My impression is that the steelman version of it ...

ALERT. Fully General Counterargument detected in line 1.

Seriously, how many people would actually refer to thoughtful critique and even rejection of mainstream views as "Red Pill" material? Basically nobody would, unless they are already committed to the "Red Pill" identity for unrelated reasons. That's just not what Red Pill means in the first place.

And yes, the 'Red Pill' thing attracts jerks and losers, but that's the least of its problems. A very real issue is that this ensures that ideas in the Red Pill space achieve memetic success not by their practical usefulness or adherence to truth-seeking best practices, but by shocking value and being most acceptable or even agreeable to jerks and losers.

Yes, you can go looking for diamonds in the mud: there's nothing wrong with that and sometimes it works. But that does not require you, or anyone else, to provide enablement to such a deeply toxic and ethically problematic subculture.

[anonymous]7y6

Seriously, how many people would actually refer to thoughtful critique and even rejection of mainstream views as "Red Pill" material?

  • Mencius Moldbug
  • Athol Kay
  • High quality PUA
  • etc.

Arguing about what a term means is bound to go nowhere, but in my experience, "red pill" has been associated with useful and interesting ideas. Maybe that's just me and my experience isn't valid though.

I don't think it's fair to characterize an entire space of ideas by it's strawest members (shock-value seeking "edgy" losers). I could use that ... (read more)

Open thread, July 16-22, 2013

by David_Gerard 1 min read15th Jul 2013305 comments

15


If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.


Given the discussion thread about these, let's try calling this a one-week thread, and see if anyone bothers starting one next Monday.