(Part 2) Top products from r/PurplePillDebate

Jump to the top 20

We found 30 product mentions on r/PurplePillDebate. We ranked the 340 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the products ranked 21-40. You can also go back to the previous section.

Next page

Top comments that mention products on r/PurplePillDebate:

u/cxj · 8 pointsr/PurplePillDebate

TLDR: Your experience of musicians is shaped by their performance to you, which they know is necessary to get ahead. You are not truly an "insider" to their world, largely because its mostly a boys club. Rather, you are a resource who can only be utilized if musicians make you like them. This is why you are being told and shown the things you want to hear.

Having toured in many bands and occasionally rolled in some fairly high profile circles as well, this aligns a lot with my experiences. However, the key here is that I find your experience of these guys believable, but I am also aware there is a different reality you have not, will not, and are not supposed to experience. Touring music is largely a boys club, especially rock and hip hop. Even at the low level, musicians are performers, and part of that performance is appealing to the audience down to the micro level. That includes appealing to people like you, who would be appalled by a lot of the private conversations I'm sure the nice sweet alphas you meet have. The top musicians would not be where they are if they failed to follow one of the crucial 48 laws of Power: think as you like, but act like others. This book is massively popular within the hip hop community to the point where Roberte Greene even wrote a book about 50 cent. Greene's work, especially 48 laws, is the heart and soul of true redpill imo.

My point here is that a lot of what you are experiencing is a performance unto itself. As u/Atlas_B_Shruggin has said, artists and musicians are often "show ponies" lol.

>Again, this might be just my theory, but it seems like, if you don't HATE women, like TRP does, you don't feel threatened by feminity, you also don't mind women being independent and completely liberated.

No shit, who but a liberated, "independent" woman would fuck an unshowered, unshaven, broke ass dude who lives in a van 8 months out of the year, knowing full well this will only last one night because he is constantly on the road? Also, the feminism these dudes are often encountering is the "sex positive" kind that benefits them because like you said, they are attractive and cannot meaningfully offer commitment.

>All over the internet you read that "a rejection is not a rejection" and that you have to push a girl till she gives up.

Tons of band dudes have this mentality, but it doesn't mean pester an obviously uninterested girl or literally tear her clothes off. It means if you get a no, deescalate and build more comfort before trying again. Lost track of how many t imes I've had to explain this. It's really not a tough concept.

>I explained I'm not interested in sex outside of a relationship, it was met with a complete understanding (and it was one of the guys of the "smoking hot rock star" type too).

A) you got lucky, this could have gone much worse
B) this guy DGAF's because he knows there's other pussy out there, he may have even gotten laid that same day before or after you.

>Once you are really attractive, you don't have to use tricks to become a center of attention.

LOL performance is ALL tricks to become the center of attention. Great performers have simply internalized them one way or the other. You think a good puppeteer lets you see the strings?

>As for said partners, often they are really pretty girls, but - an interesting fact - some musicians pick girls/women who are by no means considered physically attractive, but have certain achievements in their (usually artistic) field.

This happens sometimes, but those girls are almost always getting cheated on with the type of girl you think they don't want for some mind blowing reason. Their gfs are often even aware of it and don't care. Some of them even have another sidepiece, often for weird reasons like not liking to have to sleep alone while their man is on the road, which he usually is. Musicians have unspoken "open" relationships sometimes, with the dude cheating for variety of ONS and the girl having one consistent back burner dude for emotional intimacy/companionship/sex while he's gone.

>I suppose once you have a confidence of a rock star, you don't feel the need to show off that you are able to get a super hot teen babe, huh?

Once again, I am truly mind blown about female projection here. Women simply cannot accept that the motivation for fucking/dating teen babes is almost purely physical pleasure and showing off is a secondary benefit if at all. Women date men to show off status, men date women to fuck a good looking body.

I've known all types of musicians. Ultimately, band dudes are the scum of the earth and should be avoided by women looking for long term commitment and a family. Yes there are exceptions, but chances are you are just enjoying the performance ;)

EDIT: One last example I'll add is the recent wave of outrage at Warped Tour pop punk bands over the last few years. A huge amount of their fan base comes from tumblr, which of course has the unspoken assumption of feminism being a part of their bands views, so of course the bands champion this cause. Then, inevitably, almost every band has a scandal of some girl leaking screen shots of some band member scamming on 15 year old smokin hot jailbait, and the scene goes berzerk as though this hasn't been par for the course on Warped Tour since its inception. The difference is the audience now has evidence of it that can spread in a viral manner, and are mad that their perception of the band was obviously inaccurate.

u/hyperrreal · 1 pointr/PurplePillDebate

>I'm not quite happy with my dating life, but I'm not sure there's a way for me to be happier. I still feel like I'm doing the best I can... Which is a sad thought, as I'm not doing very well, of course...

If you want to improve your outcomes, you need to change what you're doing. But I think before you get to that point, you need to adjust how you relate to yourself.

>I try to be honest with myself. I don't quite understand why I would "live in the present," when I know full well that there is a tomorrow. I knew since high school that I wanted to go to law school, and I did it, and it seems to be going well for me. I plan. It's who I am. I'm critical of myself when I have something to criticize, because if I'm not, that's dishonest, isn't it? I should know my weaknesses, and account for them, right?

This is what I mean by intellectualization as a defense mechanism. I know it well. Here's an analogy that helped me. Think about how most really hot girls live their lives. They get by on their looks. They focus on their looks. They invest in their looks by going to the gym, curating an impeccable wardrobe, tanning, spending hours on makeup, growing their hair out, etc.

Sure there are exceptions, but in general most people that are gifted in a specific area, tend to over rely on that talent. This is equally true of intelligent people, who place too much importance on being smart, and not enough importance on being themselves. And there is a distinction between your conscious, higher mind, and you as a person.

Getting in touch with your whole self (your sexuality, your unconscious, your body, your emotions) in the present isn't dishonest. Always living the future is. Because it's an escape from where you really are.

Some good books on this are:

The Mindful Path to Self-Compassion

Healing Your Aloneness

Iron John

Anyway, I know how hard this stuff can be. I've worked on it for years and will likely never be finished. And if you are a smart person it can even be harder because your mind will be able to invent very compelling rationalizations for avoiding growth.

u/Kralee · 1 pointr/PurplePillDebate

No mentor

Never discussed dating or sex with my family. Did not do well with girls in high school and could not figure out why. Got even worse in 1st year uni when I realized I actually have no idea how to talk to or attract women.

Had many Chad friends who were hooking up with tonnes of girls and I was so jealous but was too proud to ask for how it's done. I'm certain they couldn't explain it all though.

Went to the internet and found "The Game" by Neil Strauss. Read the whole book in a night; could not believe what I read. Read it again the next night.

Found the Mystery Method and downloaded all the free content possible.

And to my surprise I started attracting girls, and found myself getting respect from my chad-esque friends who were now seeing me more on their level as far as dating goes. Truth be told all the PUA stuff I think did was give me confidence, the ability to recognize social cues of attraction and interest, and a general idea of what to say and when to say it.

u/Merger-Arbitrage · 1 pointr/PurplePillDebate

It's too much of a mess to even bother dealing with.

I'll repost a recent comment of mine:


RP Demagogue A

>The Alpha Traits are those associated with classic “manly man” strengths. Power, dominance, physical ability, bravery, wealth, cool and confidence. Oh and good genes. These are the things that attract women and turn them on sexually. The Alpha Traits are linked to the dopamine response in women.

>The Beta Traits are those associated with the strengths of being a nice guy / “family man”. Kindness, being a good listener, the ability to help with the children, dependability, thoughtfulness, compassion and patience. These all create a sense of comfort and safety for the woman, and relax her because she feels that if she became pregnant, the Beta Trait male isn’t going to abandon her and the baby. [http://marriedmansexlife.com/take-the-red-pill/alpha-and-beta-male-traits/]


>Alpha – Socially dominant. Somebody who displays high value, or traits that are sexually attractive to women. Alpha can refer to a man who exhibits alpha behaviors (more alpha tendencies than beta), but usually used to describe individual behaviors themselves.

>Beta – Traits of provision: either providing resources or validation to others, women (and perhaps men). Beta traits display low value to women if they are are put on too strong or too early in meeting- giving without equity. Beta can be used to describe individual behaviors, as well as people who have an overwhelming amount of beta properties (opposed to alpha).

These are not the same (in particular, see "Beta" definition), unless you want to perform mental gymnastics.

For shits and giggles, let's see what someone said about Rollo / Rational Male aka

RP Demagogue B's definition of Alpha (Amazon book review):


>"The author's most relied-upon term, "alpha", is not given any definition at all through the first twenty percent of the book, until he gets to a chapter in which he promises to address the definition of "alpha", but in which no such definition appears. (He spends the chapter -- and three more following it! -- talking about how hard the term is to define, without defining it.) "


Instead, focus on the what is the cornerstone issue of PUA and TRP: attraction.

  1. Attractive traits/behaviors

  2. Unattractive traits/behaviors

    And for the special retards who can't figure it out, you can make sub-list of "attractive traits for casual sex."
u/Atlas_B_Shruggin · 2 pointsr/PurplePillDebate

shes 100% marriage and relationship advice, no percent limbaugh other than shes obviously politically conservative.

are you politically liberal and expecting liberal women to treat menwith the respect they desire? i cannot understand liberal/left "RP" people. thats a giant disconnect in my view


>From Publishers Weekly
In her newest book, Schlessinger (10 Stupid Things Women Do to Mess Up Their Lives) relies upon her experience in private practice, radio and letters she received from men and women in tackling the issue of women who mistreat their men and suffer the consequences of unhappiness. The women who criticize their husbands in the stories that Schlessinger relates are depressed in their marriages and feel little love from their husbands. Unabashedly asserting that man is a "very simple creature," who needs only "direct communication, respect, appreciation, food, and good loving'" to respond with devotion, compassion and love, this controversial marriage and family therapist claims that every woman can achieve a deeply satisfying marriage if she adheres to certain fundamentals men require. Preparing dinner, caring for the children without complaint, greeting her husband with a kiss and engaging in sexual intimacy instead of "tearing down a husband's necessary sense of strength and importance" can result in the harmonious marriage women crave. While many of her listeners and readers claim her unequivocal advice has salvaged teetering marriages and improved marital harmony, others perceive Schlessinger as a throwback to what many see as years of female oppression in the home.

u/SRU_91 · 2 pointsr/PurplePillDebate




Why Women Have Sex

>In their ground-breaking book, clinical psychologist Cindy Meston and evolutionary psychologist David Buss investigate the underlying sexual desires of women and identify 237 distinct motivations for sex.


Citing this research, Mark Manson explains this phenomena in his book Models:

>A vivid experience drove this unpredictability home for me a few years ago. I was in a club in Boston approaching a number of women. At the beginning of the night I approached a group of girls who were not very impressed by me. So I stepped up my jokes to try to elicit more of an emotional response out of them. It worked. One of them looked me dead in the eye and said, “You are the creepiest guy in here. Give it up.”
>Not an hour later I was talking to another group of girls in another part of the club. They were enrapt by some story I was telling, laughing at my jokes, beaming smiles. One of the girls took me by the arm and said, “You are the hottest guy, you know you could have any girl in here, right?”
>Same club. Same night. Same guy. Same sense of humor. Same stories. And chances are, similar girls. Completely opposite responses.


>The first difficulty in understanding female sexual attraction is that women can become attracted and aroused both physically and/or psychologically. This split between physical and psychological arousal is unique to women as men are sexually aroused and stimulated primarily physically. This split in sources of arousal makes it hard to perform controlled experiments and therefore test different factors that may influence how a woman feels.
>For instance, you may be able to show 200 women pictures of big burly men and ask them how attracted they are to them. But you aren’t able to control their predisposed belief about physically powerful men, the extent of their desire to be dominated, the sexual mores in which they were raised, their sexual histories with burly men, their emotional states at that very moment, their ovulation cycles, when the last time they had sex was, whether they just had a fight with their boyfriend, etc. And even if you were able to control such things, they’re so fluid and subjective that you can’t measure them.


>In one experiment, a researcher measured bio-readings of blood flow in women’s vaginas as they watched various film clips. During the film clips, the women were asked to indicate how sexually aroused they were by the clip. Not only did the bio-readings return no discernible patterns of arousal across the film clips (everything from conventional porn, to kink films, to male-on-male homosexual sex, to innocuous nature clips to films of chimpanzees mating), but also the women themselves were often oblivious to their own arousal levels. For example, straight women often completely misjudged their arousal by homosexual sex, and homosexual women were unaware of their arousal by straight sex. And that’s not even to mention the chimps mating.

The primary researcher (a woman) entered the experiment hoping to draw conclusions about what women prefer sexually. Not only did she come to no conclusions, but she lamented in the paper that the experiment only created more questions about female sexuality than it began with.


> You wrote: IRL I see guys with the personality of a wet bag get plenty of pussy just from their face alone.

So really, this is just your anecdotes of attractive guys getting laid versus my anecdotes of attractive guys not getting laid. There are also non (physically) attractive guys who get laid. A lot of varied experiences for varied people with varied tastes and preferences in short.


>You wrote: Looks matter for a man, but as the above studies show, it's to a lesser degree.

As a man, I can tell you that looks certainly matter for me. Most of the male friends I've had in the past would have been very quick to agree also. They probably matter to you also.

u/TheGreasyPole · 3 pointsr/PurplePillDebate


The single best evo-psych book I can think of is

The Blank Slate by Stephen Pinker. It's extremely readable as well as very informative.

Where you'd want to go next depends on what you'd like to learn more about, and whether you liked Stephen Pinker as an author.

If you'd like to know more about the genetics that underlying the evo-psych then you want.

The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins

If you're interested specifically in what evo-psych has to say about human sexuality you want

The Evolution of Desire by David Buss

And if you really like Stephen Pinker and want to know what evo psych means for human societies I'd recommend

The Angels of our Better Nature by Stephen Pinker

or (if you don't like Pinker)

Origins of Virtue by Matt Ridley.

I've given you US Amazon links, and no. I don't get a cut :(

u/mashakos · 1 pointr/PurplePillDebate

I am going to apologise in advance if this sounds unclear but this is me trying to articulate a world view I have developed over years of contemplating the existence of mankind and reading volumes of what others have concluded (this, this and this among others)

Before societies and civilisations were formed, groups existed by meeting the challenges of basic survival:

  • If we do not collect enough food, we will die of hunger
  • If we do not remain vigilant in our defences, we will eventually die from predators and attackers picking us off
  • If we do not construct means of conflict resolution and resource distribution, we will die from killing each other

    Each of the above led to an exponential growth in all the areas of human development:

  • hunting to secure more sources of food, cooking and curing to extend the life span of edible food.

  • tools to augment the physical capabilities of humans (hunt and attack from a distance, or make clothing and housing),

  • skills and arts to improve on the methods of the above

  • oral written recording, social structures to better manage groups and train future generations in the collective knowledge

    Groups therefore developed systems and tools to more efficiently meet these challenges.

    The more these groups grew into societies and civilisations, the more efficient their methods of survival, the larger the distance between the group and these dangers.

    Societies reach a fork in the road where they have two choices:

  1. Remain on the path of continuously improving their methods of survival. Improve their technology, defences, distribution mechanisms.
  2. Settle into an equilibrium with their environment and focus inward on goals they previously could not entertain. This could include wealth, pleasure. It can also include spirituality, cultural or individual identity

    I have concluded from my years contemplating this cosmic riddle, that taking the second path which leads to an equilibrium generally leads to the society leaving it's survival capabilities to stagnate and atrophy. This might sound like I am saying the society is decaying but it's actually the opposite, they have reached such a status in terms of organisation and command of their environment that they can exist and thrive in a stable state almost indefinitely.

    That is, until they come into contact with a civilisation that remained on the hard road of honing the mechanisms of survival. Building on the fundamentals of survival (by that I mean tool building to production, skills to science, tribal councils to political machinery) do not lead to equilibrium, they lead to conflict yes but ultimately growth and strength.

    To sort of clarify:

    the native americans and their culture had a full command of their environment, they no longer feared nature and their fellow man posing an existential threat to them. As a result they diverted their attentions inwards, towards the meaning of nature, spirituality and identity. That was great when they were the only ones roaming the lands in full command of it. Unfortunately, having not built on their already solid base from 20,000 years of survival skills/mechanisms in the americas, they left themselves defenceless in the face of a civilisation that was forged in the fires of centuries of chaos, war, conquest and disease. Technology, politics and the art of war are not these monoliths that are thrust upon humanity. They are incremental advances over centuries by hard work, risk taking and sacrifice from millions of society's best and brightest. The fatal flaw that the native americans committed was that their best and brightest gradually turned away from working on the basics of survival and instead chose to focus on the metaphysical. The rich and beautiful culture they accumulated was useless as tools in the face of gunpowder, iron and germ warfare.


    How does this relate to the trends in western countries in relation to restructuring the systems of gender identity? I believe that it is a small thread in a grand tapestry of ideologies meant to create an artificial form of equilibrium, drawing the energies of its citizenry down a path diverting them from building on those tools/mechanisms based on the basics of survival and into the metaphysical/spiritual. The general consensus being that society has reached a peak that leaves them unchallenged by outsiders: the advances of previous generations in science, technology and military prowess have been perfected, are no longer a pressing matter for society at large.

    There is nothing inherently wrong with seeking an equilibrium or focusing on the metaphysical, it is the vector that society is set to follow, the vector veering away from the basics of survival, which is the danger.

    Hope that clarifies my initial reply.
u/ThorLives · 3 pointsr/PurplePillDebate

I dunno. I think it's a mixture.

Guys like Roosh always seemed like weirdos to me, and he's so angry that sometimes I've thought, "He doesn't sound like someone who does well with women. He sounds more like an angry incel."

I don't think RSD doesn't care about helping men be successful with women. I just think they have multiple goals: make money, help men succeed with women, and avoid bad press coverage. It's actually quite hard to measure "help men succeed with women". Yeah, there might be some guys who have a little bit of success ("I made-out with a girl at a bar!") and think that it signals long-term success with women when it doesn't. Money and avoiding bad press are MUCH easier to measure, so they end up becoming more important.

I've seen some other pickup guys who seem to have decent success getting women into bed, but don't really have good success beyond that. Some of these guys seem to have mental-health (Mystery) or anger issues (Roosh), but those issues somehow manage to propel them to short-term success with women. I should also point out that some of these guys are just pretending to do well with women as marketing. I remember Roosh getting caught using the photos of models that he had never met or slept with, but he wanted guys to think he had picked-up these women. (He got called-out on a talk show and they had one of the models show up.) I can think of a few others who also got caught using paid actresses.

There are some guys who have been in the pickup-coach scene who seem to do alright. Did you know that Mark Manson (author of "The Subtle Art of not giving a Fuck") was a pickup coach and had even put-out a dating product for men?

u/gasparddelanuit · 1 pointr/PurplePillDebate

I get that you want companionship, but I don’t see what the road block is. You also seem to have this thing about society, which is understandable, given that most people are psychologically constrained by society, but you will never be free until you discard this block and recognise that society is a fabrication that need not determine how you live your life. Sometimes you just have to have courage and take risks, like the [guy]( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxC2vm6Tegk "Title") in Office Space who discards his fears and finds his freedom. I love that film. What about [Gerald Kingsland]( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Kingsland "Title"), a 49 year-old man who advertised for a woman to share his life with him on a deserted island and got a response from a 24 year-old woman. Perhaps read Michel Houellebecq’s [Platform]( https://www.amazon.co.uk/Platform-Michel-Houellebecq/dp/0099437880 "Title") to get some additional ideas.

You can create your own reality or at least create a lifestyle closer to what you want, irrespective of what society has to say about it. Start thinking outside of the boxes society has created for you. Most people just copy everyone else, like lemmings, petrified of diverging from sanctioned societal protocols or doing something original. You’ll be surprised, many people are latently looking for relief from society’s restrictions and will happily follow your lead, but are just too scared or ignorant to venture off the track alone.

What do you think is the stumbling block that is preventing you from having what you want?

u/hedonism_bot_69 · 1 pointr/PurplePillDebate

Ive been reading you posts and you should really check out the book I mentioned. http://www.amazon.com/King-Warrior-Magician-Lover-Rediscovering/dp/0062506064

There have been plenty of studies that show women dont handle high pressure situations as well as men. They dont crave the responsibility and stress like men do. That's why by default men have to be leaders in the world. But Being a GOOD leader isn't a selfish act like most feminists see it. It is one of the most selfless acts, it is an act born from sacrifice. It means staying up late working so you and your own can eat better, it means making necessary decisions that are not immediately popular, it can mean something as simple as picking where to eat. I see this all the time, do you know why women defer to you always about this? Because its such a primitive instinct to be fed. They trust your judgment and feel safe around you, they know you will do the right thing. It is a badge of honor.

u/Entropy-7 · 1 pointr/PurplePillDebate

In dating, no, but in committing to marriage - especially for the man - going through a divorce can be like having your head bitten off.

Actually, this was a scenario I generated based on a philosophical analysis of the nature of commitment. I think it was Nozick, in a paper republished in this book, which is packed away in storage on the other side of the planet right now.

He broke it down that you could not simply commit to someone blindly, and you could not commit if they agree to commit. It was some sort of nested I'll commit if you commit if I'll commit. . . .

I'm trying to remember but it was years ago that I read the essay and I can't find a copy of it online.

u/abaxeron · 1 pointr/PurplePillDebate

> You do realize personal income includes stocks right?

Most working-class men don't have any stocks; I don't see how this is relevant.

>And capital gains are taxed differently than payroll is.

Most working-class men don't have any capital gains; I don't see how this is relevant. I said "social taxation" meaning "payroll taxation" (since in many non-US nations, these terms are interchangeable). Do you understand what "an average male employee" means?

> More so women in the US own the majority of the wealth in the US.

Seems to be not supported by either 2014 annual BMO report, nor by 2015 one. It comes from a BMO presentation titled "Financial concerns of women", which references a PDF presentation by a counceling company that hosts its site on Wordpress platform, which references a publicistic, non-scientific book that is believed to be an originator of "women control 80% of spending" myth that is being widely criticized.

It has nothing to do with women being the primary taxable income recipients.

u/Mr_Smoogs · 1 pointr/PurplePillDebate

Fully 25 percent of female searches for straight porn emphasize the pain and/or humiliation of the woman,” he writes, citing search terms inappropriate to reiterate here, but featuring words like “painful,” “extreme” and “brutal,” and often focused on nonconsensual sex (depictions of which, he emphasizes, are not permitted on that site).


u/Workaholico · 1 pointr/PurplePillDebate

Numbers? no, I am defining concepts you misinterpreted. If you want numbers, you can always read the articles that sustain the theories behind the concepts (except maybe the things exclusively from TRP)


  • Definition of SMV = left bar in r/TheRedPill plus the definition of Market Value from Introduction to marketing from Phillip Kotler,, 2006, and Introdução a economia, from Manwik, if I remember correctly.
  • Metric: The most common metric used here and in TRP. 1 to 10 scale of value.
  • Formula: Principal Component Analysis the simplest form of multi-variable analysis for behavioral analysis in Costa (2011) from chapters 'Measuring and development of scales' and 'Economic scales', This is the basic formula for the Theory of Value I know of. I can get some others, But the the math easily gets a bit more complicated and this is not my specialty.

    Feel free to check them all, I think all of those books have English equivalents or translations. Except maybe Costa, He had to make a surgery right after publishing the book. Poor teacher.
u/fiat_lux_ · 3 pointsr/PurplePillDebate

> then they must also believe that men want bitches since according to TRP, apparently men end up in relationships with bitches all the time.

If it's this kind of bitch, then you may be right.

u/southwer · 1 pointr/PurplePillDebate

but babies have died having this done. not a lot, but it has happened. See this book for another horrible example of things going wrong:


Obviously what happened to David Reimer was horrible above and beyond the initial accident, but...why do this to a newborn if it's not necessary medically? It's just stupid, I can't think of another word for it.

u/Littleknownfacts · 1 pointr/PurplePillDebate

>It's neither agreed upon (you have no evidence past a few people, a tiny % of poster here) nor specific enough. Too many vague definitions. Useless.

Useless for you. Not for the rest of us.

>1) First of all - PPD is here to discuss TBP vs. TRP. So it would make a little too much sense to use their definition.

No. It's here to discuss RP.

>2) OK - let's say I let that slide... who are you making this definition up for? Are you the next RP blogger guru? Even they can't figure this shit out.. see Rololololo's embarassement:

No. This has just been my observations and what model makes sense based on what everyone here says. I just put it together into words for a single post. I probably wasn't even the first one to see it in the model. But everyone throws out definitions they think works best, other people read them and add that information to the model that they use in their heads (or don't), eventually the good ideas are reconciled and the bad ideas are eliminated. Literally how this works.

>>"The author's most relied-upon term, "alpha", is not given any definition at all through the first twenty percent of the book, until he gets to a chapter in which he promises to address the definition of "alpha", but in which no such definition appears. (He spends the chapter -- and three more following it! -- talking about how hard the term is to define, without defining it.) "

Yes I read this paragraph the last four times you've posted it. I still don't care.
>No, you literally had no clue how it worked. You got it all backwards. Now you're flat out lying. You don't get to come back from that flop.

You left off a comment:


>You can't even figure out if beta is "something something" or "just bad." Come on. You don't speak for all participants here, while I can clearly see what they are saying. And it's all different.

I can for 100% certainly tell you that beta is not just bad.

I don't speak for the participants here. Their up votes speak for themselves. You see how my comment is way at the top of the list? That means I've got more upvotes than other people's definition. That means they like and agree with it.

>I mean your illustrious community!

It's going fairly well, despite this one obnoxious prick who drags up arguments from months ago as an attempt to ad hominem. You'd think if he really believed in his point he would just be able to argue within the confines of this debate and not drag in old arguments like a naggy house wife.