“The Believers” vs. The Empiricists

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.

Published by Rollo Tomassi

Author of The Rational Male and The Rational Male, Preventive Medicine

260 comments on ““The Believers” vs. The Empiricists

  1. There is now no way to convince women, jews, and immigrants that they are not, in fact, going to take over America.

    It was always going to end this way, folks. If America was going to become the global egalitarian country, this outcome could not be prevented. Everybody has to get their piece of the pie, by hook or crook.

    America is becoming the first country to become completely non-exclusive, except in purely monetary terms (if you’ve got the dollars, you can play!). So an American born male today working an average job is actually valued less than the athlete or rapper black or the immigrant who comes in with their millions. Notice, too, that the rich white men side with money, and do not take sides based on race or nationality.

    We are in endgame right now, men. Not 20 or 50 or 100 years from now, but right now.

  2. I was listening TTS, when a commenter’s spelling rendered the word as “Sole-is-lipstick”. If he ever monetizes like “Dream”, whose soap can apparently wash away beta stink, Rollo could market lipstick under this trademark. How about hypergamy red! It would be a great gift for wives and girlfriends and be a reminder to men as to women’s nature. Great thread–really enjoying the intense back and forth.

  3. @Bryan

    Why would I want to help the Cracker Sanhedrin groom my “brothers” for the Simpolympics?

    Those pieces of shit got their nipples in a vice over losing tax-exempt status.

    They’re the real cause of all the shit they complain about.

    The West is “dying” for their little ingroup. More at 11.

  4. OT:

    Someone has made a pretentious version of the clay pot I have previously described here:

    https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/PJaCcZIm2ZnlIcQI1ZOAqFqQySc=/0x0:2000×1333/1200×0/filters:focal(0x0:2000×1333):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/18279210/WhatNot2019_BaohuaSheng_AC_02.jpg

    ” Baohua Sheng, a student at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, designed an analog air conditioner that used evaporative cooling for an exhibition that explores obsolescence. Courtesy Whatnot Studio”

    Of course it’s not actually an air conditioner, It’s a water cooler that would make the air in a room hotter and damper until equilibrium was reached and I haven’t got a clue what a “digital” air conditioner might be.

  5. Sorry Rollo but philosophy isn’t your strong suit, and your Gen X is showing.

    It IS a schism along what the facts are.

    Does objective morality exist is a factual question, it is either true or false.
    Does God exist is a factual question, it is either true or false.

    They ARE saying that YOU are out of touch with reality because God and morality DO exist in reality. And there are plenty of rational arguments for God’s existence, any naming calling at theists can just be turned around at the atheist for their beliefs to avoid judgment in an afterlife.

    And even assuming atheism, you don’t play out nihilism to its true end state. The question of why will keep coming up. Why learn game and get genuine desire from women? Evolution? Sugar tastes good to our evolved senses but we don’t have to fight bees anymore to get it, is buying sugar at the store breaking the rules? Tasting good and feeling good are just chemicals in the brain, why not just simplify the process and get the brain chemicals.

    This is why the only real paths forward, are the ones that have a why.

    MGTOW, just get the brain chemicals and feel good however you want.
    Moralizing, there is objective right and wrong.

    The half way measure of “there is no morality, but these rules are better because you get the special title of Alpha from some people…” won’t last.

  6. @AnonS:

    So what you are saying is that you didn’t understand the article at all.

    Hint: As a percentage of their demographic there are more atheists in the moral absolute camp as Rollo has described them here than theists. See “Lysenkoism.”

  7. AnonS
    Sorry Rollo but philosophy isn’t your strong suit, and your Gen X is showing.

    Huh?
    Did you read the original essay at all?

  8. The churchgoing blue pill true believers are very much like the philosophers who insisted the Earth is the center of the universe.

    “Here, look through this telescope” — “NO! [claps hands over eyes] I WON’T”

    Women are not angels nor are they men with boobs, no matter how loudly these lies are told by the foolish, the ignorant and the liars.

    Women are not demons nor are they mysterious creatures of infinite depth no one can see into, no matter how loudly these fears are screamed by the MGTOW.

    They are all girls.

  9. “very much like the philosophers who insisted the Earth is the center of the universe.”

    Ptolemy and Aristotle used the empirical evidence they had and concluded this. In a sense, they were correct. All you have to do is assume a rotating frame of reference around the earth’s polar axis and the math works out. So they weren’t wrong.

    You need to come up with a better example.

    “Women are not angels nor are they men with boobs, no matter how loudly these lies are told by the foolish, the ignorant and the liars.”

    Not that long ago, the default assumption that women weren’t sluts had lots of empirical evidence. The Old Set of Books weren’t wrong. The problem is that the OSoB are now obsolete. Women aren’t all sluts either–I can find groups of girls who don’t party or ride the CC. I’d be hard pressed to find anyone pushing the OSoB, knowing that they are obsolete. Lots of churchians are unaware that they are obsolete. The OSoB has a lot of inertia behind it.

  10. @AnonS

    Only a God could know that there be, or there be not, Gods.
    It suits a human best to say he doesn’t know, I think.

  11. @ Rollo, this may sound stupid being spoken to a guy who makes his living through art and branding. However, you should return to your previous website design that was gray, used the RM logo and had elements that echoed the design of your book covers. The sepia color scheme makes the page look like a faded wanted poster. The elk logo doesn’t seem in sync with the message. After all, this is a game animal hunted for sport. Maybe it’s a joke that I don’t get. Like the Bambi joke that goes, “If I’m the M’f-king Prince of the forest, why is everyone always shooting at my ass.”

    It sort of echos the Field Reports picture which strangely depicts a lioness chasing down a male antelope. Intentional or inadvertent, this is very funny to me. As it seems to say that females are the real predators hunting down males, and men are deluding themselves. Years ago I shared that it was my wife’s claim that once she had decided to hunt me down, regardless of time or obstacles, nothing was going to stop her from achieving her goal.

    Also, you should discontinue using the sunglasses and beanie-wearing gray-beard pictures. Someone said you looked like the unabomber, and I have to agree. I could understand, back when you were trying to obscure your identity, but you presented a polished, clean-shaven dapper appearance in online videos that better fits the sophistication of your writings and message. Sunglasses, shaved face and a stylish hat of some description would be a better image. Anyway free advice–take it for what it’s worth.

    @ Novaseeker, I remember when my daughter was awaiting her acceptance letter. I was thinking OK, New York City, DC, Miami, but please God not Kaskogie. Rip, “Dad, my letter says I’m a solid 7.5 and I can live in Washington, DC.” I was thinking those ballet lessons paid off. Relief, no long trips to Kaskogie to visit her.

    @ O.B.I.T. “You don’t see any 9s because they’re all in the sack with Scribbler.” Damn you, Sir! You caused me to burst out laughing in a quiet doctor’s waiting room.

  12. @Blaximus

    “Exactly what does ” Alpha ” have to do with morality? Please elaborate.”

    Assuming objective morality. Alpha is a quality of desirability, the morality of it depends on other factors.

    The desirability of the “Alpha” could be based on immoral behavior. The serial killer getting fan mail, the cult leader.

    The desirability in the desirer could be immoral. The women placing priority on her own feelings over the damage to others.

    Is the fact that it could be hardwired remove moral considerations? No. We blame men for following beauty to destruction, women that follow “Alpha” to destruction (single mothers) are deserving of blame.

    Are men better at slowing down and being rational then women? Of course, that is why women are the weaker vessel and belong under patriarchy (most of human history).

  13. @If-I-Fell
    Laughter is the best medicine.
    And I agree, Rollo can do better than that particular photo. He looks like the bad guys in the home alarm-system commercials

  14. @AnonS
    “Assuming objective morality.”

    Wtf?

    Once again, did you even read the original post?

    What are you actually arguing for?

    https://blacklabellogic.com/2016/04/13/on-the-subject-of-morality/

    https://blacklabellogic.com/2019/07/12/truth-and-reality/#more-4416

    Morality is to a large degree subjective, even though most of us can agree on a certain number of points such as not stealing, killing and raping. By large morality deals with acceptable human interaction, some people view taxation as good, some as theft. Some view minimum wages, labor unions and employee welfare regulations as good things, some view them as government intrusion into the right of individuals to negotiate their deals freely.

    Meaning is perhaps even more subjective, in that if you view it as synonymous with Maslow’s “Self-actualization” in the top of the Hierarchy of needs, as you move of the hierarchy you move from highly objective (we all need food, shelter etc) to highly subjective “What makes you feel like you have made the most of your life and your gifts?”

    This is no different than when one tries to create a religion or ideology based on “The Red Pill of Intersexual Dynamics“, it becomes a mixture of “Is” and “ought” because an ideology or a religion always contains subjective elements to a large degree. Even two comparable ideologies can have differences in terms of their preference on various scales including taxes, and public services.

    In my view “The Red Pill” needs to remain firmly within “Is”, as in determining the reality of intersexual dynamics. Based on that truth, men can develop strategies and tactics for navigating the sexual market place. Most men want and need better, more fulfilling relationships with women regardless of race, creed, economic policy, political philosophy, religion and much else. Bundling the red pill with political philosophy, religion, economical preferences, race and so on will have 2 effects:

    A) It limits the persuasiveness vis-a-vis men who do not share those preferences. Let’s be honest, does anyone need the red pill more desperately than progressive white knights?

    B) It reduces “Truth and Facts of intersexual dynamics” to “Truthiness and “facts” of intersexual dynamics”. It goes from biology to gender studies.

    Is this really what we want?

  15. Good essay, and it reminds me of someone’s recent conversion to “The God Pill,” and banning all talk of fornication on his forum.

    He started writing about Game and travel, with some success.

    After he got slapped a little by the media, he tried “Neomasculinity” as a hook, which failed.

    Then into hard right wing politics.

    Now it’s religion. Either going nuts, or listened to L. Ron Hubbard’s adage that starting a religion is one of the quickest ways to get rich.

  16. “it becomes a mixture of “Is” and “ought” because an ideology or a religion always contains subjective elements to a large degree.”

    …or even, you know, things like evo-psych…

    …everybody makes mistakes, but this is shoddy thinking…thinking that we can ever be truly objective is silly…theory preference is often based on irrational things like a preference for simplicity or beauty…haven’t people learned anything from postmodernism???

  17. @AnonS

    “Is the fact that it could be hardwired remove moral considerations? No. We blame men for following beauty to destruction, women that follow “Alpha” to destruction (single mothers) are deserving of blame.”

    What do you mean by “destruction?”

    I’m also curious why you care about societal morality.

  18. I’m on your side in terms of a primary orientation to factual reality, and keeping the Red Pill non ideological. For the same reason that discussion about climate change science should be non ideological too, but usually isn’t. However I don’t agree this makes us “moral relativists”. We can and should judge a morality by how closely it aligns to reality. A morality that’s derived from the world as it really is helps us greatly in navigating the world. A morality that departs from, or worse purposefully evades reality will only lead to failure if we try to implement it. Making that judgement of what’s a good and bad morality shouldn’t be the focus of the Red Pill, but as individuals we must make that judgment.

  19. @MarkT:

    What happens when reality (i.e. the environment) changes?

    And what happens when you have millions of humans running around interpreting their reality via a priori ideology and selfishness and safety for them and their children?

    And said humans are social beings?

    Let’s you and him Fight?

  20. @kfg

    A proper morality is derived from fundamental laws of reality and human nature. These generally don’t change. Fundamental principles can handle a wide degree of variance in the details and still apply. A good morality is simply a good principle applied to human conduct.

    Secondly, every morality applies within a certain context. Go outside of that context and it no longer applies.

    A simple example: the moral principle that you should not lie and act with honesty in dealing with others. I would argue that is a principle that follows directly from the issues Rollo has raised in this post. For the most part this should guide us in all our interactions, regardless of the details or a changing environment. Not primarily because we owe it to others, but we owe it to ourselves to stay oriented to the truth, and not enter an Alice in Wonderland world where reality becomes blurred. The context however is a civilised society where we get to choose who we interact with, and we are protected from force from others. If someone for instance bursts into your home with a gun and demands knowledge of where your family are hiding, you have no obligation to tell them, and shouldn’t hesitate resorting to deception if it helps get them out of your house or arrested.

  21. </ A proper morality is derived from fundamental laws of reality and human nature.

    The effects of drinking alcohol on humans are known. It’s pretty basic physiology. No morality is involved in the effects on heart rate, pupil dilation, cognition, etc. As with the Red Pill, the effects are what they are.

    Is it moral to drink alcohol? Why or why not?

  22. A proper morality is derived from fundamental laws of reality and human nature.

    Is hypergamy “moral” ? Why or why not?

  23. @SJF

    You put in place a system of government that bans the initiation of physical force, a police force / military to protect you, and a legal/court system to decide disputes when matters of fact are disputed. Western Civilisation owes its greatness because for a while we came close to approximating something like this.

  24. @ Anonymous

    Hypergamy is neither moral nor immoral, it simply is. But a women’s response to that innate tendency can be either moral or immoral, as can a man’s reaction to it.

  25. @Yollo

    Suffrage, or even the rationality of voters generally doesn’t matter if you enshrine individual rights within your founding document, and put it beyond the vote. That was the intent of the US Constitution. It helped make the US the most successful country ever, but it wasn’t perfect, and allowed the encroachment of numerous ideas hostile to its founding principles.

  26. @ Anonymous (on alcohol)

    A good morality in my view doesn’t take the Ten Commandments approach of applying blanket rules without context. It provides a framework of principles to help you make the right decision in a given context. Alcohol can have both negative (health) and positive (enjoyment) effects. It’s up to every individual to find the right balance in the context of their body and lifestyle. It becomes immoral if either:

    Excessive consumption is clearly endangering (to a significant degree) the life of yourself or others, or
    You try to force your own individual choice on others – eg: the recovering alcoholic who can’t manage their own consumption and tries to ban it for everyone.

  27. Mark T

    You put in place a system of government that bans the initiation of physical force,

    Gary Johnson called, but i can’t understand the message he left for you.

  28. It is interesting how this topic brings out the ankle biters in various forms. Not just the religious ones such as Bnonn and Foster, but also True Believers of this and that. I keep looking at the pingbacks / links to this essay and finding ultra-low traffic blogs of one sort or another….

    Some people can’t understand that portions of the physical universe are amoral – not good, not bad, just “is”. This gets amped up by a factor of 1,000 when women are involved, because of Blue Pill pedestalization.

    “Steer into the skid on ice” doesn’t care who is driving. It just works. Why is this concept difficult?

  29. @SJF

    You put in place a system of government that bans the initiation of physical force, a police force / military to protect you, and a legal/court system to decide disputes when matters of fact are disputed. Western Civilisation owes its greatness because for a while we came close to approximating something like this.

    Yes, Western Civilization owes it greatness to ideology.

    Thanks for that memo.

    Does nothing for the bottoms up approach. And it is limiting for anyone individual male.

  30. @SJF

    I mean, I could virtue signal by saying, in one way or another, “I doan need no steenkeeng ideology.” We men seem to need ideologies of one sort or another, however. But if someone else’s ideology smells funny, we bash him for being “ideological.”

  31. I didn’t enter the comments with the intent of pushing a particular ideology. I was asked specific questions, and it wasn’t possible to answer them without touching on where I think the truth lies. But in a way this makes my original point: you can’t escape ideology. If you believe truth comes first before any ideology or morality (as you should), that in itself requires a particular belief system and morality to support. An ideology can be either hostile to the truth (as most are – eg: feminism), or it can be consistent with the truth – and its up to all of us to judge those belief systems accordingly – not to dismiss ideology per se and be “moral relativists” – where you’re essentially throwing your hands in the air and saying there is no right or wrong. We don’t all have to agree what right or wrong is exactly (and I agree with Rollo that can become a distraction to Red Pill truths), but we do at least have to acknowledge it’s existence.

  32. Downvotes on intelligent posts reminds me of a joke…

    I texted my friends that I lost my cell and would they please call my number…12 people called. I need to get smarter friends.

  33. MarkT
    But in a way this makes my original point: you can’t escape ideology. If you believe truth comes first before any ideology or morality (as you should), that in itself requires a particular belief system and morality to support.

    1 kilogram = 2.2 pounds (approximately).

    Where’s the ideology? Which unit of mass is more moral, kilograms or pounds?

    -40 C = -40 F

    Where’s the ideology? Which is more moral, Centigrade or Fahrenheit units of temperature?

  34. @ Anonymous

    Last try. Neither degrees C or F is more moral than the other. Living in NZ where C is used seems more logical to me, because freezing is 0 and 100 is boiling – nice round numbers. But either way they’re both ways of measuring the same thing. Throwing a virgin sacrifice into a pot of boiling water, and gauging temperature by how loudly they scream would be immoral. As would in my view trying to measure temperature by a non rational / mystical means when there’s a scientific method available.

    That you can’t divorce an ‘is’ from an ‘ought’ is common sense if you think clearly about it. With Red Pill knowledge for instance (the ‘is’) we can readily conclude that some ideologies are invalid or immoral (eg: modern feminism) – and that we ‘ought’ to dismiss those ideologies. Are you saying we can pass no moral judgement on radical feminists for instance? If not, then tell me how we can pass moral judgement if we’re all ‘moral relativists’?

  35. Mark T

    Last try. Neither degrees C or F is more moral than the other.

    […]

    That you can’t divorce an ‘is’ from an ‘ought’ is common sense if you think clearly about it.

    Lol. Self contradict much?

    Question:
    Which temperature measurement ought to be more correct, or more moral?

    Answer myself, because you cannot:
    The temperature “is” what the measuring device reports. It “is” not inherently “good” or “bad”, it just “is”.

    The temperature of a hot spring is neither moral nor immoral, it is simply a number somewhere greater than that of ice and lesser than superheated (superheated hot springs are generally called “geysers”). There is no “ought” in the hot spring, no matter how much you may feel or truly believe that there ought be one, for the sake of some morality or other.

    I wonder, is T.D. Lysenko a hero of yours?

  36. With Red Pill knowledge for instance (the ‘is’) we can readily conclude that some ideologies are invalid or immoral (eg: modern feminism) – and that we ‘ought’ to dismiss those ideologies.

    You are conflating fact with opinion. There’s your problem.

    Fact and opinion are not the same thing. Hypergamy is a fact. Monkey branching is a fact. The cock carousel is a fact.

    Stating that hypergamy or monkey branching or the cock carousel is “bad” or “immoral” is an opinion. Hypergamy itself is a fact.

    It is good to base opinions on facts rather than feelze, but conflating the two is an error. The facts don’t care about feelze.

  37. @ Anon – I have no idea what on earth you’re saying, or why you even disagree with me. Except that you seem to be projecting your own confusions onto something I believe I’ve stated very clearly.

  38. With Red Pill knowledge for instance (the ‘is’) we can readily conclude that some ideologies are invalid or immoral (eg: modern feminism) – and that we ‘ought’ to dismiss those ideologies.

    Your “ought” does not necessarily follow from the Red Pill that “is”. Here again is your problem.

    I shall illustrate:
    Given Red Pill reality, a pair of The Glasses that enables a man to see clearly what is around him — female hypergamy, the cock carousel, AF – BB, settling after 27, monkey branching, cougaring, etc. there is more than one response possible. Let’s look at just two.

    Chad the Cad: sees clearly what women actually are, has a dwelling within walking distance of the local campus bar scene but also close enough to a suburban mall. He is “poolside”, living through decline with enjoyment by maintaining a soft harem of two or three college girls plus a bored housewife or two. He doesn’t mind feminism, in fact it’s kind of useful to him because it means a continuous supply of college girls far from home, single women / divorcees with their own money and bored married women who have some sort of job or volunteer thing that gets them out of the house and into his sphere of operations.

    This is what the cultural and religious conservatives point to. “See! See! He’s just using women! Misognyist! Bitter Red Piller!” although the girls don’t mind him that much…

    Determined Dad also sees clearly what women actually are. Maybe he didn’t know much a few years ago, but after marrying and going through a pregnancy or two, he found the Red Pill / Glasses trying to “fix” his wife from perpetual “MOM” back to the girl he married. He’s wise in the ways of women, and knows that his wife needs to be Gamed for fun and profit. As a result he’s more visible to women than the beaten down betas around him – especially in churches – so he sees the IOI’s that women drop around him, but it’s just information that he’s maintaining his Frame ok. He keeps a close leash on his children, and is already explaining to his daughter that being married is a great thing and to his son that being a father is also great. He opposes feminism because it’s based on lies and harms men and their children.

    If he’s in a church, he is always working to feed some of the red pill to other men. He opposes feminism by his actions mainly, rarely by words.

    Same set of facts, same “Is”, different “ought”. Some will argue that Chad is immoral, some will argue that he’s realistic and that Dad is just a sucker who is preserving the ugly status quo. I’ve seen both and more, but that’s not the point.

    The Red Pill is not ideology, it is praxology. It is a way of seeing, doing and relating. What a man does with that knowledge is up to him, and if one wishes to get into morality, that’s the place to begin, with his actions, not with the Red Pill knowledge..

    You are wrong.

  39. MarkT
    I have no idea what on earth you’re saying, or why you even disagree with me.

    I’m agreeing with Rollo: the Red Pill is not ideology. “Is” and “ought” are not synonyms. No matter how hard “true believers” wish to pretend, they are not the same word.

    Except that you seem to be projecting your own confusions onto something I believe I’ve stated very clearly.

    You stated this very clearly:
    That you can’t divorce an ‘is’ from an ‘ought’ is common sense if you think clearly about it.

    This is false. Demonstrably false, it is an illustration of the “true believer” mindset Rollo laid out in the OP.

    Praxology is not ideology.

  40. “A proper morality is derived from fundamental laws of reality and human nature”

    Says who? Karl Marx? Your shitty rationalism has long been debunked. You can’t derive morality from anything. And morality is always externally imposed and oppresses people in a society.

    Now ethics allows for freedom and differs vastly from morality in that it is freely chosen.

  41. “Is hypergamy seen in any animals?”

    Sure, to one degree or another. A lot of primates, for instance. Go figure.

    “Why . . .”

    Because it’s an effective species reproductive strategy in some niches.

    ” . . . or why not?”

    Because it is less effective in some other niches. Rabbits and mice, for instance, get killed off so fast they just have to concentrate on making babies as fast as they can.

  42. Pingback: Rise Above

Speak your mind

%d bloggers like this: