Does the red-pill consider communication and mutual respect an error?

[–]jonsmif979737 points38 points39 points 6 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Communication and mutual respect is a must, but they are not in BP sense. Let me break down for you.

(BP version) Communication - Open up your feelings. Believe that all relationship problems can be solved by talking about them openly. These wouldn't work because women don't know what they want and these actions show that you are not a leader by example.

(RP version) Communication - Rely more on covert communication (which is to show by actions rather than by words). Set your boundaries and be overt with them if necessary. You communicate what you want your women to be like. Think about how a President communicate with citizens.

(BP version) mutual respect - Put women on a pedestal by giving up your preferences for their preferences. "I respect her even though I don't like what she is doing and saying."

(RP version) mutual respect - If the women cross your boundaries, or if you don't like what she is doing, you say it to her or you next her. It's called self-respect. You put yourself first, and you expect your women to respect you because women's love for men is based on adoration and respect.

You respect her not by doing what social conventional respect (i.e. treat her nicely, become a provider, etc.) but by understanding their nature and their covert communication. Then, you do what you think is best for both of you without compromising yourself.

[–]baeslick9 points10 points11 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I think most people, especially those who are new to TRP, don't understand the "women don't know what they want" thing and see it as misogynistic. I have interpreted as "women don't know what they want until they've seen it", which is more along the lines of what TRP actually teaches, which is that in terms of provisional and social status, men who are of higher value will be under the radar of a lot more women, and I mean A LOT more women.

For men, that goes a different way, most men just want a girl who's fun and likes to fuck at the drop of a hat. It's why looks are way more important women than men, and it's why men's internal world is just as important as their external. An inner sense of security does project outward, and women pick up on it fast.

As a PS, I really don't subscribe to that truism that men who talk about their feeling are "beta", it's way more sophisticated than that. Women like vulnerability in men, it is yet another sense of bravery and security within an individual to be emotionally vulnerable yet secure in that vulnerability. THEN AGAIN, that should be reserved for a very select few women, the short list of women who are material for LTRs, marriage even less so, etc.

[–]jonsmif97978 points9 points10 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]baeslick1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]i-am-the-prize2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

As a PS, I really don't subscribe to that truism that men who talk about their feeling are "beta", it's way more sophisticated than that. Women like vulnerability in men, it is yet another sense of bravery and security within an individual to be emotionally vulnerable yet secure in that vulnerability. THEN AGAIN, that should be reserved for a very select few women, the short list of women who are material for LTRs, marriage even less so, etc.

Go one step farther. Not just "..reserved for a very select few women..." but additionally shared infrequently and context dependent.

There are plenty of relatable EC and user contributed data points on here where:

a man reports showing emotion (aka: non masculine weakness) and the woman is shaken and truly unhinged afterwards (ie: if /he/ can be undone by this, then he can be undone by XYZ)
a man reports of showing emotion (aka: non masculine weakness) and she becomes angry and upset
a man reports of showing emotion (aka: non masculine weakness) and she becomes withdrawn (dry panties) and unaffectionate

For some, showing your weak side via full on crying-ballfest, even once (after death of pet, family member, loss of job) does them in, and she views you differently afterwards.

What does seem to help her attraction to you, which is not the goal mind you, is when she can feel that "she has gotten through your armor" by sharing in smaller tidbits things that do show "vulnerability in men [you]" but that is specifically:

so she can feel that she tamed the beast (you), as a reward for her support of you and your mission, but:
not so that she can see you're *vulnerable* 24x7, that makes you weak and that makes you hypergamously unattractive.

The helpful nuggets I've found in my (albeit short 6 month) RP journey:

STFU, when in doubt
do not talk about the relationship/verbal diarrhea in general
you do talk about the relationship only if you have a specific goal in mind (boundary verbalization, changing status, etc), and be Outcome Independent with the results
when possible: demonstrate vs. explicate, see /johnsmif9797's answer.
when in doubt, answer/act from a position of strength. in the end, whether a ONS, LTR, wife/husband role, she wants to know she has selected the best possible combination of strong genes (attractive) and protector (provider), rarely does showing mental weakness (vulnerability) up your stock in that calculus.

[–]Siyuen_Tea0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]baeslick0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Siyuen_Tea0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ElegantCyclist8 points9 points10 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RedditGilder1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MisterRoid12 points13 points14 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Madhatter7473 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]BurnoTaurus11 points12 points13 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Madhatter7471 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]idontmiind4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedditGilder0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]idontmiind0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedditGilder0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]idontmiind0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BurnoTaurus4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Mutual respect, if it reads as her respecting that you're a man, and you respecting that she's a woman.... can probably be workable. Which means that you respect that as a woman she's essentially a child, and can only respect you when the form of communication you use with her is predominantly a masculine one.

You can be fun and sweet and talk about all kinds of topics the same way you would with a child. Thus, as with children, you must always be willing to take a step back from being a "fun equal participant in a mutual conversation" (that sentence shrivels my balls, but you get my point) To being a corrective force that direct and discipline the childs beliefs and worldviews.

I had a friend once whose girlfriend would just randomly shriek at the top of her lungs. he was so whipped he didnt do anything about it. Thought it was one of her fun little quirks. She shrieked. Like a fucking animal. Like something you would have in a cage and throw a blanket over it to convince it that it was nighttime so it would shut the fuck up.

He would throw dirty looks at me when I would tell her just the same "shut the fuck up, stop screaming"

[–]send_it_for_the_boys1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedditGilder0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Thanks for your answer. I know this is not a thesis, but you have an interesting choice of words and train of argumentation that makes the opinion unclear. You say, respect each other as man and woman. Unless you believed I was including gay people in my question, a man and a woman are already implied in the red pill part of my question, so the only word left is respect. Then you define “respect” as treating woman as essentially a “child”. So at this point your definition of respect differs from the dictionary (we need a neutral point of definitions as a start). And then you define what that essential point of treating her as a child is: to correct and discipline her beliefs and world views. By the way it’s worded, it implies your beliefs and world views are always correct, and that women are always indisciplined. A simple real-life example of any man making a mistake in his life and a woman being disciplined in some area of her life would defeat this argument. And this is something so obvious that can be easily seen during life or proven through different “sources” like jails. The “unclear” part, is that your conclusion with this argument is “probably”, but then you don’t define the measure of that probability, so it can be read as “maybe”... which could be then read to as “may be not” and leads us to nowhere. You mention also to be “predominantly” masculine, but that’s also a vague definition, this involves you can be “feminine” as long as it’s not the majority of the time, so I would need to ask you, when to be feminine and when to not?

The example about your friend’s girlfriend describes someone really annoying to you, and you accept this wasn’t the absolute opinion because your friend seemed to be fine with that. The way you rationalize it is your friend is whipped and you are not. So whenever someone differs from you, you can simply say they are whipped and give your self auto-approval. Then you used this auto-approval to ask her to stop, but took the opportunity to do it using offensive words and present it as an order. You use this example to add to your previous argument of treating them as children, so again, it implies you believe children should be treated with bad words, which is verbal abuse, by definition.

Bad words are generally used as insults, because they are essentially aimed to hurt the other person. This is abusive behavior: take any mistake as a justification to insult the other person. Instead of communicating your disagreement, your choice was: “I disagree with you, you are annoying me, therefore I can insult you while ordering you to comply with my personal belief”. In such situation, according to you, your friend could have been annoyed by your disrespect of his significant other, you even acknowledge this by accepting he gave you “dirty looks”. According to your train of though he should have insulted you back to exert masculinity, and then you should insult back, probably leading to a fight. I guess your friend decided to avoid this and just let you know he disapproved your behavior but that he wasn’t going to do anything else, probably trying to save the relationship, a typical set of abuse in relationships. I would have stopped you right there.

Although it doesn’t answer my question objectively, I think I kind of understand your answer anyway: communication and mutual respect may work, as long as communicating and mutual respect means receiving your orders, no matter if you are wrong or right, if you don’t ask politely or if you use verbally abusive words, like insults, in the process, using any necessary pretext as long as you believe it.

All of the above are well researched forms of “manipulation”, it can happen in every social interaction. Check any center against abuse, it’s a very interesting source if you believe these methods work for your means.

Thanks for your opinion.

[–]BurnoTaurus0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

alright ive read a little more and you make some fair points so I can clarify further.

You should not discount that my friends girlfriend was a gutter skank who I despised. I will verbally abuse a child I despise. I dont really like children in the first place. The woman would get my friend to throw parties at his house so she could get him drunk and get railed by her friends. I mean, you can say Im using this example as an ego justification, but then you would be defending my friends subjective (deluded) point of view. Which would make it clear why you're having issues with women and are on a sub like this.

As for being feminine you dont always have to be stoic, tough or hardcore alpha bro. If something makes you feel an emotion, you can state that you're having an emotional response to something.

I dont know. At this point I take it that you might function at a cognitive level thats a bit closer to the average woman. Manipulation is part of the human condition. We manipulate ourselves, we are manupulated by others, we manipulate them

honestly what I intended to communicate to my friends girlfriend was that "you are a fetid gutter cunt and to look upon you is akin to contracting aids"

A more constructive means would have been to state "when you scream like that it demonstrates that you are a fetid gutter cunt who congealed out of the floor moppings of an all night sex and heroin club. should you continue to do so I will have to manually extricate your presence from its locus amongst the living"

you see, you clearly state what has been done wrong, why it was wrong and what the consequences will be

[–]RedditGilder0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Thanks for reading, I appreciate your opinion, as you can see it’s interesting to me.

Sorry to read you had that kind of experience with a woman, I had hurtful experiences too, but mostly amazing ones. We differ in the appreciation of children and many other things you write here, and that it’s fine. Given that we are trying to reach a conclusion, and not just stare at our beliefs let me know if you agree with this:

“We should prepare for the worst (red pill), while expecting the best (blue pill)” in that order for any goal. And that applies to any objective you have in mind, name it, driving to your home, starting a business with a friend... or even just taking a walk, but we have to avoid phobias or being naive. The biggest challenge is, ok, that’s the formula, but then... what do I want? Welcome to a cult.

[–]BurnoTaurus-1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Why do you apologize to me for my experiences? This sort of thing baffles me. You feel sorry that I was put in that situation because you have used your powers of imagination to place yourself in your own approximation of my experience. based on your reasoning it was negative and therefore you draw the conclusion that it was also negative for me.

Much of my life has been incredibly negative. To live is to suffer, and to suffer is to be given a chance to experience joy. for without suffering there is no life, and to be dead in the sense of existing in this world, is to be void of the chance to reap all the rewards this world may offer.

Ultimately though, a woman shit tests a man because she wants to know if the man is a worthy authority by which she may judge herself. If she sleeps with a beta male, his praise of her beauty is of little value. She knows the same man would sing the praises of any pussy that was thrown his way. If this is the nature of woman, if she will always be attempting to use me as something to measure herself against... well then naturally everything has to work top down.

[–]BurnoTaurus-1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I stopped reading after the point about "it implies your beliefs and worldviews are correct"

You can never know that your beliefs and worldviews are correct. However, if you did not believe them, they would not be your beliefs, correct? The point of the redpill is for you as a man to become your greatest self and live your best life.

Female companionship can be many things. Lets root this in the present day for a moment and we see that woman, the weaker of the sexes, is so suscept to the ploy of the current hegemony that she is an adhd retard who might run off with your wallet the moment you turn your back on her.

This means that the chance of you finding a woman who is deserving of respect is minimal. Making a woman who is deserving of respect, however, doing your best to help her become everything that she needs to be, complementary and antithetical to your masculinity. Woman is not opposite man, she does not balance him by offering a diametric to each trait he represents.

A womans submissiveness is the sheath to the sword of a mans aggression. Look at that sentence right there. The woman is an outlet for the man in this way. Does a nagging bitch telling you to be productive make you a better member of society?

[–]RedditGilder0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

If you stop reading then what’s the point of answering and exchanging ideas on Reddit? Haha that’s kind of comical to me. You made me remember a friend of childhood who used to cover his ears saying “I don’t want to hear, I don’t want to hear”, after hearing anything he didn’t like or something that scared him. Anyway:

Yes, you can know if your beliefs and world views are correct. You have to define what “correct” is first. History is plagued of beliefs that weren’t true and that affected them, superstitions are an example. The total of science tries to get away from beliefs to facts and it’s the base of many useful advancements today.

You say, “If I believe, therefore my beliefs are mine”. Mmm. Sure, your beliefs are yours, but again, what makes them correct? And women have their own beliefs too. What makes them incorrect compared to yours? If she is a proven expert in some field, like cancer, “fuck her beliefs: I am the man”? That’s something women had to fight during the last centuries, your thoughts are inferior or incorrect because you are a woman, therefore why should we educate you, if you are going to be wrong anyway.

Become your “greatest self” is vague, everyone can define that for themselves: I could chose giving all my belongings to the disadvantaged is my greatest self. But, ouch, some men even believe they should give their world to a woman to be their greatest self. We need to define that, I think you are trying to mean: “we have a set of semi-defined values, that we chose to believe as truth, that work for us, in some cases” so it’s pretty much like a religion. Don’t present it as “facts”, it’s just your beliefs. The rest of your paragraphs are: generalizations, offensive comparisons, pessimistic views, your own definitions of respect, your own definition of what she needs to be, and specially according to your personal needs. Women are not opposite as that definition, true, I think they compliment us and we compliment them, whenever we chose so and work together towards that. Your pessimism could finish with any human relationship, even friendships can be exploited. I see your points more like: we try to prepare for the worst, and expect the best. But you don’t seem to expect the best, the ideal, “that’s blue pill”, you could say.

Men can be submissive too, actually in the way many company hierarchies work, they are submissive even to other men. Whoever tells you to be productive is trying to make you that: productive, not better, that’s again a philosophical concept. You need to define all of that.

Some of the values the red pill follows were very well known before the red pill and encouraged in a lot of circles, the problem is the mix it has here with male supremacism and hate.

Thanks for your reply.

[–]BurnoTaurus0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

See, its no comedy that I stop reading your writing when you make assertions like "science tries to get away from assumptions and is based on blah blah"

Veil of perception. All knowledge arrived at by human means is subject to potentially being wildly incorrect. You can harbour useful beliefs, but ultimately all you can do is act on contingency.

You're making a false equivalency between notions of hate and notions of male supremacism. You will find a great deal of both in my writing. The hate is derived from the notion that the majority of things this world champions as progress are actually examples of regress. Your notions of equality have you blind to the sheer hindrance that woman presents to man actually accomplishing anything in the long term. Even when your beloved science can be cornerstone in arguing the superiority of man. Ultimately I think its safe to say you make the mistake of assuming that when I infer that women are inferior, I also infer that they are unnecessary. Context wise, there are many ways women are superior to men. Pass a baby out your dick. Ultimately though, the roles most women are suited to play are supplementary to the roles of man

[–]nobody_thinks1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedditGilder0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]nobody_thinks0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

reasoning: (1-communication) women are duplicitous, esp with the literal meaning of their spoken word, so using masculine, clear direct language with them just gives up all your power. It's like arm wrestling but agreeing to only using your pinky muscules (2-mutual respect) modern woman does not respect man, you are, at best, a mere utility to them. The minute you lose frame, your wife and the mother of your children will divorce rape you and raise your kids to think you are shit (and fuck up their lives in the process). So her profession of "mutual" respect is just a shit test / part of her duplicitous, contextual, sub-textual, power-based use of language. It really means, "yes sounds great if you give up all your power and always show you what you are thinking / feeling while I hide everything".

[–]RedditGilder0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

Thanks for the elaboration, I was genuinely thankful about your previous direct answer because it covered my question as worded, technically.

Duplicitous. So if a single woman, ever uses the literal meaning, they are no longer a woman? I don’t understand how clearness of communication can be described only as masculine. It’s used by many women in the academic field. But I get your idea, it’s just the way you word it that doesn’t comply the right message and can be seen as over-generalization easily disproven.

So you are a utility for every woman in the world. I met many woman that never asked anything form me, they even bought things for me or did favor without me asking, which was appreciated, so they were not women, or were an anomaly, according to your generalization.

Then you imply she will hide anything, as they are emotionally Machiavelli. But at the same time the red pill states women are an emotional mess, so that contradicts that.

I think I get your point anyway: you approach it in a defensive way, just in case it goes But then, if you approach everything like that in life, it could lead to parálisis.

I see it more as a matter of emotional intelligence, unfortunately, this depends on a case by case basis according to your experience, goals, values, culture, situation... calibration or as my parents said, maturity. Gosh, we just discovered that the more mature you are the better relationships you have. Wow, such news.

[–]nobody_thinks0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedditGilder0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]nobody_thinks0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

lol as you retreat into word games and definitions and academics.

I mean, I agree with you from a philosophical perspective: truly defining, quantifying, and explicating the psychological differences between the genders would provide enormous value to society.

But these are reddit comments.

All you have to do is look at the fraction of women who prepare for the wall.

Better, yet, look at the fraction of women who don't have a strong man in their lives leading them who prepare for the wall.

Let me save you the double blind study: none.

Likewise, show me the fraction of women who understand that their primary value to society / men comes from their sexual / reproductive value: again, approximately none. Some strippers / prostitutes / models understand this to a vague degree, but they also hamster it away by thinking they have something "special" inside besides a nice pair of tits / ass.

Well, everyone has something special inside. But whatever that special is, it certainly doesn't keep men of value around post wall.

Now, switch to men. Show me the fraction of athletes who anticipate and plan for the wall: nearly 100%. (atheletes b/c those are the men for whom the wall matters).

Show me the fraction of masculine men who plan for retirement, have savings, don't go into debt : about 100%.

whatever I could go on forever. the world is there in front of you. just open your eyes.

[–]RedditGilder0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Uhm... we are using words, words have definitions. We have to start from a common point. It’s called language. So when you seem to use a different definition, I will ask for clarification. It’s normal in conversations. Do I really have to explain this? I thought this was common sense, but obviously it isn’t. It’s fine. And, no, it’s no “retreat”, I don’t see this exchange as a competence, actually I am curious about your ideas and what you base them on, that’s why I asked the question. I thought that was obvious too.

Unfortunately not even Reddit is exempt from questions and comments after some information is exposed, actually, that’s the core model of the site. If you don’t have reasons/proof to sustain theories then you just can say, “because I think so”, which is called appeal to your own opinion and would defeat the whole purpose of trying to expose “an uncomfortable truth” where the whole red pill term comes from. This is not “tell us what you think about women straight from your ass” subreddit. The constant use of generalizations in statements is part of the reason why the red pill is questioned.

About preparing for “the wall”. First of all what do you mean by “prepare”. You have to be very specific because I can say women prepare in many different ways. Then, how can we measure that fraction? Where can I find that measurement if exists? Because you even go ahead and say that no woman gets prepared. Then you load a question: you state as a fact that the value of woman in the current society and for men is their sexual and reproductive value and then ask ME to prove what you present as a fact. It doesn’t work like that. If you state something you prove it, if you can’t you cannot say it’s true nor false. So what’s the point? If you say, “because I think so”, again you are getting the information from the ass.

Again, you show me the fraction of athletes you are pretty much generalizing again.

You are defining masculinity away from the dictionary definition. So in your definition, sure 100%, whatever that definition is.

The world is there, my eyes are opened. You didn’t answer to the question, but it’s fine, the way I see it is, this IS what you believe, but just state it like that, otherwise is epistemologically incorrect.

You believe all of this, and you can believe women are aliens using men too with the same argumentation “just open your eyes”, and then invent percentages. Ok, for me, through the scientific method and the definition of many universities: you seem to lack critical thinking. Your same ways of reasoning are used by cults to explain many things, and it’s fine, as long as we distinguish it like that and not as “facts”.

Again, It’s easy: you can tell me it’s just your opinion. Which I respect but doesn’t count as fact until proven.

[–]nobody_thinks0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RedditGilder0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Mmm. Again, if you read my comments I keep mentioning that the way you use terms leads you to a lot of fallacies: you even say here “literally” not one once, but logic cannot be measured in ounces. The term is used incorrectly... anyway, I think I get what you are trying to say: If there is no logic how come you understood my questions and gave me a detailed answer addressing most of my concerns (actually in a very reasonable way) in your following response.

About the example, It’s not a word salad, those are simply questions and I didn’t make many of those in your example: you are appealing to exaggeration. When you make generalizations, seem to differ from the dictionary term, or use a concept in a philosophical way, I ask for clarification. It’s really common. And, no, it’s not really “deep”: your way of using language is not rare, it’s used a lot in marketing, for example, trying to exploit ambiguity (to the point that It has put many companies in trouble with their advertising).

Remember some ideas are meant to influence you, so It’s a great way to detect cognitive biases or logical fallacies in any field.

PS Check videos of “word salads” in schizophrenia. Really interesting.

[–]nobody_thinks0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

I'm going to give you a more nuanced response. It is very difficult because there is so much condescension and superciliousness in your replies that it seems utterly pointless, which is why i dismissed you earlier.

I am not using language literally in my most of my responses and I take it as obvious when I use expressions for effect. E.g. "100%", "none", etc.
We are talking about generalizations. That's how all knowledge works. That's how language works. There is no such thing as "a tree". It is a generalization / abstraction from a large set of observations.
You are trolling people about (a) their non-precise use of language (which is a troll b/c that is the format of the site - this is not an academic journal) and (b) the fact that the red pill is about generalizations. As if there is anything wrong with a generalization.
Your tone is insufferable. Let's look at your latest reply which caused me to cut off conversation with you. It begins with:

Uhm...

Pure condescension.

we are using words

Oh man really, we are using words? Wow, enlighten me further ...

words have definitions

Wow this sounds like some really deep intellectual conversation

We have to start from a common point

First of all, just the frame. "we have to". You are ordering me. No I don't "have to" agree with your frame of the argument.

It’s called language

Again, you are talking down to me.

So when you seem to use a different definition, I will ask for clarification

Let's see if that holds up.

You are defining masculinity away from the dictionary definition

But am I? I am using it to denote a man marked by the traditional characteristics of men. You could literally replace my usage of "masculine" with "men with characteristics of traditional masculinity". Let's check the dictionary:

Characterized by or possessing qualities traditionally attributed to men

Oh wow that's really neat. Let's do something really radical. Let's check a pre-feminism dictionary:

Having the qualities of a man; strong; robust

Resembling man; coarse; opposed to delicate or soft; as masculine features.

Bold; brave; as a masculine spirit or courage.

Oh wow isn't that interesting. The modern on-line dictionary agrees with my usage, but goes on to frame masculinity as only associated with negative traits (aggression), whereas the traditional dictionary associates masculinity with strength, courage, independence ... exactly in the way I used it.

But you didn't ask about how I used it (as you disingenuously claimed). You just asserted that I was abusing the word.

And that's not even going into the contextual usage. In the red pill, it very common to use "masculine" in contrast to "soy boy" or "male feminist" etc. Again, assuming you have done your homework before you come to troll us, this should be obvious.

And this is the whole problem with your approach which is why I nor anyone else here will take you seriously: welders use the word "keyhole" to mean something different from how you use the word "keyhole". If you show up at a welder's shop with a dictionary and tell him that he is abusing English, people will just call you a nerd and tell you to go away.

so let me summarize this for you. You condescend to me for my use of language and try to use "authority" (modern lexicographers) to define the frame of the debate (e.g. what masculinity means, or countless other words), claiming / implying that I am not aware of the nuances that subtle changes in definitions of words can have, all the while apparently unaware that you have fallen into this very trap by failing to question the feminist frame of modern education / modern language (e.g. the top-down shifts in nuance of key words in language such as man / woman / masculinity / femininity / "love" / marriage / etc). That is, you are the one calling for precision and attention to detail and nuance in the use of language to avoid falling into logical error, meanwhile you are the one who is lost in a sea of re-definitions and re-frames.

I hope the irony is not lost on you.

To make matters worse, you use language very literally and fail to understand contextual / sub-textual uses of language (exaggeration to make a point, sarcasm, my use of the word masculinity, "100%", "none", etc). And yet it is precisely women's non-literal use of language that I referenced wrt why it is not a good idea to "openly communicating" with them (about everything).

That is to say - and follow this closely b/c I doubt you will get it immediately - your literal use of language and clumsiness with sub-textual / contextual use of language is proof enough that you just don't understand women b/c you don't understand how they communicate.

You'll have to read that a few times to get it. But it is reeealllyyy ironic once you get it.

In short, you are a male feminist who has very little success with women, doesn't understand women, doesn't understand how they communicate, and you are here trolling us naively and inconsistently about our use of language, when our use of language shows that we at least understand women.

Well, it's all above your head.

We know what we mean.

You are on our turf.

Come here trolling and don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

[–]blackswan2whiteswan0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedditGilder1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]blackswan2whiteswan1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RedditGilder1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RedditGilder0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

Really long reply. I appreciate the effort.

There is no condescending, I respect your answers.

You even used the term “literally” before but now you say you don’t use it.

Your use of expressions is misleading, we are trying to communicate: there are many other ways to put emphasis on your expression without falling in fallacies.

Mm. The way you generalize falls in inductive fallacy, it’s something to try to avoid when looking for “knowledge” and expressing it through “language” : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization

In your example of trees: you could faulty generalize them too.

That’s why feminists keep criticizing the red pill with the simple reason: “not all women are like that”... they just have to find a woman that doesn’t fit your statement, and it gets disproven. It’s easily solved, use clearer expressions, just say: “we believe a majority of women” instead of “women are”.

Asking you to clarify it’s not trolling. Reddit doesn’t need to be ambiguos. History has many examples of how trying to generalize a group of people to justify beliefs or actions lead to disastrous consequences: slavery, holocaust, segregation, racism, etc.

The expression “uhm” is called an onomatopoeia, same as “mm”, it reflects the sound I make when I start thinking after reading your question. Maybe you are being unnecessary defensive?

You say the expression “we have to” is “framing” you? Would you prefer “we need to”, “we are obligated to”? I expressed why: we need a common point and there’s no way to go around it, because we would just start saying “that’s not my definition”, we need a common point to avoid falling in subjectiveness. That pretty much why dictionaries and their official language academies exist. I think you are overly defensive. Calm down, I am not a woman (in your generalization) nor trying to “frame” you, and not trying to get anything from you. Everything is fine.

Your definitions of “masculinity” don’t reflect the generalization you attached to it before, at all. I checked the Oxford American dictionary and it doesn’t mention aggression, so as you can see is not a “feminist” thing. Then, you answer my question: the red pill uses masculinity the way you use it, relating it to finances and other things... Ok, then it’s your own definition and no doubt it will be accurate 100% of the time in such case. Your example about keyhole could be very well included in a dictionary, the problem would be if someone else used it to generalize the way all keyholes are in detail. I never mentioned “abusing English”, that’s an invention or “straw man”. You said they would call me nerd in an inventes scenario, they could call you donkey and tell you to make noises if you use language like this in some other invented scenario.

The one who has your own definition for everything is you and you accepted it. It seems that in some cases when it doesn’t fit your beliefs, you name it “feminist” and that’s enough to validate your definition. I even told you how the definition of masculinity doesn’t include any aggression part, so that defeats, again, your conspiracy theory of some feminist agenda.

Don’t worry, there is no irony.

The eventual difficulty to express sarcasm in a written form has been discussed many times online and that’s why a lot of people on Reddit use “/s” or WrITE LiKE tHis whenever they want to express sarcasm: to avoid confusion. I recommend it for you in the future. Many of your “nuances”, definitions, sarcasm, idea of generalization, exaggeration and emphasis are clear just in your head. Writing, argumentation and critical thinking are skills that get developed, so it’s fine: that’s why I ask for clarification in some points.

Subcomunication (to speak “non-literally”) is actually described as a feminine way of communication in many posts of this sub and you describe it here too, but then you say you use it because you understand woman, but also that all woman are like that, therefore that would make you a woman? We are communicating as man to man. Men communicate literally, you said, I like that point: do so. Don’t use “sub-textual” “feminine” ways.

Even if that way of communication could be true, you just need to communicate in that level, not avoid it.

What is contradictory is that you are a man, and you seem to prefer the way you say “all woman” communicate. You said it: “men” communicate literally, but then defend yourself when not doing so. Why do you keep communicating like your concept of woman? You don’t seem to understand such “women”. Speak literally, it’s easier like that. But don’t worry, it’s not exclusive to men or women. Again, many women use it in the academic field and in their daily lives. Both men and women communicate in multiple ways, specially non-verbally, that’s why you communicate in your concept of the “feminine” way here, proving my point, and it’s fine. You seem to over-simplify things, and then call such simplification “knowledge”.

I got it. What is ironic to me, is that it seems difficult for you to catch that human beings are complex beings and that it requires critical thinking in a case by case basis to know each one of them.

I am a male, yes, feminist, as in “equal rights to the sexes”? yes. You seem misogynistic, with lower levels of formal education and kind of socially inept in your concept of communication, if we are going to point opinions. And then again, you use a philosophical word: “success”. Everyone has their definition of success! what do you mean with “success” with women? Reddit knowledge? Long term relationships? Quantity of sex? Attractiveness of women? Economical/power Status of the woman? Emotional connection? Variety? At what age you get married? The Final chosen woman? Happiness in marriage? Lol.

EDIT: fuck no, I Just removed all hint to personal information, lol.

“We know what we mean”, you say. That has been my whole fucking point haha, that it’s just your opinion.

Believe me, it’s more about critical thinking in any situation, not just women. Prepare for the worst, hope the best, in any situation. That’s human history.

Thanks for the exchange. I’ve been on my bed sick for the last days and decided to ask this question to this considered extremist community after receiving a course from a religious perspective of marriage and debating about how obvious can that be to others with my wife. You can call me a troll, yes. I must define this exchange as the most unnecessary ”investment” of my time in a while. Good luck.

[–]nobody_thinks1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

At the end of the day, you still have no argument. Just quips and trolls.

WRT your "autobiography", you realize that you have zero credibility on the Internet, right?

But even if I take you at your word, several things stand out:

You married under 30
You married to a woman approximately your age
You give the woman significant control over your wealth (opened a business together that failed).
You are married but don't have kids
You had a masculine father
You likely come from a wealthy family (5 degrees)

So when you come from money and have money and are decently good looking, then it is super easy to get laid, especially abroad (40+ countries).

Youre basically like the girl with big tits and a great ass who thinks men love her for her personality.

But marrying young is cucking. Marrying for any other purposes than reproduction is cucking. Opening a business with your wife is (usually) cucking. Marrying a woman less than 10 years younger than you is cucking. etc.

So all things are relative. Still sounds like you don't have much control over your relations with women and live in their frame - i.e. your actions benefit their sexual / financial strategy NOT YOURS.

Anyways I didn't mean to make it personal, and it's certainly not meant to be an insult. We all make mistakes. I just thought it was really funny how you read and write like an autist (extremely literally) and attack us for our observations of female behavior. This is funny because autists are the least likely to understand women b/c women operate on the opposite extreme of autism (instead of extremely literal, they are extremely subtextual / contextual, etc).

That is how I inferred that you don't do well with the ladies. But if I take your word I will assume that you did better than I would have guessed, but still I didn't know about your family / finances (male equivalent of big tits and ass).

Anyways cheers bud it's not personal. Try not to be so literal.

Title	Does the red-pill consider communication and mutual respect an error?
Author	RedditGilder
Upvotes	27
Comments	45
Date	September 2, 2019 11:40 PM UTC (6 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/askTRP
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/asktrp/comments/cywywz/does_the_redpill_consider_communication_and/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/askTRP/does-the-red-pill-consider-communication-and.251599 https://theredarchive.com/post/251599

Comments