• Register
  • Sign In
  • Main Feeds
  • Daily Prescription
  • What's Hot
  • The Public Square
  • The Dark Winter
  • It's Fake
  • 5th Gen War
  • Wallstreet Bets
  • Tech Talk
  • Messages
  • Forums.red
  • Tribe Feeds
  • TheRedPill
  • Tribe Chat Rooms
  • Tribe Management
  • Create New Tribe
  • Manage My Tribes
  • Find New Tribes
  • Rational Male User Content
  • Curated Collection
  • All User Blogs
  • Recent News
    • Redesign Complete!
      Our new Design for TRP.RED is now live! Visit our Development Updates tribe to discuss redesign, features, or bugs!
Showcase: Track manufactured consensus.
It's FAKE!
How much of the internet is fake?
Showcase: The New Meme Wars
5th Gen War
The Populist Uprising
Viewing Thread Close





Close Thread
    

Copy Permalink

MentORPHEUS

19 hours ago  The Public Square

Woody Allen's 1972 Everything you always wanted to know about sex, a play on the popular and notoriously biased book of same name, is a series of vignettes purporting to answer various questions about sex but with a wacky twist. Here Allen portrays both a neurotically anxious beta struggling with self confidence and erectile dysfunction, and an equally anxious sperm wondering if he'll be successfully ejaculated this time. Hilarious movie if you want to laugh about sexual foibles and misconceptions.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=znphqa9ekhi

1 1
    

Copy Permalink

Whisper

21 hours ago  The Public Square

@Vermillion-Rx

There are two types of propaganda fiction.

One type is propaganda because it's intended to be, it has a message, and the story is just there to make you swallow it (Animal Farm, Atlas Shrugged, The Great Gatsby, 1984, Battleship Potemkin).

But there's a second type, and that is unintentional propaganda... in other words, that which advocates the author's worldview, not on purpose, but simply because it is written from that worldview.

The second type is EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF FICTION that isn't the first type.

My point is this. Stop having hope for Hollywood. Stop watching.

Even if they stopped deliberately trying to convince you that a man in a dress is a woman, they still wouldn't be writing anything you want to see, because their the world view of effete champagne-socialist theatre nerds has diverged enough from yours that there simply isn't any story they can write that will speak to your values.

Less TV, more novels.

Read More
2 1
    

Copy Permalink

Whisper

21 hours ago  The Public Square

@Typo-MAGAshiv

What men pay whores for depends on their SMV.

Low SMV men pay whores to have sex with them.

Medium SMV men pay whores to pretend to be attracted to them while having sex with them.

High SMV men pay whores to have sex with them and then go away afterwards.

1 2
    

Copy Permalink

carnold03

22 hours ago  The Public Square

@Lionsmane8

Men are never rewarded for toeing the line. Yet they continue to do so. Why?

Expecting a reward for fulfilling ones responsibility is an entitlement born out of a delusion rooted in lies and deception.

Just as it's a woman's responsibility to nurture and protect new life, it is a man's responsibility to guard and protect the habitat within which that life may thrive and flourish. The problem is that modern men, and women, are so profoundly mis-educated, weak, and stupid that they don't understand that it's also a mans nature to, when need be, cross the line, not just maintain it.

1 1
    

Copy Permalink

MentORPHEUS

22 hours ago  The Public Square

@Whisper

It's a ritual utterance with symbolic significance that has nothing to do with the literal meaning of the words.

Worth noting that this is a feature/flaw of human group dynamics, not a magic trick that works only for lefty plans and intentions, lest we miss it when our own "side" does it to its own ingroup who fall into detrimental line just as readily.

"Support our troops" is one of the most far reaching right wing examples of my lifetime.

    

Copy Permalink

MentORPHEUS

23 hours ago  The Public Square

@Vermillion-Rx

I'm on the autism spectrum so when I see a guy moving his mouth the whole 2-3 songs they are together and a girl is laughing and smiling the whole time in return I feel like I'm insufficient or missing something.

As someone who struggled as an aspie young man, something I'd like to recommend here is to read up on rules of eye contact. This is an area where if you're off, it will affect a lot of downstream aspects of every social interaction. Accordingly, a tune up of this area can catalyze improvements in performance and outcomes across many elements of each interaction.

Just as staring at a stranger is considered hostile or confrontational, staring too long at your object of affection gets interpreted as needy/creepy. There's a whole fine art to how to best catch, hold, then release the other party's gaze.

There exist individual and cultural differences in these rules, and they are also dynamically changed according to your changing relationship with the other party.

Cultivating a proper poker face is key as well. I used to be far too obviously reactive which tends to attract manipulators while putting off average folks.

Read More
1 2
    

Copy Permalink

MentORPHEUS

23 hours ago  The Public Square

@adam-l

So, it's ok to be generally long-term charming, but if you want to be seductive you have to be decisive. You don't want to be "generally seductive" because it will allienate both the women and the men in there.

This is gold. Young Men who struggle to connect, take note.

2
    

Copy Permalink

Whisper

23 hours ago  The Public Square

@Vermillion-Rx

"Transwomen are women" is not so much a lie as a declaration of fealty.

It's obvious that if it were true, people wouldn't need to say it, but they don't say it because they believe it OR because they don't believe it and are trying to convince themselves. The truth-value of the statement is utterly beside the point.

The point is to declare allegiance to a particular socio-political group. It's a club slogan, like putting a bumper sticker on your car that says "Not as lean, not as mean, but still a Marine".

It's a ritual utterance with symbolic significance that has nothing to do with the literal meaning of the words.

Consider, as an example, the statements "All lives matter", and "Black lives matter". Interpreted literally, these are not in contradiction. In fact, it is impossible for the second to be false if the first is true.

However, they are seen as opposite sides of an argument, because they are symbols of referents that have nothing to do with the meaning of the words.

Read More
3 4
    

Copy Permalink

Whisper

about a day ago  The Public Square

@Typo-MAGAshiv

Exactly. There is no upside to talking to any hostile entity with the capacity to selectively report the conversation.... police, reporters, etc.

You can win a debate 30-2, and the tape will show you losing 2-0.

1
    

Copy Permalink

Whisper

about a day ago  The Public Square

@MentORPHEUS

Yeah, it's a useful concept. Because once you digest it, you start to be able to see them all around.

Here's some common semantic stop signs that crop up in everyday speech.

"Conspiracy theory". Anything with is label is dismissed as the product of paranoid delusion without examining the merits of the evidence. But conspiracies are an actual thing that can sometimes happen, and when identifying one, you first have to come up with a theory that there is one, so you can collect evidence for and against.

"Generalization". Every fucking statement using language is a generalization. "Cats have four legs" is a generalization. "The sky is blue" is a generalization. It is literally quite impossible to make any non-normative statement without generalizing. But this term is selectively used in the attempt to stop others from thinking about certain generalities (and not others).

"*-ism". Labeling a set of ideas is not the same as refuting them.

"Far-right" & "far-left". This is labeling again. Just because something is outside the Overton window doesn't mean it's wrong. We are not the one special culture in all of history to magically be correct about every single thing.

"Inappropriate". This word is almost always used when someone wishes to condemn a behaviour without explaining exactly what is wrong with it. See also "problematic", "toxic", "unprofessional", etc. Individual acts can certainly be any of these things... but these words are often used when someone cannot, or does not want to, articulate the reason why.

"Safety". Often used by people who wish to restrict certain types of speech or behaviour without ever explaining what is "unsafe" about them.

"Racist". Also, "homophobic", "abilist", "anti-semitic", "misogynist", "transphobic", "heteronormative", "microaggression", etc.

Read More
3
Load More


Trending

#World #US #IdeologicalSubversion #Paganism #Faith #Clergy #Modernism #UnrestrictedWarfare #Ideology #Globohomo #ChurchMilitant #KineticWarfare #Marxism #SpiritualWarfare #Promiscuity #Conservatism #EconomicWar #WhiteLeft #MentalIllness #2023 #America #Feminism #RomanCatholicChurch #Fascism #Freemasonry #Internationalism #Demoralization #Globalism #MichaelVoris #Laity
  • Join

Recent in IRC

DocObvious:
Depends on the image you're putting forth. A&A like that could work for some, for others it would be.. what the hell is the word
Dis... something
Fuckin brain fart
tmbg:
discongruous? however you spell that.
lacking congruity
DocObvious:
Yeah, incongruent
that's the word
testbot123:
hello world

Back to Top © 2023 Forums.RED All Right Reserved | Page generated in 0.1254 seconds.