I thought that Reddit’s Red Pillers were all about conning women into bed. But some, it seems, are more interested in debating than dating.
Alas, a good debate can be harder to arrange than a mere hookup, an aspiring Red Pill Redditor reports in a recent post on the Ask The Red Pill subreddit.
Snoopy_ESP complains that the women he meets are all very “basic,” only interested in the most superficial conversations. And when he tries to steer the conversation to what he considers more intellectually engaging subjects the women just can’t keep up with his massive brain.
If you divert [the conversation] to deeper or more complex issues (geopolitics, social changes, new world order, scarcity of resources, politics, philosophy …) they are already lost and they answer with “I don’t know” or they answer you with the simplicities that they have heard in the TV
Yes, I’m sure hearing your thoughts on such fascinating topics as “the New World Order” and “scarcity of resources” must be quite a treat.
They are so basic, you get out of commenting on a series on Netflix and they are unable to have a debate arguing against your ideas because they don’t know about anything that TV hasn’t told them
I almost feel bad for these poor ladies, denied the pleasure of a real debate with someone as notable as Snoopy_ESP just because they’re so basic and stupid.
So Snoopy_ESP has to set aside his desire to debate some random woman he’s buttonholed at a bar.
I think the smart thing to do is to give up and adapt your conversation to theirs so that there are no frictions or they feel intellectually inferior.
Such a thoughtful lad!
A commenter called urbanfoh agrees that women are a bunch of basic bitches of the intellect.
Evolutionary speaking there is no incentive for women to take risk (apart from AFBB [alpha fucks, beta bucks]). Most men will be attracted to them no matter what as long as they are not disabled, very annoying or very ugly.
Evo Psych strikes again!
Womens crab in a bucket mentality even further incentivises women to stay at the mean of the cohort. And being excluded on basis of her views is devastating for a woman while offering no benefit.
Crabs? That’s one small step away from lobsters. I’m betting this guy is a huge fan of Jordan Peterson. Just a hunch.
Men on the other hand need to prove their status in some way. Be it physically, financially, socially or intellectually. Men need to either climb a hierarchy by proving their skills or challenge the very hierarchy itself. Being average is the worst strategy for men.
Definitely a Jordan Peterson fanboy.
One manifestation of that is that womens IQ is closer to the mean while most retards and most geniusses are men. Men are more likely to deviate from the mean of intelligence, interests, acceptable views, politics, finance etc to find a way to prove ones worth to women.
Another one of the “geniusses” who frequent this subreddit offers his boldly heterodox ideas on the subject, which just happen to be exactly the same as his Red Pill brothers and which also — surprise! — bear more than a little resemblance to some of Jordan Peterson’s most famous talking points.
“[T]here’s more genetic variation and risk-taking in men across the board” writes drewcer.
No matter what they say, you can’t go against biology. And biologically, women are the selectors because they hold the key to genetic immortality. Men compete for that genetic immortality in a dominance hierarchy.
“Dominance hierarchy,” huh. Where have I heard this incredibly original idea before? Oh yeah. That last guy, who got it from Jordan Peterson. It’s almost as if these guys have no ideas of their own. Maybe, just maybe, they’re the real intellectual basic bitches.
Which is why their bell curve is more spread-out in areas like IQ, income, etc. And women tend to group around the middle.
Funny that you hear feminists complaining so much about how all the rich people are men but they fail to realize all the homeless people are men, too.
It’s not even a men’s rights issue to me. It’s just biology, and biology is unfair. The good news is we live in a time where we can understand how the game is played (as individuals, anyway – mainstream society is still oblivious) and use it to be our best selves.
Wait, you want to be your own “best self?” Mister, you’ and your pals are in the wrong place for that.
Follow me on Mastodon.
Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.
We Hunted the Mammoth relies on support from you, its readers, to survive. So please donate here if you can, or at David-Futrelle-1 on Venmo.
What gets me about this is I’ve dated people who actually are non-asshole intellectual types, and broken up with some of them because even though they were making reasonable points they couldn’t really turn the debate mode / intellectual conversation mode off. I felt like I always had to be on my game intellectually, and I don’t like that in a relationship because in a good relationship you can let your guard down.
These misogynistic pseudo-intellectuals take that stew of issues and just add on the nasty flavors of “this doesn’t even make sense” and “I don’t want to debate the validity of my lived experience.”
Also, hi everybody! I have finally stopped lurking and said a thing.
Off-topic, but has anybody been able to re-establish contact with Naglfar yet?
Kid, you get way further and have a lot more fun if you try this one neat trick. Try actually talking, not some highschool mythical points scoring bullshit.
General: Where’d this whole “debate me!!!!” crap come from, anyway? As in, what kicked it off and made it the thing to be doing among self important nonentities?
It should be noted that women are socialized since birth to be more risk adverse in general.
And that doing risky behavior isn’t greeted nearly as supportingly as it would be for males.
And let’s be clear; red pillars hate when women actually deviate from the traditional feminine standard.
I once saw a red pillar tell another to not date any woman who’d make more than them through fearmongering about comparisons to her male coworkers or boss. Guy got a lot of likes.
Also who likes discussing politics? Especially when there’s a point of disagreement in a date?
”I don’t know” could be a response someone gives when they just don’t offend or support someone’s statements.
Setting aside the fact that debating random people you just met is probably not most people’s idea of a good time, I like how wide the array of “more complex topics” is. Asking someone to debate “geopolitics” is probably going to get a resounding “wuh?” for being so vague. “Let’s debate the situation in Palestine!” would be less vague, but not being up on every geopolitical thingamajig doesn’t mean you can’t have varied interests.
Also, it speaks volumes that admitting ignorance sets Snoopy_ESP sneering. The big brain move is obviously to pretend you are an expert on everything, and that things you haven’t heard about are insignificant.
So the guy is a conspiracy theorist who wants to debate to prove he is correct in is delirium about the new World Order and how globalists try to destroy the world and when women don’t engage with him because he is obviously a bit crazy or try to debunk him using actual credible sources they are dismissed as idiots who can only repeat what they hear on TV. Did I get this right?
@eprovost : beware of the term “crazy”. It tend to lump together people who think in a different way ; people who have a cerebral impairment ; and people who willfully delude themselves into thinking their alternative reality is real.
That guy is probably in the third category, but people in the first two very much don’t want to be associated with that third category, in no small part because there’s plenty of terrorists and (wannabee or not) murderers.
@Threp:
Maybe it can be traced back to Duane Gish, the young-Earth creationist. He never tired of challenging others to debate about creationism versus evolution, and is immortalised in the term “Gish gallop” for one of his debating techniques. Other conservatives may have decided to emulate him.
Okay, I do enjoy debating things with my boyfriend. Not “debating” in a formal sense; I just mean arguing about things that aren’t too personal and aren’t likely to cause emotional conflict. E.g. he’s more negative about the Internet in general than I am; I think the problems it exacerbates aren’t necessarily unique to it. So we’ll debate about that.
Anyway, he’s someone I enjoy talking to (most of the time!). If this “Snoopy_ESP” tried to engage me in an *intellectually demanding* conversation (my instinct says he wouldn’t because he’d pick someone he finds better-looking, but let’s just go with this scenario) I feel like I’d have one of these reactions:
a) confused, because out of my comfort zone (so the “I don’t know”-er in his scenario)
b) annoyed by his attitude, and tempted to act trollish by throwing out random long words (“Yes, but is the federal reserve dodecaphonic or just historiographically intersubjective?”) or just being silly (“Oh, I love geopolitics! Especially the gummy kinds.”)
…
Yes, I haven’t seen Naglfar in a while! but I don’t want to seem like I’m shaming someone for not being around. I haven’t written on Twitter in months because I’m not organized. But I hope everything’s going well with her.
And welcome, Muscovy Duck!
I love silly, stupid ‘arguments’ (Kirk v. Picard, Brussels sprouts, sandbar shark = best shark or no, etc). However, only so long as the debate remains friendly, and only so long as the debates are not every single time we chat.
If an issue that is centered on the personhood of one of the parties is treated as a ‘debate’, I have huge and fundamental problems with it. No one should have to ‘debate’ whether or not their existence is legitimate.
If any serious relationship or friendship issue is a ‘debate’ instead of a collaborative discussion, I have a huge and fundamental problem with it.
If all the small things are ‘debates’ and one party insists they win every time and that the looser is a fool, or calls the other person names for disagreeing, I have a huge and fundamental problem with it.
If someone has to constantly ‘prove their worth’ to you by being a good debater, you are an arse and do not deserve the simple pleasures of ‘discussing’ why Picard is and always will be the finest captain of the starship Enterprise.
I asked David to.
Edit to add:
Thanks Moggie. I’d heard of Gish galloping as a technique, but somehow missed the originator of it. Guy obviously grew up on Irwin Correy routines!
… Just for the record, that last line should have had a /s.
Also, welcome @Muscovy Duck!
Also, also: @Moggie, that video is great, and I love it.
@ Contrapangloss,
I agree 100%. I feel like people who call this kind of thing a “debate” are being deeply dishonest. There is nothing to debate here; people who use the word debate in this context are doing it to afford themselves a shred of plausible deniability, so that when they’re called on their bigotry they can claim that the person who called them out is just unwilling to participate in a free and honest exchange of ideas. It’s the pseudo-intellectual version of “I was just joking; you [choice of minorities] have no sense of humour”, and it’s a vile tactic.
Also: Team Picard!! It’s not a debate when one side is so clearly in the right. ?Picard was my intro to Star Trek and so he’s always the one and only as far as I’m concerned, and I’m not even a Trekkie.
Side note: The more I think about it, the more I wonder if these ‘debate me’ and ‘discussing Netflix is the sign of a shallow mind’ folks are missing a big part of the socialization puzzle.
I can learn a lot about a person’s world views and temperament from how they talk about literature, art, movies and music.
Like, what do they focus on? Who do they hate? Why do they hate? Who do they love? Do they respectfully acknowledge other takes and opinions, even if those opinions and understandings do not change their overall preferences, or do they get angry if I disagree? If I like something they think is stupid, can they exist in its presence without grumping about how stupid it is and how vapid I am for liking it?
It’s a nicer and smoother way to interact and suss out important things than having to ask the direct “So, you know (insert minority group) are real people, right?” or “ You can handle disagreement without being verbally abusive, yes or no?“
Example of “How We Discuss Things Matters!”
Does the Brony like the ponies because the ponies are for him and Applejack(?) is somehow the last bastion of all that is good about the South-and-Family-Values-TM**?
Or does a guy like the ponies because there’s heartwarming messages about how friendship is important and some of the songs are kind of catchy? Maybe has some fond memories of watching the show on a long ferry ride, and it’s stuck with him ever since?
Brony #1: Danger! Danger! This guy sucks! Get out now! Danger!
Brony #2: This guy might actually be okay.
** Why does this ping my confederate fanboy/white-supremacist radar SO HARD? Yikes, man. Just… Yikes.
Yikes.
*Doing this here AND in a spoiler block because I wanted to talk about how the way they talked about the show is illuminating, but didn’t want to make anyone hurting read me focusing up the wrong tree and ignoring them.
Mostly irrelevant news: If you’re invested in Dogecoin, you might want to cash out soon before the bubble bursts.
@Contrapangloss:
Given the specific example you chose, I take it you heard the latest about the FedEx shooter?
@Full Metal Ox
Yeah. I’ve a friend who just started at a different fedex location two weeks before the shooting, whose been a bit terrified because the motive was unknown and they were worried that their center would be next.
And David’s next post was timely.
I meant to have a cross-thread sign on the spoiler, don’t know how I goofed it.
Oh, come on. Kirk took down a planet-eater ferchrissakes, and could talk almost any other wayward robot or computer AI into switching itself off or self-destructing. And when that didn’t work, out came the phasers. Plus he had some great speeches. And as for Brussels sprouts, obviously they were selectively bred to be an instrument of torture for (bad) parents to inflict upon naughty children. There is no other remotely plausible explanation for why such horrors exist in the world, short of positing entities like Satan whose existence I do not consider at all plausible. 🙂
I see your planet killer, phasers, and arguing AI’s into self destructing. Those are quite fun. Maybe even convincing, perhaps!
I raise you the joy that is the classic Picard face-palm, the superior (in both scariness and nearly unfathomable obnoxiousness) “god-like” antagonist, and genuine character growth and change leading to the most satisfying button on the series finale compared to of all final episodes, everywhere.
Picard’s penultimate line just kicks me right in the feels, because it is a truth that has been built and won over seasons, and I love it so much. It is beautiful.
We both agree on Brussels sprouts though! They are truly a blight on the history of agriculture.
No offense to those of you who like them. You can have all mine! More for you, none for me!
Edited to add: sorry for the thread jacking. I apparently overflow with nonsense tonight.
Best ST commander? Sisko, hands down. Sorry Picard fans. Sorry Kirk aficionados.
Janeway just shakes her head and smiles slightly.
Sisko isn’t bad. Well, most of the time. He got pretty morally questionable in “In the Pale Moonlight”, as I recall.
On the other hand, Janeway is practically a female Kirk. Sometimes even using a hand phaser herself to fight off bad guys, pithy one-liners like “Time to take out the garbage”, and the only person known to have actually brought the Borg to the negotiating table. Maybe she belongs in the #2 spot, or it’s even a tie. 🙂
Well, my plot to keep the captain-off tightly limited to prevent me from having to make hard choices just went up in flames. Whoops!
I’m still a Picard, but deciding between the whole lot of them is difficult.
Captain Saru
*drops mic*