RULES
The Hub is moderated for decorum. Please follow these rules while participating in The Hub:
- Be courteous and friendly to new members.
- Do not attempt to scare off new users from using the platform.
- Do advertise your Tribes and invite users to join conversations in them.
- Always Follow Our Content Policy
These rules only apply to The Hub with the exception of the content policy which is site-wide. Please observe individual tribe rules when visiting other tribes.
Sick of Rules? Want to Shit-talk?
Join The Beer Hall
Want a FLAIR next to your name? Send a message to redpillschool. Reasonable requests will be granted.
Have questions? Ask away here!
Join our chatroom for live entertainment.
youtube.com/watch?v=JmX4Pldw6CA&lc=UgzHcP3gM42A3xIEr4h4AaABAg&si=BXBos1tiucQSzpqF
Huh. Got a reply from Jack Napier for that one. Maybe he'll check this place out.
If some of you fellas could upvote my comment there to increase its visibility, I'd appreciate it. My whole purpose in even bothering with this username on YouTube is to try to drive some traffic to here and to the forums.
Rush did NOT, I mean not fucking once EVER, clarify, caveat, offer exceptional or outlier cases, that could in any way get even perceived as "diluting/softening" his hard-line positions on issues, particularly that of drugs.
That sort of shit is supposed to go without saying. Don't be an autist.
The dude trusted his doctor, and his doctor made him an addict.
The drug abusers he spoke about being harsh on were the ones who chose to use drugs which they knew to be illegal. A heroin junky has no one to blame but himself.
That's a big fucking difference.
[the rest]
I admire your passion to a degree, but it's clouding your judgement a bit. Just because a guy, whose primary purposes were first to entertain and second to provide an alternative to the DNC party line propaganda put out by the mainstream, didn't caveat every possible exception to his hard-line stance doesn't mean exceptions didn't exist.
Straight up: you're just a hater, and your hatred for a good but flawed human is keeping you from seeing him as a human, who can also be a victim of a fucked up system.
Read MoreBack in the day I thought we should have a Mrs Archwinger appreciation day.
Which one? The original frigid, bitchy dike he ended up divorcing? Or his current good one?
As the alchemists showed, unsolvable problems contributed majorly to the advance of human knowledge.
Ah. lol. I think you mean the original Mrs. Archwinger. She was definitely an unsolvable problem!
Men need love but can't find it, because women are incapable of it
They're capable of love, but it's not the idealistic love we feel for them. Theirs is far more conditional. Though to be fair, all love is conditional, except maybe from parents to kids.
Now, capitalism has found that it can squeeze more surplus out of the family
Capitalism itself isn't a conscious entity. But the powers-that-be certainly have done that, and they've also done it in socialist countries. It's not just employers, but also governments. More income earners = more tax revenue.
Typo, you've read Esther Vilar's second book, The polygamous sex, right?
No, but I'll certainly add it to the list of books I need to read eventually.
I wonder if it's on Audible? I have unused credits, and I can listen to books while I do essential tasks far easier and far more frequently than I can actually sit still and read.
The sad fact is that a relationship that is not supposed to last "till death do us part" necessarily turns into an antagonism of who can extract the most out of it.
That's our animalistic nature. As humans, we're capable of overcoming that. Christianity used to be an excellent guide for that, and it still can be if you stay away from any of the institutional churches, as they're all compromised and serve the idol of the Unholy Vagina instead of God.
And women, having a more integrated psychopathic mode, are more equipped for that.
True.
Read MoreDoesn't occur to these women at all that men might not even want marriage.
Most men instinctively want marriage (well, the ideal of what it's supposed to bring) or at least a lifelong partner who respects them and loves them for life
It's just hard to find to the point of being an undesirable mess of an objective to avoid and even when you find it, you're in a polycule with you, her, the state, and the culture (including her friends)
It's you, her and all these entities that influence her mood and choices away from both your interests. Monogamy with a woman who respects and reveres a man for life is just so out of reach in modern times that we either give up or try our luck on mid 20s Women who haven't been totally corrupted yet (low odds still)
Recently I've been seeing a lot of WAATGM orthogonal content on social media.
It's mostly women in their 30's complaining/shaming men for having "still figuring it out" on their dating profiles. You know exactly what I mean, "how can you still be 'figuring it out' in your 30's!?"
And as a man in his 30s, it just makes me laugh every time I see it.
It's essentially just an admission "I want to settle down, why are all of the (hot) men I want not willing to settle down (with me)?" And then attempting to shame them for it.
And then you go to the comments and it's just a circlejerk of post wall spinsters, hyping eachother up about how "immature" men are and how they "can't handle real women".
It's funny as well because these women believe there's some kind of written rule that by 30 marriage is obviously your goal. Except why would it be? Doesn't occur to these women at all that men might not even want marriage.
It gets funnier, as these women realise that the men they want are going after women in their 20's and they acknowledge as much, but it has to be wrapped in cognitive dissonance. It's because we can "control" them. And they're just too much of an independent boss girl for us to handle.
Read MoreI'm just making this post because it's just an own my shit post.
I've been too hard on a lot of men. Not that I want to offend or make anyone feel bad about something but because I just figured being blunt is the fastest path to clarity but it really isn't always the best.
I didn't get a lot of direct feedback in my younger years and wish I had gotten mistakes called out sooner so I could fix my shit faster.
Everyone is going through something, even if experienced. Guys mess up. I still mess up, too. Could be a lot gentler or at least end a critique with a boost or rapport. Just trying to own it, we're all human
For anyone I've been this way on it's not personal but I'll do better
Oh no, a woman's golden ticket has expired and now she has to experience a dating life that's still better than what 90% of us experience! Let's stop everything and figure out how to make things better for her at once!
The way I read this is that the woman who wrote this does not fully understand hypergamy. Hypergamy in practice is women seeking the best possible man she can for relationships and marriage, and while traits such as physical attractiveness are part of the equation, it is most certainly not the only part of the equation. One of the core tenants of "gaming women" is about how you present your personality.
And when this woman says "Actually, personality is a far bigger factor than just looks," she is not presenting new information. What she has done is narrowed the definition of hypergamy to looks and money, "debunks" it by stating that there are other traits that play a role besides too. Traits that are well established to be part of hypergamy. Of course women want a guy who also has the personality as part of the package. Men have been talking about how to improve themselves in the social sphere to succeed with women better for decades. So this is not groundbreaking news.
I will say that for a man to be the most successful with getting attention from women, he will find it easier if he has more of everything. More earnings, better physical attractiveness, more charisma/personality, and anything else that women seek.
One major factor with why looks are so emphasized is dating apps. Many men have a hard time getting to step 1 of dating if they cannot even get a date. It is hard to argue that personality is more important when you cannot even get to the phase where that starts mattering. Another thing, "personality" is often subjective to looks as well. I am not saying personality does not matter, but we are doing the equivalent of telling job seekers that they need to improve their interview skills to have a better chance of being hired when they are telling you that their resume keeps getting autorejected by the broken job portals. So we first need to get past the issue of the autorejection before we claim that "what really matters is your interview skills." Both the resume and the interview skills are relevant to hirability, as both looks and personality are relevant to success in dating. We simply need to understand what the first hurdles are when discussing issues.
Read More