TRP and Manipulation | PurplePillDebate

[–]rp132 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (125 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (109 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (108 children) | Copy Link

[–]rp132 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (98 children) | Copy Link

BP is "nice guy" behavior: "If you are just really nice and treat people with respect they'll find you attractive" no they won't. Treating people nice hoping to get something out of it isn't nice. It's manipulative.

Trying to "talk to someone about your problems. Come to an understanding" involves sitting someone down, trying to offer them things and verbally negotiate desire. Sometimes with implied threats. This is manipulation.

Basically, expecting anyone to do anything with a covert expectation or by following social convention or trying to verbally negotiate terms or try to guilt anyone into doing anything or feeling anything is manipulation.

You know what's not manipulative? Don't demand anything or expect anything. Become physically attractive (fit) and emotionally attractive (not needy/abundant/independant/self-reliant). Give to people the time and energy and respect that you want to give them and don't expect anything in return. Spend your energy on people who earn it, and drop people who expect to take your life for free.

If no one wants what you are selling, don't pressure them, just improve the product or the packaging and try again with someone else.

Not manipulative.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago* (97 children) | Copy Link

BP is "nice guy" behavior: "If you are just really nice and treat people with respect they'll find you attractive" no they won't.

There appears to be two different definitions of BP going around here. One is the behavior of pre-RP terps, and the other is the perception of feminist views held by terps.

I'm a feminist, so this is my point of view: you're right, being a "nice guy" doesn't entitle you to jack shit. No girl is going to hook herself to your arm because you're "nice"; basic courtesy is as big an accomplishment as getting out of bed in the morning.

Treating people nice hoping to get something out of it isn't nice. It's manipulative.

No, it's not particularly manipulative. It's selfish, for sure.. but to manipulate someone is to skillfully control them. If being "nice" was an effective form of manipulation, you'd be getting what you want and you wouldn't need the red pill.

Trying to "talk to someone about your problems. Come to an understanding" involves sitting someone down, trying to offer them things and verbally negotiate desire. Sometimes with implied threats. This is manipulation.

You're not trying to "negotiate desire"; you're trying to meet at a middle ground. It's absolutely childish to believe that you can get everything you want, and when there's two people involved (such as in a relationship), you need to work out how both of you can get the most out of each other.

If your expectation is to always, unilaterally get what you want, you're probably better off single. Your girlfriend is not an accessory, you're in a relationship with her. It's a mutual understanding.

You know what's not manipulative? Don't demand anything or expect anything. Become physically attractive (fit) and emotionally attractive (not needy/abundant/independant/self-reliant). Give to people the time and energy and respect that you want to give them and don't expect anything in return. Spend your energy on people who earn it, and drop people who expect to take your life for free.

This would be wonderful if it were the things /r/theredpill regularly advocated, but they're not. You have negging, you have dread game, and predatory pick-up techniques... a whole lot of the sub seems to be devoted to belittling and controlling women. You guys only bring up self-improvement when confronted with the miriad of ways you try to manipulate women into fulfilling your selfish desire for a fuck-thing or wife-servant.

If no one wants what you are selling, don't pressure them, just improve the product or the packaging and try again with someone else.

And yet you bitch and moan when women leave you, because "loyalty and honor are male virtues". Pfff.

Not manipulative.

Yes manipulative.

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

Don’t demand anything or expect anything. Become physically attractive and emotionally attractive. Give to people the time and energy and respect that you want to give them and don’t expect anything in return. Spend your energy on people who earn it, and drop people who expect to take your life for free.

This is exactly what the Red Pill advocates, summarized very nicely. If you add “from women” or “to women” to most of the above sentences, you’ll recognize it. I’ll elaborate in highly exaggerated anti-woman terms so that you’ll recognize all of that as basic Red Pill 101:

“Don’t demand anything or expect anything” - Don’t expect sex or romance, or for that matter anything valuable, from any woman, even your girlfriend or wife. Don’t talk about it, don’t ask for it, don’t try to negotiate her into wanting you or liking you more with stupid-ass communication. Communication will just turn her off. You can’t change a woman’s nature. Communication is for losers. Keep your damn mouth shut or you’ll dry up her vagina. Your mouth is for agreeing and amplifying, and putting in various places on her body. Not talking about your thoughts and feelings.

“Become physically attractive and emotionally attractive” – You can’t change women. Change yourself instead. Lift heavy shit, eat healthy, and get an awesome body. Groom and dress well. Practice social skills (a.k.a. “game”). Talk to a lot of women and get used to doing it, until rejection is no big deal and you really don’t care about outcomes any more. Talk to them like you would anyone else who you don’t want to fuck, with the same tone, banter, and standards (a.k.a. “negging”). Girls fuck guys who don’t give a fuck. Guys who care about girls are sexless losers.

“Give to people the time and energy and respect that you want to give them and don’t expect anything in return” – Do what you want. You don’t have any obligation to do shit for anybody, especially women, and if you do happen to do shit for women, they probably won’t do anything for you. So do what you want or what betters your life, and if girls happen to want to follow along suckle on that energy you’re expending, good for them. But don’t expect it.

“Spend your energy on people who earn it, and drop people who expect to take your life for free” – Don’t waste your time doing shit for women or loser men unless you’re getting something of equal value out of it. If somebody isn’t giving you something you want, drop them. Go silent. Stonewall. Agree and amplify. Laugh at them. Whatever. Go spend your energy elsewhere, with valuable people instead. Maybe if crap women see you leaving them behind and having a blast with other people, they’ll get their heads out of their asses for fear of losing you (a.k.a. “dread game”).

[–]rp132 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (95 children) | Copy Link

There appears to be two different definitions of BP going around here. One is the behavior of pre-RP terps, and the other is the perception of feminist views held by terps.

Good point. Pre-RP terps is what I try to focus on. Straw-man definitions of feminism bore me.

I'm a feminist,

Check my flair.

If being "nice" was an effective form of manipulation, you'd be getting what you want and you wouldn't need the red pill.

My point is that it is about intent. Doing things for someone supposedly just to be nice but with the intent of getting something in return is manipulative. You're attempting to gain political capital and then cash it in for affection. Or guilt.

you need to work out how both of you can get the most out of each other.

This phrase completely disgusts me. How can you say the phrase "We need to sit down and work out how the both of us can get the most out of each other" with a straight face while ALSO claiming to not be the transactional and manipulative one?

Relationships aren't trade negotiations with contracts and exchanges and transactions of guilt and affection and sex and time....relationships are voluntary gifts of shared experience.

You can't and ABSOLUTELY should not try to negotiate someone into "getting more out of them" that's manipulative as fuck. Simply be amazing and hope they see it and improve your life. Improve their life too if you desire. If they fail to improve your life then smile and move on. Surround yourself with positive people don't try to legislate negative ones into action. THATS manipulative.

If your expectation is to always, unilaterally get what you want, you're probably better off single. Your girlfriend is not an accessory, you're in a relationship with her.

We completely agree. This is why TRP advocates not being in LTRs.

Say it with me: if you aren't getting enough of what you want out of a relationship naturally, then you should not attempt to force it, demand it, or expect it, you should either try to bring more to the table yourself or politely exit

It's a mutual understanding.

Sort-of. The mutual understanding is that if you don't love me enough to improve my overall quality of life, I will find someone who will. I expect you will do the same. That's the ONLY understanding that isn't coercive or manipulative.

This would be wonderful if it were the things /r/theredpill regularly advocated, but they're not.

You have negging,

Also called treating them like people when they fuck up instead of following the sexist objectification script

You have dread game

Also called making yourself happy and valuable and not being ashamed of it.

predatory pick-up techniques...

Also called "talking to women and allowing them to consent to sleep with you". Side note, TRP hates the PUA community generally...but that doesn't matter. I don't know specifically what techniques you are referring to, but it always struck me as INCREDIBLY sexist to remove women's agency when making choices of who they would like to spend time with. If I go to a bar, smile at a sober woman, say some cheesy line, and she thinks I'm cute laughs and kisses me...the ONLY POSSIBLE JUSTIFICATION that you could use to accuse me of hurting her is to say that she's too dumb and vulnerable to make her own informed decisions as an adult about who she wants to kiss. Fuck you and your sexist shit man.

If pick-up was truely predatory it wouldn't be about lines or confidence or dressing well or having social proof or working out, it would be about roofie chemistry and effective knot-tying and how to avoid dark areas with cameras. Since women DO have agency and are, you know, people, not children, you can't claim I'm victimizing one of them with a racy joke.

And yet you bitch and moan when women leave you, because "loyalty and honor are male virtues". Pfff.

I don't bitch and moan about it. I don't know anyone who does. The point of it is that if someone doesn't want to be with you they shouldn't be and they can go ahead and leave. I also don't think I said "loyalty and honor are male virtues". To the extent that Terpers say it, usually they mean that loyalty and honor are reserved for anyone who shows them to you, which generally means friends not lovers not business partners.

[–]RedPillDadRustled Jimmies0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (93 children) | Copy Link

My point is that it is about intent.

We're talking about manipulation, not the intent to manipulate. You can have the intent to drink coffee, but that's not going to put a cup to your lips unless you act on that desire.

In any case, it seems to me like the intent didn't change; just the methods. "Nice guys" and terps are both despicable; the only difference is that terps are more dangerous.

This phrase completely disgusts me. How can you say the phrase "We need to sit down and work out how the both of us can get the most out of each other" with a straight face while ALSO claiming to not be the transactional and manipulative one?

To work something out with someone is democratic and cooperative. Not manipulative.
You're right, I don't relate to friends or lovers transactionally... but way I structure my relationships is radically non-normative, and I need to come back to normative terms in order to have a common language with most people.

Relationships aren't trade negotiations with contracts and exchanges and transactions of guilt and affection and sex and time....relationships are voluntary gifts of shared experience.

That actually is exactly what I feel. There's no disagreement from me here.

Also called treating them like people when they fuck up instead of following the sexist objectification script

You have the right to tell people they've fucked up, IF THEY FUCKED UP. This isn't fucking Minority Report; you don't approach women you don't know with imagined crimes to accuse them of.

Also called making yourself happy and valuable and not being ashamed of it.

Dread is by definition "great fear and anxiety". You can insist that it's about self-improvement all you want, but the very name betrays malicious intentions... which, based on my experiences with terps, rings true. You don't get to disavow crimes with which you've been caught red-handed.

And like I said before, you guys are all about the "self-improvement" when someone brings up how manipulative and abusive you guys are.

Also called "talking to women and allowing them to consent to sleep with you".

Specifically, I was talking about seeking out emotionally vulnerable women to take advantage of. I guess this makes sense, no woman in her right mind would sleep with most of you.

Since women DO have agency and are, you know, people, not children, you can't claim I'm victimizing one of them with a racy joke.

TIL having agency means you can't be victimized. Good to know!

I don't bitch and moan about it. I don't know anyone who does. The point of it is that if someone doesn't want to be with you they shouldn't be and they can go ahead and leave. I also don't think I said "loyalty and honor are male virtues".

I'm talking about views that are commonly spouted in /r/theredpill, not about you specifically. I was using "you" as a metonym.

To the extent that Terpers say it, usually they mean that loyalty and honor are reserved for anyone who shows them to you, which generally means friends not lovers not business partners.

Which, within the narrative of TRP, means just women.

[–]rp132 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (92 children) | Copy Link

To work something out with someone is democratic and cooperative. Not manipulative.

Working something out implies striking some kind of bargain. "You give me this, I'll give you this" It's transactional language that implies that you are going to verbally negotiate the terms of the relationship. This also rings with "To get the most out of each-other". It's really manipulative.

You have the right to tell people they've fucked up, IF THEY FUCKED UP. This isn't fucking Minority Report; you don't approach women you don't know with imagined crimes to accuse them of.

I totally agree with this. I neg women who flake on me, who give me shit tests, who look me up and down and say "Nope, not good enough" to my face or call me names. I neg women who act like they are better than me by default or demand that I buy them drinks or say things like "You aren't hot enough for me to sleep with you tonight" (I never bring up sex they always do...hmm...).

I don't just randomly neg strangers, I treat people with respect until they treat me with disrespect, and even then I do it playfully and non-committally when the disrespect I was given was downright rude as shit.

It just so happens that time-to-disrespect is about 1.4 seconds with every single woman I've ever interacted with (except 2 I can think of, and they were awesome people) because that's a part of the patriarchal dating ritual to test masculine mettle. Since I pass the ritual, we have passionate crazy sex, despite me having whatever negative characteristics for they teased me to my face about 2 hours before.

Dread is by definition "great fear and anxiety". You can insist that it's about self-improvement all you want, but the very name betrays malicious intentions...

I think I understand your point, actually, but perhaps when judging the morality of an action you have to look past the name we use to sell it to what the action actually is. A salesman might internally refer to a strong selling point of a product, expressed in a snappy way, as a 'hook', but there's no literal hook, no literal curved pieces of metal stabbing someone and forcing them to come in and buy the product. It's not even figurative coercsion to 'hook' a customer: It's just telling them about the positives of the product in a way that sticks. "Hooking clients" sounds skeezy, but it's not.

In a similar way, "dread game" boils down to the fact that if you take time to make yourself attractive, then its likely that someone will find you attractive. If they notice how attractive you are then it is likely they will realize 'hey, I've got this good thing here that's worth something' and act like it's worth something. If they don't come to their senses, doesn't matter, you still got hotter, because it's not about them it's about you.

I seriously don't understand how you can possibly buy it when a woman says that she's getting breast implants "for herself" and think that going out to clubs looking nice is 'empowering" while simultaneously saying that a guy who gets pecs "for himself" and goes out to a business meeting in las vegas is being abusive. Seems wildly inconsistent to me.

Specifically, I was talking about seeking out emotionally vulnerable women to take advantage of. I guess this makes sense, no woman in her right mind would sleep with most of you.

More sexist crap. Because if a woman chooses to have casual sex with a guy who is funny, casual, low-pressure, independent, and not needy, it's clearly because she's 'damaged' in some way because no woman would willingly consent to casual sex. Fuck your sex-negative sexist bullshit man.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (84 children) | Copy Link

Working something out implies striking some kind of bargain. "You give me this, I'll give you this"

It is transactional, but it's also cooperative and mutually beneficial provided both parties' interests are being kept in mind.

It's transactional language that implies that you are going to verbally negotiate the terms of the relationship.

As opposed of the RP way where the man is the sole authority in determining the terms of the relationship, right? I'm not talking about you specifically, but this is what RP boils down to the vast majority of the time.

This also rings with "To get the most out of each-other". It's really manipulative.

Not at all. You are in a relationship with someone else, and... for the purposes of relating to that person, you need to be able to hold a dialog with them. The idea of a relationship is that you're a part of a team, and you need to be able to play as a team.

You will never be able to cohabitate with someone if you're unable to have a discussion with someone on how to do so, even more so if you're romantically engaged with them.

In any case, this rings extremely childish to me. Respecting each other's boundaries is more important than indulging in your desire... if your desires are infringing on someone else's bodily integrity, that's a good reason to revisit your wants and examine if they are reasonable or not.

And yes, desire can be worked out. Given a good reason, you should have the capacity to determine whether you should want things or not-- healthy people do, at least. For example, you don't have to have sex with someone if it means raping them no matter how badly you want it.

who give me shit tests

Problem is that to a terp, everything is a shit test. You guys live in a constant state of paranoia. It's pretty pathetic: like the guy who thought his wife putting a picture of him in her office desk was getting shit-tested. Fucking ridiculous.

who look me up and down and say "Nope, not good enough" to my face or call me names.

Or you can get over it? Two wrongs don't make a right; sounds to me like you're choosing to fester in your own negativity.

I'm gonna stop here. I have other things to do.

[–]rp132 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (83 children) | Copy Link

As opposed of the RP way where the man is the sole authority in determining the terms of the relationship, right? I'm not talking about you specifically, but this is what RP boils down to the vast majority of the time.

No, the RP way is that each partner individually sets their own boundaries and simply acts on them. If a partner is demanded to perform outside their boundary they make it clear why and refuse politely.

The idea of a relationship is that you're a part of a team, and you need to be able to play as a team.

I actually agree with this, except too often "be a team player" is used to mean "beg for your boundaries to not be crossed" or "Because we're a team you are obligated to sacrifice for it". How about instead of a team with sacrifice, its two individuals who voluntarily work for themselves and each-other. Cooperative Anarchy not Democratic Socialism.

In any case, this rings extremely childish to me. Respecting each other's boundaries is more important than indulging in your desire... if your desires are infringing on someone else's bodily integrity, that's a good reason to revisit your wants and examine if they are reasonable or not.

I totally agree with this.

For example, you don't have to have sex with someone if it means raping them no matter how badly you want it.

I also totally agree with this. However, I also don't have to be in a monogamous relationship with someone who does not find me attractive enough to want to fuck me.

It's pretty pathetic: like the guy who thought his wife putting a picture of him in her office desk was getting shit-tested. Fucking ridiculous.

I don't know anything about that. What I will say is that stuff like "Oh I'm just gonna not call him to see if he wants me bad enough" is a shit test, and yes, I see that all the time. I've heard that verbatim from my female friends.

Or you can get over it? Two wrongs don't make a right; sounds to me like you're choosing to fester in your own negativity.

I agree. I think you misunderstand, I don't mean the context of a sputtering angry insultfest, that's not the basis for a healthy relationship. I mean "Aren't you a little short for a stormtrooper?" "Whatever princess".

Derisively implying that she's coddled IS NEGGING. They aren't spitting in each-others faces they are treating each-other like sarcastic jibbing people.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]rp132 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jacks10003 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

. Manipulation is BP. Express your needs. If they aren't met drop them. No manipulation required.

When TBP complains about "manipulation" is is sheer psychological projection. In fact, accusations of "manipulation" are often a form of manipulation themselves, just as complaining about "abuse" can be a type of emotional abuse itself.

TBP approved = "if you don't fuck me I'm divorcing you."

TBP's version of "emotional abuse" = "hey, that waitress is hot!"

Progressives invent imaginary "sins" or "crimes" with definitions so expansive (sexism, racism, homophobia, etc.) that they can describe virtual all human behavior.

Just consider the progressive concept of "hetero-normativity."

To be frank, TRP tends to lean progressive to liberal to "libertarian" (just another form of it) thus wind up chasing their tails when progressives accuse them of various thought-crimes or another.

TBP don't have any moral standing to accuse others of Thought Crimes. As Taylor Swift might say, you just need to "shake it off."

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

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

In fact, accusations of "manipulation" are often a form of manipulation themselves, just as complaining about "abuse" can be a type of emotional abuse itself.

What you're doing is called victim blaming, and it's a sign that you have abusive tendencies yourself. You clearly don't have a good grasp of what constitutes abuse.

TBP approved = "if you don't fuck me I'm divorcing you."

Everyone is entitled to leave relationships if they are unhappy. It doesn't matter how heartbroken you are, if your presence is harmful someone else (which TRP tactics often accomplish) it's for their own health and well being that they should depart.

Possessiveness is another sign of an abusive relationship, by the way. No one owns anyone; anyone can leave if they want to. Slavery was abolished in 1865.

TBP's version of "emotional abuse" = "hey, that waitress is hot!"

You're deleting the context here. Dread game's purpose is to make women feel belittled so that they are more receptive to your romantic advances. This is emotional manipulation through and through; another sign that you have abusive tendencies.

Progressives invent imaginary "sins" or "crimes" with definitions so expansive (sexism, racism, homophobia, etc.) that they can describe virtual all human behavior.

No, discrimination does not describe all human behavior... it just describes all of your behavior. This is because you're an asshole, and likely abusive.

Just consider the progressive concept of "hetero-normativity."

Considered. Please explain.

To be frank, TRP tends to lean progressive to liberal to "libertarian" (just another form of it) thus wind up chasing their tails when progressives accuse them of various thought-crimes or another.

Emotional abuse is not a thought crime (nor is physical abuse, needless to say). You are bringing real harm to real people.

If you were "thinking" of manipulating your girlfriend/wife but not acting on it, you'd be right. But negging and dread game refer to real acts-- not thoughts. Diminishing the damage you're causing does not make it disappear.

[–]rp132 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Negging isn't abuse, it's just depedestalization. You can't simultaneously treat women like you treat everyone else and refrain from negging them if you normally 'neg' everyone else (which most healthy and friendly male relationships are based on)

Dread game is literally just "Become attractive". I don't see how me lifting weights or smiling at strangers should be something that is harmful to others unless we live in a slave society where my body is forfeit. If it so happens that me getting a haircut and looking good turns heads, thats not my problem. If seeing me turning heads reminds my partner that I'm a head-turner, again, not my problem. Who are you to tell me how I can dress/act/appear in public? How is that any better than radical muslims saying that married women who bare their face in public are exposing their beauty and being cheaters?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Negging isn't abuse, it's just depedestalization.

Hahahaha, are you kidding? You have a whole sub dedicated to getting the pussy. 90% of the posts on the red pill are about whether people have succeeded in getting laid or not, or how to get laid more, or how to get a submissive wife, or some variation of that.

If your intentions were to take pussy off the pedestal, you guys all failed miserably. Your lives still revolve around the pussy.

You can't simultaneously treat women like you treat everyone else and refrain from negging them if you normally 'neg' everyone else (which most healthy and friendly male relationships are based on)

Healthy relationships are not based on negging. Here's a fucking WikiHow article, which are typically used to show people how to tie their shoes or walk while chewing gum, describing the most basic requirements for a healthy relationship. You can even see here, in as rudimentary an article as this, that relationships are based on mutual respect and encouragement. Negging is not respect.

Dread game is literally just "Become attractive".

No, it's not. The purpose of dread game is to reduce your partner's self-image down so that they'll be willing to date scum as low as yourself. You're not making yourself "more attractive"; you're making your prospective partner feel less attractive.

Here's a manosphere article literally saying that the purpose of dread game is to foster anxiety in your partner. That's disgustingly low.

I don't see how me lifting weights or smiling at strangers should be something that is harmful to others unless we live in a slave society where my body is forfeit.

I don't even understand where the hell you're coming from this. This makes so little sense I can't even find a point of entrance from which to address it from.

Being expected to treat people with respect by not belittling them is not "being a slave to society". That's fucking absurd.

Who are you to tell me how I can dress/act/appear in public?

Oh, trust me... if your "techniques" weren't bringing emotional damage to people I wouldn't give a fucking shit. You can kill yourself if you really want and I wouldn't care less; the problem is you're toying with someone else-- you have a victim. The problem isn't that you've got a knife; it's that you've stabbed someone with it.

[–]rp132 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Hahahaha, are you kidding? You have a whole sub dedicated to getting the pussy. 90% of the posts on the red pill are about whether people have succeeded in getting laid or not, or how to get laid more, or how to get a submissive wife, or some variation of that.

I agree with that. It's unfortunate to me but I agree. The main reason for that is that it's usually the only way to bring thirsty men to the light. If you are obsessive about booze, then you've gotta kick your habit first.

However, depedestalization of vagina isn't what I mean. I mean depedestalization of women as superior human beings. Thirsty men think that women are like goddesses and always treat them like they are perfect and protect them like they are perfect little delicate flowers. They reduce them to nothing but theoretical providers of sex who deserve worship and can do no wrong.

Depedestalization says "Treat women like people" as in "Treat women like they are just as flawed, dangerous, humorous, self-motivated, potentially wonderful but possibly flawed" people, because that's what they are. If you want men to treat women like people with moral failings and moral successes, like peers instead of fleshlights or queens, like competitors instead of trophies, then you have to accept the good with the bad.

My friends rib me, josh me, challenge me, call me stupid, tell me my ideas suck and that I should reform them before speaking them again. Not one of them has ever called me handsome, they tell me my shooting stance sucks, my lack of punctuality is unacceptable. They tease me about my flaws and tell me how to fix them, knowing that they like me anyway. They bet me I can't drink me as fast as them. When I treat them like I'm better than them, they knock me down a peg. THATS NEGGING.

The reason why women find it so sexy is that suddenly they are being treated like a human being instead of being treated like a fleshlight with angel wings.

Here's a fucking WikiHow article,

Because I learn about human social interaction and what works with human friendships and respect based on WikiHow Seriously? Theres a wikihow on how to dress like a ghost.

No, it's not. The purpose of dread game is to reduce your partner's self-image down so that they'll be willing to date scum as low as yourself. You're not making yourself "more attractive"; you're making your prospective partner feel less attractive.

I have no idea where you are getting this from, when literally dread game is about fostering DREAD by passively making yourself look better. I don't know where you think dread game is about belittling people. What do you think it is?

Here's a direct quote from the article you linked to en

Overt flirtations are a blunt means of stoking this anxiety, but often all it takes is a nuanced shift in a predictable routine to trigger that imagination. The idea isn’t to instill* terror from fear of loss, but rather to *demonstrate higher value; particularly when a woman’s attention is straying into comfortable, routine familiarity and she begins seeking indignation from other sources.

Sometimes all that’s necessary to provoke that imagination is to get to the gym, dress better, get a raise, travel for work, change your routine, adopt a Game mentality, hang out with a new (or old) friend, be cocky & funny with her – risk to offend her sensibilities.

Emphasis mine. Dread game involves no belittlement whatsoever man. It's literally saying "I choose to be hot. Now that I'm hot, you can see that I'm hot, other people can see that I'm hot". The reason why it works is that when other people notice that you are hot it reminds her how hot you are. Also that you are now hot.

Being expected to treat people with respect by not belittling them is not "being a slave to society". That's fucking absurd.

If you tell me that it's abusive to dress better in public, abusive to work out, abusive to care about my appearance generally, then you are absolutely no better than the islamic pro-hijab guys. They are so terrified of competition from other men that they seek to control women's bodies, fashion, and behavior, and think a woman who shows her ankles in public is emasculating her husband.

the problem is you're toying with someone else-- you have a victim. The problem isn't that you've got a knife; it's that you've stabbed someone with it.

Yeah. Every time I work out or smile at strangers or have a conversation with someone who isn't my wife I'm LITERALLY stabbing her because I'm victimizing her. Give me a break.

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

[–]rp132 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]rp132 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]rp132 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I remember in particular one example of a man practicing dread game on his wife for god-knows what reason, let me see if I can remember a few things he did:

That's not dread game. I don't know what that is but it's basically ending the relationship (and in the case of cutting of financially/taking away car its something like blackmail/violence). It's passive aggressive as fuck.

Dread game is explained EXACTLY in the link YOU gave me defining dread game. I'll link it here again.

http://therationalmale.com/2012/03/27/dread-games/

Although I’ve suggested casually returning flirtations with other women as a means to amplifying desire and illustrating social proof, this is hardly the only, or best, means of fostering competition anxiety. Overt flirtations are a blunt means of stoking this anxiety, but often all it takes is a nuanced shift in a predictable routine to trigger that imagination. The idea isn’t to instill terror from fear of loss, but rather to demonstrate higher value; ...

Sometimes all that’s necessary to provoke that imagination is to get to the gym, dress better, get a raise, travel for work,

THE IDEA ISN'T TO INSTILL FEAR, BUT TO FOSTER COMPETITION ANXIETY, BY BEING MORE ATTRACTIVE.

That's what it is. Hurting people is not dread game. Being attractive and not being ashamed of being attractive is dread game. Being valuable and busy and interesting and self-actualized is dread game.

[–]taiboworksrational idealism > toxic egoism-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Archwinger[🍰] 27 points28 points29 points 11 years ago (96 children) | Copy Link

Unlike a lot of The Red Pill apologists, I’m willing to own it: The Red Pill teaches psychological manipulation. That’s the whole point. Where I diverge from TRP’s detractors is that I don’t think psychological manipulation is a bad thing. In many cases, it’s a necessary box of tools just to get by in this world, day to day. These are skills most people have and use regularly, but a lot of the more socially awkward guys out there who are drawn to TRP never picked them up naturally. And when you put those manipulative tactics in writing and make a system out of it, they sound pretty damn evil.

When I read some of the Red Pill’s evil tactics, they’re all really familiar to me. They almost come naturally. Not because I’ve done them before, but because I’ve been on the receiving end of them. Half of the Red Pill’s evil tactics are standard operating procedure for many women in relationships.

I want a good job that pays good money. I will arrange my resume in a manner that, while not overtly dishonest, emphasizes what I believe will get me an interview. At the interview, I will dress better than I usually dress, groom better than I usually groom, speak more professionally than I normally speak, do research on the company and on my interviewer specifically, and have a far better and more professional conversation than I could normally have without such preparation, that emphasizes my strengths and conceals my weaknesses. I will talk with my interviewer about personal shit that doesn’t interest me just to make a good impression. Because I want that job. When I walk out, that interviewer will think I’m a badass. If I had been completely honest and not engaged in any psychological manipulation, someone else who did would get the job. Because that’s how the professional world works.

I met one of my male neighbors for the first time a few months ago. He lives two houses down from me, so it would be a lot more convenient if he liked me. I’m not interested in rebuilding cars, but he has two he’s rebuilding in his garage while his real cars are parked out on the street every day. So we talked about cars. I pretended I was interested to manipulate him into liking me more. Not evilly. I just don’t want my neighbor thinking I’m some weird, standoffish dork, so I had a normal conversation that I wasn’t really into. This weekend, he’s having me over for beers. We’re going to watch some college football game I think. I don’t like college football either. But I do like the two clients he’s going to refer to me who will be there. So I’m going to figure out what team they like, wear a fucking jersey, and be prepared to talk passably about sports.

I want my wife to fuck my brains out and stop being a disrespectful and emasculating bitch toward me me in front of our daughter. So I tell my wife that the shit she just did isn’t going to fly and walk off before she can respond with some pissant justification for why she feels what she did was okay. I have lunch with a pretty female coworker, go out for beers with some guys from the gym a few nights, play poker with some guys from the neighborhood, log a few extra hours at the gym, get ahead at work, and ignore my wife except as needed to care for our child. She cracks in two days, breaks down and apologizes for being a bitch, we have sex like rabbits for a month, and she bites back her constant criticisms. The next month, she remembers that she doesn’t respect me, and we repeat this process. It’s not exactly a healthy relationship, but I married her about five years before I decided I like having a backbone and not being shit on. If I get divorced, I lose my daughter.

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–]jacks10003 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]jacks10004 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]jacks100010 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]jacks10009 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

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

No, you weren't under that impression, but it's very telling that open discussion of cultural Marxism gets under your skin quite a bit.

I was under that impression because it's an insane conspiracy theory. I've only heard people use it when they make fun of conspiracy theorists, and they added "Marxism" to it because Americans seem terrified of anything vaguely related to communism.

TheBluePill actually quotes Adorno himself - the freaking Godfather of cultural Marxism.

1) who gives a shit who they quote?

2) No he's not given that cultural Marxism isn't a real thing. It's like the boogeyman or the term "political correctness", they don't actually refer to anything real but they are rhetorical devices that indicate that you should be scared of something.

I know, you'd rather be called "progressive" but cultural Marxists are not "progressive" in the American sense (Teddy Roosevelt, etc.)

It's not an issue of what I liked to be called, it's more just that "cultural Marxism" is an insane conspiracy theorist term and, up until now, I was under the impression that it was a joke.

I honestly can't believe that something thinks it's real and a serious term.

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

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

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

if there's some conflict of interest between someone who is "privileged" and someone who ostensibly lacks privilege, the latter is somehow right by default, and even if he or she isn't, something outrageous must have happened to force him or her into the position of the bad guy.

Firstly, I'm not sure why you put scarequotes around a scientific concept. You aren't denying the existence of privilege, right?

Secondly, I won't go so far as to say nobody has ever held the view you describe because I'm sure there is some insane homeless lady on some shitty street corner who might have said something similar during a cocaine binge or something, but what you're describing is not common at all.

You seem to be trying to present a strawman of what 'check your privilege' means but you'd be extremely hard pressed to find someone who thinks it means "the privileged person is always wrong". Usually it means that the person is wrong about a specific topic and the only way they can understand why they're wrong is to try to see it from another person's perspective (i.e. 'check their privilege').

The important difference is that the privileged person isn't wrong by default, just usually in the discussions you're talking about they tend to be wrong as a matter of fact.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Firstly, I'm not sure why you put scarequotes around a scientific concept. You aren't denying the existence of privilege, right?

I am denying that everyone who is labeled as privileged over someone else actually has to be.

Secondly, I won't go so far as to say nobody has ever held the view you describe because I'm sure there is some insane homeless lady on some shitty street corner who might have said something similar during a cocaine binge or something, but what you're describing is not common at all.

You seem to be trying to present a strawman of what 'check your privilege' means but you'd be extremely hard pressed to find someone who thinks it means "the privileged person is always wrong". Usually it means that the person is wrong about a specific topic and the only way they can understand why they're wrong is to try to see it from another person's perspective (i.e. 'check their privilege').

So you want to say you're either in denial, lying, or not half as knowledgable about SJWs of all decades and nationalities as you think you are. Fine, saves us a lot of time.

[–]mrsamsa-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I am denying that everyone who is labeled as privileged over someone else actually has to be.

...Sure, I guess. It's a hard thing to mistake though, as you're usually either white or not, or male or not.

So you want to say you're either in denial, lying, or not half as knowledgable about SJWs of all decades and nationalities as you think you are. Fine, saves us

Ah, that must be the only logical conclusion given that I knew enough to identify specifically the strawman you were referring to, explaining the concept to you, and describing exactly how and why it's used in conversations.

But given all of those many examples you just posted that contradict my position (I mean, quote after quote after quote of evidence to support your claim!), then how could I possibly continue to believe I'm right?

Well argued, sir.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

It's a hard thing to mistake though, as you're usually either white or not, or male or not.

...is it really?

First: The whole "lack of privilege"-hierarchy doesn't sit well with me. Is an affluent minority person more or less privileged than a poor white person? Is a white woman less privileged than an Asian man? Is a wealthy white woman still less privileged than a middle class white man? Where are you on the privilege-hierarchy if you're a Black Muslim handicapped lesbian, but also a billionare - are you more or less privileged than the WASP Joe Everyman? Does a Swede born in 1990 who probably has never benefited from the fruits patriarchy abundantly bestowed upon his more fortunate male ancestors still have to constantly check his privilege when dealing with Swedish women because of some hereditary guilt that has been accumulated over millenia of patriarchy? And if that hereditary guilt exists, why is it only inherited patrilineary (i.e. only men can inherit it from their forefathers, but women can't)?

Or, for our cases at hand: Am I allowed to value the opinions of /u/GridRexx (black + female) over those of the bluepill women (mostly white + female) in here; which would be very convenient because she is a lot more laid-back (and also more lucid) about most issues?

Second: Is a man automatically privileged and a woman non-privileged? Because I could easily create a bunch of scenarios where the lack of female privilege in some regards is the downside of privileges women enjoy over men in others.

Ah, that must be the only logical conclusion given that I knew enough to identify specifically the strawman you were referring to, explaining the concept to you, and describing exactly how and why it's used in conversations.

Strawmanning? You were the one ridiculing the idea that the whole SJW shtick of administering privilege (or lack thereof) to groups of people could be anything else than justified, logical and balanced by playing the old no true scotsman-game ("only lunatic drug-addicts abuse the whole privilege-game, real SJWs wouldn't do such a thing"). Which would be awesome if you were right, but unfortunately you aren't.

what exactly makes an "underprivileged" person competent by default and more worthy of being listened to than someone lower on the LoP-hierarchy? It's not as if underprivileged persons can't embellish their ordeals or abuse their LoP-privilege to silence opposing viewpoints.
the ridiculous hierarchy mentioned above
the concept of "privilege" as a debating tool is often used by its adherents to enforce a communcation code of political correctness
SJWs doing flat-out retarded stuff based on their privilege-concept; f.ex. crimes from underprivileged have to be hushed up because this could promote racism (or whatever); or are justified because being the situation underprivileged people live in "made them do it"
SJWs "adopting" underpriviliged persons in order to turn them to their cause, but discard them when it doesn't work out (one of my favorite political authors relayed a story in one of his book about his early time in Germany when left-wing activists sucked up to him on the basis of him being a foreigner - which he admitted being flattered by - but discarded him once it became clear that he was more interested in thinking for himself instead of adopting their ready-made opinions. Pretty much the same phenomenon - people not interested in their ideological struggles - was also what drove the extreme left away from the working class in Germany and into solidarity with third world-movements)
and finally: what exactly makes you think that the desire to feel righteous and superior to other privileged people doesn't play a considerable role in SJW's (who have a privileged background and try to compensate for that) overzealous attempts to police other people's behavior?

[–]mrsamsa1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[Part 1/2]:

...is it really?

Pretty much, yep.

First: The whole "lack of privilege"-hierarchy doesn't sit well with me. Is an affluent minority person more or less privileged than a poor white person? Is a white woman less privileged than an Asian man? Is a wealthy white woman still less privileged than a middle class white man? Where are you on the privilege-hierarchy if you're a Black Muslim handicapped lesbian, but also a billionare - are you more or less privileged than the WASP Joe Everyman? Does a Swede born in 1990 who probably has never benefited from the fruits patriarchy abundantly bestowed upon his more fortunate male ancestors still have to constantly check his privilege when dealing with Swedish women because of some hereditary guilt that has been accumulated over millenia of patriarchy? And if that hereditary guilt exists, why is it only inherited patrilineary (i.e. only men can inherit it from their forefathers, but women can't)?

Nice! What you're asking here are the exact same questions the feminists asked of themselves when they developed third wave feminism. The thing you're angling towards is called "intersectionality", which is basically the recognition that it makes no sense to view privilege on a single axis and instead privilege applies across multiple social groups and it can manifest itself differently in specific individuals.

The only problems I'd point out are:

1) you seem to be viewing privilege as a thing you "win" at. It makes no sense to compare these people and say they are 'more' or 'less' privileged as that's generally what is commonly referred to as "oppression olympics" - the useless attempt to rank privileges. Instead privilege is just the recognition that you are either treated a certain way in society or you aren't.

2) following on from that last point, you seem to be suggesting that people sometimes don't benefit from their privilege. It's just not a realistic suggestion in the world today - if you're white then you are just simply far more likely to receive a callback from job interviews, more likely to get the job, and more likely to get a higher offer. You're less likely to be pulled over by the cops, less likely to be dealt with aggressively, and less likely to be constantly followed around stores to make sure you aren't stealing, etc etc.

They are general trends across social groups but they are so prevalent that it doesn't really make sense to talk about an individual not benefiting from their privilege. I don't know what you mean about men being born after 1990 not benefiting from privilege though - what does the year have to do with it? It's not like society isn't still patriarchal.

3) why should someone feel guilty about being privileged? There is no guilt involved.

Or, for our cases at hand: Am I allowed to value the opinions of /u/GridRexx (black + female) over those of the bluepill women (mostly white + female) in here; which would be very convenient because she is a lot more laid-back (and also more lucid) about most issues?

It's not a game, you don't "win" by being oppressed across more axes. People are privileged, or oppressed, by specific characteristics and so belonging to that group makes you better to identify with that group, it's not that being black and female makes you more qualified to talk about women's issues than a white woman.

The whole meaning behind 'check your privilege' is that you are talking to someone about experiences that they are better qualified to talk about. It doesn't mean you're necessarily wrong, it doesn't mean that they're necessarily right, but it does mean that you're probably missing a whole chunk of data that is relevant to the discussion and so you should probably take the time to hear what they have to say.

For example, say a white guy and a black guy are talking about store security and the black guy says, "Man I hate those guys. They always follow me around and won't leave me to shop in peace". The white guy might reply with something like, "Ah, they're not that bad, they rarely ever follow people around! You're probably just acting shady or you just have a bit of a victim complex going on".

The problem in that situation is that race, and how people treat different races, plays a massive role in determining the correct attitude towards this issue. Since the white guy is speaking from his experiences, and his experiences don't involve being black, it makes it near-impossible for him to be able to judge whether the black guy's descriptions are accurate. More problematically is if he tries to use his own experiences to tell the black guy what he was actually experiencing, like when he suggests that he's making it up or acting shady to deserve it.

Does that make sense?

Second: Is a man automatically privileged and a woman non-privileged? Because I could easily create a bunch of scenarios where the lack of female privilege in some regards is the downside of privileges women enjoy over men in others.

Yes, when it comes to gender privilege only men can have it and women cannot. This is because privilege is a societal thing which is determined by our norms, laws, and attitudes, and they are undeniably shaped by the patriarchal society we live in.

But to be clear, that does not mean that women don't benefit in some ways from a patriarchal society (in the same way that men don't always benefit from it). So let's assume that women win custody battles more than men - the main reason that mothers and fathers are treated differently here is because of traditional gender norms. Women are viewed as caring, gentle, and nurturing, and men are viewed as emotionally detached, uncaring, aggressive, and sexual deviants. Who the hell is going to award a child to the latter group?!

The issue here though is what is termed "benevolent sexism", it's basically a way of discriminating against women in a way that confers an advantage in some way but it comes from some very shitty and harmful prior assumptions. In other words, yes, it's cool for mothers that they win more custody cases but it comes at the cost of not being viewed as capable of holding managerial or CEO roles, not being able to effectively contribute to the army, of "acting like a man" and being "bossy" if they try to negotiate higher pay, of being less of a woman if they don't want to have kids, etc etc.

And, as I mention, there are kickbacks to men benefiting from privilege in the sense that they are expected to go into the army because they're "aggressive" and strong (which is where the draft comes from), that they are considered weak and unmanly if they cry, that they are a "pussy" if they like to talk about their emotions, that they're a "fag" if they want to become a nurse or school teacher, etc.

The concept of privilege doesn't mean "if you have it then your life is awesome". It's a recognition of the fact that, in general, you get access to many things as part of your default life that most other people either don't get, or can only get after a lot of hard work.

I find the easiest way to understand privilege is to think about someone in a wheelchair. Able-bodied people are privileged because they don't have to worry about a building not having wheelchair access. This isn't a conspiracy against these people, they aren't intentionally being kicked to the curb, architects across the world aren't trying to be dicks to them, and able-bodied people shouldn't feel guilty that they've benefited from being part of the status-quo. It's just the way it is, but it does mean that when I go to a building I know I can access it (and all floors) with no problem - that's "privilege". It's something I get that people in wheelchairs don't.

Strawmanning? You were the one ridiculing the idea that the whole SJW shtick of administering privilege (or lack thereof) to groups of people could be anything else than justified, logical and balanced

Huh? By emphasising the "you" there it makes it seem like the problem is that I've committed a strawman, but you don't point it out. Yes, of course it's ridiculous to think what you were claiming and it was a clear strawman.

by playing the old no true scotsman-game ("only lunatic drug-addicts abuse the whole privilege-game, real SJWs wouldn't do such a thing"). Which would be awesome if you were right, but unfortunately you aren't.

I don't think you understand what my point was, nor what a "No True Scotsman" is.

Firstly, my point was that I was accepting that some of these people might exist. They aren't the majority or the norm though.

Secondly, by accepting that they might exist I am explicitly rejecting the No True Scotsman. Importantly, if I did reject them on some other grounds (e.g. their principles are at odds with actual feminist thought) then that wouldn't be a No True Scotsman if I said that they weren't real feminists.

For it to be a No True Scotsman you'd need to demonstrate that the person accepted the principles I said that they didn't and I was only retroactively trying to remove them from the group to prove my point, rather than removing them from the group for not being part of the group. In other words, if I say that George isn't a True Scotsman then you might try to argue that I'm committing the "No True Scotsman" fallacy - but if George is Nigerian and has never been to Scotland, then there's no fallacy.

This is the problem with people learning fallacy names but not taking the time to figure out what they actually mean. You can't just yell it out, you have to explain exactly how and why you think it applies. If you did that in this case then you would have realised that it didn't apply.

[–]mrsamsa1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[Part 2/2]:

what exactly makes an "underprivileged" person competent by default and more worthy of being listened to than someone lower on the LoP-hierarchy? It's not as if underprivileged persons can't embellish their ordeals or abuse their LoP-privilege to silence opposing viewpoints.

Nobody is claiming that they are automatically right. The claim is that people without privilege are better at understanding the experiences of people without privilege. Specifically, a woman is better at understanding how the world treats women.

There is no claim that they can't be wrong. The claim is simply that if you aren't a woman, and you're commenting on an issue that is determined largely by how society treats women, then you would be intentionally ignoring huge amounts of data by not listening to them.

the ridiculous hierarchy mentioned above

Intersectionality FTW!

the concept of "privilege" as a debating tool is often used by its adherents to enforce a communcation code of political correctness

So you say, but you haven't demonstrated it. Usually when people say this I find that they've misunderstood what 'check your privilege' means, and I think this is absolutely true in your case. So now that you know that it doesn't mean that you are automatically wrong or that they are automatically right, and it doesn't mean they are suddenly able to speak on all the experiences of unprivileged people, and it doesn't mean you should feel guilty, etc, go back to some of the discussions where you think it was used to "shut down discussion" and you'll see a vastly different situation.

The whole point of 'check your privilege' is that it makes discussion possible. If you're having a discussion with a black guy about how stores treat him then no discussion is possible until you 'check your priivlege' - i.e. listen to his experiences and understand that your position is heavily influenced by your own experience as a white guy. Once you take that evidence and factors into account, you'll have a better grasp of the situation and will be able to discuss it in a more meaningful way. You can still disagree with him - the guy might be a conspiracy theorist and people are following him around because he wears a massive tin foil hat on his head, but you'll have better tools to argue against him if you stop to realise that your experiences aren't the experiences of everyone else first.

SJWs doing flat-out retarded stuff based on their privilege-concept; f.ex. crimes from underprivileged have to be hushed up because this could promote racism (or whatever); or are justified because being the situation underprivileged people live in "made them do it"

I've never seen the first situation and the latter seems to be a misunderstanding of how human behavior works. That is, the latter is just necessarily scientifically true in the sense that it explains their behavior. People's behavior is determined heavily by their environment and so if you stick people in an unprivileged situation then you will necessarily generate harmful and unlawful behaviors. Cause and effect.

The part you are misunderstanding is that this isn't a claim that the behavior is justified but rather it is understandable. The reason why it's important to understand what factors have produced this problem behavior is that it leaves us better equipped to fix it. So yeah, sure, we can just say "Dude broke the law, put him in jail" but if we know that this type of crime is heavily influenced by financial status, and this guy is poor, then we can say, "Dude broke the law, put him in jail, and then let's help him find a job when he gets out, teach him how to manage his money, and help him avoid falling into the same situation he was before".

The position is sometimes referred to as being a "bleeding heart liberal" but, to me, the position is basically just a position of not wanting more crime in my society.

SJWs "adopting" underpriviliged persons in order to turn them to their cause, but discard them when it doesn't work out (one of my favorite political authors relayed a story in one of his book about his early time in Germany when left-wing activists sucked up to him on the basis of him being a foreigner - which he admitted being flattered by - but discarded him once it became clear that he was more interested in thinking for himself instead of adopting their ready-made opinions. Pretty much the same phenomenon - people not interested in their ideological struggles - was also what drove the extreme left away from the working class in Germany and into solidarity with third world-movements)

I don't understand how this applies but it might be because I have no idea what you're talking about.

and finally: what exactly makes you think that the desire to feel righteous and superior to other privileged people doesn't play a considerable role in SJW's (who have a privileged background and try to compensate for that) overzealous attempts to police other people's behavior?

I'm not a mind reader so I don't know any more than you do, but I've just never seen any evidence for it. Usually I have these discussions with people like you and they talk about those "SJWs" being all "righteous" and "telling them how to behave", and when I ask for examples they either can't give me any, or (like with you) they'll give me some and their own examples contradict them as a result of them simply not understanding the concepts involved.

Like when people reject the concept of privilege because they don't like the "hierarchy" or being forced to "feel guilt", when of course none of those are involved in the concept of privilege and are generally explicitly rejected by the concept.

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

[–]mrsamsa0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]mrsamsa0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]mrsamsa1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]jacks100011 points12 points13 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

These are skills most people have and use regularly, but a lot of the more socially awkward guys out there who are drawn to TRP never picked them up naturally.

Remember, TBP claims they are "parody" and exist solely to "make fun" of red pillers - who they to perceive to be socially awkward young men. So, at best, Blue Pillers are cyber-bullies.

Half of the Red Pill’s evil tactics are standard operating procedure for many women in relationships.

Most of "the red pill" is just a male version of what is published in Cosmo magazine monthly. But feminists/progressives are not going to complain about women, because according to cultural Marxism, "women" are the "oppressed class" and men are the "oppressing class."

"Psychological manipulation" is something that everyone does every single day. Being polite and saying "thank you" is a form of "psychological manipulation" - so what?

My question remains, why do red pillers care about the bizarre accusations of blue pillers - blue pillers, which tend to be hard core leftist cranks and internet trolls, sort of the middle aged female version of 4chan.

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

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MissPearlEditor of frequent typos.0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[+]powerkickPoly, Bi, Blue, Betafag-7 points-6 points-5 points 11 years ago (58 children) | Copy Link

[–]Archwinger[🍰] 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (56 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cactuar_TamerMaking poor life choices.3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago* (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Blame/Responsibility can be put on anyone to some degree or another. He was technically responsible for his situation by failing to change himself in a way that was satisfactory to his wife -- putting aside his wife's evolving expectations for a second.

Based on the info I've been given and gleaned, there are many "causes" for the current situation.

They married under limited info. My aunt didn't know her future expectations from the marriage. She just married a nice, easy-going guy.
The environment that made their marriage work before went away. Before, everyone was dirt poor (bp principles tend to work better in purely egalitarian environments IME). After rapid local economic development, lots of other people in their social circles rode the tide while he stayed where he was.
My aunt felt that the most effective way to get him motivated was to criticize and emasculate him in front of their daughter.
The likelihood of my uncle satisfying his wife's elevated demands, based on my knowledge of their environment, was extremely low in the first place. Add on top of that the fact that I don't think he's a naturally ambitious man. Based on past convos with him, he's way too proud of his wife. He didn't have any plan of escape from her attacks. No retreat.

Had I known all of this before hand, I could have seen suicide as a real possibility.

I do think a lot of sjw/bp leaning redditors can be unreasonable, but based on what I know of the situation, he'd be a sympathetic person even to the most ruthless of them.

[–]steelpuppy1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cactuar_TamerMaking poor life choices.-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

He didn't seem depressed to begin with. No one from my mother's side of the family thought he was (though I suppose you can make the argument that anyone who chooses to gut himself must have some problems, and you could also argue that such problems are always genetic to some degree -- that's certainly a topic to discuss).

The most obvious problem though, as I explained to exit_sandman later in the thread is that he just wasn't an ambitious person. It worked out for him in the past and was fine for her as well. Things change. In this case, rapid local economic development. Everyone there used to be dirt poor, but things changed. Other people in their social circles rode the tide, while he stayed where he was. Thus, his lack of ambition, which was never a problem before, slowly became a problem. She might not have known that about herself when they hooked up.

So she might not be a "toxic partner" in general, but clearly this relationship wasn't right for her in their current environment.

(I don't put much stock in "emasculating" or whatever, but I take your description to mean that she was verbally abusive.)

That's a political thing to say, but I'd say the word is entirely appropriate. I did mean it as a synonym for "demoralize" and "belittle" and mainly used the term because Archwinger did. I was relating to his own situation.

Even if we were to go into the politics of the word, and why feminists tend to put less stock in it, the male role/identity was actually relevant in this situation. For one, his wife was capable of being ambitious herself instead of shaming him into changing himself to become more ambitious on her behalf, given what I know of their environment/situation.

I hope he wasn't too influenced by the inaccurate meme that getting whole or partial custody of his daughter would have been impossible as a man, or that he would have been ruined financially if he left.

I'm not sure why you'd bring up custody or call it an inaccurate meme. You don't know the laws (I didn't mention the state or even the country, and I don't intend to), and even if you did know them in detail, we don't know the de facto implementation for that place. Even I am not familiar. (Remember that conversation we had about "de facto" vs "de jure"? Would it be fair for me to claim that inequality is an inaccurate meme because we mostly have de jure equality?)

He's not wealthy enough to be "ruined financially". If he fell, it wouldn't have been that far. And it's not like he would have starved. My immediate family have supported the extended family, including him, before on numerous occasions. Even now I'm down several thousand dollars and growing in medical costs for this ordeal. It's not about the financial ruin itself, it's the shame of being dependent on others (in this case, it ended up being a nephew -- like rubbing salt into the wounds). That's why I was asked not to bring this up with him (not that I would have anyway).

Archwinger's situation seems superficially related. His wife is getting on his nerves. He's stick it out for his daughter because he believes that it's better for her.

But beyond that, what sticks out to me is:

the damned timing of his post and how it coincided with this recent event in my own life (not that it's actually a huge or unique event for me - just so apropos).
Archwinger didn't go an gut himself. Some bpers might think he's an asshole or try to shame him, but at least he seems sure of what he's doing and has an outlet. He isn't spreading his misery outside the home. He actually seems to be putting effort into getting people like his neighbours to like him, rather than lashing out at others. So there's at the very least there seems to be a "containment" of the problem (in contrast to my uncles' and many other people's situation, where there's fallout everywhere).
No one necessarily has to be the bad guy and still things can turn to shit. In my uncle's situation, his blood family thinks his wife is being a bitch and are catfighting, and maybe she is, but really I just think "shit happens". It's not like she suddenly changed for no reason, and I doubt that she hid her insecurities from everyone deliberately. She might not even have fully understood herself until her environment changed enough to draw that competitive side of her out. Things changed (much of it outside their control) and she lost attraction to and respect for him.
People are just put into difficult situations and such situations can elicit decisions that are unpleasant to the rest of us... Whether that be once in a while using underhanded tactics or just plain avoidance for relief... or going to extremes like violence or attempted suicide.

[–]AerobusThe Red Pill is Truth1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]steelpuppy0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cactuar_TamerMaking poor life choices.-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]steelpuppy5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cactuar_TamerMaking poor life choices.-2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]steelpuppy1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I don't have to have clairvoyant insight into her future to state the well documented fact that people who grow up observing a parent behave in controlling or abusive ways towards the other one, tend to grow up in the belief that that's just what relationships look like, and tend to have a harder time selecting non-abusive partners, or leaving/enforcing boundaries in the face of abuse. None of this is revolutionary information.

So why aren't you calling the mother out? From Arch's description she is the one doing all the abusing. His only "fault" is that he doesn't tolerate it and yet you still accuse him of being abusive and controlling.

In this case since the child is a girl, it may be especially damaging for her future ideas of what men are 'supposed' to be like that her father is modeling that controlling behavior and total lack of respect/valuing towards the woman is normal in a relationship.

You mean her mother. Her dad simply doesn't take mom's shit. Looks to me like a more probable outcome is the girl getting the "I take no abusive bullshit" attitude for relationships. Sounds healthy to me.

[–]Cactuar_TamerMaking poor life choices.-2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

No, I mean her father, and it doesn't look like that to me. It doesn't look like a single adult in that house is modeling actual healthy enforcement of personal boundaries. Her father is controlling and disrespectful/dismissive towards her mother, and her her mother sticks around with a person who treats her like that, in addition to possibly adding to overt hostility in the environment. If she* is* trying to enforce boundaries, they clearly aren't being respected by her husband, so again, that kind of modeling will be very unhealthy.

disrespectful and emasculating bitch

It's very hard to say she's verbally abusive from this description. The use of the word "emasculating" really inspires doubts to that effect, considering I've often seen RPers describe perfectly reasonable attempts at communicating concerns as 'shit tests' or 'disrespect,' since they're starting from the position that a woman should treat them as superior and anything else is wrong. She may just be a normal person who thinks she has equal value to him.

The most I can confidently say from his story is that both of them suck at communicating, don't actually even like the other one all that much, and would probably be happier maintaining separate households.

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

[–]Cactuar_TamerMaking poor life choices.-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]powerkickPoly, Bi, Blue, Betafag0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (31 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheThingsIThink 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]cuittlerಠ_ಠ[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]steelpuppy0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]steelpuppy0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

He's making the claim that women are being favored in court. I'd like to see proof of such statements. This is a debate sub, we aren't required to take people at their word especially when they present no evidence.

He's making a widely held belief. If his wrong correct him.

Oh please, if all you're interested in is making emotional accusations without proof kindly get back up on your high horse and ride out of here. If you're actually interested in whether or not women are being favored in court, I'd think you'd also be interested in the following questions:

Aaaaa, somebody doesn't like being BP'd. I called you unemphatic because you jumped straight to materialistic instead of the humane part of the divorce equation: time with your child is more precious.

What percentage of divorcees end up receiving alimony on average? And what is the average award amount? Do you know?

Who cares. The point was that the OP's perception is how expensive divorces are and how men don't get at least equal custody. Yet you focus only on the materialistic alimony angle since you managed to dig up some stats on that so you need to shove them down everyone's throats.

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

Edit: what better way to know you struck a nerve (and that you're right) than when people downvote but can't say shit :D

He's making a widely held belief. If his wrong correct him.

Nah, you don't get out of this by saying it's a "belief". This is still a debate sub, people come here to have their beliefs debated/challenged. If thats not what he wants he could've stayed in TRP echo chamber, but he came to PPD so yeah we're gonna ask him to back up his claims or concede the point.

Edit: I mean seriously, if I made the statement "red pillers are all a bunch of rapists" on PPD would you expect no one challenge me because it's my "belief", that no one would call me out and ask for proof? That's what this sub is for man.

I called you I empathetic because you jumped straight to materialistic instead of the humane part of the divorce question

First off he barely mentioned the kid once. Second, I've heard it all before: RPer claims women are favored in court, poor men, women are evil divorce raping harpies, etc, I ask for a shred of evidence supporting that view aaaaand suddenly there is not a peep from them.

And it's kinda an important topic to get your facts straight on, isn't it? And look, exactly what I said would happen happened, not a peep outta that guy. And not a shred of evidence in support of his claim from you either.

who cares?

About the truth? Obviously not you guys.

Yet you focus only on the materialistic alimony angle since you managed to dig up some stats on that so you need to shove them down everyone's throats.

Lol I didn't even post any stats yet. And yeah, asking some objective questions about how many divorcees actually receive alimony will tell us how prevalent it is, and the average award will tell us if it's really as expensive as RPers claim. Sorry for bringing some objectivity into your pity party on a debate sub.

[–]powerkickPoly, Bi, Blue, Betafag-3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]powerkickPoly, Bi, Blue, Betafag-2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago* (15 children) | Copy Link

I'm not justifying his behaviour. Frankly, I don't know the actual actions he's describing. From my limited understanding, what he's been doing is ignoring her criticisms and emasculation of him, going to the gym, playing poker. It's technically manipulation, but mainly in the sense that he understands what he's doing and the possible impact of his actions. It's relatively passive compared to her active hostility.

I'm actually somewhat confused as to how certain you seem about the situation. All I've said is that it seems likely the wife would just continue the behaviour. I don't know if it's going to be "fuck amazing" for anyone. He certainly believes that he is a better parent for her and the decision for him to just up and leave is obviously going to be more difficult for him than it would be for you to just propose online.

Also, I messed up my writing there, by "she" I referred to his daughter.

Well that makes things clearer.

I don't know about his daughter, but I have a cousin in a similar situation, and by the way she was bawling after her father gutted himself, I'd say she'd have been happier if the alternative was that her father just ignored her mother's constant criticisms and emasculation.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

I'm actually somewhat confused as to how certain you seem about the situation.

That's something that baffles me as well about quite a bunch of the bluepillers* here - you give them a rundown of a situation to illustrate why you hold redpill views or why being aware of redpill ideas might have merit or even be necessary, and they - regardless of context - fill in the gaps (or create new gaps they can fill) by pulling untenable speculations out of their asses in order to refute your point only so they can defend their "redpillers are Satan and always wrong"-position.

*to be fair, it's usually male-identified bluepillers who pull that off; and they also tend to demonize the men involved in that scenario to justify the behavior of the women. If female bluepiller start speculating (which they seem to do a lot less), it's more a whitewashing of the women involved.

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

It's especially bizarre to read stuff like, "you probably should lose your daughter".

The level of "manipulation" he's describing in terms of actionable content is just avoidance. He tells the wife that he's not going to accept being emasculated in front of their daughter, and then leaves. Doesn't hit her. Doesn't scream back. But since he has the arbitrary rp label and understands that his actions might be more productive than getting into an argument that leads to no where, it's technically manipulation and he should lose his daughter. Never mind the mention that the wife's behaviour (insulting the other parent in front of their daughter) is questionable to say the least. No, we're somehow certain who the bad guy is.

I can guarantee you that if Archwinger used a weaker tone, gave a hint of innocence/naivety, didn't have the rp label/baggage, most bpers and even subs like /r/relationships and similar subs would be flooding him with sympathy.

Just replace and reorganize a lot of his text to suggest that he's vulnerable/weak and needs to be taken care of like a boy would:

"I want to her to fuck my brains out" with "I want to be loved"
"stop being a disrespectful and emasculating bitch toward me me in front of our daughter" with "I wish she'd stop being so abusive!"
"ignore my wife" with "give her space to think" or something even weaker like "retreat because I don't know what to do about her!"

"Why is my wife doing this to me in front of our daughter? I told her that this is hurting me, and I've tried to give her space to think about it. That seems to work, but only temporarily. She then stops loving me again. <snipped/>"

BOOM, he'd get instant sympathy from most redditors. It's all about tone.

It's frustrating to think about. The balance between being respected and sympathized with. It's something that bpers don't seem to empathize with because they have very different ideas of what "respect" means and in general they don't value it as much as sympathy. ... When or if my uncle recovers, he may be pitied but he'll have even less respect. It's such an unpleasant and difficult matter to think about.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cactuar_TamerMaking poor life choices.-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

What you are characterizing as 'tone' is more substantial than that. The perspectives you've offered here are not equivalents.

"giving someone space" implies a level of mutuality and respect in the actual situation that is not present in "ignoring someone." In giving someone space, you disengage because they need/want time alone, and it is implied that once they desire your company again, they can have it you are not dismissing them. In contrast, "Ignoring someone" implies dismissiveness, and that that person's want/need for your company is being disregarded by you.

"stop being disrespectful and emasculating" rings, especially in the context of a sub who's members have a tendency to microanalyze normal interactions for hints of 'shit tests' and to characterize a lack of total obsequiousness as 'disrespect,' as a dubious/ambiguous statement. Without knowing more it's hard to say whether she isn't just a normal person making normal criticisms. "stop being verbally abusive" is clearer. I'd still want to know details before I accepted it, but at least the intimidate impression doesn't suggest that the speaker's ego might be the actual problem.

I shouldn't really have to type an explanation as to why wanting to be fucked and wanting to be loved are not the same thing, but I will point out that the context of RPer's tendency to describe women as good for nothing but sex is may be amplifying the effect even further in this last case.

Those two things are saying different things

It's not tone or semantics, you'd get different reactions because you'd be describing very different things.

As to the last, BPers value respect as much or more as sympathy, we just think it's something everyone deserves a basic level of, not only men. I would say I personally have less empathy for RP concepts of being disrespected because I have often seen being respected and being obeyed conflated.

[–]steelpuppy2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Those_Who_RemainIrrelevant Homosexual0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

I've seen dozens of examples in which TRP reads a 'BP success story', followed by countless of RPers who suddenly know everything about the relationship and how it will end.

Hah! Well, can't argue with that; though you arguably would have to define what "success" means. The problem with "BP success stories" is that they're usually accounted for through the RP lens:

highschool sweetheart soulmate romance with happy ending? RP: Highfive, you put a ring on her early! (just don't do something stupid or you'll regret that you married)
30 year old nerd has his happy ending after all when he marries a georgeous woman his age, while he wasn't so much as looked at by comparably gorgeous women ten years earlier? RP: Dude...

On the other hand, these RP cautionary tales IMHO tend to be a lot less ambiguous.

Archwinger doesn't put up with the open and repeated emotional abuse from his wife and gives her the silent treatment instead, until she gives in? BP (to Archwinger): You abusive asshole!
accomplished 30 year old guy gets in contact with materialistic girl who rejected him years earlier but suddenly feels remorse over her decision? BP: Maybe she has genuinely changed! (I'm not making this up)
guy who grew up in a feminist-influenced environment finds out that women aren't as he was told they are after years of trying to figure things out? BP: The fact that he repeatedly dropped the ball for so long means that he must have been a depressed aspie! His feminist-minded sister who was big about gender equality dated jerks and rednecks? BP: Must have been because her father was a narcissist and she was drawn to the same guys (I'm not making this up - and I wish I was, because in that story it was explicitly said that the brother was a people's person and that both of them grew up without a father)
an explanation had a story quoted about your typical providers who marry materialistic women and spend the rest of their sorry lives under their thumbs and experience constant emotional abuse? BP: They married her for sex and because of that deserved being used! (I'm not making this up)
the most important and influental figure of a nation's feminism who had left her mark on the mainstream there wrote some really retarded shit? BP: Can't be, she must have been a radical fringe figure! (I'm not making this up)

Sorry, but at times the denial is really strong.

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

[–]steelpuppy3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AerobusThe Red Pill is Truth1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GridReXXit be like that7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

He speaks truth. He's deliciously diabolical, but in a reformed way. He's giving me the Despicable Me villain turned caretaker of children.

He is the only RPer I endorse. And maybe a few of you here when you've had your coffee and nice pills.

So, you want to be slapped back to your senses? Cough up the red pill. She is a better red piller than you will ever be.

That made me chuckle a great deal.

Here's the thing. Everyone manipulates. All communication is manipulation. All flirtation is manipulation. TRP and the crazy bishes they want to date all dabble in the dark arts of manipulation, which can be sexy in the short-term, but usually leads to emotional trauma and baggage for decades.

It's like in all of those witch movies, the witches who practice black magic all have this "heavy toll to pay." There's always a significant price to cough over when you take the shortcut.

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]GridReXXit be like that1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]runswithelves0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jacks1000-5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]We_Are_LegionAutumn Red5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]We_Are_LegionAutumn Red1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Can you start the conversation by offering an opinion? Or is the opinion exactly the one expressed by the comment?

If it's the latter, then I agree to the extent that LTRs based on overt deception are generally impractical. I've said close to the same thing on asktrp before (a series of anecdotes about women who tried to deceive me in various ways that failed followed by a reminder that of how difficult it is to keep up a long-term facade in the face of intellectual peers or superiors), so I can't exactly disagree with that comment strongly.

That being said, I have to point out that better pro-rp stories by more compelling throwaways have been written, and they had been called out.

Relevant: The commenter you're referencing and the circlejerker accompanying her seemed to miss the clue: "Seriously....the answer telling OP to shit in a box with the doll, jizz on it, and send it to her got more upvotes and a positive reception from OP than your post did. Lmao."

Let's look at that comment they are talking about:

Cool story, bro. Why not write it as a green text and post it to /b/?

Sell the doll, buy two hookers with the money, take photos while you fuck them up their asses, shit in a box, stick the photos in, jizz on them, put a thank you card in it. Send it to her.

That was the comment that had more upvotes. Basically, people are not-so-subtly calling bullshit on the story. If I didn't see rpers also calling out pro-rp stories, I'd suspect bias, but in this case, I'd say they are just suspicious individuals in general. I find such suspicion quite justified considering the socially aberrant material they deal with.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What do RPers of PPD think of this comment and the post it's replying to?

For all we know, even that could be bullshit, because few people have that level of self-awareness.

I know, because I used to do it, to both men and women. I did it because it put me in a position of power, and it let me get what I wanted from them. There's one thing you might be right about: your ex may have borderline personality disorder. You know how I know? Because I have BPD and the heightened emotional awareness it gives me is what allowed me to manipulate others, in the exact same way she manipulated you.

As I left high school and entered college, I encountered people who were more emotionally intelligent than me, who I couldn't manipulate. They just thought I was an asshole, and they were right. It left me hollow inside. Depressed, cynical, unhappy with myself and my life. I eventually tried to take my own life, which is what led to me getting the help that I needed in the form of dialectical behavior therapy. And there, I learned what I was doing was wrong, and hurtful not just to the people I cared about, but intensely damaging to my own psychological well being.

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Despite what TRPs want you to think, you can't build a healthy, happy relationship on a foundation of psychological manipulation.

I changed my mind. I actually strongly disagree with this statement. Now, if we put aside our collective moralizing for a second, what we have here is just an extension of the "just world fallacy". Supposing we give this story credibility, why don't we give credibility to the infamous confession made by another redditor (one of the top-voted posts of all time).

He used his house-sitting responsibility to peek into his neighbour's daughter's diary many years ago. He used what he learned to get into her good graces, and that girl is now his wife. That's how the story goes. Is that it? Bad guy wins? Not necessarily, and he's not necessarily "a bad guy". Sometimes things just are the way they are. Someone who used a bit of manipulation in the past ended up succeeding in some way. Maybe he relied on other more honest methods later.

Now for something more mundane. Scripted social interactions in general.

I have a black friend who has what I considered an incredibly cringy, scripted way of making himself comfortable around upper-middle class white people he just met. The conversation goes from normal icebreakers like residency/location/commute naturally to chit-chat about a place like Oakland. And then when given sufficient leeway to talk about it, he'd say the same lines about how he steers clear of the area. Because the gangs there scare him and would likely kick his ass. All true, all honest, but the point of the script was basically to offer a point of possible commiseration, shared fears, etc. Something for the group to empathize with and realize that, "This guy is just like us," and distance himself from "those kinds of black people."

The first time he used it around me, I thought it seemed natural. It was just a natural state of progression for the conversation. The other people were interactive and asking questions or saying things that led him to talk about this. It was only during subsequent executions of the script that I found it remotely awkward (I clued him in but he trusted me enough).

It's technically manipulative. He's not being forthright with his intentions. He's not using direct and obvious communication. He's using a subtle way to communicate the idea that, "Hey bros, I'm one of you!"

As cringy as that may sound to you, it appears to work for him. People laugh, and even visibly relax and laugh it off with him. This and various other scripted interactions actually ingratiate him to certain groups that he perceives might have discriminatory thoughts towards him. How else is he supposed to directly communicate these things? Talk about it upfront?

"Do not worry about me. I may be black, but I'm very white washed, nerdy, and a typical white collar worker."

Just read that and think of how much cringier that is. How awful direct communication can sound. He may be completely sincere, but that kind of communication will get people questioning him. "Wtf! Does he think I'm a racist!?" / "What the hell. That's such a weird thing to actually say." / "He must be very insecure."

A lot of communication is just like that. Indirect, and low level manipulation.

Even supposing someone suspected what he was doing (I had a faint suspicion even the first time, when it seemed the most natural), what are they going to do? Call him out on it when he has plausible deniability and when he's just trying to do something harmless like ingratiating people or finding common ground? Would I not be an asshole for raining on his parade for something almost harmless?

This guy has built healthy, happy relationships this way (granted, I'm talking about professional and platonic ones, but still).

That being said, I suppose it's arguable what the commenter meant by "foundation of manipulation". Possible he/she means an ongoing abuse of it, to which I do agree that it's impractical and more obviously "wrong" in from an ethical perspective.

[–]adrixshadowIndigo Pill(aka dark and evil occult pill)4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]M_rafayCrimson Red0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cuittlerಠ_ಠ[S] 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Yes, I'm in agreement with the commenter.

So you don't think it's real. Ok, neither of us have any way of proving otherwise so that ends all discussion. Just gonna point out tho that this argument comes up every time one side doesn't like a field report or askrelationships post, and I don't find it very compelling unless there are some clear signs it's fraudulent.

There are also a number of posters who took them seriously and got upvoted:

"She can't read your mind, dude, cut it with the magical thinking. Obviously she's intelligent, Machiavellian, perceptive, and is familiar with and does not appreciate game. She probably felt insulted when she called you out and you failed to tone it down. I don't know if toning it down would have been the right call or not. Maybe you could have kept her longer. Maybe it's for the best that it didn't last any longer. So laugh it off, find something funny to do with the blowup doll, and move on." +20

"What the fuck????? This is like some SAW level shit. Avoid her at all costs please. Next thing you know you'll wake up in a warehouse having to solve puzzles to find your way out alive." +14

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Omg I got quoted! Not knowing what /b/ is I think I'm the idiot in that particular case, not having got the joke....not to mention the fact that the vote levels changed afterwards...but whatever :P

You also missed the "cool story, bro" meme, but that's not really important at this point.

I don't think you're an idiot, but you were clearly circle jerking. Completely understandable. You got excited over the story and the harsh/"truthy" lecture given by someone who was clearly anti-trp, and responded.

Nothing sinister about it. Just one of many examples of how simple and common it is for us to caricaturize our presumed opponents. Aside from you, GridReXX made the assumption that the referenced commenter was an rper despite what you pointed out (his/her very first sentence). This was due to her understanding that rpers will usually down vote opposing views. (That has not been my experience, and I've gotten away with posting a shit-ton of bp/beta stuff and even apologetics for feminism.)

The point remains that OP got trped by that girl, hard, and all the trp comments in that thread eviscerating her for being a psycho manipulating bitch are full of sweet, sweet irony.

Well yes, if that did happen, then I actually agree mostly with what was said. It's impractical in the long run to be deceitful to people, especially if you plan on surrounding yourself with intellectual peers. I've written the same in the past. I think most people would actually agree here. Even the top rp response (before the referenced post was likely brigaded to the top) gives this woman credit. For example, alpha_n3rd didn't "eviscerate her for being a psycho manipulating bitch", he wrote that:

Obviously she's intelligent, Machiavellian, perceptive, and is familiar with and does not appreciate game. She probably felt insulted when she called you out and you failed to tone it down.

The two rpers who explicitly called her a "psycho" seemed to actually be praising her. lol

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

[–]Will_Im_Not 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]homo_homini_lupus 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]cuittlerಠ_ಠ[S] 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

When husbands are in demand men are coy and women game When women are freed to be choosy and bestow sex, women are coy and men game. The mor ein demand the hottest women are, the coyer they are and the harder men game

Sure, I've seen this in action myself at co-ed camps that were mostly girls - all the guys were fawned over like precious jewels. ;)

A basic tenet of TRP is that game merely throws women's excellence at mindgames and manipulation back at them. My mom tried to instill the exact tenets of male game in me when i was a teen, which before the sexual revoltution was practiced by women more than men. Its all about which sex has the upper hand in the SMP and MMP

This reminds me a lot of how my mom talked to me as a kid. I'm sorry to say she is not exactly happy or satisfied with how those methods have shaped her life.

[–]homo_homini_lupus 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]xthecharacterdoes this dress make me look pretty?!3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GridReXXit be like that2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cascadecombo0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]hobodick0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	TRP and Manipulation
Author	cuittler
Upvotes	5
Comments	143
Date	November 11, 2014 5:32 PM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/2lzemi/trp_and_manipulation/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/trp-and-manipulation.284384 https://theredarchive.com/post/284384

Comments