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.
@lurkerhasarisen My concern over the contextuality of Alphaness is that this truth has been abused by a lot of manosphere content makers for personal gain.
There is a feeling among quite a few men, perhaps younger, perhaps newer to the manosphere that they can put on "Alphaness" like a set of clothes.
They have been sold this idea by some manosphere authors and content producers. Learn the behaviours, carefully control the context and you can control the narrative and so assume alpha status and get everyone submitting to you. Its a very potent lie as it taps into the innermost wishes of someone with low status male behaviour, someone who feels he has submitted more than he would like.
You can't put on those traits like clothes. If you disguise yourself as such, you will very soon be discovered once the context gets out of your control. Think of all those young men we get bewailing letting their "frame slip" on a date and so they behaved in a "beta" way. In fact they usually just behaved true to themselves. If they hadn't given away their weakness in the way they bewail, they would have in another soon enough.
These things are contextual but you have to also make the traits that give you status in given contexts internal and therefore to a degree innate before you can really be that man in any context beyond acting.
I just wish we could get a healthier consensus on the whole subject to avoid the self improvement that we preach being confused with an "alpha delusion/ fantasy" that we are often misunderstood to be promoting as a solution to men.
Read More@adam-l Yes. These guys are monetising ideas that should be for the wider benefit of society and some of them are doing it simply by creating content that pushes frustrated men's buttons. This is not where the manosphere started. It was a sort of bro science and bro philosophy. It is the truth behind our ideas that has pushed us out into the mainstream.
Louis comes out on top in that video. He came to make content out of them that would push people's buttons and he did. Where I always thought he excelled was in gently getting to know people who were on the fringes of the acceptable and finding out what mad them tick. He showed you the crazies but the crazies had a chance to show you what they were about. Sometimes they came out of it well and his friendly style came them a chance to do this, sometimes they made fools of themselves or showed the holes up in their world view.
Louis went out there and found some guys who were so easy to let make fools of themselves that it was too easy -make the fools perform to push the buttons of the liberal elite folk at the BBC, collect the money, get the exposure, next!
I wish he had talked to the right people but I fear those who commission his stuff want polarising button pushing stuff these days not stuff that stretches the viewer and may lead to disconcerting conclusions.
Read More@First-light spot on. I was thinking the exact same thing.
Now that TRP is breaking out to the mainstream, the hysterics come: they make too much noise, are too flashy, and want to take over a narrative that has been painstakingly been built by men quietly comparing notes over two decades.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=oe3xEbF2iDs This is the sort of thing I am reacting to here. Louis Theroux made a video that made the manosphere look like a joke to outsiders. He attacked a "male centred Darwinian view of alpha supremacy" propagated by some men who had enough fame and wealth to behave onesidedly around women in order to make content and get away with it.
Anyone who by who did not realise that he interviewed a load of cock heads would think we were all a load of cockheads. The guys he found were huge targets selling their "alphaness" to men. It was like shooting fish in a barrel for Louis. I don't want to be put in the same barrel as these guys.
I recommend watching the whole video if you can find it. The red pill comes out of it a lot worse than MGTOW came out of the one he did earlier and yet the red pill is a much more society centred approach.
Read More@adam-l I too don't think we are in disagreement. Its just a very woolly area where it will be hard to get a consensus definition. Yet the lack of one is causing a degree of misunderstanding.
One reason why the archetype of Chad usually being a well off man (or at least not poor) is because like you say wealth itself gives opportunity, confidence and a degree of power. You don't see this in the lower classes unless it comes with an excess of cockiness. It almost never has the smooth confidence of those born to feel confident. I have seen this from two sides having been privately educated and then working for over two decades in a blue collar job around a lot of young men whom state education has failed. I just assume things are possible that they don't. I feel enfranchised when they don't.
I can therefore -in certain ways- act more "alpha" than them, particularly when it comes to talking to clients (who tend to be wealthy and privately educated themselves). I have spent years (with some success) getting these men to see they have more opportunity in the world than they grew up realising. I think I have succeeded in transforming a few of them, when the education system left them on the scrap heap.
One can be as analytical and as cocky as one likes but it is only when success has been manifest in one's life that one can be simply confident and it is important to help men to achieve some success or they will never know who they could have been.
Read MoreExcept it's a lie, and we all know it. Hot women don't outnumber hot guys. It's just they use makeup, pushup bras, spanx, hair extensions, plastic surgery, filters, etc etc etc to hide what they really look like. Those supposed 10s on the street in Miami? Most of them are absolute ogres without the makeup, and even their bodies are from a surgeon, not the gym.
Hot guys are rare because they're actually hot. If they're built it's usually because of working out every day and eating only chicken, eggs, and protein shakes for years. If their face is handsome it's because it's real, not the product of makeup and fake contacts and lip fillers.
The number of truly natural, good looking women is probably about as rare as the number of good looking men. But she thinks just because she can get some Tijuana surgeon to give her fish lips and pump her ass full of someone else's fat, that she's now "hot" in the same way a man is who had to spend years in the gym and eating clean to get his physique.
I actually hope there was a way she could get her wish. Even starting as Brad Pitt, eating the shit she's eating, and spending her time making mindless tiktok drivel, she'll lose her six pack abs abs and chiseled face. And during the six months before she loses it all, if she does try to date, she'll find stuckup bitches who think because they have a thousand random dudes liking her ass photos that she deserves better than her.
And then she'll stop the experiment early and check herself into a mental institution from the PTSD of spending a few months in a man's shoes, a-la Norah Vincent.
Read MoreYou and I and @FirstLight are in agreement… I was just poking the bear about Sigma Males because that’s been a running joke here for a long time.
I think WE all agree on the basic nuances of the Greek Alphabet paradigm: but it’s hard to explain easily. We all know guys who tend to be naturally dominant. Men follow them and women want to have sex with them: often to everyone’s detriment, because people mistake “alphaness” for competence.
(Read up on Alcibiades… dude was “ALPHA AF,” and he single-handedly nearly destroyed Athens early in the Peloponnesian War because everyone blindly followed him.)
@Typo-MAGAshiv and I are both former military officers, and we’re used to inhabiting a rigid hierarchy that simply doesn’t exist to the same degree in any civilian occupation. The question of “Who gives orders and who obeys them” (the alpha/beta dynamic) is not determined by anything other than rank/position. As I’ve said before here: nobody here who saw me IRL would immediately think that I’m a “Chad” or an “Alpha,” yet I have 1) done reasonably well with women and 2) been the HMFIC on many occasions. My list of past minions includes guys who were in the Battle of Mogadishu (the incident from “Black Hawk Down”), more than a few senior NCOs who could crush my skull with one hand, rangers, SpecOps guys, military cops, civilian cops, etc. In those situations those men followed my orders. If that’s not “alpha” then the word has no meaning. So am I an “Alpha Male?”
I would insist that I’m not, because my “Alpha” status was situational. Some of those guys WERE stereotypically “Alpha” - the kind of guys with natural presence - but they still said, “Yes, Sir” when I gave them orders. I follow the maxim: when in charge; take charge. Some guys can’t, and those guys will always default to “Beta” mode.
In other contexts, I’m just another guy, and if someone has expertise and is willing to lead, I’m happy to stay in my lane (although I reserve the right to speak up if something strikes me as being wrong).
Read MoreBeing the kind of man she calls attractive is clearly better than being a woman. She is a pretty attractive young woman who says she can't find attractive men. What she means is that even the top20% are not interesting her. Probably its more like the top 5 or even 2 % because if you swipe right enough one of them will bang you when he is bored. This is not the same as being in his attractiveness level.
She is simply a young woman who is healthy, is not ugly and is well groomed. She considers herself a 10 (which she is probably not even if you say that 1 in 10 women are 10's (which is not how most people do it). She considers very few men 10's, just as we consider very few women 10's as to have a very wide top grade bracket is to allow not differentiation between hot, model and super model). Those that she does consider a 10 are way out of her league.
Its always better to be a man than to be a woman at the top because stand out men are more stand out and men are less weak and needy. Its aways better to be a woman in a low grade bracket because some man will always take on a woman who is not a bitch and who puts out and society takes care of women.
She is failing to cash in her power while she still owns it. Let us assume she is in the top 70-80%. She should be trying to get a 70-90% man. Cash in while young enough and she really might get a 90% guy with some weakness like poverty, bad character, low self esteem, great infidelity or advancing years. Or get a top 70 who was solid gold in character and had enough wealth, who also thought he had done well to secure her. The choice is all hers if she chooses to make it. But to hold out for a 95% guy while she falls in value and becomes more used -no chance princess.
Read MoreMaybe this is a way to put it: "Alpha" and "Beta" refer to female perceptions. So, they are contextual.
Being authentically masculine and self-aware, is innate. You might come off either as Alpha or Beta to observing females, depending on the context. (Although it tends to land you on the Alpha side).
Sigma... Is my favorite disagreement with Typo. Imo, there is a "sigma" disposition. When you could, but don't bother to.
That's the great thing about the red pill: it has brought together men from all walks of life, in their effort to solve an unsolvable problem (how to deal satisfactorily with women).
