I normally do not make it a habit to address various Twitter and other forum beef in long-form essays, for the most part I attempt to keep the blog separate from other forums, except for sharing content. However, I find that there are a few complaints and a bit of criticism that is often launched on other forums that I feel should be dealt with on here.
Now, before I go into that, if you are a Gendernomics or Gendernomics: Building Value owner, I welcome all feedback on the books and my twitter DMs are open, specifically as customers, I want to hear and appreciate your feedback.
By far the most common complaint that I get on twitter or other forums is “[Insert content creator] blocked me“, let me make this clear, I have in the past intervened when a content creator I know blocked a long-term follower of mine, or someone that I know, I will not intervene for someone I have no relationship with.
Secondly, when you run a large twitter account, you log-in to a lot of notifications, and when you tweet about the topics that myself and other content creators within this space write about, you get a lot of hate, especially from new accounts with barely any followers, so I do not blame any large account for blocking accounts that open with insults, ridicule or any form of disrespect.
If this is why you were blocked, I suggest some charm school classes.
A second common complaint are those that act as if the Red Pill has a set formal hierarchy, expect content creators to police other content creators, and quite frankly seek to create beef for the enjoyment of the peanut gallery. Alternatively, those who seek to start beef with larger accounts because they want attention. Sorry, I’m not my brother’s keeper, if a content-creator or other high visibility Red Pill persona does something I disagree with, I may talk to them in private or I may distance myself from them to avoid getting caught in the cross-fire when they start drama, but I’m not going to duke it out in public unless it’s absolutely necessary.
In those few instances where I’ve been involved with public beefing, I always talked to one or more of the parties in private first, and only partook in the public actions because I deemed it absolutely necessary.
The third complaint, gets its own chapter, because it’s somewhat an amalgamate of the first two; those who’s complain goes something like “I criticized [Insert content creator] on twitter (funnily enough it’s always Twitter), and he blocked me!”
In short form, Twitter is not a good medium for discourse in general, nor is it a good medium for debate. Secondly, most high profile accounts (read as those with 10.000 or more followers) tend to get a lot of mentions and notifications, it’s easy to get lost in the mire. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, few if any of the content creators use Twitter as a debate medium, nor enjoy spending their whole evening responding to drive-by criticisms. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I personally use Twitter with the following objectives:
A) Share content and thoughts that are not suited for a long-form essay (jokes, Tinder tips, general game advice, observations on topics non-related to intersexual dynamics).
B) Interact with people who buy my books and read my blog.
C) Interact and build relationships with other content creators.
D) As a marketing channel for my blog and my books.
If I spend a whole evening debating one person, that does not contribute to any of those four objectives. It steals time that I could use talking to my readers, answering questions I get in DMs from men who want my help, planning RMG or Red Mornings, or entertaining myself and others with funny tweets.
However, I do recognize that a lot of men have criticisms of The Red Pill and Red Pill theory and would like to share their take on it, so I’m going to offer what I think is a good avenue for it.
Let me begin by saying that the Red Pill does not have a formal hierarchy whereby people are promoted and demoted. There is only one way to climb the ladder to a position of influence, and that is your contributions to Red Pill Theory. Rollo got nicknamed “The Godfather” because he is the most prolific and influential writer in our niche, not because of starting beef with the top guys when he started writing. Every influential “Red Pill Man” is influential because of his Body of Work, regardless of which format he prefers.
However, I said I would give you a method for writing critiques of The Red Pill, so here we go. Let me preface, that this next section deals with how to write a critique of the actual theoretical framework. If you want to make arguments about morality along the lines of:
“If all men bang hoes you are ruining Western Civ”
“Don’t you realize that you are turning our future wives into Alpha widows”
“Don’t you see that by telling men to put themselves first and be their own mental point of origin you are creating psychopaths”
and the likes, then you are not criticizing Red Pill theory, you are criticizing it’s application, and one potential set of consequences. I cannot speak for other content creators but I I generally tend to view a desire to respond to such concern trolling as a sign that I’ve had too much to drink and should go to bed.
A Methodology For Red Pill Critiques
For years we have had the red pill subreddit (reddit.com/r/theredpill) this is perhaps the biggest forum of Red Pill men in existence, men on all steps of the journey from blue to red pill, from the guy who just started to men who have been around for over a decade. The moderators have a reputation for being harsh but fair, and Red Pill School (the head moderator) has a long history in the sphere.
If you want to critique a specific part of Red Pill theory, whether that be from Illimitable Man, Rollo, myself, Donovan, Rian, Roosh, Roissy, or any other prolific content creator, this is a great place to post it, all you have to do is register a Reddit account (you can do so anonymously if you like) and write your criticism.
Some general tips for writing a good critique is that you need to familiarize yourself with the topic. For instance, if you want to criticize Rollo’s writings on Hypergamy, you should visit his blog, locate the relevant essays, read them well enough that you understand them, then sit down and write a critique of his actual writing. Not a critique of what you think he said, not a critique of the tone that he said it in, no theory of his psychological state when he wrote it, but what he actually wrote.
You also want to ensure that the sources are organized from oldest to newest, if you write anything for longer than a few months you can expect that perspectives change, perhaps gain more nuance, or that the writer decided to clarify or expand upon the subject in a later essay. The person may have already responded to your critique at length.
I would strongly advice that you include quotes, with links and references to the essays or otherwise where it was written. If you are including a critique of the sources, I recommend including those as well, especially if you are making an argument that the person who wrote the original essay engaged in cherry picking, failed to interpret the data correctly or made other methodological errors.
If you take these steps to heart, and follow them, then it’s actually possible to have some discourse regarding your criticism, and perhaps come to an agreement that perhaps the theory needs to be amended, expanded upon, or requires additional source data.
Writing such a critique also lays the groundwork for debate, because the content creator whom you want to respond to your critique has a chance to understand where you are coming from, what your perspective is and how to best tackle it. Speaking from experience it’s very hard to have a good discussion or debate, especially on Twitter or if you call in to Red Man Group, simply because you may have spent months thinking about something, but the person you are challenging is often not equally prepared.
If I get a call in, or a twitter comment where they ask “Carl, in Methods of Female Madness” you mention [XYZ] how does that relate to the manifestation of BPD In men?” I usually have to go back and re-read my own essay to give a good answer. If I get that question in writing, I can go back when I have a chance and give you a much better response.
Summary and Conclusions
To be honest, every Red Pill content creator I’ve had the pleasure of interacting with does spend quite a lot of time interacting with their content-consumers, and most of them enjoy that part of the gig the most. I can only speak for myself in this, but the most aggravating thing to me is entitlement mixed with being lazy, which often takes the form of someone feeling entitled to a content creator responding in long-form to a critique that took them all of 15 seconds to tweet.
I’m reminded of a brilliant quote about John Forbes Nash, the genius mathematician about whom Sylvia Nasar said the following
“Nash acquired his knowledge [not] from studying … but by [seeing the] truth for himself. … Einstein once chided him for wishing to amend relativity theory without studying physics.”
The takeaway being that if you want a content creator to spend his time addressing your criticism, at least put the amount of effort into making it, as you expect them to spend responding to it. That means doing the research, reading their material, making sure that they have not addressed that criticism before, or updated their public stance, and taking the time to write a solid critique. I suggest posting it to the Red Pill Subreddit (reddit.com/r/Theredpill) where countless content creators will have a chance to respond as well. That is, if your critique is made in good faith.
I’m sad to say that a great majority of the time, the critiques that come in, especially in the chat during Red Man Group or on Twitter, are not real critiques, they are AMOGs, grandstanding and people attempting to get a more prolific content creator to give them a platform that will garner them status. Which is why my advice to the men who keep getting provoked into debates has always been: Never debate them until they:
A) Publish a well-thought out, long-form essay so you know what their position is.
B) Agree to a topic in the classical debate style, for instance: “Is hypergamy real”
C) Agree to either an Oxford style debate format, of Introduction, audience challenges, closing argument or a debate format of opening statement, rebuttal, closing argument. With the debate featuring a mutually agreed upon moderator.
The goal being to have a fixed target that you are debating so that it doesn’t turn into rhetorical grandstanding and using the platform as a marketing tool.
What I just spent almost 3 hours writing and 2000 words saying is, if you want your criticism to be taken seriously and maximize your chance of getting a response instead of a block, put in the work. If you expect a content creator to spend 2 hours reading and formulating a response to your critique, at least being willing to spend that much of your own time writing it in the first place.
I think more red pill content from intelligent, well-informed men with strong reasoning capabilities is always a good thing for this space. Especially if it improves the theoretical framework and helps other men.
What I do not think contributes value is drive-by critiques, which if not responded to leads to complaining and blowing up someone’s mentions, which leads to being blocked, which leads to a new round of complaining about being blocked.
I’m sorry to say it, but to repeat my block policy, but on a side note, in Welsh, “LL” is pronounced as “C”, back to the policy, “I don’t block people for disagreeing, I block people for being llunts about it“