I’ve been meaning to do a post about this for a while now, and given the present ideological schism in the Manosphere (still searching for a better term) I thought reposting this would be relevant to the discussion. This is from an old Purple Pill Debate thread on Reddit. I was made aware of it by Rian Stone about a year ago and I’ve returned to it often enough in commentary and Tweets that I felt it deserved a post and a discussion of its own here.
Now, I understand that the definitions of what constitutes a red pill understanding versus a blue pill outlook are always going to be subjective to the individual guy. The “red pill” and the “blue pill” have become so distorted recently that as terms, as loose brands, they’ve become effectively meaningless. Anyone who reads my work or has heard me opine about these terms already grasps what my own interpretations are. However, far too many disingenuous actors have entered this community of late and all have an interest in shifting those definitions to cater to their pet ideology. In fact, converting the Red Pill to be interpreted as an ideology rather than a praxeology (or a heuristic if you prefer) founded in an objective understanding of intersexual dynamics has been their primary goal.
All this redefining has done is (deliberately) confuse the purpose of understanding gender interrelations by inserting ideology into the mix. Often this is an effort at reprioritizing how interpreting intersexual dynamics ought to discussed. Most often it’s a conflict of the ‘correct’ way of approaching the interpreting of observable facts & data. So moralists believe in one goal for the interpretation while objectivists see another. The result is we talk past one another. Then one disavows the other, goes off to broadcast what he thinks is truth – according to their origination premise – and builds a brand based on that redefinition of “the red pill” according to them.
You’ll get a better understanding here (emphasis my own):
Red Pill and Blue Pill people end up talking past each other because they cannot even agree on what they should be debating about. The sets of values they hold are completely disjointed. They cannot even agree on what a “debate” is, and what the goals of a “debate” are.
Red Pill people generally bring the following assumptions to a debate:
- They believe that there is exactly one reality, and that truth is what accurately describes that reality. The better a statement describes reality, the more true it is. They are factual absolutists.
- They believe that whether something is “good” or “bad” is a matter of opinion, and that all systems of morality are things societies invented to get a result, and it is therefore pointless to argue about whether something is “evil” or not, instead of about what effect it has. They are moral relativists.
- They believe that the goal of a debate is to establish what the facts are, and how this knowledge can be used to control outcomes. They argue about what is true.
- They believe that debates are a cooperative process between two or more people who have the shared goal of achieving a more accurate picture of absolute reality, and that, while people may stick vehemently to their positions, they can also reverse them on a dime if new information comes to light, because the only real attachment is to the truth. They believe debates occur between theories, not people. Thus questioning someone’s character is off-limits, because it is irrelevant.
Blue Pill people generally bring the following assumptions to a debate:
- They believe that reality is subjective, and what is “true” is simply a matter of who you ask. What is called “truth” is simply a codification of someone’s perspective, and it is therefore pointless to argue about what is “true“. They are factual relativists.
- They believe that there is exactly one set of moral laws, which human beings have gradually discovered in a historical climb towards ethical perfection (or degeneration). Certain people are ethically better or worse based not only on what they do, but also on what they believe. They believe that different ethical systems exist, but they can be ranked from ethically worst to ethically best based on a sort of meta-ethics whereby they can be tested for degree of compliance with the one absolute set of ethics that underlies reality. They are moral absolutists.
- They believe that the goal of debate is to establish what is morally better, and what everyone should do. They argue about what is right.
- They believe that debates are a competitive process between two people, who each have the goal of establishing their views about right and wrong by attaining a state of moral ascendancy over the other person. They believe that anyone who changes their views is revealing a flaw in their moral character (because their previous views were not morally correct), and must thereafter relinquish the moral high ground and submit their actions to the moral judgement of others (usually the person who won the debate). They believe debates occur between people, not ideas, for the precise purpose of establishing who should be allowed to set standards for the behavior of others (because they are morally superior). Thus, questioning someone’s character is not only relevant, it’s the whole point.
This is why Blue Pill adherents think “those Red Pill guys” are “misogynists” or bad people. Because they cannot imagine an analysis that does not occur for the purposes of judgement, much less one that doesn’t include any idea about what people “should” do.
This is why the Red Pill insists that the Blue Pill are willfully blind. Because, to them, anyone who doesn’t admit the truth must be unable to perceive it. They cannot imagine anyone not caring what the truth is.
This is why Blue Pillers keep thinking that Red Pillers are trying to restore the Dark Ages. They cannot imagine any group with shared views not having one moral agenda that they wish everyone to abide by.
This is why Red Pillers think that Blue Pill adherents must be hopelessly bad at understanding human social structures. They cannot imagine anyone not wanting to do things in the most effective possible way.
Here’s an example of this kind of misunderstanding in action:
Here we see an interaction between RP and BP regarding age of consent laws.
- RP’s primary objective to propose an algorithm for making legal judgements about consent or lack of it, which he believes will best serve what the majority of people desire to see these laws do. He looks at the issue as an engineering problem, and he proposes a solution.
- BP’s objective is to establish whether or RP is a bad person. If he can be gotten to agree to a statement which BP thinks of as diagnostic of “evilness”, then the debate can be won, and anything RP says can thereafter be dismissed as originating from an evil person.
- BP says “All this so you can justify getting laid.”. BP thinks RP is trying to “justify” something according a set of moral rules, because to BP, every act has a moral valance, and anyone who wishes to do anything must at least be ready with a moral excuse.
- RP has been arguing, meanwhile, about which metaphors best illustrate human social and mating dynamics. RP does not address the issue of right or wrong at all, and seems to believe BP is engaging with him on factual level.
Thus RP and BP cannot even agree on what the argument is about.
RP thinks right and wrong are a matter of opinion, and BP doesn’t care what the facts are.
I imagine the discussion thread for this post is going to get pretty heated. However, 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 absolutists is not only a challenge to their ego-investments, it’s also interpreted as an attack on their livelihoods.
In 2015 and again in 2018 I made this point:
It’s my opinion that red pill awareness needs to remain fundamentally apolitical, non-racial and non-religious because the moment the Red Pill is associated with any social or religious movement, you co-brand it with an ideology, and the validity of it will be written off along with any preconceptions associated with that specific ideology.
Furthermore, any co-branding will still be violently disowned by whatever ideology it’s paired with because the Feminine Imperative has already co-opted and trumps the fundaments of that ideology. The fundamental truth is that the manosphere, pro-masculine thought, Red Pill awareness or its issues are an entity of its own.
Unfortunately, this is where we are at today in the modern ‘Manosphere‘. The reason I’m attacked with accusations of enforcing some ideological purity tests for the Red Pill is directly attributable to the mindset of the factual relativists; whose livelihoods are now dependent upon the redefinition of whatever the Hell the “Red Pill” means to them or should mean to those they broadcast it to.
So, I become a ‘Cult Leader‘ because their minds can only think in terms of ideology. Again, the factual relativist never leaves the ideological Frame in which they believe the debate takes place.
Seething, jealous judgmental fakes are letting their sickness show with their every online attack against Rollo Tomassi.
Now they say that Rollo is doing it for the money. That’s the opposite of the truth!
Rollo makes sure the money from his audiobooks is earmarked to help cover my extremely high medical costs!
Debating with TBP or the new exposed purple heathens is like playing chess with a pigeon. All I know is I was tired of the pain, the suffering, the temporal and financial losses. I was experiencing cognative dissonance, today i can’t believe were I’ve been just 2 years ago.
Long live the true TRP free from ruin and ideology!
Philosophy! No time to read, but I’ll post rucka.
One of your best posts, Rollo. This is related to philosopher David Hume’s distinction between IS (facts, reality) and OUGHT (duties, morality) However, I would like to introduce some nuance. It is not that red pillers are morally relativists. It is impossible to be morally relativist, because each person has a concept of right or wrong (for example, “pleasure is right and pain is wrong”). Is it wrong from married men to be destroyed in family courts only because women want another cock? Whether you answer “yes” or “no”, you have a concept of absolute morality. It is that red… Read more »
Rollo In fact, converting the Red Pill to be interpreted as an ideology rather than a praxeology (or a heuristic if you prefer) founded in an objective understanding of intersexual dynamics has been their primary goal. This sentence gets right to the heart of the matter. Several related issues, in fact, including the problem of monetizing. It is far easier to monetize ideology than praxology, just for a start. A praxology works, or it does not work. It works for a given man, or it does not, but provided the praxology is founded on testable propositions the only argument available… Read more »
“pleasure is right and pain is wrong”
Pleasure is pleasurable and pain is painful.
The only evil is ignorance, and knowledge the only good
Never seen rollo called cult leader except on ADJ’s twitter rant, which means it kind of means nothing in the greater picture of shit posting done there.
Well, even with that, you also have a concept of right or wrong. When somebody treats you unjustly, you also protest and appeal to justice. Don’t give me BS.
It is possible to be both a factual absolutist and a moral absolutist.
In fact, more absolutism follows from factual absolutism: https://www.amazon.com/Universally-Preferable-Behaviour-Rational-Secular-ebook/dp/B004Z81ZD4
Moral relativism is an odious ideology and should not be associated with factual absolutism.
They that attack
are the demonic hive mind
If you’re not with them
you’re against them
and they will attack you
and they will come for you
They are more desperate than ever
to destroy the foundational truths of @Rollo Tomassi Rollo Tomassi
as the entities that possess them are eating them alive
This is the best piece of yours that I’ve ever read. Truly great work.
“When somebody treats you unjustly, you also protest and appeal to justice.”
Trial by Combat does not distinguish right from wrong. It distinguishes winners from losers.
From Anonymous Reader-” It is far easier to monetize ideology than praxology,…”
Easier, just make sure you included the disclaimer at the bottom of the screen at the end of your 30 second commercial stating your results may vary
If you don’t believe the same as they do, then they will demonize you. Welcome to the female social matrix!
This is much too vague to be useful. I’ve heard reality defined as that which exits regardless of any individual’s opinion about it.
Ignorance is inevitable, baked into the nature of reality. We are all ignorant, just about different things.
Willful ignorance, on the other hand . . .
They believe that there is exactly one reality, and that truth is what accurately describes that reality. The better a statement describes reality, the more true it is. They are factual absolutists. (Whoops…premature sendulation. Let me try that again.) This is much too vague to be useful. I’ve heard reality defined as ‘that which exits regardless of any individual’s opinion about it.’ Someone who decides he no longer believes in the laws of physics and leaps out a 10th storey window will not soar into the sky like a bird, but plummet to the ground and die. That’s an objective reality… Read more »
Bravo! Truth seekers will heed the advice of Rollo Tomassi and liberate themselves from life’s avoidable tribulations. Nothing more, nothing less needed.
Leave the twitter-sphere mud slinging to the over quaffed, pomade salesmen.
Rollo, what purity tests have you been accused of implementing? I’ve heard you mention this before. It would be interesting to hear what red pill truths some of your opponents can’t handle.
Plato v Aristotle Interesting that the only intellectual of the mano mano-sphere, who IMO correctly embraces Freud’s framework and rejects Carl Jung’s mysticism, contradictorily negates the idea of rational deduction when it comes to the idea of the Easter Bunny . . err. . . . I mean Santa Clause. . .err . . . I mean. . . .Zeus. . err . . . I mean Apollo. . . err I mean God. Pfft! No, I don’t see any pattern here. The thorough integration of all my knowledge stops at the door of heaven. Why, cuz somebody told me… Read more »
converting the Red Pill to be interpreted as an ideology rather than a praxeology (or a heuristic if you prefer) founded in an objective understanding of intersexual dynamics has been their primary goal.
That seems to be a cornerstone wherever the primary concern is money-making. I have read as much as “theoretical crap” referring to people who try to understand things on a slightly deeper level.
“The only evil is ignorance, and knowledge the only good”
That is a concept of morality and not bad at all.
“Trial by Combat does not distinguish right from wrong. It distinguishes winners from losers.”
So you agree with me. It’s best to win than to lose. Winning- Good. Losing – Bad. This is your concept of morality.
Thank you for clarifying.
“It’s best to win than to lose. Winning- Good. Losing – Bad.”
I neither said nor implied any such thing.
“This is your concept of morality.”
Nice try, but a bit crudely obvious.
This pretty well nails down the inability to agree to disagree by those of “higher moral standards”. You have them wired shut and eating soup with a straw for sure. Except now you are proly a secular humanist with mysoginistic ,racist ,white nationalist and nonmonagamist tendancys. and this means they win again.
Trigger warning: philosophical discussion Rollo has taken a bold step into metaphysics with this post–philosophy, to be precise. “The reason I’m attacked with accusations of enforcing some ideological purity tests for the Red Pill is directly attributable to the mindset of the factual relativists; whose livelihoods are now dependent upon the redefinition of whatever the Hell the “Red Pill” means to them or should mean to those they broadcast it to.” Rollo’s opponents are using rhetoric, not logic; rhetoric is a powerful political weapon. This particular weapon relies on the vagueness of “Red Pill” as they and their audience see… Read more »
I’m 52 and have lived the RP life my entire adulthood. I never thought it could be explained so clearly to help others or even furthermore monetized. It is nothing more than a philosophical way of life based on facts and logic.
This “schism” really is frustration between what exists and what we thought existed.
I suspect for many, the belief or adoption of the Red Pill is part of a promise to one’s-self never to go back to being that beta shlub one was.
Interesting post but more context would be appreciated. I don’t follow the dramas of the manosphere.
walawala This “schism” really is frustration between what exists and what we thought existed. It is a divide between what “is” and what “should be”, for some definition of “should”. This is what gets churchgoing people tied up in knots over the Red Pill / The Glasses, because in their romantic vision women should be pure angels, not earthy girls. Analogy: On travel earlier this year a millennial was driving. We needed to find a fuel station, so up came the phone. Driving down a country road I commented “Most gasoline stations are on big highways, not side roads” but… Read more »
Great post, Rollo. Happy 4th ! Now, onto the issues and to the point: There is no “schism” that I see in the manosphere. There are those who were always red (you, me, others) while many were never redpill to begin with. One of the tenets of the redpill is that you are what you do. What you do on a consistent, daily basis, is who you are. If someone is a Twatter brat (to the point here with the Brit clown who tells his son shit everyday), then how is that someone better, or different, than, say, a video… Read more »
Little Johny’s teacher told him to learn and define the difference between hypothetical and reality.
He asked his dad the difference and dad said go ask your mom if she would have sex with a man for a million dollars,she answered hell yes. His dad said now go ask your sister the same question,the answer was of course.
Dad said the million dollars is hypothetical and the reality is we are just a couple of average guys living with two prostitutes.
there are several comments on both twitter and reddit by a few that ALWAYS want to make red pill truth as conservative thought or outright republican. i reflect back to rollo’s statement that intersexual dynamics should not be associated with politics, race, etc., because as soon as that happens… shit happens. red pill doesn’t belong to any political group. why? it’s because women don’t give a fuck about politics when it comes to their emotions, feelings, or vaginas. it’s hard enough with broads not knowing WTF they want every 5 minutes to conflate all their thought with politics too. they… Read more »
IMO, there is a RP problematic in simultaneously being “factual absolutists” and “moral relativists.” Let the facts rule the day I agree. However, moral relativism is a vagary, a cop-out, and a catch-all for a lack of understanding of occulted knowledge. Nescience can be forgiven. But IGNORE-ance of the satanic implications and consequences of a position of moral relativism is reckless hubris. I am new to TRM and am on board as a so-called praxeology in the name of safely navigating the mine field of cog-psych driven intersexual dynamics. But if that study openly disowns its own moral decisions on… Read more »
Not quite on topic, but nice to see a false rape allegation from 40 years ago, yes, 40 freakin’ years, against Aussie Wolf Creek actor John Jarratt has been thrown out of court. But our feminine-centric society ensures the innocent man is named and the lying female is not… ‘Jarratt’s barrister Greg James, QC, said the woman contacted high-profile sex abuse survivor Sarah Monahan with her allegation about Jarratt, and was put in touch with journalist Tracey Spicer and a journalist from the Herald before she made her statement to police. He described Ms Monahan as “running some sort of… Read more »
@Rollo: very interesting post.
@KFG: great comments as usual.
“Raphael did nice work…Now how would a bot know that?”
It wouldn’t, but could very easily say it anyway. That’s kinda the point of the thing.
I will note, however, that there is something that could be described as “cyborg,” a blending of human and machine capabilities, as all bots are at some level and was the original intent behind creating “artificial electronic brains.”
Not a schism – a revolution. An evolution takes you to a different place; a revolution takes you back to where you started.
By the way, pet ideology (Ride the Tiger) – very droll!
Great stuff here Rollo. As far as demonizing or exalting ideologies in rp comments sections such as these it’s funny to see red pill guys lament “libertarianism.” Because anarchocapitalism in the Rothbardian tradition is red pill economics/red pill human interaction with zero moral stipulation. Using Rollo’s quote above on red pill appraisals being value-free of intergender dynamics, just switch a few words around and you’re properly describing the “libertarianism” so easily mocked around here by blue pill ideologues masquerading as cold hard fact rp dudes. Keep up the great work Rollo the world needs you.
If you don’t want to make your 4th hangover worse, skip this comment, don’t read the image…
Link in case the embed doesn’t work
Trigger warning: philosophy As regards believing…scientists rely heavily on belief…that’s why there are journals…scientists report in journals and other scientists who read the journals believe the reports. It’s the same with Field Reports…men report what we see women do when we do certain things…if several men report seeing the same behavior among women, we men tend to believe the reports, even if we haven’t observed similar behavior by women. So belief is endemic to the Red Pill just like it is to the Blue Pill. We’ve seen different behavior by women…some are slutty and some aren’t. Red Pill and Blue… Read more »
The “Red Pill” — as Rollo uses the term — is absolutely an ideology. An ideology is defined as a “set of normative beliefs”. Rollo has written explicitly numerous times that: (1) ignorance is evil. (2) encouraging people to embrace Red Pill truths is a “good thing”. (3) it is better to have “alpha sex” than be a “beta provider”. These are all explicitly normative statements, without even touching upon things like: (a) how men ought to act in a feminine-primary social order (b) self-improvement (weight-lifting, meditation, fashion/style, pick-up) (c) opposing misandry/legal harm to men (d) preventing male suicide (e)… Read more »
Now at last we know what happened with the Convention cancellation. There was a Theological Schism over Red Pill / Blue Pill / Purple Pill. Rollo asserts a few things, I’m going to accept them because fundamental premises much be accepted or we are wasting time. Rollo Asserts – – Red Pill means – you hold one reality and you are factual absolutist – Blue Pill means – you hold that reality is subjective, and you are factual relativist Ok fair enough, I’ll run with that. What caused this schism is the collision of PUA game “working against, women in… Read more »
“I remember EVERYTHING I read. I’m sure you will dismiss what I wrote as horseshit” My mother once asked my father for an encyclopedia. He responded, “I’ve already read them. If you want to know something, just ask me.” And it worked. He could visually scan shorter documents and then read them later from his memory of the image. I have regressed a bit to the mean and as I understand it there may be as many as several people in the world with my mental abilities. I am, after all, merely human. Shame that, Isis/Ishtar had a great rack.… Read more »
Young Legend, one should learn to act without acting,to affect without effecting and to return to his natural state without forcing convention.
Souls don’t contain knowledge although some believe they carry insight from one life to the next allowing them to chase butterflies with those of lesser intelligence for the fun of it.
Interesting that tell of low tech knowledge as we working men seldom share our trade secrets with the uninitiated. There fore these tech wisdoms are not readily accessible to bots.
Accessibility doesn’t =s interest. Primers are for pumps.
Young Legend, I upvoted your comment because you posted an actual argument, not because I agree with it. You borrowed from Wiki for your definition of “ideology.” Just one sentence more we find this floater in Wiki: In other words, these rely on basic assumptions about reality that may or may not have any factual basis. As I have explained previously and demonstrated previously, everyone has basic assumptions about reality that may or may not be testable. (“Facts” are our beliefs about reality. Poor word choice by the Wiki authors.) One could argue that The Red Pill is about emotion,… Read more »
eternity is supposed to be a long time yet clocks can’t measure it. The internal clock for AI stops and starts with the men that climb poles and work in vaults. Retrain them and lose infrastructure. There is no need to pull the plug as AI will self destruct given time.
Rollo: “The only evil is ignorance, and knowledge the only good” FIFY: “The only evil is ignorance of God, and knowledge of God the only good”
If you are new here you should read more. Start with “War Brides”. The search tool is at the top.
Question: do you know the difference between an ox, a cow and a bull?
Trollbots feed on attention. Stop feeding it.
YoungLegend The “Red Pill” — as Rollo uses the term — is absolutely an ideology. An ideology is defined as a “set of normative beliefs”. What does the word “testable” mean? [By this definition, literally anything can be deemed an ideology. The Scientific Method is an ideology. Math is an ideology. Physics is an ideology because they all have ‘normative beliefs’ inserted into them at some stage. So, the question is, why do factual relativists insist on framing every attempt to objectively understand reality as an ideology? Because it forces a challenging objectivist to play their game by defining what… Read more »
GodlyOx But if that study openly disowns its own moral decisions on the matter of these choices surrounding human relations, that’s a serious flaw in integrity. From my own study of driving in difficult conditions: When driving on an icy road and starting to slide, steer into the skid. Restated: When a drug runner is driving on an icy road and starts to slide, he should steer into the skid. When a police officer is driving on an icy road in pursuit of a drug runner and starts to slide, he should steer into the skid. Driving on ice is… Read more »
“Morality (from the Latin moralitas “manner, character, proper behavior”) is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper . . .” –Infogalactic The sensations of pleasure and pain are states, not intentions, decisions or actions. And even from a radical Utilitarian point of view I could not consider them “good” or “bad” without knowing a considerable amount of context. Pain is not pleasant, but I note that I have spent fifty something or other years playing with fire and band saws, and yet still retain all of my fingers.… Read more »
Some on the other side are thinking ideology and even then I would argue it’s just a mental proxy in their psychology to achieve “power” over others via money/tribalism/etc. The ideology proxy is used to alleviate the cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty in their own psychology to help them keep a positive self image about themselves. With human beings it is always about power over others, if you have achieved mental freedom for yourself via true study and application of the red pill you can choose to wield the power in a more benevolent form or even then not at… Read more »
Overwhelmingly moral relativists are factual relativists.
As a matter of action everyone behaves as though morality is objective and free will exists. The idea that truth does or should matter is an example.
The method of argumentation employed does not actually indicate their premises, but their psychology. Most people are not arguing from premises, or in the sense of logic, arguing at all. They are attempting to persuade and/or win.
““good” or “bad” and in context of morality find the use of those particular words as nonsensical.”
Good and evil have to do with ethics, not morality. Simplified it for you.
“They are attempting to persuade and/or win.”
They are using rhetoric.
Anonymous reader responded — [[The “Red Pill” — as Rollo uses the term — is absolutely an ideology. An ideology is defined as a “set of normative beliefs”. What does the word “testable” mean?]] [By this definition, literally anything can be deemed an ideology. The Scientific Method is an ideology. Math is an ideology. Physics is an ideology because they all have ‘normative beliefs’ inserted into them at some stage. So, the question is, why do factual relativists insist on framing every attempt to objectively understand reality as an ideology? Because it forces a challenging objectivist to play their game… Read more »
Only someone who is clueless about what science is would speak about “The Scientific Method” ™ as if it were a real thing.
Perhaps some examples would be foundational for grammar (facts), logic (understanding), then rhetoric (wisdom): http://theredpillroom.blogspot.com/2014/05/red-pill-roles-praxeology-of-dominant.html “Ideologies are belief systems which hold up ideals – moral, ethical, social – as standards by which to live or guide us. Humanism, Marxism, Christianity, and the Boy Scout Law are all ideologies of various sorts. They establish lofty goals toward which we aspire, celebrating unifying beliefs that, theoretically, guide our purposes.” “Praxeologies, on the other hand, are not systems of belief, they are systems of practice. They are not concerned with whether or not something lives up to a preconceived ideal, they are concerned… Read more »
Rollo < blockquote>[By this definition, literally anything can be deemed an ideology. The Scientific Method is an ideology. Math is an ideology. Physics is an ideology because they all have ‘normative beliefs’ inserted into them at some stage. So, the question is, why do factual relativists insist on framing every attempt to objectively understand reality as an ideology? Because it forces a challenging objectivist to play their game by defining what truth ‘ought’ to mean to them both and the ‘debate’ proceeds from there.] The definition offered by YoungLegend is incomplete, it is exactly the error you wrote about in… Read more »
YoungLegend Have you read Hume (is/ought distinction) or are you just constructing a straw man argument? The issue at hand — as was clearly stated — is Rollo’s definition and usage of the “TRP”. Rollo, after al First of all, learn how to keep attributions separated and clear. WordPress does not use [ ] brackets for HTML, it uses < > brackets. The usual simples for italics “i”, bold “b” and blockquote “blockquote” apply. This is bold, this is italics and this is blockquote If you need more help there are sites online with basic information. Search and find. Second,… Read more »
Anonymous reader —
You are just one of those wonderful people who never lose an internet debate. I like you.
(1-3) and (a-whatever) are all obvious examples of NORMATIVE claims that are all central to Rollo’s version of the TRP. The guy literally used the word “evil” in reference to ignorance in this very comment section.
Anyway, thanks Rollo – your TRP helped me. I’ll give you 3.7% credit for my legendary notch count. Is that “testable”?
Fine irony. I instruct YoungLegend on proper attribution then commit an HTML fail. Repost: Rollo (in blockquote and bold) [By this definition, literally anything can be deemed an ideology. The Scientific Method is an ideology. Math is an ideology. Physics is an ideology because they all have ‘normative beliefs’ inserted into them at some stage. So, the question is, why do factual relativists insist on framing every attempt to objectively understand reality as an ideology? Because it forces a challenging objectivist to play their game by defining what truth ‘ought’ to mean to them both and the ‘debate’ proceeds from… Read more »
But…BUT…if there’s no Santa Claus then there’s NO CHRISTMAS!!!!
“Praxis, doing, can be tested empirically. Water boils at 212 degrees F / 100 degrees C at sea level. A Communist at sea level in Asia and a Catholic Christian at sea level in Italy and a Libertarian Atheist at sea level in North America will all get the same results, regardless of whatever faith / morality / etc. they believe in.”
Have you actually tested your claim, or are you, as I suspect, merely keyboard jockeying?
To the peanut gallery…if anyone claims something is a praxology, they should actually have practiced it, including testing the temperature at which water boils at sea level on all continents.
If I were to make a praxology about water boiling, I would tell you to boil it yourself wherever you are and measure the temperature at which it boils. That is a praxology, not what AR is doing–keyboard jockeying about the temperature at which water boils. My praxology would work at sea level or in Denver, the Mile High city.
Some of you all don’t know shit from shinola.
If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to observe someone observing it, it makes no praxeology.
“So, the question is, why do factual relativists insist on framing every attempt to objectively understand reality as an ideology? Because it forces a challenging objectivist to play their game by defining what truth ‘ought’ to mean to them both and the ‘debate’ proceeds from there.” IME “factual relativists” operate from the more popular political perceptions of the day. To them the greater the number of believers is what decides the facts. For example there are women combat soldiers ( this is promoted as public knowledge in their favorite religious monthly with a slant towards attracting- appeasing women) therefore women… Read more »
ASD,you should include a barometer in your testing instruments. Then you can even take it a step further by controlling the environment in containment and adding or subtracting pressure.
This is common knowledge for “Joe the plumber”.
wahoo McDaniels For example there are women combat soldiers ( this is promoted as public knowledge in their favorite religious monthly with a slant towards attracting- appeasing women) therefore women can do whatever men can do. The fact that they lowered the bar on the skills required for women isn’t mentioned,nor should it ever be as it isn’t popular to mention unfair play or differing rules. It’s actually worse than that. There are women in sandboxes and the ‘Stans at forward bases who have an issued M4, but their MOS is not a combat MOS. They might be part of… Read more »
SilverFox Not quite on topic, but nice to see a false rape allegation from 40 years ago, yes, 40 freakin’ years, against Aussie Wolf Creek actor John Jarratt has been thrown out of court. First off, good to see you again. Doing ok? Still out in the countryside, or moving around? Taking it into court was surely a mistake. Was there a statute of limitations involved? Notice that PoundMeToo in the US has concentrated mainly on the “court” of public social media, especially Twitter – no rules of evidence or punishments for lying, so it’s all good. I assume that… Read more »
Here’s an idea: replace “moral relativism” with “moral individualism” (I mean that in the protestant-priesthood-of-all-believers sense / each person is the arbiter of their own morality), and/or replace ‘moral absolutism” with “moral universalism” and see how the arguments change.
It seems that folks are getting caught up in semantics. The substance of what Rollo is saying is that TRP isn’t a moral system, it’s a system aimed at achieving certain results. In that way it can be compared to a securities trading system, or an investment system or what have you — in each of those cases there are practices that are considered “good” in the sense that they further the goal, lower risk/etc., and other practices that are considered “bad” in the sense that they make the goal harder to achieve and/or more risk. Those “good” and “bad”… Read more »
“It seems that folks are getting caught up in semantics.”
Certainly, that is the subject and prediction of the article.
It’s not only philosophical differences.
They may very well be biological ones. As in brain differences.
Now watch out for this guy, he’s pretty asshurt as far as content creators go.
But this video I agree with.
I respect your position Rollo and agree that the idea that the ‘Manosphere’ (or at least this blog) should limit itself to the discussion of facts, the discovery of factual truth and encouraging men to accept and internalise such truth. It will only become more difficult to do this going forward and an explicit ‘declaration of independence’ of sorts now (as stated here and reiterated from time to time) would go a long way towards ensuring this. We are forgetful creatures after all and the odd reminder is good, especially since not all of us are at the same ‘stage’… Read more »
Yollo Comanche, good point on the mental differences. I have dealt with many people that couldn’t form a vision in their mind of the finished product from plans and engineering. IMO these are the hardest people to deal with and involve the most change orders.
@Novaseeker, while I get your point about investment strategies the differences are greater than you imply. It’s not just “Blue Pill investing bans buying stock in tobacco companies” moral position. No, the BP “investing” requires one to believe things that are not true, and are even harmful to the investor. Imagine a mutual fund where the managers refuse to admit that price / earnings and annual dividend are at all significant in analysis of stock. Or where prior performance of a stock over a full business cycle was totally off limits for discussion. Or where past bond defaults couldn’t be… Read more »
@Max Cantor “One of the tenets of the redpill is that you are what you do.” “What you do on a consistent, daily basis, is who you are.” The Blue pill belief system is totally compatible with both of your statements Your statements have NOTHING to do with intersexual dyanmics. Self development is not the red pill or an understanding of intersexual dyanmics. A person can live ANY life. They can improve daily and have a perfect regime of improvement in all areas that affect his status, resources, personal life and SMV, yet have DEEPLY held beliefs that are ENTRENCHED… Read more »
25% are the chances of not being it, not of being it.
What about the dad and the son? They wouldn’t have sex for 1 million $, or are male prostitutes?
Meanwhile in the Netherlands: Female applicants will receive priority consideration for faculty positions at Eindhoven University of Technology for at least 18 months. […] Under the programme, all faculty vacancies must first be opened to women alone. Female recruits will receive mentoring and an extra €100,000 (US$113,400) in laboratory start-up funds. Baaijens and a committee will consider exceptions for stellar male candidates. But otherwise, men will be permitted to apply only if a suitable female candidate has not been found after six months. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01998-7 LOL white knights gonna whiteknight. Reminds me of: Our community must face the difficult truth that… Read more »
More LOLs from that Eindhoven article:
Another pathology piggybacking to get normalized. Slowly boiling that frog.
TT,LOL you could fill a book with little johnny jokes. When I was 10 little johnny moved in next door to us,he was 7. I went out to play with johnny one day and he pops off with,”your mom doesn’t have any boobers.” I said ? “what are boobers”? he says “follow me” and we go into his house and he points at his mom’s tits and says “those are boobers!” And they were the biggest tits I had ever seen to date. She promptly yelled at us to go outside and we did posthaste. Then I explained to him… Read more »
Nah just put “woman” on the passport and hide your phone.
Great article, one of your best IMO. I was debating a friend about evo-psych and he said it’s wrong because it’s “misogynistic.” That basically sums up the argument of all Blue Pillers. And ALL women who act Hypergamously, which is de-facto immoral by their Blue Pill standards, ONLY do so because they’re “damaged” or were victims of severe child abuse and attachment disorders. ONLY severely damaged, abused women would leave their husbands if their husbands were not physically abusive or drug addicts/alcoholics/etc. ONLY severely damaged, abused women would sleep with a guy on the first date/meeting. ONLY severely damaged, abused… Read more »
You’re especially wise at the end. This obsession with intersectionality along the wokesters means an attack on one (or even questioning one) means an attack on all, so the sphere and red pill thinking should focus only on intersexual dynamics.
If the conversation spills over into government policy, nationalism, race, etc, it’ll face ten times more distractions.
Let’s keep the focus on the red pill. We discuss other ideas in other venues.
Keep it up, Rollo!
@theasdgamer — Moving on from analytic philosophy and into a broader discussion of “ideology” — Do you consider “women’s studies” a legitimate science or social activism built around feminist ideology? Three common empirical claims made in women’s studies literature: (1) One in four college women are sexual assault victims. (2) Women are paid 77 cents on the dollar to men for the same work. (3) Two hundred million women worldwide are the victims of FGM. Common slogans in women’s studies courses nation-wide: (a) Smash the patriarchy. (b) #KillAllMen (c) #MeToo (d) My body, my right. (e) Only weak men fear… Read more »
The Praxeological Axiom: Humans engage in purposeful behavior The Action Axiom: If a condition holds, then the following should be done These are logical premises, similar to the Scientific Axiom: Dat shit don’ happen by magic. They are axioms because they cannot be proven within the dependent logical systems themselves. The Scientific Axiom is literally meta-physics. If anyone misuses these axioms to build an ideology, that’s on them. “Dat shit falls when you drop it,” is not an ideology. It’s an observation. Of course you might not hold to the Cartesian Axiom, but then there’s no point in paying any… Read more »
@theasdgamer Well, for there to be a meeting of minds there should be minds to begin with lol. Each of the sexes has developed what was mostly in demand from the other sex, men clearly have never been interested in their partner having a mind — just like women have never been interested in “honesty” if honesty is to mean something beyond a deceptive dress of honesty + disposition to take their orders and be of material/economic use to them and their family (“He should love not only me, but also my family” translated for you). I don’t think that… Read more »
“Great article, one of your best IMO. I was debating a friend about evo-psych and he said it’s wrong because it’s “misogynistic.””
In our time where basically all the (largely followed) media answer to the same centre of power and pursue the same agenda, the standard rule as to human culture (90% of men and even more women are culturally programmed) got an update to an even more disquieting 90% of men and even more women are culturally programmed with the same cast.
You sure came around fast.