Well, the denizens of Reddit’s TOTALLY ALPHA Red Pill subreddit have weighed in on the stolen celebrity nude pics that have so many Redditors — and other skeezballs — so excited. And they have some, well, intriguing explanations for why feminists are troubled by the widespread dissemination of stolen nude pictures that were never supposed to be seen by the general public.
In a thread with the lovely title Why are the feminazis so buttdevastated about the leaked nude pics?, a RedPill dude with the lovely handle trpmdsrfggts explains that said feminazis are angry because the pics — some of which show the celebrity women looking like, you know, actual women — are driving down the “price of pussy.”
I’ll let him explain, because his logic is obviously more sophisticated than anything I learned in my pussy economics classes in college:
Wow. That seems completely ass-backwards to me, but what do I know? I’m just a beta or gamma or epsilon or pi or whatever Greek letter it is that dudes like me are.
Others in the thread expand upon this, er, argument. I’m just going to paste some of their comments in, because, honestly, trying to parse their “logic” in order to think of funny things to say about them hurts my brain. (Clicking on any of these pics will get you to the original quote in context.)
Oh, there’s more, so much more, but that’s about all I have time for now, as I need to get back to poppin bottles and, you know, doing whatever else I can to keep up the price of pussy, because, as a male feminist, that’s obviously job number one for me.
It wasn’t Fibinachi who broke my brain. It was TRPs.
Fibinachi is more in the nature of an emergency brain resuscitator.
Buttercup Q. Skullpants, as horible that might sound that what thought they were trying to get at. Now I feel dirty…
My favorite part of this is their complete inability to grasp the fact that no, actually, women can feel violated by the idea of being seen naked by randoms without their consent, or worried that they’ll be the next woman that will happen to, without it being part of some giant conspiracy where we somehow hoard our own body parts for fun and profit like Scrooge McDuck.
Where can I get an assessment? I need to know the current value of my pussy, thanks.
Tracy, I do think they realize it and they are seriously pissed off about it.
justabrowngirl – Well, that’s basically what they’re saying…”Neener neener, we got to see boobies for free! Not so special and unattainable now, are you, ladies?”
So, I guess we’re supposed to band together and form a cartel or something.
Oh! I just now caught sight of that handy little trick.
See, I’ve been under the impression that I’ve knowingly (ever since I was a child) despised seeing people publicly humiliated. Felt massively uncomfortable with female bodies being objectified on tv, in movies, in ads, in offhand comments I wasn’t supposed to hear- long before ever coming across the word “objectification”.
But really, it’s been an unconscious reaction to the value of my pussy lowering. Sorry, guys, I thought I actually knew what my own feelings were for a second.
Part of the problem here is that since they don’t feel any empathy for women they don’t understand that most other women, and a fair number of men, actually do.
If I were these guys, I’d be hoping and praying their vaunted economic theory wasn’t true.
Because: Women can live independently, and there has been a scadload of research done on how much better off people are without a partner that upsets them. Regular sex is not much of a pay off if you have to put up with bad treatment in response – we know that the best thing to do is to clear off if you can manage to. We know that regular sex with someone you hate is actually horrific and something people try to avoid.
Which means, that what they ‘bring’ to the equation is…nothing. No affection, no companionship, no fun – no fun _sex_, no added value, no nothing. There is nothing compelling me to put up with crap in order to invest in the tiny amount of added security – and NOTHING else – these people provide. They are a very, very poor investment.
God, I just realised – their model is spec work. In their heads, women provide speculative work and they get to choose who they ‘reward’. No wonder they’re so upset – no one even wants the reward they have.
I don’t get why celebrities not being perfect IRL means that men are now able to see that I am not perfect IRL.
The men I have slept with can actually see me. In person. Not airbrushed. They already know I’m not perfect.
In fact, the men who I haven’t slept with but have actually seen in real life have also seen me, and probably noticed that I’m fat, have pores on my face, and don’t do anything with my hair besides brush it. They already know I’m not perfect, too.
Even if they’ve never seen an illegal naked picture of Jennifer Lawrence.
@cloudiah:
We Hunted The Mammoth: Positively Shocking Reality Checks?
From that same reddit:
I… I… I try to live a good life. Experience happiness. Joy. Avoid anger. I’ve read the philosophical works of Stoics and Zen Buddhists and Cynics and Nihilists and New Age folks and they all, more or less, say that anger is something that generally poisons your mind and erodes your joy in life. I meditate. I go for runs. I smile and laugh and sometimes stick a pen in my mouth and hold my teeth together because that’s supposed to induce a neuro-muscular feedback cycle that results in a raised endorphine and serotonin level.
I think a part of my brain just flashfried itself in a perfect, beautiful rage-flare of anger.
You can’t do that, redditor. You just can’t.
Porn and prostitution isn’t in direct competition with their own market, they’re in direct competition with other people in the porn and prostitution market and indirect competition with the rest of the market that provides entertainment services, depending on whatever utilities consumers derive from these services. A market depreciation means a shrinking of a market from loss or wear or tear or acts of God, there is no way a market depreciation could happen because of a supply shock, that’s just not economically possible within the realm of classical economics. You can’t make your market WORSE OFF by discovering MORE OF THE STUFF YOU’RE SELLING, because at worst you just end up lowering the total price per unit of your good, which is assumed a priori to be a good thing for any market because it makes the consumers better off and sort of avoids the terrible price gouging no one wants.
“Destroy the marriage/divorce market”? What does that mean? I don’t know what means. It’s not a meaningful phrase that imparts information to anyone reading it. Are divorces a thing you’re selling or buying in bulk? Can you ship divorces cross country? Can I buy one and import it? Is it possible for me to invest in divorces? Is there a monopoly structure for the divorce market place? Isn’t it an annullment of a previously agreed agreement?
Why do these people all think they know what economics is?
“market depreciation hurts the market” has got to be the dumbest phrase I’ve ever read. Not because it’s stupid, but because it’s that specific brand of stupid that thinks it’s being clever and meaningful and funny and has read enough to use a term but not enough to use that term correctly.
(See everything I’ve ever written ever :b)
destroy the shell life of woman… so women are both the product, supplier, consumer and regulatory body of the marriage divorce market? That’s such a profound confusion of terms that I kind of have to just sit here in awe and stare at my screen as parts of my neuronal set-up burns out.
Well at least the rest of the thread can’t be that bad. That was just misunderstood economics and condenced idiocy. It’s not like it’s going to get worse.
Wait, what’s this?
oh no.
oh god no
Oh sweet merciful d20s rolling three ones in a row for a petrification saving throw please stop talking please stop talking please stop talking
I feel pain. Reading this is causing me actual physical pain. I think I might be having a stroke.
I’m actually starting to experience both dizziness and a profound sense of existential angst, coupled with acute retinal hemorrhages.
Yet. I can’t stop. I can’t look away.
If this redditor includes the phrase “signal” or “signifier” or starts talking about semiotic pragmatism, I’m going to find out how to build a doomsday ray and hack Reddit datastreams to find the geospatial data markers of the home address of this person just so I can long-range fry his internet connection in his home and any home he ever goes to, visits, walks near or so much as looks at for more than a few seconds.
Not try. Not attempt. I will do this, so help me god.
Look everybody! I can arrive at conclusions that only barely follow my stated assumptions if I disregard any other meaningful inference of my own stated premises. I can totally do logic! This is how you logic, right? If I say women are only valuable because of their potential then that means their bodies are like logos! Because the visual perception of their logo causes a collapse of the quantum wave probability flux and causes a distinct change in her actual reproductive potential, which means that merely observing changes the subject status! Sweetcakes and sugarplums, it’s the Heisenberg Principle Of Uncertain Fertility States; we can know this redditor is bullshitting, or that he is completely wrong, but never both at the same time!
The sensous curves of its letterforms? Boos business plan was fashion and selling thereof. As far as I understand it, they failed because they opened in multiple countries at the same time and ran out of cash to keep operating because sales wasn’t matching operation costs. Are you suggesting that women who try to open multiple stores at the same time in different locales are somehow to blame for the nudity leaks on the internet? Or that their reproductive value is tied in with their logos which is changed by public perception of their reproductive value? What?
Oh. Oh I see where this is going. Except it’s not where the redditor think it’s going, and it’s not going to be anywhere pleasant. It’s going to be just like the dot com crash, brought on by entirely different things than boo dot com and also, just one more time, reproductive value dependent on perception of body dependent on curve dependent on pussy? That’s not where babies come from. That’s not what that means. You can’t just say those words and wave your hands like magic as if your amazing ability to turn kilobytes on the internet into festering caltrops of the brain is somehow the same as an understanding of biology.
I’m hearing a faint humming sound. I think it’s the bees trying to break through the barriers of reality to eat my soul. Catching fire? Catching fire is… fertility? I was under the impression the autocratic and despotic government of Panen was causing the rebellion to catch fire and spread like wildfire with their constant aggravating assaults on personal freedom, but then again, I’m not a genius redditor who can cause quantum waves to collapse with my mind.
The notion of someone watching a movie meant for teenagers and young souls and coming away with the impression that this was all a way for someone to brand their private parts is mind-poison of the purest, highest grade.
Please tell me you invested all your money in a odd internet scheme in 1999 and lost it all in the ensuring NASQAD crash. It’s going to be less painful than this walk through of semiotic signals in relation to logos and bodies and reproductive value and sex appeal being mistaken for fertility being mistaken for children being mistaken for some kind of price and value signifier.
Wikipedia causes so much damage. People read their articles, lift bits of it, and sound smart to people who don’t know that they just lift bits of it from Wikipedia. Boo dot com wasn’t a bubble. Boo dot com was a product of the internet bubble of 1999, with several of their business decisions predicated on the fact that endless investors were more than willing to invest in booming internet businesses. They were a big part of the crash, sure, but they were not the sole reason for the crash. This is sort of like saying that Jennifer Lawrence, an actor, is somehow singlehandedly responsible for the price of all women somewhere falling.
Waitshitnodon’tSTOPTALKIN—
So… bodies are like logos, and boo dot com having a super aggressive business plan is exactly like Jennifer Lawrence being human and not some kind of magical wonder creature unicorn that shoots healing rainbows from her eyes and cures cancer by twitching her resplendent ethereal wings of everlasting beauty?
I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone who seriously complained that a human being looked like a human being before. What were people expecting? That underneath the clothes Jennifer Lawrence was encrusted with precious diamonds and had the secrets of cold fusion tattooed across her belly?
How does this relate to economics? I was promised economics. What I got was stupidoconics. Who complains that a human looks like a human? Who sees a star and thinks she’s a perfect immaterial being of joysparkles, and upon realizing she is human, becomes angry at her lack of perfection and not ones own problematic embellishments of nature?
And how does this relate to reproductive potential? And logos? And the net crash? And economics? This is gobbleydook of such profound magnitude my mind reels.
Misogynists must spend all their time being so angry at those magical angel fairies that flitter around them, entirely unreasonable, unreal and irrational, incapable of doing the kind of wonderful deeds their frantic observations constantly tell them they can and instead they’re left with bitter disappointment that perfectly normal people didn’t turn out to be magical superheroic god creatures who could fix all their issues with a touch.
How sad. This reading of history and economics and people only works if you assume everyone is a predatory asshole waiting for someone to show them their naked bodies. Empathy really isn’t a thing for these people, is it?
@ Tracy
Also, don’t most people know that Photoshop and flattering lighting is a thing? If anyone is telling themselves that celebs look exactly how they do in PR pics then that person is choosing to fool themselves at this point.
I’ve seen a surprising amount of disagreement with the article in the comments there. I get the sense that some of the more-established redpillers have actually matured a bit.
So, to summarize, he says there are two reasons:
It brings down the price of their pussy.
BUT, it lowers the price of their pussy.
See. Two whole reasons. And he’s a guy, so he can count to two. And STEM. And do advanced economics, as Fibinachi pointed out.
Oh, sorry about the formatting there. I guess ol tags don’t work here.
As someone who spends all of their time designing logos, I can’t even about their logos theory, but I’m refusing to engage on that before we get into modern marketing research re: Sex. (Which is: It doesn’t actually sell as much as people think it does because our brains now recognise that as ‘advertising’ and blank it).
Flooded with goods. Because of the photos of a couple celebrities.
On the internet.
ON THE GODDAMN INTERNET.
THE
internet
I don’t even.
Also, the assumption that feminists are angry about this just because it’s porn, and not because of the violation of privacy.
@Fibinachi
Thank you for bravely wading through that horror of a post. I, at least, got to read your comments in between to make it slightly less painful.
The “men trade marriage for sex and women trade sex for marriage” model is “supported” by monographs and such published by places like the Brookings Institute, and it makes sense insofar as you assume that women only want marriage (for access to money, specifically a situation of financial security in which to raise babies) and “have” sex to trade for it, and men only want sex and “have” marriage (with associated money) to trade in return. If that were the case, then the model would work fine, so the graphs and such work out in a tidy way/
The reason it’s bullshit is not because the math is bad, but because the premises are bad, but these idiots aren’t good enough at either economics or critical thinking to realize that the premises are ridiculous.
And yet, when VCruz was doxed after God knows how long of posting photos of dead female children to Reddit, it was a terrible invasion of privacy…
@cassandrakitty
Man I need to save that for future quotation, because that’s the MRM in a nutshell.
After reading Fibi’s last post (phew! that was EXHAUSTING! all those mental contortions those dudes do! don’t their backs hurt?), something occurred to me:
Remember how all these same guys soiled themselves in unison when J-Law showed up with a pixie cut?
Oh noes (the collective howl went up) there goes her sexual market value! The most valuable signifier of female fertility — GONE!
I make a note of this now, because that obvious boner-kill that is stylish short hair doesn’t seem to have stopped these wankers from wanking, any more than her unretouched nudity (assuming that was really her) has. And if something like that doesn’t stop these wankers from wanking, I guess I can safely surmise that any man who loves me for myself alone (and not my auburn hair) isn’t going to be bothered by all these physical “flaws” that these guys seem hell-bent on inflating to prove…SOMETHING. Bog only knows what.
These guys really should take the red pill…the one that comes from a box marked Colace. They’re so full of shit, I’m afraid they may explode.
I think it sounds like they’re attempting to apply a cartel model to woman sexuality. To stop just short of saying it is literally a closed-door conspiracy, though I’m sure they believe that’s what feminists literally do, the presumption is that “wimmins does this instinctually”. So, women NATURALLY collude to keep the price of their sex high, because that’s just how women think, because all women are gold diggers and only aim to increase their own sex value in anything they might possibly do, so they can sell when it’s at it’s highest. The problem here is that it turns out that pornography of these presumed high-value women exists, and now all women have to compete with it, which lowers the artificially inflated value, PLUS it lowers the perceived value because the high-value market is not as desirable as consumers thought it must have been, lowering consumer confidence needed to keep high cartel prices.
. . . no, it still sounds stupid. I’m not sure how they conclude that sex is somehow a rare commodity.
Oh wait, I think I know how
Let me get this straight. They’re basically arguing that somehow this pussy flood will reduce pussy demand. Therefore boners are more valuable than pussies. Because of this, men will henceforth horde their boners. This will create a deflationary boner spiral.
Of course, this is a ridiculous theory but these pathetic creatures seem to believe it. So I have to ask why then are they so gleeful about this? Deflationary spirals are the worst thing for the economy. They’re not good for anyone really. I guess they just hate women so much they will suffer if it means women will suffer too.