XKCD Comic | PurplePillDebate

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK57 points58 points59 points 12 years ago* (169 children) | Copy Link

You know (at the risk of confirming /u/mod1's assertion that I have a weird obsession with these topics!), this is such a dumb, low-hanging meme at this point.

Can we all agree that the advice we give to young men these days about how to attract women can be really, really shitty? That, as a society, we have a habit of giving them platitudes like "respect women" and "don't sexualize girls" and "be yourself" and a bunch of insane bullshit that doesn't actually work and isn't helpful even a little bit?

Shit like this is why young men turn to /r/seduction and /r/theredpill. They take the shitty advice we give them, put it into practice, and fail miserably. Then we shit all over them for it.

Jesus Hoobstank Christ, people, if you're a lonely young man and you see guys who treat women in the exact opposite manner from what you were taught meeting women left and right, is it fucking SURPRISING that these guys start to get frustrated? That they start to get the feeling, hey, maybe I was fucking lied to? That they should emulate the rank misogynist assholes who manage to be "successful" on the dating scene?

It's not easy for young men to learn how to be sexy (without being overly sexual), confident (without being a cocky douche), nice (without being an asexual Nice Guy), and safe-seeming (without being a bashful little boy). And if we keep treating them like they're open season to mock, we'll just keep chasing them into Roosh's waiting arms.

[–]glasswings16 points17 points18 points 12 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]glasswings13 points14 points15 points 12 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]pickup_sticks 11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]lokidemon731 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]myfriendscantknowAgent Orangered (BP Man)13 points14 points15 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]glasswings8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

sex is something you take from a girl, not something you both want and share in

I understand. It's even in the darn language.

Consider the predicates "eats breakfast" and "plays with Karin." They're different kinds of objects ("accusative" vs "comitative"), and English marks the second with "with."

Japanese draws the same distinction. "eats X" is "X o taberu" and "plays with Karin" is "karin to asobu". Likewise, you can distinguish "eating with a cow" (ushi to taberu koto) from "eating beef" (ushi o taberu koto) by o vs to.

Heck, I'm hungry, so let's keep that example rolling. What do you think of marrying the beef? (ushi to kekkon sureba dou omou?) to

English also prefers an accusative object for "fuck" and "screw" and actually won't let you use "with" without changing the meaning (I'd rather get fucked than get fucked with, right?). "Have sex" is an exception.

Now, I'll admit I don't have the greatest vocabulary when it comes to this stuff, but all the equivalent verbs I can think of in Japanese, even the cutesy-vulgar ecchi suru, take to. Browsing the Eijirou dictionary only turns up "dig" (horu) used as gay male slang.

It's not that o can't apply to people. It does if you're waiting for someone (dareka o matsu toki), or respecting them or obeying or punching or manipulating.

But sex? You sex with your love - unless we're talking English and then you've gotta screw her.

[–]lbspredh1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]glasswings1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]glasswings1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]danhakimi2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points1 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–]lbspredh0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]lbspredh0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SigmaMuRP3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]SigmaMuRP3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]glasswings2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

Can we all agree that the advice we give to young men these days about how to attract women can be really, really shitty?

Generally? Sure. I still don't know what the fuck it takes. People tell me to be funny... Women tell me I'm hilarious, and that doesn't seem to be helping me. They tell me to be tall -- that doesn't help. They tell me to be confident, but, when I request any clarification on what that means, they completely fail to differentiate that from being an asshole. And that's men and women. Whatever.

That, as a society, we have a habit of giving them platitudes like "respect women" and "don't sexualize girls" and "be yourself" and a bunch of insane bullshit that doesn't actually work and isn't helpful even a little bit?

Keep in mind such advice isn't just supposed to help you get women, it's also supposed to be good life advice, and morally appropriate. There is other advice you can give (at the other extreme, "use rohypnol"), and that'd work, but which is bad advice anyway, for reasons other than that it would work.

Shit like this is why young men turn to /r/seduction and /r/theredpill. They take the shitty advice we give them, put it into practice, and fail miserably. Then we shit all over them for it.

Jesus Hoobstank Christ, people, if you're a lonely young man and you see guys who treat women in the exact opposite manner from what you were taught meeting women left and right, is it fucking SURPRISING that these guys start to get frustrated? That they start to get the feeling, hey, maybe I was fucking lied to? That they should emulate the rank misogynist assholes who manage to be "successful" on the dating scene?

It's not easy for young men to learn how to be sexy (without being overly sexual), confident (without being a cocky douche), nice (without being an asexual Nice Guy), and safe-seeming (without being a bashful little boy). And if we keep treating them like they're open season to mock, we'll just keep chasing them into Roosh's waiting arms.

But here's the problem... What advice should we give them? That life is hard, and that they should keep making friends and try to be the best people they can, and try to get along with women, and fuck if we know what the last ingredient is? If all we can tell them is... it's like drawing a fucking square circle, except some guys do it all the time... what good is that?

[–]lokidemon731 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]ATBlanchard10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]SigmaMuRP4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MeterusUnicorn Cuck Pill Pharmacist1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Husseinstatue7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]autoNFAPurple Pill3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pickup_sticks 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]pickup_sticks 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]pickup_sticks 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]pickup_sticks 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Nonetheless, do you want to be in a LTR with a guy who's just kind of meh?

Allow me to clarify, because you seem to be getting this wrong consistently: I am not into men. I am a straight male.

but men have been to taught conceal and even be ashamed of their desires for too long. That's where Nice Guy syndrome comes from.

I've never heard anything even vaguely like that. Now, there's a degree of modesty, tact, and propriety to be exercised -- but no, nobody ever said to any man that he should be ashamed of being interested in a woman, at least as far as I know.

If I desire a woman, IMO it's best to make that desire apparent early on rather than pretend I want to just be friends.

You say those things like they're mutually exclusive. If I am attracted to a woman, I usually won't act on it as soon as I meet her, because I'm actually not that shallow. I mean, sure, I'm a little shallow, but I want to get to know a woman before I decide if I want to date her. I'm not going to find a tactful way to let her know that I'm attracted if I am not yet interested in acting on that attraction. But likewise, I won't do anything to preclude a relationship. I will act like I want to be friends, because that is what I want, but never pretend that I want to be just friends, because guess the fuck what? I haven't decided.

Furthermore, I also want to give it time to find out if she's interested in me -- and, naturally, give her time to see if such feelings develop.

But if I'm attracted and think there may be mutual interest, I'm not going to wait 3 dates before I even try to kiss her.

That's fair enough. But again, there's a space in between.

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

I've never heard anything even vaguely like that.

So you think No More Mr Nice Guy was just written for the heck of it? There's a huge audience for it. It's made up of (mostly) men who have internalized some maladaptive behaviors when it comes to attraction and relationships.

If I am attracted to a woman, I usually won't act on it as soon as I meet her

That's all well and good if she's in your social circle, but what if you meet her in passing while out on the town? That exact thing happened to me Friday night. Met a girl at a bar, got her number, escalated, went home with her. The whole scenario played out over several hours, obviously, I didn't just jump her bones, but I made very clear I wasn't just interested in friendship. (A lot of that was nonverbal i.e. close dancing)

Note that I was not looking for a one night stand. We've already seen each other since then and will again.

Maybe you're good at the kind of thing, but I used to be terrible at it. The me of five years ago would have let her slip away and hope that maybe someday I bump into her at a bar or somewhere else.

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So you think No More Mr Nice Guy was just written for the heck of it? There's a huge audience for it.

I think you just answered your own question. It was written because the author thought that a lot of people would buy into his bullshit and that he'd make a lot of money. That doesn't make it right. Cults happen; cult leaders are not all right.

Met a girl at a bar, got her number, escalated, went home with her.

See, I just don't get this. I mean, obviously I know it happens, and get why it seems like fun, but... it seems so vapid and shallow to me.

Note that I was not looking for a one night stand. We've already seen each other since then and will again.

Good for you... But it still seems backwards to me. You got to the end, but... I don't know, that's not really how I want to get there. It seems like you're putting the physical first, then getting to know her and hoping she turns out to be a cool person (which she might be, because there are a lot of cool people out there, and you did at least have one fun night together). As long as your way is not the only way, I'm really going to prefer to do it my way--you know, getting to know them first. Maybe that makes me old-fashioned. Oh well.

[–]jcad19470 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't know your situation, but superficially it seems to me that you would like to be involved in ltr and also be involved in social circle which include women. And you believe that following the golden rule which includes respect and not taking advantage will lead to same. Perhaps this is your situation. I can empathize with you. I did not want to be involved in hookup culture before I had a Ltr. I thought that behavior was crass.

Today there are advantages to playing around. Advantages outside of just prurient interest. One. It is the best way to find women friends and be involved in their social circles. A young man does not want to be accused of social awkwardness and virginity. This makes him less likely to get around socially. Whereas if he proves that he is fuckable material, he is more likely to be accepted. Two. A young man should not ignore women. This will impact on his future professional development, if he is outside the right cliques. Especially true now that most degrees are going to be held by young women. Three. There are fewer male spaces where a young man can express himself in a male only situation. The work place, the professions, everywhere is a place where you need to deal with women. And all these successful women would have been sexually active in college. Whereas the polite young man who was not into dating in college, even if he had one ltr, may be at a social disadvantage.

Sometimes I feel that young women are calling guys losers for not playing the game, or being unable to play. That is why it is important to deal with women sexually in college. Even if he has doubts about the utility of doing so, or he bellies it is crass.

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[deleted]

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK16 points17 points18 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]pickup_sticks 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]autoNFAPurple Pill2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HarrietPotter6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (63 children) | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link

My god, do my eyes deceive me? Is Harriet defending PUA tactics? :O

You're not wrong, of course. I just think you underestimate the significant differences between those dating tactics and the actual, like, meeting-women-and-being-attractive portion of it.

Sure, a well-dressed, good-listener, friendly, skilled, polite (actually I don't know about that last one, overly polite men are probably not going to be forward enough to go "meet women") is going to be more successful at dating than someone who's not those things, but the nitty-gritty of being interesting and flirty and sexy and charming is very much not easy for men.

I also... I dunno, that "general life advice" (applied too generously) can definitely get in the way of effective flirting. Like, if you're a dude who wants to have sex, you're gonna need to sexualize some women. You'll probably need to be the initiator of that, too. You may even need to say some things that are superficially "disrespectful" because you're going for the playful-banter thing.

And again, as the guy, you have the impetus for action on you. Like, you're gonna have to play this "game" well, and you'll need to "lead" this dance. Which is confusing and frustrating for young guys.

[–]HarrietPotter4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

LOL, I'm not defending PUA tactics in the slightest. You'll notice that the advice I approve of is stuff like "dress smart" and "act polite", not "give her a lot of back-handed compliments in an effort to decimate her self-esteem." Sure, being "overly-polite" isn't a good thing; but men in my experience just aren't taught to polish their manners in the same way that women are, and poor manners are a turn-off. Learning basic tact and etiquette really would be helpful to a lot of single guys, imo. Speaking as a woman, these things matter.

the nitty-gritty of being interesting and flirty and sexy and charming is very much not easy for men.

Yeah, I agree. I actually think that this is a direct result of living in a society that caters to the sexual preferences of straight men, almost to the exclusion of everyone else. Women who are looking for a partner know EXACTLY what ideal they need to aim for (and most are painfully aware just how short they fall of that ideal). Men really have no clue. Even men who are married don't necessarily know what it was about them that attracted their partner. Many feel they just got lucky. That's sad for everyone.

So, you know. "Patriarchy harms men too", and all that jazz.

Like, if you're a dude who wants to have sex, you're gonna need to sexualize some women.

...ehhhhhhh. Yes and no. My experience is that most of the time, when men are looking for a woman primarily to have sex with, they tend to get way too sexual, way too fast. The effect of this is virtually always threatening and creepy. There are guys who can pull it off I'm sure, but they're really not the majority. "Don't overly sexualize women" is good advice for most men.

I'm aware that men shoulder virtually all of the burden in this arena. I know that's gotta be tough. I do see the appeal of things like PUA and even TRP; particularly to men who feel frightened, inadequate and overwhelmed. You're right that TRP is a sickness that is symptomatic of larger societal problems. I just think that those problems are essentially rooted in patriarchy. When men are trained to see women as beautiful, inscrutable objects, is it any wonder that they have no idea how to go about courting them?

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

"give her a lot of back-handed compliments in an effort to decimate her self-esteem."

I have a habit of gently ribbing on people so I just asked /u/[redacted] if I neg people. She said no, but rest assured that one day I will meet you and I will neg you till you giggle.

Women who are looking for a partner know EXACTLY what ideal they need to aim for (and most are painfully aware just how short they fall of that ideal)

THIS. Jesus and Moses, THIS. It's so emphatically harmful to everyone involved. Women have full magazines LITERALLY marketed to them that are basically "this is why you're fat and ugly."

(which btw I totally don't believe you're "average looking" :P)

Men really have no clue. Even men who are married don't necessarily know what it was about them that attracted their partner.

Before they shut it down, the NSWATM blog had a post that was something like... "this is why men can be financially successful, have an amazing family with successful children, and be a pinnacle of the community, yet kill themselves at 55."

...ehhhhhhh. Yes and no. My experience is that most of the time, when men are looking for a woman primarily to have sex with, they tend to get way too sexual, way too fast. The effect of this is virtually always threatening and creepy. There are guys who can pull it off I'm sure, but they're really not the majority. "Don't overly sexualize women" is good advice for most men.

Yeah... this is VERY yes-and-no. The guys who DO have consistent casual sex, in my experience, are also the ones most-happy to overstep boundaries in pursuit of it. And (if I were into casual sex, which I'm mostly not) I just can't bring myself to be that kind of hypersexual guy.

That having been said... I mean, sometimes men and women enjoy casual sex, so I find it hard to reconcile "you're going to have to overstep some boundaries" with "but you'll find lots of enthusiastically consenting partners" for men. :/

When men are trained to see women as beautiful, inscrutable objects, is it any wonder that they have no idea how to go about courting them?

Agreed. And one way I get crossed wires with a lot of folks I talk to is that I talk about the on-the-ground reality for young guys instead of doing what you (very, very effectively!) do, which is talk about theory. I feel like there's a vessel for "handholding" with regard to women who figure out that their gender role is bullshit, but that's less so for men.

Has anyone told you recently that you're a totally levelheaded and intelligent commenter? Because you really are and I feel lucky that I get to talk to you <3

[–]HarrietPotter3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I have a habit of gently ribbing on people so I just asked /u/[redacted] if I neg people. She said no, but rest assured that one day I will meet you and I will neg you till you giggle.

I've no doubt that you will :p

Yeah, negging is one of those grain-of-truth concepts that TRP has seized on and bastardized beyond all usefulness or recognition. "Negging", when done well, is what you referred to in your previous comment as "banter". In a more innocent time, we might have called it "teasing". What TRP gets right is that women really do like to be teased. What they get wrong is that the teasing has to be friendly and good-natured. It has nothing to do with "asserting your dominance" or "undermining her self-esteem" or any of that toxic, misogynistic bullsht. If you neg a girl and make her feel bad about herself, you're doing it wrong. The object is to build rapport. The subtext is "we like each other well enough that we can relax the rules a little, and it's okay". The act in itself is affirmative and actually flattering. Of course, TRP turns it into something vicious, negative and adversarial.

THIS. Jesus and Moses, THIS. It's so emphatically harmful to everyone involved. Women have full magazines LITERALLY marketed to them that are basically "this is why you're fat and ugly."

Yeah, I know. It's horrible for women because we go through life feeling hideous and unlovable. It's horrible for men as well, because they also go through life feeling hideous and unlovable, but for very different reasons.

(which btw I totally don't believe you're "average looking" :P)

Oh, stop it, you big flirt :3

Yeah... this is VERY yes-and-no. The guys who DO have consistent casual sex, in my experience, are also the ones most-happy to overstep boundaries in pursuit of it. And (if I were into casual sex, which I'm mostly not) I just can't bring myself to be that kind of hypersexual guy.

Yeah... I agree, this is very complicated. You're right that those successful, hypersexual guys do exist. imo, however, a lot of what we perceive as success on their part is actually confirmation bias. The guys who are happy to consistently overstep female boundaries are also the ones who don't really give a shit when women predictably recoil from them. Those guys are essentially playing a numbers game. They approach a lot of women very quickly, get shot down 90% of the time, but get lucky the other 10%. Because they don't dwell on the 90%, and brag about the 10%, that's all we see. So yeah, I agree with you here, but I do think that observation is quite misleading.

I also think that your distaste towards that strategy is well-deserved. In my experience, women who don't respond well to those guys find them VERY off-putting. And among those women, if you're known as "that guy", you're not dating material. At all. So the more reserved guys are actually courting the larger percentage of women, they're just doing it in a less efficient way.

That having been said... I mean, sometimes men and women enjoy casual sex, so I find it hard to reconcile "you're going to have to overstep some boundaries" with "but you'll find lots of enthusiastically consenting partners" for men. :/

Yeah, I agree. There are people of both genders who do want casual sex, but clearly the odds in that game favor women over men. On the other hand, women have to worry much more about personal safety during casual encounters than men do. Finding the right balance between sexy and respectful is therefore MUCH more critical for men looking for a casual fling than it is for women; both because they're being judged more harshly, and also because they are inherently more threatening. This is another place where the redpill approach really breaks down. You don't want to make your potential one-night-stand feel threatened, and a lot of their philosophy really does have that effect.

Has anyone told you recently that you're a totally levelheaded and intelligent commenter? Because you really are and I feel lucky that I get to talk to you <3

Oh, stop it, we both know I'm too smart to fall for this. You're just using your masculine wiles to disarm me, and it... isn't going to... work >_e

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I imagine that our discussions are probably super-boring for everyone else because we always (mostly) agree with each other. We should have more angry, or something. Like elections.

VOTE CIRCLEJERK. BECAUSE HARRIET WANTS TO SPERMJACK YOU.

the subtext is "we like each other well enough that we can relax the rules a little, and it's okay". The act in itself is affirmative and actually flattering.

And the worst part is, the guys who need this explained are the guys who are going to deploy it inaccurately, which is self-reinforcing the "these guys can't properly interact with women" meme. Which sucks. The guys who most-need this are the ones least able to create it for themselves.

Yeah, I know. It's horrible for women because we go through life feeling hideous and unlovable. It's horrible for men as well, because they also go through life feeling hideous and unlovable, but for very different reasons.

The metaphor I've used before is:

All women automatically get entered into a beauty contest when they hit adolescence. You can't escape it. Men are disqualified from the contest, but occasionally a judge will walk up to a particularly good-looking guy and immediately hand him an OMG CHAMPION medal.

The guys who are happy to consistently overstep female boundaries are also the ones who don't really give a shit when women predictably recoil from them. Those guys are essentially playing a numbers game.

This is why I always say that you can't say /r/seduction doesn't work. It does. It preaches the numbers game.

Swing and miss? MOVE ALONG. HER LOSS.

The problem is that, well, you're overstepping boundaries. If you're willing to do that, consistently, all the time, yeah, you'll get some bites. :/

In my experience, women who don't respond well to those guys find them VERY off-putting. And among those women, if you're known as "that guy", you're not dating material. At all. So the more reserved guys are actually courting the larger percentage of women, they're just doing it in a less efficient way.

Yep, exactly.

Finding the right balance between sexy and respectful is therefore MUCH more critical for men looking for a casual fling than it is for women; both because they're being judged more harshly, and also because they are inherently more threatening.

And I have no solution for this. Beyond all the much-different and -harsher possible consequences of casual sex for women, it's frankly impossible for any individual man to navigate how to properly (and I mean properly in all the most favorable ways!) approach "casual sex" situations.

Charming, safe, sexy, hot, fuckable, not gonna rape you. It's a weird mix of attributes that men have to exhibit, I guess.

[–]AshleyYakeleyFlying Purple Pill Debater1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, negging is one of those grain-of-truth concepts that TRP has seized on and bastardized beyond all usefulness or recognition. "Negging", when done well, is what you referred to in your previous comment as "banter". In a more innocent time, we might have called it "teasing". What TRP gets right is that women really do like to be teased. What they get wrong is that the teasing has to be friendly and good-natured. It has nothing to do with "asserting your dominance" or "undermining her self-esteem" or any of that toxic, misogynistic bullsht. If you neg a girl and make her feel bad about herself, you're doing it wrong. The object is to build rapport. The subtext is "we like each other well enough that we can relax the rules a little, and it's okay". The act in itself is affirmative and actually flattering. Of course, TRP turns it into something vicious, negative and adversarial.

That's quite a straw Red Pill you're knocking down there...

So, awhile ago, the PUA folks came up with the term "negging". They didn't invent the practice obviously, but they did come up with the rather, um, negative term for it. In their usage, it refers to what TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK referred to in a previous comment as "banter". Dare I say we might have called it "teasing" in a more innocent time? They noticed that women really do like to be teased, with any of various subtexts, such as "I'm not flustered by you", "I don't put you above me", "I can prick your pomposity without damaging your self-esteem", "I'm interested but unsure whether you're worth my time", "I'm not desperate", "I'm excited by the possibility that you might be good enough for me", "I can read your nonverbal expression", "I'm competent in social situations", "I don't suffer from any of the numerous mental illnesses and personality disorders that damage social judgement or sense of humour", etc., depending on their theory. Negging is supposed to be affirmative and actually flattering, surprisingly, or at least exciting, though it certainly is signalling something about the power relationship.

Then various SJ/feminist/Blue Pill types caught wind of the term and, always hypersensitive about power relationships between men and women, used it as Exhibit A in how PU was all toxic, misogynistic bullshit. According to them, "negging" is all about undermining a woman's self-esteem, making her feel bad about herself, so that she'd look to the guy to recover her self-worth. Strangely, they are always ambiguous about whether this vicious, negative and adversarial tactic actually works.

The truth is, of course, that undermining someone's self-esteem doesn't make anyone open up. Think about how you feel when you've been insulted: do you warm up to the person who said it? I mean, maybe it would work if it were someone you already wanted the approval of, but some random guy? Well, how you feel in such situations is pretty much how everyone feels. Insulting doesn't work as a pick-up tactic. PUA are always at pains to point out the difference, especially as they are empirically- rather than ideologically-driven: they really are only interested in whatever gets them laid.

To be fair, TBP et alii are not entirely at fault for their error. A huge cohort of chumpy dudes also caught wind of this negging thing, and machine-gun "negs" to every Hot Babe Seven-Or-More at bars and parties all over the English-speaking world, generating much annoyance and exasperation. Possibly a lot of them were wearing black fedoras at one time and that's how that thing got started too.

[–]pickup_sticks 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]HarrietPotter2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]HarrietPotter2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]HarrietPotter4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Those_Who_RemainIrrelevant Homosexual5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]suscitareMGTOW Red Pill Man-3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Those_Who_RemainIrrelevant Homosexual3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]suscitare0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Those_Who_Remain3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]suscitare0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Those_Who_Remain3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]suscitare0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Those_Who_Remain3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]Those_Who_Remain5 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HarrietPotter1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]suscitareMGTOW Red Pill Man3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]HarrietPotter7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]suscitareMGTOW Red Pill Man2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]suscitareMGTOW Red Pill Man-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

You sound like Dwight Schrute. Seriously.

Ad hominem attack ignored.

And you complain about women assuming they know how men think and feel, yet the whole of TRP is based on the assumption a group of men know perfectly well how women think and feel. How is that not hypocrisy?

It isn't hypocrisy because women are not equal to men; men are better at thinking about what it is like to be in someone else's shoes. Men are capable of thinking objectively and this is why it was men that developed the scientific method and why almost all of the great scientists of ages past have been men. Women on the other hand stuck with their solipsisitic thinking which means they can only think about something in the context of their own petty, selfish little worlds. Women don't seem to be cognisant of the fact that men have consciousness too, and most probably a higher form of consciousness than their own consciousness.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted]8 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]devotedpupa5 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kidkvlt2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]polyhooly2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HarrietPotter2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]HarrietPotter-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]HarrietPotter1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

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

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

[–]HarrietPotter2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]autoNFAPurple Pill4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HarrietPotter-3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]still_very_alive4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]HarrietPotter0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]still_very_alive2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]HarrietPotter1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]still_very_alive0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]HarrietPotter1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]autoNFAPurple Pill4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]HarrietPotter-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]autoNFAPurple Pill2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]bodhidharma6 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar20 points21 points22 points 12 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -8 points-7 points-6 points 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar17 points18 points19 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]Husseinstatue5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Husseinstatue2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Husseinstatue0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Azure_phantomBlue Pill2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK12 points13 points14 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Azure_phantomBlue Pill3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They tend to go for a very specific sort of woman who their techniques work on. The sort of woman who is looking for the best of the best and only the best of the best will suffice (best of the best typically limited to best available at that moment). That's why you get ideas like hypergamy and women being sluts who will cheat on you at a moment's notice the minute you show weakness or lose frame. The women they're going after are typically shallow and not good for any sort of material investment (unless you want a trophy wife or a gold digging wife).

Even the idea of a "friend with benefits" to these guys would be pretty foreign. Or having casual sex.

Eh, that's where they have the idea of spinning plates. Apparently spinning plates is just having a lot of FWB and casual relationships. Why they have to call it plate spinning instead of FWB or casual relationships, who the hell knows? Because they want to be offensive? Because they want to have some new lingo for their boy's club?

But they do have the concept in place, even if they're calling it something else.

[–]lokidemon731 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK14 points15 points16 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]lokidemon731 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]canti28 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK6 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]canti282 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago* (20 children) | Copy Link

Going to disagree with you that men are consistently given "bad advice", "lied to by society". During SuperBowl I sat with a notepad and jotted down all the commercials. Can we stipulate that sporting events are dominated by male viewers and advertisers play to this demographic? The male-oriented commercials for cars, beer, body care all featured handsome, sporty, rich, high-status men, usually fronted by a famous actor. Only two commercials caught my eye in that they could be interpreted as "beta". One was a Chevy truck commercial, man driver with a woman passenger who looks to be a cancer patient, the other was a Doritos commercial where a little girl wrangled and hogtied a boy. What is this lie that men have been fed?

When people say "be yourself" (incidentally a gender neutral advice also given to women), they say this in order not to frame the advice in the negative. What they mean is "do not pretend to be someone else to get the girl/guy because that'll be a front you'll have keep up all your life and it's not you." What is so bad about that advice? Who is so stupid as to take that advice to mean "show up to a date in sweats and order wings" because that's who you really are? That is completely stupid! TRP clings desperately to this illusion that they have been fed this lie by "feminized society" like someone is actively trying to keep them down. I will argue that the external placement of blame is revisionist history, I've said it elsewhere that this "lie" is a construct men have created in order to excuse their own mediocrity.

If men have been lied to, then women have also been lied to also. Looks matter, a lot. And yet I went around in jeans and a hoodie and tied my hair up for years. Amazing what a good haircut, a pencil skirt, some heels, a little mascara and lipstick can do. Nobody lied to me, society bombarded me with images of beautiful women in short dresses, with white teeth and big boobs. Every fairytale I ever read had a beautiful princess, not an ugly princess. I think everyone wants to be loved for who we think we are, and we think we are more than our appearance and our possessions. Even beautiful and rich people don't want to be loved just for their beauty and wealth. If you sat down with Tom Brady and Gisele Bundchen and asked them why they love each other, Tom isn't going to say because Gisele is gorgeous and Gisele isn't going to say because Tom is a handsome and famous football player. And it's undeniable that Tom is handsome and famous and rich, and Gisele is beautiful and famous and rich.

Somehow we've translated this desire to be loved for who we are to "looks and possessions don't matter." This is a cognitive failure that both genders commit, it's a costly mistake but as we mature we recognize and correct it. Who is shitting on these people who are bad with the opposite sex? I think you are overly generous with people who gravitate toward TRP despite the horrible demeaning misogyny. You mod /r/AskMen, right? There are plenty of good introspective advice about standing up for yourself, have boundaries, from that sub. The TRP "society made me this way" excuse is also contradicted by practically everyone who's had a bad turn at romance and came out of it without being a women(or men)-hating shitbag.

Edited: spelling

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK13 points14 points15 points 12 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

Can we stipulate that sporting events are dominated by male viewers and advertisers play to this demographic? The male-oriented commercials for cars, beer, body care all featured handsome, sporty, rich, high-status men, usually fronted by a famous actor.

I really don't know exactly what you're trying to say here. If you're trying to say that "handsome, sporty, rich, high-status men" are a good template for young men to follow if they want to be successful with women... well, you're right, except that 99% of men won't ever be those things.

What is this lie that men have been fed?

That women are attracted to polite, respectful, smart guys and NOT attracted to the traditional masculine stereotype - sexually aggressive, machismic (yes I just invented that word), tall with toned muscles, a bit distant, and in control of his emotions.

ESPECIALLY when guys are young, ^ those are the guys who tend to be disproportionately successful with women.

When people say "be yourself" (incidentally a gender neutral advice also given to women)

Not in quite the same way, though. Just like you indicate later in your post, women are still disproportionately judged by their looks, and women are very rarely told by society "don't get a good haircut, a pencil skirt, some heels, a little mascara and lipstick." We're quite clear (sadly!) with young women that they'll be judged by their bodies.

Men, in a way that's qualitatively different from women, are still expected to impress with their personalities. I'm not expressing a value judgment about this, here, only relaying my experiences about why those two things aren't exactly analogous.

I've said it elsewhere that this "lie" is a construct men have created in order to excuse their own mediocrity.

I do mod askmen (as well as oney) and in my extensive experience, we've been really really bad at being honest with young men.

If men have been lied to, then women have also been lied to also.

Cool, sure, but I'm talking about men.

Who is shitting on these people who are bad with the opposite sex?

Oh god askwomen and twox. Like, really, there's plenty of good stuff there too, but the number of guys they label "entitled" and the quantity of "he was only my friend to get in my pants" posts is absurd.

Any young, awkward guy who hasn't learned the rules (like the rule that's disproportionately applied when men are young: "you'll need to approach and engage and be forward with HER because that's your gender role and she won't be approaching YOU anytime soon") is usually assumed to be malicious.

I think you are overly generous with people who gravitate toward TRP despite the horrible demeaning misogyny.

Look I'm certainly not a redpillian, but I'll say the same thing to you that I say to everyone else: if you're a young, lonely, awkward man who can't meet women, you eventually stop caring if [tactic] is endorsed by society at large. If it works, you're gonna start trying it.

And despite the shitty, awful externalities they produce, you can NEVER say "seduction tactics don't work." They do.

[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points 12 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

I really don't know exactly what you're trying to say here.

I am challenging the assertion that society has lied to men about what women want. If you listen to what society has to say to men about what women want, it is the stereotypical powerful rich handsome guy who gets the girl. There is practically no mass media image encouraging men to be "polite, respectful, smart guys". If anything, The Nerds were reviled until they found the cheat code: make lots of money. In every mass media marketed to men, men are in fact encouraged to be "sexually aggressive, machismic, tall with toned muscles, a bit distant, and in control of his emotions." Somehow men have tuned this out, and manufactured the message "polite, respectful, smart guys" get the girl, when this has never been the case. It is ironic that TRP thinks they have uncovered this hidden truth, when it is the predominant stereotypical message directed at men. I had this conversation with another poster here, and his assertion was that men learned to be a "Nice Guy^TM " from the movies. Which movies?

women are very rarely told by society "don't get a good haircut, a pencil skirt, some heels, a little mascara and lipstick.

When have men been told NOT to dress well, look nice, smell nice?

I'm talking about men.

There are two points I'm trying to make: society did not lie to men, specifically, this is a cognitive mistake that everyone makes. And, you don't get a reactionary response from women that they have been lied to, there's a majority of men who don't think they've been lied to. The response from TRP is an abnormal one.

Oh god askwomen and twox

I dunno, /r/AskWomen seems like an echo chamber to me, I don't read there. Is it a good reflection of typical women? I want to distinguish between the genuine nice guy and the "Nice Guy^TM ". The nice guy is probably an amorphous concept but the "Nice Guy^TM " is there under a masquerade to opportunistically get into her pants.

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK13 points14 points15 points 12 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

If you listen to what society has to say to men about what women want, it is the stereotypical powerful rich handsome guy who gets the girl.

This - and the entire proceeding paragraph - refers near-exclusively to men 30+ and often 40+. Of course, being wealthy will always seem like an advantage to guys. That's a given.

Now, if you look at recent (I mean last thirty years) young men in movies that are trying to appeal to young people, the frame changes. Go type "teen comedies" into google and you can follow along, if you like.

10 things I hate about you: nerdy guy and bad-guy-reformed-into-cute-boy get the girl.

Ferris Bueller: somewhat of an exception. I'll say, though, that everyone in that movie LOVED Ferris. He was a righteous dude. Also a proto-computer-geek.

Breakfast Club: well, yeah.

Mean Girls: Aaron Samuels is an emotionally expressive, handsome-yet-smart-and-studious guy. And most guys don't look like Aaron Samuel.

American Pie: all nerds except that one, who reforms into a choir-singing nerd to get the girl.

INSERT EVERY SINGLE MICHAEL CERA MOVIE HERE

Clueless: Paul Rudd's character is the nerd.

The jock, the sexually aggressive guy, the male stereotype? He doesn't get the girl in these types of media. Of course being 30+ and wealthy is still desirable, but these guys aren't 30+.

When have men been told NOT to dress well, look nice, smell nice?

My point was this is not emphasized for men in nearly the same was as it is for women, because women are disproportionately harshly judged as compared to men.

And, you don't get a reactionary response from women that they have been lied to, there's a majority of men who don't think they've been lied to

Maybe. The ones who figure out that Real Life Michael Cera doesn't get the girl are the lucky ones, and they make fun of Michael Cera as a result. But the ones who don't are ones you end up seeing on the internet, complaining.

The nice guy is probably an amorphous concept but the "Nice GuyTM " is there under a masquerade to opportunistically get into her pants.

See, and this is my point. You're attributing this to malice. That they're being "opportunistic" and trying to "get in her pants."

In my experience, the vast majority of guys who talk like this are ignorant, not malicious. Almost all of them are typically ACTUALLY nice guys who just don't KNOW how to attract women. And as soon as they make a rhetorical misstep in describing themselves, we jump all over them.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Here's what I've written before:

Those romcoms are manufactured TO WOMEN. They are the powertrips and ego-strokes FOR WOMEN. Men watch these movies and they take away the wrong message, because men were never the intended audience. It sucks up to women about how she possesses an unseen goodness that can transform a man.

I analyzed how Bridget Jones's Diary is a woman's fantasy here.

User autoNFA asked me review Say Anything in context and I did, here.

I made a thread about what boys and girls fantasize about here.

I made an argument that men's fantasy is about power here, and here.

Men have watched RomComs manufactured to appeal to women and got the wrong message. When society speaks to men, it is unequivocal about what it wants from men. Men have not been lied to. I throw down the gauntlet: find me a RomCom and I will give you an analysis, and it is NOT about being a Nice Guy^TM .

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Hm, OK, yeah, I think I disagree on two levels.

One, romantic comedies aren't exactly what I'm talking about. Those still feature "successful" men in a way that young guys can't really be. For example, no desirable man basically ever in a romantic comedy is poor, or ugly, or any negative trait at all besides befuddled, awkward, and dorky. Which are all things that "the woman can fix." I'm talking about movies marketed to young people.

Two, though, maybe I was bad with my terminology: "society" wants strong, tough men, I suppose. The problem is that most men aren't ever going to get the chance to fly to an asteroid to save earth, or save an airport from blowing up, or any of the thousand-and-a-half things we've seen action stars do.

To get their cues, they deal in more reasonable media, media that can semiaccurately portray what their love could really be, and THAT ends up being where they get the idea that the Michael Ceras and Joseph Gordon-Leavitts of the world are the type who end up "getting the girl."

[–]canti28 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

and THAT ends up being where they get the idea that the Michael Ceras and Joseph Gordon-Leavitts of the world are the type who end up "getting the girl."

I'm going to take issue with a couple things. First of all, being like JGL will pretty much work for any guy. The guy you described up above:

Charming, safe, sexy, hot, fuckable, not gonna rape you. It's a weird mix of attributes that men have to exhibit, I guess.

That pretty much describes JGL to a T.

But I do think that you're right that the sort of women that Michael Cera ends up with are not the sort of women that the proverbial "Nice Guy" should be pursuing because they will be incompatible. The guy who identifies with Michael Cera probably isn't going to end with someone remotely like Mary Elizabeth Winstead, but the message he's continually getting is to pursue the "cool girl" or the "popular girl", and those are also the type of women who are going to be most visible to him in reality.

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]canti28 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

As far as romantic comedies go, he's played pretty much the consumate nice guy in 500 Days of Summer as well as every blue piller's conception of the average meathead alfalfa male in Don Jon (well, a very watered down version). But I meant his public persona rather than his film roles. He has openly identified himself as a feminist and really doesn't have any reputation as a womanizer or anything close to it like George Clooney. Dude's about as beta as a Hollywood celebrity can get. Women seem to love him though.

And yeah, I do agree with you that those sorts of movies can give guys unrealistic ideas about how dating works and that most of these "Nice Guys" are not malicious, just ignorant. Where I disagree is in the notion that these guys don't often have feelings of entitlement towards the women they fawn over. Entitlement isn't a malicious feeling, it can just turn into malice very quickly, and the ones who end up as terpers probably felt pretty entitled.

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

OK, we are now shifting to "teen comedy" gears.

Teen comedy is another creature. It's not a fantasy of men or women. It is a joke at our own expense: the stupidity, the sexual awkwardness, the dumbassery we committed when we were young and didn't know any better. Who is watching these movies and thinking that's how to get the girl? Who is watching and thinking these movies are telling guys the way to behave to get the girl? It is a 90-minute joke about how awful we were in our blunder-years.

I can't stream American Pie or Superbad right now, but I remember the latter a bit. It's two doofus who were trying to buy liquor for girls in an attempt to impress them, and their misadventure. Did the Michael Cera get the girl? I don't remember. I only remember his character and the Johah Hill character (Seth) acting out a teenage bromance.

Let's take Seth, fat, clumsy, not very handsome Seth, who has a crush on Jewel, played by Emma Stone. We are not meant to emulate Seth, we are supposed to laugh at Seth, he's a fucking clown, we were clown ourselves but let's not remember that it's too painful. Seth has a filthy mouth and he thinks Jewel wants his D! Do you think Seth actually thinks this, or do you think Seth knows the real score and is talking trash in a self-deprecating manner and "whistling past the graveyard" in his machismo posturing? Cue Emma, talking to Seth. Cue Seth and his recollection of what Emma said to him: "I want the D! the Seth Special Sauce!" This did not happen except in Seth's mind. His best friend Michael Sera is telling him, you're trying to buy liquor for girls and she's using you, there's no chance she's going to get with you.

Jonah Hill was so good as Seth because he played it with such braggadocio, this hot girl wants the D, she's so obvious, he's going to give it to her good. When in reality, the Seth character is hyper-inflating his trash talk to an unbelievable level of sham so when his dreams are frustrated, he can write it off as "It was all a joke, man!" Underneath there's just a little tiny glimmer of hope, but Seth doesn't dare to hang on it, so he plays it off as a giant joke.

How was this in any way instructive to men? It's a joke, even Seth is in on the joke. Pretty girls don't want fat funny clowns.

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Wellllll... I mean, your analysis kinda falls apart a little because Seth totally does get the girl in the end. And also, that's not really what the Michael Cera character says to him. He's encouraging but he tempers it.

And yeah, the Michael Cera character totally does get the girl in the end, despite not having the cojones to actually try to go after her. He resorts (again, like most of the guys we're talking about overarchingly) to staying silent about his attraction and she has to come on to HIM, which is not a reasonable thing for teenage boys to expect to happen. Young guys can't be coy and shy.

You know who they show emphatically NOT getting laid in Superbad? The sexually aggressive male-stereotype dudes. Same with American Pie - the only guy like that who ends up having sex is the Seann William Scott character, who's portrayed as an utter douche.

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

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

Yeah, so I will admit that mixed messages to both genders are confusing. It takes a keen introspection to figure out what is society trying to tell you, and if that's in fact the right way to go. We watch movies and shows indiscriminately, and we latch on to what we want to see and believe. I just have this ... this thing ... that Red Pill men are trying to blame their problems on society, "they told me this lie", when the truth is closer to "it's a confusing mish mash of messaging." TRP seeks a villain where there is none.

So, I don't watch James Bond movies and think I should wear shorter dresses and pack heat and be dangerous. I don't know why it's a stretch for men to watch women-oriented movies and find it ridiculous that they should mold themselves into this eunuch butler type that does everything she wants.

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So, I don't watch James Bond movies and think I should wear shorter dresses and pack heat and be dangerous

I take a few issues with this. James Bond is obviously fantasy, whereas "rom coms" are much closer to... "reality" is the wrong word, but I think you know what I'm saying.

Which leads me to my next point: besides the fantasy elements (be dangerous, pack heat) Moneypenny actually does contain that nugget of truth for women: be traditionally beautiful, dress in something "sexy," be demure, and suck up really really hard to the male in power. Which IS something that the average young woman can do, but Being James Bond isn't something the average young man can do.

I just have this ... this thing ... that Red Pill men are trying to blame their problems on society, "they told me this lie", when the truth is closer to "it's a confusing mish mash of messaging." TRP seeks a villain where there is none.

If it helps, I'm very very very much not a redpillian :D

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

Yes, I think I understand you. Thing is, if I were to be confused about messages intended for men, I would watch James Bond movies and want to be what James Bond desires, because Bond is the kind of man I'd want, right? Work with me here, I'm a confused girl watching a bunch of movies and Bond is portrayed as to ultimate ladies' man. Who does Bond want? Not Moneypenny. In the old Bond movies she's an old woman ballbuster. In the new Bond reincarnation she's a field agent who took a desk job because she couldn't hack it. Bond never wanted, or got Moneypenny. I wouldn't be inspired to be Moneypenny. I'd want to be the girl that broke Bond, Vesper, or I'd be the friend he can't have, Camille, or the child prostitute he wants to save, Severine. No girl watching Bond movies would ever want to be Moneypenny, no confusion about that.

But then we're talking about fantasy, and it's not so much the possibility of becoming a secret agent licensed to kill or a winning race car driver, per se. It's the modeling of those characteristics, no? If we accept that these action movies are power fantasies for men, we can't really say society has lied to men about what it wanted.

[–]autoNFAPurple Pill0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]autoNFAPurple Pill0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

10 Things I Hate About You: A woman's fantasy, needless to say a remake of Taming of the Shrew, her "discovered" goodness is the agent for reformation.

Ferris Bueller: I dunno, this is a hard one, since Ferris didn't really have a love interest, he was just interested in outwitting the authorities.

Breakfast Club: I have to watch this again, but my impression of watching it for the first time was that the girls aren't what their first impressions of them conveyed, and it's the realization of this and their vulnerabilities that enabled the guys to get the girl, it's a frame switch.

Mean Girls: not sure how it is relevant, it's mostly a highschool how-to-fit-in defeat-the-clique not-really-a-romance story. The guy is a math illiterate, and we are shown this.

American Pie: I have to rewatch this one. I experienced it as a stupid comedy, I don't remember it well enough to analyze it.

Clueless: God, the whole thing is a woman's fantasy about your inherent goodness outshining your superficiality, that the good guy will eventually see your goodness and overlook the ditz, that's who he falls for.

We need to have a talk about Michael Cera movies, I only know of two, Juno and Superbad. They are not about wooing women.

Can I persuade you to see that men have watched movies marketed to women, speaking to women, and got THE WRONG MESSAGE?

[–]giantcatbear99 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

That they start to get the feeling, hey, maybe I was fucking lied to?

I suppose that sentiment is understandable if they've misunderstood being told how to behave so as to not cause discomfort with being told how to behave so as to be perceived to be attractive. I haven't seen it been touted that way though so I'm unsure of where this idea of it being a lie stems from.

That they should emulate the rank misogynist assholes who manage to be "successful" on the dating scene?

Furthermore I don't see why it would warrant entirely forgoing taking some measures to ensure you are treating people well just because there are those who manage to get by just fine in spite of their behavior causing great discomfort. It is really silly to immediately believe the only difference between yourself and someone else is that they are an asshole. Nobody likes an asshole, but there are redeeming qualities.

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]glasswings9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar21 points22 points23 points 12 years ago* (14 children) | Copy Link

It's yet another anti-"Nice Guy" circlejerk, which is pretty damned unfortunate as everyone on trp/tbp trash on nice guys and "betas" all the time.

I kind of feel bad for "nice guys". They get shit on from both sides. It's easy to point and make assumptions about what they were thinking when they used beta tactics to win the hearts of girls they were interested in. But if we want to be "gender neutral", we should be "sensitive" and understanding of them the same way we give leeway to women who recently suffered heartbreak and are venting their emotional frustrations themselves. I know I certainly do. Shit happens, and it's pretty obvious from what I've seen that most rpers see "anger" as only a phase, one that is best overcome. I've actually made a comment in favour of catharsis on trp and was argued against, so clearly a lot of people are against it.

Unfortunately for these Nice Guys, one side doesn't value sensitivity, and the other side is often hypocritical (but that's ok, because they can't afford to be fair when they are fighting The Patriarchy).

[–]Husseinstatue9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RlyORly4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]still_very_alive8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Husseinstatue2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -10 points-9 points-8 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]RlyORly9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I agree that an actual nice guy might be lumped in with "Nice Guys", but generally the manipulative ones will reveal themselves pretty quickly, such as disparaging her current boyfriend and trying to get her to dump him (or acting the same way about guys she's interested in if she's single), or by going out of their way to do some grand gesture and then follows it up with some relatively insignificant request in an effort to make her feel like she owes him.

An actually nice guy that falls for a friend won't attempt to manipulate her into feeling like she owes him a relationship.

I don't judge nice/"Nice" based on looks, but actions. Unfortunately some do, and I don't find that acceptable either. And yes, there are women out there that manipulate men into doing stuff for her in return for her dangling her affection in front of him, but those are about as common as the "Nice Guys". Which is to say, they're not common, but they're out there.

[–]Husseinstatue9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

An actually nice guy that falls for a friend won't attempt to manipulate her into feeling like she owes him a relationship.

No. He tries to convince himself that these feelings should be kept a secret from her and from others. But then he realizes that he can't hold himself back like that while staying emotionally healthy, and she eventually finds out.

Then he gets strung along by a girl who's "confused about her own feelings" and eventually he's taken for a ride that leaves him grasping for straws, anything that can make him stop feeling so helpless.

And when she just cuts off all contact with him because it's "awkward" or she can't even bring herself to come out with an honest "No", he's left wondering why things turned out that way.

Oh, and not to mention the majority of their mutual "friends" take the girl's side and shit on the guy for making her feel so shitty.

And then for a while, he actually believes that

It's. All. His. Fault.

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]W-Z-Rself-hating terper10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]W-Z-Rself-hating terper6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]robestaRed Pill Man1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Canned_Wine1991 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]W-Z-Rself-hating terper3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

And men don't nope not at all

Men do bad stuff like using women for sex I admit, but in terms of relationship choices, men tend to be more sensible. The only stupid thing I see is men chasing women way out of their league and getting used.

It'd work a lot better without all the evopsych pseudoscience and heaping side of bitter contempt

I agree on the second point, but disagree with the first.

Evopsych is legitimate field of study, humans are animals and have a default nature-maybe you find this difficult to accept, but it remains true nonetheless. For the record I don't accept every piece of hypothesized evopsych given on the sub, but the explanations for the totally wack choices women make, do interest me I admit.

The bitterness puts me off slightly, but if you're a young guy who was used by a really attractive girl or a middle aged man who was cheated on then taken to the cleaners in a divorce court, I can see why you would be angry.

[–]Husseinstatue5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The male friend is first mocking the main character to his core. Whether or not he behaves in a way that makes his TRP attitude obvious, he's still a guy who "responds to rejection by belittling their judgment and self-awareness." That's half the joke -- hah, what an asshole -- and the other half of the joke is: wait, that asshole thinks that being an asshole will help him? Hah.

The alt-text joke might be more what you're talking about -- that a man might not follow a woman the way he follows a man... but the joke is that the main character doesn't understand the signal from his "friend." The friend is trying to leave the conversation, and the main character is following along. It doesn't matter that the main character isn't trying to hit on the friend, it's evidence that the main character is being a fucking tard.

[–]myfriendscantknowAgent Orangered (BP Man)8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]still_very_alive1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]autoNFAPurple Pill2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]xkcd_transcriber0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]throwred01Red Pill Man3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

So is the man on the left a scientist? The number of studies that prove that women are overwhelmingly attracted to dark triad personality types has doubled since just I've been paying attention to them. What the man on the left is saying is reproducible scientific fact.

Where is that kind of proof for the blue pill ideas expressed by the man on the right? crickets.

Instead of belittling the man on the left for expressing the reality of the situation, we should call out the man on the right for doing exactly what he is doing -- expressing defiance of reality in the hopes that the mythological woman who is not attracted to horrible behavor will suddenly appear.

The blue pill must accept as starting position that women are attracted to mistreatment, or it is simply embracing fantasy. Once this is accepted, we can debate whether the cause is sociological or physiological.

Until then, I find myself having no respect for the blue pill or its dreamings.

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

The number of studies that prove that women are overwhelmingly attracted to dark triad personality types has doubled since just I've been paying attention to them.

You mean there are two? Oh man, what kind of asshole bloggers are conducting these scientific studies?

Where is that kind of proof for the blue pill ideas expressed by the man on the right? crickets.

Nobody feels the need to prove that women are people and should be treated with a modicum of respect. The burden is on you to say that the dark triad style is both effective and morally permissible.

Instead of belittling the man on the left for expressing the reality of the situation, we should call out the man on the right for doing exactly what he is doing -- expressing defiance of reality in the hopes that the mythological woman who is not attracted to horrible behavor will suddenly appear.

Or, we could belittle the man on the left for falling for some sexist bullshit he read on a blog somewhere, and thank the man on the right for putting him in his goddamn place.

The blue pill must accept as starting position that women are attracted to mistreatment, or it is simply embracing fantasy.

How dare you. You're allowed to try and make the case that women are attracted to mistreatment, but how dare you try to set that as the terms of the debate? That is depraved. It's truly disgusting. Not only do you really not have evidence on your side, and not only are you advocating a repugnant upheaval of the new world order we have worked hard to achieve, you aren't even going to listen to reason on the other side?

Jesus fucking Christ. Have fun in your bubble of hate.

[–]throwred01Red Pill Man2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

You mean there are two?

The burden is on you to say that the dark triad style is both effective and morally permissible.

Urbaniak GC, Kilmann PR. Niceness and Dating Success: A Further Test of the Nice Guy Stereotype. Sex Roles.
Back MD, Schmukle SC, Egloff B. Why are narcissists so charming at first sight? Decoding the narcissism-popularity link at zero acquaintance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Tracy JL, Beall AT. Happy guys finish last: the impact of emotion expressions on sexual attraction. Emotion.
Hill AK, Hunt J, Welling LLM, Cárdenas RA, Rotella MA, Wheatley JR, Dawood K, Shriver MD, Puts DA. Quantifying the strength and form of sexual selection on men's traits. Evolution and Human Behavior.
Gangestad SW, Garver-Apgar CE, Cousins AJ. Changes in Women’s Mate Preferences Across the Ovulatory Cycle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Durante KM, Griskevicius V, Simpson JA, Cantu SM, Li NP. Ovulation leads women to perceive sexy cads as good dads. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Giebel G, Weierstall R, Elbert T, Female Attraction to Appetitive-Aggressive Men is Modulated by Women’s Menstrual Cycle and Men ́s Vulnerability to Traumatic Stress. Evolutionary Psychology.
Havlicek J, Roberts SC, & Flegr J. Women's preference for dominant male odour: effects of menstrual cycle and relationship status. Biology Letters.
Elliot AJ, Kayser DN, Greitemeyer T, Lichtenfeld S, Gramzow RH, Maier MA, Liu H. Red, rank, and romance in women viewing men. Journal of Experimental Psychology.
Markey PM, Markey CN. The interpersonal meaning of sexual promiscuity. Journal of Research in Personality.
Oesch N, Miklousic I, Pilar I. The Dating Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Emerging Science of Human Courtship. Evolutionary Psychology.

As I asked before: Where is that kind of proof for the blue pill ideas expressed by the man on the right?

Not only do you really not have evidence on your side, and not only are you advocating a repugnant upheaval of the new world order we have worked hard to achieve, you aren't even going to listen to reason on the other side?

: |

Oh man, what kind of asshole bloggers are conducting these scientific studies?

Or, we could belittle the man on the left for falling for some sexist bullshit he read on a blog somewhere, and thank the man on the right for putting him in his goddamn place.

How dare you. You're allowed to try and make the case that women are attracted to mistreatment, but how dare you try to set that as the terms of the debate? That is depraved. It's truly disgusting.

Jesus fucking Christ. Have fun in your bubble of hate.

Clearly. I'm quite surrounded by it from you.

Anyway, I have to thank you. This conversation has made read three more studies, and I've definitely discovered more Red Pill ideas that I can use because of it.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (20 children) | Copy Link

Goddamn it, you've just made me angry. Do you even read the shit you post or do you rely on overwhelming people with bullet points so they don't verify your assertions? Do you think none of us non-TRP people are stupid, or not in academia, or have no reading skill, or have no access to scientific pubs? Here are the abstracts for the first three, which you've failed to linked to. It is a professional discourtesy to simply link a title and not even try to give a summary. My emphasis.

Niceness and Dating Success: A Further Test of the Nice Guy Stereotype

Proponents of the nice guy stereotype argue that women often say they wish to date kind, sensitive men, but, in reality, still choose to date macho men over nice guys, especially if the macho men are more physically attractive. We investigated the relationship between men’s agreeableness, physical attractiveness, and their dating success across different relationship contexts. One hundred and ninety-one male college students completed a computerized questionnaire to assess their levels of agreeableness and aspects of their dating history. Twenty college-aged women rated the men’s photographs for attractiveness. Results supported the nice guy stereotype. Lower levels of agreeableness predicted more less-committed, casual, sexual relationships.

Why are narcissists so charming at first sight? Decoding the narcissism-popularity link at zero acquaintance.

On the basis of a realistic behavioral approach, the authors showed that narcissists are popular at zero acquaintance and aimed to explain why this is the case. In Study 1, a group of psychology freshmen (N = 73) judged each other on the basis of brief self-introductions using a large round-robin design (2,628 dyads). Three main findings were revealed: First, narcissism leads to popularity at first sight. Second, the aspects of narcissism that are most maladaptive in the long run (exploitativeness/entitlement) proved to be most attractive at zero acquaintance. Third, an examination of observable verbal and nonverbal behaviors as well as aspects of physical appearance provided an explanation for why narcissists are more popular at first sight. Results were confirmed using judgments of uninvolved perceivers under 3 different conditions for which the amount of available information was varied systematically: (a) full information (video and sound, Study 2), (b) nonverbal information only (video only, Study 3), or (c) physical information only (still photograph of clothing, Study 4). These findings have important implications for understanding the inter- and intrapersonal dynamics of narcissism.

Happy guys finish last: the impact of emotion expressions on sexual attraction.

This research examined the relative sexual attractiveness of individuals showing emotion expressions of happiness, pride, and shame compared with a neutral control. Across two studies using different images and samples ranging broadly in age (total N = 1041), a large gender difference emerged in the sexual attractiveness of happy displays: happiness was the most attractive female emotion expression, and one of the least attractive in males. In contrast, pride showed the reverse pattern; it was the most attractive male expression, and one of the least attractive in women. Shame displays were relatively attractive in both genders, and, among younger adult women viewers, male shame was more attractive than male happiness, and not substantially less than male pride. Effects were largely consistent with evolutionary and socio-cultural-norm accounts. Overall, this research provides the first evidence that distinct emotion expressions have divergent effects on sexual attractiveness, which vary by gender but largely hold across age.

The first bullet contradicted your "dark triad style* assertion, not support it. The second bullet says narcissism is attractive at first sight but fails in the long run. The third bullet has to do with what expression is perceived to be attractive in males and females, it had nothing to do with "dark triad".

You've disrespected yourself, this entire community, the scientific community just by three bullet points. You've destroyed all your credentials and if I were your advisor I would fail you right out of your concentration right now. You are dishonest or illiterate. You mean to bully people who you think would gloss over your hamfisted weights of citations.

Here's another thing. If you are so sure, so fucking sure of your little sociology theory on "dark triad" or any general principle of TRP, why aren't you on /r/AskScience? Why the fuck aren't you in /r/AskScience to upset the apple cart? It's the Reddit gold standard for Subject Matter Expert and unbiased moderation. You have something backed by science to say, why not say it there? I know why. You know why. You would be obliterated in under 60 seconds from people who actually know what they are talking about. Ob-lit-er-fucking-rated!!! That's why you're dickering around here, bullying people with citation bullets you have not read yourself. Pitiful! Never darken my doorway again.

[–]throwred01Red Pill Man4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago* (19 children) | Copy Link

Proponents of the nice guy stereotype argue that women often say they wish to date kind, sensitive men, but, in reality, still choose to date macho men over nice guys, especially if the macho men are more physically attractive. [...]

Results supported the nice guy stereotype. Lower levels of agreeableness predicted more less-committed, casual, sexual relationships.

The results support the nice guy stereotype, which contradicts what is asserted in the XKCD comic. This is consistent with TRP thinking.

First, narcissism leads to popularity at first sight. Second, the aspects of narcissism that are most maladaptive in the long run (exploitativeness/entitlement) proved to be most attractive at zero acquaintance.

I fail to see your point here. This is consistent with TRP thinking.

Across two studies using different images and samples ranging broadly in age (total N = 1041), a large gender difference emerged in the sexual attractiveness of happy displays: happiness was the most attractive female emotion expression, and one of the least attractive in males. In contrast, pride showed the reverse pattern; it was the most attractive male expression, and one of the least attractive in women.

This is so consistent with The Red Pill as to be near the base line of it. Your assertion that this has nothing to do with the "dark triad" is not supported by a simple reading of the definition of the term "dark triad." Here is a link to that definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_triad

Everything you've pointed to here is completely in line with The Red Pill. And, if I might add, your highlighting of passages seems to be... random. For instance, may I ask why you highlighted "happiness was the most attractive female emotion expression"?

Goddamn it, you've just made me angry. Do you even read the shit you post or do you rely on overwhelming people with bullet points so they don't verify your assertions? Do you think none of us non-TRP people are stupid, or not in academia, or have no reading skill, or have no access to scientific pubs?

You've disrespected yourself, this entire community, the scientific community just by three bullet points. You've destroyed all your credentials and if I were your advisor I would fail you right out of your concentration right now. You are dishonest or illiterate. You mean to bully people who you think would gloss over your hamfisted weights of citations.

Here's another thing. If you are so sure, so fucking sure of your little sociology theory on "dark triad" or any general principle of TRP, why aren't you on /r/AskScience? Why the fuck aren't you in /r/AskScience to upset the apple cart? It's the Reddit gold standard for Subject Matter Expert and unbiased moderation. You have something backed by science to say, why not say it there? I know why. You know why. You would be obliterated in under 60 seconds from people who actually know what they are talking about. Ob-lit-er-fucking-rated!!! That's why you're dickering around here, bullying people with citation bullets you have not read yourself. Pitiful! Never darken my doorway again.

Less rage please, more substance.

I have pointed to eleven studies in support of The Red Pill. You have not managed to cast doubt on any of them. I have given you scientific consensuses, in the place where this conversation is meant to take place. You will not bully me away.

Here are the abstracts for the first three, which you've failed to linked to. It is a professional discourtesy to simply link a title and not even try to give a summary.

I have certainly been more courteous to the blue pill here, then it has been to me.

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points1 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–]throwred01Red Pill Man1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[M] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

What the fucking fuck? IN the XKCD comic, the man on the right is sarcastically berating the man on the left, he is insulting the man on the left, in fact. He's saying, you think women go for knuckle-draggers? That's great, (if you're right) you'll fit right in, because you are that stupid knuckle dragger. Jesus fucking Christ on toast and cracker, this is what it has come down to. Me. Explaining to you. A comic panel. And what it means. Don't vomit up any more academic citation until you can actually understand humor the rest of us understand without having to resort to a paragraph of explanation.

There could have been a better way to say this. Berating others takes away from your argument. Frustration is OK and always understandable, but don't take it out on other contributors. Thanks.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[M] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

It is disappointing to me that you have decided to remove the post based on what ... nothing that I can see. It is a war to see who can write the dumbest thing and get the most butthurt. If one is going to cite studies to support a comic, I don't think it' s too much to ask that one understand the comics. The user I responded to has not made any defense of the points I made, instead, appealing to authority that his butt is hurted that I called him out for his inability to coherently understand his position.

Which is fine, but that's not why I removed your post. We only remove personal attacks and circkle-jerking. We don't remove posts for content/censorship. I removed your post because it contained personal attacks.

I am not going to edit my response. I protest your decision.

That's fine. Message the mods if you want. We already had a discussion about these posts.

This isn't a matter of me disagreeing with you. I agree with what your saying. I'm one of the most "blue pill" mods on this sub. That said, we don't allow personal attacks. I don't care how good your point is, if you include personal attacks it will get removed.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

What is personal attack? Write stupid unintelligible crap, get called out for writing stupid unintelligible crap? Guilty then. Honesty demands this sub is allowed to call out stupid people writing stupid things for what they are. If you put up studies and your interpretation of it, and it is ridiculous wrong, be prepared to be called ridiculously wrong. It is not my appeal to your Bluepill-ness or being on the same side as me. I want fairness and it is not fair that stupid people can get away with stupidity while I work hard to present a cogent argument and not be stupid. All the "fairness" in this sub is on a downward slope toward stupid people who can't understand why their argument is being called stupid. Or are you telling me there's no such thing as a stupid argument, only "incorrect" argument.

[–]CFRProflcopter1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

What is personal attack? Write stupid unintelligible crap, get called out for writing stupid unintelligible crap? Guilty then. Honesty demands this sub is allowed to call out stupid people writing stupid things for what they are.

Then say "you're point doesn't make sense and here's why..." Do not call other contributors stupid.

I want fairness and it is not fair that stupid people can get away with stupidity while I work hard to present a cogent argument and not be stupid. All the "fairness" in this sub is on a downward slope toward stupid people who can't understand why their argument is being called stupid. Or are you telling me there's no such thing as a stupid argument, only "incorrect" argument.

Stupid arguments aren't against the rules. We rely on you, the contributors, to call out stupid arguments and politely demonstrate why they are wrong. Say "you're argument is wrong" rather than "you're stupid." That's how intellectually honest people converse.

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

[–]CFRProflcopter1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

In fact, I have not called the other poster stupid.

Yes you did. You're insinuating it with your tone and your language:

Jesus fucking Christ on toast and cracker, this is what it has come down to. Me. Explaining to you. A comic panel. And what it means. Don't vomit up any more academic citation until you can actually understand humor the rest of us understand without having to resort to a paragraph of explanation.

Why is this a personal attack and not a highlight of the caliber of the argument put forth?

Because you're implying that the other contributor is unintelligent. It doesn't matter if he/she is tall or short, fat or skinny, stupid or smart. The only thing that matters is the argument. Address the arguments, not the other contributors. That's how debate works. Take the anger out of your arguments.

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

[–]CFRProflcopter1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]CFRProflcopter1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]CFRProflcopter1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]CFRProflcopter1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]CFRProflcopter1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Title	XKCD Comic
Author	danhakimi
Upvotes	12
Comments	221
Date	February 17, 2014 9:39 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1y6hjz/xkcd_comic/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/xkcd-comic.286191 https://theredarchive.com/post/286191

Comments