Hypocrisy, TBP vs TRP | PurplePillDebate

CFRProflcopter · 2014-10-10T14:52:53+00:00

It's not something that's talked about all that often on PPD, but it seem like a common criticism of TBP and TRP. This thread in particular got quite...

[–]assmunchinator15 points16 points17 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]baby-spice 14 points14 points14 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]fuckin_retard 4 points4 points4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]baby-spice 8 points8 points8 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And yet one of the few ways mankind is supposed to be above animal nature includes self-control and a sense of morality

Are you daft? You clearly connected the two together, which makes you a liar, and also you're wrong on both counts anyway.

You're saying TRPers have zero sense of moral agency, which is actually false because TRPers do have moral agency. You just don't like that they operate with morals of right and wrong that defy the glorification of gynocentrism. Then, you follow up this initial assertion by relating it with the idea that TRPers are not able rise above their animal nature through self-control. This assertion, too, is false. TRPers display a fuck load of self-control over their animal nature by not letting their desire for sex to be manipulated by women.

Checkmate. Also king me cause you're double stupid today.

This supposed example of red pill hypocrisy is glaringly disingenuous. The post was from a guy who is still learning game and wanted advice. To every red piller in the thread, it was obvious he made a huge mistake by failing to see all her red flags from the start. I really demolished validity of TBPs thread for this in a separate post here if you want a better explanation, but the jist is thus:

He held frame, which isn't manipulation, while she constantly and blatantly tried to manipulate him for five months with no success, only to angrily realize she couldn't control him because he intentionally hadn't been falling for her tricks. She solved the mystery of why her deceptive influences weren't having the effects on him that they did other men, and it made her furious to learn it was because he had prior knowledge that allowed him to counter all of it for the most part without losing confidence in himself.

Her delicate female ego was bruised by this revelation because it means there are men who exist that she has absolutely no power over.

So instead of learning that he would be good to her if she didn't start any bullshit, she got pissed off and claimed he was still her puppet she could push away and pull back on whenever she wanted. Wow, what an amazing super power it is to purposely be a manipulative cunt for no good reason. She's not innocent, she's abusive, and he was foolish not to recognize it much much sooner.

All this example does is prove why game is absolutely necessary for men to learn today so they can filter out people like this from their lives.

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

[–]baby-spice 3 points3 points3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]fuckin_retard2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]perly9 11 points11 points11 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I think everybody is hypocritical to an extent. I do think in this sphere, RP-ers are more hypocritical, probably as a result of their focus on female behavior and sexual strategy. It doesn't seem like male behavior is frequently discussed, and certainly not to the extent that female behavior is.

I do think on some degree, this may start to consciously or subconsciously manifest into a thinking pattern where you start believing that men are free from the faults that are being attributed to women (or that women are worse off at it). Certainly, that is the pattern of thinking that I see explicitly stated on TRP's subreddit, although here, RP-ers have expressed to me that they simply don't talk about male behavior because it's not relevant to sexual strategy.

I do think everybody should minimize hypocrisy in their line of thinking. I think if many RP-ers for example would recognize the hypocrisy in their attitudes towards women, they would be less angry and resentful. Likewise, if those internet feminist groups were to realize the hypocrisy in which injustices they address, they may realize where people like MRA's are coming from.

The real question is, how do you shed the hypocrisy? A lot of people on both sides want more leeway in the things they can do while simultaneously playing the victim card.

[–]We_Are_LegionAutumn Red-2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I do think on some degree, this may start to consciously or subconsciously manifest into a thinking pattern where you start believing that men are free from the faults that are being attributed to women (or that women are worse off at it). Certainly, that is the pattern of thinking that I see explicitly stated on TRP's subreddit, although here, RP-ers have expressed to me that they simply don't talk about male behavior because it's not relevant to sexual strategy.

It is a bit of both. What is ascribed to women, women are generally likely to display more. And what is relevant to men's sexual strategy is implicitly addressed. Take for example, the unlearning of putting importance on social mores. Abandoning oneitis. Criticising heavily men's expectation of women to be men with tits, eviscerating victim-statushood, Etc. Etc. Etc. The typical ways men rationalize, follow group mentality pointlessly, irrationally follow cues of feelings to less than optimal ends, are solipsistic with regards to women, etc etc is constantly being hammered out in what they learn within TRP and the manosphere.

Beyond those dozens of things(I'll list more if you need it), dealing with men is outside the scope of sexual strategy.

There's also the very valid point I hear that the entirety of the gender debate is saturated with women's perspective and women's general virtues, real and imagined. What person looking to red pill, a reactionary set of ideas would not have already heard of those? It promotes stupid obvious shit like NAWALT, and close-mindedness to completely valid lines of thought.

"Women are empathetic. But empathy means understanding. It doesn't automatically translate into using that understanding for ends that benefit you. Here's XYZ examples" and someone chiming in "But some women use empathy for good ends!"

Either that or irrelevant tu-quoques.

"Women are hard-wired to shit-test. There is no woman on planet earth who does not shit test. XYZ is how a shit-test is defined. So and so are the repeating patterns within conversations that typically mark shit-tests. ABC are some methods used to not play that game. learn."

"But men shit-test too!"

They are both technically correct but off topic. There are threads time to time on the ways men do all of these things also, but that doesn't need to be our focus.

[–][deleted] 21 points21 points21 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–]ReginleiferOnly Zombies want female brains7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

Insanely toxic levels of BP circle jerking aside I firmly believe that "other people are doing it too" is probably the best defense ever.

The principle even justifies overturning the killing taboo...... if big ass Germany is coming to rape your schnitzelhole, then you are allowed to kill German soldiers, if someone is coming to kill you the law dictates you are allowed steps up to killing the other person to protect yourself.

Regardless of how you feel about killing, stealing, or lying if other people, people of worse moral character than YOU are doing the same thing then you lie, cheat or steal until you gain enough power to enforce order . In a 3rd wave feminist world, there are dangers to navigating it...... there is selfishness, solipsism, materialism, lies, cheating, animal like mate selection...... it isn't a nice place to be, and since a human's primary motivation is their own self interest you shouldn't be expected to unilaterally disarm in such a world.

when amongst gentlemen act like a gentleman, when amongst bastards act like a bastard.

tl;dnr You can think something is wrong, but still take part in it if the other option is be overwhelmed by those taking part.

[–]camgnostic9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]stats135-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

The problem with your example is that "someone somewhere killing another person" does not affect you or me. You haven't depicted the scale of the problem. Here's a better example. In old civilized times, a person works, hard makes money, and goes to the shops to buy some fresh-baked bread to feed himself. Now you may say that, "Someone somewhere stealing bread definitely doesn't justify that I steal." However recently, a group of thieves are raiding the shops at such a scale that now an honest man can no longer buy his fresh-baked bread. To make matters worse, the thieves are not only not punished, but rewarded by the shops, because the shopkeeper loves these bad boys. He now has only two options to avoid starvation. He can either join in on stealing from the shops or, pray that he can find some leftovers from the thieves trashcans. The man continues to try and be a law-abiding citizen, and chooses the latter option, but it is only a matter of time that starvation catches up to him and he if forced to become a thief.

This is what is happening with the dating market. It used to be that the nice hardworking everyday man, saved some money and went and got himself a virgin wife. Recently, some alpha/manipulative assholes (depending on what pill you swallow), are demolishing the dating market of young women. Your nice everyday man, can no longer get himself a virgin wife. Your everyday man is left with two options. He becomes a manipulative asshole as well, getting at least a share of virgin pussy in the process, or he can pray to god that these alpha/manipulative assholes lose sexual appetite once in a while, and spare him something half-eaten and past its expiration date. If your lucky, it'll be just past the "best by" date.

[–][deleted] 14 points14 points14 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 15 points15 points15 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

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

[–]vivaenmiriana5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

The principle even justifies overturning the killing taboo...... if big ass Germany is coming to rape your schnitzelhole, then you are allowed to kill German soldiers, if someone is coming to kill you the law dictates you are allowed steps up to killing the other person to protect yourself.

This is not a universally held moral principle. Many jurisdictions have "duty to retreat" laws. If someone is trying to kill you, even in your own home, you have a duty to escape if possible. Only in cases where you cannot escape is lethal force acceptable.

when amongst gentlemen act like a gentleman, when amonst bastards act like a bastard.

Again, not a universally held principle. We live in a society with roots in Christianity, which preached "turn the other cheek," not "eye for an eye."

Your whole argument is based on the idea that everyone upholds "eye for an eye," when that simply isn't the case. Different people have different moral guidelines and different philosophies. Many people are against the death penalty. Many people live in jurisdictions where "duty to retreat" exists, and force is a last resort defense.

[–]stubingPurple Pillz Here!-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheThingsIThink 2 points2 points2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]stubingPurple Pillz Here!-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cactuar_TamerMaking poor life choices.1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Cactuar_TamerMaking poor life choices.2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Quit acting retarded. People understand that your front yard, drive way, and door step are fair game for the public. It's when a stranger enters your house, you have no idea what they're up to. It most likely is no good.

Quit being willfully blind to reality. We've already had people shot to death on lawns and porches for trying to ask directions, or hell, even arguably bad but sure-as-fuck not capital offenses like trying to TP someone's house, or larking around on someone's property because of a ghost story. People. Murdered. Because of stupid shit like that and someone asshole who "got scared," and then that murderer getting acquitted under Castle Doctrine.

In fact, Castle doctrine allows you to chase down a person who has stolen from you but is fleeing, and shoot them in the back, murdering them. Duty to Retreat would eliminate that option.

Stop pretending that the law exists to actually protect people from hostile people who have broken into their home. If they are unable to retreat then they are allowed to use lethal force under Duty to Retreat. They are still protected. The only thing they can't do is A) Shoot every person who scares them and B) Murder trespassers who do not pose a threat in retaliation for non-capital crimes.

[–]ReginleiferOnly Zombies want female brains-5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ReginleiferOnly Zombies want female brains-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

This is not a universally held moral principle.

With 46 states carrying castle doctrines in the US that's about as close as universal as any law has gotten here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

At the very least in our society self-defense is a prevalent belief if not universal thanks to degenerate SJW's and other leftists.

Secondly I think you underestimate the influence of the jury..... would you condemn a man practicing self defense in the street? Would you demand a man not fight off and kill a shooter in a massacre? Would you make this man a sacrificial lamb of the state? I wouldn't and I hope you had enough sense not to either.

Again, not a universally held principle

There's a league of difference between what people say and what they do..... I could argue our very economy is one based on self-interest. A society "rooted" in Christianity would give his second cloak to the poor man, not hoard in coats and invest in cloak futures. :P

Many people are against the death penalty

Many people are against many things. Don't make them right, and I doubt in a society filled with killers, non killers would make it very far. The point is to survive, to thrive in a hostile environment. That is my point.

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

With 46 states carrying castle doctrines in the US that's about as close as universal as any law has gotten here.

Castle doctrine merely dictates that you can defend yourself in your own home. You still have duty to retreat. If you're attacked in public, then you have to attempt escape before defending yourself. Currently I believe 30 or so states have duty to retreat laws. So it's pretty common.

Secondly I think you underestimate the influence of the jury..... would you condemn a man practicing self defense in the street? Would you demand a man not fight off and kill a shooter in a massacre? Would you make this man a sacrificial lamb of the state? I wouldn't and I hope you had enough sense not to either.

It depends on the circumstances. If he had the ability to get away, then yes he's guilty of murder or manslaughter. That's how the law is written. Ordinary citizens should not be judge jury and executioner. In fact, IMO no citizen should be executioner, since I'm against the death penalty.

There's a league of difference between what people say and what they do..... I could argue our very economy is one based on self-interest. A society "rooted" in Christianity would give his second cloak to the poor man, not hoard in coats and invest in cloak futures. :P

Yes, but not everyone is selfish. It's been scientifically proven that people have varying levels of self-interest. A lot of people will give their second cloak to the poor man.

Many people are against many things. Don't make them right, and I doubt in a society filled with killers, non killers would make it very far. The point is to survive, to thrive in a hostile environment. That is my point.

It doesn't which philosophy is right or wrong. Your argument that "if someone is coming to kill you the law dictates you are allowed steps up to killing the other person to protect yourself" was based on the premise that everyone shares your philosophy. If a large number of people disagree with your philosophy, then it renders your entire argument useless. Pull out that one block and the entire foundation crumbles.

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

That's called self-defense and it's not really the same thing. The "other people are doing it too" defense wouldn't hold up, legally. If a woman is in an abusive relationship, she can defend herself and even kill the abuser in the process and it wouldn't be murder, but if she were to wait until her abuser is asleep to kill him, she would be convicted of murder. It wouldn't matter that he could wake up tomorrow and beat her again like he always does, because, legally, he wasn't beating her at that moment so she couldn't claim self-defense.

Another example is if someone was vandalizing your house. You could take out your gun and threaten to shoot them because they're trespassing, and you'd be well within your rights to do that. You could also call the police, but if you were to find their house and vandalize it, you'd be just as wrong as they were for vandalizing your house.

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mitreddit8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]mitreddit6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]mitreddit3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

so redpill isn't a circlejerk sub but bluepill is? explain that. and your thread header implies this is about discussing tbp vs trp on the topic of hypocrisy so i'm confused as to you saying this isn't the place to discuss tbp as it's a central component to the subject of your topic.

narcissism correlates to greater levels of hypocrisy, so whichever subreddit has more hypocrisy (one example, describing men dating around in a positive tone, spinning plates, and women doing the same as cock carousel, when a more consistent non hypocritical description would be both are spinning plates, or vagina carousel and cock carousel) is more narcissistic, and the greater they hypocrisy the more narcissistic that subreddit is behaving. you could then take it one more step and say that subreddit behavior is more narcissistic because the subject matter of that subreddit is more narcissistic and/or it just happens to attract narcissists for an unrelated mysterious reason.

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

so redpill isn't a circlejerk sub but bluepill is? explain that.

The red pill is a cirlcejerk, but it's not a circlejerk sub. Circlejerk subs are intended to be circlejerks. TRP is not intended to be a cirlejerk.

and your thread header implies this is about discussing tbp vs trp on the topic of hypocrisy so i'm confused as to you saying this isn't the place to discuss tbp as it's a central component to the subject of your topic.

Yes, because TBP accuses TRP of hypocrisy.

narcissism correlates to greater levels of hypocrisy, so whichever subreddit has more hypocrisy (one example, describing men dating around in a positive tone, spinning plates, and women doing the same as cock carousel, when a more consistent non hypocritical description would be both are spinning plates, or vagina carousel and cock carousel) is more narcissistic, and the greater they hypocrisy the more narcissistic that subreddit is behaving. you could then take it one more step and say that subreddit behavior is more narcissistic because the subject matter of that subreddit is more narcissistic and/or it just happens to attract narcissists for an unrelated mysterious reason.

The transitive property doesn't really apply unless correlations are really strong. I have no ideal what the correlation of narcissism and hypocrisy is, so I cannot comment.

[–]mitreddit1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ignatius_Oh_Reilly1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]mitreddit0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ignatius_Oh_Reilly0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

In their direct interpersonal relationships maybe. It's not really a political movement. It sometimes goes into politics, but that's more mens rights territory. Also for a lot it's just a sub; that has some material they agree, some they disagree, like any other part of reddit. Reddit leans left, so it's more that it's distance from the main stream of reddit seems more dramatic.

Blue pill is much more drawn from those who view themselves on some level as people trying to make the world better. One can focus on their own sphere and not need to win people over to a cause, but the whole improving society requires winning people over to want to improve it in the same way. It's the difference between selling a car and arguing for or against global warming.

I go on more for the pua stuff, and will read some commentary on other things. It's also not a monolith. If I had to say what pill type I am I'd say red leaning purple. I'm not a feminist, I think modern feminism is mostly a negative influence, I think biology plays a large part in gender, want one night stands and some of the motivational stuff appeals to me. The reason I want one not stands goes back to the internal external thing, I have a libido, but don't like human relationships, I am introverted so the idea of sex with someone you don't encounter again is my ideal. I prefer to be around more tradional gender dynamics. I'm a moral nihilist, consider even my own beliefs to just be subjective goals, so the amorality aspect isn't at odds with me either.

So I don't think having an external predilection is nessecary. Just a large enough overlap of goals and perspectives. Redpill is not something my indentity is based in. It's more one of many places that has some content I find of interest for the reasons mentioned above.

Why would I post here? I just enjoy discussing things with people who might not agree with me and find the quality of discussion here to be quite good.

[–]mitreddit0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ignatius_Oh_Reilly0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]mitreddit1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Ignatius_Oh_Reilly0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I'd say I'm slightly more red than purple in that I agree with between 60 and 80 percent of what I read on there. The biggest difference is I don't believe any advice applies to everyone, that men don't give particularly altruistic love. Because I tend to agree more with one side though according to your metric I am.

Then again I don't base my indentity on my preferred subreddit. Isn't purple simply not adhering to any dogma, that's what the side bar says? If that's the case I'm all purple (and why I see myself as it, in fact the other 40 to 20 percent that I disagree with TRP on, I tend to read a view from a purple piller that really hits what I was thinking).

So if someone isn't all red or blue than are they purple? Even the things where I disagree with red, I tend not to agree with blue. My point with all that is, it isn't peculiar for a red, purple, or blue pill to debate here. I think they all encompass a wider spectrum than you assume.

When you think of a red pill type I doubt the only trait you're thinking of is self identification. You seem to have a sort of person in mind beyond that, imho.

Would I lie? Honetly depends on the circumstances.

Edied for clarification

[–]ruorgimorphu1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

One major point I feel is missing from the TBP thread and OP's commentary is that TRPers don't particularly like the idea of having to do TRP things, it's just that women will leave them or ruin them if they don't learn this stuff. So I disagree that we're all hypocritical... I think it's good as good advice to a man to leave a woman who is pulling that stuff as it would be to a woman, but the thing is, women don't leave when their man starts doing this stuff. If they did, then TRP would be wrong, but they don't and unfortunately it isn't.

I hope I'm making sense - it's not hypocrisy.

We would prefer to be left over being a dick than being left over being moral and well behaved. So it's consistent, not hypocritical - anyone should leave their jerk spouse, but women don't. They can't leave the guy that passes their shit tests.

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

One major point I feel is missing from the TBP thread and OP's commentary is that TRPers don't particularly like the idea of having to do TRP things, it's just that women will leave them or ruin them if they don't learn this stuff. So I disagree that we're all hypocritical... I think it's good as good advice to a man to leave a woman who is pulling that stuff as it would be to a woman, but the thing is, women don't leave when their man starts doing this stuff. If they did, then TRP would be wrong, but they don't and unfortunately it isn't.

Men often don't leave when women start pulling that stuff. What does that say? Dread game is not something that only works on women. It works on men too. People want things they can't have, not just women. When you dangle loss in front of someone's face, they panic and do all sorts of weird things.

We would prefer to be left over being a dick than being left over being moral and well behaved. So it's consistent, not hypocritical - anyone should leave their jerk spouse, but women don't. They can't leave the guy that passes their shit tests.

The same could be said for men. Men should leave their bitch spouse, but they often don't. They can't leave the women that pushes their buttons in bed, while manipulating them and abusing them in their every day life.

[–]ruorgimorphu-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You're talking about blue pill men. You aren't addressing my point that red pill men aren't hypocritical in this context.

Men should leave their bitch spouse, but they often don't.

You're advocating red pill with this and other sentences.

I think maybe my version of TRP makes a little more sense than that dude complaining about his LTR noticing his weirdo clockwork behaviour, and I'm just saying that I don't feel hypocritical.

My summary of TRP is that women will not respect or value you if they don't feel you can pick up other women, you've only got a few months if you get depressed or lose your job (a woman's vows mean nothing,) they eventually explode out of control if you're not making the decisions, and they are attracted to up and coming men on the rise, and they TEST you and will wear you out unless you know what you're up against.

So now I've gone on a tangent, but I'm just trying to share why I don't see TRP as hypocritical, and not even manipulative nor abusive. I don't think my version is different from what the sub advocates.

[–]an_absolute_roseRed Pill Boy3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]GridReXXit be like that1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DenswendThe Swiss Army Knife of Hate0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (65 children) | Copy Link

Technically speaking TRP is not at least bit hypocritical.

Imagine that there are two neighbouring countries, Glorious People's Democratic Republic of Artzoka and Republic of Zokart. Artzoka is a totalitarian country which openly says that it censors free speech. Zokart is a liberal democracy which prides itself on free speech. Suddenly, folks from Artzoka realize that Zokart censors free speech in the form of "hate anti liberal values" speech. They politely point that out to which Zokart responds "You do it too." Yeah, sure, Artzoka does censor free speech, but it is the core value of Zokar (it being a liberal democracy), and not of Artzoka.

TRP goes with a similar idea. "Men and women are not equal - there is a difference in sexual standards/selection/strategy. What might be a good tactic for men might not necessarily be a good tactic for women and vice versa." TRP is based on the inequality of men and women. It accepts it as its core foundation. Without inequality of women and men, there is no RPish sexual strategy.

On the other hand, feminism/BP position pride themselves on the equality.

There cannot be hypocrisy if you accept the inequality of whatever it is you're being accused of being hypocritical about. Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi.

[–]perly9 17 points17 points17 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm not sure what relevance gender inequality has in the scope of something like dread game.

Dread game is a method used to get some desired effect from your partner by using their emotional investment in you against them by holding your own emotional investment hostage until they do the action you want.

Since both partners are capable of getting emotionally invested and both partners want to prevent the loss of a partner they are emotionally invested in, it works on both.

Dread game is not necessarily used to just get sex from a gf, it can be used to get anything the dread gamer wants. As such, it can be a useful tool for both genders to manipulate their partner into getting a disired effect.

The issue is TRP is advocating the use of a tool in a certain way in one gender, but then shaming the use of the same tool in the same way in another gender, and there doesn't seem to be a valid reason for it. You mentioned gender inequality, but what gender difference justifies this? When men do it, it is to curb their partner's behavior. The girl in the link was also using it to curb her partner's behavior. It's the same thing.

If you can justify manipulation or dread game use against partners, it does become hypocritical if you disparage it when it is done against you when you're a partner.

Without inequality of women and men, there is no RPish sexual strategy.

Yeah but again I'm not sure the relevance of gender inequality in the particular context of something like dread game. You could say "dread game works on people," and it would still be strategy, and no gender inequality was required. Likewise, there is no need for outrage when others (including women) utilize the same strategy.

After all, why shouldn't they if it works? That's RP's reasoning for using it. It works. Well it works on men too, so why should women NOT do it?

I think what this really comes down to is, "I like using this tool against others because it achieves beneficial outcomes but I don't like it used against me because it makes me do things I don't want to do." I don't know why people can't just say that and instead of these roundabout justifications for the hypocrisy.

[–]We_Are_LegionAutumn Red-3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

1) Your definition is lacking in a one crucial area. There absolutely has to be another woman involved. This is because of the differences between the genders in the red pill model of the nature of relationships. Commitment, not attention, is generally the male's resource, and the one women are programmed to pursue. Sex is the female equivalent.

2) It is not so much intentional. I'll explain in point 3.

3) Dread game for men is the theoretical analogue to women's dread. Women withdrawing sex when they happen to be unhappy is their dread. You piss your wife off? De-facto sex ends. You are driven to fix it. This is generally held to be a god-given right to women. Control over their bodies.

So it is with dread game. Only withdrawing attention is something a woman will survive and not care about. Possibly even think you're immature. Demonstrating chemistry with another woman, even someone who is rationally a non-threat, is what she is primally most vulnerable to.

The nature of the playing field means sex can and is used as a de-facto weapon without any reprimand because women are expert power-talkers and better at manipulation by default. The nature of power-talk means there is plausible deniability.

Meanwhile, attention is restricted, simply because women are bold at calling it out. However, in almost all cases, it is a bluff. Red pill believes you are entitled to your interests and you should actively keep your gaze loose. No oneitis. No scarcity mentality. Dread should naturally and without intention settle in whenever you are not happy, with women around you. If you have no women around you, be the type of man who keeps them.

[–]zlex11 points12 points13 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

This is total miss the point nonsense. The fundamental principle of TRP is that it ~is~ a strategy. It's is one thing to have a natural response to an action, as in your girlfriend pisses you off so you don't want to be around her. That isn't a strategy, that is a natural human response to someone being a fucking asshole. It literally has nothing to do with TRP. Ditto, not wanting to have sex with someone who recently pissed you off.

It's entirely another thing to withhold sex / instill dread on purpose in order to achieve some end. That is not based on natural response, but based on a pre-outlined strategy of conscious behavior responses. That is the definition of manipulation, and it doesn't matter if part of that strategy is with holding sex, or if it is flirting with other people to instill insecurity. It's fucked up and wrong. Period.

Now, I know, I know, you can say that it doesn't matter if its immoral, the whole TRP is amoral thing, but you can't turn around and call someone else a psycho bitch for implementing a pre-planned strategy to your...pre-planned strategy, without sounding like an idiot.

[–]We_Are_LegionAutumn Red-3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

That isn't a strategy, that is a natural human response to someone being a fucking asshole.

Spin plates > Pick best plate for LTR if you want > get into the mindset and attitude where you use other plates for dread. And are likely to do it on a whim. Sounds liek a strategy to me.

Cultivating the ability to apply dread on a whim is no fucking joke. It is typically only recommended if your woman is seriously acting out. Simply because its hard.

I know, I know, you can say that it doesn't matter if its immoral, the whole TRP is amoral thing, but you can't turn around and call someone else a psycho bitch for implementing a pre-planned strategy to your...pre-planned strategy, without sounding like an idiot.

Am I doing that? I really don't remember. The thread densweed started is based on a matter of principle, not the individual threads. I am arguing the same by stating that dread game is and has always been the theoretical analogue to women's dread. And can be implemented the exact same subconsious get-out-of-jail-free way.

[–]zlex10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I am arguing the same by stating that dread game is and has always been the theoretical analogue to women's dread.

Except that not wanting to have sex with someone who pissed you off is not necessarily a 'game.' There isn't a forum filled with women discussing when to withhold sex from men, and if there was, then it would certainly be of the same vein.

I guess I'm failing to see your point by pointing out that women can manipulate men by withholding sex. Yes they can, but it can also, and probably often, is not a form of manipulation--it's just not wanting to have sex with someone who pissed you off. Ditto subconsciously seeking out other women and wanting to get out of your relationship. That ~can~ come about naturally, as a result of the actions of your partner.

What we are talking about is doing these things on purpose, consciously as part of a strategy--TRP stategy. Hence the obvious hypocrisy that was initially pointed out, where a woman played on this guy's strategy, and people called her a psycho bitch for manipulating him.

I don't know how this can possibly be more clear. It's like if you had a strategy for robbing someone, but they found out beforehand, and robbed you while you were driving over their house. You don't really have much ground to stand on when you deride them for doing it.

What is that term you guys always use about women...hamstering? The irony is hopefully not lost.

[–]MagicGainbowKeepin' it real, havin' a feel-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Femminazi1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]MagicGainbowKeepin' it real, havin' a feel-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Femminazi3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Femminazi3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MagicGainbow0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DenswendThe Swiss Army Knife of Hate-5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's actually a spot on definition of the dread game. I like that. But I have a slight disagreement with the last part (both partners are capable of getting emotionally invested and want to prevent loss) - while they are capable of it (both men and women), men value physical more while women value emotional more (like that study in Hjernevask).

Dread game has to be effective to be a proper dread game. What is effective for women is not witholding your emotional investment, but physical. You could say that "witholding physical" is the women version of the dread game. To rewrite what you wrote :

"Witholding physical" is a method used to get some desired effect from your partner by using their physical investment in you against them by holding your own physical investment hostage until they do the action you want.

But witholding physical intimacy is something that a woman has absolute right to do (and I'm down with it, I find the idea of there being a marital rape sane) but witholding emotional intimacy is considered manipulative. If we really want to abide by "equality" then we must denounce a woman who does not give a man her body (in a reasonable manner) as we denounce a man who does not give a woman her emotional investment (in a reasonable manner). Consider the case of a man who made a spreadsheet of his wife rebuking his advances and her reasons (such as watching Friends reruns) and the way people responded here. To use this "equalizing" method would be to go against the principle of marital rape.

Other way is to forget about the gender differences whatsoever and say that only witholding emotional (dread game) is bad but witholding sex is okay. This way we establish somewhat equal standard but we fail understand how it in reality it will go - it works in theory where there is no pesky reality of differences in what each gender considers a priority, and it ultimately ends up with one gender drawing the short end of the stick.

The girl in the link was also using it to curb her partner's behavior. It's the same thing.

I'll C/P what I wrote :

In this specific instance there was no dread game involved. Dread game is subtle, you don't go out and say "I CAN FUCK ANYONE WHO I WANT EVER", but you do demonstrate that you can. When you talk the talk but do not walk the walk, it sounds pathetic and reveals a pathological insecurity. This "dread game" the way the woman did it in your first link is moronic. Had the genders been flipped, I would shit on the man too. It isn't that dread game is wrong when women use it, it's just that this instance of dread game is badly done.

Not only does using dread game tell something about a person and the person it is being used on, but the how it was used tells it the best. If she flirts, then I flirt. If she withdraws, I withdraw. Relationship is a compromise and the only instance when using such radical methods is okay is when you're not the first one to use them. Like shooting back. If s/he loudly proclaims "I MANIPULATE YOU LIKE A PUPPET" in an effort to appear Machiavellian then this tells you that (a) person finds this kind of behaviour okay and (b) that the person is too daft to use it. (a) pretty much justifies dread game. In this instance, the person is toxic. Had this very same method been used with genders reversed, the person (now man) would be toxic too.

So the question is not of the intent beforehand, but of it execution as well.

I think what this really comes down to is, "I like using this tool against others because it achieves beneficial outcomes but I don't like it used against me because it makes me do things I don't want to do." I don't know why people can't just say that and instead of these roundabout justifications for the hypocrisy.

C/P what I wrote before :

Furthermore, to go back on a gender inequality thing (you can't be hypocritical if you do not hold two positions in an equal manner at the start) women do use dread game but manipulating emotional investment falls short of witholding sex. Witholding sex is a woman's dread game. And I'm fine with it. If she's witholding sex from you, then there's either a good or a bad reason for that. If you can asses that the reason is bad (being a "toxic" person) then dump her. If there is a good reason (like letting yourself physically go) for that then okay. I do remember that I said "Men using dread game is fine. Women witholding sex is fine." Actions speak louder than words and are more effective.

So I'm cool with a woman witholding sex (their version of dread game). If she is doing it without a reason, subconsciously, one would say irrationally, then okay, do it. Relationship is a compromise.

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 15 points16 points17 points 11 years ago (40 children) | Copy Link

[–]DenswendThe Swiss Army Knife of Hate0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

What constitutes as men being "manipulative" has changed in the same way what constitutes as men being "emotionally abusive". "Game" is manipulation the same way makeup is manipulation. Dread game is the extreme aspect where a man stops being responsive to a woman (something that he has every right to be) and flirts with other women (something he has every right to do) instead. It's the male reversal "You're not entitled to a woman's body if you give her attention" in the form of "You're not entitled to a man's attention if you give him your body". Dread game is never something you employ first, it is always a response to a shit test of some kind.

The girl in your first link is the one that is doing this kind of stuff on purpose, for the pleasure of playing with his LTR, and doing it first. Not to mention failing horribly at it. Not to mention that any "manipulation" that came from the OP is basically in the innocent form of flirting.

Personal opinion : If I ever had to "dread game" my LTR, I would break up with her instead. No going back.

[–]Kenny__Loggins8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 16 points17 points18 points 11 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

What constitutes as men being "manipulative" has changed in the same way what constitutes as men being "emotionally abusive".

Manipulation is gender neutral. It has a static definition.

"Game" is manipulation the same way makeup is manipulation.

Game and makeup is not manipulation. Manipulation involves some sort of deceit. Game and makeup are not deceitful, unless an individual is unwilling to reveal his game, or a and individual is unwilling to reveal what makeup they are wearing. Women are often proud of their makeup, so it's not something they're trying to hide.

Dread game is the extreme aspect where a man stops being responsive to a woman (something that he has every right to be) and flirts with other women (something he has every right to do) instead.

This is the manipulation I'm talking about.

Dread game is the extreme aspect where a man stops being responsive to a woman (something that he has every right to be) and flirts with other women (something he has every right to do) instead.

It doesn't matter who does what first. I don't see why you need to point fingers. Manipulation is manipulation, and it's toxic in a relationship, regardless of who starts it and who responds.

If I ever had to "dread game" my LTR, I would break up with her instead. No going back.

Good for you, but clearly others in TRP disagree. Dread game is advocated all the time. Yet here we have someone criticizes women for using dread game while encouraging men to use dread game. Furthermore, you completely dodged my question. Why is OK for men to use dread game and not OK for women to use dread game. What specific gender difference allows for the double standard.

[–]DenswendThe Swiss Army Knife of Hate-4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Manipulation is gender neutral. It has a static definition.

I would disagree.

It doesn't matter who does what first. I don't see why you need to point fingers. Manipulation is manipulation, and it's toxic in a relationship, regardless of who starts it and who responds.

And it is precisely why I dislike the redpill as a "sexual strategy". Not to mention the obnoxious PUA lingo straight out of D'n'D. But I do concede to it - some of "manipulation" women do without realizing what they're doing. The basic shit test.

In my personal life : I had a discussion with my LTR when she said something along the lines "Is there a book where there's all the answers to stupid female question" in a joking manner. Then I stopped and after I discovered the redpill (the sub, not the /pol/ stuff) and it clicked why this does that.

There was a thread a while back about "redpill and love" which I didn't participate in (eh, I just sometimes don't bother, sorry). I've seen it (and it's a common trope) when a woman just gradually loses attraction towards a man and the marriage ends in a deadbedroom scenario. For me, the concept of losing sex (overblown IMO) from my LTR is not as scary as the concept of her not desiring me and finding me, on a subconscious level, not sex worthy. Shit tests aren't women's fault, they don't do it on purpose and they rarely know the consequences it has on a man's health (chalk it up to unbridgeable differences in man/woman outlook on life). They just happen, as a remnant from our animal past. To fail one after other shit test, to have her lose any semblance of love in me, and not to be able to understand why this happens and how to deal with it (cause you don't "respect" her as a "human being" if you treat childish behaviour as childish when holy XX chromosomes do it) is something horrible.

So it isn't "manipulation" we use when we mean some Machiavellian criminal mastermind pulling strings with great care and precision. It isn't a female conspiracy to manipulate men into submission and feminist dystopia. It's just our nature as human beings, barely elevated above monkeys.

Furthermore, you completely dodged my question. Why is OK for men to use dread game and not OK for women to use dread game. What specific gender difference allows for the double standard.

In this specific instance there was no dread game involved. Dread game is subtle, you don't go out and say "I CAN FUCK ANYONE WHO I WANT EVER", but you do demonstrate that you can. When you talk the talk but do not walk the walk, it sounds pathetic and reveals a pathological insecurity. This "dread game" the way the woman did it in your first link is moronic. Had the genders been flipped, I would shit on the man too. It isn't that dread game is wrong when women use it, it's just that this instance of dread game is badly done.

Furthermore, to go back on a gender inequality thing (you can't be hypocritical if you do not hold two positions in an equal manner at the start) women do use dread game but manipulating emotional investment falls short of witholding sex. Witholding sex is a woman's dread game. And I'm fine with it. If she's witholding sex from you, then there's either a good or a bad reason for that. If you can asses that the reason is bad (being a "toxic" person) then dump her. If there is a good reason (like letting yourself physically go) for that then okay. I do remember that I said "Men using dread game is fine. Women witholding sex is fine." Actions speak louder than words and are more effective.

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 13 points14 points15 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I would disagree.

What dictionary are you using?

So it isn't "manipulation" we use when we mean some Machiavellian criminal mastermind pulling strings with great care and precision. It isn't a female conspiracy to manipulate men into submission and feminist dystopia. It's just our nature as human beings, barely elevated above monkeys.

How is that manipulation? I don't think it is. I was talking about the manipulation from the OP...women using dread game, that type of thing.

So it isn't "manipulation" we use when we mean some Machiavellian criminal mastermind pulling strings with great care and precision. It isn't a female conspiracy to manipulate men into submission and feminist dystopia. It's just our nature as human beings, barely elevated above monkeys.

The criticism was against her intention to use dread game, not how poorly it was executed. You're completely twisting the words and intent of the posts and comments.

Furthermore, to go back on a gender inequality thing (you can't be hypocritical if you do not hold two positions in an equal manner at the start) women do use dread game but manipulating emotional investment falls short of witholding sex. Witholding sex is a woman's dread game. And I'm fine with it. If she's witholding sex from you, then there's either a good or a bad reason for that. If you can asses that the reason is bad (being a "toxic" person) then dump her. If there is a good reason (like letting yourself physically go) for that then okay. I do remember that I said "Men using dread game is fine. Women witholding sex is fine." Actions speak louder than words and are more effective.

But words are required in relationships. Most relationship experts will tell you that communication is the most important part of any relationship. It's the easiest way to resolve disputes.

[–]DenswendThe Swiss Army Knife of Hate-5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

What dictionary are you using?

I don't disagree with neutral definition given in the dictionary. I disagree with how it is constantly applied. If we used neutral definition for everything, it would turn out that Hitler wasn't a real Nazi. So for any movement or a word, you look not at what it "pretends" to be, but where it came from, what it does, and with what purpose.

But words are required in relationships. Most relationship experts will tell you that communication is the most important part of any relationship. It's the easiest way to resolve disputes.

Communication is not necessarily a verbal one.

As for your two critiques, I'm not really sure what you're quoting me so here goes.

The criticism was against her intention to use dread game, not how poorly it was executed. You're completely twisting the words and intent of the posts and comments.

Whose criticism? I offered you my interpretation of if, and I would need further clarification of what you meant.

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 14 points15 points16 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+]DenswendThe Swiss Army Knife of Hate-8 points-7 points-6 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]CFRProflcopter7 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TomHicks1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]chasethenoise5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]VarsitySlutTeamCptI'm on mobile.-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]VarsitySlutTeamCptI'm on mobile.-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]WhisperSecretly a Talking Dog0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cactuar_TamerMaking poor life choices.10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You know what else gives them a choice and makes your wants clear? Directly telling them that you weren't ok with what they did and actually telling them what you want. Theoretically speaking, EVERYONE has at least one other option. It's not like everyone goes around thinking their SO doesn't have other options, until someone says something.

Feedback is telling your partner what you want and how their actions affect you. The average person doesn't know the idea of dread game and would just think you were being uncaring, or at the very least acting weird. If you actually sat down and talked about it, you might find out that she was flirting with other people because she felt neglected but never intended on cheating, and if she'd find out that you may not have realized you were neglecting her and that you were using dread game because you had a problem with what she did. This may lead to one or both of you eventually saying "well, why didn't you just talk to me about it?"

[–]MagicGainbowKeepin' it real, havin' a feel-2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]nicethingyoucanthaveRed Pill Male-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Just leave the relationship.

But here's what's going to blow your mind: in my experience, women *always* come back and change their behavior when you do this.

I'd like to ask you a question, as a blue piller, but I want to give a concrete example first so that we're on the same sheet of music. Because I suspect that without a concrete example, you're imagining that I'm doing something really awful and you'll answer the question with that image in your head.

I had a friend that I'd known for a while and one day we were hanging out and it progressed to sex. She didn't want to do the FWB thing, and I can totally respect that. So we agreed that we'd date each other exclusively for a while and see how we liked it.

I took her out pretty regularly for a few weeks, but the thing that bothered me is that she never dressed up. She was just a jeans and t-shirt girl - always had been. That wasn't a surprise to me, because we'd known each other for more than a year, it was just something that I didn't want in a girlfriend.

So I communicated that to her, and I'll give you more detail here if you need it, but suffice to say that I went through what I consider to be reasonable steps: I hinted (she had dresses in her closet, so I told her I'd love to see her in them), then stated my preference outright, then made a suggestion ("I'd love to see you in that tomorrow night"), then a polite request ("do me a favor babe and go put that on") - but none of it worked.

Now keep in mind, this isn't my girlfriend here. Nobody's in love. We're just dating to see if we're compatible. I told her that because of this issue, we're not compatible. I didn't commit to someone and then say, "now you must change!" What I did was to try dating her and conclude that it wasn't going to work.

Her roommate kind of butted in I could see the whole thing escalating to an argument and it just seemed stupid to argue about it, so I left. She texted me something like, "you can't dictate what I wear" and I replied, "I know" and that was it.

Now here's the part that TRP would call "dread game." I stopped talking to her. If she texted me bitchy stuff, I replied with "k" or "lol" or sometimes not at all. When she started being nice, I said it's nothing personal and that I'd like to go back to being friends. Even when she said she'd compromise, I said "no." The reason I said "no" is that since walking out, and because of some of the texts, I'd concluded I didn't want a relationship with her. I refused to meet her in person because I didn't want her to change my mind. I said that after a while when we've both moved on we can go back to being friends.

I saw her roommate out one night, and I was (I realize this is a dumb ego issue and represents immaturity on my part) embarrassed that I was by myself so I used a ploy (I didn't lie, just did more than I normally would) to get two hot girls to leave with me. I'm sure that story made it back to her, because she left me a tearful message the next day.

So now we meet up, because I really didn't want her to hurt like that. You can probably guess, she's wearing a beautiful sundress, has curled her hair, she's absolutely gorgeous. We agree to date again, though we never made it to boyfriend/girlfriend. She dressed up every time we went out.

This has been a common experience for me. When I stick to my standards and just walk away, women come back and meet my standards. I have two questions for you as a blue piller, please:

1 - did I do anything immoral? If so, please quote the exact point in this story where I left the straight and narrow path. Tell me what I should have done instead.

2 - if my story stopped at, "she wont do this thing for me" and people in TRP advised, "don't compromise, walk away, talk to other people" (and they'd probably recommend that I lift all the things) would that advice be wrong or manipulative or abusive?

You must know that /r/thebluepill would circlejerk themselves raw if TRP advised that. It worked though (for me) and I honestly don't see how it was immoral. Now admittedly, my intention was not to get her back - but TRP would call that "outcome independence." I did what I did, and had she just moved on, that would have been okay with me.

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

It was more of a rhethorical statement. My argument is that RP says that men don't need women, and that by constantly putting in the effort to maintain frame, dread game, etc. is contradictory to that idea. Why put all that effort into someone you know you don't need and would be fine without? Just to clarify, I wouldn't break up with someone for making a mistake, depending on the severity of the mistake. I'd notify them of the problem and directly, yet respectfully tell them that it needs to change and if simple communication doesn't work, then I'd leave rather than manipulate them.

In response to your post, I don't blame you for not responding to rude or insulting texts. I probably would've done the same if someone had sent me texts like those.
1) It would've been immoral if your intention was to manipulate her into giving you what you want, despite knowing it goes against what she wants and would make her unhappy or resentful, but it didn't seem like that was your intention here, so, no, you didn't do anything immoral.

2) That's not abusive or manipulative, but it is wrong, because, in relationships, you will have to compromise, probably a lot. She offered you a compromise for something you wanted, despite it not being something she was too excited about herself. I think it was unreasonable of you not even try to meet her half way on that. If can't even compromise on something like this, what are you going to do if it had turned into an LTR and you had disagreements over bigger issues in the future? Are you going to intentionally ignore her unless she gives you what you want, even knowing she's very much against it? You can't always get what you want in relationships and it's not only about your happiness.

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

in relationships, you will have to compromise

Wait, you started this by suggesting that a person not getting what they want should leave. That's what prompted me to respond. Obviously, one has to compromise from time to time, but I think the conversation we're having here is about what to do if you realize something is sufficiently important to you that you are unwilling to compromise.

We started this with discussion on a point of agreement. You said, "just leave the relationship."

If you read my story and decide that my standards were too high, I accept that criticism. But I don't think it's fair to say that I should have compromised in this particular case. The point of us dating was to see if it worked out. We weren't married.

It would've been immoral if your intention was to manipulate her into giving you what you want

Just so we're clear, you agree that I did the right thing by walking away.

You accept that walking away got me what I wanted in the first place.

But my actions go from being moral to being immoral if I harbor some hope that she'll change her mind??

The difference between a moral person and an immoral person isn't what they do, and isn't even what they want. The difference is that the immoral person has hope??

Hoping that a person will change is now manipulation? Because hope is the only difference here. Both people take the same action.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Wait, you started this by suggesting that a person not getting what they want should leave.

As I said, that statement was meant to prove a point based on certain conditions. If RP believes that men don't need women, then why put the effort of dread gaming or maintaining frame for someone you don't need, rather than just leaving? Also, I didn't say to leave if you don't get what you want. I thought it was understood that we were speaking in the context of being in a relationship with someone who was already flirting with others, being manipulative, or disrespectful towards you and the relationship in some way; in that case, you should just leave, because why stay with someone who doesn't respect you or the relationship? Personally, I would find it tiring to have to constantly remind my SO that he should appreciate me and to constantly have to stand up for myself and argue back in order for him to respect me.

Obviously, one has to compromise from time to time

How is anyone suppose to know that you'd be willing to compromise on certain things once you're in the relationship, if you don't show that you're willing to compromise from the beginning?

Just so we're clear, you agree that I did the right thing by walking away.

You're entitled to stop dating someone, if/when you feel that it won't work out.

The difference between a moral person and an immoral person isn't what they do, and isn't even what they want. The difference is that the immoral person has hope??

The difference is the intention. If you withhold affection with the intention of making someone feel insecure or guilty, knowing that they care enough about their relationship with you, that chances are they'll give in, then, yes, that is manipulative and immoral, but if you just need to be alone because you're upset and need to collect your thoughts and calm down before being ready to talk, then it's not manipulative, because in the second case, it's about you needing time alone, whereas in the first case, it's about making them feel bad.

[–]nicethingyoucanthaveRed Pill Male0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]DenswendThe Swiss Army Knife of Hate-3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]DenswendThe Swiss Army Knife of Hate-3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]chasethenoise4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]We_Are_LegionAutumn Red-9 points-8 points-7 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]We_Are_LegionAutumn Red-6 points-5 points-4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]We_Are_LegionAutumn Red-5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]totes_meta_bot1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]DenswendThe Swiss Army Knife of Hate-2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] 2 points2 points2 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–]We_Are_LegionAutumn Red-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DenswendThe Swiss Army Knife of Hate-4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points0 points0 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

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

[–]nicethingyoucanthaveRed Pill Male-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Ignatius_Oh_Reilly0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think each is a lens to try and understand gender relations. I just look at them as models that dependant upon goals one is more useful than the other. Poltically both are really just indentity poltics which is a pretty shallow type of thing and it seems unavoidable to engage in hypocrisy with it. I've seen posts in each that are ironically hypocritical.

Pua strategy works better than witch craft. Really it's just a specialized form of and rooted in sales strategy. It's not supernatural, it's just selling yourself sexually.

Women manipulate men, men manipulate women and each tends to have their own goals. Women relationship oriented (while possibly having more physical sexual liasons), men it's more putting up numbers or cashing in your chips when you've found your peak mate and the guard against her having sexual relations with a rival.

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

[–]17b29a0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]hyperrrealLoves fun2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WhisperSecretly a Talking Dog-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]WhisperSecretly a Talking Dog0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]MagicGainbowKeepin' it real, havin' a feel1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

True as this may be, as I pointed out to We_Are_Legion, men are still viewed more positively than women when they cry. Additionally, according to a study, women viewed men who were crying no less attractive than men who were not. While men do cry less, it seems the only thing stigmatizing crying men are unfair gender stereotypes. There is no shame in crying. The act has been linked with stress reduction (1 2 3 ). So technically, crying could in fact be good for you as stress has been linked to numerous psychological and physiological issues.

Though if you have any sources to back up his/your own claim, they would be appreciated. Admittedly I could have researched a bit better, but I went horse back ridding for the first time in years. It was surprisingly brutal. My brain is in a bit of a fog.

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

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

He is talking in absolutes without being able to support himself. He is explicitly stating that his philosophical opinion (TRP) is reality. It is an absolute truth. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Older than I like, but:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02699939108411050

http://209.114.127.19/uploadedFiles/academic/college_of_arts_and_sciences/psych/JPI/JPI%20Vol%201.pdf#page=5

This is also an interesting read:

http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2010-23505-001/

(how others are perceived when crying) http://www.communicationcache.com/uploads/1/0/8/8/10887248/social_messages_of_crying_faces-_their_influence_on_anticipated_person_perception_emotions_and_behavioural_responses.pdf

From what I can tell people are viewed harshly when they cry. In fact men appear to be viewed more positively than women when they do cry. Due to this I fail to see how, "Women are allowed to get their way by whining and crying, because men will still find them attractive if they do. Men aren't, because women won't," is hardwired in the human genome. As the second link suggests, the women in the study did not view men as unattractive when they cried.

Human behavior is not solely dictated by the existence of two X-chromosomes or a X and a Y-chromosomes. It can influence it, sure, but to assume that gender dictates everything about an individual is ridiculous.

I found it difficult to find sources to support the claim that men who cry are viewed as unattractive or bad in general. Perhaps this is due to having minor heat stroke. Do you have any sources to support this claim? I am sincerely curious.

[–]WhisperSecretly a Talking Dog-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Please read sources before citing them.

The first link is unsourced. However, it does make one correct claim (amid a lot of unsourced nonsense), to wit:

World history and literature are filled with male leaders who cried publicly. Tears meant that a man lived by a code of values and cared enough to show emotion when things went wrong. Medieval warriors and Japanese samurai cried during times of epic tragedy.

In other words, epic tragedies could be seen as epic because they were enough to make even manly men cry.

By the same token, in this culture, men are allowed to cry over the pain of others (a display of values, investment, and integrity), just not over their own (a show of weakness). It is not tears literally, but weakness that men are not allowed to display.

You must forgive me for using the words "whining and crying" to mean that. I had foolishly assumed that I wasn't speaking to anyone with an especially pedantic case of autism.

Your second link is irrelevant, because in quoting it, you don't seem to understand the difference between attraction and arousal. Most men are not sexually aroused by crying women, because they are not sadists. Crying women activate a protective instinct, not a sexual one.

The critical questions are "does seeing a woman cry make a man less likely to choose her as a mate?", and "does seeing a man cry make a woman less likely to choose him as a mate?".

No, and yes, respectively.

This is a double standard that is built into the human genome. Weakness is unattractive in men, and not in women, just as promiscuity is unattractive in women, and not in men. There's nothing anyone can do about this.

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

I don't feel like repeating what I've previously written. Let me simply give you a short hand of what I wrote to /r/We_Are_Legion.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02699939108411050

http://209.114.127.19/uploadedFiles/academic/college_of_arts_and_sciences/psych/JPI/JPI%20Vol%201.pdf#page=5

Neither of these sources are that conclusive (not to mention that both are rather old), but I tried to research the opposite side of the claim ("does seeing a man cry make a woman less likely to choose him as a mate?") and I found absolutely nothing. Nothing to indicate your extraordinary claim that this double standard is built into the human genome is correct. So please enlighten me since, according to you, I have an especially pedantic case of autism. Provide some shred of support that can be linked to what you are trying to claim.

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]WhisperSecretly a Talking Dog-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

You completely ignored my question.

Your question was syntactically correct, but semantically meaningless.

"How high is green?"... is a correctly formed question in English grammar. But it cannot be answered because the words do not mean anything when combined in that way.

"What makes this acceptable?" implies that "this" could somehow be unacceptable. But "this" is inevitable. It's out of our hands. It happens whether we like it or not. Is 9.8 meters per second squared an "acceptable" falling acceleration? Is it acceptable for pi to be an irrational number?

The question you should have asked, if you want a meaningful answer, is "How to the differences between men and women lead to these built-in double standards?"

The answer is that each one has its own explanation.

However, most of them trace back to the simple fact that eggs are expensive and sperm is cheap. Women are born with all the eggs they will ever have, and those tick away at a certain rate. Men manufacture all the sperm they need, continuously.

Eggs are a scarce, non-renewable resource. Sperm is a common, renewable resource. This had evolutionary consequences which are now adapted to by human mating instincts.

Some examples:

Women lose attractiveness faster with age, because an aged woman's fertility is reduced dramatically. An aged man's fertility reduces very little. ("the Wall")
Women are attractive by default, men must achieve attractiveness. A woman has female fertility (eggs), a scarce resource. Men must demonstrate that their sperm is of high quality, otherwise it is only a common resource. (the "80/20 rule")
Promiscuous women are less attractive... they are giving away a scarce resource in trade for a common one. Promiscuous men are more attractive... they are amassing a scarce resource by trading a common one. ("slut" vs "stud")
A woman is trouble is sympathetic, so long as she is young and not totally unattractive. She still has inherent value (her fertility), so it is worthwhile to rescue her from whatever trouble she has. A man in trouble is contemptible. His sperm has no inherent value, and his state of needing help or rescue shows that he has no achieved value. He is therefore valueless and not worth saving. (the "sympathy gap")
A woman must choose to trade her eggs for resources, or for high quality sperm, in some combination. This is a tradeoff. The higher the sperm quality, the less money she can extract, because there are more women who want that sperm to compete with. The more money she extracts, the lower the sperm quality she will have to accept ("alpha fucks, beta pays")

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]WhisperSecretly a Talking Dog-2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]WhisperSecretly a Talking Dog0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Okay, first of all, TRP is a discussion group. Not a church. We are under no obligation whatsoever to toe the same rhetorical line. I am not answerable for anything another subscriber says.

Second, they called this woman's specific behaviours toxic. It was only someone else who labelled her behaviour "dread game" and decided it was exactly equivalent to male dread game, as endorsed by lots of TRP readers.

Third, I went and read the poster's description of what she did, and that's not even dread game. It's just a crazy woman being crazy.

So, you have three faulty premises in even asking me this question.

With that said, I, personally believe that dread game is not useful for women. Why? Because eggs are expensive and sperm is cheap.

When a man "plays hard to get" and shows that he has other options, he is creating the impression that his sperm is more valuable than common sperm. That's how dread game works. Aloofness creates the impression of increased value.

When a woman "plays hard to get" or reveals that she has options, she creates does not create the impression of high value. Why? Because her value can be clearly determined by looking at her, and then talking to her for five minutes. Youth, beauty (as a marker of fertility and health), femininity, etc. can all be read clearly by the observer. So aloofness creates the impression not of higher value, but of lower interest in the man in question.

She is less feminine and attractive.

This leads us to an interesting point. When you saw words like "toxic" and so on, you thought you were seeing a moral double standard. And maybe sometimes on TRP you will. Moral double standards are sometimes appropriate.

But in the case, the word "toxic" should be taken literally. Poisonous. That which destroys what it touches.

A woman who says "you're a puppet that I control, and I've been doing it on purpose for laughs" is socially stunted, and will spread her damage to those around her. That's not dread game. That's just poison.

In my next response, I'll talk a little bit about how dread game is actually supposed to work.

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]phomaniacPurple Pill Man-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

I think people focus way too much on what certain people say, rather than the ideas that are expressed in TRP.

What people don't seem to understand is (The way I see it), TRP is just stating things as they are. It provides evidence as to how things are here and there. What and how you take this news is up to each individual. Some people go full hate on once they realize that girls are not pure creatures. They lose their shit and post ridiculous things on TRP. Some people yawn and say, "nothing new here". So when TBP catches wind of these people losing their minds they're quick to judge and point out the hypocrisy, which is obviously there. And on the same point, the same thing happens on TBP, some people lose their shit and say TRP is hypocritical. Others yawn and say, "nothing new here".

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–]phomaniacPurple Pill Man-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 11 points12 points13 points 11 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]MagicGainbowKeepin' it real, havin' a feel0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]MagicGainbowKeepin' it real, havin' a feel0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]MagicGainbowKeepin' it real, havin' a feel2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]assmunchinator0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]assmunchinator0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]meehan666-2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]meehan666-2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]meehan6660 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]meehan6660 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]phomaniacPurple Pill Man-2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So by having a list of things that are proven to work and show success (dread game) and having users promoting it; the philosophy is hypocritical. I can't say I agree with that. By the same token, democracy is hypocritical strictly because the people that are voted in are hypocrites.

I seems from your OP that you label the reactions of RPer's to certain things that women do as hypocritical, and I agree with you. These certain people are hypocritical. But I do not think it revolves around the RP theory itself. There are stickied posts that do a good job saying, "this is how woman are, and this is what they do. Don't get mad at them because they do what they do." That's obviously not verbatim but you can get the message?

So to finalize, yes, calling the actions of women "toxic" "pitiful" etc while doing the exact same thing is hypocritical. But just because the loudest voices are claiming these things, doesn't mean that the entire population believes it.

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]We_Are_LegionAutumn Red-4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]DocileBanalBovine 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

What you are asserting is a moralistic fallacy.

You're going to have to explain that to me.

That because women's prevailing tactics are disadvantageous for us, we should sit and whine like MRAs, instead of learn to play their game.

I would assert that women's prevailing tactics are not necessarily disadvantageous for men. I would assert that most people don't play games, at least not on the level that TRP describes.

It is literally asserting the same standards of behaviour.

TRP is based on the assumption that the majority of women are highly manipulative. I would argue that the majority of people, women included, are not particularly manipulative. I would base my argument on psychology, not a moralistic fallacy. My reasoning might look like this:

People aren't "good" because they are part of nature and nature is good. People are "good" because psychology studies reveal that people are good.

My opinions are entirely science-based.

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

You're going to have to explain that to me.

What should be done (within your subjective morals) being the best course of action. Basically, "what should morally be so is best." [edited typo]

I would assert that most people don't play games, at least not on the level that TRP describes.

TRP doesn't exactly describe a level. Just that it happens. When it reaches a suitable level, handling it is approrpriate.

My opinions are entirely science-based.

Are we using surveys? I hope they don't just ask "are you manipulative?" If not I'm up for a read. Though I expect we define manipulation differently. What may seem innocent to you is not always the same to me. I don't view any of it as malicious. But I do think it happens. Based on the difference in outcomes in asnwering it and not answering it.

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

What should be done (within your subjective morals) being the best course of action. Basically, "what should morally be so is so."

But that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying what should morally be so should be the model everyone uses to improve themselves. In other words, people should try to be moral.

TRP doesn't exactly describe a level. Just that it happens. When it reaches a suitable level, handling it is approrpriate.

But their response to playing games is playing games. They try to fight fire with fire.

Are we using surveys? I hope they don't just ask "are you manipulative?" If not I'm up for a read. Though I expect we define manipulation differently. What may seem innocent to you is not always the same to me. I don't view any of it as malicious. But I do think it happens. Based on the difference in outcomes in asnwering it and not answering it.

Of course not. Nearly all work with manipulation and generosity is observation-based. Create a scenario, give a bunch of people hypothetical resources, observe how they use those resources (do they share them? ect). I'll have to find something later because I'm busy right now.

[–]We_Are_LegionAutumn Red-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

people should try to be moral.

What should be done (within your subjective morals) being the best course of action.

I don't see the discrepancy.

But their response to playing games is playing games. They try to fight fire with fire.

Yes, you play the games better. Its more effective than asking. With greater returns.

Nearly all work with manipulation and generosity is observation-based. Create a scenario, give a bunch of people hypothetical resources, observe how they use those resources (do they share them? ect).

Manipulation can express itself in far more ways than one. And express themselves in different ways and situations. A hostage negotiator may not use his talents to acquire resources. A police interrogator may be pretty good at what he does, but decent at home.

If you are actually naturally machiavellian, you'd know that generally you try in non-obvious ways. You only ever act for things you care about. You maintain plausible deniability. And hard as it is to believe, all these decisions happen subconsciously. You only choose whether or not you want to apply it. After that, its like a part of social skills.

[–]MagicGainbowKeepin' it real, havin' a feel-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

"Hypocrisy" is somewhat embedded into the overall gender war, so to speak. Feeling secure has a lot to do with one-upmanship and that dynamic is always going to feature a little "Do as I say, not as I do." But it also has a lot to do with getting results.

But that's life. Your parents were hypocritical and you'll probably be hypocritical when you're a parent. Your boss is hypocritical, and when you get to be boss someday you'll probably be a little hypocritical. There's certain privileges a particular role is going to have access to, that's just the way it is.

It's really about what you can live with. You probably shouldn't sweat it if you see a little hypocrisy here and there. Nobody's 100% pure for cryin' out loud, and why would you want them to be? But if you see a lot of hypocrisy it can be annoying and aggravating. The more hypocrisy you have, the more negativity you're likely to generate, that should be obvious.

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

But that's life. Your parents were hypocritical and you'll probably be hypocritical when you're a parent. Your boss is hypocritical, and when you get to be boss someday you'll probably be a little hypocritical. There's certain privileges a particular role is going to have access to, that's just the way it is.

That's a logical fallacy. "Things are this way and they always will be." "Jim did it so I can do it too." These statements are not logical. You could use the same logic to justify anything that currently exists. "Sex slavery? It's always existed so there's no point in even trying to stop it." See how that type of logic is terrible?

It's really about what you can live with. You probably shouldn't sweat it if you see a little hypocrisy here and there. Nobody's 100% pure for cryin' out loud, and why would you want them to be? But if you see a lot of hypocrisy it can be annoying and aggravating. The more hypocrisy you have, the more negativity you're likely to generate, that should be obvious.

Both links highlight pretty blatant hypocrisy.

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

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]DocileBanalBovine 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AFormidableContenderPurple Pill Man-2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]AFormidableContenderPurple Pill Man-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

By forcing them to clarify a position. 90% of BluePills only hold the beliefs they hold because someone told them that's what they are supposed to believe and they never bothered questioning it because the belief either works out well for them ("I want a Nice Guy!") or makes them feel better about themselves, and the world, or because it offers them quick, easy understandings of others and the world around them even if those understandings are logically inconsistent. Most of them haven't taken the time to flush out the intellectual inconsistencies and are left with a ball of cognitive dissonance and it comes across very quickly. It's not even just BluePills, it's the RedPillWomen as well. /u/MissPearl verbal diahhrea'ed onto a page in another thread yesterday morning whilst saying nothing of value:

http://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/2itkvv/question_for_both_pills_what_would_you_tell_a/cl5rsq3

This subreddit is not "Tool on a TRP/Tool on BP"...what this subreddit has devolved into is BluePills asking RedPills questions, RedPills giving answers, and BluePills dogpilling on RedPills for sources that both parties know are impossible because no one's going to study "Women are Shitheads. University of Colombia, Dr. Lolzers, PHD.", and even when sources are valid and supporting of TRP beliefs, they are simply invalidated and BP's refuse to take them seriously. It does neither side any favours. If you're coming here for Pill debate, it's assumed, (and should be enforced if our moderators wasn't garbage) that you came here in good faith to take part in real discussion and because you have a world view you'd like to either share or challenge and are capable of defending yourself logically without requiring an appeal to authority.

[–]TRPACC -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]adrixshadowIndigo Pill(aka dark and evil occult pill)-4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]adrixshadowIndigo Pill(aka dark and evil occult pill)0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]adrixshadowIndigo Pill(aka dark and evil occult pill)-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]adrixshadowIndigo Pill(aka dark and evil occult pill)-2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]adrixshadowIndigo Pill(aka dark and evil occult pill)-2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

You have to be assured of her respect.

That is absolute.

Training is not disrespect for her. Training makes her respect you.

It goes back to thing I mentioned. Pregnancy.

If a woman is disrespectful she can cheat on you and can get pregnant with another man, this means you get cheated of your genetic legacy.

If a man cheats and gets another women pregnant she is not cheated out of her genetic legacy since she will get pregnant either way.

It is not equal.

This is why a woman's respect should be gotten by any means necessary if you are looking for LTR.

Do not worry about if she thinks you are disrespectful, you have not time to for that, crush her and make her your own.

You may consider TRP manipulation, but it is manipulations that causes instinctual respect in a women. This is "game".

Remember that TRP is Men's sexual advice, TRP is not woman's sexual advice, it is about YOU not her.

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Training is not disrespect for her. Training makes her respect you.

And what about your respect for her?

If a woman is disrespectful she can cheat on you and can get pregnant with another man, this means you get cheated of your genetic legacy.

If a man cheats and gets another women pregnant she is not cheated out of her genetic legacy since she will get pregnant either way.

No, but he could leave her to raise the child alone.

This is why a woman's respect should be gotten by any means necessary if you are looking for LTR.

What about your respect?

You may consider TRP manipulation, but it is manipulations that causes instinctual respect in a women. This is "game".

Remember that TRP is Men's sexual advice, TRP is not woman's sexual advice, it is about YOU not her.

All it does is ensure that you will be the one dumping her. How is that any beter? It's not creating sustainable relationships, it's creating relationships where one party is the user and one is the used. It criticises those types of relqtionships when women are the user, but encourages those relationships when men are the user. Both types of relationships seem really poor and likely short lived.

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

And what about your respect for her?

What about it? If I thought she wasn't worth it I wouldn't be training her in the first place. TRP is not instinctive manipulation like it is for the woman. It is an active rational manipulation.

No, but he could leave her to raise the child alone.

The reason he leaves is not because she is too respectful to the man. The default state of a woman is that of a harpy.

There are victims on all sides, I just won't become a victim on my side.

All it does is ensure that you will be the one dumping her. How is that any beter?

You keep your paycheck so you can invest in something better.

it's creating relationships where one party is the user and one is the used.

Dominator and the submissive, the leader and the follower.

There is no surprise that TRP specify exact gender roles since TRP does not agree that we are equal.

Both types of relationships seem really poor and likely short lived.

That is your own stupidity. TRP advocates specific gender roles so it cannot be hypocrite by advocating its own philosophy.

For TRP disrespect from the woman is not acceptable. PERIOD.

[–]CFRProflcopter3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

What about it? If I thought she wasn't worth it I wouldn't be training her in the first place. TRP is not instinctive manipulation like it is for the woman. It is an active rational manipulation.

How can you respect her if you're using her?

The reason he leaves is not because she is too respectful to the man. The default state of a woman is that of a harpy.

There are victims on all sides, I just won't become a victim on my side.

You keep your paycheck so you can invest in something better.

What about RPers that get married? What happens when they get tired of their wife?

Dominator and the submissive, the leader and the follower.

There is no surprise that TRP specify exact gender roles since TRP does not agree that we are equal.

That is your own stupidity. TRP advocates specific gender roles so it cannot be hypocrite by advocating its own philosophy.

For TRP disrespect from the woman is not acceptable. PERIOD.

So you're saying domination = disrespect? So you're saying TRP doesn't respect women? Isn't that selfish?

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

How can you respect her if you're using her?

Why would I not respect her if she behaves properly?

I do not respect women who behave like brats.

What about RPers that get married? What happens when they get tired of their wife?

Marriage means to have a loaded gun pointed at their temple, the only thing they can do is make sure off is that she doesn't pull the trigger.

Like I said we are not equal, and this is one part in favor of women.

So you're saying domination = disrespect? So you're saying TRP doesn't respect women? Isn't that selfish?

Women who like to play games are useless. Only men have the purpose of domination of the woman.

The man is the will, woman bends to his will.

TRP enforces respect in women, this is absolute. If he respects or not the woman back is up to him.

I would personally respect the woman that I train if I would ever be in a LTR.

Isn't that selfish?

If you want to be an altruist there are many causes and many people more worthy of your help then a woman.

Exercising altruism for a woman is the path of suffering.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

No. Women can cheat and they're not morally wrong for doing it.

Cool, that's amoral... consistant with your alleged stance

I just don't like it when they do.

I'm really really sorry, but did you read what you just wrote? How is that not of moral standard?

You say this is inconsistent, but I don't think men and women are the same. You could also say it's "inconsistent" that I like breasts on women and feel nothing (or disgust) when I see breasts on men.

I think you're confusing personal feelings for moral testaments. The gist of my argument is that you'll find a substantial number of moral nihilists on TRP.

"Moral nihilists." What's your definition of morals? I would call them guidlines for behavior, but here's googles definition:

"person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do."

Close enough. Morals are imposed standards of behavior. TRP absolutely applies standards of behavior to women. They do. In fact you did in the post I'm responding to. "I just don't like when they do it." Why? Because it violates the standards of behavior you apply to women. You (correctly, IMO) applied morals to women (women should not cheat), while failing to apply any sort of morals to men.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I'm really really sorry, but did you read what you just wrote? How is that not of moral standard?

My preferences aren't moral standards. Saying that I dislike it when women do X is not saying that women are wrong for doing X.

What's your definition of morals?

I'll admit that it's hard for me to define even if I intuitively grasp it. Morality is a set of rules or guidelines for how people should behave. Often those who have morals will argue that these rules or guidelines are objective in some way, that they should be followed not because you need to behave in X way to get Y result, but because these morals are intrinsically good.

You (correctly, IMO) applied morals to women (women should not cheat)

I said that I dislike it when women cheat. I'm not applying any morals here. I'm not arguing that there's some guideline by which we can say women who cheat are "wrong" or "immoral". It's a subjective valuation.

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[S] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

Liking ice cream is a preference, not a behavior.

My preference is that women don't cheat. My preference is chocolate ice cream over vanilla. It's a preference. You're attempting to prescribe some sort of higher objective principle I must believe in.

It's possible that our eveolution caused us to dislike all deceitful people (cheaters qre deceitful), and our morals are based on our evolution as social beings

That's what I think.

Maybe you should reevaluate your stance?

What specifically am I supposed to be reevaluating?

TRP is supposed to be about admitting the truth. The truth is that TRP applies moral standards to women.

No. I think TRP can (and is) used to apply moral standards to women, but it's not necessarily so.

You seem to be redefining "moral" as "what you like", which makes no sense to me. I've never seen someone use it that way. Morality is supposed to be some sort of objective standard by which we ought to intrinsically live. I don't believe this standard exists. I simply like and dislike things for whatever biological reason.

Edit: However like I said at the beginning, for me this is largely an issue of articulation. But I guess there's ignorance too. I should try to better understand moral nihilism before I engage in this sort of conversation. So I eject.

[–]CFRProflcopter3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

My preference is that women don't cheat. My preference is chocolate ice cream over vanilla. It's a preference. You're attempting to prescribe some sort of higher objective principle I must believe in.

One is a preference for or judgement of behavior. The other is a preference for an object. That's the difference. Look at this definition:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/moral

Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action

You judged cheating as bad. That is not morally nihilistic. A moral nihilist wouldn't care about a women cheating. I honestly think that you're unfamiliar with the definition of "moral," as a noun. I'm gonna go ahead and say that most of TRP is unfamiliar with the definition as well, because TRP is extremely judgmental.

TRP is not the absence of morals, it's merely the application of atypical moral standards.

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

I said I was going to eject but something stood out to me here.

A moral nihilist wouldn't care about a women cheating.

According to wikipedia:

Moral nihilism (also known as ethical nihilism) is the meta-ethical view that nothing is intrinsically moral or immoral.

You seem to be arguing that having a preference for a behavior is the same as asserting that that behavior is morally right. I can prefer certain behaviors (ie. one behavior makes me happy and the other does not) but recognize there's no morality involved. If someone's blasting loud music in my ear, I don't have to think he's immoral in order to tell him to stop and go away. The behavior simply annoys me.

The Expressivism subtopic describes it well:

"We are not making an effort to describe the way the world is. We are not trying to report on the moral features possessed by various actions, motives, or policies. Instead, we are venting our emotions, commanding others to act in certain ways, or revealing a plan of action. When we condemn torture, for instance, we are expressing our opposition to it, indicating our disgust at it, publicizing our reluctance to perform it, and strongly encouraging others not to go in for it. We can do all of these things without trying to say anything that is true."

Title	Hypocrisy, TBP vs TRP
Author	CFRProflcopter
Upvotes	19
Comments	218
Date	October 10, 2014 2:52 PM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/2iuytq/hypocrisy_tbp_vs_trp/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/hypocrisy-tbp-vs-trp.284645 https://theredarchive.com/post/284645

Comments