Purpose disintegrates in the absence of vision, and vice versa.
Readership: All
Theme: Problems with The Red Pill
Author’s Note: This post has some input from Red Pill Apostle.
Reader’s Note: I keep finding more problems with the Red Pill, so this series will continue for a while longer.
Length: 2,400 words
Reading Time: 13 minutes
Where there is no prophetic vision, the people cast off restraint, but blessed is he who keeps the law.
Proverbs 29:18 (ESV)
Overview
In the Exposition of this month’s theme, A Failure of Knowledge Transference was identified as one type of problem with The Red Pill.
There are six main areas of knowledge transference that have been ineffective.
- Models are misappropriated.
- Models are misinterpreted.
- Models are misunderstood.
- Models are misapplied.
- The Practical Application is Difficult, Elusive, Insurmountable, or Unacceptable
- The Absence of Actionable Knowledge
This essay will cover the fourth.
Foundational reading includes the basics of modelling and 9 Types of Red Pill Models.
Intro
In this essay, I’ll point out 4 of what I feel are the most egregious misapplications of Red Pill lore:
- Trying to Achieve Logical Perfection as denial
- Romantic Fantasy as escapism
- The Purple Pill as idolatry
- Trying to ‘Fix’ the Mating Market
I may cover some other faux pas in future posts as they come to my attention.
1. Trying to Achieve Logical Perfection (Denial)
As stated in a previous post, models are used to communicate abstract ideas. Also, models do not need to be 100% perfect for them to be useful in this regard. If for whatever reason, a man doesn’t agree with the assumed principles of the model that is used to communicate a particular message (e.g. evolutionary psychology, natural selection, sociosexual dynamics, etc.), it does not revoke the validity or value of the message itself, as long as it is regarded in the proper context.
Nevertheless, instead of asking, “What is the nature of this phenomenon?” and “Am I like this in any way?” or “How could this information help me make better decisions?”, men will be looking for incongruencies, logical errors, or any other justification to short-circuit a thorough introspection — all in order to weasel out of taking action or holding themselves responsible for the possible ramifications.
This is like women being confronted with their own solipsism and then saying, “But I’m not like that.” It is a denial.
“If the shoe fits, then wear it.”
That said, if a man finds that Rollo’s model of ‘love’, Beta orbiting, Complementarianism, Wh!te Knighting, or any other secular model fits their life more accurately than a more Christian model, the response should NOT be to nitpick about whether the particular assumptions of the model are Biblical or scientific, or even true, etc., but to recognize this difference, own it (confess it), and then make some attempts to realign one’s life to better fit a preferred model. A great deal of cultural awareness, self-awareness, and common sense is necessary in this regard.
I’ll spell out some basic responses for the sake of illustration.
- If a single Christian man is receiving IOIs and Meet Cutes from women, then perhaps marriage is in the cards for him –> so then choose the appropriate model of Headship. Making this happen might require other strategic or tactical models to be considered.
- If a married Christian man is dissatisfied with his marriage, then there are things he can do to improve his situation –> Sift through the literature, talk with other men, and devise a strategy.
- If a Headship marriage is unattainable or the risks too onerous to accept, then a man may do better to set his mind on GHOW. –> so then choose the appropriate model of celibacy.
The (all too common) WRONG responses are…
- To cite a lack of 100% accuracy in order to deny that an otherwise suitable model applies.
- To resign one’s self to the fate predicted by a secular model, which leads to the Black Pill for most men.
2. Romantic Fantasy (Escapism)
Another misapplication of Red Pill lore is when guys use theoretical models to derive an empirical ideal, and then use this romantic fantasy as a crutch or an excuse to dismiss or avoid dealing with inconvenient or unpleasant realities on the ground. It is essentially a philosophical evasion comparable to that of trying to achieve philosophical perfection, only the purpose is escapism rather than denial.
Romantic fantasies can be quite inspiring, but the problem with this is that it is invariably used to judge women, instead of inspiring a man to find hope and aim higher.
We see this happening with single dudes who make long checklists of traits they “must have” or will not tolerate in a woman, when in fact, they aren’t even seeing anyone — men who say they want a virgin wife who don’t even have a girlfriend. Dudes lost in fantasy land need to find a ‘girlfriend’ first, and then analyze what’s going on.
We also see this happening with guys who have been seeing a girl for a while, but they’ll come up with all kinds of excuses not to marry her. Guys shouldn’t be wasting their time (and hers) with chicks they already know they’re not willing to marry. These guys need to be assessing the feasibility of marriage early on, and make a decision ASAP. If he’s already banging her, then they’re essentially already married and he has already made that choice and needs to take responsibility for it. In this case, he needs to stop flagellating with fantasies of ‘love’, or finding a better or more perfect woman, spinning plates, or whatever, and face his fears of commitment, especially if she’s preggo. (1 Corinthians 7:9)
We also see this happening when married men compare their wives to Red Pill ideals and then feel angry or despondent because they’re stuck with someone they’ve come to see as debased, defiled, immature, problematic, subpar, substandard, or relatively unattractive. Then they check out of their marriages without doing anything to address what they perceive as a problem.
Instead of judging women and flirting with escapism, men should use Red Pill information to develop the skills a man (husband) needs to manage a woman (e.g. his wife). Red Pill concepts should be applied towards solving the daily conflicts and issues that a man faces in his relationship / marriage. The majority of issues can be solved simply by telling the GF / wife the magic words, “No” and “You are mine”, stating some expectations, and making a few demands.
“No. Your threats and fits will not get you what you want.”
“No. You may not drink more than one bottle of wine per day.”
“No. I will not physician shop to obtain more narcotics for your addiction.”
“No. You may not spend one penny more than what we’ve budgeted for real estate.”
“No. I will not change my mind and I will defend my family from all threats, including you.”
Of course, women will act like they hate this, but deep inside they love it. She doesn’t need to agree, she just needs to know that she has a dominant Head. She’ll comply with time, and if she doesn’t, it’s on her.
A man judging women and/or engaging in denial / escapism / romantic fantasy is evading his responsibility as a Head and will lose opportunities for grace and growth. His inability, or possibly unwillingness, to guide her, teach her, and check her excesses will prevent him from finding / keeping a GF / wife, and will only lead to bitterness, disappointment, frustration, hard times, heartache, legal issues, and ultimately the dissolution of the relationship / marriage.
To offer some perspective, the Orthodox Church teaches that the married person is responsible for the salvation of his/her husband or wife. If a man has a rebellious wife, it would be easy to misinterpret this teaching as being hopelessly condemned to hell. But properly understood, this as a missive to take responsibility for one’s influence on the marriage.
3. The Purple Pill (Idolatry)
Since its inception, there have always been attempts made to adapt Red Pill truths to solve Blue Pill problems. In general, this approach is called the Purple Pill.
Protestant Evangelicalism used to be solidly Blue Pill, but ever since the Red Pill has gone mainstream, churchianism has taken on a Purple tinge. More and more evangelical bloggers, pastors, and teachers are usurping Red Pill ideas and brandishing Red Pill terms. Most of them are attempting to appear culturally informed in order to relate to younger generations. Few of them take the Red Pill lore seriously. Straw Man models are often misapplied as an abstract hyperbolic criticism of cherry picked groups of men (e.g. the Manosphere, !ncels, deadbeat dads, et al.), or are dismissed as m!s0gyn!st!c, and NOT as general wisdom.
A variation of the Purple Pill problem also appears in Selling Blue Pills Painted Red, where a man is valued for his ability to get laid, or a man’s self-esteem is dependent on his ability to attract and/or Game women.
Ultimately, the Purple Pill is a compromise with hypoagentic gynocentrism. IOW, idolatry.
No. The Red Pill has always been about understanding and dealing with reality — especially that which is hard to grasp and accept — reality that defies common sense (such as women’s seemingly inane behaviors), and/or eludes intuitive understanding (such as the nature of women), or is inconvenient, unpleasant, or flat-out ugly. The Christian Red Pill has always been about returning to the basics of life and marriage, and adapting to reality with the lens of faith and the aim of greater obedience to the Lord.
Ultimately, the Red Pill (of either variety) is a source of wisdom. It is a praxeology for living wisely (or more foolishly, depending on one’s values), NOT “define the unicorn and chase after it”.
The Red Pill teaches the truth about analyzing potential (or the lack thereof), what works in real-life with real women (which is of inestimable valuable to married men), assessing what’s actually available on the market and figuring out how to deal with it, and what can be reasonably expected as a result of certain actions or choices.
4. Trying to ‘Fix’ the Mating Market
Dead Bedroom Dating wrote,
“These men are missing fundamental understanding, because they stopped at a certain layer to stick to the Blue Pill. They’re convinced that the system fundamentally works and something did go wrong somewhere, like some machinery that needs to be fixed and repaired.
However, androgyny, divorce gr@pe, children suffering or not being born at all (MGTOW) are natural outcomes of the society they live in and nurture by furthering it through participating in its labor market. That’s the Red Pill they won’t accept. The iPhone is just too important to face the truth. They can complain all they want, but MGTOW is not some aberrant feature, it’s also one of the regular outcomes.
And this is the reason why marriage is perfectly fine in parallel societies, who just do not participate in the idolatry which is worshiping machinery.”
… and the gynocracy. (I would interpret ‘iPhone’ and ‘machinery’ as representations of materialism.)
Interestingly, the word ‘fix’ (in bold) takes on multiple entendres here.
- To repair or put in order.
- To assume a rigid, solid, or unchanging form.
- A position from which it is difficult (for women) to escape.
- To neuter an animal (to prevent procreation).
When men talk as though the mating market needs to be ‘fixed’, I believe they’re implying all four of these meanings, although they might only admit the first.
Dead Bedroom Dating wrote,
“The Red Pill still is not about complaining how the sexual market changed, it’s about empirically recognizing what is real and what works and adapting to it. And the landscape is changing continuously.”
Yes, and the only thing that doesn’t change is change itself. Just when they begin to understand what’s going on, the game changes and then they’re back to square one.
The reason why this change is upsetting to men and generates complaints is because…
- They’re focused on establishing a sense of emotional stability and psychological comfort.
- They’re unable to face their own needs and they expect others (i.e. a woman) to feed their needs. (Hint: Only God can satisfy certain needs.)
- They’re trying to mastermind their own lives instead of trusting in God.
- They prefer to languish in a needy state, revel in a poverty mentality, and play the role of the adorer. After all, this is much easier and more enjoyable than working on themselves; being decisive, building an internal locus of control, establishing a domain of influence, maintaining an attitude of detachment, and so on.
All in all, this mindset displays a lack of confidence and faith. It is trying to play God, as described in Misinterpreted Models.
Sooner or later, men will have to accept the fact that the mating market is ‘broken’, and it will always be ‘broken’. It cannot be ‘fixed’ to one’s liking. But in fact, it isn’t ‘broken’ at all. It is, just as it is, like it or not, the playing field in which God has ordained for us to glorify Him. The bottom line is whether you can navigate it and find contentment somehow. You can’t keep the above mentality and glorify God through faith at the same time. IOW, the problem is not the ‘broken’ mating market, it is one’s attitude. If you think the mating market needs ‘fixed’, you may be entirely right in principle, but in reality, it is you that needs fixed. The brokenness of the mating market is simply the impetus that God is using to kick you out of your comfort zone and take real action in your life.
So put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Concluding Statements
Here I’ve only covered 4 ways that men misapply models, and I suppose there are others. But the larger issue is that men misapply models for reasons. These reasons include…
- They have no sense of self, no masculine identity.
- They have no vision, no concept of how things could be, or should be.
- They have no well-defined purpose, other than pursuing their own conveniences and pleasures.
- They are more interested in checking out: escapism, idolatry, and judging others.
- They believe false or misleading doctrine (e.g. complementarianism, egalitarianism, etc.)
- They hold false value systems (e.g. Chivalry, female hypoagency / male hyperagency, gynocentrism, One-itis, prescient obsessions with ‘love‘, etc.)
- Hesitancy and indecision caused by a general lack of confidence and faith.
A man would do well to check himself to see if he harbors any of these reasons for misapplying Red Pill concepts.
Related
- Σ Frame: The Red Pill and Blue Pill as Paradigms of Sanctification and Defilement (with a mathematical analogy) (2020/11/15)
- Σ Frame: The Ever Looming Black Pill (2022/9/12)
ArchAngel
caterpillar345
Soup Sandwich
Lexet Blog
Novaseeker
Oscar
Red Pill Apostle
Jack
thedeti
Σ Frame 
Jack, I have a question. Is “all Jamaicans are of Scottish descent” a model? If yes, then despite its model-hood, it is nonsensical. In that case, we have to sidestep the label ‘model’ and assess the proposition on its own merit. If no, then it is denied model-hood because it is nonsensical. Meaning it must be assessed on its own merit before we can call it a model. If a model is discovered to be false or nonsensical, we must strip it of its model-hood. In other words, we must always sidestep the label ‘model’ and judge the idea alone.
For the record, I saw through this ‘models‘ trick from the very beginning, as I suspect other men did. Faced with the truth in Lovebreaker, and unwilling to go against the Manosphere crowd, Jack innovated the epistemic category ‘model’, where truth or cohering with reality is not the test of a proposition. In fact, the standard by which we are to judge models changes ever so often, to protect them from any criticism.
After creating the concept, Jack promptly made every Manosphere idea he likes a model. All this, despite ostensibly theming two months ‘Problems with the Red Pill‘ while writing posts like this whose actual message is ‘Problems with People who Disagree with the Red Pill‘. Such people misunderstand models, misapply them, misinterpret them etc. Instead, these people should take Jack’s advice and accept Manosphere ideas without scrutiny:
They shouldn’t worry if the idea is baseless, or even false. All that matters is it ‘fits their life’, which means they like and agree with it. They should become mindless ideologues:
If they examine the idea, their experience is all that matters, as Jack informed me in the comments for Lovebreaker. Live your own truth, man:
Lovebreaker is the second most read essay on this blog this year because people want to read well-thought-out critiques of ideas whose problems they’ve noticed, but can’t quite put their fingers on. They don’t want to read several thousand word essays with no point that can’t stick to a topic sentence.
No one should take any of these posts with ‘model’ in the title seriously.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is an awful lot o words to say your panties are all wadded up over Jack’s concepts of models.
If in your admittedly very limited experience with marriage and relationships you find the observations of men with decades of marriage and relationship experience to be lacking, why the he!! do you even bother reading or commenting? There does not appear to be anything here that benefits your life, so why are you here?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Gamma males (like females) live inside their little delusion bubbles.
LikeLike
I’ll try and be as kind as I possibly can about this.
You don’t know what you’re writing about. I don’t mean that as an insult. I mean that as simply a matter of fact. You have almost no real world experience in intersexual relationships and none at all with marriage. All you can talk to us about is theory from either an armchair or an ivory tower.
Theory is not experience. The map is not the territory. In this case, the territory is male and female sexual natures, which don’t change – only the contexts in which those natures express themselves. And I think the disconnect you experience here is that the contexts in which you and I see those natures expressing themselves is different. I just have the benefit of experience in predicting how it plays out, because I’ve just seen it play out so many times.
A few pieces of unsolicited advice:
–raking the blog host over the coals in a public comment probably would not be the best way to win friends and influence people. The comment you posted up there might have been better received if sent privately.
–Date some women and break up with them. See how the women react.
–Date some women and let them break up with you. See how they, and you, react and respond.
–Hang back and watch your friends’ relationships form, germinate, grow, mature, decline, and die. Observe.
–Be in a relationship with a woman who treats you well. Observe.
–Be in a relationship with a woman who treats you poorly. Observe.
–Be in a relationship where things start out well and decline because you didn’t put down boundaries. Observe.
–Be in a relationship where things start out well and decline because you didn’t make your expectations, wants, needs, and desires clear from the get go. Observe.
–Be in a relationship where things decline because she was desperate for a man, any man.
–Marry the right woman.
–Marry the wrong woman and then have to make it work after you point out her crappy treatment of you, she realizes it, and she “consents to live with you”.
–Divorce that wrong woman.
–Your wife divorces you like a bolt from the blue.
If you have it all figured out, more power to you. I’m more inclined to listen to men who have been through the above than a 20-something year old man who has theory and thinks church girls are “slightly better than” secular nonChristian girls.
LikeLiked by 2 people
A perfect example of your lack of experience: Your essay, Lovebreaker. Great piece of writing about how Rollo’s definition of “love” isn’t love.
OK. Great. Great explication of your point. We got it.
Now that you’ve told us what love is not, tell us what love actually is.
Now show us how that works in actual practice.
You didn’t do that. You didn’t tell us what love actually is, perhaps because you don’t know. If you do know, you didn’t tell us.
Perhaps you don’t know anyone who has put that definition of love (which, again, you didn’t give us) into actual practice. Perhaps you do know someone who has, but you didn’t describe what that looks like or how it was done.
It’s fine that you don’t have that experience. It’s fine that you don’t know. But don’t lecture and hold forth as if you have that experience when you do not. Don’t lecture and hold forth as if you know things you do not know.
LikeLiked by 1 person
deti,
This is a valid point, one I addressed in my correspondence with Jack. I did not try to replace Tomassi’s concepts of ‘love’ with my own, because I think people already know, or have a vague idea, what love is. In other words, if Tomassi’s concepts have crumbled for you, go back to what you used to think about love before you read him. Go back to what we ordinarily call love.
The solution to problems with the red pill is not even more specialized knowledge, but the mundane and everyday. Future essays will confirm this.
Exactly, and when I start giving marriage advice tell me to go to hell; my experience with women does not extend to marriage. I talk about theory deliberately.
Also, you personally know that experience can be deceiving. Remember what you said about the false lessons your parents thought you. I prefer to stick to more tangible concepts.
LikeLike
That’s a copout. And no, I really don’t think most people do. Nor do they know how to implement it and show it to another human. A refresher:
That, right there, is the entire sum and substance of love. Love defined. It is God. God is love. You either believe this or you don’t.
Love is also described as an action. It’s not something you feel. Love is not sex, or attraction, either. It’s something you do and which is done to or for you. One cannot say one loves another and yet does nothing for them. “Love without works is dead”, if you will.
So that’s what love is. How does one implement that with another human? You’ve seen stories of it throughout history, in the Bible and at other places. And here. You love through action. Through what you do. You also show lack of love through negative action, and inaction.
A husband who gets up every day and works a job that is slowly killing him and does it for his family, shows love. A husband who stays with a mentally ill wife who is trying to get better shows love. A wife who sees her errors, tries to get better, and submits, shows love (respect, which is how men experience love from their wives). Sarah loved Abraham — she obeyed him and called him lord.
How do wives love husbands? Respect and (gasp) submission. You do what your husband asks of you. You do what he says. You follow him and you go where he goes. You do it with a gentle and quiet spirit, in loving obedience and gratitude for what he does for you.
How do husbands love wives? Give all of yourself for her in kindness and understanding. You literally pour yourself out for her. You care for her, nourish her, speak the Word over her and expect her to abide by it. You tell her what the standard is and expect her to meet it, and still love her when she falls short (as she will).
Gee. Where have we seen this modeled?
Oh yeah — Christ gave Himself and of His love, the Church was born. The Church follows, submits, and obeys. “I will hang on the Cross for you and give you eternal life. Your part in this is to do what I say and keep My commandments. You don’t have to do this. You don’t have to obey Me. But if you don’t accept Me and My sacrifice, then you have no part with Me. You, not I, will pay for your sin and you will suffer eternal death. Up to you.” That’s the New Covenant. That’s it, right there, in easy to understand form.
That’s love. Many men who frequent this space now and in the past actually did those things. They didn’t just talk about it. They did it. They still do it. It’s hard. It sucks the very life out of you. But we do it because God commands it.
That is experience. That’s my experience and that of many men who post here and who have posted here in the past. Unlike you, we’ve actually lived it. We’ve actually implemented it, sometimes stumbling around in the dark, but doing our best to get there imperfectly.
Experience can deceive; but it is also the best teacher. Something you might want to consider going forward.
LikeLiked by 3 people
The truth is, it is one hell of a lot more difficult and taxing for a man to love a woman than it is for a woman to love a man. Hell, all a woman has to do to love a man is to be quiet and do what he says. (Kind of like what God expects of His Church.)
What does a man have to do to love a woman? He has to let the world pummel the sh!t out of him. Then, when his wife f_cks it all up, acts up, and rebels against him, he has to be kind, understanding, and gently correct her by washing her in the Word.
Who has the harder job here?
LikeLiked by 3 people
My father will be 85 years old in November. I watched him work a job that slowly sucked his soul out of him. He retired when he just couldn’t take it anymore. He then cared for my mother as her health deteriorated until she died in 2021 of end stage renal failure brought on by 45 years of diabetes. He supported her and their 3 children. He put up with a veritable river of sh!t from Mom, who was an undiagnosed borderline personality. She treated him terribly at times with her mood swings and lashing out. (And that’s just what I saw growing up.) And he stayed with her.
He loved her.
My mother died at age 76. Before that she lived with dad, bore him 3 children, and kept a home on the lower middle class income dad earned. She presented a united front to her children and didn’t bad mouth dad (often) or complain too much. She made do with what she had. When dad shut mom’s complaints down, she quieted down and got in line. And she stayed with him.
She loved him.
They didn’t love each other perfectly but I think they did the best they could. All told, my assessment is dad did a better job of loving mom than vice versa. He tolerated more. He put up with more. He did more of the work and heavy lifting.
______________________________________
One of the reasons men talk so much about sex and attraction and the lack of it is because it’s a symptom of women’s lack of love and respect for their husbands. It shows that women don’t love or respect us. They know we want it; and deprive us of it to manipulate and defraud us, and because it seems right in their own eyes. Adding injury to insult, our society eggs women on and encourages them to maltreat men and divorce them – rewarding them in the process with half of the men’s entire lifetime earnings.
These are just some of the reasons men walk away from women. Women demanded to be made gods and lords, or ‘equals’ to men. It’s pretty much guaranteed to cause the fall of Western civilization (a foregone conclusion at this point – it cannot be stopped now). Sexual problems in marriages, men’s inability to get anything they want from relationships – all a symptom of women’s inability to love and respect. (Again, for all the readers here, including Derek – we know you’re reading every word written here, I don’t demand that “women” respect me. I do, however, demand and expect that Mrs. deti respect me. I do, however, expect wives to love and respect their own husbands. Wives’ failure to do that is an enormous problem in society.)
LikeLiked by 3 people
Theory is useless until it’s tested. I see little point in talking about theory. I want to know how you or others have tested your theories and what the results were.
See, the Red Pill is a body of literature consisting of hundreds of thousands, maybe a million or more, little field experiments on male and female nature. Agree with it, disagree with it, like it, dislike it, call it immoral or anything else you want — but what cannot be denied is that Red Pill has pretty much sussed out what attracts women. Hint: It isn’t nice, kind, good Christian men. It’s good looking, in shape, low body fat, muscularly defined, confident, dominant men with money and resources who demonstrate proficiency at at least one skill, particularly if that skill generates resources. That’s not theory. Those are conclusive results of replicable field experiments. Which, by the way, are corroborated by most Western literature of the last 400 years by its most celebrated authors, as well as biblical accounts (see, e.g. Ezekiel 23:12-21).
I’d rather read field reports on theory tests. You’ve got theories? Get out there and test them, and let’s see what the results are. I’ll be skeptical though — there are more than a few Manosphere denizens who’ve been revealed to be, well, not who they claimed to be, let’s just put it that way.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I’m going to do AA and everyone else here a service. I’m going to tell you the primary problem in relationships in the West today.
Ready?
It’s lack of wives’ submission to husbands.
That’s it. That’s the problem. Lack of submission. Wives’ refusal to and inability to submit to men who are supposed to, and do, love them.
LikeLiked by 4 people
deti,
See my reply below.
LikeLike
The citation of I Cor. 13:4-8a is interesting.
In 1 Corinthians 13, Paul notes that love is patient, kind, not envious, not boastful, humble, not improper, not selfish, not provoked, doesn’t hold grudges, doesn’t delight in evil, rejoices in truth, is long-suffering, faithful, hopeful, and enduring, and unfailing.
In Galatians 5, Paul mentions the commandment to “love your neighbor as yourself” then describes the fruit (singular!) of the spirit as love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, and self-control. The fruit is not found in the sexually impure, drunken, hateful, discordant, jealous, angry, selfish, or those full of dissent.
Let’s see some background context:
By my count, Paul uses ~17 positive Greek words and ~13 negative (not …) Greek words to try to capture the meaning of the Hebrew sense of divine love, and it still isn’t enough to fully capture the entire sum and substance of what divine love is (Paul’s lists contain the figure of speech asyndeton).
The word chesed means “steadfast love”, “lovingkindness”, “mercy”, “goodness”, etc. It’s the kind of love that God wants from his followers (e.g. Hosea 6:6). Paul uses agape love—the divine form of love—to describe one’s love of one’s wife, explicitly comparing to Christ’s love for the church.
chesed means, in part, “lovingkindness.”
chesed is undeserved.
chesed doesn’t suck the life out of you, it is the source of life:
chesed is an covenantal and eternal (e.g. Isaiah 55:3).
chesed is love in action.
LikeLike
As they absolutely should! To wit, confirmation bias:
LikeLiked by 1 person
AA,
I will assume you are being serious. The statement is best understood as a theoretical proposition to be considered, and NOT a conclusive statement. The statement is denied model-hood NOT because it is nonsensical, but because it is not a mature, well-developed theory supported by logic and/or observation.
On a side note, as ridiculous as this proposition may appear at first glance, it is not entirely nonsensical. When considering the fact that Scots were among some of the earliest settlers of Jamaica, it is quite likely that it is mostly true. Further, Scots and blacks were among some of the earliest settlers of the American South, so it is quite likely that most American Blacks are also of Scottish descent. More research would be required to assign a statistical value to the actual number of Jamaicans / Blacks that are of Scottish descent.
But again, this is but a theory that needs to be further researched. It is not a model. Models are more complex, have a fundamental structure, and suggest relationships between variables.
It is not a trick. It is a useful tool of analysis. I am not making this up. It is a foundational tool of modern science. I kindly suggest for you to read about the scientific method to acquaint yourself with this tool. I am only proposing that one very insightful way to interpret and understand Red Pill theories is by regarding them as models of human behavior. You have been very critical of this approach, but you have not argued that this is a faulty way to assess the Red Pill.
If you wanted to take down my thesis, then you should argue that models are wrong, misunderstood, misapplied… Oh, wait… That’s what I’ve been writing about!
I’m not sure you even understand the concept of modeling well enough to argue against it.
Here’s what I mean.
Truth is assumed to exist, but it is also assumed that we do not understand it very well, hence the focus. Coherence with reality IS the test of a proposition / model. Models are ALWAYS open to criticism, and this criticism helps to improve the model. Also, every man experiences life differently, and this is why every man has to consider it for himself. If the shoe doesn’t fit, then don’t wear it.
If you don’t like a particular theory / model, then why not just say so and state your reasons, like you did in your post, Lovebreaker?
It seems you were expecting this theme to disprove the Red Pill and dismantle the Manosphere, rather than examine the problems with it. This would be a formidable undertaking because the Red Pill has already endured intense scrutiny from thousands of very experienced and intelligent men over the last 15 years, and it has stood the test of time. The Left has had more success in discrediting Red Pill proponents than in disproving their ideas.
That said, ‘Problems with People who Disagree with the Red Pill‘ would be better stated as ‘Case Studies of People who Either Create or Encounter Problems with the Red Pill‘. I am also addressing problems in the Manosphere as well. It is not a matter of simple disagreement or opinion, but of context, denial, escapism, misunderstanding, opposed values and purposes, and so on as I have written.
On the contrary, I am encouraging MORE scrutiny, and not only logical scrutiny (which you seem to think is the most important test of truth, even though you argued against positivism), but also personal scrutiny (introspection).
Not sure where you came up with this. It’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying men can consider which RP models best fit their personal experience. Actually, I don’t need to say this, because this is what most men do. I’m just asking men to examine the process instead of blindly accepting it.
Again, this is not what I’m saying. I’m saying to consider what you think is truth and decide if that is really truth and whether you are living it.
Congratulations! I would expect that this would inspire you to write more posts or start your own blog. How are those essays coming?
In many of my exploratory essays, I leave the point and/or conclusions for readers to decide for themselves. I believe it is better for people to examine the information and decide for themselves what to think.
I’ve been posting power quotes on Twitter for those who are limited on time or who have a short attention span. Those who want to read all about different perspectives, contextual nuances, and the logical mechanics behind it can come here to read more.
Sorry for the long comment. Here’s a potato.
LikeLike
This is not quite on topic, but I thought it was interesting when I saw it and had the reason explained to me. The link between Scots and Jamaicans is quite real and plays out in the island’s genetic makeup.
A neighbor from years ago was born and raised in Jamaica. He is black. Through him I met his cousin and his cousin’s eldest son. The cousin is black as is his wife. Their eldest son looks Caucasian with light skin, blue eyes and wavy lighter colored hair.
I found out that this gene expression in Jamaica happens with enough frequency as to not be shocking. It is the result of a confluence of different peoples arriving and living on the island over hundreds of years many of whom were Scotts.
The family surname for the non-Caucasian, Caucasian-looking Jamaican with black parents ….. McPherson.
LikeLike
What’s important to me is that ‘models’ are not a privileged class of necessary truths. Now that I see you agree on that, there’s no issue.
The combativeness in my comments is a bad habit, but some of it may just be the nature of an intellectual challenge. There is no bad blood or hostility toward you or your work.
Stay cool.
Here’s the Portrait of Madame X:
LikeLike
AA,
This is bizarre, kinda like, “Define the unicorn…” Where did you get this idea? Was there something I wrote that gave you this impression?
I have been setting the trend for ‘cool’ since 1987, and my father since 1958. What it is, man. What it is!
LikeLike
Pingback: But I’m not like that! | Σ Frame
deti,
There are two issues here: your experience argument and your notion of love.
First, the lived-experience argument you and RPA have resorted to throughout these comments is no substitute for sound logic. In fact, it is a favorite of transgenders and feminists precisely because they don’t have anything worthwhile to say. You wrongly assume I don’t have any experience with being in love and being loved; although my (and your) personal affairs are irrelevant to our discussion on the use of ‘love’. Do well to remember that.
Second, it is hard to tell what point exactly you are trying to make about love. You falsely suggest that ‘sacrifice’, ‘respect’ and ‘submission’ are the same thing as ‘love’–that is, are synonyms. Family-men doing more (in your opinion) for their wives than vice versa does not mean these men love their wives more than their wives love them; you are assuming that. You may need to make your point clearer, but you’ve been talking about service, which is distinct from (although it may be related to) love.
Finally, consider the idea that you are mistaking your experiences for the higher laws of nature. Your opinions on love and the problem with relationships in the West may be limited to you and others in the same situation.
LikeLike
You conveniently ignored that I based my argument on Scripture.
I’ve made my argument very clearly. What’s yours? What’s the basis of your argument? What’s the point you’re trying to make? If you think I’m wrong, then what do you believe love is? What is the basis of your argument? What factual or other support do you have for your claims?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I can see from your response to me that you do not accept the biblical definition of love.
If that’s the case, there’s not really a basis for discussion. Love is not logical. It is a thing of the spirit. Scripture makes that quite clear. Scripture also lays out a plan for how to love others. Tells us exactly how to do it.
If you don’t accept what scripture says about what love is and how to do it as the final authority and basis for our lives, I don’t know what to tell you or what else there is to discuss.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This would appear to be the point at which that wise old maxim, “Don’t feed the troll” (in this case I’m beginning to suspect that it’s a “trollette”) applies.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nor is “logic” a substitute for real world experience. When people try substituting real world experience with “logic”, they end up with logical fallacies like “but that wasn’t real Communism”.
I put “logic” in quotes because if your “logic” doesn’t work in the real world, then it isn’t logical. A logical man puts his logic to the test in the real world and analyzes how well it works. If it doesn’t work, he adjusts his logic to fit real the real world. He repeats this process as many times as necessary to develop a logical model that is useful in the real world.
You’ve been relying on logic more than experience because you’re too young to have much experience. That’s fine, but a logical man learns from others’ experience.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Learning from other’s experience” is based on the fallacious assumption that all men are created equal. Also known as blank-state-ism.
LikeLike
Right. Because it’s impossible to learn from someone who is not your equal. For example, it’s impossible to learn from someone who is more experienced than you are. Makes perfect sense.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oscar has an exigency to teach others, but doesn’t understand that they do not want his advice, because it’s pretty much useless.
This kind of solipsism a typical behavioral trait of both the female and the gamma male, who don’t understand that the universe isn’t about them.
LikeLike
MR….
Also MR….
LikeLike
On the contrary: One’s personal affairs / experiences are very relevant to the “use of love” when examined and measured against Scripture.
LikeLike
Anecdotes are the weakest form of evidence for a reason. It’s easy to find conflicting anecdotes, and anecdotes provide no way to correct for confounding variables. Given their susceptibility to selection bias, this makes them more-or-less irrelevant due to subjectivity.
Consider Lancaster County, Pennsylvania’s marriage and divorce statistics: (1) significantly earlier age of marriage compared to the national average; (2) much higher than average fertility; (3) much lower than average divorce.
According to the Red Pill anecdotes, this should not be possible. Even though this is much better evidence than personal anecdotes, nobody cares. I even added my own anecdotal observations: that my relatives, peers, and even acquaintances (including secular ones) have much lower divorce rates and happier marriages than the precepts of this website would predict. But nobody cares about those anecdotes either. I pointed out that my parent’s church had at least one birth per month over the course of a year. Nobody reached out to me privately to ask about joining that church.
So much for anecdotes being “very relevant.”
A long while back Jason pointed out that his cultural Christian parents had better success than most of the Red Pill men on this forum.
The result of these anecdotal observations has largely been to explain them away as outliers or else somehow actually being magically Red Pill (without any cited evidence).
And speaking of anecdotes, what would you say the percentage of Red Pill men are divorced and/or have bad marriages? Is this greater than or less than the national average?
How are the leaders doing? What can you say of Dalrock’s marriage? Scott’s marriage? If anecdotes are so powerful, why did Jack censor any mention that the latter’s “marriage is on the rocks” and delete all his posts? The answer is obvious: anecdotes are not relevant and one’s personal experiences—successes or failures—do not determine truth.
Personal anecdotes are not relevant.
LikeLike
ramman3000, Pennsylvania is marked by abundance of food and energy, which are good predictors of population growth (in the end it’s all just biology).
Red Pill anecdotes usually stem from overpopulated urban dwellings, which present the opposite conditions.
LikeLike
They are when they’re examined and measured against Scripture.
You left that part off. Stop lying about what I say and what my arguments are.
If you’re going to participate here, at least do so honestly. If you’re going to characterize my arguments, at least do so honestly and in good faith. You’re being disingenuous and deceptive here. You’re acting in bad faith, and everyone here knows it.
LikeLike
This is now the second time Derek has lied about and mischaracterized my statements and arguments.
I’m not going to engage people who lie about others’ statements and arguments. You clearly cannot be trusted to engage in honest dialogue here.
LikeLike
No, they are not.
Anecdotes that are examined and measured against Scripture invalidate your own anecdotes. See how that works? You’ve just begged-the-question.
You must be joking. Or maybe someone hacked your account and said something downright silly in your name.
LikeLike
I assume you agree with me, then, that anecdotes are worthless. If the data itself is so confounded, the solitary anecdotes must be also.
LikeLike
You’re a liar.
LikeLike
I’m a liar because my snipped quotation, which anyone could just scroll up and read, wasn’t complete enough for your tastes? Seriously?
Do you know that you frequently cite Ephesians 5 by carving up Paul’s sentence into sentence fragments in order to make the claim that wives should submit to their husbands?
Are you a liar too? According to the standard by which you judge me, you are a liar (see: Matthew 7:2).
Your standard is downright silly, and so I can’t take your accusation seriously.
Just to show how insanely absurd your claim is, you didn’t even feel the need to completely cite your own citation in your complaint.
LikeLike
My commentary on the above discussion.
First, if love is to be taken seriously, and not just a bare proposition in an argument, then it must be personal. The comments above reveal which commenters take love to heart and which commenters enjoy using the nebulous logic of love to stoke confusion and turmoil.
Secondly,
This is true, IF you are attempting to transfer knowledge to a different context or individual.
‘True’ anecdotes may or may not contain transferable knowledge, however, they do offer testimony of at least one man’s own beliefs / experiences which cannot be summarily discounted on the basis of it being anecdotal. In fact, personal testimony is one of the most powerful forms of evidence, because it is demonstrated and lived out in the life of at least one man. The weakness of an anecdote / testimony is when it is demonstrated and lived out in the life of ONLY ONE man.
Third, Ramman is correct that induction involves circular reasoning, as I described in Misinterpreted Models. This is why a large number of anecdotes / testimonies must be considered before drawing any general conclusions that can be used as transferable knowledge.
LikeLike
I have done a lot of arguing with Derek Ramsey, but ultimately, I found it wasn’t worth my time. He is not only willing to lie during his arguments, but he remains far too stubborn to retract his lies when they are shown to him. And yes, he intentionally mischaracterizes things as a tool in his argumentation. I wouldn’t hold him in contempt if he merely misstated my beliefs, but he twists the definitions of our word and commonly used phrases in the attempt to justify his lies.
You can’t argue in good faith with a person who is even willing to completely redefine our language in his attempt to make a liar out of you and to try to make his own lies OK. If you can’t even find agreement on what predefined words and phrases mean, then further discussion isn’t likely to be profitable.
Proverbs 22:28(NLT) Don’t cheat your neighbor by moving the ancient boundary markers set up by previous generations.
God originated most of our languages at Babel.
One published Satanic goal is to: “Unite humanity with a living new language.”, thereby undoing what God did at Babel.
Those who would prefer that our words not hold to their established meanings, are perverters of the truth and liars at heart. Even my very own conscience tells me that.
LikeLike
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think anyone has discounted anecdotes as evidence simply because they are anecdotes.
ArchAngel pointed out that anecdotes do not trump logic. If your anecdote supports an illogical claim, then your explanation for that anecdote is incorrect.
I stated that anecdotes are the weakest form of evidence, and if non-anecdotal evidence contradicts it, then we look at the better evidence, not the anecdotes. I used the example of Lancaster County. If the aggregate data is confounded, then the anecdotes are expected to suffer from the same confounding, unless otherwise stated (which it was not).
But Deti said that anecdotes are “very relevant” (oh, no! A snippet quotation! Misattribution! Mischaracterization! Not My Argument!) to the discussion. How can non-transferrable anecdotes be “very relevant?” If anecdotes are so important, we’ve had years of anecdotes on this blog. Why aren’t we talking about their failures?
Where are all the men giving their testimony saying “my experience my be my own, don’t try to replicate what I’ve done or listen to my advice?”
Inductive reasoning is somewhat okay if it is all you have. It’s a sad state of affairs if that is the majority of what we rely upon.
LikeLike
Of course it does. That’s what I wrote above when I said, referencing Hosea 6:6, that God wants followers who love him. That’s a personal relationship. God wants followers to love him with the same ardent fervor that husbands love their wives (and vice versa).
Can you point out where any propositions were made that oppose love being personal? Who isn’t taking love seriously?
LikeLike
Pingback: The Ways of Women Around the World | Σ Frame
I’m not going to engage disingenuous liars here or anywhere else. The above exchanges conclusively establish who is lying and who is telling the truth. Everyone here can judge for themselves who is lying and who is telling the truth.
LikeLike
Anyone reading my snippet, could just look up an inch or two and see exactly what you said. Do you think readers are that stupid that they can’t see that for themselves? In all my years, I’ve never seen someone complain so bitterly about something so completely insignificant.
You literally misquoted scripture two times above by only citing a part of the sentence: 1 Corinthians 13:4-8a and Ephesians 5:22-26. You also misquoted Paul by citing 1 Cor 3 instead of 1 Cor 13.
How can you stand their with such righteous indignation while you do the very thing that you accuse others of doing?
But I can do you one better. You’re a lawyer, right? I can prove, yes prove, deductively that you are wrong. Let’s see your statement again:
In terms of a logical statement, that’s A⇒B.
But if you read what I wrote, you’ll see that I argued, unequivocally, that ¬B. That means your statement A⇒B is false for all values of A. There was no need to mention A, because B is false regardless of the truth value of A. Thus, disproved your underlying point while simultaneously showing that it was irrelevant. I didn’t quote that part of your statement, because it was completely and utterly irrelevant to our discussion.
If you had actually read and understood what I wrote, you’d know that not only was there no need for me to quote your irrelevant point, but that I had actually explicitly debunked your point.
I didn’t misrepresent you, I did what any honest debater do: I left out the irrelevant details to keep the discussion concise and on-point, something I’ve, ironically, been asked to do. See how well that has worked out?
We can all see, quite clearly, that I’m arguing in good faith.
LikeLike
This is now the second time Derek has lied about and mischaracterized my statements and arguments.
I’m not going to engage people who lie about others’ statements and arguments. You clearly cannot be trusted to engage in honest dialogue here.
You’ll no doubt be amused to know (I’m sure you already do) that Derek keeps obsessively close track on his own blog of the goings-on hereabouts. It’s his blog, and he’s certainly free to use it in whatever manner “floats his boat.” Still, I’m mystified at the fixation this site causes. If the message conveyed by the regulars here is so error-laden and “effeminate,” why validate it by giving it so much attention? Wouldn’t ignoring it and not giving it unwarranted attention be a far more effective way to neutralize its effectiveness?
Jack, you must not realize how massively impactful this site is on such huge numbers of men around the globe for another blogger to focus so intently on your commentariat!
LikeLike
Oh, I know little Derek reads every word written here. And lies about what’s said here. His latest comment up there continues to miss the point.
LikeLike
Satan doesn’t mind whatever you worship, so long as it isn’t the true God. Satan doesn’t care what you believe so long as it is not the truth. All other substitute beliefs are acceptable to him, even though he prefers that we believe the most wicked and degrading possible beliefs.
I don’t think the particular sites are what matters, so much as the validity of the ideas. Derek made 7 posts directly against my teaching in a single month once. That’s far more than I have ever posted on my own site, except for during my first three months of operation.
I believe the ideas are like seed or leaven, they spread and grow if the conditions are receptive to them. So, it doesn’t matter so much as to where they are discussed, as that they are being discussed and getting out and then others can popularize them as well.
Derek is not a “truth seeker” as he claims. He is working to discredit the truth through any means he can. Whether he is saying “thedeti said this questionable thing, so now you should disregard everything he has said”, or the manosphere has some fools and A**holes, so you must consider everything they say as foolish and meanspirited, and Etc. As I’ve mentioned before he is willing to lie to make it seem like he is discrediting the key ideas that the manosphere has produced.
And to him, he might actually see it that way: that his ideas are right, because his marriage works, for he and his wife. And that our ideas are wrong, because his marriage didn’t use them and is doing just fine. LOL But, myopia is not the determiner of truth. Just because he lacks the experience of other men, and his own marriage is running smoothly does not make him the repository of all knowledge. In fact, those who have more difficulty have had the opportunity to try more possible solutions, and as a result have more relevant and comparative experience. Whereas those who always have the first thing they try work, must think themselves to be in possession of all the right answers.
Anyhow, it does not matter why Derek feels inclined to try to turn all men back to the woman-worshipping-plantation and to preach the churches failed doctrines; while discrediting, the truth God has revealed to some of us through many hardships, it only matters that he is trying to do it and is not opposed to using intentional deceit to accomplish his false teaching. Like in a “holy war” he feels his cause is just and must prevail, so that then justifies any means he chooses to employ. And the lies don’t stand up on their own, so they need a little help, against the truth.
I think we’d all do best to just ignore his yapping. I tried to debate with him in good faith and it got me nowhere, but only garnered more attention for his renewed lies against me. Our ideas are going mainstream and are making inroads. Whereas most of Derek’s ideas have been mainstream for centuries, and are not new, but are ultimately what has gotten us here. Our time is better spent continuing to move forward and to make progress against the lies of the past, which have failed us, and we should not get distracted by Derek’s arguing and claims of seeking the truth. He is a liar. he is not seeking truth. He lies against the truth. And he is too stubborn to ever accept the truth, so any time spent arguing the truth with Derek is just time spent boxing with the tar-baby. Ignore him, he’s just here to put tar on us.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Vox Day’s Socio-Sexual Hierarchy explains that behavior pretty well. Gamma males focus on “being correct” and “win discussions” on the Internet and like to create walls of text in the process.
The gamma male is trying to teach others to learn from their successes. (Note how this pattern is prevalent in many churchies.)
Of course in reality everyone learns from theirs and others failures. However gamma males never failed in anything, because they live inside a delusion bubble where they did everything right. The latter is making their advice entirely useless and reading them a pure waste of time.
LikeLike
Pingback: A Failure of Knowledge Transference in Practical Applications | Σ Frame