This is a requote/expansion on a reply I had to a somewhat unsuccessful post, which I think has value (or at least this is the part of it that really interested me).

I want to know the answer to this, at any rate:

Okay so there are many beliefs stated by TRP people that are not rational and line up with markers for sociopathy. For example, believing that women are equivalent to children isn't at all rational. That is not a reasonable conclusion to make, and you would need to selectively look and distort life to reach that conclusion, including your expertise in areas of science and behavior. I'm willing to bet even money none of the people with the statements such as those are neurobiologists or have a post-graduate in clinical or industrial psychology. So there's something going on with their need to prove this belief as well.

In general, I think we can agree you can't believe anything you want and maintain a connection to reality, which while subjective, is not that freaking subjective. Please don't play dumb about that, it's not a good look. For example; I can believe my cat is a human being from the future who is using a hologram of cat, that he opts out of talking but sings in the shower when I'm at work, and that he runs an underground salsa club while I'm asleep; but that's not rational thought. You're not going to call that a legitimate difference of opinion when you tell me I'm completely wrong about Mr. Fiddles. No. It would be a tip-off that something is not quite healthy inside of my brain. It doesn't need to be as silly as the cat analogy. A person can create distortions based off the information they have about the cultural beliefs of their society, and use them to blast their brain just as far out into outer space.

Not everyone considers sociopaths "insane" per se because they aren't seeing things or hearing voices (i.e. they are not having psychotic episodes), and their distortions of reality can range in subtlety, but an extreme lack of empathy and seeing people as objects to use/manipulate are two of the core traits of sociopathy. A sense of megalomania is also a tip off and I see that, too. So yes, there absolutely are real imbalances that occur in the brain which change behavior to make irrational conclusions far more likely and cause the person to have abnormal (aka psychologically unhealthy or dangerous) ways of relating to the world around them. There are textbook examples in redpill quote galleries. Sexism is just the vehicle their sociopathy is riding into town in. There are lots and LOTS of examples of this in that subreddit community (aka statements made, in partial context and full context, that point to the signs of someone with a lack of empathy, grandiose sense of self worth, limited range and depth of feelings, manipulativeness, lack of remorse and guilt, as well as promiscuos sexual behavior, which are ALL on the Hare Psychopathy Checklist. I could mention a few more that would make the list, but these are the ones that are obvious enough that I don't even know how you could avoid seeing examples of this in posts.)

So I would like to ask:

  • Does it make you question the salubrity of your techniques when your subreddit is DEFINITELY attracting sociopathic men? Why is TRP attractive to them? Do you deny they are there? If not, how do you justify cohabitating a subreddit with them? If you do believe they aren't there, how do you explain passages that fall into these patterns? Why does that happen? How do you explain those posts to yourself or justify their content?

EDIT

I apparently need to define the word justify as it has lead to people asking me about morality. I have re-read my debate topic, and I am assuming it is the word "justify" that is tripping some posters up.

Here is the definition of the word "justify":

  • show or prove to be right or reasonable. (emphasis on reasonable)

Some posters believe I was using this word as it is in the field of Theology:

  • declare or make righteous in the sight of God.

It looks like this is where many posters became confused. I used the correct usage of justify outside of theology, assuming people would understand this, as I was making no theological or ideological statement.