Author Topic: The Red Pill thread - living in wonderland and peeping down the rabbit hole  (Read 19248 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Himu

  • Senior Member
What is The Bore’s take on this phenomenon? Btw, although people like to present it as just an MRA movement, it really isn’t. From my understanding, it’s more often used to describe someone who was liberal/on the left who has taken the red pill and are now conservative or whatever. Apparently it mostly comes from lack of free speech in left circles. The person being red pilled doesn’t have to be white or even a man.

For example I watched this video and it has been tossed around as her being red pilled.



What is this boards thoughts on this phenomen?
IYKYK

agrajag

  • Senior Member
I think it speaks for lack of mental fortitude to do a 180 on all your values just because there's a bunch of jackasses on "your side." I think it's more constructive to correct things you see fucked up in your "movement," or whatever. Like, many believe that Social Studies Warrior loonies hijacked the progressive movement. If you really hold progressive values, it makes sense to try to take it back, rather than abandoning all your values and becoming an alt-right asshat.

I see this happening in sports too. "I don't like this team or athlete because their fanbase is annoying." How the fuck is that the athlete's fault?

Madrun Badrun

  • twin-anused mascot
  • Senior Member
Hating women but not going full serial killer seems a bit poserish to me. 

Tasty

  • Senior Member


False flag?

Himu

  • Senior Member
I think it speaks for lack of mental fortitude to do a 180 on all your values just because there's a bunch of jackasses on "your side." I think it's more constructive to correct things you see fucked up in your "movement," or whatever. Like, many believe that Social Studies Warrior loonies hijacked the progressive movement. If you really hold progressive values, it makes sense to try to take it back, rather than abandoning all your values and becoming an alt-right asshat.

I see this happening in sports too. "I don't like this team or athlete because their fanbase is annoying." How the fuck is that the athlete's fault?

I completely agree with this.

But what if the ideology you identified with changed? Or you saw new found errors in it?

Do you think that it’s an embodiment of people equating specific issues - such as free speech and gun rights - to specific teams? Because there’s certainly pro-free speech and pro-gun liberals. Would you also come to the conclusion that this is a symptom of people boxing themselves up behind arbitrary labels (I.e. liberal, conservative, democrat, republican) or can you perceive it as something beyond that?

Important questions to ask.
IYKYK

Mandark

  • Icon
Back in the blogging days of the aughts, we called this "after 9/11 I'm outraged by Chappaquiddick."

At least then the inciting incident was a major national trauma and not getting roasted by an aggressively woke college kid.


agrajag

  • Senior Member
I think it speaks for lack of mental fortitude to do a 180 on all your values just because there's a bunch of jackasses on "your side." I think it's more constructive to correct things you see fucked up in your "movement," or whatever. Like, many believe that Social Studies Warrior loonies hijacked the progressive movement. If you really hold progressive values, it makes sense to try to take it back, rather than abandoning all your values and becoming an alt-right asshat.

I see this happening in sports too. "I don't like this team or athlete because their fanbase is annoying." How the fuck is that the athlete's fault?

I completely agree with this.

But what if the ideology you identified with changed? Or you saw new found errors in it?

Do you think that it’s an embodiment of people equating specific issues - such as free speech and gun rights - to specific teams? Because there’s certainly pro-free speech and pro-gun liberals. Would you also come to the conclusion that this is a symptom of people boxing themselves up behind arbitrary labels (I.e. liberal, conservative, democrat, republican) or can you perceive it as something beyond that?

Important questions to ask.

I feel like there's a spectrum of political, social, spiritual, moral, ethical, humanitarian, existential, etc. views and truly freethinking people fall somewhere on the spectrum. People that act like "you're either with us or against us if you don't subcribe to viewpoints A, B, C, D" are too simple.

I think you hit the nail on the head that people box themselves into arbitrary labels, or teams. Usually those teams come with specific criterea, or archetypes. Like, I've known plenty of conservatives IRL, through work and other ways. And it's always the same thing. All of them pro-gun rights. All of them at best are highly skeptical of climate change. Like, you'd think there's nothing linking gun rights and climate change. But somehow they always have to have those concurrent views. It's tribalism in its purest form.

Such things sometimes make me wonder if the concept of political parties or platforms may have been a mistake.

Stoney Mason

  • So Long and thanks for all the fish
  • Senior Member
Get this shit out of here.

Mandark

  • Icon
truly freethinking people

I think my take is that there's no such thing, myself not exempted.

Oblivion

  • Senior Member
Posting a video from Prager U    :doge

agrajag

  • Senior Member
truly freethinking people

I think my take is that there's no such thing, myself not exempted.

Yeah, you're right. But you can at least make an effort.

agrajag

  • Senior Member
Posting a video from Prager U    :doge

I didn't watch the video, I turned it off when the lady started talking about mah gunz :doge

Himu

  • Senior Member
I think it speaks for lack of mental fortitude to do a 180 on all your values just because there's a bunch of jackasses on "your side." I think it's more constructive to correct things you see fucked up in your "movement," or whatever. Like, many believe that Social Studies Warrior loonies hijacked the progressive movement. If you really hold progressive values, it makes sense to try to take it back, rather than abandoning all your values and becoming an alt-right asshat.

I see this happening in sports too. "I don't like this team or athlete because their fanbase is annoying." How the fuck is that the athlete's fault?

I completely agree with this.

But what if the ideology you identified with changed? Or you saw new found errors in it?

Do you think that it’s an embodiment of people equating specific issues - such as free speech and gun rights - to specific teams? Because there’s certainly pro-free speech and pro-gun liberals. Would you also come to the conclusion that this is a symptom of people boxing themselves up behind arbitrary labels (I.e. liberal, conservative, democrat, republican) or can you perceive it as something beyond that?

Important questions to ask.

I feel like there's a spectrum of political, social, spiritual, moral, ethical, humanitarian, existential, etc. views and truly freethinking people fall somewhere on the spectrum. People that act like "you're either with us or against us if you don't subcribe to viewpoints A, B, C, D" are too simple.

I think you hit the nail on the head that people box themselves into arbitrary labels, or teams. Usually those teams come with specific criterea, or archetypes. Like, I've known plenty of conservatives IRL, through work and other ways. And it's always the same thing. All of them pro-gun rights. All of them at best are highly skeptical of climate change. Like, you'd think there's nothing linking gun rights and climate change. But somehow they always have to have those concurrent views. It's tribalism in its purest form.

Such things sometimes make me wonder if the concept of political parties or platforms may have been a mistake.

I agree. There’s also danger in toeing a specific political line which can lead to political fatalism and apathy. Would wager that a lot of political apathy in America is if not caused by, at the very least a contributor to, low voter turnout? If someone doesn’t think either party possesses the truth, why vote, right? Not that I advocate not voting, but I get it. Do you think this could be curtailed if there were more voting options? Or are you the type of person who thinks the two parties compliment each other by balancing the others excesses?
IYKYK

agrajag

  • Senior Member
the US definitely needs more parties. But that's just part of the problem. Even if we had more options, voters are low info and tend to look at the party affiliation next to their name rather than educate themselves about the candidates' individual views and actions. I am guilty of that myself.

shosta

  • Y = λ𝑓. (λ𝑥. 𝑓 (𝑥 𝑥)) (λ𝑥. 𝑓 (𝑥 𝑥))
  • Senior Member
Cindi shut the FUCK UP
每天生气

Himu

  • Senior Member
:obama not a bad rationale.

What do you think about political ideology and its factor into the American political system? There’s conservatives I know who don’t find the Republican Party actually conservative because they spend as much as Democrats. On the other, you’ve got liberals who don’t find the Democratic Party liberal anymore because it and its adherents tend to shut down free speech. These are people dedicated to the ideology and not the party. Would you consider that just as dangerous as parties? After all, things like ANTIFA or Alt-Right are just that - ideology.
IYKYK

agrajag

  • Senior Member
how would you say that out loud?

shut the FUCK UP! Sounds odd to me, like the whole sentence should be shouted. It's like that Elaine putting exclamation points where they don't belong moment  :doge

Himu

  • Senior Member
Cindi shut the FUCK UP

Just asking questions. :idont
IYKYK

Himu

  • Senior Member
how would you say that out loud?

shut the FUCK UP! Sounds odd to me, like the whole sentence should be shouted. It's like that Elaine putting exclamation points where they don't belong moment  :doge

I think it’s like the voice gets louder as the sentence goes.
IYKYK

Mandark

  • Icon
the US definitely needs more parties. But that's just part of the problem. Even if we had more options, voters are low info and tend to look at the party affiliation next to their name rather than educate themselves about the candidates' individual views and actions. I am guilty of that myself.

Party affiliation is a thousand percent more important than personal beliefs for Congressional candidates.

thisismyusername

  • GunOn™! Apply directly to forehead!
  • Senior Member
btw, although people like to present it as just an MRA movement, it really isn’t. From my understanding, it’s more often used to describe someone who was liberal/on the left who has taken the red pill and are now conservative or whatever.

"Red Pill" is termed like the scene in the Matrix where Neo is unplugged and see's the actual world. These people have a "come-to-Jesus" moment and suddenly understand (what the shitty sides of things) what they wanted to understand.

That said: I have never heard it termed as a Political shift to the other party. Online "Red Pill" is generally men in their 20-40's that have had no luck with women and become assholes (:doge ) in the process. Some go even further and do the "Men Going Their Own Way" deal. Basically gay without the gayness.

agrajag

  • Senior Member
:obama not a bad rationale.

What do you think about political ideology and its factor into the American political system? There’s conservatives I know who don’t find the Republican Party actually conservative because they spend as much as Democrats. On the other, you’ve got liberals who don’t find the Democratic Party liberal anymore because it and its adherents tend to shut down free speech. These are people dedicated to the ideology and not the party. Would you consider that just as dangerous as parties? After all, things like ANTIFA or Alt-Right are just that - ideology.

What I find odd about ideologies that are very broad and cover a range of topics, it starts getting arbitrary. And then people that become fanatical with their ideologies, then you wind up with things like ANTIFA. I try to be pragmatic so I would still vote for a Democrat even if I disagree with some of the tactics of its adherents, because in the long run they represent me more than the other options.

agrajag

  • Senior Member
the US definitely needs more parties. But that's just part of the problem. Even if we had more options, voters are low info and tend to look at the party affiliation next to their name rather than educate themselves about the candidates' individual views and actions. I am guilty of that myself.

Party affiliation is a thousand percent more important than personal beliefs for Congressional candidates.

Why is that? If you have a bunch of people in Congress that have their individual platforms, that people elected, the general public is getting a better representation in Congress. And especially if those candidates are willing to compromise and work together, we'd see better results than the dual party political warfare we have now in Congress.

Himu

  • Senior Member
btw, although people like to present it as just an MRA movement, it really isn’t. From my understanding, it’s more often used to describe someone who was liberal/on the left who has taken the red pill and are now conservative or whatever.

"Red Pill" is termed like the scene in the Matrix where Neo is unplugged and see's the actual world. These people have a "come-to-Jesus" moment and suddenly understand (what the shitty sides of things) what they wanted to understand.

That said: I have never heard it termed as a Political shift to the other party. Online "Red Pill" is generally men in their 20-40's that have had no luck with women and become assholes (:doge ) in the process. Some go even further and do the "Men Going Their Own Way" deal. Basically gay without the gayness.

It is also tied to political shift.

From urban dictionary:

Quote
A reference to the matrix used in politics.

"You take the blue pill, the story ends. You wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe.

You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes."

Usually means that a Liberal has become more right winged.
Person 1: "Omg, Jennifer told me that she no longer feels she is Gender Queer!"
Person 2: "Perhaps she is now Red Pilled."

Also a video featuring a prominent sjw feminist.

IYKYK

Himu

  • Senior Member
Addendum: It isn’t good to dismiss it as just a bunch of virgins. That’s a tendency of liberals/the left: categorizing people rather than actually investigating it until it’s too late. We saw this in the election of Trump and casting all of his voters as racist. It’s a weakness of the left that doesn’t prepare for large cultural shifts because these shifts are outright dismissed until they come knocking on the door, shit wrapped paper bag in hand. At the very least, it should be prepared for and fought in kind, right?
IYKYK

Mandark

  • Icon
Party affiliation is a thousand percent more important than personal beliefs for Congressional candidates.

Why is that? If you have a bunch of people in Congress that have their individual platforms, that people elected, the general public is getting a better representation in Congress. And especially if those candidates are willing to compromise and work together, we'd see better results than the dual party political warfare we have now in Congress.

Cause of how Congress works. The agenda is dictated by the leadership of the majority party. Electing someone who dissents from their party on some issues won't matter if they won't get to vote on those issues.

We don't even need to talk about it theoretically. People generally agree that there is a majority in Congress right now for a bill protecting Dreamers, but it's a moot point because Paul Ryan won't allow a bill like that to come to the floor. A pro-DACA Republican voted him for Speaker and effectively undermined their own position.

shosta

  • Y = λ𝑓. (λ𝑥. 𝑓 (𝑥 𝑥)) (λ𝑥. 𝑓 (𝑥 𝑥))
  • Senior Member
make it stop

please make it stop
每天生气

Mandark

  • Icon
Addendum: It isn’t good to dismiss it as just a bunch of virgins. That’s a tendency of liberals/the left: categorizing people rather than actually investigating it until it’s too late. We saw this in the election of Trump and casting all of his voters as racist. It’s a weakness of the left that doesn’t prepare for large cultural shifts because these shifts are outright dismissed until they come knocking on the door, shit wrapped paper bag in hand. At the very least, it should be prepared for and fought in kind, right?

Trump's victory shows us that political success depends on extending empathy and understanding to those you disagree with.

 :thinking

agrajag

  • Senior Member
Party affiliation is a thousand percent more important than personal beliefs for Congressional candidates.

Why is that? If you have a bunch of people in Congress that have their individual platforms, that people elected, the general public is getting a better representation in Congress. And especially if those candidates are willing to compromise and work together, we'd see better results than the dual party political warfare we have now in Congress.

Cause of how Congress works. The agenda is dictated by the leadership of the majority party. Electing someone who dissents from their party on some issues won't matter if they won't get to vote on those issues.

We don't even need to talk about it theoretically. People generally agree that there is a majority in Congress right now for a bill protecting Dreamers, but it's a moot point because Paul Ryan won't allow a bill like that to come to the floor. A pro-DACA Republican voted him for Speaker and effectively undermined their own position.

I see what you're saying. I was speaking purely hypothetically, in a scenario which wouldn't necessarily have the same power structure. I mean, is it a self-evident fact that the way our Congress works is a flawless system? And that the Speaker of the House should wield that kind of power over legislature? Hey, I'm just asking questions man.

Mandark

  • Icon
make it stop

please make it stop

Chris Hitchens was the original red piller.

BlueTsunami

  • The Muffin Man
  • Senior Member
Any credo that appropriates a weeb science fiction concept just to defend your gender should have been auto dismissed. And yet here we are. Males of all ages have shown they lack the ability to self reflect and its making things awkward for everyone.
:9

Himu

  • Senior Member
:obama not a bad rationale.

What do you think about political ideology and its factor into the American political system? There’s conservatives I know who don’t find the Republican Party actually conservative because they spend as much as Democrats. On the other, you’ve got liberals who don’t find the Democratic Party liberal anymore because it and its adherents tend to shut down free speech. These are people dedicated to the ideology and not the party. Would you consider that just as dangerous as parties? After all, things like ANTIFA or Alt-Right are just that - ideology.

What I find odd about ideologies that are very broad and cover a range of topics, it starts getting arbitrary. And then people that become fanatical with their ideologies, then you wind up with things like ANTIFA. I try to be pragmatic so I would still vote for a Democrat even if I disagree with some of the tactics of its adherents, because in the long run they represent me more than the other options.

Agreed. Like for instance. Republicans claim to adhere to the conservative ideals of individual and individual rights and small government while at the same championing a drug war that places people in prison at disproportionate levels for drug use at the federally. There is nothing small government or being for individual liberty about that. But then you look at Jeff Sessions response to the opioid epidemic this past week, which will force the DEA to spend millions (billions?) combatting it. Fiscal conservatism tho? This futile attempt at toeing the party line because it is ideology out of whack while claiming to be for conservative ideology. Thus the ideology becomes co-opted and politicized.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2018, 09:21:06 PM by Cindi Mayweather »
IYKYK

agrajag

  • Senior Member

sphagnum

  • Junior Member
I'm really disappointed we didn't think of using the term red pill first but then again it's probably the Stalinists who would've gotten the most usage out of it

Edit: If the USSR hadn't collapsed all the pepe memes would be communist oriented. Just imagine the troll campaigns Russian bots would be pulling off on Twitter

Himu

  • Senior Member
I'm really disappointed we didn't think of using the term red pill first but then again it's probably the Stalinists who would've gotten the most usage out of it

It is a fantastic term isn’t it?
IYKYK

Mandark

  • Icon
I see what you're saying. I was speaking purely hypothetically, in a scenario which wouldn't necessarily have the same power structure. I mean, is it a self-evident fact that the way our Congress works is a flawless system? And that the Speaker of the House should wield that kind of power over legislature? Hey, I'm just asking questions man.

I think that imagining a democracy where everybody votes their conscience and never form coalitions to win power or advance their agenda is basically daydreaming. I completely understand the appeal but I don't think it's useful.

sphagnum

  • Junior Member
Prager U?

Cindi when I said stop caring about labels I didn't mean rip off the expiration date and consume a bunch of poop

agrajag

  • Senior Member
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I know I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us, and the world will be as one

spoiler (click to show/hide)
voted the most trash song ever on GAF
[close]

Joe Molotov

  • I'm much more humble than you would understand.
  • Administrator
©@©™

agrajag

  • Senior Member
I think some of you are too hung up on the video, when we could have a free flowing exchange of ideas, you piss babies :maf

sphagnum

  • Junior Member
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I know I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us, and the world will be as one

spoiler (click to show/hide)
voted the most trash song ever on GAF
[close]

Bourgeois idealism, lacking in material analysis. Lenin not Lennon!

agrajag

  • Senior Member
Speaking of GAF, I remember how there used to be threads gushing over how dapper young Stalin looked. Much has changed :lol

Rufus

  • 🙈🙉🙊
  • Senior Member
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I know I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us, and the world will be as one

spoiler (click to show/hide)
voted the most trash song ever on GAF
[close]
I like A Perfect Circle's version of it a lot.

Himu

  • Senior Member
Prager U?

Cindi when I said stop caring about labels I didn't mean rip off the expiration date and consume a bunch of poop

Don’t be too mad about the video or its source. It is merely there to communicate an example.
IYKYK

naff

  • someday you feed on a tree frog
  • Senior Member
Addendum: It isn’t good to dismiss it as just a bunch of virgins.

But it is still good to dismiss it.

The young and disenfranchised becoming more bigoted and conservative as they get older doesn't seem like a new phenomenon. Also, I wrote off red pillers to be predominantly young disgruntled male permavirgins because their movement is based around some bro-intellectual metaphor lifted from the Matrix.
◕‿◕

agrajag

  • Senior Member

recursivelyenumerable

  • you might think that; I couldn't possibly comment
  • Senior Member
Radicalization thread
QED

sphagnum

  • Junior Member
Prager U?

Cindi when I said stop caring about labels I didn't mean rip off the expiration date and consume a bunch of poop

Don’t be too mad about the video or its source. It is merely there to communicate an example.

I'm not mad about it, I just think it's kind of a waste of time to bother with. Perhaps that's because I am a former conservative and I know all the conservative arguments for things, the way conservatives think, why they believe what they believe etc and so I know it's all a bunch of shit.

When I see liberals turn conservative I don't see them as "freethinkers" so much as people who saw a lot of the flaws of liberalism and then took the wrong exit off the highway.


BlueTsunami

  • The Muffin Man
  • Senior Member
(Image removed from quote.)



Imagine unironically watching The Matrix just to experience it with this recontextualization. Take a shot of sunny D mom brought down everytime Neo denies Trinitys advances.
:9

chronovore

  • relapsed dev
  • Senior Member
Prager U?

Cindi when I said stop caring about labels I didn't mean rip off the expiration date and consume a bunch of poop

Don’t be too mad about the video or its source. It is merely there to communicate an example.

But nothing can ever be reviewed or experienced without its attendant context. It presents itself as a "U," implying "university," but it has no academic association. It's formed by conservatives for espousing their views. If it was called "Prager O" or "Opinions" or "Prager Politics" or anything other than starting from its faux academic posturing, it'd be more intellectually honest.

As for the woman's views, I'm with agrajag: Why abandon a lifetime of common sense and cooperation over people who are unwilling to discuss it? That's an amazing volte-face which speaks more to the quality of friends and/or the context of her situation. It's weird to hear that she was entirely unsupported by her peer group for "just asking questions," when her arguments take a quick turn for the absurd. She's right to question why a university policy should create racially specific limiting behavior, but her take on limiting other women's freedom to make their own decisions is so far off the mark that I am second-guessing her interpretation on the UT Austin rules as-presented. I feel as though I've watched the birth of the rarest of unicorns, a black, female libertarian.

agrajag

  • Senior Member
(Image removed from quote.)



Imagine unironically watching The Matrix just to experience it with this recontextualization. Take a shot of sunny D mom brought down everytime Neo denies Trinitys advances.


Mandark

  • Icon
Agreed. Like for instance. Republicans claim to adhere to the conservative ideals of individual and individual rights and small government while at the same championing a drug war that places people in prison at disproportionate levels for drug use at the federally. There is nothing small government or being for individual liberty about that. But then you look at Jeff Sessions response to the opioid epidemic this past week, which will force the DEA to spend millions (billions?) combatting it. Fiscal conservatism tho? This futile attempt at toeing the party line because it is ideology out of whack while claiming to be for conservative ideology. Thus the ideology becomes co-opted and politicized.

I don't think this is a case of ideological principles being corrupted, so much as people claiming principles as a way of rationalizing behavior that has less noble motivations.

Just in my lifetime I saw the case against gay marriage (and LGBT acceptance generally) shift from one rationale to another while it was the same people doing the advocacy. The real reason is they didn't like LGBT people, and while saying so to their face would upset them, pretending otherwise didn't really accomplish anything.

etiolate

  • Senior Member
red pill means challenging assumptions or things you took for granted as true

It is just a Matrix reference. It involves taking a deep dive into things.

/theredpill is a subreddit steeped in PUA stuff, which is not the same.

The Dunning-Kruger effect is related, but if you want an effective information gain/understanding process then you need some principles, patience and perseverance.

Also, Mandark is an intellectual coward. He knows this shit, but he wants back in the Matrix. He's Cypher in the whole TRP analogy.


Mandark

  • Icon
The Dunning-Kruger effect is related, but if you want an effective information gain/understanding process then you need some principles, patience and perseverance.

Also, Mandark is an intellectual coward. He knows this shit, but he wants back in the Matrix. He's Cypher in the whole TRP analogy.

"Epistemology"

You're welcome.

BlueTsunami

  • The Muffin Man
  • Senior Member
:9

agrajag

  • Senior Member
I would be Mouse in the Matrix because I fap a lot

etiolate

  • Senior Member
If you think I've never heard the word epistemology before then sweet jebus.


Let me explain something for the people that don't get it. My posting here can perhaps be best understood as a vain attempt to disprove the old proverb, "do not cast your pearls before swine", and in that view, Mandark often fashions himself the thickest chazer in the sty.

Huff

  • stronger ties you have, more power you gain
  • Senior Member
If you think I’ve never heard the word epistemology before then you’d be right
dur