TRP.RED: Home | Blogs - Forums.RED: ALL | TheRedPill | RedPillWomen | AskTRP | thankTRP | OffTopic
Hot New Old TopControversial
Login or Register
140
dalrock.wordpress.com | 86 Comments | submitted 9 months ago by redpillschool [Post Locked]
[-] u-r-silly 1 Point 9 months ago

harms to one's dignity

Ohh sweety, if you had any to begin with you'd screen your partners better before offering sex.

[-] vicious_armbar 1 Point 9 months ago

This reminds me of my favorite Tom Leykis show: Poindexters Revenge!

[-] bsutansalt 10 Points 9 months ago

Clearly she never thought this one through. 100s of thousands of women would be going to jail for lying about being on birth control should she get her way.

[-] Imperator_Red 2 Points 9 months ago

Oh she thought it through. She knows that laws holding women accountable for their actions are rarely enforced.

[-] CanadianAsshole1 1 Point 9 months ago

fertility circumstances

So this means that women cannot lie about being on BC in order to entrap men into fatherhood?

That sounds ok TBH.

[-] vicious_armbar 2 Points 9 months ago

That part sounds ok. But we both know it won't be enforced in a gender neutral way. Read the original article. Her examples of "sexual fraud" are literally a wish list for aging single women. So much so that she specifically mentioned that people shouldn't be sanctioned for lying about their attractiveness.

Even when she gave examples of committing fraud by lying about "fertility circumstances". She listed lying about: 'the existence of children, and the ability to have children in the future.' No where did she say anything that would protect a man from being trapped.

This is no different than feminists trumpeting the fact that the Affordable Care Act covers contraceptives. But after the law passed administrative agencies determined that the ACA provisions only covered female contraceptives. Male condoms and vasectomies weren't covered. Despite that fact that male contraception should have been covered under any reasonable interpretation of the law.

[-] zyqkvx 3 Points 9 months ago

More than half of students in law school are now women. Expect a lot of this kinda legislation to be considered.

Notice that if this went in to law it has these characteristics. Expect more.

  1. Opens another revenue stream to women

  2. Enforced by police and courts

  3. Minimal effort by accuser

  4. Likely evidence is soft in nature or non-existant
[-] maxrp 2 Points 9 months ago

a lot of women would fall foul of obtaining sex through fraud...take off the make up, fake hair, fake boobs, fake nails, lies about having a relationship etc.

[-] wellsking 49 Points 9 months ago

So by this logic if I am misled by the photos of some hambeast on Tinder does this mean I can sue her for the emotional trauma and hassle?

[-] vicious_armbar 3 Points 9 months ago

The female author specifically writes: "Lies about physical appearance would not be punishable." While lies about martial status, reproductive circumstances (the existence of children, or the ability to have children in the future), or employment would all be subject to sanctions."

It's basically a wish list by bitter single women in their 30's and 40's. Complete with whining about their shrinking fertility window. That they want enforced by big daddy government using the states monopoly on legal violence of course. No where in her rant is any kind of self awareness. If she'd spent the past quarter century looking for a suitable husband instead of working on her career and overdosing on chad cock she'd already be married with children.

[-] MarcosDomingues 42 Points 9 months ago

No, you'd get #MeToo'ed cause that is clearly is a case of fatphobia

[-] zyqkvx 5 Points 9 months ago

Someone needs to make a mindmap of all this stuff. he he

[-] ILoveJuices 1 Point 9 months ago

Does that mean there should be a legal penalty for not getting sex through fraud?

Like when the girl says she will fuck you if you Venmo $50 to her and she doesn't fuck you?

[-] redpillschool 2 Points 9 months ago

No, they made prostitution illegal just to avoid having any responsibility in any way.

[-] MattyAnon 3 Points 9 months ago

Of course not. This is defined to be only applicable against men, never in their favour.

That's why it's defined thus: "physical lies easily discoverable before sex" are fine: so her corset and pushup bra and makeup is totally fine. Man pays for three weeks of dinners and dates and then discovers she's flabby with no tits under her clothes: no crime. But if sex happens and she finds out his job isn't as impressive as she led herself to believe: criminal proceedings against the man.

It is, as Dalrock says, designed to derisk dating for women while maintaining the status quo on the female privilege of endless benefits accorded to a woman who might have sex with any of her suitors.

[-] VasiliyZaitzev 20 Points 9 months ago

What this translates as is: "Somewhere, a woman is not getting everything she wants, all the time." There's an easy solution for her problem which is to lock down a quality man (or the highest quality man she can) when she is younger and at peak beauty.

Moral: Don't be a carousel rider who winds up with the Thousand Cock Stare and the Hundred Cat Colony.

[-] DeontologicalSanders 7 Points 9 months ago

It may be an easy solution for her, but it's not the ideal one.

Her ideal solution is for the government to willingly strong-arm for her and summarily throw men in jail should they lie or omit even the smallest detail while she and all other women vet men for quality and sexual viability. She believes, she knows, that she is a wonderful, virtuous princess who deserves a man from the highest available echelon, and anyone getting in the way of this process, for any reason, is to be punished like the violent, criminal offender that he is.

If this idea seems unfair to you, it's because it is. Women are not interested in fairness. Women are not interested in equality. In an overt sense, women are weak, passive, and indecisive compared to men. We spent thousands of years clunking them over their heads, dragging them into caves, and screwing them while they were half-conscious.
Those who fought back were overpowered or beaten. They have been literally been bred to find power and agency wherever they can, by the most discrete and plausibly deniable means possible, and lay down or run the hell away when faced with actual conflict. We made them this way, and there is no changing it.

"You merely adopted the dark. I was born in it, molded by it. I didn't see the light until I was already a man, by then it was nothing to me but blinding."

[-] Cavannah 38 Points 9 months ago

Wow.

“We women are incapable of getting what we want. We can’t bargain, we can’t even explicitly trade, all we can hope to do is obtain what we want through duplicitous methods. People know what we’re doing, now, so instead of improving or functioning like a fucking adult we need to implement a codified legal system wherein those who don’t give us what we feel we’re entitled to (simply by dint of our existence) should be legally punished and/or forced to give us what we deserve.”

No, you turbo-bint, your tactics are shallow and obvious. You personally are idiotic and socially inept. You deserve nothing, and will have nothing.

If you can’t figure out how to get what you want except through duplicity and deceit, you don’t get to be shocked and appalled when others see right through your shallow charade and manipulate the manipulator. You deserve nothing and will get nothing.

Perish the thought that you actually improve yourself to get what you want.

You wanted egality, you got egality, and now it turns out you never wanted egality; you want supremacy and dominance, and you’re convinced that you’re entitled to the fruits of such things.

[-] Luckyluke23 6 Points 9 months ago

this is the thing man, women have been put on the pedestal for SO long that they feel THIS entitled to shit. like they don't have to put ANY effort into anything.

[-] KewlThanks 1 Point 9 months ago

Since we could walk well, from fish creatures...they got the edge from there.

As fish I could see us not giving a fuck and self-preservation riding strong, but yeah since then...we've got it so you're expected to override that for your family, now.

[-] warlordchad 28 Points 9 months ago

The question women of today need to answer is this: what real benefits does a man accrue if he participates in modern marriage?

Is it a guarantee she won't cheat on him? No. In fact women are already starting to justify infidelity.

Is there a financial benefit? Extremely unlikely unless she makes far more money than he does, but we know that such a woman would never marry a man so far beneath her economic status because she wouldn't find him attractive. So basically, no.

But what if he wants kids? Sure, but the problem is he could lose them at the drop of a hat if she decides things aren't going well. Arguably a man would be better off to have kids with a woman he doesn't marry, adopt, or pay a woman to bear his children (not sure if this is legal?).

Will he at least have access to regular sex? Nope. If she doesn't want to, she won't--I have several friends who've gone a year or more without sex and I don't know how many times I've heard women joke about how they only have sex with their husband on his birthday. Which, technically speaking is fine--no one should have sex against their will--but if the man then goes outside the marriage to have this need satisfied, he opens himself up to divorce rape on everything discussed above.

Indeed, for a marriage to work, the man has to be alpha AF and constantly on his game, which is no different than what it takes to get laid being single, except it comes with a lot more risk and potential downside. And most women will fight that scenario because they've been taught it's the wife who ought to rule the roost and wear the pants, even though as soon as the husband allows that to happen they won't respect him anymore.

And why do women of today want to get married? Basically to fit it, because it's the thing to do, and they know deep down it's the only way they can guarantee themselves a desirable mate as their SMV slides ever so precipitously downhill. The problem is that there's no benefit whatsoever for the modern male, especially if he has his shit together and even a semblance of game.

But the reaction is classic: instead of looking at the dynamic logically and saying, "yeah, this sucks for dudes," some women look for a way to legally coerce men into marrying them, or at least being candidates for marriage. Luckily, if the comments are any indication, the absurdity of the situation is starting to dawn on people.

[-] falconiawillfall 10 Points 9 months ago

Wow reading that article further cements red pill truths; why any guy would risk getting married is beyond me. What disgusts me even more is that guy (from the article) who stayed with his wife after she cheated because "he loves her too much" and is "scared to be alone". Even in my blue-pill days I had enough self-respect to rather be alone than stay with a cheater.

[-] zyqkvx 11 Points 9 months ago

The next civil war will be over women. I say that Figuratively, yet god only knows.

White knights vs Red Pilled men.

The white knights will vote for every women issue. Push for every entitlement. The Red Pills will be men that turn away from focusing their brilliance on the hard sciences of chemistry, physics, mathematics, inventions (things), and focus their superior analyzation skills on mastering social interactions, women's thought processes and strategies, politics (people) as a hard science. It will make short of women's dubious methods.

'Men's studies' is going to be extremely different than 'Woman's studies'. Men's studies is going to be a hard science on the order of astro physics. We'll all be dead about then.

How it rolls out.. it's going to be dramatic ..over our lifetime.

[-] RedProletariat 38 Points 9 months ago

Men's studies already exist, it's called science.

[-] Cavannah 17 Points 9 months ago

Women’s studies fall under two genres:

  • Fantasy

  • Drama
[-] [deleted] 9 months ago
[-] [deleted] 9 months ago
[-] [deleted] 9 months ago
[-] [deleted] 10 Points 9 months ago

[deleted]

[-] MattyAnon 2 Points 9 months ago

At some point, there is just going to be an open "Single Unmarried Man" tax

Already happens. Men earn the most and are taxed the most. Women work less and earn less, so pay less tax. A significant amount of the money single men make gets spent on dating, whereas women profit from dating: meals paid, car fixed, "oops my rent is late and it's preventing me from being sexually interested in you".

Of the tax that is paid more goes to women than to men, especially in pension and healthcare.

[-] [deleted] 2 Points 9 months ago

[deleted]

[-] VasiliyZaitzev 3 Points 9 months ago

Dalrock can be thought of as "Red Pill, from a Christian perspective." I am not religious but his is one of about 5 blogs I read at any given time (the others being Heartiste, Blackdragon, Wall Street Playboys and Judgy Bitch.)

[-] [deleted] 9 months ago
[-] VasiliyZaitzev 0 Points 9 months ago

Heartiste is a daily stop for me. Dalrock also when he's posting.

Blackdragon posts useful shit - I got into him because of his Love Letter to Conservatives. He tends to be into "process" and acronyms because he's an introvert. He's an "enjoy the decline" guy. He's selling his various books and programs, but everyone has to make a living, etc., and he's up front about it. His site has plenty of useful stuff on it, even if you aren't buying what he's selling.

Judgy Bitch hasn't posted in a while, because her husband has cancer, but she's got good insights from a female perspective. He childhood was tragic in that her mom booted her dad out (her story popped up here a few months ago), and used all the powers of the weaponized family court system to keep him at bay. Then she told the kids he had abandoned them, never paid alimony or child support ever, etc. The mom never let them go to the mailbox, and later, as an adult, when JB met her dad, he had a box full of birthday and Christmas cards addressed to his kids marked "Return To Sender" as well as his canceled checks and tax returns showing alimony and child support payments made in full.

WSP I read every few months to see if there is anything interesting there. It's sort of like the Goldman Sachs Elevator Twitter account. I turn up ever 5 months, binge read, and the leave for 5-6 months.

[-] redpillschool 2 Points 9 months ago

He's one of the grandfathers of the manosphere.

[-] Imperator_Red 71 Points 9 months ago

to start with, she is trying to formalize the AF/BB strategy into law...

Interesting and prescient observation. Marriage was a legal institution designed to ensure men's commitment and stake in the society. It required both alpha males and females in general to sacrifice a part of their biological imperative while providing benefits to beta males, but due to the advantages provided to civilization as a whole, everyone gained more than they lost.

Now, we are talking about creating laws that work only to further women's biological imperative and that explicitly target beta strategies. All civilization is based on controlling female hypergamy in order to harness the productive potential of the great mass of beta males, yet all modern discussion revolves around curbing the sexual access of beta males, thus disincentivizing the core productive demographic of the society.

We live in a time of sexual anarchy and she's finding she doesn't like it after all. Oh well. Here is the complete list of dating rules that you are required to follow in 2018.

  1. Don't rape.
[-] firstpitchthrow 2 Points 9 months ago

All civilization is based on controlling female hypergamy in order to harness the productive potential of the great mass of beta males, yet all modern discussion revolves around curbing the sexual access of beta males, thus disincentivizing the core productive demographic of the society.

The reason for this would be that automation is rendering the productive potential of beta males redundant. The monogamy bargain is only valid so long as the production potential of beta males is absolutely required to expand the complexity of a civilization. Once machines start to take on most of the hard manual labor previously done by betas, those betas no longer have a place in society and they drop out of the SMV. A man without the ability to provide resources, that is a man without a purpose to society, is effectively a biological dead end.

Monogamy reached a peak value, where the needs of labor by beta males was maximized. Only at that peak value is the bargaining position of beta males maximized. Once that peak is reached, and automation and doubling the size of the labor force by importing females into it starts to happen, the bargain power of beta males is sharply curtailed. The natural consequence of this is that humanity descends back into our default sexual strategy: Harem model. In a society where both men and women can vote, harem model will always come out on top because Alpha Males + all women = a majority.

[-] Luckyluke23 6 Points 9 months ago

Interesting and prescient observation. Marriage was a legal institution designed to ensure men's commitment and stake in the society. It required both alpha males and females in general to sacrifice a part of their biological imperative while providing benefits to beta males, but due to the advantages provided to civilization as a whole, everyone gained more than they lost.

Now, we are talking about creating laws that work only to further women's biological imperative and that explicitly target beta strategies. All civilization is based on controlling female hypergamy in order to harness the productive potential of the great mass of beta males, yet all modern discussion revolves around curbing the sexual access of beta males, thus disincentivizing the core productive demographic of the society.

in 10 years from now, this is going to be akin to the sexual revolution. probably the sexual revolution 2.0

[-] KewlThanks 4 Points 9 months ago

Men aren't going to be the backbone and 97% of workplace deaths to keep society going if they're not getting pussy..I don't know if this part of the plan...or why they want it so bad, cuz it's overrated once you get it, but yeah the masses of males are what keep civilization running and advancing.

[-] MattyAnon 1 Point 9 months ago

Men aren't going to be the backbone and 97% of workplace deaths to keep society going if they're not getting pussy.

What else are they going to do?

Men have to work in order not to starve to death. They might be unhappy being virgin wage slaves, but they don't actually have much choice.

[-] SexdictatorLucifer 2 Points 9 months ago

But they do have a choice to stop allocating their wages towards women, mostly through avoiding marriage/commitment. Already happening. This is when the government starts getting involved, and increasingly works to reallocate mens resources to women once the men stop doing it voluntarily. The institutional alpha. The big invisible alpha ("THE Man") that will make sure women get their deserved resources from the annoying masses of beta males no matter what. Even better this way, then they dont even have to be in contact or pretend to like a particular beta.

Fuck. Society run by female ideals literally turns into a beehive. Some sort of fucking insect colony. What disgustingly collectivist and hive minded beings they are.

[-] Imperator_Red 1 Point 9 months ago

This guy gets it. We live in a matriarchy.

I actually find the present situation fascinating in a macabre sort of way. There is literally zero rational incentive for men to marry and allocate resources to women today, yet men still do it. Shit I know the score and I still think about it.

It's really a commentary on the power that tradition and precedent have in human affairs compared to rationality. Men were still trying to get crowned Emperor of Rome 500 years after the empire fell in the west because an utterly meaningless title of a defunct office still granted them some small form of prestige and legitimacy.

[-] SexdictatorLucifer 2 Points 9 months ago

Shit I know the score and I still think about it.

Yes because raising our offspring as a strong father with a good mother is still the most effective way to continue our genetic legacies. I've thought about just knocking up a bunch of women and leaving them, but that's just sending your offspring to death. Your sons will be spineless single mother betas and your daughters whores, maybe even sex slaves by that time.

Today, even attempting this option isn't economic for us until age 45-50 though. And that's if you've done all of the right things till then. Dont get suckered in before you've brought your potential to fruition. Always be cold and calculated with women.

[-] MattyAnon 1 Point 9 months ago

But they do have a choice to stop allocating their wages towards women, mostly through avoiding marriage/commitment. Already happening.

Hurrah.

It's been obvious for a long fucking time that marriage is now a shit show for men. Women can only say "not all women are like that" so many times before it begins to look a lot like all women really are like that.

The institutional alpha. The big invisible alpha ("THE Man") that will make sure women get their deserved resources from the annoying masses of beta males no matter what.

Taxation, right.

Fuck. Society run by female ideals literally turns into a beehive. Some sort of fucking insect colony. What disgustingly collectivist and hive minded beings they are.

You gotta blame all the gullible men for this too.

[-] KewlThanks 1 Point 9 months ago

Band together and get off team women...but that's fine TRP dudes will take your girl.

[-] MattyAnon 2 Points 9 months ago

What can they possibly do differently though? Stop voting for pro-female policies? Won't make any difference, women are the majority of the population.

If they've half a brain they'll stop marrying women.

[-] ILoveJuices 6 Points 9 months ago
  1. Always film your sexual encounters to avoid being charged with rape.
[-] [deleted] 9 months ago
[-] Da_RectumWrecker 42 Points 9 months ago
  1. Be attractive.
  2. Dont be unattractive.
  3. Dont rape.
[-] friendandadvisor 1 Point 9 months ago

If 1 and 2 are present, 3 is impossible.

[-] geo_gan 18 Points 9 months ago

Actually if 1. then most women don’t mind a bit of 3.

[-] OgMagicMatthew 5 Points 9 months ago

You have to draw the line at some point. You shouldn’t need a written consent contract, but you at least need nonverbal consent (based on the way she reacts to your sexual advances). You can fulfill a womens fantasys of rape without actually raping them.

[-] Imperator_Red 5 Points 9 months ago

Be attractive is something that helps you get laid. It's not a rule you have to follow.

[-] Da_RectumWrecker 16 Points 9 months ago

Well I guess you could be fat or skinny-fat and be beta bux. That's a strategy too, I guess. I'll just keep remorselessly banging their girls.

[-] ConfusedBastard94 -1 Point 9 months ago

Or have character? Haven't had trouble getting laid and I'm not exactly shredded, hot, or ugly. Just saying

[-] Imperator_Red 1 Point 9 months ago

Or have character?

You think this matters at all for getting laid...?

[-] empatheticapathetic 5 Points 9 months ago

Seems like you are new to this place for you to make this statement and in a defensive way.

[-] Da_RectumWrecker 6 Points 9 months ago

There is "not having trouble getting laid" and there is "holy shit I've fucked 5 girls this week". Which would you rather? Go lift.

[-] WarViper1337 10 Points 9 months ago

Then that would fall into the category of being attractive. Attractiveness is not limited to physical looks only.

[-] [deleted] 9 months ago
[-] Rian_Stone 1 Point 9 months ago

Your lack of planning does not necessitate an emergency on my end

[-] cornerofficemouth 2 Points 9 months ago

Haven't read the article, but I assume it's about women using makeup, lipstick and control top pantyhose.

[-] grewapair 43 Points 9 months ago

You'v all misunderstood this comment. She doesn't credibly believe that she can get laws passed that will achieve this. What she's suggesting is that the women who find they've been duped make up a false rape charge. She's just providing yet another justification for false rape that women can use to morally justify lying to the legal system. This is yet another reason why the woman should lie about consent: the guy deserved it because he lied too.

[-] MrCongeniality1 14 Points 9 months ago

This is very insightful and deserves to be voted up. Women will tell any level of falsehood if they can convince themselves that you deserved it - which they are already programmed to do.

[-] DeontologicalSanders 35 Points 9 months ago

Nothing in this article is worth your fervor. The vast, vast majority of people are reasonable enough to completely disagree with this outlandish premise, and vote against it ad infinitum.

New laws in the dating area should focus on lies that... have a potentially large dignitary or emotional impact.

Emotional and dignitary impact are non-quantifiable and only definable by the person who experiences them. The legal system has nothing to do with matters that only have an impact in these areas, and never will. Full stop.

Remember, the author is a law professor and may well be a smart woman, but she's still just a woman. All she wants is to test men for weakness and emotional reaction, and that's all she's doing with this article. This is just a ludicrous idea meant to stir up shit for attention. It's just another shit test. Nothing to see here. Carry on.

[-] Venny_1 3 Points 9 months ago

Emotional and dignitary impact are non-quantifiable and only definable by the person who experiences them. The legal system has nothing to do with matters that only have an impact in these areas, and never will. Full stop.

The jurisprudence of many countries disagree with your assessment unfortunately: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_deception

Scroll down and read the part about the israeli cases. You will see that the law is in support of the women and their story. It doesn't matter that the women conciously and willingly spread their legs in these situations, what matters is the feels after discovering the deception, and the feels are presented as damning evidence of rape in the courtroom.

[-] MattyAnon 4 Points 9 months ago

Emotional and dignitary impact are non-quantifiable and only definable by the person who experiences them. The legal system has nothing to do with matters that only have an impact in these areas, and never will. Full stop.

Sadly this is not the case, as evidenced by how seriously the world takes a woman's crocodile tears when she regrets having sex, even decades after the fact.

[-] TheTrenTrannyTrain 1 Point 9 months ago

Look at Ghomeshi's case and you see how it played out in the real world.

[-] urbancore 1 Point 9 months ago

Whatever happened with his case? I only remember the accusations.

[-] TheTrenTrannyTrain 4 Points 9 months ago

He was found not guilty, cause his attorney dropped the bomb that the 3 accusers have been emailing him asking for hookups during the time that they were accusing him of raping them.

Of course now Canada wants to legislate that the defence has to show their acquittal evidence to the prosecutor so they and the accusers can change their stories before the court date.

[-] MattyAnon 0 Points 9 months ago

This and similar is what I'm thinking of, yes.

[-] WouldYouKindly_STFU 11 Points 9 months ago

The vast, vast majority of people are reasonable enough to completely disagree with this outlandish premise, and vote against it ad infinitum.

At one time, the vast majority of people didn't support abortion on demand, gay marriage, flooding America with Third World invaders, legalizing black crime, and abolishing gun rights. Now those positions are universally held by leftists. And don't forget that what leftists support now, conservatives will support in twenty years (like how the Republitards now support "criminal justice reform").

[-] DeontologicalSanders 10 Points 9 months ago

Look, I know things seem like they're getting worse, but it's just the nature of the beast.

abortion on demand

People use this term like you can dial it up with your cable remote and *poof*, bye-bye baby. You can't. I've paid for more than one abortion; they're expensive as shit. If you're in the wrong state, they're almost impossible to get. And it's still totally illegal, everywhere, to abort a baby beyond the 2nd trimester.

gay marriage

What does two dudes wanting to get married have to do with you? Who cares? The best thing about gays is they leave more women for you and me, and they also take another dude with them. Drugs? STDs? Moral degeneracy? Not involved, not my problem.

flooding America with Third World invaders

Clinton. Split Senate and House under Bush. Obama. 20 plus years of increasingly progressive politics supposedly creeping into American society. Guess what? Our borders are still closed. Illegal immigration will always exist, and the numbers will always vary. I live in a border state. Do you know what state border patrols and vigilantes do to border jumpers they catch when no one's looking? As long as those people exist, illegal immigration will never be a real problem.

legalizing black crime

No idea what you're talking about. Not going to address it.

abolishing gun rights

Gun laws will always be left up to individual states and municipalities, as they should be. There is plenty of reason someone living 20 miles from the nearest town in Montana should be able to own whatever gun they want. A person not being able to keep a gun in a studio apt in Manhattan with neighbors on 6 sides may not be right, but it's at least reasonable.

IMO, the biggest mistake people in general, but especially men make nowadays is conflating media shit-stirring and public outrage with what is actually going on in our legislative and judicial systems. Despite what our increasingly partisan media complex would have you believe, the people who end up in charge of this country are pretty damn smart. They are bound by reason, and also by the strictures of the system they inhabit. The founding fathers recognized pretty early on "Shit. Things are pretty good over here. There's plenty of land. Plenty of food. It's easily defensible. If someone's unhappy, they can just move somewhere else. There's really no need to let politics get in the way of a good thing." So they designed our system for gridlock. When progressives make headway, eventually their unreasonable ideas end up getting checked and corrected. That's the whole idea: create the illusion of idealist progress, while in reality nothing substantive ever changes.

It's working. The bogeyman isn't coming. No one is murdering live infants. Degenerate circus clown gays from San Francisco aren't molesting toddlers. The black aren't shooting down white families in the streets. Govt spooks aren't showing up to raid your house for guns.

In my opinion, it's way more important to view all of this from a practical standpoint rather than an ideological standpoint. Simply put: How does this affect me? The kind of alarmist thinking referenced above is what they want from you. Your attention. Your outrage. Your creeping panic. It makes them money that they've done nothing to earn. It also makes a man look nervous and paranoid to the people around him, not least of all women. Don't give them what they're after.

[-] WouldYouKindly_STFU 2 Points 9 months ago

I bet you're a lolbertarian.

[-] TontoKemosabe 4 Points 9 months ago

Found the Jewish infiltrator.

[-] Imperator_Red 9 Points 9 months ago

Are you this naive? Have we not seen leftist ideas go from laughably absurd to swing issue to unquestioned orthodoxy within the space of a decade? In 2000 the vast majority of Americans were against gay marriage. You could openly make gay jokes. Go rewatch American Pie, released in 1999, for a sense of the culture. By 2010 we practically lived in a homosexual republic.

This is what they do. They soften the people up by throwing out feelers. Then they bombard them with MSM support so that the average person thinks the idea is more popular than it is and tires of hearing about the issue. Then once they have 51%, they shut down the debate, shame anyone who disagrees, and threaten their reputation and livelihood to silence them.

I think we’ll disregard your advice to ignore the left’s horrifying fringe ideas and just “carry on.” Leftist ideas need to be challenged, mocked, shamed, and destroyed in their infancy. Their purveyors should be afraid to show their faces in public.

[-] HumanSockPuppet 36 Points 9 months ago

It's amusing. Women don't realize that by engendering feminine qualities, they can avoid a pump-and-dump scenario at almost any age. But instead, they choose to double-down on the assumption that men will be as duplicitous as they are, and try to use government to twist arms.

Giving them the right to vote was the worst idea ever, at least for society at large.

[-] [deleted] 9 months ago
[-] Imperator_Red 6 Points 9 months ago

Women are parasites though. Even the ones that support themselves. They are psychological parasites, evolved to extract resources from men.

Edit: even among the ones that “support” themselves, a huge chunk work in economically worthless jobs that only exist to satisfy the administrative requirements that the gynocentric government imposes, and another chunk working in productive jobs are only there because of affirmative action.

[-] Senorbubbz 2 Points 9 months ago

This is an interesting comment.

What did you mean by “too many Paul’s, not enough Peter’s”?

[-] Irinam_Daske 5 Points 9 months ago

What did you mean by “too many Paul’s, not enough Peter’s”?

To rob Peter to pay Paul is a phrase meaning to take from one person or thing to give to another.

So he says there are to many people robbing and not enough people left to rob

[-] BewareTheOldMan 15 Points 9 months ago

You're absolutely correct on this...it's as if women forget they're the one who control sexual access.

I guess being discriminating and conducting proper vetting is just to much trouble for the average woman.

PRO TIP: Search for a husband in your prime years, best, most attractive, and most fertile years versus at the trailing end of your fertility window.

[-] Dravous 13 Points 9 months ago

I guess being discriminating and conducting proper vetting is just to much trouble for the average woman.

they used to have family to help with this, specifically their fathers.

[-] [deleted] 9 months ago
[-] JcHgvr 6 Points 9 months ago

For a woman in her late 30s or early 40s who wants to marry and have children, the opportunity cost of a fraudulent relationship can add another dimension to the pain in the form of diminished fertility.

Yea no, your fertile years are so gone you can't even see them in your rear view mirror.

[-] AutoModerator 0 Points 9 months ago

Just a friendly reminder that as TRP has been quarantined, we have developed backup sites: https://www.trp.red and our full post archive (and future forums) https://www.forums.red/i/TheRedPill. Don't forget to register on TRP.RED and reserve your reddit name today. Forums.Red is currently locked but will be opened soon.

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