The Red Pill...

Post Reply New Topic

While I am not sadistically in favor of patriarchy, she still ends the whole discussion in moral equivalence, in which the man is supposed to want a friend, co-equal, or co-captain, and not a help meet.

It has been speculated that women are unhappy, except under deprecation, for instance, because the author of '50 shades' is a woman, and women welcome violent jihadists, prefer the cocky or bad guys, are themselves martyrs, or are supposed to be dating down.

One person, in any relationship, is going to tend to be more dominant, no matter how society tries to structure that. She doesn't account for the issue of dominance, and it's effect, on society, as a whole. Noone is assumed to have any moral authority, for instance, 'Take me to your leader.' Where does the buck stop.

It never settles the ongoing limbo, which is the war of the sexes.

Wow, I actually had to re-check that you're an Aspie, cuz this is NOT the impression that I get from most people, here. There have been innumerable times, on WP, that I've seen people give others "a better argument", only for the others to fight, like a BEAR, to push-back against someone else's opinion / value / belief / whatever, that's different from theirs----and, they do NOT want to listen.

(My theory, for when it seems they don't wanna listen, is that it is either because some people would just rather fight, to-their-death, than to be thought-of as / proven wrong [aka they'll do almost ANYTHING to save face / avoid a bruised ego / whatever]; OR, because if they concede that they're wrong, they might have to go back to the drawing board, to figure something out----and, because, generally speaking, it's probably taken an Aspie much longer to "get it" [come to a conclusion / opinion / whatever], too many Aspies are not willing to do that [go back to the drawing board]. Even though I CAN understand that, in a sense [cuz it's a pain to have to go-back, to the drawing board], I can NOT understand it, in another sense, because, to ME, the TRUTH should be what's MOST important [like you said]----but, they don't wanna see it that way; they, it seems, only want to consider that what THEY think, is THEE answer [aka, "their way, or the highway".)

I get what you're saying, here----and, even, mostly, agree with it----but, didn't you think, at their age (say, 20s), that you were gonna be thee ONE to conquer the world, so-to-speak; I know *I* did, at that age----and, I think most, in EVERY generation, do, TOO. They'll learn----they'll learn, hopefully by our age, that they (most of 'em) are not so special, afterall!! LOL (wink)

Last edited by Campin_Cat on 18 Jun 2017, 1:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

That would be simple, apolitical pragmatism, and I can see the point, which you are trying to make, in that she is indifferent.

But, she never actually submits, or steps down from the soapbox, so much as playing Devil's advocate. She is doing something edgy, not being vulnerable.

If you wanted to describe it in the virginal-Madonna, or whore, type of modality --
Is she being more motherly or like unconquered territory? Perhaps, she is mothering the sexists? Or, is she just parroting them, matter-of-factly?

This is like, when I said an arch-conservative could have a have a discussion, in a liberal venue, without conceding, personally. You could just quote who said what. Or, the Creationists teach every last iota of evolution -- in the words of Darwinists.

She doesn't have to practice any of this stuff, or take it to heart. Ok, so, she hears the words, in their given context, and is repeating them, that way. What does this require of her. Does she have to make any personal sacrifices, or is she just talking in the abstract, as in, where talk is cheap. Is it literal, as in concrete reality.

This Ted talk kind of stuff deliberately puts incompatible roommates together, as though it's more stimulating. Do they need to take any of it for granted.

I have created another thread here to continue the discussion:http://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=347548

I didn't see it that way, but I have only watched the documentary once...
I intend to watch it again before I comment...



Keep in mind that I am not committing to a position at this time...
I still want to 'fence sit' for a while longer...
The following is not an implicit acceptance...
It is simply an exerciser in reason...
Speculation, if you will...

Using the evolutionary development context:

Is it reasonable to assume that at the dawn of modern "man", it would have been a patriarchal society due to a possible 'might makes right' mindset as a result of males generally being more powerful because of size and muscle mass...

Is it reasonable to speculate that more subservient females would have been more successful in such a society, and as a consequence, been in a position to produce more offspring which tended to inherit the more submissive gene set?

Is it reasonable to speculate that some women may have been attracted to a more aggressive male who could dominate the tribe, maintain power, establish greater survival privileges and hence dominate mating rites?

If so, this could in theory explain the attraction some women seem to have for the 'rebel without a cause/clue' 'bad boy'...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STbm3pJf33M

group stabbing

+ blood-y virtuesignalling


ernst röhm, berlin homoscene, (the tatooed lorelei; d.book about both>), marinus and the Reichstagsbrand

- scapegoat judgements and causes to serve in deed

the use (value) of judgement

then call it: offerings (fuel for the goal)



ideologies and religions justify this, they need this, they will sustain the whole concept all along,
meanwhile justifing get laureated, of course
its our history, an exercise in explaining the right thing of doing the necessairy (chosen) elimination

I have taken this conversation to the other thread: viewtopic.php?f=33&t=347548&p=7579737#p7579737

A common social attitude is to pull other people down to make oneself feel better/powerful...
I adopted the autistic ideal of: 'I'd rather pull myself up than spend energy on pulling other people down...'

The former is indicative of someone who is dominated by their emotional needs...
The latter is more concerned with intellectual considerations...
Simples... <meerkat smile >

In a nutshell, there are two basic types of people in the world, imo...
Emotionalists...
Rationalists...