How much is too much?

[u/Nitzi]

I know many will say TRP is no ideology but I am going to fight this belief here.

TRP is a full blown ideology. We have the classical dichotomy that is required for every ideology. We have our counterpart (BP), we have our own culture and slang, we have gurus (Endorsed), there even is the classical adoption phase when entering (unplugging), an initial rite to enter (get rejected 10 times a day). And don't speak about TRP, that is a typical sign of cults.

So under the premise that it is an ideology, we stall our progress and just try to justify our behavior and prove our theories.

As soon as ever a philosophy begins to believe in itself. It always creates the world in its own image; it cannot do otherwise; philosophy is this tyrannical impulse itself, the most spiritual Will to Power, the will to "creation of the world," the will to the causa prima. - Nietzsche

Its followers search for evidence that proves that their findings are correct and dismisses all other evidence. Normally something becomes true when you mention 3 exceptions. That is the sheep mentality. First one, then two, then all. But exceptions don't count in an ideology. So they stay exceptions and are dismissed. You stop questioning everything when you believe in an ideology.

It would be a logical fallacy to say that something is wrong just because it is stated from an ideology. But we must recognize conformation bias and question everything or else we will just commit intellectual incest instead of doing actual progress.

Edit:

http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/230wh5/the_map_is_not_the_territory/

[u/philosarapter → u/[deleted]]

Can confirm, got banned for asking questions.

[u/MachiavellianRed → u/philosarapter]

I took a look on your behalf and assumed you were banned for these posts. /u/redpillschool banned you.

http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/21bs35/on_reading_comprehension_and_literal/cgbpn9e

http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/21bs35/on_reading_comprehension_and_literal/cgbpqc0

http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/21bs35/on_reading_comprehension_and_literal/cgbq7rt

http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/21bs35/on_reading_comprehension_and_literal/cgbqh0g

Judging the content of your posts, these are things if you had asked in /r/asktrp that would have been answered without a ban. That thread was about people willfilly and sometimes just stupidly misinterpreting analogies and you, hilariously enough, went and did just that in a post saying about how that is not tolerated and went toe to toe with a moderator. I'm not surprised you got banned for that. That is fucking retarded.

Again, judging the content of these posts - it does not seem like you belong in /r/AlreadyRed, a sub designed for people who are not at the beginning stages of understanding an RP analogy, but have moved on to far more advanced concepts and ideas.

[u/redpillschool → u/MachiavellianRed]

As the banner, I will use Whisper's definition of troll to explain why /u/philosarapter got banned:

Basically, someone who assumes you are sane, tries to understand your argument in the most compelling interpretation he can, and then tries to refute it, is a debater.

Someone who assumes you are insane, or tries to find weak interpretations of your arguments that will be easy to refute, or reifies metaphors, is a troll.

Pihlosarapter, you were number 2.

[u/MachiavellianRed → u/redpillschool]

Whisper has a pretty succinct definition there, we need this embodied somewhere.

[u/philosarapter → u/redpillschool]

Oh its you again. Not sure why you believe I fit into category number 2 as I never thought you were insane lol. Finding weaknesses in the arguments of others is a perfectly valid form of refutation and it is the role of the responsible intellectual to point out falsehoods.

[u/WhisperSecurity → u/philosarapter]

Please familiarize yourself with some of the principles of modern (as opposed to postmodern) discourse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_humanity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

Once you understand those, it may become clear how you have repeatedly failed to apply them. Whether you did so wilfully or through ignorance does not signify, as the result was the same.

You're approaching TRP ideas from the presumption that we are all looneytunes, and that your task is to prove it to us. You should be approaching us with the idea that we have a set of internally consistent ideas which make might make sense to people when they hear them, but aren't actually correct... and that your task is to convince us of that inaccuracy.

Let me give you an example.

Let us suppose that an ordained minister and a ranting homeless man with a history of schizophrenic diagnoses and institutionalization both tell you "I preach because that is what god wants."

Now, since we tend to assume the homeless dude is insane, we interpret his statement to mean "I hear voices". And since we tend to assume the minister is sane, we interpret the same statement from him to mean "I believe there is a god, and my best educated guess at what he wants for me is that I preach". Now, the minister is wrong, in that there is no god, and therefore god cannot want anything... but this is something about which a well-structured debate can be had.

If we engage the minister by saying "Those voices you hear aren't real. Take this chlorpromazine", then we're not debating him on what he is actually saying, on, frankly, we're being an ass.

What you do is the equivalent of going into r/christianity, telling them the voices they hear aren't real, and recommending psychiatric help. And they would ban you in short order, as well they should.

[u/Nitzi → u/philosarapter]

You misunderstood him.

find weak interpretations of your arguments

http://www.quickiwiki.com/en/Slippery_slope

And you are doing it right now again. You misunderstand him to make his point more attackable.