Please take your pills.

I'm quite ancient, which means that the symbolic references I use internally to represent myself are opaque for your average contemporary ruminant. In other words, whatever last September's flock would call me has just about zero chances to mesh with what I call myself. This has the advantage that then they call me things that to me make no sense, and so I go to read up on whatever that's supposed to be, to try and find out exactly how much sense they could make. Point in case :

Leaving aside the various defense mechanismsⁱ, I've never been called that before. What the fuck is it even ?!

And so I ended up doing some reading to find out what exactly the red pill thing is supposed to be. Well.. turns out it's pretty funny. So, remember Tucker Max ? Yeah, the douche with the "book" of stories about what a great manly thing getting drunk on campus is.ⁱⁱ How about the dummies with the HBs, remember them ? Door game has born!!!ⁱⁱⁱ Ok so you're old enough to remember 2005, and 2010. Good for you, but guess what, 2015 is just around the corner and so things are getting ready for yet another rehash. The nonsense that was "fratire"^iv which then rehashed into "PUA" (revolutionary! liberating!) and is getting ready to rehash into Red Pill (revolutionary! liberating!), and the more it rehashes the more it stays the same (revolutionary! liberating!). So what is it ? Why, it's a philosophy, of life and the world and [male] agency and everything else! Just like before, only new, and better. Let's look into it!

As far as the philosophy involved goes, the whole charade rests on two interrelated pillars. One of them is female hypergamy, the other is a very strange sort of duality. One at a time :

Female Hypergamy is the empirically correct observation that women tend to favour mating with males better than them. D'oh. This commonly runs into the imbecile objection that there "isn't a better". Shut up, dipshit. Of course there is. The "universal better" strawman you tend to use is meaningless, of course, but nobody's discussing a theoretical absolute better. In her context such as it is, made out of her needs and her friends and her culture and whatever's arm's length, there does indeed exist a better. Even the more refined "better is not a scalar result of any sort of computable function" objection is equally meaningless : there exists approximation, nobody cares about the complexity you can come up with and then fail to compute. It's not your better, it's hers. And she's got it, and if she ain't got it she's aspiring to it.

The problem with this approach is that... so do men! Men also favour mating with females better than them. D'oh. Who doesn't, all animals capable of movement of any gender and any species will consistently favour reproduction with better mates. This is something on the level of importantly declaring water flows downhill, seriously now. Did it take a lot of research, all this ?

The point where utter banality becomes pernicious derpology is, of course, the point where hypocrisy is added to the mix. To wit : suppose a guy scores a mate that's much better than him. What's the official take ? That he's bettered himself, for instance through reading a lot of forum crap, working out and filling in many "field reports"^v or whatever. In any sense : that he has changed himself and he is now worth as much as her. Now turn the tables, and suppose the gal scores a mate that's much better than her. What's the official take ? Not, emphatically, most emphatically not that she's bettered herself. In no case that she's now worth what he's worth. No. Fucking. Way. Instead, she's an evil bitch that's sapping the guy's strength and value, Dalila style. Well... why the hell ?

I'm not saying, obviously, that either scenario is impossible. I am however saying that the assumption so distributed is not merely being stupid. If you're stupid you make the same mistake across the board. When you make one type of mistake that way and the other type of mistake this way then you're not making mistakes at all, you're just being an asshole and lying about it. Which.. yeah, it's not nice, sure, but that's not the problem. It keeps you stupid, is the problem, because instead of constructing an effectual and actionable ideology, you're instead constructing an ineffectual but justifiable ideology. You know, just like Obama.

Consider Some Came Running. It's a great film, you should see it. One of the incredibly few good movies in which a female has a leading role. She's stupid and butt ugly, with buckteeth to boot.^vi Yet she falls for the lead, a tough lone wolf male sort of guy (Sinatra no less). He doesn't think much of her. She thinks the world of him. She begs him. She begs his romantic interest to let her, she says the words, "I know I suck, I am nowhere near as great as you, if you may find it within the pity of your heart to have another man, please oh please I beg of you". On her knees, this. Do you know what happens ? She gets the man! Guy figures, hey, why not ? She does love me, might as well. This irritates his PUA buddy (Martin) to no end, to the degree they can no longer be friends. And then she dies for him. The end.

So now, you're going to tell me that Ginnie's not improved herself ? She's a harpy holding the man down ? How, pray tell ? Why ? Patent nonsense. Women can improve themselves just as men can, that is the point of keeping slavegirls : under the whip and with expert care, most any woman that starts young enough and is determined enough can become worth it. Sure, plenty don't. Plenty of obnoxious teenaged boys don't either, what of it ?

So much for hypergamy, let's move on to the other thing, and we'll proceed with a quote, off some local bigwig.^vii

Good Dads vs Good Genes
The two greatest difficulties for women to overcome in their own methodology is that they are only at a sexually viable peak for a short window of time (generally their 20s) and the fact that the qualities that make a good long term partner (the Good Dad) and the qualities that make for good breeding stock (Good Genes) only rarely manifest themselves in the same male. Provisioning and security potential are fantastic motivators for pairing with a Good Dad, but the same characteristics that make him such are generally a disadvantage when compared with the man who better exemplifies genetic, physical attraction and the risk taking qualities that would imbue her child with a better capacity to adapt to it’s environment (i.e stronger, faster, more attractive than others to ensure the passing of her own genetic material to future generations). This is the Jerk vs. Nice Guy paradox writ large on an evolutionary scale.

Leaving aside the nonsense about when are women sexually viable^viii, the major problem here is a complete and utter misunderstanding of how evolution actually works. Let's expand our very rudimentary grasp of the matter together, to roughly where it should have been at the end of junior high.

So, suppose there's a terrarium full of some sort of creatures, and suppose I spend some time each day throwing darts at them. Would you say that over millions of generations, the contents of my terrarium are likely to develop some sort of carapace or not ?

Correct answer is "depends". But yes, if there exists a way for them to do so, such as for instance nutrients that'll make chitin are abundant enough, and chitin strong enough, and an enzymatic pathway available, then yes they'll probably get carapaces.

Now suppose I stop, and nothing further throws darts in there. Are the creatures likely to, over millions of generations, lose their carapaces ?

Correct answer is, again, "depends". If the cost to the being of making that carapace is significant, and if the benefit is now absent, then yes the items without a carapace have an advantage over the items with, because it confers a cost with no offsetting benefit. And so it will disappear, roughly at the speed of that differential (this may be one of the causes why things appear suddenly but disappear slowly, incidentally - cost mediation).

So now consider the case of women and men. If there exists a man type called GD, who is the favourite long term mate for women, why would there exist a different type GG, what would we mean by this type being "better" when it's not the long term favourite and how would it maintain itself ? Think about it, you're predicating poor fit, and at the same time proposing this leads to genetic selectivity! Why the fuck do you imagine it works that way ?

Because you would like for it to work that way, isn't it. It would be fucking great if "risk taking", whatever the hell you imagine that means were teh bestest BFF 4evar of the Great Cosmic Universe, and Mr. Director of All Things put it in the General Script that women must propagate it above all else. Basically, you've watched so much bad Hollywood entertainment you can't even think outside of lame Deux Ex Machina tropes. This, incidentally, would be why anyone with an actual education despises you as laughable manchildren. This would be it. You act like you're fucking 12, and if the red car is really cool then the red car must really win the race. No matter that it's a Trabant, IT'S RED!

In actual reality, what makes a good parent is exactly what makes a good lay. Goodness is one and the same, there's not two of them. The reason women don't end up settling down with the Good Genes guys that'd also make Great Parents are exactly the same reasons you end up settling down to the Honda Civic. It ain't a Ferrari, is it ? So why did you buy it then ? Sure, if a friend has a Ferrari you'd beg to drive it once in a while, and maybe he'll let you. But otherwise, inasmuch as you need a car to move around, the Honda's going to be it. You don't make a better driver than the guy with the Ferrari. The Honda doesn't make a better car. You both suck, in your own ways, which is why you each get the other.

If there actually existed the difference you posited, between "good guys" and "good genes", then the good genes'd have long ago been extinct. The good dads and the women make a complete set, no room in it for these "good genes" dudes. The reasons they aren't extinct have a lot to do with the fact that they're actually objectively good, and that includes the whole shebang.

So to sum it up : the philosophy involved is built on hypocrisy (if she does it boo, if I do it woo!) and juvenile wish fulfillment^ix and as such doesn't actually work in any sense. You will have to come up with much better, folks. Or, I guess, say something about how I'm humourless and don't get laid, it'll be really funny if everyone on the Interwebs ends up agreeing on no point but one, and that being me not getting laid.

Scraping said philosophy trappings off the whole thing is however a productive exercise, because underneath that crud we find two things. One's a perfectly legitimate legal approach, which fights utter nazi insanity such as the entirety of the US legal system. It's not a matter of "wife gets the house and the kids" anymore, as unfair and stupid as that may have been, twenty years ago. It's more a case of, "officer must make an arrest on any domestic violence call". Who do you think they're going to arrest, the family dog ? By the time you can get pretty much any guy in jail, even for a single night, just by making a phone call it's high time to start shooting random people, in my considered opinion. And this'd be just the tip of the iceberg - there's absolutely nothing legal about the US system these days, a sad state of affairs plenty of people remain in denial about.

The other's an equally perfectly legitimate personal approach. So some dude lost a few pounds because he saw this douche on a website :

So what of it ? It's ridiculous, sure. So are plenty of things. The placebo effect's ridiculous. If some guy finally gets off his butt and lifts some weights for half an hour twice a week because Fuckface Tractoraccident Birdsnesthead made it look to him like it may be worthwhile, who am I to argue ? Who are you to argue ? Plenty of people are learning to think for themselves on all sorts of material you may find objectionable. Plenty of kids learned to read on Stalin's biography, and before that on church propaganda. Doesn't seem to have prevented the Renaissance or anything, you know ? All the bullshit concern trolling coming out of the femfanon, all the harping about "teenage boys" and "the destructive influence of internet webpages [and videogames]" isn't worth a second read. Agency is built by the agent, that's how it works. Let it be built, go do something useful with your time.

Such as for instance making me a sammich.

1. Yeah, cereally, if I had a few jokes and a personality maybe I'd get laid moar. Alas, without any jokes or a personality I'm reduced to not getting laid like at all ever. A Forever alone is me.

   Speaking of which, let me tell you a joke. Three tomatoes are walkin' down the street. Papa Tomato, Mama Tomato and Baby Tomato. Baby Tomato starts lagging behind, and Papa Tomato gets really angry. Goes back and squishes him and says: "Mustard." [↩]

2. And who then went on to explain the intricacies of the self-actualisation incumbent in quitting Duke Law midway because you know, being a lawyer is all soul crushing and whatnot. Not because he was too stupid&lazy to make it out, mind you. Just... he was going to follow his dream. Gotta follow teh dream.

   Do you know what he's doing these days, by the way ? He's trying to pay the rent by playing the investment advisor. Because that's not soul crushing. Not no more.

   Seriously, fuck being a paper pushing pencilneck lawyer when one could be a lion tamer banker.

   Did I make a joke yet ? Not my fault I can't compete, you know. I'm trying over here, I just don't have the fucking talent, not everyone's born a joker. [↩]

3. Speaking of which, Trilema identified that Gunwitch nut as a dangerous psychopath. You know, the guy that ended up shooting some woman in the face. Go coincidence! [↩]
4. Yes yes I know, liberating, revolutionary, hic! Sure, sure, heard all about it. Read I.L. Caragiale's "Boborul" (on Republica de la Ploiesti) to see the same cca 1870, you unique slowfakey dipshits you. [↩]
5. Hey, speaking of humourless twerps without a personality : if any of the feminists offended by all this stuff had half a wit, what she'd do would be a Garden Game blog. You know, where you write field reports about how you're negging the geraniums and throwing indications of interest at the daffodils. But you don't know how to troll, do you. Well okay, go invade 4chan then, sure. Should work just as well. [↩]
6. Shirley MacLaine, so you know I'm not kidding, she is objectively ugly. Short, no body, she could stand in for a (small) goat.

   Yet you didn't think Shirley MacLaine is valueless. Why not ? [↩]

7. I dunno, linked off the sidebar of the dedicated reddit. Does that count or am I square and misguided as to how elitism works in this set ? [↩]
8. People involved in this derpage are mostly trying to get the attention of their age peers, mostly because in some cultures it looks like age group is a major factor. While this makes no sense either biologically or culturally, neither topic is something they'd be familiar with. Try it like the Yurpeans do it, yo! Get a middle aged woman when you're a teen, spend a decade at sea fucking parrots, settle down with a woman half your age. [↩]
9. There's a lot more that could be said on this topic, because it goes right into stuff like the fantasy of gangsta rap, but at any rate, it all reduces to a "please let there be people and elves too, I think elves are really cool". Sorry kid, it's just your dad in a costume, that's all. [↩]