TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates

      • Other

      • /r/AllPillDebate
      • /r/AlreadyRed
      • /r/altTRP
      • /r/AntiFeminists
      • /r/askFDS
      • /r/askMRP
      • /r/askRPC
      • /r/becomeaman
      • /r/BlackPillScience
      • /r/Chadfish
      • /r/Divorce_Men
      • /r/EverydayMisandry
      • /r/ExRedPill
      • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
      • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
      • /r/GEOTRP
      • /r/MalePsychology
      • /r/Male_Studies
      • /r/MenSupportMen
      • /r/MGTOW2
      • /r/MuslimRedPill
      • /r/newTRP
      • /r/PussyPass
      • /r/PussyPassDenied
      • /r/RedPillBooks
      • /r/RedPillParenting
      • /r/RedPillWives
      • /r/RedPillWomen
      • /r/RedPillWorkplace
      • /r/RPChristians
      • /r/ThankTRP
      • /r/TheRedPillStories
      • /r/trpGAME
      • /r/TRPOffTopic
      • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
      • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • A Voice for Men
    • Dalrock
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Heartiste
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • Return of Kings
    • The Power Moves
    • The Rational Male
    • The Spearhead

      • Other

      • Alpha Game
      • Archwinger
      • Artful Prudence
      • Black Label Logic
      • Caleb Jones
      • Captain Capitalism
      • Corporate Machiavelli
      • Days of Game
      • Deep Strength
      • Dicipres
      • Donal Graeme
      • Female Misogynist
      • Free Northerner
      • Gaming My Wife
      • Hawaiian Libertarian
      • Illimitable Men
      • In Mala Fide
      • Justice for Men and Boys
      • Kill Your Inner Loser
      • KillToParty
      • Krauser PUA
      • LaidNYC
      • Mensactivism
      • NO MA'AM
      • Omega Virgin Revolt
      • Pook's Mill
      • Random Xpat Rantings
      • Red Pill Theory
      • Red Pill Wifery
      • RedPillDad
      • RedPillDoctor
      • Rian Stone
      • RooshV
      • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
      • Sigma Frame
      • The Feminine Woman
      • The Futurist
      • The Masculine Principle
      • The Modern Man
      • The New Modern Man
      • The Obsidian Files
      • The Private Man
      • The Red Pill Room
      • The Red Quest
      • The Rules Revisited
      • Troy Francis
      • Wintery Knight
      • Woujo
      • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Support

Leftoid logic: Man who doesn't see a future with a woman who got an abortion is a jerk and douchebag

realniggasstandup
August 28, 2013
15 upvotes
/r/TheRedPill
Archived from /r/TheRedPill

r/TheRedPill is a subreddit for discussion of sexual strategy in a culture increasingly lacking a positive identity for men.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/TheRedPill archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Leftoid logic: Man who doesn't see a future with a woman who got an abortion is a jerk and douchebag
Author

realniggasstandup
Upvotes 15
Comments 139
Date August 28, 2013 9:32 PM UTC
(12 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/TheRedPill
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/1lacd0/leftoid_logic_man_who_doesnt_see_a_future_with_a/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/TheRedPill/leftoid-logic-man-who-doesnt-see-a-future-with-a.233266
https://theredarchive.com/post/233266
Red Pill terms in post
the red pill
Top posts by realniggasstandup

Putin on Clinton: ‘It’s better not to argue with women’

251 upvotes
June 4, 2014
/r/TheRedPill

University offers female students extra credit for not shaving their armpits

208 upvotes
July 4, 2014
/r/TheRedPill

TIL a psychologist in Denmark was suspended by his university for publishing a study that showed men have higher IQ than women, and was later vindicated by the scientific community

189 upvotes
October 22, 2013
/r/TheRedPill

Anti-fat shaming crusaders take aim at Michelle Obama, call "The Biggest Loser" an "abusive show," and fat women's inability "to marry, or to marry a higher-earning spouse compared to their similarly qualified thinner peers" discrimination

176 upvotes
December 19, 2013
/r/TheRedPill

Ho gets dumped by boyfriend of ~1 year for having too many previous sex partners; hamster seeks comfort from hamsters

170 upvotes
August 26, 2014
/r/TheRedPill

Man successfully sued for $50k for "breach of promise to marry"

146 upvotes
December 7, 2013
/r/TheRedPill

Women are fine with sexism as long as it benefits them, scientists reveal

143 upvotes
October 22, 2013
/r/TheRedPill

Top feminist group is actually founded and led by a man; he handpicked the "prettiest" girls because he acknowledges sex sells

142 upvotes
September 4, 2013
/r/TheRedPill

Comments

[–]encore_une_fois 12 points13 points14 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Okay, I'm going to be "that guy" this time, just in case it disappears:

I am 23 and he is 26, we started dating about 6 months ago. Of all the guys I have dated he has been the most considerate, just being with him has made me a better person. He was the one who encouraged me to go back to nursing school, and has stayed with me despite all my family problems. The problem started when I introduced him to my circle of friends. All of my friends really like him except one who likes him a little too much. I was never really worried about him cheating or leaving me for her but she would often say bad things about me in a joking manner. Recently when I was with my boyfriend he told me that, my friend told him that I had an abortion when I was younger. I told him I did but it was when I was 18 and wasn’t in a position to raise a baby. He told me that he believes women have 100% right to do whatever they want with their bodies but he can’t be in a relationship with a woman who does. I started crying and pleading with him I explained to him the circumstances, he told me that I had my reasons but, we aren’t compatible. I know he isn’t a very religious guy so I asked him why he feels so strongly on the issue. He told me that a mother that is willing to kill her own child because it isn’t convenient for her is not the type of person he wants to be with. I was hoping that this was just an argument I tried calling him the next day. He told me that he is coming to drop my stuff off and thinks that it would be the best for the both of us to no longer contact each other. I need help on what I can say to convince him to get him back. It has been about two weeks since we broke up, he won’t respond to my phone calls and has deactivated his facebook. TL-DR boyfriend finds out I have an abortion, and has broken up with me, I want to get him back

my tl;dr: Guy goes out of his way to breakup with girl after finding out she had an abortion. Girl cannot understand because "he is not religious" and seeks advice to get him back.

[–]Invincibull 17 points17 points17 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So this is what the girl herself says about the guy:

Of all the guys I have dated he has been the most considerate, just being with him has made me a better person. He was the one who encouraged me to go back to nursing school, and has stayed with me despite all my family problems.

Sounds like a quality guy to me.

And this is what the feminist harpies have to say about him, without knowing anything about him:

He is a douche he's actually a total dick fucking asshole You just need to find a guy that YOU deserve!

These morons will never make the connection that quality guys tend to think a certain way. They'll always go for the lowlife panderers who tell them exactly what they want to hear, and then wonder why their boyfriends always seem to be losers.

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

quality guys tend to think a certain way

Quality men have standards to which they hold themselves and others. However, if those standards aren't reasonable then they aren't workable, and the man in question isn't quite as high quality as he might like to think.

As I explain here, this guy's position isn't actually reasonable. In fact it's arguably a Blue Pill position.

[–]Invincibull3 points 12 years ago [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link

the man in question isn't quite as high quality as he might like to think.

First of all, the guy never posted anything, so we don't know what he thinks.

As I explain here, this guy's position isn't actually reasonable. In fact it's arguably a Blue Pill position.

You're the one conflating "being red pill" with "being a quality guy." The two have zero correlation. Red pill is simply about seeing things as they are, not as someone would like them to be. A lowlife thug can be vastly more red pill than a prince among men - in fact it's more likely. Upper class boys tend to be raised in comfortable, sheltered bubbles where the women are cultured and well-behaved, while poorer boys are more exposed to the harsh realities of life.

if those standards aren't reasonable then they aren't workable

Not liking a girl for having had an abortion at 18 is perfectly reasonable. She may be a very nice girl (emotional argument), but there's too much chance of her having at least some baggage from the whole ordeal (red pill argument). The fact that she got pregnant at 17 or 18 is in itself a huge red flag.

The Red Pill is about sexual strategy, and sexual strategy is amoral.

There is no One True Sexual Strategy. Some guys think the best strategy is to father as many bastards as possible from as many women as possible, quality be damned. Others believe that to give their offspring the best chances in life they need to raise them under their roof with a quality woman who's their mother. Yet others just want to fuck lotsa bitches and not have kids.

[–]TehGinjaNinja -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

You're the one conflating "being red pill" with "being a quality guy."

No, I'm conflating being rational with "being a quality guy."

Upper class boys tend to be raised in comfortable, sheltered bubbles where the women are cultured and well-behaved, while poorer boys are more exposed to the harsh realities of life.

I don't consider most "Upper class boys" to truly be men of quality.

Not liking a girl for having had an abortion at 18 is perfectly reasonable.

His issue wasn't that she had an abortion at 18, it was that she had an abortion at all. That's not a position based in reason. It's arbitrary and likely rooted in ideological conditioning.

The fact that she got pregnant at 17 or 18 is in itself a huge red flag.

I don't dispute that at all. I don't have an issue with this guy's decision. It's his reasoning which is flawed.

There is no One True Sexual Strategy.

I never said there was. Different goals require different strategies. A man whose goal is to fuck as many women as possible is going to follow a different strategy than a man whose goal is a long happy marriage. In either case, however, because any strategy is goal oriented it's going to be about ends, not means. Thus the most effective strategy will be formulated on an amoral basis.

[–]Invincibull2 points 12 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

No, I'm conflating being rational with "being a quality guy."

  1. there's nothing irrational about not wanting a woman who's had an abortion at 18.

  2. Being rational is not necessary to being a quality guy in the context of a relationship and life in general. Some religious people are wonderful, some rational geniuses are scumbags.

His issue wasn't that she had an abortion at 18, it was that she had an abortion at all.

How do you know that? You only know what he said, second hand, as related by the girl.

That's not a position based in reason. It's arbitrary and likely rooted in ideological conditioning.

Again, how do you know? I've laid out rational reasons for not wanting a woman who's had an abortion. You yourself say "likely rooted in ideological conditioning." Meaning you don't know, but you're basing your whole argument on that anyway.

As an aside, even if it is because he's religious, the religion/ideology/conditioning served its purpose - it kept the guy from getting involved with a possibly low-quality woman.

I don't dispute that at all. I don't have an issue with this guy's decision. It's his reasoning which is flawed.

Again, we don't know his reasoning. Maybe he's a rational atheist who didn't want to say the real reason, so he used the excuse of feeling bad about abortion. Maybe he's a Christian fundamentalist. We don't know, but you're making an assumption.

Thus the most effective strategy will be formulated on an amoral basis.

Maybe in some hypothetical world where people are perfect rational actors.

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

Being rational is not necessary to being a quality guy

If you won't concede that rationality is a prerequisite for being a man of quality then I don't see any point in continuing this conversation. Trying to reason with the unreasonable is, itself, unreasonable.

[–]Invincibull1 points 12 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

I specifically said "in the context of...." I'm as rational as they come, and I acknowledge that being rational is not necessary to be a quality guy in the context of relationships and life in general. A guy may not be perfectly rational, while being rich, successful, a great husband and father, and that's what it means to be a quality guy in that context.

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

If that's the context then your earlier statement:

quality guys tend to think a certain way

is unsupportable. The criteria of "rich, successful, a great husband and father" applies to a vast number of men with highly diverse beliefs and opinions.

[–]Invincibull1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Which is why I used "tend to think" instead of "think a certain way".

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

I wonder if anyone ever thought that he might be more religious than he lets on?

Personally he might be on the hunt for a LTR/Marriageable woman with which to settle down and have some kids with. In which case a woman who has had an abortion is not an ideal candidate. Also I've read having an abortion reduces a woman's fertility in the future (which may explain in part how so many women are having difficulty getting preggo)

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

I wonder if anyone ever thought that he might be more religious than he lets on?

I suspect he is. His position, after all, is at best pseudo-rational.

a woman who has had an abortion is not an ideal candidate.

Believing that an "ideal candidate" for marriage even exists is a Blue-Pillism. Ideal women don't exist. They all have instincts towards hypergamy, and they all have instincts towards infanticide.

Having an abortion in her past is certainly a red-flag for a woman. Just having an unintended pregnancy in her past would be, or having a kid would be. I don't actually take issue with this guy's decision, it's just his reasoning which is flawed.

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

I make no illusions the guy isnt as blue pill as fuck. That said in terms of 'ideal candidate' it's probably better qualified as a LTR breeding partner for any redpill man who hasnt been roped into marriage prior to his swallowing the pill.

[–]JohnPeel 11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

TL:DR

I can do whatever bad things I want and not only am I justified in doing so, you must also share the burden or you are a terrible person who deserves to die.

[–]LasherDeviance 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I find it ridiculous that people are bashing that man because he made a decision on his personal beliefs. I'm not for abortion either and its a dealbreaker for me as well. If a woman can kill a child, think about the damage they can do to a grown man without remorse. Kudos to dude for standing by his convictions.

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

If a woman can kill a child, think about the damage they can do to a grown man without remorse.

The problem with the "pro-life" position is that it's fundamentally a Blue Pill position. As I explain here, the impulse towards infanticide is present is all human societies and is likely an evolutionary adaptation to the expense of raising a human child.

Complaining about abortion is like complaining about hypergamy. What you think about the issue doesn't matter, because you can't change humanity's evolved instincts.

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

Complaining about abortion is like complaining about hypergamy.

...and a man has every right to chose his participation level in either. Making a decision based on whatever-the-fuck parameters he wants then sticking to them does not a douche make.

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

That's bananas. That's like saying because I don't like something, I'm inherently wrong even though opinion is subjective. I have the right to not agree on something and stand by my conviction. That isn't BP at all.

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

It's Blue Pill to think that you will find a woman who doesn't posses an impulse towards infanticide if she feels she is not capable of supporting a child. This is an instinct present in normal, healthy human beings.

It's Blue Pill to think that you can require pregnant women to bring children to term against their will and have a happy ending. Because instinct will triumph over good intentions, and not all instincts in a woman are maternal.

The issue isn't whether you like abortion or not, it's whether you have the maturity to acknowledge the harsh reality of the situation. The harsh reality is that the alternative to abortion isn't healthy happy babies; the alternative to abortion is infanticide and child abandonment.

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

If a woman can kill a child, think about the damage they can do to a grown man without remorse.

You mean a bobbitectomy.

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

A Bobbittectomy or worse, a Arias-ectomy!

[–]cobysan 15 points16 points17 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

What women hate is that they can't stand up to the question of, " If she got an abortion before, how do I know that if we end up married and she gets pregnant that she won't abort my child?" No matter what answer they give, they cannot prove to men that they won't.

[–]mutualaid 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

no woman can prove that to you though, be real

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

This thread is an ideological right-wing circle jerk, don't expect these boys to be realistic.

[–]thebears1986 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

"Hunny, you know how I don't do anal anymore? Well I don't do abortions anymore either."

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

And I don't do blowjobs anymore either. I already "got it out of my system".

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

Like that chick who blew some rando in Miami but wouldnt give her own husband a BJ because he wouldnt respect her nomore?

[–]themoor12 points 12 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

Could give a shit if a woman has had an abortion or not. Many do, and if you aren't wrapping it up on your end, you just might be part of one, like or want it or not.

On the other hand, if a woman has had many and basically uses it as a form of general birth control, her priorities, judgment, and head-space are clearly not in order.

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

Maryln Munroe had more than 12 abortions and women worship her for some reason.

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

Birth control was mostly illegal through the 1960's and she died in 62.

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

Women worship her because society worships her. Society worships her because she was pretty.

[–]mdadm 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

Can someone explain why this is such a deal breaker?

[–]jakethesnake76 12 points13 points14 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

He wanted a wife and a family, and starting a family with a woman who might kill her kid if it wasn't a convenient time to have it is dangerous for a family man.

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

I wonder if there are any studies that link abortion procedures in women to a higher chance of post-partum depression and doing psycho things like drowning your 2 year old kid in a bathtub.

There are no shortage of things that women get away with 'because hormones!' :P

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

That's a starkly Blue Pill position. If you're only willing to be involved with a women who is some sort of pure nurturing force, then you're going to be disappointed. The ideal of the unconditionally loving mother is just another pedestal that some men put some women on.

[–]jakethesnake76 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

No it's is called an Alpha Wolf also known as old stile patriarch , not possible in the western world anymore ,but some of us want to leave a legacy,mine personally would be something i discovered or built or invented , but it is a valid position in certain parts of the world if you ever traveled.Also you missed the point maybe on purpose about the fact that this man would not want a wife who might not defend her own child.

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

This man's position was described as:

He told me that a mother that is willing to kill her own child because it isn’t convenient for her is not the type of person he wants to be with.

not "a wife who might not defend her own child"

The problem with that position is that it contravenes human history and human nature; as I explain here.

Human children are extremely resource intensive to raise. As our race's history of infanticide shows, and as recent research on postpartum depression supports, it is in our nature to abandon or kill a child if we cannot support it. This is one of the uglier truths of human reproduction, but it is part of the reality of the human condition.

[–]jakethesnake76 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Thus abandoning ones own child is popular with young people who don't want to deal with consequences. It is such a huge responsibility and feminism could never thrive if women had natural affection for their own kids. Few women do , in fact i have had to protect my children from my ex wife, women are to judgmental and very prone to beat kids if their ego needs are not met by said children.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Maybe a girl getting pregnant in the past is an indication she is a slut. That is a potential LTR deal breaker. Sluts are no beuno for LTR.

[–]amatorfati 17 points18 points19 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

It isn't for everyone. For me personally, I would also never date a woman who has had an abortion, it reeks of poor judgment and implies a tendency to fix problems at the last possible minute rather than preventing problems before they start.

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

isn't it better judgement than having a baby, though? to be fair there are plenty of ways that prevention could fail and you end up at that point.

[–]rhettdu 10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

EVERYTHING is better judgement than having a baby - particularly if you're going to be raising the fucking ankle biter on your own.

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

Adoption is a viable alternative and from what I understand there is no shortage of demand for adopted babies by infertile/homosexual couples.

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

Only to a point. One of the reasons why there seems to be such a large demand for children for adoption is because children that in the past would be "orphaned" are often being aborted instead.

I think the 9 months of pregnancy and delivery are also pretty big. It is an alternative to abortion but not a very attractive one

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

When you are on the pill it's 99.9% effective. When you use a condom it's generally 99% effective.

The only time you should need an abortion if you are using two methods of contraceptives is if by some act of god both failed at the same time (going with 99.9% effective that would be like a 1 in a Million chance).

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

Not in my opinion. I understand not everyone will agree, I don't care, I'm just saying what my opinion is and why I hold it.

First of all, by prevention I do not strictly mean just birth control. I am talking women not having sex with men they don't intend on having children with in the first place.

[–]supercortical 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Isn't a lot of the content of this sub about having sex with women you don't intend to have children with?

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

Some of the posters, sure. Not everyone. Some of us are very interested in having a family and not incredibly interested in having lots of promiscuous sex. I don't go out every night getting laid like some of the guys who post here, but I'm not some repressed virgin either. I take the lessons to heart but don't feel the need to conclude that therefore I should sleep around, never form attachments, and avoid settling down. I don't see the value in that lifestyle. Again, not for everyone.

[–]Lungri 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Is "Had an abortion" on your list of desirable qualities in a partner?

Like another poster said, it A) signals either poor foresight in failing to use contraception, the morning after pill, and so on.

Or B) if it wasn't an "oopsie" pregnancy and was the result of something insidious like rape or incest, keeping knowledge of such a profound personal event (that affects personality, romance, and so on) from the partner is absolutely unacceptable.

Feel free to plug away at low-IQ and irresponsible women who cannot fuck without them or their former partners using protection.

I would rather not even associate with a woman who had an abortion, as I wouldn't hang around crack dealers and other unsavory types. We all have the freedom to associate and dissociate with whomever we want.

[–]RC_5213 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

One, because she just killed what I would consider to be an innocent child for being inconvenient.

Two, it shows poor decision making skills. There's plenty of super-effective methods of birth control out there that are readily available. To require an abortion indicates that the person in question used none of them, which indicates an inability to think of an action's consequences prior to doing it.

[–]1thrownaway_MGTOW 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

One, because she just killed what I would consider to be an innocent child for being inconvenient.

The very definition of putting HER needs/desire/convenience first.

It is HIGHLY indicative of her likely behavior in regards to a future husband and/or children -- they will always lose or be sacrificed for HER convenience (whatever she happens to desire at the time).

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

Can someone explain why this is such a deal breaker?

No one can explain the guy's rationale other than him, but he doesn't owe her a relationship.

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

It says two things about her:

One, she is willing to take the easy way out if it is expedient for her.

Two, she has enough of a lack of maternal instinct where the thought of abortion was appropriate.

Both of these do reflect upon her character.

I'm not entirely against abortion myself, I'm in favor of it to help mitigate Idiocracy, but let's face it that abortion isn't an action that occurs in a vacuum.

Though there might be a case where she should be cut slack as abortion is almost "hip" and her youthful feminine naivety was given bad advice by people around her.

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

I'm not entirely against abortion myself, I'm in favor of it to help mitigate Idiocracy, but let's face it that abortion isn't an action that occurs in a vacuum.

No but they might use a vacuum to perform the procedure

[–]Invincibull1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

She got pregnant at 18 (possibly 17). That's a big red flag. She may have wised up and be a very nice girl now, but getting pregnant as a teen is a huge red flag and some guys just don't want someone like that in their life.

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

There is no rational standard being applied here.

[–]rhettdu 12 points13 points14 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Fuck that! I'm no fan of having kids. I'm more worried that she WON'T have an abortion...

I don't see what this has to do with left wing politics

[–]uton_gili 11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

It has nothing to do with politics.

[–]AbraxianAeon 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I disagree. It has everything to do with politics.

Under left-wing thought, people aren't accountable for their past actions. Really, though, in general, people aren't accountable for their actions unless they're a white male, according to the leftist line of unthought.

That's why all the leftist redditors are harping against this guy, because he held her accountable to hers.

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

This is complete nonsense. You obviously have no understanding of what constitutes "left-wing thought". In general the position of the left is to insist that we are accountable for one an other's well being. Individual accountability is not absent from left-wing idelogy, it is merely subsumed in a collective accountability.

And don't confuse The Red Pill's clear refutation of feminism, with a generalized rejection of left-wing politics. This is a forum about sexual strategy, not political ideology. If you want to join a right-wing circle jerk then go start your own subreddit.

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

Individual accountability is not absent from left-wing idelogy, it is merely subsumed in a collective accountability.

How did this statement make it past your logic filters?

This is a forum about sexual strategy, not political ideology.

I don't think you have the authority to make this definitive statement.

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

Individual accountability is not absent from left-wing ideology, it is merely subsumed in a collective accountability.

How did this statement make it past your logic filters?

Subsume:

  1. to consider or include (an idea, term, proposition, etc.) as part of a more comprehensive one.
  2. to bring (a case, instance, etc.) under a rule.
  3. to take up into a more inclusive classification.

Most left-wing thought presents collective accountability as a "comprehensive" view of accountability which is "inclusive" of individual accountability.

It's called English my boy. You might want to learn it.

This is a forum about sexual strategy, not political ideology.

I don't think you have the authority to make this definitive statement.

A) Making definitive statements with an air of assumed authority is part of how men communicate. Grow a pair.

B) Read the side bar:

The Red Pill: Discussion of sexual strategy in a culture increasingly lacking a positive identity for men.

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

It's called English my boy. You might want to learn it.

You can't subsume individual responsibility into a collective responsibility and fucking retain the individual responsibility, dipshit.

The Red Pill: Discussion of sexual strategy in a culture increasingly lacking a positive identity for men.

Read the side bar

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

You can't subsume individual responsibility into a collective responsibility and fucking retain the individual responsibility

Do you even read. Subsuming something means including it something larger, it does not require anything be lost.

You are clearly confusing individual responsibility with sole responsibility. Those are not the same things. As an individual I am responsible for my well-being, but I am not solely responsible for my well-being.

I have to feed myself, bathe myself, cloth myself, etc. The state (a collective of which, as citizen, I am a part) also has a responsibility to ensure my well-being via things like law enforcement, national defense, maintenance of infrastructure, etc.

In turn I have responsibilities to the state like obeying the law and paying my taxes. By living up to my responsibilities to the state I exercise a measure of responsibility for both myself, and my fellow citizens, using the state as a means.

That's how the civilized world works. Yes; we have to take some responsibility for our selves as individuals, but we also assume a measure of collective responsibility for each other. No person is solely responsible for themselves nor solely accountable to themselves anywhere in the developed world.

Culture does not inherently imply politics.

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

This is complete nonsense. You obviously have no understanding of what constitutes "left-wing thought".

LOL

In general the position of the left is to insist that we are accountable for one an other's well being.

With the obvious implication of "society needs to give me what it owes me. I want my 'fair share.'"

Individual accountability is not absent from left-wing idelogy, it is merely subsumed in a collective accountability.

0 sense made.

And don't confuse The Red Pill's clear refutation of feminism, with a generalized rejection of left-wing politics.

ZZzzzzzzzzzz

This is a forum about sexual strategy, not political ideology.

Sexual strategy goes hand in hand with politics, as does mostly everything societal. You are trying to say that being anti-feminism is..... apolitical? Hmm? Durp durp durp de durp. Besides, the left is far more ideological to the point they supplant reality with their precious theories. But I never did say anything about ideology, so I have nothing left to think other than you lack real world experience on what you talk about.

You could try going to r/mensrights. They have a lot of people that think like you there.

[–]realniggasstandup[S] 10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

This is the type of talk modern women are receiving: they're never at fault, it's always the fault of the men.

Any clown that still believes feminism is about empowering women is a forever beta-leftoid. Lesbianism actually agrees with the red pill (whether the feminazis like it or not): women are children (and thus should not be held accountable).

[+][deleted] -13 points-12 points-11 points 12 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

Well in the case of unwanted pregnancy, it's both people's fault. Shit happens, truly.

That dude would've been smarter to find another way to bail out though. Just "move on to other opportunities." Why drop a nuclear opinion on somebody? Sure he's being honest, but damn. May as well tell a black woman you fucked that you don't like jheri curled hair. That's just a place I wouldn't want to go.

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

lol, why not drop a nuclear opinion? He is breaking up with her and intends to never see her again so he owes her nothing. There is no reason to spare her feelings at all. Nuke the piss out of her so she doesn't get any bright ideas about salvage.

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

why not drop a nuclear opinion?

It's not illegal, but it's dumb. Don't forget part of the nuclear analogy involves the toxicity of long-term radiation, fallout, and environmental damage that finds it's way back to your own territory. Sure, the explosion is fantastic - even beautiful - but the aftermath could have unforeseen consequences.

It'd be wiser to be a little more selective about which bombs you drop. That dude's opinions about abortion are now non-anonymous and public. If we all put our cock and balls out on the table, we would use our real names on Reddit, Mr. NewtoYouStew.

[–]HarleyWalker 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

It only matters if they are in the same circle of friends (which doesn't appear to be the case).

Leave caring what others think about your opinions to the betas. For every feminist out there that will berate him there's a Christian girl that will value him for it.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Leave caring what others think about your opinions to the betas.

Letting others know what you think about any social-political issue can always interfere with your reputation, your life, and your career aspirations. We even vote with secret ballot. Civil libertarians care about privacy-rights. This guy just kind let a very personal opinion fly just to break up with a woman.

Not to mention, dropping a bomb like that shows that he had to do something drastic to get away from this woman to where he relinquished control over what most would consider a "private" opinion. How often do you spout your opinions about abortion to women? There was even *this thread* on /r/TheRedPill where /u/doublea9211 listed "abortion" as part of "a list of things you shouldn't talk about in public."

[–]HarleyWalker 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Civil libertarians

Maybe he isn't one of them. I let my opinions fly because I don't give a shit any more. I don't want to be a coward that hides behind a facade because the truth is not politically correct. If we all take that option then the wheels of change will never start moving and we will be in the status quo that exists now until it destroys itself and us with it.

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

I let my opinions fly because I don't give a shit any more.

Well, that's cool. To each their own. I'm only prone to doing that via a goofy user handle on a forum like Reddit.

[–]thrownaway_MGTOW1 points 12 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

Letting others know what you think about any social-political issue can always interfere with your reputation, your life, and your career aspirations.

Hint. It's called LEADING.

What you are talking about is being a quisling who HIDES, in order to facilitate further opportunities to kiss-ass.

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

Pardon my straw man, but may as well lead by using the word "nigger" whenever you want to too. If that's your style, then that's your style - more power to you.

Lotta pro-life types in the subreddit.

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

I lot of men lead highly successful enterprises using the word nigger. Try to avoid the appeals to emotion when talking at the big boy table.

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

I lot of men lead highly successful enterprises using the word nigger.

Well, you're probably right, my nigger.

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

Well I see your point about nuclear opinions, but disliking abortion does not fall under you definition of "nuclear opinion" since many people will agree and encourage. That guy will face no consequences.

In addition, nuclear opinions are only relevant if you are restricted to a small circle of friends or in a small city. In a bigger city you can easily next. I suggest you get out more or move.

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

That guy will face no consequences.

Really? I'll tell you what I just told /u/HarleyWalker:

Letting others know what you think about any social-political issue can always interfere with your reputation, your life, and your career aspirations. We even vote with secret ballot. Civil libertarians care about privacy-rights. This guy just kind let a very personal opinion fly just to break up with a woman.

Not to mention, dropping a bomb like that shows that he had to do something drastic to get away from this woman to where he relinquished control over what most would consider a "private" opinion. How often do you spout your opinions about abortion to women? There was even *this thread* on /r/TheRedPill where /u/doublea9211 listed "abortion" as part of "a list of things you shouldn't talk about in public."

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

If your cutting her off, it doesn't seem that important to me.

[–]realniggasstandup[S] 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Well in the case of unwanted pregnancy, it's kind of both people's fault. Shit happens, truly.

Wtf are you talking about? The guy wasn't even in the picture when she got an abortion. I'm referring to the comments who think the guy is a bad guy for breaking up.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The guy wasn't even in the picture when she got an abortion.

I wasn't talking about that guy. I was saying abortion-or-child outcome is a 50/50 responsibility.

[–]rodz7 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I was saying abortion-or-child outcome is a 50/50 responsibility

Then why is it generally the guy having to pay child support?

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

This point requires that the amount of child supports provides for all care of a child.. Whatever your opinion about child support is, that's an illogical disagreement.

[–]rodz7 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If the father doesn't want a child, and the mother wants to keep it, it conveniently becomes '50/50' in spite of the father being the one paying child support, even though he never wanted it in the first place.

If the father wants to keep the child and the mother doesn't, its 100% the mother's choice. Again, where is this '50/50' outcome?

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

That dude would've been smarter to find another way to bail out though

Why and how? He just showed how much balls he has compared to most men these days by being direct and honest instead of doing the hamstering for her to spare her feelings

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

Why and how?

I covered that.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

Emotional mollycoddling and protecting feelings was never mentioned in The Communist Manifesto and it never will be. What wing you fall under is irrelevant, this girl is crying because she was told that she didn't have to face judgement by anyone and learnt the hard way that it's bullshit.

[–]amatorfati 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

Left or right is not primarily about economic ideology. The phrase began in the struggle between nobility and egalitarians, and ultimately everything leftist is rooted in that same schism.

Leftism predates communism and will outlast it. Arguably it already has. Communism as an official ideology is dead, no superpower openly proclaims communism to be its path, and every minor power that does is irrelevant and in chaos. Only its successors remain, divided and relatively powerless, and very few people these days openly advocate for the actual tenets of the Communist Manifesto. Not to say that communism's ideals aren't alive and well, but for all intents and purposes, they merged with the ideals of the American sphere of influence long ago.

You may not see it, and you may strive to keep things which are separate distinct. I certainly can respect that impulse, mixing issues that have little to do with one another is a deplorable practice. But in this specific instance, I will disagree with you. Feminism and its effects are left-wing issues. Feminism is a specific branch of egalitarianism and egalitarianism is the heart of what it means to be left-wing.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I'm a sucker for a line, you misunderstand me. I'm more referring the the culture of victimhood we've cultivated. I wouldn't argue that it's born out of the left wing simply because feminism is a left wing movement, the culture was born out of the changes we saw: women decided to refuse their gender roles while men stuck with them, men would accept the responsibility because they were the only ones mature enough to do it. Now women are refusing to accept responsibility of their own body and condemn the judgement of it. It's a mutation of society, not a left wing desire.

I know I'm 'no true Scotsman'-ing my way through this one. I'm still adjusting to TRP in terms of my politics, I did the same thing when I learnt about Stalin's Russia, "he's not a true communist," I said. God forbid my ideology be hiding behind the curtain of this sorry state of affairs.

Edit: I refuse to give up one for the other, I'll blend them together soon enough.

[–]amatorfati 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I know I'm 'no true Scotsman'-ing my way through this one. I'm still adjusting to TRP in terms of my politics, I did the same thing when I learnt about Stalin's Russia, "he's not a true communist," I said. God forbid my ideology be hiding behind the curtain of this sorry state of affairs.

I don't blame you much for doing it, I understand why. I used to also be favorable to communism as an ideology and I fully understand why this reaction is so common.

It isn't entirely fair that communism as a whole gets blamed for the rest of egalitarianism. Communism was only one branch. An arguably stupid and irresponsible branch, but worker ownership of production is a very specific idea that's hard to get very angry about. I do happen to disagree with communism, but I can have a civil discussion about it. I can't have a civil discussion about egalitarianism as a whole, I get immediately branded as a misogynist racist slave-owning Nazi for disagreeing with its core tenets. These days when you hear most people talking about "communism", they're talking about lots of disconnected ideas and policies that have very little to do with worker ownership of production in itself.

It's the same fucking problem that happened with fascism. Fascism has ideas that are good and bad in different contexts just like communism. But no, the Axis lost and was guilty of war crimes, so everything fascist must be bad!

It's frustrating, isn't it? But no true Scotsman is not the answer. We have to own up to the previous failures of our ideologies and admit fault where fault lies. With communism specifically, the crimes of your predecessors were allying themselves with all the shitty egalitarian movements of the 20th century, primarily feminism and democracy, hence "Cultural Marxism", and then being surprised when after the Second World fell apart their allies completely abandoned them and left communism to the ruins of history.

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

Freedom of speech: only a right when everyone agrees with you, a mannerism when they don't.

No political discussion should see shame enter the frame, even the most brutal dictatorships have their pros. I'm the first guy to remind you that Thatcher fixed the economy before slating her till she turns in her grave. We see a lot of this as Red Pillers, people would rather dismiss you as a bigot than hear you out.

I have been too fast to disassociate myself with movements and branches on the left because they don't fall in line with some utopia I've dreamed on a sleepless night. It's wrong, it's not Red Pill.

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

I have been too fast to disassociate myself with movements and branches on the left because they don't fall in line with some utopia I've dreamed on a sleepless night. It's wrong, it's not Red Pill.

Exactly. The first step is to admit responsibility. You supported movements that at least indirectly caused the deaths of millions of people. As did I. As does everyone, really. Everyone is just too cowardly to admit that we're all knee-deep in blood here. We're living in this fantasy postmodern utopia that no one wants to admit requires continuous murder to uphold, and we call that freedom and peace.

[–]rodz7 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Taking individual responsibility for your actions is a right-wing concept. Whereas, sharing the responsibility among a community is generally a left-wing concept. That's why the left always accuses the right of 'being selfish, greedy, uncaring'. It's almost a leftoid hobby to accuse rich men of being assholes for wanting to avoid paying more to the community, regardless if these men do more charity work and sacrificed a lot to gain their wealth.

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

I've called the right wing selfish on too many occasions. Not for their wealth but for their refusal to support policies that don't directly benefit them. The left is guilty of it too, I'm sure. The point I see in the left is for the government to be in it for the people's benefit, the middle class have provided their own benefits for themselves but the lower class, the class that can't afford healthcare or college education, do need that benefit to shoot for the same targets as those who can afford it. I see it as a way of eliminating the need for charity by providing the security of needs at an institutional level.

You don't count the money in another man's wallet. You certainly don't hold it against him. Too often I see the lower detest the middle for their wealth and it isn't right. They worked for their share just as everyone else did.

[–]TehGinjaNinja 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Feminism is a specific branch of egalitarianism and egalitarianism is the heart of what it means to be left-wing.

Yes, egalitarianism is part of left-wing ideology, but modern feminism is emphatically not egalitarian. It makes claims of egalitarianism for public consumption, but the reality of the feminist ideology is female supremacist and anti-male.

[–]amatorfati 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Yes, egalitarianism is part of left-wing ideology

No, I'd go much further than that. Egalitarianism is left-wing, as in, to be left-wing means egalitarianism. There is nothing else, I challenge you to even try to dispute that.

but modern feminism is emphatically not egalitarian. It makes claims of egalitarianism for public consumption, but the reality of the feminist ideology is female supremacist and anti-male.

As I said to another commenter in either this thread or another one (if you browse through my recent comments you'll see that I've made numerous similar comments throughout this subreddit recently), being a hypocrite does not make you not left-wing. That is a form of a No True Scotsman fallacy. While I agree that it is an obvious betrayal of their stated ideals, the motivation for female supremacy is always still rooted in egalitarian ideals, not outright female supremacy for the sake of supremacy. It's always justified by saying it's to right previous wrongs, to level the playing field, to privilege the underprivileged, et cetera. In other words, always justified by egalitarian talking points. This makes them firmly left-wing, hypocrites or not.

[–]TehGinjaNinja 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

being a hypocrite does not make you not left-wing

This is one reason why I said egalitarianism is part of left-wing ideology. I'm not saying feminists aren't on the left, I'm saying they aren't egalitarian. Ergo, egalitarianism isn't synonymous with left-wing ideology.

In point of fact there are multiple ideologies which are considered left-wing; the "left" is a broad field of political thought which includes many disparate practices and philosophies. Most make egalitarian arguments and include some form of egalitarianism as a core principle, but, as modern feminism proves, not all are egalitarian.

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

This is one reason why I said egalitarianism is part of left-wing ideology. I'm not saying feminists aren't on the left, I'm saying they aren't egalitarian. Ergo, egalitarianism isn't synonymous with left-wing ideology. In point of fact there are multiple ideologies which are considered left-wing; the "left" is a broad field of political thought which includes many disparate practices and philosophies. Most make egalitarian arguments and include some form of egalitarianism as a core principle, but, as modern feminism proves, not all are egalitarian.

My first counterargument is that your personal view what they're doing is un-egalitarian does not make it objectively so. People disagree about what is or is not properly egalitarian, most evidently in the debate between equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome.

Secondly, the justifications for female supremacy are always, without exception, appeals to egalitarian ideals. Yes, in reality, this makes them huge hypocrites. But they're devout hypocrites nonetheless, appealing to the egalitarian core of the movement at every turn even as they betray it. This makes them left-wing. You don't get to only count the organizations and movements you consider loyal as left-wing, that's dishonest. I could just as easily say that any priest who molests children can't be a true Catholic because Catholicism prohibits sexual assault.

They say giving females more power is a way to amend for the past, to privilege the underprivileged, to aid the victimized, et cetera. Always blatantly an appeal to the underdog, a fundamentally left-wing egalitarian appeal. If feminism was actually so deviant from its origin that it was no longer egalitarian in practice or ideals, we would not see these kinds of justifications. They would instead be saying that women are innately superior, men are innately inferior, and for that reason women deserve power and men do not, in other words we would expect to see anti-egalitarian justifications.

What you are in effect trying to say is that they are egalitarian in their ideals but not in practice. I don't much care about that. I don't think any organization is capable of being egalitarian in practice consistently, it's an insane ideology.

[–]TehGinjaNinja 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

What you are in effect trying to say is that they are egalitarian in their ideals but not in practice.

No I'm saying they are bigoted in both their ideals and practices, though I will acknowledge they are egalitarian in some of their propaganda. Particularly the propaganda intended for mass consumption.

You don't get to only count the organizations and movements you consider loyal as left-wing

If you go back and re-read what I wrote you'll see that I explicitly acknowledge that feminists, and by extension other non-egalitarians, are part of the left.

What I am contesting is your equating egalitarianism with left-wing politics. I think that's an over simplification and a misinterpretation of the historical and contemporary uses of the term. The origin of the left-right political spectrum lies in the French Revolution with proponents of the revolution on the left and defenders of the monarchy and the church on the right. This contrast between those who challenge traditional socio-political hierarchies and those who defend them is the closest one comes to a core definition of left and right.

Over the course of American history the left has justified it's revolutionary impulse with appeals to a wide array of rationales. Egalitarianism is definitely one of the most common, but individual liberty is also often invoked by the left; via appeals to civil liberties and natural rights. Also, simple appeals to compassion and social solidarity are a common feature of left-wing rhetoric, though they are not exclusive to the left. Ethnic identity politics has also become a prominent feature of the American left much, I believe, to it's discredit.

Regardless of the rationale invoked by a particular movement, the underlying motive common to the left is a revolutionary impulse to challenge existing hierarchies. The great irony of the left is that once it is in power, it cannot abandon the revolutionary impulse which defines it. As a result it begins to abuse the power it has gained. It is obsessed with fighting it's "oppressive" enemies, long after it has already won the battle.

This is most obvious with feminism, which has become more desperate and strident with each victory. This is how we get women in the west, the safest most liberated women in the world, obsessing over "patriarchy" and "rape-culture". This is how we get campaigns for "safe spaces" on college campuses that are already majority female. This is why we see activist research reporting inflated rape statistics, despite 20 years of steady declines in sexual violence across society.

Egalitarianism, though often sincerely expressed, is not the common feature of the left, in deed it's often little more than a rationalization of the true motive. That true motive is revolution.

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

What I am contesting is your equating egalitarianism with left-wing politics. I think that's an over simplification and a misinterpretation of the historical and contemporary uses of the term. The origin of the left-right political spectrum lies in the French Revolution with proponents of the revolution on the left and defenders of the monarchy and the church on the right. This contrast between those who challenge traditional socio-political hierarchies and those who defend them is the closest one comes to a core definition of left and right.

And the revolutionaries spouted egalitarian ideology, instituted the first nation-state in the world with officially egalitarian ideals, and overthrew the existing sociopolitical hierarchies in the name of equality, liberty, and fraternity. I don't really see how you can be disputing this, it's pretty non-controversial. The schism between the nobility and the revolutionaries was blatantly rooted in the egalitarian ideology just then growing in popularity and behind every major political revolution in the Western world.

Over the course of American history the left has justified it's revolutionary impulse with appeals to a wide array of rationales. Egalitarianism is definitely one of the most common, but individual liberty is also often invoked by the left; via appeals to civil liberties and natural rights. Also, simple appeals to compassion and social solidarity are a common feature of left-wing rhetoric, though they are not exclusive to the left. Ethnic identity politics has also become a prominent feature of the American left much, I believe, to it's discredit.

The only time civil rights are invoked by left-wing movements is to fix a perceived injustice between authority and the underprivileged, never vice-versa. If a perceived overprivileged class is seen to have too many rights, left-wingers immediately lose their reverence for any semblance of constitutionalism and talk about how "everything is contextual", what matters is "the greater good", et cetera. I don't know of any leftist organization or movement that is dedicated to civil rights in principle, that tends to be a feature of right-wing or mildly conservative organizations. Compassion is an egalitarian ideal, an appeal to aid the weak. Social solidarity and ethnic identity politics even more so. You have no idea how annoying it is being a brown man in a hardcore blue state, everyone you meet automatically assumes you're left-wing.

Regardless of the rationale invoked by a particular movement, the underlying motive common to the left is a revolutionary impulse to challenge existing hierarchies. The great irony of the left is that once it is in power, it cannot abandon the revolutionary impulse which defines it. As a result it begins to abuse the power it has gained. It is obsessed with fighting it's "oppressive" enemies, long after it has already won the battle.

We're not disagreeing here, but for some reason you're hesitant to admit that this impulse you're talking about is egalitarian in nature. It seems that despite identifying quite readily the nature of the beast, you still have a fond attachment to its name.

Egalitarianism, though often sincerely expressed, is not the common feature of the left, in deed it's often little more than a rationalization of the true motive. That true motive is revolution.

I don't see the difference, I think you're just nitpicking. Revolution, yes, but why? The motivation is, without exception, always an appeal to injustice, imbalance of power, liberating the oppressed, et cetera. Egalitarian appeals. I challenge you to find a single exception to this. Revolution is the end, egalitarianism is the means and the motive. The same agenda. Political restructuring alone would not necessarily be left-wing.

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

Liberté, égalité, fraternité

Liberty, equality, fraternity is the motto of the French Republic and dates to the revolution. Egalitarianism is part of the mix, but it doesn't even get top billing.

You are over simplifying the nature of left-wing politics and in the process, ironically enough, you're giving too much credit to the left.

Regardless of the rationale invoked by a particular movement, the underlying motive common to the left is a revolutionary impulse to challenge existing hierarchies.

We're not disagreeing here, but for some reason you're hesitant to admit that this impulse you're talking about is egalitarian in nature.

I would contend that the revolutionary impulse is not purely, or even primarily, egalitarian in nature. The fight for equality is for many of it's proponents, really just a rationalization for an instinctive struggle for dominance. Yes, left-wing revolutionaries typically want "equality", but inevitably some people are "more equal" than others.

We're not going to agree here, because this difference isn't just nitpicking. You are buying into the left's own self deception. Many on the left claim they want equality, and many even think they mean it. But deep down, politics is always a struggle for dominance, and that is their goal too.

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

Liberty, equality, fraternity is the motto of the French Republic and dates to the revolution. Egalitarianism is part of the mix, but it doesn't even get top billing.

Is that the best you can do, pointing out that it isn't the only word? We already discussed that liberty means overthrowing the previous hierarchies, it's meaningless on its own because it doesn't explain the motivation for overthrowing or the purpose it hopes to achieve. Fraternity likewise is just a strategy, it doesn't seem to mean much as a goal in itself, but fraternity can accomplish great things. I still haven't seen a rebuttal. Show me one leftist movement that isn't egalitarian in nature.

You are over simplifying the nature of left-wing politics and in the process, ironically enough, you're giving too much credit to the left.

Perhaps, perhaps not, but just saying that I'm oversimplifying isn't evidence that I am. Some things in life aren't actually that complicated.

I would contend that the revolutionary impulse is not purely, or even primarily, egalitarian in nature. The fight for equality is for many of it's proponents, really just a rationalization for an instinctive struggle for dominance. Yes, left-wing revolutionaries typically want "equality", but inevitably some people are "more equal" than others. We're not going to agree here, because this difference isn't just nitpicking. You are buying into the left's own self deception. Many on the left claim they want equality, and many even think they mean it. But deep down, politics is always a struggle for dominance, and that is their goal too.

Ah, I see it now. We don't disagree, we're just phrasing the same phenomenon differently.

I agree that deep down, the reason leftist movements exist is that everyone wants a piece of power. Equality, liberty, all these things are their justification for using violence to get what they want, it means nothing in reality. I don't disagree with you about the psychological, sociopolitical, and cultural motivations for the revolutionary impulse. In fact I'm more of a realist at heart, I prefer to look at these phenomena as primarily biological events rather than idealistically.

What I'm saying though is that as an ideological structure, leftism as a collection of ideas is fundamentally about equality. It's what ties every aspect of leftism together; without equality, there can be no leftism, only a million unconnected silly ideas. It could never have happened if the idea of egalitarianism never came to be.

To make an analogy, there was certainly always savage killing in our species as long as human beings have been around, but murder is more recent. The idea of killing is primeval, but the idea of unjust killing is specific to a notion of justice. Similarly there has always been revolutionary impulses in the human race. There are always barbarians at the gates, so to speak, attempting to usurp power, disrupt social norms, et cetera. But there has not always been leftism, the vast sociopolitical thread tying them it all together as a movement.

[–]rhettdu -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I would agree with you that feminism as far as equal rights, etc is left wing (and as someone on the political left I don't see any problem supporting that).

The problem is where women already get preferential treatment, for example in access to homeless shelters, childcare - there are actually a lot. Left-wing feminists will say "equal rights means equal rights!" and that I can respect. The vast majority of women aren't feminists like that though - they're in it for themselves. And "fuck you - got mine" is not left wing at all.

In short, feminism is not a Left-wing thing. It overlaps with left wing politics as much as all progressive and reform movements do (in my opinion, even less than libertarians). I could draw a comparison to professional associations, trade unions, chambers of commerce; yes they're interested in fair and good practice, but they're also about protecting their members' interests, even when they're wrong.

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

In short, feminism is not a Left-wing thing. It overlaps with left wing politics as much as all progressive and reform movements do (in my opinion, even less than libertarians). I could draw a comparison to professional associations, trade unions, chambers of commerce; yes they're interested in fair and good practice, but they're also about protecting their members' interests, even when they're wrong.

I agree that all these movements are hypocritical, I don't agree that being hypocritical makes you not left-wing. That's a No True Scotsman argument, you're selectively jettisoning every organization that sins and keeping only the ones you like, that way when you say that left-wing things are good, you get to point to all the good examples and leave out all the bad. An incredibly dishonest tactic.

When I say right-wing, I mean right-wing. I mean Nazis too, as shitty as they were. I don't pretend they weren't in my camp. Own up to the sins of your fathers, dammit.

[–]rhettdu 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I'm not saying being hypocritical stops you being left-wing. I'm saying not being left-wing stops you being left-wing and starts you being hypocritical if you're claiming to be left.

I can't believe I'm going to say this, but the Nazis were barely right wing if at all. Modern "far-right" parties often have more in common with the left than the right. It really depends on what you measure it on - some people say things like "for the good of all" vs "for the good of me" in which case we're all both left and right wing because me is part of all.

I alluded to the idea earlier about measuring it terms of revolutionary vs status quo/reactionary - while this is appealing to me, it requires context - free markets may be highly revolutionary in some settings and reactionary in others.

Ultimately, what I'm saying is that there's a lot more to this than "Hitler is in your guy and Stalin is mine" partly because they probably have more in common with each other than with either of us.

[–]amatorfati -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I can't believe I'm going to say this, but the Nazis were barely right wing if at all.

Eh... only if by "right-wing" you mean the modern perversion of it. By right-wing standards of the time, they were the only right-wing option on the table.

Modern "far-right" parties often have more in common with the left than the right.

Every modern party has more in common with the left than the right. Any political party you can think of today would be miles to the left a century ago. I can't think of a singe exception.

I alluded to the idea earlier about measuring it terms of revolutionary vs status quo/reactionary - while this is appealing to me, it requires context - free markets may be highly revolutionary in some settings and reactionary in others.

Free markets is essentially a tangential issue that isn't central to being either left or right wing. Originally it was a revolutionary ideal, then neither, then reactionary. Now... neither. Economics is important but it is not at all the central schism between left and right, many people misunderstand this and say that Nazis can't be right-wing because they're technically socialist, or that the USSR can't be properly left wing because of authoritarianism. All of those complaints completely miss the point, it's about nobility versus egalitarianism. Everything else is a distraction.

Ultimately, what I'm saying is that there's a lot more to this than "Hitler is in your guy and Stalin is mine" partly because they probably have more in common with each other than with either of us.

In other words, you're going to keep ignoring the history of your ideas but continue to accuse people you don't like of being fascists. Fantastic.

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

In other words, you're going to keep ignoring the history of your ideas but continue to accuse people you don't like of being fascists. Fantastic.

The "history" of my ideas is not Stalinist Communism. But what is it with right-wingers and lumping people as us and them? How would lumping people as different as Stalin, FDR, Beveridge, Martin Luther King and Pope Francis into one group make more sense than understanding the context of their time and their environment?

Just because you're on the right-wing doesn't mean you're the heir of Hitler any more than it makes you the inheritor of Reagan or Bull Conner. You might look up to right wingers of the past, but if you do, remember that Reagan was so left wing he couldn't be elected as a democrat today. Bull Connor supported trade unions. The Nazis had "socialist" in their name!

It's certainly easier to look at politics and history in terms of "our side" and "the other side" but it is almost universally wrong

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

You've completely missed the whole point. "Heir" is a misleading term but it does carry across some of the basic ideas I'm trying to explain. All surviving ideologies, left or right wing, ultimately have their origins in the ideologies that preceded them. It may make you personally uncomfortable, but yes, MLK, Stalin, FDR, et cetera, all have the same ideological roots. Ignoring that does not help us better understand them. My main point is that by selectively ignoring the common histories and treating every leftist movement as an independent being, no possible coherent sociopolitical theory is possible.

Lumping them together by left or right wing is only one way of looking at history, it's not the main thing that I'm talking about. In this specific case, yes, MLK, Stalin, Pope Francis, these figures are all left wing. They may vary in how left wing they are, what sort of leftist movements they support, and a million other differences. But ultimately the label "left wing" fits them all accurately. The differences are there, and significant, but a bird is still a bird whether its feathers are red or blue. Similarly it makes no difference that the Nazis were "socialist" in name or practice; right wing historically has nothing to do with economics primarily, capitalist versus socialist economics is one minor distinction that came much later.

It's certainly easier to look at politics and history in terms of "our side" and "the other side" but it is almost universally wrong

And what is the right way, according to you?

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

You have to understand movements relative to their setting, time and place. You describe the left wing as supporting the equality and the right wing as supporting the aristocracy which might be a useful way of understanding it but some things don't easily fall into that category.

Take early American politics. Were the Whigs and Democractic-Republicans right or left wing? Well if you look at their policies it's difficult to say, partly because it was such a different time and the arguments of that time were so different. Now some people like to call one clearly left wing and the other obviously right wing but it really isn't as easy as that.

If you can lump Stalin and Pope Francis into the same group that excludes people like Pinochet and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, your group is meaningless.

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

You have to understand movements relative to their setting, time and place. You describe the left wing as supporting the equality and the right wing as supporting the aristocracy which might be a useful way of understanding it but some things don't easily fall into that category.

I'm not "describing" them that way, that is what the phrases left wing and right wing mean. Any other usage of those phrases is a modern perversion of what they originally referred to. You're acting like you've never heard this before. I'm not the one making this up, this is pretty basic history.

Take early American politics. Were the Whigs and Democractic-Republicans right or left wing? Well if you look at their policies it's difficult to say, partly because it was such a different time and the arguments of that time were so different. Now some people like to call one clearly left wing and the other obviously right wing but it really isn't as easy as that.

Before this, I assumed you were being intentionally stubborn or had malicious intent, now I understand that you just clearly don't understand at all what I'm talking about.

Let me be very clear. Left or right are relative terms, on a larger scale, sure. In contrast to Egyptian monarchy, we are all left. In contrast to eco-terrorists, most of us are to the right. Your question, whether the Whigs or Republicans are best understood as left wing or right wing, is impossible to answer except by comparison. Compared to each other, the Whigs were definitely left wing. Compared to their predecessors, every modern political party is far to the left. Representative democracy itself being left wing in origin, this should not surprise us.

If you can lump Stalin and Pope Francis into the same group that excludes people like Pinochet and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, your group is meaningless.

Why, because your personal categorization doesn't match up with this? Emotions have no place in these sorts of discussions.

[–]Endorsed ContributorrebuildingMyself 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

I'm pro choice (but do regard it as murder but a necessary evil to keep the crime and welfare state down). I wouldn't seriously date someone long term with that kind of baggage either.

[–]TehGinjaNinja -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

I wouldn't seriously date someone long term with that kind of baggage either.

Then you shouldn't date women at all. As I explain here, the baggage around abortion (or infanticide if you prefer) is evolutionary baggage. Just like hypergamy, it's there in all women to one degree or another.

[–]Invincibull3 points 12 years ago [recovered] (9 children) | Copy Link

You seem to be really invested in this pro-abortion stance. Have you considered that some men might not want a relationship (or a date) with a girl who had an abortion at 18 not because she had the abortion, but because she got pregnant at 18?

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

Have you considered that some men might not want a relationship (or a date) with a girl ... because she got pregnant at 18?

I don't think that's an unreasonable position, but that's not the position under debate in this thread.

I'm invested in a pro-abortion stance because it has clear utility. The "pro-life" is a right-wing blue-pillism which idealizes women as nurturing mothers, rather than recognizing the evolved imperatives which drive them.

[–]Invincibull3 points 12 years ago [recovered] (7 children) | Copy Link

You're conflating a whole lot of things. Some guys don't like women who got pregnant and/or had an abortion in their teens, and that is a legitimate position. You're telling people "don't date at all", there are no "quality women," wanting a girl with no baggage is "blue pill," etc.

The "pro-life" is a right-wing blue-pillism which idealizes women as nurturing mothers, rather than recognizing the evolved imperatives which drive them.

Not necessarily. I wouldn't want a woman who'd had an abortion, not because I believe in "sanctity of life" or "nurturing mother ideal" or some such thing, but because needing to have an abortion usually means having made bad life choices. Having had one in her teens further means a questionable family background. Some guys may want to use a girl like that as a FWB, others may not want to get involved at all.

For the record, I dislike the political bent to this thread, it distracts from the real issue.

[–]TehGinjaNinja 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Some guys don't like women who got pregnant and/or had an abortion in their teens, and that is a legitimate position.

Not liking it isn't the issue. The issue is that asserting you can't be with a woman who would be willing to do away with her own child if she couldn't afford it ignores the reality of human instinct. It's like saying, "I would never marry a woman who is hypergamous". You don't get a choice about people's instincts; they are a product of evolution.

You're telling people "don't date at all", there are no "quality women," wanting a girl with no baggage is "blue pill," etc.

I never said "don't date". I'm saying be realistic about the nature of women. I never said there are no "quality women". I'm saying be realistic about the nature of women. I never said wanting a girl with no baggage is "blue pill". I'm saying be realistic about the nature of women.

It's Blue Pill to believe you can find an ideal woman who doesn't posses these instincts. To define "quality women" as women who lack the evolutionary baggage shared by all women is unreasonable and naive.

[–]Invincibull1 points 12 years ago [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

The issue is that asserting you can't be with a woman who would be willing to do away with her own child if she couldn't afford it

You're assuming that's what he means. Maybe he means someone who put herself in the postion of needing an abortion at 18.

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

He told me that a mother that is willing to kill her own child because it isn’t convenient for her is not the type of person he wants to be with.

That's the statement of motive we have from him, admittedly by second hand. I don't see any reason to invent imaginary rationales for him which contradict the only evidence we have to go on.

[–]Invincibull1 points 12 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

In this thread, I'm talking about rebuildingMyself's statement:

I wouldn't seriously date someone long term with that kind of baggage either.

And your reply to him:

Then you shouldn't date women at all

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

So we've been arguing about two different people because I was equating the "some men" in your line:

Have you considered that some men might not want a relationship (or a date) with a girl who had an abortion at 18 not because she had the abortion, but because she got pregnant at 18?

With the ex of the orginal poster, rather than with /u/rebuildingMyself. Where as you were talking about /u/rebuildingMyself.

Also complicating things was that when he (/u/rebuildingMyself) said "that kind of baggage" I was equating it with the instinct towards infanticide (i.e. "willing to kill her own child because it isn’t convenient") invoked by the ex boyfriend, rather than with simply having had an abortion at 18. Which was probably a misinterpretation on my part.

Guess that means you win the thread.

[–]Invincibull1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

This is not about winning a thread on reddit, TehGinjaNinja, it's about sharpening our arguments so we can use them better where it really counts. At least to me it is.

[–]TehGinjaNinja1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

lol, I'm just being a good sport about having an argument on the internet. You might not have noticed, but some people take this stuff a bit too seriously at times.

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

I think I need to clear something up for you. The Red Pill is not a right-wing philosophy anymore than it is a left-wing philosophy. The Red Pill is about reality, not ideology. It is informed by the lived experience of it's proponents, by reason, and by research.

The position taken by the man referenced in the post you linked to is not a Red Pill position.

He told me that a mother that is willing to kill her own child because it isn’t convenient for her is not the type of person he wants to be with.

How is that not Red Pill? The Red Pill is about sexual strategy, and sexual strategy is amoral. Humanity has a long history of practicing infanticide when a child would be difficult to support. Research even indicates that postpartum depression is an evolutionary adaptation , allowing parents to psychologically detach from children they can't afford:

negative emotions directed towards a new infant could serve an important evolved function by causing the mother to reduce her investment in an unaffordable infant, thereby reducing her costs.

This ain't the O'Reilly Factor son. You wanna go off on a tangent about "leftoids" and their position on abortion, create your own damn subreddit.

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

[permanently deleted]

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

I'm with you. If anything, an abortion is a good sign she's open to getting another one if you have an accident with her too. It'd be kind of a load off my mind.

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

But I don't actually give a fuck.

I don't know how I'd react with this, cause I've never been there.

I doubt many have.

I guess this one's on your Abortion views.

[–]chronicvape 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

I'm not real keen on the term "leftoid" or "left/right" being used in this subreddit.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

Because you're left-wing, and it makes you feel alienated. But like it or not, feminism is a left-wing ideology that is almost exclusively pushed and maintained by people on the left, so it's going to come up from time to time.

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

It's because The Red Pill is not a left-wing or right-wing philosophy. The right-wing idealizes women as much as the left, it just does it in different ways. The Red Pill is inarguably anti-feminist, but you shouldn't confuse that with a general refutation of left-wing ideology.

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

I agree that The Red Pill isn't necessarily a left-wing or right-wing philosophy, but feminism is still left-wing and supported by leftists, so it's understandable that terms like "leftoid" will be thrown around. That's all I was saying.

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

Alienated? Certainly not.

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

Because you're a leftoid "egalitarian" who believes straight white males should responsibility for absolutely everyone in society. It falls right in line with feminist thinking and diffusion of responsibility. People like you are the cancer that is rotting the United States from the inside. Many families cannot afford to send their children to college, yet you believe that their tax dollars should be used to educate Julio's 9 children who are in the country illegally. There is nothing worse than a "progressive" male. Everything political opinion you hold is for the approval of others rather than what is best for the country.

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

I'm an Australian, my country kicks ass. Meanwhile America is acting like a crazy woman clutching at straws and I'm sure whining hard right people such as yourself are doing a great job blaming everyone else but yourself for the problems. Sounds familiar.

I love how rabid you lot get, its entertaining. We are in TRP, this isnt about politics, and really my political leanings have nothing to do with me enjoying red pill ideology . Relax mate :)

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

Your country censors adults from offensive material. You recently banned Saints Row 4 for having a dildo gun. Australia is more under feminist-liberal control than the U.S. is. By the way, how are the Aborigines doing with all the benefits you're giving them?

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

Aww you got me... You should see the idiots on the censorship board.

The aboriginals are cool man, some of them make it, some don't, no one wants to kill off an entire race so we support them. They are slowly coming around. Its not much different to your natives is it?

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

The Red Pill is fundamentally a philosophy of reason driven by evidence. There is nothing reasonable or evidence based in this rant of yours. You don't belong here.

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

[permanently deleted]

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

Different qualifications for different stages in life and different goals.

The guy in the link is probably looking for a LTR/Marriage and kids. You arent.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter