TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

70

One thing I have noticed in both redpill and bluepill ideologies is the notion that you are in control of your own life, and if you want to have a certain kind of life, you have to make certain changes in your life towards achieving it. The difference between redpill and bluepill then is the nature of these "changes".

I have also noticed both pills have a very pronounced idea about where the "fault" is for those romantically unsuccessful: with the person who has trouble with the romance, and not society at large. This is seen in adages such as "If you have a hard time dating, notice the most common denominator with all your dates is you", and "if you want your life to change, you have to first start with yourself".

I would like to contrast this with the feminist ideology and the idea of patriarchy. According to wikipedia, this is the idea that there exists "a social system in which men hold primary power and predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property".

Feminists I have noticed also have a very pronounced idea about where the "fault" is for those who are having trouble with life: with the patriarchy, the existing social systems. i.e. the "fault" is not the self, but the society at large. In feminist views, the problems of women such as wage gap and under-representation in STEM fields does not start by changing the self, but by changing men. This is done either via legislation or attempting to indoctrinate men to have views that more closely resemble those of the feminists.

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

This notion of where the "fault" lies changes the nature of the process we use to address these issues. Let's consider three societal ills and investigate this process:

1- A man approaches a woman to initiate rapport hopefully leading to a relationship but is rejected. In this case we assume the "fault" is with the man. We attempt to give him advice on how to change himself for the better so he won't be rejected in the future. The woman in this scenario bears zero fault and must change nothing.

2- A woman applies for a job hopefully to be able to provide for herself but is rejected. A man is hired in her place instead. In this case we assume the "fault" is with the employer. We attempt to create legislation so the employers have less say over who they get to hire. The woman in this situation bears zero fault and must change nothing.

3- A poor person has trouble saving money and escaping his bad neighbourhood. He\She might have trouble even feeding themselves, or accessing healthcare when they are sick. In this case the society is split on where the "fault" is. The right believes the fault is with the poor, and they should just work harder and save more to escape poverty. The left believes the fault is with the systems that create poverty, i.e. the society at large. And the way to fix it is to change how we treat the poor via legislation.

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

As a side note here, because this idea comes up a lot, I would like to address the issue of "entitlement". The idea is that because people are "entitled" to good health and not living in poverty, and not being discriminated based on their sex, these issues must be fixed on a societal level. A man being rejected however must not, because people are not "entitled" to romance.

I would like to point out that the idea of "entitlement" is arbitrary. Who gets to choose what a person is entitled to or not? A lot of people believe people are entitled to healthcare, and many believe they are not. Whether someone is entitled to something is subjective and depends on the individual's beliefs.

However, something that is objective is to consider whether these issues cause harm, and if they do, what is the best way to negate it. Whether you personally believe someone is entitled to romance, equal pay, or healthcare, what I hope we can objectively agree on is that not having those things causes distress and is an unpleasant experience. And if there are ways to prevent that distress, it is a good idea to explore them.

(And a side note to my side note: I'm not "equating" these three and saying they cause the same amount of distress, merely that they do cause an amount of distress which could be prevented)

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

For all the three issues mentioned above, there are things that can be done on an individual level to minimize the harm in some way.

  • The rejected man can improve his clothing and attitudes.
  • The rejected woman can improve her employability via gaining additional qualifications and experience.
  • The poor person can make a conscious effort to maximize his savings and invest those savings on capital generating commodities.

And there are also things that can be done on a societal level to minimize their harm:

  • The society can provide free healthcare to poor.
  • The society can make anti-discrimination legislation.
  • For the man being rejected, there are many ideas floating from telling women to be less shallow, to extreme measures such as sex redistribution.

( It is interesting to me that discussing what society can do for the romantically challenged is considered taboo despite the fact that both men are women are increasingly suffering from its negative effects )

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Going back to the notion of "fault", from an objective perspective, when any issue arises from an interaction between a number of people, the "fault" would be shared between all who participated. But we are not rational creatures. We don't like to see faults in ourselves. This is even more pronounced when you don't have direct control about the situation.

Imagine if you are a passenger in a car, and I tell you that if the car is involved in an accident, you are at fault for it. That naturally feels unfair, because even though you have "some" amount of control over the situation (for instance you can tell the driver to slow down or be more careful), the one who has direct control and agency over the car is the driver. We can say if there is an accident, the driver is at "fault", even if the passenger could have prevented the accident indirectly by telling the driver to slow down.

Likewise, in the case of a person who is being rejected, I believe while there might be things that he\she could have done to prevent that rejection indirectly, ultimately the one who is at "fault" is the person doing the rejection, who had actual direct control over the rejection.

This is a double edged sword. On the one hand if you say it's not the rejected person's fault, it might imply that he has to make no changes to improve his or her life. On the other hand, if you say it is the rejected person's fault, it seems unfair and they might perceive that as hostility which would prevent them from being open to follow your advice to make changes to their lives anyway.

It seems the notion of "fault" doesn't help with anything and just gets in the way of actually preventing rejections (and car accidents).

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

My conclusion from all this is that the obsession with finding "fault" and trying to carve out an "either/or" world where every issue is either 100% self inflicted or 100% other people's fault is counter-productive and does not help alleviate these issues.

My idea is that the best way to handle any issues one is facing in life is to simultaneously recognize that there are things outside of individual's direct control and while they should not be "blamed" for their failures, there are still things that they can do to try to indirectly influence their life's path.

So my suggestion to both redpill and bluepill is that if someone is having difficulties with romance, instead of trying to convince them of where the fault is, attempt to primarily empathize with their distress, while also noting that there might be things they can do to improve their situation. If they are open to it you can try to give them specific advice after you've gotten to know the specific of their situation. From my experience this is what therapists do.

What do you think? Discuss.


[–]tnais30 points31 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

Very astute observations!

The official psychological term for this phenomenon is called the locus of control if you want to read/research more. The locus of control is a spectrum ranging from internal to external. Individuals with a strong internal locus of control believe events in their life derive primarily from their own actions: for example, when receiving exam results, people with an internal locus of control tend to praise or blame themselves and their abilities. People with a strong external locus of control tend to praise or blame external factors such as the teacher or the exam.

Most people are constantly changing positions on the scale depending on their circumstances. It is human nature to have an internal locus of control when things are going well so you can pat yourself on the back for making good decisions, and to have an external locus of control when things are going poorly so you can blame someone/something else in order to prevent guilt over possibly making poor decisions.

Personally I think it's best for an individual to always try and maintain an internal locus of control, for better or worse. Because if bad things are happening to you, and you blame someone or something other than yourself, then that means you're at the mercy of that external thing to change in order for you to succeed. But if you blame yourself, then that means you have to change yourself instead. Generally, it's easier to change yourself than to change others. However, many people feel that they "shouldn't have to" do that (whether or not that's true), and so consequently they never change, and then their problems never change either.

Having an internal locus of control is strongly correlated with happiness and success, while an external locus of control is correlated with depression. Part of this could be the fact that when we experience success, we might take more credit for it than we actually deserve; and how when you're depressed, you feel like you have no control over your life. However I think there's more to it than that; I think actually choosing to have an internal or external locus of control largely affects your fate and future happiness/success. The paradox is that if you have a strong external locus of control and you're reading this, you might be thinking "Oh that person's just lucky to have an internal locus of control! I can't change!" And the person with a strong internal locus of control responding to that argument would say, "You can choose to have an internal locus of control! You're just choosing not to!"

A lot of it boils down to the discussion of "free will"-- something controversial which most philosophers can't come to an agreement on, so that means it's up to you to form your own opinions of whether or not you have or don't have it, and to what extent, and see what happens.

[–]zmndyeqm[S] 7 points8 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

The official psychological term for this phenomenon is called the locus of control.

I did not know this. Thanks for the link.

Personally I think it's best to always try and maintain an internal locus of control, for better or worse. [...] Generally, it's easier to change yourself than to change others.

This is true for many cases and generally good practical advice however there is a problem: Outside of your own personal feelings of control, there is an objective source of control in each action.

For example: If I punch myself in the face, then the harm is self-inflicted no matter how external my locus of control is. On the flipside, if someone just punches me in the face for no reason, then the harm could not have been avoided by me regardless of how internal my locus of control is.

The issues arise when your sense of control does not match the actual control you have over the situation. A person who always externalizes his problems might not do enough to help himself get out of the situation. On the flipside your idea of always having internal locus of control can backfire in cases which the control truly is outside of hands of the individual.

For example, people who internalize their problems might lose a loved one in an accident and blame themselves for it. They might say something like "If I had stopped him from leaving, he would've still been alive." Nevertheless, no amount of self-blaming will actually bring their loved one back from the dead, and in these situations internalization is counter-productive, and will only cause further harm.

So going back:

always try and maintain an internal locus of control

might work in low stakes situations such as exams, but in more high stakes situations I think the most productive outlook is to try to match your locus of control to your actual objective control. This way you attempt to live your life to the best of your ability while also preventing wallowing in things that were outside of your control.

[–]tnais2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

For example: If I punch myself in the face, then the harm is self-inflicted no matter how external my locus of control is. On the flipside, if someone just punches me in the face for no reason, then the harm could not have been avoided by me regardless of how internal my locus of control is.

You're right. Here's how I view it: what's the context of you getting punched in the face "for no reason?" Are you at a bar next to a belligerently drunk guy and you accidentally bump into him? Are you walking down the street in the middle of the afternoon in the upper-middle class suburbs with your dog and some psycho just hits you in the face because he's on drugs? Technically you could argue, "Well it's your fault; if you don't want to get punched in the face for no reason, then you should just lock yourself in your room for the rest of your life, always avoiding strangers." However that argument is extremely impractical to the point of absurdity.

So the way I view situations like that is: whether we realize it or not, we're always taking extremely small risks throughout our daily lives. Whenever I'm driving somewhere, even if I'm driving defensively, while sober, while ignoring my phone, there's still a chance that a drunk driver could fuck me up. That's a risk I acknowledge and accept every time I get into my car. The odds of it happening to me while I run errands is low enough for me to not worry about it and accept that there's a chance that it might happen to me someday, and it's worth the risk.

In instances where we actually know what the objective risk is, my personal stance is to engage in any "risky" behavior as long as the odds of misfortune are less than 2%.

The issues arise when your sense of control does not match the actual control you have over the situation. A person who always externalizes his problems might not do enough to help himself get out of the situation. On the flipside your idea of always having internal locus of control can backfire in cases which the control truly is outside of hands of the individual.

Yes. That's why IMO it's the individual's responsibility to try and be as rational and level-headed about their objectives and goals as possible; and to share their views with others to get their opinions. The problem is: people with depression and a consistent feeling of helplessness are going to have those feelings and past experiences of failure clouding their judgment and steering them towards pessimism.

For example, people who internalize their problems might lose a loved one in an accident and blame themselves for it. They might say something like "If I had stopped him from leaving, he would've still been alive." Nevertheless, no amount of self-blaming will actually bring their loved one back from the dead, and in these situations internalization is counter-productive, and will only cause further harm.

Like with my drunk driving example or getting spontaneously punched in the face, when things like that happen, I file them under the 2% rule and move on. But if your loved one was getting into their car while hammered drunk, and you chose not to try to stop them, then that's definitely your fault and you should feel guilty-- to the point where you resolve to never allow that to happen again. That way, in the future, if another loved one starts getting into a car while intoxicated, you've learned the hard way to take action against it.

an internal locus of control might work in low stakes situations such as exams, but in more high stakes situations I think the most productive outlook is to try to match your locus of control to your actual objective control. This way you attempt to live your life to the best of your ability while also preventing wallowing in things that were outside of your control.

This is where it boils down to whether someone's being optimistic, realistic, or pessimistic. Whenever I want to achieve a particular goal, I do a lot of research and look for others who have achieved that goal, and seen if they were similar to me. When reading about guys who grew up to make a lot of money, I preferred reading about the guys who started with nothing, or started from behind; rather than the guy who inherited $1,000,000 as soon as he graduated from college.

When it comes to fitness, there's tons of guys that looked like skeletons at one point who managed to become strong and powerful, so I follow their advice. When it comes to dating/relationships, there's tons of guys who were incels/virgins until their mid-20s so I follow their advice. Part of having an internal locus of control means seeing things like that and asking yourself, "Why can't I do that too?"

[–]zmndyeqm[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

when things like that happen, I file them under the 2% rule and move on.

ah so you don't always maintain an internal locus of control. You just do it 98% of the times. This is important to keep in mind because when you tell someone to always blame themselves, they might take it as 100%, which is not productive.

I think you should also consider that the risks in your everyday life is not necessarily the same as any other person's risk. For someone who lives in a more riskier part of town, that natural risk might be 3%. For someone who lives in a warzone it might be 75%.

I think you and I agree on the fact that we should just try to maximize the effects of the parts of life we have control over, and for the parts we don't, as you say "just move on". It's just that for your life in particular, this means vast majority of time so you're rounding that up to "always".

[–]tnais1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

ah so you don't always maintain an internal locus of control. You just do it 98% of the times. This is important to keep in mind because when you tell someone to always blame themselves, they might take it as 100%, which is not productive.

Technically, yes. Though in my mind, filing things under the 2% rule when things go poorly falls under having an internal locus of control since you're pausing to acknowledge the risk, realizing that there's nothing you could've done, and choosing to forgive yourself/move on, rather than dwelling on it. But yeah, 98% is probably more accurate.

I think you should also consider that the risks in your everyday life is not necessarily the same as any other person's risk. For someone who lives in a more riskier part of town, that natural risk might be 3%. For someone who lives in a warzone it might be 75%.

Yes. IMO that's something that should be on everyone's minds-- and if they're in a dangerous area, then one of their priorities/goals should be to move to a safer area ASAP.

I think you and I agree on the fact that we should just try to maximize the effects of the parts of life we have control over, and for the parts we don't, as you say "just move on". It's just that for your life in particular, this means vast majority of time so you're rounding that up to "always".

Yes

[–]ReversedGif0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

On the flipside, if someone just punches me in the face for no reason, then the harm could not have been avoided by me regardless of how internal my locus of control is.

Why were you near someone who was likely to punch you in the face?

[–]zmndyeqm[S] 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

He wasn't likely, but he did it anyway.

[–]ReversedGif0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

People aren't random number generators. Nobody is going to punch you for literally no reason. A (perhaps impossibly) sufficiently aware, intelligent person could have foreseen the possibility if it ended up, in fact, happening.

In any case, I don't think basing your theory around an event that has a likelihood on par with being hit by a meteorite is very sound.

[–]zmndyeqm[S] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

People aren't random number generators.

This particular person was using a random number generator to decide whether he should punch people in the face.

In all seriousness though,

I don't think basing your theory around an event that has a likelihood on par with being hit by a meteorite is very sound.

That was just a random example. I didn't base my theory on it. You're missing my point, which is that there is an objective amount control one has on a situation irrespective of his particular views on the situation.

[–]ReversedGif0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

You're missing my point, which is that there is an objective amount control one has on a situation irrespective of his particular views on the situation.

You're missing my point, which is that your control is only limited by your intelligence and knowledge. An infinitely intelligent person could simulate the universe à la Laplace's demon and figure out what they need to do to get exactly what they want.

[–]zmndyeqm[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

An infinitely intelligent person could simulate the universe

And a god could just snap his fingers and make anything happen. But no one is a god and no one is an infinitely intelligent person so if you go and tell someone who's having trouble in their life to "just be infinitely intelligent bruh", that would indeed be ridiculously bad advice.

A better advice is to teach the person an efficient way to make do with what he has in life, with his limited intelligence, knowledge, and control.

[–]JustForPPDChemistry > All0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Having an internal locus of control is strongly correlated with happiness and success, while an external locus of control is correlated with depression.

Not exactly accurate. You can have an internal locus of control for failure, but external for success. Guess what's the result.

My own psychology material on the subject outlines that goal-driven people tend to have internal locus of control for success, external for failures. Their self-esteem is always intact.

OP is also confusing fault/blame with responsibility, on which I will extend myself later.

[–]openoids8 points9 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Feminists blame the patriarchy and incels blame gynocentrism. Great match! I'd say a litmus test for the feminist template might be looking at angry incels who blame the system. Do we find many feminists empathizing with them in their commonality of marginalization?

[–]TheBookOfSeilAn ounce of Snu Snu is worth a pound of cure3 points4 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Do we find many feminists empathizing with them in their commonality of marginalization?

Nope. They are polar opposite enemies.

[–]openoids1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

So...what else to know?

[–]TheBookOfSeilAn ounce of Snu Snu is worth a pound of cure5 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Uh.... the earth is definitely round.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

How do you know?

[–]TheBookOfSeilAn ounce of Snu Snu is worth a pound of cure2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Experiments, pictures, math, and the sun

[–]merewautt5 points6 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I agree that assigning fault is useless, but I think your feminism vs red pill analogy is a stretch.

There is a wrong way to hire people for a job. We've agreed as a society it should be a meritocracy. So "old boy's club" hiring styles are discouraged by social movements and legislation. There's no equivalently "wrong" way to date. Hell, you don't even have to have romantic relationships at all.

It'd be like saying "oh so you're against people being excluded from the job economy, but not against excluding people from your dinner party? Hypocrite. There should legislation and social change about dinner parties." That's... a weird argument. They operate in completely different scales.

So when a feminist disagrees with red pill ideas they aren't saying their aren't certain trends in dating they might disadvantage some people (or if they are it's a bad argument), just that it's not something that you can form militant social movements about because it's not something that can be legislated or overhauled top down. It would have been like forcing interracial marriages right after the civil rights movement passed in the 1960s US. Talk all you want about the social trends you're noticing in dating and how people tend to marry within their race, but when you start criticizing the specific people and not the social trends you're gonna get pushback.

"Integrating our schools would increase levels of interracial marriage"---> A good point

"Americans aren't smart enough to date outside their little bubbles on their own, they are racist by nature. They're just a shit country" -> People are going to tell you they disagree, not because interracial marriages actually are happening (in the 60s) or something, but because your conclusions are irrational and emotional and designed to lash out and hurt the people who aren't acting the way you want them to.

[–]zmndyeqm[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

In my post I noted:

I'm not "equating" these three and saying they cause the same amount of distress, merely that they do cause an amount of distress which could be prevented

I was not equating the harm of "old boy's club" hiring styles with the harm of being rejected in a romantic relationship. I was merely asserting that they both cause some amount of harm.

Since the harm of romantic rejection is arguably less than the harm of job rejection (though it really depends on context, I'm generalizing which is necessary for addressing issues on a societal level), it is rational to expect the amount of intervention on a societal level should be less.

So while for job rejection legislation might be warranted, for romantic rejection something in the lines of just advising people to be less shallow might be enough. Which is something the society does anyway.

My point was that each issue can be addressed both on an individual level and on a societal level, though to different degrees.

[–]merewautt5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I saw that you noted that, I just felt like the other sections were a little too "gotcha" in tone, like it was an actual inconsistency in ideas. My point was that, to me, the difference in scale and fields (national economics vs tinder) is so large as to not even merit the comparison.

> My point was that each issue can be addressed both on an individual level and on a societal level, though to different degrees.

I really think a huge difference between RPs and BPs. I just don't think there's any degree of insulting groups for trends in dating that is warranted.

"Men are pigs. It's their brains, they're always overly sexual. It's just how they're wired. They can't be romantic they just want sex" is on the same level as "Women are gold diggers. It's their brains, they're always overly dependent. It's just how they're wired. They can't be romantic, they just want money". Both of those social movements should be at zero. Any critiques of dating should be of trends, in other areas of culture that influence dating, not people.

"Our culture shouldn't be so focused on being macho, maybe then boys would feel more comfortable being romantic"

"Our culture should encourage women to work outside of the home more, then maybe girls wouldn't be so focused on how much their husbands make"

Those are valid critiques of societal trends that influence dating. The men are pigs, women are gold diggers arguments aren't. And yet both sets of statements agree that there's unfortunate trends in dating.

I'm not saying that you don't agree with any of this because your reply made it sound like we're pretty basically on the same page, I just took issue with that one sentence and think a lot of BPs would agree with my explanation so I put it out there.

[–]Xemnas810 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

that it's not something that you can form militant social movements about because it's not something that can be legislated or overhauled top down.

in other words they aren't human rights issues.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

There is one problem: You can influence what the person trying to date does. You can singlehandedly BARELY change what happens in society. People logically try to influence what they have more control over, and so should someone who gets rejected repeatedly. Fault or lack there of is irrelevant to the whole equation.

[–]zmndyeqm[S] 3 points4 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Fault or lack there of is irrelevant to the whole equation.

This was the gist of my argument, to stop focusing on the fault and instead focus on empathy and possibly improvement.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

The one who asks for change in a situation where only his decisions can have influence is assumed to be at fault. If nothing else can have influence on the situation, then any action he doesnt take to change the situation is his fault. Imo this has to be realized to motivate someone to change as much as possible. Even if that person's prospects are poor due to ugly-ness, autism or whatever; or even when the situation is unfair and too demanding.

E: I do think the possible unfairness of the situation should be acknowledged and if possible, ever so slowly, changed, but on a microscale there should be fault.

[–]zmndyeqm[S] 1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

You just contradicted yourself. If you do believe that fault is irrelevant to the equation, why are you insistent on placing the fault somewhere? You could just not assume any fault at all since it's irrelevant anyway.

Imo this has to be realized to motivate someone to change as much as possible.

What stops them from being motivated without the placement of fault? Which of these are more motivating?

  • Wear better clothing.
  • It's your fault. Wear better clothing.

I don't see anyone being more receptive to the latter.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I meant that its irrelevant to acknowledge the philosophical meaning of fault. The only thing that matters is who can have the most influence, and 'fault' just automatically follows from that premise.

[–]zmndyeqm[S] 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I see what you mean. My argument was that since 'fault' has negative connotations and humans are not naturally rational beings, specially when they are in an emotional state, bringing up 'fault' does not contribute to the discussion, and therefore is best avoided.

You can give them advice without attempting to specify a place of fault and they will be more receptive to that advice.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I agree that advice without blaming is the best aproach. But when that doesnt work there is an acknowledgement of fault needed to further make someone realize he is the only thing with influence. Most people assume fault within themselves and try to make changes. When that fails they could wrongfully assume fault with the situation, and should therefore given advice(like you said), and that puts the blame on them again. They will be aware of this and may push back by shifting the fault again.

Its not that i disagree with you, i just think that the dynamic i described makes it impossible to overcome the problem with fault that you described.

[–]zmndyeqm[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I think my problem with your argument is that you have an absolutist view of fault.

Most people assume fault within themselves and try to make changes. When that fails they could wrongfully assume fault with the situation

If you read what I wrote in my post:

trying to carve out an "either/or" world where every issue is either 100% self inflicted or 100% other people's fault is counter-productive

My argument is that there is no need to either "assume fault within themselves", or "assume fault with the situation". You can recognize that it's not absolute. There are aspects of it that in one's control, and aspects that aren't. And it's important to focus on the areas you have control over without dismissing the existence of the areas that you don't.

So in a practical sense:

should therefore given advice(like you said), and that puts the blame on them again.

Instead of putting the "blame" on them, try to acknowledge there are areas that are under their control and areas that are not. If they are assuming all the 'fault' is external, you need to only convince them they have "some" control over the situation for them to be receptive, not to convince them they have full 100% control.

More importantly you will have a hard time convincing them they have absolute total control because unless they are some kind of god, they don't.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Alright, i can agree to that. I still think the "absolutist view of fault" is very prominent in these situations. So even though i agree with your reasoning of how it should be handled, i think it can't be handled like that for most people, even after realized.

[–]sadomasochristnAWALT = Not red pilled5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Absolutely. This is part of the frame\boundaries discussion which results in "love what she brings you." Or "you do you."

If you have boundaries nothing anyone else does matters, you just choose to associate or disassociate with someone. It's also part of growing up.

You can sort people who "get it" from those who don't with this. People who get wound up all the time don't get it yet. Once you get it, you just do you and move the fuck on with your life, with anything.

And you watch people who "don't get it" just run themselves into the ground.

Get it : TRP Don't : MRAs

[–]hammerhauntsbread pill10 points11 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I blame you for it

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

It is interesting that such a good post... has a troll as the first comment.

[–]LuxuriousBottleCap6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

The trolls shall inherit the Earth

[–]_Neon_Shadow_0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

amen

[–]_Neon_Shadow_4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

No u

[–]coratoad6 points7 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Always assume you are at fault because you are the only person you can control. The majority of the time when you assign fault to someone else, you are just removing your own agency and power.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

so you get picked on the police because your black and did nothing wrong, its your fault regardless? the jew that gets executed from the nazi its his fault? lets be real in life somethings other people will shit on you even if you play the perfect cards. i think its better to say even if one is not at fault you should accept it, not everything is your fault but its how u handle it too. if someone runs you over while walking even if you saw it coming and made an attempt to jump away but still get hit, of course its the drivers fault but you gotta accept it and move on, thats what im trying to say. today society is still unfair to those at the bottom but privilege people will never know, i cant say say anything but to keep moving forward cause you'll be blamed one day for something you have zero control over.

[–]zmndyeqm[S] 0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

I don't see the logical connection. Feeling at fault for things you have no control over is not productive.

What good does it to assume fault for things such as accidents and natural disasters?

[–]coratoad0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

Fault isn't used in situations with natural disasters at all. No one says it's the hurricane's fault.

Fault is applied in dealings with other people. If you blame the other person in your relationships, it keeps you from focusing on what you could have done to fix the problem. You are teaching yourself how to be helpless.

[–]zmndyeqm[S] 1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Fault isn't used in situations with natural disasters at all. No one says it's the hurricane's fault.

No, but some people might feel that they had done something to "deserve" the hurricane, such as committing sins. But the reality is a hurricane is a natural disaster and it wasn't their fault.

If you blame the other person in your relationships, it keeps you from focusing on what you could have done to fix the problem.

Maybe there objectively wasn't anything that could've been done. This line of thinking is only helpful when the fault is partly on the person. When it isn't it only leads to unnecessary wallowing which is counter-productive.

You are teaching yourself how to be helpless.

That's because you are thinking in absolutes. Having an understanding that there are things outside of one's control is not the same as abandoning your own sense of control.

My idea is that if a relationship is going wrong, the "fault" may range from anywhere between purely the fault of one party, to being shared 50-50. Regardless, getting bogged down about assigning fault and blame is not productive and is best avoided.

That does not teach one to be helpless. To the contrary it teaches them to be efficient at dealing with life's hurdles.

[–]coratoad-1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I agree that assigning fault is counterproductive, but if you are going to hold anyone responsible for the negative circumstances in your life, it should be yourself. In certain cases people will blame themselves too much, but the majority of errors fall in the opposite direction. It is human nature to believe yourself to be blameless and others responsible. By assuming you are at fault, you can correct for this innate bias and end up at approximately the appropriate level of blame.

Sure it would be stupid to blame yourself for hurricanes, but that's outside the subject matter discussed here on PPD.

[–]zmndyeqm[S] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

By assuming you are at fault

Or you can just not assume and assess the situation and act accordingly. That way you're acting efficiently at all time instead of just "the majority" of times. There's no need to "approximate" the level of blame when you can just measure it.

Nevertheless, my argument wasn't about what the "appropriate level of blame" is. It's about placing blame and fault being counter-productive in the first place. You have yet to actually make an argument about why placing fault is actually helpful.

Can you explain why you are so insistent on placing blame? What good does it actually do?

Sure it would be stupid to blame yourself for hurricanes, but that's outside the subject matter discussed here on PPD.

That was just an example, and you're the one who brought it up.

[–]coratoad0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

You have yet to actually make an argument about why placing fault is actually helpful.

Because I agree with you that it's not useful.

There's no need to "approximate" the level of blame when you can just measure it.

We won't measure it fairly.

Can you explain why you are so insistent on placing blame? What good does it actually do?

I told you that agree that it's not useful. IF you are going to blame anyone, blame yourself. The 'good' is that it keeps you from learned helplessness.

That was just an example, and you're the one who brought it up.

I didn't bring up natural disasters. Your OP was about blame assigned by feminists/RPillers. I was working in that context.

[–]zmndyeqm[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

We won't measure it fairly.

Well I guess that's where our differences lie. I believe one can overcome their internal biases, it seems you don't.

I didn't bring up natural disasters. Your OP was about blame assigned by feminists/RPillers. I was working in that context.

My OP is that assigning blame is counter-productive in general. That's why I had three separate examples, only one of which was related to dating. But yes, I brought this up because it can also be specifically applied to dating and I think it's relevant.

agree that it's not useful. IF you are going to blame anyone, blame yourself. The 'good' is that it keeps you from learned helplessness.

I guess I misread that part of your comment. Sorry for that.

[–]_Neon_Shadow_2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I like you OP. But I like this post more. Now ... where did I leave my gold?

Edit: Holy shit! This is my first time buying gold since the change. Why is it so difficult to do now? Only reddit could manage to fuck up getting free money.

[–]aanarchist2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

If people point their finger at you, you are going to rightfully defend yourself and likely point back and say nah that's on you, not me. Cause and effect. Both sides have their fault, but until each one takes responsibility for their own shit nothing changes. This includes women holding themselves accountable for their behavior and mate choice. Red pill exists because of how common it is for a woman to make bad mate choices when left to her own devices.

[–]zmndyeqm[S] 2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I think the society does attempt to advise women on productive mate choice. It's just that it sometimes falls on deaf ears.

It might be worthwhile to explore what society can do to educate women on mate choice more robustly in order to better equip them in avoiding toxic relationships.

[–]aanarchist-2 points-1 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

The most direct way to do that is through patriarchal tyranny, because otherwise information doesn't do shit unless they are predisposed to listen, they'll have to learn through personal experience but by then they will have squandered their relationship value and even have a kid or two by a sociopath.

[–]zmndyeqm[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

otherwise information doesn't do shit

I don't really agree.

they'll have to learn through personal experience

This is what happens for a lot of people because some parents believe that's the only way kids will learn, so they don't attempt to educate their children on avoiding toxic relationships. There are also people who lack parental figures for various reasons who will have to learn by trial and error.

When it comes to government, I don't personally see anything done on this front. The government can use TV ads, posters, and the like to raise awareness but they don't because this problem is not considered important.

So I think there are more robust ways that education regarding interpersonal relationships can be done, for both men and women, and it might be very helpful.

[–]aanarchist0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

helping children create healthy relationship bonds into adulthood would lead to a reduction in government power, the government would never do something it's like you cutting your business profits in half because you think it would make people happier. It comes down to families staying true to their principles and passing their knowledge down the generations, and having as many kids as possible out of duty.

[–]ContrarianZRealist1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think the notion of blame relates a lot to whether the culture is predominantly individualist or collectivist.

Individualist cultures give everyone agency, and so the blame is entirely on the individual's shoulder. Basically no-one owes you anything because you don't owe anyone else anything.

Collectivists cultures are the opposite. Because everyone is bound by strict rules and responsibilities, it is society who shoulder's the blame for everything. Either for not enforcing the rules correctly, or for creating faulty rules in the first place.

Most cultures are some combination of both, but there is a trade off where more individualist cultures have less suppression and more opportunities, but also more alienation and less social cohesion.

The problem is when we expect we can somehow get the best of both cultures, where we can give everyone 100% complete autonomy over their lives, yet also expect everyone to be 100% socially validated. These two things conflict.

Concerning redpill and bluepill, I see both sides sometimes have this contradiction. Having expectations of the other sex but not willing to make sacrifices themselves.

[–]Zippo-Cat1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't think I've ever seen a post so long yet so devoid of content.

You end it with "discuss" but I'm at a loss as to what do you think even should be discussed. "Just be more empathetic bro"?

[–]AutoModeratorMarried to Littleknownfacts[M] 0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy Link

Attention!

  • You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.

  • For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.

  • If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.

  • OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

For the man being rejected, there are many ideas floating from telling women to be less shallow

This won't work. Waste of time to even think about it.

extreme measures such as sex redistribution.

eww

[–]Xemnas810 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

Where did Guitars go?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

is this his alt?

[–]Xemnas810 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

...Hi Guitars?

Xemnas is definitely not Guitars' alt, lol. We were loyal posters back in the old 2015 days

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

old me read everyone's post history. Based on your post history I probably would have blocked you because you seem a tad bit incelish/whiney

[–]Xemnas810 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

um...it's no secret that I'm an incel and was one. The vast majority of posts on here are 'whiney' unless you accept it as 'natural' for women to be emotionally abusive manipulators.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

unless you accept it 'natural' for women to be emotionally abusive manipulators.

i do. never had an anger phase.

[–]blackedoutfastRed Pill Man0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

no one is entitled to anything, you're the only person who is truly in control of whether your life improves or not, and the fact that there are no definitive answers about which problems are real or more important or how to solve those problems is exactly why we shouldn't always try to heavy handedly "fix" everything on a societal level through legislation or whatever.

[–]zmndyeqm[S] 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

you're the only person who is truly in control of whether your life improves or not

I think this is a variation of just world fallacy. The reality is that other people in your life can, have an incentive to, and oftentimes do, attempt to prevent you from achieving success in various areas of life and therefore the self can not be "the only" one in control.

However, understanding the amount of control you do have and try to maximize its effects on your life can be very helpful.

[–]blackedoutfastRed Pill Man0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

The reality is that other people in your life can, have an incentive to, and oftentimes do, attempt to prevent you from achieving success in various areas of life and therefore the self can not be "the only" one in control.

they only have as much power over you as you allow them to have. if you have toxic people in your life who are holding you back, then simply cut them out of your life.

[–]zmndyeqm[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

simply cut them out of your life.

It might be that someone might not have the control required to cut toxic people from their life. For instance, some children might be stuck with immature parents.

I get the feeling that you're taking the amount of control you have over your own life, and extending that to everyone else, assuming everyone must have equal control as you regardless of their situation, which isn't necessarily true.

[–]blackedoutfastRed Pill Man0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

yeah, and if what you want to do is stand naked in the middle of the street smoking meth and shooting a gun in the air, the police will take control from you.

but if you're an adult who has narcissistic controlling parents, or loser friends who sabotage your efforts to improve your life, or a shitty boss who takes advantage of you, the best solution is almost always to simply cut them out of your life instead of trying to keep that relationship

[–]wtffellification0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Is this a free will vs. determinism debate?

[–]SmackinDatAss0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Long well rewritten post.

TLDR:

Red Pill stance: Concentrate on improving yourself.
Feminist stance: It is everyone else's fault.
Blue Pill stance: It is everyone else's fault.

[–]Xemnas810 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

This was a pretty long-winded way of saying that mature red pill=/=red pill rage. Dichotomy of control is one of the primary reasons that Marcus Aurelius is on the sidebar. (Incidentally, be warned that many online Stoic communities are renouncing the 'far right appropriation and distortion of Stoicism.')

Now asking bluepill to empathise is stupid. They're not here to do that, they're here to aggressively convert purple pill young men back to TBP and to point and laugh at RP men or call them misogynists. The entire MO can be summed up as

  • Redpillers are abusive manipulative misogynists
  • Redpillers are pathetic bitter incels

Seems like discussion has not moved past that in the 4 years I have been away.

Elsewhere online there is a male rape victim who turned to Feminism and will aggressively white knight feminists while throwing anti feminist men absolutely everywhere he goes. Including-and this is the core of it-fellow male rape victims who turn to the MRM for help.

Why the hell would most bluepillers empathise with redpillers if even male rape victims are expected to blame patriarchy and toxic masculinity for their suffering? Of course bluepill are going to blame men 100% for their experiences in the SMP. The alternative is fear of incels going ER.

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2024. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter