Taking the Red Pill- the importance of being aware of your own best interest

[[az...]]

General definition of "feminism" by Wikipedia :

 

Feminism is a range of political movements, ideologies, and social movements that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve political, economic, personal, and social rights for women that are equal to those of men.[1][2] This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. Feminists typically advocate or support the rights and equality of women.[3]

 

Feminist movements have campaigned and continue to campaign for women's rights, including the right to vote, to hold public office, to work, to earn fair wages or equal pay, to own property, to receive education, to enter contracts, to have equal rights within marriage, and to have maternity leave. Feminists have also worked to promote bodily autonomy and integrity, and to protect women and girls from rape, sexual harassment, and domestic violence.[4]

 

Feminist campaigns are generally considered to be one of the main forces behind major historical societal changes for women's rights, particularly in the West, where they are near-universally credited with having achieved women's suffrage, gender neutrality in English, reproductive rights for women (including access to contraceptives and abortion), and the right to enter into contracts and own property.[5] Although feminist advocacy is, and has been, mainly focused on women's rights, some feminists, including bell hooks, argue for the inclusion of men's liberation within its aims because men are also harmed by traditional gender roles.[3] Feminist theory, which emerged from feminist movements, aims to understand the nature of gender inequality by examining women's social roles and lived experience; it has developed theories in a variety of disciplines in order to respond to issues such as the social construction of gender.[6][7]

 

Some forms of feminism have been criticized for taking into account only white, middle class, and educated perspectives. This criticism led to the creation of ethnically specific or multicultural forms of feminism, including black feminism and intersectional feminism.[8]

[[...]]

Aaargghhh!  I need to climb back in here so badly! 

 

I think, for the sake of this thread, a good, long, hard, critical look has to be taken at Molyneux.  FG, you quote him over and again, and you're placing huge emphasis and value on this man's outlook and opinions and, well, just the words coming out of his mouth.  Oh, and yes, yes, I heard you say a couple of times that you don't agree with every little thing he says, but as a whole you certainly have a lot of admiration for him.  My question to you for right now is, *PRIOR TO THIS THREAD*, had you done any homework on him yourself?  These few videos and articles shared here, for instance, which paint him in a very derogatory light.  Can you just say whether or not you were aware of any of this about him BEFORE citing him here.  Just a simple question/answer type thing, if you will.    For now.

 

Confused, I also have a question for you because you do confuse me just a little.  And I had the same feeling watching the political debate.  I'll tell you why so maybe you can enlighten me moving forward.  My simple question to you is are you arguing for the sake of argument - as in, throwing a little kicker in here and there to liven things up a little, and then sitting back waiting for sparks to fly?  I tend to feel that about you.  If I'm wrong, I apologize.  I also apologize in advance if this comes out a little curtly, it's not meant to, am in a lot of pain so it's hard to get the tone right, etc, etc.  I'm just being inquisitive trying to understand you better.

 

Which leads me to FG's personality type, lol.  Geez, it's not that easy.  I've narrowed it down to three so I'm getting there! 

[[be...]]

abcd, I can't take the personality type tests anymore.  I've got early dementia and brain damage from these pills and the test won't reflect my true nature now.  I'm not the person I used to be.  Thanks for asking and including me in your group discussion about personality types.  Mostly, I'm ignored on this forum because I'm too depressing.

 

Hey there becks:

 

I don't ignore you!

[[az...]]

There are certain sentences I'd make bold if I had figured out how to yet, but withdrawal isn't helping any with learning how to do that on here right now. My point is that feminism doesn't have to be anti-male... There is so much more I'd like to say, but I am simply not very well because of w/d at this time.

 

I returned and posted those links to show that this man, Molyneux, has made some absolutely crass and disturbing statements. There are many holes in his thinking and he uses repulsive language and has an extremely arrogant tone, to put it really mildly. Frankly, I honestly think that he must to fall on the NPD spectrum.

 

Wikipedia on NPD :

 

Narcissus by Caravaggio, gazing at his own reflection

Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a long term pattern of abnormal behavior characterized by exaggerated feelings of self-importance, an excessive need for admiration, and a lack of understanding of others' feelings.[4][5] People affected by it often spend a lot of time thinking about achieving power, success, or their appearance. They often take advantage of the people around them. The behavior typically begins by early adulthood, and occurs across a variety of situations.[5]

 

The cause of narcissistic personality disorder is unknown.[6] It is a personality disorder classified within cluster B by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.[5] Diagnosis is by a healthcare professional interviewing the person in question.[4] The condition needs to be differentiated from mania and substance use disorder.[5]

 

Treatments have not been well studied. Therapy is often difficult as people frequently do not consider themselves to have a problem.[4] The personality was first described in 1925 by Robert Waelder while the current name for the condition came into use in 1968.[7] About one percent of people are believed to be affected at some point in their life.[6] It appears to occur more often in males than females and affects young people more than older people.[4][5]

 

Signs and symptoms

 

People with narcissistic personality disorder are characterized by their persistent grandiosity, excessive need for admiration, and a disdain and lack of empathy for others.[8][9] These individuals often display arrogance, a sense of superiority, and power-seeking behaviors.[10] Narcissistic personality disorder is different from having a strong sense of self-confidence. This is because people with NPD typically value themselves over others to the extent that they disregard the feelings and wishes of others and expect to be treated as superior regardless of their actual status or achievements.[8][11] In addition, people with NPD may exhibit fragile egos, an inability to tolerate criticism, and a tendency to belittle others in an attempt to validate their own superiority.[11]

 

According to the DSM-5, individuals with NPD have most or all of the following symptoms, typically without commensurate qualities or accomplishments:[8][11]

 

Grandiosity with expectations of superior treatment from others

Fixated on fantasies of power, success, intelligence, attractiveness, etc.

Self-perception of being unique, superior and associated with high-status people and institutions

Needing constant admiration from others

Sense of entitlement to special treatment and to obedience from others

Exploitative of others to achieve personal gain

Unwilling to empathize with others' feelings, wishes, or needs

Intensely jealous of others and the belief that others are equally jealous of them

Pompous and arrogant demeanor

NPD usually develops by adolescence or early adulthood.[8] It is not uncommon for children and teens to display some traits similar to NPD, but these are typically transient without meeting full criteria for the diagnosis.[11] True NPD symptoms are pervasive, apparent in various situations, and rigid, remaining consistent over time. The symptoms must be severe enough that they significantly impair the individual's ability to develop meaningful relationships with others. Symptoms also generally impair an individual's ability to function at work, school, or in other important settings. According to the DSM-5, these traits must differ substantially from cultural norms in order to qualify as symptoms of NPD.[8]

 

Associated features

People with NPD tend to exaggerate their skills and accomplishments as well as their level of intimacy with people they consider to be high-status. Their sense of superiority may cause them to monopolize conversations[11] and to become impatient or disdainful when others talk about themselves.[8] In the course of conversation, they may purposefully or unknowingly disparage or devalue the other person by overemphasizing their own success. When they are aware that their statements have hurt someone else, they tend to react with contempt and to view it as a sign of weakness.[8] When their own ego is wounded by a real or perceived criticism, their anger can be disproportionate to situation,[11] but typically, their actions and responses are deliberate and calculated.[8] Despite occasional flare-ups of insecurity, their self-image is primarily stable (i.e., overinflated).[8]

 

To the extent that people are pathologically narcissistic, they can be controlling, blaming, self-absorbed, intolerant of others’ views, unaware of others' needs and of the effects of their behavior on others, and insistent that others see them as they wish to be seen.[8] Narcissistic individuals use various strategies to protect the self at the expense of others. They tend to devalue, derogate, insult, blame others and they often respond to threatening feedback with anger and hostility.[12] Since the fragile ego of individuals with NPD is hypersensitive to perceived criticism or defeat, they are prone to feelings of shame, humiliation and worthlessness over minor or even imagined incidents.[11] They usually mask these feelings from others with feigned humility, isolating socially or they may react with outbursts of rage, defiance, or by seeking revenge.[8][9] The merging of the "inflated self-concept" and the "actual self" is seen in the inherent grandiosity of narcissistic personality disorder. Also inherent in this process are the defense mechanisms of denial, idealization and devaluation.[13]

 

According to the DSM-5, "Many highly successful individuals display personality traits that might be considered narcissistic. Only when these traits are inflexible, maladaptive, and persisting and cause significant functional impairment or subjective distress do they constitute narcissistic personality disorder."[8] Although overconfidence tends to make individuals with NPD ambitious, it does not necessarily lead to success and high achievement professionally. These individuals may be unwilling to compete or may refuse to take any risks in order to avoid appearing like a failure.[8][9] In addition, their inability to tolerate setbacks, disagreements or criticism, along with lack of empathy, make it difficult for such individuals to work cooperatively with others or to maintain long-term professional relationships with superiors and colleagues.[14]

 

_______

 

 

 

And then there is his blaring androcentrism and misogyny.

 

Let's, for the sake of it, pull out those general definitions... (Just using Wikipedia because it's accessible and the language is reader-friendly, especially for Benzo compromised thinking purposes.)

 

 

________

 

 

Androcentrism (Ancient Greek, ἀνήρ, "man, male"[1]) is the practice, conscious or otherwise, of placing male human beings or a masculine point of view at the centre of one's world view and its culture and history. The related adjective is androcentric, while the practice of placing the feminine point of view at the centre is gynocentrism.

 

 

 

[[ho...]]

Wow .... uhmm I dont know what or where to go after this one....

[[az...]]

(Working on my phone screen is challenging, but here it is... Misogyny, on Wikipedia)

 

 

Misogyny

"Woman hater" redirects here. For other uses, see Woman Hater (disambiguation).

Misogyny (/mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls. Misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including social exclusion, sex discrimination, hostility, androcentrism, patriarchy, and male privilege ideas, belittling of women, violence against women, and sexual objectification of women.[1][2] Misogyny can be found occasionally within ancient texts relating to various mythologies. In addition, various influential Western philosophers and thinkers have been described as misogynistic.[1][3] In 2012 the Macquarie Dictionary (which documents Australian English and New Zealand English) expanded the definition to include not only hatred of women but also "entrenched prejudices against women".

 

 

________

 

 

I think these words and their definitions are important, especially in a thread or discussion like this.

 

 

[[...]]

abcd, I can't take the personality type tests anymore.  I've got early dementia and brain damage from these pills and the test won't reflect my true nature now.  I'm not the person I used to be.  Thanks for asking and including me in your group discussion about personality types.  Mostly, I'm ignored on this forum because I'm too depressing.

 

Hey there becks:

 

I don't ignore you!

 

You have a very kind heart, Becks, that's why!    Thanks for digging this up again, Bets, otherwise it would've looked like I was ignoring Becks. 

 

Becks, about whether the test will reflect your true nature.  How to answer whether I'd prefer a beach outing with friends - or - lying flat on my back on my bed all alone?  When in pain, a beach outing would be excruciating so of course I'd prefer to lie alone on my bed.  But that's not my true nature.

 

Answer it the way your true "healed" normal self would react.  Give it a stab.  It's good fun. 

[[co...]]

Abcd, no that is not my expressed goal. I've asked a bunch of genuine questions and no gotten no answer. Sometimes I stir the pot a little but I'm willing to discuss any issue calmly and rationally. Do my questions seem that radical and unbalanced that I could only be asking them for sparks? I'm not the kind of man who enjoys just watching things burn. I'm a lover and want the best for everybody. But I don't shy away from tough questions. It's hard to get a feel for a person and get context in these quick impersonal replies. I only throw in "little kickers" here and there because i just don't have the time to follow this thread extensively. I'm 21 months out of cold turkey xanax and finally starting to heal (YAY!!!) so getting some of my life back but visiting BB has become a habit and I imagine I'll be here now and then even when fully healed.

[[be...]]

Azlea:

 

Here's how to make bold face. If it is your post, highlight it in blue, and then simply click on the letter B near the top of your post. If you highlight more than you want to, all things highlighted will turn bold. Same with italic, underline and line through the sentence. If you need any more help, just ask.

 

abcd:  ;)

[[az...]]

Azlea:

 

Here's how to make bold face. If it is your post, highlight it in blue, and then simply click on the letter B near the top of your post. If you highlight more than you want to, all things highlighted will turn bold. Same with italic, underline and line through the sentence. If you need any more help, just ask.

 

abcd:  ;)

 

Thank you so much! I've been wanting to know how for a while

 

 

[[co...]]

Thanks Bets, been wondering how to do that too but being a man I was too stubborn to ask for directions, lol. :D

[[Fl...]]

Stefan Molyneux's words, not mine:

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=D8yVUBKtYH8

 

And this...

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EUTQSoMy04w

 

Miss "triggered" is back to stir things up I see. And of course STILL no argument to back up her position, just more attacking the message and the messengers with unfounded claims of narcissism and misogyny.

 

Does everyone see what she is doing here? She didn't block me because she is triggered (BTW I hate that word) or she wouldn't have come back to stir up s#!t. She blocked me because I didn't bow down to her dirty, underhanded blue pill tactics to shut me up.

 

Very disingenuous and cowardly to not only absolutely REFUSE to address any and every point she claims to disagree with, but to post a few seconds of words and text from videos that could have been an hour long. Remove all context and go for the character assassination. Classy.

 

This is what these bigots do. Am I the only one that sees it?

[[...]]

Abcd, no that is not my expressed goal. I've asked a bunch of genuine questions and no gotten no answer. Sometimes I stir the pot a little but I'm willing to discuss any issue calmly and rationally. Do my questions seem that radical and unbalanced that I could only be asking them for sparks? I'm not the kind of man who enjoys just watching things burn. I'm a lover and want the best for everybody. But I don't shy away from tough questions. It's hard to get a feel for a person and get context in these quick impersonal replies. I only throw in "little kickers" here and there because i just don't have the time to follow this thread extensively. I'm 21 months out of cold turkey xanax and finally starting to heal (YAY!!!) so getting some of my life back but visiting BB has become a habit and I imagine I'll be here now and then even when fully healed.

 

Thanks, Confused.  Congrats on the good healing, awesome!  (Couldn't tell where you were at without a sig).

It is, as you say, often hard to get a good feel due to the writing style, some moreso than others.  No, not radical/unbalanced at all, just, well, confusing to me personally at times.  I guess the main reason I asked was because FG's kind of standing alone here, and holding fast to his opinion.  You seem (to me) to be leaning more on his side of the fence, but I can't get a good feel for it.  It would be nice to have a (cool and calm) fence sitter here to neutralize things a little, and make it less emotionally charged. 

[[Fl...]]

FloridaGuy, is this a Stefan Molyneux fan thread? You keep mentioning him again and again. I'm familiar with his views, and I do not like the guy one bit. IMO, there's some truth to a lot of his opinions and I agree with some of the things he says. But he twists everything in such a manner that they become simplistic and pretty lies, "blue pills" specifically for white males, many of whom spend their time endlessly complaining about the unfair treatment they suffered from women, the diminishment of their rights and white genocide on various internet platforms.

 

This is absolutely not about Molyneux. I used an example of a well researched presentation of his to make a point and everyone used that to try to shut down the debate by attacking him.

 

Lets forget about Molyneux. If is obvious that his material is only serving as an excuse to people to try to shut down any rational debate.

 

But before we do lets use the point you brought up to continue the discussion. I'm not sure you can fully appreciate the situation with gender relations here in North America since you aren't from here so you might not be aware of the challenges that face men here, but please post the points you don't agree with and I will address them from my point of view and we can leave Molyneux out of it.

[Guest [mu...]]

Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in!

 

I won't go into details but one of the big points he makes is that IQ varies a lot between the races and this disparity is a key point in understanding where a lot of problems stem from. But as long as society forbids these kinds of discussions nothing is ever going to change.

 

Political correctness is a form of censorship. There are a ton of problems in the black community but if I mention an objective fact that even hints at being critical of black people I would get the same treatment I got here on this thread when I pointed out the problems with single motherhood. Do we start to talk about these problems in realistic terms, or do we tell everyone that it isn't their fault, that they are victims who are powerless to make positive changes?

 

Really, FG? I thought we'd been through this already.

 

This statement isn't wrong because it's stigmatizing, it's wrong because it's simply <i>not true</i>. Once again, Molyneux is reducing a single set of statistics to "truth" without looking at all of those pesky complexities and variables that might expand or even contradict his statements about this subject. If he were really interested in truth, he would be sure to look at this statistical evidence from all angles - social, cultural, biological, environmental, educational, political, nutritional, psychological, linguistical, economical, and so on, and so forth. For example: what do we know about IQ tests and how they work? Are there limitations to the tests, or cultural biases? How do we justify or measure these differences? What other statistical factors (besides race) do we know correlate with lower IQ scores? Can poverty, inadequate education, poor nutrition, and stress also lead to lower IQ levels? How does intelligence develop, and what do we mean by "intelligence" anyway? Could there perhaps be multiple types of intelligences, as proposed by some cognitive researchers, and if so, how does the IQ test account for this? I could go on, but I think (read: sincerely hope) you get the point. For a more integral look at the issue of race and IQ tests, please do more research. Here is a good place to start: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/05/why-people-keep-misunderstanding-the-connection-between-race-and-iq/275876/

 

Without a broad contextual framework, the statistics themselves are meaningless, and can easily be used to manipulate those who fail to demand more information or to think critically or systemically (and unquestioningly trusting youtube videos with titles such as "The TRUTH about [fill in the blank]" most definitely falls under this category). By believing that Molyneux is merely providing the world with "objective" and "uncomfortable truths" that society has forbidden you to hear, you've once again failed to think critically. Ask yourself: what type of people are in fact <i>very</i> comfortable with such "truths" being told? Is there a segment of the population that loves to hear that their racism is justified, or that women belong in the home, for example? Are Moyneux (and others like him) really exposing truths, or merely catering to their audience, the alt-right? I'm not suggesting that you "switch teams" or that left-wing politics don't have their own equally biased statistical manipulation strategies (although as a side note, I must say that if the Wachowski sisters had known that the red / blue pill scene in the Matrix would one day be co-opted by right-wing politics, I'm fairly certain they would have reversed their color choices!) What I'm saying is that you need to think more integrally, and more critically, because most of these truth stories are only partial at best.

 

I also cannot understand how someone can see all of the complexities involved in iatrogenic benzodiazepine dependency and harm, but fail to apply that logic to other areas of social injustice. Does personal responsibility have to be considered? Of course! I believe strongly in personal empowerment, and could never have survived benzo withdrawal without such a perspective. But is that the whole story? Of course not. As much as I believe we should all take personal responsibility for our choices in life, it's just not that simple. Take the risks of benzos for example. At this point, most of us understand all too well that pharmaceutical companies suppress vital information and negative study results, and that the FDA drug approval process has been influenced (if not downright corrupted) by this medical industrial complex. Doctors are just as much a victim of this deception as their patients are, and tell us that these drugs are perfectly safe (as long as you don't abuse them, of course). The media tells us that medications are good and anyone who says otherwise is either a crazy extremist or an addict. Even if someone has the education, resources, and clarity of mind to decide to research benzos before taking them, they would have to enter in the right search phrases to find any pertinent negative information beyond what the drug company has provided. Those of us in benzo withdrawal and recovery might know better now, but the fact that we didn't know better before cannot solely be viewed as a failure of our own responsibility. You seem to recognize and agree with this statement, so why on earth can't you also see that this exists beyond your own personal experience of injustice? Are someone's choices merely the result of their own doing, or is it possible that a complex web of extrinsic and intrinsic factors influences their decisions, both positively and negatively? If we truly are going to start to talk about these problems in realistic terms, we need to address issues of complexity and agency, and not reduce these issues to mere dichotomies of "personal responsibility" vs. "social responsibility."

 

I also found it funny that you assume that I "believe that it is justifiable to forcibly correct perceived inequalities by taking away from the haves and giving to the have nots." I've been accused of this at least twice now on this thread, despite having never once said anything regarding my stance on economic redistribution or taxation policies. It has also been assumed that I'm some sort of communist (simply because I've pointed out the human rights issues that arise when social issues as treated as for-profit ventures). Wrong again. This dualistic thinking and failure to see a third (or fourth, or fifth) option is the very heart of the issue here. The problems of this world are complex and multifaceted. All knowledge is a work in progress.

 

Consider this statement from one of the greatest thinkers of our age, libertarian blogger Stefan Molyneux. LOL! Just kidding! This is from an actual philosopher named Ken Wilber:

 

<b>"The real intent of my writing is not to say, you must think in this way. The real intent is: here are some of the many important facets of this extraordinary Kosmos; have you thought about including them in your own worldview? My work is an attempt to make room in the Kosmos for all of the dimensions, levels, domains, waves, memes, modes, individuals, cultures, and so on ad infinitum. I have one major rule: Everybody is right. More specifically, everybody — including me — has some important pieces of truth, and all of those pieces need to be honored, cherished, and included in a more gracious, spacious, and compassionate embrace. To Freudians I say, Have you looked at Buddhism? To Buddhists I say, Have you studied Freud? To liberals I say, Have you thought about how important some conservative ideas are? To conservatives I say, Can you perhaps include a more liberal perspective? And so on, and so on, and so on... At no point I have ever said: Freud is wrong, Buddha is wrong, liberals are wrong, conservatives are wrong. I have only suggested that they are true but partial. My critical writings have never attacked the central beliefs of any discipline, only the claims that the particular discipline has the only truth — and on those grounds I have often been harsh. But every approach, I honestly believe, is essentially true but partial, true but partial, true but partial. And on my own tombstone, I dearly hope that someday they will write: He was true but partial..."</b>

 

 

[[az...]]

I am in the throes of a pretty rapid taper, in my opinion... It's rough and I'm very thankful for you abcd, chinookwind and others on here... Believe it or not I'm INFJ; the diplomat/advocate.

 

confused1, I would like to answer questions- but first I think we need some level ground to stand on.

 

No one is aguing that single parenting is an ideal situation on here... No one at all has said this that I have seen.

 

Blaming women, solely, for households without both parents present is an altogether different thing. As someone on here kept repeating... "Correlation does not equal causation" (in this case, either.)

 

There have been many different kinds of individuals, healthy and unhealthy- even very sick- who have also grown up with both parents in the home. And just because a mom ends up in a position where she raises children without their father there, does not mean it was her fault.

 

There are many very manipulative, pathological liars who are very good at appearing totally wholesome and end up being anything but. There are fathers who end up being abusive, addicted or engaging in criminal activity *after* they have presented themselves as "trustworthy" individuals and convinced an unsuspecting woman to marry them and have a child or children- who's true colors do not show until it's all been done and it's too late for that woman.

 

I'm an absolute wreck right now, and though I said I wouldn't return... There are just some things that I still needed to express.

 

I am not a misandrist nor a gynocentrist. Though I have made mistakes in my life, as we all have, I happen to have very old school values. I am a Christian and I don't think you have any idea what kind of feminist I am... I am very "pro-male." I believe men and women are equal, however... They are equally valuable, equally worthy and equally ( in my belief- loved by God. ) That does not mean that they are not different, but they are equal... And I just simply don't have time for any discussion with anyone that doesn't recognize this fact.

 

I am a feminist and I am also very far from being "masculine," in answer to another suggestion on this thread.

 

 

Exhausted,

azalea.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest [mu...]]

Yikes that was a lot! Not surprisingly, writing is really hurting my brain today, and I think my window of (relative) cognitive clarity might be closing here. But I have a feeling that I'll be back when it re-opens... sigh. Being mostly bedridden is no fun. I think I'll give up the internet for a year once I recover and can spend my time exploring the real world again... the world wide web just doesn't compare.

 

In any case, I'm sorry I couldn't field your questions directly, Confused1, but I think I may have inadvertently answered them above anyway. Now I have a question for you: if Jesus were alive today, do you think he would preach personal responsibility, social support, or both? Do you think he would be a socialist or a capitalist (or neither)? Consider this: I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me. Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord when was it that we did these things for you?' And the king will answer them, 'Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me. - Matthew 25: 35-45

 

And for what it's worth, I'm an INFP, "the idealist."

 

[Guest [mu...]]

I have really appreciated your perspective here, Azalea. Hang in there! It really does get better.

 

[[Fl...]]

Cui bono? Who gains by disguising blue pills? Maybe this would help us identify red pills.

 

Anyone and everyone has the potential to gain by disguising blue pills, that's why regardless of your religious or political beliefs it is important for everyone to be able to see through blue pill propaganda.

 

FG,

 

I'm in a traditional marriage and my husband and I communicate quite effectively. We have been married for 20years. I am 46. I am aware we are more of the exception not the rule these days. At the very heart of our marriage is a mutual respect for each other. And for philosophical purposes I will just mention our fundemental Christian beliefs. Its the foundation of our marriage and a lot of wordly problems for us any way can be solved as we look to the biblical perspective to guide our lives. I dont now or ever have seen men and women as conficticted but as united and complimentary to one another. It's definitely a brave new world out there and I honestly believe its been the systematic break down of the core family that contributes so highly to so many of the problems we are facing.

 

Anyway, thats just my 2cents!

 

Congrats on your marriage and I definitely agree, the breakdown of these core values is responsible for many of these problems.

 

It's funny that so many people fail to make the connection that these values and the fact that they lead to the building of these great civilizations. Blue pill people try to disparage the 1950's but to me it looked like a pretty damn good time to be alive and I would argue that was the peak of American society as we know it. Things seem to have started to deteriorate in the 60's and 70's and I think a lot of that is just starting to really catch up with us now.

 

Have any of you seen any Karen Straughan videos? Azalea and Sinnerman, although you dislike Molyneux, nothing happens in a vacuum. Isn't he just a reaction to what feminism has become? You call it endless complaining but have you listened to any of those complaints to see if they have any merits? Many first wave feminists have spoken out on the fact that feminism has degenerated into man-hating. It's not just white males complaining. For whatever reason white men were in charge of this planet for a long time. They made many mistakes, as will ANY race or gender in charge. Different mistakes, but just as evil. If men and women are truly equal then women have just as great a capacity for evil. Will seeking revenge lead to a better world? H&F congrats on the 20 year marriage! If you read my earlier post you'll get this joke: You're just lucky!

 

Bingo.

 

A lot of women and men are waking up to red pill as it pertains to gender relations in modern society.

 

Anyone who is interested in the idea that there might be more to the story than modern (radical) feminists would like for you to believe should check out some of Dr. Warren Farrell's material. He started out as a male feminist but as he started to see inconsistencies he began questioning the narrative which made him realize that modern feminism wasn't telling an accurate story so he now studies and writes about men's issues with a specific emphasis on debunking some of the modern feminist myths as it pertains to the welfare of men and boys. His material is relevant to the questions that benzogirl and becksblue have asked and very relevant to some of the things that sinnerman and others have touched on regarding feminism and men's rights. You can also tell that he is a super nice guy who is genuinely concerned about the health and well being of men and women alike.

 

https://www.youtube.com/user/drwarrenfarrell/videos

 

Here is a short video that does a great job of touching on the basics of how the pay gap that modern feminists promote is a myth-

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv0KbQT1dvc

[[az...]]

I have really appreciated your perspective here, Azalea. Hang in there! It really does get better.

 

Girl, you're awesome! Go for it with herbalism and everything else you want to pursue, you have what it takes for sure... You have a beautiful heart and an agile mind (even in recovery.)

[[az...]]

 

 

Oh, recent posts would explain this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gy5cuUSvtCM

 

"I don't view humanity as a single species" - Stefan Molyneux

[Guest [mu...]]

I have really appreciated your perspective here, Azalea. Hang in there! It really does get better.

 

Girl, you're awesome! Go for it with herbalism and everything else you want to pursue, you have what it takes for sure... You have a beautiful heart and an agile mind (even in recovery.)

 

Aww shucks, you're making me blush. Right back at you, Azalea.

[[me...]]

Look everyone, we've received some complaints about this thread.  It's getting a bit out of hand here.  Several other threads have been locked recently when this sort of thing happened. We expect you all to follow forum rules, two of which I've listed below:

 

 

Do not denigrate specific religions, ethnicities or cultures. Do not disparage those of another gender, gender identity or sexual orientation. We are a support group for all those experiencing problems with benzodiazepine use or withdrawal - this is our common bond. We do not tolerate prejudice in any form.

 

In addition, please do not use this community to promote or proselytize a specific religious viewpoint.

 

Be polite towards, and respectful of, your fellow Buddies. We do not tolerate attacks upon fellow members. Any account created for the purposes of causing arguments and/or ill-feeling will be banned.

 

 

Also, Colin has banned, for now, the discussion of incindiary or controversial topics. This was what he posted on another thread:

 

 

 

The BB Mission Statement:

 

BenzoBuddies: an inclusive, nonjudgmental mutual-support environment for those who wish to withdraw from benzodiazepines.

 

Members of the BenzoBuddies community are encouraged to exchange ideas, information and support during the process of withdrawal and recovery.

 

Although outside of the immediate scope of BenzoBuddies, members are free to discuss their wider medical problems and needs as they relate to benzodiazepine use and withdrawal.

 

Taking or quitting any medicine—including benzodiazepines—should be a personal decision made in consultation with a suitably qualified medical practitioner.

 

Through a peer-support model, we strive to help members achieve their goals.

 

Although I am loath to disallow specific topics for discussion, I think these type of subjects (especially in the present climate) are (at best) a distraction from the BB Mission, and are (probably more likely) a hindrance for many members.

 

So, please avoid comment on the US presidential campaign, Obama, Trump, yesterday's tragic events in Florida, guns, gun control, terrorism, religion, and any other incendiary topics.

 

We will review the situation after completion of the US election.

 

 

Thanks for your cooperation,

 

megan918

Administrator

[[Fl...]]

Maybe someone could PM azalea and ask her to kindly leave this thread.

 

It's pretty low to block someone then continue to plaster their thread with contextless propaganda. Matter of fact, she complained about how awful it is to attack people when they can't defend themselves.

 

She has no desire to have a conversation and she isn't welcome here as far as I am concerned.

[[co...]]

Awww Megan we were just starting to get past that stuff and have some interesting conversation. Please don't lock it.