Anger is Not a Phase
Published 10/14/20 by redpillschool [0 Comments]

I see the term "anger phase" bandied around a lot, and it's always rubbed me the wrong way. It implies that anger is something bad, a cancer of some sort. When you have it, you want to get rid of it as quickly as possible and move on to acceptance.

This is the emotional equivalent of letting bullies take your lunch money to prevent feeling pain. Acceptance as a means to achieve some higher Zen is not an admirable quality when it comes at a real cost to you. Pretending you've ascended to a higher plane of existence is a cope.

The mark of a man is not which emotions he has and which he ignores. The mark of a man is how he chooses to act in light of his emotions. Holding frame (TRP's golden calf if you ask me) does not mean stifling or pretending one does not have emotions (faux stoicism). It does not mean admonishing others for experiencing it.

Anger is one of the best catalysts for change. As with all of your emotions, it's important not to cede control to your anger, but it is similarly unwise to dismiss or hide from it. Anger, when properly directed, can be exactly the fire you need to get off your ass and make changes in your life.

Get angry at your lazy self. Get angry at fatness. Get angry at weakness. Get angry that others are successful and you are not. GET ANGRY.

I hear you say, “once you understand the rules, you don't get angry,” and , “if you understand how the game works, you don't get angry because you accept it.”

But mating is a zero sum game. LIFE is a zero sum game. If you're playing defense and the other team scores, you don't sit down and accept it, resigned to a life of loserdom. No! You get angry. You get energized. You get invigorated to play harder. You want to win the game and you use that energy to focus on achieving your goals.

People get lost in the rhetoric because they envision somebody stewing over things that make them angry, getting hotter and hotter under the collar but doing nothing to relieve the anger. They call it a phase because ultimately when you do something constructive with it, the anger subsides. Sitting around angry doesn't help anybody. (nor does sitting around sad, or jealous, or any other emotion).

But it’s being used differently here. They say: once you swallow the pill you leave the anger behind and what you have left is acceptance and frame. If you’re still angry, you haven’t swallowed the pill. You haven’t internalized it yet.

Bullshit I say. I post, and encourage the posting of, discussions, articles, and news clippings that demonstrate the perceived injustices in the world around us because anger keeps you sharp.

I still get angry when I hear about a man who loses his family to feminism. I get angry when I hear about a suicide that was preventable. I get angry when I hear about a woman abusing the good will of others for her own personal gain. I get angry when I hear that a mildly good looking 20-something can afford to buy a house by flashing her tits on the internet.

I get angry because it’s the other team scoring a goal and I need to stoke the fire under my own ass to put myself ahead. They’re playing on easy mode and the refs are in their pocket. You’re going to need a hell of a comeback to make up the difference. GET ANGRY.

Treating anger as an ugly emotion that should be avoided is accepting the feminine, blue pill frame. “Real men” don’t get angry. “Real men” learn to cope, right? Any time somebody suggests that your masculinity hinges on living up to societal standards, ask yourself who benefits from it?

Who benefits from docile pushover men who never get angry?

Think of it this way, if you can convince the other team to stop playing, it’s a heck of a lot easier to win.

No successful, great man in history entered into the history books by accepting his reality as just-so. Every single one of them said "to hell with this" and changed the status quo.

The other team wants you to give up, and they’ve been using social scorn, politics, and polite society to manipulate you your whole life. It’s so ingrained into us as humans that people on TRP unironically denounce anger as the ugly emotion that we should strive to outgrow and avoid. We should not be angry because that is a man who lacks control. Garbage.

Anger is not a phase. In fact, it's when you stop feeling angry that you should be the most worried. Not feeling angry means you are resigned to complacency with your status in life. Not feeling anger means that you are not truly living. Anger is the fire that drives the strong to go above and beyond the weak.

Anger is living. Complacency is death.

[0 Comments]
Big Tech (Facebook, Twitter, etc) wants section 230 revoked or reworked.
Published 09/16/20 by redpillschool [0 Comments]

I've seen a lot of talk here and other forums that tend to lean right, that they want to either abolish Section 230 or configure it in such a way that sites have to earn permission for such protections.


Among other attempts at reigning in 230 is the EARN-IT act, which on its surface, looks like a way to finally get social media in line by making 230 protections conditional, requiring compliance, checks, and hoops that need to be jumped. EARN IT uses the age-old tactic of "think of the children" by making is specifically about online child sexual prevention, but it's far more insidious than that.

What is Section 230?

In brief, section 230 gives website owners protection against direct liability for what users post on their sites, by attributing such content to the authors of the content rather than the party which hosts the public forum.

It gives companies and websites leeway to operate in "good faith" to remove content they believe "provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected;"

This works well in conjunction with the DMCA, which puts a process into place to protect providers who operate in good faith to remove copyrighted material in a timely manner immunity to copyright infringement claims.

Without these two protections, websites such as kia2, trp.red, thedonald, etc, would be legal liabilities to the site runners, if posting by anonymous users were to continue to be allowed.

What would happen if 230 were revoked?

If 230 were revoked in its entirety, then most of the web would be shuttered instantaneously. Hobby sites and projects with little funding would not have the resources to defend against legal actions taken against them, nor would they have the resources to inspect each and every thing users contributed before publishing live to the net.

Understand that even with a large enough team to inspect 100% of content before it goes live, you stand risk of mistakes getting through, content your moderators didn't know was a legal liability at the time- such as libel, copyright infringement, threats, etc.

While on the surface it appears that revoking 230 would take away the prerogative of site runners to subjectively moderate the content, it also moves the liability of said content to the site runner as though they are a publisher rather than a platform.

Even if 230 were simply elevated to be "earned" rather than given, the extra costs for applications, overhead for legal work, and risk of losing accreditation would likely affect smaller sites disproportionately.

Why does Facebook, Twitter, etc want this?

It's called regulatory capture. They are currently the titans in their fields. It would take a huge effort to overtake them. They have resources to handle increased regulations, it's very likely bills like Earn it were drafted by lobbyists directly on the payroll of Facebook or Twitter, etc.

The big tech companies have the staff to monitor every post. It will require hiring a few new people, but the cost they will endure is nothing compared to the money long-term they will make simply by being a monopoly when no other startups can afford it.

Like the banking industry, they like the big fees and hurdles to get to the position they're in because it secures their position against upstarts.

The more regulation, the harder it is for smaller upstarts to take root. They bet on this.

Right now, if you don't like big tech, you are free to open your own site. TRP.red, the win communities, seddit, voat, these are all examples of a free and open internet.

Revoking 230 will kill these smaller websites, while big tech will flourish. Censorship will be much worse when there are no places for alternative ideas.

Revoking 230 is absolutely the worst way to solve this problem. I guarantee you the strong push for it by the right is from astroturfers and swamp republicans trying to make you believe it's in your own interest.

It absolutely is not.

[0 Comments]
Next Page