Misconceptions about the blue pill.

HappilySingleWoman · 2015-04-11T19:39:11+00:00

Most people don't realize that TBP is not necessarily against every single thing TRP says. I personally think they have some good points and I agree that...

[–]We_Are_LegionAutumn Red9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

OK, I am a RP guy who has made a bunch of posts with evidence. I don't come here much anymore, but when I did, a lot of people told me that they really liked what I posted, essays or linkspam alike. Here are some links to science posts I've made that was compiled earlier. I expanded it too( note though that my english was much worse in the earliest ones). I don't expect the circlejerking that we don't have evidence will ever die though. And I also expect that people who get their opinions from those circlejerks will continue to buy into it.

Red pill claims about dark triad.

Sexual Strategy Theory posited by Buss and Schmitt, 1993. Over 2510 subsequent citations, since BPers often use this as a way to dismiss relevance. It is an interesting read. Buss and Schmitt independently did further studies in 1994(cited by 990 papers), 2000, 2004, and 2007 across 48 countries and a combined sample size of 60,000 to again verify the conclusions.

Red Pill claims that sluts are terrible as a choice of LTR partner by any metric. At a rate thats not even funny.

RP claims about women and men's preferences in age. As well as a nice interactive graph about the wall. Sample size 200,000 real single people Wiki article

Red Pill claims about 20% men fucking 80% of the women. The actual statement is just the paretto principle(i.e. a rule of thumb). but its backed pretty well by the evidence that says there around twice as many unique male ancestors to unique female ancestors for a given population, as well Dr. Roy Baumeister who estimates 40% of all males have managed to reproduce, while over 80% of women have As well as this study on the userbase of OKCupid and how different genders rate attractiveness that gets linked around here.

Red Pill claims that marraige is a scam with no benefits for men.

Red Pill claims that women tend to lie about sexual history. Some use this as evidence that women hamster(i.e. rearrange or relabel facts to resolve cognitive dissonance)

Red pill link "schedules of mating" and "Women: the most responsible teenager in the house" which somebody asked me to explain

IQ differences by gender. I used this to illustrate males show much greater genetic variability, an explanation of the hypothesis is further below in the link.

Red Pill claims about women and competitiveness

Red Pill claims that TBP is a shitty source of any information red pill.(someone gave me gold for this, thanks!)

Red Pill claims that women are more sexually fluid, and that their sex drive is more based on mental cues and flags as opposed to the simple and straightforward male sex drive

And keep in mind, this is only what I personally posted. If you go on red pill and search evidence or science, or watch the posts of other RP users in PPD or RP comments, it'll be more obvious. I'll also close this by saying to assert something pseudo-science, you have to first have the subject in question claim that it is scientific. If not, you have to attack the scientific method of the scientific sources it uses. Red pill makes no such claim of being scientific itself. Red pill is a theory of a skill, namely romance. It is an art, with its own terms of trade, and like other arts, it cannot be tested, usually in an empirical way.

Though lots of pickup artist manuals have been subject of study(for example, here we have a study that tested the methods as outlined in the 2005 book "The Pick-Up Artist" and another earlier book called "The Game")

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

[–]NitziPromoter of Love, Peace and Equality0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AutoModeratorBiased against humans[M] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]isthatyourdaughter0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]We_Are_LegionAutumn Red2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RichardPalma-3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Hey I admit I have brain damage and sometimes get confused easily. Probably it's the width of my phone but those all look still like one section, but I went to the other link and links under and still don't see where DT is the best strategy. I have high narcissism and machivellianism, but not sociopathy and an very emphatic. This empathy is very key to my sexual strategy, and I feel that unless you are very good at long term role play (which is a trait of high functioning sociopaths) that sociopath will work against you.

You had already made up your mind before you clicked anything

I certainly have an opinion before even coming to this post, but we all do. Only person I see here having made up their mind on anything is you about me (which is kind of ridiculous since I'd bet this one comment is all you know about me while I have long term exposure to TRP. Also hint, I'm not blue pill).

[–][deleted] 5 points5 points5 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

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

[–]SpikeTheDragQueenLeaving the blue behind0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CisWhiteMaelstrom 15 points16 points17 points 11 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

BPers always try to water down TRP by saying, "The actual advice like lifting, working hard, etc., is good. It's the theory and framework that's nonsense. Just get rid of the theory and you've got a great lifestyle." It's complete disingenuous bullshit though.

Get rid of the theory and you've got nothing left. TRP isn't a how to guide like PUA. We're fundamentally different. We make decisions based on understanding the world. The actual advice like lifting and shit is just a consequence of the theory. It's not conceptually central or even interesting.

The self improvement stuff is what gets you through the door. Saying you like the self improvement but the rest has to go is like if you're friend wants to go to a restaurant and you say, "Hey, we can drive there and pay for it but I'd really rather not eat the food." It misses the whole point of going to the restaurant and just sounds silly to anyone who's ever actually eaten out before.

[–]We_Are_LegionAutumn Red8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Lifting is identified, not because it is the core of TRP, but because the barrier of entry to playing the game is being attractive, and in control of your life and lifting is an efficient route to that. i.e. it works a lot of areas at once.

Forming a habit of discipline and willpower to accomplish other goals
practicing forming good habits(research says 30 days is usually all it takes to make a habit)
feeling of accomplishment to offset the cyclical nature of depression(do nothing, feel bad, do nothing cuz feel bad, feel bad) and hopelessness felt by people who have it
your posture and body-language. As an example; A lot of people who go into abs training lose their slouch automatically. And when they do slouch, it looks nicer and more natural. Research finds that people with muscles have body language that is perceived more attractive, i.e. they fidget less, and have more deliberate movement.
Your body-image. And in general, feeling good about your body feeds into...
Your confidence. This may get you approached by others easier, or approach them yourself. As well as come off as more interesting and appealing a person when it does happen.
your fitness and health(obviously)

and

your sex-appeal. Science says attractive people not only get laid more, but are nearly almost always subject to biases which cause them to be treated better. They are percieved as smarter, more caring, more trustworthy, more persuasive, and more valuable as people overall and people try to be liked by them more, and value their input more.

TRP telling you to get attractive is like a football coach telling you to go buy a ball to play with. It is your literal ticket into the game that TRP describes; the sexual marketplace.

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

[–]HappilySingleWoman 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]CisWhiteMaelstrom 11 points12 points13 points 11 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]CisWhiteMaelstrom 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[+]RichardPalma-6 points-5 points-4 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]CisWhiteMaelstrom 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]CisWhiteMaelstrom1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

God you're dense. Here are some things that you know without science that are probably true, confirmed by experience and intersubjective agreement, and have predictive power:

1: Every time you correctly diagnose how a conversation is going, that's "folk psychology" which is a pseudoscience and any time you use that knowledge of what the other person is feeling, saying, etc., that's predictive.

2: The same goes for statements like: "My father would never do that."

3: Knowledge of causation. There's a lot of literature spilled on this, but we actually have no way to verify scientifically that anything causes another thing.

4: Moral statements like "If you do X, that's immoral".

5: Knowledge of what sentences mean. Again, lot's of literature on this but we can't figure out the criteria for what someone is referencing, what an utterance means, etc.

6: That other people are conscious beings rather than mindless zombies without any subjective experience at all, that walk around as if they were conscious.

There's so much more that it'd take me weeks to list, but that should do you over for now.

[–]RichardPalma1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CisWhiteMaelstrom3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RichardPalma1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CisWhiteMaelstrom2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RichardPalma1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CursedLemonA Bigger, Bluer Dick4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago* (88 children) | Copy Link

[–]SharkPrivilege 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

analogy

I'll go for the one that brought me here :

I was told all my life that all the restaurants I want to eat at are delicious, the best. The food is amazing, very good price, the waiters and waitresses are very polite and homely, they have the best music according to the mood and oh my, the bathrooms are just divine. I'm also told that, in order to get the best of the restaurant, I need to dress in a particular way, act in a particular way, eat in a particular way. Sounds reasonable!

However, walking around, without even going inside, I already have the feeling that what I was told maybe it's not exactly true, but I get berated to even think about it. "You're an eatathomeninist pig" I get told, for considering that maybe not all restaurants are perfect.

So I start going to restaurants and I get rejected a lot at the entrance, or even inside when I start to eat. The way I dress or eat is not adequate. I'm curious, as this is how I was told I had to go to restaurants. I'm probably doing something wrong, I internalize. I finally get the chance to eat at some of these restaurants and they are certainly not what I was expected. The food was not very good in some, better in others, however I was told it was my sense of taste, not the food itself, that was to blame if the food was not good. The price was a lot higher than what it said in the menu, but my mother told me that I probably had overlooked it, not that the restaurant was trying to overcharge me. In another one, a waitress spat on my food and then threw the food on my face. My friends told me I probably did something to deserve that. In the next ones, the music is too loud, but I imagine that it's because I'm very sensitive to sounds, so it's my fault. I didn't even bother going to the bathroom, because I imagine that they are very dirty and I can't be bothered to find more ways to blame myself.

So after some years of starving and/or getting food poisoning, I wake up to the reality of restaurants and, while I carry several traumas, I manage to start finding some good ones and finally, enjoy food. It's a painful process because I see restaurants in a very different way (there are good ones, bad ones, some that suit my taste, some that don't, etc.) and I can finally dress and eat as I like.

So some years later, I go to this conference that discusses the industry of restaurants and I constantly get told, by people who want the illusion of perfect restaurants to stand, that it was again my problem because I only went to a few terrible places and I'm making a sweeping generalization of all restaurants, when I thought that all restaurants were perfect!

Then they talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy. You want fast food? Only fast food places will be visible for you and I wonder, if I thought that all restaurants were good, how come I ate terribly bad in all of them, but now that I understand the reality of restaurants, I'm enjoying the food, and the restaurant my presence, more than ever?

[–]CursedLemonA Bigger, Bluer Dick-2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]SharkPrivilege 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]CursedLemonA Bigger, Bluer Dick0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]SharkPrivilege 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]CursedLemonA Bigger, Bluer Dick-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]SharkPrivilege 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]CursedLemonA Bigger, Bluer Dick-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]SharkPrivilege 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]CursedLemon1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SharkPrivilege1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CursedLemon1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SharkPrivilege1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CursedLemon1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SharkPrivilege1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

as opposed to being forcibly held on the masculine side for millennia

We haven't had a masculine side since we left the caves. Masculinity favours the individual, not the group. Our society is built around the religious concept of the needs of the group over the needs of the individual and divine punishment as a way to fear-control people. You probably meant "men side", and even that is not true. How much power did Bob the farmer exactly have over Mary the farmer? He had a lot more chances to die in war than she ever did.

you're taking the pessimist's stance.

I'm taking the one that affected me, my father, my two brothers, my friends. It's not pessimistic when you live under discriminatory laws that say that you are automatically "guilty unless proven innocent" in the case of sexual or physical abuse.

a group of people who are in a collective panic over masculinity purportedly being made into Judaism circa 1941.

Goodwin's law? Masculinity IS under attack. It's been for the last 30-40 years.

Have you stopped to think why so many of us are "in collective panic"? Have you actually read my restaurant analogy? Have you read what other guys have told about themselves, how they grew up with a very woman-oriented lifestyle that was quite hurtful? Can you address that?

[–]CursedLemon1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

We haven't had a masculine side since we left the caves.

Which is why women got the right to vote in one of the most progressive countries in the world less than century ago, right? Maybe you should stop assuming you are the arbiter of what women should be satisfied with having.

I'm taking the one that affected me, my father, my two brothers, my friends. It's not pessimistic when you live under discriminatory laws that say that you are automatically "guilty unless proven innocent" in the case of sexual or physical abuse.

What do you even think you're railing against, here? Tell me. I'm really curious as to the exact concept you think you're fighting by bringing this up.

Have you read what other guys have told about themselves, how they grew up with a very woman-oriented lifestyle that was quite hurtful? Can you address that?

"Woman-oriented" means literally nothing. You know that, and you're being disingenuous by playing dumb.

[–]SharkPrivilege1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Which is why women got the right to vote in one of the most progressive countries in the world less than century ago, right?

Many men didn't have that right either. If I'm not wrong, UK and US men had to be conscripted in order to be able to vote. Women didn't have to go through that. In many other countries, female suffrage came right after men's or even at the same time.

Maybe you should stop assuming you are the arbiter of what women should be satisfied with having.

The hilarious thing is that you just did it. You picked one example out of many possibilities, it wasn't me who did that.

What do you even think you're railing against, here? Tell me. I'm really curious as to the exact concept you think you're fighting by bringing this up.

"Woman-oriented" means literally nothing. You know that, and you're being disingenuous by playing dumb.

Did you miss the restaurant analogy or what? Not sure who's playing dumb here, considering that it was what started the conversation.

I'm rallying against feminism having such an impact in the life of men, especially young men. The messages of toxic masculinity, the shaming, the lies, all that must be eradicated. Discriminatory laws have no room in the Western world either. The Spanish law of DV claims that domestic violence is always men to women and that anything that a man does to his wife is always worse than the other way around, as one thing is classified as DV, while the other is not. This is one of the things that are sending poisonous messages to children of both sexes.

Young boys are falling behind in the education and nothing is being done, except give them more ritalin because they want to be young boys, not girls.

What about the lies? "Teach men not to rape", the gender gap, the "male gaze", the toxic masculinity. All that is rubbish.

That's what I meant with my restaurant analogy. I grew up under a lot of that and it fucked me badly. Many men of my generation are total wimps who learned that they had to bow to the overladies unless they wanted to die alone because no woman would want to touch them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pretty good analogy, but I would like to point out something. If the waitress spat in your food, it might be that she is a terrible person, it might be the management is lax at that restaurant, but it also might be that you did something else to deserve it. We weren't there with you, it's up to you to look at it with an objective eye and figure out if you did something wrong and if so how to avoid doing that in the future. This is assuming you want to eat there. All the people at the soup Nazis place knew how to stand in line.

Another thing that sticks out for me is this idea you had that restaurants were perfect. I don't know who have you that idea, but they did you a disservice. I free up thinking restaurants are not infect because they are just businesses who are run by people and people are less than prefect. Yes, there are industry wonks who will tell you anything because their paycheck depends on it, but if you are dupped by them, who's fault is that? Part yours, part theirs, part "the system" but not really the restaurants'.

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

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

[–]CisWhiteMaelstrom 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (61 children) | Copy Link

TRPers spend so much time and so much thought energy trying to attract something that they spend equal amounts of time and thought energy denigrating.

You need to read the lurk some more. TRP is not a PUA community. In fact, we generally assume that they're losers. TRP acknowledges that sex is important and will discuss how to get it, but only as a thing on the side of our pursuit towards being better men. The problem with TBP is that they don't understand it at all and don't bother to try and figure out how that can rationally be true; instead their happy to just come up with a contradiction and feel uppity about it.

Although, here's an actual answer to your objection that doesn't rely on you reading the sidebar. Maybe, just maybe, we're not misogynists. We understand women and love them for what they are instead of for what we want ourselves to be. Maybe it's actually the feminists who are misogynists because feminists are so repulsed by what women actually are that they have to pretend that someone did that to them; they cannot see how women are deserving of any kind of love at all.

[–]CursedLemonA Bigger, Bluer Dick1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

You need to read the lurk some more. TRP is not a PUA community. In fact, we generally assume that they're losers. TRP acknowledges that sex is important and will discuss how to get it, but only as a thing on the side of our pursuit towards being better men. The problem with TBP is that they don't understand it at all and don't bother to try and figure out how that can rationally be true; instead their happy to just come up with a contradiction and feel uppity about it.

TBP (the non-monolithic group that it is) could not give two shits about men and their identity crises save for the fact that part of TRP involves dehumanizing women or equivalently elevating men as superior creatures in every area of self-actualization.

Although, here's an actual answer to your objection that doesn't rely on you reading the sidebar. Maybe, just maybe, we're not misogynists. We understand women and love them for what they are instead of for what we want ourselves to be. Maybe it's actually the feminists who are misogynists because feminists are so repulsed by what women actually are that they have to pretend that someone did that to them; they cannot see how women are deserving of any kind of love at all.

~~No person not hopelessly drowning in cognitive dissonance claims to "understand and love" something they claim to be fickle, superficial, evanescent, conniving, and emotionally juvenile.~~ Nevermind you're talking about how much you love fucking them, since what you consider women to be is a set of holes.

[–]CisWhiteMaelstrom 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]CursedLemonA Bigger, Bluer Dick0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]CisWhiteMaelstrom 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

Which according to you is...

A community dedicated to self actuality where nailing women is something we like to do, but very very far from the main point or the thing we work towards.

Only on the internet is throwing out a complete non-sequitur an actual argument strategy.

It's not a nonsequitur. You said that TRP thinks of women as just a couple holes. I countered that that's false. We understand femininity and cherish it. In the feminist lexicon, what femininity is amounts to just a couple useless holes but that's only because they don't appreciate femininity. TRP does and that's why we see the exact same description and cherish it. We can understand why it's lovable, important, beneficial, and not "just a couple holes". Feminists cannot conceive of how femininity is anything other than evil and so when they describe it, they think we're insulting women.

[–]CursedLemonA Bigger, Bluer Dick1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]CisWhiteMaelstrom 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]CursedLemonA Bigger, Bluer Dick1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]CisWhiteMaelstrom 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]CursedLemon4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CisWhiteMaelstrom2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CursedLemon3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CisWhiteMaelstrom2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

They probably exist, but they're the exception and not the rule. Men who lift and grow their body do better than slim ones. Although bringing up "mild-tempered" just shows that you don't understand TRP theory. Being anything other than mild tempered only shows that you can't hold frame and it hurts your chances of being taken seriously by men and women alike.

You're just not going to find them in the sensory deprivation chamber you call TRP.

I think this shows a very serious lack of self awareness. I already told you that spend most of my life as a blue piller. It's not like I don't understand it. Hell, I probably know feminist theory better than you do. I'm pretty well versed in all things BP and I understand the position very well.

You on the other hand, have brutally messed up TRP theory many many times. You don't know what it is, even in basic and nonspecific terms. You only know that it's wrong. Isn't that a bit like a sensory deprivation chamber?

[–]CursedLemon4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

They probably exist, but they're the exception and not the rule.

Yeah, if you consider 49% to be the "exception" to the 51% rule.

I think this shows a very serious lack of self awareness. I already told you that spend most of my life as a blue piller.

You spent most of your life being unsuccessful according to your own wants and standards. That doesn't mean you know jack shit about what everybody else is going through, and what they want.

It's not like I don't understand it. Hell, I probably know feminist theory better than you do. I'm pretty well versed in all things BP and I understand the position very well.

Okay.

You on the other hand, have brutally messed up TRP theory many many times. You don't know what it is, even in basic and nonspecific terms. You only know that it's wrong. Isn't that a bit like a sensory deprivation chamber?

No, I've presented the extrapolated truths of TRP, not the sugar-coated bullshit you guys bring in here that makes you out to be some sort of harmless, charming rascals.

[–]CisWhiteMaelstrom1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CursedLemon3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CisWhiteMaelstrom1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CursedLemon2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So you think that 49% of people are having so much sex that I couldn't even imagine it?

49.2386892% as luck would have it. I did the math. It's really complicated, lots of quantum computing and long division.

See this again just shows how little you know about TRP. A lot of what goes on there is finding and commenting on TRP things that non-TRPers say without even being aware of TRP. I would not be able to see anything you've written and identify it as such. You really know absolutely nothing about the red pill, except that it's wrong. It's like you can't even go one comment without accidentally fucking it up.

First of all, I fail to see how that particular sentence proves I know nothing about TRP, but maybe you're just being a contrarian idiot for the sake of it and I'm the fool for engaging.

Secondly, can you please try to remain on topic. Non-TRPers with healthy, satisfying sex lives exist and you're just going to have to swallow THAT pill, no matter how bitter it is. And don't you fucking dare come back at me with a No True Scotsman like I know you're going to.

[–]CisWhiteMaelstrom1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CursedLemon1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CisWhiteMaelstrom1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CursedLemon1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CisWhiteMaelstrom1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CursedLemon1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CisWhiteMaelstrom1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CursedLemon1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CisWhiteMaelstrom1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CursedLemon1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CisWhiteMaelstrom1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CursedLemon1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CisWhiteMaelstrom1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JacksambuckPurple Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]CisWhiteMaelstrom 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]CisWhiteMaelstrom 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]CisWhiteMaelstrom 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

If the theory isn't deep then why is it the case that we have to do those temp bans?

Because a bunch of people spent time writing out anecdotes and then attaching pseudo-intellectual language to their 'findings,' and they think these ramblings have constituted a situation where no one should have to answer questions about TRP. They screech about the sidebar until every unproven premise is accepted as fact so they don't have to deal with actual challenges to their "philosophy."

Why do we even have to endorse certain contributors?

I have no idea why certain contributors are "endorsed." I would say it's because most of them have blogs and write on this topic as if they are experts so because they present themselves as experts, they are treated like experts.

How do you differentiate between a theory that people think has depth and one that actually has depth?

Very simply. If there is depth (i.e. well supported premises backed by scientific studies, logic, reasoning, that contribute positively to the theories and hypotheses touted as true), then it is a theory that has depth. If it's mostly the same thing repackaged in different language supported by nothing more than personal anecdotes or pseudo-science, it's just the inane ramblings of someone that wants to believe something because it makes it easier for him to manipulate and harm others with his hedonistic mindset.

[–]CisWhiteMaelstrom -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

Because a bunch of people spent time writing out anecdotes and then attaching pseudo-intellectual language to their 'findings,' and they think these ramblings have constituted a situation where no one should have to answer questions about TRP. They screech about the sidebar until every unproven premise is accepted as fact so they don't have to deal with actual challenges to their "philosophy."

This seems demonstrably false. For instance, there's literally an entire sub, which you're even on right now, dedicated to TRPers responding to challenges to their philosophy.

I have no idea why certain contributors are "endorsed." I would say it's because most of them have blogs and write on this topic as if they are experts so because they present themselves as experts, they are treated like experts.

You have now made this a testable hypothesis. Go try this and become endorsed. After that, let everyone know that you just went Sokal on everyone's ass and become a BP hero.

Very simply. If there is depth (i.e. well supported premises backed by scientific studies, logic, reasoning, that contribute positively to the theories and hypotheses touted as true)

I won't doubt that if something has these factors then I'd call it a true theory, but I don't think it's a necessary condition. For instance, the hard problem of consciousness in the philosophy of mind has zero scientific studies and zero testable hypotheses on any side, but it's still a wide debate with a lot of depth. Same goes for questions like "What should we do about Israel?" Yeah, you can cite studies about what the facts of the matter are, but that doesn't tell us what we ought to do about them.

I'm also not sure what you mean by logic and reasoning. My understanding of those things is that all they mean is that we present arguments that have premises and we base our conclusions off of those premises. You can claim that our premises are garbage if you want, that's what the sub is for, but we clearly have premises that we base our conclusions off of.

[–]AlphaFemale92 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

which you're even on right now, dedicated to TRPers responding to challenges to their philosophy.

There is a small group of TRPers that are willing to engage in debate about the philosophy, and most of them aren't hard core pillers. They believe things like NAWALT and that some individual women don't fit into the paradigm. I've even see them say that there's not enough of a gray area in TRP. Lots of minor disagreements with the philosophy that make it easier for them to have reasoned debate with others. The extremists don't provide great debate on this sub, in my experience.

Go try this and become endorsed.

I do not have that much time to dedicate to TRP. I would have to create at least a 30 page thesis, a blog, and then write upwards of 100 long form articles on TRP and post them under a name I just create which will come off as disingenuous. Going completely underground in the TRP sub is something I don't have interest in doing, even though, yes, I could do it if I wanted to.

"What should we do about Israel?"

You will have people that bring reasoned ideas backed by studies, historical implications, and projected future impact. You're not just going to have people come in and say, "I experienced X and therefore X is a good plan moving forward." That's what you see on TRP.

the hard problem of consciousness in the philosophy of mind has zero scientific studies and zero testable hypotheses on any side,

Yes you can test consciousness. This is also a completely different philosophical situation (human consciousness, which exists squarely in the mind in concept), vs. TRP which deals with observable social realities and thus CAN be studied (if it was provable, it would have been, but it's not.)

You can claim that our premises are garbage if you want, that's what the sub is for, but we clearly have premises that we base our conclusions off of.

Yes but in most logical debates the premises are proven true. TRP rests upon a bunch of unproven premises that are just accepted by subscribers as fact. And part of the reason for that is because the main TRP sub doesn't encourage thoughtful analysis. "Read the sidebar" is not a thoughtful response to a question articulated by one of those people, and I don't care how insightful people believe that sidebar material is.

[–]CisWhiteMaelstrom1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

There is a small group of TRPers that are willing to engage in debate about the philosophy, and most of them aren't hard core pillers.

Okay. Well I'm a hardcore TRPer who's planning to live out my entire life based on TRP principles and I think it's basically right about everything, more or less. The theories still need to be developed. AMA.

I do not have that much time to dedicate to TRP. I would have to create at least a 30 page thesis, a blog, and then write upwards of 100 long form articles on TRP and post them under a name I just create which will come off as disingenuous.

If we're really a swarming pit of rape and misogyny, wouldn't you being able to do this a service to the world?

Though, why don't more people get flair if it's that easy? Why don't the hardcore TRPers get endorsed? Why don't the arrogant ones get endorsed? Why do people with blogs not get endorsed and why do people without blogs get endorsed? Do you think most TRPers are just too humble to present themselves as experts? We're not the most humble group in the world, at least not in the conventional sense. It arguably takes a lot of humility to undertake TRP's demands.

You will have people that bring reasoned ideas backed by studies, historical implications, and projected future impact.

But even with all of that, there remains the question of "What ought we to do?" Considering all of the disagreement in metaethics, normative ethics, applied ethics, politics, worldviews, and so on, it's unlikely that for any given set of facts we'd find any kind of agreement on what to do, how to think about what to do, which goals are commendable, or any of that. If you're setting the bar as low as that there just needs to be some studies and history thrown in there somewhere, then TRPers citing divorce rates, correlations between promiscuity and divorce, etc., should be enough to satisfy this. We cite some studies but leave a lot of the debate having no studies.

Yes you can test consciousness.

No, you actually can't. You can test behavior, report-ability, responsiveness, and so on, but you can't test that there's anything going on inside the person's mind.

http://consc.net/papers/facing.html

TRP which deals with observable social realities and thus CAN be studied (if it was provable, it would have been, but it's not.)

You're vastly underestimating how political science is. You can't get funding for proving that you should treat women like children. You'll lose your career for even bringing it up. The academy is political and the dominant politic is feminism. Studies are nice but if you disagree with the accepted paradigm then there's only so much you can do. You'd have to talk to MRAs to see how bad feminist studies tend to be though. Politics works both ways, in terms of what is not accepted and also in terms of what is.

Yes but in most logical debates the premises are proven true.

This isn't true. If this were true then there'd be no disagreement anywhere. We know what valid forms are, so if premises in general were proven to be true then we'd just find the valid form, plug it in, and agree on everything. We don't do that though because we can't prove all of our premises even in logical debates. As a matter of fact, philosophers as early as Sextus Empiricus have argued that it's not even possible to prove all of our premises.

[–]AlphaFemale92 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The theories still need to be developed.

You are right. They need to undergo significant changes, too.

Though, why don't more people get flair if it's that easy?

I don't post over there for obvious reasons, so I am not as well versed on how all aspects of that sub work. How long do you think it would take them to ban me? We could have a bet, and I could create a post and we could see which one of us is closer.

Why don't the hardcore TRPers get endorsed?

Because they sound nuts.

Why don't the arrogant ones get endorsed?

Because they don't use enough pseudo-intellectual language.

Why do people with blogs not get endorsed and why do people without blogs get endorsed?

The blog isn't the actual point. It's the volume of content the people create for TRP. People who write longer form comments/articles/blogs are more likely to be endorsed.

Do you think most TRPers are just too humble to present themselves as experts?

Humble, no. I think most of them just know they're not experts. Even the EC's are not experts. Isn't there an EC who has never so much as had a relationship much less had sex? I heard that. Why would you take advice from someone like that?

If you're setting the bar as low as that there just needs to be some studies and history thrown in there somewhere,

You think the bar I set is low, but you accept that TRP doesn't even meet that threshold. I'm speechless.

There is no support for a vast amount of TRP, studies or otherwise. Divorce rates have 0 to do with hypergamy, for example.

you can't test that there's anything going on inside the person's mind.

I disagree. An individual can test his/her own consciousness. Could one prove their consciousness to another? No but it could be tested. You're technically testing it every time you respond to a set of conditions.

You'll lose your career for even bringing it up.

You don't see the irony here, I assume. Meaning that you assume that something so ridiculous you would lose your career for bringing it up is actually reality. LOL. Cue the science is feminism and SO anti-man.

We know what valid forms are, so if premises in general were proven to be true then we'd just find the valid form, plug it in, and agree on everything.

A sound debate involves proven premises. They don't always have to be proven via studies although they are stronger if they are, but they do have to have some basis other than anecdotes.

[–]CisWhiteMaelstrom1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I don't post over there for obvious reasons, so I am not as well versed on how all aspects of that sub work. How long do you think it would take them to ban me? We could have a bet, and I could create a post and we could see which one of us is closer.

How about we each make a post on the same topic and see who gets more upvotes? I've been thinking about writing on frame, what it is, and how it's important for success with women. Want to each write on that and see who does better? I think that's a good topic because it requires a culmination of many different red pill ideas and there's less water under the bridge so our ideas have more room to be original.

How long do you think it would take them to ban me?

If you're concern trolling, being a feminist, shaming them to stop being TRPers, etc., then you'll get banned fast. If you just hang around and comment, depends. If you make your comments quick replies and questions then you'll probably never get banned. If you make long well thought out responses that show ignorance of TRP theories, you'll get temp banned within a week. If you're just a dumbass then you'll get downvoted and yelled at but not banned.

Because they sound nuts.

Even to other TRPers?

Because they don't use enough pseudo-intellectual language.

What about guys like GLO or humansockpuppet? Now, I don't think any of our endorsed subscribers speak in pseudo-intellectual language but those two in particular are very far in the opposite direction.

Even the EC's are not experts. Isn't there an EC who has never so much as had a relationship much less had sex? I heard that. Why would you take advice from someone like that?

Which EC is that? Veggiegirl's probably never bedded a woman for obvious reasons, but I've never heard this. If there isn't a name attached to the rumor then it's probably bullshit.

You think the bar I set is low, but you accept that TRP doesn't even meet that threshold. I'm speechless. There is no support for a vast amount of TRP, studies or otherwise.

You went speechless very quickly. I provided examples of things we do often give studies for, such as the link between promiscuity and divorce.

Divorce rates have 0 to do with hypergamy, for example.

TRPers don't think it does. We actually think that keeping yourself a hypergamous catch for your wife is the way to keep your marriage going. I don't want to be cheeky because we were actually having a good discussion, but there is some irony worth pointing out about you misinterpreting TRP theory in this discussion.

I disagree. An individual can test his/her own consciousness. Could one prove their consciousness to another? No but it could be tested. You're technically testing it every time you respond to a set of conditions.

But you do concede that my point stands for everyone else's consciousness?

You don't see the irony here, I assume. Meaning that you assume that something so ridiculous you would lose your career for bringing it up is actually reality. LOL. Cue the science is feminism and SO anti-man.

Christina Hoff Sommers and Warren Farrell were pretty easily ousted from the academy for becoming anti-feminists, though they weren't red pillers. There are certainly examples of this kind of thing happening. Feminists control the academy and don't like to be contradicted. There's a long history of this happening in science from way back when the church was doing it.

A sound debate involves proven premises. They don't always have to be proven via studies although they are stronger if they are, but they do have to have some basis other than anecdotes.

But we're unable to come up with a sound debate, at least not often in important matters. That's why disagreement occurs. We don't really know which premises are proven or good and so we just argue about it. The disagreement is really everywhere. Moreover, you should know that feminism relies on a lot of anecdotal information. Standpoint epistemology is the thesis that oppressed classes and the sentiments of oppressed classes need to be given extra weight in discussion even if all they have is anecdotes. Moreover, there's a lot of feminist ink being spilled on the importance of emotions/feelings, which are inherently anecdotal.

[–]AlphaFemale92 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'll have to create a throwaway if you're wanting me to post on TRP as if I support it. Somehow I think they might catch on that "AlphaFemale" is not a handle a hardcore TRPer would choose. Although I'm not sure what the point of me creating a post like that would be. I'm pointing out that a person like me who disagrees would get banned in a hot second. If I pretend to be a terper, I could prevent myself from being banned.

Even to other TRPers?

I can't speak for TRPers but extremists often have a way of even disenfranchising the base of supporters because they get a little too crazy.

Which EC is that?

I think it was Archwinger or Aerobus but I can't be sure. The person did say who it was; I just can't remember.

Veggiegirl's probably never bedded a woman for obvious reasons

Who is that and what would the reason be?

I provided examples of things we do often give studies for, such as the link between promiscuity and divorce.

Yes and I was saying those examples do not demonstrate that there is any value in TRP because TRP rests squarely on the premise that women are hypergamous, of which there is no scientific evidence supporting.

I don't want to be cheeky because we were actually having a good discussion, but there is some irony worth pointing out about you misinterpreting TRP theory in this discussion.

I actually knew I was going to have to clarify this point because I didn't explain it well enough, and I knew it was going to be misconstrued. The reason I said divorce rates are irrelevant to hypergamy is because it's premises like hypergamy that are completely unproven in TRP and have no scientific or empirical evidence to support it. I am not saying that just because one stat you mentioned doesn't support it, it's unproven. I'm saying you don't have evidence to support it at all, regardless of what studies you cite, and not being able to prove hypergamy would be like not being able to prove that mammals have evolved over time in attempting to prove evolutionary theory. It's that important, and it's completely unproven.

But you do concede that my point stands for everyone else's consciousness?

Not really, but I see why it's debatable. Like I can test my husband's consciousness by shit testing him. I'm kidding, but I could test it through any number of different scenarios: I ask him a question that I come up with through my consciousness, and then my question influences his consciousness and he responds. See what I'm saying? I understand you could rationalize that in a different way, that I have invented his response through my consciousness and he's not actually responding that way, but it's a pretty unfounded assumption to make and doesn't really hold water.

I understand that unpopular ideas are sometimes not well received, but it certainly doesn't make a point more valid to act like it's being suppressed simply because it's unpopular. The reason no one would attempt to prove that is because it's ridiculous. There are a lot of women that do not behave like children, who are ridiculously smart, who make positive contributions to society, etc. so there is evidence that contradicts any such point in reality anyway. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the existence of blue pill women necessarily disproves TRP because obviously AWALT is not factual.

[–]CisWhiteMaelstrom1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'll have to create a throwaway if you're wanting me to post on TRP as if I support it. Somehow I think they might catch on that "AlphaFemale" is not a handle a hardcore TRPer would choose. Although I'm not sure what the point of me creating a post like that would be. I'm pointing out that a person like me who disagrees would get banned in a hot second. If I pretend to be a terper, I could prevent myself from being banned.

Alright. The terms are set then? We each make a post on frame, what it is, how to use it, and how it helps you get women, and compare outcomes? Just send me a pm from your throwaway.

I think it was Archwinger or Aerobus but I can't be sure. The person did say who it was; I just can't remember.

I think it's probably not right to lay such a claim about the ECs without a name to drop or a link to where the info came about. It's not like there isn't a large group of people who shit talk TRP and ECs. It's also not like "virgin neckbeard basement dweller" isn't a common one.

Who is that and what would the reason be?

She's a she. She may have done girl on girl, but I imagine that's a different ballgame than being a man trying to get with women. I've never tried to be a part of girl on girl obviously, but I imagine it works differently. I've also never heard her say she's done it. At the very least, she's never successfully (or unsuccessfully) played the man's role in picking up women but she's still an EC.

Yes and I was saying those examples do not demonstrate that there is any value in TRP because TRP rests squarely on the premise that women are hypergamous, of which there is no scientific evidence supporting.

That women are hypergamous is more of an inference off of things which are well supported. It's kind of like how I can show you evidence that throwing rocks at a small child will make it cry, but I can't prove the inference that you shouldn't throw rocks at children. We have good data that men like Bill Clinton have a lot more interest from the other sex than women like Hilary Clinton. That this kind of thing amounts to hypergamy is the inference that can't really be proven, but seems reasonable enough to us.

This leads though, to one of the great things about TRP. We don't force anyone to swallow. If that's an unreasonable inference to you then you don't have to make it. It's just us sharing with each other. I think TRP gets the moral high ground over feminism in this regard. Feminists have good evidence that most politicians and high earners are men. Their unprovable inference is that this implies patriarchy. If that inference doesn't make sense to you then you've just gotta deal with it while they change the society you live in without your consent.

There are actually gaps between the data and the unprovable inferences nearly everywhere you look. To some extent, the entire field of philosophy is based on those gaps and how to handle them. The mind does a lot of shit for free in terms of assumptions, world views, etc., and each mind seems to do it a bit differently. What these inferences that our mind seems to do for free are, when they're misplaced, and when they aren't is extremely difficult to determine and throwing in disagreement makes the puzzle a total mess.

I ask him a question that I come up with through my consciousness, and then my question influences his consciousness and he responds. See what I'm saying? I understand you could rationalize that in a different way, that I have invented his response through my consciousness and he's not actually responding that way, but it's a pretty unfounded assumption to make and doesn't really hold water.

I think you might have misunderstood me. The hard problem of consciousness is a bit deeper than that. There are the easy problems such as how we focus attention, behavior, cognition, etc., and then there's the hard problem. The hard problem is proving that there's any "internal" life to another person. How do we know other people subjectively feel things? We can prove that they jerked their hand off of a hot stove but we can only show the physical part of the story. We can't actually prove the they felt pain and subjectively experienced it. Even if you show the firing c-fibers in their brain, the question of whether that amounts to subjective life to accompany it? I guess the simplest way to put it would be that we know other people have bodies, brains, and react to stimuli, but how do you know they have a mind?

I understand that unpopular ideas are sometimes not well received, but it certainly doesn't make a point more valid to act like it's being suppressed simply because it's unpopular.

I agree but I think that it might give an idea a bit of leeway. If we can accept that even if it were the case the TRP is true, it would not have supporting studies behind it in this political time period, then maybe we can investigate other means. That doesn't mean TRP automatically bypasses skepticism, but it means that it shouldn't be kicked off the table for not meeting one particular criteria that would be sufficient to prove its truth. Moreover, this is part of why TRP doesn't advertise. We know that we're largely locker room talk rather than science and as such, we don't go spread out ideology on the world. If the pill makes sense to someone, they can swallow and if not then they don't have to. We understand what our "truthiness" is, which is basically "true for us, but doesn't have to be true for you" and we keep it as such.

There are a lot of women that do not behave like children, who are ridiculously smart, who make positive contributions to society, etc. so there is evidence that contradicts any such point in reality anyway.

There are children who are ridiculously smart and make positive contributions to society. But this isn't really what we mean by women being like children anyways. We mean that relative to men, women lack the stoicism, sacrificial tendencies, non-solipsism, loyalty, and other qualities that would be necessary to survive as the disposable gender. A lot of us value smart productive women. We just don't expect them to act like our male friends do.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that the existence of blue pill women necessarily disproves TRP because obviously AWALT is not factual.

Blue pill is a bit hard to identify but I think feminist women don't prove that not AWALT. In fact, I kind of see it as the opposite. Look at feminism vs the red pill. Whether you love us or hate us, surely you respect our boot camp nature. We don't act like victims, we don't force society to change for us, we don't bitch about men's disadvantage relative to women, etc. If women don't like bony men then we lift. If men have trouble getting through education then we study harder. If young women are out earning men, we do whatever it takes to earn more. If women are enticed to divorce, we do what it takes to keep her around. You see a pattern. This is just good values, even if you think the rest is crap. This rise above mentality is a good thing by nearly everyone's account. Even if you think our methods are crap, the self accountability is admirable.

I don't see feminists doing that. If women aren't in engineering, lower the standards with affirmative action. If women aren't working as many hours as men, lobby to make it harder to get overtime or for their to be maximum hours to work. If men don't like fat women, support fat activism. If women aren't becoming CEO's, lobby for quotas. Feminism isn't a boot camp. In fact, it's a hug box where tone, niceness, and so on are required. A big part of AWALT is that women will be exactly like that. Rather than pick themselves up and go into a boot camp, they'll ask for help from the big strong men rather than face nature as agents. Even if NAWALT, feminist are like that.

That's really my deeper reason for thinking that feminism isn't the equality movement that it's advertised to be. Nobody denies that (successful) men get more stuff out of society but they do it through a boot camp, maybe not a TRP bootcamp, but it's always a bootcamp. Men are just built for that shit. There's no boot camp for feminism. It's asking for help from the big strong men, the theories literally deny agency for women by denying the influence of women throughout history and leaving it all as patriarchal as well as things like "teach men not to rape" rather than demanding agency to defend themselves, claiming the system and not women's actions need to be changed for equality, etc. Feminism is traditional gender roles gone wild. TRP is too, but we're honest about it.

[–]AlphaFemale91 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CisWhiteMaelstrom1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I actually really don't think feminists and RPW are diametrically opposed. I get that you didn't have time to read my whole posts, I really hope you get to it later because I put a lot of work into it. The last few paragraphs create an argument of why I don't think feminists fight traditional gender roles. The short answer for why I think feminists and RPWs are not diametrically opposed is because I think they similarly support traditional gender roles, but RPWs are just more open and honest about it. Read my post and then tell me where you think I'm going wrong on that.

I'm pretty happy to just drop the rest though, if only for brevity (though I still want to place the bet and I hope you at least read the whole thing). The last three paragraphs though, I think are the real heart of the discussion and directly address where this discussion shift is leading towards.

[–]AlphaFemale91 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CisWhiteMaelstrom1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale91 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The terms are set then? We each make a post on frame, what it is, how to use it, and how it helps you get women, and compare outcomes? Just send me a pm from your throwaway.

Yes I accept this challenge, but I don't know when I'll have the post ready to go up. I'll pm you when mine goes live and just keep track of yours and then we'll compare the results a couple of days after they've gone up.

I think it's probably not right to lay such a claim about the ECs without a name to drop

I dropped two names I just can't remember which one it was. This brings up another point though. How do you know any of these EC's have the experience they claim to have?

At the very least, she's never successfully (or unsuccessfully) played the man's role in picking up women but she's still an EC.

Why is she an EC?

That women are hypergamous is more of an inference off of things which are well supported.

Which things that are well supported?

It's kind of like how I can show you evidence that throwing rocks at a small child will make it cry, but I can't prove the inference that you shouldn't throw rocks at children.

That is nothing like the lack of proof that exists for hypergamy. You can prove empirically and statistically through scientific research that it causes pain, and causing others pain is undesirable.

We have good data that men like Bill Clinton have a lot more interest from the other sex than women like Hilary Clinton.

Bill Clinton was the President, not the President's spouse. Their "SMV" is hardly the same so comparing them is inaccurate. Also, those are two people out of billions. Extrapolating that a reality you haven't even fully observed regarding two people applies to everyone is why TRP is so ridiculous.

Feminists have good evidence that most politicians and high earners are men.

You do realize that women are more likely to create successful (long term) businesses right? Women owned businesses are less likely to fail than male owned businesses. Also, you acting like it's commonly accepted fact that "men" "earn" "more" (Yay generalizations!) when the entire reason they earn more is because of sexism is absurd.

We can't actually prove the they felt pain and subjectively experienced it.

You can if you believe what they say.

how do you know they have a mind?

We infer that others have a mind because our experiences demonstrate that we are similar to other human beings, and we have a mind so they also must have a mind. That's a natural progression of thought. Hypergamy is not. AWALT is not.

We mean that relative to men, women lack the stoicism, sacrificial tendencies, non-solipsism, loyalty, and other qualities that would be necessary to survive as the disposable gender.

Unfounded. Unproven. You have the burden of proof.

We don't act like victims,

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

we don't force society to change for us,

Trying to force society to stop evolving (i.e. stop feminism) is trying to enforce your misguided worldview on others.

we don't bitch about men's disadvantage relative to women,

WTF? Are you even being serious?

Feminism isn't a boot camp. In fact, it's a hug box where tone, niceness, and so on are required. A big part of AWALT is that women will be exactly like that.

First of all, TRP complains constantly about the plight of men, they constantly bemoan the changes in society (feminism) that are taking away their "rights," and in fact are constantly acting like victims. TRPers are by and large extremely overly emotional, angry, bitter people (maybe not you specifically, but that's the most common thread among TRPers is the jealousy, anger, and bitterness). Compassion and empathy aren't the only emotions on earth. Anger and bitterness ARE emotions, and they come out of TRP incessantly. In addition to that, feminism trying to encourage civilized (or "nice" as you call it) treatment of other human beings is not weakness. Weakness is not being able to tolerate other viewpoints without vitriol. Weakness is picking on other people, bullying others, and harming others simply because you can. Acting like savages doesn't require mental strength; creating a peaceful society where people can be whoever they want to be requires mental strength. A society in which people are encouraged to treat people with respect and kindness is the kind of society we should ALL strive to create, if not for ourselves, then for our children.

Nothing about mainstream TRP applies to me personally. Once you really and truly begin to understand that, you may begin to understand why your personal TRP philosophy is not as universal as you might assume. I'm going to remove this information about myself after you've read it so let me know.

[–]CisWhiteMaelstrom2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yes I accept this challenge, but I don't know when I'll have the post ready to go up. I'll pm you when mine goes live and just keep track of yours and then we'll compare the results a couple of days after they've gone up.

Okay, an account needs to be one week old to post on /r/theredpill. How about we set a deadline for next Tuesday. That way we have some time to think and you have time to make the account.

I dropped two names I just can't remember which one it was. This brings up another point though. How do you know any of these EC's have the experience they claim to have?

You didn't bring up two names in the meaningful ways. You gave two maybes. You didn't say "Here's the EC and here's the reason. I believe them because the things they advocate work for me and they seem better at it. Plus they're respected by guys who definitely have the experiences they claim to have. GLO's posted pics and it's hard to believe he's not getting laid; he's also posted pics of his g/f. HumanSockPuppet's posted pics of his text game and it's fantastic.

Which things that are well supported?

You know, gotta be honest. I just realized that I've never looked at a study to show that men with better bodies, more friends/social status, more money, better educations, etc., are more desired. I'm really just going on personal experience here. If we're not being exclusive to studies though, can we at least rely on that it's always been a trope in all cultures even since ancient times that men with their shit together appeal to women? And can we follow up with an intuition that men if that appeals to women then the men with the most of those things will appeal to women the most?

Why is she an EC?

From the point of view that women are hated/disrespected by TRP and that TRP theories lack depth, it might be impossible to say why. My answer is because women aren't hated, the theories are deep, and to everyone's surprise that fish really fucking knows how to fish and so we recognize true expertise.

That is nothing like the lack of proof that exists for hypergamy. You can prove empirically and statistically through scientific research that it causes pain, and causing others pain is undesirable.

But you can't bridge the gap between "undesired" and "you shouldn't do it". I also had to change "undesirable" to "undesired" there since you can't prove undesirable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

Unfounded. Unproven. You have the burden of proof.

When we evolved, there was one fundamental inequality. Women are the limiting factor in reproducing and men are not. 80,000 years ago, the death of one woman meant more of a population loss than the death of 50 men. For this reason, women were intrinsically valuable to the tribe just for showing up. They automatically provide value. Men don't have this trump card. We don't intrinsically provide shit. Sperm is too easy to come by.

As result, men earned their keep by doing services. We hunt, fish, fight in wars, assist women, etc. Men who could not do this were useless losers who did nothing but leech. Men evolved the tools necessary to do the job because Achilles would get more women than some scrub. Because of that, men evolved the tools necessary to do the job. We evolved the psychological tools to charge up a hill under bayonet fire, to hold our ground against a mammoth, and to work tirelessly to bring that value.

We also evolved to be sacrificial. Males of other species evolved this too. The praying mantis lets himself get eaten after mating because those calories provide the female with the energy to go on an make a baby. He doesn't evolve a self defense mechanism because it's more evolutionarily successful for the woman to survive. Men are the same way. We do better evolutionarily if the woman carrying our child survives. If there's a lion at the door to our shelter, we're better off fighting it off with a spear to let the mother run out the back then we are running away. We evolved with this sacrifice internalized.

That's where men get the tools to work and sacrifice. Individual women might work hard, but as a group they don't. The wage gap exists because women don't make the sacrifices (ie. less fun field, worse hours, more hours, longer commute, more danger, etc) that lead to a higher paycheck. That's our genes speaking to us. I'd respect feminism if it were a bootcamp to get women to do that stuff, but it isn't so I don't.

We don't act like victims,

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

we don't bitch about men's disadvantage relative to women,

WTF? Are you even being serious?

Maybe I phrased it badly. We don't merely bitch. Acting like a victim involves asking for help and damseling. We don't do that. Yes, we get angry and talk about how much things suck but the victim mentality isn't there because we don't respond by breaking down, crying about it, or any of that. We just see it as a call to arms and get into the boot camp. We scoop ourselves up from disadvantage without asking for help. That's not victimhood. That's agency and taking charge.

Trying to force society to stop evolving (i.e. stop feminism) is trying to enforce your misguided worldview on others.

TRPers don't do either of these things, at least not qua TRP. MRAs try to stop feminism because they don't see it as the evolution of society. I think my last post included a very good argument about why feminism is the enforcement of traditional gender roles and not the evolution of society. MRAs just see it as more sexism and nothing new of useful. I personally fight feminism, but qua MRA, not qua TRP. TRPers don't like feminism but our solution is to get back in the bootcamp and work harder to overcome the difficulties that feminists throw at us.

TRPers generally don't talk about fight club and part of following our laws of power is to not rock the boat in terms of what you say. We don't advertise our sub. We don't defend ourselves off of PPD when our views are attacked. We don't try to represent anywhere. We tell members not to unplug their friends. We really just get back to the boot camp and work harder.

In addition to that, feminism trying to encourage civilized (or "nice" as you call it) treatment of other human beings is not weakness. Weakness is not being able to tolerate other viewpoints without vitriol.

Feminism does not tolerate other viewpoints. After you make your throwaway, go try to argue on /r/feminism that false rape accusations are an enormous problem. See how fast you get banned. They want you to be gentle with the women but will really cream you for disagreeing with them.

Weakness is picking on other people, bullying others, and harming others simply because you can.

When I was a blue pill MRA, I felt pretty bullied by feminists. They constantly cry out "What about teh menssss". They censor your ideas. They try to shame you and call you a rapist just for talking about male issues. You don't see this behavior because you're a feminist but it's really everywhere and when you're not one of them, it's just so right in your face and impossible to ignore.

A society in which people are encouraged to treat people with respect and kindness is the kind of society we should ALL strive to create, if not for ourselves, then for our children.

Feminism is a hug box but they don't extend this treatment to people outside of the hug box.

[–]AlphaFemale91 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I just realized that I've never looked at a study to show that men with better bodies, more friends/social status, more money, better educations, etc., are more desired.

That's not hypergamy. It may be tangentially related to the concept, but it's not the same thing. Some nonsense about how all women branch swing from man to man at ANY time during their relationship, and that women always (yes, always, according to TRP) "marry up." This is what you can't prove.

But you can't bridge the gap between "undesired" and "you shouldn't do it".

Yes you can. My consciousness finds pain undesirable. Since my natural instinct is to protect children, I can naturally infer that I will not take actions that cause children pain. I can very easily rationalize exactly why throwing rocks at children is unacceptable behavior. I can't speak for your consciousness, but I assume you could use the exact same logical progression of thought.

Sperm is too easy to come by.

I see why you look at it this way, but you can say that women are just as replaceable, which is why men try to have sex with as many women as possible rather than investing time in one man (more likely to happen with women).

We evolved with this sacrifice internalized.

Women evolved with this sacrifice mentality as well. Ultimately it's not to save the woman; it's to save the child. We are hard wired to protect our offspring. This isn't unique to men.

(ie. less fun field, worse hours, more hours, longer commute, more danger, etc) that lead to a higher paycheck.

This is wrong. Men accept this because they think they have to...none of that actually necessarily leads to a higher paycheck. Sorry. For example, the CEO of Yahoo makes more than any man working a dangerous job with horrible hours in an oil field. That's just a fact. Men want to think their contributions to the workforce are unique and special so they invent these wild justifications for why they get more pay, when it's actually just as simple as, institutionalized sexism prevents women from being perceived as equally competent as men they are ACTUALLY equally competent to.

Acting like a victim involves asking for help and damseling.

We fundamentally disagree here. I see TRPers and MRAs all the time damseling like their situations are so unfair and whining all the live long day about it. Just because they act like barbarians in the way they phrase it doesn't make it actually different from acting civilized when you complain.

we don't respond by breaking down, crying about it, or any of that.

It's amusing that you think feminists are doing that. I find it really bizarre that you think women don't pick themselves up and take charge. You don't know any women like me; that's for sure.

After you make your throwaway, go try to argue on /r/feminism that false rape accusations are an enormous problem.

The reason that wouldn't go over well is because it's not an enormous problem. RAPE is an enormous problem. False rape accusations, conversely, are very rare.

Feminism exists because of the MRA, PUA, TRP movements. Just yesterday there was a post on TRP talking about how no matter what she stands for politically, Hilary Clinton shouldn't be president because she's a woman. Then you all feign ignorance about why feminism is necessary. It's truly a baffling situation. Don't think women are equal to men? Pat yourself on the back for keeping feminism alive.

[–]CisWhiteMaelstrom1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That's not hypergamy.

It's very related. Let's take education for instance. I'm sure we can agree on that women usually prefer well educated men, even without a study. But what constitutes a good education is relational to your own situation. I remember that when I was a freshman, I thought I was very well educated. From things I see said about freshman, it seems like that's a common belief for them to hold. Now I'm graduating and I don't take them seriously because they lack education. From what I see others say about freshman, that's a common belief too.

So then, if a woman has a masters degree, she isn't going to see a bachelor's degree as a well educated man. To get attractiveness from education, you need either a masters or a PhD. If she has a PhD, you better have a terminal degree as well. It's not absolute though in the sense that you can make up for deficiencies by winning in other areas. For instance, my dad only has a bachelors from a nonprestigious university whereas his girlfriend has a PhD from Harvard. He's deficient in that sense but he makes up for it by making her salary a dozen times over.

Some nonsense about how all women branch swing from man to man at ANY time

TRP doesn't say this, or at least not as it's being presented here. It's hard for a man to get a woman to swing branches. Either the SMV gap of the prospect has to be more of a chasm or the current SO has to stop delivering, allowing Briffault's law to take place. Saying this can happen at any time doesn't mean that there's just a random number generator and if it false on the wrong one, you lose your SO. It means that you can never stop delivering. If I'm with a woman for five years or even married to her and I decide that I'm safe so I let my body go, quit my job, or quit earning money for the family, etc., because I thought that after five years (or ten or twenty) I'm just safe, then I'm going to lose my SO. The 20 years I put into her, the leg I lost for her, or that I quit smoking for her (random examples that don't describe me), won't stop that from happening.

But is this even bad behavior from women by nonTRP standards? If you were with a man who decided he was safe and so he let himself go physically, professionally, in personality, or whatever made you attracted to him, would you stick around? I wouldn't blame you if you didn't. I wouldn't even chant AWALT, I'd just tell the man he got what he deserved. Likewise, if you met a guy who you completely knew would commit to a relationship with you and you were just unbelievably attracted to him in every way and you're current SO couldn't even come close to measuring up, you wouldn't consider ending your relationship?

but you can say that women are just as replaceable,

Women aren't even close to as replaceable. If I really wanted to and the world conspired to let me do it and I had godlike SMV, I could easily impregnate 20,000 women before I die without any help from anyone. A woman, even aided by technology, would never be able to get impregnated by more than 50 men. Thus, women limit reproduction. If the tribe loses 500 men, you get some other men to impregnate those women. If the tribe loses 500 women, they just lost 500-2000 people from the next generation. One of those sexes is much more disposable than the other.

which is why men try to have sex with as many women as possible rather than investing time in one.

You're looking from the wrong point of view. From the supreme alpha's point of view, yes women are replaceable. From the tribes' point of view in terms of its survival and procreation, they aren't. That one man may just get another woman, but the tribe's still short some kids and that has big effects on how well it'll survive.

We are hard wired to protect our offspring. This isn't unique to men.

This isn't the theory. We put it on a hierarchy with children on top, women in the middle, and men on the bottom. You sacrifice for those above you, but not those below you. You can rely on those below you to have your back unconditionally but not those above you. That's also where women being like children comes from. It's not that we're calling you a bunch of stupid six year olds, your place on the hierarchy is just similar in that regard. Plus, women keep their neotenous traits a bit longer but that's a secondary reason.

This is wrong. Men accept this because they think they have to...none of that actually necessarily leads to a higher paycheck. Sorry. For example, the CEO of Yahoo makes more than any man working a dangerous job with horrible hours in an oil field.

The way that monetary value is determined in economics is supply and demand. The CEO of yahoo has great ideas, he connects people, he has a great education, etc. For that reason there's a very high demand for him and so he gets paid a lot. For men who aren't as well off, they don't have the tools to foster such demand. As such, they foster demand by doing the work that nobody else wants to do, like working in an oil field. Since nobody wants to do it, there isn't enough of a supply to meet the demand. Because of that, the earnings go up. Men need those earnings to defer their disposability by providing value to women, so they take those jobs. That's why risk does give a higher paycheck, but not the highest paycheck. A potentially offering his life or his health is more valuable than a man who won't, but less valuable than a PhD.

That's only one metric that factors into the wage gap. For instance, men work more hours. The CEO of yahoo probably would raise his paycheck. Women will also knowingly take a lower paying job if the commute is nice, or they'll major in a more fun field, etc. The jobs women work pay lower because virtually anyone would do them. Being a teacher is sweet. You get to play with kids, work fewer hours than I will, be playful, etc. Everyone wants to be a teacher and so we have an enormous surplus, which affects the market. The only reason they're paid as they are is because of political pressure to raise their salaries.

it's actually just as simple as, institutionalized sexism prevents women from being perceived as equally competent as men they are ACTUALLY equally competent to.

This is difficult to say, actually. What feminists often cite is the John/Jennifer study, but it's not a perfect study. We don't know the true sample because we don't know which universities they applied to, how many they got hired by, and so on. We know 127 people were asked in total, but it's hard to know how many were really relevant to each part, especially since John and Jennifer weren't great applicants. It's not something to dismiss, but it's not a game ending argument either. Cornell sent out two reports in 2010 and 2014 using a much larger sample. They tracked men and women in the sciences, controlled for life decisions, and didn't find sexism.They're on /r/mrref. To me it seems likely that women probably see sexism on the CV but men see sexism somewhere else, and overall each sex is the same.

If you're a hardcore feminist and think men and women are basically the same and would make basically similar choices then the lack of women in sciences will make you look for sexism. If you think it's plausible that men and women are different, then the trend just has to do with what women want. This is also why I think feminism is misogynistic. From how they speak of things like career choices, that nobody would be ___ enough to actually make the decisions women make without being forced, controlled, or oppressed into it, it seems like if women just by nature gravitate towards those things then feminists just hate the nature of women.

We fundamentally disagree here. I see TRPers and MRAs all the time damseling

MRAs do damsel and it pissed me off. That's why I've mostly switched to TRP. I'm still kind of an MRA, but I find myself just getting pissed off at the damseling and begging for help. You're really wrong about TRP though. You need to understand what it is and why it exists in order to see why, but you are wrong about it. TRP exists because lots of men realized that life is hard for men, nobody's looking out for you, you don't get a patriarchy with your best interests in mind, and nobody's got your back except your. We discuss how to have our own backs and be successful in this world. Just due to our realization, men's rights issues and getting angry about them is fundamental to who we are.

It's amusing that you think feminists are doing that.

Feminism isn't like TRP in this sense. Feminism really isn't a boot camp. There might be individuals who happen to take it that way but it's fundamentally not one. In the TRP boot camp, if you major in English and can't earn then you get told that you fucked up. Nobody tells you that a patriarchy did it. In the TRP boot camp, if you get raped then you need to lift or find therapy. In the TRP bootcamp, if you stay with a batterer then that's your fault for making bad decisions because men should set better boundaries than that. You don't get understanding and a hug for being a victim with victim psychology. Feminism isn't like TRP. It defers problems onto society or patriarchy instead of telling women to go lift.

it's not an enormous problem. RAPE is an enormous problem. False rape accusations, conversely, are very rare.

The data's actually ambiguous there. Different studies, depending on the political biases of the team as well as how they defined things like "false rape accusation" have found the number to be everywhere from 1%-90%. We have no idea how often they occur. Moreover, there's an epistemic problem. Now that standards of evidence have been lowered and politics have been especially victim friendly, it's hard to say how many are false. Look at cases like Emma sulc, Duke, and UVA, and how borderline impossible those were to get proven false.

[–]CisWhiteMaelstrom1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Just realized I forgot to reply to your last paragraph:

Feminism exists because of the MRA, PUA, TRP movements.

No it doesn't. Feminism precedes those movements by 100-300 years depending on how you define feminism. I also never said anything about PUAs. I don't think they're evil, but I don't really defend or respect them. I think they're kind of losers.

Hilary Clinton shouldn't be president because she's a woman. Then you all feign ignorance about why feminism is necessary.

I see most of discussion on Hilary Clinton being unfit to be president because she's going to put women first. She's actually said herself that she wants to use the presidency to bring gender issues (ie feminist) to the front for everyone to see. As someone who disagrees with feminism both in that they've accurately described the world and in their normative implications, I think that's a good reason not to vote for her.

Don't think women are equal to men?

I believe in equality of opportunity and I don't think that feminists have fought for that. I think they botched it by making the fundamental assumption that men and women are basically the same and so without sexism, will make the same choices. Now, feminists see inequality of outcome as unequal consideration of interests of opportunity and they use this to hunt down men. It's gotten to the point where men are all but exempt from education, work fewer white collar jobs, their businesses receive less govt benefits, etc. It's unfair because it's a logical response to a large set of illogical assumptions.

[–]AlphaFemale91 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Let me rephrase: Feminism still exists because of the MRA, PUA, TRP movements. Feminism will not be obsolete until men stop trying to rationalize misogyny and come up with laundry lists of reasons they believe they are "better" or, the more PC version, "different" than women. If you don't think women are as competent, then we will continue to prove you wrong until you literally have no other legs to stand on. You really don't have many now, but you get into groups and think your random anecdotes override the body of evidence suggesting that women actually ARE just as capable as men.

I believe in equality of opportunity and I don't think that feminists have fought for that.

It fits the male-first, women-second narrative, so I'm not surprised.

I think they botched it by making the fundamental assumption that men and women are basically the same and so without sexism, will make the same choices.

It's always stunning to me when people actually argue that men and women are that different. We're all human beings. It's easy for you, a man, to justify your maltreatment of women (yes, we consider it maltreatment to be viewed as if we are less competent because of vagina alone) if you ignore all of the evidence around you that suggests that competent women ARE in fact leaving the world better off than they found it. Many men do the same thing, and then other men don't. There's no reason to act like people of a certain gender MUST be one way when it is so often not the case. What we've learned about women in the workforce over the past 100 years is that they are capable, competent, and hard workers.

I see most of discussion on Hilary Clinton being unfit to be president because she's going to put women first.

That's not what was said.

[–]CisWhiteMaelstrom1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Let me rephrase: Feminism still exists because of the MRA, PUA, TRP movements.

Can you support this? I've never seen any evidence that feminism was dying before those groups came along. Moreover, the recent Vox poll shows a record low number of feminists so those groups clearly aren't doing a great job at keeping feminism around.

If you don't think women are as competent, then we will continue to prove you wrong until you literally have no other legs to stand on. You really don't have many now, but you get into groups and think your random anecdotes override the body of evidence suggesting that women actually ARE just as capable as men.

I'm making no comment about capability. I'm saying that as a group, women will be less likely to make the decisions that men make in order to be successful. So far, I'm not proven wrong. The closest thing I am to being proven wrong is that when the bar lowers for women to enter certain fields, more of them enter those fields.

It fits the male-first, women-second narrative, so I'm not surprised.

How is equality of opportunity a male-first, women-second narrative?

It's always stunning to me when people actually argue that men and women are that different. We're all human beings.

Why stop the classification at human beings? Could a cat argue that it's ridiculous to argue that we're different since afterall, we're both mammals?

It's easy for you, a man, to justify your maltreatment of women (yes, we consider it maltreatment to be viewed as if we are less competent because of vagina alone) if you ignore all of the evidence around you that suggests that competent women ARE in fact leaving the world better off than they found it.

Again, never said anything about competence. I said as a group, women will make different choices.

That's not what was said.

Can you link to the thread?

[–]CisWhiteMaelstrom1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale91 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

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

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]purple_lockPurplish4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

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

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

Not really. Its very hard to say anything that doesn't toe the party line in the current atmosphere of feminism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology#Controversies

None of these are particularly unreasonable. What should matter whether they're wrong or not. But what actually matters is whether they're politically correct.

There's a well documented phenomenon in science where any studies that aren't "publishable" aren't even done. Or well, obviously not published.

I'll leave it to your imagination where most non-politically correct ideas stand on the publishable spectrum.

Also, psychology as a field is incredibly leftist dominated(source) and generally does not take opinions seriously that do not agree with it, regardless of the science on it.

For example;

here you have a bunch of evidence for racist conclusions effectively non-flattering to a variety of races: http://www.humanbiologicaldiversity.com/

However, you will never ever hear about any of this frankly shocking evidence. It is just politically incorrect. There are few arguments to it besides efforts to claim that some of the variables are unaccounted for. But even those positions are untenable for lack of evidence to the contrary. The findings will never be explored or given weight though.

[–]RichardPalma1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]purple_lockPurplish0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CursedLemonA Bigger, Bluer Dick-3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]RichardPalma0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]CursedLemonA Bigger, Bluer Dick0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]ECoast_ManRed Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dejourPurple Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

I think that a lot of the stuff on TRP is debatable, but most things have some scientific background.

If you spend any time on it, you'll have encountered posts linking to scientific studies supporting the key aspects.

Take hypergamy for instance.

Wikipedia links to several scientific studies examining the concept. There's room for debate, but there is significant scientific evidence.

You end up with posts like this:

https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2010/06/30/science-continues-proving-me-right/

People will use cherry-picked studies, and make large extrapolations that aren't necessarily warranted. Does the fact that 21 percent of women have herpes and just 11.5% of men mean that hypergamy exists? I think it supports the notion but there's room for debate.

I think that you are underestimating the amount of science in TRP. But you do have a point that it highly ideological. A study that supports TRP will be shared widely, and one that doesn't will be criticized widely (even if they are equally scientific and equally flawed)

[–]taiboworksrational idealism > toxic egoism0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HappilySingleWoman 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]dejourPurple Pill Man1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]HappilySingleWoman 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]OfSpock0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dejourPurple Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

Title	Misconceptions about the blue pill.
Author	HappilySingleWoman
Upvotes	5
Comments	140
Date	April 11, 2015 7:39 PM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/329dh7/misconceptions_about_the_blue_pill/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/misconceptions-about-the-blue-pill.282710 https://theredarchive.com/post/282710

Comments