~ archived since 2018 ~

Does TRP support rape? Could someone have framed TRP?

[deleted]

December 10, 2013

1 upvotes

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 TRP support rape? Could someone have framed TRP?
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	1
Comments	39
Date	December 10, 2013 9:25 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1skue9/does_trp_support_rape_could_someone_have_framed/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/does-trp-support-rape-could-someone-have-framed.286510 https://theredarchive.com/post/286510

Comments

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthaveRed Pill Male2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthaveRed Pill Male2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]nicethingyoucanthaveRed Pill Male5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Those who argue against it must take the null hypothesis. That's how debate works.

lol. Actually no. That's not how debate works. If you disagree, then I invite you to go edit the wikipedia article on debate and insert the words "null hypothesis" somewhere in there - because it ain't there right now.

The person who starts a debate must argue an affirmative position. Here's how PPD works right now - I'll use a controversial TRP concept as my example. "I think TRP is wrong and women are not hypergamic!!" Or alternately, it's "Why does TRP actually believe this stupid idea called 'hypergamy'??"

Both of those are examples of how you start a circle jerk, not a debate. If you're a blue piller and you want to start a debate on hypergamy, you should post something like this: "I believe that the principle of assortive mating means that women tend to enter into relationships with men of comparable attractiveness. Further, I believe that the majority of women will stay in a relationship with a man regardless of how his attractiveness or hers changes over time."

Or if you were TRP and you wanted to debate that, then you might say, "I believe that most women will leave a man whose SMV drops below that of other available men - a practice that we call hypergamy"

See that? That's how you start a debate. You state some position (other than simply, "lol you guyz are wrongs!!")

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

lol. Actually no. That's not how debate works. If you disagree, then I invite you to go edit the wikipedia article on debate and insert the words "null hypothesis" somewhere in there - because it ain't there right now.

Right because null hypothesis is a scientific word, not a debate word. The debate word for that is "the negative."

Each side is either in favor of ("for, 'Affirmative' "), or opposed to ("against, 'Negative' "), a statement (proposition, moot or Resolution). The "for" side must argue supporting the proposition; the "against" side must refute these arguments sufficiently to warrant not adopting the proposition; they are not required to propose any alternative.

Both of those are examples of how you start a circle jerk, not a debate.

I agree. That's stupid.

That's how you start a debate. You state some position.

Right, but that position can be the negative position. You can say, "I believe that TRP is wrong." That's a valid position. Or you can say, "I believe some aspect of TRP is wrong."

[–]nicethingyoucanthaveRed Pill Male1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Right because null hypothesis is a scientific word, not a debate word. The debate word for that is "the negative."

Allow me to repeat myself, because you're still wrong - and I'll throw in there: you're not going to win this one.

Here's what I said, and it still applies: "lol. Actually no. That's not how debate works."

You don't start a debate with "the negative." A debate starts (as I've said all along) with an affirmative argument. I gave examples of how blue pillers could do that. I cannot tell you how hilarious I find it that you so strenuously resist having to actually believe something (other than, "lol you guyz r wrong!!")

I mean, I understand why you are this way. I get it. And I totally sympathize. If you're required to *gasp* believe something, then your beliefs will be questioned. That would hurt your ego. It's much more comfortable to stand on the sidelines and yell at the coach that he's wrong and stupid than it is to actually jump in and play yourself.

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

You don't start a debate with "the negative." A debate starts (as I've said all along) with an affirmative argument. I gave examples of how blue pillers could do that. I cannot tell you how hilarious I find it that you so strenuously resist having to actually believe something (other than, "lol you guyz r wrong!!")

If an affirmative position already exists, you can start the debate with a negative position.

I mean, I understand why you are this way. I get it. And I totally sympathize. If you're required to gasp believe something, then your beliefs will be questioned. That would hurt your ego. It's much more comfortable to stand on the sidelines and yell at the coach that he's wrong and stupid than it is to actually jump in and play yourself.

Actually, no. It's OK to believe something, but those beliefs are my own and I don't go around advertising them to others. I'm not qualified or knowledgeable enough to formulate a theory that would stand up to debate, and neither is TRP. The difference is that I recognize the lack of information information on the topic and realize that everyone's views will be subjective because they're based on personal experience.

[–]nicethingyoucanthaveRed Pill Male1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm not qualified or knowledgeable enough to formulate a theory that would stand up to debate

not going to argue with that.

and neither is TRP

You are so close. So, so very close to understanding my point.

"TRP" is not a person with whom you can argue and debate. On the other hand, I am a person. I am here. I would absolutely love to have conversations with you.

But you guys don't want to do that. You guys want to go through thousands of threads and comments in a sub with 10,000 members, and you want select out only the things that hurt your precious feelings and then you want to assemble those disparate comments into an amalgam - an imaginary person. It's not a real person. It's something you've made for the specific purpose of hating it.

You want to bring that here and demand that we talk about it. Bullshit! That's unfair. It's a waste of time.

If you want to talk to me about the things that I say and believe - cool. If you want to tell me what you believe, that's cool too. But fishing out comments and telling me you're offended is just stupid.

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"TRP" is not a person with whom you can argue and debate.

TRP is an ideology, so you absolutely can debate against it. This issue here isn't debating against TRP. The issue is the use of strawman arguments. TRP doesn't have a stance on rape, so claiming it does is a strawman argument.

TRP does make claims that establish affirmative positions. Those positions can absolutely be debated.

But you guys don't want to do that. You guys want to go through thousands of threads and comments in a sub with 10,000 members, and you want select out only the things that hurt your precious feelings and then you want to assemble those disparate comments into an amalgam - an imaginary person. It's not a real person. It's something you've made for the specific purpose of hating it.

I'd rather not do that. I never said I wanted to do that, so I'm not really sure what you're getting at...

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

[–]PhantomDream09 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

(sigh) I have noticed a recent trend on PurplePillDebate (or perhaps it only appears to be recent because I am still a relatively new user on this sub) and it goes like this:

A new thread calls/asks/demands RP subscribers to defend/explain/justify the things that have been said by other people in different threads. The content provided by the OP doesn't attempt to be neutral, or follow the basic guidelines.

You have linked to another thread on PurplePillDebate, which is actually talking about a different thread that was posted on TBP...and in turn THAT was actually referencing another RP thread....

So, which layer of the rabbit hole do you want people to focus on?

Referencing an entire thread in my mind is somewhat counter productive in my mind. You end up having to talk about a whole host of ideas and words that belong to various users...and it just dwindles into a "justify this" battle, instead of a "let's debate a particular idea, method, philosophy." Perhaps it would be useful to implement some additional ground rules on this sub. Stick to a specific topic, present a base view on that topic (whether you agree with the view, are questioning the validity of that view, or want more insight on a particular view etc). That way, people can make their own statements, as opposed to being tasked with defending a host of other comments made by various users.

Maybe I am alone in feeling this way, I'm just tired of someone creating a post, linking it to a separate and fully developed thread and then making blanket statements.

If there are particular comments that you take an issue with, or have a question about, then messaging that particular user may be a better way to find answers.

[–]nicethingyoucanthaveRed Pill Male2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

It's tiring for me as well. A big part of the problem is that blue pillers don't actually believe anything. They don't yet realize it, but it's why TRP will continue to grow.

I'll make an analogy using something that's wrong (because blue pillers think TRP is wrong). If the only theory about farming was that you have to pray in order for your crops to grow, frustrated farmers looking for something to help them make sense in the world, would pray.

Blue pillers would come along and laugh and insult them and say, "lol praying doesn't work!" but if that's all they ever say, then people are going to continue to pray.

You have to have something that you actually believe in. You have to say, "look, I'm watering my crops and they're growing better than your prayed-for crops." That's how you convince people.

And that's the conversation that I desperately want to have. I want blue pillers to come here and tell me about watering crops. But they wont. I feel it is frankly cowardly. All they are willing to do is laugh and point or feign outrage. They aren't willing to stand up for something on their own.

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]angatar_1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]angatar_0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

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

I don't see any complaints, distancing, or dissent. I see:

That is going to be so awesome.

I'm all over this...
I'll be in bed or working on an assignment. Would love to stop by but not logistically possible, will read the comments on the thursday night.

etc.

The only complaints are about the trolls and supposed brigading. Five endorsed contributors and /u/redpillschool himself are in that thread. Nothing negative.

I think you're missing the point a little bit.

Right back at you. Red Pillers complain about always being cast as the villains pretty much anywhere it is mentioned. Sending out the most reasonable people (okay PizzaOnEarth) from the cesspool and claiming that they represent The Red Pill that people complain about is dishonest and misleading.

But maybe I should take quotes from the common Red Piller. How much more material do you think I'd get? The only reason I (or anyone else) limits themselves is because required [whatever] is common to all Red Pillers, and endorsed [whatever] is representative of what The Red Pill supports. If you aren't willing to support those people, places, and ideas, they really should not be endorsed. But that's /u/redpillschool's problem, and he's far too stubborn to actually do anything about fixing the sub and it's image.

[–]alphabetmod3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Right back at you.

Everything before this has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

Sending out the most reasonable people (okay PizzaOnEarth) from the cesspool and claiming that they represent The Red Pill that people complain about is dishonest and misleading.

I'm not arguing that their aren't horrible people in the manosphere. They don't represent it though. Can I take the works of the radfems and TERFS and claim that they represent feminism? No because I"d get the no true scotsman defense, but that doesn't seem to work for TRP.

If you aren't willing to support those people, places, and ideas, they really should not be endorsed. But that's /u/redpillschool[3] [+22]'s problem, and he's far too stubborn to actually do anything about fixing the sub and it's image.

So, if feminists aren't willing to support Dworkin's ideas and the woman that wrote the SCUM manifesto, should those women not be considered feminists, because I think you'd be hard pressed to find a feminist to agree with that, even though a lot of those women's views were batshit crazy. But every time anyone argues that, it's not that "regular" feminists are "too stubborn" to do anything about fixing feminisms image, it's NAFALT (not all feminists are like that ) so why are redpillers forced to have to defend endorsed contributors or random commenters on ROK's opinions else we be considered stubborn, or "not actually RP". I'll tell you why i think, It's because people want to paint TRP in a bad light, so if we don't agree with these crazy misogynistic assholes then people can't circle jerk, god forbid there be any decent people that subscribe to some of redpill beliefs whilst rejecting the crazies.

[–]angatar_1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm not arguing that their aren't horrible people in the manosphere. They don't represent it though. Can I take the works of the radfems and TERFS and claim that they represent feminism? No because I"d get the no true scotsman defense, but that doesn't seem to work for TRP.

Which is exactly why almost all of my arguments are targeted towards endorsed contributors, websites, and readings. Like I said, I can start taking average commentors, too, if you'd prefer that.

I'd accept complaints against specific types or waves of feminism, but I have not yet seen anything resembling that in /r/TheRedPill. Maybe you could split /r/RedPillWomen away, but I do not see any clear split in the main subreddit itself. Can you name the different factions, their beliefs, and where I can read more?

I'll tell you why i think, It's because people want to paint TRP in a bad light, so if we don't agree with these crazy misogynistic assholes then people can't circle jerk, god forbid there be any decent people that subscribe to some of redpill beliefs whilst rejecting the crazies.

Sending out the most reasonable people (okay PizzaOnEarth) from the cesspool and claiming that they represent The Red Pill that people complain about is dishonest and misleading.

I haven't claimed that all Red Pillers think exactly alike, but why should I believe the endorsed posters, readings, etc. are not representative? Who does represent /r/TheRedPill if not the creator of the subreddit, the moderators of the subreddit, the contributors endorsed by the subreddit, the side-bar of the subreddit, etc.?

It's because people want to paint TRP in a bad light, so if we don't agree with these crazy misogynistic assholes

Why are these people endorsed if you neither agree nor support them?

"not actually RP"

And this is a major problem, isn't it? What is Red Pill?

Oh, and this is actually your defense... unless you've been saying specific users defending what they don't believe, rather than Red Pillers in general defending what they don't believe. In that case, this complaint:

Especially when it's implied that some crazy asshole from ROK website has beliefs that are in line with TRP commenters that are participating here.

doesn't make sense. There's no specific accusation here, which is what I assume you were referring to. No specific commentors were accused at all.

But that brings me back to: why is this endorsed or considered a good source for Red Pill beliefs if it is in fact not endorsed or considered a good source for Red Pill beliefs?

[–]alphabetmod2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

And this is a major problem, isn't it? What is Red Pill?

I've tried explaining what I think is "alpha" before here. I don't necessarily like using the word to describe myself as it sounds kinda cringey to me, but there are certain alpha traits that I strive for, and that my SO is attracted to.

But that brings me back to: why is this endorsed or considered a good source for Red Pill beliefs if it is in fact not endorsed or considered a good source for Red Pill beliefs?

Some of their beliefs are things that I can relate to/agree with. That doesn't mean that I take everything they say as gospel because RPS or SoftHarem made them endorsed contributors. They're "endorsed" because one or two people decided to give them an endorsed flair. I don't even necessarily agree with everything that the mods that made them endorsed say, let alone with the "endorsed" themselves. Which brings me to:

I haven't claimed that all Red Pillers think exactly alike, but why should I believe the endorsed posters, readings, etc. are not representative? Who does represent /r/TheRedPill if not the creator of the subreddit, the moderators of the subreddit, the contributors endorsed by the subreddit, the side-bar of the subreddit, etc.?

You can jerk over whoever over in TBP, but that doesn't mean I nor any other individual that happens to post to TRP agrees with all of what these people say. Being "high-value"/in other words improving yourself/being "alpha" means you do what you want to do. You don't let other men or women dictate who you are as a person or what you should strive to be. That's the bottom line. Here's what "alpha" and somewhat what TRP means to me:

http://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1rafdk/do_you_believe_submissiveness_is_an_inherently/cdlewfp

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

I've tried explaining what I think is "alpha" before here. I don't necessarily like using the word to describe myself as it sounds kinda cringey to me, but there are certain alpha traits that I strive for, and that my SO is attracted to.

Hasn't /u/redpillschool banned discussion on alphas and betas? I don't want to debate what alpha means, though, and what alpha means is tiny part of what TRP is.

That doesn't mean that I take everything they say as gospel because RPS or SoftHarem made them endorsed contributors. They're "endorsed" because one or two people decided to give them an endorsed flair.

Like I said, this is /u/redpillschool problem. He should take control of the subreddit if it's gotten out of hand and they no longer represent TRP. Cull the herd.

I don't even necessarily agree with everything that the mods that made them endorsed say, let alone with the "endorsed" themselves.

What do you think it would take to remove the flairs and the shitty material?

You can jerk over whoever over in TBP,

Thanks for the permission!

but that doesn't mean I nor any other individual that happens to post to TRP agrees with all of what these people say.

That would be stereotyping; we are generalizing.

Being "high-value"/in other words improving yourself/being "alpha" means you do what you want to do. You don't let other men or women dictate who you are as a person or what you should strive to be.

"Be yourself" is a very common trope in dating advice. I don't know why this advice is Red Pill or not.

Here's what "alpha" and somewhat what TRP means to me:

Why the sudden focus on what alpha means in this post?

[–]alphabetmod2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]angatar_1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmod3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]angatar_1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Except that it recognizes that men and women are attracted to different things,

Debatable, on several levels.

and is willing to talk about non PC issues.

At what cost, though? Just being PC doesn't make something wrong, just like being non-PC doesn't make it right. The truth isn't always in the middle, either.

Take this example of a Red Piller claiming the higher rate of STIs in women is due to the Pareto Principle. /u/sloaaron12 is correct; the higher rate is due to women's biology and how sex occurs. That is a real "biotruth"; it has a basis in reality.

Saying women are incapable of love, honor, reason, etc. is not a biotruth, no matter how non-PC it is. Feminism is not why people believe that women are capable of love, honor, and reason. And the list can go on and on for things like that. Being PC or non-PC has nothing to do with the truth or effectiveness of a method.

You're saying that you should be able to use endorsed contributors/sidebar materials and apply those beliefs in general.

Yes, in general. I have not forced a general belief upon a random Red Piller. That would be stereotyping, not generalizing. What is representative of /r/TheRedPill, if not those things? What is the bare-minimum a belief needs to be to be considered representative? Is saying "Red Pillers believe..." any different from Red Pillers saying "women lack..."? Is there an implicit "generalizing" warning?

I'm simply explaining that part of TRP is that everyone takes different things from it and applies those things differently.

Then I have reservations about the accuracy and practicality of TRP, then. Something like, "all girls ~~love~~ are infatuated with alpha traits" is meaningless, inaccurate, and impractical.

Using your definition of alpha above, saying "be alpha" is no different than "be yourself", except RP is (as you say), not PC. Why are Red Pillers drawn to the non-PC Red Pill if the advice they get is the same elsewhere?

[–]alphabetmod1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yes, in general. I have not forced a general belief upon a random Red Piller. That would be stereotyping, not generalizing.

Fair enough.

Then I have reservations about the accuracy and practicality of TRP, then. Something like, "all girls love are infatuated with alpha traits" is meaningless, inaccurate, and impractical.

That's fine. That's why I say each person takes different things away from TRP. I don't believe a lot of what is said there, but I try to take the things I do believe and use the knowledge/advice/whatever to improve myself and my love life.

Using your definition of alpha above, saying "be alpha" is no different than "be yourself", except RP is (as you say), not PC. Why are Red Pillers drawn to the non-PC Red Pill if the advice they get is the same elsewhere?

While they may get some of the same advice elsewhere, it is generally looked down upon to discuss certain things that TRP does in public/in other subs. Just talking about reddit, a lot of subs will ban you for non-PC talk. Men really have nowhere to go to vent about their problems without being censored. A lot of the non PC subjects that get discussed in TRP (whether they're right or not) people are frowned upon for even bringing these things up elsewhere.

[–]angatar_1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

While they may get some of the same advice elsewhere, it is generally looked down upon to discuss certain things that TRP does in public/in other subs.

But does the non-PCness of the advice make it valuable?

Just talking about reddit, a lot of subs will ban you for non-PC talk. Men really have nowhere to go to vent about their problems without being censored.

Men's problems are not necessarily non-PC. Complaints about TRP, MR, or whatever other subs is almost always not because it is a man's problem being discussed. You have to be able to see why someone would complain about TRP and why many people want nothing to do with TRP, beyond political correctness.

A lot of the non PC subjects that get discussed in TRP (whether they're right or not) people are frowned upon for even bringing these things up elsewhere.

Sure, but is the trade of PC advice from say /r/sex, /r/TwoXChromosomes, or /r/relationships for non PC advice from TRP worth it? I don't think it is, given the dearth of evidence for TRP outside of Red Pillers' own words.

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

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

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

[–]nicethingyoucanthaveRed Pill Male1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link