@firmware_pimp

Yes/no.

Argument for is simple: if you're buying body armour, it's b/c you anticipate being shot at, which implies you're gonna be most likely shooting at someone too which means you are up to no good, or you know someone who can be up to no good against you. Either way, someone is going to be shooting at someone which means there's ill intent and if theregualtion prevents that ill intent from being executed it should be in place.

An argument against regulation is simple: A 5yo child can buy a body armour b/c it's a defensive measure, not an offensive one unlike a gun. You anticipate being shot at without shooting back.

This is very similar to gun arguments b/c armour is either complemantary or antithetical to gun use.

In practical terms it can be solved by asking a question: does people who are "up to no good" can and do access gun/armour regardless of regulation as easily and in similar numbers as they access the gun/armour with regulation. If the answer is yes, then first of all regulation failed and everyone already uses guns/armour and secondly it means "good" people without guns/armour b/c of regulations are at disadvantge, a leathal one at that.

Ask @Whisper.

@TitusTorquatus I've said it before: A public spat will always draw a big crowd, but that big crowd is fickle and will dissipate the second the tittilating fight ends. It's not a sustainable foundation upon which a long term viable community can be built. Like packing a website with ads and bragging your adsense or youtube revenue is higher than anyone else, at the cost of making the user experience so annoying people leave in exasperation.

drawing whisper to post on TRP dot red

All GLO did with that was misrepresent @Whisper as against reading books, and attempt to polarize opinion against him on that basis. Where is the value-add in that, for me or the readership?

GLO is the visionary

I don't like his vision or leadership. I don't want to go most of the directions he points, or am strongly against many of them. I'm not an ethnonationalist for example. GLO is the one who insists on polarizing the space as his way or the highway, he has made it clear he can't and won't coexist with people like me, Rian, now even Whisper.

I am focused more on the operator role, building structure and managing the public relations.

GLO is tearing down every structure but his own, and public relations liability is a charitable description of his behavior. Operations around here drifted away from "men sharing notes and observations about what works/doesn't/why" to "spend most of the time attacking everyone outside of a self-declared ingroup." In the roles you claim above, I think you're ineffective AF.

I don't buy into this weird foreign Russian ethos of "Masculinity is conflict" and spending all time in ruthless conflict with each other. I stand for the "Men swapping notes" model of discourse that grew TRP to its erstwhile peak.

@Ketogainsmongoose

In a way, yes. But there's more to it than that.

As I've said before (and apparently, very few people got it), when you think you have the solution to a problem, you generally have only half a solution.

That's because every solution has two parts:

• What do people need to do to solve the problem?
• How do you plan to get them to do it?

Almost everyone has grand ideas about the first part, but their plan about the second part often boils down to "tell them, over and over again, how wonderful your solution is, and hope they believe you".

Which isn't a plan at all.

@GayLubeOil thinks that he has really good ideas for what everyone "should" do. But one does have to sincerely hope that the quality of his solution to the first part is better than the quality of his solution to the second.

Now, mind you, his ideas about the second part are not necessarily the total rubbish they appear to be. They are just calibrated for the wrong audience.

In order to motivate betas, what you do is target their weak self-image by berating them a lot. This is uncomfortable for them, but they gravitate to it all the same, because it makes them start desiring your approval.

Then what you do is you gradually slow the torrent of abuse, and eventually salt in a little faint praise here and there. Pretty soon they'll do anything to please you.

Does this work? Of course it works. I've used it myself from time to time. (https://trp.red/t/5d7) And it sure as fuck works when the US Army wants a bunch of redneck 19 year old idiots to go get shot in some third world shithole so that Boeing can loot all those sweet taxpayer dollars.

But, of course, when you're talking to someone who doesn't rely on your approval, it's just static.

And while betas in large groups are powerful in certain ways, they tend to fall short when you need allies who do more than exactly what they are told to do; when you need people to bring their own energy, creativity, motivation, and inspiration to the party.

If @redpillschool had tried to tell us all what to think, instead of curating a place for us to think unobstructed by others, he never would have had me, or HSP, or ArchWinger, or VasileyZaitsev, or.... the list goes on. And, for bonus points, guess whose name is on it.

This is why I have always refused to "step up and lead". It's not like we haven't had THAT conversation before. (Last time it was with RooshV. Everything old is new again.)

A king has no friends. Only slaves and enemies.

@GayLubeOil

Getting Laid is Never a Solved Problem because the sexual marketplace is constantly evolving the same way the actual economy is evolving.

When I rewrote of some of Tomassi's "Iron rules", I did so not with the notion that women had somehow changed, but that my understanding of them had, and I was therefore able to write a more correct version ("correct" or "true" meaning "having predictive power").

The same is true of my latter work on Indifference vs. Control Game, the attraction-anxiety product in fitness testing, etc.

So we have two ideas here: First is the idea that female attraction, and the TRP-developed techniques that appeal to it, are mostly cultural, and that change can expected as cultural drift happens. Second is the idea that female attraction is mostly instinctive, effective seduction techniques appeal mostly to instinct, and the same principles that got you laid during the Roman era will get you laid today.

Obviously, the real case is "some of both". But you seem to think there's more of the first, and I think there's more of the second.

Is that the idea you are trying, with great evident frustration, to express?