Frankly, it bothers me to have to write this, but somebody clearly slipped the general public some stupid pills. As has been the case since the beginning of the sub, the common thread that ties together anti-redpillers is the literal application of our analogies.

"You don't ask a fish how to catch fish, you ask the fishermen."

But but but women aren't fish! You don't eat women! And women want to be caught!

"A key that opens many locks is a good key, a lock that's opened by many keys is a bad lock.."

That's a bad analogy! You could say anything about anything! A pencil that's sharpened by many sharpeners is a bad pencil...

These are clear examples of people who do not understand analogies. Women are not literally fish. There should be no question about this. And the lock analogy is to demonstrate from who to get advice on the selective nature of women. This isn't to prove the selective nature of women... it's to give a new perspective. It's an analog, not a proof! You cannot just make up nonsense analogies to try to disprove an analogy because they aren't proofs themselves, they're descriptors.

Along with this, there's literal interpretation of hyperbole, generalization, and tone.

This is either a willful misrepresentation of the point for a cheap fallacy, or inadvertent illiteracy. But either way, as men, we should be far above it.

And yet, for some reason, here I am explaining yesterday's Tits or GTFO post. I banned more people yesterday than every day last week combined.

If you don't want to understand meaning, if you have no interest in comprehension, the red pill is not for you. If your initial reaction is knee-jerk instead of pause, the red pill is not for you. If you can't find the goddamned forest because you're too busy looking at trees, the red pill is not for you. If you think I'm literally talking about trees right now, the red pill is not for you.

On TITS OR GTFO

We value logic, reason, accuracy and practical application of our ideas above all else. If a woman has something worth saying she can do so without talking about being a woman, any truth to what she says will be self evident. We clearly live in an era where who is talking has become more important than what is being said, but I have no such interest on TRP. It's clear (from my experience on mensrights and seduction) that female presence tends to temper discussion and modify the message, so I wanted to ensure we kept it at a minimum. Further, I see no real value in field reports from women, because we shouldn't trust what they say (versus what they do).

Asking women not to attention-whore weeds out the stupid "as a woman I don't like xyz" comments that add nothing. If a woman wants to make a case towards a certain behavior, she can put forward a theory that has a logical basis and we can review it on its merits, not because she has tits.

Further, I can't believe I have to explain this, but we don't actually want tit pics, these will be deleted and banned.