top 200 commentsshow all 287

[–][deleted]  (68 children)

[deleted]

    [–]Wise_Kruppe 33 points34 points  (28 children)

    It should have been, don't identify as either because both parties are dumb assholes.

    [–]2asd1100 29 points30 points  (12 children)

    they are far from dumb, they just don't give a fuck.

    [–]franklinzunge 14 points15 points  (3 children)

    Totally, after reading the Powertalk essays by Venkat, I see how often the government uses Hanlon's Dodge, based on Hanlon's Razor, never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity. They are always "incompetent", when in reality it was an engineered outcome.

    Its my understanding that the parties both serve the same masters and a lot of their conflicts is really a show to get the outcome the want, which for us is the worst of both worlds. They are set up as Heads I win, tails you lose scenarios for the public and you get to vote on how you get fucked.

    [–]2asd1100 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    It's more subtle than that, the progresion towards failure is originated in weak points(stupidity). Rulers only need to predict the failure, and let it fall in their desired direction.(which is not reall hard if you are in the system) You do not need to push a elefant, that would be stupid, you just lead it toward your desired butcher.

    Not really they serve different masters, those masters just aren't actually adversarial, the conflict is just for show. They don't set up failures, they occur naturally in a bloated bureaucracy by mismanagement and neglect. So when reform is painfully necessary almost anything will be better than the status quo-

    [–]Snivellious 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    The entire Powertalk series reads like a primer on government. Perhaps most significant, a lot of the stupidity we see really is stupid - those people are put in front of us for a reason. We rage at the stupidity of officials and PR flacks, but don't think about where decisions are coming from.

    There's a reason Lee Atwater was too smart to run for government.

    [–]CDBaller 0 points1 point  (7 children)

    I'd have to say that they both give a fuck...about their own bottom line.

    [–]john-b 10 points11 points  (7 children)

    I prefer to call myself a classical liberal independent. Political parties are garbage and attaching yourself to one subjects you to the party's reputation. If someone in your party fucks up, you are guilty by just associating with such a lowlife. That's why being an independent in my opinion is the best course - your entire reputation is in your own hands and not attached to anybody else. This philosophy goes hand in hand with an RP lifestyle which is why I like RP so much.

    A classical liberal is someone who values Freedom of the Individual above all else, as long as the individual does not interfer with the Life, Liberty or Property of another individual. This includes the individuals own life, which is of course his own property (the first thing one owns). This idea is the basis of the American Republic, and to much lesser degrees the rest of the western world.

    You look around today and see a gigantic 5000ft wall of regulations, restrictions, rules, dictates, mandates, advisories, recommendations, tariffs, taxes on everything, licenses and much more.

    The farther you go back in American history, the more you see a freer, mature people.

    [–]Nicklovinn 2 points3 points  (5 children)

    I enjoy the idea of libertarian philosophy but I disagree with the implications of the near anarcho-capitalism that is usually attached to it. Too much free market has undesirable social implications like obesity related to food monopolies which that they can influence elections, this is only one example of many, including the design if our cities in unsustainable ways that do not cater to a fulfilling human experience are essentially concrete deserts.

    [–]1sailorJery 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    cities designed during the 20th century, absolutely are urban wastelands.

    [–]john-b 2 points3 points  (3 children)

    1. Free Trade was practiced without government interference since the founding of the US to around 1930s/40s. This produced the greatest outpouring of research, invention, increase in standard of living & charitable activity the world has ever seen.

    2. Monopolies are largely a result of government interference. The best way to protect and preserve your monopoly is to lobby government to pass licensing laws, costly rules & regulations or strict laws in the field of your monopoly as to limit other companies from starting up & competing with you as much as possible. An example of this in Canada is ISPs or cell phone companies. You cannot start up an ISP or cellphone company without getting approval from a government board. This helps the current big companies stay in power while disallowing multitudes of other competitors.

    [–]Snivellious 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    This is a slightly petty point, but I think it's an important one. Free Trade has never been practiced in the United States outside the confines of too-hard-to-manage border regions.

    We have seen increasing regulation, but since the days of the Interstate Commerce Act, we've seen a strong and regulation-intensive central government. True security-or-less free capitalism hasn't ever been practiced in the United States, nor in much of the Western world.

    [–]Nicklovinn 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    but the US is arguable thee most free market orientated, I doubt that if you decreased the regulation even more it wont magically turn into a utopia

    [–]Nicklovinn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    But monopolies are the ideal situation for businesses, you have a monopoly on the market, essentially no competition

    [–]1sailorJery 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    I agree with your sentiment and applaud it as a fellow classical liberal, but the thing about American politics is that the greater your level of participation the greater level of influence you can have. By not being a member of a major party you lose the ability to choose candidates in the primaries for elections. This is especially pertinent at the level of local elections.

    [–]Endorsed Contributorcocaine_face 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Of course you should. You don't actually have to care what they think, but joining a political party officially is... shrewd in some cases.

    [–]cherrypoptart27 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    It's sad that as a society, we as Americans have adopted this "victim mentality" wholeheartedly.

    My great grandad was an "Eisenhower Republican" in that he believed in everyone just doing their part and creating great commerce. Building roads and the interstate system and things like that to facilitate commerce. He wasn't a whiny complaining asshole...in fact he came to this country from the old country by himself when he was 14 (knowing zero English), started his own business and when he died he left the family a lot of money. Anytime I start to feel sorry for myself I think about him and what a pussy I'd be compared to him if I continued to indulge myself. It's a shame what each party has degraded into.

    [–][deleted]  (12 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]1sailorJery 2 points3 points  (2 children)

      you want the government to not exist?

      [–]lemonparty 21 points22 points  (22 children)

      Yeah, I ain't getting in any fistfights or voting Democrat if I can help it.

      [–]2asd1100 2 points3 points  (21 children)

      You miss the point, don't vote - they are all cunts that don't give a fuck about you. And not getting in a fist fights is like never approaching a woman. You will live in a permanent fear of what might happen because you have only your projections to live off of.

      [–]feelinglazy 6 points7 points  (9 children)

      Someone will win, whether you vote or not.

      [–]LibertarianLibertine 0 points1 point  (5 children)

      I agree. Voting just provides the cunts with legitimacy

      [–]1sailorJery 0 points1 point  (4 children)

      that doesn't make sense, unless everyone doesn't vote, which will never happen, you're just giving your voice to a smaller minority by not voting.

      [–]R4F1 0 points1 point  (3 children)

      Who says you need to lend your voice to a candidate? Maybe I support a politician or leader who isn't running at all (i.e., Ron Paul)? Maybe I believe in a philosophy that doesn't even consider voting because it has other direct methods of influencing society (i.e., Agorism)?

      If there's 2 people in an election, and I don't agree with either, not because I'm undecided but because I believe in someone or something totally different, why do we need to vote?

      [–]1sailorJery 0 points1 point  (2 children)

      by you not voting, you're letting my vote decide for you

      [–]R4F1 0 points1 point  (1 child)

      Maybe I believe in Agorism, which is the practice of engaging in gray and black market activities thus rendering the state moot. If you support a candidate A, and he's against cannabis, and candidate B isn't really a proponent of cannabis either. Agorism would advise that we ignore them both and trade/partake in cannabis anyways. When enough people ignore a law, the law becomes ineffective and meaningless. Eventually that laws creases to exist.

      [–]1sailorJery 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      well the problem with that is the state is never moot, also that's not an effective way to change law. All forms of anarchism are ineffective in the face of organized opposition.

      [–]robertpaulsontitties 5 points6 points  (0 children)

      Good point. #7 is correct but incomplete. It should really say something like "Don't do politics at all. Mass politics operates above a human scale and is beyond almost anyone's control at this point. Politics in our time largely consists of massive rival propaganda machines competing for public head space. For you, it is a complete waste of time. Like a lot of spectator activities it creates an illusion of accomplishment and power where none exists. But worst of all, it is fueled by and in turn nurtures self-destructive emotions and personality traits."

      [–]1Watermelon_Salesman 177 points178 points  (107 children)

      1. Get in a fistfight, even if you are going to lose.

      This is terrible advice. Trust me.

      Some of those advices are actually pretty good, but this one you definitely shouldn't follow to the letter. Self-defense is mostly about avoiding a physical fight at all costs. You only get physical if the other person gets physical, then it's a matter of protecting your integrity. But you don't go getting into fistfights due to verbal abuse or what you see as humiliation. Revenge for a shattered ego isn't worth the hospital bill or the physical damage. People can lose their eyesight from being punched in the face.

      (I'm following his advice #10 here. You really shouldn't get into fistfights. And if someone pulls a knife, run like hell)

      Don’t be a Republican.

      This is not really advice. It's indoctrination. (I'm not a Republican, I'm not even American.)

      [–]MegaSuperCritic 16 points17 points  (0 children)

      Pretty sure the first fight thing is more about knowing what you're capable of in the event of an unavoidable fight.

      You wouldn't go to a club and pound 5 shots the first time you drink, either. You'd probably do it in a pressure free environment.

      Know your limits, what you can do.

      [–]KettleMeetPot 10 points11 points  (3 children)

      There's a number of reasons why that bit of advice is good. And it's open to perception, taking boxing or MMA and fighting in the ring is in essence a fist fight. I'm pretty sure the meaning, is so that you know what it's like to take a punch. Why? It resonates in a lot of his other bits of advice. While the softer gentler world would have you believe the whole "you don't hit people" routine, sometimes... there's no choice. Other times, you can be hit for no reason at all. Just ask the people who are victims to the knockout game.

      You can dismiss it and argue it with "but guns" and "but knives"... not everyone carries a knife, or has a CWP, how do you protect yourself then? Just take it in the ass and hope for the best?

      [–]Guntlips 16 points17 points  (2 children)

      This current generation of young men are the most sheltered and pussyfied there has ever been in human history. Some of my best friends now are guys I got into fights with in high school.

      [–]RobertCarraway 6 points7 points  (1 child)

      Agreed. Very disappointed in the number of posters here who are so afraid of consequences that they can't acknowledge the value of a timely brawl.

      [–]KettleMeetPot 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      What they fail to remember, back in the day ones ability to fight and defend themselves and their family garnered more respect than their /r/malefasionadvice abilities.

      Relevant.

      [–]Rugnardl[S] 24 points25 points  (44 children)

      Dude I totally agree. Party participation is just declaring for your team and it does nothing but promote mob mentality. I didn't want to alter the original so I left it in. As for fighting, I would say that if you go your whole life without knowing if you can kick ass when you have to, you'll always live with some kind of doubt. Perhaps this rule is inflammatory on purpose to stir discussion about the natural aggression in male tendencies, and how we shouldn't suppress ourselves. Perhaps it's hinting that we should fight for sport, in a regulated environment. Or maybe it's suggesting that you do something foolish, crazy, scary or otherwise just to test your ability under stress. Regardless, it gives you something to think about.

      [–][deleted] 41 points42 points  (5 children)

      Street fights are complete shitshows. Whoever lands the first lucky punch "wins", and they are often fueled by rage. If you end up losing, the other guy might not let up. He might start slamming your head repeatedly into the concrete. He could pull out a weapon.

      You could hit/push the other guy, he falls backward, hits the back of his head, and ends up brain damaged, or just dead. Good luck in court, or carrying that on your conscience.

      Don't get into some stupid brawl. Do your best to defuse the situation, then walk away. Only fight if you 100% must.

      And like watermelon said, do a combat sport.

      [–][deleted]  (1 child)

      [deleted]

        [–]OhThat_ThatsNothing 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        A poster on reddit got in a fight with some dude after he stole his parking space outside the bar. Guy ends up falling back, cracking his neck on a table, dead. Redditor sentenced 5 years. Got his sentence tripled after he had to fight to save his own life in prison. 20 years...

        [–]BadJokeHour 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        Yupp, I know a guy who is now in jail because he got into a fight and after swinging just one punch he life-flighted the dude. fighting is never worth it - you never know what will happen.

        [–]94redstealth 4 points5 points  (3 children)

        I think the statement is meant more to show you why you shouldn't fight. it hurts and it's hard. when you are young I highly recommend a good scuffle at least once. of you have never had to defend and counter, you are missing a big chunk of 'being a man'

        [–]Iupvoteforknowledge 0 points1 point  (1 child)

        How do you know yourself if you have never been in a fight? All these people saying join MMA gym...its not the same. I'm already doing that.

        [–]Chicago1871 7 points8 points  (0 children)

        Real fights, are shorter and more random than any MMA sparring I've ever done. They're pretty lame and boring for the most part.

        There's no honor in it.

        I'm more embarrassed than proud of the fights I've had in my adulthood.

        [–]heist_of_saint_graft 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        Yeah, I think it's fine advice for 10 year old boys sparring on the playground. Less so for men where the an adult man hitting the ground is going to do a lot of damage.

        [–]freebytes 6 points7 points  (2 children)

        Fighting with rules limits potential outcomes, but without rules, your physical prowess is even more questionable. Can you outfight a gun or knife? Can you outfight a gang of people? Because, those are the types of situations you may encounter. Grabbing hair, sucker punches, head butts, punching scrotum sacks, and weapons are just a few of the wonderful surprises waiting in store. Whoever strikes first usually wins because the other person is honestly not expecting it most of the time. There is no need for macho garbage. While it is good to know some self defense, it is best to never use it and those with the most experience and intelligence often avoid conflict.

        [–]1Watermelon_Salesman 14 points15 points  (28 children)

        As for fighting, I would say that if you go your whole life without knowing if you can kick ass when you have to, you'll always live with some kind of doubt.

        If you need to know, join up a fighting class.

        It's one thing to practice a sport and thus assess your physical prowess, and to know you could handle a bad situation if it came to that.

        It's another to indulge in violent, useless macho shit that might kill or bankrupt you.

        [–][deleted]  (20 children)

        [deleted]

          [–]pl231 4 points5 points  (0 children)

          the part about " if you don't know if you can fight, that means you can't fight" is huge. it's not something that some people can just magically do well. the only group of people I've ever seen do decently in fights that have no prior experience are people that wrestled in high school or college and I'm pretty sure everyone can understand why.

          if someone is skilled to the point where with 99 % certainty they know they could win in a fight against some random, they're going to know it because that would mean they're at an incredibly high level.

          Also a lot of street fighting is just who is willing to take more damage. 1 of the 2 people almost always will be ok with it going further than the other is and that person wins 10/10 times

          [–]desylid 3 points4 points  (18 children)

          Not getting punched by some dude's friend who is to the side or behind you is tough as well. This is the problem with BJJ.

          I strongly agree with you about not fighting.

          It's pretty much a guarantee to not get pussy.

          [–][deleted]  (17 children)

          [deleted]

            [–]esco_ 11 points12 points  (10 children)

            Boxing has better answers for these 2v1 situations than traditional martial arts (including BJJ) for sure.

            You do NOT want a street fight to hit the ground. Here you are incredibly vulnerable to being booted in the head or stomped out by the guy's friends.

            For a person who is untrained, boxing will be the best art to practice to defend yourself. The idea is not to fight, but if shit goes down you act decisively.

            Boxing is better than kickboxing solely for the reason i mentioned earlier : Stay on your feet. kicks can be caught, and you can be tripped more easily.

            I would never advocate a grappling martial art over boxing for a noob who wants to learn practical skills. BJJ has its place, but it involves hitting the ground. You do NOT want to be on the ground in a bar trying to choke someone out while their friends are there.

            You DO want to be able to deliver a decisive knockout blow.

            I'm a blackbelt in taekwondo and i would never suggest it as a useful self-defence mechanism (although it is great for kids in terms of mental fortitude and skills). I am a huge fan of martial arts, and frequent mixed martial arts forums. The general consensus even on BJJ-flavoured forums is that boxing is your most practical skill for someone who is untrained. Train grappling after you have learned how to dodge/deliver punches

            [–]raiseurT 7 points8 points  (3 children)

            You're damn right, ground work is really only optimal in one on one unarmed fights. You can grapple with a guy and be in control and he can still grab a knife and stab you badly. And if it's more than one opponent when you're grappling with one guy the other can strike you, even if you're in control. Most people can't defend kicks, but in order to kick you need a good amount of room. Hard to get if the street fight takes place somewhere crowded like a subway or bar. You also can't evade multiple opponents while throwing a kick. The only way to win against multiple opponents is to stick and move. And what does boxing teach? If you're a trained boxer you can most likely throw punches to quickly neautralize an opponent while staying on your feet and evading other opponents. I wonder what karate kid fag dwn voted you.

            [–]Chicago1871 3 points4 points  (3 children)

            As someone who is about to be a a jujitsu blue belt and someone who has taken boxing seriously for the last two years and who really likes both sports.

            Not not take anything away from boxing but Jujitsu was one really good answer that boxing does not vs multiple opponents and it's called osoto gari. Osoto gari the first guy, kick him in the head and then do the same thing to the next guy, repeat this act until people get the picture. It's dead fucking simple and most people have no balance at all, especially the big fat guys.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nESyIcul344

            Trust me....I'm probably not gonna be the one hitting the ground if I fight an untrained guy. Also, it's better than breaking my hands on someone's teeth, the ground will always hit harder than you or I ever could.

            And if somehow, a bigger stronger guy manages to surprise me and take me down onto my back...oh good thing I know how to hit a technical standup or a sitout without even thinking about it, thanks to all that drilling.

            I actually prefer muay thai training for a noob over boxing, just solely for the clinchwork and elbows. Forget the kicks, the real money is in controlling the clinch, hitting elbows up close to the head and teaching people to punch the body.

            [–]Dokkobro 2 points3 points  (0 children)

            This. Muay Thai is a healthy mix of both. For those who think kicking is practical catch a real live old school Philipino Muay Thai kick to the gut or knee and talk to me. Elbows can draw ALOT of blood and are very very useful as a follow up to punching in a brawl because let's be honest who does that? Wanna know why Alistair Overeem was feared? Cuz he can clear the entire ring and knee you in the face while raining haymakers. Muay Thai gets my vote in all aspects, a little Krav Maga and Sambo never hurt anyone though.

            [–]esco_ 1 point2 points  (1 child)

            Sounds like you're talking more about judo techniques than jiu jitsu, correct me if im wrong though. I think judo and BJJ are also great.

            [–]CDBaller 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            He's talking traditional Japanese Jujitsu. Judo is simply the throws from Japanese Jujitsu made into a sport. BJJ is simply all the ground techniques taken from Japanese Jujitsu and made into a sport.

            The general philosophy you need to have when fighting is that you came for a FIGHT and you're ready to break bones in order to protect yourself and you're not gonna fuck around. Violence of action, immediately and without hesitation will usually cause hesitation in your casual drunk frat boy who's out to prove he's tough to his buddies.

            The thing that I would say about O'soto Gari and Jujitsu in general is that it requires balance and timing on your part. You might be all kick-ass in a dojo going up against people who've studied it with you, but you need to have no hesitation in that moment of "hell under the upraised sword" as my teacher liked to say. It's generally harder to keep people alive and breathing than it is to hurt them badly.

            [–]copralalic 7 points8 points  (1 child)

            Krav maga is the only defense type that claims to address multiple assailants, and they say, "Don't." They teach that by using one assailant's body to block the other assailant you can try to eliminate the first one quickly while the second is screened... but they still say you are probably going to get fucked up.

            The best way to deal with multiple attackers is with a weapon.

            [–]desylid 0 points1 point  (3 children)

            I wasn't denouncing BJJ in favor of other martial arts. I'm still a white belt, but I've spent many hours rolling (and I have a tournament win!)

            I was agreeing with your comment and adding to it.

            Unless I ended up tussling with a skilled wrestler on the street, I'm pretty confident, even with my shitty-white belt stand up, that I could pull guard and sweep someone untrained.

            I have had to use BJJ twice on my own friends when they were outrageously drunk and trying to fight other friends (a standing guillotine and a rear-naked). But I wasn't worried about getting blindsided by someone else.

            But yeah we agree.

            [–]Chicago1871 3 points4 points  (2 children)

            Why would you ever pull guard on someone that's untrained?

            Jeez, learn a foot sweep or two. ;)

            This is why I like training with MMA people, vs pure jujitsu people. All it takes is one afternoon sparring with strikes to realize that pulling guard is such a shitty idea when hitting is involved. That's when I decided, that yeah...I needed to work on my takedowns more, cause even though I survived most of the time, that shit was no fun.

            [–]desylid 2 points3 points  (1 child)

            Awesome man. One of my biggest regrets is not wrestling in high school. My takedowns suck.

            MMA dudes are cool people though. I always felt welcome even when I at a new gym as white belt only white boy. I miss it man. This thread is giving me the itch to start training again.

            [–]CDBaller 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            Same here. The feeling of slamming people into the ground is just so satisfying.

            [–]mercuryg 2 points3 points  (0 children)

            if you go your whole life without knowing if you can kick ass when you have to, you'll always live with some kind of doubt

            I completely agree, but getting into a fight you know you'll lose isn't the answer, if you lose a fistfight how will you know you can kick ass? Learning martial arts and self defense will take care of that doubt, getting into a fight just for the sake of getting into a fight won't, especially if you know you'll lose.

            Otherwise great post though.

            [–]johnyann 4 points5 points  (0 children)

            The best way to avoid fights is to look like you can win a fight. AKA put your rage into the gym.

            [–]2 Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours 6 points7 points  (0 children)

            There is something to be learned in a fight. Multiple fights will teach you more about yourself and about others than you can imagine, if you've never been in a fight. I had no choice, it was forced upon me but I learned to defend myself the hard way. I've been beaten so many times I can't remember all of them, but since I turned 16 I haven't lost a fight and I've had plenty in the next 30 years, none of which I started.

            You can learn some martial art, but if you're never tested, never hit full force, and only see the same things over and over, the first time you can't avoid the fight and you get hit, your chance of winning or not getting beaten senseless is pretty small. Fighting within the rules and confines of a particular form doesn't prepare you for the things you've never seen before. You might think so, but without experience, chances are against an experienced opponent you're fucked.

            If you've never been in a fight, you will either be cocky and arrogant without cause, or you'll be too afraid and unwilling to do damage, or even able to deal damage against someone who is intent on fucking you up. You won't have the mindset required to overcome the other person, and you'll either pussy out and open the door for more harassment, or get fucked up. I've known many of the arrogant without cause types, they talk big shit hoping to intimidate others, but some of us simply won't be intimidated.

            There is a difference in knowing how to defend yourself, and going looking for a fight. The jarhead who wrote that knows something about that. Getting your ass kicked is something everyone should experience.

            [–]gensyms 7 points8 points  (8 children)

            He said get in a fistfight. Not more than one.

            And it is in fact, good advice -- because fear of the unknown is a terrible master. He's saying that you should truly know what it's like to be in a fight. It is a way of liberating yourself from the bondage of your own fears.

            A man does not know himself until he has been tested in battle.

            And yes, I too am old by many people's reckoning.

            [–]RobertCarraway 8 points9 points  (7 children)

            And it is in fact, good advice

            very good advice. A man who goes through life afraid to take a beat-down for whatever cause he deems worthy (metaphorical beat-downs included) is not a man.

            To be a man is to fight, in every sense of the word.

            TRP is a god-send in many ways, but it undervalues sacrifice, suffering, and acceptance, which are all ingredients in the glory of manhood. It frankly pisses me off that your parent post was upvoted and your's was downvoted.

            [–]1wiseclockcounter 2 points3 points  (2 children)

            or you're a man if you're secure enough with yourself that you don't need people on the internet to tell you what it means to be a real man. If a man is willing to beat my ass over something that I deem truly "worthy" he's either an idiot and there's no pride in being beaten by him or I need to reevaluate whatever cause I support so strongly. Beliefs are abstract and remain forever, teeth can be removed permanently.

            But I should disclaim, I simply don't agree with your framing. For example, I believe a worthy cause would be some guy messing with my children (I have none, so this is principle here). But taking a beat down doesn't exactly enter the equation, at that point it is about doing what's necessary to protect your family. And that's the thing, the safety of your family is something real. Some idea your ego has placed on a pedestal isn't real, at least not in the sense that is worth risking your life over.

            I'd like to hear an example though of what you think would be worthy.

            [–]RobertCarraway 1 point2 points  (1 child)

            or you're a man if you're secure enough with yourself that you don't need people on the internet to tell you what it means to be a real man.

            Well that goes without saying. We talk about manhood here. You can respond in the above fashion to almost every post. You don't really expect me to soften my statement by saying "this is my opinion" do you?

            But I should disclaim, I simply don't agree with your framing.

            I must not be communicating well, because I don't think my framing is understood. Here is what I said, with emphasis on what I feel you missed:

            "A man who goes through life afraid to take a beat-down... is not a man"

            I want you ignore the phrase "beat down." I'm not primarily talking about that at all. I'm talking about fear. It helps to get into scuffles in high school (those especially are rarely truly damaging) because you learn that taking a punch is not the worst thing in the world. I completely agree with /u/gymsyms.

            Some idea your ego has placed on a pedestal isn't real, at least not in the sense that is worth risking your life over.

            Good luck differentiating between your real and unreal ideas. Piss your pants when a man challenges you and watch your wife's idea that you are a strong, capable man evaporate. Watch the sex life die. Then tell me that my ego's ideas aren't real.

            is worth risking your life over.

            This phrase here is exactly what I'm talking about. It's exactly the type of melodramatic thinking that getting in a few real scuffles helps to dispel. I know the difference between a life-and-death situation, and some asshole who needs to be stood up to. Do you?

            [–]1wiseclockcounter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            ok, i can respect your stance, glad to clear it up.

            [–]thebeautifulstruggle 0 points1 point  (3 children)

            This right here. You summarized it for me "TRP is a [good] in many ways, but it undervalues sacrifice, suffering, and acceptance, which are all ingredients in the glory of manhood", and in that way is simply some more of the childish whining that is already so prevalent in members of this society.

            [–]RobertCarraway 0 points1 point  (2 children)

            Wait, I don't understand. You're saying that I'm whining?

            [–]thebeautifulstruggle 0 points1 point  (1 child)

            No. I agree with what you said about TRP, that it ignores a lot of the nobler qualities and often degenerates into this whiny childishness.

            [–]RobertCarraway 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            They understand the basic dynamics of masculinity/femininity, but they fail to see it from a society-wide perspective. The concept of correct manly attitude and behavior changes in subtle but important ways when you ask "what is good for society and me?", instead of simply "what is good for me?". We are such social creatures that the two are necessarily tied together. I like your username.

            [–]AtticusWarhol 2 points3 points  (3 children)

            I want you to punch me as hard as you can

            [–]MaxManus 0 points1 point  (1 child)

            Find a good friend, get some boxing gloves and do it.

            [–]AtticusWarhol 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            His name is Robert Paulson.

            [–]stillcole 8 points9 points  (18 children)

            Respectfully, I think you are wrong. I have been in a few fights over the course of my life. Some times I've "won". Other times I have had my ass beat. Once I have even been beat unconscious after being jumped. Each time forces you to evaluate the state of your life, the situations you put yourself in and the way you treat your fellow man. If you have the benefit of not having been forced into a physical confrontation yet in your life, maybe your lucky. Still though, fighting back against an aggressor is a better remedy than not standing your ground, calling the police(in an even match), or internalizing inflicted abuse.

            [–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

            I remember the first time I was knocked out cold by six other men. How many modern men know what its like to be knocked out that way?

            The women were all over me for months. Kissing me and fawning over my black eyes.

            Stand up for yourself. You will only garner respect.

            [–]KettleMeetPot 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            Well said, and goes hand in hand with what I initially responded with. I don't think just going out and getting drunk and getting into brawls in a good thing, but if you haven't at least been in a handful of fist fights by the time you're 18... you're not prepared for the shitstorm of life after 18.

            [–]TekkomanKingz 1 point2 points  (14 children)

            Please explain how fighting someone (when absolutely not necessary to protect your life) is better than running calling the cops and suing them, sitting on your ass after a long day of work and collecting a check every month?

            Believe me I would love to slam a dude's face into the concrete sometimes but it's just not worth the after math. Punch a punching bag or become an amateur boxer where there are no legal repercussions.

            [–]Endorsed ContributorAFPJ 8 points9 points  (0 children)

            A boy must pay his dues to become a man. People in the U.S. live monotonously numb, meaningless lives. Violence isn't an answer to anything and instigating it or fighting when you don't have to is dumb, but people's definition of "have to" is broken. There isn't a boy that has lived to see 30 without being sufficiently disrespected to warrant a fucking beating. When you roll over and take shit from enough people, you become a good obedient tax generator.

            Once that happens your dreams, aspirations & creativity become as non-existent as your sense of self(respect).

            [–]Guntlips 7 points8 points  (0 children)

            Don’t pick on the weak. It’s immoral. Don’t antagonize the strong without cause, its stupi

            Its a hard reboot... I needed to get my ass beat when I got my ass beat. It was gigantic wake up call. Sure it was dangerous and stupid, but so is Surfing and drunken sex.

            [–]HighPiracy 4 points5 points  (0 children)

            I don't think the CL OP meant go out and fight people whenever the situation arises, instead more of a stand your ground. If all you ever do is run from a fight and call the police in hopes of one day suing so you can be a societal leech then you're not much of a man. Also, if you've never tested yourself physically against someone and know how to defend yourself and others when you are forced to do so you will never stand chance.

            [–]1aguy01 3 points4 points  (2 children)

            I've seen dozens of fights that didn't end in charges. Might as well stop having sex for fear of rape charges.

            [–]Engineer3227 2 points3 points  (0 children)

            Just the risk of charges is enough to avoid it depending on what career you have. When you work in a sector that will entirely black list you if you get criminal charges then it's not fucking worth it unless it's clear self defense.

            [–]TekkomanKingz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            In NYC they all end in charges. Everyone has a camera cellphone and everyone is a witness.

            [–]gensyms 10 points11 points  (6 children)

            I weep for what has become of young men in the 21st century.

            [–]Iupvoteforknowledge 8 points9 points  (0 children)

            Scared to fight...for anything.

            [–]vakerr 3 points4 points  (4 children)

            It's absolutely necessary for a young man to engage in some kind of full contact sport. It doesn't have to be boxing or wrestling, hockey, football or water-polo do just fine.

            But in today's litigious society getting into street brawls risks far more than a black eye.

            [–]Engineer3227 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            I don't agree with the whole starting a fight thing (if it's self defense fine) but your attitude about running away for the sole purpose of suing them just makes you sound like a pussy.

            [–]2asd1100 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            It's actually great advice, you only feel safer without having aver fought, in fact you aren't. And having that experience as a adult is quite empowering. You don't have a irrational fear built upon projections that makes you back of in situations where you really do have to stand your ground and defend your interests.

            This is the red pill, this is not seduction 2.0. A man needs to be able to fight, he should not be easily intimidated. Wishing your life was as easy as a woman's will not make it so.

            [–]CORDOVA40 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            Well this was written by an "older man," and most likely one who is used to guys fighting as a means to blow off steam wear scars like badges, not the current trend of knives being pulled as soon as a confrontation ensues.

            [–]Magnum256 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            I don't think the advice OP posted was advocating going out and looking for fist fights regularly, I think it's saying "get in one real fist fight in your life when you're a grown man" more than anything else.

            I can sort of see the wisdom in that I mean with how complacent our society has become I think it's less and less common to actually find yourself in a situation that results in a physical fight and I can see how the "use it or lose it" mentality might come into play where someone who never has to face that situation wouldn't necessarily know how to respond, or they would be plagued with fear, nervousness, etc.

            Again I don't think the advice OP posted was advocating looking for regular fist fights (nor do I believe it's a good idea) but winning a fight is certainly empowering and I can see how the experience has the potential to be beneficial from a psychological standpoint.

            [–]TheWastedYearz 1 point2 points  (1 child)

            Dont trust a man who has never been punched in the face...

            [–]brvheart 4 points5 points  (0 children)

            Just so everyone knows... you can totally trust me!

            [–]CunningStunt_1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            1. Remember, 97% of all advice is worthless. Take what you can use, and trash the rest.

            2. Get in a fistfight, even if you are going to lose.

            I believe the point of 4. is to encourage young men to be young men, and push themselves into uncomfortable situations.

            [–]Engineer3227 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            Not to mention that in some lines of work starting a fist fight and having that on your record will mean getting black listed and being unable to ever work in that field again.

            It's just plain dumb advice.

            [–]CriticalThink 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            Few things in life will make you feel alive as a fistfight, even if you lose.

            [–]MartialWay 0 points1 point  (1 child)

            The immense visceral reaction here against getting in a fistfight, to me, highlights the value of getting in a fistfight.

            Everyone has been brainwashed with this endless "avoidance" strategy, everyone is afraid to get physical to stand up for themselves. People continually bring up (very rare and unlikely) worst case scenarios, giving themselves a terrible case of Paralysis by Analysis.

            He's advocating getting into "a" fistfight, not a fistfight every day. Most men are going to have some situation at some point in their lives where they need to stand up for themselves physically and where it's perfectly appropriate to use your fists.

            I came from a generation where fighting was much more common, and (although bad things can happen) it's extremely rare. You're much better off making sure that you buckle up every time you get in a car than worrying about every "what if" of a fistfight.

            "How well can you truly know yourself if you've never been in a fight?" - Fight Club

            [–]1Watermelon_Salesman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            Everyone has been brainwashed with this endless "avoidance" strategy, everyone is afraid to get physical to stand up for themselves.

            We live in a time where masculinity is frowned upon, and growing up without a father is commonplace. This means we lack a common male ethics code, and fistfights no longer mean what they meant to our grandparents.

            That said, there's a very important point that has to come across: life is about calculated risks.

            You start a fight nowadays - at least in my town, Rio de Janeiro, where the homicide rates are mad high - you're bound to be either dead or in a lot of trouble. You mess with the wrong people - and there are plenty of those-, and someone will, at some point, pull a gun or a knife and use it. The cops will jail you. You will face legal troubles. You will have a record and be denied jobs. The only thing guys learn from this is to not do it again.

            The risk is not worth it. It's just shitty advice. It's like telling people to invest a lot of money in some shitty stock at some point of their life so that they can learn to value money. There are better ways.

            Most men are going to have some situation at some point in their lives where they need to stand up for themselves physically and where it's perfectly appropriate to use your fists.

            I completely agree with this part. There are times when you will absolutely have to defend yourself and/or others. If the other person gets physical, I'm all for getting physical as well, though not as a means to exact revenge on your shattered ego, but in a practical sense of protecting your integrity.

            The problem here lies with the phrasing: "Get in a fistfight". It sounds like he wants us to look for those in order to prove ourselves, and that's preposterous. We shouldn't be actively after violence. That's ridiculous. We should, however, always be prepared. That's a completely different frame of mind.

            If he had phrased it as "Learn self defense" or "Be always ready for trouble" or whatever the fuck you think is a better way to convey the idea that fights do happen and you must be at your best, then I would be fine with it. The way it is, it will only drive some young, misguided men towards a very shitty place.

            "How well can you truly know yourself if you've never been in a fight?" - Fight Club

            I'm sure many people here love that movie. I must remind you guys that it is a homoerotic, anarchist power fantasy, and it was directed by a gay dude. If you want to know how you'd fare in a fight, practice it as a sport.

            [–]galvanised_computer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            I think by "Republican" they mean the American-Fox News stereotype that pushes for smaller government but not only fails to recognize when government is overstepping its power, but rationalizes it.

            [–]NeverPull0ut 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            Couldn't agree with you more, man. One of my buddies got into some shit at a bar a few years back. Dude threw a punch at him, and he punched back. Turned out the guy had a pre existing condition he didn't know about, and he died instantly.

            Buddy didn't have any legal ramifications since it was self defense, but he really hasn't recovered from the fact he killed a guy.

            There's just too many negative possible outcomes when it comes to fighting. Unless it's truly self defense, I believe it should be avoided.

            [–]cascadecombo -1 points0 points  (7 children)

            This is terrible advice. Trust me.

            Then you don't see the point in why he is saying that. Doing that gives you some kind of perspective that most people don't have. He wasn't talking about self defense, it's a way to see your current limits, even see just how frail human life is, and/or how quickly and easily something can be decided.

            Simply because you find it to be terrible does not mean the next person can't/won't learn something from that. This is also not the same time period that the supposed "old man" is from, when fighting was common place and people would get into a scuffle and it would end with that. Nowadays fighting is so taboo that if someone is fighting then serious shit is probably going down (yes there are exceptions to this).

            But back to your original point and your second point, it's also key to look at the first and last things he said. Advice is usually worthless, and geared more towards the benefit of people giving it. Also, with the time periods republicans and democrats go full shift in positions and how people view them. Old time republicans were like the democrats today and it has swapped around.

            [–]needmorefat 4 points5 points  (2 children)

            Fights are either 1) near-random dice rolls, if they are serious fights where you're actually trying to harm each other or 2) a matter of aggression, posturing, and shoving in which both parties are doing a dominance display but it's implicitly understood that no one really wants to hurt each other 3) a cringe-inducing situation where the weaker person realizes they can't win and just kind of folds and cowers.

            If you're a reasonably good person, the only "confidence boosting" type of fight is a type 2 fight in which the other person kind of backs down or someone breaks it up and the situation ends up going your way in the social dimension. That's probably the sort of fight which is creating this advice, and the degree to which it works will vary depending on social acceptance, as you said.

            If you're a bad person, you might get a boost out of type 3 fights. Otherwise you'll feel vaguely bad about yourself.

            And everyone should pray they never get into a type 1 fight with anyone. Just take a step back and think about how easy it is to destroy a body part, if you really wanted to. It will take less than a minute before one party succeeds in permanently damaging the other, if both are male. You might learn how frail people are, but you'll wish you hadn't had to learn that lesson.

            Worst of all, if there's no social understanding of what sort of fight it is, you might think it's a Type 2 fight but then the other person just goes right ahead and snaps a collarbone or rips off an ear...

            [–]1aguy01 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            The thing is that those guys going for the 'cheap shots' like eye gouging and nut punching are rare in a society that is comfortable with people fighting. When men fight to defend their honor their goal is to physically dominate the person, but not hurt them, and society encourages a fair exchange to see the victor. In today's world of pussy betas that fear for their life we have people that do coward shit like pull a knife or gun or go for eyes or balls, because they are terrified for their life.

            [–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (2 children)

            I think you may be missing the point why he's saying it's terrible advice. Getting in a fistfight isn't just "testing limits" anymore. As you said, getting in fights used to be common place (my dad and grandfather have a million stories about them), but now they're a situation that's extraordinarily likely to escalate to something else.

            In the "old man's" day, guys generally stuck to certain rules when it came to fighting, to the point where most street fights were similar to boxing. No low blows, back off when your opponent was down, etc... It was generally about respect, ego, and settling differences. Not sticking to those rules was taboo since it could lead to an outcome which was the exact opposite of what those types of fights were meant for. There was usually a loss of respect if you kicked a man while he was down, or kicked him in the junk. Plus, breaking those rules could escalate conflicts, resulting in more people and/or weapons becoming involved.

            But this is no longer the case. Fights are about causing the maximum amount of damage to your opponent, then claiming self defense to get out of any legal ramifications. In fights with few/no rules, severe injury and death aren't exactly uncommon, which is why getting in a fistfight nowadays is stupid.

            If you really need to test your limits in this fashion, join a boxing/martial arts gym or get together with some friends and start a fight club.

            [–]pl231 18 points19 points  (1 child)

            since 97 % of all advice is worthless, I'm gonna take # 3 "Invest in yourself" as my peach of this list, which is roughly 3 %!

            [–]spaced86 17 points18 points  (0 children)

            You're already over your limit, since you already accepted #30 to not be bullshit ;)

            [–]intrcept 50 points51 points  (22 children)

            This reads like it was written by either a young man, an old gay man, or a young gay man,

            [–]LastRevision 18 points19 points  (1 child)

            Was it because he said "cock" and "hole"?

            [–]ThirdLegGuy 4 points5 points  (0 children)

            I was reading it in this guy's voice, and that was awesome:

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7NgLArJidY

            [–]vakerr 17 points18 points  (14 children)

            Also what's with #7? Is he recommending voting for the other party that's pushing cultural Marxism (feminism, mass immigration, homosexuality and affirmative action)?

            [–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (1 child)

            Politics are a waste of time. They don't help you improve yourself. Ignore the chatter and make yourself a better man.

            [–]vakerr 12 points13 points  (0 children)

            No need to tell me. But the "wise adviser", he needs some advice himself.

            [–]Guntlips 8 points9 points  (11 children)

            See thats the problem right there with our cultures current mentality. Just because you are against one thing doesn't mean you endorse the other. The GOP has always been known as the scared old man's party.

            [–]vakerr 13 points14 points  (10 children)

            Just because you are against one thing doesn't mean you endorse the other.

            "Don't vote for either established party, they're both corrupt" would have been fine advice. But he didn't say that. He implicitly tried to steer. Fuck that sneaky BS.

            [–]Rugnardl[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

            There are some old men who are well spoken, updated and knowledgable of younger culture. There are clearly evident truths within, however, no matter who wrote it.

            [–]QuiteFrenchlyToasted 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            I'm confused. I read both blue and red subreddits, but it seems to me that this one is dedicated to being a farce of the red pill. Do you guys offer any support to your subscribers, or just a comedic avenue for anyone who stumbles upon this sub?

            [–]ghee99 5 points6 points  (1 child)

            Well, gay guys (not that there's anything wrong with being gay, of course) tend to almost always vote for the Democrat Party.

            Straight men tend to vote for the Republican Party. (so do married women). Its just single women who are taught to think of themselves as "victims" that seek out the Democrat Party (because it says it wants to "take care" of them - because, you know, its not like an able-bodied, single woman can take care of herself, lol)

            So, that "he" is gay (or perhaps a lady) is certainly a good possibility (based on his political rantings).

            [–]galvanised_computer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            That's pretty big reaching.

            [–][deleted]  (3 children)

            [deleted]

              [–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (2 children)

              That and OPs replies leave a sour taste in the mouth. The advice is littered with BP and politically motivated ideology. It's too flawed to be considered viable advice.

              [–]pissoutofmyass 10 points11 points  (1 child)

              On 3, according to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs we can't effectively self actualize without ALL of our other needs being met first. Trying to will result in sub-par performance. To self-actualize essentially means to pursue our dreams. According to Maslow we need our basic needs and the love of others to effectively self actualize. It seems to stand counter to the idea of acquiring self-esteem and social standing via accomplishments.

              Not that I espouse this point of view, because its defeatist, but it is a prominent part of psychology. And I will admit going it alone has been a big part of my life, and it is extremely mentally exhausting just to know that no one has your back.

              [–]2emptyform 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              I found this to be true in my case, attempting to self-actualize without getting some of my base needs met ended in chaos, until I took the time to build my life from the ground up.

              [–]randomchaos1 22 points23 points  (1 child)

              I disagree with #7. Liberals lie even harder than republicans in my estimation. I say be a libertarian and oppose both parties.

              Nice read overall.

              [–]chagad 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              Doesnt #6 concern Liberals?

              1. If something has a direct benefit to an individual or a class of people, and a theoretical, abstract, or amorphous benefit to everybody else, realize that the proponent’s intentions are to benefit the former, not the latter, no matter what bullshit they try to feed you.

              [–]kawasutra 17 points18 points  (2 children)

              At some point I started reading this in the voice of George Carlin.

              [–]1knitro 4 points5 points  (0 children)

              2 is lost on people who never leave the anger phase.

              Also, 21 & 22 aren't contradictory - it's about having the correct expectations going into a situation.

              [–][deleted] 48 points49 points  (24 children)

              Conservatives are whiny and portray themselves as victims? Whiny victim-hood is the Left's domain.

              [–]zarus 73 points74 points  (6 children)

              It's the domain of everyone who joins a large group to complain about x. looks around

              [–]TimmyBuffet 9 points10 points  (1 child)

              Hey you shut your whore mouth right there

              [–]1sailorJery 2 points3 points  (0 children)

              Well, I mean listening to Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, they have whining down to a science.

              [–]galvanised_computer 1 point2 points  (1 child)

              Look at Fox News facebook comments. I'm not saying the left is better, jut that both are fucked.

              [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

              I guess whoever comes across as whiny has to do with whether you agree with their views or not. Seems to me like the Left makes up problems to be outraged about (like oppression of trannies and voter suppression) so it looks like they are just whiny because their "problems" aren't even real problems. The stuff that the right complains about (like immigration and the public school system) are actual problems. They are outraged because the current situation is outrageous. If two chicks always complain about having a headache when their husbands try to have sex them, and then it turns out one of those chicks had a brain tumor, were they both frigid bitches? Of course not. One is a frigid bitch, the other had a brain tumor.

              [–]ghee99 2 points3 points  (0 children)

              lol, so true!

              they call states that are run by the Democrat Party "Blue States"

              But with all their whining, blaming of others, non-acceptance of any personal responsibility, embracing of victimhood, and how they think their happiness is someone else's responsibility,

              we'd be better off just calling them "Blue Pill States"

              [–]GOATLin -4 points-3 points  (11 children)

              Do as he suggested and listen to conservative talk radio. It's ALL playing the victim.

              [–]d3gu 3 points4 points  (0 children)

              If something has a direct benefit to an individual or a class of people, and a theoretical, abstract, or amorphous benefit to everybody else, realize that the proponent’s intentions are to benefit the former, not the latter, no matter what bullshit they try to feed you.

              I love this; it's what I've been thinking for a while, but OP has phrased it better.

              I do standup comedy and occasionally perform music, too. I can't count the amount of times I've been asked to perform for free, in return for 'exposure' or 'progression' or similar vague things.

              I don't mind performing free for charity, or for my own personal enjoyment, or practise, or as a favour to a friend. But when the owner of the night pockets the cash & I come away with 'exposure' (to who? I didn't see any agents scouts there), well that's just not right.

              [–]denmaur 5 points6 points  (1 child)

              As a former active duty Marine I whole-heartedly agree with number 5. What passes for national interest these days is just an excuse to send American troops to fight someone else's battles.

              [–]SeaRavenTX 9 points10 points  (0 children)

              My dad served in Vietnam and forbade me from joining. As a separated veteran myself, I should have just worked harder to get into a better scholarship offer from more universities. The years that I served made me stronger but when I returned all of my civilian friends weren't damaged goods like me and already had homes, kids, cars and investments. I'm patriotic, but both the author and my father were right. You're right, most politicians just have their own financial interests in mind when sending good, middle-class men to the most wretched corners of the world.

              [–]tsotha 13 points14 points  (0 children)

              Don’t be a Republican. They are self-dealing crooks with no sense of honor or patriotism to their fellow citizens.

              Well, I can write this guy off as an idiot.

              [–]Dig_Dlack_Bick 2 points3 points  (0 children)

              there are people who still believe in right or left

              [–][deleted]  (2 children)

              [deleted]

                [–]gensyms 6 points7 points  (1 child)

                Or has lived long enough to have seen the long-term anguish of friends who were.

                [–]Doctor_Mayhem 8 points9 points  (2 children)

                As a former Marine, take it from me. Don’t join the military, unless you want to risk getting your balls blown off to secure other people’s economic or political interests.

                Also as a former Marine, I can tell you that you should consider the military, maybe not so much the Corps. Sure, the military fucks you, but you get lube. And when you get that debt-free college degree, well there's the reach around.

                Don’t be a Republican. They are self-dealing crooks with no sense of honor or patriotism to their fellow citizens. If you must be a Republican, don’t be a “conservative.” They are whining, bitching, complaining, simple-minded self-righteous idiots who think they’re perpetual victims. Listen to talk radio for awhile, you’ll see what I mean.

                Yes, because the feminist party is sooooo much a better option. I'll give this guy a pass because he sounds like a Boomer who did time in Vietnam.

                [–]cantbelieveiwasbuter 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                As a former grunt, maybe not so much the army either. You might get lube but it's generic shitty lube that ant worth a fuck that just makes a mess of things and leave a nasty film thats a pain in the ass to get rid of.

                Besides a college degree means shit these days and even with the VA it still ant exactly free

                [–]ghee99 9 points10 points  (1 child)

                I agree with some of this, but not all.

                As for "Don’t be a Republican." OK, sure, I am not one, but I am a Libertarian, and I dont expect the govt to take care of me (or anyone else who is of able body and mind).

                Today's Democrat party is the ultimate in Blue-pill mentality. They strongly support all the feminist, PC nonsense to the hilt. Not to say, that real feminism is bad (the idea that women don't get fucked over is a good idea). But feminism, as it is in today's world, is about preferential treatment towards women, at the expense of their "oppressors" (i.e. men). And the Democrat Party is all about victim-creation, and the idea that everyone must be taken care of (even if they could provide for themselves easily enough, and even if they have to give up freedom to the government to be looked after).

                In the Democrat-mentality, people can't decide whats best for themselves, they are not allowed to make their own choices, and the "educated-elite" decide what's best for the unenlightened masses. So, fuck that! As a Libertarian I say let people have all the freedom they want (at least up until it impinges upon another's freedom). Let people make their own choices (and yes, make their own mistakes too), and stop treating people as groups, who are little more than victims who "need to be protected".

                Is the Republican Party much better? in many ways, no (at least not the establishment Republicans) but the Republicans are the only friends that Libertarians have, and MANY (but not all, of course) are Libertarian-minded, or sympathetic to Libertarians. Besides, the Republicans are the only party that calls "bullshit!" to much of the feminist/PC/victim speak coming from the Democrat party.

                So, if this anonymous guy wants to shoehorn in his retarded anti-Republican opinion into his piece, I say "screw him!".

                In saying such a thing he's proven himself to be both inconsistent and an idiot. As such, its hard to take anything else he says seriously (even those other things he does say that make sense).

                [–]galvanised_computer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                Screw the term feminism. Just go with egalitarian. Feminists hate the word egalitarian.

                [–]cherubym 5 points6 points  (0 children)

                This "advice list" is old as the internet and terrible.

                [–]workunit13 6 points7 points  (0 children)

                4 and 7 are just plain stupid. Should read, "Dont be afraid to get into a fist fight if the situation calls for it, even if you might lose" and "Dont get involved in any politics, both wings are self-dealing crooks with no sense of honor or patriotism to their fellow citizens"

                [–]Dingle_my_berries 9 points10 points  (1 child)

                Don’t be an internet troll.

                Yeah... This was definitely written by an old man.

                [–]ionlyuseredditatwork 3 points4 points  (0 children)

                A baby boomer might have the view of an "internet troll" being someone who spends most, if not all of their time in their basement perusing the internet for every piece of consumable information out there, not unlike a troll living under a bridge, rarely seeing daylight.

                Our younger generation has equated the term "internet troll" to someone who specifically goes out of their way to rile up the emotions of other internet users, when really the meanings are one in the same. It's all about perspective.

                [–]ColDax 6 points7 points  (0 children)

                This wasn't written by an "old man", not enough real insight.

                [–]Dark triad expert: - http://illimitablemen.com/ - [3 Points]IllimitableMan 1 point2 points  (2 children)

                On point 4:

                Get in a fistfight, even if you are going to lose.

                To be honest this whole shit show of disagreement about whether you should fight or not in the comments, at a glance just appears to be guys getting indignant over a piece of advice they considers to be "toxic."

                This is how I took it: obviously don't go around getting into fights your whole life, but do not spend your whole life avoiding them either. You need to fight, you need to learn to fight, you have to know how to defend yourself and watching videos online won't do that for you. You actually have to get on a mat with people who can break your neck and practice that shit - the technique - the speed - the execution - instead of being some conflict averse pussy. You ever work in a shop with a bunch of bitches and no security guard?

                Guess who everyone will look to if someone comes in AND GETS VIOLENT or TRIES TO STEAL SOME SHIT? They won't step in. THEY'LL CALL YOUR NAME, AS A MAN. If you're like "OH LET'S WAIT FOR THE POLICE" what fat lot of good are you? I honestly hate pacifists, they indirectly enable even more violence. Better to be righteously violent, to impose justice and defend civil liberty than be some "all violence is evil!" kinda faggot. To be honest I think this veneer of "I have higher morals than you, that's why I won't fight" is just bullshit used to hide the fact that people with this mentality are conflict averse pussies. They lack courage. There is no courage or gumption behind failing to control a situation, making a phone call and hoping some other man will come and fix your problems for you.

                Knowing how to fight helps you to know yourself, when you have confidence in your ability to defend yourself and your entourage, you don't have to live life fearing that some goon may attack you and you will be powerless to do fuck all about it except bend over and take it.

                Then when someone attacks you or your friends, rather than running like a bitch or hoping the police dont take 20 minutes to get there, you can take the fucker out.

                This whole point is pertaining to "street smarts" and IMO you and the other commenters getting butthurt are totally missing the point of what old timer OP was trying to convey. Too much "VIOLENCE IS EVIL NOOOOOOOOOOOO THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!" heard in school by you guys, I think.

                Shades of grey motherfucker, shades of grey.

                Society's views on violence is basically "masculinity is violent and evil, but when we need violence to protect us - it's great!" I call it "the masculinity in a box principle." "Violence is evil!!!!!" when it doesn't benefit society, but as soon as you can protect a little girl, or a woman, or a little old lady? All of sudden the self-righteously pompous hamstering ass of a society we have decides that such violence is acceptable. I mean shit if you wanna go all the way with the non-violence principle why bother even having police or a military who use weapons? They should just go around trying to "reason" with everybody right? No. That's not how human nature works. You all have to realise that. Realise when violence is necessary and use it instrumentally. If you are forced to fight you always go down swinging, don't make it easy on him.

                Sometimes just a willingness to fight can prevent a fight. The west is so full of men afraid to give into their instincts and defend their property/friends that often a guy looking to just steal some shit will think you're not worth the hassle if you show a willingness to defend yourself and will instead move on to a more vulnerable group to threaten. At which point you can just call the police and file a report, protect you and yours, using violence in defence doesn't mean you need to become superman and prevent crime before it happens.

                [–]Rugnardl[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

                A voice of reason, finally. And with the experience to back it up. Unfortunately buried. Thanks anyway.

                [–]700b 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                I liked #25. It's really true. People's spite is a passive subconscious thing.

                [–]TheJohnDough 6 points7 points  (11 children)

                Don’t take proffered advice without a critical analysis. 90% of all advice is intended to benefit the proponent, not the recipient. Actually, the number is probably closer to 97%, but I don’t want to come off as cynical.

                Hmm, so why should I listen to anything you have to tell me?

                [–]kinkydiver 21 points22 points  (0 children)

                This particular advice already contains the answer to your question: consider it, but also be critical about it, including be wary about who would benefit from it.

                [–]2 MRedPillWatchTower 8 points9 points  (4 children)

                This whole thread is adolescent garbage. Play nicer, gents.

                [–]TheJohnDough 0 points1 point  (3 children)

                I have noticed jokes and people who are offended easily do not mix very well.

                [–]2 MRedPillWatchTower 1 point2 points  (2 children)

                Has nothing to do with nothing. I am about maintaining quality content of this sub. What degenerates into stupid bickering gets sniped from the WatchTower.

                [–]TheJohnDough 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                Hail based watchtower Thank you for ridding the sub of shitposts and maintaining quality.

                [–]2 MRedPillWatchTower 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                I'll take your reply as genuine and not sarcastic until you undoubtedly reveal otherwise.

                [–]TekkomanKingz 2 points3 points  (2 children)

                4 can get you killed depending on the situation. Even as a kid. A lot of these youngsters light the block up with AK's particularly outside of the North Eastern U.S.

                [–]DaSaw 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                I'm guessing you live in the North Eastern U.S.?

                [–]TekkomanKingz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                Yes, yeah you have your illegal gun holders up in NYC but they tend to only use heat in secluded areas where a quick getaway is possible. Texas and Florida I imagine they can blast you dead and argue it was self-defense.

                [–]DownvotesCatposts 3 points4 points  (1 child)

                Arguably the worst post I've sen on TRP in months.

                [–]adamlikesprettygirls 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                Great post, great advice (with the exception of the fist fight thing)

                The homophobia and miscellaneous vitriol of some posters here is amusing. I read somewhere there is a huge crossover between our beloved TRP and various white supremacist subreddits... nothing is perfect, I suppose

                [–]Settlethefuckdown 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                don't be a Republican or a conservative

                Republicans and conservative people are literally the opposite of transgendered, SJW, welfare queens, feminist, professional victims.

                fuck this guy, and fuck OP for sharing this garbage. goes against all TRUE RP mindset. How many Blue Pillers and Tumblr queens are conservatives? absolutely 0.

                [–]miss_sogony 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                Most of this is solid advice. 29 being pretty much TRP in a nutshell.

                I got an email from a very good tech employer recently looking to hire a woman or someone of such and such race for diversifying their employee register.

                I then went to a presentation on campus from a different employer. The woman giving it was both female and black, they clearly give her the job of going to universities because she's fucking useless as an engineer (and is even applying for chartership), could not answer ONE question on what work life was about. Maybe they get fined for not having a diverse enough employee spectrum.

                I know I'll get sacked in an instant for bringing this up in the future.

                Male privelege I tell ya.

                [–]SupALupRT 1 point2 points  (2 children)

                stopped reading at 7. Dems whole platform is victimhood. Interesting that hes a vet when most lean republican.

                [–]SeaRavenTX 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                I think you should talk to more veterans. A lot of us are actually Independents by our cynical nature.

                [–]SupALupRT 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                full disclosure Im in the midwest which is skewed more republican. I consider myself a independent. Republicans are just closer to my beliefs than dems. It appears their beliefs would line up more than dems with military folk as well but I could be wrong.

                [–]reel_nikkas_dot_com 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                Woman are not happier than men source: Freakonomics radio