White pill is the only way through
An antidote to romantic cynicism as a guy in your early twenties.
Life as a young man can be quite depressing once you realise that nobody is coming to save you, and that love might not even be on the horizon for the foreseeable future. It’s easy to fall into cynicism out of rejection and impatience, but there is another way.
The Matrix
If you aren’t aware, the online space likes referencing The Matrix (1999)1 in its various terminologies: eminent philosopher Emory “Andrew” Tate III uses the title itself to describe all systems, political figures and cultural habits that aim to keep people docile and unfree, e.g. by pushing the message that it’s shameful to become rich, that having children is a blight on the world, and that men are just fine being weak and harmless. By definition, the matrix doesn’t like being challenged, and hence his heterodox thinking has been punished with two of the three cookie-cutter punishments he predicts the matrix has in store: first, the matrix (predominantly media) cancels and slanders you to take your voice, then the matrix (as political actors) jails you to take your freedom, and finally the matrix sends its agents to literally kill you.
This is actually not far off from the original myth behind The Matrix (1999), which is Plato’s allegory of the cave: he who escapes the matrix (the cave) would be killed upon return, the only difference being that Plato thinks it is those hypnotised by the puppeteers in the matrix that will spontaneously lynch dissenters, rather than the puppeteers themselves.
In The Matrix (1999), when the leader of the rebels comes to recruit the protagonist, he presents the choice of joining in the form of two pills, referencing Alice in Wonderland:
“You take the blue pill – the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill – you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.” –Morpheus
The internet has since coined the metaphors of “taking the X-pill” and “being X-pilled” for having attained a certain realisation that broke a prior illusion. The most prominent internet pills are the red pill and the black pill.
Clear pilled pic.twitter.com/aMvOfxaR3E— Taimou (@taimouow) May 15, 2023
Red pill
The core of red-pill culture is that it rejects the fairytales that men have been taught about women, even by women themselves, growing up: that women are morally superior angels who could do no wrong with malicious intent, that they like being worshipped and being put on a pedestal, that they should be taken at face-value when dating, that they fall in love unconditionally and feel safe with and attracted to the harmless, nice, kind guys who reciprocate interest and are “perfect on paper” and don’t control them, that they are romantically (rather than machiavellianly) attracted to vulnerability, and that women are systemically oppressed by men in a society-wide conspiracy (which is even at fault for the Earth’s 24-hour rotation, a view that somehow exists), although at the same time women and men are entirely interchangeable.2
Red-pill instead grew from pick-up artist (PUA) culture and recognises that women are instead very human, like men – ironically quite emancipatory in that way – and that they would rather marry a warrior tending to a garden than a gardener facing a war.3 Red-pill offers a more holistic view on dating than PUA (it’s not enough to have a good pick-up line if you have nothing to back it; you should instead focus on being the best version of you and that will attract women rather than you chasing them) and nests that in a broader political philosophy. Red-pill disputes cheap attacks on masculinity, and throws out conspiracy theories that conveniently forget that all hard labour professions that keep modern society afloat (from construction of roads and buildings and managing the energy grid to oil rigging and garbage collection) are entirely run on the backs of men. Red-pillers point out that being a man has basically sucked for almost all of history, living in serfdom in the same terrible conditions as their wives.
Blue-pilled culture says women don’t need men, and furthermore sends the message that men are not only useless, but with malicious intent, out to get women. Red-pilled culture says women definitely do need men (for infrastructure, but also to be the strong and loving dads and husbands that make them feel at peace), but also that women, when they do not act on their human pathologies, are men’s greatest allies in this life and that there is nothing more beautiful than having a woman by one’s side for life. Examples of well-calibrated red-pill content creators online are Orion Taraban, Aba & Preach, Think Before You Sleep, GriffinMind, the Poor Man’s Podcast, and Arako TV.4 Examples of more hard-line (and hence also less nuanced) red-pillers are Rollo Tomassi and his derivatives, like Rich Cooper and Bo Refec. As an example of the lack of nuance: Rollo Tomassi has gone on the record saying that the best thing for a man to do in his twenties is get a vasectomy, which many people have rightfully mocked as absurd. Middle-of-the-road red-pillers are not anti-natalist.
Black pill disguised as red pill
There is a cheap knock-off of the overall very realistic red-pill culture; one that stereotypes women in a fundamentally negative way. It does not view women as men’s ally, but uses them as cannon fodder, much like an abusive husband would. This skewed form of red-pill culture centres around podcasts like Fresh & Fit and Whatever, where an extremely skewed sample of hypersexual and unintelligent women is taken to represent “modern women”. When you see this term used, you can absolutely assume you’ve landed on the unnuanced, smoke-and-mirrors knock-off of the red pill. Typical for these impostors is that they campaign against every form of marriage and promote going abroad to find a wife in Asia or South-America. These views are mocked by down-to-earth red-pillers.
Black pill
The red pill is intended to be a tie to reality for young men to hold on to while they observe that reality is nothing like they’ve been told during their upbringing. Those who go too far down the rabbit hole of humanising women may end up in the other extreme where it is concluded that women are the complete opposite of angelic: unempathetic, vicious, and extremely hypergamous. This is the black pill: it holds that only men with top-tier runway-model genetics (up to the “canthal tilt” of the eyes) and with net worths into the millions have any shot at ever having a relationship. And even when a man is selected as satisfying the impossibly high innate standards by a woman, she will leave him the moment she meets a man with a bigger wallet or better physical genetics. I suspect that this movement is a reaction to the decades of unrealistic (read: steroid-fuelled) body standards set by superhero movies, as well as the disillusionment most men experience when they start using dating apps and it turns out zero female users are interested in them for years.
From the black pill come movements like MGTOW (“men going their own way”) and incels (“involuntary celibates”) who ironically come to the same conclusion that radical feminists5 have, namely that men and women don’t need each other at all. These men cast women aside and accept that they will stay single forever, and furthermore, that staying away from every woman except their mother is for the better.
Black-pill thought is not new. Arguably, it is the oldest out of all these: it’s one of the countless iterations of cynicism, with some of Aesop’s sour grapes sprinkled in. It’s overdramatic. It’s embittered. It’s born out of a deep sense some young men have that they are just fundamental losers to the core.
Passive black-pillers think of themselves as trolls under a bridge, whose mere presence is an insult to all women in the vicinity. More combattive black-pillers turn to woman-hating, because like so many cynical movement that embody the spirit of Abel’s brother Cain, humans desecrate the ideals that are out of reach.
I am reminded of a habit some less sophisticated men have of cold-approaching with a rejectable persona, e.g. by catcalling in the street. I forgot where I heard this theory (it’s not mine, in any case), but the idea is that these men purposefully act in ways that are detestable and easy to dismiss, because they are too afraid for their true self to be rejected when expressing interest in a woman. Hence, they put up a front which they know can be blamed for the rejection. The same is likely true for black-pillers: they yearn for a woman’s love, but being afraid of confirming the suspicion that they are unworthy of it, they become misogynists and hence they have an easy excuse for why women are repulsed by them.
Red pill disguised as black pill: looksmaxxing
There exists a community rooted in the black pill’s belief that all success in life comes down to looks, but rather than giving up hope (“it’s over for sub5 LTNs”), they do think men are able to improve themselves (aesthetically) in order to attract a woman. This really makes them a looks-focused subsection of the red pill, since they still don’t sugarcoat that women care more about a man’s aesthetics than we are led to believe, but without the rigid genetic predestination and without the focus on how fickle women’s loyalty is.
White pill
It is my opinion that any good man must wholeheartedly reject the allure of the black pill. It is not obvious to do so, because the black pill speaks to a feeling every young man deals with: that they are fundamentally undesirable to the fairer sex. That they have zero options, will never be loved (or give the love they are so eager to give), and will die alone without a family.
Instead, I call even upon my fellow atheists to dip your toes in faith. Faith is a belief in an uncertainty. In this case: that we’re all going to make it. In fact, we won’t just barely make it; we will succeed with flying colours. We will all end up finding a great spouse that loves us back and is desirable to us – smart, kind, beautiful – with whom we will marry, have children, and live happily ever after, provided we take care of the marriage like a well-kept garden. She’s waiting for you in your future. Believing this is what it means to be whitepilled.
Rationalisation
I will give you four rational reasons for why you should take the white pill.
Infinite pool
First, note how there are so many humans in this world that it practically never occurs that somebody stops meeting new people across their lifetime. This is obviously true for cold approaching (and if you have never been to a place with genuinely many people, I recommend visiting the capital of your country, or London, or Barcelona, or …), but even if you don’t approach strangers, you will still keep meeting people within your own circle: new colleagues, unknown friends of friends, family acquaintances, conference contacts, … Indeed, decades of influx of new people are ahead of you. For all intents and purposes, that’s infinitely many chances to find a compatible mate.
In Europe, about 3 million people are born every year, or about 10 000 a day. Half of those are girls. That means every day, about 5000 European women turn whatever age you find suitable to start dating them, be it 18, 19, 20, 21, or your age divided by 2 plus 7. Every single day, more women enter the dating pool than you will ever date in your life. The pool is infinite.
Historical precedent
Second, observe that of those you know in your parents’ generation, everyone has eventually found a spouse. That certainly has to do with the above process of eventually having met so many people that it practically becomes guaranteed to have a mutual attraction happen.
Yes, the dating market changes between generations, but it is equally so that the generation that has found a spouse is exactly the generation that raises the current generation. That upbringing must have some reduplication of the way of life of the parents, because they can only teach so much that doesn’t apply to themselves.
Of course, it is true that a lot of couples settled suboptimally because they weren’t intentional with whom they chose. Consider this point a white pill for the more crude concern of staying single forever.
Too many impossible cases
Third, and perhaps even more convincing: if you look around, you will quickly notice that way too many people to whom you would attribute a much lower probability than to yourself of ever finding someone suitable (or of ever attracting that person if they did manage to find them) have in fact met a match and even started a family. This happens at such a rate that not only is it impossible that you would fall off the boat whilst they wouldn’t, but whatever standard they can attain, you will almost be guaranteed to surpass.
For example, if you studied STEM in higher ed, you have likely met at least a handful of highly socially inept and overall very strange professors. Weirdos. Much weirder than you. You wouldn’t see them capable of going to a place to find a wife, nor of talking to a woman and keeping her attracted permanently. And yet, even the weirdest of the weird have found a wife and even had children. If your belief about an empty future was true, then this would basically be an impossible event.
Such observations are double-edged, of course: on the one hand, your take-away might be that if they can do it, you certainly can. On the other, you might fall into even more despair, seeing as to how you are an even more hopeless case than the least generally attractive people imaginable.
But therein lies the secret: who says finding a wife, a single person, is conditioned upon definitely being attractive to the general population? I know from experience that I certainly am not, but I also also know from experience that I’m not generally attracted to random samples of women from the population.
Those weird professors didn’t marry just any woman. They married a woman who matched their weirdness. They didn’t find her by cold-approaching in the street, but rather by bumping into her in one of the very niche circles these people move in. Arguably, finding a spouse in one of the niche circles related to the quirks that make you less generic means you’ll have higher compatibility with her than what is usual. One of the core lessons to take away from red-pillers is that women are equally quirky humans as men: it’s not unreasonable to think that for each outlying man like you, there is a female counterpart that is equally outlying, and perhaps she is equally anxious about never finding a man like you. In fact, unlike what movies would suggest, it is not even necessary that she’s bad-looking; the reason why she deems herself lonelier than average may be in spite of her looks, with her thinking of herself as not having a conventional personality or typical interests. That’s good news, because it means neither of you would be settling.
Pascal’s wager
Pascal’s wager is a game-theoretic idea for the following game: you are given the choice between believing or not believing in the existence of something (e.g. God, heaven and hell). If the thing doesn’t exist, your belief does not have any influence on how much reward you eventually get. If the thing does exist, a lack of belief has you equally well or worse off than the aforementioned outcome, whilst belief would give a much, much better reward. In such a game, it is more rational to be a believer. There is no downside to the belief if it is false, and major upside when it is true.
Similarly, you now have the choice: either you believe that there exists a pool of women out there who are desirable to you in every important aspect and would like to date you, in which case you will orient your actions towards finding them, or you refuse to believe this and not take any action. If the belief turns out to be false, then not taking action and taking action are equivalent, since you won’t find a suitable woman either way – perhaps if you believed in the false reality, your cost is merely looking like a fool to yourself. But if the belief turns out to be true, you will find your life partner.
The cost of taking the white pill is nothing and the potential upside is higher than any other good in life. The upside of taking the black pill is nothing and the real downside is that you will certainly never find a suitable woman. Why on Earth would you take the black pill over the white pill?
When I present this idea to black-pilled doomers, they push back with all the arguments they can muster. I find this repulsive. This kind of self-betrayal boggles the mind. You would rather give up on life and construct an impenetrable case for why you are a terminal loser who is cucked by the universe, rather than doing what you can to obtain a great future under the assumption that it is possible. You are arguing against me as if I am the one who loses when you win the argument, but the only person who loses when you win the argument is you yourself. You sold yourself out to nobody and for nothing in return, out of your own volition. Besides, who is the bigger fool? He who believes greatness is possible but never achieves it, or he who refuses to believe greatness is possible whilst he could have achieved it if he had believed it?
Operationalisation
Now, although the allure of the white pill is strong, it does not play into a tangible status quo like the black pill does. Indeed, the black pill also makes a claim on the future, supposing that you will be equally lonely in the future as you are now. That’s a reality you have already experienced, so at least it is believable that it will keep manifesting itself.
The white pill asserts that you will meet an inflection point. A point of change. This hints at an important caveat: taking the white pill obliges you to keep working on yourself to change, because time alone won’t change your lack of relationship prospects if you are currently experiencing it. That doesn’t mean the black pill is right: you can be hyperdesirable (unlike what the black pill says) yet be locked inside your home, and hence still not have anyone to date.
So, where are they?
My biggest struggle to this day has been (and still is) figuring out where the women I’m compatible with are hiding. According to the white pill, there exists no shortage of them, and in fact, I will find more than one of them. To help my faith in the white pill, I would like to have a realistic plan that can somewhat guarantee this. So, how do you find those women you are most compatible with?
The answer is… that this question is probably not the right question.
There exist various graphs online (like this one) that consistently show that the most common way couples used to meet each other until basically 5 seconds ago used to be through friends, or more generally, their network. Why? Because unlike random encounters in society (on the street, in a bar, …), somebody’s network is not an accident. It is (1) a filtered and curated subset of the population of people who are much closer to their preferred mate in terms of characteristics than a random sample from the population would be, and (2) a superorganism that works even while you aren’t. Even when you are busy doing something unrelated to dating, someone in your network could be talking about you to someone else.
Therefore, the question you should probably be asking is how to expand your network with people you want to be connected with. Not just women you’d have a relationship with. Not even just women. This task is still not easy, but it is probably an order of magnitude easier to accomplish. Where are the humans I like?
There are places your chances of finding them are rather low: at clubs, raves, bingedrinking evenings, and so on, not least because that’s where the people go who have no more valuable activity to do on a week evening than to take away as many of their senses and their consciousness, as well as the impulsive and those who gravitate towards substances. You could actually argue that these places actually have worse odds than the baseline of cold-approaching during the day.
If you want to improve your odds beyond randomly approaching people in public during the day – after all, everyone over a certain age has to go get their own groceries, clothes, … and thus walk around the city – which has a low conversion rate and low information, you can try to induce for any place where people gather what shared vision is implied. People at a gym could be there because they have a vision for a healthier, stronger, or more aesthetic body, all of which may be desirable to you. People in language classes may want to learn that one specific language because they want to travel to a culture where it is spoken, or perhaps even live in one, which you may align in. People at Latin dance socials are looking for evening entertainment with less alcohol, better music, and more intellectual stimulation. People at badminton free play like playing badminton. And so on.
This is less obvious than you think. At first glance, you might say: “Well, of course you have to leave the house to meet people.” But many of us don’t realise how little time we actually spend outside the house.
Me, for example, I only recently realised that I spent the majority of 5 years of university inside my house. Granted, 2 of those where forced by a government with sudden-onset tyrannical psychosis, but a lot of it was because I was just reading books all day. I sometimes went weeks on end without leaving the house, since there was no need. Of course you will start genuinely questioning if it is possible to meet a woman if you never see one for weeks.
Just keep trying
Dating is a lot like business and sales. In business, you also have black-pilled doomers: “I’ll never be successful. It’s just not meant to be. Guess I will quit.” And yet, in the very same climate where doomers are convinced success it not in the cards for them, people have developed reliable strategies to achieve success. Among these is the advice to never stop approaching from a different angle until it works.
If you are leaving your house, but you are not generating the volume of encounters you want with the people you want to meet, the only options are that you’re not going to the places you are enough, or that you’re not going to the right places. So, change either if you want to change your situation.
It’s enough to be local Top G
When you inevitably find one of the many women you are compatible with, you may concern yourself about attracting her. Although nothing is guaranteed, you can still set yourself up beforehand such that you have the greatest chance of success.
What you should know is that people’s attraction is locally calibrated, not globally calibrated. Remember the prettiest girl in your class in high-school? She was probably not more than average-looking, but being locked inside a brick box for 8 hours a day with her and a handful of other girls made her stand out to you. Or perhaps more recently, have you noticed how your standards on dating apps fall from how you would qualify women in real life to unironically anyone who can write even just one coherent sentence? Suddenly you are no longer rewarding a lack of being a vacuous human, but simply being the least vacuous on the app.
I dated a girl once who, in the end, never managed to let go of her obsession with the manager she worked under at a fast-food place. Not good-looking, not charismatic, no degree, no future potential, bad communicator, doomer mindset. Why did she assign him so much value? Because he was at the top of the local hierarchy in that small fast-food restaurant she was exposed to for so many hours. That’s all.
How do you make yourself stand out among your peers, anywhere you go? It’s simple: you do what is abnormal. You never stop developing yourself. This is certainly different from most people: I’ll bet the majority of people spend their nights and weekends watching series or sports on television, which will make your development stagnate compared to somebody who does not do these things. These are not high-leverage behaviours. If you instead keep developing, that will translate in confidence and in always having things to talk about, which will make you stand out among your peers. And that’s all you need to be Top G.
What’s the worst-case scenario?
You only become more attractive
If you’re a conscientious man who keeps undertaking new things to grow his empire, there’s realistically no need to worry about being single forever. With every year you work, you’ll become more successful. With success comes a bigger network and more wealth: the wealth can be used to upgrade your lifestyle, the network to consistently meet new people.
The worst-case scenario is that you’ll be 29 and fully independent, being more educated because you kept learning and more fit because you kept working out, with a nicely furnished place, a car that gives you freedom, and the ability to easily afford going on dates. You’ll have a whole nest already built. The closer to that point you get, the more women you will attract with your confidence and the convenience of your independence, and thus the easier dating becomes. Everything is a struggle of scarcity in your early twenties, but if you just keep growing, you’ll accrue abundant options inevitably. No 23-year-old is turning down a 29-year-old offering a stable life unless his personality is lackluster – socially awkward, non-dominant, unexciting. So, if you’re not in a rush and you want to play the long game, just keep working and talking to literally every woman you meet. That’s it. You always win in the limit of infinite games.
If you don’t believe me now, that’s okay. Having faith becomes easier as you see more and more proof around you that it may just all work out. If you’re young and have zero relationship experience (like I did until a year ago), you’re not meeting new women consistently, and you’re only seeing relationships on the internet rather than in real life, obviously it’s hard to imagine what I am telling you.
But now imagine yourself 5 years down the line with at least one such experience under your belt. Which version of you will be more likely to attract another woman? It would be absurd to presume that the version of you which a woman showed great interest in is the version that fewer women will show interest for than you right now. For men, interest always compounds.
Human society is set up in your favour, according to the fundamental reality of every sexually dimorphic species: the sex that produces the small and fast gametes has a much longer reproductive horizon, and hence that is the sex that is granted the opportunity to take many extra years to build out a complete, prosperous life and still reproduce afterwards. Nature has given you a grace period.
You choose from the options you don’t realise you have
If you’re still not convinced of the white pill – that you should assume a good future awaits given that you keep growing – I ask you to consider if there is any woman you know right now that might not be your type physically, and might not be as intelligent as you would like, but of whom you know that she has a good heart that has no room for resentment or any of Gottman’s Four Horsemen.6 In short: someone you don’t really want to start a family with, but if both were forced to, you could make it work and it would not make the worst marriage in the world.
If you don’t know anyone like this, you need to make new connections immediately. If you do, then that is your threshold for “settling”. If all else fails (which it won’t), you could settle with that person if you let them in. You would only have to get over the fact that not all of the boxes on your checklist were checked off, or at the very least, not take it out on that person. But you could do it. So you do have options.
You don’t need to settle for lack of physical attraction
Beauty is common
I’ll do you one better. If you’re a man and you’re intelligent, you are looking for an intelligent woman who is – because you are a man – also beautiful. If you have put your intelligence to good use, you will have focused too much on the world of ideas and not enough on the world of social networks. That’s fine; society evolves only due to people who enjoy being alone in the world of ideas more than spending their time elsewhere. But what this means is that your window into the distribution of personal traits is second-hand knowledge. In particular, you might have been convinced by some way or another that beauty is extremely rare to come by, and hence, that your search for a suitable wife is bottlenecked by the scarcity of beautiful women. And although it is true that beauty is and always has been among the most valuable commodities in the economy, the feminist talking point of “unrealistic beauty standards” is in fact a lie: I can assure you that beauty is astoundingly common.
Walk down any busy street in the capital of your country and see for yourself: if beauty was so rare as it is made out to be, finding more than a handful of stunning women in that street would be astronomically unlikely. Go outside and see it for yourself. Why is beauty so common? Because everyone is attracted to it and hence all beautiful people are more or less guaranteed to reproduce, and also because there are only a handful of configurations that abject beauty actually comes in, meaning that it’s easy for someone to “win the genetic lottery” for physical traits.
Prioritise rarer traits
This is good news on two accounts: first, it is probably not unreasonable to increase your threshold for settling so that it now includes women you are actually attracted to. You might even argue that the criterion of finding any one person with a good heart from the entire population is approximately as strict as finding a person with a good heart from the people you find genuinely physically attractive. Second, it means that you can focus your efforts not on finding beauty, but on any other trait you desire in a better-than-settling partner. You would then go look for pockets of intelligence, which rightfully deserves more of your focus considering it is much, much rarer to find than beauty: on that same busy street I mentioned, it is much less likely to find someone who sits with their thoughts regularly, or who has had a unique thought that has notably changed their proximate world (for researchers, a contribution that has made its way into many other works in their particular research field).
Intelligence is genetically also rarer than beauty: intelligent people reason themselves out of reproducing (or reason themselves out of reproducing above replacement rate) more often, keeping intelligence rarer despite its unusually strong heritability and despite the wealth it produces. Also, intelligence rides on many more coincidences and decisions than beauty does: you only need to tick a couple of boxes to be beautiful (and some of those can be artificially ticked, e.g. with clothing, make-up, or more controversially, cosmetic procedures) but a thinking brain cultivates itself by walking a unique life path. The web of ideas from which somebody generates new ideas is genetically bottlenecked, hyper-individual (even for physically identical twins), and requires long-term effort to come to be. The latter applies to bodily rather than facial beauty too, but good luck training your skull shape, hair type, nasal bone, cheekbones, eyelids, eye colour, and so on. There are many more ways to be intelligent than beautiful, but each is hyper-rare.
To repeat: if you are prioritising beauty in your search, you’re doing it wrong. I don’t say this because “beauty fades” – physical attraction is extremely important and it should absolutely be one of your selection criteria. I am saying that beauty is so prevalent that you’re better off spending your time looking for other criteria, since you can assume that if you prioritise those, the pool of people you will find will still have enough beautiful women in it so that you get that trait “for free” without searching for it.
Conclusion
Do not betray yourself. Assume that as long as you keep building, a guaranteed future awaits you where you have a spouse whom you wouldn’t want to improve in any way. This is the white pill. Take it to win the game.
The Matrix (1999) portrays a dystopian future where Earth has been ravaged by aliens and all humans are imprisoned in chains in pods, to be harvested for their biological energy, while their brain is plugged into a digital simulation of life on Earth prior to the alien invasion. A couple of rebels have escaped the pods and fly around in a space ship in this alien-invaded world with access to a machine that plugs them into the same simulation. ↩︎
I will just name-drop the term “Schrödinger’s feminist” and not go deeper here. ↩︎
The more hard-line red-pillers actually give women agency in this, rather than just observing what they are passively attracted to. They phrase this as some variation of “Women will make rules for nice men and break rules for toxic men”, and although it generalises way too much, there exists some subset of women who admit to doing this. ↩︎
People who have been following these creators for a while may have noticed an interesting recent trend where some of these very middle-of-the-road red-pillers have started dissociating themselves from exactly that label. Aba started doing it around the start of 2024 and even Andrew Tate now pretends like being red-pilled is a bad thing. Ironically, by doing so, they take a page out of the playbook of feminism, which is an extension of post-modernism, pretending that renaming a thing changes the underlying thing. To paraphrase Lincoln: if you call the tail of a sheep a leg, a sheep still has four legs. In other words: red-pillers can villify the term all they want, but all this does is make it harder to refer to their own unchanged ideology. ↩︎
If you consider the suffragettes a separate movement from the feminists – which you very much should – then “radical feminist” is a pleonasm. ↩︎
The four behaviours predictive of divorce: criticism (tearing you down for the purpose of doing so), contempt (treating you as beneath them, disgusting, …), defensiveness (making assumptions in favour of jumping to pejorative conclusions, e.g. “Are you saying I’m XYZ?”), stonewalling (the silent treatment, or saying “I’m fine” when that’s not true). ↩︎
