Has your mind ever been changed here on PPD?

MajesticVelcro · 2014-06-29T13:48:28+00:00

I'm genuinely curious whether anybody has had their mind changed (whether on a specific topic, or on the BP/RP mindset overall) as a result of discussion...

[–][deleted] 19 points20 points21 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ddrlunaPurple Pill Woman8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

On the contrary--PPD has affirmed my position. However, my position was always moderate.

I visit RPW mostly as an anti-modern-feminist (that is, I'm for egalitarianism but not for whiny bitching about useless bullshit that doesn't actually matter) and also as someone always interested in tips to help make my husband happy. But there are plenty of aspects I super disagree with. Things like "I must at all costs stay thin and healthy for my husband but if he starts to eat unhealthily and gains a bunch of weight, that's his prerogative and I must not challenge him or his bad habits" or the rampant anti-intellectualism for women I often see (though that's more in TRP than in RPW).

So basically this forum has highlighted both the positive aspects and the negative aspects of the red pill. I still consider myself "leaning red", but I certainly acknowledge that it's not perfect and definitely not for everyone (nor should it be).

[–]We_Are_LegionAutumn Red4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]ddrlunaPurple Pill Woman1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]We_Are_LegionAutumn Red1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What I glean from that thread;

1 - Picking a good man is extremely important. Same party line as the /r/TRP with picking a woman. You do not take commitment to anyone lightly, that is a recipe for shallow unrewarding relationships full of instability and heartache. And fighting when incompatibility surfaces. You choose someone who will be a good SO and whom you can trust to keep your needs(yes, including attraction) and their own responsibilities in mind.

2 - If you're married, your vows are important, when you lose attraction and pay special attention to flaws(and believe me, flaws seem to disappear when you're infatuated or in love, which is something I assume RP men and women go for), its important to understand the concepts of consistency and loyalty.

3 - When your attraction diminishes with the man you picked, the why of it matters a lot. Sudden changes in someone who's committed to you probably have a good reason. Try not to nag the symptoms, but address the source. Do you know lots of people start smoking and drinking in response to stress or depression? Try to identify causes of that rather than adding to it by targeting what he perceives as his release.

4 - While what he is doing may be extremely valid causes of your own concern, its important to keep in mind that your partner is in fact, entitled to some of his own decisions. You can and should tell him you don't approve of him endangering his health... you can and should reward him for not doing so. But in the end it is their body, and incessant nagging or passive-aggression is not justified and certainly not RPW behaviour. If it doesn't interfere with his responsibilities to you, it is his body and his choice. A captain can smoke when off-duty. He may not cloud up the radio room though.

[–]ddrlunaPurple Pill Woman1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ugh, I've been searching for the past half hour, since I saw your response, and I can't find anything. A lot of posts like this seemed to come from Danabanana and it seems like she's deleted her account. The post that this discussion was happening in might have been deleted as well. The only other one I recall seeing was ages ago and it would take me forever to go back through all the material and find it. All I know is that I saw it and decided not to post in that thread because I didn't want to stir things up or cause trouble in a case where I clearly disagreed.

I know a large chunk of ladies do agree with the view that each partner should strive to maintain mutual attraction, which is why I found it so strange. A lot of people in that thread were suggesting "Just make healthier meals for him or leave him alone" basically.

[–]jhangel77just a girl who lives in a multipill world1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RockinRhombus0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]clanktrees13 points14 points15 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]DocileBanalBovine 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't know. Can you present evidence that says it does?

No, because my implication was that it says something not conveyed in your anecdote.

I may have garbled what I wanted to get across. TRP says women act a certain way because they're women. Your sister points to her mother and says she's bound to act the same way as her mother. The more likely reasoning she used is that she was raised by her mother, so her mother's behavior will rub off on her. Potentially, she could feel her mother's behavior is hereditary and she's going to act like her mother because she is her offspring.

Less likely in my estimation, is that she thinks all women are bound to act a certain why by virtue of being women and points to her mother as the embodiment of that behavior that she will inevitable adhere to.

[–]clanktrees2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The thing is there is a common theme in feminine behavior that is shared across the whole gender but the same goes for male behavior.

That's the thing. There isn't. Not for men, and not for women. Even on a primal/biological level, it is not true, as the human species is one characterized by multiple sexual strategies. But primal/biological imperatives are hardly the only nor main influences in attraction, bonding or behavior.

If that is what TRP is about, then they inherently fail, as it is impossible to do what they are claiming to do. At best, they can characterize a certain type(s) of women or man.

I also do not generally see the usefulness of forcing humankind into these inherently flawed and falsely narrow depictions. I'm much more of a fan of developing your inner tool kit on how to read people and how to judge and acertain character of individuals.

For example, if you want a mature partner, instead of these weird conclusions about how women are inherently less mature cause estrogen and biotruths, bro, so get her young and "train" her (via the utilization of unnecessary manipulation tactics like dread game), you realize the reality that maturity is not a gender-dependent trait, but is an individual-dependent trait, and you learn how to tell which women are mature and which aren't.

Actually, that summarizes my problem with TRP very clearly. I can get where they're coming form and what their goals are, even if I don't always agree, but I think they choose some of the most bizarre, unproductive and unnecessarily difficult ways of achieving them, and they seem to fall into this pattern of thinking that they can't do it any differently. That they HAVE to be emotionless assholes always maintaining frame and asserting dominance.

That's just really not the case and is why I have difficulty believing TRP strategy/ideology. It's just too twisted and myopic.

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points15 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Will_Im_Not 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]accacaaccaca5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Mrswhiskers7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lokidemon731 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Yonderlander5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]RockinRhombus1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Yonderlander2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]niczarRed Pill Man-2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]cheetah_swirley1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]BakerofpieRed Pill Woman1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cuittlerಠ_ಠ11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points3 points3 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–]drok007Not white enough to be blue pill7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BakerofpieRed Pill Woman2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GODZILLAFLAMETHROWERBlue Pill Man3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DenswendThe Swiss Army Knife of Hate0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (81 children) | Copy Link

Half of BP arguments are either baiting the other person into saying something that can be remotely considered sexist (lol). On that, I won't comment. If Hitler says sky is blue, the sky is most definitely green.

Other half is a variation of No True Scotsman "this just isn't feminism","why do you think those radfems represent all of us",etc? If one defines feminism by Meriam Webster definition as "organized activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests" and then compares it to the fact that it's enduringly unpopular - 23 percent of women identify as feminists while 80 percent of women believe in equality of genders it will be a very odd thing. Well, if we define National Socialism to mean “organized activity on behalf of the German people,” a neutral enough definition, we can see that the gulf between the percentage of people who identify as Nazis and the percentage who believe in rights for the German people may be partly due to a branding problem for the word "Nazism". What one must do, to avoid such neutral definitions that cloud the facts, is look at where feminism came from, what feminism did, what feminism does, and what are feminists up to. What one must never do, is let another person tell him what feminism is, because that's fucking stupid.

When detailing discrimination they often entail the fact that women are underrepresented in certain fields (all well paying), and propagate disproved myths (like gender wage gap), or even take the fact that women aren't pandered everywhere. Take for instance the following quote :

"Consider a society which restricts access to contraception and abortion, which defines paying jobs in such a way as to make them incompatible with childbearing and child-rearing, and which does not provide economic compensation for domestic labor. Women in such a society lack the legal means to guarantee that they will not have children, yet are unable to both raise children and work for wages. As a result, they are rendered economically dependent on someone who is a stable income-earner (i.e. a man). In order to ensure that they acquire this support, women must become sexually attractive to men. Knowing that this is their likely fate, many girls do not try as hard as boys to acquire employment skills which can only be exercised by those who avoid pregnancy. Where boys pursue personal security by increasing their employment skills, girls pursue security by increasing their attractiveness to men. This, in turn, results in a system of cultural identifications in which masculinity is associated with income-earning, and femininity is defined in terms of sexual and domestic service for men, and the nurturing of children. So men and women enter marriage with different income-earning potential, and this disparity widens during marriage, as the man acquires valuable job experience. Since the woman faces greater difficulty supporting herself outside the marriage, she is more dependent on maintaining the marriage, which allows the man to exercise greater control within it."

Now this is a silly argument. Society is structured to oppress women, because it does not provide high paying jobs which are compatible with child bearing? That there is not a thing, a sort of "leave", which entitled a parent to a child rearing?. Furthermore, society should provide compensation for domestic labor? And not to mention the implication that women at the age of, I dunno, six, get kidnapped by the Patriarchy and indoctrinated into "wanting to have a winner, instead of being a winner" (since you know, biology is real, evolution's rad, but we all have equal neurological capabilities to a T, it's all culture, and Hitler kinda did eugenics). The majority of "how women are oppressed" feminists arguments are based on what society does not do for women instead of what society prohibits women. The latter is simply unfindable. You may cite gender disparity in STEM, but remember that Google is offering free coding to women, and GNOME went bankrupt trying to ease that disparity. Funny how all movements for "gender equality" entail gender equality in high paying fields where women are underrepresented, and not gender equality in low paying fields where women are overrepresented. Hence, you look at what feminism says "gender equality", but then look at what they do for that "gender equality for women".

For example "women are underrepresented in the leading roles" entails a highly entitled attitude. Leadership is arguably the most important role, but the fact that women aren't in a certain group in equal or more equal (har har har) ration with men is a sign of discrimination. When one looks through these lenses, he will be quick to realize that Hitler was right. 1 percent of population was in overrepresented in journalism, law, and entailing and German Revolution of 1918-1919 was entirely composed out of Jews. This means that whoever thinks that under a society where discrimination (discrimination against women, mind you) is illegal the fact that there is not a 50-50 in all spheres of society is a sign of oppression has the same thought process like Nazis, and while I do not say that he will end with the same results like them, I do heavily imply that.

Then there is criticism that "women have only power over men in false rape accusation and domestic things". Whoever says that outs himself as a radfem. Women should not have any power over men anywhere, and neither should men have any power over women anywhere. The very fact that women have legal power over men is a great insult to the cause of equality. Especially when they are most concerned with sexism in videogames, sexism under work, etc.

To make things more shameful, I'm not RP. But I really don't like people who try to argue for BP, cause they say the most retarded things ever, and are generally poor debaters. The only thing they have for them is the upvote,downvote and sheer numbers.

EDIT: Oh yeah. Passive aggressive to the boot. It makes one wonder if there is a feminist term for "House Negro" . "House Rapist"?

EDIT2: And poor with using words like "coherence" and logical conclusions. When you can claim that you don't understand what someone wrote (cause it's essay and uses big boy words), the problem cannot be in you (as you are too much of a special snowflake), and your opponent is a poppycock. If he mentions Hitler, then you must go under a shutdown and gawk at the sky. Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler. "House CisMale" sounds better.

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points16 points 12 years ago (61 children) | Copy Link

[–]DenswendThe Swiss Army Knife of Hate3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (60 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points18 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]MajesticVelcro9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DenswendThe Swiss Army Knife of Hate2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

You went on an unprompted essay about gender disparity in the workforce and false rape claims that had no cohesiveness at all where you referenced the nazis four times in separate contexts.

Now this is the prime proof that you can be inconcise and incoherent in less that 30 words.

essay

Holy fuck how can one be so...simple... as to think this is an essay? This barely has 1000 words?

You went on an unprompted essay about gender disparity in the workforce and false rape claims that had no cohesiveness at all where you referenced the nazis four times in separate contexts.

The reason why I did so was to demonstrate that discriminations against women are not discriminations at all. Feminism battles discriminations. Gender disparity in workforce is not discrimination.

The reason why I mentioned false rape claims is that they give legal power to women over men. Hence, women cannot possibly claim discrimination where they have such power.

I'll admit; its difficult to debate that because its all over the place.

No it's not. It's easy. First two paragraphs are detailing what you base your arguments of feminism - cries of sexism and no true Scotsman.

Second part is attacking the core points of "discriminations."

Now of course you are certainly under no obligation to put your thoughts into concise readable points but holy shit.

And no one is under obligation to be able to read and process what one writes. You are prime proof of that.

[–]accacaaccaca1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]DenswendThe Swiss Army Knife of Hate0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]clanktrees11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago (52 children) | Copy Link

Are RP really strong debaters?

More than half of the discussions involving RP is some variation of, "That's not what TRP believes!" "That's not what they say!" "You misunderstood!" in reference to obvious core beliefs of TRP. Half of the discussion from the "blue pill" side is simply spent having to prove to a RP that a RP belief is indeed a RP belief, or that a RP pattern is indeed a RP pattern. And even then, despite all the effort you put into finding links to right hand reading material, mods, top threads and comments and EC material that show your point, you're met with an irrational, "You're cherry picking!" They do this distraction technique, temporarily redefining concepts as something innocent and benign rather than what it is normally because it helps the concepts and the ideology evade criticism. It's easier to avoid the argument than defend the points.

The other half of the discussions are bold statements with no citations. Ask for a citation or other proof and you either get personal insults ("you must be a pussy whipped mangina, enjoy being divorce raped by your carousel riding post wall whore!"/"You're fat feminist jealous that no alpha would want you", ad hominems, or deflection. "Omg how can you say men and women are exactly the same?" when no one ever said that.)

Then you have your general soapboxers. You're talking about topic A, but someone feels the need to reply to your post arguing topic B, as if that was a valid counterargument to A. Your post is a perfect example.

And this is supposed to be swaying?

[–]We_Are_LegionAutumn Red2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

No joke. If you can believe it, I have the exact same complaint about BP, and so does RP as a whole, who avoid this place like the plague(1, 2). I can dig up sources, I can cite to a fault what I'm trying to say, I can say it reasonably without personal bias or even admit faults in RP theory to show I am not being baised and still be dismissed as "caring too much" or get ignored completely(total crickets) or have someone blatantly change topics to defend their side or someone a point a stupid caricature of redpill and expect me to work with that or someone blatantly start pedantry or misunderstanding simple redpill concepts(you complained about people denying some things are RP concepts. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt but know this... I truly believe the majority do not deserve this benefit of the doubt and are simply mentally blanketing your apparent credibility here onto themselves, I can link multiple threads like this from just myself where someone claims they are citing side bar material and I am confused and I ask them to go ahead and they come back with nothing)

I even wrote a fucking essay on why I think this is happening just to amuse myself because I was fed up with PPD. http://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/29bvlw/i_am_an_alpha_male/cik2vwv

http://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/29bvlw/i_am_an_alpha_male/cik30mo

Either we are both right or one of us is lying. I am inclined to believe the former, as I don't there is a shortage of clowns on both sides.

[–]la_sabotageTerp Terp Terp0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[+]DenswendThe Swiss Army Knife of Hate-6 points-5 points-4 points 12 years ago (48 children) | Copy Link

It is not that RPs are strong debaters, it is only the BPs are very poor ones. BPs often try to coax into sexism, and common RP response is that sexism is not a core part of the movement. Whereas RP is a fringe community on the internet, and that circulating image is half satire (RP is very much capable of self satire, despite what you might think), and most of the things said not damaging, feminism is a political movement that has way too much power - consider, for example, this and what Women Against Rape state.

And what you can dig up on misogyny on TRP, I can dig up by misandry by feminist movements, and I can dig up misandry that is both more damaging and more in intensity.

And the claim that TRP never backs it up with citations is ridiculous. I always back my stuff with citations (despite not being RP), and a lot of posters do more).

"Omg how can you say men and women are exactly the same?" when no one ever said that.)

No one says it, but one goes from that stance. Hence many BPs outright dismiss "double standard" as evil. Consider for example this.

here is no rational reason to shame promiscuous women in the modern world, so I call it out when I see it, because most people can logically determine that it is an unfair double standard when it is pointed out to them.

Why would the double standard be unfair, if men and women aren't alike?

And count the times when BPs use "sexism" (it's there on the front page, violating the rule of non-inflammatory titles) versus the times when RPs use it. Alternatively, consider the usage of the word misogyny versus misandry. Link.

You're talking about topic A, but someone feels the need to reply to your post arguing topic B, as if that was a valid counterargument to A. Your post is a perfect example.

If topic A directly relates to topic B, then yeah. You fail to understand basic logic. If the question is "HAS YOUR MIND EVER BEEN CHANGED HERE ON PPD" and I answer that BPs are poor debaters with overusage of shaming language and downright illogical, then yes, it's a valid counterargument (argument for).

And this is supposed to be swaying?

People don't come to TRP from PPD. Intellectual framework of TRP is not a thing that one usually falls to the closed-minded. But the core idea of TRP is to make on immune to the usual shaming tactics by making him aware of them. No one from RP comes here to try and "save" people.

[–]GODZILLAFLAMETHROWERBlue Pill Man10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

And what you can dig up on misogyny on TRP, I can dig up by misandry by feminist movements, and I can dig up misandry that is both more damaging and more in intensity.

So, you seem to aknowledge that misandry is bad. Somehow however when the same thing is applied to women it makes it okay.

You want a pissing contest?

And as pointed out, misogyny is a core tenet of TRP. The defining material is inherently misogynistic. The same cannot be said about feminism. That you can find fringe beliefs that are more extreme is certainly not sufficient to condemn feminism as a whole. For example, it could simply mean that feminism is much broader and vast in scale than TRP, which it is, and thus will have a good share of lunatic. That TRP is already so extreme while being on such a minuscule scale tells much more about it.

And all of your rambling, coming from the simple question "has your mind ever been changer on PPD?"...

And this is what makes an endorsed contributor on TRP? Holy shit.

[–]DenswendThe Swiss Army Knife of Hate-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

So, you seem to aknowledge that misandry is bad.

I will neither deny, nor approve of that statement.

And as pointed out, misogyny is a core tenet of TRP.

Prove it. See the thing about neutral definitions. Prove that one tenement, which can be directly interpreted as a core belief of TRP is misogyny. Then prove that feminism was about equality.

See, what you do here is basically acknowledge neutral definition of feminism, while you are negating the neutral definition of TRP. When confronted by this, you lapse into "TRP is misogyny. It definitely is. Because it is." without being able to prove that. Furthermore, overuse of that word, and the fact that misandry doesn't even qualify as a word, leads me to believe that something is very much wrong.

That you can find fringe beliefs that are more extreme is certainly not sufficient to condemn feminism as a whole.

But I do not find fringe beliefs on the extreme. I cited Pankhurst, who was the defining member of feminism. I cited legal inequalities between men and women - favouring women - am I inclined to believe radfems are so powerful that they could have put them there. I cited a fucking organization that complained about jailing women for false rape accusation - one which you cannot say is extremist.

And all of your rambling, coming from the simple question "has your mind ever been changer on PPD?"...

Yes it does. It cannot be changed when people like you side with BP, and when they are more numerous than the normal kind.

And this is what makes an endorsed contributor on TRP? Holy shit.

I can back my claims. You cannot. All you do is either claim TRP is sexist then circlejerk about "muh soggy knee" or "that's no true feminism, feminism is my special kind of feminism, and the people who created it, sustain it, yeah, they're kinda sexist but they're not really feminists." Overall, my complaints stand.

[–]clanktrees3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

Prove it.

The thing about this is that someone can spend a considerable amount of time gathering proof (I myself have done so in the past) only to be dismissed as, "That's just the extremists!" or "You're cherry picking!" as a way to evade criticism.

So why don't you narrow it down and tell us what proof you're willing to take. Is right hand material sufficient? Is EC material sufficient? Are upvoted threads sufficient? Are statements made by RP admitting that RP is misogynistic in nature sufficient (I've had a RP state that misogyny is a necessary component of TRP sexual strategy).

I'd put in the work and gather the evidence for you if you're willing to would step over the threshold and not have one foot in and one foot out, ready to evade having to defend the points if there is sufficient evidence against you.

Solidify your stance so that when someone brings evidence against your claim, you are forced to debate the evidence on merit instead of dismissing it on flimsy excuses.

[–]DenswendThe Swiss Army Knife of Hate-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

The thing about this is that someone can spend a considerable amount of time gathering proof (I myself have done so in the past) only to be dismissed as, "That's just the extremists!" or "You're cherry picking!" as a way to evade criticism.

To quote GODZILLAFLAMETHROWER

And as pointed out, misogyny is a core tenet of TRP. The defining material is inherently misogynistic. The same cannot be said about feminism. That you can find fringe beliefs that are more extreme is certainly not sufficient to condemn feminism as a whole.

I want only the criteria which you pick. If you can dismiss established feminists, established results (i.e. legal inequalities) of their actions based on the idea that they do not "accurately represent feminism" then so can I dismiss RP people saying misogynistic things. For the sake of argument, consider EC = established historical feminist and treat them as equivalent. If you can quote EC saying misogynistic things, I'll quote feminist saying misandric things. If you can quote a legal inequality that favours men that is the result of TRP shenanigans, then I will quote a legal inequality that favours women that is the result of feminist actions.

No neutral definitions of "feminism is all about equality" or "redpill is all about improvement". You will bring up what redpill does and what redpill acknowledges as valid methods of self improvement. I will bring up things that feminism does and considers valid methods of equality. Then we shall measure which one has more impact on society. We will measure stereotypes and propaganda. We will measure who say which side's propaganda. We will measure which movement, MRA or feminism, has more political power to potentially do injustice, regardless if the injustice actually happen. We will consider what contemporary feminists are complaining about, and we will consider what contemporary TRP complain about.

Does that sound fair?

I want you to give me one injustice that TRP did. One legal inequality that resulted in jail time for the woman. One act of how women are being legally discriminated. And no, you cannot say "X did bad things because of misogyny hence X is RP hence RP is misogyny". You prove that X is directly the product of RP framework. And you prove that using the sidebar material.

I'd put in the work and gather the evidence for you if you're willing to would step over the threshold and not have one foot in and one foot out, ready to evade having to defend the points if there is sufficient evidence against you. Solidify your stance so that when someone brings evidence against your claim, you are forced to debate the evidence on merit instead of dismissing it on flimsy excuses.

I gave my stance. And you've still to provide source for the thing you claimed - that men do easily avoid jail time due to rape accusations.

[–]clanktrees2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

I want only the criteria which you pick

I'm asking you to pick the criteria.

I'm asking you what defines a community/group's tenets/core beliefs, and to give me a quantifiable definition of it.

I am asking you to do this, so that when you are presented with evidence you do not like, you do not get to backtrack and outright dismiss it.

I want only the criteria which you pick. If you can dismiss established feminists, established results (i.e. legal inequalities) of their actions based on the idea that they do not "accurately represent feminism" then so can I dismiss RP people saying misogynistic things.

The difference is not just an EC saying things, it's an EC's statement upvoted with 200+ comments made in agreement. It's an EC's statement with a considerable portion of the community actively endorsing/providing support for the statements and very little providing disagreement. It's the fact that an EC saying that isn't the first nor last time it's been said - it's something that has been said in the past and similar levels of agreement were expressed even then.

You will find feminists exhibiting misandry, and I will not even disparage them as not feminists. They probably are. What you won't find is the same vocal agreement and support from a good portion of the overall community of feminism.

What you won't find is that when a feminist expresses some bizarre or ridiculous statement about the true nature of men, most of feminism applauding and agreeing with it.

I want you to give me one injustice that TRP did. One legal inequality that resulted in jail time for the woman.

Judicial inequality from a RP standpoint is not quantifiable as it is not a political movement (and I think you know that which is why you conveniently picked this measure).

I can provide you examples of where sexism/misogyny has hurt women, but you would probably conveniently dismiss that as, "Well that's not RP!" The problem is, RP is not as widespread for people to identify it, even if they would identify with it if they were familiar with it.

Thus, I can really only provide you with examples of what RP wish society was like and how it would be damaging for the woman.

Which is why I'd prefer to discuss ideologies and their core beliefs. The core beliefs of feminism vs the core beliefs of TRP.

I gave my stance. And you've still to provide source for the thing you claimed - that men do easily avoid jail time due to rape accusations.

You gave an example of a man being imprisoned over a false rape claim. Okay, that's not good. However, you have not provided evidence how that's due to feminism. Why is it the fault of feminism vs the fault of the judicial system, or a fault in the discretion of the judge in that case? Did feminism actively campaign for this guy's jailing? How is this different than a man accusing another man of stealing and a man going to jail when it turns out he wasn't the thief?

For that matter, the woman was also sentenced to jail and the accused man was given $38,000 in compensation, which indicates there are consequences to being a shitbag who accuses people of rape falsely.

As for my sources? Very well.

https://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates https://www.rainn.org/images/get-information/Statistics/jailed-rapists.jpg

So only about 7.5% of rapists of reported rapes spend a day in jail, according to Department of Justice and FBI statistics on RAINN's website. 3% if we factor in unreported rapes.

And this is also bearing in mind that the FBI has narrow definition of what constitutes rape.

"For example, the New York Police Department reported 1,369 rapes in 2010, but only 1,036 were entered in the federal figures. However, the police department in Chicago, which had nearly 1,400 reported sexual assaults in 2010, refused to discard cases that did not fit the narrower federal definition when reporting its crime statistics; as a result, the F.B.I.’s uniform crime report — which reported 84,767 forcible rapes that year — did not include any rapes from that city." http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/07/us/politics/federal-crime-statistics-to-expand-rape-definition.html?_r=0

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/exclusive-rape-in-america-justice-denied/

"Rape in this country is surprisingly easy to get away with. The arrest rate last year was just 25 percent - a fraction of the rate for murder - 79 percent, and aggravated assault - 51 percent."

So for this source it's a bit higher, but still shows it's easier to get away with rape than murder or assault.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jul/31/ukcrime.immigrationpolicy

" The truth is that sexual assault in Britain has become a low-risk crime. In 1985 there was a 24 per cent conviction rate in rape trials. By 2003 it had fallen to 5 per cent."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1905867/

"In spite of the overall increase in reporting over the years, the conviction rate for rape remains persistently low: under 6% in England and Wales and only 4% in Scotland."

What about false rape stats?

Well, according to the FBI: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/1996/96sec2.pdf

"FBI reports from 1996 consistently put the number of "unfounded" rape accusations around 8%. In contrast, the average rate of unfounded reports for "Index crimes" tracked by the FBI is 2%."

This is just the unfounded accusation, not accusations that have been proven false. FBI, as mentioned, have a narrow definition of rape, and the methodology to determine "unfounded" was deemed inconsistent.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1905867/

This was a study mentioned above. In this study, the finding was that: "About 9% of cases are classified as false allegations, the majority of which are reports from within the 16-25 age group"

So, at most, we are talking about 8-9% rate of rape accusations potentially being false, as opposed to 75-93% of reported rapists going free without spending a day in jail. While both are a problem, what do you think the bigger problem is?

And how much is the false rape accusations a problem of feminism as opposed to a problem of the general judicial system? Because if anything, it seems courts still heavily favor the rapists, with certain exceptions.

[–]GODZILLAFLAMETHROWER4 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]clanktrees5 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]We_Are_Legion1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Denswend1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm asking you to pick the criteria.

I've picked it.

The difference is not just an EC saying things, it's an EC's statement upvoted with 200+ comments made in agreement. It's an EC's statement with a considerable portion of the community actively endorsing/providing support for the statements and very little providing disagreement. It's the fact that an EC saying that isn't the first nor last time it's been said - it's something that has been said in the past and similar levels of agreement were expressed even then. You will find feminists exhibiting misandry, and I will not even disparage them as not feminists. They probably are. What you won't find is the same vocal agreement and support from a good portion of the overall community of feminism. What you won't find is that when a feminist expresses some bizarre or ridiculous statement about the true nature of men, most of feminism applauding and agreeing with it.

This is exactly why I wanted to do this.

If TRP members roughly about 50 000, and EC's sexist statement is upvoted by 200 comments, that means that only 0,4 percent of the entire TRP community agrees with him. Reddit has upvote/downvote system which can accurately measure how much a comment is liked - but if the criteria which you say (a majority of feminists will not agree with what some misandric feminist says) applies here you will find the rate of 0,4 percent (perhaps it climbs to 5 percent if we are really really generous) not majority. Now can you do the same for all feminists? Can you prove that majority of feminists do not agree with generic statement of generic misandric feminist number 10? Especially when there are authentic feminists like Camille Paglia who outright state that "radfem minority" is acually well recieved or Karen Straughan are stating the very thing. So if we apply criticism on how it's well recieved by community, TRP cannot seem to have a majority opinion on anything, let alone misogyny. See the problem here? Alternative cannot be said about feminism - when I have feminist who say that modern feminism became about hating men. How about some Ayaan Hirsi Ali - Link.

However, if his comment is so much liked by the powers that be, it is immortalized in the sidebar material - we can effectively treat it as roughly representative of TRP beliefs. Go there. You pick out blatant misogyny, the core of blatant misgogyny. Not just "The link which sidebar linked me quoted when Schopenhauer said that women is the most responsible teenager,etc".

That's why I asked you to peruse the sidebar material.You judge a movement by its actions, and how they differ from what they say. In case of feminism, I will judge by their actions. White feather (I gave you a link) is a good example.

Judicial inequality from a RP standpoint is not quantifiable as it is not a political movement (and I think you know that which is why you conveniently picked this measure).

Precisely. If RP cannot have any political power, then the scope of RP misogyny is limited. Same cannot be said for feminism.

I can provide you examples of where sexism/misogyny has hurt women, but you would probably conveniently dismiss that as, "Well that's not RP!" The problem is, RP is not as widespread for people to identify it, even if they would identify with it if they were familiar with it.

This is what you do. X is misogyny. TRP is misogyny. Therefore X is TRP. Therefore TRP is misogyny. This is the definition of circular reasoning. The problem that you have is that when someone says TRP, you instantly think misogyny. The proof of that? Oh, it's definitely misogyny.

Thus, I can really only provide you with examples of what RP wish society was like and how it would be damaging for the woman.

See above about communities and majority agreeing and etc. Alternatively, see Misandry Bubble (it's required read there - side bar material) to see what men would really want, and how it would be damaging for the woman.

Otherwise, you have nothing but :"TRP is misogyny. Misogyny wants bad for women. TRP wants bad for women. TRP is misogyny."

Essentially, you cannot provide any concrete evidence that TRP in itself did any damage, but only when you equalize TRP with misogyny and in a strawman on how you think TRP would want a society to be.

Straight from the sidebar material :

But this isn't the end of the world. The world is changing, but men are still part of it. We just need to make sure we're changing with it.

As you can see, something that is sidebar material (much better criteria than community agreeing) states otherwise. No desire to change the status quo. Only adapt to it.

Which is why I'd prefer to discuss ideologies and their core beliefs. The core beliefs of feminism vs the core beliefs of TRP.

Which is not what you are currently doing. You were the one who mentioned "critera by community, criteria by the people who preach it" as a measurement of core beliefs. You say that TRP is misogynic in core. Your proof of that is "EC's statement upvoted with 200+ comments made in agreement".

Did feminism actively campaign for this guy's jailing?

I've said it before. I'm going to link you to it - here. They were angry that she was persecuted. What this does is, if there is no legal penalty for false rape accusation, then a lot more people are going to do it because of various reasons. The person in question did to justify her exams or some other reasons. Others will do it to not be perceived as a slut. Reasons vary. The point is that rape in unique crime over which a woman can ruin a man. And when that woman is punished, feminists groups are angry. Not hard to see the implications.

"Rape in this country is surprisingly easy to get away with. The arrest rate last year was just 25 percent - a fraction of the rate for murder - 79 percent, and aggravated assault - 51 percent."

Do you find this surprising? That rape which, unlike murder or aggravated assault, leaves very low amount of evidence is going to be less persecuted than the murder? Coincidentally, do you think that rape is worse or equal to murder? Or do you think, objectively speaking, that rape is easier to prove than murder?

Your statistics

Your statisics are alright, but your interpretation of them is not. See why.

10% of accusations are conclusively true, while 5% are conclusively false. Of all accusations that can be conclusive, one third is false. How can you then, with logic and non-bias, prove that the remaining 85% are true?

Furthermore

75-93% of reported rapists going free without spending a day in jail.

Which is entirely my point. You take it as a bad thing, that taken at a face value of what woman says, a man should spend a day in jail. And then, you imply that those 75-93% reported rapists are actual rapists.

When they take something like accusation without conclusive evidence as a reason to jail a person they don't know is guilty or not you cannot say that they favour the rapists. Those that have such ability are the ones that are being favoured.

[–]clanktrees2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I've picked it.

You did not give me a quantifiable definition of how to acertain what core beliefs of a group are. You argued something else entirely and I expressed my issues with it.

editLater in your post you mention right hand material sufficient, so I will use that.

If TRP members roughly about 50 000, and EC's sexist statement is upvoted by 200 comments, that means that only 0,4 percent of the entire TRP community agrees with him.

I wrote a detailed explanation on this, but for the sake of concision:

"200 comments& upvote to the front page" seems to be a good measure of preferred material in the community. There are discernable patterns on what makes it to the top and what doesn't. Threads disparaging women seem to consistently make it to the top, seem to consistnetly get considerable support. But a thread about how women are actually not that bad, no different than men in terms of hypergamy/hamstering/irrationality? Would never get anywhere close to the front page. Hell, similar threads in the past have been downvoted and removed. So, in the community, there is a very clear preference and rating system in terms of material. Your view would hold valid if a variety of opinions were getting similar traction, but a very particular set of opinions are what seems to get the most support and their countering opinions seem to get not just lack of support, but active disparagement.

You later complain about this "proof," but may I remind you that this isn't my proof of anything. I only challenged your claim that EC's are the same as extreme rad fems, and the above are my reasons why.

Camille Paglia who outright state that "radfem minority"

The difference is, in general community of feminism, there is not a clear, uniform and consistent preference for rad fem/misandrist claims as opposed to ones not expressing misandry (I would say overall, non misandrist claims are preferred), whereas in TRP, you see a clear preference for misogyny and a clear distaste for tolerance.

Go to any feminist website/forum/subreddit that doesn't cater to an extremist subfaction of feminism but feminism as a whole (like r/TRP caters to TRP community as a whole). Post something along the lines of, "Men are inherently childish and impulsive in nature, and cannot be left to make decisions for themselves without the detriment of society." See how much traction you're going to get.

In case of feminism, I will judge by their actions.

I have no problem with this, but based on that rape example, it appears to me that you are attributing the fault of certain issues to feminism prematurely. This is a fine measure of an ideology if you are being reasonable and objective about it, and I am not sure you are.

Likewise, I also feel like you are quit to judge the actions of an individual or few individuals as the actions of a large movement just by the fact that the person who commits the actions happens to also identify themselves as part of a movement. The question that needs to be asked is was this person acting on behalf of the movement, and with the movement's support? Otherwise, you are not getting anything insightful from judging actions alone.

Example, let's say I accuse someone of false rape because I was butthurt over being dumped. I also happen to identify as an athiest. Is it athiesm that prompted my false rape claim? Is it characteristic of the movement? Or is it characteristic of me as an indivdiual to get butthurt and vindictive? Does the movement on average or as a whole support my actions?

Precisely. If RP cannot have any political power, then the scope of RP misogyny is limited. Same cannot be said for feminism.

You've still yet to establish that feminism is actually misandrist except for extreme factions of it which have less power than feminism on average.

A perfect example of this is for example, right-Libertarians typically tend to be the extreme form of Republicians, but due to their extremity, they typically also have less support, and thus less power and less influence in politics.

The problem that you have is that when someone says TRP, you instantly think misogyny.

The problem is TRP core beliefs, the thing that seperates TRP from not being TRP, the thing that forms TRP's unique identity and association, is misogynistic in nature. Thus if someone goes from not associating with it to actively associating with it, they are actively supporting those fundamental beliefs.

It's like if I today joined the KKK. The KKK has a set mentality/ideology. If I decide today to actively associate as a KKK member, I am obviously doing so because I want to support what they preach.

[–]We_Are_Legion2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

"200 comments& upvote to the front page" seems to be a good measure of preferred material in the community. There are discernable patterns on what makes it to the top and what doesn't. Threads disparaging women seem to consistently make it to the top, seem to consistnetly get considerable support. But a thread about how women are actually not that bad, no different than men in terms of hypergamy/hamstering/irrationality? Would never get anywhere close to the front page. Hell, similar threads in the past have been downvoted and removed. So, in the community, there is a very clear preference and rating system in terms of material. Your view would hold valid if a variety of opinions were getting similar traction, but a very particular set of opinions are what seems to get the most support and their countering opinions seem to get not just lack of support, but active disparagement.

Hmm?

http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/top/?sort=top&t=month

or take your pick really,

http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/top/?sort=top&t=year
http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/top/?sort=top&t=week http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/top/?sort=top&t=day

I don't agree with this point. Not only are a large majority clearly defying that stereotype you make, reading past the titles dwindles away another huge chunk.

And in any case, if you're still not convinced, I'm gonna just going to ease your frustration by posting this this argument with an open offer of giving at least 1 dozen statements(or however many you demand, I could easily do 100 if I had the time, they're quite plentiful) by Mods and EC's backing it up. I don't want to dig around at the moment, but I'm willing to if you're in doubt. Its basically part of the sub's reason for existence, since most of the practical (from the outright recipes of pickup to getting fit to wardrobe advice to learning languages to entrepreneurial discussions, etc happen on the literally dozens of blogs in the manosphere, and there is a reading list of quite literal dozens, if not hundreds of endorsed books(by actual experts, not just us), not to mention actual practice of it in the field and in the gym or careers or bedroom.

/r/TheRedPill is a hub for the "manosphere"(Its been around a year. You've probably heard people claiming they've been at it for almost a decade. That figure is accurate. In different forms, its been around for a while. TRP is an attempt at a hybrid of different areas of the "manosphere", each of which is a different filter on RP's topbar), and a sort of incubator for redpill attitudes and a venting space. Even when you post a billion RP users posting misogyny(in your eyes), they will still claim we don't hate women, they genuinely believe its not about that. And they're right, arguably(at least this is officially true). They genuinely believe it is a stage of accepting harsh truth(redpill does contain harsh things that these people come to believe are true. Disillusionment is not without anger for any human being.). When these men hear bitterness on RP, they're aware its juvenile and hope they will grow out if it. Every guy ranting about women is doing so under the implicit understanding that he is probably being a whiny, beta crybaby bitch because reality isn't as perfect as he thought and people are not just willfully ignoring it, but they are providing an umbrella from ridicule about it so he won't do it elsewhere, like with a woman, where it counts. Its like a shoulder to cry on for these men. You can laugh. But most of the people who latch onto RP, are deeply hurt and disillusioned men with the normal social rhetoric. They need this ounce of sympathy. That is what /r/TheRedPill believes. And most of us agree with this. The more successful of us don't laugh at the bitter incels among us.

NOTE: I really really think our mods put it into better words than I did, and made my empathize with this position more. If you're interested, I'll find some after work.

For the rest of your points, well argued. Especially the rape stats. You won't find argument from me that fake claims are the bigger problems, but the justice system is founded upon the principle that the law should let go 100 criminals to avoid falsely convicting 1 innocent... am I wrong or naive there? Is calling for keeping due process a legitimate demand, especially since there's never-ending feminist pressure to streamline it? Is calling for women to take slightly more care in this delicate matter so evil? Maybe it is, but it is the pragmatic, non-idealistic approach. You also, I think, pointed out something else important that I realized I'm guilty of; attributing the fault of certain issues to feminism prematurely. I admit I might've been doing that and I'll try not to in future. Its far too tempting though in many issues. However, if we disregard individual cases, and speak in terms of broad societal trends, sometimes correlation does point to causation, and RP is not something that is meant to deal with individuals. It deals with generalizations and trends that is useful for the individual in his sexual market to know, to make the best decisions possible. Some negative effects of feminism are prevalent and prudent to know about, I still believe, IMHO. But I realize that's a slippery slope to think under probably prone to the same illogical thought processes that TRP itself is attacked on.

EDIT: But... earlier you were asked to post examples of RP's misogyny that were harmful to society in the same way as feminism's "misandry". You said you could find such examples, but they'd be hidden.

I want to put one question to that, assuming you're from TBP; are those examples in any way like these?

http://www.reddit.com/r/TheBluePill/comments/27y9ch/i_was_the_victim_of_an_attempted_redpill_seduction/

http://www.reddit.com/r/TheBluePill/comments/1uv8mt/some_fucking_fortyyearold_used_kino_on_me_today/

http://www.reddit.com/r/TheBluePill/comments/257ww2/i_encountered_a_red_piller_in_real_life_guys/

http://www.reddit.com/r/TheBluePill/comments/1zizol/jagged_little_red_pill/

http://www.reddit.com/r/TheBluePill/comments/1y0o65/my_experience_dating_a_red_piller/

http://www.reddit.com/r/TheBluePill/comments/1m1alu/alpha_level/

http://www.reddit.com/r/TheBluePill/comments/25fefj/i_think_my_ex_has_gone_full_twerp/

http://www.reddit.com/r/TheBluePill/comments/1i87g3/real_life_red_piller_encountered_last_night/

http://www.reddit.com/r/TheBluePill/comments/1uw2xr/one_mans_experience_with_the_red_pill/

http://www.reddit.com/r/TheBluePill/comments/1ral8e/how_one_woman_took_down_a_redpiller_icon_who/

http://www.reddit.com/r/TheBluePill/comments/21er8b/has_anyone_here_dated_a_redpillwoman_i_think_i/

http://www.reddit.com/r/TheBluePill/comments/1jhlma/id_like_to_invite_you_to_a_dinner_even_if_youre/

http://www.reddit.com/r/TheBluePill/comments/2c3fl8/my_dads_a_terper_ama/

http://www.reddit.com/r/TheBluePill/comments/26g69x/one_in_the_wild_feeeemale_panties_are_clearly/

http://www.reddit.com/r/TheBluePill/comments/1njxe1/i_was_engaged_to_a_redpiller_ama/

http://www.reddit.com/r/TheBluePill/comments/25kuko/endorsed_contributor_on_a_womans_account_of_her/ (and the redpill response thread, I pointed out how the chronology doesn't even match up)

Because if you say the abundant 200-upvote posts on redpill speak about redpill's rampant misogny, these NON-satire 200+ serious posts speak about TBP's demonstrable absolute delusion with what redpill is. It is pretty much proof that they're making caricatures and cartoonized images of what we are and 100% seriously believing them.

Most of this list is a RP laughing stock. We use it to convince newbies (who have some basic level of RP knowledge) but are still on the fence based on TBP's convictions, that TBP has no idea what they're on about. No words, we just ask them to read for themselves.

I'll add another one more of my own:

http://www.reddit.com/r/TheBluePill/comments/26eqpx/no_more_ucsb_posts/ (The stupid blatant politicized spinning of Elliot rodger into Redpiller. The credibility is torn apart by the simple fact that his lingo came from PUAHate.com and /r/theRedpill had a reaction thread to his rantings 3 days before he shot people(you can't even pretend we're backtracking. if anything, we predicted that having these hopeless males is a risk). Redpill's post-shooting reaction thread: http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/26gh2q/mod_new_threads_about_elliot_rodgersthe_shooting/

[–]Denswend1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

200 comments& upvote to the front page" seems to be a good measure of preferred material in the community. There are discernable patterns on what makes it to the top and what doesn't. Threads disparaging women seem to consistently make it to the top, seem to consistnetly get considerable support. But a thread about how women are actually not that bad, no different than men in terms of hypergamy/hamstering/irrationality? Would never get anywhere close to the front page. Hell, similar threads in the past have been downvoted and removed. So, in the community, there is a very clear preference and rating system in terms of material. Your view would hold valid if a variety of opinions were getting similar traction, but a very particular set of opinions are what seems to get the most support and their countering opinions seem to get not just lack of support, but active disparagement.

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Especially when you make the following statement :

The difference is, in general community of feminism, there is not a clear, uniform and consistent preference for rad fem/misandrist claims as opposed to ones not expressing misandry (I would say overall, non misandrist claims are preferred), whereas in TRP, you see a clear preference for misogyny and a clear distaste for tolerance.

See, it's a general statement that in TRP there is a clear preference for misogyny and a clear distaste for tolerance, but when confronted by "prove that" you all stumble around. "I see some bad things that EC say about women - and they get upboats". But then you say that radfems aren't indicative of feminism in general, despite you saying that those are indeed people who are considered by feminists to be feminists. I wasn't equating ECs with radfems (lol), I was equating them with academically confirmed feminists.

And didn't you see the quote? Because the general hysteria towards "rape culture" (I'm guessing that it was started by atheists, and not feminists) is a testament of that. You judge based on a thing that EC said that is muh soggy knee that was upvoted a lot (but you can't give me a proof of that, or can you), but when you are confronted with the fact that many of established feminists said misandric things and got away with it (so much for tolerance, remember, tolerance only for me, and everyone esle can shut up), and that many of counter feminists started as feminists but realized feminism is becoming misandric - like Camille Paglia or Warren Farrell.

The core tenement of TRP is misogyny, the reason for that is because EC said something bad about women (which we cannot prove in a sane way), but core tenement of feminism is equality, despite the fact that they said more misandric things, and people actually left the movement because of growing intolerance.

I have no problem with this, but based on that rape example, it appears to me that you are attributing the fault of certain issues to feminism prematurely. This is a fine measure of an ideology if you are being reasonable and objective about it, and I am not sure you are.

If feminism is any organized activity on behalf of women's rights, then WAR is most definitely feminists. And White Feather. Three times I've linked it.

Likewise, I also feel like you are quit to judge the actions of an individual or few individuals as the actions of a large movement just by the fact that the person who commits the actions happens to also identify themselves as part of a movement. The question that needs to be asked is was this person acting on behalf of the movement, and with the movement's support?

Fair enough. Do you support Women Against Rape? Do you support Pankhurst? Do you support Hillary Clinton?

You've still yet to establish that feminism is actually misandrist except for extreme factions of it which have less power than feminism on average.

I point out to legal inequalities that exist that favour men over women. I actually give you three sources when removing feminist bias increased male pupil's grades. Now, why exactly do those legal inequalities persist? Why exactly can feminists have such a stranghold on educational system?

Is it because the entire feminist movement has power (which it btw, in the case I've given, it abuses), or because rad feminism has power?

The problem is TRP core beliefs, the thing that seperates TRP from not being TRP, the thing that forms TRP's unique identity and association, is misogynistic in nature. Thus if someone goes from not associating with it to actively associating with it, they are actively supporting those fundamental beliefs.

This hinges on the fact that TRP is misogynistic in nature. Again. Circular reasoning.

[–]clanktrees2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

See, it's a general statement that in TRP there is a clear preference for misogyny and a clear distaste for tolerance, but when confronted by "prove that" you all stumble around. "I see some bad things that EC say about women - and they get upboats". But then you say that radfems aren't indicative of feminism in general, despite you saying that those are indeed people who are considered by feminists to be feminists. I wasn't equating ECs with radfems (lol), I was equating them with academically confirmed feminists.

That's because you missed the point.

My point wasn't that you're equating rad fems to fems, or the equivalent of EC's. It's that rad fems fail to get traction from the feminist community as a whole, the way that EC's who express misogyny do from TRP community.

Like I said, go to a feminism subreddit, and make the statement I told you to make about "inferior male nature," like the ones we see on the front page of TRP. See how much traction you get. See if you can make it to the front page.

Misandry is present in a small faction of feminism but not feminism as a whole. Really warped views like women not having the right to vote are present in TRP, but not TRP as a whole. But TRP as a whole is misogynistic. TRP in general as a group is extremist. In many ways, it's the extreme subfaction of MRA, in the same way rad fem is the extremist subfaction of feminism. Thus trying to put TRP and feminism on equal footing is difficult, because they're inherently not.

Because the general hysteria towards "rape culture"

You don't believe concern about rape is at least somewhat warranted? Especially when we just went over statistics where the vast majority of rapes are unreported, and those that are reported are rarely even considered? You don't think it's somewhat warranted when a fairly large portion of women will be raped...considerably moreso than men will be falsely accussed? You don't think this lack of empathy IS misogyny? Between the two of us, I actually have sympathy for men falsely accused of rape, but when you call concern over rape "hysteria," well that says a lot about you.

but you can't give me a proof of that, or can you

Proof of what? You said you didn't consider EC threads as criteria.

but when you are confronted with the fact that many of established feminists said misandric things and got away with it (so much for tolerance, remember, tolerance only for me, and everyone esle can shut up),

What are you even talking about? Are RP who said questionably things stoned to death? Some feminists said misandrist things and some agreed while the majority of feminism (and people in general) dismissed them as crazy extremists. It is not my fault that YOUR individuals and YOUR extremists actually get majority support.

Like, actually. It is not my fault. I am making an observance but I have no control over the pattern. I am simply pointing it out. If you take issue, deal with it on /r/TRP.

The core tenement of TRP is misogyny, the reason for that is because EC said something bad about women (which we cannot prove in a sane way

YOU TOLD ME NOT TO USE EC's. YOU TOLD ME TO USE RIGHT HAND READING MATERIAL. I don't even know what to say to this. "You didn't provide me with the evidence I told you not to provide me with!" Duh?

but core tenement of feminism is equality, despite the fact that they said more misandric things, and people actually left the movement because of growing intolerance.

Core. Beliefs. Are. Determined. By. The. General. Majority. Of. The. Group. And. The. Group's. Mission. Statement. And. Objectives.

Feminism's core beliefs centers around equal opportunity. It does not make postulations about male human nature, how it's inferior or negative, nor how to deal with it, nor how women should be in power/control over men due to men's inherent nature. TRP does. Do some feminists believe men are inferior? Sure. Just like there are TRP's who believe men and women are equal. BUT THE GROUPS' beliefs, as determined by the majority AND by the group's statements/ideology, are such that feminism is about equal opportunity and TRP is about understanding "women's true nature," the latter which is incredibly misogynistic.

Fair enough. Do you support Women Against Rape? Do you support Pankhurst? Do you support Hillary Clinton?

I support WAR's mission statement. I am not familar with Pankhurst. Hilary Clinton is vague. I support some things she's stated.

actually give you three sources when removing feminist bias increased male pupil's grades. Now, why exactly do those legal inequalities persist? Why exactly can feminists have such a stranghold on educational system?

You didn't, but I'd be interested in this.

This hinges on the fact that TRP is misogynistic in nature. Again. Circular reasoning.

I will be going through the right hand reading material when I have time to indicate the inherent misogyny, since you stated that I could use that to determine the group.

[–]Denswend1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's that rad fems fail to get traction from the feminist community as a whole, the way that EC's who express misogyny do from TRP community.

Can you prove that EC who express misogyny gain traction from TRP community? And you cannot use the upvote/downvote system (cause it's faulty, and 200 upboats is hardly a representative of what community thinks).

Pic related.

Feminism actually had people leave it because misandry gained traction there. Can you say the same thing about TRP? Or did those people misunderstand feminism too.

Like I said, go to a feminism subreddit, and make the statement I told you to make about "inferior male nature," like the ones we see on the front page of TRP. See how much traction you get. See if you can make it to the front page.

TRP does not claim that female nature is by default inferior. TRP says what it is.

Between the two of us, I actually have sympathy for men falsely accused of rape, but when you call concern over rape "hysteria," well that says a lot about you.

My mistake for not defining what it is - consider the controversy over what Miss Nevada said.

That is rape culture. Consider RAINN's criticism over the term rape culture. That is what I mean for "rape culture hysteria". Not "rape hysteria".

Are RP who said questionably things stoned to death? Some feminists said misandrist things and some agreed while the majority of feminism (and people in general) dismissed them as crazy extremists.

See pic above and the comment above.

It is not my fault that YOUR individuals and YOUR extremists actually get majority support.

Prove it.

Core. Beliefs. Are. Determined. By. The. General. Majority. Of. The. Group. And. The. Group's. Mission. Statement. And. Objectives.

Yes. Your postulate is that majority of TRP is misogynistic. Prove it.

Feminism's core beliefs centers around equal opportunity.

TRP's core beliefs centers about sexual strategy and self improvement. Seems innocent enough? See what I said when I spoke about neutral definitions.

It does not make postulations about male human nature, how it's inferior or negative, nor how to deal with it, nor how women should be in power/control over men due to men's inherent nature.

It makes postulations about human nature. If women aren't inherently equal in mental capacities then they cannot seek equal opportunity if they want to promote their interests. It's a fair postulate and a just one.

What TRP does is acknowledge the difference betwen man and woman's sexual nature and how their mental abilities are skewed because of it. What TRP does is work with the present female nature to achieve its goals - from the introduction which is the best representation of TRP :

Men, our happiness is our responsibility. Culture has always shifted, it's dynamic and fluid. It has never and will never stay still. Feminism was inevitable. Equal rights are something I strongly am in support of. For men and women.

Women have the right to pursue happiness. Nobody should tell them otherwise. Maximizing happiness is the goal of every living creature on this planet.

Men, we need to recognize that since women are rightfully seeking out happiness, evolutionary psychology is more relevant today than ever in the past century. (and possibly longer). We no longer run the show. And I, for one, don't disagree that marriage had to change if we were to see equal rights.

The Red Pill is men's sexual strategy. Reality is happening, and we need to make sure that we adjust our strategy accordingly.

What TRP doesn't do, which is silly, say that female sexual nature is somehow wrong. The post which I made, which made me an EC was very much in praise of female sexual nature. Because what TRP does, is say that female sexual nature is by default very, very, very beneficial to the human race as a whole.

Now, why was I, by other endorsed contributors and mods, made an endorsed contributor over praising a thing which TRP is supposed to hate?

YOU TOLD ME NOT TO USE EC's. YOU TOLD ME TO USE RIGHT HAND READING MATERIAL. I don't even know what to say to this. "You didn't provide me with the evidence I told you not to provide me with!" Duh?

My mistake, I misread your username for some guy/gal who posted like that.

You didn't, but I'd be interested in this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/02/16/female-teachers-give-male_n_1281236.html

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/eliminating-feminist-teacher-bias-erases-boys-falling-grades-study-finds

I will be going through the right hand reading material when I have time to indicate the inherent misogyny, since you stated that I could use that to determine the group.

If so, could I make a request? Can you wait two days before you post it? This will likely be my last (or next to last) post here in the next 2-3 days so I won't be able to respond adequately.

[–]We_Are_Legion1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

My point wasn't that you're equating rad fems to fems, or the equivalent of EC's. It's that rad fems fail to get traction from the feminist community as a whole, the way that EC's who express misogyny do from TRP community.

OK, name 3 causes of feminism that don't accuse men as the source of the problem. As the evil patriarchs or something like that. How is that different from redpill?

Simple. One is politically-correct and group think. You are used to thinking that way. It is accepted, and the opposition is shunned in the absurdly sensitive "safe-zone" that public discussion has now become. The other is more recent, and flies in the face of what you've been thoroughly taught. You are biased to think one way, but not the other.

Of course, feminism presents its viewpoints much more nicely and diplomatically. But then, RP does not have a PR department, nor cares much for its image or reputation whatsoever And women are held to be the subconscious masters of power-talk anyway(sidebar).

[–]clanktrees2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Making a second post for the rape topic, as it would be too long to include it in the other:

They were angry that she was persecuted.

Who is they? How is "they" representative of feminism in general? Can you indicate how "their" opinions are the opinions of feminism as opposed to their individual opinions on this matter? Because, quite frankly in every publicized case, people always pick sides based on the facts that they are familiar with, and facts they're sympathetic too. There were indivduals who also indentified as MRA's arguing/expressing sympathy for rapists; does that mean MRA as whole and MRA's core beliefs/goals center on defending rapists?

She was not a feminist, acting on the behalf of feminism, with the support of the feminist movement. Individuals and some rape activists expressed sympathy for her, but there was no unified feminist movement lobbying for her release, in the same way feminist protests have previously existed for sexual harassment or wage disparity. Even from the few random sympathizers, her sentance was not revoked. So 1) I am not sure what your issue is overall in this case since she got what she deserved (except that people felt sorry for her - which is pretty much the case for every guilty party ever. Even Ted Bundy had sympathizers. Hell, most men accused of rape have sympathizers in the form of MRA's.), and I am most certainly not sure how you think this is feminist injustice/oppression of men.

The point is that rape in unique crime over which a woman can ruin a man.

False rape accusations can ruin a man. But...

What this does is, if there is no legal penalty for false rape accusation

There was a legal penalty for her false rape accusation. So what's your point?

That rape which, unlike murder or aggravated assault, leaves very low amount of evidence is going to be less persecuted than the murder? Coincidentally, do you think that rape is worse or equal to murder? Or do you think, objectively speaking, that rape is easier to prove than murder?

None of this is relevant. The topic is the amount of individuals accused of rape being sentanced.

And it counters your claim that because of some feminist policy, men are prone to being arrested for rape without evidence.

Your statisics are alright, but your interpretation of them is not. See why.

I think you need to form your own arguments instead of letting others argue for you.

10% of accusations are conclusively true, while 5% are conclusively false. Of all accusations that can be conclusive, one third is false. How can you then, with logic and non-bias, prove that the remaining 85% are true?

You cannot conclude that 10% are conclusively true, when the issue is that most of the rape cases are not even considered at all and are dismissed without actual judge/jury deliberation of the circumstances to determine guilt/innocence. The fundamental issue being displayed here is that rape claims are being thrown out without consideration. In fact, that is the finding of many adjunct studies on this matter (poor police processing of rape claims). Hell, there are currently 20,000 rape kits waiting to be tested.

Second of all, the FBI stat that I linked you to, showed 8% of rape claims are unfounded. That means 92% of the others were at the very least founded. And here's what consititued "unfounded:"

"This statistic is almost meaningless, as many of the jurisdictions from which the FBI collects data on crime use different definitions of, or criteria for, "unfounded." That is, a report of rape might be classified as unfounded (rather than as forcible rape) if the alleged victim did not try to fight off the suspect, if the alleged perpetrator did not use physical force or a weapon of some sort, if the alleged victim did not sustain any physical injuries, or if the alleged victim and the accused had a prior sexual relationship. Similarly, a report might be deemed unfounded if there is no physical evidence or too many inconsistencies between the accuser's statement and what evidence does exist. As such, although some unfounded cases of rape may be false or fabricated, not all unfounded cases are false."

So out of, let's say 85% of rape claims, we can subtract the 8% that were unfounded. That leaves 77% in question.

Yes. Some of the 77% are going to be false rape claims as well. But how many will that be when the criteria involve fighting off an attacker, sustainage of physical injuries, no evidence of previous sexual relationship, etc? Enough to make false rape accusations comparable to the issue of rapists going free? I doubt that.

At best, we are talking about 20% of rape accusations being false, which means 65% of rapists are still going free (and that's bearing in mind the amount of rapes which go unreported because victims don't want to face the accusations of lying, or victim shaming).

Which is entirely my point. You take it as a bad thing, that taken at a face value of what woman says, a man should spend a day in jail. And then, you imply that those 75-93% reported rapists are actual rapists.

No, I take rape claims not being evaluated at all as a bad thing.

Also whoa, you are ENTIRELY changing your stance here.

Your original stance was that false rape accustations are a big problem for men, thanks to feminism. Really? Because stats say otherwise. Because stats say that most rape accusations aren't even considered. Because stats say even out of those considered, most won't end in an arrest. Because stats say only 8 percent of rape claims are unfounded (with no indication how many of those men were arrested, how much time they spent in jail, or whether or not it "ruined" their lives).

So what exactly is your point? That in rape claims, arrests are only made when there is sufficient reason to arrest, or that it's a big problem for men? You can't have it both ways.

My original point was that a man being thrown in jail and his life ruined over a false rape accusation was highly unlikely and not the norm. Stats agree with me. Now apparantly even you agree. So what's the issue?

That false accusations CAN ruin a man's life? False accusations of every crime are ruining many people's lives. It's the nature of a human-run judicial system, not some feminist conspiracy to oppress men. All feminists want is for rape claims that aren't even looked at to be looked at. How horrid.

[–]Denswend0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Who is they? How is "they" representative of TRP in general? Can you indicate how "their" opinions are the opinions of TRP as opposed to their individual opinions on this matter? Because, quite frankly in every publicized case, people always pick sides based on the facts that they are familiar with, and facts they're sympathetic too. There were indivduals who also indentified as feminists's arguing/expressing sympathy for "victim"; does that mean feminism as whole and feminism's core beliefs/goals center on defending people who make false rape accusations?

The fact that you outright say that this man was a rapist (when he was proven to be not) and that you take MRA defending this man as a stance of defending all rapists shows your extreme bias.

False rape accusations can ruin a man. But...

Good. I like that we agree on something.

There was a legal penalty for her false rape accusation. So what's your point?

Point is that a woman's group argued against this legal penalty. Reread it again.

None of this is relevant. The topic is the amount of individuals accused of rape being sentanced.

Yes it is. If a crime X is easier to prove than crime Y, then it makes sense for more people (especially when considering percentages) be found guilty for crime X.

And it counters your claim that because of some feminist policy, men are prone to being arrested for rape without evidence.

No it doesn't. Being arrested =/= being sentenced.

hat is, a report of rape might be classified as unfounded (rather than as forcible rape) if the alleged victim did not try to fight off the suspect, if the alleged perpetrator did not use physical force or a weapon of some sort, if the alleged victim did not sustain any physical injuries, or if the alleged victim and the accused had a prior sexual relationship. Similarly, a report might be deemed unfounded if there is no physical evidence or too many inconsistencies between the accuser's statement and what evidence does exist

Now, do you really consider this something worth saying? The fact that there are inconsistencies between the accuser's statement and evidence is enough to make a claim unfounded? B

your statistics machinations

Look, all crimes are going to have a degree of people who will avoid penalties, and people who are going to be penalized while innocent. The problem is that women can have power over the latter, and it takes a serious evidence contra that. The fact that women's rights group (coincidentally, do you consider a group named Women Against Rape extremist or not feminist in nature?) complain about a woman being jailed for a false rape is enough of a statement for that.

And besides, the graph I made you did all your work for you. I've stated if before, I do not believe you have the objectivity and mental capacity needed to interpreted statistics. I've gave you reason why.

Also whoa, you are ENTIRELY changing your stance here.

No I am not. You bolding that isn't going to make that true. The point wasn't that it only a small amount of (generally speaking) women abuse such power to negatively impact a man's life. The point is that women should not have such a power. When A has power over B, there is no equality.

So what exactly is your point? That in rape claims, arrests are only made when there is sufficient reason to arrest, or that it's a big problem for men? You can't have it both ways.

You cannot even interpret what I say, but you complain about misogyny on TRP? You sneak in latter (essentially puting the words in my mouth) to make me look like MUH SOGGY KNEE. Read above paragraph.

That false accusations CAN ruin a man's life? False accusations of every crime are ruining many people's lives. It's the nature of a human-run judicial system

The problem is that women can do that easily and without no evidence at all. Rape is treated specially (like you just now do), and one is "guilty until proven innocent". It only takes a serious inconsistency to disrupt that. Consider the case in general.

The measure of corruption of a system is not how much injustice happens under it, but what injustices are possible because of that system.

[–]clanktrees2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Who is they? How is "they" representative of TRP in general? Can you indicate how "their" opinions are the opinions of TRP as opposed to their individual opinions on this matter?

I see what you're trying to do here, but it's not comparible the way you percieve it to be. I never said you couldn't characterize the feminist community as whole (which would be comparable to characterizing TRP as a whole - in any group, there are core beliefs that tie the group together).

What I was asking you to do was to define who "they" in your sentence are, and to then show how those individiuals are indicative of feminism as a whole, or how even their sympathy was a FEMINIST movement and not those of individual opinions. How this was a feminist movement as opposed to individuals who had an opinion on this matter who also happened to be feminist. You made these conclusions to yourself, but you never told me how you came to them.

I explicitly stated: She was not a feminist, acting on the behalf of feminism, with the support of the feminist movement. Individuals and some rape activists expressed sympathy for her, but there was no unified feminist movement lobbying for her release, in the same way feminist protests have previously existed for sexual harassment or wage disparity. You know, the actual feminist

Since you seem to be unclear about this individual vs group sort of thing, let's do a distinction:

Let's pretend I am a RP-er. I believe women shouldn't vote. I make a thread on RP, with an argument about why women shouldn't vote. I have a few upvotes, mostly downvotes. Some people agree (maybe 1/5th), most do not, and argue with me. This is characteritic of previous threads on this topic in the past. Based on this, it is safey to conclude that that opinion is my individual opinion, not RP's opinion as a whole

Let's pretend I'm a RP-er again, and I make a thread about how women are incapable of loving a man like a man is capable of loving. I am met with mostly upvotes, few downvotes. Most agree. Many people link supporting evidence to my conclusions, that come from the right hand reading material. This is characteristic of previous threads on this topic. Based on this, is it safe to say this individual opinion of mine is also shared my the community as a whole?

The fact that you outright say that this man was a rapist (when he was proven to be not) and that you take MRA defending this man as a stance of defending all rapists shows your extreme bias.

I didn't take either of those stances. I never called this man a rapist, and I never even mentioned the MRA defending this man as a stance of defending on rapists.

What I DID say was this: There were indivduals who also indentified as MRA's arguing/expressing sympathy for rapists; does that mean MRA as whole and MRA's core beliefs/goals center on defending rapists?

It was an attempt to illustrate that individuals with ideological alignments can have questionable opinions that don't align with the beliefs of their ideologies. I see that comparison blew past you.

Point is that a woman's group argued against this legal penalty. Reread it again.

Which one? What was their argument? What is this group's general stance on this topic?

Now, do you really consider this something worth saying? The fact that there are inconsistencies between the accuser's statement and evidence is enough to make a claim unfounded?

Those were not my words, that was a detailing of the way that FBI determines whether a rape claim is founded or unfounded (as evidenced when I said, And here's what consititued "unfounded:"). That 8% statistic comes from the requirements delinated by that paragraph, and is highly in favor of the person being accused, not the person making the accusations. Which also likewise makes the amount of the 77% of rape claims left unlikely to largely all be false rape claims due to the already stringent requirements that exist for something to be a rape claim in the first place.

The problem is that women can have power over the latter, and it takes a serious evidence contra that.

So your problem in false rape claims vs a false claim for any other crime is that a woman happens to be doing it?

I've stated if before, I do not believe you have the objectivity and mental capacity needed to interpreted statistics.

Why are you getting personal? Is this not exactly what I mentioned earlier when I said RP are poor debaters, because as soon as you disagree and challenge their views without outright agreement they start resorting to personal insults? I refrained from insulting you, I expect the same.

The issue here is not that I don't have the "mental capacity." It's that you linked to statistics that don't really do much in favor of your argument, and even then, I still addressed the issues with them.

The point is that women should not have such a power. When A has power over B, there is no equality.

What power do you think women have exactly? They have the power to make an accusation. That's it. An accusation which is then evaluated by a court, and the individual sentanced if deemed necessary by the court. A woman does not have power over whether or not a man goes to jail except to make an accusation against him. Therefore, if a man is sent to jail under a false claim, it is the failing of the judge/jury that acquitted him. Which, as we noticed, IS VERY UNLIKELY. Because unevidneced rape claims are dismissed without even consideration.

Making false accusations of crime is not some gendered right. It occurs more with women vs men because of societal norms, but a man can make a false rape claim against another man or a woman. And as we've seen, making false rape claims against people is reprehensible and has legal consequences. So, essnetially, women do NOT have the power to make false rape claims, because when they do, they face the court themselves.

You cannot even interpret what I say, but you complain about misogyny on TRP? You sneak in latter (essentially puting the words in my mouth) to make me look like MUH SOGGY KNEE.

Dude, you started this discussion with the claim that feminism is damaging because it allows men to be falsely accused of rape and their lives ruined. I challenged by showing you 1) this is highly unlikely to occur, 2) when it does occur, it is due to a failing of the judicial system, not some feminist imperative to oppress men, since a disproportionate amount of men who are accused of rape go free, a good portion of which DID commit rape. I showed you statistics where it was unlikely to occur, and you agreed and said, "Well yeah, men shouldn't go to jail just beause a woman claims he raped her."

So which is it? Do women have the power to just send a man to jail with a rape claim, or do they don't, as evidenced by the statistics?

That's the thing. If I'm failing to interpret what you're saying it's because you're inconsistent as hell. Also I'm not even sure what you're trying to say in that second sentance.

The problem is that women can do that easily and without no evidence at all. Rape is treated specially (like you just now do), and one is "guilty until proven innocent".

Except, as we just saw in the statistics above (the ones you agreed with), that's not the case. That most rape claims aren't even considered, and most rape claims that are considered don't lead to an arrest. So no, rape is not treated specially, nor are individuals guilty until proven innocent. They're guilty when the courts determine guilt. Sometimes the courts determine guilt wrongly, but this is not due to feminist agenda trying to oppress men.

[–]Denswend1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

What I was asking you to do was to define who "they" in your sentence are, and to then show how those individiuals are indicative of feminism as a whole, or how even their sympathy was a FEMINIST movement and not those of individual opinions. How this was a feminist movement as opposed to individuals who had an opinion on this matter who also happened to be feminist. You made these conclusions to yourself, but you never told me how you came to them.

From the dictionary :

organized activity in support of women's rights and interests

Is Women Against Rape organized activity? Yes. Is it in support of women's right and interests? Yes. It's a feminist organization.

individual vs group sort of thing

A group called Women Against Rape is not individual. You can argue that it's an individual group of feminism though. Still feminist. And the things they say are still misandric.

Let's pretend I am a RP-er. I believe women shouldn't vote. I make a thread on RP, with an argument about why women shouldn't vote. I have a few upvotes, mostly downvotes. Some people agree (maybe 1/5th), most do not, and argue with me. This is characteritic of previous threads on this topic in the past. Based on this, it is safey to conclude that that opinion is my individual opinion, not RP's opinion as a whole

Irrelevant. If you can back your opinion with facts and logical discussion, and veil it in rhetoric, then it deserves a discussion. I am curious where you pulled that 1/5th ratio.

Let's pretend I'm a RP-er again, and I make a thread about how women are incapable of loving a man like a man is capable of loving. I am met with mostly upvotes, few downvotes. Most agree. Many people link supporting evidence to my conclusions, that come from the right hand reading material. This is characteristic of previous threads on this topic. Based on this, is it safe to say this individual opinion of mine is also shared my the community as a whole?

This, btw, is true. Men and women have different neurological framewrok and it's safe to assume that they have different capabilities to love. A woman can't love a man like a man can love a woman and vice versa. Semantics.

I didn't take either of those stances. I never called this man a rapist, and I never even mentioned the MRA defending this man as a stance of defending on rapists.

I apologize then. I misread.

It was an attempt to illustrate that individuals with ideological alignments can have questionable opinions that don't align with the beliefs of their ideologies. I see that comparison blew past you.

Yes they do. But what you are doing is again, hypocritical. I can back up with misandry by established feminists (majority of which didn't get flak by other feminists, see Hillary Clinton's quote), I can back up by ex-feminists who were involved and said they left because it became too misandric. Hence I can postulate that feminism in general is more misandric that it is not.

Can you do the same with TRP without falling into that trap you mentioned? And do be aware that this is internet, so your claims can be seen as dubious.

Which one? What was their argument? What is this group's general stance on this topic?

Women Against Rape. I linked it twice now. They said that persecuting a woman for false rape accusation is contra to the public interest.

So your problem in false rape claims vs a false claim for any other crime is that a woman happens to be doing it?

Yes. If women have the power to do things like that without evidence, then equality is pretty much off balance.

Is this not exactly what I mentioned earlier when I said RP are poor debaters, because as soon as you disagree and challenge their views without outright agreement they start resorting to personal insults? I refrained from insulting you, I expect the same.

My mistake, I misread your username (someone else made a comment with personal insults). And you started with how the core of TRP is sexist. Based on majority of TRPs (which you cannot prove) agree with some sexist thing EC (which there are many) said. But I cannot do the same with feminism when I have actual people who said publicly these things, and actual people who left feminism because of rampant misandry.

So, essnetially, women do NOT have the power to make false rape claims, because when they do, they face the court themselves.

I concede. If you can prove that majority of them faces court instead, and has a legal penalty that would be equivalent of what the person could go through, and if you can find feminists who are actually in support for that. Established feminists and established feminist organizations.

Except, as we just saw in the statistics above (the ones you agreed with), that's not the case. That most rape claims aren't even considered, and most rape claims that are considered don't lead to an arrest. So no, rape is not treated specially, nor are individuals guilty until proven innocent. They're guilty when the courts determine guilt. Sometimes the courts determine guilt wrongly, but this is not due to feminist agenda trying to oppress men.

Interesting. I concede. To be perfectly honest, false rape accusation is pretty silly to hinge about. And it's not something that can be solved easily.

[–]ApplejuiceAdmin1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]We_Are_Legion1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

Prove it.

Ok, I just looked at the front page of TRP and there was a thread about how Disney is BLUE PILL PROPAGANDA, someone who changed his height on PoF and still couldn't get laid (rats!), and some guy who is engaged to a lady in the Philippines who he hasn't even met in person and can't figure out why people are giving him shit for it. Top comment is "it's because you outsmarted the womens!" (this is not the reason)

This material isn't particularly objectionable because it's misogynistic,(although mr. engaged's assumption that women, and only women, are objecting because he's somehow outsmarted them reeks of a bad attitude about women in general; He can't take legitimate advice from them because he's so convinced they're just jealous.) moreso because it's stupid to an almost innocent degree. Moving on to the sidebar....

THE INTRODUCTION. Nothing too bad here, just a bunch of "we're gonna figure out women" Ok, fine. But wait!

When women started becoming vocal about their opposition to game, that's when men decided it would be necessary to make game more politically correct. "Oh, we're not here to manipulate women to have sex with us- we're here to become better men!"

Uh oh! Are you actually manipulating women or not? Is this a self improvement sub? Can you even decide?

A large portion of Red Pill discussion revolves around evolutionary psychology.

Which is why most of the links are to blogs. Ok, that wasn't so bad, time for link #2. A PDF. It has a nice Shakespeare quote at the top (very intellectual) and opens with

Why does it seem that American society is in decline, that fairness and decorum are receding, that socialism and tyranny are becoming malignant despite the majority of the public being averse to such philosophies, yet the true root cause seems elusive? What if everything from unsustainable health care and social security costs, to stagnant wages and rising crime, to crumbling infrastructure and metastasizing socialism, to the economic decline of major US cities like Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Baltimore, could all be traced to a common origin that is extremely pervasive yet is all but absent from the national dialog, indeed from the dialog of the entire Western world?

These were already hot button political issues during both recent presidential elections. They certainly weren't absent from the national dialogue, and this guy needs to get off his high horse. I mean

Today, on the first day of the new decade of '201x' years, I am going to tell you why that is. I am hereby triggering the national dialog on what the foremost challenge for the United States will be in this decade, which is the ultimate root cause of most of the other problems we appear to be struggling with. What you are about to read is the equivalent of someone in 1997 describing the expected forces governing the War on Terror from 2001-2009 in profound detail.

Jesus Christ I cannot roll my eyes harder at this. Also blaming feminism for the root of every single political problem in the last decade is retarded. Many of these issues existed in almost identical forms over a century ago. Flipping through a few pages I could write a dissertation on all the mistakes in here, and I want to move on to the other sidebar material. A passing thought: Maybe you should have an actual book written by an actual history or economics professor instead of this PDF from a random blog. But then it might not agree with you.

POST #3

This post contains a lot of generalisations which embody fundamental beliefs of the red pill philosophy,

Ok!

Feminists claim they want equality but what they really want is power without responsibility. They desire both male and female privilege consolidated into one, thus upsetting the gender balance. They want the privileges of being women (privilege such as being economically provided for, getting opportunities based on their beauty and protection from physical harm by others) as well as male privilege (authority, respect for having a career, to not be judged so harshly based on appearance etc) which is neither pragmatic nor realistic,

Yeah it is 'neither pragmatic or realistic' because if you have a high powered career then you *won't * be economically provided for, because you're the breadwinner. What would this even look like? Nobody thinks this way. Also, protection from physical harm by others is not a feeeemale privilege. It's a "I don't live in the projects" privilege. Overall a pretty pointless paragraph, 2/10.

Women are irrational and inconsistent, they have a capacity for logic but it is not their modus operandi, that is to say that they must exert effort to be logical as it is not their factory setting. A logical woman is easily baited into becoming emotional; women are easy to compromise.

Whoops misogyny. Women are just so emotional guys, (and bad at math and science) but I never have feelings I'm a smart logical man. No I don't have a STEM degree or have published anything of value, yes half my posts are about me being angry at all women ever because of that one time my ex cheated, and that's totally a rational response, why do you ask?

Women are Machiavellian in nature, this means they are comparatively proficient at being manipulative versus the typical male.

Women are so sneaky! They might be "comparatively proficient at being manipulative versus the typical redpiller" because the typical redpiller has the social grace and maturity of a horny 7th grader, so I'll give you this one.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

PART 2

Race does not matter if you are rich. A lot of you are small-minded and stuck on the superficial, white-black-arab-indian-asian whatever, you have a certain perception of the world based upon your culture, perhaps where you live the white man is god, but know all racial barriers are overcome by power, money is power.

Sorta. It's more complicated than that and I would say using a bunch of money to pick up poorer girls is asking for trouble since they're after your wallet and not your heart, and you should date within your tax bracket, but that's a whole other can of worms. Nothing really objectionable here.

Women are hypergamous they feel entitled to a superior mate.

Everybody theoretically wants a superior mate. Humans are hypergamuous. Isn't the whole point of TRP to pull above your weight? This is hypocritical. Most of TRPs flaws come from stuff like this. Also, there's data suggesting people are most likely to date and have successful relationships with people that are similar to them. Trading up can be completely relative.

Buying into the last point, this is why 20% of guys are fucking 80% of the chicks, women date up, men date down and yes this has created rising social inequality since women entered the professions.

This isn't true. Simple data Shows that the median number of sexual partners for woman is 3.6. Only 9% of women and 21.6% of men have had more than 15 partners. There's a small group of very promiscuous people at the top, but they're not fucking 80% of all the women.

If a woman thinks she is better than you she can't respect you, if she can't respect you she can't love you. Women love men differently to the way men love women. Woman's love is based on adoration, adoration is a concentrated amount of respect. Respect is derived from power. Be powerful if you want to be loved, or you will never be loved. You will be held in contempt for being weak.

This is dumb. This means you can never date anyone who's better than you, because they won't love you. (citation needed) You obviously shouldn't date someone who doesn't respect you in the first place. Getting an extra inch of circumference on your biceps won't get you respect. This has nothing to do with women and paints them as superficial bitches. Girlfriend cheated on you? It's because you weren't POWERFULL enough. Or maybe she's just a nasty person. Men cheat too. Cheaters gon cheat.

Women rely on men to be emotionally stoic, we often call this "holding frame" you have to be mentally strong so she can lean on you, she finds that attractive. You cannot lean on her, there is a double standard, if you lean on her the relationship will fall apart, she will not be able to handle your problems and she will no longer find you attractive. You are a man. You have to be better than her, which means to be stronger than she is. This is why women get to be emotional and we have to be unreactive, we are strong and ignore our emotions so they can indulge in their emotions and enjoy the ride. They find it far more difficult to be logical than we do and thus it is our burden to be the reasonable ones.

If you can't tell your girlfriend why you're upset you have some issues. If anything this is misandry because it's teaching boys to suppress their emotions. There's a difference between acting human and being a huge immature baby and complaining about everything. TRP sure does love to complain about all women ever though, maybe you should maintain frame better? Your emotional side is showing and you'll never get a date! Also lol at "the reasonable ones," half of this shit isn't reasonable at all.

Always set boundaries, with everyone. Do not be a pushover. This is probably the most important bulletpoint here.

Woah good advice!

Buying into the last point women have little sympathy for weak men, despite the fairer sex bullshit you may be accustomed to hearing a man is far more likely to assist a weak man financially or emotionally than a woman is.

People don't have sympathy for weak anyone, except for other weak people. This is not gender-exclusive.

You got cut from the team but it wasn't really your fault cause the coaches didn't like you? The only people who will agree with you are the bitter jaded hockey dads who blame the travel team coach for ruining their chance at playing in the NHL.

You couldn't pick up a girl but it wasn't really your fault cause feminism lied to you your whole life and it was very tragic? The only people who will agree with you are other bitter people who have a hard time with girls and couldn't figure it out, just like you. See where I'm going with this?

Women are more selfish than men are in matters of money and love. Man's love is expected to be sacrificial, woman's isn't.

Woops more misogyny. I don't even know what this means besides a not so sneaky "my wife divorced me and took he money and kids" complaint. Bitches are so selfish, don't marry anyone!

Women love pragmatically and have no capacity to love unconditionally for romantic partners, only their children. Men can love women unconditionally.

Nobody can love unconditionally.

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

PART 3

Women have a sexual plurality, if you are a nice guy with money you are husband material that can nail her after 12 dates and she's had so many glasses of wine she forgets how on a primal level you're not that attractive, just cute. If you are an asshole with nice muscles you're the guy who gets to nail her after 2 hours of meeting. We call this sexual plurality in rather rhythmic slang: "alpha fucks, beta bucks"

People looking for serious emotional relationships will be more hesitant to give up the goods. I've seen this in men as well. A higher quality mate in someone's eyes might have a longer wait with more wine n dine before sex happens. This is understandably counter intuitive, but extrapolating this into 'alpha fucks, beta bucks' is a bit of a stretch since the behavior change is more based on what the people dating or hooking up want at that time instead of the size of the guys muscles.

Women do not care about male weakness and neither does society, if you are weak, depressed, small, poor, uneducated, unconfident, not powerful then nobody cares. People only care about you when you're powerful or a pretty woman.

Or a hot guy. This is what I said above, but I'm glad he's expanded it to both genders here because that's the truth. Nobody got into the NFL or the Vittoria's Secret fashion show with pity points.

As men we are more extreme than women. Women are typically average and don't move much either side of the bell curve, as men we are either highly successful geniuses of repute that feminists can but scoff and be jealous of, the posterboys for their esteemed patriarchy, or the ignored voiceless poverty stricken peasant class that nobody gives a flying fuck about.

The difference in the IQ bell curves is like 5 points. This is not enough to toss you into Einstein vs Simple Jack territory. Most men, and most women, are nice and average and not that different. This guy sure loves to embellish everything though.

The law prioritises female safety and well-being over logic, honour and justice. Family law has been corrupted and is now controlled by feminist ideological dogma. The constitutions equitable maxims are rewritten by modern statutes, Rollo Tomassi of Rational Male did a very relevant article on this topic here: http://therationalmale.com/2014/01/14/the-second-set-of-books/

Neat, a link to a blog with no actual data. here's some actual data: in the northeast fathers usually get custody if they request it.

Western females (typically anglosphere and western/northern Europe) are self-entitled and come from a psychological position of thinking they're better than you are. They believe that shit despite their numerous insecurities because they have been raised to view men as instruments for their desires, they have been told they must be impressed,that a man must wine and dine her and ultimately the onus is on him to win her heart, she will obsess over her relationship status frantically and doll herself up but ultimately her part is entirely passive. She comes from a position of superiority and illogically believes she is superior to all but the most high value of men.

Ah yes, I remember the day when my mother sat me down and said, "Poop40, men are nothing but instruments for you to bend to your iron will. Go forth, and conquer the best bro you can find." Actually that would be pretty hardcore. Point is, nobody raises their kids like that. Why you wine and dine a man for weeks is so he won't think you're a big slut. It's to impress you. Both parties need to impress on a date. This isn't sexist. If money is an issue, go dutch on your dinner.

Part of the red pill is realising her capacity for brilliance is lower than yours, which brings me on to the next point.

It's not. You can't change your IQ. You two are statistically likely to be equally intelligent. Just because some other dude was smart doesn't make you any smarter, nor does it increase your 'capacity for brilliance.' Sounds like someone's insecure.

Women need men more than men need women. Men generally want sex and perhaps a family so they have a genetic lineage to leave their worldly goods and knowledge to once they die (so they may live on through their offspring) however women need men for their logical minds and stoic consistency, to make her emotionally stabilised "being the rock in her storm", and also need a partner just to "feel complete." Just look at single mother households and all the older women who are single, they are miserable. These women NEED a man to be happy, men DO NOT need women to be happy, men need SEX to be happy.

This is a very shallow view of men. Men need companionship just as much as women. If this were true, why would attractive men date women at all? Aren't men are more than just walking penises? Men have feelings too. Misandry!

A bachelor is a not an unhappy guy, a bachelorette is.

Doesn't everyone in TRP have their panties in a bunch because they couldn't get laid? I'll believe this when I see it.

Women are depreciating assets, their major asset and unique selling point is their sexual beauty and fertility.

So are men. "Balding fat men are so hot!" Said no one ever. Also men over 40 hit a 'wall' of sorts where their sperm quality plummets and they really shouldn't have kids unless someone really like downs syndrome or autism.

Most of them squander their best years on "riding the cock carousel" which means fucking lots of different guys in nightclubs, having flings,

No they don't, this was refuted above.

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

PART 4

being generally irresponsible and riding through life on easy mode getting ahead for no real talent, but because she's pretty and can give head. Women are born, their ability to conceive children is what makes them women.

Yeah the only reason women did anything ever was because they sucked miles of dick and tricked a man into doing it for them. Women aren't ever talented or smarter than men. No misogyny here. 100% truth.

Men are not born they are created. Poverty, difficulty, heartache, oppression, pain - these are the things that make men out of boys. This is why you came to TRP. This is why boys come back from the military as men. Conflict and pain is what forges the masculine mindset, men cannot grow without conflict and learning from their mistakes, men need to apply their logical minds to problems which arise, elevate, and transcend their previous selves to become more powerful. Men are never born, they are always bred in the bloody fields of battle and war be it economic, mental or physical. A man is a soldier of differing kinds, a man has learnt to repress his fear so he may overcome and achieve.

Everyone does this. You get into med school by climbing over thousands of your less qualified classmates, male or female. You get to be on the starting line by beating out hundreds of people trying out for your exact spot. This is how life works. It's competitive. It has nothing to do with being male or female.

Men take more risks than women and are expected to do so, being fearful, unconfident and risk averse as a man leads to failure. You must be confrontational and risk-taking.

Again, this is a big part of success on any level.

Single mothers [typically] breed boys not men (without outside intervention.) Boys do little except play xbox and eat pizza with no direction in life, they have little luck with girls and end up drinking themselves to dead smoking pot in their 40s. There's more women in education than men now. Think about that shit for a second. The system has been set up against you, pull yourself up by the bootstraps.

What? Ok so single mothers are bad parents (citation needed) and then because there are more female college grads...... ????? This is a very poorly constructed point, whatever it was.

The red pill is about pragmatism and truth based on observation, it is not idealistic, in some ways you can say it is liberal - but it is not liberal in the idealistic pseudo academic sense your institutions have taught you to perceive it as.

Yeah, no psuedoscience here! I would never link to say, a blog post for a citation or just not give one. Nope. I'm logical.

Liberalism has become corrupted. Liberals today censor and silence opposing opinions, I'm not talking about political parties I'm talking about ideologically left leaning people, their thoughts and ideas are based in idealism not directly measurable truth, liberalism has become the religion to pragmatisms science.

Grr liberals! Or LIE-berals, should I say, heh. This doesn't seem horribly related to anything besides a random poltical dig so I'll leave it be.

Social market value is everything, something a low value man says which is "creepy" when said by a high value man is "flirty" or "sexy." Always be focusing on your physical appearance and make it the best that you can, this will make your life easier in all areas, not just sexually but financially too as caused by a phenomenon explored known as the halo effect

This is true, being good lookin' gives you a leg up. Sometimes you can out-creep (or just out-annoy) your good looks though, so beware. Nobody wants to hear your political rant at a party, no matter how pretty you are.

Your value is everything you should always be improving yourself, if you're not then you cannot compete in the world and your life will be miserable, anesthetized by nothing but the introversion of the four walls you reside in kept docile by xbox, porn, pizza and some online friends. Break free of the mediocrity.

Ok. I don't know if your LIFE WILL BE MISERABLE! (so dramatic) but yeah this is generally good advice.

Your diet and exercise place a certain handicap on your ability to utilise your potential. The obese and those who eat poorly (but aren't necessarily fat) are typically low energy and thus waste a lot of time unproductively as they are not in the right mental state to get anything done. You need to take care of your body so then your body will allow your mind to implement it's will onto the world. You must be physically active so that you can mentally put your plans into action. Procrastination is the slow acting poison of one who lives a sedentary lifestyle. Physically active people make things happen in other areas of their life too. Exercise is invigorating. Stop putting it off. Do it.

Don't be fat, don't get diabeetus. I can get behind this.

[–][deleted]2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Your body is the temple that houses your mind, following on from the previous point higher testosterone will help you increase your abilities and leave you feeling more energetic - lift, it will give you a rush of energy like nothing else and further increase your T creating a positive feedback cycle. Jog/do cardio - a runners high again is like a drug, you will feel awesome after a jog, your anxiety goes right down and your confidence rises. Keep it up and the effects stack and become part of your personality.

I can definitely get behind this, lifting rules, sports rule, scoring the winning goal in overtime will give you a bigger adrenaline rush than lifting ever will, and everyone should play sports cause athletes are the chillest and most hot.

I'm too lazy to do the rest of the sidebar, and at this rate I'm going to get fat and get diabeetus myself, but seriously like half this advice is crap and belongs on /r/forwardsfromgrandma. The rest is ok. Don't be a mysongynisitc hater, it's not very chill. TRP isn't very chill. Y'all too grumpy and bitter to ever really improve. Nobody likes a grump sourpuss.

[–]DenswendThe Swiss Army Knife of Hate0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

your response

I already told you not to consider things based on community and what do you do? You take the most superficial way of saying TRP is sexist and pick the 3 things from front page (they're not by the front page). You are getting unnecessarily angry and insulting in your responses. I won't give you 3 things that are actually highly misandric from actual feminists because I tire repeating myself. You can find it in top.

Disney is BLUE PILL PROPAGANDA

But it technically is. It teaches unrealistic expectations of both men and women. Men only need be charming, rich (or appear to), and of high social status (princes). Women only need to be princesses. And top rated comment is :"Most Disney movies are designed to entertain children and their mothers watching it with them."

someone who changed his height on PoF and still couldn't get laid (rats!)

Nope. It says that he changed his height, got slightly more responses and then said "It's not about my height. It's me. I need to improve." But that is misogyny. Because men wanting to get laid is misogyny. Because men trying to find what component of themselves will get them laid is misogyny.

ome guy who is engaged to a lady in the Philippines who he hasn't even met in person and can't figure out why people are giving him shit for it.

Oh. Why are they giving him shit? I suggested that it's because of innate clannishness. Someone else basically suggested the same thing.

This material isn't particularly objectionable because it's misogynistic ... moreso because it's stupid to an almost innocent degree.

This is just plain disrespectful. If I went to r/XX and cherry picked stupidities they say (and I believe I could find a lot of illogical things) I would be a muhsoggykneeist. But you do believe in double standards.

mr. engaged's assumption that women, and only women, are objecting

Mr. engaged had no assumption that only women are objecting - he engaged in an observation that only women are objecting. Is he perhaps a liar? How do you know that then?

he's somehow outsmarted them reeks of a bad attitude about women in general;

You misrepresent what he said. I quote :

"Women don't find me attractive, so why do they get so upset when they learn I'm getting married to a woman from another country? The only conclusion I can think of is that women consciously keep men like me "desperate" and in a "scarcity mindset" so that when they jump off the carousel, they can find someone to be their beta bux. Well I'm not a bux kinda guy - never going to be a big earner by any means. I'm ambitious, but about my interests, not money and having stuff.

**I'm not one for conspiracy theories though. So what's the deal?*"

He can take a rational advice. He is begging for one. The fact that he didn't mention one was given to him (just you know, eye hate for doing that) implies that he probably didn't receive one. But you jump to conclusion that he did receive one, and chose to ignore it because ... wait for it ... he hates women. But you have no way of knowing that, do you?

When women started becoming vocal about their opposition to game, that's when men decided it would be necessary to make game more politically correct. "Oh, we're not here to manipulate women to have sex with us- we're here to become better men!"

CONTINUATION OF THAT

And thus, the female imperative took over game. When men think they must define their own sexual strategy in a way that best delivers results to the female sexual strategy, you know your own strategy will suffer! In a game of chess, do I politely not take out the oppositions' queen in hopes not to offend or win the game?

And besides, TRP's Game is just as manipulation as is wearing a makeup.

Also blaming feminism for the root of every single political problem in the last decade is retarded

Is it? But I think we are discussing misogyny here, not antifeminism. Saying that antifeminism is misogyny is like saying that anti-zionism is anti-semitism.

Maybe you should have an actual book written by an actual history or economics professor instead of this PDF from a random blog.

Nice snarky response! However, does the beginning of the article invalidate the rest? Why don't you do write me a dissertation. Unlike BPers, I won't hold it against you.

But then it might not agree with you.

Personal insult. Lol.

high powered career then you *won't * be economically provided for, because you're the breadwinner.

The more and more I discuss things with you, the more am I inclined to believe that you cannot draw logical conclusions from anything.

This is specifically to the fact that women (in general) want high paying job, but they want a mate whose job pays even higher. Do you need me to explain how that works for you?

Also, protection from physical harm by others is not a feeeemale privilege.

No, but default protection from physical harm by others simply because you have a vagina is. Go on /r/pussypass to see about your "feeemale privilege". So oppressed.

Whoops misogyny

HERP.

Women are just so emotional guys

Technically speaking, they are. http://vimeo.com/19707588 Sorry if that offends you. Actually, I'm not sorry. You're same as the woman in here.

"Gosh terpers, we aren't saying that women and men are exactly the same" "Fine, let's do a study and see which gender - oh will you look at that, boys are generally better in analytical subjects and tend to be less prone to emotional outburs" "MUH SOGGY KNEE, MUH SOGGY KNEE. YOU'RE PROBABLY STUPID AND YOUR EX CHEATED ON YOU THAT'S WHY YOU HATE ALL WOMEN AND YOU SUCH AT MATHS".

No I don't have a STEM degree or have published anything of value, yes half my posts are about me being angry at all women ever because of that one time my ex cheated, and that's totally a rational response, why do you ask?

Ironically, this high emotionally charged (probably projecting) attitude proves it right.

Women are more prone to social manipulation

"Oh yeah, I can actually back that up... "MUH SOGGY KNEE. MUH SOGGY KNEE. You think that all women are sneaky bastards because you are a virgin and stupid and bad at maths despite I have no clue about what or who you are behind the internet, and you're dumb and MUH SOGGY KNEE".

There. I only got a confirmation of what I said at the beginning. You started logical with minor inconsistencies, you complained about terpers not giving source, I gave you an overload of it, you gave me statistics, interpreted them in a highly sexist manner (but it's cool, cause it's not MUH SOGGY KNEE), got a response, and all of a sudden (I apologize sincerely, I misread you and the other user - I've got a lot of comments on my stance) - not only is TRP misogynistic, but it also has "social grace and maturity of a horny 7th grader. No I don't have a STEM degree (I do actually) or have published anything of value (I did actually - and no, I'm not so stupid as to give you a way to find me over the internet), yes half my posts are about me being angry at all women ever because of that one time my ex cheated (never been cheated on), and that's totally a rational response, why do you ask?" I'm both strawmanning and adhomineming. Those things are like, feminism 101. (Now you see why projecting is idiotical and insulting to the other party).

You go from poor logic from high horse, to emotional cries.

EDIT : Oh yeah, I forgot. Since you think that evolutionary psychology and blogs are incompatible, you get to watch Hjernevask (if you don't find MUH SOGGY KNEE). And have a HBD oriented blog by a woman and by a black man. I would have given you something more than blogs, (or even blogs by people who do such thing), but at this point I think that you could not handle it (not because you're a woman MUH SOGGY KNEE, but because, as you demonstrated, are unable to handle such things) and I find any further links on that matter redundant.

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]la_sabotageTerp Terp Terp0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DocileBanalBovine 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]DenswendThe Swiss Army Knife of Hate0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]DocileBanalBovine 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]DenswendThe Swiss Army Knife of Hate0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]usobitter0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Denswend1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ApplejuiceAdmin1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Denswend2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'll edit this post tomorrow. It's going to be a long rant so prepare yourself.

EDIT :

Scratch that. Due to personal issues I will not be back for at least two days. Then I promise to give out my reasons.

EDIT 2:

I'm not so much TRP as I'm anti-BP

To give you an analogy: Suppose we have two persons, A and B. A insists that Islamic faith is by default violent in nature and he cites all FGM, all suicide bombings, all threats, instability in Islamic countries, their intolerance towards gays in countries like Qatar,etc. B insists otherwise, he claims that FGM is due to cultural reasons, and not innately religious. He says that suicide bombings cannot be innately in Islamic faith (cause you know, Islam's got like a billion people following it). He says that Islamic intolerance is more due to cultural and not religious reasons and he cites well-integrated Muslims in First World (think Bosnia). B is Catholic. Just because he defended Islam from stupid argument doesn't mean he is Muslim.

Get the gist? I posted the arguments which irk me and why they are silly. Saying that women are discriminated because they are underrepresented in leadership is silly, and I've seen that argument many many times.

Holding certain beliefs does not by default make you a part of the group

I have not expressed my beliefs fully, and I have no intention to do so. Consider Aristotle who Islam (sticking with them since it's a neat analogy) considered "First teacher". They (and for that matter, so did Thomas Aquinas, he loved that Greek hunk so much) naturally had similar beliefs with him (talking about medieval philosophy, not contemporary Islam or Christianity). Yet you would not consider him Christian or Muslim.

I hope that pretty much tells you. I've tried to keep it under 1000 words (I admit, being long is my weakness, and verbosity is too - but please don't blame me, I learned English through long winded and verbose books) and if I am unclear on certain issues, then please notify me.

[–]usobitter1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Denswend1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]usobitter0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]clanktrees0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

feminism is a political movement that has way too much power

One thing you need to realize about this statement it's that it's inherently subjective. Trying to argue it as matter-of-fact is futile. It's an opinion, and at best you can try to convince others to see things your way but arguing as fact that others are oblivious/ignorant to is pointless.

consider, for example, this and what Women Against Rape state.

This is problematic, but consider also that you are basing your opinions on exceptions, because the norm is that most people accused of rape rarely spend a day in jail, even those with physical evidence against them. People jailed over false rape accusations is a problem, but rapists going free is a much larger problem, and it's not just feminists that are taking an alarmist position against it.

And what you can dig up on misogyny on TRP, I can dig up by misandry by feminist movements, and I can dig up misandry that is both more damaging and more in intensity.

Sure. But the fundamental difference is that misogyny is a defining feature of your movement, and exists at the core of the TRP ideology. It is the foundation on which TRP ideology/beliefs rest on. TRP strategy rests squarely on the beliefs that TRP has over the "true nature of women," and those "true nature" beliefs are incredibly sexist and misogynistic. These are not the opinions of a fringe minority of the movement, this is the core. The same cannot be said for feminism. The core of the feminism movement is the belief that both genders should have equal rights/opportunities.

And the claim that TRP never backs it up with citations is ridiculous. I always back my stuff with citations (despite not being RP), and a lot of posters do more).

I haven't seen your arguments so I cannot say, but having debated with Red Pillers, or even spending time around here, on a whole your community is prone to making very bold, contraversial statements, without evidence or citations, and get very personal when asked to provide them.

The few that provide citations also cannot handle their citations being critiqued. A common one is that study that often gets thrown around saying men have 5 IQ points greater than women. That study has huge methodological issues and has largely been debunked. Every time I say that, the RP-er I am discussing with works themselves into a rabid frenzy over it, making actual consturctive debate impossible.

So if you're different, good for you, but you're an exception, not the norm.

No one says it, but one goes from that stance. Hence many BPs outright dismiss "double standard" as evil.

No, I'm referring to when certain statements made by TRP or RP-ers about gender differences gets called out, and instead of the response being a valid argument for why the claim is true, the response is instead, "It's true because it is. You think women and men are exactly the same. That's so stupid." It's a deflection, not an argument.

And count the times when BPs use "sexism"

What are you referring to?

If topic A directly relates to topic B, then yeah.

It doesn't.

You fail to understand basic logic.

There's the personal insult.

Anyway, my main point is that TRP are hardly quality debaters, and that's largely one of the reasons why mine (and probably other's) opinions are ever swayed.

Because whenever I call out a specific TRP tenet, I am either met with deflection (and have to spend most of the argument proving it is RP tenet instead of actually discussing the belief itself), tautology ("it's true because it is, stop denying it"), or poorly cited or straight up uncited arguments. When I respond further, respectfully but without immediate agreement, RP-ers turn the debate into personal attacks and insults.

The above actions make debate nearly impossible. Thankfully there are a few RP-ers who are exceptions and are capable of having a discussion, which is what keeps this place turning.

But as a whole? One of your community's biggest problems is your inability to hold a discussion. Even people not part of BP/PPD state this (as evidenced when TRP pops up in other subreddits).

[–]We_Are_LegionAutumn Red1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Anyway, my main point is that TRP are hardly quality debaters, and that's largely one of the reasons why mine (and probably other's) opinions are ever swayed. Because whenever I call out a specific TRP tenet, I am either met with deflection (and have to spend most of the argument proving it is RP tenet instead of actually discussing the belief itself), tautology ("it's true because it is, stop denying it"), or poorly cited or straight up uncited arguments. When I respond further, respectfully but without immediate agreement, RP-ers turn the debate into personal attacks and insults.

I wouldn't care otherwise, and I realize its uncool to seem like it in any case(BPers love the "you care haha" argument), but I'll just politely cite you as a slight hypocrite here. (I even politely asked you to respond as well)

http://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/28f8sk/why_is_shaming_female_sluts_justified_why_isnt/ciatp0i

And if you call for it, I will cite you something like more than half of the last 15 people in PPD who I bothered to post replies to who completely and utterly shun it or give me asinine replies with the same poor quality you complained about or no responses. My point isn't to single you out or attack your credibility, but to make you realize this sort of frustration is present in both sides of the debate. And not without reason. While you only engage RPers, you would find that if you tried doing so to the BP debaters, you would get no better responses. The problem is present in both sides is what I'm trying to say. And everyone thinks their war is more justified.

Votes don't tell the whole story or make anyone right. For what its worth, there is a long-running boycott-esque attitude to PPD over in /r/theredpill because of a host of reasons(some of which you yourself complained about coming from RPers), from extreme annoyance with the "satire" trolls of /r/TBP to the banning of RP mods to just mindnumbingly cheap debate tactics.

[–]DenswendThe Swiss Army Knife of Hate1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

One thing you need to realize about this statement it's that it's inherently subjective. Trying to argue it as matter-of-fact is futile. It's an opinion, and at best you can try to convince others to see things your way but arguing as fact that others are oblivious/ignorant to is pointless.

So how can I objectively quantify political power feminism has? Simple, look at the time it occupies in the media, look at the amount of institutions that are pro-feminist, look at the legal inequalities between men and women which feminism doesn't solve, look at the objects a movement like feminism has and how objective can you tell if it's a valid complaint. Alternatively, one can look at the way it's institutionalized and how much grasp it has on the education system - Link 1, Link 2. Look at the legal inequality favouring women over men - Link. Look at the gender quotas which favour exclusively women Link1 but when they start favouring men - Link 1 and a source for it, look at the female specific movements meant to include more women in, for example, STEM, which sometimes bankrupts them. Look at the who is the most common perp in domestic abuse - Link1, Link2, Emotional allegory1. I can testify that the last one is true, my father working in a police department - but I can back that up with facts. Look at who gets the child custody most of the time. Overall, look at the aptly titled Misandry Bubble.

Furthermore, to quote a BPer:

I don't have a horse in this fight race (duh), I just want to correct this assertion which I've seen many times. The first world least need feminism because feminism is strong, that is, it has been working to eradicate the inequalities for a long time and has grown to be a strong and enduring movement. It's not that feminism sprung up where it's not needed to fill an empty void.

Overall, saying that one political movement has a certain degree of power is correct. Consider communism in SSSR (a hyperbole, but you catch my drift).

This is problematic, but consider also that you are basing your opinions on exceptions

Can you back that up with statistics? Can you back up the fact that jailing men cannot happen simply because a woman says so? Can you prove that this is just a lone statistic that is an exception to the rule?

Furthermore, you ignore a problem. A random account of a man raping a woman is not systematic oppression. The fact that a woman can send a man in jail (Brian Banks) for five years without evidence goes contrary. Man jailed for false rape is a direct responsibility of a society which jails him, institutions that keep him there. And no, jailing an innocent man is worse than letting a guilty one walk. The former is a direct failure of a system which is supposed to protect people. Rape shouldn't be any different.

Sure. But the fundamental difference is that misogyny is a defining feature of your movement, and exists at the core of the TRP ideology. It is the foundation on which TRP ideology/beliefs rest on. TRP strategy rests squarely on the beliefs that TRP has over the "true nature of women," and those "true nature" beliefs are incredibly sexist and misogynistic. These are not the opinions of a fringe minority of the movement, this is the core. The same cannot be said for feminism. The core of the feminism movement is the belief that both genders should have equal rights/opportunities.

NOPE. Take a look at what I said regarding neutral definitions. If you say that the core of feminism is "equality", I can easily say that the core of TRP is "self improvement". Moot point. So we see what feminist say. We take a look at what they wrote. We take a look at how the "original suffragets" treated men - Link. Essentially, they asked for same rights, except the ones that would get them killed, and shamed men into fighting overseas. If feminism was about equality, they would be on the front lines.

Now, do keep in mind - those are all women of social standing, of academic authority, of historical significance and they all represent feminism. And the very fact that I gave you WAR that says directly opposite ("We should use those resources to jail violent men") - and unlike TRP, WAR is an institution that is more accurate at representing feminism than a random cherry picked members of TRP of TRP.

Next up, the notion that core of TRP is sexist. TRP is a sexual strategy - it will find what works, and what not. Strategy that doesn't give victory is not a strategy at all. Saying that women are attracted to sexist things is itself sexist.

And this directly ties into my first argument - you are quick to cry sexism.

No, I'm referring to when certain statements made by TRP or RP-ers about gender differences gets called out, and instead of the response being a valid argument for why the claim is true, the response is instead, "It's true because it is.

Would you prefer a person say "it's true because it reflects the real statement of matter" or "it's true because here are the facts" or "it is true because evolutionary psychology".

What are you referring to?

Directly the thing you did. Core of TRP is sexist, core of feminism is not. Nevermind that feminism did more damage to men via legal methods, than the TRP did to women.

It doesn't.

Yes it does. A = Did your opinion change while here. B= People who represent the other position do poor debates. You can infer the rest.

There's the personal insult.

That's not an insult.

Anyway, my main point is that TRP are hardly quality debaters, and that's largely one of the reasons why mine (and probably other's) opinions are ever swayed.

Mine is like that, except for BP. I've posted a "rant" why.

I am either met with deflection (and have to spend most of the argument proving it is RP tenet instead of actually discussing the belief itself)

If you postulate that a certain belief is sexist, and do not want to deviate from that, then you use it to shame RPs into being sexist, you must first prove that it is the tenement of the TRP. I am sorry, but that is how it works. Alternatively, if there is a dissonance between what TRP does and what TRP says, you can point that out (like I did). If you are capable of it, that is.

When I respond further, respectfully but without immediate agreement, RP-ers turn the debate into personal attacks and insults.

This is more true for BP than for RP. Rorschac_Fu, AnalBovine,friendssomethingsomething,etc are all variety of that. I have no problem with insults, I have a problem when those insults aren't backed by extra arguments.

[–]ApplejuiceAdmin -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]DenswendThe Swiss Army Knife of Hate1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

The difference between feminism and TRP is that I can go on TRP and find you almost 100 examples of blatant sexism towards women. You can't do that with feminism. You can maybe find an insulting blog, or a radical feminist whose made the news. But you know that that's not representitive of how all feminists feel. But you can measure by upvotes and top page posts how TRPers actually feel.

But the biggest difference is that the goal of feminism is equality. The goal of TRP is asserting alpha dominance over women. One is progressive, one is regressive.

I'd also like to mention that feminism is a worldwide phenomenon. There are millions more feminists than TRPers. So yes, you can find more radical feminists than I could find radical TRPers, but that's only because of the MASSIVE population difference in each of the camps. But even having said that, I think if we took a ratio of "radical" vs. "reasonable" in each camp, you'd find that there are proportionally more radical TRPers than feminists.

[–]DenswendThe Swiss Army Knife of Hate1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The difference between feminism and TRP is that I can go on TRP and find you almost 100 examples of blatant sexism towards women. You can't do that with feminism.

So basically you can go on TRP and find sexism towards women, but I cannot do that by finding sexist feminists?

See my point about upvoting and downvoting comments - you cannot say that you know how much agree with it, and how much people don't agree with it. If a comment has 1000 upvotes, and if TRP has 50 000 subscribers, then that means that 0,2 percent of the population agrees with it. And since you can't see upvote/downvote ratio, you cannot make any claims about that.

You can maybe find an insulting blog, or a radical feminist whose made the news.

I can find more. I can find actual quotes by actual established feminists, which may or may not have the majority feminist support (as you pointed out, which is more likely due to them being so widespread so it probably means they don't have knowledge of them). I can find actual quotes by former feminists who abandoned it after they decided it was getting too hateful. People like Paglia or Farrell. They all were part of second wave feminism, and saw it first hand that yes, it is a representative of how majority of feminists feel.

Here.

One of those misandric quotes : "Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today’s warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children."

Who said it - Hillary Clinton.

Feminism has political power, so any misandry that comes from feminism is many times greater than any misogyny that comes from TRP. And people who actually were core part of movement actually left because it was too misandric. And I can give you negative impact feminism has on education of men -

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/02/16/female-teachers-give-male_n_1281236.html

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/eliminating-feminist-teacher-bias-erases-boys-falling-grades-study-finds

Can you give me an example of where TRP has a negative influence on education of women?

But the biggest difference is that the goal of feminism is equality. The goal of TRP is asserting alpha dominance over women. One is progressive, one is regressive.

Wrong. If you postulate that feminism is about equality, then the basic premise of feminism will either be highly irrational or highly tyrannic. Equality among two genders which are physically and neurologically different - Link1 and Link2. Any way to equalize men and women is going to be through pretty much tyrannical means. Like pushing gender quotas.

What you meant to say is that the goal of feminism is equal rights and equality under law. Then of course, one will have to correct himself by saying that what feminism says and what feminism does is not the same.

For instance, take the large gender gaps favouring women when under legal persecution. I can easily find a feminist who complains about sexism in videogames (lol), but I cannot find a feminist who complains about this.

I can, for example, cite women who wanted voting rights, but shamed men into being drafted - a thing which they conveniently avoided. See White Feather and Pankhurst feminists.

The goal of TRP is asserting alpha dominance over women.

Goal of TRP is sexual strategy. If asserting alpha dominance will get him laid (by her own will, of course), then you cannot complain. I am sorry that attraction doesn't work equally for both genders.

Furthermore, there is the difference in methods which feminism uses to achieve equality (gender quotas, misogyny calling, etc) and difference which TRP uses to achieve self improvement. Self improvement is contra equality, that much you are right.

But even having said that, I think if we took a ratio of "radical" vs. "reasonable" in each camp, you'd find that there are proportionally more radical TRPers than feminists.

Can you back that up with facts? And no, one EC said something that we interpret as sexist (like the person who pulled out "It's not my height. It's my game." and complained about sexism) and he got 100 upboats. I've explained why that doesn't work.

[–]We_Are_LegionAutumn Red0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

sexism is not a core part of the movement.

What if it literally isn't? Despite the prevalence of it.

A part of what RP is, is basically a support group for men. The anger is accepted under the implicit understanding that it will pass, and you will vent it here, with us, and no where else. It is done from the viewpoint that these thoughts don't go away when you censor them, and no where else on the internet will such viewpoints be even allowed to exist, letting this toxicity fester rather than naturally dissipate as men build themselves and grow into better more successful people. I will cite a dozen threads by RP mods, ECs and if you want, users on request if you doubt this still isn't a core part of what RP as a discussion hub, is.

For now, though, I would simply ask you to read this on another explanation of why we believe our misogyny is justified and temporary:

http://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/284dea/if_rp_is_le_truth_why_dont_you_keep_it_for/ci8tdhh

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]DenswendThe Swiss Army Knife of Hate0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]We_Are_LegionAutumn Red1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DenswendThe Swiss Army Knife of Hate0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fillmewithyourpoisonPurple Laydee6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ApplejuiceAdmin 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]DenswendThe Swiss Army Knife of Hate1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]DenswendThe Swiss Army Knife of Hate1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]We_Are_Legion3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]We_Are_Legion3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Denswend1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points3 points3 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–]DenswendThe Swiss Army Knife of Hate0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]duckducklandwhaleRed [like the Dried Rape Blood On My Sheets]0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (16 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fillmewithyourpoisonPurple Laydee4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]duckducklandwhaleRed [like the Dried Rape Blood On My Sheets]-3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]GODZILLAFLAMETHROWERBlue Pill Man2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fillmewithyourpoisonPurple Laydee0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DocileBanalBovine 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]clanktrees3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Dude, you pointed at a RP comment that was convoluted and didn't directly answer the question, and mocked the criticism of it that it was convoluted, out of context and didn't answer the question. So are we to shield comments from criticisms for the sole reason that they are written by a Red Piller, no matter how awful they are in nature?

Part of having a discussion isn't just about what you say, it's how you say it. It's no ones job here to piece together wtf you're trying to say argue or how it relates to the original topic. It's your job to do it. That's what makes a person a good debator/conversationalist.

The comment you referenced was poor at that. Why it was singled out for criticism is because of irony - the comment was mocking how bad BP are at having debates while simultaneously failing at one of the most basic aspects of debate himself - staying on topic and providing clear and concise points.

You yourself criticized Blue Pillers for ignoring the main parts of a question and digressing, while upholding a RP post that does just that. What is that logic?

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

[–]clanktrees3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points5 points5 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–]duckducklandwhaleRed [like the Dried Rape Blood On My Sheets]-3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Then he's still a moron for deciding that the best course of action to answer a simple question was to verbally masturbate himself to answer

Okay Ill give you this. It was kinda self-mastubatory however it doesnt change that it was on point and an excellent answer that only the unilluminated and dim have a problem understanding. Not to mention if it's to verbose for some there is not reason to engage it or attempt to chastize the writer for writing a lot more than normal. There's stuff on this sub with great verbosity but as I can recall Ive never gone out of the way to insult someone because of it.

because he's trying to drive others away with word vomit.

Seems to be just the opposite and if they were that persnickety there likely not worthy anyway.

Anyway, yall making me miss my recap of UFC FN 44 which Im trying to recap so you guys can keep complaining about the nature of the accurate post but Im outtie for a minute.

[–][deleted] 2 points2 points2 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–]duckducklandwhaleRed [like the Dried Rape Blood On My Sheets]-2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]michellechan2211 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]AerobusThe Red Pill is Truth0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Has your mind ever been changed here on PPD?
Author	MajesticVelcro
Upvotes	7
Comments	135
Date	June 29, 2014 1:48 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/29e3i6/has_your_mind_ever_been_changed_here_on_ppd/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/has-your-mind-ever-been-changed-here-on-ppd.285411 https://theredarchive.com/post/285411

Comments