TRP.RED: Home | Blogs - Forums.RED: ALL | TheRedPill | RedPillWomen | AskTRP | thankTRP | OffTopic
Hot New Old TopControversial
Login or Register
- Hide Preview | 23 Comments | submitted 10 months ago by bjcm5891 [Post Locked]

When I was younger, sometimes I'd be arguing an issue with somebody online and find myself frustrated because, while on a surface level they could back up their argument with fancy terminologies and links, there was something "off" about these people I couldn't quite pin down.

I'd think "Ok, on a surface level it looks as though you have a relevant point but....". But (like I said) there was just something "off" about them. You know when you pass an open garbage bin, or you walk into a room where all the windows have been closed a long while and it's stale? There was that same sensation, yet I couldn't quite articulate what it was- and so I'd be frustrated at these (usually) smarmy people as they carried on, sounding so very intelligent and yet....

...Yet in the years since, with experience and the clarity that brings, I know what it is. And this will help you (especially you younger guys) in distinguishing worthy ideologies with garbage ones. And it rarely (if ever) has to do with your opponents' argument itself. Let me explain:

Whenever somebody advocates a particular ideology, you can't just pay attention to their argument on the surface level. You also have to look at the person who is making the argument. Observe the following (some of these you can only do IRL, while others you can do with a quick check of your opponents' social media profile):

- How they hold themselves

- How they speak

- Their health

- Their social skills/ social competence

- Their personal achievements and success

- Their happiness

- Their demeanour

- Their level of self-awareness

- How they dress

- The state of their life

This all indicates whether their ideology is valid in and of itself, or if it is (perhaps) being adopted as a coping mechanism, a convenient excuse or an attempt to gain power or respect of some sort.

I've been thinking about this in the more recent discussion in the MSM about the concept of "toxic masculinity". The problem is the idea that there are inherently negative traits to males that are harmful to society, so logically speaking we should also assume there are inherently female traits that are negative (toxic femininity). Yet this is never discussed by the people who go on about toxic masculinity- so are we to assume that when it comes to women, there's nothing to see and that (yet again) in this "equal" society there's a problem that's all on the men to fix? This comes across as a thinly disguised attack on traditionally masculine traits, a further attempt to feminise boys and make them easy to control, lest they display "toxic" male traits.

But pay attention to the typical male who advocates this notion of "toxic masculinity". They are routinely:

- Effeminate

- Passive

- Unfit (tubby or scrawny in build)

- Pasty

- Weak facial features

- Poor dress sense

- Awkward body language

- Use fancy terminologies in place of an argument that can be understood in layman's terms

They routinely come across as men who were raised by single mothers or with a passive/ absent father figure in the house, raised as men taught to collectively put women on a pedestal and excuse all dysfunctional female behaviour for fear of being yelled at or called a sexist by a woman (their worst nightmare). You get the distinct impression, the distinct "feeling" that they weren't popular at school, probably have few actual friends and while they have plenty of female "friends" and colleagues, they come up short in the department of actual girlfriends or sexual interest from women.

When you consider all this, you realise you should pay less attention to their argument and more attention to the manifestation of their outcome. You know it's a bullshit ideology because their life is filled with delusion. No high-status girl wants him. No man worthy of respect wants to be him. Their discussion about how "we need to redefine masculinity" becomes much clearer for its' root objective: these men want to change what general society defines as masculine traits, to a point where the man in question is no longer on the lower rungs of the male social hierarchy. Rather than better himself to find more success, personal fulfilment and healthy relationships, he would rather order everybody else to change their perception of guys like him so that he's no longer the dorky, nerdy, awkward soy boy on the lower rungs but instead usurps those jocks and successful "alpha" males he hates and envies. He wants to redefine masculinity- to a point where a sensitive, "enlightened" male feminist boot licker like him is regarded as top or near the top of the pile.

[-] Diablo-D3 20 Points 10 months ago


Trolls are master baiters.

[-] psychonautalot 3 Points 10 months ago

And more than likely chronic masturbators and porn users.

[-] yungassed 3 Points 10 months ago

Woosh, completely missed his joke / play on words there.

[-] SerendipitySociety 17 Points 10 months ago

People will swim across seas of needles to justify their state of their body and mind. The less fit they are, the more they need to qualify & justify.

[-] Lieisnotreal 12 Points 10 months ago

Sounds to me like you're not smart enough to distinguish what's real and what's not so you need an argument from authority.

[-] bjcm5891 0 Points 10 months ago

Nobody is born "smart" enough to distinguish what's real and what's not. But past a certain age, you should be able to discern between the two. This post was aimed at our younger readers (generally under 30) who may be susceptible to superficially intelligent arguments. A person is the result of the principles they live by, and this is usually fairly evident if you know what to look for.

[-] chopmunk 10 Points 10 months ago

This seems like a detailed guide to ad hominem.

[-] GoinWithMaGut 9 Points 10 months ago

Well said, one thing I've noticed about soy boys or gamma males is their long-winded responses to the simplest of questions. I'm realizing it especially at work where email is the standard form of communication, paragraphs and paragraphs of word salad. Sticking to the point and practicing brevity goes a long way.

[-] strikethrough123 5 Points 10 months ago

The fatter they are the more conviction they have in their rationalizations. The more insecure they are the more emotional they’ll get in their arguments.

[-] LandoChronus 4 Points 10 months ago

You don't need someone's appearance or how they carry themselves to know if you're hearing a horseshit argument.

Let's say someone you have deemed to be an Alpha Male (a celebrity, someone in one of your hobby groups, a teacher at a school you went to, whoever), dressed in a nice suit, in good shape, tried to convince you that vaccine's cause autism. Would you begin to even entertain the idea that this person is right? Simply because he looks respectable? Not a chance!

Don't judge a book by its cover. That goes both ways.

[-] GoinWithMaGut 2 Points 10 months ago

There's nothing inherently alpha about any of the examples you gave, and alphas aren't going to be subject matter experts on things like vaccines causing autism, you're all spun around in your idea of alpha.

[-] LandoChronus 2 Points 10 months ago

I didn't give an example of an alpha. I said someone that YOU have deemed alpha. For whatever reason, you look up to this person as an alpha, based on some measurement you've chosen.

At no point did I construe anything I said as my opinion of what an alpha is. Try again.

[-] GoinWithMaGut 1 Point 10 months ago

someone you have deemed alpha

Right, being alpha it's not a matter of subjectivity, there aren't some alphas that are only alphas in certain people's eyes. it's not about how they 'look', (as you mention in your EXAMPLE of being dressed in a nice suit, in good shape). those things don't make you an alpha.

[-] bjcm5891 2 Points 10 months ago

There's a difference between the isolated view that vaccines cause autism and a man's principles and the ideologies he follows. How a man lives and the principles he follows reveals itself in the ways I pointed out. If the male feminists' view was superior, then as a result of following this ideology he would be the man wanted by most women and not the other way around. The "Chad" or the arse hole would have the worst luck with women because of their "sexist" views. If the modern day "progressives" really were on the right side of history, they wouldn't routinely have such dysfunctional personal lives and toxic personalities, all reflected by the exterior. It's not a coincidence that feminist cunts and beta male liberals all usually have the similar look to them that stands out a mile, versus more traditional women and alpha men.

[-] Gaboyski_ 3 Points 10 months ago

You are the strongest argument in favor of or against what you believe in.

The Westernized bourgeois SJWs in my uni are hated by the masses in my country because they come across as elitist youngsters raised in a bubble who talk down to people who disagree with them because they're college educated. And everytime they get criticized they rationalize it as "smart-shaming."

I remember five years ago when these activists mobbed a high-ranking government official when he visited my university, when he went there precisely to explain himself for whatever accusations hurled against him.

Starting then, I've become disillusioned with the progressive ideology because I find it improper for someone of my standing to employ violence to another person, merely on the basis I disagree with them over political views.

[-] yungassed 3 Points 10 months ago

Lmao, thanks for reminding me how people like Tia Lopez get so popular with their sleezy 'here in my garage' videos. Ad hominem, while they can be useful in politics, is still a logical fallacy and will only limit your own understanding when used in pure verbal debate. Learn how to critically think properly and you won't have to resort to such easily manipulated tactic.

[-] GoinWithMaGut 2 Points 10 months ago

it's helpful in understanding who you ought to listen to, or who you should emulate, which I think is at the core of what OP is trying to point out.

it's not about trying to win an argument, it's about figuring out what conversations are relevant, and you can get to the bottom of that if you understand a person's ideology.

[-] Yakatonker 2 Points 10 months ago

A useful tool for breaking into bullshit is asking for clarification, causing the user to elaborate on their conceptual framework of an argued topic. Typically if a person cannot break down a complex concept into a simplified explanation that is cogent and generally universally understandable, the probability of them understanding their own idea is close to non-existent. You can see the weakness in certain ideologies such as, but not limited too:

(a) "consensus", people pandering to authority, even if the authority is blatantly wrong

(b) deflection is all to common, they try to attack you on a completely non related topic which they perceive is a weakness

(c) people who are scientifically illiterate or purposefully lying about what is represented in a paper, this is extremely common, especially in academia where they use statistical methodology to lie out the teeth

The other thing is that most people don't know how to read research papers. Most of the general populace is quite illiterate in that aspect. Most people use keyword searches or they jump to the "results" or "end" section of a paper and spout what is essentially non-sense with no understanding of the overall paper. This I find is quite common.

Example? The lipid hypothesis, or "bad cholesterol" theory is essentially a flaming ruin of a hypothesis pharmaceuticals utilize to rape the public of money, while simultaneously mass murdering them through extremely harmful dietary advice. I've discussed this topic with the kids who ascend from a family of doctors, and they do not have one iota of understanding except what is written in his medical text, which is full of shit. Their parents are on statins however, despite the lacking evidence that cholesterol is harmful in anyway.

But the AMA said so! When you look at the newest study they published which demonized 3+ eggs a week for consumption, where 1+egg increased risk of mortality. Those fuckers used a self reporting food questionnaire, and if you can google what that is and how deficient it is as a statistical control, they give a fuzzy picture at best. So you have increased risk factor with something like around 1% for a completely uncontrolled variable, where such a low factor can literally be confounded by anything. Yet this trash science is published in the AMA's journal, JAMA. Part and parcel of a shitty, and corrupt government institution.

[-] Praeda18 1 Point 10 months ago

What you’re referring to is gravitas, or the perception of presence that comes from the ability of a man to manipulate the world around him as he sees fit. Measuring a man by his attractiveness to the opposite sex & an “off-feeling” as you’ve described is feminine behaviour.

[-] AutoModerator 1 Point 10 months ago

Why are we quarantined? The admin don't want you to know.

Register on our backup site: and reserve your reddit name today.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[-] [deleted] 10 months ago
[-] Fulp_Piction 1 Point 10 months ago

A bit off topic, but: Rollo likes to talk about social gynocentrism i.e. the accepted global context is to keep sweet with women and anything to the contrary is by definition 'toxic'.

The fact that there's no mainstream conversation about toxic minorities either indicates that context is anti-masculine as opposed to pro-feminine. Maybe the whole pro-minority thing just covers everyone's ass, I don't know.

I think u/whisper had a post about bucketheads advocating putting your head into their particular bucket, because their bucket is definitely the best! Point being - don't take financial advice from a pauper, don't ask a fish how they like to be caught, don't stop deadlifting because your local Arnie says it's bad for your back.

[-] DiSysmic 1 Point 10 months ago

As much as I understand the logic behind it, I find it wrong to dig into someone's past to verify the credibility of their argument (if you're talking about casual, and not peer-reviewed, research-type topics.) Everyone should have the freedom to express their opinions; your political spectrum, your ethnicity, hell even your karma level should never be the main reason to have your argument disqualified.

It's often not difficult to identify differences in opinion because the fundamental assumptions backing them just aren't compatible between conversationalists. For example, a pro-choice and a pro-life person won't agree on the definition of a "living being", and that's fine. In those cases, it's just futile to argue; agree to disagree and move on. Discrediting the other by calling them a bigot or a dumbass won't result to anything.