When YouTube Red-Pills the Love of Your Life

Post Reply New Topic

BWAHAHAHAHA! That's some imagination you have!
you've clearly not spent many Friday nights at the bar of VFW posts!

If you had read the exchange between myself and Ms Destiny following the above post, you'd (with a little thought) realise how wrong you are.

Appending lots of laughing smiley faces to the end of your response to somebody's viewpoint doesn't refute it, either.

It's interesting to see how these beliefs and values are spreading. Thank you for posting the article.

I would say that YouTube has not made anyone think anything. I've seen it blamed for the proliferation of flat earthers, too. Someone has turned Red Pill because of their own history, personality, and personal issues. At least in America, I think people tend to attack platforms like YouTube, or songs or TV shows, for what they're saying rather than talk to each other as individuals. It's easier to accuse a song of being racist, for example, than go after policy makers, who actually can control other people's lives.

Adopting the "Red Pill" philosophy means that you have given up.

You haven't a ghost of a chance to find love now, once you've adopted the "Red Pill."

I say that with very little equivocation.

The only way that YouTube could "Red-Pill the Love of My Life" is if it had a video of her pledging to ISIS or Al-Q'eada.

And that just ain't gonna happen.

I've never kept a count and depression messes with my memory so I can't give an exact number. The last notable time I saw it was when I was driving home after getting a DQ Blizzard and I saw some young guy walking with two girls around the mall. Out of nowhere, he started hitting one of them with quick punches to her face (mainly at the cheeks) but she didn't run away or seriously fight back at him. Another thing that's remained constant in my social observations is physical harassment. I see guys throwing themselves at girls and doing things like grabbing them then shaking them, hanging on them, forcefully holding them while they struggle even though they don't seriously try to get away, and making them shout.

Both rednecks and hip-hop thugs definitely treat their girlfriends harshly. Both demographics tend to not get along but they actually have a lot in common. Rednecks do consider themselves conservative while hip-hop thugs will say they are liberal but both like guns, think gay men are "fa***ts", think gothic culture is "gay" or "Satanic" or "sissy", call heavy metal or punk music "screamin' and shoutin' crap", say science-fiction is "nerdy" in a bad way, and they both terrorize students who are nerdy or geeky. Hip-hop thugs get angry over racial issues but are fine with homophobia.

My mother's husband is friends with Ted Nugent as well as another local musician named Calvin Ross. The latter actually played a song he wrote about his ex-wife and the chorus was "Don't call me an as*hole because I am a bigger b***h than you!" and whenever my stepfather meets with him, all they talk about is how much they love Trump, hate liberals, and their complaints about women.

Why did these women stick around these guys though? Perhaps they had some of the misconception about being able to 'fix' their partner. I have heard that some women will stick around things like this in the hopes they can turn things back around so I wonder if that played a role in these cases.

As for Richard Spencers ex, maybe she's just an idiot...don't see how anyone aside from a fellow neo-nazi would get with him he's like one of the leaders of the modern american nazi party. Perhaps she shared some of his ideology and stuck around to remain part of the movement.

Yeah I don't believe it is YouTube's fault when someone gets radicalized by such groups, it's just one of the methods groups use to get their message out there. People are either going to be vulnerable to the message psychologically or not, depending on their own internal constitution and circumstances--in this case YouTube is just the messenger, and not responsible for the message itself or the impact of the message. So I disagree with the title of the article in that no one's love is being redpilled by YouTube, they are being redpilled by redpill recruiters who create content designed to appeal to people who are already psychologically vulnerable to the message and YouTube just happens to be the venue that worked for that particular person. For someone else it might be a blog they read, or a link to a site someone sent them on a chat forum, or they might just stumble across it in their own internet wanderings. It's the message itself that does the damage and pulls them in, not the platform the message is on.

I think it's different if the person was into this scene before you met them as opposed to someone who is not a nazi but they start reading those materials and talking like that after you get together with them. It sounds like Spencer was like that when she met him and she was aware of his political leanings already when she chose to be with him so I don't have much sympathy for that. That's just a case of "you made your bed, now lie in it."

Yeah for sure, seems the other two cases were different so I do have some sympathy..but even so as sad as it is, if someone goes down a rabbit hole like that sometimes the only thing a person can do is distance themselves. Of course its not easy if its someone you love and care about...I mean I guess I have not been in that situation so I wouldn't know how difficult that is.

But with Richard Spencer he's a known nazi who is very active in the movement, pretty sure he's essentially sort of a leader among them. So I have a hard time having much sympathy for his ex, since the only person that would probably date a nazi...is a nazi or at least white supremacist.

I don't know if Anne saw my answers to her questions but I hope she will. Some have asked if I've aligned myself to hip hop music or if people from that culture treated me better because redneck culture treated me terribly. Well, I did listen to some hip-hop songs because they were popular but after a while, I realized I didn't like the vocals and the music started to sound boring. The people in the culture also treated me no differently than the rednecks did. Just because they hate conservative politics doesn't mean they are friendly people.

How is this related to my thread subject?

Rednecks and hip-hop thugs subscribe to Red Pill or Red Pill-esque ideas.

OK can I just ask that we not make this another thread that gets derailed by your personal issues and stay on topic? If you want to talk about your stuff you have your threads in the Haven for that. I don't need to keep repeating those same conversations in my threads, if you don't mind.

I think this is a case of intercultural misunderstanding. I for one don't know what the word "liberal" is usually used to mean in the UK. If it is used to refer to Classical Liberalism, which according to Google is a philosophy aimed at "securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government." then it would be very similar to what in the US is called libertarianism, however I must point out that limiting government power has nothing to do with recognizing other authority especially religion. Many libertarians are also deeply religious and would share @Prometheus18's belief in sexual probity.

In Canada they have a Liberal party, which represents the political center with the Conservatives on the right and the NDP on the left. For some reason, the Liberals seized an absolute majority of seats in Parliament in the last national election.

The US is dominated by the Republican party however the word "Republican" has lost its original meaning and would be unrecognizable to Republicans in Ireland or Spain. The Republicans are actually "classical liberals" however some of the more extreme libertarian elements in that party are very permissive, strongly favoring the "right" of private citizens to use recreational drugs and I suppose some may also have permissive sexual attitudes. However Americans who favor the authority of the church are usually also Republicans, this includes people who are against the use of contraceptives and believe that the public school system should teach pupils to be sexually abstinent. In the US, "liberal" is most commonly used as an epithet to deride those who do not embrace the principles of the Republican party, usually in reference to members of the Democratic Party.

Perhaps @Prometheus18 could elaborate on what he means by "liberal".

I don't think this is the place to provide too much elaboration on my conception of liberalism, but if you read several of my earlier posts in the thread, it should become clear:

The difference between the two species of liberalism was once a geographical/linguistic one. Anglophone (British and American) Liberalism, which emerged from the beginning of the Age of Enlightenment in the seventeenth century, influenced by the works of Locke, Milton and later Hume, Adam Smith, JS Mill, Montesquieu et al, saw itself as a continuation of the Liberal tradition that grew out of Roman and Greek antiquity and was a noble movement which sought to establish the freedoms that would allow, in the modern world, each man (and woman - for the pedantic among us) to achieve his full potential and live the good life according to the wisest men of Antiquity. Central to this was the need for universal education, the abolition of slacery, and so on.

Francophone Liberalism (obviously) emerged from France, in this case around the beginning and middle of the eighteenth century and was to a much greater extent shaped by the degenerate movement of Libertinism, typified by that disgusting character and second rate writer the Marquis de Sade. This is the cultural ancestor of the deconstructionist/neo-Marxist movement which emerged in France in the 1960s and, through Yale University, shaped the "Liberalism" of the United States and later United Kingdom. It was helped all the way by powerful interest groups who saw in this new liberalism a means to more easily exploit the weaknesses of the masses so as to more effectively sell them things. This is the reason that the business elite is still so keen on this brand of liberalism; a liberalism that seeks, in Foucault's phrase to "liberate the body from the mind" is the liberalism of a man who'll buy anything from you with a little bit of pressure - what could stop him, but his mind?

I think the psychological genesis behind the popularity of the degenerate form of liberalism in contemporary times, particularly among my god-awful generation, is precisely in the fact that it doesn't demand anything of one, the way what you call classical liberalism, which was heavily focussed on self-improvement, had done. Classical liberalism's death occurred because it made the mistaken assumption that every man would want to become the best version of himself that he could be, and that this was the purpose of life. Modern liberalism has thrived because it assures one that he's already perfect and doesn't need to change or make an effort to better himself - this is greatly appealing in what Christopher Lasch called the "age of diminishing expectations".

At any rate, I won't be posting in this thread again, for the reason that Ms Destiny has (rightly) made it clear she doesn't want any further tangential discussions, but we can continue the discussion on another ad hoc thread if you like.