The most distasteful element of the “red pill on women” is their crass materialism. It’s the used car salesman’s approach to life. “What if my wife took my house and ‘divorce raped’ me etc.” Oh no, you wouldn’t be able to buy your toys? Your Xbox or whatever...
-
-
Conclusion: “red pill” on women is typically Anglo-Saxon in its approach to life. Pedestrian, bourgeois, materialistic, commercial, crass, practical, without beauty, dull, and...womanish.
Show this thread -
Addendum: This is evident in “socialism” of the red pillers and Jordan Peterson. They like the free market, but not in sex. The patriarchy was socialistic in a sense. But what if the Pareto distribution in sex is positive...the best men win. Some rightists would say it’s eugenic.
Show this thread -
As with many arguments from classical liberals and libertarian, it is not entirely clear why ruthless competition is good in one area but bad in another. The sexual free market place is ruthless, but it is as efficient as any market.
Show this thread -
J. Peterson and the red pillers tend towards an idea of stability, as if there was an ideal society we need to hold onto. But perhaps we just need to maintain the rules and change the society. Even in “moral” Victorian times powerful men had many mistresses & bastards.
Show this thread -
You see in the resistance to Robin Hanson’s idea of “redistributing sex” the complications. Women hate it (being forced to have sex with low status men). High status men don’t care. This is based on ressentiment, not healthy.
Show this thread -
The solution to the sexual reserve generated by “incels” and low status men was typically war. Perhaps we just need to channel this energy outwards, alternatively we channel it inwards...revolution...but that would be based on ressentiment. Very ugly.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.