Race in TRP (self.PurplePillDebate)

PurplePillDebate

19 ups - 12 downs = 7 votes

How much of the broader TRP community is openly racist? How does the "bitter pill" of awakening to essential gender differences relate to accepting essential race differences? Does TRP sexual strategy demand sexual apartheid? Are there internal contradictions between TRP's theories on feminism, gender, and race?

===

The "old guard" of TRP always struck me as particularly racist but I had thought TRP had moved away from this user base over time. A recent submission from an endorsed contributor's blog made the question resurface for me. The submission details how feminism is displacing the white race, and in the comment section there is an equal number of upvotes and downvotes for users "who don't want ethnic mixing anywhere" and use recognizable white nationlist talking points.

A visualization of reddit's communities reveals considerable overlap (screenshot as the page is sometimes slow to load) between r/niggers and TRP users. The antidemocratic streak found in TRP often extends beyond women's suffrage to reject other minority rights as well.

White nationalists have had considerable influence on the red pill movement. F. Roger Devlin's influence is writ large, and

> “Sexual Utopia in Power” originally ran in The Occidental Quarterly, an explicitly racist journal that described its mission as protecting “the civilization and free governments that whites have created” from the rise of the evil non-white hordes. Indeed, Devlin is on the editorial advisory board of the journal, which currently features an article on its site praising Disney’s Snow White as “a White Nationalist classic.”

> While the bulk of Devlin’s essay deals with gender, not race, it is framed — in the very first sentence — by his concern over what he calls the “catastrophic decline” of “white birthrates worldwide.”

That's notably similar to the endorsed contributor's position above.

There is psychological research that may help us understand the connection between TRP and race. For example research shows

> sexist people accept hierarchies and social inequality, they believe that different social groups have a status that they deserve, and they feel that the social class to which they belong is the best. . . . The researchers also found that sexism and racism are likely to occur in the same people.

It is also common to see TRP praise women of other races, most often framing the preference in anti-feminism. Asian women (and TRP is not alone in this), Brazilian women, Russian women and others are seen as more traditional, conservative, sexual, and/or submissive; "western women" are frequently denigrated; and a red pill icon travels the world searching for feminine women.

This seemingly contradicts core TRP principles; either feminism or "millions of years of evolution" could be responsible for women's downfall from virtue, but it cannot be an insurmountable evolutionary process if moving a few miles solves the problem, nor could feminism cause such evolutionary changes in a few decades/centuries.

TRP believes that its culture is broadly threatened by feminism/"cultural marxism" and it embraces gender hierarchy as its response. This may help us understand its overlap with racist communities, which similarly feel they face broad cultural threats and embrace hierarchies to solve.

151 comments submitted at 19:32:40 on Dec 16, 2013 by soulcakeduck

  • [-]
  • danabanana9
  • 4 Points
  • 21:06:31, 16 December

i personally came to red pill via human biodiversity and race realism. the intersection isnt racism, however, but the notion that certain ideas are suppressed in the culture and can only be discussed in a hush hush manner. these ideas ar eloosely race realism, sex differences, IQ, "paleo" dieting, alternative and naturopathic medicine (which i particularly hate being associated with), and on the farther out end conspiracy theories. again, the commonality is the sense this collection of ideas is verboten, not the ideas NECESSARLILY have anything to do with each other

family, breeding and mating are about race and ethnicity to some extent at all times. it would be unlikely for issues regarding race not to arise

  • [-]
  • soulcakeduck
  • 6 Points
  • 22:40:55, 16 December

> the intersection isnt racism, however, but the notion that certain ideas are suppressed in the culture and can only be discussed in a hush hush manner.

That's interesting/possible but I'm not so sure. Lots of conspiracies have this same tone; in fact I think it's safe to call it "conspiratorial." Yet it seems plenty of "popular" conspiracies don't ever take root in TRP soil. I haven't seen the 9/11 truthers, or claims that the moon landing or Sandy Hook were staged popping up there. For that matter I haven't seen any more paleo/naturopathic medicine in TRP than what I see anywhere else.

Maybe it is this simple and TRP is attracted to conspiratorial tones. I think there's something more here though, which is why there is this discernible streak of "race realists" but not much of a streak for other conspiracies.

  • [-]
  • danabanana9
  • 0 Points
  • 22:56:00, 16 December

the manosphere tends to attract illuminati/new world order/federal reserve conspiracy theorists

like this vigilantcitizen.com

  • [-]
  • Abracadanielle
  • 5 Points
  • 23:50:12, 16 December

Ah, good ol' VigilantCitizen. Any time MTV does an awards show I always have to go check it out to read about how it was all a demonic ritual to the Illuminati. Good times.

  • [-]
  • Archipelagi
  • 13 Points
  • 21:58:15, 16 December

>human biodiversity

I'd never heard of this before so I just looked it up, and holy cow, I was not expecting that. It is a straight-up racist ideology. With a more benign sounding euphemism than usual.

But if we're playing a game of "what do these things have in common," the answer isn't 'things that can only be discussed in a hush hush manner,' it is 'things that are pseudoscience.'

  • [-]
  • CR90
  • 7 Points
  • 22:12:24, 16 December

Race Realism as well. Just a buzzword to cover up overt racism. Can't say it surprises me at all.

  • [-]
  • danabanana9
  • 5 Points
  • 22:30:34, 16 December

in a way it is, except for this. "racism" is usually prescriptive in the sense it sees race differences as a problem requiring a solution, usually by enforcing the power of the "racist" majority on the hated "minority". race realism is descriptive, instead. wanting to study and discuss race differences honestly doesnt mean you want to do anything about them, and as a minarchist i certainly dont believe in a government that has the power to do anything about them at all

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • 4 Points
  • 22:41:02, 16 December

[deleted]

  • [-]
  • danabanana9
  • 3 Points
  • 22:55:03, 16 December

i wouldnt want you to pat me on the back for one, and certainly not for being something im not. neo nazis are socialist racists who believe in a totalitarian/authoritarian state, i have othing in common with them other than acknowledging that race exists, no matte rhow much you want me to

  • [-]
  • alphabetmod
  • 0 Points
  • 23:34:38, 16 December

No rude comments.

  • [-]
  • oklaho
  • 3 Points
  • 18:54:27, 17 December

Race realism....

Care to enlighten me?

  • [-]
  • danabanana9
  • 0 Points
  • 19:38:33, 17 December

in lieu of an explanation that you will simply dismiss as garden variety racism, i present you with the human biological diversity reading list. make of it what you will

http://www.humanbiologicaldiversity.com/

race realism is merely the belief that race is a real biological thing, that human groups differ in various areas on average by ethnicity/race and that there is no reason not to discuss/study these things. race realism is often used by prescriptive racists as a basis for their POLICY views. bare race realism is descriptive, not prescriptive. it wants to discuss race honestly without necessarily DOING anything about it

  • [-]
  • myfriendscantknow
  • 2 Points
  • 21:54:08, 17 December

So I guess the important question is: do you want to do anything about it? Are you uncomfortable with diversity or interracial relationships? Do you feel that the white race is threatened, genetically or otherwise, and do you see that as a problem?

  • [-]
  • danabanana9
  • 0 Points
  • 21:58:07, 17 December

i do believe that without western european people aspects of economic liberty and innovation and thus aspects of advanced technological civilization will disappear. im old and childless and it wont happen in my lifetime, but i think thats a shame. but something else will happen. who knows what an asian future will look like? they have their own history, ideas, character, cognitive and personality traits. but it will be different. i love the anglosphere and would hate to see it die, but i dont really have any drive to even participate in the world, let alone try to direct or change it. i am an observer just along for the ride.

  • [-]
  • redpillschool
  • 7 Points
  • 21:50:02, 16 December

>but the notion that certain ideas are suppressed in the culture and can only be discussed in a hush hush manner.

As evidenced by OP's attempt to gain an edge in debate by bringing up a topic with this sentence:

>This may help us understand its overlap with racist communities

Demonstrating OP's agenda here is to continue a campaign of 'isms, making adjacent the red pill and whatever thought terminating cliche is up to bat that day. Today's cliche is racism.

We wouldn't have to hush about topics if the thought police didn't have pitch forks.

  • [-]
  • soulcakeduck
  • 4 Points
  • 22:29:45, 16 December

If you believe there is no overlap, discussing the evidence or reasoning that leads you to this conclusion is completely within the topic. Otherwise, I don't understand your objection.

Particularly,

> We wouldn't have to hush about topics if the thought police didn't have pitch forks.

Huh? This is like a tacit admission that the overlap exists, and certainly nothing in my submission should be construed as saying "don't talk about this topic"--just the opposite, really.

  • [-]
  • soapheader
  • 5 Points
  • 00:43:53, 17 December

I don't think you understood the quote >We wouldn't have to hush about topics if the thought police didn't have pitch forks.

The three following ideas are increasingly apparent in TRP and have been discussed in /r/TheRedPill in the last weeks:

  1. TRP users are under high scrutiny. If you reveal too much about yourself you will be doxxed and harassed. You really should use a throwaway account for TRP, because that one will not reveal too much about yourself, and you don't loose much if it is shadowbanned.
  2. TRP as a reddit community is not exactly welcomed by the reddit admins, whom have taken a political stance in TRP vs. TBP and/or SRS vs. 'the rest of reddit'. To remove justification for them to ban the sub, TRP can't even link to reddit anymore. And in the long run, nobody really think that will be enough to prevent TRP from being supressed out of reddit.
  3. The nature of the TRP narrative antagonizes with some kind of feminism. The kind of arguments and retaliation that are raised if you openly describe yourself as TRP suggests you should be very careful on what you say and to whom out of reddit.

TL;DR: So basically, once you bring your pitchforks with you, it is very easy for you to show us as nuts.

  • [-]
  • danabanana9
  • 13 Points
  • 04:29:52, 17 December

people were downvoting my damned QUILTS on /r/quilting because they didnt like my "TRP" ideas. MY QUILTS!! i had to make an alt for that sub

the quilts are innocent, man, leave the quilts alone

  • [-]
  • sudo_make_install
  • 2 Points
  • 05:03:41, 17 December

I created a similar topic earlier, and that discussion might be interesting to you: http://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1q5fri/trpandracism/

I wouldn't try arguing with theredpill school. He uses a classic rhetorical tactic of "white nationalists" and "race realists" and claims to be impartial, rational, and encouraging debate because openly espousing racist beliefs is a sure way to lose all credibility in the modern age. However, as a moderator, you can silently and subtly manipulate discussions and ban users to promote your position. You can apply rules subjectively, or respond sympathetically to posts that advocate your position, and dismiss any that do not all under the auspices of objectivity.

  • [-]
  • redpillhead
  • -1 Points
  • 00:43:33, 18 December

I thought RPS was a Korean guy. I could be mistaken but if I'm correct how can he be a white nationalist? I think it is important to have all discussions. Once we start throwing around racist sexist etc. we essentially stop the dialogue. Maybe the person might have some valid points. Maybe they're crazy and should be ignored but I think freedom of speech is important to all people even those I disagree with. As long as a person isn't advocating violence or discrimination against another group I think we should allow the discussion.

If someone thinks that white people are better than other people then let them think what they want. I think they're wrong but they still have a right to that believe.

  • [-]
  • angatar_
  • 1 Points
  • 00:48:36, 18 December

>they still have a right to that believe.

Bigots' rights are being trampled because they are criticized?

  • [-]
  • redpillhead
  • 0 Points
  • 03:26:11, 18 December

No, criticize away. But the moment we start screaming racist or sexist it becomes very difficult to have a dialogue because those words are so emotionally charged. Let's get to the argument itself and discuss why they are wrong. In our current society people are too quick to label someone a racist or a sexist.

>Bigots' rights are being trampled because they are criticized?

Also this is not what I said at all. Please don't read any extra into what I write and I will do the same for you.

  • [-]
  • angatar_
  • 3 Points
  • 03:41:10, 18 December

>Also this is not what I said at all.

- >Once we start throwing around racist sexist etc. we essentially stop the dialogue. Maybe the person might have some valid points. Maybe they're crazy and should be ignored but I think freedom of speech is important to all people even those I disagree with.

Then I don't really understand your free-speech point, and I'm not eager to get into why free-speech doesn't even matter here, anyway.

>But the moment we start screaming racist or sexist it becomes very difficult to have a dialogue because those words are so emotionally charged.

I would assume that TRP believes it has enough evidence that it can overturn any mislabeled racism or sexism charges, but I haven't seen it.

>Let's get to the argument itself and discuss why they are wrong.

That happens enough here. And racism and sexism are perfectly valid reasons for why someone could be wrong on issues that have to due with race or sex. If you've got a bias, it tends to show.

>In our current society people are too quick to label someone a racist or a sexist.

Or racists and sexists are too quick to play the victim. How do you know it's the reverse?

  • [-]
  • redpillhead
  • 0 Points
  • 04:30:54, 18 December

> I would assume that TRP believes it has enough evidence that it can overturn any mislabeled racism or sexism charges, but I haven't seen it

This is why it is a problem. Once someone labels you a sexist or a racist the dialogue stops. You can disregard everything I say because I am just some pathetic racist/sexist.

>That happens enough here. And racism and sexism are perfectly valid reasons for why someone could be wrong on issues that have to due with race or sex. If you've got a bias, it tends to show.

Everyone has some bias. Just because one is more accepted doesn't mean it is not a bias.

>Or racists and sexists are too quick to play the victim. How do you know it's the reverse?

Because you can 't bring up anything about race or gender in or society without immediatly being branded a racist or a women hater.

Random example afew years ago Don Imus made a joke about the rutgers womens basketball team. In the joke he said they were some nappy headed hoes. He was instantly labeled a racist. Forced to apologize and eventually lost his job. Because he made a joke that was offensive to some people's sensibilities. He is a shock joke for christ sake. His job is literally to say crazy things to get a reaction out of people. Is Don Imus really a racist? Does he hate black people? I don't think so but he was labeled a racist so the dialouge was stopped and a man lost his job.

  • [-]
  • angatar_
  • 3 Points
  • 05:06:45, 18 December

>This is why it is a problem. Once someone labels you a sexist or a racist the dialogue stops.

...or you can support what you're saying.

>You can disregard everything I say because I am just some pathetic racist/sexist.

Your biases would be obvious.

>Everyone has some bias. Just because one is more accepted doesn't mean it is not a bias.

Do they have the evidence to show their biases haven't affected their arguments, reasoning, and evidence?

>Because you can 't bring up anything about race or gender in or society without immediatly being branded a racist or a women hater.

What is some proven truth that is unfairly being suppressed?

>Imus

He was racist or acted racist. Look at his Wikipedia page; that's not an isolated incident of racism from him.

>His job is literally to say crazy things to get a reaction out of people.

Does this make it okay?

But I'm curious, how is calling a basketball "nappy-headed hoes" not racist or sexist?

  • [-]
  • redpillschool
  • 3 Points
  • 15:02:52, 17 December

There are exactly zero interpretations of "We wouldn't have to hush about topics if the thought police didn't have pitch forks." that amount to "This is an admission we are racist."

  • [-]
  • soulcakeduck
  • 3 Points
  • 19:24:52, 17 December

This submission is about "Race in TRP."

You're upset that TRP users have to be "hush about topics."

Presumably, in this context, you're upset that users have to be hush about race.

They have to be hush, you say, because otherwise pitchforks will come out.

So you believe that if your users are not hush about race, others will identify them (perhaps incorrectly, I'll grant) as racist.

This seems to be a tacit admission that the overlap between your users and the people that TBP would identify as racist exists.

  • [-]
  • redpillschool
  • 1 Points
  • 19:38:38, 17 December

>This submission is about "Race in TRP."

Ok.

>You're upset that TRP users have to be "hush about topics."

"topics" being the key word. What do you think that means? That perhaps I'm making a broad statement about politically incorrect topics? Or does the 's' at the end of topic just mean nothing at all and you get to make your leap to:

>Presumably, in this context, you're upset that users have to be hush about race.

If we assume that when I said "hush about topics" I meant something completely different, then yes I see your point. You've really got me there.

Want some context? I was responding to dana's "the intersection isnt racism, however, but the notion that certain ideas are suppressed in the culture and can only be discussed in a hush hush manner."

You're just plainly wrong. Can you admit it?

  • [-]
  • soulcakeduck
  • 3 Points
  • 19:47:22, 17 December

You went broad but it is reasonable to believe you meant to be remain topical as well. If the statement did not apply to "Race in TRP" then it was not topical.

> Today's cliche is racism.

> We wouldn't have to hush about topics if the thought police didn't have pitch forks.

Maybe it was your intention to be off topic, I grant that's a possibility, but it doesn't make my reading "wrong" or unreasonable. You've done a bad job communicating here if you thought your words had nothing to do with race in TRP.

  • [-]
  • redpillschool
  • -1 Points
  • 19:50:13, 17 December

Want some context? I was responding to dana's "the intersection isnt racism, however, but the notion that certain ideas are suppressed in the culture and can only be discussed in a hush hush manner."

You're just plainly wrong. Can you admit it?

  • [-]
  • mrsamsa
  • 10 Points
  • 22:02:16, 16 December

Aren't you essentially trying to use shaming tactics against soulcakeduck here to get them to stop discussing a topic that you find verboten (that TRP has some areas of overlap with racist communities)?

As far as I can see, the idea that areas of TRP overlap with racist communities seems to be an entirely neutral and factual statement - as evidenced by the fact that one of the required readings was written by, and published in, a white nationalist journal.

If someone pointed out that a philosophy or community I belonged to had overlaps with racist communities, I wouldn't attempt to shut up the person making the claims. I'd either drop my ties with the community if the overlap is an integral aspect of the community, or I'd attempt to demonstrate that the core tenets of the philosophy and many of the members included are appalled by the overlap and are attempting to distance themselves from it.

  • [-]
  • danabanana9
  • 8 Points
  • 22:08:54, 16 December

why do they have to be "appalled" or "distance" themselves from something they merely disagree with because YOU are appalled by it. you can disagree with something without having a visceral emotional reaction to it

i skeev the paleo cult and the alternative medicine morons attached to much of what i tend to read, but im not "appalled" by them, i just disagree with them and wouldnt be unhappy if i wasnt associated with them, but thems is the breaks

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • 5 Points
  • 22:22:35, 16 December

[deleted]

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • -1 Points
  • 14:59:35, 17 December

[deleted]

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • 7 Points
  • 21:10:24, 17 December

[deleted]

  • [-]
  • redpillschool
  • 5 Points
  • 22:07:56, 16 December

Isn't putting a serial killer to death just like serial killing?

  • [-]
  • mrsamsa
  • 6 Points
  • 22:19:02, 16 December

It would be pretty hypocritical, yes. If someone kills someone for killing, then that is being logically inconsistent. If someone shames someone to shut them up for supposedly shaming someone to shut them up then that is equally being logically inconsistent.

  • [-]
  • danabanana9
  • 1 Points
  • 22:38:17, 16 December

except we put people to death for ILLICIT killing, aka MURDER, not for mere killing. all manner of killing is sanctioned, self defense, defense of others, police activity properly carried out, military activity, abortion, etc

the death penalty is licit killing by the state (which like all sovereigns has a legal monopoly on the use of licit force) of the perpetrator of an ILLICIT killing

there is absolutely nothing logically inconsistent about it unless you refuse to define it properly

  • [-]
  • soulcakeduck
  • 6 Points
  • 22:51:16, 16 December

True. I haven't seen TRP's comparable theory of permissible shaming though.

For someone who rejects all killing, the death penalty is wrong just as murder is wrong. And if someone rejects all shaming, then egalitarian-shaming is wrong just as biodiversity-shaming is wrong too.

But big picture, there's no shame here; the debate is to air the topic not bury it.

  • [-]
  • danabanana9
  • 1 Points
  • 04:32:56, 17 December

when TRP says "shaming tactics" they specifically mean this:

http://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/shaming-tactics/

they dont mean insults or other shamings

  • [-]
  • mrsamsa
  • 5 Points
  • 23:46:36, 16 December

You're conflating law with morality, that's where your error is.

  • [-]
  • danabanana9
  • 1 Points
  • 00:18:25, 17 December

there is no moral system that i know of in which all killings are identically immoral, maybe some of the indian ones, like buddhism

please, in what system is there no moral difference between killing someone in self defense, killing someone accidentally in a car accident and, say, a contract killing?

  • [-]
  • mrsamsa
  • 3 Points
  • 00:37:58, 17 December

Most moral systems have forms in which there are no differences, for example there are multiple brands of consequentialist and deontological systems which make no such distinction.

In those systems mentioned it is the default that things like killing are equal and people who disagree are left with the burden of modifying the system to allow for their understanding of the issue.

  • [-]
  • danabanana9
  • 0 Points
  • 01:45:19, 17 December

can you give me something specific to look at? like a specific consequetialist or deontological moral system that makes these moral claims? what philosophies would fall under those rubrics? certaily no traditional human religion or culture fails to make these distinctions, nor do any at least pre-existentialist philosophies that i can think of. is there a particular thinker i could read up on who makes these claims?

  • [-]
  • CFRProflcopter
  • 3 Points
  • 22:33:09, 16 December

Undoubtedly. That's why the death penalty is archaic and should be abolished.

  • [-]
  • SigmaMu
  • -1 Points
  • 13:10:34, 17 December

Better dissolve the military too /s

  • [-]
  • ChlorideFloss
  • 2 Points
  • 21:17:17, 17 December

> family, breeding and mating are about race and ethnicity to some extent at all times.

Without conditioning, there would be no preference for races in mating. That's not an inherent trait.

  • [-]
  • danabanana9
  • 1 Points
  • 21:54:04, 17 December

>Without conditioning, there would be no preference for races in mating

lol, yeah right, "conditioning"

  • [-]
  • ChlorideFloss
  • 1 Points
  • 21:55:16, 17 December

So people are born racist?

  • [-]
  • danabanana9
  • 1 Points
  • 21:59:13, 17 December

the correct term is ethnocentric

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/04/racist-babies-nine-month-olds-bias-facesn1477937.html

  • [-]
  • ChlorideFloss
  • 2 Points
  • 22:01:51, 17 December

>Babies don't start out this way; younger infants appear equally able to tell people apart, regardless of race.

Babies learn racism between 5 and 9 months from society, is what this HuffPo editorial says.

  • [-]
  • danabanana9
  • 1 Points
  • 22:20:57, 17 December

it does not say they learn it from society, it says at 9 months they begin to process faces differently in their brains

ethnicities are merely extended families that are somewhat inbred, races are merely collections of related ethnicities that get fuzzy around the edges. of course preference for shared genes over non shared genes is innate and not conditioned. where are the multi ethnic hunter gatherer bands? no where. why do the kug bushmen cal themselves "the human beings" and all other humans "the animals". ethnocentricity. did "society" teach them that? is society some monster that jumped on the gender neautral, mixed race peace loving angelic cavemen in the misty past and forced them to be ways they werent already?

there sno such thing as "society". there are families, bands, groups of common interest, nations, states, ethnicities, races, genders, clubs religions and masonic lodges. society as a superorganism was just made up out of whole cloth by the early sociologists. not everyone shares your fundamental 1st premises

  • [-]
  • ChlorideFloss
  • 2 Points
  • 00:57:12, 18 December

So babies just 'get' racist (or ethnocentric) at 9 months old?

  • [-]
  • danabanana9
  • 1 Points
  • 00:59:44, 18 December

you are aware that the human brain is developing during infancy, right?

  • [-]
  • ChlorideFloss
  • 4 Points
  • 01:01:13, 18 December

Of course. And when it develops, it learns from those around it to be racist.