Essay
https://therationalmale.com/2019/07/04/the-believers-vs-the-empiricists/
​
Excerpt
I want to point out that a lot of what I’m seeing in the Manosphere at present is rooted in factual relativists attempting to establish what the “Red Pill” ought to mean to people, and thereby redefining it to suit their goals of couching any objective discussion in moralist terms.
What’s happening is that factual relativists want the Red Pill to be about what’s right or wrong according to their ideological bent. So they will bend over backwards to reinterpret what is actually an objectivist exploration of intersexual dynamics to fit their ‘interpretive headspace’ – or they will simply write off the Red Pill wholesale and say “Those Red Pill guys are just bitter, negative, misogynists” without a hint of their own irony.
Example: The realities of Hypergamy aren’t right or wrong, they simply are. In any of my numerous essays outlining Hypergamy, and for all my attempts to dispel the misconceptions about it, I’ve never once stated that Hypergamy was ‘evil‘ or that women’s nature is evil because of it. It’s simply a reproductive strategy that manifests per the realities of women’s nature and needs.
The factual relativists responds to this in two ways: First, is the nihilistic approach (Black Pill if you must) – Hypergamy conflicts with their personal interests and ideological bent. Thus, Hypergamy, or women’s inability (or choice) to police it for their betterment, or humanity’s betterment are evil. Second, is the approbation approach – “You talk about Hypergamy too much (or at all), it must be because you’re fundamentally a bad, damaged, morally compromised person.”
A debate never really occurs between these headspaces because the goals of the debate are never the same. Now, add to all this that factual relativists are appropriating the ‘red pill’ as their own “Brand of Me” and building revenue streams around their ideological interpretation of its original intent. Any counter argument proffered by factual absolutistsis not only a challenge to their ego-investments, it’s also interpreted as an attack on their livelihoods.
asfarley 6y ago
The intellectual core of red-pill-haters seems to spring from a misunderstanding of is/ought
SmackinDatAss 6y ago
Your premise is wrong. You ONLY view the redpill through a hypergamy/feminism is bad lens.
You have shown no ability to understand that the redpill can actually mean more to men than just "women". You limit the definition of redpill.
You help men open their eyes, but you do nothing to actually unplug men.
TheFlyingPro 6y ago
“The realities of hypergamy aren’t right or wrong, they simply are” – TRP at its finest.
DareyFathom 6y ago
Unchecked female hypergamy will destabilize society. Not sure if that qualifies as being "evil," but certainly more chaotic.
Project_Zero_Betas 6y ago
I think you can lay an equal amount of blame onto betas who are unwilling to put in the effort required to make them desirable to more attractive women.
BobbyPeru 6y ago
I think more because it’s the beta white knights that tip the scales in the feminine imperative’s favor. They are much more dangerous than we give them credit.
I was at the gym the other day and I spotted a beta white knight that once white knighted (at my expense) on a coed FB page. I’d never met him in person. When I realized it was him, the fat fuck (for reference he was about 280, and he was benching 50’s dumbbells) I couldn’t help but stare him in the eyes and not break eye contact. So, then I turned away to do a lat pulldown, and I saw him say something to his workout buddy, and he literally headed straight out the door lol. I’m not sure if there’s a point other than the white knights online are the biggest pussies in real life
Project_Zero_Betas 6y ago
Preaching to the choir. I'm the reason the Beta Rebellion has come to fruition.
I also love doing this to betas.
They think they're making themselves more attractive to women by appealing to their emotions in lieu of actually bothering to work on themselves so they can be more attractive. I see it all the time. The most SJWiest of men are almost always massively obese betas with nothing going for them or guys who don't know how to improve themselves.
Nicolas0631 6y ago
Doesn't change anything. Hypergamy is not after good but after the best. By definition there only 1 best.
For hypergamy, even if you are an alpha, you can get shadowed by a greater alpha or even a beta if he is overall better.
Project_Zero_Betas 6y ago
No there isn't, SMV/RMV is all relative at the margins.
Of course, but there's also the girls own liquidity factor to consider: If she already has commitment from an alpha, she's not going to leave him for a slightly more alpha guy if she's reasonably sure she won't be able to get a commitment from him.
JamesSkepp 6y ago
No it won't. Current civilisation we have do not depend on healthy (or even trad-con) m-f dynamics to be stable. There's a TRP trope of 80/20, I have reasons to believe it's more like 95/5 and we're still functioning and doing well as far as stability goes.
max_peenor 6y ago
Let me start by agreement that civilization does not depend on healthy m-f dynamics or toad-con values. Note I left off the current part.
We are not stable. This is when GLO jumps in and tells me I'm being all Western euro-ethic centric and he's correct. I'm talking about this ball of shit. I give you two examples. There is no denying gun violence is down in the US. You could argue a lot of reasons such as incarceration rates and just general lack of interest in guns. None of that matters. What is more disturbing is the increase in gun attacks, which I define as someone attempting to kill multiple people for reasons that are not personal (ie. drug deal gone bad, petty revenge). Or in the case of Canada and Europe--truck attacks. While part of the society seems to be setting down an other seems to be radicalizing away from social order that founded western, christian values.
So wait, why would an increasingly less christian population settle down and accept those values? Well, they didn't actually accept them. They are just playing alone. Instead, they replaced those values with materialism. Example two--rank and wild materialism.
Let's take the obvious example, the USA, but make no mistake pretty much EVERY western countries have some or all of these structural problems. The US is currently running between $800 and $900B trade deficit, the vast majority of it is to feed consumer goods. We are also pushing $1T budget deficit, which a large portion also drive consumer consumption. Personal debt is around $20T and that leaves off things like mortgages and other secured portions of debt (for instance, car loans are only partially secured, since the car value rarely could cover the total balance). The "decline" and "degeneracy" doesn't just apply to where genitals are placed. It has literally strapped TNT to the underpinnings of our entire society.
We get away with it now by printing up vast sums of money (which is why I would count Japan in on this calculus too). Is that going to work forever? Someday unicorn money will stop moving the ever increasing need for resources to supply consumer wants. And then you get the real fun.
And no, I'm not saying the world will and we will all die. I'm not telling you about the future. I am retelling history. And in the wake of it, things will be very different than they are today.
[deleted]
[deleted]
TheEgyptianConqueror 6y ago
Not to be racist, but look at the black community in America. Unhealthy family Dynamics where the father is out of the picture is, I believe, the biggest reason for the high crime and drug usage. The destruction of the nuclear family is devastating for society. I mean, we all know boys raised without a father, at the very least, have a much harder time turning into real men. 80/20 and/or 95/5 is referring to club thots and CC girls, but once they hit 30, they all try to lock down some simp, so that ratio doesn't hold anymore.
JamesSkepp 6y ago
No doubt single mothers are worse choice than full families, but you can't put single motherhood in black community solely on female hypergamy. There's IQ, the garbage hood culture, poverty, the general black inferiority complex blacks have, few other things and all of them all closed in a feedback loop. Having a father will be a major boost, but wont fix everything.
For men mostly. Society will be fine as we're not as much dependent on traditional values as we were few hundred years ago.
I think we're talking about different 80/20 tropes. What I'm saying is that general TRP rule of thumb is that 80% of women sleep with top 20% of men. I'm also saying that I personally think the real number is 95/5, meaning overwhelming majority of women sleep with the top 5% of men and only few women sleep with the "below top 5% of men".
CosmicSpiral 6y ago
The Pareto principle as applied to intersexual dynamics is about desire, not copulation. It's only within the last 15-20 years that women have had the reach, proximity, and cloak of anonymity to fuck the "objective" elite instead of the local version; multiple independent sources suggest the ratio hovers around ~75/25 in urban areas. I expect OLD skews even harder towards 90/10 thanks to facilitating short-term arousal above all else.
DareyFathom 6y ago
It's societal. Black Americans didn't have a problem with family dynamics until social welfare programs became prominent. The data appears to support 80/20 more closely than another distribution. Though my anecdotal experiences certainly seem more consistent with your levels.
Nicolas0631 6y ago
Not sure black americans situation what overall better before.
nobody_thinks 6y ago
if you consider the girls guys actually want to fuck (18-25 y/o with decent genetics & physical care), then it's more like 99.9/0.1.
scissor_me_timbers00 6y ago
It’s an order v chaos thing. Chaos isn’t inherently bad, but you will not survive the competition for resources and territory against other geopolitical entities if your society is chaos.
Hypergamy is a force of nature in the most literal sense of the term. Civilization is built by males by subduing Nature to some degree and her forces of entropy. Males growing weak and domesticated at the end of a civilizational cycle when it is spiritually depleted and the heroic masculine has become scarce— this is how feral female nature at population scale cuts loose. She begins to manipulate public discourse to suit her sentimental notions. Hypergamy comes unchained. Her instinct to emasculate the men around her working for her benefit gets the best of her, and gets the best of the increasingly boyish males.
At bottom, this is about the strong male hand which built civilization by subduing nature, becoming weak. Hypergamy as one of the manifestations of Nature has gotten out from under the male hand of guidance. Patriarchy was the tool for this. But cat is out of the bag boys and there ain’t no going back until we get a hardcore reality check.
RStonePT 6y ago
Peterson fanboi's are back
scissor_me_timbers00 6y ago
Haha, his construct of order v chaos does genuinely apply to the unleashing of hypergamy tho. And notice my stance on patriarchy and keeping women subdued for the sake of civilization is considerably more hardline than Peterson would espouse.
RStonePT 6y ago
You don't have to bring out the 5 dollar words with me. I'll know what you mean if you use 'preach' or 'say' instead of espouse
scissor_me_timbers00 6y ago
Why do you have to nitpick? That’s just the phrase that came to mind.
RStonePT 6y ago
Lots of pedantry floating around lately, it's best to separate thought from flex.
Don't take it personally
BurnoutRS 6y ago
If Rian doesnt pick nits he wont get to eat tonight
scissor_me_timbers00 6y ago
Rian needs his chicken tendies
RStonePT 6y ago
If anyone is curious, the comment in question was from Whisper, and his description of why PPD is a waste of fucking time.
https://archive.is/eYubq
Dread_Pirate_Johnson 6y ago
Thank you for this. Precisely nails the difference between me and my former roommate.
Always attacking my character and labeling me "misogynist" while I pull girls he wants and can't have, lift, move forward.
God damn I needed that link.
Thank you, guise, for keeping the light alive in here.
Whisper 6y ago
Yeah, pretty much. This is basically the difference between beliefs and values. Beliefs are what you think is true. Values are what you think is important.
People with different beliefs can have productive discussions. People with different values cannot, because they can't even agree on what to argue about.
CainPrice 6y ago
I've always thought of this as masculine thinking versus feminine thinking. Reality versus feelings. but I suppose it's more accurate to think of it as facts versus morality since the same approach would apply to a feminine man or to a man entrenched in his feelings about an ideology.
The reason this has been a man-woman thing for me is because my big breakthrough with women came when I realized that women subconsciously don't believe in an objective reality. Reality is what they perceive and feel in this moment. It doesn't matter what the actual facts are - if you tell a woman what the actual facts are, as far as she's concerned, that's just someone else's opinion. Her feelings are her opinion, and those facts you're stating are yours.
And for a woman (or in the case of Rollo's latest essay, a feminine man, a moral ideological believer, etc.), how she feels isn't just her reality. It's her identity. How a woman feels about different things is literally what makes her different from other women.
This is why when you attempt to argue with a woman or explain a different viewpoint, women view it as a personal attack. Because you are attacking her very identity. When you state facts that counter how she feels about something, she doesn't see this as you debating her idea. She sees it as you hate her and you being mean to her and you being a bad person.
In fact, the more logic, facts, and words you use to try to convince her that the way she feels is not reality, the more she knows you're a bad person for trying to trick and manipulate and her and for attacking her identity.
Men who try to use The Red Pill, not as a toolbox to help with their interactions with women, but as a community to belong to and an ideology to believe in, are like women. Their manosphere beliefs aren't just an idea that's open to debate. It's their identity. If you show a man facts that counter his idea, he changes his idea. But if you show a man facts that attack his identity, he doubles down and hates you and attacks your character to discredit the facts you're proposing. Like a woman.
redpill77 6y ago
This is the hardest part so far for me with my unplugging: because of hypergamy, you can't have functional conversations with men or women without employing different conversational styles and mental models with each. The black community has a real benefit in that their music constantly reminds them that women are different by calling them bitches. But they also have less stable families.
It seems that being a redpill man requires a certain degree of either lying or isolation. Because men who don't get sex have little to lose and may become vengeful when they see the girl of their dreams let you grope her ass in public. I'm starting to think this whole societal trans push could be a good thing. Let the bottom 40% of guys become bitches for the next 40% so the top 20% can fuck women in peace.
frykidse 6y ago
As a man who realized his identity was tied to the wrong things, I fully appreciate this simple statement. There are objective truths to be found and applied to your life. They work great.
It's not red v blue. At this point I simply call it embracing my manhood.
Auvergnat 6y ago
Underrated comment. I mean that’s classic redpill wisdom but I had failed to see the similarity between that gendered facts-vs-feels thinking which your remind and the quoted post by Whisper on truth-vs-morals debate. Thanks for connecting those dots.
[deleted] 6y ago
[--removed--]
Whisper 6y ago
You'd be clearer if you defined your terms, and even clearer if you defined what they mean to you personally.
Supposed by whom? And for what reason?
JamesSkepp 6y ago
IOW we're not supposed to be discussing sexual strategies in current context or how to get better at it or what (I'm referring to the "intimate" part here)?
As is every man, each to a different extent. On the lowest level it's based on genetics and you cannot escape that. You can't ideology-away the fact that some people are more attractive than others and that this attractiveness is primary driver and regulator of SMP.
So let's take Muslims for example, you mean that beating her over minor infraction like "not wearing face mask" is ok b/c it's ideology, but nexting her b/c she didn't submit to my personal fetish of "wearing a face mask as my sub" is bad b/c that's anglo-corporate? Same thing really, just different rules.
At best we can make another toolbox out of different ideologies, and not much in there will have practical application b/c first of all, sexual relations don't need ideology, just masculinity (on our part), nothing else is needed for life to spread. On the bigger level of society we're too much invested in current system and wider changes are not practical.
We would literally need an islamic revolution in Western world and frankly islamic dom-sub relationships are not worth the rest of the garbage Islam brings with it. We tried Christianity and it failed, Islam is not far from it and it's going to fail too, it's just 1000y too young to know that.
They are dismissed b/c they have elements that are not in-line with basic, tried, tested, provable TRP tenets or they advocate for absurd things outside m-f relations, and finally some of what you mentioned is based on not even BP thinking, but frankly a magical one.
As if "being successfuly married" is something one should aspire to and be proud of. It's like saying "im a successful slave b/c my master doesnt beat me as much as slaves in western countries". You want TRP to try something else than corpo-sexual strategy, why can't we ditch marriage while we're at it?
standardmissile 6y ago
My understanding is that Rational Male is rooted in evo psych which is empirical evidence based science.
> The grand irony here is that if anyone suggests an alternative methodology for interacting with women, Muslim, Neo Platonist, Hindu
Pretty sure all these approaches are different solutions to the same scenario (female nature). Open to being explained how that isn't the case.
Rollo's SMV curve is a spergy breakdwon of an intuitive phenomena. It has real value to men trying to understand how they fit in the social stratum. I don't however see why understanding SMV means you have to be a cold, spergy cunt with your women. You can be aware of the power dynamic and have a great time with them. Women are intuitively aware of power dynamics and still fall in love, have fun etc with men. My girls all 'like' me and think I'm a genuinely good guy-because I treat them with respect and we have fun together.
I'd say your current position seems to contradict older posts but I can't be bothered citing it with evidence. I will say my gut feel is that there's a woman out there who's influencing your perspective, that's how it reads.
I do agree with your comments on corporatism, which is destroying our society. I do think corporatism is a response to social dynamics, which are a response to technology. Technology (automation) enabled women to work, whcih increased their independance, which led to feminism, which led to consumerism and corporates are turbo charging this. I.e. Gilette wouldn't alienate it's traditional customers if women weren't 70-80% of consumer spending.
I just don't see how Rollo's writing aligns with those assholes.
[deleted]
XtoDoubt 6y ago
I miss the old GLO. I honestly can't make heads or tails of this babble.
[deleted] 6y ago
[--removed--]
CrimsonShiv 6y ago
no need skim read
[deleted] 6y ago
[deleted]
NovicePilgrim 6y ago
Is this after or before GLO advertised and sold his "alpha" t-shirt merchandise at the end of each post?
JamesSkepp 6y ago
So let's be fair here and just to prove that you yourself are not a "GLO messiah complex fanboi" and you can think for yourself without GLO's input, do propose an ideology better than we're currently invested in. In depth, 2-3k words, your own words not quotes, not a criticism of the current one, but something you believe we should be doing.
[deleted] 6y ago
[deleted]
BurnoutRS 6y ago
The legalization of marijuana in Canada is a really good example of this. The government is attempting to corporatize and capitalize off of one means of rebellion. The fact that you can grow pot in your closet and sell it means people can make side income that otherwise supplements their shitty existance.
The price has not decreased, the marijuana you can obtain through health canada in the medical system was always subpar and now many of the same are trying to capitalize on the recreational market.
Top that off with the fact that now you have a government sanctioned alternative to alcohol. Thats great PR. The sentencing for people caught selling outside the new legislation is harsher than the sentencing was before there was a legal, recreational market. The implication is obviously going to be pushed that the legal outlets for Cannabis are Government sanctioned and thus not tied to crime, therefore the black market can be said to be a distillation of the old black market, wherein the good natured entities have now been absorbed into the system... or rather, in the case of most dealers I know, have mostly switched to growing their own and selling/trading amongst a tighter network of friends
The black market still thrives nonetheless. If you're smart about it the new laws make it easier.
Theres a really interesting social phenomena ive noticed. People will say "you shouldnt buy drugs from people on the street, you dont know what could be in them" But the same people will go to the farmers market to get produce from people who run the same gamut from potentially trustworthy to fucking retarded. The logic of "you dont know whats in it" is better applied to the goods on the shelf at the grocery store. At least I can ask farmer joe how he grows his crops. I dont know who to ask about what Mr Christie puts in his cookies.
JamesSkepp 6y ago
Cut the antagonistic attitude, cut the petty insults. Nobody here is your enemy, we're all here to learn something new.
You can't have limited government with 8bn people and extremely complex interactions between them. OTOH, people left to themselves tend to act selfishly unless they have massive abundance of what is currently in the demand, which is very rare.
Non aggression principle is, no joke, social construct. We made it up and it requires everyone to agree to it, which is impossible b/c it's not always 1v1 situation but more akin to n-body problem from physics.
Not only identity, basically everything can be, in one form or another. Has it's plusses, has it's minuses.
Agreed with the paragraph, with exception of transhumanism. If we define it similarly, you can't go without it without losing in the long run . CRISPR designer kids=goodbye classic SMP, perhaps after we use that we can focus on the deeper things. AI requires us to merge our brains with some form of augmented reality/computers, otherwise AI will just outperform is in EVERY imaginable category, including masculinity (I can easily imagine an android with the strongest frame, most conficence, charisma, humor etc). There's a lot of avenues here, some bad, some good, none can be stopped.
EkMard 6y ago
Your attempt at an honest conversation is appreciable, JamesSkepp, but the comment you're replying to was satire, well-disguised and easy to miss.
standardmissile 6y ago
Pretty sure it's well written satire. Dry as the Sahara desert!
JamesSkepp 6y ago
Pretty sure I had enough GLO fanbois who are capable of nothing more than writing 2 sentence long replies (majority of them containing childish insults) to start writing their own thoughts.
So no, this wasn't a satire, this was a request to provide meaningful, well thought alternative to what is being criticized (rightfully) in his reply. I want to see what the author is really thinking besides parroting what GLO already wrote.
standardmissile 6y ago
Debt Slaves comment is satire. He's taking the piss out of GLO, he's just stringing standard GLO wordsalad jargon together. The pheremone soap reference gives it away ;)
nobody_thinks 6y ago
lol so much feminism here. (1) you presume SMV is "assigned" by some big wig. No. it arises naturally from the desires of men which in turn arises from their hardwired biological impulses. Sure there is a little fine tuning from advertisements. But it's a small effect. (2) you interchange masculine and feminine roles with "fired and replaced in rapid succession over minor infractions". This is exactly how men are treated. These days, the average man puts up with endless shit and inanity from women in order to get a crumb of validation.
Rollo's work is mostly observations about the way women behave and the consequences of dealing with them in certain ways. A lot of what Rollo writes about (most?) is not new. He connects dots and makes it digestible for the modern man. The ancient greeks said much of the same. Do you think Homer was being directed by an American corporation?
BurnoutRS 6y ago
Sexual Market Value is assigned subjectively, by every man, to every woman he sees.
The approach is obsessional and spergy. A man designates himself alpha as per his own symbolic interpretation and then holds a woman to the standards he concocts in relation with his alpha interpretation. Pending what these standards are, she'll put up with them or move on.
Now, the degree to which a woman can be subjected to your will is immense, and if this one wont, the next one will. Which is essentially where Rollo's ideas gain ground. This is also the "put up" aspect. You're just stringing along a line of women who will put up with your shit, and changing out the rotation as they drop off.
When the whole approach to SMV is "build material value so as to fuck material whores" We are living in a material world and I am a material girl.
nobody_thinks 6y ago
every cat lady's fantasy
lol wow thats new agey
sounds like it
BurnoutRS 6y ago
"Wow thats new agey"
It is, very Tomassian I know.
Andrew54321 6y ago
I disagree. The SMV scale when considered in a contextual and relatively scenario can illuminate the subconscious that drives actions is very useful.
Think about how one would approach an HB7 in a room full of HB8s versus a room full of HB6s.
If one thinks about what an alpha would do, one is not an alpha internally and that facade eventually cracks over time; its a mathematical probability.
From an engineering perspective, relating X input through a process to get Y result is easier when the process can be hypothesized.
I, myself do not enforce any rules, but do uphold standards. humansockpuppet’s seminal guide as an example of setting boundaries, I felt was too harsh and so I deviate and accept that it is probable that this experiment will end badly. A convenient cop out for not reaching a level where women would prove themselves to be mutually complementary.
BurnoutRS 6y ago
Are you attempting to refute my assertion that SMV is subjective? Did you do so by providing an example that clearly proves that it is?
Andrew54321 6y ago
Refuted your assertion that observation IS obsessional and spergy by providing an example of another piece of information to consider versus absolute interpretation.
I guess your takeaway of what I was attempting to refute was subjective.
BurnoutRS 6y ago
Perhaps if you had addressed a point I was actually making instead of one you incorrectly inferred me to be.
Observation is obsessional and spergy depending on how you conduct it. Creating an Alpha image and then blindly adhering to it is
JamesSkepp 6y ago
If it's subjective, than it can't be spegy. Sperging would be debating whether JLo is HB5 or HB6.
There's strong evidence that prehistoric humans were serial monogamist and didn't form life long monogamous "LTRs". As anatomical, modern humans (on which all m-f relations are based) we were fucking around for about 1,5 million years, compared to around 10k years of monogamy based period. Stringing along was the norm and we were fine for most of the 1,5 million years. There's no reason why we should reject biology based m-f dynamics in favour of metaphysics base one, just b/c we invented metaphysics and can use symbolic language to form relationships. You can ofcourse disprove my arguments by, for the rest of your life, fucking only the ugly girls, getting an ugly wife, all in the name of "not stringing her along".
What you're advocating is marriage and monogamy, camouflaged in "Rollo's wrong". He is, to an extent, but you're using it to do 180 pivot and you seem to miss that part.
BurnoutRS 6y ago
At what point do I advocate marriage and monogamy?
At what point do I say Im against stringing along a line of women?
Im against stringing along a line of women under the guise of "herp derp Im alpha" while sitting around in a bathrobe and sunglasses, nursing my poor pectorals. Then justifying my mediocrity with some nice chocolately, caramely Rollos
JamesSkepp 6y ago
Are you for stringing along women?
BurnoutRS 6y ago
define stringing?
are we talking "Im a piece of shit but Im the best piece of shit you can get so come wallow in the mud with me?"
or "leave if you want to, Im still awesome without you"
Stringing women along should be a part of the greater whole of the identity. Not necessarily the endgame.
JamesSkepp 6y ago
As far as I understand (not a native speaker) "stringing", in the context of TRP, basically means having sex with a woman without intent of committing even when you know that's her objective with you and that's why she fucks you. IOW plating, delaying the talk, and being deflective to prolong the time the girl is your plate, without you ever committing.
BurnoutRS 6y ago
Wonderful, so now that you've shown me we're both talking about the same thing, address the following; How might a schlub who otherwise justifies his schlubbiness by stringing along a line of women compare to an actual man, who strings along aline of women as a byproduct of his awesomeness?
JamesSkepp 6y ago
I assumed you're against stringing women at all.
Assuming we're talking about man's perspective, the first case loses the ability to grow.
BillyRedRocks 6y ago
Maybe because we've already been through this a million time and we don't want the islam blue pills, neither the fashy blue pills, neither your blue pills.
But hey it's a lot easier to base your life on the Muslim way in "corporate America" get buttfucked by the system then yell at the sky.
Get more jokes in your next comments that way people won't pay attention to how bad your "arguments" are.
[deleted] 6y ago
[--removed--]
JamesSkepp 6y ago
Don't need islam to keep women in line.
nobody_thinks 6y ago
why do you single out corporate America? By this, don't you really mean globalism? What about academics?
Lefort3000 6y ago
Hollywood, news outlets, feminism, and other various movements have led to a very secularized western society compared to, lets say, 50 years. Its no coincidence that the decline of the popularity of Christianity has coincided with an increase in female sexual hypergamy and degeneracy.
As a heads up, Im a Christian, but as someone who knows Islam well and who knows its shortcomings, I can say Christianity > Islam.
JamesSkepp 6y ago
Western society got secularized b/c of 2 reasons: religion for most people was based on primitive, materialistic superstition and science was able to disprove all of that, secondly religion failed to provide ANY answers or tools to fix world's issues (praying for rain doesn't work but irrigation does), especially m-f relations. If you want to see how it looks like, go to Christian Red Pill subreddit and see how they are on board with the idea that TRP works but reject anything from TRP that contradicts or is forbidden by the Bible. It's the same thing as with blood transfusion and some fundamentalists, yes it will save your life but god says no so now you're dead.
Lefort3000 6y ago
Lots of examples that dont get to the heart of the issue. Woman's sexual empowerment and freedom along with the sexual empowerment stuff pushed in mass media progressively went more and more against basic Christian values.
Christianity provides plenty of answers to m-f relations. It restricts female options so that their hypergamy cant run rampant and harems aren't formed.
Practical, helpful science (I say this because I dont find evolution practical) isnt mutually exclusive with Christianity.
Also, when there are clear examples of people/corporations/banks hoarding wealth and even manipulating economies, you cant say that religion wouldnt help change that.
JamesSkepp 6y ago
Sure it did go against Christian values. That doesn't change the fact that Christianity failed to provide working solutions for modern world. Completely 2 different things.
Not really. In short the Bible is a set of rules how the world should look like, not how to make it happen. Simply stating to your wife "dont cheat on me the bibble says so" is not goiung to work b/c it's not how women communicate. Again, go to RPChristians and see how much are they conflicted between proven TRP tenets and the scripture, it's a hamster-fest about how to find any verse that can be remotely interpreted as basic TRP idea.
No it's not. Just like we had state disconnected from the church, you can have both.
I'll paraphrase: just because you don't find evolution practical, doesn't mean evolution is not finding you practical.
Lefort3000 6y ago
I went to RPChristians, I didnt find what you're talking about.
Im not really sure what part of the red pill dating advice directly contradicts with the Bible outside of casual sex. Maybe dread game? Even then there are still aspects of mild dread game you can implement.
And women aren't animals. Having a fear of repercussions for sin and an obligation to perform to a certain level for a husband is superior to some secular woman driven by vagina tingles and modern culture.
Also Christian girl with lower body count = less likely to cheat based on that study that showed girls with higher n counts are more likely to cheat.
[deleted]
BillyRedRocks 6y ago
Your reading comprehension is lacking.
The muslim world has problems keeping it's women in line and they're going to get worse and worse as their countries develop. But let me guess when you say muslim countries you just mean the saudis because a trip to Turkey would make your thesis look laughable.
Nothing you've said so far is relevant, you just want everyone to close their eyes, take the easiest and cheapest blue pills they find and hope for the best.
[deleted] 6y ago
[--removed--]
BillyRedRocks 6y ago
"The muslim world has no problems keeping it's women in line"
- that's false
"nonono, only the westernised muslim world has problems keeping it's women in line"
Could this mystical "westernisation" you speak of be just abundance of resources for the average person? Oh, when life gets easier people tend to get "westernised" and that ruins everything! Been to Moscow lately? Piter? Oh I guess they too are "westernised".
When people have an abundance of resources it's harder to keep them in line, you are suggesting that people:
A: start yelling at the clouds
B: turn back time
C: destroy the abundance of resources that society enjoys
instead of adapting to the changing environments. You're literally shoving bluepills into the faces of everyone here with the cover of your EC tag. Can't wait for your answer that provides nothing useful and falls apart under the slightest scrutiny.
JamesSkepp 6y ago
Which leads to men becoming less masculine b/c masculinity is based on action (among other things). The less you have to (are forced to) do to survive and thrive, the more you're getting complacent in physical and intellectual realm, thus you're "practicing" masculinity less and less. This has been going on for last few thousand years and is especialy pronounced in last few hundred when we invented machines that do things for us.
[deleted] 6y ago
[deleted]
standardmissile 6y ago
Westernisation is a technological force which impacts culture. Without automation, women would be less effective in the workforce, and they wouldn't want to join it anyway because it's hard work pushing a plow all day.
Cushy office jobs incentivise women to grab a piece of the pie. The more technology advances, the less actual work people need to do, the more women will want in.
If there was a war or economic depression and all the bullshit jobs disappeared, women would opt out of the workplace in large numbers because home making/informal employment is boring but preferable to working for shit wages under threat of replacement because 30%
Therefore, Westernisation is techno-economic phenomena of which culture is a symptom, not a driving force.
Another examnple: The contraceptive pill is a technology, WIthout it, the slutisation of women couldn't have occured (as much).
BillyRedRocks 6y ago
A lot of people are having perfectly normal children with perfectly normal non naggy non bitchy wives. Maybe we should ask ourselves what are they doing instead of shouting at clouds. If you're interested in marriage and family creation feel free to head over to MRP I'm sure they have "how to not have tranny kids" advice and field reports.
Whether "westernisation" is a cultural or economic force or even a thing is to be decided in the next 200 years.
[deleted]
Olram_Sacul 6y ago
What really amazes me is that women are protesting in Iran against compulsory hijab whereas in France women are protesting against the ban on burkinis. Bitches will bitch, the point is putting the bitches on check, this is what civilization is about.
Isbjornsolo 6y ago
Both protests are based on the grounds of free self expression. Both laws are Authoritarian/Totalitarian.
Specifically for France. This runs against Frances' constitution. Their secular state shouldn't interfere with any religious expression, only if they are working in some capacity for the state.
Olram_Sacul 6y ago
Public swimming pool users must follow some etiquette and dress code. As well as you are requested to have a shower before taking a swim, you should wear a proper swim suit. A fucking blanket covering your body is not a proper swim suit, regardless of your religion. If your beliefs don't match with it, cool, just don't go to the swimming pool.
Isbjornsolo 6y ago
The Burkini swim suits are made of exactly the same material as a standard one, just more of it. Granted they aren't very hydro-efficient for swimming. But from a health perspective they are the same.
Now if they wanted to swim in actual burkas looking like Jelly Fish (Cotton/Silk). Then there might be an issue.
JamesSkepp 6y ago
Lack of masculinity is problem, not westernization.
clavabot 6y ago
Is westernization not the same as lack of masculinity?
JamesSkepp 6y ago
My bad, I applied my own definition.
Masculinity is a very specific term and 90% problem solving solution when it comes to m-f dynamics mentioned in this comment string. Westernization is, but that's my own interpretation, a broader term that refers to general societal changes, one of them is the emasculation of men.
SmackinDatAss 6y ago
You just totally invalidated every argument you previously made.
clavabot 6y ago
Then by your own definition: "Westernization leads to the emasculation of men." Does this not mean that Westernization is, in part responsible for causing the problem of a "Lack of masculinity"?
JamesSkepp 6y ago
It's a chicken/egg problem. We can say that lack of masculinity causes westernisation, we can say westernisation causes lack of masculinity, it's entirely possible both are correct at the same time. But, in the context of the replies above, the m-f dynamics, masculinity will cure 90% problems and do it faster than trying to fix westernisation.
JamesSkepp 6y ago
Agreed up until this:
From my moral, ethical, philosophical and ideological standpoint rape is bad. But I do it anyway in my spare time. IOW, you cannot question my character and call me a rapist b/c it's the theory behind it that counts.
Not really the case. If I ask you how many poles a magnet can have, you'll default to two poles, north and south b/c for the last 100+ years everyone was taught that's the case. Thus "2 poles" is everything and all we know. But, the reality is, there's solid theoretical speculation that there can be a magnetic monopole, you just don't know about that. The same goes on in BP, most of them are so far gone that they believe BP to be the only m-f reality b/c they don't know that they don't know.
Yeah we were trying to do just that, that's why about 2 years ago we had, for many months months, weekly anti trad-con posts stickied to eradicate the "im not masculine b/c feminism destroyed marriage in ancient rome and i need plowhorse 2.0 to get more starfish sex b/c only marriage can save men from globalism".
I agree with the second part of the quote. I also agree with the GLO's argument that TRP can be interpreted as ideology itself, and my interpretation of his argument, namely that we can be an ideology without latching or borrowing from other ideologies.
The thing is, while mods can police the content to remain strictly about sexual strategy (second part of the quote), they cannot police the fact that by us being anti-mainstream, we've are already choosing a political or philosophical stance de facto. By the very virtue of what we stand for (in rather broad terms) we are choosing sides in the battle that we're not deliberately going into. That's why we need to enforce Rule 0, but we also should leave wiggle room for broader picture, b/c there IS a broader picture, regardless of whether it causes the current m-f divide or whether the m-f sexual strategies cause the broader picture.
EkMard 6y ago
Yes.
BurnoutRS 6y ago
So praxeology is the study of human conduct. You study the conduct, derive ideas from what you've observed about what the conduct means... Ideology.
Apply those ideas to life, use them to compile a means of approaching life based on the ideas, the knowledge and insighted gain from the study of human conduct. Ideology.
Human conduct occurs within terrestrial spaces, environments that place restrictions or limitations on that conduct due to the nature of the environment.
[deleted]
AutoModerator 6y ago
Why are we quarantined? The admin don't want you to know.
Register on our backup site: https://www.trp.red 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.
nobody_thinks 6y ago
Rollo, blue pill = feminine frame. red pill = masculine frame. But I'm sure you know this.
Flesh_Pillow5 6y ago
Thank you! Very interesting. Makes me think of how much of true to the core red pill theory is actually espoused here.
RStonePT 6y ago
The core shit and the vanguards are still solid. It's the white belts and certain demagogue wannabe's that aren't.
Kind of the point of this TBH
NASCARnormie 6y ago
Here rollo and the mod team believe that the red pill isn’t ideological and is based off praxeology. While fraullo tomassi is being accused of female reporter hoes before bros, he is acting as if nothing has actually happened. He is repressing all the accusations and acting as if he has no knowledge of what is going on, which is ideological.
When the germans gassed shlomo, was that not ideological? When the soviets sent shlomo and his gang to the gulag was that also not ideological. When rian stone and the mod team delete all their comments is that not repression? When rian stone deletes his comments he acts as if nothing has happened, just like rollo when he is accused of fraud.
Thus, ideology basically signifies an existence of non knowledge in which the participants have no clue what the fuck is going on and in the classical Freudian sense ignore it in order to maintain their fantasy.
BobbyPeru 6y ago
Rollo doesn’t give a fuck about that faggot drama. He is above it. That’s my take anyway
dulkemaru51 6y ago
The Red Pill means Truth.
Rollo claims to only describe, never prescribe ... yet his descriptions all follow a single dimension:
(If you decide to) Have A (unique) Look, you will be perceived as having "Social Dominance" (lol).
(If you decide to) Get The Best Of Her (sexually), then realize that the sex is never worth the wait.
(If you decide to) Never Get Oneitis, then Spin Plates, Hold Frame, keep the one that's Funnest In Bed.
... and that's where his description of reality end. It's a speck in a vast sky. It's liberal existential nihilist scientism, in Rollo's case masked as Christianity (lol).
Expressing oneself authentically with beenies and Thor's Hammer necklaces doesn't come out of a vacuum, it's contingent upon society's influence. Getting the best of her sexually so that you can go on to Get Rich Or Die Tryin' is an ethical position (in Rollo's case from a very specific ideology that I already mentioned). Spinning plates and qualifying them according to their sexual prowess is a distantiation, from an intimately immediate connection with reality, spawned by a formalization of language that separates subject from object, automatically sneaking in metaphysical Pills (whether Red or Blue) that brainwashed normies are incapable of tasting ... The further one abstracts one's math, the more alien becomes the idea of 'What is a number?'.
To put it simply, Rollo thinks that he has a God's-eye-view of reality, that every epistemologist universally agrees that empiricism is what leads us to comprehend reality in its pure form, that he knows the uncompromisable aspects of female nature perfectly (I guess he knows how Chinese women behaved 5000 years ago by reading field reports of American women in postmodernity), and that his "descriptive" writing has covered all or at least the majority of potential actions that you yourself can decide to or not to take.
... In short, Rollo thinks that his ideology represents Truth, and that therefore, by definition, everyone who disagrees is wrong.
Vikingcel 6y ago
What are your top 10 books?
EkMard 6y ago
Rollo tries an exercising in pinning down what the correct description of reality is. Nothing else needs to be said, except as a tangent.
JamesSkepp 6y ago
So you're telling me you would 100% accept a wife or a gf (for life) that would be boring in bed?
You do too, you just think that you're right b/c you read this or that philosophy book.
Can you say how women behaved back then by reading a philosophy book? Same errors, you're both in confirmation bias.
dulkemaru51 6y ago
No. Try seeing the principle in examples and then apply it to a wider picture.
I know I DONT have it, BECAUSE "I read this or that philosophy book", which is ofc a metaphor for being sufficiently self-aware to spot snuck-in assumptions in my thinking.. I don't read that much philosophy, I don't have the time, got obligatory stuff to read.
Is that what I said?
JamesSkepp 6y ago
You wouldn't accept a "sex boring" wife, if that's the case why do you have a problem with chasing more "sex interesting" ones and in broader picture, what kind of intimate connection is gained by having years long LTR's or getting married?
The only reason for you to mix philosophy into it is to make it about this or that philosophy. In this case you're not using philosophy as tool to understand more, you're taking a stance, specifical stance. That implies you do have some values you deem better then what you listed in 3 points about Rollo. Since you called it "liberal existential nihilist scientism" I'm assuming you are opposed to science and/or empiricism.
Well yeah, for example, spinning plates=bad (b/c no intimate connection), empiricism=bad (Rollo="liberal existential nihilist scientism"). IOW you think Rollo thinks he knows better, while saying you know better b/c you can point where you have different viewpoint and do so with coherent arguments. Again, what's the difference?
You implied you can know that by mixing in philosophy and attacking empiricism. Neither Rollo, nor you know what Chinese women did 5000y ago, but this does't stop you from implying "it doesn't matter we don't know, Rollo is wrong". It's really funny b/c it means that you're right simply b/c you said Rollo doesn't know in worse way they you don't know.
dulkemaru51 6y ago
I don't think you understood what I was saying.
I'm distancing myself from every stance, which of course is a stance in and of itself (!), but I think that the more one narrows down one's view, the more retarded one becomes, especially when one isn't even aware of it.
No .. I was half-seriously diagnosing Rollo's analysis of reality as the result of an ideological position that he himself isn't even aware of having.
The "no intimate connection" thing wasn't about man and woman, it was about subject and object, or rather the experienced unity between those, and the leaving out of the impossible-to-answer metaphysical question. It was a phenomenological critique of a confused normie dualism taken to its extreme, which is what Rollo is doing. He's riding a cart in a very specific tunnel with his arms raised laterally like Rose in Titanic, thinking he's flying and seeing everything perfectly.
I don't think empiricism is bad. I was, again, half-seriously diagnosing Rollo ... Like I said to you in another comment here, I don't hold strongly to any metaphysical positions.
Hmm I dunno .. what I will say though is that Rollo is an average iq (blind) ideologue.
I never said that women aren't attracted to "alpha" cues, or that they're not universally programmed to lock men down. I'm pretty convinced that they are, actually (empiricism). My comment was mainly a counter against the stupidity of Rollo's ridiculously dumb and slimey post. I've had this discussion with others several times; I'm not against any restriction that TRP has on discussion, but I do facepalm at 50 year old NPC normies thinking that they're enlightened. It deteriorates the discussion, EVEN IF it's strictly limited to a single subject, like sexual dynamics for instance.
I didn't.
Correct.
... Look, what I meant is that Rollo's "descriptive" writing is focused on anecdotes from a specific historical demographic, and more importantly, he's navigating that terrain with blind ideology. He's not a scientist, he's a former PUA forum moderator. I'm not even saying that you can't draw conceptual conclusions with that method, either. What I'm saying is that he restricts his analysis of the ocean to a drop, and the "descriptive" solutions he presents are even more limited.
Think of it like this. You have a spacetime continuum. Along that entire thing are men and women with different interpretations of it. Rollo sees one point on that continuum and expands his observation to the entire thing, and most importantly, he does so according to his interpretation of it ... Like I said earlier, I'm not against the idea that you can do that to some extent; I can look at a pair of tits and with a good degree of certainty say that other women in different points along that continuum possessed something similar. I for instance do believe that women are universally attracted to power, but I leave the definition rather open; posh bitches may think that manners stem from family money which is power, while ghetto booty tingles from gold teeth ... Rollo claims to be descriptive, do x to get y, as if he's described anything other than what got him laid with middle-class white girls in the 80s ... It's a tiny window. Both that which he describes as universal female nature and, especially, that which he describes as solutions. It's, again, ideology that has infected his mind, that he doesn't even know is there, and that's the worst part.
JamesSkepp 6y ago
If I don't reply tomorrow, ping me.
frykidse 6y ago
This is a ping. I find this discussion interesting to follow along
There's a balance to be struck between honoring the hard earned wisdom of the past vs striking it out on your own. I may be an old dude who says yaaa maybe you shouldn't do that. I also remember young me said fuck off lol (we actually didn't say lol then tbh) I'm doing things my way. Some lessons have to be learned firsthand. Some of those lessons were really fucking painful, so my intent in offering advice is to lessen your pain so you can actually be productive when you do strike out on your own. You do you but be smart about it.
Like I said, it's a balance.
RStonePT 6y ago
You couldn't have made the point any better.
https://archive.is/eYubq
Tell me, reading these arguments the OP has put up there, what side of the spectrum do you find them to be on? [this is more for anyone reading than James. He's switched on and doesn't need me to point any of this out]
JamesSkepp 6y ago
OP meaning Rollo, Whisper or dulkemaru51?
RStonePT 6y ago
dulk51
JamesSkepp 6y ago
I can see how OP can view Rollo like that, it's not dissimilar from GLO and the 3 points are good description of Rollo's work. That being said, I see no reason to forcefully inject philosophy into TRP (considering we're fine without it so far) b/c this will become a major distraction from Rule 0/SMP. We can debate philosophy, we probably should, but the problem is that philosophy will lead to politics and that means a total shitstorm and zero value for anyone.
When I first started posting here, we had NRS and his conspiracy fanbois, later we had trad-cons, then ancient rome fell b/c feminism, then mgtows, then came petersonists, every time all that ended in enforcing Rule 0 and course corrections back to SMP. Don't think this latest philosophy trend will end up differently if it continues, especialy considering it attracts a lot of GLO wannabes, who are not GLO and don't seem to know that.
I find him to be on "eloquent but ultimately not actionable" part of spectrum. GLO pushes philosopher-king idea, well I agree, but it's more important (and harder) to become the king than the philosopher. Same for OP. It's great that he ha the ability deconstruct Rollo from philosophical standpoint (regardless correctly or not), but what's after that?
RStonePT 6y ago
I'd say exactly like that.
I agree. Philosophy is way higher on the Mazlows heirarchy than TRP is, and for a branch of learning designed to help people think better, it sure attracts a lot of reinforces that regurgitate the ideas like they are quoting scripture.
And you're 100% right, the king is hard, because he has to persuade the world to put his wellbeing as in their best interests.
As for the deconstruction, like you said. Then what? There's a ton of giants that we are standing on the shoulders of, and instead of building more, better, higher, way too many guys are happy to smash any foundations because they don't like the paint color
BillyRedRocks 6y ago
They can make a philosophy subreddit and discuss whatever they want there. Why don't they?
Is it because they all read the same books and are instructed by the same person with the same youtube videos? If your philosophical analysis is incorrect and there's no way to know whether it's correct or not what good is it here and why should it be discussed or even allowed?
What's next? Is christianity the true redpill here are my 20 pages of interpretations in the bible. Everyone argues on the bible, nothing gets tested, nothing gets done, everyone's still sexless.
RStonePT 6y ago
That's the other thing, critique is easy, work is hard. It reminds me of the 2nd wave MGTOW mindset, where any excuse to justify continuing their absence from the game
dulkemaru51 6y ago
I know you didn't mean me... As I said before, I don't hold strongly to any metaphysical positions. I'm, ultimately, epistemologically nihilistic, to a rather high degree. I'm pretty much a phenomenalist if I had to categorize myself, though I prefer not to, and even though I like Hegel, I kinda interpret his idealist proposition phenomenologically. GLO, from my understanding, is a metaphysical idealist (absolute/magical idealism (Hegel & Evola, resp), "hard" platonism, etc), whereas I'm far from convinced.
This is what I mean when I talk about dudes riding carts in a tunnel thinking that theyre standing on the wings of a flying angel ... How is it not "actionable" to learn how to spot biases in one's thinking, or even to undergo a more radical change in the interpretation of one's personal human experience (and I'm NOT talking about religion)? Afterall, your experience is all you have. Changing it changes everything, including your success level in the SMP.
How could understanding reality better not be actionable? How could it not present more options than understanding it less?
I avoid answering this question since I think TRP should be a praxeology ... what I've said for a long time is that EVEN IF the subject matter remains limited to a handful of things (like SMP, hypergamy, lifting, etc), the discussion can be made so much more interesting, and productive, if the liberal normies learned some intellectual humility (and engineered their brains to give them higher IQs) and realized that their interpretation of the world is heavily influenced by a plethora of stuff that they're not even aware of.
An expanded general view will change your outlook on every specific thing.
JamesSkepp 6y ago
Yes. That has its pluses, but has a risk of taking it too far and turning good ideas into overblown caricatures.
Choose a philosopher, anyone you want, then using his works, ideas, explain SMP, explain (in a working and actionable way) how and why he can make a man or a woman attractive, how to lift to gain etc, all that without repeating or re-wording main TRP ideas.
Understanding is great, but no amount of understanding metaphysics or philosophical debates about which ideology is better and why is gonna change the fact that ultimately, you have to do the deadlift, do the approach, paint your house and so on.
True, but there are consequences of allowing too much focus on theory on TPR, namely "not gonna lift b/c Hegel said this, not gonna approach b/c Plato said that". It's borderline, covert blackpill that replaces "looks>all" with "argumentum ad well known philosopher>all".
dulkemaru51 6y ago
So, hypothetically, if you could go from a confused haze, or pathological insecurity, or even suicide-watch level existential angst, to a state of mental clarity, strong principles, and an overall state of solid groundedness .. how would that not change every single thing in your life? If you're looking for a renowned philosopher who incorporates PUA and bodybuilding into his treatises, I can't help you, but the condition of actionability seems too restricted to me, I don't accept the goalpost. The meta picture of even a textbook TRP life can't help but improve if you become a better thinker. I mean, why is meditation so favoured here? It doesn't make your muscles bigger or your negging sharper, but it can definitely ramp up your potential for those things, and so can learning how to think, just as directly as meditation (more directly and much more powerfully IME). Show me a car enthusiast who deems gasoline to be a waste of time.
Yeah that would be idiotic. But I don't know where you get this from. I see it a lot; jerking off to Nietzsche all day doesn't get you laid. That's correct. But who said anything about all day? I know I didn't. I usually leave a time window for my girl, and I always leave one for physical exercise... besides, as I said before, I don't read philosophy books that much, I've got obligatory stuff to read, I was mainly criticizing Rollo's little thought cage, but since you asked me about philosophy ...
I've enjoyed our back n forth, hope you did too. I don't think you want to continue though since you saw me being dismissive of Rian. I still don't see a reason to be dismissive of you since you seem genuine. I dunno, maybe the Rian thing got cleared up
RStonePT 6y ago
Can you translate this into pleb?
Emphasis mine.
Here's the thing, at least so far as I've seen and experienced. Guys will spend so much time navel gazing, looking for reasons why things are the way they are. they come up with all kinds of reasons for it, usually unfalsifiable, almost always with at least one leap of faith, and guaranteed to be overly complex, with fancy words, a lot of 'esque' and 'ism' thrown at the end. Maybe they understand them, maybe they don't. Can't really explain them except to people who read the exact same thing they did. Do they all know what they are talking about, do they pretend to in order to fit into the 'community?'
And after all that, everyone still has dry dick, no ones any the wiser, and still the same bucket of subjective opinion as the rest of us.
And thats fine, except the need to make everything else in the world change to accommodate that. Want to talk about intellectual humility? I'd say that would be a good place to start.
Epistemological nihilism? You could have said skeptical, you could have said you dislike absolutes, but instead chose to be a pedant about it. Of course, what that has to do with considering the world is just as you can percieve it has nothing to do with that, but throw them together it sounds like a wonderfully complex worldview if you don't look into it too far. Those word choices were either because of a need to obfuscate what you're trying to say, or a book put them together that way and one is parroting it. Either way, intellectual humility indeed.
The beauty of experience is that your interpretation of the world gets immediate feedback. Way easier to tell what is useful for you.
Besides, absolutely none of this drivel from either of us gets guys laid, prevents them from buying a chicks bathwater, or not getting fucked over when their unicorn turns out to be a cluster B predator. It's completely off topic, unfalsifiable ego stroking. But it sure solves the problem of wanting to be better than anyone else without having to prove it outside of ones own head.
After all, if the world is just a bunch of sense perception, why not just get a sex doll, same thing right? Dick, pressure, lubrication, and star fish enthusiasm with philosophical pillow talk
JamesSkepp 6y ago
Yeah, that's something I didn't consider.
dulkemaru51 6y ago
No
At least not 500 million leaps of faith amirite?
Rian, I'm not reading to you at your age, quit asking
Aint that some creative AMOGging. Ask me who hurt me next time if you really want to crush me.
No one said that swallowing the red pill would be easy, but it's your choice, I don't care what you do, so blame yourself, don't blame your feelings of inadequacy on me for saying things that are difficult for you to grasp. I could just as easily say that you're the one who gets mad when others don't keep it pleb for your accommodation, at least that would be true... I was having a conversation with someone when you forced yourself in. So who's policing who???
fucking sigh ...... hahahhahaha
I've tried to explain this to you enough times before .. good luck
When did this come out, is it lyke official?
You tell me, i havent tried
You telling me they all faked it ??
spit out the blue pill
JamesSkepp 6y ago
So this turned out as usual. You are a GLO fanboi, maybe not deliberate, but you 100% fit the profile. You're saying what GLO says, more or less, then someone starts confronting you and you default to personal attacks via one liner AMOG frame-battle. Basically everyone who reguritates GLO's ideas does this.
Again, GLO wannabes without realizing they are not GLO. He is an intellectual powerhorse, rest of them is spectators who are following b/c he provides an emotional/intellectual high for them.
RStonePT 6y ago
Last word