quotes you feel are "selective" (source 2, source 3).

The quote isn't there.

Here is the relevant quote, with some [context]:

His "solutions" [including that rape should be decriminalized] are hypothetical and regressive, but I think he does so to prove a point. He uses hyperbole to prove a point, and I think the general outlay of that one is pretty obvious to most men. I don't really care how women interpret it.

If that were not one of Devlin's solutions, and had not been part of the referenced discussions about Devlin, then that would not be the case. As it is, it is.

[–][deleted] 0 points0 points0 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–]soulcakeduck[S] 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]SudoTheAdmin-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]soulcakeduck[S] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]SudoTheAdmin-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]soulcakeduck[S] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Ctrl+f+"crim".

To anyone who believes that a society of free and responsible persons is preferable to one based on centralized control, the reasoning of the date-rape movement is ominous. The demand that law rather than moral principle and common prudence should protect women in situations such as I have described could only be met by literally “putting a policeman in every bedroom.”

Feminists understand rape, however, not as a violation of a woman’s chastity or marital ﬁ delity, but of her merely personal wishes. They are making use of the ancient law against rape to enforce not respect for feminine modesty but obedience to female whims. ...

But mere disregard of a woman’s personal wishes is manifestly not the reason men have been disgraced, imprisoned, in some societies even put to death for the crime of rape. On the new view, in which consent rather than the marriage bond is the issue, the same sexual act may be a crime on Monday or Wednesday and a right on Tuesday or Thursday, according to the shifts in a woman’s mood. Feminists claim rape is not taken seriously enough; perhaps it would be better to ask how it could be taken seriously at all once we begin deﬁ ning it as they do. If women want to be free to do as they please with men, after all, why should not men be free to do as they please with women?

The date rape issue can be solved overnight by restoring shotgun marriage—but with the shotgun at the woman’s back. The “victim” should be told to get into the kitchen and ﬁ x supper for her new lord and master.

And more.

It is incorrect for you to claim I was unable to provide proof that Devlin opposes the criminalization of rape. You may personally reach a different conclusion, but I sourced my "claims", discussed and defended them in great detail.

Can you point me to where someone made a convincing rebuttal in that submission? Where did someone, to your thinking, prove that Devlin supports criminalization of rape and reconcile that with his arguments that apparently contradict it?

[–]SudoTheAdmin-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]soulcakeduck3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SudoTheAdmin-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]soulcakeduck4 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TRP_-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]soulcakeduck[S] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]TRP_1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]soulcakeduck1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SudoTheAdmin-2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]soulcakeduck[S] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

If you think the context is wrong, feel free to use the context to prove it. It's not. The statements are pretty clear.

It is clear when Devlin explains why criminalization of rape is an absurdity.

It is clear when Devlin proposes his preferred solutions to rape, which are not criminal punishments.

It is clear the article is in the sidebar despite those arguments.

It is clear when moderators explain why those arguments are tolerated.

By the way, resubmitting nearly an identical comment that was removed for breaking the rules already: I think you missed a few of the problem-points. You can argue I am wrong, but you're still baselessly ascribing motives to my supposed mistakes when you post it is dishonest. Honesty is intentional; you could at least argue you think my "distortions" and "ignored replies" are accidental/incompetence/anything. But honesty is intent.

You are not contributing meaningfully to this sub, and are only using character assassinations, when you suggest I am categorically dishonest and that is why I must be wrong here as well.

[–]tubefox-2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]soulcakeduck[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link